Re: [OPE-L] the point of a dynamic model?

From: Jerry Levy (Gerald_A_Levy@MSN.COM)
Date: Fri Mar 16 2007 - 12:42:44 EDT

> Well they can speak for themselves, but I think there is a sense in which
> they engage in a sort of Althusserian "ideological class struggle".

Hi Jurriaan:

Neither Freeman nor Kliman (nor any of the other TSST authors?)  are
inclined towards Althusserian perspectives.

They have, instead, argued as follows (I am paraphrasing):  once it has been
shown that Marx's quantitative theory is free of internal inconsistencies,
then his theory can be free to stand on its own merits.

Somehow they think that this is an important practical political task.  Yet,
imo,  they fail to recognize some realities:  e.g. how few people there are
outside of  a small proportion of economists and graduate students who
know or care what the "transformation problem"  or the "Okishio Theorem"
is.  To the extent that Marx and Marxism has been mis-understood and
rejected by working people, it has been related to far different (more
practical and historical) beliefs and practices.  They are so caught up in
their  own small world of Marxian economists (even though they don't
recognize the reality that they _are_ Marxian economists; the Marxian
economists in their  world view are the others  who fail to recognize their
"Copernican"  advances in thought and seek to "suppress" them) that
they don't recognize this.

>  In the case of Dr Carchedi, who belongs to neither tradition,
>  he  wrote to me "First, Sraffa's critique of marginalism does not
> vindicate
> Marx, on the contrary. Second, Marx does not need Sraffa to criticize
> marginalism. Thus, what is the importance of Sraffa (for Marx)?"

The question shouldn't be what is the importance of Sraffa for Marx or
vice versa.  The question should be what is the importance of Sraffa or
Marx (or anyone else) for *us*.

> and:
> "Jurriaan, take your time to think about temporalism versus simultaneism.
> I  am confident you will realize that simultaneism, Sraffianism, etc. are
> totally alien to Marx's project."

Well, of course, you can and should take your time if you want more time.
Do not think that  you have to take a position on the TSST simply because
of  what I have written.  I don't know, though, that I like the inference by
Mino that something should be rejected if it can be shown to be "totally
alien to Marx's project" (assuming that there is agreement -- which there is
not -- on what Marx's project was).

In solidarity, Jerry

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