From: Gerald_A_Levy@MSN.COM
Date: Thu Sep 01 2005 - 11:10:32 EDT
Previously I wrote: In _Capital_, capitalists -- to the extent to which they are "capital personified" and are assumed to wear character masks -- are essentially assumed to behave rationally in a manner consistent with the maximization of self-interest. Yet, I think that this -- *given the level(s) of concretion of _Capital_, i.e. of "capital-in-general"* -- was appropriate. If, however, we are focused on a much more concrete, historically contingent level where we are considering the behavior of individual capitalists and firms _then_ we have to allow for some other, additional motivation besides self-interest in the form of profit-maximizing effort. E.g. prestige. ---------------------- Andy responded: I don't quite agree with how you have put this. I'd say capitalists act on self-interest at the level where we have just introduced many capitals in Vol III. We cannot really talk about self-interest, about the consciousness of capitalists, prior to that because we haven't introduced profit, and it is profit that fills the consciousness of the individual capitalist. On the other hand, your stated view does seem to fit the 'character mask' quote (in one of the prefaces to Capital Vol 1) better since why would Marx mention this in the preface to Volume I if it only applies to Cap Vol. 3? ---------------------- Jerry responds: the assumption that capitalists are "capital personified", while made initially in Volume 1, is maintained throughout _Capital_. Even in Volume 3, where there are "many capitals" and where capitalists can act as "hostile brothers", they are motivated by self-interest and are assumed to behave in a manner consistent with the maximization of self-interest. Of course, the way in which these subjects are conceived are different in the different volumes, e.g. in Volume 1, capitalists are assumed to seek the maximum possible rate of surplus value (hence their ongoing efforts to maximize the production of absolute and relative surplus value) whereas in Volume 3 the effort to seek the maximum rate of profit possible leads to the entry and exit of money capital in different branches of production and the formation of a general rate of profit. The assumption that capitalists are "capital personified" has special meaning re _self_ interest. I.e. if individual capitalists were individuals in the full sense of the term rather than being mere "bearers of capital relations" then self-interest might result in attempting to maximize the consumption of *luxury* goods. But, if money is unproductively expended for the purposes of individual capitalist consumption then that leaves less money that can be used for the purposes of productive consumption and accumulation. So, it is because capitalists are assumed to be "capital personified" that causes them to restrict their individual consumption and "accumulate, accumulate, accumulate". In Volume 3, we see that the force of competition reinforces this process: i.e. competitiveness for individual capitalists requires that they productively consume surplus value to the greatest extent possible. If they do not do this, then they are put at a competitive disadvantage and are likely to receive less than the average rate of profit. My perspective is that in Books 2 thru 4 (the three books on classes) class interest has to be re-conceived, developed, and concretized. This means, in part, that at a later level of analysis, the assumption of character masks must be dropped. Once this happens, then capitalist behavior can be examined more concretely. This question of self-interest, and whether there are other motivations that are systematically important for the subject matter, has special importance for the subject of Book 3 on Wage-Labour, I believe. In solidarity, Jerry
This archive was generated by hypermail 2.1.5 : Fri Sep 02 2005 - 00:00:00 EDT