[OPE-L] sundry

From: Rakesh Bhandari (bhandari@BERKELEY.EDU)
Date: Sun Sep 03 2006 - 13:24:00 EDT

>If I were to respond in published form to certain perspectives
>expressed by advocates of the TSSI of Marx's value theory,
>it would not highlight their use of the V = 0 assumption -- an
>assumption which they attempted to _impose_ upon Marx's theory
>in an effort (ironically) to defend it from the critique of Steedman
>et al. (The source of that assumption in the debates in
>recent decades on Marx's value theory can be traced back, btw,
>to '3' in 'Appendix D' of Sraffa's  _Production of Commodities by
>Means of Commodities_ [CUP, p. 94]).

So, Jerry, you are admitting that you have no other basis for criticism
of the TSSI interpretation of Marx? Your beef is only with the TSSI wording
of statements on pluralism. Is there anyone else interested in this
other than you?
Many scholars are actually interested in the TSSI interpretation of Marx.

  Mongiovi's and Laibman's charges of dogmatism follow from
substantive, though in my opinion unpersuasive, criticisms of the
TSSI interpretation
of Marx and their framework for research. Let's say two issues are
the analytical
importance of comparative statics and the question of the rate of accumulation.
Your charge of dogmatism does not strike at important
problems in their actual interpretation of Marx--except
of course for the v=0 assumption, an assumption on which
their interpretation does not necessarily depend. Neither
Mongiovi nor Laibman thinks this is an important criticism.
There is also no one on this list who does not think
that there are better and worse interpretations of Marx, and no one
believes that that effort should not be expended on that determination;
that TSSI people believe this too does not distinguish them
from any other group of Marxist scholars, though it seems
to distinguish them from you, Jerry Levy, the solitary
sailor (your obsessions on this list with Kliman who is not
on this list is just as strange someone with a heart condition
spending the summer alone on the waters).

At any rate,  that the editors declare that CoPE will be open
to the development of TSSI work does not mean that it
will be closed to TSSI criticism and other kinds of work. Gary for example
doesn't think that CoPE would be closed to his criticisms. But then he
has an actual analytical beef with TSSI. As does Ajit. Your
whole criticism of TSSI, as usual, is unpersuasive and discloses
a motive of personal vengeance. I also very much doubt that anyone
would be interested in your criticism of TSSI views on pluralism, but
be true to your words--
submit your criticism to Post Autistic Economics.
Yours, Rakesh

ps since you want to be moderator for life, I think you should attend
to my concerns about the Science and Society exchange.  I did bring
Crotty into the discussion
of Trigg's understanding of how profit influences investment; and I
did satirize the idea that crises and class antagonisms can always be
overcome by capitalists luxuriating ever more
fulsomely; and I did say that Trigg had not theorized any limits on
the rise in s/v
which results from autonomous increases in luxury spending and I did
say all this in clear
prose as Andrew understood me and responded here. If scholars can get
away with appropriating ideas  expressed on OPE-L without
acknowledgement,  then fellow members of OPE-L will be less likely to
engage in debate here. This appropriation  is an active threat to
this list, and Stavros and David Laibman  have not responded to my

So please do your self appointed job.

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.1.5 : Sat Sep 30 2006 - 00:00:06 EDT