Thanks again to Gil for another detailed response (#1913 and #1917, followed
up by #2049). There are three main points in Gil's response, as summarized
in (#1913). I will respond to each of these three points below (in a
different order).
1. GIL: In the texts that Fred presented to support his interpretation that
the subject of 'Capital' is "capitalist production" from the beginning in
Chapter 1, Fred equated "capitalist production" and "capitalist mode of
production". But Marx clearly distinguished between these two in a passage
in Volume 3 of 'Capital'.
"Capitalist mode of production" is broader than "capitalist production" and
also includes other forms of production, such as workers cooperatives.
FRED: In my previous post (#1788), I presented 7 passages which stated
explicitly that the commodity analyzed in Chapter 1 of Volume 1 is
"capitalist production". I also presented two passages in which Marx stated
that the subject of 'Capital' is the "capitalist mode of production", one
from the Preface of the First Edition and the other from the first sentence
of Chapter 1.
Gil's argument regarding the first set of passages is that although they
explicitly state that the commodity in Chapter 1 is the product of
capitalist production, they can also be interpreted to imply that the
commodity in Chapter 1 may also be a product of non-capitalist forms of
production included in the "capitalist mode of production." This
interpretation is possible, according to Gil, because: (1) Marx explicitly
stated in the other two passages I presented that the subject of 'Capital'
and Chapter 1 is the "capitalist mode of production" [I repeat that in the
Preface, after saying that the subject of 'Capital' is the "capitalist mode
of production", Marx added "and the relations of production ... that
correspond to it." This mention of production relations seems to suggest
that "capitalist mode of production" means "capitalist production" based on
the specific capital / wage-labor production relation. Thus The only
completely ambiguous use of the "capitalist mode of production" is the first
sentence of Chapter 1] and (2) Marx defined "capitalist mode of production"
as including non-capitalist forms of production. Therefore, the key issue
here is the definition of the "capitalist mode of production" and
specifically whether the "capitalist mode or production" includes
non-capitalist forms of production, such as workers coops and the
putting-out system.
It should be pointed out that what Gil means by "workers coops in the
capitalist mode of production" (clarified for me by Gil in a direct post)
does NOT include workers' coops that own their own means of production.
This type of workers coop does not belong to the "capitalist mode of
production" because the workers in these coops are not "free in the double
sense" of not owning their means of production. "Workers coops in the
capitalist mode of production" include only those coops that rent or borrow
their means of production. Gil recognizes that these types of workers coops
may be empirically insignificant, but emphasizes that his argument is about
formal logic and taxonomy, and not about practicality and viability.
The main textual evidence offered by Gil to support his interpretation that
the "capitalist mode of production" includes non-capitalist forms of
production is from Volume 3, p. 501. This passage is from Chapter 23
entitled "Interest and Profit of Enterprise". In this chapter, interest is
analyzed as one component of the total amount of surplus-value produced in
capitalist production as a whole. As in all of Volume 3, the total amount
of surplus-value is taken as given, as already determined by the Volume 1
aggregate analysis of capital in general. The subject here is clearly the
surplus-value produced in capitalist production and how this surplus-value
is divided between industrial capitalists and financial capitalists.
"Interest-bearing capital" is analyzed as a secondary form, derived from the
primary form of "industrial capital", i.e. capital invested in capitalist
production. The analysis does not concern in any way "leasee" workers coops
or the putting-out system. These forms of non-capitalist production are
never mentioned once in this chapter.
One of the main points of Chapter 23 is that, once the total surplus-value
is divided into interest and profit of enterprise, then interest APPEARS (to
capitalists and to bourgeois economists) as a separate source of income,
independent of the capitalist production that produced it.
interest appears as a surplus-value that capital yields in and of itself
and which it would therefore yield even without productive application.
(501)
Marx commented that, from the point of view of individual capitalists, this
appearance is correct: an individual capitalist can indeed lend his capital
and receive an interest, rather than invest in production. However, Marx
argued further, from the point of view of the total social capital, this
appearance of interest as an independent source of income is absurd. For
the total social capital, without capitalist production, there could be no
surplus-value and, without surplus-value, there could be no interest.
Taken generally, i.e. when we apply it to the whole social capital, as is
done by some vulgar economists and even given out as the basis for profit,
this is of course quite absurd. (501)
Following this sentence are the two sentences quoted by Gil:
It is utter nonsense to suggest that all capital could be transformed into
money capital without the presence of people to buy and valorize the
means of production.... Concealed in this idea, moreover, is the still
greater nonsense THAT CAPITAL COULD YIELD INTEREST WITHOUT FUNCTIONING AS
PRODUCTIVE CAPITAL, i.e. WITHOUT CREATING SURPLUS-VALUE, OF WHICH INTEREST
IS SIMPLY ONE PART; that the capitalist mode of production could
proceed on its course without capitalist production. (the part of this
passage in upper-case was left out of Gil's excerpt in #2049).
