" Marx had derived his theory of crisis in basic assumptions of the labor theory of value. I know of no empirical studies of the current economic system, based on an application of the labor theory of value. Whose validity we must leave undecided, "said Jürgen Habermas in
. The Left responds Jürgen Habermas (Frankfurt am Main 1968, p. 9f.).
Voilà! Such is called empirical study exists:
Nils Fröhlich: The timeliness of the labor theory of value. Theoretical and empirical aspects. Metropolis Verlag Marburg 2009th ISBN 978-3-89518-756-8.
characteristic of critics of the AWT that come with the empirical, which is naively positivist condensed view of empirical research and testing a theory. This is probably due to the fact that the critics who use the argument that such a business still had not got anything to entertain and that is why some very bold opinions about it.
The lack of empirical verification can usually work objected to specific issues related to socio-economic research, Habermas in relation to the declaration of the occurrence of crises in capitalism. In the background may often be an instrumental view of theory, which could be combined with a casually pragmatic theory of truth. In this way, is the frequent use of the adjective "current" understanding, namely that a given event (a crisis or a change of government, ... etc.), economic theory should be chosen according to whether they fit the particular occasion. "News" here means as much as "useful", at least as much as "theoretically interesting" or even "politically useful", be it for legitimacy, it is for the disposal of instructions.
In the same context there but still at a very different argument, not the empirical testing (although empirical verifiability is tacitly assumed), but the argument raised question of whether Marx to his knowledge, intent, or to his political intentions (such as the would critique of capitalism) necessarily requires the AWT. So had Joan Robinson in 1942 sums up the fruits of their first "capital" studies like this:
"As I see it, the conflict between Volume I and Volume III is a conflict between mysticism and common sense. In volume III common sense triumphs but must still pay lip-service to mysticism in its verbal formulations.” – “I hope that it will become clear, in the following pages, that no point of substance in Marx’ argument depends upon the labour theory of value. Voltaire remarked that it is possible to kill a flock of sheep by witchcraft if you give them plenty of arsenic at the same time. The sheep, in this figure, may well stand for the complacent apologists of capitalism; Marx’s penetrating insight and bitter hatred of oppression supply the arsenic, while the labour theory of value provide the incantations.”
(Joan Robinson: An Essay on Marxian Economics. London, Basingstoke 2. Aufl. 1966 (zuerst 1942).
This Robinson goes so far that it reduces the content of the AWT entirely on the political value element or the social critique.
not quite so far has gone Karl Popper, he pursued, however, the same trend, the function of the theoretical core of AWT downplay possible or to seek to diminish:
"I think the theory of value Marx, usually with the Marxists as well as the opponents of Marxism as a cornerstone of Marxist is building for a fairly insignificant part (...) ... would improve the position of Marxism, only if one could show that its major historical and political lessons independently develop such a controversial theory can "
(Karl R. Popper: The Open Society and Its Enemies Vol II:... False Prophets - Hegel, Marx and the consequences 6th edition Munich 1980 (first 1944). p. 209)
a naive positivism Poppers shown on this occasion that he "controversies," a theory implicitly considers a flaw. Is not a theory, the more it is challenged, tested all the more, it has withstood so more and more content than other tests of?
All the above mentioned critics say those are not the core problem of any theory of value see the day when the concept of economic value, as in a standard way David Ricardo in his Adam Smith's criticism of his suffering had ways. Apparently all these critics maintain an economic theory is conceivable, the exclusion of those thorny question entirely. The omissions, which were about Robinson in their above publication on its own, make it clear that it completely in the so "dogmatic" questions such as the theoretical relationship between exchange value and use value alongside groped (Habermas in their wake), so when about science described as a source of value, just because they may increase the physical productivity (much like an increase in fertility of soils in agriculture). Is it perhaps that some critics of today (as many economists after the so-called "marginalist revolution") is completely at the "theoretical mind" for such abstract issues going on?
based Apparently, the negative attitude of the critics of the AWT simply that they not only offered the solution of Marx did not like, but the very fact issue raised position.
so it is with this theory historically most inexperienced economists and some lay people to the philosophy:
Hinz. philosophei are also for the?
Kunz. what is it? Sun'll say it.
Hinz. it is instructive, Hinz Dazs not Kunz and Kunz was not Hinze.
Kunz. philosophei'm not for.
(CLAUDIUS (1775) 1, 207), and references. Grimm's dictionary)
0 comments:
Post a Comment