My "fuzzy" understanding of this is that the hard core of "tautologies"
nevertheless supports if the theory is progressive a research program
creating theories that are empirically testable and/or useful in explaining
empirical data. Most religious theories would employ supernatural entites
such as a deity or deities in explaining events whereas Marxists avoid use
of such concepts. There is a certain affinity between the tautological core
concepts of some aspects of Marxism and many theological therories in that
they are not themselves subject to empirical disconfirmation directly. I
suppose just as Candide found that this is the best of all possible worlds
was not a very positive research project and lose faith in religions many
think the same of showing the ultimate revolutionary overthrow of capitalism
by the working class and lose faith in Marxism.
Can't theories have explanatory power interpret events, make sense of
them, in an illuminating way even though they may not directly predict
precisely what will happen. Religious theories can give meaning to
individual lives by enabling individual to "see" the world in terms of some
basic conceptions, Marxism can play a similar role in peoples lives.
Cheers, Ken Hanly
----- Original Message -----
From: "Ian Murray" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
To: <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Sent: Monday, February 04, 2002 6:24 PM
Subject: [PEN-L:22358] Re: Re: Re: RE: Re: re: re: Historical Materialism
>
> ----- Original Message -----
> From: "Ken Hanly" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
> To: <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
> Sent: Friday, February 01, 2002 10:13 PM
> Subject: [PEN-L:22213] Re: Re: RE: Re: re: re: Historical
> Materialism
>
>
> I don't understand this stuff about the observational consequences
> of
> theories at the level of generality of the theory of value. What if
> the
> labor theory of value is part of the central core of Marxism ? If
> that is so
> then in itself it does not have any specific empirical implications
> period.
> Jim Devine seems to take a position of this sort in a piece on
> the web:
>
> Marx's goals for the LoV were to analyze the societal
> nature and laws of motion of the capitalism; another way of
> saying this is that the LoV summarizes the method of analysis
> that Marx applies in Capital. The LoV is part of what Imre
> Lakatos [1970] terms the "hard core" of tautologies and
> simplifying assumptions that is a necessary part of any research
> program.1 The quantitative aspect of value should be seen as a
> true-by-definition accounting framework to be used to break
> through the fetishism of commodities -- allowing the analysis of
> capitalism as a social system. Prices, the accounting framework
> most used by economists, both reflect existing social relations
> and distort their appearance. It is necessary to have an
> alternative to prices if one wants to understand what is going
> on behind the level of appearances: looking at what people do
> in production (i.e., labor, value) helps reveal the social
> relations between them.
>
> If this interpretation is correct then Quine-Duhem's stuff is
> irrelevant not
> that it makes much sense to me anyway. Seems like a neanderthal
> idea to
> speak of theories implying empirical consequences just like that
> without
> assumptions conditions etc. assumed: or of "evidence"
> straightforwardly
> supporting a theory. So the Quine-Duhem stuff is not relevant and
> even if it
> were why should it be given any particular weight? Is it any less
> dubious
> than the Marxian theory of value?
>
> Cheers, Ken Hanly
>
> ====================
>
> Ok but then what's to stop such skepticism creep? What makes any
> theory non-dubious if not observational consequences? This puts of
> lot of theories on the same level as theology, no?
>
> Ian
>
