[OPE-L:5757] Re: Re: the infinite quantity of logically plausible social theories theorem (IQLPSTT)

From: Gerald_A_Levy (Gerald_A_Levy@email.msn.com)
Date: Sun Jun 03 2001 - 07:03:09 EDT

Re Steve K's [5753]:

> But surely one hundred and thirty years of trying, without finding a =
solution that someone else could not find a logical flaw in, is a sign =
that maybe this problem *is* insoluble--and that maybe therefore there =
is something wrong with the initial presumption that "labour is the only =
source of value, and value the only source of profit"...<

The opposite conclusion is possible as well: after
130 years of trying to find a 'solution' to a _problem_
that doesn't exist, we should recognize that there
is no _problem_ here at all. 

Equally, one could turn the same point around on
you by asking you (as I did previously):
after many years of trying, have you convinced any
scholar(s)  -- Marxist _or_ non-Marxist --
of your [unconventional] interpretation
of Marx such that anyone has supported _in print_
that position on the use-value of machinery? 
Perhaps you should at least consider after all of
these years whether your perspective on this issue
is not correct after all? Note that the agreement by
referees to support publication of an article/book
does not imply agreement with the positions taken by the author.

You argue that the TP is 'insoluable'. Yet, there have
been many 'solutions' claimed, including (but not
limited to) the Shaikh solution, the "New Solution",
etc.  For your 'conclusion' to even be seriously
considered to be worthy of discussion, you must
*prove* that these solutions are not solutions after
all.  Yet you have offered no such logical *proof* --
rather you have offered *assertions*.  Thus, you have
only proven a contrary theorem: the infinite quantity
of possible objections to theoretical positions
theorem (IQPOTTPT). This theorem states that for
any theorem there are potentially an infinite quantity
of possible objections.  It follows, I believe, that no
theoretical perspective can progress if its
advocates spend their energy just (or mainly)
answering all possible objections. And, indeed,
until such time as you have proven what you have
asserted,  it would seem more reasonable from the
perspective of efficient task management for
Marxists to be concerned with other issues.

There is an old political truism that says: 's/he
who controls the agenda, controls the meeting'.
I believe that Marxists have let the Marx-critics
control the agenda which has then meant that
what are important questions from the standpoint
of a Marxist agenda have not been adequately
considered. So, my answer is for Marxists to ask
themselves what _they_ think is important and to
go from there.

In solidarity, Jerry

This archive was generated by hypermail 2b30 : Sun Jul 15 2001 - 10:56:28 EDT