I'D LIKE TO HEAR YOUR RESPONSE TO THIS CRITICISM OF YOUR IDEA THAT WE ONLY
NEED EXPLOITATION NOT VALUE THEORY.
>
>More on your papers as I read through them.
>
I'm tuckered out on value theory. But as a matter of philosophy of social
science, I note that it was never an objection of mind that
CBThe laws of physics are formulated with plenty of exceptions. Take the
>first law of Newton and Galilei as presented by Einstein below. The clause
>"removed sufficiently far from other bodies" is a ceteris paribus clause
>and implies exceptions to the law ( i.e. when the body is not removed
>^
>
>CB: Are you saying that probablistic laws are not fuzzier than laws that
>are more definitive ?
Depends on the probablistic laws. The laws of quantum mechanics are as
precise as can be. So too are the laws of Mendelian genetics. Essentially
they can predict the probabilities the
Chris, Marx puts the dynamism in, in part, by saying that value represents
the cost of REPRODUCTION, not production. This is a key element in his
analysis of the devalorization of capital.
Chris Burford wrote:
> At 06/02/02 20:10 -0800, you wrote:
> >This definition of course does not capture t
LOV and LTV
by Justin Schwartz
07 February 2002 06:13 UTC
> >CB: What's the difference between a lawful explanation and a lawlike
> >explanation ? ( no fuzzy answers)
> >
>
>The explanations invoked in physics are lawful, i.e., they use preciselt
>formula
Christian,
Can't follow what you're getting at. Please restate.
>Rakesh,
>
>>Let me try this definition (open to revision of course):
>
>>Value is the socially necessary abstract labor time which
>>potentially objectified in a commodity has as its only and
>>necessary form of appearance units
>
>And how could Marx define the "absolute general law of capitalist
>accumulation" in the way he does in Ch XXV if his theory of value
>was not
>a) dynamic
>b )systemic?
>
>
>
>Mine is not an overimaginative reading of the overall thrust of
>Marx's approach, (although unimaginative readings of
[this was sent by mistake, before I finished it.]
>>But Justin, do you accept that what you criticise as being redundant some
of us would merely call a labor theory of prices?<<
Justin responds:> Not merely. Marx attempted to use value theory to do a lot
of work, e.g., as part od [of?] a theory
>>But Justin, do you accept that what you criticise as being redundant some
of us would merely call a labor theory of prices?<<
Justin responds:> Not merely. Marx attempted to use value theory to do a lot
of work, e.g., as part od [of?] a theory of crisis, as a component of his
account of commod
Rakesh,
>Let me try this definition (open to revision of course):
>Value is the socially necessary abstract labor time which potentially objectified in
>a commodity has as its only and necessary form of appearance units of money.
This is what I meant yesterday by "debt and wages" as the terms
LOV and LTV
by Justin Schwartz
05 February 2002 19:49 UTC
>
>Charles writes:
> > Can we get into a little more what a heuristic is ? Seems to be a sort
>of
>ok device for guiding scientific enquire, but sort of not a fulfledged
>...what ? Theoretical concept ? What
LOV and LTV
by Carrol Cox
06 February 2002 20:42 UTC
Charles, some where in Anti-Duhring Engels says that dialectics neither
proves anything nor discovers anything new. Sorry I can't quote it
exactly or give you an exact cite. Some writer used that as a text on
the basis of whi
>But Justin, do you accept that what you criticise as being redundant some
>of us would merely call a labor theory of prices?
Not merely. Marx attemptedto use value theory to do a lot of work, e.g., as
part od a theory of crisis, as a component of his account of commodity
fetishism, as an accou
At 06/02/02 20:10 -0800, you wrote:
>This definition of course does not capture the systemic and dynamic
>features which Chris B is attempting to build into his definition.
"The law of value of commodities ultimately determines how much of its
disposable working-time society can expend on each
At 07/02/02 06:07 +, you wrote:
>>CB: In this sense, Marx's "value" is not heuristic, but a fundamental
>>theoretical concept.
>
>I'm not persuaded.
>
>jks
Nobody has to be persuaded of anything.
But Justin, do you accept that what you criticise as being redundant some
of us would merely
> >CB: What's the difference between a lawful explanation and a lawlike
> >explanation ? ( no fuzzy answers)
> >
>
>The explanations invoked in physics are lawful, i.e., they use preciselt
>formulated lawsto generate specific (if sometimes probabilistic)
>predictions.
