ANDREW KLIMAN

September 2004. A critique of the notion of "transitional society" and attempt to understand the new society instead as an "absolute liberation" (Hegel). This paper also critiques both sides of the binary opposition blueprints / spontaneism.

Presented at the June 2003 ICAPE (International Confederation of Associations for Pluralism in Economics) conference. I argue that two reactions to the alleged “transformation problem” have served to suppress Marx’s critique of political economy: (1) use of the alleged proof of his internal inconsistency to legitimate the exclusion or “correction” of his work; (2) diversions away from the question of internal inconsistency, now that the "proof" of internal inconsistency has itself been disproved.

June 1998. The first section presents a general framework for analyzing how the replacement of old capital affects the capital advanced and the profit rate. It may be of interest even if you haven't read "Sell Dear, Buy Cheap" itself. The latter is a brief response to David Laibman's "Okishio and His Critics" (both published in _Research in Political Economy_ 17, 1999). Laibman's paper was basically a critique of my "A Value-Theoretic Critique of the Okishio Theorem" (see below).

2010 conference paper, by Andrew (“Dave”) Kliman. On value-price correlations and scientism.

April 1997. A response to an early version of Duncan Foley's "Recent Developments in the Labor Theory of Value." A very similar version of Foley's paper was published in the physicalists' American organ (RRPE). He later changed, to a considerable degree, his position on whether temporalist work has refuted the Okishio theorem. See Duncan Foley, "Response to Freeman and Kliman," _Research in Political Economy_ Vol. 18, 2000, pp. 279-83.

This is a parody I wrote about 10 years ago (1995), on how the Sraffians and other physicalist economists regard Marx's "Capital."

A March 2003 talk that focuses on the internally contradictory character of the law of the tendential fall in the rate of profit. I argue that the law is a dialectical theory of crisis, not a monocausal account of profitability trends.

Pre-publication version of a paper published in the special 100th issue of Capital & Class, February 2010. An analysis with some proposals at the end. If these proposals are implemented soon, a BIG if, the Marxian critique of political economy may be saved from extinction.

June 2000. Co-author: Anne Jaclard. "Far from restricting the free development of ideas, [Dunayevskaya’s splitting of the category of Marxism] opens up the possibility of Marx once again _speaking for himself_. ... Instead of following one or another post-Marx Marxist as an 'external mediator' between Marx and oneself, accepting their understanding of his work, readers can make a fresh return to his body of ideas."

This May 1999 talk discusses demand-side theories and Marx's crisis theory in the context of the global economic crisis of 1997-99.

A talk to a May 2002 conference in Rome. (See also my "Production of 'Internal Inconsistencies' ...," below.) The conference was on "Un Vecchio Falso Problema / An Old Myth," a book on the "transformation problem" that had just appeared. Speakers were asked to answer four questions concerning the internal consistency of "Capital." Unfortunately, the critics of the temporal single-system interpretation (TSSI) of Marx's value theory evaded the four questions. And although speakers had agreed in advance to submit their talks for publication in a conference volume, the TSSI's critics did not do so.

August 2008. On Marx's derivation of the existence of a "third thing" (intrinsic value), of which exchange-value is the "form of appearance," at the start of Capital. The paper works out the logic of the argument in detail. It also responds to Patrick Murray's and James Furner's papers on this issue as well as their critiques of my "Marx's Development of the Concept of Intrinsic Value."

A March 2000 talk at a New York City teach-in. The teach-in was in preparation for a demonstration against the IMF and World Bank in Washington the following month (A20). I argued that the laws of capitalism are what is really in control. They are the dog that wags the tail -- the international financial institutions and the "greed" of capitalists.

English-language version of “Se è corretto, non correggetelo” (see below), which was published in _Proteo_ 2/01, Sept. 2001. I argue that the physicalist-simultaneist reformulation of Marx's value theory is not a "correction" of the original, but an alternative to it. Since the original has not been shown to be internally inconsistent, it requires no correction. Both the Italian and the English versions of this paper were republished in _Un Vecchio Falso Problema / An Old Myth_, L. Vasapollo, ed., Rome 2002.

Published in "The Hobgoblin," No. 6, 2005. A brief introductory essay for "The Hobgoblin's" special issue on "Capital."

