Some replies, in this and the following 'open letters', to some
questions and critiques to my mega-posts or previous interventions.
First, Andrew [OPE-L 437]. He writes:
------
>I do not understand Riccardo's 1st point--I don't disagree, I just don't
understand it, in particular the notion of a passage from physiological
labor to abstract labor and vice-versa.
Apologies for my bad English. However, as Andrew realized in a private
post to me, I was only suggesting that one possible *interpretation* of
Marx, trying to mix physiological labor and an historical perspective on
value theory, is to say that labor as a physiological expenditure is an
historically specific point of view, that arises under certain social
conditions. But I don't want to overstress the point, for the simple
reason that I'm not a fan of the view of abstract labor as physiological
expenditure. (For me) Reducing the former to the latter is greatly
understating the import of (what I think was) Marx's project - more on
this later.
I was also suggesting in my posts that people (re)read Alfred Schmidt's
appendix to "On the Notion of Nature in Marx" (New Left Books, London,
1971) because it is a must on the topic of 'historical' and 'natural'
categories in the critique of political economy, which is at the heart of
the issue just discussed - and many others debated in OPE-L (I'm assuming
the English edition has the same appendix as the Italian one). BTW, I
found very congenial the rephrasing by Paul M. on abstract labor,
capitalism, and other modes of production [OPE-L 451]:
>Capital is a theory of commodities AS products of capital--Marx says
this quite explicitly. Likewise, the theory of value, as Marx also says,
applies specifically to capitalism as a system. It is only in this mode
of production that abstract labor as a social category comes into
existence, since this is a >(mis)representations between capitalist and
precapitalist commodities (or money) would be as significant as the
similarities.
Back to Andrew:
------
>As to the 2d point, I was not suggesting "fidelity" to Marx as a
methodological position. I think anyone should be free to disagree with
Marx. But I don't think *interpreting* someone by throwing out an element
of their position constitutes a legitimate interpretation. ... Marx may
have been inconsistent. But one needs to be careful here. What seems
inconsistent from one vantage-point may not be an inconsistency within
Marx's own vantage-point. ... People think it is relatively simple to show
inconsistency. But to "reconstruct" two ideas and to show the
*reconstructions* to be incompatible simply does not show any incompati-
bility in the *original*. But such assertions must be *tested*--it must
be >shown that no consistent reading of the text is possible. In
Postone's case, I think I have shown that he was wrong.
It is not easy for me to discuss the matter. I am trying because Andrew
urge me to do so. What I wanted to put forward was a set of (I mistakenly
thought) rather low-level and uncontroversial assertions:
- that on the list we could not find Marx's OWN views, because Marx was
not a participant (or is he?)
- that, therefore, ours were only interpretations *more or less* valuable,
and that we should assume the others's good faith in reading Marx
- that, in more than a century, I found serious scholars (including
Andrew) disagree on the sense of Marx's work
- that these disagreement has, in some sense, the root in Marx, however we
conclude for his consistency or insconsistency
- thus, I suggested, it was unlikely that the list was the right place to
discuss *directly* the adequacy of interpretations. I supposed our
intention was: (i) looking, as Mike L. says, to *unresolved* issues; (ii)
advancing *today* Marxian political economy. I stressed that the two
things cannot be done without confronting *modern* (post-Ricardo)
political economy - I'm not saiyng, please, to 'eclectically add pieces of
different theories' (see the next post); and I'm not a fan of rational
reconstructions.
There were, of course, some pre-formed (de-formed?) opinions on my side:
- Marx texts are in German, the translations are not completely reliable,
most were edited by Engels and only now are becoming available (in
German!): it was reasonable to embark a battle on grounds on which most
of us have not complete control (at least 8 different versions of the
'beginning' of Capital!)?
- Some of the differences in interpretations stems from ambiguities and/or
inconsistencies (that even Andrew says are there, at least at first
sight). I do not prefer to disclaim they descend from Marx
- Marx must be discussed as a *whole*, and that as a consequence
interpretations of Marx must themselves be taken as a whole. To take just
only one example. If I understand well Andrew, he thinks that even if in
what Marx wrote there may be something which seems to be contradictory,
but to assert that Marx is inconsistent 'it must be shown that no
consistent reading of the [whole] text is possible' (I agree). That means
that to *really* face Andrew's request to us to confront the real Marx
means opening a seminar on Andrew's *complete* reading - which is quite
important as a task, but maybe today too premature as a digression.
I'm in agreement with Andrew that Marx is *eventually* consistent (though,
may be, my consistency is different from Andrew's): while Andrew says that
he simply reasserts Marx's views, I rather start from the tensions in
Marx, and prefer to take responsibility for the result. But to seriously
discuss that means to open a seminar on *my* writings: a digression much
less urgent than the previous one.
