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

Wed May 20 06:05:47 CEST 2009

Economics as a field of inquiry is not an exact science unless you
consider sociology and psychology to be exact sciences, which they are
not.

But even the exact sciences are just stories that we tell about what
we observe visually and in mentally. These stories are in constant
flux. Science does not sit still; it revises itself over time and that
applies also to the most mammoth of human constructions: mathematics,
but unlike physics over relatively large periods, and that is
coincidentally why mathematics is a good foundation for the exact
sciences, and now being slowly challenged by self emergent
computation, or nature's own maths.
Anyway, to think of the economic theories of today (exact
thermoeconomic and evolutionary economic theories exempted)  as an
exact science is a very dustrubing thought. Its like saying that we
see all the immoral game playing that is prevalent in today's economy
but we would rather cover our reta and ears and believe in some made
up story about some economic theory that doesn't even have any axioms
(or logical legs) to stand on. The assumptions are often circular and
when not they gravely simplify reality. And you (the hypothetical you)
call that a theory, and then you use it to measure other people's
reality.

It is true that when trying to hack the system you mucy understand its
sociological and psychological interfaces or the existing norms of
inter-action, but yoi can't say that those interfaces are based on an
exact science. So I can't see why Franz can't have his own
definitions! Everyone should hack the system but some do it by
imagining a better interface rather than hacking it thru the existing
one, and their imagined way may be better and superior so we should be
open, but also recognize Ryan's implicit argument that in order to
effect change directly we need to understand the existing interfaces,
the exiting definitions, yet what I'm asserting is that those existing
definitions are misused and abused all the time to the point where the
given definition loses its storybook  meaning and gains a very
troubling meaning.

Marc

On 5/19/09, Michel Bauwens <michelsub2004 at gmail.com> wrote:
> 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/
>

-- 

Marc Fawzi
Facebook: http://www.facebook.com/people/Marc-Fawzi/605919256
LinkedIn: http://www.linkedin.com/in/marcfawzi