Fw: [PEN-L] Falsifiability and the law of value

[Ian Murray <seamus2001@xxxxxxxxx>]

I asked Jim D. a ? in response to his statements on the LOV. Here's his
response, which he ok'd to pass on.


----- Original Message -----
From: "Devine, James" <jdevine@xxxxxxx>
To: "'Ian Murray'" <seamus2001@xxxxxxxxx>

 I wrote:
 > > We have to consider what the alternative to the LOV is. If
 > > we reject the LOV
 > > heuristic that starts with the notion that society involves  a
 > > collective
 > > labor process, is the alternative that it's simply a matter of
 > > individuals
 > > exchanging with each other (the neoclassical belief)? or
 > > what is your
 > > alternative, JKS?

 Ian writes:
 > I'm not jks [nor will I be playing him on tv any time soon]
>


 I don't think you could make a lot of money playing JKS on TV, so keep
your
 day job!

 > but we
 > wouldn't say we need to replace god once theism is shown to be an
 > untenable account of reality.



 God (or gods and/or goddesses) is at a completely different theoretical
 level.  It's a matter of ontology, what exists. Theism asserts a fact,
i.e.,
 that god(s) exist.

 On the other hand, the LOV is much more an issue of epistemology, i.e.,
how
 can we try to understand the world. If your task is to figure out the
nature
 of the capitalist beast (in order to change or kill it), what's the best
 approach? (I like the word "heuristic" here better than "epistemology,"
but
 the latter makes good contrast to ontology, which is what theism
involves.)

 Clearly, epistemological and ontological issues are interrelated and are
 thus hard to separate. Neoclassicals instinctively apply an
individualistic
 method (an epistemological approach) because they believe that the world
 really is nothing but the sum of the parts (an ontological proposition).
 Marxians apply a holistic method because they believe that the (societal)
 world is an interconnected system.

 How to choose, at least on this abstract level? I'd apply the
completeness
 criterion (what lawyers seem to be referring to as "the whole truth").
Does
 a method leave obvious issues out? Methodological individualism involves
a
 deliberate refusal to ignore the way in which the aggregate or macro
level
 feeds back to determine the character of the individual parts -- in order
to
 focus only on the way in which the parts create the whole. The
mirror-image
 of this should also be rejected. This is sometimes called "Marxism" (but
 could also be structural functionalism, mysticism, or the like) and
involves
 rejecting looking at the way in which individuals create society to focus
 only on the way in which the whole determines the character of the parts.
 (This kind of Marxism rejects any role for the study of psychology, for
 example.)

 In other words, both sides Levins & Lewontin's story in THE DIALECTICAL
 BIOLOGIST (paraphrasing, "the parts make the whole and the whole makes
the
 parts") are important. I think that Marx's LOV represents a major way to
 make sure that we heed the role of the whole making the parts. This
doesn't
 mean, however, that as a matter of principle, we should ignore
microeconomic
 (or microsociological) theory. (If asked to predict individual price
 changes, I'd turn to the "law" of supply and demand before I'd use the
LOV.)



 > Couldn't we jettison the LOV
 > heuristic and
 > just use class analysis in the manner of EO Wright, for instance?

 I am not very familiar with Erik's recent work, so I may end up being
 unfair. But what the hell, he's not here to complain. ;-)

 Lately it seems like he's mostly an empiricist in orientation, one who
takes
 existing theoretical concepts rather than developing new ones and then
tests
 their validity empirically. That's fine as far as it goes and can be
 extremely useful, but it's important to remember that social science
 involves a division of labor. Just because he does generally empiricist
work
 doesn't mean that others should also do that. There can be
 cross-fertilization between different scholars' work. In fact, I'm pretty
 sure that he acknowledges the fact that a lot of his concepts come from
 folks like Marx who don't follow his lead.

 If I remember correctly, these days Erik uses a theory of class derived
from
 Roemer (who adapted Marx). This involves class being defined as a
 characteristic of individuals. I prefer Marx's original, in which class
 first and foremost is defined in terms of positions in a societal
structure
 and process.

 BTW, he recently published an article of mine which followed the
 Levins/Lewontin method, looking at both the micro determination of macro
 phenomena and vice-versa.

 Jim