Ted Winslow wrote: > This isn't the meaning given to "useful" in the literature to which you point, > is it?
Whatever the original intended meaning, we have abstraction and the "critical method." As I've said here before, today's economic theory can be viewed as a statement of the "if X, then Y" type. That may not be all that economic theory is, but that is (inter alia) a way in which economic theory can be viewed. Furthermore, that is the way in which economic theory views itself. To that extent, the only flaws in economic theory are logical flaws, errors in linking the premise set X to the conclusion set Y. The inanity of a great deal of the left's snipping at economics lies in misunderstanding this. Wait a little and you'll read on this list that "rational expectations," the "production function," etc. are wrong! Frank H. Knight (Risk Uncertainty and Profit, 1921) noted that "all 'economic' theory in the proper sense of the word is purely abstract and formal, without content. It deals, in general, with certain formal principles of 'economy' without reference to what is to be economize, or how". I could cite Lionel Robbins, Paul Samuelson, Gerard Debreu, Milton Friedman, Robert Lucas, and many more making similar points. Every society, in each given period of its history, develops some notion of its social ends. Obviously, class societies have a contested notion of its social ends, the "social end" being a resultant (not necessarily self consistent) of the ongoing social conflict. The struggle to define the ends of social life, to determine the point of having an economy, etc. is part of the class struggle. I don't understand why "inverting" Hegel, critically refining a "labor theory of value" (originally developed by Petty, Smith, and Ricardo to deal with their concerns), drawing from French socialism, etc. are all legit procedures, but "inverting" and critically reworking modern economic theory to help our aims is beyond the pale. Just like a "material force" can only be overthrown by a "material force," an idea can only be debunked by a better idea. However, to conflict with each other and have their conflict resolved, one way or another, ideas have to share some common ground, be in the same battle field (so to speak). It seems to me that many Marxists proceed as if the only point of contact between their ideas and the ideas of the economists is at the level of "the method," where they are found lacking. The point I've been making here is that without seriously studying economics, without immersing yourself in its own logic, limiting oneself to attack it from the edges, its critical "inversion" is not possible. _______________________________________________ pen-l mailing list [email protected] https://lists.csuchico.edu/mailman/listinfo/pen-l
