If i remember right Kliman has reverted to some sort of mechanic model of capital functioning based on a TSSI model? Ld?
Kind off, but i wouldn't say TSSI is a 'model' as such, in and off itself. It's pretty much just a common sense interpretation of marx's capital which neither seems controversial or ground breaking/unique - it's just basic marx in my mind - in short all TSSI says is:-
i) time/temporality has to be taken into account when valuing inputs and outputs of a production process (as opposed to the alternative 'interpretation' which values inputs & outputs retrospectively & simultaneously, this in turn ultimately leads to 'physicalist' conclusions - i.e. that profit/value and rate of profit relates to the amount of things/use values produced, which is nonsense. this is pretty much what Okishio's 'disproval' of marx's tendency of the rate of profit to fall is based on - arguing that increasing productivity can never lead to a fall in the rate of profit, because it effectively resolves value and therefore 'profit' into the output of physical things - which is just plain daft. also the implications of not accepting the temporal interpretation leads to the absurd 'marxist' position where it can be argued that there can be profit without surplus labour being performed/extracted and therefore that accumulation of capital does not depend upon exploitation of labour - plain daft)
ii) values & prices are part of the same interdependent single system (while in turn reflecting different layers of it) - I can't see how any reading of vol3 of capital could come to any other conclusion - the alternative 'interpretation' to the single system is the dual system interpretation where it's argued that value and price (at both the micro and macro level) are determined completely independently of each other and represent two completely distinct independent systems. there's no way any reading of volume 3 of capital can lead to this conclusion
his main book on this 'reclaiming marx's capital - a A Refutation of the Myth of Inconsistency' goes over this chapter & verse, and while i never found much to disagree with in that (in terms of it's interpretation of Capital vol1-3) I was always amazed though as to why the debates that provoked it and the book itself needed to be written in the first place - guess it shows how rotten to the core and debilitating marxist analysis & research is within academia, that they spend decades creating and commodifying the various schools of thought around this- it's utterly corrupting of the original intention
Belboid's right that Kliman is a very anti-academic academic - and carries out his anti-academia in a very academic way - he told me he hates academia and detests everything that goes on within it (and would like to see this kind of stuff being taken out and away from academic institutions), but there's not much sign of any activity from him outwith of academia - he wrote a paper on the disentegration of the marxist school and what can be done to reverse this disintegration and asked me for some comments on it, and all I could say was that the 'marxist school' was rotten to the core and the disentegration should continue until it's compeltely obliterated and then start afresh, outside of academia
edit: should add that he's the only academic that i've ever been able to talk to about this kind of stuff without wanting to kill them in the face, so he has something going for him that a lot of the others don't, in that he doesn't come across as a complete cunt (although should also add i've not talked to many academics, marxist or otherwise so not sure how much this means - although i presume it's a reasonable starting assumption to take that most of them are complete cunts)
