Talk:Marxian economics/Archive 6

Archive 1

←

Archive 4

Archive 5

Archive 6

Stopgap Measure

The effort to edit this article by means of discussion, justification of proposed edits, and consensus, which many of us have strenuously been pursuing, has obviously broken down. (It is clear to me that this is a structural problem on WP.) As a temporary stopgap measure, I have addressed what I believe to be Ryan Delaney's concerns regarding sources and neutrality (it is very hard to tell), and I have removed the WP:BLP-violating use of the term "N_ O_ M_" and the accompanying text that defended the persons thereby victimized, which I find unnecessary once the attack is removed.

I rewrote the discussion of the current state of debate on the question of internal inconsistency in a more-than-neutral way, bending backwards quite a bit. I cannot see any reason for an encyclopedia article to exclude mention of the current state of debate on the question of internal inconsistency . As always, I am happy to have alternative views on the current state of debate on this question included (though I know of none at present), but it doesn't make sense to me to eliminate properly sourced material, which relies entirely on published statements of reliable sources, simply because no one has yet found anything expressing "the other side" of the issue.

I remain eager to return to the process of discussion, justification of proposed edits, and consensus. My intervention is only a stopgap measure intended to stop a free-for-all. I hope I have succeeded, but in light of WP's structural problem, I am not sanguine.

andrew-the-k 15:18, 7 June 2007 (UTC)

Your approach sounds reasonable. Perhaps establishing a "more neutral" version of the article will help. If it contributes a measure of peace, we will all be ahead. Let's continue working through issues on the talk page as well, however. Five editors said that they were willing to do that. I think we should persevere. Sunray 16:34, 7 June 2007 (UTC)

Cool. I agree. andrew-the-k 16:37, 7 June 2007 (UTC)

After a brief over view I'm pleased with your edits. Please note that I'm not too worried about discussing before editing as long as we are not baldly revert warring; it's okay to try something else to see what other people think. Wikipedians should be bold in updating pages, after all. ⟳ausa کui ^× 03:55, 8 June 2007 (UTC)

Increasing Neutrality

I see that Akliman edited the article - prior to obtaining consensus - in an attempt to increase neutrality. No one objected - including Sunray. In fact, Sunray said that Kliman's approach was "reasonable".

I have done the same. I have edited the article so that neutrality is increased. No one can possibly object - least of all Sunray! - because you did not object when Kliman did the same thing.

Now that there is no reference to the Laibman article on the New Orthodox Marxists in the article, I agree - as a stopgap measure - that the expression New Orthodox Marxists should not be elsewhere in the article. Watchdog07 19:33, 7 June 2007 (UTC)

Good! I've restored the quote from Laibman but removed the subtitle. N_ O_ M_ is now absent from the article and we "agree ... that [it] should not be elsewhere in the article." (Other changes undone pending consensus.) andrew-the-k 20:43, 7 June 2007 (UTC)

Duplicitious editing is not good. Akliman thinks it's Okay for him to edit the article without first obtaining consensus but not Okay for me to do the same. Since he has edited the article without first obtaining consensus - and no one, especially Sunray!, objected - then I have the right to do the same. Watchdog07 00:03, 8 June 2007 (UTC)

By the way, I only agreed that the expression New Orthodox Marxists should - "as a stopgap measure" - not be used in the article. If there is not more progress towards increasing neutrality then I will want to reintroduce that widely accepted synonym for the "proponents" of the TSSI back into the article. Watchdog07 00:08, 8 June 2007 (UTC)

So we have another consensus? That the term NOM should not appear in the article? I was OK with it in the criticism section, but I am also OK with it not being there. --Extra Fine Point 02:51, 8 June 2007 (UTC)

No, Extra Fine Point - we do not have consensus on this question yet. As you can see - and as I emphasized above - I only agreed as a stopgap measure that New Orthodox Marxist temporarily not appear in the article.

There are only two ways in which we will be able to achieve consensus on this question.

1. There is a reference in the in the ME edit to the article by Laibman and the expression New Orthodox Marxists appears in the body of the ME article; or

2. The reference to the Laibman article is completely removed and New Orthodox Marxists then not be included in the body of the ME article.

