Talk:Temporal single-system interpretation

Archived Material

Talk page discussion through 27 April, 2007: [1]

Talk page discussion between 28 April, 2007 and 12 May, 2007: [2]

Talk page discussion between 12 May, 2007 and 9 August, 2007: [3]

Reverting to protected version pending discussion and consensus

I have just reverted the article to the version protected by WJBscribe on 22 May, pending discussion and consensus regarding the changes that Watchdog07 wants. WP:CON states, "Consensus is Wikipedia's fundamental model for editorial decision-making."

Watchdog07 has explained why he thinks his version is better, as he says in his edit summary, but he hasn't justified his proposed changes. These changes seem highly non-neutral to me. In any case, there is as yet no consensus that they should be made. Please let's discuss and arrive at consensus before making any major changes to the article. andrew-the-k 23:41, 10 August 2007 (UTC)

I agree with andrew-the-k's rationale. Since the article has only relatively recently been unprotected, it is important that major changes be agreed to on the talk page. Editors should try to avoid edit waring and work on building consensus. The version that was protected is the ground zero. Sunray 22:45, 15 August 2007 (UTC)

This argument is scurrilous. When a version of an article is protected - which it is no longer - it in no way implies that it is "the right version". Watchdog07 15:02, 18 August 2007 (UTC)

Hardly a "scurrilous" argument. As Andrew has pointed out, editorial decisions are made by consensus. Let us discuss changes to the article here and work at consensus. Sunray 19:02, 18 August 2007 (UTC)

Critique of TSSI

David Laibman added the following text to the article, and at my request, provided references:

Some critics, however, find this response inadequate. Followers and developers of Marx's theory of value recognize that the earliest formulations from the 1850s, as presented in "Capital," Vol. III, fail to resolve the issue of a structurally consistent presentation of value formation in a capitalist economy with competitive profit-rate equalization. Marx's fundamental insights can be revealed, and extended, by means of models and concepts that emerged after his time. Instead of trying to defend the "consistency" of Marx's original statement, most present-day Marxist theorists seek to pursue ever-more effective versions of the core theory, as Marx himself would have done. Moreover, defenders of the TSSI ignore their critics' central arguments. First, the "consistency" that they claim for Marx's work is achieved at the expense of any theoretical coherence. If input values differ from output values, each being determined by the fortuitous conditions of a single "temporal" moment, value is reduced to a mere empirical description, without structure or role in revealing inner properties of capitalist social relations. Second, the presumed defense of Marx's law of the falling rate of profit, resting on a distinction between a (rising) "material" or "simultaneous" rate of profit and a (falling) "value" rate of profit, has been shown to be invalid. Analysis of the TSSI numerical examples reveals, instead, that their "value" rate of profit ultimately follows the course of the "material" rate. The TSSI construction simply fails to address the complex determinants of the level and trend of the rate of profit in capitalist economies.

REFERENCES

Laibman, David. 1999. “The Okishio Theorem and Its Critics: Historical Cost Vs. Replacement Cost,” Research in Political Economy, Vol. 17, pp. 207--227

Laibman, David. 2000. “Rhetoric and Substance in Value Theory: An Appraisal of the New Orthodox Marxism,” Science & Society, Fall, pp. 310--332; Also in The New Value Controversy and the Foundations of Economics, ed. Alan Freeman, Andrew Kliman, and Julian Wells, Edward Elgar, 2004

Laibman, David. 2002. “Value and the Quest for the Core of Capitalism,” Review of Radical Political Economics, 34:2 (Spring), pp. 159--178

David, could you please indicate (perhaps by adding numbers to the text, above) where specific citations should be added? It seems to me that this addition contributes to the presentation of TSSI to the reader. As to which critics: we should refer to at least two, so it would be good to have cites for those. Your comment about "overburdening the article" has another meaning for me: We must bear in mind that this is an article to explain to the general reader what TSSI is. So we shouldn't get into the minute details of the critique. On the other hand, the reader will benefit from knowing that there are alternative points of view about this and we can refer to further reading on the subject. Sunray 20:26, 17 August 2007 (UTC)

Hi David,

Glad to see you here! I think the article can benefit from discussion of substantive criticisms of, and reasons for dislike of, the TSSI. I think we can use your paragraph as a starting point in order to arrive, through discussion and consensus, at a balanced and informative addition to the TSSI article.

Your paragraph won't do in its original form, partly because it doesn't have the neutral tone and balance of an encyclopedia article, as required by Wikipedia. As I see it, the paragraph should indicate that Marx's theory as interpreted by the TSSI doesn't fulfill some aims that some critics of the TSSI think a theory (or Marxian theory) should achieve, it should list these aims, and it should include the response of TSSI theorists. What do you think?