A March 1998 talk. I discuss the law in the context of the Asian crisis.

March 2000. This paper is a response to Fred Moseley’s 2000 paper, “The Determination of Constant Capital in the Case of a Change in the Value of the Means of Production.” Moseley has not replied.

First published in _News & Letters_, Dec. 1992, p. 9. This essay argues that what other commentators of the time were construing as a diminished "role of the state" is in fact the continuation of state-capitalism in new forms.

A March 2006 talk, for a panel on "Thinking Through a Post-Capitalist Future," at the Left Forum conference in NYC. A critique of common kinds of political determinism in relation to the problem of transcending capitalism.

A brief, encyclopedia-style essay written in 2001 for a Spanish student manual.

Co-author: Ted McGlone. From the 1996 collection "Marx and Non-Equilibrium Economics" (edited by Alan Freeman and Guglielmo Carchedi). On the transformation of values into prices of production. This paper disproves Bortkiewicz's alleged proof that Marx's account of the transformation is internally inconsistent. When Marx's categories are understood in a temporal, single-system (hence, the paper's name!) way, the accounts square. (The paper is a revised version of our 1988 paper "The Transformation Non-problem and the Non-Transformation Problem.")

This June 2000 paper is a conceptual history -- from Bortkiewicz and Dmitriev to the present -- of how proponents of the "physical quantities approach" interpret and critique Marx.

A talk at a conference in Rome, in May 2002, on the book "Un Vecchio Falso Problema / An Old Myth." (See also "Four Questions ...," above.) The talk is based partly on my essay in that volume, but includes new material, too. My homepage aphorism ("The economists have changed Marx, in various ways. The point is to interpret him -- correctly") is the conclusion of this talk.

Co-author: Anne Jaclard. An encyclopedia-style entry, written in 2001 for a Spanish student manual.

July 2001. The dominant interpretations of Marx's reproduction schemes differ over whether the schemes show balanced growth under capitalism to be possible or impossible in practice. Yet both interpretations regard the schemes themselves as balanced growth models. This paper argues, to the contrary, that the schemes depict a process of unbalanced growth. Under this interpretation, the reproduction schemes emerge as the first analysis of what Rostow and later development theorists have termed the “take-off” process. Marx’s analysis also emerges as a remarkably accurate one, since, in country after country, the take-off has occurred through the expansion of means of production at the expense of consumption.

Feb. 1998. A brief, fairly introductory talk, focusing on the suppressive function played by the allegations that Marx's value theory is internally inconsistent. This is a good place for newcomers to the value theory controversy to begin.

A Spring 2002 comment on Gary Mongiovi's “Vulgar Economy in Marxian Garb: A Critique of Temporal Single System Marxism.” I argue that the real target of his critique is Marx. Although Mongiovi is unable to refute the temporalist disproofs of the alleged proofs of Marx's internal inconsistency, he refuses to acquit Marx or to forthrightly correct the historical record. Thus his paper is a continuation, in somewhat different form, of the physicalist-simultaneist effort to suppress Marx's own critique of political economy. A slightly different version of his paper was later published in the American physicalist organ RRPE.

March 2002. This paper defends George Stigler's argument that the test of an adequate interpretation of an analytical work is its ability to deduce the author's main conclusions. When Stigler’s test is applied to to the interpretive controversy over Marx’s value theory, the theory is cleared of the charges of internal inconsistency that have been leveled against it.

June 2007. Veneziani is the Great White Hope of physicalism. Ian Steedman extolled his paper for putting the TSSI in its place (quoted herein). This response shows that Veneziani's critique is an utter failure.

This December 2001 paper, written for an audience of philosophers, is a fairly non-technical introduction to the new value controversy. A good place to turn to after reading "The Significance of the 'Internal Inconsistency' Allegations," above.

A disproof of the Okishio theorem, from the 1996 collection "Marx and Non-Equilibrium Economics" (edited by Alan Freeman and Guglielmo Carchedi). Here's your chance to read what I actually wrote, rather than physicalist-simultaneist critics' characterizations of what I wrote.

May 2012. Co-authored by Shannon D. Williams. Extends some of the work on this question reported in my book, The Failure of Capitalist Production, into a fuller critique of some work of the "financialization school."