----- Original Message ----- From: "Devine, James" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> To: <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> Sent: Thursday, February 07, 2002 2:23 PM Subject: [PEN-L:22565] RE: Re: Re: Re: RE: Re: : Premises, Circularities
> > As is always the case with these debates, I can't resist the urge to > > ask - so what? Why is the value controversy so important? Why is it > > so important for Justin to reject it and Rakesh to defend it? > > I can't speak for those folks, since my mind-reading ability has evaporated, > but the reason why I think "value" (i.e., one of the key concepts of Marx's > CAPITAL) is important because I think that it's a central component in the > kind of alternative research program that's needed to counteract and > ultimately overthrow the hegemony of the neoclassical orthodoxy (and the > orthodoxies of other social sciences). > > I agree that books like WALL STREET can do an excellent job without using > value, but that's only describing a piece of the whole (and using concepts > that Marx developed, partly using value). I'm sure many excellent books like > that will be written in the future without using value explicitly, but I > think that it's important to building the alternative research program to > have a constant cross-pollination between the high-theory level (dialectics, > value, etc.) and the more empirical level (WALL STREET, etc.)The > more-empirical works can benefit from more philosophical reflection or > more-theoretical analysis, just as the high theorists can and should learn > from doing empirical work and from confronting the ideal nature of abstract > concepts with heterogeneity (the down and dirtiness) of the real world. Both > types of analysis can gain from learning the limitations of their > perspectives. > > Jim D. ================ A great post. Below is our real problem. How would we fare with such a disputant? "In recent years, protectionism has also manifested itself in a somewhat different guise by challenging the moral roots of capitalism and globalization. At the risk of oversimplification, I would separate the differing parties in that debate into three groups. First, there are those who believe that relatively unfettered capitalism is the only economic organization consistent with individual and political freedom. In a second group are those who accept capitalism as the only practical means to achieve higher standards of living but who are disturbed by the seeming incivility of many market practices and outcomes. In very broad brush terms, the prevalence with which one encounters allegations of incivility defines an important difference in economic views that distinguishes the United States from continental Europe -- two peoples having deeply similar roots in political freedom and democracy. A more pronounced distinction separates both of these groups from a third group, which views societal organization based on the profit motive and corporate culture as fundamentally immoral. This group questions in particular whether the distribution of wealth that results from greater economic interactions among countries is, in some sense, "fair." Here terms such as "exploitation," "subversion of democratic choice," and other value-charged notions dominate the debate. These terms too often substitute for a rigorous discussion of the difficult tradeoffs we confront in advancing the economic welfare of our nations. Such an antipathy to "corporate culture" has sent tens of thousands into the streets to protest what they see as "exploitive capitalism" in its most visible form -- the increased globalization of our economies. Though presumably driven by a desire to foster a better global society, most protestors hold misperceptions about how markets work and how to interpret market outcomes. To be sure, those outcomes can sometimes appear perverse to the casual observer. In today's marketplace, for example, baseball players earn much more than tenured professors. But that discrepancy expresses the market fact that more people are willing to pay to see a ball game than to attend a college lecture. I may not personally hold the same relative valuation of those activities as others, but that is what free markets are about. They reflect and give weight to the values of the whole of society, not just those of any one segment. [Alan Greenspan] < http://www.federalreserve.gov/boarddocs/speeches/2001/20011203/default.htm >
