Date: Tue, 28 Nov 1995 20:58:38 -0800
From: James Miller <jamiller-AT-igc.apc.org>
Subject: Grundrisse


THE GRUNDRISSE

   Steve Keen's post of Nov. 28 calls attention to a passage in
_The Grundrisse_ on pp. 383-385, in which Steve states that
Marx violated the basic definition of value that he had previously
enunciated.
   A word of caution on reading  _Grundrisse_. There are some
arithmetical errors, and readers have to watch out for them. But
more importantly, this is a workbook, not a draft of a text for
publication. Due to its character as a workbook, Marx generally
does not state the assumptions that he uses when setting up
a particular problem. Also, there are cases where his ideas are
expressed only partially, since he wanted to save himself the
effort of unnecessary repetition.This makes interpretation difficult
in many instances. Further, there are several lines of inquiry in
this workbook that were not repeated in his later works. Some
of them were abandoned by Marx later, not so much because
they were unscientific in themselves, but because they might
have been relatively unproductive or ineffective in defining or
illustrating a particular process.
   The example that Steve and John refer to, on pp. 383-385,
is part of a series of calculations which begins on p. 366. For
those who want to interpret the section in question, it will be
necessary to start on p. 366. (Although, like anything else,
your capacity to deal with the material here depends on how
much knowledge you already have as you read it.)
   I would urge people who haven't read _Grundrisse_ to read
_Capital_ first, and only use _Grundrisse_ as a supplementary
work. _Capital_ was written for publication. The first volume
was edited by Marx, the other two by Engels. These three
volumes are the definitive and authoritative statement of
Marx's economic theory. Theoretical debate which involves
the question of interpreting Marx's meaning, should, as much
as possible, rely on _Capital_. In some cases, _Grundrisse_
can be used as a supporting text.
   But if, as with the case here, _Grundrisse_ is used to show
that Marx contradicted himself, then the version of the theory
that was printed in _Capital_ should be regarded as the
authoritative one.
   What this means is that I am under no obligation to defend
what Marx said in _The Grundrisse_. Either Steve is right,
in which case I defend _Capital_ against the passage in _The
Grundrisse_. It's possible Marx made a mistake which he
corrected later. And if he made a mistake, it's possible that
he did it deliberately, as well as accidentally. (There are some
examples of Marx advancing arguments and hypotheses in
order to see where they lead, and later abandoning them or
criticizing them.)
   But I will say that in the passage in question, Marx presents
a number of problems to the alert reader. He makes some
arithmetical errors. He toys with certain concepts, in one
case pointing to the absurdity of the example he has just
set up (p. 379). His main task in this passage is to examine
the effects of changing productivity on the rate of surplus
value and the composition of capital.
   He begins with the assumption that a given number of
hours of labor time produces a given amount of value, which
here he measures in thalers. He says this on p. 378 and
379. But then he loses track of this assumption on p. 382,
where he develops the surplus value as a given fraction
of the variable capital, rather than as a division of the
working day into necessary and surplus portions. Thus
he has one capital in which 2 working days creates a
value of 20 + 6.67 = 26.67. Then later, due to the rise in
the price of necessaries, the same 2 workdays creates a
value of 25 + 8.33 = 33.33.
   Rather than dividing up one and the same value product
of 2 days labor into necessary and surplus, which he had
started out doing, here he takes the variable capital as a
given and tacks on a surplus value at 33.33 % of the variable
capital. He does this again on p. 383 and 384.
   On p. 383 he makes this departure from the labor theory
of value explicit: "...in the first, 4 days create 1 surplus day
in 4 working days; in the second, 4 days create 1.33 surplus
days."
    On p. 383, 4 days of labor time, for which the capitalist
advances a variable capital of 40 thalers, produces a value
of 50 thalers in one case and 53.33 thalers in the other
case. As Steve says, it "flies in the face" of Marx's law
of value. And he does the same thing again in the example
beginning at the bottom of p. 383, except that in this case
there's no reference to working time.
   On p. 384, Marx says, "It [labor] therefore creates more
use values and a higher exchange value in the same amount
of time..." It's possible that Marx was thinking here of a
larger number of workers creating more value in the same
amount of time, but he doesn't say this. 
   Then on p. 387, Marx returns to his former method of
dividing the new value created into a necessary and a
surplus portion, i.e. he reverts to the labor theory of value.
There follows another series of numerical examples extending
to p. 397. This passage is also made difficult to read by errors
and unexplained assumptions.

   It might be possible to discuss this further and arrive at
a more complete understanding of Marx's methods. In the
interest of brevity, I won't say anything more about it now.
   But while Marx was writing _The Grundrisse_, or soon
after, on April 2, 1858, he wrote to Engels: "1. Value.
This is reduced entirely to the quantity of labor; time as
a measure of labor." If he departed from this in the passage
above, he did so only for a limited time and for a limited
purpose. He did not revive such lines of thought in _Capital_.

JOHN ERNST'S CONTRIBUTION

   John had nothing of substance to say regarding the
content of my last three posts. He did, however, express
the view that I should read Chap. 12 of Vol. I of _Capital_.
I appreciate his recommendation, but my invitation to
him is still open: I would like to have an in-depth discussion
with him on the law of value. I'd be willing to discuss further
the passage from _Grundrisse_, as well, but that wouldn't
be the most productive format, in my opinion.