The subtle change whereby the sub-title of the article by Laibman does not appear is not a satisfactory resolution of the issue. At best, it is a temporary band-aid. Watchdog07 12:09, 8 June 2007 (UTC)

I have to admit, I don't understand why David Laibman is cited and none of the others are. --Extra Fine Point 01:15, 9 June 2007 (UTC)

Here's why David Laibman is cited. On this talk page (see "Succinct Reasons"), Watchdog07 (at 12:29, 24 May 2007) stated falsely that he "know[s] that Laibman ... would not agree that he should be described as someone who 'allege [sic] that Marx has been proven internally inconsistent'. He has offered alternative interpretations of Marx to those put forward by the ... the proponents of the TSSI .... This is quite different from Kliman's claim."

But even though what Watchdog07 stated was false, it was clear that "Kliman's claim" required empirical support. So I promptly provided it: "I've added a citation in which Laibman claims that Marx was internally inconsistent. ... andrew-the-k 14:46, 24 May 2007."

The rest of that crew (Okishio, Roemer, ...) should also be cited, in accordance with WP policy, especially because the accuracy of what's in the article has been and might continue to be challenged.

Has anyone wondered why Watchdog07 is so adamant about removal of the citation of Laibman, which relies completely on his own words to clarify where he stands on the question of internal inconsistency? Clearly it is WP policy to document things said in articles, and clearly the quote is accurate and neutral, since it consists of David Laibman's own words. So what's the problem?

As I noted in Reclaiming Marx's "Capital": A refutation of the myth of inconsistency (pp. xiii-xiv, emphasis added) the problem (for Marx's critics) is this:

In recent years, Marx's critics have found it increasingly difficult to defend the allegations of inconsistency against the TSSI critique. Thus they generally try to avoid this issue altogether. Instead, they now prefer to debate the pros and cons of Marx's work and of alternative approaches to Marxian economic analysis. In other contexts, these are of course important and interesting topics, but to discuss them here and now is to fall into a diversionary trap, at the very moment when correction of the record has become a real possibility. I will be glad to discuss these topics with Marx's critics once the record has been set straight and they have done their part to help set it straight. (emphasis added)

The desire to sweep the question of internal inconsistency under the rug also explains why Watchdog07 is suddenly concerned to distinguish between Marxian economics and "Marxology." What is behind the whole dispute, and has been behind it all along, is the effort to suppress information about the state of debate on the question of Marx's alleged internal inconsistencies, and thereby to keep the public ignorant.

andrew-the-k 03:10, 9 June 2007 (UTC)

Reply to Extra Fine Point: The answer is that a certain editor considers Laibman to be a theoretical and political opponent and wants to use Wikipedia to harass him and cause him distress. This is most obvious by that editors's editing of the David Laibman article. The edit history will show that the editor changed the article so that instead of saying that Laibman "earned" his PhD, he "received" his PhD from the New School for Social Research. That editor even edited the section on Laibman's musical interests! (I would like to thank someone outside of Wikipedia for calling my attention to these actions). He is simply trying to annoy and harass a scholar who has been critical of his works. Watchdog07 11:32, 9 June 2007 (UTC)

Dear Watchdog07,

Please retract this false allegation, assume good faith, stop making personal attacks, and stop violating WP:BLP by impugning the reputation of a living person without evidence. Thank you in advance.

Also, please bear in mind that Laibman doesn't own a biographical article on him, that anyone can edit WP (including on DL's musical interests), and that "received" is a completely neutral term. What do you find objectionable about the term?

Can you please explain how quoting Laibman's own words and adding nothing else, in order to document his position on the internal inconsistency question, harasses him, annoys him, or causes him distress???!!

And how do you know he just doesn't want to spin-doctor the issues, effacing the question of internal inconsistency, for reasons I explained above.

Thanks in advance for your answers, Watchdog07. andrew-the-k 11:59, 9 June 2007 (UTC)

Criticism section is unclear

I'm more or less satisfied with the neutrality of the Criticism section as it is now. [1] However, I think this section is somewhat unclear. What I can tell from this section is that critics think Marx is inconsistent. That's cool. But exactly what is the inconsistency that they criticise him for? Maybe I'm especially dense, but I am not figuring out just what this criticism is, just that it exists. ⟳ausa کui ^× 03:57, 8 June 2007 (UTC)

