Karl Marx and the Classics
Crises and the Capitalism
Marx developed his economic theory, under the rubric of A Critique of
Political Economy, mainly in the period 1857-1867. It is a well-defined
system, structured as a logical array of original concepts and analyses based
on Marx’s notions of value and surplus-value. Marxian economics emerged
from Marx’s earlier historic-sociological analyses and is formulated along
with a new methodological approach.
However, from the moment of Marx’s death, it had already become
apparent that Marxist theory and Marxist economic analysis would
accommodate not only one interpretation, and do not evolve on the basis of
a single, and unique, theoretical direction. On the contrary, the existence of
Marxism is always interwoven with the formation of various Marxist trends
or schools, which as a rule are constructed at the base of contradictory and
opposed theoretical principles, positions and deductions. This phenomenon
is universal, and has taken place in all of the countries where Marxism was
developed.
The contradictory picture of Marxist theory can be partly interpreted
by its conflictual and revolutionary character, i.e. by the fact that it is
constituted as a critique to the established economic and social order and
the ruling forms of ideology that aim to consolidate it. In its struggle with
the ruling theoretical disciplines, Marxist theory often intertwines with it, in
the means that certain bourgeoisie ideological forms are being reproduced
within Marxist analysis. At the same time, the development of Marxist
theory is affected by the political conjuncture, as Marxism, besides a
theoretical discipline becomes also a mass ideology of the Left, influencing
the modes in which theory develops.
The above mean, on the one hand, that Marxist theory acquires the
form of a necessarily conflicting and schismatic science, and on the other,
that the Marxist economist, social scientist or researcher should take a
position in the conflict, the object of which is Marxist theory itself.
However, universal is the belief among Marxists that there is only one
authentic interpretation of Marx’s writings, the one shared by the person (or
school) stating the argument.
The authors of the present book share the opinion that the schismatic
character of Marxist theory shall also be attributed to the contradictory
character of Marx’s mature economic writings themselves, as Marx did not
remain consistent to his own theoretical system of the Critique of Political
Economy, i.e. to his rupture with the Ricardian value theory of “labour
expended”, but often slipped back to the Ricardian system of thought.
Marx’s Critique of Political Economy constitutes not a “correction” of
Classical Political Economy’s “mistakes” or “misunderstandings”, but the
formation of a new theoretical domain, shaping thus a new theoretical
object of analysis and a new theoretical “paradigm” of argumentation.
Unlike the Ricardian, Marx’s theory of value is a monetary theory. The
value of a commodity cannot be determined as such, but only through its
form of appearance; it cannot be determined in isolation but only in
relation with all other commodities in the exchange process. This
exchange-value relation is materialised by money. In Marx’s system, no
other “material embodiment” of (abstract) labour and no other
quantitatively defined form of appearance (or measure) of value can exist.
As money comprises the only form of appearance of value, both quantities
do not belong to the same level of abstraction. In other words, they are
incommensurable, and consequently they cannot be the subject of
quantitative comparisons and mathematical calculations. In Marx’s system,
value does not belong to the world of empirically detectable (and
measurable) quantities; only money does.
Marx formulated the arguments of his theoretical rupture with the
Ricardian theory of value mainly in the Manuscripts 1857-58, (first
published in 1939-41 as Grundrisse, Foundations of the Critique of
Political Economy), in his A Contribution to the Critique of Political
Economy (first published 1859) and in Volume 1 of Capital (first published
1867). The same arguments are also to be found in his other works of the
period (the Manuscript 1861-63, a part of which was first published during
the period 1905-10 under the title Theories of Surplus Value, and the
Manuscript 1863-65, containing all drafts of Volumes 2 and 3 of Capital
which were edited and first published by Engels in 1885 and 1894
respectively).
However, he used a highly abstract and mainly philosophical mode of
presentation, which makes the comprehension of his theory rather difficult.
More important, in his writings of the period 1861-65, Marx becomes
ambivalent towards Classical Political Economy: He repeatedly retreats to
the Ricardian theory of value, thus abandoning his own theoretical system
of the Critique of Political Economy.
