From: Dogan Goecmen (dogangoecmen@AOL.COM)
Date: Mon Oct 22 2007 - 12:31:07 EDT
Sorry Ricardo, I do not engage in arguments like this. Marx's position is often disqualified by such arguments like 'dogmatic position'. In my view there are Marxist positions and non-Marxist positions. To reformulate Marx's original positions and apply them contemporary issues and to show how they work to explain issues in question, this is what I understand by Marxist positions. I did not follow your earlier arguments. So I cannot comment on them. My purpose with this e-mail was to say that Kliman and Freeman define them as Marxist scholars, not otherwise as I understood Jerry. I am for a fair discussion. That is all. If you want me to engage in your debate you have to explain to me what you understand by ortadox marxist position. Regards, Dogan -----Ursprüngliche Mitteilung----- Von: Riccardo Bellofiore <riccardo.bellofiore@UNIBG.IT> An: OPE-L@SUS.CSUCHICO.EDU Verschickt: Mo., 22. Okt. 2007, 18:00 Thema: Re: [OPE-L] Incoherence of the TSSI - near consensus 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&V¹s 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, Marx¹s 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 ³the² 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&V¹s 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 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 ________________________________________________________________________ Bei AOL gibt's jetzt kostenlos eMail für alle. Klicken Sie auf AOL.de um heraus zu finden, was es sonst noch kostenlos bei AOL gibt.
This archive was generated by hypermail 2.1.5 : Wed Oct 31 2007 - 00:00:19 EDT