From: Rakesh Bhandari (bhandari@BERKELEY.EDU)
Date: Wed Jul 26 2006 - 17:47:28 EDT
>Rakesh, > >I think it's mainly a fallacy, i.e. Marx shows evidence that he worked out >his concept of capital and its circulation process BEFORE his conspectus and >critique of Quesnay, are there important changes or extenstions after the critique of Quesnay? Jurriaan, given your encyclopaedic knowledge, may I ask you to recommend any analysis of Marx's understanding of Quesnay? John Torrance's idea of production as self-constraining, that is production must allow for production to occur yet again, is very interesting. Edward Chilcote's thesis is also available on the web, and very illuminating. Meek translated Quesnay's texts, no? >and really Quesnay himself is not so important, as far >as Marx concerned, Then the obvious question--why the chapter in Anti Duhring? What does Marx underline here? Yours, Rakesh > much more important is how Smith, Sismondi and Ricardo >etc. interpret Quesnay's insights, i.e. how they try to reconcile their >theory of industrial capital with the concept of the reproduction of >capital. > >The historical significance of the Physiocrats according to Marx was that >"The Physiocrats transferred the inquiry into the origin of the surplus >value from the sphere of circulation into the sphere of direct production, >and thereby laid the foundation for the analysis of capitalist production." >They tried to get clear about the concept of the capital stock as such, and >Marx regarded the invention of the Tableau Economique as "brilliant". > >Even so, Marx remarks in the "Resultate" (1864) that "There is nevertheless >a whole range of confused conceptions traditionally associated with [the] >distinction between gross and net product. These derive in part from the >Physiocrats (see Book IV) and in part from Adam Smith, who continues on >occasion to confuse capitalist production with production for the direct >producers." And: "Otherwise, the doctrine that the net product is the final >and highest goal of production is only a brutal, but correct expression of >the fact that the valorisation of capital, and therefore the creation of >surplus value, without any concern for the worker, is the driving force and >the essence of capitalist production. The highest ideal of capitalist >production - corresponding to the relative growth of the net product - is >the greatest possible reduction in the number of people living on wages, and >the greatest possible increase in the number of people living off the net >product." (Ben Fowkes translation). > >BTW Ben Fowkes did accept the translation of "Verwertung" as "valorisation", >presumably because of the same kinds of reasons which I have cited - Marx >did not believe in Say's law, and thus the valorisation of capital and the >realisation of capital were semi-autonomous 'moments' in the accumulation >process. > >Jurriaan
This archive was generated by hypermail 2.1.5 : Mon Jul 31 2006 - 00:00:03 EDT