[was: RE: [PEN-L:22414] Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Value talk] Justin writes:>A degenerating research program [DRP] often doesn't have a single fatal flaw. It just runs out of steam, spends all of its time trying to fix up internal problem, doesn't geberate new hypotheses and predictions and theories. I think that is a pretty good description of what has happened in Marxian value theory over the last century.<
this suggests the obvious limit to Lakatos' discussion of DRPs: it doesn't apply to social science in the same way as to physical or natural sciences, since social sciences are part and parcel of the society being studied. (Social science will _never_ be like physics, where consensus is possible on important issues -- even though physics is affected by society too, especially in practice.) An research program [RP] can degenerate for societal rather than internal reasons. Historically, the most productive periods of the development of the Marxian research program coincide with the existence of mass movements, while the degeneration of the RP corresponds to "dead spells." There was a big surge in creative thinking and progress from the late 1930s until 1914-17 or so, with all sorts of people (Kautsky, Lenin, Luxemburg, Kautsky, to name a few) debating and adding to the RP. Then, with the split of the international and the degeneration of the 2nd international into tame social democracy and the 3rd international into Stalinism, the RP became more and more degenerate, contributing less and less to the RP. The next surge was due to the working class upsurge of the 1930s, which added a lot of energy to the RP. Even the Stalinists developed some new ideas and insights (though some of them were bogus, as with Lysenko). This upsurge peaked and ebbed, as Stalinism became more rigid and other socialists found themselves under the thumb of McCarthyism. The next surge was with the "New Left" of the 1960s, which then degenerated with the movements that formed that Left. Note that this (oversimplified) story does not denegrate the theoretical work of people when the societal movement has fallen apart (as with these days, except for a lot of anti-corporate globalization work). Rather, it's a macro-history, indicating the general trend. There are also lags in the process, since theory (and its publication) typically follows practice and experience. Jim Devine [EMAIL PROTECTED] & http://bellarmine.lmu.edu/~jdevine
