Talk:Temporal single-system interpretation

Archived Material

Talk page discussion through 27 April, 2007: [1]

Talk page discussion between 28 April, 2007 and 12 May, 2007: [2]

Talk page discussion between 12 May, 2007 and 9 August, 2007: [3]

Reverting to protected version pending discussion and consensus

I have just reverted the article to the version protected by WJBscribe on 22 May, pending discussion and consensus regarding the changes that Watchdog07 wants. WP:CON states, "Consensus is Wikipedia's fundamental model for editorial decision-making."

Watchdog07 has explained why he thinks his version is better, as he says in his edit summary, but he hasn't justified his proposed changes. These changes seem highly non-neutral to me. In any case, there is as yet no consensus that they should be made. Please let's discuss and arrive at consensus before making any major changes to the article. andrew-the-k 23:41, 10 August 2007 (UTC)

I agree with andrew-the-k's rationale. Since the article has only relatively recently been unprotected, it is important that major changes be agreed to on the talk page. Editors should try to avoid edit waring and work on building consensus. The version that was protected is the ground zero. Sunray 22:45, 15 August 2007 (UTC)

This argument is scurrilous. When a version of an article is protected - which it is no longer - it in no way implies that it is "the right version". Watchdog07 15:02, 18 August 2007 (UTC)

Hardly a "scurrilous" argument. As Andrew has pointed out, editorial decisions are made by consensus. Let us discuss changes to the article here and work at consensus. Sunray 19:02, 18 August 2007 (UTC)

Critique of TSSI

David Laibman added the following text to the article, and at my request, provided references:

Some critics, however, find this response inadequate. Followers and developers of Marx's theory of value recognize that the earliest formulations from the 1850s, as presented in "Capital," Vol. III, fail to resolve the issue of a structurally consistent presentation of value formation in a capitalist economy with competitive profit-rate equalization. Marx's fundamental insights can be revealed, and extended, by means of models and concepts that emerged after his time. Instead of trying to defend the "consistency" of Marx's original statement, most present-day Marxist theorists seek to pursue ever-more effective versions of the core theory, as Marx himself would have done. Moreover, defenders of the TSSI ignore their critics' central arguments. First, the "consistency" that they claim for Marx's work is achieved at the expense of any theoretical coherence. If input values differ from output values, each being determined by the fortuitous conditions of a single "temporal" moment, value is reduced to a mere empirical description, without structure or role in revealing inner properties of capitalist social relations. Second, the presumed defense of Marx's law of the falling rate of profit, resting on a distinction between a (rising) "material" or "simultaneous" rate of profit and a (falling) "value" rate of profit, has been shown to be invalid. Analysis of the TSSI numerical examples reveals, instead, that their "value" rate of profit ultimately follows the course of the "material" rate. The TSSI construction simply fails to address the complex determinants of the level and trend of the rate of profit in capitalist economies.

REFERENCES

Laibman, David. 1999. “The Okishio Theorem and Its Critics: Historical Cost Vs. Replacement Cost,” Research in Political Economy, Vol. 17, pp. 207--227

Laibman, David. 2000. “Rhetoric and Substance in Value Theory: An Appraisal of the New Orthodox Marxism,” Science & Society, Fall, pp. 310--332; Also in The New Value Controversy and the Foundations of Economics, ed. Alan Freeman, Andrew Kliman, and Julian Wells, Edward Elgar, 2004

Laibman, David. 2002. “Value and the Quest for the Core of Capitalism,” Review of Radical Political Economics, 34:2 (Spring), pp. 159--178

David, could you please indicate (perhaps by adding numbers to the text, above) where specific citations should be added? It seems to me that this addition contributes to the presentation of TSSI to the reader. As to which critics: we should refer to at least two, so it would be good to have cites for those. Your comment about "overburdening the article" has another meaning for me: We must bear in mind that this is an article to explain to the general reader what TSSI is. So we shouldn't get into the minute details of the critique. On the other hand, the reader will benefit from knowing that there are alternative points of view about this and we can refer to further reading on the subject. Sunray 20:26, 17 August 2007 (UTC)

Hi David,

Glad to see you here! I think the article can benefit from discussion of substantive criticisms of, and reasons for dislike of, the TSSI. I think we can use your paragraph as a starting point in order to arrive, through discussion and consensus, at a balanced and informative addition to the TSSI article.

Your paragraph won't do in its original form, partly because it doesn't have the neutral tone and balance of an encyclopedia article, as required by Wikipedia. As I see it, the paragraph should indicate that Marx's theory as interpreted by the TSSI doesn't fulfill some aims that some critics of the TSSI think a theory (or Marxian theory) should achieve, it should list these aims, and it should include the response of TSSI theorists. What do you think?

To take up your current version as a starting point, could you please explain "If input values differ from output values, each being determined by the fortuitous conditions of a single "temporal" moment, value is reduced to a mere empirical description, without structure or role in revealing inner properties of capitalist social relations"? I've read this a half-dozen times, but don't understand it. If I don't, the average reader won't, I suspect.

Also, let me say that I think the 1st sentence of your paragraph should be omitted, since what follows is not about the text that precedes the paragraph (which deals with whether TSSI research asserts that Marx's formulations are literally and completely correct), but about something new and distinct.

andrew-the-k 02:59, 19 August 2007 (UTC)

NPOV?

This phrase: "the allegations of inconsistency have served to legitimate the censorship of Marx's theories of value and the falling rate of profit and the suppression of current research based upon them," seems pretty POV to me. I know there are sources below, but one of them just says that Marxism isn't studied, it doesn't say that it's suppressed, while I believe Andrew Kilman's suitability as a sources has been questioned before on the talk page. Makerowner 19:17, 18 August 2007 (UTC)

Makerowner makes a good point about neutrality. How could the paragraph be written in more neutral language? Sunray 23:10, 18 August 2007 (UTC)

I could live with the wording in the Marxian_economics article, which attributes the idea to me. But Makerowner seems to be questioning whether I'm a reliable source for purposes of the TSSI article. If so, the wording in the Marxian_economics article won't satisfy him/her.

Cassidy doesn't just say that Marx's value theory isn't studied; he suggests that it isn't studied because it is "riven with internal inconsistencies." This means that the charge of inconsistency is accepted as true, and, having been accepted as true, serves to suppress the theory (i.e., "inhibit the expression of" it; see below).

Perhaps the word suppress is at issue? It doesn't (usually) mean repress or oppress. Here are a couple of the definitions of suppress given at [4]:

To keep from being revealed, published, or circulated;

To inhibit the expression of (an impulse, for example); check: suppress a smile.

So I think it is self-evident--and thus actually needs no sources at all--that the very purpose of charging internal inconsistency is to suppress--keep from being circulated, inhibit the expression of--an argument or theory. No one charges that an argument or theory is internally inconsistent in order to help propagate it.

I'd be very interested in learning David Laibman's thoughts on this, since he is another reliable source for purposes of this article.

andrew-the-k 03:24, 19 August 2007 (UTC)

Note that the term "reliable source" in the policy quoted refers to an article, not a person. This is not a trivial difference. As an encyclopedia, we can only go with what has been published on a particular subject. Sunray 21:09, 20 August 2007 (UTC)

Yes, it's mostly the word 'suppress' that bothers me here. It suggests some sort of conspiracy to keep people from studying Marxism by saying that it's inconsistent. Maybe something like this would be better: "The study of Marxism has dramatically declined in the years since its critics first claimed that it was internally inconsistent." A source will of course be needed to show that the study of Marxism has declined. No offense, Akliman, but since your book is devoted to defending Marxism from the claim of inconsistency, I think a more neutral source would be preferable. And it's 'he' by the way. Makerowner 05:08, 19 August 2007 (UTC)

I'm not wedded to the word suppress. What's at issue isn't Marxism in general or even Marx's work in general, nor is it study alone. I think the following preserves the sense of the original without saying suppress: "Since internally inconsistent theories cannot possibly be right, the allegations of inconsistency have served to inhibit, on seemingly legitimate grounds, the public's access to, study and discussion of, and current research based upon, Marx's theories of value and the falling rate of profit." As explained above, this seems to me to be too obvious to need any citations at all. It is not a claim that access, study, etc. have actually declined, which probably would need documentation. andrew-the-k 06:45, 19 August 2007 (UTC)

Sorry, I don't much like that either. Basically, I think we need factual evidence that Marxism has declined, say 20% of colleges in the US offered courses in Marxism in 1960, but only 10% do now, according to survey ABC. (I'm just making up numbers, I have no idea.) We can try to find a correlation between this decline and the claims of internal inconsistency, but to claim causation is OR. If we can find a neutral source saying that it's the cause, then we can report it. Above you said that the purpose of charging inconsistency is to suppress a theory. I disagree. You can show that something is internally inconsistent while still supporting it, if you're trying to reform it for example. Or you could be neutral on the subject and just being trying to find the truth, without any intention to suppress or propagate a theory. Surely the fact that very few states still espouse Marxism has been a contributing factor in the decline of its study, not to mention the conditions of life in the countries that did. Makerowner 18:26, 19 August 2007 (UTC)

The point of the sentence is not to discuss causes of the decline of Marxism, but to explain the purposes and effects of allegations of internal inconsistency. And the point of explaining that is not to allege evil motives on the part of those who allege inconsistency--note the words "seemingly legitimate"--but to explain why there's an interpretation that is concerned with answering the charge of internal inconsistency. Thus, I see no need for any factual evidence regarding either the decline or Marxism or the causal role of the internal inconsistency allegation. In fact, the sentence could be written in the abstract, without any reference to this particular case--in terms of the purposes and effects of allegations of inconsistency in general.

