Re: [OPE-L] sundry

From: Jerry Levy (Gerald_A_Levy@MSN.COM)
Date: Sun Sep 03 2006 - 14:52:09 EDT

> >If I were to respond in published form to certain perspectives
> >expressed by advocates of the TSSI of Marx's value theory,
> >it would not highlight their use of the V = 0 assumption -- an
> >assumption which they attempted to _impose_ upon Marx's theory
> >in an effort (ironically) to defend it from the critique of Steedman
> >et al. (The source of that assumption in the debates in
> >recent decades on Marx's value theory can be traced back, btw,
> >to '3' in 'Appendix D' of Sraffa's  _Production of Commodities by
> >Means of Commodities_ [CUP, p. 94]).
> So, Jerry, you are admitting that you have no other basis for criticism
> of the TSSI interpretation of Marx?

No, I am only saying that I would not _highlight_ the use of  the v = 0
assumption at this time.  My criticism -- expressed frequently on this list
in the past, and echoed independently by Paul B --  for using this
assumption still holds.

> Your beef is only with the TSSI wording of statements on pluralism.

I also object to dogmatism.

> Your charge of dogmatism does not strike at important
> problems in their actual interpretation of Marx--except
> of course for the v=0 assumption, an assumption on which
> their interpretation does not necessarily depend.

Well, of course, I have other criticisms.  For instance, I
think that the Kliman-McGlone article on the transformation
clearly misstates Marx's position on what can cause a change in
prices of production.  Here I agree with Fred's criticism, expressed
on this list in a previous year.   At the end of the day, since they
have _not_ used Marx's conception of what can cause a change in PoP,
this means that _if you accept their perspective_ they have
"improved" upon Marx's understanding of PoP.  Of course, they
won't say that because to do so would contradict a major claim
that they make: i.e. that they have demonstrated that Marx's
theory of the transformation of prices into PoP is internally
consistent and not logically flawed.  Yet, they can't have it both
ways: either they have "improved" Marx or  their perspective is

> ... just as strange someone with a heart condition
> spending the summer alone on the waters).

Your concern about my health is touching and -- as with the
rest of your post -- obviously well-intentioned and sincere.

In solidarity, Jerry

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.1.5 : Sat Sep 30 2006 - 00:00:06 EDT