Re: Dialectics and complexity

[glevy@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx]

Steve wrote:

  But I believe that chaos is an accurate
> characterisation of social (and many natural) processes, and that
> therefore if we're going to tell (not so much accurate as plausible)
> stories about capitalism, our models have to be chaotic.
>
> Hey, I haven't had an argument for a while; why not?!! I also
> feel that any theory which has a driving motivation to prove that
> capitalism will necessarily break down will also end up twisting
> the tools of chaos, rather than applying them.
>
On the last point, I agree with you. Before we have an argument, though,
on whether capitalism can be described as being inherently chaotic, I
want to understand more about what you mean concerning the chaotic
character of capitalism.

I think you would agree that there is a logic to capitalist accumulation
and crises. But, the "anarchy of capitalist production" refers to the
unplanned character of capitalism and is not the same thing as chaos. The
persistence of disequilibrium also does not need a theory of chaos for
explanation, in my opinion. So how is capitalism inherently chaotic and
what does it imply? Does it imply, for instance, that capitalism is
aperiodic? That idea seems to fly in the face of capitalist economic
history and business cycle behavior. We need a theory that not only
explains how crises occur but also how they are overcome. How can a
chaotic model produce such a result?

Looking for an argument.

Jerry


     --- from list marxism@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx ---

     ------------------