“The price so regulated = the expenses of capital, + the average profit (F.I. 10 p.c.), is what Smith called the natural price, cost price, etc. It is the average price to which competition between different trades (by transfer of capital or withdrawal of capital) reduces the prices in different trades. Hence, competition reduces commodities not to their value, but to the cost price, which, depending on the organic composition of the respective capitals, is either above, below or = to their values.”Look carefully at the passage in yellow highlighting. If this was really always Marx’s private, consistent and honest opinion from 1862 onwards, it only proves how volume 1 of Capital was a deeply dishonest work of propaganda by a deceptive communist ideologue.
Marx to Engels, 2 August, 1862
https://marxists.anu.edu.au/archive/marx/works/1862/letters/62_08_02.htm
Why? Because volume 1 leaves readers with the impression that commodities tend to exchange at their true labour value and that was a real “law” of 19th century capitalism and a serious empirical theory of price determination for that same period of capitalism. The few cryptic statements about prices of production in volume 1 in footnotes do not change this fact, and, if anything, deeply underline Marx’s sleight of hand.
One might defend Marx by arguing that he was a sloppy, inconsistent and confused thinker who either (1) changed his opinions on this subject in the course of his life, swinging back and forwards between two mutually contradictory views or (2) he was guilty of holding inconsistent, contradictory views simultaneously when he wrote volume 1 of Capital, privately holding an opinion he did not uphold in that volume.
But either way Marx is damned.
The few cryptic statements about prices of production in volume 1 in footnotes do not change this fact
ReplyDeleteWhy not? I think most people would agree that passages that contradict your reading do indeed have ramifications for said reading. Some might even use the word "refute."
You can't just arbitrarily omit parts of a text when evaluating its content, unless you're prepared to admit to being more Barthesian than Barthes. Otherwise, you're going to have to actually make an argument as to why it's reasonable to ignore footnotes — or any other section of text.
Level with me: Is it safe to say nothing will ever cause you to reevaluate your reading of vol 1? (If you elect not to publish this comment as well, I'll have my answer.)
(1) "I think most people would agree that…"
Delete"most people" = Marxist cultists who militantly refuse to read what the work actually says.
As for the interpretation of footnotes, I've carefully evaluated them, and the conclusion that none of them state that the "law of value" in vol. 1 is not meant to be applied to 19th century capitalism is sound.
Nowhere is it said that the law of value only applies to the pre-modern world of commodity exchange (as Engels later tried to argue) or the law of value – that commodities tend to exchange "approximately according to their value" – was only a non-empirical abstraction.
(2) "Is it safe to say nothing will ever cause you to reevaluate your reading of vol 1? "
ha... this is especially funny because I have told you again and again how you could easily prove me wrong:
What is your evidence that Marx in his statements in vol. 1
(1) stated that the law of value there was only an abstract theoretical theory not meant to be applied to 19th century capitalism or
(2) where Marx stated clearly that in commodity exchange until the 15th century commodities "exchanged approximately according to their value" but -- as Engels later argued -- "[w]e know that this direct realisation of value in exchange ceased and that now it no longer happens.”
You can provide no evidence of this.
Rather, Marx implies again and again in vol. 1 that the theory is meant to apply to modern 19th century capitalism. That is how many Marxists understood him at the time, and without that assumption nobody would have bothered to try and solve the transformation or even make it an issue at all.
Conclusion: you’re full of it.
I bet even now you are still waiting for the proletarian revolution to happen – even after communism has collapsed and the Marxist cult is largely left to some tiny fringe of aging, senile half-wits with pictures of Lenin and Joe Stalin on the wall.
"most people" = Marxist cultists who militantly refuse to read what the work actually says.
DeleteThat's an odd definition of "most people."
the conclusion that [no footnotes] state that the "law of value" in vol. 1 is not meant to be applied to 19th century capitalism is sound.
Depending on your meaning, this is either wrong (if "law of value" is understood fully) or irrelevant (if "law of value" is understood narrowly). I've showed as much, repeatedly, but your tactic has been to either mock or ignore rather than rebut.
ha... this is especially funny because I have told you again and again how you could easily prove me wrong:
And I my response, again and again, has been twofold. Firstly, I demonstrated that the lack of the specific sentence in the specific wording you seek is an issue of presentation rather than content, and demonstrated that the claim in question is still deducible from premises indisputably present in the theory. Your response was a blanket dismissal that, tellingly, never provided an alternative reading that sums the passages in question. Secondly, I've pointed out that your entire question of 19th century applicability is based on an irrealist understanding of the law of value. As I've repeatedly stressed, Marx cannot be made intelligible outside of a realist lens. You have never so much as humored me in attempting to rectify this misunderstanding.
