Hello all, there follows a correction/explanation re my previous post on this topic (thanks to Jerry for pointing out the error): > > (snip, JL) > > In the *Results* Marx (1976a, [Penguin/ > Vintage ed. of Volume 1, JL] > p.1056; cited Arthur, > > C&C, 73, p.26) writes very clearly his views on > > the productivity of > capital: > > "Thus capital is productive: > > What is written is, rather, that: > > "Thus capital appears *productive*:" > > This is not an insignificant difference. > > It's no longer as 'clear', in terms of whether Marx > thought that capital is productive, is it? In the quote cited, Chris (C&C, 73, pp.32-3) makes an amendment in square parenthesis: 'Thus capital [is] productive' justified because he has stated: 'I would be inclined to reverse Marx's emphasis when he said: "Capital is not only command over labour, as Adam Smith thought. It is essentially command over unpaid labour". (Marx 1976a:672) Instead I would write: "Capital is not only command over unpaid labour, as Karl Marx thought. It is essentially command over labour, i.e. of the entire working day". Of course Marx knew perfectly well that it is only because capital acquires 'command over labour' that this "coercive relation...compels the working class to do more work than would be required by the narrow circle of its own needs"(Marx 1976a:424-5)' My main reason for citing Chris's work was to suggest that there is a point to reading and developing Marx's concepts *heuristically*, rather than by reference to *what Marx meant* or *what Marx considered important in his work*. Of course, I am aware that historiographic and heuristic purposes are not at opposite poles. In order to develop Marx's concepts, I take it for granted that one would need to have a fair appreciation of one's own argument with Marx. However, I also consider that crucial differences among Marxists stem from irreconcilable ambiguities in Marx's own texts that render any definitive reading of Marx's theory of value, near impossible. Andy B's take on socially necessary labour, imo, stems from a paradigmatic split between those who hold to an abstract-labour embodied interpretation of Marxian value theory, and those who do not. Or, from a different angle, the split might be seen to be between those who read into Marx an ontological role for *money* (eg credit) as a crucial determinant of economic activity in a value-form determined system (capitalism), and those who do not. There seems to be no way around this problem except to make one's own reading of Marx explicit. Once again, appologies for the error (btw, all the quotes from Marx, above, are taken from Arthur, C&C, 73). Comradely, Nicky ===== Nicola Taylor Division of Economics Murdoch University Australia Telephone: 61-8-9385 1130 ____________________________________________________________ Do You Yahoo!? Get your free @yahoo.co.uk address at http://mail.yahoo.co.uk or your free @yahoo.ie address at http://mail.yahoo.ie
This archive was generated by hypermail 2b30 : Mon Apr 02 2001 - 09:57:29 EDT