In ope-l 3106, John referred to "TSS orthodoxy." The term is an oxymoron.
The TSS interpretation is the very essence of heterodoxy.
Moreover, there is no "orthodoxy" among the proponents of the TSS
interpretation. We agree about two propositions. That hardly qualifies as a
doctrine.
Moreover, I dislike immensely the connotations of "orthodoxy": religion,
belief, faith. At the EEA in March, I tried mightily to distance myself from
David Laibman's claim that I and other heterodox value theorists represent a
"new orthodox Marxism." [Fred, however, embraces this label as applied to
him.] As I have tried to emphasize on this list, I contend that TSS
interpretative claims, as well as claims of others, need to be evaluated on
the *evidence*. I further contend that those who do not see the need to
subject their claims concerning what Marx said, wrote, and meant to rigorous
examination by means of historical and textual evidence think that THEY have a
"direct line to Marx" (a charge repeatedly leveled against me at the EEA) and
are content to take things on faith. I also do not claim that a statement is
true because Marx said it, of course.
I realize that this is not what John's post was about, but given the
continuing vile, slanderous attacks that conjure up fear of our alleged
"orthodoxy," I thought this clarification was necessary.
Andrew Kliman
P.S. Alan Freeman and I have both noticed that people are surprised when we
disagree about something. This would be funny were it not so sad.