From: Fred Moseley (fmoseley@MTHOLYOKE.EDU)
Date: Sun Aug 06 2006 - 09:45:14 EDT
I would like to make a few general comments to try to put my recent
messages in a clearer context.
There are two questions which I think we have blurred in our recent
discussion: one is Marx's six book plan, and the other is the logical
structure of Marx's theory of capital (the first of the six books).
I am more interested in the latter question, and Rakesh may be more
interested in the former question. My comments here have to do with
the latter.
I argue that the overall logical structure of Marx's theory of capital is
the following:
I. Capital in General
1. Production of surplus-value (Volume 1 of Capital)
absolute surplus-value
relative surplus-value
accumulation
2. Circulation of capital (Volume 2)
circuits of capital
turnover of capital
reproduction of the social capital
3. Capital and profit (Parts 1 and 3 of Vol. 3)
cost price and profit
the falling rate of profit
II. Competition, or the distribution of surplus-value
1. Average profit (Part 2 of Volume 3)
2. Commercial profit (Part 4 of Volume 3)
3. Interest (Part 5 of Volume 3)
4. Rent (Part 6 of Volume 3)
5. Revenue and its sources (Part 7 of Volume 3)
Marx was pretty clear about this overall logical structure of his theory
of capital by the end of the Grundrisse. He was most clear about the
level of abstraction of capital in general. The Grundrisse itself is
divided into these three sections of capital in general. He was less
clear at that time about the level of abstraction of competition, because
almost all of the Grundrisse is at the level of abstraction of capital in
general. But he did discuss the equalization of profit rates several
times briefly in the Grundrisse, and he always emphasized that this
subject belongs to the level of abstraction of competition.
Then Marx developed his theory of the distribution of surplus-value in the
Manuscript of 1861-63, and therefore expanded greatly his understanding of
the individual forms of surplus-value at the level of abstraction of
competition.
This structure remained essentially the same in all the later drafts of
Capital. The only changes in this overall logical structure over the
years were the following:
1. "Reproduction" was added as a third part to the second section of
capital in general on the "circulation of capital" after the Manuscript of
1861-63, in which Marx developed for the first time his reproduction
schemes, in order to criticize "Smith's dogma", drawing on the "circular
flow" work of Q uesnay and other Physiocrats (there is no discussion of
the reproduction schemes in the Grundrisse).
2. Interest was moved from the level of abstraction of capital in general
to the level of abstraction of competition. The reason for this change
was that, in the Grundrisse, Marx was thinking about interest in a
qualitative way, as an "illusionary form of appearance" of surplus-value,
similar to profit, and in this qualitative sense interest could be
considered at the level of abstraction of capital in general. However, in
his work in the Manuscript of 1861-63, Marx began to also consider
interest as a quantity, as one part of the total surplus-value, along with
other individual parts (industrial profit, commercial profit, and rent).
And in this quantitative sense, interest belongs to the distribution of
surplus-value at the level of abstraction of competition. As a result, in
the Manuscript of 1864-65 (the final draft of Volume 3), interest was
relocated to the level of abstraction of competition, along with the other
individual forms of surplus-value.
These two were the extent of the changes in the overall logical structure
of Marx's theory of capital after the Grundrisse. I don't think these
minor changes qualify as "an important theoretical break, as Rakesh
suggests. The basic distinction between the level of abstraction of
capital in general (the production of surplus-value) and the level of
abstraction of competition (the distribution of surplus-value) remained
the same throughout. And the theories of the production of surplus-value
and the distribution of surplus-value remained essentially the same
throughout.
The other significant change in Marx's plans for his theory of capital was
not a change of logical structure, but was rather a change in the plans
for the publication of the different parts of his theory. Marx originally
planned one book on capital in general and one book on competition.
However, after Marx's prolific development of the theory of the
distribution of surplus-value in the Manuscript of 1861-63, he decided
toward the end of this manuscript (in a new important plan of January
1863) to bring these aspects of competition into his first book
(eventually into the third volume of Capital), in order to publish these
important parts of his theory sooner rather than later, i.e. rather than
waiting for a later book on competition which Marx no doubt realized by
this time in his life that he would probably never publish.
I think that Quesnay's influence on Marx was significant, but it was
limited to the inclusion of the reproduction schemes into Section 2 of
capital in general (i.e. into Volume 2 of Capital) for the purpose of
criticizing Smith's dogma. Quesnay's influence did not cause an
"important theoretical break" in the logical structure of Marx's theory of
capital, which remained throughout in terms of these two basic levels of
abstraction.
As for the six book plan, I said before that I don't think Marx abandoned
this plan. The first book just kept expanding and expanding, and he never
got around to the other books. I agree that some abstract elements that
were originally planned for later books were incorporated into Capital
(e.g. wages in Volume 1, rent in Volume 3, and the credit system in Volume
3). But Marx said in all these cases that much more on these topics would
be discussed in later books. Surely there is much more than is in Capital
that needs to be said about labor (as Mike L. argues), and about landed
property, and especially about the state and "world market and crises".
In any case, I can't see how Quesnay would influence this decision, one
way or the other.
Rakesh, I look forward to your replies and to further discussion.
Comradely,
Fred
This archive was generated by hypermail 2.1.5 : Thu Aug 31 2006 - 00:00:03 EDT