Re: unified field theory

["Chris, London" <100423.2040@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx>]

Hello Zeynep,

I don't think our threads have crossed before, but like others
I have welcomed your presence.

At my most superstitious I
saw you as an angel alighted at our table, who might fly away
any minute, if we talked too much about it (her? him?),
but hopefully would
leave a good memory.

Please stay at least a little longer.

At my more analytical, I would agree with others that an informed
contributor from a country like Turkey is especially valueable in
broadening the perpectives of the l'st.

The global struggle against neo-liberalism is close to my heart, after
seeing decades of anti-apartheid struggle thwarted in its
further democratic development by the  agenda of international
capitalism.

What is the unified field theory that links together the subjects
you mention, from the psychology of personal relations to
the increasing instability of patterns of global capital accumulation?

I am increasingly confident it is the law of value, and that is
why Marx's critique of capitalism remains central and relevant today.

But there have been one or two catches in interpreting it, which
can now be avoided.

1. Exchange value nests within a wider marxist concept of value,
all socially-valued interactions including those not mediated
by commodity exchange. This permits analysis of contradictory
positions on this boundary. Such as women with housework and
child bearing/rearing. The impact on personal and interpersonal
psychology. Alientation. Gender questions. People outside the
mainstream labour force. Minorities. Cuts in social benefits.

2. Exchange value is an emergent property of complex commodity
exchange. The concept of an emergent property, not unreal,
but not mechanically linked to the concrete phenomena, needs to
be understood subtly.

3. Exchange value is not a uniform field, but like gravity and
other force fields, has unevennesses. Fundamentally it is
essential to understand that the mathematics are non-equilibrium
and non-linear. Like most of life, actually.

So a uniform field theory no. A unified field theory, why not?

Chris



     --- from list marxism@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx ---