Re: [OPE-L] Truncating Marx - no consensus

From: Anders Ekeland (anders.ekeland@ONLINE.NO)
Date: Sat Sep 08 2007 - 00:31:06 EDT

Hi Jerry,

First of all - science do not develop by consensus. I am a little
surprised by your effort to have a "vote" on this.

When it comes to what perspective will gain/lose support my guess is
that the attitude of the TSSI, will gain support. It is clearly
closer to Marx' vision, than Sraffa-like, static, linear algebra.
Maybe not Kliman's version of it, but there is among many Marxist
economist more that starts to rethink the relationship between prices
of production, market prices and values, to question the whole
Bortkiewicz-Laibman tradition.

As has been pointed out by many neo-classical economy has not yet
proved the *stability* of GE, which means that for all kind of policy
questions using "first best" as a benchmark is not scientifically
valid. That GE has an enormous ideological value is of course obvious.

The sterility - and falling apart of "analytical Marxism" is by now
clear. That nobody has still managed to formulate a complete
alternative based on a fundamental dynamic view of the economy is
also obvious - and to do so is the research agenda I - and
increasingly more of us have.

But do not find it so useful to discuss to which degree there is
consensus on this. Let's discuss the substantive issues. I'll return to them.


At 14:51 06.09.2007, glevy@PRATT.EDU wrote:
> > My guess is that from the past mails this year
> > there is NO consensus.
>Hi Riccardo:
>I believe that there is _close to_ consensus on the proposition - - both
>on the list and and outside of the list among those who are familar with
>the literature but are themselves not advocates of the TSSI.  This is more
>than a "guess" on my part as many have come forward and told me that they
>agree with that conclusion based on their years of reading through the
>relevant literature.  It is indeed remarkable that after so many years and
>so many publications, the TSSI has gained the support of so few additional
>scholars. It should also be noted that this is a theme (whether directly
>or indirectly stated) in so many of the critiques of the TSSI: whatever
>differences these critics of the TSSI have among themselves (and they have
>many differences!) they seem all to grasp the inherent dogmatic nature of
>certain TSSI perspectives.  Frankly, I'm just saying what most other
>scholars in the field are thinking and/or have said.
>In solidarity, Jerry

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