From: Paul Zarembka (zarembka@BUFFALO.EDU)
Date: Thu Jun 17 2004 - 09:58:29 EDT
Howard Engelskirchen <howarde@TWCNY.RR.COM> said, on 06/17/04: >An argument is valid when the premises lead necessarily to the conclusion. >You are right. Your argument is valid. There is nothing wrong with your >logic. The difference between your argument and mine goes their >respective theoretical and factual contexts. If the argument I offer is >valid it can make a (fallible) claim to truth. Yours can't. Correct regarding "Yours can't", as it was not so offered. However,... >Here's why: >My argument rested on two theoretical background propositions and one >factual observation. I appealed to Marxist theory for the proposition >that exchange value is a form of manifestation of value. I took that as >established by Marxist theory. I also took as given the statement by Marx >that "as a slave a worker has exchange value." >My argument is only as good as those theoretical propositions of Marx. Do >you disagree with either one? Howard, You are falling back on 'authority'. You fall back to appeal to "Marxist theory for the proposition that exchange value is a form of manifestation of value". It is "established". Please do not restore to such a method on OPE-L. I am trying to open the question with you if Marx (either the person or marxism as a whole) did so establish. Surely, you do not want to close the door with "Marxist theory ... established". Try to look at it from my point of view for a moment: what could I possibly do with such an assertion? Apologize? >I then added the factual observation that slaves existed in the ancient >world. Given the premises, the fact and the fact that the form of >argument is valid, I can claim that my argument is true. Slaves existing in the ancient world is factually correct. However, it is exchange value (reality) => value, EV (reality) => V, that I'm trying to discuss. >You can't because there is no theory you can appeal to that establishes >any connection between EV and Xenobiopsy. Correct, and I explicitly so said. >Marxism, on the other hand, is a >disciplinary matrix persuasive to many members of the OPEL list. Instead of explaining WHY EV => V, you re-assert Marx's authority or marxism and cannot move beyond the assertion. >In addition, as you yourself have told us, as a factual matter Xenobiopsy >does not exist. Therefore, though your argument is valid, it can make no >truth claim. Correct regarding any truth claim, but Xenobiopsy would be a theoretical concept, not a real object (it was never posed as "existing"). >In your post of June 7 you ask how we know that a theoretical concept >refers to a real object. You did not understand my posting. I wrote, "if you accept the distinction [between the real object and the theoretical object], you need to offer a way to make it 'work' in practice." Specifically, you have been swimming around the issue of whether value is a real object or a theoretical object. At one point you said it was a real object, then you backed off a bit. But no closure came in that discussion. So, I now ask in your if EV, then V EV exists Therefore V is V a real object or a theoretical object? (It is clear that EV is considered real because you wrote EV "exists"; you aren't as clear about V.) >Yes, theory becomes a practical force when it is gripped by the masses. This issue is beyond our existing discussion (I guess my mentioning "Theses on Feuerbach" wasn't understood as intended). >... Value for example doesn't exist in production, but only >in exchange where it is realized as such.... Noted for possible future reference. Paul Z. ************************************************************************* Vol.21-Neoliberalism in Crisis, Accumulation, and Rosa Luxemburg's Legacy RESEARCH IN POLITICAL ECONOMY, Zarembka/Soederberg, eds, Elsevier Science ********************** http://ourworld.compuserve.com/homepages/PZarembka
This archive was generated by hypermail 2.1.5 : Fri Jun 18 2004 - 00:00:01 EDT