I have not had time to read carefully the interesting discussion of Ockam's Razor and value-form theory. But on a quick reading, I agree with Paul C: value-form theory does not have a theory of price or a theory of surplus-value (as a quantity). I don't think Nicky or Geert or Michael have responded on this point (please correct me if I am wrong). I have argued the same point on OPEL a while back. Therefore, Ockam's Razor does not apply in this comparison of Marx's theory and value-form theory. One version of Ockam's Razor (as I have understood it) is that, between two theories that can explain the same phenomena, the theory with the fewest assumptions is to be preferred. But this razor does not apply to Marx's labor theory of value and value-form theory, because the two do not explain the same phenomena. I would argue that Marx's labor theory of value explains more phenomena than value-form theory. Marx's labor-theory of value explains prices and, most importantly, surplus-value; but value-from theory does not explain these all-important phenomena. So I would say that Marx's labor theory of value is preferred to value-form theory because it has greater explanatory power. Value-form theory, as I understand it, develops concepts; it does not determine quantities. By contrast, Marx's theory both develops concepts and determines quantities. That is why I think that Marx's theory has greater explanatory power than value-form theory. I look forward to further discussion. Comradely, Fred
This archive was generated by hypermail 2b30 : Sat Jun 02 2001 - 00:00:07 EDT