If you disagree, you need to explain and justify why evidence is needed here.

I partly agree that "you can show that something is internally inconsistent while still supporting it, if you're trying to reform it for example." In this case, you are supporting perhaps the conclusions of a theory, but not the theory (arguments + conclusions) as such, in its original form. The version of the sentence in the Marxian economics article gets at this in the last clause: "the inconsistency charges serve to legitimate the suppression of Marx's critique of political economy and current-day research based upon it, as well as the 'correction' of Marx's alleged inconsistencies." I think the last clause can be worked into the revised version that uses the word inhibit in place of suppress, above.

You also say, "Or you could be neutral on the subject and just being trying to find the truth, without any intention to suppress or propagate a theory." But those who favor truth want to suppress untruth (I know that I do). I can barely imagine someone who wants only to discover the truth, but not to suppress untruth. But this person wouldn't allege to others that X is internally inconsistent. To make such a statement has implications of its own--reject or correct.

andrew-the-k 20:26, 19 August 2007 (UTC)

Revised, updated critical statement

Some critics, however, find this response inadequate. Followers and developers of Marx's theory of value recognize that the earliest formulations from the 1850s, as presented in "Capital," Vol. III, fail to resolve the issue of a structurally consistent presentation of value formation in a capitalist economy with competitive profit-rate equalization. Marx's fundamental insights can be revealed, and extended, by means of models and concepts that emerged after his time. Instead of trying to defend the "consistency" of Marx's original statements, non-TSSI Marxist theorists seek to pursue ever-more effective versions of the core theory, as (they feel) Marx himself would have done. Moreover, defenders of the TSSI ignore their critics' central arguments. First, the "consistency" that they claim for Marx's work is achieved at the expense of any theoretical coherence. If input values differ from output values, each being determined by the fortuitous conditions of a single "temporal" moment, value is reduced to a mere empirical description, without structure or role in revealing inner properties of capitalist social relations. Second, the presumed defense of Marx's law of the falling rate of profit, resting on a distinction between a (rising) "material" or "simultaneous" rate of profit and a (falling) "value" rate of profit, has been shown to be invalid. Analysis of the TSSI numerical examples reveals, instead, that their "value" rate of profit ultimately follows the course of the "material" rate. The TSSI construction, the critics claim, fails to address the complex determinants of the level and trend of the rate of profit in capitalist economies.

REFERENCES

Laibman, David. 1999. “The Okishio Theorem and Its Critics: Historical Cost Vs. Replacement Cost,” Research in Political Economy, Vol. 17, pp. 207--227

Laibman, David. 2000. “Rhetoric and Substance in Value Theory: An Appraisal of the New Orthodox Marxism,” Science & Society, Fall, pp. 310--332; Also in The New Value Controversy and the Foundations of Economics, ed. Alan Freeman, Andrew Kliman, and Julian Wells, Edward Elgar, 2004

Laibman, David. 2002. “Value and the Quest for the Core of Capitalism,” Review of Radical Political Economics, 34:2 (Spring), pp. 159--178

David Laibman 19:37, 21 August 2007 (UTC)

Notes

Hi David,

I think this latest version is somewhat better. I still have problems with it though. At this point, I just want to draw attention to the two issues I mentioned above:

To take up your current version as a starting point, could you please explain "If input values differ from output values, each being determined by the fortuitous conditions of a single "temporal" moment, value is reduced to a mere empirical description, without structure or role in revealing inner properties of capitalist social relations"? I've read this a half-dozen times, but don't understand it. If I don't, the average reader won't, I suspect.

Also, let me say that I think the 1st sentence of your paragraph should be omitted, since what follows is not about the text that precedes the paragraph (which deals with whether TSSI research asserts that Marx's formulations are literally and completely correct), but about something new and distinct.

I hope you will respond.

andrew-the-k 20:56, 21 August 2007 (UTC)

David: I'm also interested in the sentence flagged by Andrew. Can it be written more clearly?

I've indicated three places in the paragraph (make that four if the last sentence is from a different source than the preceding), where I think there should be a specific citation. Would you be able to provide book/journal and page number references for each? Sunray 21:35, 22 August 2007 (UTC)

Now that the source for Mongiovi's article has been given, the article should say that "TSSI advocates have been referred to as 'Vulgar Economists' and 'New Orthodox Marxists'". Watchdog07 21:42, 25 August 2007 (UTC)

Watchdog07: Please note the statement at the top of this page: "Make sure you supply full citations when adding information." In two places, you added the phase "known to others as 'New Orthodox Marxists'... to a sentence that begins "Proponents of the TSSI." Unless you add a citation to that statement, it is little more than name calling. If you have appropriate sources, I think that the best solution would be to write a short paragraph describing why certain theorists have been called "vulgar economists" or "new orthodox Marxists," and adding the appropriate citation(s). In any case, whatever you decide to add, we need to discuss it here (see section below, "Getting consensus for article changes").

As to your addition of tags to the article, I think that "citation needed" tags are appropriate (and will restore those now, per guidelines). However, I don't see the rationale for "totally disputed" and "clean-up" or "hoax" tags. It is a fairly well-written and sourced article, if you wish to add such tags, please make your case here. Sunray 14:22, 28 August 2007 (UTC)

Critique of Political Economy (journal)

The section of the above title has been questioned by Watchdog07. I am removing this from the article, for discussion. The questions I would like to address are: 1) What is the purpose of this section? 2) Does this constitute advertising? and, 3) If it's not advertising, does it belong in the article? Here's how the section reads:

One recent project related to the TSSI is the Critique of Political Economy, an online scholarly journal founded in 2006 by Alan Freeman and Andrew Kliman, together with a working editorial board of 50-plus Marxist and non-Marxist scholars in fields such as economics, philosophy, sociology, education, psychology, political science, and accounting. The journal's mission statement says that

"TSSI research ... establishes a basis for a new research program that, in contrast to mainstream Marxian and radical political economy, proceeds from Marx’s contributions rather than from the 'corrections' of his alleged errors.

"An indispensible aim of COPE is to create an institutional basis for continued research in the TSSI, and TSSI-informed theoretical and empirical work which, because of limited access to resources, does not currently exist. We hope that, by working collaboratively on and contributing to COPE, proponents of the TSSI will be able to turn it into an ongoing, self-sustaining, research program."

Getting consensus for article changes

There has been relative peace on this and other Marxian economics pages for the past several weeks. This article had formerly been protected due to protracted edit warring. It has now been unprotected. I have suggested (see article history and edit summaries) that no major changes be made to the article without first a) discussing them here, and, b) establishing consensus. The boxes at the top of this page describe the groundrules for discussing changes to, and editing the article. I am hopeful that all editors can respect this. Sunray 19:14, 26 August 2007 (UTC)

To begin with, I have not forgotten how you (Sunray) changed the article in the past without first attempting to achieve consensus. If you wish to discuss changes, that's good. But there is absolutely no valid reason to reinitiate that discussion by starting with the "protected" version since there is no "protected" version (!) and - as has been pointed out previously at great length - there are enormous problems with the entire article. I will certainly not agree that any tags should be removed at this time - and because you inappropriately removed those tags without first having a discussion over them and seeking to achieve consensus about what to do - the article will be reverted. We will start from the version with the tags. Anything less leads encyclopedia readers to the false conclusion that the neutrality of the article is not under question. That's not fair to Wikipedia readers or to us. Watchdog07 19:11, 29 August 2007 (UTC)

Please read the instructions at the top of this page. We need to agree on changes to the article on this page. If you want to add tags (other than "citation needed" tags), please give your rationale for the tags here. I, for one, am prepared to consider your rationale regarding the "enormous problems with the entire article." However, when a tag is placed on an article, a rationale must be provided or it may be removed by other editors. Because there have been problems with this article, we need to discuss all changes here before making them. If we don't do that, the article is likely to be protected again. Sunray 15:16, 30 August 2007 (UTC)

: What you need to agree to is whether the version which has tags needs to be modified and, if so, how. There is absolutely nothing at the top if this page which indicates that striving for consensus must begin with the formerly "protected" version! Moreover the justification for the tags has already been given at enormous length on the talk pages (including the talk page archives). If you want to consider my "rationale" I suggest you read my previous contributions to the discussion which I put a lot of energy and time into writing. Watchdog07 20:24, 30 August 2007 (UTC)

I agree with Sunray. There's no consensus at present for the version that Watchdog07 wants. Let's discuss, then arrive at a consensus, then implement it. (I will be away through Monday.) andrew-the-k 05:01, 31 August 2007 (UTC)

I was referring to the following statement in the box at the top of the page:

This is a controversial topic, which may be under dispute.

