> >Justin, you expect us to move on after you characterize my attempts >as inward turning--this is exactly what the Marxian law of value is >not!
Well, I'm out of energy, anyway. And these are not the points I am after, as should be clear to >you after years of debate. There is a willful ignorance on your part >that is disturbing to say the least. You are trivializing what the >law of value is meant to explain so that you can walk away from it >without loss. This is in fact dishonest. So shoot me. > >And please do not use the hot and heavy rhetoric I thought I was pretty mild. unless you can >explicitly name the fatal objection. We were dealing with the >redundancy charge which even if true is not by any means a fatal >objection, for all it shows in itself is that calculation by value is >inconvenient and derivative. A degenerating research program often doesn't have a single fatal flaw. It just runs out of steam, spends all of its time trying to fix up internal problem, doesn't geberate new hypotheses and predictions and theories. I think that is a pretty good description of what has happened in Marxian value theory over the last century. > >Or do you really think GA Cohen's piece on the labor theory of value >is definitive? I think it's a perfect disaster. his absolute worst piece, showing inexplicable and appalling ignorance of fundamental issues. > >Moreover, note that I raised the question whether and how any theory >other than labor value makes sense of moral depreciation and the >paradoxes to which it gives rise. You give no reply. Haven't really thought about it. > >And we need to be clear yet another thing. Freudianism and Marxism >would clearly be falsifiable if people were not to act irrationally >and capitalist development were to crisis free, respectively. ? Anyway, falsifiability is not my thing. I'm a pragmatist, not a Popperian. Fruitfulness is my thing. The LTV isn't fruitful. > >As Grossmann demonstrated, the law of value finds its confirmation >not only in the recurrence of general, protracted crises but in its >accurate prediction of (and specification of) the kinds of >techno-organizational changes that are needed by both individual >capitals and the capitalist class-as-a-whole for an exit from crises >of a general and protracted type. > >The law of value which was applied by Mattick Sr to the accumulation >of fictitious capital in the form of govt debt was confirmed by mixed >economy going up in stagflationary ashes and by the limits of >Keynesian intervention since then. > >The law of value is not confirmed at the level of exchange ratios but >rather more like the law of gravity is confirmed when a house falls >on one's head. > A fallacy: Your theory preducts that there will crises. The theory posits X. There are crises. So X exists. I have argued, however, that the main lines of the theoey can be reconstituted without X and still give us the same results. Also, I note that Marxisn crisis theory is highly underdeveloped, and IMHO the best version of it, Brenner's, does not use value theory. Anyway, I'm plum tuckered out. jks _________________________________________________________________ MSN Photos is the easiest way to share and print your photos: http://photos.msn.com/support/worldwide.aspx
