From: glevy@PRATT.EDU
Date: Sat Sep 08 2007 - 12:16:55 EDT
Fred: I agree that there is indeed "no consensus" on any of the following propositions made below by yourself. More specifically, there is _no consensus_ among Marxians who are outside of the TSSI perspective that they have in _a n y_ significant way advanced our understanding of any particular subject or sub-subject. But, you do raise an important issue (which I hadn't really addressed): i.e. have we *on balance* benefited through a critical engagement with the TSSI? My (frank but perhaps undiplomatic) answer to that is basically ... *NO!* I will be happy to explain further if you so desire. In solidarity, Jerry >> However, I nonetheless think that the TSSI has > advanced the general understanding of Marx's theory in several > important ways: > 1. Mainly the critique of the prevailing Sraffian simultaneous > determination interpretation of Marx's theory (Anders also emphasizes > this point). Even if the TSSI turns out to be wrong on this issue (and > I think they are right), they will have contributed to the development > of Marxian theory by forcing a thorough consideration of this > fundamental issue, which probably would not have happened without the > TSSI. > 2. Similarly, they have forced a more thorough consideration of the > related issue of the current cost vs. historical cost valuation of > constant capital. > 3. Their work has also contributed to a better understanding of the > Okishio Theorem, and its specific assumptions (including simultaneous > determination), and of Marx's theory of the falling rate of profit in > general. > 4. In general, the TSSI has advocated closer attention to Marx's > texts, and has attempted to interpret Marx's theory as a logically > consistent whole. <snip>
This archive was generated by hypermail 2.1.5 : Sun Sep 30 2007 - 00:00:05 EDT