Please read this talk page and discuss substantial changes here before making them.

Make sure you supply full citations when adding information and consider tagging or removing uncited/unciteable information in highly controversial articles.

The statement "... discuss substantial changes here before making them" is unequivocal in my book. Sunray 06:50, 31 August 2007 (UTC)

I agree with Sunray and andrew-the-K. The history of this page shows that it is essential to discuss and arrive at a consensus before changes are made. Of course this is a difficult process but the point is, there is no alternative. Alan XAX Freeman 08:30, 2 September 2007 (UTC)

You are all in denial: you want to discuss possible changes to begin with the non-existing "protected" version. Yet, there is absolutely no special stutus that should be given to the "protected" version than to its competing version which has tags. How do we deal with this situation fairly - something that Akliman and Co. have 'never attempted before? I have offered several alternatives in the past . Had any one of them been accepted then this idispute could have been resolved long ago. The following two possibilities which I have suggested previously would allow us to break through the impasse and move forward - if that's what Akliman and Co. want: (1) have the article reduced to stub and then let Akliman (or anyone else) make proposals on additions to the article and we could then proceed from there one section at a time; (2) begin with the version with tags and - with the agreed upon goal of increasing neutrality and hence eventually removing the tags - start with the 1st paragraph and work our way one para. at a time through the article seeking consensus. If you reject these possibilities (which you ignored when I made them in the past) then we will all know that you don't seek consensus. Watchdog07 12:16, 2 September 2007 (UTC)

You will note that each of the tags contains the following statement: "Please see the relevant discussion on the talk page." To put tags on an article there must thus be a rationale for each. As the template message implies, this rationale is usually discussed by the editors of the page. Would you please provide the rationale before placing the tags? Because of past disputes, all significant changes to the article need to be discussed here. Sunray 16:05, 2 September 2007 (UTC)

YOU SHOULD NOTE THAT JUSTIFICATION HAS ALREADY BEEN GIVEN AT LENGTH ON THE TALK PAGE FOR ALL OF THE TAGS. Watchdog07 19:09, 2 September 2007 (UTC)

Nevertheless, the tags were not present on the version that was protected. I assume, therefore, that there was not consensus on the need for them. I, for one, am willing to revisit that if you wish. However, I don't propose to go hunting through the hundreds of kilobytes of discussion looking for your rationale. Would you please state your case here? Sunray 19:28, 2 September 2007 (UTC)

You haven't been listening. We were told very explicitly when the article was protected that one can not infer that the protected version was the "correct version". Indeed, the tag which said that it was protected intdicated that in so many words. There was even discussion on this talk page about that issue (except now Akliman and Co are no longer laughing about it). Once the article ceased to be prortected, the formerly protected version had absolutely no special status: it simply became one of a number of versions of the article. This has been mentioned repeatedly on this talk page and I do wish that other editors would pay attention and begin to discuss the new reality. For months, I was hounded by Akliman and Co. to give reasons for my objections which I then did - at great length and involving much time and energy on my part. The archives are full of the rationale for the tags! The problem has been from the other side: Akliman and Co. have acted in extreme violation of WP:OWN and Akliman has exven gone so far as to recuit you-know-whats to aid his campaign. In any case, it is self-evident that the neutrality of the article has been totally disputed. Anyone who removes those tags is either in denial and/or trying to deceive Wikipedia readers into thinking that there is agreement by editors about the alleged neutrality of the article. If you want progress, we can take the version with the tags and go one para at a time through it. If dyou don't want progress, then you should consider removing yourself from this discussion. Watchdog07 12:29, 3 September 2007 (UTC)

Watchdog07: No one is saying that the protected version has any special status. This is about all editors of this page following policies and making changes to the article by consensus. Let us not continue repeating ourselves ad infinitum. You have been requested to provide a rationale for the tags. Please do so now, so we can move on. If you wish to burrow through the reams of verbiage in the archives, that's your choice. However, a simple rationale for each tag here is what we need. We can then discuss your rationale and determine what the next steps will be. Sunray 15:10, 3 September 2007 (UTC)

You want explanation for the 'totally disputed' tag? If you can't see that the article has been totally disputed then you are either not looking or blind. Watchdog07 15:21, 3 September 2007 (UTC)

Yes, we need an explanation. The tag says that the neutrality of the article is disputed. Please share with us what aspects you see as not meeting WP:NPOV. What statements are not neutral? Where are there factual errors? Just list them, briefly, so they can be addressed. Sunray 16:13, 3 September 2007 (UTC)

So you want me to repeat the objections which have already been given at great length on the talk page? I can do that but please understand that since basically the entire article has been disputed - and since I would be indulging your request that I be repetitive - I will explain slowly the objections which have been made one line at a time. I do this with the understanding that the tags will remain in place while the objections are being repeated. Before I go to the considerable additional bother of reproducing the line-by-line objections, do you agree to this as a procedure? Watchdog07 12:25, 4 September 2007 (UTC)

No I do not want you to necessarily repeat anything. I have merely asked you to provide a rationale for the tags. Slow is not necessary. Brief would be nice. You can repeat yourself if you wish. Sunray 15:15, 4 September 2007 (UTC)

Rationale for tags:

You want brief? OK. The rationale for the first tag is that the neutrality of the article is totality disputed. The rationale for the clean-up tag is that the article needs to be re-written. The rationale for the tags concerning references and sources are that references and sources need to be indicated. [NB: I did not place the latter tags in the article].

As for other tags - which will be re-inserted if there is any mention of COPE: The rationale for the advertising tag is that it is advertising; the rationale for the spam tag is that it fits the description of spam; the rationale for the hoax tag is that it there is reason to believe that it may constitute a hoax.

If that is too brief for you, then read the archives for very lengthy and extensive explanations. It is self-evident that the neutrality of the article has been disputed. Warning: do not again remove it or related tags: that would constitute edit warring and is considered to be unacceptable conduct on Wikipedia. Watchdog07 17:33, 4 September 2007 (UTC)

On my talk page you suggested that we go through the article paragraph by paragraph. That seems like a reasonable approach. I've left the "totally disputed" tag on the article. If other editors agree, let's begin going through the article. What is factually inaccurate in the lead? What is not neutral? Sunray 05:37, 5 September 2007 (UTC)

Very well. I'll repeat later my objections to the introductory section. They concern the 2nd sentence in the first paragraph ("the one that begins "Since internally ....") and the 3rd paragraph (all parts). Watchdog07 12:21, 7 September 2007 (UTC)

What, specifically is your objection to those statements? They seem to describe TSSI accurately. They have citations. The article is about TSSI. Sunray 17:08, 7 September 2007 (UTC)

In the 1st sentence which I refer to above, it begins with a claim of consensus. The note does not establish that there is consensus on that issue. More significantly, the rest of the sentence asserts that there has been "censorship" and "suppression". The note associated with this does not show that there has in fact been censorship and suppression. Clearly, Kliman thinks that there has been but this highly controversial and incendiary claim has not been documented. It is most certainly not accepted as fact by most Marxians. The next sentence to which I refer above makes claims about what critics have come to accept, what is now accepted, etc. Yet, the reality is that hardly anyone outside of the TSSI accepts what the sentence claims is accepted. Indeed, outside of the small world of TSSI proponents there is almost universal rejection of their claims. Watchdog07 19:52, 8 September 2007 (UTC)

Dear Watchdog, regarding the 1st sentence that you don't like, I would be willing to substitute alternative wording that I recently proposed for a similar sentence in the Marxian economics article; see the ME talk page. That allegations of internal inconsistency serve to suppress and censor a theory--or inhibit its development and propagation, if you will--is not a "highly controversial and incendiary claim." It is obvious. To inhibit the development and propagation of a theory in its original form is the very reason one alleges that the theory is internally inconsistent. I don't know of any reliable sources who disagree about this. But if you happen to find a reliable source who says that the reason one alleges that a theory is internally inconsistent is to celebrate the theory in its original form, I for one would be overjoyed to have this included in the article alongside the prevailing view.

