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

From: Riccardo Bellofiore (riccardo.bellofiore@UNIBG.IT)
Date: Thu Aug 30 2007 - 13:19:25 EDT


Marx's Crisis Theory: Scarcity, Labour, Finance?

Thanks for reminding me. I'll go and look, I have it at home.

"Sequential" models where presented also in 
Italy. I remember a paper by Gianfranco Pala, 
togethere with Pala and Tucci.

And interestingly, a scientist, Marcello Cini.

During the 70s, again.

rb

At 8:29 -0700 30-08-2007, Michael Perelman wrote:
>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


--
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


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