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

From: glevy@PRATT.EDU
Date: Sat Sep 08 2007 - 12:16:55 EDT


I agree that there is indeed "no consensus" on any of the following
propositions made below by yourself.  More specifically, there is _no
consensus_ among Marxians who are outside of the TSSI perspective that
they have in _a n y_  significant way advanced our understanding of any
particular subject or sub-subject.

But, you do raise an important issue (which I hadn't really addressed):
i.e. have we *on balance* benefited through a critical engagement with the
TSSI?   My (frank but perhaps undiplomatic) answer to that is basically
... *NO!*   I will be happy to explain further if you so desire.

In solidarity, Jerry

>>  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
> general.
> 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.  <snip>

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