The evidence that supports the 2nd sentence that you don't like is extensively and meticulously documented in the footnote that follows it. Your claim is simply incorrect; that the TSSI eliminates the appearance of inconsistency in Marx's value theory is no longer actively challenged. Opponents of Marx and/or the TSSI certainly like to spin the issues their way, but if one studies their actual words, not the attitude and rhetoric that accompanies those words, it is clear that they do not actually claim any longer that the alleged inconsistencies persist under the TSSI. If, however, you happen to find a reliable source who says that the alleged inconsistencies persist under the TSSI, I for one would be overjoyed to have this included in the article as an alternative view.

For pluralism, andrew-the-k 03:37, 9 September 2007 (UTC)

Problems with the Introductory Section and Possible Ways To Correct Them

Although the response given here addresses issues posed in the discussion above, I have started a new section because we have hopefully moved beyond the rationale for tags.

For the first two sentences which I objected to, I am willing to accept what is written in the current entry under the "Marxian Economics" article section (2nd para under "Criticism") since it is more neutral and identifies who has made the claims.

As for the other sentences which I objected to in this section, the first sentence which begins "In recent years ..." can be made more accurate and neutral by either stating the number of "critics" who believe that or adding the qualification "some" to critics. The next sentence, however, is wildly non-neutral and is simply Andrew Kliman's spin. Moreover, the footnote does not support the claim made in the sentence. What the footnote shows is simply Andrew Kliman's perspective but the claim in the sentence concerned what others (the critics of the TSSI) supposedly no longer "seriously" question. This sentence could be made neutral, though, if it was made clear in the sentence that this represents Andrew Kliman's belief. E.g. "While the TSSI remains controversial, Andrew Kliman has suggested that ... are no longer serious questioned". This would allow TSSI supporters to give their spin on the TSSI and the criticisms of the TSSI (which seems fair, after all, in an article on the TSSI) yet at the same time make it clear who has made an assertion. That is, TSSI positions can and should be explained in the article but if TSSI advocates make claims about what others believe or accept then the sources of those others must be made explicit: the TSSI supporters can summarize what they believe but not summarize what others believe without citing the sources of those others.Watchdog07 11:10, 11 September 2007 (UTC)

Just adding my two cents - the introductory paragraph is clearly non-neutral in tone. Firstly, I can't see how suggesting a theory is internally inconsistent is equivalent to censorship. And secondly, the claim that Marxist economic theories have been censored (as opposed to being ignored, going out of fashion, being discredited or any of the other ways in which theories fade out) should be substantiated, or at least qualified as being the point of view of a particular person or group. Ac1201 06:30, 19 September 2007 (UTC)

Welcome to the talk page. It's always nice to hear from a non-partisan and sensible editor. Watchdog07 12:32, 19 September 2007 (UTC)

I agree with Ac1201. I've been trying on and off to get that fixed for months, but no luck. I almost think the article should be deleted and started from scratch, since I still don't really understand TSSI. Makerowner 15:06, 19 September 2007 (UTC)

In that case, you can imagine how I feel since I spent months before you participated making silmilar points - to no avail. I am an academic and was on a Wikibreak during the summer so allow me to offer you a belated welcome to the talk page. As for your "almost" suggestion, I think that we should give it one more try. Maybe now that a certain person sees that he can no longer act like he owns the article, in violation of WP:OWN, we can make some real progress. So long as the article was "page protected" that person had no incentive to take criticisms seriously. Now that has all changed. Watchdog07 01:20, 20 September 2007 (UTC)

In reply to AC1201 and Makerowner: I have already proposed the following change in wording (see my comment of 03:37 on 9 September, above):

"Since internally inconsistent arguments cannot possibly be right, theories containing such arguments must be rejected or corrected. Thus, charges that a theory is internally inconsistent serve to inhibit, on seemingly legitimate grounds, the public's access to the theory, and the study, discussion, and current development of it."

If there's no objection, I will revise the first paragraph accordingly. If there are objections, please justify them. andrew-the-k 15:44, 20 September 2007 (UTC)

I object. This does not address the concerns of Ac1201, Makerowner, or myself. What is presented in your proposed revision is your opinion. If you want your opinion to be included in the article then the sentence should make it clear that it is your opinion. As written, it suggests that there is consensus on these claims. There is not. A more satisfactory way of expressing this would be for the sentence to begin "Andrew Kliman claims that, ...." Watchdog07 16:19, 20 September 2007 (UTC)

In order to substantiate his claim that my proposed statement only represents the opinion of an individual, Watchdog07 needs to produce evidence that another reliable source disagrees with that statement. If he does so, I'll be happy to have both statements included and reference them to their respective sources. In the meantime, I'm conviced that all reliable sources agree that (1) internally inconsistent arguments cannot possibly be right, (2) theories containing such arguments must be rejected or corrected, and thus that (3) charges that a theory is internally inconsistent serve to inhibit, on seemingly legitimate grounds, the public's access to the theory, and the study, discussion, and current development of it. andrew-the-k 18:44, 20 September 2007 (UTC)

Andrew the K (as usual) has it ass-backwards: he has produced no reliable source to demonstrate his claims. His own opinion does not qualify as a reliable source for anything other than a clearly labelled statement of his own opinion. Nor does his book qualify as a reliable source on this question. Andrew the K has never shown that in fact there has been "suppression" or "inhibition": it has been merely asserted "without any supporting evidence". In an article on the TSSI, a certain amount of TSSI spin is Okay if the source of the spin (Andrew Kliman) is labelled. Watchdog07 19:17, 20 September 2007 (UTC)

That's pretty much what I said a couple months ago. To keep the intro the way it is, we would to have sources saying a) that the study of Marxism has declined since allegations of its internal inconsistency were first made; and b) that the alleged internal inconsistency is the reason for this decline, eg. by having a professor saying "I used to teach Marxian economics, but now that I know that it's internally inconsistent, I don't." It is definitely not self-evident that claiming something is inconsistent will inhibit its popularization: many people would argue that the Bible is internally inconsistent, but that doesn't stop millions of people around the world from believing that it's the word of God or from proselytizing to others. This sentence is especially bad: "Charges that a theory is internally inconsistent serve to inhibit, on seemingly legitimate grounds, the public's access to the theory, and the study, discussion, and current development of it.". It makes it seem like there's some kind of conspiracy in the academic world to suppress Marxism. Here is my proposal for the intro: "Starting in the 19xx's, traditional Marxism came under fire for its alleged internal inconsistency. The temporal single-system interpretation of Marxian economics was developed by xxxxx and xxxx in 19xx to counter those charges (source). Proponents of TSSI have claimed that the allegations of inconsistency have served to suppress the study of Marxian economics (source), while critics have complained that TSSI is little more than "New Orthodox Marxism" (source)." A couple sentences would follow explaining the gist of what TSSI actually is, unlike the current article, which hardly describes the theory at all. Is that format acceptable to everyone? Any changes/objections/suggestions to make? Makerowner 22:08, 20 September 2007 (UTC)

I'm sorry, but I am indeed a reliable source, according to WP policy, for purposes of this article, since I'm an authority on the TSSI. And I am indeed a reliable source, according to WP policy, with respect to statements on the implications of claims of internal inconsistency, having written a book that deals extensively with the topic. That doesn't mean my views are necessarily correct. But it does mean that, if I've previously published a statement on these topics which indicates that something is generally accepted, then an accurate synopsis of such a statement meets WP standards. In other words, according to WP standards, the statement can be said to be generally accepted.

Of course, IF another reliable source (rather than WP editors who are not reliable sources) can be found who disagrees with the statement, THEN one statement should be portrayed as the view of one RS, and the other as the view of an opposing RS. But not otherwise. Think of it, and please set aside your political-theoretical-ideological-etc. biases for a moment. Imagine that WP were to allow people other than reliable sources to disparage, disrespect, and/or dismiss statements by reliable sources, by labelling them as "opinions," even if the non-RS couldn't produce a single reliable source who has a contrary "opinion." Well, someone could then get a statement that the Earth is a spheroid downgraded to a mere "opinion" simply by challenging the statement, even though they themselves are not a reliable source, and even though they couldn't produce a single reliable source who has a contrary "opinion." It doesn't make a bit of sense. None at all.

BTW, please see Jay F. Rosenberg, The Practice of Philosophy (Prentice-Hall, 1984), pp. 28-30, who "agrees" with "my" "opinion": the "primary techique" used to show that a "premiss is false and should be abandoned" is to show that it is one which the thinker "cannot consistently believe to be true" (his emphasis). Moreover, Rosenberg says that "a dispute of this sort comes to an end ... when one of the disputatents cannot get his or her whole position ... to hang together coherently" (first emphasis added). Relativize this!