>
>^^
>
>CB: Of cours
As with most definitional debates or what seems futile hairsplitting
and mere semantics, the hope is that clarity as to definitions will
help prevent confusion and mutual incomprehension at a later stage in
the debate. For example, I think much of the debate in value theory
could be more produ
LOV and LTV
by Justin Schwartz
05 February 2002 20:05 UTC
I
>think Marx was genuinely dialectical in a specific Hegelian sense--he
>proceeds by immanent critique, for example--but this isn't a matter of
>giving an alternative to explanation by means of probabalistic laws or
&
: LOV and LTV
by Justin Schwartz
05 February 2002 19:49 UTC
>
>Charles writes:
> > Can we get into a little more what a heuristic is ? Seems to be a sort
>of
>ok device for guiding scientific enquire, but sort of not a fulfledged
>...what ? Theoretical concept ? What
Charles Brown wrote:
>
> Myself, I would not give dialectics a lesser status than full theoretical concepts.
>I was edified by THE DIALECTICAL BIOLOGIST , well, sort of as a heuristic in coming
>to an understanding of dialectics as more than a heuristic , as Marx , Engels and
>Lenin use dia
LOV and LTV
by Devine, James
05 February 2002 19:08 UTC
Charles writes:
> Can we get into a little more what a heuristic is ? Seems to be a sort of
ok device for guiding scientific enquire, but sort of not a fulfledged
...what ? Theoretical concept ? What is the term for other types
> > I discuss this is What's Wrong with Exploitation?, look it up, and see
>if
> > you disagree. jks
>
>What is wrong is endegenous accumulation which is enabled by "exploitation"
>as the profit source. And if endogenous accumulation is possible,
>capitalism
>can not experience crises. Rosa Lux
A wonderful story on heuristics.
Back in the fall of 1970 I got subpoened by a legislative commit6ee
investigating campus disorders. They were a bunch of buffoons -- as
shown beautifully by their interrogation of a professor of electrical
engineering from the U of I. He was a German emigre and st
JKS writes: >>> I have said as much here. But it's [the Marxian Law of Value
is] a far more limited heuristic than you seem to think. It's basically
useful for showing ina simple way that there's exploitation going on.
However, you can do this without it.<<<
quoth me: >>as I write on the margins
> I discuss this is What's Wrong with Exploitation?, look it up, and see if
> you disagree. jks
What is wrong is endegenous accumulation which is enabled by "exploitation"
as the profit source. And if endogenous accumulation is possible, capitalism
can not experience crises. Rosa Luxemburg unders
>
> > I have said as much here. But it's a far more limited heuristic than you
>seem to think. It's basically useful for showing ina simple way that
>there's exploitation going on. However, you can do this without it.<
>
>as I write on the margins of term papers now and then, assertion is not the
>
>Another point on this is that for Marx "value" mainly applies to
>capitalism. Marx refers to the fruits of exploitation in pre-capitalist
>societies as "surplus-labor" ( see below) not "surplus value" . So, for
>Marx "value" is meant to convey the specific form of exploitation that
>predom
Title: Re: [PEN-L:22419] Re: RE: Re: RE: Re: RE: Re: LOV
and
Why is domination functional for increasing
exploitation? The answer highlights a third problem with Roemer's
argument which turns on a crucial assumption of his models. In these
what workers sell is labour, not labour power, or,
equiva
Another point on this is that for Marx "value" mainly applies to capitalism. Marx
refers to the fruits of exploitation in pre-capitalist societies as "surplus-labor" (
see below) not "surplus value" . So, for Marx "value" is meant to convey the specific
form of exploitation that predominates in
I
>think Marx was genuinely dialectical in a specific Hegelian sense--he
>proceeds by immanent critique, for example--but this isn't a matter of
>giving an alternative to explanation by means of probabalistic laws or
>tendecies, but rather a style of explanation that offers a framework for
>offer
>
> >I have argued this point ins ome detail in my What's Wrong with
> >Exploitation? Nous 1995,
>
>At this point I must once more apologise for having taken a somewhat snippy
>tone in this thread; it is entirely because I am an idiot. I seem to have
>acquired the belief that "What's Wrong with
>
>Charles writes:
> > Can we get into a little more what a heuristic is ? Seems to be a sort
>of
>ok device for guiding scientific enquire, but sort of not a fulfledged
>...what ? Theoretical concept ? What is the term for other types of ideas
>( that are more than heuristic ) that are used
Justin:
I don't think we are making progress here, hadn't we best stop?
