There's a name for it. It's called "ideology." In this case, it is worthwhile reviewing the sources. Destutt de Tracy proposed the term positively as a replacement for metaphysics. Dr. M. gave it a pejorative twist.
Destutt: The idea of property and of exclusive property arises then necessarily in a > sensible being from this alone, that it is susceptible of passion and > action; and it rises in such a being because nature has endowed it with an > inevitable and inalienable property, that of its individuality. Whereas, Marx: > > When, therefore, the bourgeois tells the communists: by abolishing my > existence as a bourgeois, you abolish my existence as an individual; when > thus he identifies himself as a bourgeois with himself as an individual, > one must, at least, recognize his frankness and shamelessness. For the > bourgeois it is actually the case, he believes himself to be an individual > only insofar as he is a bourgeois. > > But when the theoreticians of the bourgeoisie come forward and give a > general expression to this assertion, when they equate the bourgeois’s > property with individuality in theory as well and want to give a logical > justification for this equation, then this nonsense begins to become solemn > and holy. ... > > All this theoretical nonsense, which seeks refuge in etymology, would be > impossible if the actual private property that the communists want to > abolish had not been transformed into the abstract notion of “property”. > This transformation, on the one hand, saves one the trouble of having to > say anything, or even merely to know anything, about actual private > property and, on the other hand, makes it easy to discover a contradiction > in communism, since after the abolition of (actual) property it is, of > course, easy to discover all sorts of things in communism which can be > included in the concept “property”. In reality, of course, the situation is > just the reverse. In reality I possess private property only insofar as I > have something vendible, whereas what is peculiar to me [meine Eigenheit] > may not be vendible at all. My frock-coat is private property for me only > so long as I can barter, pawn or sell it, so long [as it] is [marketable]. > If it loses that feature, if it becomes tattered, it can still have a > number of features which make it valuable for me, it may even become a > feature of me and turn me into a tatterdemalion. But no economist would > think of classing it as my private property, since it does not enable me to > command any, even the smallest, amount of other people’s labour. A lawyer, > an ideologist of private property, could perhaps still indulge in such > twaddle. On Sat, Apr 27, 2013 at 10:08 AM, Jim Devine <[email protected]> wrote: > 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 > > -- Cheers, Tom Walker (Sandwichman)
_______________________________________________ pen-l mailing list [email protected] https://lists.csuchico.edu/mailman/listinfo/pen-l
