Gil Skillman writes: "In your post, you (a) impute to me an argument I've never made, suggesting that you hadn't actually read what I wrote,"
Not so. You may have *interpreted/characterized* (What's the diff? Characterization is the act of putting an interpretation into words, no?) it that way, but what I wrote was "If the conclusion is that surplus-value can arise only if commodities exchange at their values, it is indeed invalid." Surely there is another possible, and indeed a better, interpretation/characterization, namely that, given my use of "If," I was commenting on one possible interpretation of your remarks, as well as seeking clarification as to your intended meaning. "But all right, I'll accept this criticism and claim only that I "argued..." rather than "pointed out..."" Good; we may be getting somewhere. "I am offering more than simply an "interpretation" of what Marx argues, I'm offering a *characterization* of what he has argued," See my parenthetical queries above. "both in the body of chapter 5 and in the final footnote where he recapitulates the main part of the argument in summary form, Marx argues that surplus value "must" be explained on the basis that commodities exchange at their respective values, on the grounds that price-value disparities are not of themselves *sufficient* to account for the existence of surplus value. This is a characterization of what he *did* say in Chapter 5. I take it you do not deny that he makes this claim (perhaps among others)." I do deny it. I briefly re-read the relevant part of the chapter and did not come across what I could construe as a claim that the disparities are insufficient. (Clearly his argument entails the conclusion that they are insufficient, but that's a different matter.) Much more importantly, as I've noted, I deny that he *grounds* his conclusion (regarding what must be assumed, and that it must be assumed) in that insufficiency. "I also assert that nowhere in the chapter does Marx make an argument one way or the other as to whether price-value disparities are under any conditions *necessary* for the existence of surplus value." Ok. I had written: "First, I object to the term "pointed out." What you did was (a) *assert* logical invalidity and (b) offer an *interpretation* under which his argument seems to be logically invalid. So what is at fault? The text? Or your interpretation? It seems to me, and to basically everyone who has thought about interpretive adequacy, that when a text seems not to make sense, the "initial presumption" (as Georgia Warnke puts it) must be that the critic has misunderstood it." Gil replies: "You're assuming that which you cannot possibly know, i.e. that I didn't make just such an initial presumption when I first advanced this argument ten years or so ago. This strikes me as a presumption at least equal in audacity to that implicit in using the phrase "pointed out" rather than "asserted."" I assumed no such thing. You are jumping to conclusions. You are assuming that your *interpretation/characterization* of my statement is correct. Surely there is another possible, and indeed a better, interpretation/characterization, namely that I was saying that I AND OTHER READERS should not take the critic's (your) claim to have "pointed out" logical invalidity at face value, but should initially presume that the critic's (your) interpretation (/characterization) results from a misunderstanding of the text. "At any rate, I have given at length, in this forum and many others, my grounds for now rebutting this presumption. I doubt that those who have thought about issues of interpretative adequacy would deny that this initial assumption is indeed rebuttable by criticisms made in good faith, which is what I understand myself to be offering." If this means that the text may not make sense, and that it is possible in principle to show this, I agree. (Note that the "If" indicates that I'm not imputing this meaning to you. I'm guessing, and commenting on a possible interpretation/characterization I've guessed.) I had written: >The value theory debate would generate more light and less heat if >Marx's critics would respect this point and practice a little >humility. Instead of saying one has proved this error, pointed >out that claim to be logically invalid, etc., one could simply say >that one has not yet succeeding in reading the text in such a way >that it makes sense. That would invite others to work together to >try to read text in such a way that it does makes sense. Of >course, one advances one's career by drawing attention to others' >insufficiencies, not by drawing attention to one's own. But if >one's goal is to further knowledge, not advance one's career, the >less spectacular but more objective and modest way of putting >things is preferable. Gil replies: "If there's heat being generated here, it's certainly not by me." "Pointing out" that the argument is "logically invalid" isn't generating heat? Come on. A non-heat-generating alternative would be: "A possible interpretation is .... If this interpretation is correct, then it seems to me that the argument would be logically invalid. I have not yet succeeding in reading the text in a different way, such that the argument is logically valid." Do you have any problems with that? "If