Re: [OPE-L] Truncating Marx

From: glevy@PRATT.EDU
Date: Wed Sep 05 2007 - 14:28:53 EDT

(JL wrote:)
>>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"?

[Riccardo wrote:]
> 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.

Hi Riccardo:

Well - of course - others can disagree with what you (and I) wrote.
But, is there anything wrong with asking others on the list - if they
disagree - to give reasons why and to therefore defend the statements
that I think most other Marxians would consider to be dogmatic?  If
objections and reasoning is not forthcoming then I think it's safe to
conclude that there is at least near consensus by listmembers on this
question.  I'm not making a proposal or suggesting a vote or suggesting
that we release a public statement: I simply want to probe the extent
to which there is unanymity on this question.  That seems to me to be a
wotrthwhile exercise.

In solidarity, Jerry

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