From: Dogan Goecmen (dogangoecmen@AOL.COM)
Date: Mon Oct 22 2007 - 10:26:39 EDT
Tell that to Andrew! (Can I be there when you tell him? I want to see he show.) I can assure you (based on a reading of many articles and essages which he has written) that if you refer to him as a Marxist conomist, it will _not_ be well received by him! Indeed, he would onsider it to be an insult. (Well, that's Andrew ....) In a paper to be published in "Capital and Class" Kliman and Freeman say this: "The TSSI interpretation of the new value created by living labour, which M&V reject, is the only one in existence that deduces, rather than contradicts, Marx’s exploitation theory of profit. Simultaneist interpretations must therefore be rejected as implausible, as we and Mohun have discussed before (Mohun 2003, K&F 2006). M&V and other simultaneists are entitled to their own versions of “the” labour theory of value, of course, including versions that contradict the exploitation theory of profit. But Marx is equally entitled to his theory, especially because all efforts to prove it internally inconsistent, including M&V’s latest effort, have failed." From this it appears that they do not say we are not Marxist. Rather they say TSSI is consistent with Marx's labour theory of value and exploitation theory of profit, whereas others not. Dogan -----Ursprüngliche Mitteilung----- Von: glevy@PRATT.EDU An: OPE-L@SUS.CSUCHICO.EDU Verschickt: Mo., 22. Okt. 2007, 15:29 Thema: Re: [OPE-L] Incoherence of the TSSI - near consensus >>You do know that Andrew doesn't consider himself to be a Marxist >economist, don't you? This is a bit hairsplitting. i Anders: Tell that to Andrew! (Can I be there when you tell him? I want to see he show.) I can assure you (based on a reading of many articles and essages which he has written) that if you refer to him as a Marxist conomist, it will _not_ be well received by him! Indeed, he would onsider it to be an insult. (Well, that's Andrew ....) Kliman wrote Reclaiming Marx' Capital. That book is taking Marx dead serious. don't think that it takes the objections which have been made to his nterpretation seriously. I will say, though, that I think Kliman nderstands Marx well. That makes his interpretation all the more bjectionable since he so chooses to ignore the evidence that he is aware f. We know that he is aware of that evidence because he has been onfronted with it here and elsewhere. If Kliman is not a Marxist economist, then nobody is. ee above. >Been there, done that. Over the course of many, many years. It hasn't >worked. If/when they commit outrages, then they should be held to task >for that. Had you and others been more willing to confront them about >those offenses then I wouldn't have had to. But you are not calling for support in your fight of what you see as their sectarianism, you call for a vote on: a) In their use of logic b) their reporting of the views of those with whom they disagree c) and in the elaboration of their own fundamental categories ... and that is quite the same thing. s you know, I did not call for a vote. I asked if there was consensus or ear consensus on the concluding paragraph of the note by Simon and oberto V. Had we heard from more listmembers then I think it would have een safe to conclude that there is *near* consensus on those claims. ust as there is *near* consensus on the claim that in several specified ays (identified in the thread on that previously: e.g. "Marx's Marxism"; The Scrorecard", the "First Thesis on Marxian Economics", etc.) they (K specially) has been dogmatic. In solidarity, Jerry ________________________________________________________________________ Bei AOL gibt's jetzt kostenlos eMail für alle. Klicken Sie auf AOL.de um heraus zu finden, was es sonst noch kostenlos bei AOL gibt.
This archive was generated by hypermail 2.1.5 : Wed Oct 31 2007 - 00:00:19 EDT