It seems to me that both the general context of this passage within Marx's
overall logical method and the part of this passage emphasized in upper-case
clearly indicate that the meaning of this passage is that it is nonsense to
think that interest could be received as income without surplus-value being
produced within capitalist production. There is absolutely no evidence to
support Gil's interpretation that the last part of this passage means that
the "capitalist mode of production" includes "leasee" workers coops and the
putting-out system, in addition to capitalist production.
This conclusion is further supported by a review of the passages listed in
the indexes of the three volumes of Capital under "capitalist modes of
production" - especially Volume 3 where more references are listed. These
two terms are used interchangeably throughout and the "capitalist mode of
production" is discussed repeatedly with aspects that relate specifically
and solely to "capitalist production": the equalization of profit rates,
the falling rate of profit, merchant capital, interest-bearing capital,
supervisory labor, capitalist agriculture, etc. The interchangeable use of
the two terms while discussing these topics suggests that "capitalist mode
of production" means "capitalist production." There is never a hint in all
these passages that the "capitalist mode of production" might also refer to
non-capitalist form of production, such as "leasee" workers coops.
Therefore, it seems to me that the evidence is overwhelming that, when Marx
stated in the first sentence of Chapter 1 that the subject of his theory is
the commodity in the "capitalist mode of production," he meant the same
thing he said in the numerous other passages I have cited - that his
subject is the commodity as the product of "capitalist production".
2. GIL: Even granting Fred's argument that 'Capital' is about "capitalist
production" from the beginning, the necessity of wage-labor cannot be
demonstrated on this basis. The necessity of one form of production cannot
be established by ruling out alternative forms of production by fiat. If
non-capitalist forms of production are ruled out by fiat, then the necessity
of wage-labor is simply a tautology, not a derivation or conclusion.
FRED: I am beginning to understand more clearly that the issue between Gil
and I here has to do with exactly what Marx meant by "necessity". Gil
interprets "necessity" to mean the necessity of capitalist production, as
distinct from other forms of production. An argument for the "necessity" of
wage-labor in this sense should rule out by argument other possible forms of
production (as other sources of surplus-value).
On the other hand, I interpret "necessity" to mean a NECESSARY FEATURE OF
CAPITALIST PRODUCTION, as distinct from an "accidental or contingent"
feature of capitalist production. Marx's question was not: are there other
possible sources of surplus-value besides wage-labor (that is Gil's and
Roemer's question). Marx's question was rather: is wage-labor a necessary
or contingent feature of capitalist production. An argument for necessity
in this sense should demonstrate that wage-labor is necessarily related to
other features of capitalist production, i.e. that other features of
capitalist production, such as surplus-value, cannot exist without
wage-labor. The aim of Marx's theory in general, heavily influenced by
Hegel, was to demonstrate the "necessary, intrinsic connections" between
the various important phenomena of capitalist production. Therefore, the
subject of Marx's theory, from the beginning, was the totality of capitalist
production, and the theory attempted to demonstrate the necessary
interconnections between the important aspects of this totality. This
argument is not a "tautology", but the derivation of a different kind of
necessity.
This conclusion - that wage-labor is a necessary feature of capitalist
production, because its existence is necessary for the existence of
surplus-value in capitalist production - seems obvious to us (even a
"tautology"). However, no other economic theory has demonstrated the
necessity of wage-labor in this sense of being necessarily related to other
important features of capitalist production.
In neoclassical theory, the "labor market" is introduced after the theory of
"product markets", without an explanation of the necessity of wage-labor.
Wage-labor remains simply a "contingent" feature of capitalist production.
The necessity of wage-labor also does not follow from the "scarcity theory
of surplus-value," presented by Roemer and favored by Gil, which, as we have
seen, is concerned with a different question: the necessity of wage-labor as
opposed to other possible forms of social labor which are also based on the
separation of workers from the means of production.
3. GIL: Even granting Fred's arguments on these first two points, it is
still true that Marx stated "repeatedly, emphatically, and unambiguously"
that surplus-value must be explained on the basis of price-value equivalence
for individual commodities. Therefore, Marx's theory of surplus-value in
Volume 1 is not a macro, aggregate theory.
FRED: This is the original and enduring issue between Gil and me. Gil's
argument is based on "what Marx actually said" in: (1) the last paragraph in
Chapter 5, (2) the footnote to this paragraph (3) the first paragraph of
Chapter 6, and (4) a similar passage in "Wages, Prices, and Profit".
