[OPE-L] interpretations of capital and Marx

From: Jerry Levy (Gerald_A_Levy@MSN.COM)
Date: Sun Mar 11 2007 - 13:05:43 EDT

> Capital is not "defined" as  "money that makes more money".


If capital is defined as "money that makes more money" how can
you ALSO claim that there is "constant capital"?

> And I would argue that an advantage of my interpretation is that it
> makes Marx's theory a logically consistent, without unsolved "logical
> problems" that have to be dealt with.  Why not give Marx the "benefit
> of the doubt", instead of insisting on an interpretation for which
> there remains unsolved logical problems?

The same question has been asked repeatedly by Freeman and Kliman.

Instead of  asking "why not give Marx the benefit of the doubt?" you
should have asked "Why not give *my interpretation* the benefit of the
doubt?" since neither you nor Kliman nor Freeman (nor anyone else) can
speak for Marx.

I find the "why not give Marx the benefit of the doubt?" question to be
similar to a claim that we "trust you", i.e. it embodies a presumption that
Marx was the authority and that given two sets of claims (Marx was right
or Marx was wrong) we should favor the interpretation that says that
Marx was right.

Why apply this standard to Marx alone?  Why not say, for instance, that
if there are two interpretations of Sraffa (one that says that Sraffa was
right and the other that says that Sraffa was wrong) then we should give
Sraffa "the benefit of the doubt" and favor the interpretation which says
that Sraffa was right?

The reason we shouldn't apply the "benefit of the doubt" argument to
Marx, Sraffa, or ANYONE, is that we have to be CRITICAL OF

*NO* authority -- Marx or anyone else -- is entitled to special, privileged

In solidarity, Jerry

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.1.5 : Sat Mar 31 2007 - 01:00:12 EDT