Date: Tue, 25 Nov 1997 16:56:12 -0500
From: Doug Henwood <dhenwood-AT-panix.com>
Subject: Re: M-TH: surplus value and Doug's utility criterion


jurriaan bendien wrote:

>So this seemingly "abstract" debate about theories of value has a real
>effect on the world, because it underlies (or alternatively subverts) the
>very economic statistical information used to assess the state of
>capitalism and explain its dynamics in the first place.  So then if you
>think it through you come full circle and  you really do need a crystal
>clear concept of value, which it is the job of academics to provide.  But
>you don't want to stop there, you need also to get your "hands dirty" with
>the empirical facts. That is why I think the work of people like E. Mandel,
>F. Moseley, A. Shaikh, E. Tonak and A. Freeman etc. is very valuable. They
>show that if you give up on Stalinist dogma that Marx's theory offers a
>very powerful tool to explain reality. My objection to some discussants is
>that they want to have a discussion of value theory which does not refer to
>any serious empirical analysis or the promise of one, then it becomes a
>metaphysical dispute.  When you work with the data, you understand better
>the real importance of subtle conceptual dictinctions and you realise that
>really many dispute about value theory are a bit redundant and
>metaphysical.

Ok, then maybe you specify for me an example or two of these "subtle
conceptual distinctions," or an application of "this very powerful tool"
that explains reality.

Doug





     --- from list marxism-thaxis-AT-lists.village.virginia.edu ---