LOV and LTV

["Charles Brown" <CharlesB@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>]

 LOV and LTV
by Justin Schwartz
05 February 2002 05:13 UTC




>Marx uses the word "law" differently than Justin does. Marx's "laws" are
>dialectical, non-deterministic. But many interpret his ideas in Justin's
>terms, "proving" that Marx was a determinist.

How do you get "deterministic" out of "precisely formulated relatoon among
variables"? The laws of quantum mechanics are as precisely formulated as
could be, and nondeterministic too. Fallback to "dialectics," though, raises
my antennae, because it is often an excuse to talk a lot of nonsense. I
think Marx was genuinely dialectical in a specific Hegelian sense--he
proceeds by immanent critique, for example--but this isn't a matter of
giving an alternative to explanation by means of probabalistic laws or
tendecies, but rather a style of explanation that offers a framework for
offering lawlike explanations.

^^^^^^^^^

CB: What's the difference between a lawful explanation and a lawlike explanation ?  ( no fuzzy answers)


^^^^^^^



>
>BTW, the "laws" of supply & demand are also non-determinist. S&D cannot
>give
>specific answers to anything in the abstract. Rather, they have to be given
>empirical content. S&D might best be seen as a (an?) heuristic, acting as a
>guide to thought. Of course, Marx's value theory -- or law of value -- is
>also a heuristic.

I have said as much here. But it's a far more limited heuristic than you
seem to think. It's basically useful for showing ina  simple way that
there's exploitation going on. However, you can do this without it. jks


^^^^^^^

CB: Is exploitation a heuristic ?   Does the other way of showing that exploitation is going on use heuristic devices ?