An Unacceptable Misrepresentation: Dismissing Marx's Value Theory by Deliberately Distorting the Temporal Single System Interpretation of Marx

Nick Potts Nick Potts

doi:10.13169/worlrevipoliecon.5.1.0096

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.

Highlights

When I first studied Marxist economics at the London School of Economics and Political Science (LSE) in 1988, I learnt from Meghnad Desai that Marx’s
I read Keynes, not Marx—why trouble with Marx if he was inconsistent anyway? It was not until 1998 that I came across the Temporal Single System Interpretation (TSSI) of Marx
If the TSSI of Marx is an inconsistent interpretation or incoherent reading of Marx, all the well-known charges of inconsistency against Marx stand, and the Marxists would be right to dissuade young people from wasting their time on Marx— why, in these circumstances, they wish to continue calling themselves Marxists is another issue

Summary

Introduction1

When I first studied Marxist economics at the London School of Economics and Political Science (LSE) in 1988, I learnt from Meghnad Desai that Marx’s. At the end of the previous period of production, the MELT was equal to the total appropriated value of output in money divided by the total produced value of that output in labor-time. This information is not included in the example. Branch II applies 12 units of means of production with unit price of $2 and total price of $24, with value in labor-time equaling this total price divided by the MELT established at the end of production last period, $24/3 = 8 hours. To illustrate how robust (not dependent on assuming a state of equilibrium) the TSSI of Marx is, I re-work the example with a variable MELT and not perfectly equalized profit rates

Sinha’s Criticisms Sinha’s review begins with the following paragraph

Conclusion

Findings

Southampton