[Sans Salvador]

I wasn't sure if I should post this here or in the economics forum. I am not sure how many people here are aware of this significant incompleteness in Marx's published writings on political economy. So, I will bring it up here if anyone is interested.

Basically, Marx intended to write a book (probably multiple volumes) on wage labor, as well as 5 other books in the vein of Capital (the only one of the 6 that actually was written in his lifetime). It is accepted that before writing capital, he made a list of what he would write which was six different books, Capital's volumes being one of them. However, most scholars of Marx's work then argued that most of what he planned for the other books was incorporated into Capital. This is incorrect.

Basically, in Capital, the capitalists almost always got their way in conflicts with labor. Of course, labor may aggrevate them and cause them to take action to quell labor's resistance, and also the continuous victories of capital may eventually prove disastrous for them. However, capital is treated as trampling over labor in most individual conflicts.

Marx planned to drop this assumption in his book on wage labor, which he never got around to writing. Thus, all discussions of the determination of the value of labor power, and hence surplus value, in Marx's existing writings are at least somewhat incorrect. The importance of this is obviously great.

However, a while ago I read Michael Lebowitz's book Beyond Capital: Marx's Political Economy of the Working Class which solved this problem. He draws on Marx's own notes, but also tries to render a correct determination of the value of LP rather than "what Marx said." Lebowitz also shows that the "one sidedness" of Capital has presented problems for the organization of socialist movements. Anyone interested should read this book or send me a PM if they're interested in getting the book cheap.

I'm sure some of the posters here are aware of this problem, but I figured some might not know. I am also interested in discussing this with other Marxists, as the only other mailing list I participate in, Lebowitz participates in too and thus everyone agrees with him.

[CommunistLeague]

I'd be interested in this discussion. What is this other e-mail list you're talking about?

Miles

[Sans Salvador]

It is the Progressive Economists Network List

http://archives.econ.utah.edu/archives/pen-l/

Forgive me if I was misleading. I don't mean to say that this topic is often discussed there. It is just the only other online discussion I patrticipate in and when it ever happens to be discussed there, people agree with Lebowitz. Of course, a different perspective could be that its because Lebowitz is obviously right.

The list doess have some of the top Marxist economist posting on it. Michael Perelman (who runs it), Hans Ehrbar, Lebowitz, Jim Devine, Andrew Kliman, Michael Yates, Doug Henwood (although he is not a professional economist). Anwar Shaikh has even posted there every once in a while.

[Eddier1]

Of course, a different perspective could be that its because Lebowitz is obviously right.

You said it. Stop trying to disagree with yourself and you will be alright -- ere long.

[Eddier1]

See below S.S. it might assist you with your problems in the political economy of Marx.

The categories of commodity, value and exchange-value are undoubtedly ideologically produced distortions, mystifying (in Marx’s expression) forms of ideas, in which exchange society imagines a labour bond between individual producers. The ideological nature of these forms is proved by the fact that if one goes to other economic structures, the categories (of commodity, value etc.) lose all significance. Therefore, with complete justification we may speak of a commodity ideology, or as Marx called it, a “commodity fetishism” and categorize it in the list of psychological phenomena. This by no means signifies that the categories of political economy have exclusively psychological significance, that they relate only to experiences, impressions and other subjective processes. We know very Well that, for instance, the category of commodity, despite its clear ideological nature, reflects an objective social relationship. We know that whatever degree this relationship has developed, its greater or lesser universality, are material factors subject to inquiry as such, and that it exists not merely in the form of ideological-psychological processes. Thus, the general concepts of political economy are not only an element of ideology, but they are also a type of abstraction, from which we may scientifically, i.e. theoretically, construct objective economic reality. In Marx’s words: “These are socially significant, and thus objective, forms of thought within the limits of the productive relationships of a specific, historically determined, social form of production – commodity production
.” [15]

E.Pashukanis "The General Theory of Law and Marxism" Chapt.II.

[Sans Salvador]

That passage is completely irrelevant to the issue; namely that Marx planned to write a book on wage labour before he died and that the discussion of the determination of the value of labor pwoer in Capital is best viewed as a simplifying assumption for the rest of his argument rather than an attempt to explain said determination.

