[OPE-L:5690] the puzzle of capitalism? (re VFT)

["Gerald_A_Levy" <Gerald_A_Levy@xxxxxxxxxxxxx>]

Re Geert's [5681] and Ajit's [5688]:

 

To begin with, I think Ajit and others on the list

should take Geert up on his generous offer to provide

photocopies of _Value-Form and the State_ (VFS) at no cost.

 

In his reply to Geert, Ajit used the analogy of

chess strategies to describe why he was asking the

questions he has.

 

Chess is a good game indeed, but it is not the

only game nor do I believe it is the kind of game

that Geert and Mike W (and Nicky, etc.) are

focusing on. 

 

This is not to say that one can't conceive of some

of the dynamics of capitalism in chess-theoretic

terms. Indeed, I think that Gil does something like

that with his game-theoretic take on capitalism.

Similarly, the chess analogy might not be far off

when describing the perspective of the "social

structure of accumulation" (ssa) school (of which

Terry M is a member.)  Sraffa's graph on the relation

between wages and the rate of profit might also be

extended to examining the distribution of income

between wages and profit  as a strategic adversarial

process akin to chess.  As I understand it, VFT

does not reject this chess-theoretic way of

comprehending class struggle  -- on the contrary,

it forms a 'moment' (perhaps a better _expression_

here might be: "essential component") of their

analysis of capitalism.

 

I would describe _their_ game, though, as a

sophisticated type of jig-saw puzzle.  It begins

with the following condition: suppose there are

hundreds or thousands of pieces of a puzzle called

"Capitalism."   The 'game', then, is: how do the

pieces fit together?

 

There  are a lot of people who might object to this

game as an approach towards comprehending

"Capitalism."  Some might call it 'essentialist';

others, like Steve C (and other Althusserians),

might call it  'totalizing.'  And, of course, one

can object to the VFT game -- i.e. the method

that they employ. 

 

For the moment, though, I want to take this analogy

of a puzzle a little further.  In your ordinary kind of

jig-saw puzzle you can begin with any piece and

try to then find adjoining pieces.  The VFT puzzle,

since it follows Hegelian rules, is more complicated

and sophisticated. To begin with, the first piece

of the puzzle that one picks up ("the starting point")

is crucially important. E.g. if one picks up the piece

called "population" rather than the piece called

"commodities" then one's whole game goes in a

different direction which is in violation of the game's

goal of comprehending capitalism.  Then, the

sequence of the remaining parts of the puzzle must

follow a certain order, according to Hegel's Rules

of the Game.  This is a strange game, though,

because not all of the pieces of the puzzle have to

be put together to call a successful end to the game.

Rather, only those parts of the puzzle which are

essential and non-contingent to the subject matter

(Capitalism) have to be put together. This forms

the (my _expression_) 'core game'.  After one

completes the 'core game', then one can go on to

play more concrete 'conjunctural games'  Some

ideas for 'conjunctural games', from a VFT

perspective, are given in _VFS_, pp. 299-301.

 

Yet, I can well understand Ajit's desire to play

chess. I guess that's just the traditional form in

which 'debating games' take place. I wonder,

though, whether this game (reminiscent of the

adversarial process in the courtroom where someone

is ultimately judged 'guilty' or 'not guilty') is the

most constructive game for 'cross-paradigm'

discussions. In any event,  even if one wants to

play that game, then there are (just like chess)

'winning' and 'losing' moves.  E.g. would a good

attorney argue her case before the court before

she has had an opportunity to review all of the

relevant documents and evidence?  Thus, it seems

to me, that Ajit's game would improve once he has

had an opportunity to read _VFS_ (of course, other

publications like Tony S's book _The Logic of Marx's

Capital_ are useful as well.)   Doesn't this seem fair?

After all, would you want to have a debate with

others on Sraffa or Althusser who admitted that

they hadn't read their works? What's good for the

goose is good for the gander, right?

 

Apologies to our VFTers if I have over-simplified

their 'game' above.

 

In solidarity, Jerry