This is a reply to Jerry's (7425). Thanks Jerry. You say you agree that work on interpreting Marx's texts is important, although less important that just about anything else, and you seem to denigrate its importance (what contribution could this possibly make to workers' struggles?). Below are a few responses to your comments. On Thu, 23 May 2002, gerald_a_levy wrote: > Re Fred's [7243]: > > > Jerry, I disagree with your characterization of interest in studying > > Marx's theory in Capital. > > Fred, in the section of my [7ll4] that you clipped I was referring to > the place of hermeneutics in Marxism and from Marx's perspective. I > was not referring specifically to _Capital_ or to what you go on to > largely discuss -- the "transformation problem". However, I'll shift > my focus to that in order to confront the issues that you raise. > > > My interest in Marx's theory is not a history > > of economic thought question. It is a question about contemporary > > capitalism, and more precisely about the essential nature of capitalism, > > which was true in Marx's day and is still true today. The essential > > nature of capitalism (i.e. its overriding purpose) is the production of > > surplus-value, or profit. This essential nature of capitalism is what > > Marx's theory is mainly about: How is surplus-value produced and what > > determines its magnitude? Marx's theory concludes, of course, that > > surplus-value is produced through the exploitation of workers and that its > > amount is determined by the quantity of surplus labor. > > A century of critics have argued that Marx's theory is internally > > logically inconsistent, i.e. that Marx's theory contains basic logical > > flaws, most importantly that Marx forgot to transform the inputs of > > constant capital and variable capital from values to prices of production > > in his determination of prices of production in Part 2 of Volume > > 3. Therefore, there is a logical contradiction between Marx's theory of > > exploitation in Volume 1 and his theory of prices in Volume 3. These > > critics conclude that, because of this logical contradiction, Marx's > > theory of exploitation is invalid and should be rejected. > > I argue that this criticism is not valid. Rather, it is based on a > > misinterpretation of Marx's basic logical method, and in particular on the > > method of determination of the inputs of constant capital and variable > > capital. After all, since Marx is accused of making a logical mistake, > > then one must understand the precise nature of Marx's logic as well as > > possible. I argue that, if Marx's logic is correctly understood - and > > especially how the inputs of constant capital and variable capital are > > determined - then Marx did not commit this logical mistake, i.e. he did > > not forget to transform these inputs. > > I think this project is worth doing, because I think it will contribute > > to the development of an anti-capitalist consciousness in the US and > > elsewhere. I think there are different ways to contribute to an > > anti-capitalist consciousness - not only concrete analyses of contemporary > > capitalism, nor only actual economic and political struggles against > > capitalism, but also providing a basic understanding of the nature of > > capitalist society - that it is based on the exploitation of workers. The > > demonstration that, properly interpreted, Marx's theory does not contain > > this logical contradiction provides further support for Marx's theory of > > exploitation. > > Well, I agree that there are different ways that individuals can contribute > to an anti-capitalist consciousness. What I am very unclear about, however, > is how you think that a demonstration that Marx's theory does not contain > a logical contradiction and is therefore internally consistent contributes > to anti-capitalist consciousness. Your are, imho, very vague above when > you assert above that a demonstration of internal consistency in Marx's > theory will help to provide a basic understanding of the nature of > capitalist society and class exploitation. Please explain. It is not the demonstration of logical consistency that helps to provide a basic understanding of the nature of capitalism (exploitation). Rather, this basic understanding is provided by Marx's theory of surplus-value and exploitation. Critics have argued that Marx's theory of exploitation is logically contradictory and therefore invalid and should be rejected. The demonstration of logical consistency removes this criticism, and enables us to continue to use Marx's theory to understand the essential nature of capitalism. > > Even most Marxists, including most OPE-L members, agree that Marx made > > this logical mistake. But they argue, contrary to the critics, that this > > mistake doesn't really change anything fundamental, i.e. that Marx's > > theory of exploitation is still valid, it is just modified a little. > > I think that the defense of Marx's theory of exploitation can be even > > stronger than that - that Marx did not make this logical error and that > > his theory does not contain this logical contradiction. Marx's theory of > > exploitation is logically consistent (at least in this important > > respect). There