[OPE-L:4435] Re: KM's interpretation of the TP

Ajit Sinh (ecas@cc.newcastle.edu.au)
Wed, 19 Mar 1997 01:01:34 -0800 (PST)

[ show plain text ]

At 06:25 AM 3/18/97 -0800, Andrew Kliman wrote:

>The main evidence that the TSS interpretation is a great defense of Marx's
>value theory is that it replicates his theoretical results. Another bit of
>evidence is that Marx's critics, who tried to ignore it for so long, are now
>finding it harder to do so, because it has withstood the test of time.

I don't know what TSS stands for. If it stands for Kliman and McGlone paper
in capital and class, then the above statement is false. the K-M paper does
not replicate any of Marx's theoretical results. Leaving aside the incorrect
way of determining both values and prices of production, you simply ASSUME
that the value of money is equal to one. On what basis? Your paper repetedly
claims that your 'solution' does not need a neumerier. But then what does
assuming value of money equal to one mean? In Bortkiewicz-Seton formulation
you will find unknowns x, y, z, etc. attached to the value magnitudes in all
the equations. Here you have n x, y, z's and one rate of profit r as
unknowns and n equations. Complete determinancy of the system can be gotten
by picking any x, y, z, etc.and equating it with one, say x = 1. What does
it mean? It means that we are assuming that the commodity associated with x
variable is the money commodity and its value is equal to one, i.e. there is
no price-value deviation for this commodity. But no body accepts it as the
right 'solution' because it is arbitrary, you cannot justify the equation x
= 1. That's why you have the problem. You don't seem to see this obvious
problem with your paper.
>I choose not to descend into a flame war. If Ajit wishes to debate me, I am
>not interested. If, however, he wishes to ask non-prejudicial questions in
>order to *understand* the TSS interpretation, I will be happy to help explain.
> I should caution that, because our interpretations of the text differ so
>radically, and in so many respects, this will be a very long process. He will
>need to set aside his own interpretations of *every* category and concept in
>_Capital_; we will have to go through the book together, from the very first
>word; he will be reading it and viewing the world through new eyes. But I for
>one am willing. Maybe we can both learn something in the process. Maybe
>this joint process of exploration will show that my interpretation is
>internally incoherent, but maybe not.

The fact of the matter is that you chose to "descend" by asking me "have you
ever heard off" or "ever hear off" etc. I raised serious questions on your
published paper which was already being discussed on the list. Do you deny
that? No you cannot. Neither anybody else on the list can. But instead of
trying to come to terms with my criticisms, you try to hide behind your smug
arrogance, "I choose not to descend...". And now you wanna teach me CAPITAL
from the first word on? Get a life, Andrew! Let me end with a quote from
Marx which directly applies to your kind of understanding of Marx's concept
of value: "The dogma that 'wages determine the price of commodities,'
expressed in its most abstract terms, comes to this, that 'value is
determined by value,' and this tautology means that, in fact, we know
nothing at all about value." (Value, Price and Profit, p. 28). Cheers, ajit

>Andrew Kliman