----- Original Message ----- From: "Charles Brown" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> To: <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> Sent: Thursday, February 07, 2002 9:34 AM Subject: [PEN-L:22536] value vs. price
> value vs. price > by Ian Murray > 07 February 2002 01:47 UTC > > > > ========================= > > > > You're right, there is no new thing under the Sun of Marx. > > ^^^^^^^^ > > CB: This recurrent theme that the ideas that Marx and Engels developed about 150 >years ago MUST be obsolete or old and funky by now is oh so, tiresome. Have Newton's ideas lost all their force because they are so old ? Mere passage of time does not mean the validity of a theory automatically wears out. ================== I've yet to mention whether M& E are obsolete so you're wrestling with a straw man. > > Anyway, you have heard of Lenin and other Marxists ,no doubt. There are new ideas >under the Sun of Marx put forth by that worthy Son of Marx, don't you know. So, the sarcasm is not even based an accurate picture of what many Marxists claim. > So, for many Marxists, there has been a development of Marx and Engels > > ^^^^^^^ > > It's > just silly to say ST reduces to KM's stuff and vice versa. Not all > non-Marxian social theory is ant-Marxian. Are you arguing for a > Marxian monopoly? > > ^^^^^^^ > > CB: Silly ? How so ? I didn't say systems theory is inherently anti-Marxist, and I >implied it might be pro-Marxist in that it seems to be an independent derivation of some aspects of Marx and perhaps Hegel's idea. What I objected to was the claim or use of system's theory to socalled render Marx's value theory superflous. =============== I never said ST rendered value theory superfluous. > > I am arguing that the main social theory for changing the world in 2002 is that of >dialectical and historical materialism, or the theory of Marx as developed by Lenin and others since. Social scientists who don't consider themselves Marxists discover empirical generalizations, but they do not develop underlying social theory qua non-Marxists. ( and as non-Marxists, they are most likely to move the underlying social theory backwards). > > The theory of Marxism will remain the best until capitalism is overthrown. That is >not a dogmatic assertion , despite that anti-Marxist love to claim Marxism is dogmatically practiced. It is not dogmatic , but realistic. It is like there is no need for a new theory of the movement of the planets until the Solar system breaks down. That is not dogma, but realism. > ==================== What would constitute a proof or disproof of your claim? No one has made any assertions of dogma. The issue is that defenders of value theory are using a non-Marxian theory of theory change and preservation to defray the claim that some hypotheses within the theory do not have the explanatory power they claim for themselves. In the very act of denying the claim you are engaging the use of a theory external to KM's so you are in a situation equivalent to the one defenders of ortho PE make. Again, how to move beyond skepticism and the 'so what' stage so we can proffer explanations that are accessible to citizens and workers as to why capitalism produces unfreedom, injustice anti-democratic social formations of institutional and technological choice in an open and uncertain world and do not bog them down in disputes that are ultimately irrelevant to the real challenges before us............If we told our fellow citizens that to replace capitalism they must understand value theory what do you think they'd say? Ian
