====================================================================== Rule #1: YOU MUST clip all extraneous text when replying to a message. ======================================================================
Hi**** ** ** I have just got my copy of this book - at Angelus' recommendation. It relies on a ‘new reading’ (as he sees it) which focuses on Marx as a critic of social structures – mediated by value and thus fetishised. It’s a great read so far – I guess because I agree with it. I think it gets to grips with the fact that much of what gets called ’Marxism’ was, in one way or another a German Party ideology or a Russian State Ideology (which is what I think Heinrich means by ‘worldview’ Marxism – forms of which still get recycled as Marxism in first-year sociology texts). ** ** Following Heinrich's logic – that fundamentally Marx is engaged in an imminent critique of the thinkers of his day to show that their questions did not go far enough (they assumed what they need to prove) and that led to conclusions which were politically unacceptable to them (i.e. revolutionary). One wonders then – since classical political economy was abandoned by leading bourgeois economic thinkers for a account in which value is purely subjective (and the focus is on the market rather than the labour) why Marxists continued to defend the labour theory of value rather than showing that the ‘new’ bourgeois economics was equally as absurd and contradictory. Perhaps they did but the focus of what I have seen (even here) is on whether the Labour Theory of Value and Tendency of Rate of Profit to Fall etc are the best explanations. **** ** ** There is only a brief mention of dialectics in this first part of Heinrich. I have two questions about it: **** A. I often here Marxists refer to *THE* dialectic? Where does this term come from? Is it in Engels? It seems to reflect ‘worldview’ Marxism as if THE dialectic can be used to explain something (rather than being a method) so its reified in this way isn’t it? **B. **I wonder why there’s not more emphasis in explaining dialectics as a way of thinking about processes. Instead of seeing the world as a collection of objects – dialectical ways of thinking are about thinking about processes in ways that make it clearer that reification is everywhere and often its misleading to treat ‘things’ as object (they are after all emergent properties of atomic processes and in a state of change) let alone to treat people or social relations in this way. Perhaps others have written about dialectics in that way but the dominant form still seems to be either a version of A or its presented as something mystical.**** ** ** ** __________________** Anyrate here is my summary of Heinrich first 2 chapters. **** ** ** 1.*CAPITALISM & MARXISM* **1.1 ***What is Capitalism?***** As opposed to pre-capitalist relations capitalist societies differ in 2 key respects – 1. workers are formally free while previously were subject to personal dependency on Lords and 2 Production directly met the (restricted) needs of peasants and the luxury wants of the elites. Under capitalism the immediate goal of capitalism is valorisation of capital.**** ** ** **1.2 ***Emergence of the workers movements***** Capitalism requires accumulation of wealth – and an accumulation of ‘free labour’**** 1.3 *Marx and ‘Marxism’* Brief Bio of Marx- writing, studying, organising the 1st Intl, acting as think-tank for German SPD – with *Socialism Utopian & Scientific* a popular pamphlet (*Capital* less so). Duhring developed a comprehensive system of socialism which was popular as it created a ‘worldview’ in German SPD and workers culture more generally which sought to compete with bourgeois culture (from which they were excluded) but often mimicked it. Engel’s critique was read as a correction to Duhring’s positions creating a ‘scientific socialist’ worldview that was popularised under Kautsky - consisting of materialism (understood as positive science of laws vs idealist religion), progress, economism, determinism, - provided identity in movement opposition to bourgeois values and worldview. This continued with Lenin, codified as ‘Marxist Leninism’. After the WW1 split, the SPD moved away from revolution and those that didn’t became ‘communists’ with a worldview (which sought to justify Russian foreign policy. Lenin was canonised in turn and the Soviet State produced HistMat and DiaMat as a Marxist political economic worldview as a ‘communist’ identity. There also developed other ‘Marxist’ currents Korsch, Luckacs, Gramsci, Pannekoek, and the Frankfurt school now loosely termed ‘Western Marxism’. Often though their critique was focused on the theory and history of ‘Marxist political economy’ and it was not until the 60s that