Date: Sun, 19 Oct 1997 10:30:39 +0200 From: Hugh Rodwell <m-14970-AT-mailbox.swipnet.se> Subject: M-G: Marx, Lenin & economic theory Rakesh has just written a brilliant post on the difference between "economics" and "critique of economic theory". It's on M-International, unfortunately, so I am unable to respond there for another day or two, for reasons of Stalinist bigotry and repression. I append the full post below for Thaxalites and General subscribers. The core of Rakesh's argument is contained in these paragraphs (there was a reference to Louis P as well but I snipped It off): >Marx was no an economist; he had no >interest in the putative equilibrium, self-regulating properties of the >system or the nature of price as an equilibrium mechanism. > >And, alas, Marx was not an economist either. What Sayer and Mattick Jr. >are dealing with in part is the nature of the economic categories with >which economists and indeed all those trapped in bourgeois relations come >to understand the world (the laws of supply and demand, the trinity >formula, the value of a debt, the value of labor, and other yellow >logarithms). Despite the inability to build an explanation of the >crisis-ridden nature of capitalism (or what Schumpeter would call the >heart-beat of capitalism), these categories are nonetheless experienced as >natural. And the theoreticism of economics is shown to be false, nothing >but the totalitarian common sense in which many of us here feel entrapped, >only dressed up in bad mathematics. Now I think that we should add that in this discussion, "economics" is being referred to as a would-be science for understanding and controlling the economic processes of society, the way micro-economics is taught and macro-economics would love to be considered. Those trapped in capitalist perspectives and ways of thinking (historical, philosophical, political etc) feel of course that it's quite natural to demand of *any* theory of economics that it perform these duties of description, explanation and control, the same way chemistry does for manufacturing industry. But Marx's whole project was devoted to what Rakesh puts so clearly -- showing the absurdity of capitalist categories of "economics" (price, profit, rent, wages, interest) as instruments of understanding or control, of achieving some kind of balance or equilibrium. In other words, it was and is a "critique of economic theory". The categories Marx developed to explain the way capitalism works can be used to describe and manage (not control) capitalism, but the effort is pointless, as anyone understanding the scientific principles behind Marx's critique will immediately realize the necessity of changing the preconditions for economic activity in society rather than "improving" the unimprovable, ie the techniques of bourgeois (ie petrified, ahistorical) "economics". The scientific critique of economic theory elaborated by Marx shows that under capitalism "control" is *impossible*. And "management" without control is pointless -- which by the way shows the absurdity of the Austro-Marxist approach of dispensing good advice to capitalists on how to run their economies within the framework of bourgeois society so everybody feels better and nobody loses (well, except some capitalists lose a little bit maybe, and that's compensated for by the increased general prosperity and feel-good effects). The Mandelist United Secretariat of the Fourth International is a canonical present-day purveyor of this snake-oil. It's like telling the owners of the mines of ancient Egypt, Greece and Rome that the slaves would produce more if the slave-drivers whipped them less and fed them more. Lenin on the other hand is an excellent example of Marx's approach. The theoretical foundations of political economy are not the main thing. The political and economic foundations of social practice are. Not for nothing did he characterize our epoch as one not just of wars and revolutions, but also of the transition to socialism. But this demanded a freedom not just from the fetishized categories of bourgeois economics, but also from the equally fetishized idea of bourgeois society as the only conceivable form of social organization, in other words, an historical appreciation of the origin of capitalism from feudalism and of its replacement by the non-exploitative cooperative socialist mode of production. So, war on all " totalitarian common sense ... dressed up in bad mathematics"!! The purpose of Marxist political economy is as Rakesh says "to critique this society, to free ourselves from its fetishism, to rise above and beyond it from the perspective of a new society". That is to say, not to interpret the world, but to change it. Rakesh, you just made my day a whole lot brighter! Thanks! Cheers, Hugh PS I'm forwarding this to Rebecca P for the same reasons as I did my previous post on this topic. It's part of an answer to her questions concerning Lenin's understanding of Marx's categories and the use he made of them. _________________________________________________ PPS Here's the full post: Carrol wrote: >But "we" (those who have, in this case years ago, committed themselves >to the working class and working-class revolution) go to theory or >study *because they need it in the struggle*, and it can't help but >set their teeth on edge (and mine too) when they read such phrases >as "most stunning insights of contemporary Marxist thought." What >say? In reference to *what*? Louis P confessed to an ignorance of Marxist economics. This is an insecurity many of us have, though Louis P obviously has the technical skills to take a big bite out of Bortkiewiecz and Okishio. So why does Louis P remain ignorant of something he could master if he wished? Probably because he senses that Marx was no an economist; he had no interest in the putative equilibrium, self-regulating properties of the system or the nature of price as an equilibrium mechanism. And, alas, Marx was not an economist either. What Sayer and Mattick Jr. are dealing with in part is the nature of the economic categories with which economists and indeed all those trapped in bourgeois relations come to understand the world (the laws of supply and demand, the trinity formula, the value of a debt, the value of labor, and other yellow logarithms). Despite the inability to build an explanation of the crisis-ridden nature of capitalism (or what Schumpeter would call the heart-beat of capitalism), these categories are nonetheless experienced as natural. And the theoreticism of economics is shown to be false, nothing but the totalitarian common sense in which many of us here feel entrapped, only dressed up in bad mathematics. Now the problem with Sayer's and Mattick's project--and there are problems with it--is that it can serve only as fillip to theoretical thinking. I think Carrol is correct to point to this danger. It does not lead us to really ask why in this society, there is a such a gap between appearance and reality, between common sense representations and scientific discovery of essential relations. We may feel comfortable as theoreticians and forget about the project of overthrowing those inhuman relations which make this theorising necessary. In recent contributions Cyril Smith has explored this with eloquence. I should add that in Moneybags Must be So Lucky Robert Paul Wolff also explores how economists have attempted to make rational sense, on the basis of these categories, of social relations which are ultimately organized on an absurd basis. For example, trying to read Marx as simply a scientist who intellectually struggled over the anomalies in Ricardian theory would be to miss how absurd he took the social relations of capitalism to be, which generated such theoretical problems as the determination of the value of money. So the question becomes instead how is necessity and puzzle of money generated out of the inhuman relations in which we find ourselves? Marx never lost his irony towards those economists who seriously tried to resolve the contradictions in their theorising about capitalism. What I do suggest work like this is stunning? Well aside from the reason that it relieves the guilt-ridden non-economists among us, this kind of Marxist commentary allows us to critique this society, to free ourselves from its fetishism, to rise above and beyond it from the perspective of a new society. I agree with Louis P on a few things. We must fight a gusano counter-revolution, whatever the nature of Castro's Cuba; and Marx's economics is not that important after all. His critique of economics however is. Comradely Rakesh --- from list marxism-international-AT-lists.village.virginia.edu --- --- from list marxism-general-AT-lists.village.virginia.edu ---
Display software: ArchTracker © Malgosia Askanas, 2000-2005