This is a thread for the only correct interpreatation of marx that disregards static equilibrium and physicalism and looks at the economy as a dynamic flowing system and veiws values and prices of production as constantly changing. We are the only defence against Okishio's theorem and the transformation "Problem". So join the marxism-klimanism gang today!

Other urls found in this thread:



Whats wrong with that?
Do we really need one anymore?

Have fun working on piero's farm.

I like Kliman as much as the next guy, but "Marxism-Klimanism" is just absurd.

That said, I'll just leave this here:
It's an interesting article that, I think, challenges much of the silly "evil neoliberalism" story and allows one to return to a focus on capitalist production itself.

Why exactly is a "transitional phase" necessary? Isn't the revolution good enough?
For some strange reason, he sees himself as a sort of "antichrist" figure. There's even a video in which a little animated devil is supposed to represent his side of a discussion.

Andrew Kliman is alright in general in a sense that I'd rather read Rafiq or even Bordiga, but he's probably among the very best Marxists existing on the economic content of Marx.


It's just ironic coming from a guy who claims to have found the correct recipe™ for interpreting Marx, when Marx moved away from his humanist youth in his later years.

No. You press a button and we are in FALC. Good job.

I think he says the transitional stage really is transitional… like a couple of months. Not a century while we wait for technology to catch up for fully automated gay space communism.

I don't really care for Kliman. I don't think it's a good idea for Marxism to be tied to the labor theory of value like he seems to want. I forget where I've seen this quote (i think it's from an essay by Gary Mongiovi: "vulgar political economy in Marxian garb") , but he suggests that if the LTV isn't true, we should throw all of Marxism out with the bath water… and I could not disagree with that idea more.

These are two separate things: a rapturous Event (revolution), and the forcing of its consequences onto our world.

Without the LTV marxism wouldn't be scientific it would be mere utopianism.

This is just dishonest disregard for his work and you know it.

Right that seems to be his stance. But I don't think that's true and I hope it's not because I don't believe in the LTV.

How do you interpret capitalist economy without the LTV? You can't have a theory of exploitation or a theory of crisis without it.

Care to explain the LTV in a few words and tell us why you don't believe in it?

Prices of production are an abstract concept that is not supposed to describe actual market prices at any moment, it's a concept supposed to describe what prices would be like with equalized profit rates (profit rates would be equalized if capitalists who seek to maximize profit could instantly move in and out of the different sectors of the economy). If you have a model where physically speaking, the quantities produced stay the same, but the money representation in terms of prices and profits is changing, don't call that prices of production.

What did Scarrufi do to him at the review farm?

It's not something I've totally come to turns with, but you can certainly have a theory of exploitation that doesn't rely on the LTV. Joan Robinson understood exploitation as "workers don't get the net product, some of it is appropriated by capitalists" without resorting to accounting things in labor time worked or surplus value extracted or whatever.

Not really no.

Marx does not veiw price of production is a perfect equilibrium vacum.

“But for the buyer the price of production of a specific commodity is its cost-price, and may thus pass as cost-price into the prices of other commodities.” “It is necessary to remember this modified significance of the cost-price, and to bear in mind that there is always the possibility of an error if the cost-price of a commodity in any particular sphere is identified with the value of the means of production consumed by it.” p.164-165 Capital volume 3

The argument is that "price of production" is no stable long term. Value changes constantly and Marx is very aware of this and points this out when observing relative exchange value in the abstract.

Plus when does marx ever talk about abstract concepts like equilibrium?


This seems to be pretty far from /ourguy/ material


This mostly just seems like semantic nitpicking. At any rate, Kliman (correctly, I believe) critiques the notion of a "transitional society", the idea that transformation of capitalism into communism is a society/mode of production in its own right instead of being a tumultuous period of revolutionary transformation.

It's true that he got a bit carried away with the anti-Trump hysteria, but he is correct to criticize the "anti-neoliberal left". Also, no one is "/ourguy/" since with any heterogeneous group such as leftypol, no one will fit everyone's criteria for "good leftist".

Did you look at his presentation? He's not just criticizing leftists who refuse to Lesser Evil vote against Trump, etc. - he's literally claiming that neoliberal policies have increased workers' wages, and therefore there was no material discontent driving the swing towards Trump, they were all just racists.

Maybe you could explain the problems you had with it. I'll take a look at it later.

It seems to go against the whole economic way of interpreting the trump phenomenon that other Marxists (like the ones populating this board) are more comfortable using. I'm also not so sure on those statistics

Does anyone have criticisms of what he's most known for - support for the TSSI? What are the alternatives? The author of "Marx after Marx After Sraffa" seems also to think it's a valid interpretation over the simultaneous approach.

The Failure of Capitalist Production is good so far. I don't know about other things he's said or written about other than his support for TSSI.

I'm led to believe that using the FMT one can arrive at exploitation without starting at value, however I don't know how valid that is. Okishio has been criticised for his Theorem by Kliman (and I think Kliman does a pretty good job of it, and criticising other critiques of it).

What's wrong with humanism?

I did not watch this one. I've generally been avoiding much of his post-Trump stuff, as it seems to be mostly fear-mongering and moralizing against Trump. I was speaking more generally of his criticisms of anti-neoliberalism.
Wages for some workers did increase during the neoliberal period. You can see his analysis in my earlier post or in this video: youtu.be/V0yU5mTYxas
Generally I think his economic analyses tend to be more well-thought-out and nuanced, whereas when he talks about Trump, he tends to emphasize certain data to fit his narrative.

get out mom

He is right about one thing, Trump voters didn't just crawl out of the shadows, they were always there. This is something even liberal commentators misunderstand. They're just republican voters. Most of them voted for Mitt Romney last election. I don't know if I'm ready to say that economic uneasiness, however, didn't have an influential role in his winning.

You appear to believe that Marx is talking about a change occurring in the real world there. The section you quote from appears not to be about a change in the real world, but about adding detail to a rough description. Start reading a few sentences before what you quoted:

Nobody here is claiming otherwise: "not supposed to describe actual market prices (…) supposed to describe what prices would be like". Maybe you are not familiar with how economists use "long term". Picture a computer game with a fixed top-down view and no scrolling, where you make your character move by placing the mouse cursor somewhere and the character moves towards it in a straight line, which takes some time. The position of the mouse cursor is the long-term attractor, whether you move it like you have spasms or slowly or not at all. Those who claim POP (or anything else) to be an attractor in the long term don't automatically also mean that it's actually being reached before it changes.

Fred Moseley: mtholyoke.edu/~fmoseley/lrcgpric.html