Blair writes: > Gil Skillman writes of his paper on Marx's value theory: > > >I argue that the logical > structure runs from his treatment of usury and merchants' capital in > Chapters 36 and 20 of Volume III, to his treatment of interest > capital under the capitalist mode of production in Chapters 21-23 of > Volume III, to his treatment of capitalist production in Chapters > 10-16 of Volume I.... The structure of the argument > isn't dialectical, although it certainly is historical materialist. > Please contrast this with Marx's own discussion of method in the > GRUNDRISSE, where he explicitly and carefully says that the correct method > of logical analysis is NOT to follow the path of historical development but > rather determined by the relationships of the economic categories in > "modern bourgeois society": > "It would therefore be unfeasible and wrong to let the economic categories > follow one another in the same sequence as that in which they were > historically decisive. Their sequence is determined, rather, by their > relation to one another in modern bourgeois society, which is precisely the > opposite of that which seems to be their natural order or whch corresponds > to historical development." But Blair, notice I do not insist that the analysis *must* proceed in the way I indicate; rather that this order best illustrates the historical unfolding of the essentially strategic problem of extracting surplus labor from labor power. Perhaps the nature of the historically-contingent strategic argument I emphasize can best be understood in the manner you indicate. While we're in the GRUNDRISSE, we should also note that Marx "explicitly and carefully" affirms that usury and merchant's capital, when extended to small producers, represents *capitalist exploitation* as Marx understands the term, and not the "redistributive" type that Jim repeatedly speaks of. This is inconsistent with marx's representation of such circuits of capital in Volume I, Ch. 5. > Gil: do I understand you correctly to say that in your SCIENCE & SOCIETY > article you argue that capitalist exploitation does not require purchase > and subsumption of labor power? This would be an interesting claim, > relevant to discusions of the nature of exploitation in the Soviet Union > (capitalist or something else?), and others. I will look forward to reading > your article. Yes, you do understand me correctly, and I base this argument on Marx's own account, repeated in consistent fashion in the historical chapters of Volume III (check out Chs. 36 and 20 in particular), the Grundrisse (see pp. 851-853, especially bottom p. 853, in particular), the Resultate (i.e., appendix to Vol. I; see in particular p. 1023 in the Penguin edition), and Theories of Surplus Value, Part III, Addenda. Of course, Marx also believed that subsumption became necessary once the conditions corresponding to the capitalist mode of production prevailed; see Vol. III, Ch. 23, in particular pp 501-503 (Penguin edition). I argue in the Science & Society piece, as well as in my Oct. 95 Economics & Philosophy article, that to the extent this claim is valid it is best understood on historical-strategic grounds rather than the value-theoretic grounds put forward by Marx in Volume I, part 2. Blair, if you would like I'll send you copies of either or both papers. In solidarity, Gil Skillman
