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

From: Fred Moseley (fmoseley@MTHOLYOKE.EDU)
Date: Sat Sep 08 2007 - 11:06:22 EDT

I think that Jerry's "call for consensus" on the dogmatism of the TSSI
is way too one-sided, as Riccardo and Anders have already pointed out.

The proponents of the TSSI do seem to think that they have the only
correct interpretation of Marx's theory, and they certainly act
dogmatically at times.  However, I nonetheless think that the TSSI has
advanced the general understanding of Marx's theory in several
important ways:

1.  Mainly the critique of the prevailing Sraffian simultaneous
determination interpretation of Marx's theory (Anders also emphasizes
this point).  Even if the TSSI turns out to be wrong on this issue (and
I think they are right), they will have contributed to the development
of Marxian theory by forcing a thorough consideration of this
fundamental issue, which probably would not have happened without the

2.  Similarly, they have forced a more thorough consideration of the
related issue of the current cost vs. historical cost valuation of
constant capital.

3.  Their work has also contributed to a better understanding of the
Okishio Theorem, and its specific assumptions (including simultaneous
determination), and of Marx's theory of the falling rate of profit in

4.  In general, the TSSI has advocated closer attention to Marx's
texts, and has attempted to interpret Marx's theory as a logically
consistent whole.  I wish they weren’t so dogmatic about their
interpretation, but I think they have advanced the general level of
understanding of Marx’s texts.

I don't agree with all their interpretations (and I especially don't
agree with Kliman's multi-period interpretation of the transformation
problem), but surely these have been valuable contributions, which will
likely lead to further advances in the future.

So I think a more balanced evaluation of the TSSI would be more appropriate.


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

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