Date: 26 Nov 96 03:59:57 EST
From: Chris Burford <100423.2040-AT-CompuServe.COM>
Subject: M-TH: Juan's critique of Kliman and Freeman




Juan, in your second reply to my questions,
posted Mon, 18 Nov 1996 22:39:09 -0300
[Subject: Re: M-TH: Value, conscious action, 
and Chris' questions] you wrote:

>>>>>>>>

[CB]
>And with which other progressive currents of marxist thinking
>is it aligned? For example it seems to me that Andrew Kliman and
>Alan Freeman are making headway along with others
>in pushing out into mainstream economics a credible version of
>the law of value.

Mainstream economics is not just mainstream economics. It is mainstream
_vulgar_ economics. As such, it is the opposite to the production of the
scientific cognition about the simplest forms of the present-day general
social relation. Its reason of existence is the production of the
apologetics of capitalism, and therefore, of the very negation of science:
ideology. Only an inverted "law of value" can be pushed out into vulgar
economy and become a "credible version" from its point of view.

I very much doubt this could be Kliman or Freeman intention. And, yet, they
are trapped inside the limits traced by vulgar economy itself, that turn
the essential real determination of the simplest form of our general social
relation, the value-form of the social product, into a _concept_ that can
be interpreted, and hence defined, in many different ways. This is
precisely a point Kliman and I start to discuss through a direct exchange
(since he is not a member of Marxism-lists and I have been banned from
ope-l by Jerry's political discrimination). Kliman explicitly asserts that
it is about "interpreting Marx's value theory" in a way that shows it free
>from internal inconsistency. I sustain it is about facing with one's
thought capital in reality, to follow the development of its simplest
specific forms until reaching its revolutionary potencies, thus reproducing
the necessity of one's concrete action in one's thought. And it is in this
reproduction that "Capital" necessarily comes in: armed with it, our
reproduction of the real social forms in thought acquires the strength of
being a process of recognition from the social point of view.

For reasons of length, I can't present here how Kliman and Freeman's, and
mine opposite starting points develop. But after following the complete
development of commodities into capital-commodities, and therefore of
values into prices of production, I find no incoherence at all in Marx's
own reproduction. But I do find that the path followed by Kliman and
Freeman by interpreting concepts produces by itself a mass of incoherences
where there was none.

<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<


David Brown has already posted some general questions about his 
difficulty in understanding the first paragraph of your reply.

I will try to be a bit more focussed, because it seems to me at the 
very least people are talking past each other and not defining their 
differences clearly, so it gets too personalised. I accept that on careful
reading of your posts [and time does not always permit careful reading]
the thrust of your contempt for "vulgar economics" is directed at 
Steedman and his followers, and the tone of your comments about Freeman
and Kliman here is different.

You seem to me to be muddling up however whether Freeman and Kliman 
are pushing out into mainstream "economics" a credible version of 
the law of value, or whether 

"they are trapped inside the limits traced by vulgar economy itself".

Here you are talking about the economy, not economics. Just because
the economy is necessarily dominated by the power of capital, does not
automatically mean that Freeman and Kliman will inevitably be trapped
within mainstream "economics" if they try to analyse it. 

But you seem also to be arguing that inevitably any attempt to 
engage with mainstream economics will get incorporated:

"Only an inverted "law of value" can be pushed out into vulgar
economy and become a "credible version" from its point of view."

There is surely always a danger of this, and it is one of the ways
that capitalism and its allies maintain hegemony over the academic
world, but is the fight absolutely hopeless? Is the answer to have
nothing to do with the academic world of economics, by those willing
to try to fight the fight in that arena? They might indeed be helped 
by some criticisms or some warnings, but I find it hard to believe 
they should be discouraged from even trying.

Lastly there seems to be an issue around consistency and coherence of 
the model. Without rushing you, I would suggest it will be helpful
if you can get into your differences with Andrew Kliman on this.
(perhaps with his permission, his point of view could be quoted).

My guess here is that you suspect his language of a mechanical 
approach to trying to sort out the "inconsistencies" seen by critics
on the marxian model, and you would say that the inherent dialectical
contradictory nature of the phenomena have merely to be expressed
in dialectical way to overcome incoherence of the model.
 
As I understand it people like Freeman and Kliman have pushed ahead
emphasising a "nonequilibrium" model of the economy, which is much more
consistent with latest economic thinking of the better sort *and* has
the merits of describing a dynamical system, never at rest, full of 
contradictory processes that interact with each other, sometimes 
synergically, sometimes in conflict. (Some of this description I admit
might be my own gloss on what they say). 

Although it might take some time, in order for the debate to 
move forward I would appreciate you trying to explain what you mean
by "incoherences", and what you think Kliman means by "inconsistencies".

Chris Burford

London




     --- from list marxism-thaxis-AT-lists.village.virginia.edu ---