Re: [OPE-L] Truncating Marx

From: Riccardo Bellofiore (riccardo.bellofiore@UNIBG.IT)
Date: Wed Sep 05 2007 - 13:42:34 EDT


><http://ricardo.ecn.wfu.edu/~cottrell/ope/archive/0709/0030.html>
>
>So, we are in agreement on the above?
>
>If not, is there anyone on the list who is able to mount a defense of the
>Kliman / McGlone position on "Marx's Marxism", "The Scorecard" as a way of
>resolving interpretive disputes, and the thesis that "The economists have
>only corrected Marx, in various ways; the point is to interpret him ...
>correctly"?
>
>At this point, I believe the onus of proof is on those who believe that
>dogmatic perspectives have _not_ been advanced by Kliman et al.
>
>Although most Marxians came to the conclusion many years ago that Kliman
>and his supporters have advanced dogmatic propositions, it would
>represent a step forward if we could all say publicly what just about all
>of us recognize privately: dogmatism needs to be exposed rather than
>simply ignored.
>
>In solidarity, Jerry

Jerry,

I do not understand you here. The message you refer is the following

[Riccardo wrote:]
>>  3. "Makes better sense of the theory as a whole":
>  from which point of view? The TSSI lately rescued
>  the Principle of Textual Exegesis by Stigler. It
>  is very contexted, and it cannot be taken for
>  granted, or as THE criterion in any absolute
>  sense. If it is just assumed and put outside the
>  theoretical questioning, this is strictly
>  speaking dogmatism (cfr. Hegel, Introduction to
>  the Phenomenology of the Spirit). Now, the key
>  move of TSSI is, thanks to the PTE taken for
>  granted, to say that their interpretation is no
>  more an interpretation, it is Marx's himself
>  speaking. And here's again dogmatism.


I wonder: can we on OPE-L arrive at a consensus over these
conclusions?

In solidarity, Jerry

Now, of course I agree with myself. And I 
understand that you agree with these phrases of 
mine, and I am happy with that.

But why should we reach a "consensus" on this list on this topic?

Lists are done for discussions, no need to have a 
consensus here, the more so on a topic like this. 
I have no problem if people disagree with my 
point.

Btw, I take TSSI position to be dogmatic in the 
sense specified above, and at the same time 
serious theoretical work (with which I disagree a 
lot): just like the skeptical vs dogmatical 
positions criticized by Hegel were advanced by 
serious philosophers.

comradely

rb

--
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
secretary    +39-035 2052501
fax:      +39 035 2052549
homepage: http://www.unibg.it/pers/?riccardo.bellofiore


This archive was generated by hypermail 2.1.5 : Sun Sep 30 2007 - 00:00:05 EDT