Dear Jerry, You were closer to the point in your first paragraph when you say that you wonder sometimes whether I am joking; I am very aware that Marx was much more than just an economist, and in fact my appreciation of his economics emanates very much from an appreciation of his dialectical philosophy--a far stronger appreciation than most 'economists' have, including I would argue most Marxist economists. I do not lose sight of his political beliefs when I question whether his political, economic and philosophical beliefs were consistent. On your specific points: To get closer to your critique, I want you to think some more about the above and recall that Marx considered his theory of surplus-value to be one of his two greatest "discoveries" in political economy. From that perspective, his position that wage-labor is the sole source of value and surplus-value is more than a theoretical position -- it is an expression of his politics. It is his explanation for the exploitation of the working-class and it has truly revolutionary implications about what is required to end that exploitation. It is not just another part of his theory -- it is a cornerstone. That statement is clearly an expression of his politics, no doubt; what I argue is that it is *not* an expression of his philosophy, but a contradiction of it. I might also point out that one of the cites on which most Marxists base that statement about the source of surplus value is somewhat ambiguous: "At first sight a commodity presented itself to us as a complex of two things--use-value and exchange value. Later on, we saw that labour too, possesses the same two-fold nature; for, so far as it finds its expression in value, it does not possess the same characteristics that belong to it as a creator of use-values. I was the first to point out and to examine critically this two-fold nature of the labour contained in commodities. As this point is the pivot on which a clear comprehension of political economy turns, we must go more into detail."(Capital I, pp. 48-49.) Note that there are *two* statements preceding Marx's boast (a justified one, of course!): the twofold nature of labour (which he doesn't spell out in this statement) and the twofold nature of the commodity (which he does spell out). I have stated in print that Marxists are, in the context of this ambiguous statement, justified to take the line they have that Marx regarded the twofold nature of labour as the key discovery, and the source of surplus value. However, in the context of the overall analysis in Capital and elsewhere post the Grundrisse, the use-value/exchange-value duality is the key concept: the labour/labour-power analysis is derivative from it (though it predates the use-value/exchange-value analysis in time). On this point, with the exceptions of myself, Hilferding, Rosdolsky himself and Groll, no scholars of Marx have yet lived up to Rosdolsky's challenge: "How often has the thesis of the `contradiction between use-value and exchange value' been repeated? On the other hand, how often has anyone really taken the trouble to develop this thesis or regard it as something more than a survival of the time when Marx `coquetted with the Hegelian manner of expression'? In reality we are dealing here with one of the most fundamental discoveries of Marx's economics, the neglect of which makes his conclusions in the theory of value and money appear utterly distorted". (*Rosdolsky*, , p 133.) You write: I wonder if you can imagine the disdain with which Marx would view the proposition that means of production create new value? One does not have to read a whole lot of the _Theories of Surplus Value_ to get an answer. On the one hand, he viewed such perspectives as fetishistic to the extent that it attributes to things (means of production) an ability that only labor (and a particular social form of labor at that) can do. It turns the world upside down where the illusion appears that the commodities produced by labor are themselves creative of value (thus it is an example of commodity fetishism). Moreover, it has pernicious political implications to the extent that it leads towards the bourgeois conception that land, labor, *and capital* create value. Marx treated such theories, you will recall, with great scorn. I am quite aware of the disdain with which Marx treated most such statements. But what do you and other Marxists make of this statement: "It also has to be postulated (which was not done above) that the use-value of the machine significantly greater than its value; i.e. that its devaluation in the service of production is not proportional to its increasing effect on production."(Footnote: *Grundrisse*, op. cit., p. 383.) That is *precisely* my interpretation of Marx's theory of value: that the use-value of machinery is significantly greater than its exchange-value. Note that I am quoting Marx here. With that one statement, *Marx* contemplates that "means of production create new value". This contemplation is a direct *and accurate* implication of his philosophy. I have yet to have any Marxist economist provide an interpretation of this statement which is consistent with the labour theory of value. You write: >The above is not intended as a critique of your >perspective. Rather, it is intended to focus >attention on how your perspective of the >implications of Marx's theory is so completely >are at variance not only with Marx's intent >in writing _Capital_ but his entire adult life. Marx himself contemplated the possibility that a philosopher's beliefs may be at variance with his own philosophy, because his political beliefs--however passionately held--are at variance with his philosphy, when he wrote his PhD thesis: "It is conceivable that a philosopher should be guilty of this or that inconsistency because of this or that compromise; he may himself be conscious of it. But what he is not conscious of is that in the last analysis this apparent compromise is made possible by the deficiency of his principles or an inadequate grasp of them. So if a philosopher really has compromised it is the job of his followers to use the inner core of his thought to illuminate his own superficial expression of it." (McLennan, p. 14) This of course was a comment on Hegel--someone whom