Eubulides wrote: > Because, of course, only Marxists know what value *really* is or that so-called 'laws of motion' is/are, axiomatically, the penultimate metaphor for delivering the one true theory of capitalist societies.<
and: > In all my years of living, suffering and study I've yet to see/think/feel that there is a shred of evidence that we *need* the concept, let alone theories, of value, to reduce the self-inflicted suffering of humanity.< I am a bit confused by this thread and may be missing what all of this is about. There seem to be at least three different themes... Anyway (on one topic), the question isn't really whether or not people "need" value theory or theories of capitalism's laws of motion. (The answer, of course, depends on what we _mean_ by "value" and "laws of motion," but that's not my topic.) To my mind, the key question is whether or not people need theory at all. That is, do we need metaphors to add order to our understandings of the empirical world? A "theory" is really nothing but a specific kind of metaphor (a word I'm using to stand in for all mental imagery). For those of us who try to think like scientists (even though that isn't fully possible), theorizing involves efforts to create a metaphor that is more internally consistent (in terms of logic) and more consistent with perceived empirical reality than other available metaphors are. As far as I can tell, Ian (a.k.a. Eubulides) uses the word "metaphor" as if it's a bad thing. But without metaphors, people cannot think. That is, without metaphors, life is the "blooming, buzzing confusion" perceived by an infant (to quote William James, likely out of context). The problem occurs when the metaphor is reified, becoming a capital-T Truth, a religious-type dogma that's never to be questioned or tested in any way. This reification can arise with any metaphors, including those of value theory and laws of motion, also including other theories (such as ideas about utility maximization or supply & demand). This problem can even plague those self-styled "empiricists" who reject the use of theories (metaphors) altogether; their theorizing usually involves denial that they actually use theory. But what about the "theory of value"? Maybe the theory can be described in terms of a meta-metaphor. And when we talk about a "labor theory of value," we have to remember that it can only be understood in the context of _competing_ theories of value. So we have to mention the dominant theory of value in economics. This is that the "value" of something is its (quantified) utility to individuals who buy it. That value would be truly revealed in practice if we lived in a system of perfect markets, but (in theory) the current set of prices is a reasonable approximation of the underlying set of values, at least in the U.S. The meta-metaphor is the vision that we are all atomized individuals[*] who interact with each other only via markets. We are all buyers and sellers. In this context, what is the (Marxian) "labor theory of value"? I'm not going to write about the actual theory (since that's another debate). What's important here is the meta-metaphor, i.e., the vision that even though we are individuals we are also all part of a unified society. Further, to allow society to survive and even grow, labor must be done. Some or all individuals must contribute labor to society as a whole. In the current form of society, some people are workers and others not. Maybe there are other meta-metaphors that can structure our understanding of the empirical reality of political economy that I don't know about. But we need _some_ kind of (meta)metaphor here. -- Jim Devine / "Segui il tuo corso, e lascia dir le genti." (Go your own way and let people talk.) -- Karl, paraphrasing Dante. [*] "I'm not" -- Spike Milligan.
_______________________________________________ pen-l mailing list [email protected] https://lists.csuchico.edu/mailman/listinfo/pen-l
