- Record: found
- Abstract: found
- Article: found
An Unacceptable Misrepresentation: Dismissing Marx's Value Theory by Deliberately Distorting the Temporal Single System Interpretation of Marx
Abstract
This article shows that Sinha's (2009) review of Kliman's Reclaiming Marx's “Capital”: A Refutation of the Myth of Inconsistency (2007) constitutes an unscientific and unacceptable intervention whose purpose is to stifle, instead of furthering, a long-overdue discussion of the Temporal Single System Interpretation (TSSI) of Marx's theory of value. It is unscientific because its case rests on conscious and transparent misrepresentation; it is unacceptable because it seeks to delegitimize, i.e., rule out of discussion, the work that it purports to review. Sinha's piece is ostensibly a review of Kliman (2007) which sets out to prove that, if Marx is interpreted by employing the TSSI, all charges of inconsistency so far leveled against this theory turn out to be false. To contextualize the review, this article first explains this interpretation by means of a numerical example from Kliman (2007). Then, this article establishes the unscientific character of Sinha's criticisms. These are based first on a simple misrepresentation of the argument, and second, on the charge that Kliman does not follow Sinha's own simultaneist method. Disagreements in science are of course normal; what is completely unscientific is to discount a valid, coherent alternative theory on the grounds that the reviewer disagrees with it.
Content
Author and article information
Notes
I am very grateful for the help I have received from both Andrew Kliman and Alan Freeman in writing this article. All errors remain my own.
The Temporal Single System Interpretation (TSSI) of Marx usually imagines for simplicity that production takes time while circulation between periods of production is instantaneous.
Note that Ramos-Martínez (2004) first introduced the concept of the monetary expression of labor-time (MELT).
Note that how we calculate the MELT depends on how we interpret Marx's theory of how commodities' values are determined. Potts (2011c) explains how Kliman's (1999, 105; 2007, 21) and Freeman's (1996, 255–56) interpretations differ. Kliman argues that the produced value of a commodity equals the total value of newly produced units of that commodity divided by the number of newly produced units. In contrast, Freeman argues the produced value of a commodity should also be influenced by existing unsold stocks of that commodity carried forward from previous periods (and thus for newly produced units of fixed capital by remaining units of fixed capital at the end of production). The produced value of a commodity equals the total value of newly produced output and other stocks of the commodity, divided by the total number of units of that commodity acting as capital. Kliman's interpretation ensures that the MELT equals the total monetary expression/price of output divided by the total produced value of this newly produced output. Freeman's interpretation ensures that the MELT equals the total monetary expression/price of capital divided by the total produced value of this capital. Since Kliman's interpretation implies that we need to re-value stocks to the unit value of newly produced output, the total price of capital divided by the total produced value of capital still equals his “output” calculation of the MELT. As Potts (2011c) argues, this difference does not represent a “problem,” it rather indicates that the TSSI of Marx is an open and under-explored area of research. If we assume an absence of stocks or fixed capital, the numerical conclusions flowing from Freeman and Kliman's interpretations converge.
We should note that in this example, and all of the examples in Kliman (2007, Chapter 9), and for that matter Marx's (1981, Chapter 9) illustrations of the transformation process, the focus is on production, not circulation before or after production.
See the Review of Radical Political Economics letter website, http://iwgvt.org/rrpe/Extracts%20from%20OPE.pdf.
Please see http://iwgvt.org/rrpe/Extracts%20from%20OPE.pdf, for the correspondence between Kliman and Sinha (sent by Paul Cockshott) on the draft review, in which Kliman informed Sinha of the misleading nature of and libelous charges contained in his review prior to the publication of the final review. In response to the deliberately misrepresentative nature of Sinha's review, I was one of 15 academics who sent a letter to the Review of Radical Political Economics asking for the review to be retracted in October 2010, see http://www.valuetheory.org/rrpe/index.html. In total, more than 40 people have publicly called for the retraction of Sinha's review. See additional statements at the bottom of the website: http://www.marxisthumanistinitiative.org/philosophy-organization/condemn-libelous-attack-on-marx-scholar.html.