> Ajit,
> I take it that you don't like standard micro or TSS but you teach
> standard micro and refuse even to mention TSS. But TSS EXISTS and is not
> limited to an interpretation of the transformation problem as your post
> seemed to imply. Why exclude TSS just because you don't like it?
Putting aside for now the question whether TSS represents a new "paradigm"
in political economy (and if so what that implies), your argument above is
that since TSS "exists" it should be mentioned in Ajit's (and others')
micro classes.
But, Ted:
o Doesn't Open Marxism exist?
o Doesn't the SSA (Social Structure of Accumulation) school exist?
o Doesn't regulation theory exist?
o Don't Althusserian theories exist?
o Don't value-form interpretations exist?
o Doesn't the Uno-School exist?
o Doesn't rational choice Marxism and analytical marxism exist?
o Doesn't the surplus approach exist?
o Duncan, Gerard, Dominique, and Simon exist, do they not?
o Fred and his "givens" exist, don't they?
[apologies to all I left out].
Unless you are going to argue that *all* of the above interpretations (and
others) be mentioned in Ajit's class, aren't you claiming a special
privilege for TSS?
Do you mention all of the above interpretations, along with giving
references, in your classes? If not, then are you "suppressing" other
heterodox perspectives?
Other than possibly handing out a supplementary (optional) reading list,
how would it be possible to mention all of the above interpretations in a
class that wasn't devoted specifically to Marxist interpretations of Marx
and/or political economy?
In solidarity, Jerry