Re: [PEN-L] Re: value, again
Stephen E Philion wrote: Yes, but Jerry you have to explain why you recommend that Doug a) choose a liberal school that charges outrageous tution rates that most working class students cannot afford instead of the Marxist School, which is much cheaper and run by a group of admisitrators who have a much greater commitment to Marxism. The New School's Economics Department is one of the more (if not the most) radical of any economics departments in the US. The Marxist School can not (and indeed has never claimed that it could) be a substitute for a graduate training in political economy. [btw, when was the last time you looked at the Marxist School's listing of course offerings?]. b) retain a liberal faith in education through taking classes in lieu of praxis in political activity (i.e. organizing workers..), which would reflect a Marxist commitment. I don't have a "liberal faith" in education. However, I think that an understanding of political economy requires deliberate study and will not come to one automatically as a result of organizing workers. Marx, evidently, thought so as well (hence his advice in the 1872 "Preface to the French Edition" of V1). c) engage in such activities in order to 'learn' something about value. One studies Marx and political economy in order to understand (and change) the world. To understand Marx's critique of political economy (whether one accepts or rejects his method of analysis) requires that one study his conception of value. This is no easy task ... as Marx himself suggests in the "Preface to the French Edition." Then again, considering how much energy you have used to defend the likes of a Malecki, well... Yes, it is true that I have publicly defended Bob M from the foul and malicious charge that he is (or was) an FBI agent. Moreover, I take pride in having challenged the person (and his supporters, like Doug) who made this accusation. Cop-baiting is a serious issue for those who are serious about politics. For those that have no sense of personal integrity, anything goes (including calling someone that you disagree with a cop or becoming a pro-management snitch). Thank you for bringing this topic up on PEN-L, Steve. Jerry
Re: [PEN-L] Re: value, again
Friends, I do not know why comrade Levy is so bitter. Who needs this stuff? I doubt Doug needs to go back to school though it would be nice to think of pen-l as a school in which we all can learn rahter than make smart aleck remarks. michael yates
Re: [PEN-L] Re: value, again
In a message dated 97-11-01 21:26:21 EST, you write: my vote is that Doug should go to SUNY--Stonybrook. For game theory. Hey, hey, hey! My mother graduated from stony brook in the early 1970s. Her graduating class all wore gas masks in protest against the war. We (her kids -- only five of the six attended) all wore suitable anti-war attire. maggie coleman [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: [PEN-L] Re: value, again
Gerald Levy wrote: If it is really true that you "don't know the answer to this", then you should consider either going back to school (since you live in NYC, you could apply at the New School) or changing your occupation (perhaps you might make a decent English Lit instructor). If having made up your mind about everything is a mark of sophistication, then I think both knowledge and politics could do with a little more naivete. As Wallace Stevens said, "you must become an ignorant man again" Oh, there I go with English, I mean American, lit. Doug
Re: [PEN-L] Re: value, again
On Sat, 1 Nov 1997, Gerald Levy wrote: Yes, but Jerry you have to explain why you recommend that Doug a) choose a liberal school that charges outrageous tution rates that most working class students cannot afford instead of the Marxist School, which is much cheaper and run by a group of admisitrators who have a much greater commitment to Marxism. b) retain a liberal faith in education through taking classes in lieu of praxis in political activity (i.e. organizing workers..), which would reflect a Marxist commitment. c) engage in such activities in order to 'learn' something about value. I agree with Gil, who writes," Doug's book is certainly "about political economy", and writes, As you know I have my doubts about the relevance of value theory, but my assessment of capitalism wouldn't change one way or another if somehow these doubts were vanquished. So, it's ok for Gil, but God forbid should Doug do this. Can't but help wonder how much your bitterness directed at Doug is personal, not political...Then again, considering how much energy you have used to defend the likes of a Malecki, well... Steve
Re: [PEN-L] Re: value, again
Gil Skillman wrote: And forget the New or Marxist Schools, my vote is that Doug should go to SUNY--Stonybrook. For game theory. [Hah, that'll shake him up.] Last time I checked, there were quite a few (mathematics) courses on game theory at NYU (a short walk away from the New School). The tuition is quite expensive there, however (relative, e.g. to SUNY tuition). Perhaps you're right -- a trip to Eastern Long Island might be good for him ... and if he has any questions about game theory, he can take the a ferry across the Sound and ask you them in person. Jerry
Re: [PEN-L] Re: value, again
