Chris Burford wrote:
> > Can I point out that the marxian law of value,
> > probably cannot be
> > falsified, but may be "true".
> >
> > The only empirical study I know about it is by Paul
> > Cockshott and Allin
> > Cottrell showing that it could fit with
> > macroeconomic data, I think for
> > Scotland if I recall correctly.
andie nachgeborenen (the nom de plume of JKS) wrote:
> This was unnecessary. First of all, the reasons that
> have motivated most skeptics who have thought about
> the matter to reject the LOV or LTV -- like me -- are
> not that it is an "unscientific notion" that cannot be
> "falsified," but that it is a bad scientific notion
> whose time is up bewcause it has not proved to have
> any explanatory value or theoretical use, other than
> employing a shrinking group of true believers
> increasingly arcane defenses.
Yes, that's a statement of belief. You don't like the LOV, so it's "bad." And you like to insult people, labelling them "true believers." That's a good way to insulate your hard core of belief from any alternative points of view, shutting off discussion. Is that your goal, JKS?
It's clear that something is wrong with the traditional presentation of Marx's "labor theory of value" (even though, if specified correctly, it does a pretty good job at predicting long-term equilibrium prices in competitive markets in statistical tests). For example, the usual presentation totally ignores the question of the _reasons_ why Marx assumed that values = prices in volume I of CAPITAL, used value abstractions so much throughout the entire book, and (unlike most economists) did not see price determination as a big issue that should be addressed up front. (Further, why didn't he ever use the phrase "labor theory of value" except in reference to Ricardo's very-different price theory?)
The fact that there are problems suggests at least two responses:
1. reject the the "labor theory of value" completely, accepting some alternative theory that's available. This, it seems, is what JKS advocates.
2. alternatively, try to understand, clarify, and correct "it," to understand what "it" was supposed to be and what its purposes were supposed to be. This is what I advocate. I see Marx's Law of Value _not_ a theory of price determination (as with David Ricardo) but as a heuristic for understanding society. To separate it from the price-theoretic "labor theory of value" that appears in places like Paul Sweezy's THEORY OF CAPITALIST DEVELOPMENT, I like to call it the "law of value" (LOV).
We have to consider what the alternative to the LOV is. If we reject the LOV heuristic that starts with the notion that society involves a collective labor process, is the alternative that it's simply a matter of individuals exchanging with each other (the neoclassical belief)? or what is your alternative, JKS?
The fact that Marx applied the LOV heuristic to produce one of the most, if not _the_ most, profound understandings of capitalism (i.e., his book CAPITAL) suggests that the LOV heuristic has "explanatory value" and "theoretical use."
BTW, the fact that a group is "shrinking" may or may not be a sign of "bad" theory. The fact that the number of trade unionists -- or people who think that trade unions are a good idea -- is shrinking in the US seems more a result of the one-sided class war against unionism rather than being a sign that trade unionism is a "bad" idea. We should reject the "democratic theory of truth" (under which the continued popularity of the belief that Osama and Saddam are the best of friends would be evidence that they are indeed such). Of course, we should also reject the idea that "truth" is always the property of minorities who disagree with the majority perception.
Jim
