Michael, Very eloquently put! I think in discussing the Hegelian influence on Marx, usually too much emphasis is put on dubious concepts like "dialectical materialism" and crude stagist conceptions of history.
But the real Hegelian aspect of Marx is the method of depiction in the three volumes of Capital, the development of single categories from each other, and how each category necessitates the subsequent categories developed from it. Abstract labour and the value form are the objectified subjectivity of human agency, "objective" economic laws being merely an emergent property of discrete activity. It's a bonus that Marx nicely subverts the whole issue of "methodological individualism" vs. collectivism/institutionalism. ;-) --- "michael a. lebowitz" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > At 17:58 29/11/2006, Angelus Novus wrote: > >Walt Byers wrote: > > > > > Also, could anyone tell me of the secondary > works > > > discussing Marx's views > > > on price-value divergence that they know of. > > > >I tend to agree with Michael Heinrich > ><http://www.oekonomiekritik.de> that "value" and > >"price" are simply categories existing at different > >levels of abstraction in Marx's account. For an > >account of how the "monetary theory of value" > differs > >from traditional Marxist accounts, there are good > >introductory texts in English at > ><mrzine.monthlyreview.org/heinrich031106.html> and > ><http://info.interactivist.net/article.pl?sid=06/07/28/1916205&mode=nested&tid=9> > > I agree as well. In 'The Theoretical Status of > Monopoly Capital' > published in 1985 in Wolff & Resnick, Rethinking > Marxism (essays for > Sweezy and Magdoff), I wrote: > > >That was, in part, the project of Volume III of > Capital--- to > >demonstrate why essence, the inner nature of > capital, necessarily > >appeared as it did. > >Thus, we see here in Volume III the consideration > of the rate of > >profit (which has the rate of surplus-value as its > 'invisible and > >unknown essence') and prices of production ('an > utterly external and > >prima facie meaningless form of the value of > commodities, a form as > >it appears in competition').[1] > > > >[1] Ibid.: 43, 194. > > This essay is waiting patiently to be > reprinted by Brill in > a collection, Following Marx: the method of > political economy, which > includes a new essay, 'Marx's Methodological > Project' (basically, an > unpublished piece which goes back to 1980) where I > propose: > > > Surplus value, in short, is invisible. > It is essence. > > It is a category discovered with the scientist's > instrument, the > > power of abstraction. Profit, in contrast, is 'the > form of > > appearance of surplus-value, and the latter can be > sifted out from > > the former only by analysis' (Marx, 1981b: 139). > Only by the > > process of proceeding from the concrete to the > abstract can we > > develop an understanding of surplus value (and > thus its surface > > form). Profit, Marx noted, is 'a transformed form > of surplus value, > > a form in which its origin and the secret of its > existence are > > veiled and obliterated.' > ... > > We move, in short, from the surface > phenomenon (profit) > > by analysis; and, through the process of > reasoning, we develop the > > concept invisible on the surface (surplus value) > which allows us to > > understand the concrete. That same distinction > between inner and > > outer applies to value and price. We observe > prices on the surface > > but their nature is entirely mystified. By > developing the concept > > of value, an inner category, we can grasp the link > to labour and > > from the concept of abstract labour to the nature > of money. Indeed, > > without value, how could possibly we understand > the nature of money > > and thus capital (Marx, 1981b: 295)? > ... > >However, here where we are considering Marx's > methodological > >project, an immediate question presents itself: if > value, surplus > >value and the rate of surplus value do not exist on > the surface > >whereas price, profit and the rate of profit are > their respective > >forms and only exist on that plane, in what sense > is it possible to > >talk about the 'transformation' of value into > price? > > If value, surplus value and the rate > of surplus value > > are 'invisible essences', then the much-discussed > question of > > 'transformation' must be understood not to be a > real process but, > > rather, a logical process between two levels of > abstract thought. > > We can see that price and profit are the premise, > i.e., are > > categories of the real society which are the point > of departure. > > When it comes, however, to attempting to > understand, the categories > > of value and surplus value precede price and > profit but do not > > themselves exist alongside their forms. > > And now back to the real world. > cheers, > michael > > Michael A. Lebowitz > Professor Emeritus > Economics Department > Simon Fraser University > Burnaby, B.C., Canada V5A 1S6 > > Currently based in Venezuela. > NOTE NEW PHONE NUMBERS > Can be reached at > Residencias Anauco Suites > Departamento 601 > Parque Central, Zona Postal 1010, Oficina 1 > Caracas, Venezuela > (58-212) 573-6333, 571-1520, 571-3820 (or hotel > cell: 0412-200-7540) > fax: (58-212) 573-7724 > ____________________________________________________________________________________ Cheap talk? Check out Yahoo! Messenger's low PC-to-Phone call rates. http://voice.yahoo.com
