I must agree with those
> who accept the fact of significant ambiguity and incompleteness in Marx's
> texts -- which only means that present-day Marxists must make up our own
> minds about the order of importance of Marx's various inquiries, and the
way
> we should put them together.
Likewise I agree this is the correct approach to take. I think what Andrew
Kliman objects to is that some authors use the gaps and ambiguities in
Marx's texts as an opportunity to create new theorems of their own and
present those as "what Marx would have said", even though the textual
evidence might suggest otherwise. So there are interpretations and
interpretations - some of which seem closer to the spirit and thrust of
Marx's inquiry than others. Unfortunately though there is no "final
arbiter" for the "correct reading" or the "correct interpretation", and
that is why debate is inevitable and necessary. The only question that
remains is whether we can keep the standard of debate at an acceptable
level, but here again it seems to me that there is no "arbiter" beyond the
list-owner - and it is the responsibility of participants themselves to
guide the discussion in fruitful directions.
Unfortunately I will not be able to attend the conference,
but I will certainly be interested to read the papers.
Regards
Jurriaan Bendien
Amsterdam