From: Fred B. Moseley (fmoseley@mtholyoke.edu)
Date: Fri Oct 04 2002 - 22:36:15 EDT
I think I have discovered strong philosophical evidence to further support
my interpretation that the purpose of Marx's theory of surplus-value in
Volume 1 is to explain the ACTUAL total surplus-value in the real
capitalist economy as a whole, not to explain a hypothetical total
surplus-value proportional to the labor-time embodied in surplus goods.
1. The evidence begins with Marx's famous quote from Aesop's fables at
the end of Chapter 5:
"Hic Rhodus, hic salta!"
I always thought that this quote meant something like "put up or shut
up". But I reread the translator's (Fowkes) footnote tonight, and he
says that this quote is a reference to Hegel, and specifically to the
Preface to Hegel's Philosophy of Right. According to Fowkes, Hegel
"uses the quote to illustrate his view that the task of philosophy is to
apprehend and comprehend WHAT IS, rather that what ought to be."
(emphasis added)
This would suggest that Marx's use of the same quote must illustrate a
similar view - that the task of a scientific theory of capitalism is to
apprehend and comprehend WHAT IS, rather that what ought to be. And, I
would add, rather than to comprehend hypothetical magnitudes that are
different from "what is". Marx's circulation of capital - M-C-M' - refers
to "what is". The initial M - and its two components C and V - refer to
actual quantities of money-capital invested in means of production and
labor-power. C and V are not hypothetical magnitudes, different from the
actual quantities of money-capital, proportional to the labor-times
embodied in the means of production and means of subsistence. And dM is
the actual total quantity of surplus-value produced in the real capitalist
economy as a whole, not a hypothetical quantity proportional to the
labor-time embodied in surplus goods.
2. Then I looked up this quote in Hegel's Preface (which I had never read
before, but had a copy because I have been intending to read it for
years). I am a Hegel novice, but, from reading this Preface, Fowkes'
interpretation certainly seems accurate. This quote is followed by the
sentence:
"To comprehend WHAT IS, this is the task of philosophy, because what is,
is reason." (emphasis added)
Two pages later, in the last sentence of the Preface, Hegel reiterates
that the task of philosophy is "a scientific discussion of the THING
ITSELF". (emphasis added).
I hope you Hegel specialists on the list will comment on this important
point. Is Fowkes' interpretation of Hegel correct?
In endorsing Hegel's view of the task of philosophy, Marx seems to be
suggesting that the task of a theory of capital is a "scientific
discussion of the THING ITSELF", i.e. of the real, actual existing
capitalist economy. And, in particular, Marx's theory of surplus-value,
which is of course what Chapter 5 and the rest of Volume 1 is about,
attempts to apprehend and comprehend the actual total surplus-value in the
real capitalist economy as a whole ("what is" or "the thing
itself"). Marx's theory of surplus-value in Volume 1 is not intended to
comprehend a different hypothetical total surplus-value that we calculate
from our theoretical model. The quotation follows directly after Marx
starkly posed the all-important question of the origin of
surplus-value. The reference to Hegel's view that the task of philosophy
is to "comprehend what is" must be intended to indicate that the task of
his theory of capitalism is to comprehend the actual surplus-value
produced in the real capitalist economy as a whole.
Comradely,
Fred
This archive was generated by hypermail 2.1.5 : Tue Oct 08 2002 - 00:00:01 EDT