To take up your current version as a starting point, could you please explain "If input values differ from output values, each being determined by the fortuitous conditions of a single "temporal" moment, value is reduced to a mere empirical description, without structure or role in revealing inner properties of capitalist social relations"? I've read this a half-dozen times, but don't understand it. If I don't, the average reader won't, I suspect.

Also, let me say that I think the 1st sentence of your paragraph should be omitted, since what follows is not about the text that precedes the paragraph (which deals with whether TSSI research asserts that Marx's formulations are literally and completely correct), but about something new and distinct.

andrew-the-k 02:59, 19 August 2007 (UTC)

NPOV?

This phrase: "the allegations of inconsistency have served to legitimate the censorship of Marx's theories of value and the falling rate of profit and the suppression of current research based upon them," seems pretty POV to me. I know there are sources below, but one of them just says that Marxism isn't studied, it doesn't say that it's suppressed, while I believe Andrew Kilman's suitability as a sources has been questioned before on the talk page. Makerowner 19:17, 18 August 2007 (UTC)

Makerowner makes a good point about neutrality. How could the paragraph be written in more neutral language? Sunray 23:10, 18 August 2007 (UTC)

I could live with the wording in the Marxian_economics article, which attributes the idea to me. But Makerowner seems to be questioning whether I'm a reliable source for purposes of the TSSI article. If so, the wording in the Marxian_economics article won't satisfy him/her.

Cassidy doesn't just say that Marx's value theory isn't studied; he suggests that it isn't studied because it is "riven with internal inconsistencies." This means that the charge of inconsistency is accepted as true, and, having been accepted as true, serves to suppress the theory (i.e., "inhibit the expression of" it; see below).

Perhaps the word suppress is at issue? It doesn't (usually) mean repress or oppress. Here are a couple of the definitions of suppress given at [4]:

To keep from being revealed, published, or circulated;

To inhibit the expression of (an impulse, for example); check: suppress a smile.

So I think it is self-evident--and thus actually needs no sources at all--that the very purpose of charging internal inconsistency is to suppress--keep from being circulated, inhibit the expression of--an argument or theory. No one charges that an argument or theory is internally inconsistent in order to help propagate it.

I'd be very interested in learning David Laibman's thoughts on this, since he is another reliable source for purposes of this article.

andrew-the-k 03:24, 19 August 2007 (UTC)

Note that the term "reliable source" in the policy quoted refers to an article, not a person. This is not a trivial difference. As an encyclopedia, we can only go with what has been published on a particular subject. Sunray 21:09, 20 August 2007 (UTC)

Yes, it's mostly the word 'suppress' that bothers me here. It suggests some sort of conspiracy to keep people from studying Marxism by saying that it's inconsistent. Maybe something like this would be better: "The study of Marxism has dramatically declined in the years since its critics first claimed that it was internally inconsistent." A source will of course be needed to show that the study of Marxism has declined. No offense, Akliman, but since your book is devoted to defending Marxism from the claim of inconsistency, I think a more neutral source would be preferable. And it's 'he' by the way. Makerowner 05:08, 19 August 2007 (UTC)

I'm not wedded to the word suppress. What's at issue isn't Marxism in general or even Marx's work in general, nor is it study alone. I think the following preserves the sense of the original without saying suppress: "Since internally inconsistent theories cannot possibly be right, the allegations of inconsistency have served to inhibit, on seemingly legitimate grounds, the public's access to, study and discussion of, and current research based upon, Marx's theories of value and the falling rate of profit." As explained above, this seems to me to be too obvious to need any citations at all. It is not a claim that access, study, etc. have actually declined, which probably would need documentation. andrew-the-k 06:45, 19 August 2007 (UTC)

Sorry, I don't much like that either. Basically, I think we need factual evidence that Marxism has declined, say 20% of colleges in the US offered courses in Marxism in 1960, but only 10% do now, according to survey ABC. (I'm just making up numbers, I have no idea.) We can try to find a correlation between this decline and the claims of internal inconsistency, but to claim causation is OR. If we can find a neutral source saying that it's the cause, then we can report it. Above you said that the purpose of charging inconsistency is to suppress a theory. I disagree. You can show that something is internally inconsistent while still supporting it, if you're trying to reform it for example. Or you could be neutral on the subject and just being trying to find the truth, without any intention to suppress or propagate a theory. Surely the fact that very few states still espouse Marxism has been a contributing factor in the decline of its study, not to mention the conditions of life in the countries that did. Makerowner 18:26, 19 August 2007 (UTC)

The point of the sentence is not to discuss causes of the decline of Marxism, but to explain the purposes and effects of allegations of internal inconsistency. And the point of explaining that is not to allege evil motives on the part of those who allege inconsistency--note the words "seemingly legitimate"--but to explain why there's an interpretation that is concerned with answering the charge of internal inconsistency. Thus, I see no need for any factual evidence regarding either the decline or Marxism or the causal role of the internal inconsistency allegation. In fact, the sentence could be written in the abstract, without any reference to this particular case--in terms of the purposes and effects of allegations of inconsistency in general.

