From: Riccardo Bellofiore (riccardo.bellofiore@UNIBG.IT)
Date: Mon Oct 22 2007 - 12:50:17 EDT
I am too for fair discussion, Dogan. Simply, a phrase of yours reminded me the way they argue in favour of Marx. I understand your position. But are you sure it contradicts Jerry. My impression (though I would not engage in a battle of words) is that Freeman or Kliman would demarcate Marx from Marxists. Marxists misunderstood Marx. The TSSI position is independent of being Marxist or not. It is just a good rendering of *Marx's* position, in his unreconstructed coherence. It may well be wrong, they say. But Marx is coherent, and TSSI is good because it replicates Marx, not because it is Marxist. rb At 12:31 -0400 22-10-2007, Dogan Goecmen wrote: >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 > >#AOLMsgPart_2_d02b8d07-10d8-44ba-8126-7da5727a7901 >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: <mailto:glevy@PRATT.EDU>glevy@PRATT.EDU >>An: <mailto:OPE-L@SUS.CSUCHICO.EDU>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: <mailto:riccardo.bellofiore@unibg.it>riccardo.bellofiore@unibg.it >direct +39-035-2052545 >fax: +39 035 2052549 >homepage: ><http://www.unibg.it/pers/?riccardo.bellofiore>http://www.unibg.it/pers/?riccardo.bellofiore > >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