I wrote that instead of the TSS being rejected because (d) its opponents
don't understand it or (e) its opponents were ideological, as Fabian
asserted, > the TSS could be (a) logically wrong; (b) spinning models that
don't fit empirical reality; or (c) leaving out important components of
capitalist reality.<
Fabian writes:
>a)The TSS propositions have yet to be proven logically wrong, althought it
>has been challenged and debated for the last 5 years at OPE-L and it is
>currently being debated at RRPE, Science and Society and other
>journals. Until proven wrong, the least that honest intellectuals should
>do is recognize its merits.
No one said that we shouldn't consider the merits of the TSS. (I think both
Ted McGlone and Drewk Kliman are good people and have nothing against them.)
As for recognizing its merits, it's better to tell us what they are rather
than asserting that the TSS has some. If possible, give us a short summary
of the basic theory (without math, which doesn't travel well in e-mail).
What are the main assumptions, the main conclusions?
>b) I thought Marxist economists understood Marx's concept of fetishization
>enought to avoid making statement like this but I guess I am once again
>being very naive.
Commodity fetishism does not tell us that the phenomenal world of
appearances in a commodity-producing society is _irrelevant_. Rather, it
says that empirical appearances are often like mirages, based in the
reality (heat rising off the highway) but being distorted in appearance. So
I don't see why empirical references should be dismissed as fetishized.
>In case you need your empirical proofs go to Alan Freeman's web page and
>look at his papers where it is shown the empirical potential of this new
>theoretical methodology in explaining capitalist reality.
I don't think that an "empirical proof" is possible, since there is often
more than one theory that fits the data, though it's better to have a
theory that fits the data than one that doesn't. (BTW, this referral to
Alan's page seems to contradict the suggestion that any empirical reference
smacks of fetishism.)
>c) I don't think the TSS goal is to create a "general" theory of
>capitalism or the ultimate econometric model that will include all
>possible variable.
Even if one doesn't have a general theory of capitalism, it can be
distorted by leaving important things out. For example, common labor
economics theory of "search unemployment" (which is hardly a general theory
of anything) is usually distorted because it leaves out class relations. In
fact, it leaves out the impact of the existence of cyclical or
deficient-demand unemployment on individual search behavior (as the NC
economists like to wall off the different types of unemployment,
structural, frictional, cyclical, etc., from each other).
Econometric model? in economics, the word "econometrics" currently refers
to the application of statistical methods to test economic theory. Is that
what you mean? (50 years ago, the term "econometrics" also included
mathematical economics.)
I also wrote: > I, for one, don't know enough about the TSS to conclude
that all of its opponents are fools or knaves. <
>"I, for one," have been studying the debate and the propositions of TSS
>authors for almost two years and can conclude that its opponents so far
>have acted like irrational and dishonest fools.
BTW, you should know that (at least in e-mails), your style of writing
conveys a heavy air of dogmatism. (That's why, I would guess, that Louis
Proyect's response to you was so flippant.) It's not a good idea to enter
an e-mail discussion with people you don't know and haven't communicated
with by accusing people who disagree with you of being fools, especially
since you haven't provided any evidence except for references to your own
expertise.
I was thinking of quoting Rodney King, but I won't ...
Jim Devine [EMAIL PROTECTED] & http://bellarmine.lmu.edu/~JDevine