Makerowner's alternative to my proposed change is crucially flawed because (1) it avoids discussing the purposes, implications, and effects of charges of inconsistency, which readers need to know in order to understand what the fuss is about, and (2) it contains a false contrast: "while critics have complained that TSSI is little more than "N__ O__ M__" does not contradict "allegations of inconsistency have served to suppress the study of Marxian economics"! The N_ O_ M_ term functions here, as elsewhere, merely as an ad hominem diversion from the issue (with which the sentence began). ... Also, the allegations of inconsistency serve to inhibit the study, development, etc. of Marx's own theory, not of "Marxian economics" in general.

andrew-the-k 00:20, 21 September 2007 (UTC)

I accept in its entirety Makerowner's very helpful suggestions. What do other editors think? Can we get consensus on this, make the changes, and then move on to the next paragraph? Watchdog07 00:39, 21 September 2007 (UTC)

I think what I just said. Relativize that. andrew-the-k 02:00, 21 September 2007 (UTC)

There appears to be an internal inconsistency in Makerowner's message. He doesn't like the statement that "charges that a theory is internally inconsistent serve to inhibit, on seemingly legitimate grounds, the public's access to the theory, and the study, discussion, and current development of it." Yet he himself acknowledges that Marx's theory "came under fire for its alleged internal inconsistency"! (my emphasis). Hmm. Why "came under fire" rather than "was praised to the skies for its alleged internal inconsistency"? Why "came under fire" rather than "became a required component of the economics curriculum because of its internal inconsistency"? Why "came under fire" rather than "had its development spurred on by lavish public and private funding of research in it, owing to its internal inconsistency"? andrew-the-k 02:02, 21 September 2007 (UTC)

I think you're taking this too personally. I don't have any "political-theoretical-ideological-etc. biases" on this subject: I genuinely think this is a bad article, and I'm trying to find a way to improve it. You objected to the phrase "while critics have complained that TSSI is little more than "New Orthodox Marxism", and I think you have a point. Let's discuss some alternatives. How about "while critics have complained that the inconsistencies remain (source)". Are there any critics who say that? I really don't know, but we'll need a source to say that. I don't know either whether or not you're a reliable source, but to me, there's something wrong with an article if 90% of its citations are from one of the editors; even if it doesn't violate WP policy, I don't think it's a good way to make a balanced article. Since you clearly have a lot of experience in the field, maybe you could provide some sources not connected to yourself who have written about the subject, preferably both for and against it. As for "came under fire" it's just an expression meaning that it was criticized by several different people or groups. I don't get why you think it's inconsistent: that's what happened. That does not mean though, that academics formulated a plan to discredit Marxian economics by claiming that it's inconsistent. Makerowner 02:24, 21 September 2007 (UTC)

Makerowner - I agree with you that, as written, it is indeed a "bad article". Any impartial reader, I think, would agree. I think the expression "New Orthodox Marxism" should stay so long as it is made clear from the context that this is a designation used by critics of the TSSI. I think your suggested wording did that. On a procedural note, if he doesn't agree to allow this section to be re-written so that it (finally) becomes neutral, then we may have to pursue your suggestion to delete the article and start from scratch. Watchdog07 03:03, 21 September 2007 (UTC)

I think that the formulation by Makerowner is something we can work with. I note that Andrew has some concerns with some of the wording. Could we address that? Sunray 06:47, 21 September 2007 (UTC)

Andrew said: "I'm sorry, but I am indeed a reliable source..." I would like to try to clarify this. My understanding of WP policy is that a reliable source is a publication, not a person. A journal article or book by Andrew Kliman would be a reliable source. But un-cited statements by Andrew would be OR. Here's a quotation from WP:V:

"In general, the most reliable sources are peer-reviewed journals and books published in university presses; university-level textbooks; magazines, journals, and books published by respected publishing houses; and mainstream newspapers. As a rule of thumb, the greater the degree of scrutiny involved in checking facts, analyzing legal issues, and scrutinizing the evidence and arguments of a particular work, the more reliable it is."

Are we in agreement on this? Sunray 06:47, 21 September 2007 (UTC)

The question is: a "reliabe source" on what? I think that Kliman's book could be viewed to be a reliable source on what the TSSI perspective states. That does not mean that it can be used as a reliable source to summarize or re-state the perspectives of others who are not advocates of the TSSI.

Digression - There is an interesting ambiguity, btw, in the Wiki criteria. For instance, Mein Kampf continues to be in print and published by a respected publishing house. It is obviously a primary source if one is writing about Hitler's perspectives. This does not make it a "reliable source" on the subject of Nazi Germany. On the subject of Marxian Economics, Lyn Marcus wrote a book called Dialectical Economics: An Introduction to Marxian Political Economy published by D.C. Heath and Company. Is that a "reliable source" then on Marxian economics? btw, D.C. Heath and Co - coincidentally - morphed into the publisher of Kliman's book. At a minimum, it seems to me that there are ambiguities here. Watchdog07 14:01, 21 September 2007 (UTC)

Yes, apt comments. I agree with your example of Andrew's book. It would be appropriate to consider it a reliable source for TSSI (where it would be a primary source), but not necessarily as a source to summarize the views of others (where it would be a secondary source, and not necessarily authoritative). As to your point about D.C. Heath, I am not sure what you are getting at. But ambiguities will always be present and I think it is our role to sort them out. Sunray 17:49, 21 September 2007 (UTC)

This discussion has become abstract and diversionary. Speaking concretely, I (in my publications) am a reliable source, according to WP criteria, not only about (1) the TSSI, but also about (2) the controversy on Marx's value theory, (3) the purpose and function of claims of internal inconsistency, and (4) the past and present range of views on these topics. Have any of you actually read Reclaiming Marx's "Capital": A refutation of the myth of inconsistency? If you haven't, then please don't imply that I am not a reliable source about (2), (3), and (4).

Watchdog07's comments are indeed "apt" -- if you're someone who would want to deny that generally reliable sources all accept that the Earth is a spheroid! "Source X is not a reliable source. Only her publications are. And her publications are only reliable sources of her opinion that the Earth is a spheroid and the opinion of her school. Her publications are not reliable sources of what others think about this issue. It doesn't matter that they are, inter alia, historical accounts of the controversy on this issue." ... Take this to its logical conclusion: no historians are reliable sources. They are only reliable sources about their own opinions, not about others' ideas, even if they are historians of ideas.

WP:RS states, “Claims of consensus must be sourced. The claim that all or most scientists, scholars, or ministers hold a certain view requires a reliable source. Without it, opinions should be identified as those of particular, named sources.” I (in my publications) am an RS on the purpose and function of claims of inconsistency in economics and related areas of intellectual discourse. I (in my publications) have put forth, as fact, an idea that is accurately summarized as

"Since internally inconsistent arguments cannot possibly be right, theories containing such arguments must be rejected or corrected. Thus, charges that a theory is internally inconsistent serve to inhibit, on seemingly legitimate grounds, the public's access to the theory, and the study, discussion, and current development of it."

I (in my publications) do not discuss the contrary "opinions" of other experts, because I don't know of anyone who has a contrary "opinion." Thus I (in my publications) imply (correctly) that this is a consensus position. I have proposed that the WP article likewise treat this statement as fact and consensus, citing me (in my publications), as a RS, not as a person who holds this "opinion." This is exactly in accordance with WP policy.

Moreover, I have produced a second RS, Jay Rosenberg, who essentially says in different words the same thing that I say. I have quoted him and given you the page numbers. Everyone's messages since that point have diverted attention from the existence of this second RS and (intentionally or not) have served to suppress its existence.

If an RS with a contrary "opinion" is found, then by all means, s/he should be cited alongside Rosenberg and me (in our publications), though, since this would be the "opinion" of a tiny minority, it should, according to WP:NPOV, be given less weight. But unless and until an RS with a contrary "opinion" is found--and I'm not going to hold my breath ... nor should the rest of you, but by all means, do go out and have a good time looking for one--my proposed paragraph should not be dismissed, disparaged, or disrespected by being presented as mere "opinion."