That's an interesting point, Ryan. I think the larger issue (one I haven't addressed yet) is that the article is fundamentally confused over what it is about. The article title is obviously Marxian economics, but much - if not most - of the article concerns Marxology, in particular, different interpretations of Marx's critique of political economy. The amount of space and weight in the article given to hermeneutic questions on Marx (a branch of Marxology) is really not in keeping with what the article is supposed to be about. Indeed, all of the references to debates over "internal inconsistencies" (or lack thereof) in Marx is really beside the point for the topic of this article. I recommend disambiguating by removing all sections of the article on Marx and putting them in a separate article on Marxology. Of course, there could be a link from the Wiki article on Marxian economics to that on Marxology. Watchdog07 12:20, 8 June 2007 (UTC)

Well, to play devils advocate for a minute here, it's a bit hard to quantify what exactly "Marxian economics" is without acknowledging the disputes about Marx's theory. That is, you have a lot of people running around claiming to be Marxists or Marxian economists even though they may have varying ideas of what exactly that means. So definition of the terms would be very important here, ne? If we don't acknowledge the disputes in the article itself, then we run the risk of accepting one particular view of what Marxian economics is, and we do that at the peril of neutrality. ⟳ausa کui ^× 22:16, 9 June 2007 (UTC)

I agree.

I also want to address the issue of unclarity, which was Ryan Delaney's point before Watchdog07 proposed a "POV fork" -- which WP policy does not permit; see [2] I'd like to recommend that the following be inserted after the 1st sentence of the section (and that what's now the 2d sentence start a new paragraph):

In other words, the critics allege that Marx drew conclusions that actually do not follow from his theoretical premises. Once these alleged errors are "corrected," his conclusion that the aggregate price and profit are determined by and equal to aggregate value and surplus-value no longer holds true, a result that calls into question his theory that the exploitation of workers is the sole source of profit. Moreover, while Marx's law of the tendential fall in the rate of profit says that labor-saving technological changes tend to lower the economy-wide rate of profit, the "corrected" version of this law -- Okishio's theorem -- implies that such technological changes tend to raise the rate of profit.

(The first sentence is "V. K. Dmitriev, writing in 1898,[1] Ladislaus von Bortkiewicz, writing in 1906-07,[2] and subsequent critics have alleged that Marx's value theory and law of the tendency of the rate of profit to fall are internally inconsistent.")

The suggested addition isn't very precise, and it's also not immediately understandable if you don't read it carefully, and it's not understandable at all if you don't know concepts like "surplus-value" and "rate of profit." But it's the best I can do to address RD's complaint. Also, I don't know how it can be made to conform to WP:RS -- the statement is true (subject to some imprecision) and it is a summation of what is said elsewhere, but I don't know of any such simple statement out there that this is a paraphrase of. On the other hand, I'm a reliable source for purposes of this article.

andrew-the-k 00:01, 10 June 2007 (UTC)

I'm confused by this last point of yours. Do you mean to say that you personally, ie your opinion, is a reliable source by Wikipedia standards? ⟳ausa کui ^× 02:21, 11 June 2007 (UTC)

I agree with Ryan that the "Criticism" section is unclear. Andrew has taken a stab at improving it with a suggested addition.

I also think that Watchdog makes a good point about the general organization of the article, though I would rather improve this article than subsume it into another article. I noticed that Alan Freeman does some translation in Italian and German and asked him about articles on the German Wikipedia. His response indicates that the German WP has a very thorough article on ME. Perhaps he could make some suggestions here. Sunray 07:29, 11 June 2007 (UTC)

In answer to Ryan's question, "Do you mean to say that you personally, ie your opinion, is a reliable source by Wikipedia standards?," I think the answer is "yes and no." I'm a reliable source (RS), but that doesn't allow me to present opinion as fact. I do think it makes me qualified to draw inferences and therefore to piece together existing bits of information into a new meaningful statement, and to write a paragraph that isn't 100% precise, in order to provide the general reader with information that they wouldn't pick out from a 100%-precise technical paragraph. Generally speaking, piecing existing bits of information into a new statement is, according to WP critera, "original research" and therefore not allowed. For instance, if you have an RS that says "it rained" and an RS that says "she got wet," you can't draw the inference "it rained, and so she got wet"; that's "original research." But since I'm an RS for this article (as is Alan Freeman, BTW), I think WP policy allows me to write paragraphs like the proposed one above, even though it splices existing facts into a new, minimally intelligible, summary statement.