Marx was inspired by but in whom he also saw clear limitations. My belief is that Marx himself fell foul of what he also perceived in Hegel: as Hegel compromised his dialectical philosophy to subjugate it to his political support for the Prussian state, so Marx compromised his philosophy to make it consistent with his belief in the inevitability of socialism. However, there is no doubt that Marx felt he was a worthy successor to Hegel, because he was willing "to use the inner core of his thought to illuminate his own superficial expression of it". My feeling is that Marx's own followers are unworthy successors to Marx, because they have followed the maxim, as Arun Bose put it, `where logic contradicts Marx's words, go by his words' (Bose 1980: p x.) You write: And, by the way, the revolution will come! And, I hope that the members of this list will live long enough to see that day. Indeed, I hope to stand shoulder-to-shoulder with many of them some day at the barricades. And then, in the words of the poet J. Bruce Glasier, "We'll turn things upside down". Well, good luck. I am rather a cynic of the prospects for revolutionary change, and the possibility of the resultant society bearing any resemblance to the hopes of those who fought for revolution. This attitude emanates not just from my reading of Marx, but also my knowledge of complex dynamics: I can hardly meld a knowledge of 'sensitive dependence in intial conditions' with a belief that revolutionary change will have the eventual outcome which revolutionaries desire. So I doubt the occurrence of outright revolution in western capitalist nations (though not so third world ones), and I dispute that such change, if it occurred, would result in the sort of society you desire. However, of more immediate relevance, I believe that advanced capitalism (specifically, the economies of the USA, Japan and England) are about to experience their most severe crisis since the Great Depression. I might be wrong about this, but if I am correct, it will be an easy matter to show that there has been *no* analytic discussion on this list of how this crisis came about. This is because understanding this crisis involves an appreciation of the role of credit money and debt, and this requires a non-commodity theory of money which is antithetic to the commodity approach to money derived from a labour theory of value. So in that sense, following on from your post which inspired my somewhat flippant comment, forthcoming events may well leave this list as "kind of Marxist equivalent to Nero's playing the fiddle while Rome was burning". Steve At 10:39 PM 3/14/01 -0500, you wrote: >Dear Steve (K): > >Sometimes when you refer to Marx being an >economist I think you are joking, sometimes I >think you are serious or only half-joking. > >I don't know if you _fully_ appreciate that Marx >was a revolutionary, a communist. He was not >an economist. Indeed, he would have viewed >such a designation as an insult. > >Writing _Capital_ was not only an intellectual >task -- it was a political act that he viewed as >essential. Indeed, it is worthwhile noting that >in 1865 he resigned from a sub-committee of >the [First] International so that he would have >more time to write _Capital_ (see 7/31/65 >latter to Engels). > >Here was a person who was banished from >many European countries and had spent his >time in jail. For his beliefs, he spent his lifetime >in abject poverty and had to rely to a great extent >on the financial generosity of Engels (which >certainly must have been hard for a very proud >man). This also meant that his wife and children >lived in poverty. Ultimately his lifestyle -- caused >by his unending and lifelong dedication as a >revolutionary and a spokesperson for the working- >class movement -- led to his death ... while still >basically a young man. > >To lose sight of his political beliefs is to thus lose >sight of the man. Everything that he did in his >adult life was an expression of his political >convictions. > >To get closer to your critique, I want you to >think some more about the above and recall >that Marx considered his theory of surplus-value >to be one of his two greatest "discoveries" in >political economy. From that perspective, his >position that wage-labor is the sole source of >value and surplus-value is more than a >theoretical position -- it is an expression of his >politics. It is his explanation for the exploitation >of the working-class and it has truly revolutionary >implications about what is required to end that >exploitation. It is not just another part of his >theory -- it is a cornerstone. > >I wonder if you can imagine the disdain with which >Marx would view the proposition that means of >production create new value? One does not have >to read a whole lot of the _Theories of Surplus >Value_ to get an answer. On the one hand, he >viewed such perspectives as fetishistic to the >extent that it attributes to things (means of >production) an ability that only labor (and a >particular social form of labor at that) can do. >It turns the world upside down where the illusion >appears that the commodities produced by labor >are themselves creative of value (thus it is an >example of commodity fetishism). Moreover, it >has pernicious political implications to the extent >that it leads towards the bourgeois conception >that land, labor, *and capital* create value. Marx >treated such theories, you will recall, with great >scorn. > >The above is not intended as a critique of your >perspective. Rather, it is intended to focus >attention on how your perspective of the >implications of Marx's theory is so completely >are at variance not only with Marx's intent >in writing _Capital_ but his entire adult life. > >Marx was not an economist -- never forget that >fact. > >And, by the way, the revolution will come! And, >I hope that the members of this list will live long >enough to see that day. Indeed, I hope to stand >shoulder-to-shoulder with many of them some day >at the barricades. And then, in the words of the >poet J. Bruce Glasier, "We'll turn things upside >down". > >Venceremos! > >In solidarity, Jerry > > Home Page: http://bus.macarthur.uws.edu.au/steve-keen/
This archive was generated by hypermail 2b30 : Mon Apr 02 2001 - 09:57:29 EDT