[Eddier1]

SS wrote:

That passage is completely irrelevant to the issue

No, I see the issue as it is in reference to your 'psychological state of mind' of trying your damnest to poke a hole in such as the LTV etc. of Marx. Am I the only one that sees the harried and irrational tendencies in you trying to contradict yourself in former posts on Marx's theory in which you clearly and distinctly accepted the 'internal consistency' of Marx's theory?

The article from Pashukanis addresses the psychological impact of Marx's theory, and therefore is apropo in regard to your individual problem with Marx as can be seen readily by anyone who has adequate reading comprehension.

You are struggling with Marx and more importantly with yourself who formerly saw and stated the validity of his theory on the basis of its internal consistency. BTW, you wrote most about that in the Economics forum, and I think you should have posted this thread there. Or are you loathe to do it, because of some "fear" of specialists in economics who frequent that forum?

But enough, since I don't want this to get more complicated than it is already based on the article of Pashukanis and the impact of psychology in such economic matters involving Karl Marx.

[Sans Salvador]

I do think the LTV is valid. So does Mike Lebowitz. This has no bearing on whether the LTV is valid. Its all about determining the value of labor pwoer from the standpoint of the LTV.

This in fact helps the LTV by improving the theory of the detemrination of labor powers value, and this achieving more consistency with reality.

[CommunistLeague]

It's my understanding of what Lebowitz is talking about is how the unfinished character of Capital has led many communists to see aspects of society from a narrow and mechanical standpoint.

For example, democracy is not merely a form of governance, it is a process of developing the proletariat toward being the ruling class and, as we approach communism, moving beyond democracy into the free association. This, I believe, is what Marx meant by "winning the battle of democracy". Another aspect of this would be the beginning of this process now, before the final defeat of capitalism, in order to prepare working people for that victory.

Miles

[Subversive Rob]

I'd emphasise what ComLeague has said here. An unfortunate consequence of this sort of economic theorising is that some Marxist accounts have had a tendency to view as determined solely by the dominant class in any given social formation. This of course ignores the crucial dimension that Marx assigned to class struggle as a motor for historical development.

Addressing your specific point, I essentially agree, although I suppose one could note Marx's treatment of the Factory Acts as a sort of preliminary step in Lebowitz' direction. What is his book like?

[Sans Salvador]

Here is a good interview with Lebowitz.

http://www.cpgb.org.uk/worker/608/lebovitz.htm

His book puts alot of emphasis on dialectics. He is an orthodox Marxist and not a pure hegelian of ocurse, his book begins with Lukacs' famous quote in fact.

He does not just focus on quantitative matters, such as saying that the value of labour power will be higher or the barriers to capital put up by labor will be harder to overcome. He also points out new categories of contradictions of capitalism that a book on wage labor would highlight. For example ,labor power is the capacity to perform labor, but what does that tell us? What do we mean by labor? Capitalists and workers have radically different views of what labor should be. One thinks labor is for human development, the other for production of surplus value. Labor power is the capacity to develop oneself or produce surplus value?

The book also quotes frequently (not excessively) from Marx's notes, and tends to develop on the lines Marx laid out in his notes. Lebowitz doesn't shy from pointing out when Marx was wrong or "fell into the trap baited by political economy" though.

[Roy]

Instead of reciting other people's literature word by word, it would be advisable to look into the dialectical relation between production relations and productive forces yourselves, try to examine how the production method after the industrialisation has determined capitalist production relations.

I think that people should stop constantly look into Marx's works to try to find solutions to their lives' problems, the greatest legacy is not the books he wrote, but analytical tools, namely, dialectical and historical materialism.

[Wellsy]

Here is a link to the PDF of his book: http://www.untag-smd.ac.id/files/Perpustakaan_Digital_2/POLITICAL%20ECONOMY%20Beyond%20Capital%20Marx%92s%20Political%20Economy%20of%20the%20Working%20Class.pdf

This does make me curious as I have heard the point of labor for all sided human development in Marx than a mere redistribution.