James Devine wrote:
> Being Marx-informed and
> Marx-friendly, his "superficial" or "empiricist" analyses in WALL STREET
> takes for granted Marx's vol. I macro-analysis.
He has not "taken for granted" the distinction between productive and
unproductive labour and has indeed often explicitly rejected the use of
Marxian categories such as c, v, and s for empirical work. (source:
Internet mailing lists, e.g. marxism-thaxis). On the other hand, he
wants to use Marxian words like exploitation and surplus value but is
unwilling to define those terms or explain how they are measured. (source:
PEN-L -- numerous occasions).
> Much more charitably to Doug, there's no need to reinvent the theoretical
> wheel in every article or book that deals with empirical issues. This is
> good, since the empirical issues are so important and we need to understand
> them.
One doesn't have to "reinvent the theoretical wheel", but one needs to
know how the wheel operates rather than just assert faith in the wheel.
>From a methodological perspective, it is not sufficient to simply "take
for granted" one level of analysis without *explaining* -- and
systematically developing -- the relation between different levels of
abstraction.
> Further, Doug argues at length for one of Marx's main points (rather than
> simply assuming its truth), i.e., that labor-power the Finance, Insurance,
> and Real Estate is unproductive (and not indirectly productive) to capital.
> This is a good thing to do.
DH has openly and explicitly rejected the distinction in Marx of
productive and unproductive labour. (source: marxism-thaxis). Since he has
done that in an assertive way without explaining why, that is not a good
thing to do.
Jerry
PS: it's not personal, it's political.