As for my qualifications, I'm a full professor of economics at Pace University in New York. I hold BA and PhD degrees in economics. Please see [3], my department's faculty page. A book of mine devoted to the claim that Marx's value theory is internally inconsistent was published earlier this year by Lexington Books, a division of Rowman and Littlefield, a scholarly press. Please see [4], the page for this book on the publisher's website.

andrew-the-k 09:26, 11 June 2007 (UTC)

All right-- I'm glad to have you on board editing, given your qualifications. However, I have to point out that your qualifications do not entitle you to insert original research to Wikipedia articles; if you want to cite your own published works, that is more than fine, but please try to cite your sources just as much as the next guy. Yes, I think the original research policy has been over-applied, but there are unfortunate cases of professional scholars who hold a particular view thinking they can draw this or that "obvious inference" that may only be obvious to them because of their own background. Let me know if you have questions about this policy. Thanks. ⟳ausa کui ^× 20:05, 11 June 2007 (UTC)

Yes, I do have a question. Do you or others -- except Watchdog07, who's gone for the summer -- consider anything in my proposed paragraph to be "original research"? If so, I'm really at a loss; I know of no other way to explain what you want explained. (I will of course be happy to cite background sources.) andrew-the-k 21:08, 11 June 2007 (UTC)

I like the way the paragraph is written. However, without the actual references added (as they would appear in the article), it does read like original research. How about adding the references here and then if others are down with it, we can add it to the article? Sunray 21:31, 11 June 2007 (UTC)

I think we should go ahead and add whatever we think might work and see what other people think. I don't think it's necessary to discuss everything thoroughly before editing. That paragraph looks pretty good; I might make a few minor changes in wording to avoid emphasis of particular points, but I can't do that until the paragraph is in the article. ⟳ausa کui ^× 21:48, 11 June 2007 (UTC)

Sure. I'm fine with that. I think that consensus was necessary when there was a climate of edit warring. However, that seems to have eased now. We still need the references for this paragraph, however. Sunray 21:54, 11 June 2007 (UTC)

The proposed addition contains 3 sentences. I propose no citations after the 1st, since this sentence only rephrases the prior sentence, which already contains two citations. I suggest, at the end of the 2nd sentence, "M. C. Howard and J. E. King, 1992, A History of Marxian Economics: Volume II, 1929–1990, chapter 12, sect. III. Princeton, NJ: Princeton Univ. Press." And I suggest, at the end of the 2d sentence, the same work, chapter 7, sects. II-IV. This work is already cited in the article.

I don't think the sentences read particularly well, so I'll be happy to see them improved, but why avoid emphasis of particular points?

andrew-the-k 22:36, 11 June 2007 (UTC)

OK, I've added the reference, edited the passage slightly for readability (shortening sentences) and added it to the article. See what you think. Sunray 23:40, 11 June 2007 (UTC)

Why is "tend to raise the rate of profit" italicized? andrew-the-k 02:44, 12 June 2007 (UTC)

For emphasis, since it is the reverse of Marx's prediction. By all means change it if you don't agree. Sunray 06:47, 12 June 2007 (UTC)

Several editors have indicated that they find the "Criticism" section improved. I'm wondering if it has progressed to the point that we might remove the neutrality tag. Sunray 20:49, 13 June 2007 (UTC)

Since I never thought it biased to refer to the TSSI without also calling its proponents N_ O_ M_, I favor removal. Bon Voyage! andrew-the-k 21:07, 13 June 2007 (UTC)

I have one question and one comment, in reverse order. The comment is that, in the third paragraph of the Criticisms section, everything after David Laibman's name and citation should be removed. It reads too much like an interpretation of their positions than their actual positions. It means the paragraph would need to be rewritten, I guess, but as it is, it's more of an attempt to refute a criticism, rather than a criticism. At this point, this leads me to think the NPOV tag should remain.

The question is this: should the last paragraph of the Criticisms section, that begins "Proponents of..." be moved to the following section, "Current theorizing in Marxian economics"? Is TSSI really a criticism of Marxian Economics? This paragraph also reads like a refutation of the criticisms, and might be better placed elsewhere. --Extra Fine Point 02:21, 14 June 2007 (UTC)

I thank EFP for pointing out what might be a non-neutral statement (at the end of the 3d para). In this case, there are indeed two positions that might need to be represented for the sake of balance. Before turning to that, let me suggest that the earlier formulation -- "wish the field to be grounded in their "correct" versions of Marxian economics instead of Marx's original critique of political economy"--be reinstated. It was changed in order to make clear that "Marx's original critique" is meant literally, and is not, contrary to a change made by Watchdog07, a code for the temporal single-system interpretation. But I think the shorter statement is clear to disinterested readers.

