Re: appearances and GE (I of III)

[Jim Devine <JNDF%LMUACAD.BITNET@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>]

Part I of III: the "contradiction"

Below, GS is from Gil Skillman's Tue, 22 Mar 1994 missive. JD
denotes my reply.

GS: Jim Devine initiated this exchange with the claim that my
argument concerning the relative significance of Walrasian-type
general equilibrium models and Marx's labor theory of value
contained a "contradiction." When I negated this claim by referring
to a distinction made explicitly in my original post, Jim dropped
the issue cold--nowhere in his most recent post does he pursue the
claim that my argument contains a contradiction (and properly so,
since there never was one).

Later in the missive, GS writes: These considerations are utterly
irrelevant to Jim's initial claim that my argument was
contradictory. The latter is a claim about the logical *structure*
of my argument. Here Jim is taking issue with the *substance* of my
argument. Even if he's right on the substance, there is still no
contradiction. Jim does not pursue this claim further.

JD: Gil's impression that I "dropped the issue cold" or "did not
pursue [my] claim further" is wrong. It's based on a reading style
where Gil seemed to have perused and responded to each individual
paragraph of my original missive independently of each other and
ignored the totality of the argument. I didn't feel like repeating
my argument, since I assumed that people (Gil included) had read it.
Gil also seemed to agree with my conclusion. So I fell into a
paragraph-by-paragraph reading and replying style that ignored the
totality.

To repeat the original, in different language: In an earlier
missive, Gil *seemed* to be rejecting Marx's law of value (the
so-called "labor theory of value") on *empiricist* grounds. But
such an empirico-criticism can also be applied to Walras and his
followers. They develop a very festive axiomatic-deductive system
which allows them to crank out all sorts of aesthetically-pleasing
logical results. But people in the real world do not deal with a
world that is consistent with the Walrasian axioms (or if they do, I
need to be convinced). The point of this contradiction was not to
*criticize Gil Skillman* but to suggest a resolution (which, as
mentioned, Gil seems to agree): we should reject empiricist
methodology (of course without falling for rationalism, empiricism's
evil twin). The law of value -- or the utopian constructions of the
Walrasians -- should be seen as an *abstraction* that can help us to
understand the complexity of the real world (useful distortions of
empirical appearances). After all, facts don't and can't speak for
themselves. So the question is: which abstraction is better? this
poses further questions: what are the purposes of one's analysis?
what is one's prior vision of the object of study (here,
capitalism)?

In sum, the point is that my original missive with the "GE and
appearances" title had the following structure: (1) I pointed to an
apparent contradiction and (2) I suggested a possible resolution,
i.e., the need to avoid empiricism and to embrace abstraction.
Gil seemed to agree with this resolution.

part II deals with the issue of Walras vs. Sraffa vs. the Marxian
vision.

in pen-l solidarity,

Jim Devine   BITNET: jndf@lmuacad    INTERNET: jdevine@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
Econ. Dept., Loyola Marymount Univ., Los Angeles, CA 90045-2699 USA
310/338-2948 (off); 310/202-6546 (hm); FAX: 310/338-1950