Finally, for all your strong opinions on the lack of one particular phrasing, your own argument hinges entirely on what you claim "Marx implies." Surely you must see the problem with this.
In closing, you appear, per your colorful speculation about my personal life, to have a very active imagination. Can you also imagine what it would be like to debate with someone who refuses to so much as consider interpreting a theory on its own terms, even for the sake of the argument? It's not terribly pleasant, if that's any help.
(1) "Firstly, I demonstrated that the lack of the specific sentence in the specific wording you seek is an issue of presentation rather than content,
DeleteTranslation: Marx never said his theory was not meant to apply and this is proof that he was either
(1) one of the most incompetent and useless writers ever, since he left everyone with the impression that he did, or else there would have been no transformation problem for anyone to solve or
(2) when Marx says and implies it applies to 19th century capitalism in vol. 1 he meant it.
(2) .. and demonstrated that the claim in question is still deducible from premises indisputably present in the theory. "
Translation: one must be a TRUE BELIEVER and have faith that Marx meant to say that it only applied to pre-modern commodity exchange, even though any rational person can see that any decent economist must explicitly say what he means, not leave readers to make questionable deductions based on puzzling and brief statements tucked away in footnotes that blatantly contradict what he says throughout the book.
(3) "Finally, for all your strong opinions on the lack of one particular phrasing, your own argument hinges entirely on what you claim "Marx implies." "
No, it doesn't. Marx says in numerous places that commodities tend to exchange at their values.
E.g., for Marx, prices in gold depend on the labour value of gold:
“… although the money that performs the functions of a measure of value is only ideal money, price depends entirely upon the actual substance that is money. The value, or in other words, the quantity of human labour contained in a ton of iron, is expressed in imagination by such a quantity of the money-commodity as contains the same amount of labour as the iron."
Also:
“It is true, commodities may be sold at prices deviating from their values, but these deviations are to be considered as infractions of the laws of the exchange of commodities, which, in its normal state is an exchange of equivalents, consequently, no method for increasing value.” (Marx 1906: 176–177).
There is no statement that this is only in a pre-modern world, or only in abstract model.
Once again: you’re full of it.
You're deeply dishonest, fanatical and blind to any rational argument.
Is there anything that would make you see how damning these problems are? Oh, wait: nothing can ever prove it. No matter how much evidence is marshalled you will never give up the ravings of this mad cult whose practical application last century killed millions.
I wish you would just take my words at face value; your "translations" appear to me more as a rhetorical malforming. I think I'm being pretty clear but if you're not sure about something, just ask and I can try to present it in a hopefully more congenial fashion.
DeleteAnyway:
(1) I could take or leave Marx's status as an effective writer; as I've said, no point arguing over taste. But you must also bear in mind that (a) not all people are accustomed to realist philosophy and it's certainly possible to make an error along those lines if your conception of a "law" is different from his, and (b) if proving Marx wrong is an object unto itself, rather than something incidental to scientific inquiry (such as for someone who favors capitalism on ideological grounds), then this gives priority to uncharitable readings over charitable ones. Thus, simply saying "but people have talked about the transformation problem" adds/proves nothing. If you can restate the problem and show that it is still relevant, that is one thing; but in light of the evidence I've provided over the last year, we both know you cannot without explicitly adopting a different frame of reference.
No, it doesn't. Marx says in numerous places that commodities tend to exchange at their values.
Yes. Those are the passages you'll admit into your considerations. You omit, on the other hand, the passages that contextualize them. Why? You've not yet clarified your reasons for doing so.
No matter how much evidence is marshalled you will never give up the ravings of this mad cult whose practical application last century killed millions.
I find this characterization both of me deeply dishonest and frankly uncalled for. I've given you examples of hypothetical states that would cause me to reconsider my belief. Further, all the evidence you've marshaled fits equally well into your reading as mine; the difference here is that my reading also works with the passages you've explicitly and willfully omitted. I do not appreciate your defamatory remarks, and I'll ask you to cease them at once.
I also find your characterization of a society founded on public ownership as somehow inherently evil to be deeply dishonest, but that is a separate discussion.
(1) "not all people are accustomed to realist philosophy"
Deletehaha... not all people are accustomed to demanding that a person carefully and explicitly say what he means?
(2) "Thus, simply saying "but people have talked about the transformation problem" adds/proves nothing."
WTF? People who read Marx -- including communists -- came away from vol. 1 with the impression that Marx in volume 1 was saying that commodities tend to have prices at their true labour values, so that these prices also reflect the surplus value embodied in the commodities and that this happened in the 19th century. Without that assumption, the whole transformation problem is not a problem, yet Marxists were trying to solve it for years. According to you, it "proves nothing".
Yours is the psychology of a cult. Just like the religious fanatic who says science doesn't prove anything about the age of the earth.