« Dehistoricizing identity | Main | On professional deformation »

July 13, 2021

Comments

MJW

I made an attempt at Capital and found it tediously verbose, Marx comes across like a journalist trying to max out their word count with superfluous verbiage. I gave up after a few chapters, which is highly unusual for me. Perhaps if someone could ruthlessly edit out all the purple prose, mindless tangents and waffle to produce a critical edition it would be read more?

Paulc156

@MJW. "I gave up after a few chapters" The author suggest one starts reading at chapter 10.

JRA

Gareth Steadman Jones in his recent biography of Marx is very good on his primary literary influences and early attempts at poetry.

rsm

Was Schumpeter right in being as impatient with those who could not get as far as Marx, as he was with those who could not get beyond Marx?

Blissex

«his analysis assumed competitive markets and that “all commodities, including labour-power, are bought and sold at their full value.” It was competitive forces, he thought, that drove exploitation»

Oh please please:

* Exploitation is defined as the difference between the "value as labor of free people" of the commodities that workers can buy with their "money-wages", and the "labor of free people" implied by the "labor-power" that the workers have sold to the capitalists for those "money-wages".

* The workers sell their "labor-power" for "money-wages" that can buy commodities with a "value as labor of free people" lower than that of the "labour power" because they are *price takers", because “[The possessor of labour-power follows [...] timid and holding back, like one who is bringing his own hide to market and has nothing to expect but — a hiding” (because of "reserve army" etc. etc. etc.).

* That can only happen in conditions of imperfect competition, because if competition is perfect, all employers and employees are price takers.

* Indeed in a marxian analysis it is quite possible (and quite rare) for workers to exploit capitalists, if capital is so abundant relative to workers that capitalists pay workers "money-wages" that can purchase commodities with a "value as the labor of free people" greater than the "labor of free people" implied by the "labor-power" they have purchased with those "money-wages".

* In the case that workers exploit capitalists, the surplus that workers extract from the capitalists amounts necessarily to capital liquidation, so eventually capital stops being relatively abundant relative to labor.

Part of the "obscurity" of marxian works is that it uses its own terminology, and that terminology obscures that marxian analysis is actually cost accounting in terms of "value" *defined as* "labor of free people".

Blissex

«The notion of greedy or evil capitalists is not a Marxist one. For Marx capitalists, like workers, are victims of the forces of competition.»

That is was oversold, because the “forces of competition“ by rewarding the greediest capitalist effectively ensure that capitalists be as greedy as possible.

Blissex

«So, if you are interested in capitalism you should at least acquaint yourself with Capital.»

That is also because capitalists as a rule, as demonstrated by the teaching in business schools are marxists to a fault: that apart from fleeting advantages from "innovation", sustainable profit comes from exploiting workers, and businesspeople should constantly think of ways to exploit their workers more to boost profits and gain competitive advantage over less exploitative businesses. The "buy low" part of "buy low sell high" in business school teachings applies first and foremost to labor. Even if that logic is nicely wrapped in euphemisms.

Blissex

«The "buy low" part of "buy low sell high" in business school teachings applies first and foremost to labor.»

And the marxian analysis is to *illustrate* how that works by doing cost accounting based on "labor of free people" unit. Using concepts and methods not too different from what any busines school MBA would use.

Blissex

«In the case that workers exploit capitalists, the surplus that workers extract from the capitalists amounts necessarily to capital liquidation, so eventually capital stops being relatively abundant relative to labor.»

There is a subtle asymmetry here between the two cases, which illustrates a fundamental problem with economicism:

* If capital is relatively too abundant relative to labor, it will be liquidated until the relation is more balanced, because the only reason to have "capital" is to used in the process for production.

* If labor is relatively too abundant relative to labor, labor will be liquidated (by the starving of workers and their children) only if wages are at subsistence level already, because people live and have children not merely to be used in the process of production (even if some capitalists may well think so). That is also the reason why in general there is a persistent "reserve army of labour".

ltr

Through a time when the British media is overwhelmingly conservative or Conservative, I cannot imagine a Labour official admitting to having read Marx. Remember Jeremy Corbyn being destroyed by the BBC in an illustration, wearing a Russian hat posed before the reddened Kremlin.

rsm

Doesn't "getting beyond Marx" mean that even a lowly worker can open a Robinhood account and sell calls high to buy them back lower? What do options markets have to do with exploitation of labor?

> If capital is relatively too abundant relative to labor, it will be liquidated until the relation is more balanced, because the only reason to have "capital" is to used in the process for production.

Why does stock market capitalization remain stubbornly above GDP?

How did Marx fail to understand that money easily becomes a good in and of itself, desirable not because it buys labor but because you can boast about your bank balance?

Blissex

«How did Marx fail to understand that money easily becomes a good in and of itself, desirable not because it buys labor but because you can boast about your bank balance?»

While K Marx insights are not revealed truth to me, at least I know that he mentioned "fetishism" as a central concept, of commodities and money too, for example a random web search returns:

https://marxandphilosophy.org.uk/wp-content/uploads/2018/01/schulz2011.pdf

But there is an important point about "boast the bank balance": classical political economists made a distinction between "economic goods" and other commodities, such as "collectibles", with a different character, and since K Marx was mostly interesting in examining the production process of economic goods and its social implications, his works do not demonstrate a great interest in "collectibles", such as money hoarded purely for status, or equivalently works of art or rare stamps or vintage cards.

rsm

In a world where 90% of assets are virtual, producing only money, is Marx even relevant?

Also, why did Marx ignore free speech?

The comments to this entry are closed.

blogs I like

Blog powered by Typepad