Summarizing our argument we may say that Marx’s economic
writings comprise two different discourses:
a) The theoretical system of the Critique of Political Economy, which
is mainly developed (albeit in a “philosophical” way of presentation, which
makes its understanding not easy) in the first part of Volume 1 of Capital,
in the 1859 Contribution to the Critique of Political Economy, in the
Grundrisse and is repeated in his other works; and,
b) a sophisticated version of the Ricardian Political Economy of value
as “labour expended”, which is to be found mainly in sections of Volume 3
of Capital, such as the “Transformation of Commodity Values into Prices
of Production” or the theory of “Absolute Ground-Rent” and at other parts
of his 1861-65 writings. This second discourse seems to have influenced
most contemporary approaches to Marxist value theory.
In Part I of the present Book (Value and Money) we reconstruct what
we consider to be the first discourse, i.e. the tenets of Marx’s theoretical
system of the Critique of Political Economy, which was formed on the
basis of a rupture with Ricardian Political Economy.
In Part II (Theory of Value and Ideology) we illustrate the conceptual
problems arising with respect to ideology and the capitalist power relations
from Marx’s way of presentation of his value theory, and more specifically
from the way that he introduces the concept of capital and the capitalist
mode of production.
In Part III (Theory of Value and Prices. Marx’s Ambivalence towards
Classical Political Economy) we critically illustrate what we consider to be
the second discourse in Marx’s writings, which adheres to the Classical
tradition of Political Economy.
Finally, in Part IV of the book (The Circuit of Social Capital, the
Profit Rate and Economic Crises) we make use of our theoretical
conclusions from the previous Parts, to focus on subjects such as crisis
theory, instability, and the Circuit of Social Capital, which are related, on
the one hand, to the present economic conjuncture, and on the other, to
modern debates on value and Marxian economic theory.
Dimitri Dimoulis would like to thank the Universidade Bandeirante
(São Paulo, Brazil) for supporting and funding a Research Project on Law
and the Economy. All authors express their thanks to Howard
Engelskirchen, Spyros Lapatsioras and Dimitris Sotiropoulos who have
read and commented on this book. The errors that might remain are of
course theirs.
Crises and the Capitalism
Marx developed his economic theory, under the rubric of A Critique of
Political Economy, mainly in the period 1857-1867. It is a well-defined
system, structured as a logical array of original concepts and analyses based
on Marx’s notions of value and surplus-value. Marxian economics emerged
from Marx’s earlier historic-sociological analyses and is formulated along
with a new methodological approach.
However, from the moment of Marx’s death, it had already become
apparent that Marxist theory and Marxist economic analysis would
accommodate not only one interpretation, and do not evolve on the basis of
a single, and unique, theoretical direction. On the contrary, the existence of
Marxism is always interwoven with the formation of various Marxist trends
or schools, which as a rule are constructed at the base of contradictory and
opposed theoretical principles, positions and deductions. This phenomenon
is universal, and has taken place in all of the countries where Marxism was
developed.
The contradictory picture of Marxist theory can be partly interpreted
by its conflictual and revolutionary character, i.e. by the fact that it is
constituted as a critique to the established economic and social order and
the ruling forms of ideology that aim to consolidate it. In its struggle with
the ruling theoretical disciplines, Marxist theory often intertwines with it, in
the means that certain bourgeoisie ideological forms are being reproduced
within Marxist analysis. At the same time, the development of Marxist
theory is affected by the political conjuncture, as Marxism, besides a
theoretical discipline becomes also a mass ideology of the Left, influencing
the modes in which theory develops.
The above mean, on the one hand, that Marxist theory acquires the
form of a necessarily conflicting and schismatic science, and on the other,
that the Marxist economist, social scientist or researcher should take a
position in the conflict, the object of which is Marxist theory itself.
However, universal is the belief among Marxists that there is only one
authentic interpretation of Marx’s writings, the one shared by the person (or
school) stating the argument.
The authors of the present book share the opinion that the schismatic
character of Marxist theory shall also be attributed to the contradictory
character of Marx’s mature economic writings themselves, as Marx did not
remain consistent to his own theoretical system of the Critique of Political
Economy, i.e. to his rupture with the Ricardian value theory of “labour
expended”, but often slipped back to the Ricardian system of thought.
