From: Riccardo Bellofiore (riccardo.bellofiore@UNIBG.IT)
Date: Mon Oct 22 2007 - 12:00:42 EDT
Sorry to bother you again, but this phrase below encapsulates what is untenable and dogmatic in TSSI. But *Marx* is equally entitled to *his* theory, especially because all efforts to prove it internally inconsistent, including M&V's latest effort, have failed. I gave the arguments before on this list. There is no possibility to assert this outside a dogmatic position. Otherwise they should accept the strict impossibility to have a Marx that is not interpreted, and of an interpretation which is not also a reconstruction. And then it is clear the futility of a judgement like this. This is also what I argued in London 2004 (hi, Gary!) in the plenary on pluralism. I guess I was also in the sesssion where Freeman made his positions on Ricardo, to which Gary refers. If it was that one, Freeman was arguing his position from a very cursory reading of some few pages of Kurz-Salvadori. So probably also his reading of Ricardo was vefry quick. If I may, I also insist, against Fred, that there is no SINGLE Sraffian interpretation on Marx. There are MANY. And I mean: BOTH if we refer to Sraffian as = from Sraffa or if we refer to Sraffian as = 'Sraffists', or followers. rb At 10:26 -0400 22-10-2007, Dogan Goecmen wrote: >Tell that to Andrew! (Can I be there when you tell him? I want to see >the show.) I can assure you (based on a reading of many articles and >messages which he has written) that if you refer to him as a Marxist >economist, it will _not_ be well received by him! Indeed, he would >consider it to be an insult. (Well, that's Andrew ....) > > > >In a paper to be published in "Capital and Class" Kliman and Freeman say this: > >"The TSSI interpretation of the new value >created by living labour, which M&V reject, is >the only one in existence that deduces, rather >than contradicts, Marx's exploitation theory of >profit. Simultaneist interpretations must >therefore be rejected as implausible, as we and >Mohun have discussed before (Mohun 2003, K&F >2006). M&V and other simultaneists are entitled >to their own versions of "the" labour theory of >value, of course, including versions that >contradict the exploitation theory of profit. >But Marx is equally entitled to his theory, >especially because all efforts to prove it >internally inconsistent, including M&V's latest >effort, have failed." > >>From this it appears that they do not say we >>are not Marxist. Rather they say TSSI is >>consistent with Marx's labour theory of value >>and exploitation theory of profit, whereas >>others not. > >Dogan > >-----Ursprüngliche Mitteilung----- >Von: glevy@PRATT.EDU >An: OPE-L@SUS.CSUCHICO.EDU >Verschickt: Mo., 22. Okt. 2007, 15:29 >Thema: Re: [OPE-L] Incoherence of the TSSI - near consensus > > >>You do know that Andrew doesn't consider himself to be a Marxist >>>economist, don't you? >> This is a bit hairsplitting. > > >Hi Anders: > >Tell that to Andrew! (Can I be there when you tell him? I want to see >the show.) I can assure you (based on a reading of many articles and >messages which he has written) that if you refer to him as a Marxist >economist, it will _not_ be well received by him! Indeed, he would >consider it to be an insult. (Well, that's Andrew ....) > > >> Kliman wrote Reclaiming Marx' Capital. That book is taking Marx dead >> serious. > > >I don't think that it takes the objections which have been made to his >interpretation seriously. I will say, though, that I think Kliman >understands Marx well. That makes his interpretation all the more >objectionable since he so chooses to ignore the evidence that he is aware >of. We know that he is aware of that evidence because he has been >confronted with it here and elsewhere. > > >> If Kliman is not a Marxist economist, then nobody is. > > >See above. > > >>>Been there, done that. Over the course of many, many years. It hasn't >>>worked. If/when they commit outrages, then they should be held to task >>>for that. Had you and others been more willing to confront them about > >>those offenses then I wouldn't have had to. >> >> But you are not calling for support in your fight of what you see as >> their sectarianism, you call for a vote on: >> >> a) In their use of logic >> >> b) their reporting of the views of those with whom they disagree >> >> c) and in the elaboration of their own fundamental categories >> >> ... and that is quite the same thing. > > >As you know, I did not call for a vote. I asked if there was consensus or >near consensus on the concluding paragraph of the note by Simon and >Roberto V. Had we heard from more listmembers then I think it would have >been safe to conclude that there is *near* consensus on those claims. >Just as there is *near* consensus on the claim that in several specified >ways (identified in the thread on that previously: e.g. "Marx's Marxism"; >"The Scrorecard", the "First Thesis on Marxian Economics", etc.) they (K >especially) has been dogmatic. > >In solidarity, Jerry > > >Bei AOL gibt's jetzt kostenlos eMail für alle! >Was es sonst noch umsonst bei AOL gibt, finden >Sie hier heraus<http://www.aol.de> AOL.de. -- 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
This archive was generated by hypermail 2.1.5 : Wed Oct 31 2007 - 00:00:19 EDT