[ show plain text ]
This is a further reply to Gil's recent posts.
1. Gil thinks that Marx is trying to prove in Part 2 that capitalist
production (with wage-labor) is the only possible source of surplus-value.
Thus, if Marx assumed capitalist production from the beginning as a
"postulate", as I argue, then Marx's argument in Part 2 is "circular" or
"ridiculous."
2. The problem with Gil's criticism is that Marx is NOT trying to prove
that capitalist production is the only possible source of
surplus-value. Capitalist production is indeed assumed from the
beginning. Or, perhaps a better way of putting it: Marx's theory is ABOUT
capitalist production from the beginning; capitalist production is the
historically specific OBJECT of Marx's theory. The concepts of Marx's
theory (commodities, money, capital, surplus-value, etc.) all are defined
specifically and solely in relation to capitalist production. Specifically,
the surplus-value that Marx is trying to explain in Part 2 and beyond is
the surplus-value produced by capitalist production.
Contrary to Gil, Marx is NOT trying to prove that capitalist production is
the only possible source of surplus-value. This question is not addressed
at all by Marx in these chapters. Rather, Marx was trying to prove that
the only possible source of surplus-value WITHIN THE CAPITALIST MODE OF
PRODUCTION is the purchase and consumption of labor-power. In this way,
Marx demonstrated the INTRINSIC AND NECESSARY CONNECTION between the
appropriation of surplus-value in capitalism and the existence of
labor-power in capitalism. In other words, Marx demonstrated the
NECESSITY of wage-labor in a capitalist economy on the basis of his
fundamental value theory. Wage-labor is necessary in order to produce
surplus-value.
Gil says that such an argument is a "tautology". But it is not a
tautology. It is a deduction. The conclusion (the necessity of
labor-power) follows from the fundamental assumption of Marx's value
theory (that value is produced by labor).
No other economic theory is able to explain the necessity of wage-labor in
a capitalist economy on the basis of its fundamental value theory. In
neoclassical economics, the "labor market" is introduced as a "factor
market" after the theory of "product markets". No explanation is given of
the necessity of "labor" on the labor market. It is just taken as
given. The existence of "labor" on the labor market is not explained in
any way by the fundamental neoclassical value theory. Wage-labor is a
contingent, not necessary, feature of capitalist economies.
Therefore, Marx's demonstration of the necessity of wage-labor in a
capitalist economy on the basis of his value theory in Part 2, far from
being a failure as Gil says, is a significant achievement compared to all
other economic theories.
Therefore, I conclude that Gil's criticisms of Marx's logic in Part 2 are
not valid. They are based on misunderstandings of what Marx was trying to
accomplish in these chapters.
In Chapter 5, Marx was not trying to prove that surplus-value must be
explained on the basis of the exchange of equivalents; rather Marx was
drawing out an important implication of the "previously derived law" of
the exchange of equivalents - that surplus-value cannot arise from
exchange alone (as a critique of the "profit through exchange" theories of
his time).
In Chapter 6, Marx was not trying to prove that capitalist production
is the only possible source of surplus-value; rather Marx was
demonstrating that the only possible source of surplus-value within the
capitalist mode of production is the purchase and consumption of
labor-power, thereby demonstrating the necessity of labor-power in a
capitalist economy.
Thus, Gil has attributed to Marx questions and tasks that are not Marx's
own, and then criticizes Marx for failing to answer Gil's questions.
NO FAIR !! In terms of Marx's own questions and tasks in these chapters,
his logic is completely valid. Circulation by itself does not produce
value. In order to appropriate surplus-value within capitalism,
money-bags must purchase labor-power.
I look forward to further discusssion.
Comradely,
Fred
This archive was generated by hypermail 2b29 : Wed May 31 2000 - 00:00:10 EDT