> I think of temporalism as a paradigm and TSS as an interpretation of Marx
> within the temporalist paradigm.
> I don't think temporalism is 'new': the temporal/static distinction was
> probably first formulated by Heraclitus, <snip>
> The clash between temporal and static (=equilibrium, =static) ontologies
> and methodologies traverses all of science and for that matter, politics:
> the Copernican (temporalist) view gave us the word 'revolution'.
Yes, time matters and change is a characteristic of all modes of
production (and matter in general). Does that make me a temporalist?
Who are the Marxists who deny that time has _a_ place in political
economy? Other than some Walrasian Marxists, who else believes that
general equilibrium theory is an appropriate conceptual tool for
understanding the dynamics of capitalism?
For instance does Anwar adopt a static ontology and methodology? That's
not how I read his writings. [btw, out of the entire faculty in the
Economics Department at the New School I can't think of anyone who was an
advocate of general equilibrium theory. Even our resident -- only --
neoclassical theorist, David Schwartzman, wasn't an advocate of g.e.t.].
Does David deny that time and change is important for economic theory? I
think that would be news to him.
Does Duncan? Does Paul C? Does Simon? Does Makoto? Does Suzanne? Does
Samir? Does Paul Z? Does Bruce? Does Alejandro VB? Does Tony? Does Mike
L? Does Fred? Does Riccardo? Does Persefone? Does Maria? Does Chris? Does
Terry? Does Bill C? Does Murray? Does Abelardo? Does Antonio?
> The static paradigm is invariably found in alliance with the most
> reactionary social forces of each epoch, who use it to justify the idea
> of an eternal, unchanging order laid down by an untouchable authority.
> Creationism is static Biology. Ptolemaism is static Astronomy.
Who are the Marxists who share the static paradigm who are "invariably
found in alliance with the most reactionary social forces of each
epoch...."?
In solidarity, Jerry