Gil wrote: Jerry writes: Look: you can't have it both ways: either value categories are important or they are not... Jerry, this seems uncharacteristically dogmatic of you. There is nothing dogmatic in one's pointing out that someone has: a) avoided repeatedly answering a question; b) made statements which are ambiguous and hedge the issues under discussion; c) failed (through refusal) to take and defend a position on a theoretical question. Thus, the issue is confronting anti-theory biases, imho. As you know I have my doubts about the relevance of value theory, but my assessment of capitalism wouldn't change one way or another if somehow these doubts were vanquished. You, however, don't avoid taking a position on theoretical questions. How about you? If you somehow discovered tomorrow that capitalist reality was fundamentally incongruent with underlying value trends, and had been for some time, would your assessment of capitalism change as a result? I'm always willing to reconsider theoretical questions in the presence of new and relevant information. Jerry
Re: [PEN-L] Re: value, again
Gil Skillman wrote: And forget the New or Marxist Schools, my vote is that Doug should go to SUNY--Stonybrook. For game theory. I'd prefer dentistry without anesthesia. Doug
Re: [PEN-L] Re: value, again
Jerry writes, anent Doug: Amazing ... you haven't "made up your mind" yet about value theory, but have just written a "Marxist" work claiming to be about political economy. Whether or not it's "Marxist", Doug's book is certainly "about political economy", and the validity and relevance of his arguments, however you assess them, will depend not at all on whether it earns the term "Marxist" or reflects an internally consistent take on value theory. Thus... Perhaps you might not realize it yet, but taking a position on value theory is a somewhat more important question related to political economy than forecasting the amount of pink carnations in the US in the next calendar year. Maybe, but not much. And forget the New or Marxist Schools, my vote is that Doug should go to SUNY--Stonybrook. For game theory. [Hah, that'll shake him up.] Gil
Re: [PEN-L] Re: value, again
Stephen E Philion wrote: state and take a position. If it is really true that you "don't know the answer to this", then you should consider either going back to school Jerry is staking out a very elitist intellectual position here that only in school do we learn anything. You had to cut my sentence off abruptly to jump to that unwarranted conclusion. Notice also the recommendation to go to New School as opposed to The Marxist School, an indication of liberalism as opposed to true Marxism. Well, well, well ... the [economics department at the] New School is "liberal", whereas "The Marxist School" is "true Marxism" [???!!!]. Would you be so kind as to explain that assertion? Or perhaps you are suggesting that I am being a "liberal" rather than a "true Marxist" for recommending an economics department rather than a school that besides classes on _Capital_ has only infrequent lectures on political economy. Jerry
[PEN-L] Re: value, again
Doug Henwood wrote previously: Value categories may be important for examining the inner dynamics of capitalist economies, which led me to note: Well ... that's certainly a wishy-washy statement. and then ask: Are they important or are they not? If they are important, how are they important? Please be specific. Doug then responded: I really don't know the answer to this, which is why I'm asking the question. To begin with, you didn't ask a question above. Instead, you made a highly ambiguous assertion. Look: you can't have it both ways: either value categories are important or they are not. There are certainly a number of sophisticated Marxists who reject value theory, BUT they are at least able to state and defend a theoretical position. Unless you are anti-theory, you should be able to state and take a position. If it is really true that you "don't know the answer to this", then you should consider either going back to school (since you live in NYC, you could apply at the New School) or changing your occupation (perhaps you might make a decent English Lit instructor). Jerry
Re: [PEN-L] Re: value, again
Doug Henwood wrote: If having made up your mind about everything is a mark of sophistication, then I think both knowledge and politics could do with a little more naivete. Amazing ... you haven't "made up your mind" yet about value theory, but have just written a "Marxist" work claiming to be about political economy. Perhaps you might not realize it yet, but taking a position on value theory is a somewhat more important question related to political economy than forecasting the amount of pink carnations in the US in the next calendar year. For someone who has an interest in political economy, not having a position on value is equivalent to a diesel mechanic saying she has no knowledge of engines. Jerry
Re: [PEN-L] Re: value, again
Jerry writes: Look: you can't have it both ways: either value categories are important or they are not... Jerry, this seems uncharacteristically dogmatic of you. Aside from matters of faith, the only way to gauge the "importance" of value categories is according to their relevance in accounting for capitalist reality, which is necessarily an ongoing process. As you know I have my doubts about the relevance of value theory, but my assessment of capitalism wouldn't change one way or another if somehow these doubts were vanquished. How about you? If you somehow discovered tomorrow that capitalist reality was fundamentally incongruent with underlying value trends, and had been for some time, would your assessment of capitalism change as a result? Gil
Re: [PEN-L] Re: value, again
Gerald Levy wrote: Thus, the issue is confronting anti-theory biases, imho. Jerry, you've caught me out. If I weren't scheduled to visit Chico (on Michael Perelman's invitation) this week, I'd jump out the window right next to me. I promise, though, as soon as I get back, I'll end my miserable excuse for a life. Thanks for clarifying things. Doug