Makerowner, you are right that the TSSI article is a bad article (though it's a far cry better than everything in WP on related "Marxian economic" topics, which are mostly complete garbage, filled with meaningless statements, trivial errors, irrelevancies, etc.). If you want to know why, the reason is here in front of you--the mistrust of and disrespect shown on WP to people who know what they're talking about, and the Wild West policies that allow others to destroy their work at a moment's notice and that compel them to defend it ad infinitum. Believe me, I have NO intention of exerting myself in order to create good articles on the TSSI and related subjects on WP under these conditions, and neither does anyone else who has the knowledge needed to do so. No one is willing to write a really reputable, proper encyclopedia article on controversial matters only to see it destroyed ("mercilessly edited") and attacked at the drop of a pin. I got onto WP only in order to defend myself and my colleagues against defamation and slander--see Jurriaan Bendien's original version of the TSSI article if you want to talk about a bad article (though his fellow Laibmanite Watchdog07 prefers it to the present one)--and I continue to be on WP for that purpose. I understand and agree with your desire for a better article, especially one that discusses criticisms of the TSSI (which are absent from the present version, though venom directed at its proponents is included), but I will not be the one to draft it. And your way of trying to do it is simply unworkable. You're trying to put together, as opposites, statements which aren't opposites. The opposite of "internally inconsistent arguments cannot possibly be right" is neither "proponents of the TSSI are NOMists who advocate cannibalism and use the blood of simultaneist children to bake their Matzot" nor "while critics have complained that the inconsistencies remain (source)." The only opposite here is "other experts contend that internally inconsistent arguments can be right (source)." If you don't find such a source, then, by all means, stick criticisms of the TSSI into the article--but elsewhere, where they belong, not as if they're the opposite of the "opinion" that "internally inconsistent arguments cannot possibly be right."

That was quite a rant!

Another over-the-top performance by Andrew Kliman. It certainly read, in parts, as if you are mastering the art of Wikilawyering WP:Wikilawyering.

In case the rest of you missed it, I want to call to the attention of the rest of you to what Kliman did to David Laibman in his remarks above. Oh, it's quite clever. If you click on "Laibmanite" above, you get the Wiki article on David Laibman. Folks, you saw it here first: the invention of a new expression - "Laibmanite". To put it mildly, the so-called "reliable source" is taking a cheap shot at another scholar. Watchdog07 01:39, 22 September 2007 (UTC)

andrew-the-k 23:44, 21 September 2007 (UTC)

I just took a look at that original version, and I have to say, it's far better than what we have here as a starting point. I'm sure more detail about the actual methodology would be useful, but that version actually explains what TSSI is, and I think that's an important part of an encyclopedia article. Makerowner 03:25, 22 September 2007 (UTC)

The responses to me continue to divert attention from the existence of a second RS who confirms what the article and first RS (I, in my published work) say, and (intentionally or not) serve to suppress the existernce of this second RS. The responses also divert from the issue at hand, which is that my proposed change is reliably sourced and states a consensus position, according to the reliable source, exactly in the manner prescribed by WP.

As for Makerowner's view that Bendien's version is "far better" and "actually explains what TSSI is," here is the final Bendien version--in full (except for the references)--and my comments:

Temporal Single System Interpretation or TSSI refers to a new interpretation of the transformation problem controversy in Marxian economics.

Factually incorrect and literally meaningless.

TSSI claims Karl Marx was literally correct in his description of the formation of a general rate of profit and the equalisation of profit rates (in Das Kapital Volume 3),

Unsourced, factually incorrect, and highly tendentious--basically libel

and that there are no important logical or mathematical errors in his theory of value.

Ditto

In TSSI it is argued these problems arise only when Marx's text is misinterpreted within the alien theoretical frameworks of general equilibrium theory, comparative statics and linear production theory.

Factually incorrect by virtue of the preceding errors. The real issue concerns internal inconsistency, as the current version of the article emphasizes, not error. There are three unexplained technical terms that obscure a simple issue and make the TSSI seem abstruse. "Alien" in this context is unnecessarily tendentious.

In general, supporters of TSSI claim that they have Marxist orthodoxy on their side,

Unsourced, factually incorrect, and highly tendentious--basically libel

and criticise their opponents for falsifying Marx's own stated intentions,

I have no idea what this means. In any case, it's untrue and unsourced.

engaging in a sometimes vociferous, politicised debate about the theoretical issues.

Personal opinion; this has no place in an encyclopedia article. It is also tendentious, since he's charging that proponents of the TSSI "politicise" issues that are otherwise, and actually, theoretical rather than political.

Indeed, an international academic faction of TSSI sympathisers and supporters has been formed around the journal Critique of Political Economy led by Dr. Andrew Kliman and Dr. Alan Freeman.

Ah, now we have the original version of the COPE section. Please note exactly who introduced the COPE section. Please note that this gives the lie to the claim that the section was inserted as advertisement. Please note the tendentious and false "academic faction" characterization. Please note that the current version, which has lately been removed, corrects this error, correctly and neutrally characterizing the COPE editorial board, and correctly and neutrally reporting how the journal understands its relationship to the TSSI. Please note that Bendien didn't say the journal was a hoax or challenge its existence; he didn't need to, since his "academic faction" characterization informed the public that it is something even worse. Please note that he was allowed to get away with this for three weeks, and conceivably could have gotten away with it forever had I not stepped in. No, it is my neutral and correct version of the already-existing COPE section that has become a battleground.

The most wellknown critics of TSSI are Prof. Duncan K. Foley and Prof. David Laibman (economist and editor of the Marxist journal Science & Society).

Finally, at long last, we have a correct statement from Bendien (though calling S&S a Marxist journal rather than a self-proclaimed Marxist journal is a conclusion and an opinion). Ironically, I have gotten into trouble with the WP administration since then for saying that David Laibman is one of the most wellknown critics of the TSSI. Laibman didn't like me saying it in the David Laibman article. (He didn't object here, when Bendien said it.) It's true that this is a conclusion, and Bendien shouldn't have drawn a conclusion, but when I avoided drawing any such conclusion, simply listing 9--yes, nine--publications of Laibman's on the TSSI, this got removed from the David Laibman article, too.

The reference to "temporal" conveys that the production and distribution of new product-values according to a set of prices should be analysed in the medium of time, i.e. it occurs through a process of successive mutual adjustments of labour-time, product-values, prices of production and market prices. It is argued that this process cannot be pictured by static equilibrium models. Unlike in "simultaneist" interpretations, prices and values of inputs and outputs of production are not determined at the same time, but sequentially, since it takes time to produce any good.

I have a sense of what he's getting at, but the first sentence is nonsense, literally speaking. Moreover, the whole paragraph seriously confuses and conflates the temporal single-system interpretation of Marx's value theory with arguments for temporal value theory informed by the TSSI.

The reference to "single system" conveys that any time, both values and prices are present in the process, and connected with each other (they are sequentially determined, but in one system).

This is hopelessly vague, failing to distinguish single- from dual-system interpretations. And again, there's a confusion between value theory and interpretation of Marx.

This contrasts with some other interpretations of the transformation problem, according to which separate systems of labour-values and prices are modelled.

This gets at the contrast a bit, though only tautologically, and it repeats the lead paragraph's incorrect characterization of the TSSI. "Interpretations of the transformation problem" again confuses Marx interpretation and value theory.

Most of the controversy about TSSI revolves around the problem of how the complicated economic processes of a capitalist economy can be both realistically described, and described in a mathematically rigorous way.

Unsourced, untrue, and a symptom of Bendien's confusion between and conflation of Marx interpretation and value theory.

However, some opponents of TSSI complain that it is impossible to find any intelligible statement of TSSI in plain English.

Unsourced and highly tendentious. As far as I know, no such charge has been published.

Supporters of TSSI typically believe that neo-classical economics does not offer any insights or concepts that could be helpful in understanding a capitalist market economy. Consequently any dialogue between Marxian and neo-classical economists is usually regarded as pointless, because the respective viewpoints are incommensurable. Critics of TSSI are typically less willing to abandon a concept of market equilibrium, and consider that at least something can be learnt from equilibrium economics.

Unsourced, tendentious--making proponents of the TSSI look like obscurantists--and I believe that what he characterizes as "typical" in the 1st 2 sentences here is highly atypical, though I haven't done a poll. The whole paragraph is highly misleading, too, because it again conflates Marx interpretation and value theory.

I will fight until death to keep this kind of defamation off the internet.

