Re: [OPE] Are Regulation Theorists Marxists?

[howard engelskirchen <he31@xxxxxxxxxxx>]

Dave wrote:

"I'd say in general
that Marxism is a political philosophy . . . "

No doubt Marx has been an immensely influential social theorist, and his 
insights have influenced folks in all manner of disciplines.  A wide 
spectrum of political thinkers, philosophers, activists and others have 
contributed broadly to diverse developments in philosophy and social theory.

But Marx would have called himself a "man of science" and what he was doing 
science.  Engels called him that in referrring to the way he approached 
morality.

So the issue is whether he founded a science, and if so, what are its 
fundaments.  I think his take home lesson is that the scientific study of 
social life begins with forms of labor.  If you look to the political 
economy of it, then, I'm inclined to agree with Anders and Ian -- Marx 
studied value and the forms of value and the labor theory of value made 
value theory coherent.

A person can call themselves marxist because they are committed to the 
emancipation of the oppressed, have been influenced by marx, are committed 
to class struggle, etc., as Michael suggests.

What is at issue in Ian's point is whether there is a building block 
approach to the scientific study of society that resembles the one thing 
leads to another approach we're familiar with in the sciences of nature. 
Probably its fair to say we have not had much of that, in either economics 
or other dimensions of historical materialism.  There are important 
reasons -- the reproduction of capital requires the misrepresentation of 
social life; it does not systematically require the misrepresentation of 
nature.  For Marx, the misrepresentation of the wage form was not exactly a 
small thing: "it forms the basis . . . of all the mystifications of the 
capitalist mode of production."  Are we to take him seriously on that? 
Scientifically?

By the way, do people call themselves Marxian rather than Marxist for a 
reason?

howard



howard engelskirchen
he31@xxxxxxxxxxx
----- Original Message ----- 
From: "Dave Zachariah" <davez@xxxxxx>
To: <wrighti@xxxxxxx>; "Outline on Political Economy mailing list" 
<ope@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>
Sent: Wednesday, August 19, 2009 1:12 PM
Subject: Re: [OPE] Are Regulation Theorists Marxists?


> Ian Wright wrote:
> > I can't answer your specific question, since I have yet to read
> > anything by the regulation school. But I'd argue that a litmus test
> > for a body of economic work to be classified as Marxist is acceptance
> > of the labor theory of value. This may seem blindingly obvious [...]
>
> I think this is incorrect. There are Marxist economists that either do not 
> bother about the labour theory of value or have abandoned it. For 
> instance, Robert Brenner or Prabhat Patnaik.
>
> Of course, rigid classifications are futile here. But I'd say in general 
> that Marxism is a political philosophy that entails two things: 
> subscribing to a materialist concept of history and applying this analysis 
> in political advancement for the benefit of the oppressed.
>
> I haven't read sufficient material by the regulation theorists. But from 
> what I can recall from Brenner and Glick's article on the topic is that 
> this school has a historical-materialist framework although they are not 
> necessarily Marxists.
>
> See:
>
>    Robert Brenner and Mark Glick
>    New Left Review I/188, July-August 1991
>    <http://www.newleftreview.org/?view=1643>
>
> //Dave Z
> _______________________________________________
> ope mailing list
> ope@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
> https://lists.csuchico.edu/mailman/listinfo/ope 

_______________________________________________
ope mailing list
ope@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
https://lists.csuchico.edu/mailman/listinfo/ope