Charles: Well sure, but we know the issue will rise again on the list. It is one of
the regular recurring topics here.
CB: Can we get into a little more what a heuristic is?
Anyone interested in heuristics should consult a wonderful little book
called _How to Solve It_ by Georges Polya. The aim of heuristics
according to Polya is to "study the methods and rules of discovery and
invention." People like Polya (a
Charles writes:
> Can we get into a little more what a heuristic is ? Seems to be a sort of
ok device for guiding scientific enquire, but sort of not a fulfledged
...what ? Theoretical concept ? What is the term for other types of ideas
( that are more than heuristic ) that are used in scienti
t: [PEN-L:22404] LOV and LTV
LOV and LTV
by Devine, James
05 February 2002 04:42 UTC
BTW, the "laws" of supply & demand are also non-determinist. S&D cannot
give
specific answers to anything in the abstract. Rather, they have to be
given
empirical content. S&D might best
LOV and LTV
by Justin Schwartz
05 February 2002 05:13 UTC
>Marx uses the word "law" differently than Justin does. Marx's "laws" are
>dialectical, non-deterministic. But many interpret his ideas in Justin's
>terms, "proving" that Marx was a
LOV and LTV
by Devine, James
05 February 2002 04:42 UTC
Marx uses the word "law" differently than Justin does. Marx's "laws" are
dialectical, non-deterministic. But many interpret his ideas in Justin's
terms, "proving" that Marx was a determinist.
At 05/02/02 04:43 +, you wrote:
>>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,
- Original Message -
From: "Davies, Daniel" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
To: <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Sent: Monday, February 04, 2002 11:17 PM
Subject: [PEN-L:22376] RE: Re: RE: Re: LOV and LTV
>I have said as much here. But it's a far more limited heuristic
than you
Justin wrote:
>I have argued this point ins ome detail in my What's Wrong with
>Exploitation? Nous 1995,
At this point I must once more apologise for having taken a somewhat snippy
tone in this thread; it is entirely because I am an idiot. I seem to have
acquired the belief that "What's Wrong
Devine, James wrote:
>I wrote: >>Marx uses the word "law" differently than Justin does. Marx's
>"laws" are dialectical, non-deterministic. But many interpret his ideas in
>Justin's terms, "proving" that Marx was a determinist.<<
>
>Justin writes: > How do you get "deterministic" out of "precise
I wrote: >>Marx uses the word "law" differently than Justin does. Marx's
"laws" are dialectical, non-deterministic. But many interpret his ideas in
Justin's terms, "proving" that Marx was a determinist.<<
Justin writes: > How do you get "deterministic" out of "precisely formulated
relatoon among
>
>The clearest non-LTV demonstration that there is exploitation is Joan
>Robinson's observation that ownership is not an activity therefore it is
>not
>a productive activity, so any rewards to ownership must come out of someone
>else's production. But without something like the LTV, we miss a
"Devine, James" wrote:
>
> Of course, Marx's value theory -- or law of value -- is
> also a heuristic.
>
Isn't that the primary function of most (or all) "laws"? The Law of
Value serves primarily to focus attention on (a) the historicity of
capitalism and (b) the oranization and temporal all
>I have said as much here. But it's a far more limited heuristic than you
>seem to think. It's basically useful for showing ina simple way that
>there's exploitation going on. However, you can do this without it. jks
It's also useful for showing that the exploitation (defined in Roemer's
sens
>Marx uses the word "law" differently than Justin does. Marx's "laws" are
>dialectical, non-deterministic. But many interpret his ideas in Justin's
>terms, "proving" that Marx was a determinist.
How do you get "deterministic" out of "precisely formulated relatoon among
variables"? The laws of
>
>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 an
Chris B. writes: >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
t
Chris wrote:
> 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
> mor
At 04/02/02 15:37 -0500, you wrote:
> >
>Chris Burford:>I suggest that approaching these debates with the mind set
>of LTV, sustains
> >an assumption which is essentially about a simple equation:
> >
> >the value of something is its labour content (with various subtleties added
> >about terminolo
>
Chris Burford:>I suggest that approaching these debates with the mind set of LTV,
sustains
>an assumption which is essentially about a simple equation:
>
>the value of something is its labour content (with various subtleties added
>about terminology and more or lessness)
>
>LOV however is essen
52 matches
Mail list logo
