Re: [OPE-L] Truncating Marx's "Capital"

From: Michael Perelman (michael@ECST.CSUCHICO.EDU)
Date: Thu Aug 30 2007 - 11:29:15 EDT


I also did it in 1987 in my Marx book, which I had begun quite a bit earlier.

On Thu, Aug 30, 2007 at 05:23:57PM +0200, Riccardo Bellofiore wrote:
> In a sense, Fred, this was not already there in 
> Shaikh 1974 or the like, without the excessive 
> stress on the non-equilibrium etc.?  The TSSI 
> claims that there is no convergence to the 
> Sraffian solution but I doubt that, it seems to 
> me that (as the the Austrian Mises would do: he 
> too was critical of equilibrium theorizing!) they 
> simply say that the conditions may change between 
> one period and another.
> 
> If one wants to interpret Marx "correctly" should 
> work directly on the German, and do a true 
> hermeneutical work. Those who have done that 
> certainly do not come out with ONE Marx to be put 
> to test, and not a finished business for certain. 
> So Kliman has to resort to a peculiar, disputable 
> hermeneutical criterion, by the Neoclassical 
> Stigler. This becomes dogmatic as soon as that 
> criterion is put outside discussion.
> 
> rb
> 
> At 11:03 -0400 30-08-2007, glevy@PRATT.EDU wrote:
> >Jerry, I think where Kliman (and the TSSI in general) has advanced
> >Marxian theoryis that they have challenged the dominant interpretation
> >that Marx's theory is based on simultaneous determination (of input
> >prices and output prices and the rate of profit), and suggested an
> >alternative "temporal" determination.  I don't agree with them in some
> >respects, but I think that
> >this is a crucial issue to raise, and they have been the ones to raise it.
> >
> >===============
> >
> >Fred:
> >
> >Well, I don't think that raising a "crucial issue" is in itself an advance
> >in Marxian theory. The question is whether you or others accept the
> >specific answers and alternatives that they have offered. Simply stating
> >truisms about the need for non-linear dynamic theory isn't by itself an
> >advance in theory.  Kliman and Freeman are good in terms of "talking the
> >talk" about the need for this but "where is the beef"?
> >
> >In any event - as Kliman himself highlights - their analysis is limited
> >essential to hermeneutics, especially hermeneutic issues associated with
> >interpreting Marx's quantitative theory.
> >
> >The huge departure that Kliman makes from Marx can be seen in his slogan:
> >for Marx, "the point" was to understand and change the world; for Kliman
> >"the point" is to "interpret Marx correctly".  The first is a scientific
> >stance, the later is an appropriate stance for dogmatists.
> >
> >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:   riccardo.bellofiore@unibg.it
> direct    +39-035-2052545
> fax:      +39 035 2052549
> homepage: http://www.unibg.it/pers/?riccardo.bellofiore

-- 
Michael Perelman
Economics Department
California State University
Chico, CA 95929

Tel. 530-898-5321
E-Mail michael at ecst.csuchico.edu
michaelperelman.wordpress.com


This archive was generated by hypermail 2.1.5 : Fri Aug 31 2007 - 00:00:10 EDT