"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?"
Ted answers:
Ajit said in his post of March 9: "As far as first year micro is
concerned. I think not much can be done. I think it is important to point out
that there are alternative paradigms, and that micro paradigm has many
weeknesses." I took Ajit at his word, especially that there "ARE (exists)"
alternative paradigms and asked if he at least POINTED OUT that TSS as one of
many alternative paradigms in any mention in class or whether through a
bibiographic reference to our recent text and specific articles. Standard
micro is a simultaneist, use value paradigm and TSS is an alternative. None of
the interpretations, schools, or paradigms you mentioned in your list make
temporality fundamental to value theory and the general distinction between
use value and labor value interpretations of value, if pursued, would show TSS
sharply differentiates itself as a paradigm from use value interpretations
which include many of the alternatives you listed. There are apparently 3
micro classes taught in Ajit's program and Ajit is currently teaching the most
advanced (?) and current issues of temporalilty in value theory are never
mentioned as an alternative? I agree with Ajit's stated goal, I'm for
pointing out alternative paradigms, so that I as well as my students are aware
of what is out there and what we will have to contend with. In fact, I would
like to put together syllabi for a series of three courses on micro that
incorporates references to all the interpretations you have mentioned in order
to further demote standard micro and encourge the left to work out theoretic
differences. I'm glad to see that Gerry is no longer questioning whether TSS
is at all relevant to teaching a Micro course such as Ajit's which breaks from
the standard mold by including such contentious topics as the transformation
problem to which TSS has contributed so fundamentally. Gerry's new objection
is that there are so many alternatives that it would be an endless burden to
point out the existence of all these interpretations. I wish that were the
case. If I can work myself free and take a sabbatical I would like to write a
history of thought paper pointing out the issues in contention during the
recent development value theory.
Ted