From: gerald_a_levy (gerald_a_levy@msn.com)
Date: Sat Sep 28 2002 - 07:20:51 EDT
Re Fred's [7714]: If I understand you correctly, I don't agree with your understanding of "hypothetical" and "real" in Marx. Nor do I think that it helps us to comprehend in systematic fashion the character of the subject matter of capitalism. > 1. I argue that the quantities of money-capital in Marx's theory of the > circulation of capital in Volume 1 refer to (or are intended to > represent) REAL, ACTUAL quantities of money-capital in circulation in the > real capitalist economy. Marx's subject matter, which he attempts to reconstruct in thought, is real enough -- capitalism. However, Marx's method of abstraction requires that "real, actual" processes be (initially) stripped of their particularity in order to comprehend generality. Thus, "real, actual" commodities are specific, individual commodities. Yet, to comprehend commodities in general one does not have to comprehend the specific characteristics of all commodities, e.g. the ripeness of an orange has an effect on its use-value and exchange-value yet it is not crucial for comprehending the character of commodities as a group. This striping of the attributes of actual subjects in effect converts, for purposes of comprehension, the actual (the real starting point) into the hypothetical with the intent that the hypotheticals are systematically enriched and deepened so that, at the close of the presentation, the starting point is returned to but with a full and systematic comprehension of all of the necessary (non- contingent) attributes of the subject. So, yes, Marx's method is not _merely_ an exercise in thought: that would be idealistic. But, no, his method does not preclude an analysis of hypotheticals, in contrast to reals, -- rather his method necessarily _requires_ the construction of hypotheticals. All of the above follows from Marx's description of method in the _Grundrisse_. Let us consider the matter further: what is the "real capitalist economy" that Marx is referring to in Volume 1? "Real, actual" capitalist economies are identified not be their generality but by their particularity. Yet, clearly Marx did not want to construct a theory that only concerned one social formation in one historical period. To construct that more general theory, he employed abstraction which (initially) stripped away individuality and particularity -- in so doing he arguably constructed a "hypothetical". In any event, the sharp dividing line that you are drawing between "real/ actual" and "hypothetical" is not a good description of the distinctions and method that Marx employed, IMHO. To focus on the secondary question of magnitudes in Marx's theory, whenever Marx gives C, V, S a magnitude with a number (e.g. in unit of gold), those numbers are arbitrarily selected as numerical illustrations and are thus *hypotheticals*. It might take the form of *assuming* _if_ c is a certain quantity (call it x) and v is a certain quantity (call it y) _then_ s will = another quantity (call it z). The numbers given in the examples (x, y, and therefore z) can be substituted with other numbers (let's say a, b, and d respectively). That would not alter Marx's point. Of course, Marx does use *actual, real* numbers in the *historical sections* of _Capital_, but in the basic theory we are discussing the numbers are arbitrarily selected just like the rate of exchange is arbitrarily selected. Even where the magnitudes are held to be *representative* of real, actual processes *the actual magnitudes themselves* are hypothetical illustrations. E.g. in the formula in question, where a magnitude is given for M in M-C-M' that magnitude is _hypothetical_ *even though* Marx thought that it was _descriptive_ of a real, actual process. If the magnitude itself were actual and real then it would have been *derived from empirical data* -- yet this was clearly not done (nor was it required). So, regardless of whether Gil agrees with you on this point (which he seems to do in 7719), I think the contrast that you are suggesting between 'hypotheticals' and 'reals' in Marx's theory is erroneous. Enough for now. What do others think? In solidarity, Jerry
This archive was generated by hypermail 2.1.5 : Mon Sep 30 2002 - 00:00:01 EDT