[P2P-F] Analytical marxism, John Roemer and equality of opportunity

Mon Dec 26 19:51:06 CET 2011

First, let me say that I just learned about rational choice theory and so
it will be my interpretation of it that I will defend.

It is important to deferentiate the theory and its results from the
interpretation of the results. To this end, all your arguments refute
interpretations that most of the time were malevolently made to moralize
the unfair status quo.

Evolutionary biology for example is a good science but it has been
brutalized by many. We need to use the results, not discard them.

But I have to take back what i said about analytical marxism replacing
marxism.

I can argue though that analytical Marxism is to Marxism what mathematics
is to physics.
The methodology of physicists is incomprehensive to me and my methodology
is to them. But physics needs math and math needs physics for too many
reasons.

Physicists never stopped using math because some mathematician believe in
idealism. Neither have mathematicians stopped taking intuition from the
work of physicists because some physicists believe in empiricism.

In conclution, analytical marxism doesnt strip human agency from structures
and relations. It simply avoids to deal with the problem simply because the
tools that analytical marxism uses are not able to solve it. Do you know
that physicists right now use tools that are rejected by mathematicians
simply because they dont have a logical framework to put them in?

2011/12/26 Michel Bauwens <michel at p2pfoundation.net>

> hi Apostolis,
>
> my impression is that the last 20 years, if not more, of critical economic
> (and philosophical) thinking have been to undermine rational choice theory
> in all sorts of ways ...  and I personally don't know anybody that acts
> purely rationally, (and if he/she did, I would see it as a sign of
> pathology), if that is taken as the essence of rational theory; in my view,
> it strips human agency of all kinds of crucial embeddeness in structures
> and relations.
>
> On Mon, Dec 26, 2011 at 3:04 PM, Apostolis Xekoukoulotakis <
> xekoukou at gmail.com> wrote:
>
>> I just found him. His methodology seems very similar to mine. He also has
>> an interest to equality of opportunity.
>>
>>
>> From http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Analytical_Marxism
>>  Exploitation
>>
>> At the same time as Cohen was working on *Karl Marx's Theory of History*,
>> American economist John Roemer was employing neoclassical economics in
>> order to try to defend the Marxist concepts of exploitation<http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Exploitation>
>> and class <http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Social_class>. In his *General
>> Theory of Exploitation and Class* (1982), Roemer employed rational choice<http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Rational_choice>
>>  and game theory <http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Game_theory> in order to
>> demonstrate how exploitation and class relations may arise in the
>> development of a market for labour. Roemer would go on to reject the idea
>> that the labour theory of value<http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Labour_theory_of_value> was
>> necessary for explaining exploitation and class. Value was in principle
>> capable of being explained in terms of any class of commodity inputs, such
>> as oil, wheat, etc., rather than being exclusively explained by embodied
>> labour power. Roemer was led to the conclusion that exploitation and class
>> were thus generated not in the sphere of production but of market exchange.
>> Significantly, as a purely technical category, exploitation did not always
>> imply a moral wrong (see section Justice<http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Analytical_Marxism#Justice>
>>  below).
>>
>>
>> I am unfamiliar with his beliefs. I for example believe that the
>> ownership of the means of production are those that create trading routes
>> that allow the market exchange to magnify wealth inequality. I am uncertain
>> though as to who is the victim of exploitation. I think that dependent on
>> the ocassion both the consumer and the workers could be exploited.
>>
>> Even If it turns out that I disagree with him, He uses rationale choice
>> theory to explain things like I do.
>> http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Rational_choice_theory
>>
>>
>> I wonder what happened to this school of thought, most importantly why it
>> hasnt replaced marxism all together. I dont think that this theory is
>> plagued with revisionism, It isnt difficult to avoid determinism while you
>> keep using mathematical models. it has in fact better more concrete
>> foundations than before.
>>
>> --
>>
>>
>> Sincerely yours,
>>
>>      Apostolis Xekoukoulotakis
>>
>>
>>
>> _______________________________________________
>> P2P Foundation - Mailing list
>> http://www.p2pfoundation.net
>> https://lists.ourproject.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/p2p-foundation
>>
>>
>
>
> --
> P2P Foundation: http://p2pfoundation.net  - http://blog.p2pfoundation.net
>
> Connect: http://p2pfoundation.ning.com; Discuss:
> http://lists.ourproject.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/p2p-foundation
>
> Updates: http://del.icio.us/mbauwens; http://friendfeed.com/mbauwens;
> http://twitter.com/mbauwens; http://www.facebook.com/mbauwens
>
>
> _______________________________________________
> P2P Foundation - Mailing list
> http://www.p2pfoundation.net
> https://lists.ourproject.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/p2p-foundation
>
>

-- 

Sincerely yours,

     Apostolis Xekoukoulotakis
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: https://lists.ourproject.org/pipermail/p2p-foundation/attachments/20111226/374c9f80/attachment.htm 