There has been much discussion on OPE-L about whether Marx's theory of value is internally consistent and logical. I don't want to re-hash those arguments here. Rather I want to ask the following: * _even if_ Marx's theory of value (and/or variations thereof) are shown to be logically coherent and consistent, what does that tell us? In other words: so what? I believe it can be easily demonstrated that there are potentially: a) an infinite quantity of social theories which are logically implausible and inconsistent; AND b) an infinite quantity of logically plausible social theories. I will call b) the "infinite quantity of logically plausible social theories theorem" (IQLPSTT). Any reader of *science fiction* knows the validity of the IQLPSTT. Once we accept the validity of the IQLPSTT, we must recognize that if it can be shown that a theory is logically plausible and consistent, the merit of any one of this set of theories can not be judged based on this alone. Indeed, it only establishes a trivial result. Why is this? At the risk of stating the obvious, it is because social theory seeks to explain social dynamics in a *particular* context. Thus, there might be an infinite variety of theories to explain social life unique to *another galaxy* but none of these theories -- even when logically plausible and consistent -- can be used to comprehend social organization for humanoids on this planet during our epoch. One must not *merely* ask whether a theory is logically consistent; rather, one must ask whether a theory is capable of comprehending the essential nature and reality of the subject matter. Suppose then that the subject matter (i.e. WHAT THE THEORY ATTEMPTS TO EXPLAIN) is CAPITALISM. The 'test', ultimately, for such a theory is HOW WELL it comprehends the subject matter. E.g. are important and necessary relations specific to the nature of the subject matter (capitalism) explained? How well, then, does the theory explain the history of the subject (capitalism)? Are there ways to empirically validate or invalidate essential propositions of the theory? What sort of 'research programme' does a particular social theory generate? E.g. does it open up new areas of research by its advocates or does it have a 'degenerate' research programme? It is for the above reasons that I remain somewhat mystified by attempts to prove that Marx's theory of value is internally consistent. Surely, all of those on one side of the debate have already come to that conclusion anyway! And what's more important politically -- answering the charges by economists about Marx's theory _or_ developing and deepening our understanding of capitalism with the object then of surpassing that mode of production? I would call that a 'no brainer' in the sense that the answer should be obvious to all. Relatedly, in answer to Ajit's [5742], I would assert the following: there are many who will be convinced by either Sraffian and/or the Althusserian critiques of value theory that you present; many more (on this list) are unconvinced. You have presented arguments to them that they find, for the most part, unconvincing and they have presented counter- arguments to you that we all know you find unconvincing. They're not trying to avoid your critique any more that you are trying to avoid their critique. But, at some point, there has to be the recognition by all of the obvious: you're not convincing them and they're not convincing you. So, at that point, the sensible thing to do is just to move on to discuss other matters, right? After all, what's the point in anyone from either side of a debate knocking their head against a wall? This doesn't mean that we can or should forget about these disagreements or never raise them again, but it does suggest that there are more productive areas of possible discourse. E.g. since Rakesh mentioned the world market, perhaps we should discuss theories (and realities) of international trade. Steedman and Metcalfe wrote some important stuff on that subject way back in 1979 (including an excellent critique by Steedman of H-O-S theory.) Have there been any more recent investigations of that subject by surplus approach theorists? What do you think about the arguments of Eric Sheppard and Trevor Barnes in _The Capitalist Space Economy: Geographical Analysis After Ricardo, Marx and Sraffa_ (London, Unwin Hyman, 1990) which is broadly sympathetic to surplus approach perspectives? Have they or others developed the "Extensions" that are suggested near the end of the book (pp. 298- 300) concerning 'complexities of the labour market, finance capital and credit, and the state'? In other words, what I am suggesting as a possible line of inquiry (related to the first part of this post) is to discuss both how well different theories explain the realities of capitalism (when examined globally as a mode of production) and the types of questions and lines of research that they are concerned about developing (i.e. the breadth of respective research programmes.) Perhaps in discussing these issues we may find that we are interested in many of the same issues (or maybe not.) In any event, it would at least be a new line of inquiry for us (and, indeed, I'm not really aware that there has ever been much of a 'cross-paradigm' discussion by Marxians -- in any forum -- of the merits of differing research programmes.) In solidarity, Jerry
This archive was generated by hypermail 2b30 : Sun Jul 15 2001 - 10:56:28 EDT