If you disagree, you need to explain and justify why evidence is needed here.

I partly agree that "you can show that something is internally inconsistent while still supporting it, if you're trying to reform it for example." In this case, you are supporting perhaps the conclusions of a theory, but not the theory (arguments + conclusions) as such, in its original form. The version of the sentence in the Marxian economics article gets at this in the last clause: "the inconsistency charges serve to legitimate the suppression of Marx's critique of political economy and current-day research based upon it, as well as the 'correction' of Marx's alleged inconsistencies." I think the last clause can be worked into the revised version that uses the word inhibit in place of suppress, above.

You also say, "Or you could be neutral on the subject and just being trying to find the truth, without any intention to suppress or propagate a theory." But those who favor truth want to suppress untruth (I know that I do). I can barely imagine someone who wants only to discover the truth, but not to suppress untruth. But this person wouldn't allege to others that X is internally inconsistent. To make such a statement has implications of its own--reject or correct.

andrew-the-k 20:26, 19 August 2007 (UTC)

Revised, updated critical statement

Some critics, however, find this response inadequate. Followers and developers of Marx's theory of value recognize that the earliest formulations from the 1850s, as presented in "Capital," Vol. III, fail to resolve the issue of a structurally consistent presentation of value formation in a capitalist economy with competitive profit-rate equalization. Marx's fundamental insights can be revealed, and extended, by means of models and concepts that emerged after his time. Instead of trying to defend the "consistency" of Marx's original statements, non-TSSI Marxist theorists seek to pursue ever-more effective versions of the core theory, as (they feel) Marx himself would have done. Moreover, defenders of the TSSI ignore their critics' central arguments. First, the "consistency" that they claim for Marx's work is achieved at the expense of any theoretical coherence. If input values differ from output values, each being determined by the fortuitous conditions of a single "temporal" moment, value is reduced to a mere empirical description, without structure or role in revealing inner properties of capitalist social relations. Second, the presumed defense of Marx's law of the falling rate of profit, resting on a distinction between a (rising) "material" or "simultaneous" rate of profit and a (falling) "value" rate of profit, has been shown to be invalid. Analysis of the TSSI numerical examples reveals, instead, that their "value" rate of profit ultimately follows the course of the "material" rate. The TSSI construction, the critics claim, fails to address the complex determinants of the level and trend of the rate of profit in capitalist economies.

REFERENCES

Laibman, David. 1999. “The Okishio Theorem and Its Critics: Historical Cost Vs. Replacement Cost,” Research in Political Economy, Vol. 17, pp. 207--227

Laibman, David. 2000. “Rhetoric and Substance in Value Theory: An Appraisal of the New Orthodox Marxism,” Science & Society, Fall, pp. 310--332; Also in The New Value Controversy and the Foundations of Economics, ed. Alan Freeman, Andrew Kliman, and Julian Wells, Edward Elgar, 2004

Laibman, David. 2002. “Value and the Quest for the Core of Capitalism,” Review of Radical Political Economics, 34:2 (Spring), pp. 159--178

David Laibman 19:37, 21 August 2007 (UTC)

Notes

Hi David,

I think this latest version is somewhat better. I still have problems with it though. At this point, I just want to draw attention to the two issues I mentioned above:

To take up your current version as a starting point, could you please explain "If input values differ from output values, each being determined by the fortuitous conditions of a single "temporal" moment, value is reduced to a mere empirical description, without structure or role in revealing inner properties of capitalist social relations"? I've read this a half-dozen times, but don't understand it. If I don't, the average reader won't, I suspect.

Also, let me say that I think the 1st sentence of your paragraph should be omitted, since what follows is not about the text that precedes the paragraph (which deals with whether TSSI research asserts that Marx's formulations are literally and completely correct), but about something new and distinct.

I hope you will respond.

andrew-the-k 20:56, 21 August 2007 (UTC)

David: I'm also interested in the sentence flagged by Andrew. Can it be written more clearly?

