Wojtek Sokolowski :
My point exactly. A theory is useful inasmuch as it allows to predict specific outcomes under specific circumstances.
^^^ CB; Do you think Darwin's is a useful theory ?
Anyway, Marx's labor theory of value and lemmas leads him to the Absolute General Law of Capitalist Accumulation, which predicts that as the capitalists make money on one end there will be a mass of poor people generated by this profitmaking , exploiting process, at the other end of the scale. Seems like the theory makes an accurate prediction given all the poor people in this capitalist, global society.
^^^
WS: If a theory can predict, say, what business execs are likely to do under a particular sets of circumstances, it is useful and it is empirical science.
^^^^ CB: There are other parts of Marx's theory that can predict what business execs will do under a particular set of circumstances. If their profit rate drops, they will lay workers off. The part of the theory that predicts this is that which claims that all capitalists are under the gun to make profits, and have no choice but to make profits. So, Marx's theory does make that specific prediction. Marx's theory predicts that the business execs will try to make profits on an ever increasing scale. That prediction comes true too.
The LTV is not the entirety of Marx's theory , but even it makes predictions that come through all the time in capitalist economies. It predicts that because of the anarchy of production, there will be winners and losers among the companies, there will be business failures, and there will be general economic crises due to overproduction from time to time. Marx's theory would predict that there would be events like the Great Depression of the thirties. Bourgeois economic theory does not. And Marx derives this prediction from the LTV basics. (See Vol. I and III of _Capital_).
Marx's theory makes all kinds of predictions that come true all the time. You must not be paying attention to his whole theory or economic empircal reality and history.
^^^^^ WS: Methinks much of the so-called social sciences, including economics, - not just LTV, fall into the second category. They are mere descriptions or metaphors cum praise or invective whose main strength is their emotive appeal.
^^^ CB: All kinds of things Marx's theory predict have come true. The emotive appeal is due to the unity of theory and practice of Marx's approach, pursuant to the ideas elucidated in The Theses on Feuerbach. Marx's theory even predicted that there would be a socialist revolution, and lo and behold one took place in Russia, and then China, and then Cuba , and now Venezuela.... You thinks real wrong about the success of Marxism in predicting.
Marxism theory is united with practice. It has the duel function of predicting and inspiring to action to cause the results. The Marxist conception of a scientific theory is different than the positivistic notion you put forth here, devoid of unity of theory and practice.
In human affairs, a scientific theory must take into account that humans are the active agents, and so people have to be directly persuaded to act in a certain way in part by the theory. For predictions in social science to come true, people must be persuaded to act and change the world in a certain way. This means there is a fundamental difference between a scientific theory of history and a scientific theory of nature. It also means that Marx's theory combines objective analysis with subjective inspiration to act to change the world. Philosophers have interpreted the world in a number of ways; the thing is to change it. Can't change the human world without humans acting based on your theory. If a social theory doesn't grip masses, it will not change the world.
Like your theory of scientific theories here, the materialism prior to Marx's conceived of people as passive not active. Do you grasp the significance of practical-critical activity ?:
I Thesis on Feuerbach The chief defect of all hitherto existing materialism - that of Feuerbach included - is that the thing, reality, sensuousness, is conceived only in the form of the object or of contemplation, but not as sensuous human activity, practice, not subjectively. Hence, in contradistinction to materialism, the active side was developed abstractly by idealism - which, of course, does not know real, sensuous activity as such.
Feuerbach wants sensuous objects, really distinct from the thought objects, but he does not conceive human activity itself as objective activity. Hence, in The Essence of Christianity, he regards the theoretical attitude as the only genuinely human attitude, while practice is conceived and fixed only in its dirty-judaical (sic)manifestation. Hence he does not grasp the significance of "revolutionary", of "practical-critical", activity.