[OPE-L:8077] Re: Heisenberg, Marx and the uncertainty principle

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.

_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-  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