From: Michael Eldred (artefact@t-online.de)
Date: Wed Nov 27 2002 - 11:03:25 EST
Cologne 27-Nov-2002 clyder@gn.apc.org schrieb Wed, 27 Nov 2002 09:16:14 +0000: > > Marx?s law here, which is a reformulation of Ricardo?s law of value > > (although > > also supplemented by a thorough philosophical and thus ?qualitative? or > > ?metaphysical? analysis of the value-form), is subject to the same > > metaphysico-mathematical demand as announced in Descartes? _Regulae_. A > > _reason_ > > is _rendered_ (Leibniz: "rendre raison" _Principes de la Nature et de la > > Grace, > > Fondés en Raison_ Para. 11) for the exchange relations of commodities, and > > these relations are themselves conceived from their quantitative aspect > > amenable > > to mathematical treatment, for which a sufficient, quantitative reason is > > sought > > and found to reside in labour-time under a definite qualification of being > > ?socially necessary?. It cannot be said, however, that the law of value has > > been > > empirically underpinned in the way that this can and has been asserted for > > Newton?s second law of motion which initially drew its evidence from the > > movements of celestial bodies. Furthermore, the debate among economists > > which > > Marx?s theory of labour value inaugurated has led to it being largely > > rejected, > > for neither empirically nor through deductive reasoning is it possible to > > shore > > up such a quantitative law for magnitudes of exchange-value regulating the > > exchange relations between commodities, even very indirectly through steps > > of > > conceptual mediation. > > I would seriously dispute this. There is now a growing body > of empirical literature which indicates a very close correspondance > between actual sectoral prices in economies and the correponding > labour values. The correlations revealed are remarkably strong > by economic standards. Interesting caveat: "by economic standards", also echoed by Paul Cockshott's qualification: "as economic theories go". How do they go? > I would contend that economists rejection of the labour theory > of value draws more from bourgeois class interest - horrified at > the moral consequences of accepting it - than any scientific objectivity. > > > If established, such a quantitative law would have > > indeed > > provided the foundation for a ?theory of motion? of capitalist economy and > > allowed reliable, predictive mathematical calculation of its movements. > > > > It has been established so the rest of your argument falls. You find what you look for -- just as Galileo did when he rolled balls on inclined planes. That's the way science in the modern age works: it sets up its experiments to interrogate what is then given to the set-up by way of data. It is successful precisely because it does not question its preconceptions. The phenomenon and experience of exchange -- and thus also its concept -- is richer than you think. Michael _-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_- artefact text and translation _-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_ _-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_- made by art _-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_ http://www.webcom.com/artefact/ _-_-_-_-_-_- artefact@webcom.com _-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_ Dr Michael Eldred -_-_- _-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_
This archive was generated by hypermail 2.1.5 : Thu Nov 28 2002 - 00:00:01 EST