Re: [OPE-L] Ajit Sinha and equality versus equivalence

From: Andrew Brown (A.Brown@LUBS.LEEDS.AC.UK)
Date: Sun Jul 15 2007 - 16:21:46 EDT

Sorry, time pressures are acute but just time to reply:
(1) In short SNLT is the only scalar 'cost' that is both general and social. It is the only scalar therefore that could avoid social collaspse, under the perverse conditions where a mere scalar is directing production. My position is not unlike Claus's. In response to your question to Claus, these perverse conditions are those of capitalism not of mythical simple commodity production.
(2) It is wrong to create a dualism of explanatory power vs logical proof as opposing criteria of justification. At the heart of the issue is the question of what is 'logic'. The fact we think that logic it is 'formal logic' is largely a product of logical postivistis and those from whom they drew (e.g. Russel, Hume). This is a central issue for dialetical logic.
Best wishes


From: OPE-L on behalf of Fred Moseley
Sent: Fri 7/13/2007 2:58 AM
Subject: Re: [OPE-L] Ajit Sinha and equality versus equivalence

Quoting Andrew Brown <A.Brown@LUBS.LEEDS.AC.UK>:

> Paul,
> I think you are right except for your last point. Logically, society
> would certainly collapse if the underlying scalar were not
> labour-time. This 'logic' stems from a characterisation of the nature
> of human society, not something that formal logic recognises but that
> is so much the worse for formal logic.
> Andy

Hi Andy,

I think this is an assertion, with good reason, but not a logical proof.
Society would certainly collapse if there were no labor,
but an argument has to be made as to why society would collapse
if the underlying scalar were not labor.  Why does human society
require labor as the underlying scalar?



This message was sent using IMP, the Internet Messaging Program.

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.1.5 : Tue Jul 31 2007 - 00:00:06 EDT