A question to Paul C (ope-l 2132):
What's your ("scientific") criterion for the correspondence of a value
theory to Marx's? If the correpondence of the interpretation's
predictions/implications to Marx's isn't at least one important
criterion, why not?
Would you at least agree that we have refuted the "proofs" of the
internal inconsistency of Marx's transformation and law of the FRP?
I.e., that under our interpretation, there is no inconsistency?
I said "A question"; sorry it looks like several. All but the first are
just elaboration on the first.
It seems to me that Paul is using "scientific" in a rather unusual way.
It doesn't refer to method, the need to demonstrate results, etc.,
but to the topic of concern--external reality instead of Marx's theory
itself.
I do not accept the science vs. ideology dichotomy. As the preceding
paragraph makes clear, the conception of science being invoked is
quite ideological.
And if critics of the TSS interpretation don't have an ideological
ax to grind, then why are the acknowledgements of its success in
refuting the Bortkiewicz (transformation), Okishio/Roemer (FRP), and
Steedman/Morishima (joint production) "prrofs" of Marx's inconsistency
so slow and grudging in coming? E.g., David Laibman, and to a lesser
extent Allin, almost skip over whether the Kliman-McGlone refutation
of Bortkiewicz's "proof" of Marx's error is successful, in their
critiques to our interpretation (to critique our interpretation is
*not* the same as showing that it fails to refute Bortkiewicz, unless
the critique includes a demonstration of our failure. To date, no
one's critique has done so.)
Why do critics of the TSS interpretation alsways seem to want to change
the subject, rather than discuss the internal (in)consistency issue
head-on? As Alan has noted, we take your issues seriously, but many
(not all) critics of the TSS interpretation fail to take this one of
ours seriously. And it isn't only an issue of ours. Objectively,
this has been THE central focus of debates of Marx's critique of
political economy for exactly one century.
Andrew Kliman