Struggles against "Left" authoritarianism

I have frequently been told that since the "the Left" is small and fragile, it is of utmost importance to preserve and protect the remaining "Left institutions."  Efforts to reform them from within, and even open criticism, supposedly threaten their existence.  I have also been told that "the Left" should not air its dirty laundry in public.

In other words, those who are suppressed or otherwise wronged by these "valuable Left institutions" should grin and bear it -- and in general, go to Hell -- in the interests of "unity."

Such views are reminiscent of Adolph Hitler's Mein Kampf (Vol. 2, Chap. II) :

[T]he boy must be transformed into a man … He must learn to be silent not only when he is justly blamed but must also learn, when necessary, to bear injustice in silence. ...

A boy who snitches on his comrade practices treason and thus betrays a mentality which, harshly expressed and enlarged, is the exact equivalent of treason to one's country.

Such a boy can by no means be regarded as a 'good, decent' child; no, he is a boy of undesirable character.

I abhor these Hitlerian sentiments, holding instead, with Karl Marx, that "It is above all necessary to avoid once more establishing 'society' as an abstraction over against the individual. The individual is the social being" ("Private Property and Communism").

Accordingly, I believe that, instead of "bear[ing] injustice in silence," we have a responsibility to expose, denounce, and bring to justice those who commit acts of suppression and other injustices, the "valuable Left institutions" that they act in the name of, and the apologists on their behalf. Showing that we can and will administer justice ourselves, without appealing to the State and its repressive apparatus, is a crucial part of showing that "another world is possible."

In this spirit, I offer the materials on struggles against "Left" authoritarianism that you'll find on my pluralism page. And I encourage everyone to join in the struggle. If you're interested, please do contact me.  No Justice, No Peace!

Audre Lorde on Simultaneism?

This is what the late African-American lesbian feminist poet Audre Lorde wrote in a 1984 essay:

"the master's tools will never dismantle the master's house. They may allow us temporarily to beat him at his own game, but they will never enable us to bring about genuine change."  (p. 112, "The Master's Tools Will Never Dismantle the Master's House," In Sister Outsider: Essays and Speeches, 1984.  Freedom, CA: The Crossing Press.)

I guess this wasn't intended as a warning to the Marxist and Sraffian economists.  But it should have served as one.  Look at where they are now.

On "N__ O__ M__," a Slanderous Term

Although hostile critics of the Temporal Single-system Interpretation (TSSI) of Marx's value theory have alleged that its proponents are "New Orthodox Marxists," the allegations underlying the term N__ O__ M__ have been made without being accompanied by supporting evidence. [1]  Proponents of the TSSI deny the allegations, pointing to the critics' lack of supporting evidence. [2]

The term N__ O__ M___ is highly incendiary and slanderous, since it impugns the integrity of TSSI research and TSSI findings that vindicate the internal inconsistency of Marx's value theory.  Responsible parties should NOT use it (except, of course, in contexts in which it, and those who allege that others are N__ O__ M__'s, are denounced).

[1] David Laibman charges that proponents of the TSSI are "New Orthodox Marxists" who "assert that Marx's formulations, in both the theory of value and the analysis of capitalist accumulation and crisis, are ''literally'' and ''completely'' correct; that Marx made no errors . . . ." David Laibman, "Rhetoric and Substance in Value Theory: An appraisal of the new orthodox Marxism." In Alan Freeman, Andrew Kliman, and Julian Wells, The New Value Controversy and the Foundations of Economics, (Cheltenham, UK: Edward Elgar, 2004, p. 1, emphases in original.  Roberto Veneziani similarly alleges that the TSSI upholds "the literal truth of all [of] Marx’s propositions."  Roberto Veneziani, "The Temporal Single-System Interpretation of Marx’s Economics: A critical evaluation," Metroeconomica, Vol. 55, No. 1, 2004, p. 97, emphasis in original.  These allegations, however, were not accompanied by supporting evidence.  (To verify the absence of supporting evidence in these works for the above claims, see the absence of supporting evidence in these works for the above claims.)

[2] Proponents of the TSSI contend that these allegations in note [1] are false: "We have never said that Marx’s contested insights are necessarily true . . . . We simply say the claims that his value theory is ''necessarily wrong'', because it is logically invalid, are false."  Alan Freeman and Andrew Kliman, "Two Concepts of Value, Two Rates of Profit, Two Laws of Motion," Research in Political Economy Vol. 18, 2000, p. 260, emphasis in original.  Similarly, I distinguish between internal consistency on the one hand, and truth or correctness on the other, at least nine different times in Reclaiming Marx's "Capital" (2007). For instance, I write that the TSSI's ability to eliminate the apparent inconsistencies in Marx's value theory does not imply "that Marx’s theoretical conclusions are necessarily correct. It does imply, however, that empirical investigation is needed in order to determine whether they are correct or not. There is no justification for disqualifying his theories ''a priori'', on logical grounds." Andrew Kliman, Reclaiming Marx's "Capital", p. xiii.