The issue here depends primarily on the meaning of the footnote, since (3)
simply repeats (1) and (4) presents a simplified version of the arguments in
Chapter 5 and 6 without the clarifying footnote. I don't have a copy of
WPP with me, but the excerpt presented by Gil seems to support the aggregate
interpretation of Marx's theory of surplus-value. The key word is
"AVERAGE". Marx did not say that each and every commodity must exchange at
their value, but only "on average", i.e. only for the total commodity
product. The "average commodity" represents the total commodity product
(more on this below).
Gil and I have completely different interpretations of the footnote. Gil
argues that the footnote reinforces the conclusion that surplus-value must
be explained on the basis of the assumption of individual price-value
equivalence. I argue (e.g. #1626) that the footnote qualifies this
assumption in a way consistent with the aggregate interpretation of Marx's
theory of surplus-value. I will not repeat the arguments here. I wish
others would comment on this footnote. But it still seems to be that Gil's
textual evidence altogether is meager and ambiguous and that Gil greatly
overstates his case when he says that Marx stated "repeatedly, emphatically,
and unambiguously" that surplus-value must be explained on the basis of
individual price-value equivalence.
As against these few passages, we have all the textual evidence and
methodological arguments (presented by Rosdlosky, Mattick, Foley, and in my
previous work) that Marx's theory of surplus-value in Volume 1 is an
aggregate theory about the total amount of surplus-value in the capitalist
economy as a whole. If Marx's theory of surplus-value is indeed an
aggregate theory, as all this evidence suggests, then it is not true that
this theory depends on the price-value equivalence of individual
commodities. Furthermore, the few passages cited by Gil can be understood
in a way consistent with the aggregate interpretation of Marx's theory of
surplus-value, as stating a provisional assumption which is not essential to
this aggregate theory. Therefore, I think that the evidence for the
aggregate interpretation of Marx's theory of surplus-value far outweighs
these few sentences to which Gil refers, which can be understood in a way
consistent with the aggregate interpretation.
A key point (which I have emphasized before, eg. #1223) in understanding
these few passages from the perspective of the aggregate interpretation of
Marx's theory is that, in Volume 1, individual commodities are not analyzed
as such, but rather as "representatives" or as "aliquot parts" of the total
commodity product. Therefore, the assumption that prices are equal to their
values, applies strictly speaking only to the total commodity product.
In Marx's key example of his theory of surplus-value in Chapter 7 of Volume
1 (and in 'Wages, Prices, and Profit'), the theory is illustrated in terms
of one worker in the cotton cloth industry. The purpose of Marx's theory is
not to explain the price of cotton cloth and the surplus-value contained in
the cotton cloth, per se and as distinct from all other commodities (and
certainly not the price of the cotton cloth produced by one worker).
Rather, the individual worker represents all workers and the cotton cloth
represents the aggregate commodity product. Hence, the assumption that the
price of cotton cloth is equal to its value is does not apply strictly
speaking to the actual price of the cotton cloth as a distinct commodity,
but rather applies to the aggregate commodity product which the cotton cloth
represents. This is the assumption upon which surplus-value must be
explained, according to Marx's aggregate theory.
I recently read a very good discussion of this key point in Marx's logical
method in a book by Felton Shortall ('Incomplete Marx', 1994, Ashgate
(Elgar) Publishers) , recommended last Fall on the Marxism network by
Rakesh. Shortall interprets this aspect of Marx's method in terms of the
Hegelian concepts of universality, individuality, and particularity, and
contrasts the treatments of the individual capital in Volume 1 and Volume 3:
"Marx's conception of the individual capital with which he begins his theory
of profit at the beginning of Volume 3 is no longer the same as it was
during his exposition of the theory of surplus-value in Volume 1. There the
individual capital was only considered insofar as it was stripped of all
particularity. It stood as the immediate representative of all capitals, as
the abstract generality of capital as such. Consequently, the individual
capital could be taken as a simple microcosm of the totality of social
capital, its direct and immediate individual embodiment. But now, at the
beginning of Volume 3, the individual capital can no longer be considered as
the immediate representative of all other capitals, nor of the totality of
social capital... The individual capital now stands as a particular
individual capital; an individual capital as amongst many other such
capitals." (p. 452)
Therefore, if this aspect of Marx's logical method is correctly understood,
then the statement at the end of Chapter 5 does not mean that price-value
equivalence of actual individual commodities is necessary to Marx's
aggregate theory of surplus-value.
To summarize my arguments on these three points:
1. The textual evidence strongly suggests that the subject of Marx's
theory, from the beginning of 'Capital', is specifically and solely
"capitalist production".
2. Marx successfully derived the necessity of wage-labor in the sense that
wage-labor is necessarily related to other important characteristics of
capitalist production.
3. Marx's aggregate theory of surplus-value in Volume 1 does not depend in
any essential way on the assumption of individual price-value equivalence.
Thanks,
Fred