I hope it is now clear that Bendien's attack does not "actually explain[ ] what TSSI is." (The use of the word "is" in the lead sentence is not sufficient for the sentence to qualify as an explanation.) This reveals that this article needs to be written by, and have its factual accuracy judged by, people who know what they're talking about. I'm sorry, but that's the way it is. People who can't tell a glass house from a brick house shouldn't throw stones. If you want to know why the TSSI article isn't better, one reason is that I have to spend my time on WP doing other things--like explaining why Bendien's diatribe doesn't "actually explain[ ] what TSSI is," explaining ad nauseum that it is generally agreed that internally inconsistent arguments can't possibly be right, and explaining why I (in my publications) am qualified to say that this is generally agreed. Another reason is that my attempts to make the article better are unappreciated, constantly attacked, and subject to destruction at a moment's notice. andrew-the-k 08:38, 22 September 2007 (UTC)

Makerowner: Clearly Andrew does not share your view that the Bandien version would be better to work from. We had begun working on the current version. I think most, if not all of us, agree it needs changes. Can we get back to working on that? Sunray 11:21, 22 September 2007 (UTC)

Let's get back to Makerowner's suggested change to the beginning of the article. Other than Andrew Kliman, do any other (legit) editors have any objections? If not, let's make the changes and move forward. When all is said and done, the subject of the TSSI is trivial: let's make the article neutral and then move on with our lives. Watchdog07 12:46, 22 September 2007 (UTC)

I do not favor that approach. As I have said, we have begun a process of going through the existing version. It is a stable (though challenged) version of the article. To introduce other text would negate any progress we have made. I would prefer to keep things as simple as possible so we can continue going through the article. Sunray 18:28, 22 September 2007 (UTC)

Primary Evidence on the "Conspiracy"

Makerowner has objected to the proposed sentence, "Charges that a theory is internally inconsistent serve to inhibit, on seemingly legitimate grounds, the public's access to the theory, and the study, discussion, and current development of it." He has contended that "It makes it seem like there's some kind of conspiracy in the academic world to suppress Marxism." Of course, there's no statement, or even hint, in the sentence that there's been a conspiracy. A conspiracy requires forethought and collaboration among at least two people, and the sentence indicates nothing of the sort. Nor does it say anything specifically about Marxism. It's about the purpose and function of allegations of internal inconsistency.

On a charitable interpretation of Makerowner's "conspiracy" complaint, what's at issue is that he doesn't like the suggestion that those who allege a theory is internally inconsistent do so with the aim of inhibiting the development of the theory in its original form or the aim of correcting it, as opposed to, say, alleging internal inconsistency for the hell of it. But here's primary evidence of such a "conspiracy":

"Marx's third volume contradicts the first. ... This is the impression which must, I believe, be received by every logical thinker" (p. 30). "The Marxian system has a past and a present, but no abiding future. ... Now a belief in an authority which has been rooted for thirty years [since the publication of the first volume] forms a bulwark against the incursions of critical knowledge--a bulwark that will surely but slowly be broken down. ... the wiser minds among its [socialism's] leaders will not fail in good time to try to connect with a scientific system more likely to live. They will try to replace the supports which have become rotten. ... We may hope perhaps that ... some errors will be shaken off forever, and that some knowledge will be added permanently to the store of positive attainment, no longer to be disputed even by party passion (pp. 117-18, emphasis added). [Eugen von Böhm-Bawerk, Karl Marx and the Close of His System, 1896. 1984 Orion ed.]

The last passage, "We may hope perhaps that ... some errors will be shaken off forever, and that some knowledge will be added permanently to the store of positive attainment, no longer to be disputed even by party passion," is the penultimate paragraph of the whole book.

Böhm-Bawerk's introduction also contains this little gem that shows that he wasn't alleging internal inconsistency for the hell of it: The publication of the third volume of Capital in 1894 "has procured ... a firm, narrow, and clearly defined battleground within which both parties can take their stand in order and fight the matter out" (p. 6, emphasis added).

andrew-the-k 19:01, 22 September 2007 (UTC)

Sunray - I don't think I understand your position or maybe you don't understand my position. I was only proposing that as we work our way through the article we seek to arrive at consensus and make changes on that basis as we proceed. What objections - if any - do you have to Makerowner's proposed changes to the beginning of the article? Watchdog07 20:29, 22 September 2007 (UTC)

I was o.k. with Makerowner's proposal on September 20[5]. I think this is an approach we could work on. I don't think that the Bandien version later put forward by Makerowner would be worth working on based on Andrew's objections to it. I agree with Andrew that there are fundamental problems with that version. I think that the first suggestion by Makerowner would be better, but I was fine with working on the version that is in the article now (and note that we had started working on that). Either of these versions is o.k. with me, I just want to get on with it. Sunray 22:47, 22 September 2007 (UTC)

A. Kliman has not shown that what Bohm-Bawerk wrote in 1896 (!) has had the effect today of "inhibiting the public's access to a theory and the study, discussion, and current development of it" (which, btw, is ballderdash: Marx's writings are readily accessible to the public and they are studied, discussed, etc. in countries all over the world). Watchdog07 20:29, 22 September 2007 (UTC)

The parenthetical statement is a diversionary move and irrelevant. It's diversionary because what's at issue is Marx's value theory, but Watchdog07 suddenly chooses to talk about Marx's writings in general. Marx's value theory, as John Cassidy noted in The New Yorker a decade ago, "is rarely studied these days." It is rarely discussed, the resources needed to develop it (public and private grants, tenuring by research institutions of faculty who seek to develop it, etc.) aren't there, and consequently the public has almost no access to it. It hardly exists outside of Marx's own texts, sales of which are negligible compared to sales of neoclassical, etc. economic texts. The parenthetical statement is also irrelevant because it has nothing to do with whether study, etc. have been INHIBITED--that's a comparative issue.

With respect to the rest, I'm sorry, but I have to insist here that Andrew Kliman (in his publications) is a reliable source for the issue under discussion, qualified to interpret and draw inferences about the implications of statements such as those of Böhm-Bawerk. It is not the job of WP editors to second-guess whether the inferences drawn by reliable sources are correct; WP does recognize the importance of expertise to this limited extent. I am happy to exhibit evidence for Kliman's conclusions, and to explain how he put the pieces together in order to arrive at these conclusions, but I'm not going to debate whether his inferences from the evidence are correct, particularly since what reliable sources say does not have to be shown to be correct, or even be correct, in order to be included in WP articles. See the policy. andrew-the-k 23:58, 22 September 2007 (UTC)

Andrew, we have clearly established that works published by you in books or peer-reviewed journals, etc. would be reliable sources on TSSI and so forth. However, bear in mind that it is the published work (not the individual) that is the source. Around here, we are merely editors. ;-) Sunray 02:46, 23 September 2007 (UTC)

Exactly. That's the distinction I was trying to make in my comment. But since I (as a WP editor) have intimate knowledge of the reliable sources, I'm happy to exhibit evidence for their conclusions and explain how the pieces were put together in order to arrive at these conclusions (but not debate whether the inferences drawn by the reliable source are correct, which is not relevant and not our job here).andrew-the-k 18:42, 23 September 2007 (UTC)

More evidence on (1) the consensus position that internally inconsistent arguments cannot be right and (2) the suppressive function of charges of internal inconsistency:

If Marx’s Capital is logically invalid, it cannot be sound. If it is unsound, then only illogical people would cling to it. ...

From a logical point of view, if Marx was inconsistent, then he does not make sense, no matter how sexy or resonant he might otherwise be. In that case, what remains from Marx today are merely the fragments, tantalizing or not, of a moribund theoretical architecture buried in the cemetery of ideas.

If Marx’s own presentation of the theory of value were internally inconsistent, then it would not be possible to "reclaim" Capital as a coherent, unified whole, for in that case, the massive edifice of Marx’s text would be a house divided against itself. If Marx committed a logical blunder in his overall argument, then that argument is invalid, therefore unsound. A sound mind will simply walk away.[6]

andrew-the-k 01:04, 23 September 2007 (UTC)

What Bohm-Bakerk wrote in 1896 is hardly "evidence" that he has "inhibited access to ..." Marx's theory of value. How exactly did Bohm-Bawerk "inhibit access" to Marx's theory of value?

You're not seriously suggesting that anything written in the publication "News and Letters'" can be viewed as a reliable source? Please, don't make me laugh. All Moore was doing was slavishly parroting the words of a fellow member of his political cult. Watchdog07 02:24, 23 September 2007 (UTC)

This made me laugh out loud. Tom More wrote, "If Marx committed a logical blunder in his overall argument, then that argument is invalid, therefore unsound. A sound mind will simply walk away." That's a cultish attitude? That's someone who goes around slavishly parroting others?

As for B-B, he meant to (as his text, above, indicates), and did, inhibit access to the theory by alleging that it is internally inconsistent, in an effective manner that caused his allegation to be accepted. That's because, "[i]f Marx committed a logical blunder in his overall argument, then that argument is invalid, therefore unsound. A sound mind will simply walk away." Right?