I've made a logical error or mis-characterized what Marx wrote and didn't write, please show me specifically how and where." I've tried to do so, and I'll continue to try to do so, but this position of yours is part of what generates heat. It can be interpreted as trying to place the burden of proof on those who reject the claim of logical invalidity. It seems to me that the person who makes the claim has the burden of proof. And to *prove* it, one must not merely offer one possible interpretation/characterization, nor merely refute others, but show that there is *no possible* interpretation/characterization according to which the argument is logically valid. Right? "As for the standard you're suggesting here, may I suggest in turn that you have clearly violated it yourself in your first post? You clearly made no "initial presumption" that you misunderstood my argument in post 27449; to the contrary, you dismissed that argument summarily, seemingly without having read what I actually wrote or what evidence I adduced in support of the argument. And you are not offering here to "work together" with me to read my text in such a way that it does "make sense"; again, you've dismissed it from the get-go." Not so. The "If" indicated that I was not sure of your meaning. I "dismissed" (offered an argument against) a possible interpretation of your meaning, without imputing it to you. And, as I noted above, I also used the "if" to seek clarification of your intended meaning. So I was and am working together with you to read your text in such a way that it makes sense. "And by the way, the implicit suggestion (intended or otherwise) that I'm doing this to advance my career is both ungenerous at best and powerfully contraindicated: since when is making arguments on PEN-L a path to career advancement?" Again, you are jumping to conclusions. You are assuming your interpretation/characterization of my statement is correct. You are assuming that what you inferred is what I implied. Another possible, more charitable and, I think, better, interpretation/characterization is that I was suggesting that if your goal isn't to advance your career, but to further knowledge, it would be better for you to put things in a less spectacular but more objective and modest way. I had written: >Gil's interpretation of the "argument on which [Marx] bases" his >allegedly invalid claim is presumably that "price-value >disparities are not of themselves *sufficient* to account for the >existence of surplus value." I have a different interpretation of >the argument (in _Capital_ I, Ch. 5). As I interpret Marx, he is >not (merely) saying that "price-value disparities are not of >themselves *sufficient* to account for the existence of surplus >value." He is saying, as I've already put it, that the >implications of unequal exchange (for the problem at hand) *reduce >to* those of the exchange of equivalents. Gil replies: "Again assuming that we're reading English terms in the same way, and that you're not making a claim with respect to the German original, you are necessarily doing more than offering a "different interpretation" of Marx's argument in claiming it asserts that the implications of unequal exchange "*reduce to*" those of the exchange of equivalents, since the latter claim simply cannot follow if price-value disparities are *necessary* for the existence of surplus value under some conditions. And again, I understand Marx to make no representation one way or another on the latter point in Chapter 5. If you believe otherwise, could you indicate the relevant passage(s)?" I do not see that, or how, I'm doing more than offering a different interpretation (unless you mean that I've also put my interpretation into words and appealed to the text to support that interpretation). I simply do not follow the rest of this paragraph. It seems to say (in part) that (a) Marx does not deny that unequal exchange is necessary under some conditions for there to be surplus-value (b) If unequal exchange is necessary (etc.), then the implications of unequal exchange do not reduce to those of the exchange of equivalents Ergo, (c) Marx cannot have validly concluded that the implications of unequal exchange reduce to those of the exchange of equivalents. This (possible interpretation of part of your statement) makes no sense. With equal validity (i.e., none), one could argue (a') Kliman's post does not deny that Gil Skillman is God (and therefore infallible). (b') If Gil Skillman is God (and therefore infallible), then his assertion that Marx's argument is logically invalid cannot be false. Ergo, (c') Kliman cannot validly deny that Gil Skillman's assertion is false. Because this doesn't make any sense, my initial presumption is that you meant something else. But I have no clue what that might be. BTW, assuming (purely for the sake of argument) that unequal exchange *is* necessary for surplus-value under some conditions, it does not follow that Marx's argument is logically invalid. It may be logically valid but false because it begins from one or more false premises. Or, it might be logically valid and true, because it applies, and was intended to apply, to conditions other than, and not including, those under which unequal exchange is necessary for surplus-value. Andrew Kliman
