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

From: Fred Moseley (fmoseley@MTHOLYOKE.EDU)
Date: Thu Aug 30 2007 - 21:54:44 EDT

Quoting Michael Perelman <michael@ECST.CSUCHICO.EDU>:

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

Michael, thanks for the reference.  I will take another look.  Please
tell us more about how and why you used sequential determination.


> 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:
>> direct    +39-035-2052545
>> fax:      +39 035 2052549
>> homepage:
> --
> Michael Perelman
> Economics Department
> California State University
> Chico, CA 95929
> Tel. 530-898-5321
> E-Mail michael at

This message was sent using IMP, the Internet Messaging Program.

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