Marx’s Critique of Political Economy constitutes not a “correction” of
Classical Political Economy’s “mistakes” or “misunderstandings”, but the
formation of a new theoretical domain, shaping thus a new theoretical
object of analysis and a new theoretical “paradigm” of argumentation.
Unlike the Ricardian, Marx’s theory of value is a monetary theory. The
value of a commodity cannot be determined as such, but only through its
form of appearance; it cannot be determined in isolation but only in
relation with all other commodities in the exchange process. This
exchange-value relation is materialised by money. In Marx’s system, no
other “material embodiment” of (abstract) labour and no other
quantitatively defined form of appearance (or measure) of value can exist.
As money comprises the only form of appearance of value, both quantities
do not belong to the same level of abstraction. In other words, they are
incommensurable, and consequently they cannot be the subject of
quantitative comparisons and mathematical calculations. In Marx’s system,
value does not belong to the world of empirically detectable (and
measurable) quantities; only money does.
Marx formulated the arguments of his theoretical rupture with the
Ricardian theory of value mainly in the Manuscripts 1857-58, (first
published in 1939-41 as Grundrisse, Foundations of the Critique of
Political Economy), in his A Contribution to the Critique of Political
Economy (first published 1859) and in Volume 1 of Capital (first published
1867). The same arguments are also to be found in his other works of the
period (the Manuscript 1861-63, a part of which was first published during
the period 1905-10 under the title Theories of Surplus Value, and the
Manuscript 1863-65, containing all drafts of Volumes 2 and 3 of Capital
which were edited and first published by Engels in 1885 and 1894
respectively).
However, he used a highly abstract and mainly philosophical mode of
presentation, which makes the comprehension of his theory rather difficult.
More important, in his writings of the period 1861-65, Marx becomes
ambivalent towards Classical Political Economy: He repeatedly retreats to
the Ricardian theory of value, thus abandoning his own theoretical system
of the Critique of Political Economy.
Summarizing our argument we may say that Marx’s economic
writings comprise two different discourses:
a) The theoretical system of the Critique of Political Economy, which
is mainly developed (albeit in a “philosophical” way of presentation, which
makes its understanding not easy) in the first part of Volume 1 of Capital,
in the 1859 Contribution to the Critique of Political Economy, in the
Grundrisse and is repeated in his other works; and,
b) a sophisticated version of the Ricardian Political Economy of value
as “labour expended”, which is to be found mainly in sections of Volume 3
of Capital, such as the “Transformation of Commodity Values into Prices
of Production” or the theory of “Absolute Ground-Rent” and at other parts
of his 1861-65 writings. This second discourse seems to have influenced
most contemporary approaches to Marxist value theory.
In Part I of the present Book (Value and Money) we reconstruct what
we consider to be the first discourse, i.e. the tenets of Marx’s theoretical
system of the Critique of Political Economy, which was formed on the
basis of a rupture with Ricardian Political Economy.
In Part II (Theory of Value and Ideology) we illustrate the conceptual
problems arising with respect to ideology and the capitalist power relations
from Marx’s way of presentation of his value theory, and more specifically
from the way that he introduces the concept of capital and the capitalist
mode of production.
In Part III (Theory of Value and Prices. Marx’s Ambivalence towards
Classical Political Economy) we critically illustrate what we consider to be
the second discourse in Marx’s writings, which adheres to the Classical
tradition of Political Economy.
Finally, in Part IV of the book (The Circuit of Social Capital, the
Profit Rate and Economic Crises) we make use of our theoretical
conclusions from the previous Parts, to focus on subjects such as crisis
theory, instability, and the Circuit of Social Capital, which are related, on
the one hand, to the present economic conjuncture, and on the other, to
modern debates on value and Marxian economic theory.
Dimitri Dimoulis would like to thank the Universidade Bandeirante
(São Paulo, Brazil) for supporting and funding a Research Project on Law
and the Economy. All authors express their thanks to Howard
Engelskirchen, Spyros Lapatsioras and Dimitris Sotiropoulos who have
read and commented on this book. The errors that might remain are of
course theirs.
No comments:
Post a Comment