The statement at the end of the 3d paragraph is correct and it cites a reliable source. Many primary sources could be quoted to support it. It is a more of a distillation of what they say than an interpretation that infers something unsaid.

But it may not be completely neutral because it doesn't tell the whole story. The whole story, as far as I know, is this: (1) they wish the field to be grounded in their "correct" versions rather than the original, but (2) they maintain that the "corrections" are merely technical and thus that the "correct" versions are in the spirit of the original, only logically sound (see the quote from Laibman in a footnote). But (2) is challenged by others who say that (3) the original can be understood as logically sound and the "corrections" aren't merely technical; the theoretical conclusions of the original and the "correct" versions differ markedly (see the first para.)

I think the article does need to provide some context for the point that those who criticize Marx for internal inconsistency include Marxist economists. In my experience, lay readers find this jarring and hard to believe. Without an explanation of why this is the case, they have a hard time understanding it.

As for EFP's question about moving the last paragraph of the Criticisms section, my understanding is that Wikipedia articles achieve neutrality in cases of dispute by being balanced, presenting both or all sides. Without the last paragraph, I believe, the Criticisms section would be unbalanced--presenting the internal inconsistency critique without the other side. And I don't think it would read well to present the criticism in one section and the response in another, as if they were unrelated.

andrew-the-k 15:22, 14 June 2007 (UTC)

No. There is no agreement that it should be removed.

Yes, the NPOV tag must remain. Watchdog07 15:48, 14 June 2007 (UTC)

"Proved" and "Correct"

The article lumps together a lot of people in non-neutral and ambiguous language (e.g. "Sraffian economists" and "Marxian economists" lumped with the former, as if they are all the same). It says that all of these claimed that Marx has been proved to be correct, yet there is no reference to show that each of those listed made that claim. Nor are there references for how all of these allegedly did this to ground their "correct" interpretation. All of this has to be changed.

Moreover, I wish to reinterate that so long as the Laibman article which refers to NOM is referenced in this article then so can New Orthodox Marxists.

I am on a Wikibreak at present, but I want everyone to understand that this does not imply that there is consensus with anything so far and if the article is not made neutral when I return from Wikibreak then I will revert - since it has already been proven by Sunray on this page that one does not need to discuss and achieve consensus before reverting. Watchdog07 16:33, 15 June 2007 (UTC)

One more time: Marxian vs. Marxist

I object to certain academics relentlessly pushing the term "marxian" on us, even if this term is supposedly more 'grammatically-correct' than the term "marxist". I've always had an intense distaste for this word, as I -- and I'm sure many others -- immediately associate it with academics who only use marxist theory to advance their careers, etc., but who do not in fact use their knowledge to build up the working-class fightback (except with the usual, predictable token gestures occasionally, intended for creating and maintaining their 'Left cover'). And worse: which also means that these academics (and their supporters), in effect, bowdlerize marxism, thru their efforts to sanitize it and make it more generally, 'bourgeoisically', acceptable. "Marxian" as a term, as a symbol, in itself is merely symptomatic -- but representative -- of this entire co-optation process coming out of bourgeois academia.

And so, seeing the Wikipedia article "Marxist economics" being re-directed by some busy-body to their choice 'politically-correct' "Marxian economics" page instead, just makes me see red. Let "Marxian economics" point to "Marxist economics" instead. And for that matter: all "marxians" have to get out of the frigging "Academy" and into the streets (not meant literally, necessarily, right? -- since this would only give the unscrupulous an 'out' -- which they would quickly take).

Man, do I hate the term/word "marxian". Lose it!

Pazouzou 20:28, 28 July 2007 (UTC)

Thank you for your essay on the the use of the word "Marxian." You may not be surprised to hear that it has been debated relentlessly on these pages (see Archive 1, at the top of the page). Perhaps you might read that debate and return here if you have anything further to add. Sunray 01:12, 31 July 2007 (UTC)

While you are at it, you might glance at the talk page header, which sets out some guidelines for participation here. In particular, I would highlight the point that this page is for discussing improvements to the article. It is not a forum for discussion of the article's subject. I would also underscore this policy: WP:CIV. While some of us have difficulties achieving this, it is actually rather important to meaningful discussion. Sunray 01:22, 31 July 2007 (UTC)