Re: [PEN-L] empiricism in p.e.

[Romain Kroes <kroes@xxxxxxx>]

Doug Henwood wrote:
>
> Actually I've mostly phrased this as a question, not an assertion, a
> question that runs more or less as follows: "What do the Marxian value
> categories tell you about recent economic history that the intelligent use
> of bourgeois statistics can't?" By intelligent, in this context, I meant
> through Marx-informed eyes. I asked because I really want to hear answers,
> and not a lot of empty purist bluster.
>
> Doug

An answer can be found in the Joseph M. Gillman?s attempt to check the
marxist version of the « falling profit rate law », by the means of the
available statistics (London, 1957 ; New-York, 1958 ; Paris, 1980).
Gillman didn?t success in demonstrating the « law », for his time-series
show an increasing as well as decreasing variable, without any
significant trend. But in the scientific research, experimental failures
aren?t at all nul results. That one could be explained in three ways :

1.  The « law » is wrong
2.  Statistics are wrong
3.  The « law » and statistics are wrong or insufficient

Whatever it be, the answer is most important. In a prime analysis, it
appears that Gillman attempted to check a law that is closely associated
to the « period of production » variable, by the means of datas  that
are closely associated to an invariable unit of time. So that it seems
possible to choose the answer number 2. But in a deeper analysis, it
appears that the marxist expression of the « law » is itself jeopardized
by a contradiction, notably concerning the « surplus-value ». So that
the answer rather seems to be the third one : the marxist law of value
is contradictory to itself, and statistics don?t integrate an essential
variable : the necessary gestation time of labour products.

But both of marxist theory and available statistics can and must be
asked, until a very « economic science » end the debate.

Regards

Romain Kroes