Andrew writes:
> Of course I don't think Marx used language arbitrarily. I do think he
> used it differently from both of you. And contrary to Gil's blustering,
[...]
Well, I see we've taken this line of inquiry as far as it will go.
Fine with me; interesting issues have been raised, and now we can
move on to other pastures.
[..]
> Gil calls this "coercive." No more coercive than Gil's repeated
> attempts to make everyone prove him wrong.
I used the term "coercive" exclusively to characterize attempts to
reverse the burden of proof inappropriately. I note that I have
accepted the burden of proof for every argument I've initiated on the
Ch. 5 controversy, etc, whatever anyone thinks of the arguments
themselves.
> Gil also calls me a "True Believer." I find this offensive, I resent it,
> and I state in no uncertain terms that it is not true.
If Andrew will reread my post he'll see he has no cause for offense
or resentment on this score; nor was any intended. I did not call him
a True Believer. I said that whether he intended it or not, his arguments
were isomorphic to those used by true believers, and I outlined the
structure of this isomorphism. Others have labelled proponents of the
TSS approach as "new fundamentalists", etc., so one can understand
Andrew's reaction here. I have never done so, however.
> Indeed, Gil
> has heard me state PUBLICLY a case in which I think Marx was unequivocally
> in error.
Yes, absolutely, I was there, and he did. A calculus error, I
believe, though I forget where.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
I sense I've been painted an antagonist of the TSS approach, but it's
hard to see why. I've acknowledged that it resolves the
inconsistency in Marx's transformation problem as standardly
conceived. I've lauded it for its focus on capitalist dynamics, and
I find the TSS representation of the true Fundamental Marxian
Theorem intriguing. I look forward to future developments of the TSS
approach on OPE-L.
Gil