the original notion of critique re-emerged (under influence of new social movements outside traditional Party control). Althusser was a key figure as well as reading beyond * Capital* (the recovery of the Grundrisse, Early Writings and so on) **** ** ** 2. *THE OBJECT OF CRITIQUE IN THE CRITIQUE OF POLITICAL ECONOMY***** What is the object of critique in Capital – is it criticism of existing theories with the aim of improving them or more broadly a critique of social structures – mediated by value and thus fetishised**** ** ** *2.1 Theory & History***** Engels argued the account in *Capital* was 'historical' even if it was shorn of contingencies and Kautsky read it this way too. After the turn of the century the 'common knowledge' was that capitalism had entered a new historical stage (be it analysed by Luxemburg or Lenin) and even the dominant 'sympathetic' interpretation follow this i.e. Marx is no longer relevant because the economy has modernised). Marx claims himself in that his interest isn't history or historical phases but a 'theoretical' analysis as an 'ideal average' using England as the most developed economy in which the completed structure gives a clue to what to look for in history. History complements the theory (it does not constitute it) which is why the 'Primitive Accumulation' chapter comes at the end not the beginning of Vol. 1. It is thus a theoretical work (about fully developed capitalism) not a history (of the development of capitalism) – very different from modern economics which is built on abstract categories to 'solve' problems of production and scarcity that are trans-historical. **** ** ** **2.2 ***Theory & critique***** Within 'worldview' Marxism then Marx was the great economist of the workers movement who provided a Marxist political economy in contrast to bourgeois economics – having taken over the best of classical political economy from which he drew different conclusions. This also agrees with the views of contemporary economics which no longer concerns itself with classical political economy (which was based on Labour Theory of Value). It is argued by Heinrich that Marx is not offering an *alternative* political economy but is offering a *critique* of political economy as in subtitle of *Capital*. Marx seeks to expose the whole set of categories as a critique of the system. Marx agrees classical political economists have grasped the * content* of value but not asked *why* they it takes the form it does. It’s not the conclusions that Marx takes issue with but the questions. He wants to question what is 'taken for granted' i.e. that greed is natural etc. Political economy naturalises/reifies social relations and makes objects * appear* as *subjects*. Marx says this is absurd and calls this an 'occult quality'. This aspect is often overlooked by commentators as merely a question of style. **** ** ** This fetishism is, for Marx, not just a mistake of individual economists but is part of the 'religion of everyday life' that is the basis of everyday consciousness. So critique for Marx means immanent critique to expose the absurdity of concepts as themselves an effect of capitalist social relations (as well as pointing out the human/social costs thereof). It is not a moral critique of behaviour of individual capitalists or even the system against some eternal norms of justice – but of its immanent destructive potential – against which workers will organise because it is in their interests (not their morals) - not just to fight for a better situation under capitalism but to transcend it. **** ** ** **2.3 ***Dialectics – a Marxist ‘Rosetta stone’?***** Various uses of the term 'dialectics' are used in this regard though the exact meaning remains vague – often used as a mechanism of Party discipline. Aside from this there are 2 senses: Engels uses it as part of the 'worldview' Marxism wherein dialectics is 'the science of general laws of motion' of society and nature. Alternatively Marx talks about a dialectical method derived from Hegel as a way of unfolding categories- rather than a ready-made method to be applied to empirical material (as in 'worldview' Marxism). Dialectical methodology is not an *application* of a method but a *critique* of the categories. One has to engage with the substance of the field and explore the categories which is not captured in simple formulas. **** ** ** *3. VALUE, LABOUR, MONEY* ** To be continued**** ** ** -- Shane Hopkinson President Regional Social Development Centre Wellington Street MACKAY 4740 0437046487 ________________________________________________ Send list submissions to: Marxism@greenhouse.economics.utah.edu Set your options at: http://greenhouse.economics.utah.edu/mailman/options/marxism/archive%40mail-archive.com
