tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6245381193993153721.post1532154909771350207..comments2024-03-17T00:23:24.896-07:00Comments on Social Democracy for the 21st Century: A Realist Alternative to the Modern Left: Engels’ Understanding of the “Law of Value” in the Anti-DühringLord Keyneshttp://www.blogger.com/profile/06556863604205200159noreply@blogger.comBlogger4125tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6245381193993153721.post-89676511600818026102016-01-30T17:29:05.776-08:002016-01-30T17:29:05.776-08:00Translation: you have **no evidence**, only the pa...Translation: you have **no evidence**, only the pathetic defence that no evidence constitutes proof of your own prior cult-like ideological beliefs.<br /><br />As for critical realism: that is no defence, since we have overwhelming evidence that both Marx and Engels applied to law of value -- that commodities tend to exchange as labour values -- in the years after <i>Capital</i> was published, no matter <br /><br />(1) the blatantly absurd contradictory footnotes in footnote 24 in Chapter 5 and footnote 9 in Chapter 9 in vol. 1, <br /><br />(2) his contradictory musings on prices of production in a totally **private** letter to Engels in 1862.<br />Lord Keyneshttps://www.blogger.com/profile/06556863604205200159noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6245381193993153721.post-37726680316421492532016-01-30T12:07:17.841-08:002016-01-30T12:07:17.841-08:00You're like a first-year troll. "U mad?&...You're like a first-year troll. "U mad?" Good one. Next I suppose you'll ask me if I have stairs in my house.<br /><br />If there's "so much" evidence against my interpretation, one would think you'd have demonstrated at least a little of it by now. Instead we see time and again that the only thing a red-baiting pseudo-left propagandist like yourself can do is misread and misrepresent.<br /><br />Case in point: There's no reason why Engels would argue either of those points in any source, because it's not the theory he and Marx were defending. And I include Marx because he was very much still alive as of Anti-Duhring's publication, and even contributed a chapter to it.<br /><br />I've explained how this works many times in the past. I don't think it'll stick if I do so again, but nevertheless I shall in case any other possible entrant into the discussion is unsure of what I mean.<br /><br />Marx and Engels synthesized a mature realist ontology by combining Hegel's dialectical idealism with Feuerbach's materialism. This is the lens one must adopt in order to understand their theories, because said theories were firmly embedded in this framework. You can read about it <a href="http://www.mediafire.com/download/aimmws55wzm4o3s/%5BAndrew_Collier%5D_Critical_Realism_An_Introduction%28BookFi.org%29.djvu" rel="nofollow">here</a> or <a href="http://conservancy.umn.edu/handle/11299/150756" rel="nofollow">here</a>; I don't have the room to detail the whole thing.<br /><br />Point is, just because an event is not observed does not mean it did not occur, and just because a mechanism is not triggered does not mean it's not real. Realism requires the dual distinction between "real" and "actual," and between "actual" and "empirical." <br /><br />Within this framework, the law of value is a structural tendency inherent to commodity exchange, which is always active where commodity exchange occurs: both before and during capitalism. Though in the latter case, it is not a surface-level phenomenon (due to the imposition of other factors), it is still very much operative, and still determinant in the last instance.<br /><br />LK, you can't make sense of this because you believe a mechanism can only be real if it is empirical. That is irrealist. You should definitely check out the first document I linked above, though. It's very popular among Post Keynesians.<br /><br />I have a sneaking suspicion you'll spurn it, though, since I was the one who recommended it. I guess we'll know based on whether this comment even sees the light of day! :)Hedlundnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6245381193993153721.post-62003382103434340452016-01-29T20:08:25.149-08:002016-01-29T20:08:25.149-08:00Yes, Hedlund, you must be getting very angry that ...Yes, Hedlund, you must be getting very angry that there is so much evidence against your cult-like views.<br /><br />So where in the <i>Anti-Dühring</i> does Engels say:<br /><br />(1) the law of value (as Marx describes it above) is only completely abstract and never meant to explain price determination in any stage of capitalism, or <br /><br />(2) only meant to apply to premodern commodity exchange ( as he later argued).<br /><br />Got any evidence? <br />Lord Keyneshttps://www.blogger.com/profile/06556863604205200159noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6245381193993153721.post-19346561602235866982016-01-29T12:29:07.167-08:002016-01-29T12:29:07.167-08:00This is basically a regurgitation of arguments you...This is basically a regurgitation of arguments you've posted before. They were wrong then -- as I've taken care to illustrate each time -- just as they are now. Give it up.<br /><br />Quit stalling and get back to your chapter summaries of Capital vol 1, at least those introduced a bit of variety into your tirades.Hedlundnoreply@blogger.com