The Deconstruction of the Temporal-Single-System-Interpretation TSSI | Page 8

economic equalities, either. As a result, both Marx and TSSI are the subject of internal logical-
inconsistencies, derived from their unfounded beliefs that price and value differentiations at the
micro-level of everyday economic occurrences can magically unify and equate at the abstract
level of economic totality, despite having incommensurable foundations. Consequently, it is
inconsequential whether inputs and outputs are determined in a temporal fashion and/or in a
simultaneous fashion in the sense that, in the final analysis, contrary to TSSI and Marx, nothing
equates because value and price cannot be distorted and reduced to labor-time. Nothing equates,
between value and price because value and price are not solely subject to the strict confines of
socially necessary labor-time, meaning, value and price are two separates manners of allocating
numerical sums onto commodities, both value and price have two different incommensurable
foundations for analyzing, assessing and determining worth. In effect, they constantly clash.
III
Finally, another one of the many fundamental premises of TSSI is its fundamental claim
that Marx was a single-system theorist, namely, that he conceived the price-system and the
value-system as strictly founded on socially necessary labor-time, and being synonymous at the
abstract level of economic totality, all the while, both being interdependently constituted with
each other. For TSSI, this interdependence ultimately validates Marx’s holy trinity of economic
equalities. As states, for TSSI, Marx believed that at the level of totality, price and value equate,
profit and surplus value equate and the value and price rates of profit equate, meaning, there can
only be one system of economic measurement for determining worth, i.e., the price-value
system.
Notwithstanding, there is ample evidence throughout Marx’s Capital, that Marx
conceived of value and price as two separate systems, that is, two independent appraisal systems
for assigning a numerical coefficients onto commodities. Both of which are different and in
many instances, dissimilar, due to the fact that, contrary to TSSI, socially necessary labor-time is
not the foundation of both. Of course, Kliman slyly slips into his narrative in Reclaiming Marx’s
Capital that both value and price are determined by labor-time, but this is a machination. It is an
attempt to disavow and pass over in silence, what Marx in fact said. Namely, it is an attempt on
Kliman’s part to square the circle, that is, to forcefully smash a square peg into a round hole,
claiming Marx intended it to make sense that way. As Kliman states, “values and prices…are
measured in the same units”[17], meaning, they are both measured in labor-time, due to the fact
that, according to TSSI, value is always measures in labor-time, and likewise, price must also be
measured in labor-time, if values and prices are to correlate interdependently and equate at an
abstract level. The fact is that, according to Marx own words there are two systems for assigning
values and prices, both of which are founded on different, incommensurable premises.
Foremost, taking Kliman’s premise for granted, and assuming Marx wanted value
reduced to the strict confines of socially necessary labor-time, we shall assume that the Marxist
value-system is based strictly on socially necessary labor-time. However, contrary to TSSI, there
are ample examples throughout Marx’s Capital that the price-system exceeds the strict confines
of socially necessary labor-time and by logical extension the Marxist value-system as well.
Therefore, demonstrating that price and value are two different systems for assigning and