In any case, it is not our job here as editors to argue with the conclusions drawn by reliable sources. If you find a reliable source who thinks that a sound mind will embrace an unsound argument, then I'll be very happy to have it included in the article. But your and my (as a WP editor) personal opinions don't count.

andrew-the-k 17:38, 23 September 2007 (UTC)

I certainly don't think the Marx's theory of value is suppressed or inhibited in any way: we studied it in my high school introductory economics class, and I definitely didn't attend a Marxist school or anything of the sort. Makerowner 14:29, 23 September 2007 (UTC)

Dear Makerowner, if you (in publications) are a reliable source, then do include this view, by all means. If you can find another reliable source who concurs with your view, then do include it, by all means. Otherwise, I'm sorry, but one anecdote from one class doesn't count for anything. The job of WP editors is not to second-guess reliable sources. My proposed revision is based on numerous reliable sources, as I've documented here in part. (My quotations from Jay Rosenberg are still being avoided here.)

Moreover, please note that the Wikipedia verifiablity policy, one of the fundamental policies, expressly stipulates that the truth of what reliable sources say is not at issue. If a reliable source says that something is the consensus view, it merits inclusion--as the consensus view--unless and until a contrary view from another reliable source is found, in which case, both views are included. Please review this policy, ok?

In any case, my proposed revision doesn't say anything about this case in particular. It's about the effect of charges of internal inconsistency in general.

And do you really mean to claim, as you do indeed claim by implication above, that no one has ever rejected Marx's value theory because they believed the allegations of internal inconsistency? That is simply false. One person who rejected his theory for precisely that reason is Andrew Kliman, as he notes on the second page of the preface to Reclaiming Marx's "Capital."

What's not good for the Makerowner goose is evidently good for the Andrew the K gander: Kliman writes "I'm sorry, but one anecdote from one class doesn't count for anything" but Kliman then says "One person who rejected his theory for precisely that reason is Andrew Kliman". Thus - according to Kliman's perspective - Makerowner's singular experience doesn't count whereas Kliman's singular experience does. Can we have a little internal consistency please? Watchdog07 19:15, 23 September 2007 (UTC)

Dear Watchdog07, you are wrong. A single example does not prove a claim, but a single counterexample does disprove a claim. Please learn what internal inconsistency means before criticizing. And please acknowledge that Rosenberg is a second reliable source who substantiates what Kliman, the first reliable source, wrote. andrew-the-k 19:54, 23 September 2007 (UTC)

the section on COPE

On August 28, Sunray removed the section on COPE from the article, pending discussion. When he did that, I removed the tags on the article which concerned that section. For unexplained reasons, Sunray later re-inserted that section into the article but without the tags. We can initially go one of two ways with this: a. the section on COPE is removed from the article, pending further discussion, or b. the section stays in and all of the tags are re-inserted. As I have already given rationale for those tags - which Sunray recognized on August 28 - there is n o need to explain the rationale for the tags again here. Of course, if the tags are re-inserted - which I will do if the section on COPE remains - then I am willing to discuss the issues associated with that section on the talk page. Watchdog07 13:24, 11 September 2007 (UTC)

That section got re-inserted during one of the many reverts. I note that there has been no discussion about it since I moved it to the talk page on August 28. Sunray 17:13, 16 September 2007 (UTC)

The COPE section was removed without there being consensus and without even discussion. So I reinstated it. Now it has been removed again without consensus. What justification could there possibly be for removing it BEFORE discussing whether to remove it? I am getting very sick of all of this. andrew-the-k 17:40, 16 September 2007 (UTC)

I moved it to the talk page for discussion. That is fairly standard practice. Sunray 19:02, 16 September 2007 (UTC)

As Andrew Kliman knows - and any reader of the talk page archives can see for herself or himself - there has been an enormous amount of discussion about the COPE section. Watchdog07 01:18, 17 September 2007 (UTC)

What is the "Table of Contents"for the first issue of this alleged "journal" - a journal which was advertised about a year ago and has (thanks to you) received free advertisement on Wikipedia in the last 5 months or so? If the so-called "journal" is more than a fantasy and a hoax then surely you should - after all this time - be able to tell us the authors and titles of the articles to be published in the premier issue of this (alleged) "journal". Watchdog07 01:18, 17 September 2007 (UTC)

In response to Sunray: I know you moved it to the talk page for discussion. But why? What's the justification for this if there's no consensus for deleting it (moving it to the talk page) prior to discussing the issue? We're following the procedure here of arriving at consensus before making changes, no? Deletion is a major change. So I urge you to restore the paragraph; otherwise we aren't following any procedures, which threatens to induce an edit war. To delete the paragraph without consensus, and then to try to reimpose "consensus" before changes is in effect to give veto power to Watchdog07. That's not consensus decision making.

And although you deleted it the paragraph, you haven't argued that there's anything wrong with it. What's wrong with it? andrew-the-k 15:38, 20 September 2007 (UTC)

You are right that I did not give reasons for moving that section to the talk page. I note the following:

1. Watchdog07 has questioned that section and placed tags on it.
2. He has alleged that the journal does not exist.
3. There was extensive discussion of this journal on the Marxian economics talk page here.
4. The conclusion of that discussion was to remove reference to COPE.
5. I can find nothing to indicate that this is an extant journal.

My action in moving the section here may have been precipitous. I assumed that in light of the discussion and agreements on the ME page such action would be reasonable. I see that you are not of the same view. However, I believe that the tags placed on the section are of a serious nature and need be dealt with forthwith. Is COPE a published journal? Sunray 16:06, 20 September 2007 (UTC)

Of course it's not a published journal. Indeed, he can't even tell us the authors or titles of articles in the premier issue of this allegedly "forthcoming" journal. Watchdog07 16:23, 20 September 2007 (UTC)

Dear Sunray, before I respond to your latest comment, I would like to know what process is being used to make decisions here. Are we first arriving at consensus and then making changes, deleting text, etc., or are we first making changes, deleting text, etc. and then discussing them? andrew-the-k 18:48, 20 September 2007 (UTC)

Yet another evasion. Kliman won't tell us the authors or titles of articles in the first issue because the "journal" is a pipe dream. Watchdog07 12:46, 22 September 2007 (UTC)

Watchdog, would you be able to continue discussing the issues at hand without personalizing things? Sunray 02:38, 23 September 2007 (UTC)

Sunray, to say that someone has evaded answering a question is not a personalization. Watchdog07 12:51, 23 September 2007 (UTC)

We don't know that. To assume so seems to be a lack of good faith. Needling someone seems to me to be personalizing things. Sunray 15:02, 23 September 2007 (UTC)

Comment on the process

Andrew: I believe that we are trying to get consensus on the process for making changes to the article and on the issues raised by Watchdog. Here's my take on what has happened: You asserted that the version that existed when the article was unlocked should be the version that we would work from. I agreed with you. However, Watchdog evidently could not live with that. For some time he and I discussed that through edit summaries and reverts. I concluded that this approach was not going anywhere. So, I attempted a compromise which included moving the COPE section to the talk page. No one besides Watchdog commented at that time. He indicated he could live with the addition of one tag (the "totally disputed" tag). I expressed the concern that the issues of neutrality be dealt with as soon as possible. You then returned to the page and we began going through the article. I guess you didn't notice that the COPE section had been moved. I am hopeful that we will be able to get consensus on the current version and continue working on it. Sunray 04:47, 21 September 2007 (UTC)

Dear Sunray, I don't remember having "asserted that the version that existed when the article was unlocked should be the version that we would work from." I have agreed, and continue to agree, to the procedure of reaching consensus, then making changes, not vice-versa. The removal of the COPE section, which has been in the article from the start--in Jurriaan Bendien's original version of the article--is a change made without consensus. If we don't stick to the procedure of reaching consensus, then making changes, everyone will delete what they don't like, and we'll have an edit war, not a consensual process.

I don't think your chronology is accurate. On 26 August 2007, you wrote on this page:

“There has been relative peace on this and other Marxian economics pages for the past several weeks. This article had formerly been protected due to protracted edit warring. It has now been unprotected. I have suggested (see article history and edit summaries) that no major changes be made to the article without first a) discussing them here, and, b) establishing consensus. The boxes at the top of this page describe the groundrules for discussing changes to, and editing the article. I am hopeful that all editors can respect this.”

Then, as far as I can tell, you first removed the COPE section--without notice--at 14:32 on August 28, and then announced on the talk page that you were doing so, at 14:43 on August 28. This was not consistent with what you asked us all to respect only two days before. I and others did not have a chance to discuss the issue prior to your removal of the section.

The very next day, August 29, I restored the deleted section, noting in my edit summary :"Rv to previously-protected version. Please respect WP:CON: 1) Establish consensus on talk page. 2) Change article. Step 1) before step 2) please, everyone."

So there was no consensus to remove the section, nor were we given time to discuss the matter of its removal before it took place. Please restore the section, in keeping with your suggestion of 26 August.

Thanks in advance. andrew-the-k 18:26, 23 September 2007 (UTC)