But, yes, I FULLY admit that the issue of what Marx really meant is an
important one - and, BTW, is an important task also in my job. I always
thought, and still think, that is silly to say something has been *proven*
wrong (or right): especially for a serious thinker as Marx. I wish to
discuss your (view of what) Marx (really meant), and will do that in the
future.
On the issue of Postone's interpretation, is it accurate or not: well, I
confess I've read only parts of his book, so I'm not willing to make too
impegnative statements. I knew him as a serious scholar since his exchange
with Nicolaus on the NLR, and his paper on Social Research. What I've read
of the book confirm that impression. On the substantial issue of abstract
labor, I think Postone's is quite right in saying that abstract labor
cannot be reduced to physiological labor. I would say it is a notion which
connects production and circulation. Of course, abstract labor *is*
extracted from workers - I doubt, Andrew, that yours interpertation of
Postone as supporting the idea of abstract labor s a glue is a fair one to
his text. But this extraction goes *together* with the extraction of
physiological expenditure - it is not *identycal* with it. Therefore, the
historical view on physiological labor (I put forward above) and the
distinction between this latter and abstract labor are fully compatible.
And maybe you're right, there was here no inconsistency in Marx - in a
sense, perhaps, going more towards Postone than Kliman.
In Marx's OWN text (according to my reading) abstract labor is *always* a
relation, not a simple 'substance': in the first chapters, a relation to
exchange; in the subsequent chapters, a class relation in production
(aimed to exchange). This does not square wery well with (mere)
physiological expenditure. Thus, absolute value is, itself, something
relative - without dissolving in relative values. Marx's value - I borrow
the phrase from a letter Chris Arthur's wrote privately to me some time ago
- 'starts as a relation but then develops from this Leibnizian universe to
a Newtonian one in which value appears as [an] absolute substance, but
this is always in relation to a frame of reference itself in movement
(Einstein)'. That's exactly what I think.
I think we'll have plenty of occasions to discuss our different views on
abstract labor (in any case, mine are recorded in RRPE 1989, with new
developments in the Bergamo paper).
in solidarity
riccardo
==================================================================
Riccardo Bellofiore e-mail: bellofio@cisi.unito.it
Department of Economics Tel: (39) -35- 277505 (direct)
University of Bergamo (39) -35- 277501 (dept.)
Piazza Rosate, 2 (39) -11- 5819619 (home)
I-24129 Bergamo Fax: (39) -35- 249975
Italy
==================================================================
On Mon, 6 Nov 1995 akliman@acl.nyit.edu wrote:
> Andrew here. I am replying to Riccardo's response to my points regarding
> Postone. I do not understand Riccardo's 1st point--I don't disagree, I just
> don't understand it, in particular the notion of a passage from physiological
> labor to abstract labor and vice-versa.
>
> As to the 2d point, I was not suggesting "fidelity" to Marx as a methodological
> position. I think anyone should be free to disagree with Marx. But I don't
> think *interpreting* someone by throwing out an element of their position
> constitutes a legitimate interpretation. Proponents of the fashionable
> idea of interpreting through "rational reconstruction" of course will
> disagree. But I think this methodology *uses* past thinkers for one's
> own purposes and thereby is liable to distort their meaning. One really
> does need to understand the whole of what someone was saying, not chop
> it up and rearrange it.
>
> Now Marx may have been inconsistent. But one needs to be careful here. What
> seems inconsistent from one vantage-point may not be an inconsistency within
> Marx's own vantage-point. So Postone really had the task of *showing* how
> it could not be possible to maintain two views that Marx held--that abstract
> labor is phyiological and that it is historically specific. Postone did not
> do so. He simply gave reasons--from *his own* vantage-point--why *he*
> regarded them as inconsistent propositions. This is far from a demonstration
> of inconsistency in Marx.
>
> The history of the "transformation problem" and other debates in value theory
> is replete with methods similar to Postone. People think it is relatively
> simple to show inconsistency. But to "reconstruct" two ideas and to show
> the *reconstructions* to be incompatible simply does not show any incompati-
> bility in the *original*.
>
> I am thus perfectly willing to entertain notions that Marx was inconsistent.
> But such assertions must be *tested*--it must be shown that no consistent
> reading of the text is possible. In Postone's case, I think I have shown
> that he was wrong. Likewise several folks have shown that the alleged
> contradictions in Marx's value/production price transformation and the law
> of the falling rate of profit are only contradictions within a *particular
> interpretation*, not necessarily the original.
>
> My overriding concern here is with the faithfulness of interpretations to
> the thinker's own thought, and not to "doctrinal" rigidity.
>
> Andrew Kliman
>