From: Riccardo Bellofiore (riccardo.bellofiore@UNIBG.IT)
Date: Wed Sep 05 2007 - 13:42:34 EDT
><http://ricardo.ecn.wfu.edu/~cottrell/ope/archive/0709/0030.html> > >So, we are in agreement on the above? > >If not, is there anyone on the list who is able to mount a defense of the >Kliman / McGlone position on "Marx's Marxism", "The Scorecard" as a way of >resolving interpretive disputes, and the thesis that "The economists have >only corrected Marx, in various ways; the point is to interpret him ... >correctly"? > >At this point, I believe the onus of proof is on those who believe that >dogmatic perspectives have _not_ been advanced by Kliman et al. > >Although most Marxians came to the conclusion many years ago that Kliman >and his supporters have advanced dogmatic propositions, it would >represent a step forward if we could all say publicly what just about all >of us recognize privately: dogmatism needs to be exposed rather than >simply ignored. > >In solidarity, Jerry Jerry, I do not understand you here. The message you refer is the following [Riccardo wrote:] >> 3. "Makes better sense of the theory as a whole": > from which point of view? The TSSI lately rescued > the Principle of Textual Exegesis by Stigler. It > is very contexted, and it cannot be taken for > granted, or as THE criterion in any absolute > sense. If it is just assumed and put outside the > theoretical questioning, this is strictly > speaking dogmatism (cfr. Hegel, Introduction to > the Phenomenology of the Spirit). Now, the key > move of TSSI is, thanks to the PTE taken for > granted, to say that their interpretation is no > more an interpretation, it is Marx's himself > speaking. And here's again dogmatism. I wonder: can we on OPE-L arrive at a consensus over these conclusions? In solidarity, Jerry Now, of course I agree with myself. And I understand that you agree with these phrases of mine, and I am happy with that. But why should we reach a "consensus" on this list on this topic? Lists are done for discussions, no need to have a consensus here, the more so on a topic like this. I have no problem if people disagree with my point. Btw, I take TSSI position to be dogmatic in the sense specified above, and at the same time serious theoretical work (with which I disagree a lot): just like the skeptical vs dogmatical positions criticized by Hegel were advanced by serious philosophers. comradely rb -- 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 secretary +39-035 2052501 fax: +39 035 2052549 homepage: http://www.unibg.it/pers/?riccardo.bellofiore
This archive was generated by hypermail 2.1.5 : Sun Sep 30 2007 - 00:00:05 EDT