Brad, isn't it fair to say that there are different types of
interpretations. I do not think that a Chicago economist would accept my
interpretation of what Friedman's work means. I would not necessarily be
wrong, but my interpretation would not be in the spirit of Friedman's.
On the other hand, the Chicagoans argue among themselves as to the
correct dogma.
Wolfson's interpretation of Marx is like my interpretation of Friedman.
It may not be wrong -- though I think that it is -- but it is certainly
unsympathetic.
Brad DeLong wrote:
>
> There is room here for much more than a mere difference of opinion.
> For someone to claim that they have the *correct* interpretation of a
> book others have misunderstood because of "...Hegelian language...
> his refusal to give a summary" or say "what levels of abstraction
> he's going to be working at" it is pretty clear that *correct* has
> lost all meaning. There are various rational reconstructions of what
> Marx *ought* to have written: Devine's, Wolfson's, Elster's, Cohen's,
> Althusser's, et cetera. But none of them is "correct."
>
> Rational reconstructions are not *correct* interpretations, they are
> *corrections*.
--
Michael Perelman
Economics Department
California State University
[EMAIL PROTECTED]
Chico, CA 95929
530-898-5321
fax 530-898-5901
