Michael Williams wrote in part:
"I think, no doubt for understandable reasons, that Alan
(and Andrew) do not always separate defence of TSS from Defence of
Marx tout court. This shows up in the *way* they defend Marx, and in
disingenuous claims that it is possible to read Marx without any
interpretation, and indeed independently of whether he was 'right' in
any sense."
I have never claimed that "it is possible to read Marx without any
interpretation." As members of this list know well, I make it a regular
practice to speak of the TSS *interpretation*.
I have likewise never claimed that it is possible to read Marx without
questioning "whether he was 'right' in any sense." I do think it is possible
to distinguish between questions of internal (in)consistency and questions of
truth (falsehood), but that's not the same thing.
As for Michael's claim about "not always separat[ing] defence of TSS from
Defence of
Marx," I'm not sure what he means.
Obviously, something's bothering Michael, and I don't mean by my flat denials
to make light of this. But I simply don't know what's bothering him. I do
understand that he doesn't like to read protests against a suppressive mode of
discourse, but the charges quoted above seem to be about something different.
I therefore hope that Michael will reformulate his charges in a way that
expresses what he really means, what's really bothering him. Then we may be
able to have a fruitful dialogue about them.
Andrew Kliman