Re: LOV and LTV

[Chris Burford <cburford@xxxxxxxxxx>]

At 05/02/02 04:43 +0000, you wrote:


> > Obviously I am in general sympathy with Charles's defence of the LOV
> > approach, but I think Justin helpfully pinpoints a line of demarcation. For
> > Justin a "law" is a "precisely formulable generalization". Many might agree
> > the merits of such an approach, but I am fairly confident that Marx and
> > Engels would not.
>
> Why do you think not?
>
> People will have to make a value judgement about
> > this.
>
> Why is this a value judgment?


It is a matter of taste how precise you want your map of reality to be for
what purpose.

I would rather have a fuzzy map of capitalism.



> > In the essay [Engels] considers various definitions of the law of value
> > and does
> > not insist on only one.
>
> Is that supposed to be a recommendation?


It is worth thinking about if you want to refute this law.



> > But I suspect that Justin's clearest line of demarcation is in the
> > importance of any theory being vulnerable to "testing and criticism". This
> > is a standpoint of a philosophical approach that objects to theories like
> > those of Freud or Marx on the grounds that they are not falsifiable.
>
> I didn't say that and don't believe it. I think Freud's a fraud as a
> scientist, but Marx is the real think. I think the core of his theories is
> correct.


OK I note you do not accept that definition of the line of demarcation.

But then there is a more precise one: for me the law of value is one of
Marx's core theories. For you it is not.

Regards

Chris Burford