[p2p-research] p2presearch Digest, Vol 19, Issue 150

Wed May 20 05:09:01 CEST 2009

Hi Ryan,

I'm not a particular fan of LTV, which by the way is also rejected by a
number of (post)Marxists such as Castoriadis, Negri, etc ... Since it is
impossible to operationalize in practical economics, it is indeed of little
value in that context.

Yet, I would also caution against an attitude that takes the mainstream
approach at face value.

Many people have argued that contemporary economics is an ideology, not a
science. For example, almost none (less than a handful) predicted the
current crisis and in fact, if you read Dean Baker, you will see that the
economics profession has consistently been wrong over real economics. It's
not a science, but a profession that serves particular social interests, and
that continuously purges dissent from its ranks (well documentated by the
post-autistic economics and the heterodox economics movements) Marx may have
been off, but they have been way way off.

See for example the toxic textbooks initiative I mentioned yesterday.

None other than Alan Greenspan declared:

“This modern paradigm held sway for decades. The whole intellectual edifice,
however, collapsed in the summer of last year."
Alan Greenspan, 2008

So, whatever the value of the LTV,  I would caution any reliance on the
mainstream consensus.

Similarly for Freud, of course the system is flawed, but whether that means
I should rely on the opinions of the pharma-complex, would again be an
altogether different matter,

It seems to me that the mainstream consensus, almost invariably ideology in
social science matters, is not a reliable guide to think something is
'outdated',

Michel

On Wed, May 20, 2009 at 6:01 AM, Ryan Lanham <rlanham1963 at gmail.com> wrote:

> Franz:
>
> Based on your response, I am not sure I am any less in misunderstanding of
> what you are trying to say.
>
> I trust you are interested in social justice.  I trust you see the current
> system as unfair and believe that a fairer system is possible.
>
> Your approach to describing value, money and even labour are non-standard
> and, for me, esoteric in a quasi-theological sense of the term--they seem to
> be highly influenced by Marxian lines of thought.  I am reminded of the
> Frankfurt Schoo, Zizek, etc, who I will admit I find of little value.
>
> I remember little of my own reading of lengthy sections of Das Kapital, but
> I do remember the extensive reliance on a labor theory of value which is, to
> most who now review it in broader contexts, inaccurate as economics or
> sociology.
>
> Commodity fetishism is a social critique by Marx I have less familiarity
> with.  As I understand the point, Marx did not believe people were logical
> in their assignment of monetary values. Rather, he believed people were
> effectively blinded by social constructions of value.  I have not doubt both
> of those things are true.  Whether he could see past these things more than
> most, I have no idea.
>
> Different values and yet a relatively standard economic value (price) is
> inherently true and part of any economic analysis.  We all make different
> choices.  I believe Marx was of the opinion that choices could be logical
> and standard--along lines of the classical economists who followed him like
> Marshall.  As I read him once, Marx perhaps seemed headed toward a utility
> theory, but he did not have that insight.  He was obviously not a
> quantitative thinker given to insights of that sort.  Marginal utility
> theory followed relatively soon after his own work historically, though I do
> not think his work contributed to the development of marginal utility theory
> directly.
>
> At the level of literary criticism or Frankfurt School-styled philosophy, I
> find them best suited to discussions of texts rather than any practical
> application, but that may well be ignorance on my part.
>
> Ryan
>
>
> Ryan Lanham
> rlanham1963 at gmail.com
> Facebook: Ryan_Lanham
>
>
>
>
> On Tue, May 19, 2009 at 3:46 PM, Franz Nahrada <f.nahrada at reflex.at>wrote:
>
>> Ryan Lanham <rlanham1963 at gmail.com> writes:
>> >Franz:
>> >
>> >Another countryman of yours, Ludwig Wittgenstein, said that knowledge is
>> >ultimately predicated on (reasonable) agreement.  To say that LTV is a
>> >"law of nature" is a sort of nihilism that leaves no possible rebuttal.
>> >You cannot have proof of this because there is mountains of evidence
>> >against it.  If it was meant as science (and it was) it is simply an
>> >error--a bad theory.  If it is normative--that is, a statement of how
>> >things ought to be rather than how they are (scientific), it is a
>> >normative theory that civilizations the world over have repeatedly
>> >rejected.
>>
>> Sorry, I was not prepared for that kind of misunderstanding .... the Marx
>> that you have so vigorously critizised is neither normatively nor
>> otherwise positively related to Labour Theory of Value. He is just saying
>> that in a society where there is no a priori arrangement of division of
>> labour actors are doomed to have the social validity of their efforts in
>> the form of value. And, with the inevitability of a law of nature, the
>> aberration from social average productivity by what reason ever will
>> depreciate their labour.
>> >
>> >
>> >I've had similar discussions with many other forms of nihilistic
>> >fundamentalism.  You are not seeing the world through different eyes, you
>> >are simply avoiding actual discussion and open inquiry.  As I have said
>> >before, if one cannot begin with some basis of discussion (other than
>> >canonical acceptance of some text--be it Marx or the Gospel of St. Luke),
>> >there is really nothing to be said.
>>
>> There is no canonical acceptance of some text here but a logical step of
>> thoughts. If a society treats value as an objective property of things,
>> something which Marx called fetishism, value can be deciphered as the form
>> of their social action totally separated from their willfull influence.
>> Value is not money and value is not not money. Money is the form of a
>> content which is relational, a chaotic everlasting process (as long as
>> commodity production exists) for the validity of a commodity as part of
>> the societies labor.
>>
>> The fact that money gets a life of its own is based on that fundamental
>> relation.
>> >
>> >Your canon (Marx) blinds you from actual study.  Therefore to criticize
>> >others for not seeing the world through your text is irreducibly absurd.
>> >
>> Did I clarify your misunderstanding?
>>
>> Franz
>> >
>>
>>
>>
>
> _______________________________________________
> p2presearch mailing list
> p2presearch at listcultures.org
> http://listcultures.org/mailman/listinfo/p2presearch_listcultures.org
>
>

-- 
Working at http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dhurakij_Pundit_University -
http://www.dpu.ac.th/dpuic/info/Research.html -
http://www.asianforesightinstitute.org/index.php/eng/The-AFI

Volunteering at the P2P Foundation:
http://p2pfoundation.net  - http://blog.p2pfoundation.net -
http://p2pfoundation.ning.com

Monitor updates at http://del.icio.us/mbauwens

The work of the P2P Foundation is supported by SHIFTN,
http://www.shiftn.com/
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://listcultures.org/pipermail/p2presearch_listcultures.org/attachments/20090520/20cd86ff/attachment-0001.html>