is no contradiction between Marx's theory of exploitation > > and his theory of prices of production. This alleged contradiction is a > > mistaken conclusion based on a misunderstanding of Marx's logical > > method. It is not a legitimate reason for rejecting Marx's theory. > > Let's say that there is a set of theories that claim that Marx's theory is > internally consistent called X and that your theory is G which is a part > of the X set. Suppose, *for the sake of argument*, that we accept G > or any other member of X (but not more than one). Now where are > we? The *most* that could then be claimed is that Marx's theory > because it is internally consistent is logically *plausible*. It does not > mean that it is 'right'. It does not mean that it has been shown to be > valid historically or empirically. Do you agree? Yes, of course, But the critics argue that Marx's theory is not even in the set of "plausible" theories. So it is at least a step forward that Marx's theory must be accepted in the "plausible" set. But, as you say, this is not the end of the story. The superiority of Marx's theory has to be demonstrated on the basis of its empirical explanatory power. As you say, much of my research has been concerned with this latter question - both the estimates of the rate of profit and my response to Mark Blaug's empirical appraisal of Marx's theory. But the empirical question can be raised only if Marx's theory is logically satisfactorily. > For example, even if we accept G, how does that answer the claims of > Allin and Paul C in "Testing Marx"? I have argued that Marx's theory is primarily a macroeconomic theory of profit, not a microeconomic theory of prices. Therefore, empirical tests of Marx's theory should be concerned with the conclusions of his macro theory (conflict over the working day and over the intensity of labor, inherent technological change, falling rate of profit, periodic crises, increasing concentration and centralization, etc.). > How does it answer the claims of > Geert and Mike W that their perspective in _VFS_, while largely based > on Marx, is superior to Marx's perspective? I have argued that the VF theory does not provide a theory of profit, and therefore does not provide a theory of exploitation. If labor is not the source of value, then surplus labor cannot be the source of surplus-value. I have also argued that VF theory also does not provide an explanation of the other important phenomena of capitalism mentioned in my previous paragraph (conflicts, tech change, etc.). > How does it answer a claim > by surplus approach theorists that due to Occum's Razor, their theory is > preferable? I have argued that the surplus approach does not provide a theory of exploitation. Labor in the surplus approach is no more important than "peanuts" (a point famously made by Herb Gintis in the 1970s; but Gintis thought he was making the point against Marx, when it really applied only the mistaken surplus approach interpretation of Marx). The surplus approach also does not provide an explanation of the other important phenomena mentioned above. > How does it come to terms with the criticisms made by many > social scientists that Marx's theory is out-of-date and no longer relevant > to contemporary capitalism? What criticisms do you have in mind? In what ways do social scientists say that Marx's theory is "out-of-date"? Its main conclusion - that capitalism is based on the exploitation of workers is certainly not out of date. > This 'debate on internal consistency' has been almost completely removed > from the real struggles of workers. How many workers in a thousand do > you think have heard of the 'transformation problem'? My guess is that it > is less than one in one thousand. If you were to tell them that Marx's > theory has been shown to be logically consistent what would that mean to > them, their struggles, and their understanding of the world? When I have taught classes to workers, I have emphasized Marx's theory of profit - that profit is produced by the exploitation of workers. They are generally enthusiastic about Marx's theory, because it helps to make sense of much of their experience (e.g. conflict over the intensity of labor). It gives them greater confidence in their own intuitive understanding of capitalism as exploitative. I also discuss the criticisms of Marx's theory (both logical criticisms and empirical criticisms) and my replies to these criticisms. The workers usually are not too interested in these issues, but I feel it is my responsibility to raise them. If we were not able to respond effectively to these criticisms, then I would feel irresponsible and dishonest in presenting Marx's theory of exploitation. Wouldn't you? Jerry, what is your response to these criticisms? As I said above, the contribution to workers' struggles is not so much the demonstration of logical consistency (although this is necessary), but rather Marx's theory of exploitation. The demonstration of logical consistency eliminates the criticisms and allows us to continue to use Marx's theory of exploitation to understand the essential nature of capitalism. Thanks again. Comradely, Fred
This archive was generated by hypermail 2b30 : Sun Jun 02 2002 - 00:00:07 EDT