[OPE-L:5243] Ajit and the IWGVT

andrew kliman (Andrew_Kliman@msn.com)
Thu, 12 Jun 1997 04:43:40 -0700 (PDT)

[ show plain text ]

When one co-organizer of the International Working Group in Value Theory
(IWGVT) extends an invitation to speak at our miniconference, the other is
routinely informed. I thus have a copy of the letter which Alan Freeman sent
to Ajit, and I have a somewhat different interpretation of it than the
following that Ajit wrote in ope-l 5241: "Alan Freeman wrote to me privately
and suggested that he thinks that my criticisms of the TSS approach are of
very serious nature, and you guys have to come to terms with it. He has
proposed to me to write a lengthy critique which he would like to circulate
among the TSS people, and may be have a debate at the next ASSA or EEA."

I don't want to get in a debate over this, because Alan is capable of
correcting any misinterpretations himself if he chooses. I do want to make
sure that Ajit realizes the distinction between the IWGVT and "TSS people."
The IWGVT is an broad, open organization that includes both temporalists and
simultaneists, both those who call themselves "Marxists" and those who do not.
The IWGVT website is *public*, and visited by many, many more people than the
dozen or so who at this time adhere to the TSS interpretation. Thus, when one
puts a paper on the IWGVT website, and allows it be distributed in hard copy
to everyone in the IWGVT, one is not "circulat[ing it] among the TSS people,"
but letting one's statements be subjected to a much, much wider public
scrutiny and rejoinder.

I may also note that Alan and I put forth our invitations for Ajit to speak
independently of one another, without prior consultation. I do hope that
Ajit will come to the EEA and, as I suggested, speak on the panel I'm
suggesting, The Internal (In)consistency of Marx's Value Theory. I do think
something of this nature, which roots the issues in an *objective* context --
a century of suppression of a world-historic person's body of ideas on the
grounds that he was (allegedly) guilty of internal inconsistency -- would be
more productive than a "here's what I think/here's what you think" kind of
debate. Let's take ourselves seriously and be cognizant of the fact that the
new value controversy is really a world-historic clash of ideas and not just
of a few unknown individuals.

Please do let me know, Ajit.

Andrew Kliman