PETER BURNS ON SCIENTISM

   I appreciate Peter's patience with me. Sometimes I still
come off as too subjective and irascible.
   I also appreciate Peter's attempts to create a dialogue
with Marxists, although I view the source and outcome of
such a dialogue differently from the way he views it.
   To clarify one point: when Peter says that "instead of
antagonizing religious believers, socialists should be
inviting them to come aboard a common project.," I agree
with him, but at the same time I don't think joint work on
a common project should be used as a justification for
avoiding theoretical debate.
   Peter and I both worked  in the Nicaragua solidarity
movement, although we didn't know each other. We were,
at that time, working on a common project, along with many
thousands of others with a wide range of political and
philosophical beliefs. Looking back on it now, both of us
probably agree that it was a worthy cause, and we might
look forward to similar opportunities, or they might even
be going on now. (For example, in the Cuba solidarity
work, perhaps.)
   In the meantime, here we are on the Marxism list,
debating philosophy. There's nothing wrong with this
either, because Peter is trying to make gains for his
church, and I'm trying to make gains for the Marxist
movement. And, in spite of the fact that we can and
do work together on common projects, the fact remains
that religion and Marxism are counterposed in the class
struggle. One expands at the expense of the other.
   The Marxism list is a place where we can discuss our
differences in a deep and wide-ranging way. The fact that
we have these differences, and are willing to debate them,
does not in any way prevent us from collaborating on
projects of common interest. But Peter is right in saying
that I should not "antagonize" religious people. We should
avoid hostility and rejection as long as we view each other
as real or potential allies in particular struggles.
   On the other hand, there are some religious people that
Marxists can't help but antagonize. Those are the people
who blockade abortion clinics and harass abortion
providers (and there are other examples). We sometimes
have to get in their face as they get in ours. In conflicts of
this type, religion becomes a factor in struggles which can,
and do, take on a physical character. But such is not the
case (I hope) in the dialogue with Peter, even if he opposes
the legal right to abortion, (and I don't know if he does or
not).
   Peter then says, "it's time to get over the political
fruitlessness of militantly antagonistic approaches to
religious *belief* <which does not mean abandoning
political criticism of the *churches as social institutions*
--many *Catholics* are doing just that all the time.>"
   I disagree. It is not fruitless to discuss philosophy 
or belief. It is such basic and fundamental debates that
are of the greatest value to the working class. Further,
there is an unavoidable interdependence between
churches as social institutions and religion as philosophy
or belief. You cannot isolate religious belief from the nature
and activity of churches. Naturally, ideological differences
should be discussed with all due civility, but a certain political
or theoretical "antagonism" (not "hostility") is inherent in the
counterposed philosophical views. (In my last post, I used
a little sarcasm, but I don't feel it was real hostility.)
   In relation to the philosophical differences, Peter says that
"I view belief in God's existence as reasonable, while accepting
that others reasonably differ." And further, "...whether one
explains reason, mind and value theistically or not, they are
not adequately accounted for by 'orthodox' marxists, including
some on this list."
   But the question is not whether some Marxists are or are
not adequate in their capacity to account for the existence
of the world, or the source of reason, mind and value. The
question is whether God created the world and humanity, or
whether nature and human society evolved without God's
intervention. Isn't that the question? That's what I'd like to
discuss.
   If this is the question, then Marxists have one view, and
religionists another. Of course, it is not so simple. There is
a range of views among both Marxists and religionists. There
are also those (like Ernesto Cardenal) who believe they have
created the unity of Marxism and religion. But one cannot
deny that, no matter the various modes of thought, Marxism
and religion go in different philosophical directions.
   So when I speak of "Marxism," I can't account for what
many modern writers (who might call themselves Marxists
for any number of reasons) have said. In my view, the best
source for the authentic expression of Marxism on questions
of philosophy, history, science and society, is the works of
Marx and Engels themselves. In addition to Marx and Engels,
I also like Lenin and Trotsky. (Regrding the dialectics of
nature, I like the article recently posted in the Marxism
archive by Richard Levins.)
   Why do I believe that the real question is whether God
created  the world and humanity? Because, as a Marxist,
I believe that the working class is faced with the task of
overthrowing capitalist rule. If the workers are to gain the
kind of unity and wisdom they need, they will have to
overcome religious modes of thought, in addition to rejecting
the authority of church officials.
   As Lenin put it, "Marxism has always regarded all modern
religions and churches, and each and every religious
organization, as instruments of bourgeois reaction that
serve to defend exploitation and to befuddle the working
class." (CW, Vol. 15, p. 403) I agree with this and would
be willing to defend it if Peter wants to debate the point.
   Workers are going to have to think more and more
rationally and scientifically, less and less spiritualistically,
if they are going to be able to elevate themselves to the
position of ruling class. We can see that this process is
already under way, but still has a long way to go.

Jim Miller
Seattle


     --- from list marxism-AT-lists.village.virginia.edu ---

     ------------------