[OPE-L:8070] Re: Re: Re: Heisenberg, Marx and the uncertainty principle

From: clyder@gn.apc.org
Date: Wed Nov 27 2002 - 04:16:14 EST

> 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.

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.

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.1.5 : Thu Nov 28 2002 - 00:00:01 EST