Hi Jerry, Re the history of the debate, and indeed the current debate, on value, TP, etc: You suggest that the justification has overwhelmingly been on some sort of defensive grounds, *rather than* on more positive grounds. This is too simplistic because this negative, defensive aspect this does not *exclude* a second, positive, aspect that drives defenders (and indeed critics) of Marx's value theory, viz. the view that getting the abstract value theory right has massive implications for more concrete work. This *second* aspect must be *the* ultimate justification and drive of value debates for there would be little of scientific merit otherwise. The point is one about abstraction. The most abstract and fundamental reason for debate is the positive one. This can be seen by imagining a world where there was no need for defensive justification. In such a world one would still end up debating the abstract stuff because of its importance. On the other hand, if we imagine a world where there was no practical relevance to value theory then there would be no practical point in defending Marx on this. I do recognise that some (many, perhaps) contributors to the debate have *explicitly denied* that 'practical relevance' is their prime concern. To this I would point out that the explicit justifications scientists give for their work need not be in line with the true justification implicit. So the *significance* of what you refer to as 'manifest evidence', viz., the accounts of scientists themselves, is not so 'manifest' at all, it cannot be taken at face value as you appear to do. The importance of value, it's practical relevance, is a much more likely cause of the debate than any explicit denial of practical relevance on the part of participants. Re Fine's concrete contributions: most important, imo, is not any single one, but the whole lot. Why? Because when faced with the question of 'what is the point of value theory?' I can point to Fine's work and say, 'look at that and tell me there is no point!:)'. As for discussing at such concrete levels in detail, I'm not yet up to it, I'm afraid. My (minimal) competence ceases once I get past the TP (which is where my PhD ends). Best wishes, Andy
This archive was generated by hypermail 2b30 : Sun Jul 15 2001 - 10:56:28 EDT