From: jmilios@hol.gr
Date: Wed Jan 08 2003 - 15:24:29 EST
Paul, you write: i) "why didn't Marx, on the eighth page, call the reader's attention to his project [as you describe it] of 'theoretically recasting' of that supposedly Ricardian value?"; ii) the CHANGES by Marx represented by the three editions of Vol. 1; My view is that Marx's CAPITAL does not present an analysis of different "models" of "themes" (first the "simple commodity production", then the "capitalist commodity", etc.). It has a unique object of study, the capitalist mode of production, which Marx approaches on different levels of abstraction, i.e. in a process of gradual clarification-concretisation. In this process, he always starts from a commonly accepted definition of the notions under discussion. That is why he makes the Ricardian version of value as his point of departure. However, he does not restrict himself to this initial definition ... (A small example: In Ch. 1 of Vol. 1, in Sec. 4. “The Elementary Form of value considered as a whole”, he writes: “When, at the beginning of this chapter, we said, IN COMMON PARLANCE, that a commodity is both a use-value and an exchange-value, we were, accurately speaking, wrong”. Or in respect to use-value: After having accepted as a point of departure the common-sense idea of a “useful thing”, he later clarified “that the product must be not only useful, but useful for others”, etc.). Only by taking into consideration his whole analysis we may draw our conclusions. Besides, I do believe that he called his readers' attention on this matter, as he repeatedly mentioned (even in the very first page of Vol. 1, before having spoken about capital and surplus value) that the products of labour become commodities in "those societies in which the capitalist mode of production prevails". (More emphatically, a few pages after, Marx stresses: "The value form of the product of labour is the most abstract, but also the most general form of the bourgeois mode of production", Vol. 1, p. 174). iii) "labor power" as a MAJOR new theoretical concept distinguishing Marx from Ricardo; I agree that this is indeed a major point of difference. However it is not THE major point, as I have tried to show. Besides, one may implicitly find this notion in Ricardo's (and Smith's) analysis: When the Classic economists claim that the value of "labour" (the wage) equals the value of the worker's means of subsistence, it is clear that they speak about something different from the quantity of labour expended by the worker. iv) the fact of total working hours of workers compared to the time required to produce subsistence needs (a fact which you say cannot be described by 'values' even in the simplest of capitalist reproduction). I think that this shall not be regarded an analysis on the level of value, but on a higher level of abstraction: that of labour and surplus-labour, which characterises every mode of production, not only the CMP, as Marx warns his readers. The analysis on this specific level of abstraction is necessary, in order for the readers to comprehend that surplus value (which appears as profit) signifies surplus labour. However, the tribute paid by the peasant communities to the emperor of China or to the Sultan of the Ottoman Empire (eg. the tenth of their wheat production, etc.) was also the product of surplus labour. Paraphrasing your statement, I may say that indeed the total working hours of those peasants (the direct producers in the specific mode of production) were actually significantly more compared to the time required to produce subsistence needs. This does not mean, however, that they produced commodities or surplus value. To analyse capitalism we have to move further, to the specific forms of appearance of surplus labour and surplus product. Finally you stated: "Taking your argument to the extreme, surplus value cannot be measured and so we don't even know if profit is associated with surplus value (Steedman or no Steedman) or the color of grapefruits. Surplus value becomes a mystery". No, I think that we know what surplus value is (the specifically capitalist type of surplus labour, more exactly, the notion of a historically specific social relation of exploitation which manifests itself as profit [not as tribute, feudal compulsory labour, etc.]) which CAN BE MEASURED (empirically) only on the level of its form of appearance (in monetary units). A last point concerning the "measurability" of surplus value: As we know from Marxist theory (Lenin, Marx, ...) capitalism is not only a system of economic exploitation but also of political suppression, that is of political power of the capitalist class over the working classes of the society. How do you "measure" political power and suppression? By the number of the army's cannons, the policemen's guns or by the number of schools, churches and tv- channels? And if we cannot "measure" it, does that mean that it does not exist? I am afraid that behind the imperative of "measurability" of social relations one may find the ideology of individualism. Cheers, John Milios
This archive was generated by hypermail 2.1.5 : Sun Jan 12 2003 - 00:00:01 EST