- 15 Apr 2006 21:36
#853142
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.
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.