> >Obviously I am in general sympathy with Charles's defence of the LOV >approach, but I think Justin helpfully pinpoints a line of demarcation. For >Justin a "law" is a "precisely formulable generalization". Many might agree >the merits of such an approach, but I am fairly confident that Marx and >Engels would not.
Why do you think not? People will have to make a value judgement about >this. > Why is this a value judgment? >In Chapter XXV Section 4 of Vol 1 of Capital Marx states in connection >with "the absolute general law of capitalist accumulation" "like all other >laws it is modified in its working by many circumstances, the analysis of >which does not concern us here." This doesn't show that Marx rejects the usual formulation of "law," rather, he accepts the obvious point that like many purported social laws, it states a tendency that is ceteris paribus and probabalistic. > >Now it is true that Marx's formulation of the law could still conceivably >be expressed in a clear relationship of variables despite this >qualification, but the qualification suggests to me that Marx expected the >workings of any serious law to be fuzzy in practice. Sure. But this is just a fact about social generalizations. > >The statement about the "law of value of commodities in Ch XIV Section >4 goes on to say "But this constant tendency to equlibirum ... is >exercised only in the shape of a reaction against the constant upsetting of >this equilbrium." This to my mind makes it sound much more like a strange >attractor than a simple equation. Even a precisely formed law can take a very complex form. A law doesn't have to have a simple form. > >> >In the essay [Engels] considers various definitions of the law of value and >does >not insist on only one. Is that supposed to be a recommendation? > >So this is a declaration of philosophical realism - that something has >emerged in the course of economic history and that a law describing it is >not a purely logical process but an explanatory reflection in thought of >that real process. Social laws, if there are any, are empirical generalizations, not purely logical processes. > > >Obviously like Charles I am a believer that there is some such thing as a >capitalist economy Me too. >and that it has a self perpetuating dynamic. I agree. >But I suspect that Justin's clearest line of demarcation is in the >importance of any theory being vulnerable to "testing and criticism". This >is a standpoint of a philosophical approach that objects to theories like >those of Freud or Marx on the grounds that they are not falsifiable. I didn't say that and don't believe it. I think Freud's a fraud as a scientist, but Marx is the real think. I think the core of his theories is correct. jks _________________________________________________________________ Send and receive Hotmail on your mobile device: http://mobile.msn.com
