« Audre Lorde on Simultaneism? | Main

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.

PrintView Printer Friendly Version

References (1)

References allow you to track sources for this article, as well as articles that were written in response to this article.
  • Response
    all about polomurinureon and top news

Reader Comments

There are no comments for this journal entry. To create a new comment, use the form below.

PostPost a New Comment

Enter your information below to add a new comment.

My response is on my own website »
Author Email (optional):
Author URL (optional):
All HTML will be escaped. Hyperlinks will be created for URLs automatically.