I like Gil's approach to interpretation in his "Puzzles" post. Pose apparent
inconsistencies the text presents and ask what concepts, distinctions, etc.
are needed to make sense of the whole. Presumably, what works is then the
correct, or at least the most adequate, interpretation. Would that
Bortkiewicz and all his imitators have followed this approach, instead of
immediately declaring Marx's theory to be inconsistent or wrong merely because
their pet interpretation fails to resolve (or even creates) the
contradictions.
I also agree with Gil that his puzzles "cannot be resolved purely on
value-theoretic grounds" and that "important dimensions of Marx's analysis
would be neglected were we to define this
forward-looking task [extending Marx's analysis to present-day concerns]
purely in value-theoretic terms." I wonder, however, whether this is not a
straw"man." But given the hostile reaction I've noticed (beginning at last
year's ASSA conference) to these points of Gil's, maybe not.
Andrew Kliman