I've indicated three places in the paragraph (make that four if the last sentence is from a different source than the preceding), where I think there should be a specific citation. Would you be able to provide book/journal and page number references for each? Sunray 21:35, 22 August 2007 (UTC)

Now that the source for Mongiovi's article has been given, the article should say that "TSSI advocates have been referred to as 'Vulgar Economists' and 'New Orthodox Marxists'". Watchdog07 21:42, 25 August 2007 (UTC)

Watchdog07: Please note the statement at the top of this page: "Make sure you supply full citations when adding information." In two places, you added the phase "known to others as 'New Orthodox Marxists'... to a sentence that begins "Proponents of the TSSI." Unless you add a citation to that statement, it is little more than name calling. If you have appropriate sources, I think that the best solution would be to write a short paragraph describing why certain theorists have been called "vulgar economists" or "new orthodox Marxists," and adding the appropriate citation(s). In any case, whatever you decide to add, we need to discuss it here (see section below, "Getting consensus for article changes").

As to your addition of tags to the article, I think that "citation needed" tags are appropriate (and will restore those now, per guidelines). However, I don't see the rationale for "totally disputed" and "clean-up" or "hoax" tags. It is a fairly well-written and sourced article, if you wish to add such tags, please make your case here. Sunray 14:22, 28 August 2007 (UTC)

Critique of Political Economy (journal)

The section of the above title has been questioned by Watchdog07. I am removing this from the article, for discussion. The questions I would like to address are: 1) What is the purpose of this section? 2) Does this constitute advertising? and, 3) If it's not advertising, does it belong in the article? Here's how the section reads:

One recent project related to the TSSI is the Critique of Political Economy, an online scholarly journal founded in 2006 by Alan Freeman and Andrew Kliman, together with a working editorial board of 50-plus Marxist and non-Marxist scholars in fields such as economics, philosophy, sociology, education, psychology, political science, and accounting. The journal's mission statement says that

"TSSI research ... establishes a basis for a new research program that, in contrast to mainstream Marxian and radical political economy, proceeds from Marx’s contributions rather than from the 'corrections' of his alleged errors.

"An indispensible aim of COPE is to create an institutional basis for continued research in the TSSI, and TSSI-informed theoretical and empirical work which, because of limited access to resources, does not currently exist. We hope that, by working collaboratively on and contributing to COPE, proponents of the TSSI will be able to turn it into an ongoing, self-sustaining, research program."

Getting consensus for article changes

There has been relative peace on this and other Marxian economics pages for the past several weeks. This article had formerly been protected due to protracted edit warring. It has now been unprotected. I have suggested (see article history and edit summaries) that no major changes be made to the article without first a) discussing them here, and, b) establishing consensus. The boxes at the top of this page describe the groundrules for discussing changes to, and editing the article. I am hopeful that all editors can respect this. Sunray 19:14, 26 August 2007 (UTC)

To begin with, I have not forgotten how you (Sunray) changed the article in the past without first attempting to achieve consensus. If you wish to discuss changes, that's good. But there is absolutely no valid reason to reinitiate that discussion by starting with the "protected" version since there is no "protected" version (!) and - as has been pointed out previously at great length - there are enormous problems with the entire article. I will certainly not agree that any tags should be removed at this time - and because you inappropriately removed those tags without first having a discussion over them and seeking to achieve consensus about what to do - the article will be reverted. We will start from the version with the tags. Anything less leads encyclopedia readers to the false conclusion that the neutrality of the article is not under question. That's not fair to Wikipedia readers or to us. Watchdog07 19:11, 29 August 2007 (UTC)

Please read the instructions at the top of this page. We need to agree on changes to the article on this page. If you want to add tags (other than "citation needed" tags), please give your rationale for the tags here. I, for one, am prepared to consider your rationale regarding the "enormous problems with the entire article." However, when a tag is placed on an article, a rationale must be provided or it may be removed by other editors. Because there have been problems with this article, we need to discuss all changes here before making them. If we don't do that, the article is likely to be protected again. Sunray 15:16, 30 August 2007 (UTC)

: What you need to agree to is whether the version which has tags needs to be modified and, if so, how. There is absolutely nothing at the top if this page which indicates that striving for consensus must begin with the formerly "protected" version! Moreover the justification for the tags has already been given at enormous length on the talk pages (including the talk page archives). If you want to consider my "rationale" I suggest you read my previous contributions to the discussion which I put a lot of energy and time into writing. Watchdog07 20:24, 30 August 2007 (UTC)

I agree with Sunray. There's no consensus at present for the version that Watchdog07 wants. Let's discuss, then arrive at a consensus, then implement it. (I will be away through Monday.) andrew-the-k 05:01, 31 August 2007 (UTC)