Alan Freeman (a.freeman@greenwich.ac.uk)
Sun, 08 Feb 1998 15:29:37 +0000

I think the current discussion has gotten very interesting where it ties
together two threads: conceptualising 'reproduction accounts' on the
one hand, fixed capital and moral depreciation on the other.

But I'm getting slightly nervous that the term 'TSS' has begun to creep in
to debates in places where the word 'temporal' might be more appropriate.

This might seem pedantic but bear with me.

There are many 'temporal' approaches in economics, for example
Post-Keynesianism, Evolutionary Economics, Morgan's criticisms of
mainstream econometrics, Kalecki's dynamics and probably Frisch's too,
much of Hilferding, Boehm-Bawerk hiself and the neo-Austrians, etc.

These are views of economics as such; very interesting ones too.

But TSS isn't a theory of economics. TSS is an interpretation of Marx. It
has no hegemonic claims and doesn't seek to set up a general school of
thought in economics.

Therefore, in relation to views that don't claim authority from Marx
I don't think there is such a thing as a 'TSS position'. The concern
is limited to ensuring that such views are not *confused* with Marx's
which, as has been said, is a different matter.

Temporalism in general, however, has a lot to tell us about many debates
in economics, because it isn't an interpretation of an author but a
paradigm, a way of looking at the world. TSS addresses a particular
(very important) issue within this paradigm, namely, interpreting Marx.

Whenever we can make distinctions by using the word 'temporal' where we
have slipped into using the term 'TSS', I think it would maybe be better.