Gosh this is an interesting debate about pluralism.

My own findings, through doing praxis both in India and Salford, and among academics, is that tolerance of partly-false theoretical frameworks is an important comopnent of pluralism. This tolerance is a way of ensuring that we really listen to those who promote the partly-false frameworks - including neoliberalism - and work out why they do so, how they do so, who listens to them raptly, and who is critically engaged in the debate. Then influence within those netwlrks as well as without.

In regard to a new journal and a focus on TSSI, in a pluralist environment there is going to be considerable contestation. For example to define TSSI as purely working on a/the quantitative aspect of marxism might be quesetioned, whilst also wanting to defend some tenet of TSSI. Readers will want to know why and how this defense is constructed, and why/how a border between quant and qual is built or broken down.

These seem interesting issues and I believe that a pluralism can develop within the stated mission and vision.

I am aware of the risk of hot emails arising in this context. Perhaps it may help to look at recent articles on pluralism, e.g . My paper in Journal of Development Studies, Oct. 2006, on pluralism and poverty; and S. Dow's paper in 2004 in JournEconMeth on structured pluralism.

There is enough truth in TSSI's representation for it to have adherents, and this is probably sufficient to warrant further empircial investigation and theoretical development.

Yours
Wendy



Wendy Olsen
University of Manchester
Cathie Marsh Centre for Census & Survey Research
Room 2.23 Crawford House
Booth St. East, Manchester
Manchester M13 9PL

ph 0044-161-275-3043
fax 0044-161-275-4722

 
-----Original Message-----
From: To complement the journal 'Capital and Class' (ISSN 0 309 8786) [mailto:[log in to unmask]] On Behalf Of Denis, Andy
Sent: 24 September 2006 14:21
To: [log in to unmask]
Subject: Re: Reality Check: New "Pluralist" Journal"?

Dear colleagues

A quick response to one point in Jerry Levy's email. Jerry attempts to drive a wedge between members of the editorial board of COPE who do not advocate the TSSI system and the call for papers issued by the editors. I am such a member of the editorial board. So far as I am concerned, the suggestion that the editors are in anyway acting contrary to the editorial board's wishes is false. Moreover, I think that editorial board members are capable of making up their own minds as to the desirability of actions of the editors. Jerry's criticisms essentially hinge on whether it is possible for a journal to provide a forum for the exploration of a particular approach and still to be pluralist. This is, I think, is something which only experience can tell. But I am very hopeful, and happy to publicly endorse the call for papers which the editors have issued.

Regards

Andy Denis
Economics Department
City University London
URL: http://www.staff.city.ac.uk/andy.denis


-----Original Message-----
From: To complement the journal 'Capital and Class' (ISSN 0 309 8786) [mailto:[log in to unmask]] On Behalf Of Jerry Levy
Sent: Sunday, September 24, 2006 1:24 PM
To: [log in to unmask]
Subject: Reality Check: New "Pluralist" Journal"?

[The following is a response to the announcement sent by Alan Freeman for a "new pluralist journal", the _Critique of Political Economy_ (COPE)]

A "new pluralist journal"?

Could we have some truth-in-advertising on this list, please?

While the "Mission Statement" claims that they will be "steadfastly committed to pluralism", they clearly *privilege* one theoretical perspective over all others. E.g.:

> "We encourage proponents of the temporal-single-system interpretation
> (TSSI) of Marx's value theory to become members of the editorial board
> and to contribute to _COPE_".

and:

> We also *PARTICULARLY* (emphasis added, JL) encourage papers from the
> global South, papers dealing with the temporal-single-system
> interpretation of Marx's value theory, and other TSSI-informed
> theoretical and empirical research.

Is this what they mean by being "steadfastly committed to pluralism"?

They go on to claim in the "Mission Statement" that:

> "TSSI research of the last quarter-century has decisively refuted
> widespread claims that Marx's own value theory has been proven
> internally inconsistent or in error. It thus 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."

Was this written by or agreed to by the members of the Editorial Board who are not advocates of the TSSI?

They continue -- remember this is all part of the "Mission Statement":

> "An indispensable 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. We recognize
> that such a research program must include theoretical and empirical
> investigations informed by the TSSI, as well as interpretive work
> proper."

Is this the "mission" of a journal "steadfastly committed to pluralism"?
I think not. Indeed, it is a very partisan and non-pluralist perspective.

Of course there is nothing wrong with having a journal which is committed to spreading a particular theoretical perspective, in this case, the temporal-single-system interpretation of the quantitative dimension of Marx's value theory. But, to call it "pluralist" and welcoming to other theoretical traditions -- given what the editors themselves have written in the "Mission Statement" -- is absurd. Indeed, it is so absurd that it is comical.

As the Editors of _COPE_ recognized in the title of a recent paper presented before the 2005 Annual Conference of the Association for Heterodox Economics, critical and genuine pluralism requires that one move beyond "talking the talk". It also involves consistent and genuine understanding and defense of pluralism, something lacking -- imo
-- from both the _COPE_ "Mission Statement" and the AHE paper. It requires praxis. It requires that one reject the one-sided view of pluralism [asserted by A. Freeman] as being "about ideas, not people": _genuine_ pluralism is about ideas _and_ people.

 Jerry