Re: (OPE-L) Ernesto's "Damned Lies" ?

From: ajit sinha (sinha_a99@YAHOO.COM)
Date: Wed Feb 18 2004 - 05:05:45 EST

Riccardo, I think the only way to intelectually deal
with TSS folks is to completely ignore them--otherwise
it will be nothing but simple waste of energy. My
best, ajit
--- Riccardo Bellofiore <riccardo.bellofiore@UNIBG.IT>
> Hi Jerry,
> my answer would be:
> (i) yes, Ernesto's paper are "lies", since - in my
> opinion - his
> interpretation of Matx is unwarranted and wrong
> (ii) no, they are not "damned lies", an expression
> of criticism on
> which TSS people has specialized, and that add
> nothing to the issues
> debated
> (iii) in sum, Ernesto's attitude towards Marx is the
> right one, a
> critical attitude, against which it is legitimate to
> argue against;
> what cannot be accepted is that there are critics
> who pretend they
> have the Marx's interpretation.
> About the Rome conference, as probably I told you at
> the time, I
> received more or lessa month before a short mail by
> Andrew Kliman,
> the content was: "will you come to the Rome
> conference where your
> interpretation of Marx will be destroyed?".
> I answered: Andrew, I cannot come to a conference I
> don't know it
> exists, and at which I have not been invited in
> advance, and that I
> don't even know it exists (note: of course Foley and
> Mongiovi etc.
> must have been alerted much before). I received a
> kind of circular
> letter some days after by Vasapollo of the
> Laboratorio, with the date
> fixed, inviting all those who wanted to come. I had
> exams, defined
> some weeks before, and I could not go.
> Note: in the book the Old Myth which was discussed
> at the conference,
> I was very heavily (and critically) attacked. I love
> that, provided
> you have an opportunity to reply, on a plan of
> equality and in your
> terms. You would expect I would have sometime been
> invited to have my
> opportunity to rebut those criticism? Never. If my
> English is not
> good enough, let me repeat it in several languages:
> Never.  Jamais,
> Jamas, Mai. Alan Freeman repeatedly told me that I
> would have been
> welcome to discuss the TSS, in their own terms of
> course, not in
> mine. To express my views about marx was not anymore
> very productive.
> To ask me to answer their criticism leaving me free
> to say what *I*
> thought is something they never imagined as
> sensible.
> This tells all about this stream of thought. In the
> book the Old Myth
> my position was purported by Kliman and Carchedi in
> terms which
> clearly contradicts my theses, more than that
> against what I have
> many times said again and again. Examples: I have
> NEVER said that my
> criticism to Marx were minor, as Andrew says, I
> think they are major,
> and lead to major changes. I only said that in my
> view this changes
> lead to reinstate on better terms Marx's
> exploitation theory. I NEVER
> said, as Carchedi says about me, that there are
> successive
> approximations in Marx, something against which I
> have battled all my
> life. I taleked about what Rubin called the "method
> of comparison",
> giving quotes from Marx's Capital I, and I insisted
> again and again
> (contrary to what Carchedi says about me) that this
> method involves a
> comparison with a situation which is fundamental and
> express real
> magnitudes in capitalism. But it seem that what they
> want for (their
> interpretation of) Marx and themselves has not to be
> allowed to
> others: a fair representation of what you want to
> criticize.
> So, you see, I very much like to discuss with
> Ernesto, though I
> disagree with a lot of what he says about marx,
> likely 93%, but I
> have found completely useless to discuss with (most,
> not all) TSS
> people as long as they do not accept that, before
> than answers,
> questions may be different among us, and methods,
> and styles of
> thought, and that respect has to be granted not in
> words but in
> practice for ALL, within and outside Marxism (what
> they often says
> about Sraffa, to say one thing, is ridicolous: the
> more so for those
> of us who were serious enough to go to Cambridge and
> try to
> understand what really Sraffa thought about Marx).
> riccardo
> At 8:33 -0500 15-02-2004, gerald_a_levy wrote:
> >Hi Phil:
> >
> >There was a conference in Rome last year,
> organised, I think,  by Laboratorio
> >per la Critical Sociale.  Ernesto Screpanti's paper
> was entitled
> >'Value and Exploitation:
> >A Counterfactual Approach'.  From the first
> paragraph
> >:.. Cavallaro's appeal to beware of mystifying
> labour values lets us
> >hope that the
> >search can proceed along correct lines today,
> avoiding certain
> >scholastic forcings
> >which we have witnessed in the past, although the
> interventions of Carchedi,
> >Freeman and Kliman seem to want to kill this hope
> at birth.
> >This could well elicit a response.
> >
> >Thanks for the information.  I don't think anyone
> -- and perhaps least
> >of all, Ernesto --  would fault the author for
> responding to "Value and
> >Exploitation: A Counterfactual Approach."   There
> is  a question,
> >though,  about _how_ to respond.
> >
> >Do you think that Ernesto has been spreading "Lies,
> Damned Lies" about
> >Marx?
> >
> >Would you agree that there should have been another
> title selected for the
> >Kliman paper?
> >
> >In solidarity, Jerry
> --
> Riccardo Bellofiore
> Dipartimento di Scienze Economiche
> "Hyman P. Minsky"
> UniversitÓ di Bergamo
> Via dei Caniana 2
> I-24127 Bergamo, Italy
> e-mail:
> direct    +39-035-2052545
> secretary +39-035 2052501
> fax:      +39 035 2052549
> homepage:

Do you Yahoo!?
Yahoo! Mail SpamGuard - Read only the mail you want.

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.1.5 : Thu Feb 19 2004 - 00:00:02 EST