In ope-l 4419, Ajit wrote:
"What evidence do you have to show that I'm a critic (read anti-Marxist) and
you are such a great defender of Marx?"
The "translation" of critic as "anti-Marxist" is Ajit's doing, not mine. So
many of the critics of Marx are Marxists that it is silly to equate "critic of
Marx" with "anti-Marxist." The context in which I was referring to Marx's
"critics" was the transformation of values into production prices, and in that
context, Ajit is surely a critic of Marx's. As Ajit writes later in his post:
"I have a fairly good sense of what Marx was doing. But his doing was a bit
flawed--nothing fatal though."
The main evidence that the TSS interpretation is a great defense of Marx's
value theory is that it replicates his theoretical results. Another bit of
evidence is that Marx's critics, who tried to ignore it for so long, are now
finding it harder to do so, because it has withstood the test of time.
I choose not to descend into a flame war. If Ajit wishes to debate me, I am
not interested. If, however, he wishes to ask non-prejudicial questions in
order to *understand* the TSS interpretation, I will be happy to help explain.
I should caution that, because our interpretations of the text differ so
radically, and in so many respects, this will be a very long process. He will
need to set aside his own interpretations of *every* category and concept in
_Capital_; we will have to go through the book together, from the very first
word; he will be reading it and viewing the world through new eyes. But I for
one am willing. Maybe we can both learn something in the process. Maybe
this joint process of exploration will show that my interpretation is
internally incoherent, but maybe not.
Andrew Kliman