This is a response to Jerry's comments in (3698) about the givens in Marx's
theory. Thanks very much to Jerry for his comments.
1. I agree that an important aspect of Marx's logical method was that the
initial givens should themselves eventually be explained as results (i.e.
the "presuppositions should be posited"). Mike L. has emphasized this
aspect of Marx's logical method and so has Riccardo B.
However, I am still not completely sure what this means. The general point
is clear enough, but this is an aspect of Marx's method that he seems to
have taken over from Hegel, and I am sure that "positing the
presuppositions" has Hegelian connotations that I am not aware of. I would
certainly like to learn more about this aspect of Marx's method and its
relation to Hegel, and would very much appreciate any further explanations
that anyone would care to make.
2. One thing I am fairly certain about is that, in quantitative terms, the
"results" are equal to the given "presuppositions", i.e. the quantitative
magnitudes of constant capital and variable capital DO NOT CHANGE in the
eventual explanation of the givens as results. The constant capital and
variable capital that are taken as given in Marx's theory are quantities of
money capital that are consumed in the production of commodities. These
quantities of money capital are eventually explained as determined by the
price of production (not the value) of the means of production and means of
subsistence. But this determination of prices of production does not change
the magnitudes of the initial givens of money constant capital and variable
capital. The magnitudes of money constant capital and variable capital that
are taken as given in the beginning are themselves eventually explained as
results.
3. In the current debate over Marx's theory, we have two options to choose
from concerning the nature of the initial givens in Marx's theory: (1) the
standard interpretation, according to which the initial givens are the
physical quantities of inputs and outputs, from which are derived the
exchange-values (first the values and then the prices of production) of the
inputs; and (2) the new "monetary" interpretation, according to which the
initial givens are the money quantities of constant capital and variable
capital consumed in production.
I and others have presented the following textual evidence to support the
new monetary interpretation: (1) the general formula for capital (which is
the general analytical gramework for Marx's theory), M - C - M', begins with
M, i.e. with quantities of money capital; (2) the logical development in the
first three parts of Volume 1 - the derivation of money as the necessary
form of appearance of the value of commodities in Part 1, the formulation of
the key concept of capital in terms of money (money that makes more money)
in Part 2, the explanation of the transformation of money into capital by
increasing its magnitude in Part 3; (3) Marx's methodological premise of
historical specificity, according to which the explanatory concepts in a
theory of capitalism, including the concepts with which the theory BEGINS,
should refer to the historically specific features of capitalism (e.g.
commodities, money, capital, etc.), and not to general features that
capitalism shares with all forms of production (e.g. physical quantities of
inputs and outputs); and (4) the many passages in which Marx explicitly
stated that the initial gives in his theory were the quantities of money
capital that initiate the circulation of capital. It seems to me that this
textual evidence is very, very strong. No one has yet specifically
challenged this evidence and presented other textual evidence and/or
methodological arguments to support the traditional "physical quantities"
interpretation. The traditional interpretation just continues to be
reasserted without confronting the evidence and the arguments to the
contrary (e.g David Laibman's EEA paper last year).
>From the perspective of Jerry's comment, it is clear to me how the initial
gives of money constant capital and variable capital are eventually
explained in Part 2 of Volume 3 as determined by the prices of production of
the means of production and the means of subsistence (as discussed above).
However, if the standard interpretation is accepted, this would imply that
Marx's theory would somehow eventually have to explain as results the
physical quantities of inputs and outputs. I see no evidence in Marx's
texts that these physical quantities of inputs and outputs are ever
explained or determined, nor even that the question of the determination of
these physical quantities is ever even posed as requiring an explanation.
Therefore, this aspect of Marx's method ("positing the presuppositions")
seems to provide yet another argument to support the "monetary"
interpretation of the initial givens in Marx's theory.
Between these two options, it seems to me that the evidence overwhelmingly
supports the new monetary interpretation. It seems to me that this is one
of the main results of the intensive "reexamination" of Marx's theory in
terms of its own logical method that has taken place over the last 15 years.
It seems to me that the main support for the standard interpretation is the
"dead weight of tradition", which I suggest it is time for us to get our
from under.
Both Hans E. and Simon M. have mentioned this "dead weight of tradition" in
recent articles about the transformation problem and in particular in
defense of the "new solution" interpretation. The "new solution" was the
first of the new interpretations to challenge in print the automatic
acceptance of the traditional interpretation (Duncan and Gerard were of
course the first). This "new solution" is similar in important ways to the
"monetary" interpretation I and others have been presenting more recently,
but it is also different in important ways. I view the "new solution" as a
kind of "half-way" house between the traditional interpretation and the
fully "monetary" interpretation. In the "new solution", variable capital is
taken as given in terms of money capital (as in the "monetary"
interpretation), but constant capital is still derived form given means of
production (as in the traditional interpretation). I hope to return in
future posts to a further discussion of the "new solution", this important
but incomplete innovation in the understanding of Marx's theory.
Comradely,
Fred