halfway to infinity: an almost blog about almost nothing

Hierarchy of tags directly related to human studies

#

Posts classified under human studies

#

Part of a series:
ℹ️

Emmanuel Farjoun & Moshé Machover’s Laws of Chaos: A Probabilistic Approach to Political Economy () (henceforth LoC)[FM20] was republished in ; this republished version is reviewed below.

In this review, we learn exactly how LoC (& much of the Anglophone literature in general) fundamentally misunderstands categories of Karl Marx’s Capital[1] such as price, production‐price, value, capital, labour‐power, etc.; learn a bit about these categories themselves; locate the particular source of the neoricardians’ uncomprehension; and ultimately indicate which aspects of LoC can nonetheless be salvaged.

Readers of LoC interested in the critique thereof may skip ahead to the section on ch. III. Those solely interested in the heart of the matter may skip ahead to the crux of ch. VI. Many (but not all) findings are briefly summarised in the conclusion.

Part of a series:

A guest post (from the end of last year) by Guglielmo Carchedi on Michael Roberts’s blog[CR24] makes an attempt to refute the framework put forth in Emmanuel Farjoun & Moshé Machover’s Laws of Chaos () (henceforth LoC).[FM83] Paul Cockshott responds on his own blog[Coc24] in defence of LoC’s approach, and Carchedi fires back with an addendum.

All involved are avowed “Marxists”, and the result is generally illustrative of the level of (mis)understanding of Marx’s own work that’s typical of so‐called “Marxists”. By investigating said exchange, this post begins a brief series, which will only touch upon LoC in the second instalment; that is, the present post neither attacks nor defends LoC.

I recently extracted this customary little piece of paper from a fortune cookie:
A piece of paper from the inside of a fortune cookie
Transcription of the above image

LEARN CHINESE — Dry Cleaning
(qián)()

Lucky Numbers 50, 47, 22, 1, 35, 20

Figure 1: The piece of paper in question!

Fortune cookies are not Chinese. At best, they’re Japanese, and really, the modern form that we know is an American invention. The transfer in association from Japanese to Chinese (or rather, from Japanese‐American to Chinese‐American) seems to largely boil down to the gastronomic preferences of Americans at the time (viz. the first half of the 20th c.):

“A lot of Chinese restaurants were owned by Japanese,” Stephen said, noting that there wasn’t a lot of demand for sushi back then. “They opened Chinese restaurants as a means to an income.”

The use of English & Sinitic (rather than Japanese) text on fortune cookies would have to wait until the incarceration of Japanese‐Americans in concentration camps during WWII, as implied by an anecdote relayed by Lee: