[OPE-L] Marx V. Kliman: Contrasting Prefaces and Aims

From: glevy@PRATT.EDU
Date: Fri Sep 07 2007 - 18:30:48 EDT

• Next message: Paul Zarembka: "Re: [OPE-L] models with unequal turnover periods"
• Previous message: Jurriaan Bendien: "[OPE-L] Profit from dumping, or, the "heavy artillery" of cheap commodities..."
• In reply to: glevy@PRATT.EDU: "Re: [OPE-L] Truncating Marx"
• Messages sorted by: [ date ] [ thread ] [ subject ] [ author ] [ attachment ]

Marx: "... it is the ultimate aim of this work to reveal the economic law
of motion of modern society ...." (Preface to the First Edition of Volume
One of _Capital_)

Kliman: "This beek seeks to reclaim _Capital_ from  the century-old myth
of internal inconsistency". (Preface to the Kliman "Reclaiming" book).

One aims to reveal the dynamics of capitalism. The other is an exercise in
hermeneutics.  The former is a vitally important revolutionary and
scientific task.  The latter concerns an obscure subject of interest only
to a small proportion of economists and economics students. The subject of
investigation for the former was the operation of the mode of production
in his time and ours; the subject of investigation for the latter is the
quantitative dimension of Marx's theory of value.  Can anyone seriously
make the case that investigations into the "myth of internal
inconsistency" are more urgent theoretical and political tasks than
understanding and susrpassing the real subject matter (i.e. capitalism)?

There appears to be a divide within the TSSI school between those who wish
to explore the subject that interested Marx and those who wish primarily
to be "defenders of Marx".  Will they finally attempt to "reveal the
economic law of motion of modern society" or will they remain stuck in the
mud of "Reclaiming Marx"?  Will they actually attempt to construct
meaningful dynamic models of capitalism or will they only talk about the
need for dynamics and assume V=0?  Time will tell but since they haven't
made any meaningful advances in understanding Marx's aim in all this time,
there is no evidence to date that they will turn their attention to more
serious and scientific questions.  That's too bad since there _are_ some
serious scholars from the TSS perspective (e.g. Carchedi, Giussani,
Maldonado-Filho, Ernst). The serious scholars have to step forward,
confront the stale agenda of the Kliman and Freeman, and branch out in new
and more meaningful directions.

In solidarity, Jerry

• Next message: Paul Zarembka: "Re: [OPE-L] models with unequal turnover periods"
• Previous message: Jurriaan Bendien: "[OPE-L] Profit from dumping, or, the "heavy artillery" of cheap commodities..."
• In reply to: glevy@PRATT.EDU: "Re: [OPE-L] Truncating Marx"
• Messages sorted by: [ date ] [ thread ] [ subject ] [ author ] [ attachment ]

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.1.5 : Sun Sep 30 2007 - 00:00:05 EDT