At 19:42 06/05/02 -0400, you wrote:
>As you say, Engels _could have_ been referring to the LTGRPD.
>Yet, as we know, the drafts for what became Volume 3 were
>not published by Engels until after his death. Nor do we have
>reason to believe that Engels read the drafts prior to Marx's
>death -- do we? Nor do we have reason to believe that Engels,
>prior to Marx's death, read the drafts for what were later published
>as the _Grundrisse_ -- do we? Nor, of course, did Marx refer to
>the LTGRPD as the "law of motion" of bourgeois society. However,
>I will grant you that, _if_ you interpret "this work" to mean all of
>_Capital_, then it is a reasonable possibility. It would, however,
>make the remainder of what became Volume 3 somewhat of an
>anti-climax (and Marx had a dramatic flair and the 'climax' of his
>'stories' was generally reserved for the end.)
>
>There have been a number of interpretations of what the "economic
>law of motion" is. E.g. one author claimed that the General Law
>of Capitalist Accumulation was for Marx "the Law of Motion of
>Capitalist Society". What is most troubling about this interpretation
>is that the author stated it as fact rather than identifying it as
>speculative. The least the author could have done was to suggest
>this as one possible interpretation -- and, even better, offer some
>arguments for _why_ the GLCA should be understood as _the_
>law of motion -- rather than merely putting forward such a bold,
>unsubstantiated assertion as if it were self-evident. In the same
>source, that author advised _others_ on "How to Teach Capital".
>That author's name was Raya Dunayevskaya ("Outline of Marx's
>Capital", Detroit, News and Letters Committee, l979, pp. 53-54;
>originally published with the pseudonym of Freddie Forrest.)
>
I find your reasoning extremely misleading as it attempts to separate the
more concrete expression of the law of capital accumulation from the law...
Many years ago I tried to develop the argument in my 'Marxist theory of
crisis capital and the state'. There I argued:
'The general law of capitalist accumulation from the standpoint of capital
(and the capitalist) represents itself 'on the surface of the phenomenon'
as the tendency of the rate of profit to fall. This is not a mechanical or
algebraic relation but the expression of the contradictory nature of the
accumulation process from the standpoint of capital.'
This answers Chris Arthurs' point I think
The point is further developed in the next few paragraphs of the article -
unfortunately it is not online or recently publlished...
The further concretisation of the law will I agree go much further than
Capital did but the method of moving from the abstract to the concrete is
what has to be put into practice...the earlier abstractions are contained
in the later concrete expressions of the law of motion of capitalist
society etc..
In this context it is really not serious to argue that Engels was unaware
of the importance of the law of the tendency of the rate of profit to fall
in Marx's analysis of capitalism. After all they were in constant contact
and discussion with each other as Marx developed his position. In addition
the method of enquiry and that of presentation are entirely different -
even the opposite I remember Marx saying somewhere. So Engels and Marx
would have been aware of much of the material for Capital before it was
presented in the form that we are aware of.
>I. What exactly *is* the bearing of the LTGRPD to the mission of
>overthrowing capitalism and the liberation of the working class?
If we understand Capital as a critique of political economy and, therefore
also, an ideological critique of utopian and opportunist conceptions of
socialism - eg Proudhon and the Ricardian socialists then the significance
of the law is clearer...
There is a tendency of the rate of profit to fall as productivity increases
and workers are more exploited - not less... This expresses the limits of
capitalist production which will continually drive the system into
crisis... While no crisis is the final crisis of capitalism, the outcome of
any severe crisis will be determined by the political balance of class
forces, and the ideological struggle is a crucial component in this
process. Dealing with opportunist positions is part of that struggle.
>
>II. In addition to being a part of a critique of political economy, is it
>part of an implicit critique of *reformism*? Yet, doesn't such a
>critique require for its fuller development a comprehension of the
>state-form (something that Marx abstracted from in _Capital_)?
>And, can't a critique of reformism be developed without grasping
>the significance of the LTGRPD?
It requires a concrete analysis of many factors including the role of
imperialism and its ability to corrupt labour organisations etc. My
articles on the labour aristocracy and imperialism are an attempt to
further develop our understanding of the concrete forms of the phenomena. I
find it incredible how Marxists can discuss capitalism yet ignore
imperialism and its political impact on the working class movement in the
present-day Marxist discussion.
>
>III. Put in the context of comprehending the dynamics of the current
>crisis, don't we have to move _beyond_ a comprehension of the
>LTGRPD as presented in Volume 3? Indeed wasn't Marx well aware
>of these limitations? E.g. in Vol 3, Ch. l4, Section 2 Marx indicates --
> in a short paragraph -- that a "reduction in wages below their value"
>is "one of the most important factors in stemming the tendency for
>the rate of profit to fall" yet "has nothing to do with the general
>analysis of capital, but has its place in an account of competition,
>which is not dealt with in this work". So how would you employ this
>factor -- *along with others not discussed at length (or at all) in
> _Capital_ by Marx* -- to comprehend the _current crisis_ and the
>tasks of overthrowing capitalism and participating in the
>self-emancipation of the proletariat which was, as Engels (and you)
>reminded us, Marx's "real mission in life"?
By concrete analysis of the'phenomenon' - in no way opposed to the further
development of the law...
>
>IV. A follow-up question: as you are aware, Lenin (and the rest of
>the Bolshevik theoreticians) didn't make much of the LTGRPD.
>Indeed, in general, Lenin -- along with other Bolsheviks -- advanced
>disproportionality and/or underconsumptionist theories of crisis
>(see Richard B. Day's _The 'Crisis' and the 'Crash'_.) Yet, he -- along
>with others -- made a revolution anyway. Wouldn't this seem to
>suggest that a grasp of the LTGRPD is *not essential* from the
>standpoint of Lenin's and Marx's "real mission in life" ?
>
Yes I am, although I think Day's view is over simplified. But Lenin's
theorising was related directly to the political struggle - in his writings
against the Narodniks he attempted to undercut their illusions by showing
the degree and consequences of the development of capitalism in Russia. In
Imperialism... he develops his positions in a different way to deal with
Kausky among others. Lenin and Rosa Luxemburg, for example, were foremost
revolutionaries because they made the choice to take the side of the
oppressed masses. They used their Marxism for immediate political purposes
as arguments against those who, through their opportunist standpoints and
influence in the working class movement, were attempting to lead the
movement into disaster. In Rosa Luxemburg's case she paid for that with her
life. That I reject her theoretical argument on crisis theory in the
Accumulation of Capital throws little light on the outcome of the struggle
in that period. Theories about imperialism and the labour aristocracy
would, hence the significance of Lenin's writings in that period. The
development of theory is a concrete question. The most advanced theorists
such as Plekhanov and Kautsky eventually sided with the bourgeoisie and
their remarkable theoretical contributions to Marxist theory didn't help in
this regard. That is why the real development of Marxist theory can never
be separate from political struggle and therefore a political movement - it
becomes a class issue. So much we could have learnt from Marx's Thesis on
Feuerbach.
All this is an attempt to briefly summarise my position but I would like to
think that those who were seriously interested in these questions would at
least look at my writings over the last 20 years or so in Fight Racism!
Fight Imperialism! - our website has some of the material at
http://www.rcgfrfi.easynet.co.uk or www.revolutionarycommunist.com
In solidarity
David Yaffe
This archive was generated by hypermail 2b30 : Sun Jun 02 2002 - 00:00:06 EDT