From: Michael Perelman (michael@ECST.CSUCHICO.EDU)
Date: Thu Aug 30 2007 - 11:29:15 EDT
I also did it in 1987 in my Marx book, which I had begun quite a bit earlier. On Thu, Aug 30, 2007 at 05:23:57PM +0200, Riccardo Bellofiore wrote: > In a sense, Fred, this was not already there in > Shaikh 1974 or the like, without the excessive > stress on the non-equilibrium etc.? The TSSI > claims that there is no convergence to the > Sraffian solution but I doubt that, it seems to > me that (as the the Austrian Mises would do: he > too was critical of equilibrium theorizing!) they > simply say that the conditions may change between > one period and another. > > If one wants to interpret Marx "correctly" should > work directly on the German, and do a true > hermeneutical work. Those who have done that > certainly do not come out with ONE Marx to be put > to test, and not a finished business for certain. > So Kliman has to resort to a peculiar, disputable > hermeneutical criterion, by the Neoclassical > Stigler. This becomes dogmatic as soon as that > criterion is put outside discussion. > > rb > > At 11:03 -0400 30-08-2007, glevy@PRATT.EDU wrote: > >Jerry, I think where Kliman (and the TSSI in general) has advanced > >Marxian theoryis that they have challenged the dominant interpretation > >that Marx's theory is based on simultaneous determination (of input > >prices and output prices and the rate of profit), and suggested an > >alternative "temporal" determination. I don't agree with them in some > >respects, but I think that > >this is a crucial issue to raise, and they have been the ones to raise it. > > > >=============== > > > >Fred: > > > >Well, I don't think that raising a "crucial issue" is in itself an advance > >in Marxian theory. The question is whether you or others accept the > >specific answers and alternatives that they have offered. Simply stating > >truisms about the need for non-linear dynamic theory isn't by itself an > >advance in theory. Kliman and Freeman are good in terms of "talking the > >talk" about the need for this but "where is the beef"? > > > >In any event - as Kliman himself highlights - their analysis is limited > >essential to hermeneutics, especially hermeneutic issues associated with > >interpreting Marx's quantitative theory. > > > >The huge departure that Kliman makes from Marx can be seen in his slogan: > >for Marx, "the point" was to understand and change the world; for Kliman > >"the point" is to "interpret Marx correctly". The first is a scientific > >stance, the later is an appropriate stance for dogmatists. > > > >In solidarity, Jerry > > > -- > Riccardo Bellofiore > Dipartimento di Scienze Economiche > "Hyman P. Minsky" > Università di Bergamo > Via dei Caniana 2 > I-24127 Bergamo, Italy > e-mail: riccardo.bellofiore@unibg.it > direct +39-035-2052545 > fax: +39 035 2052549 > homepage: http://www.unibg.it/pers/?riccardo.bellofiore -- Michael Perelman Economics Department California State University Chico, CA 95929 Tel. 530-898-5321 E-Mail michael at ecst.csuchico.edu michaelperelman.wordpress.com
This archive was generated by hypermail 2.1.5 : Fri Aug 31 2007 - 00:00:10 EDT