In one part of his discussion of simple reproduction in the reproduction schemes at the end of Ca... more In one part of his discussion of simple reproduction in the reproduction schemes at the end of Capital II Marx discusses the replacement of fixed capital. Marx paints a numerical picture of some complexity, and Engels, his editor, at one point feels himself compelled to intervene in the text to point out an error in Marx's numbers. Surprisingly, Marx's discussion of this question in Capital II has received scant commentary in the literature. Here, basing myself on the final published version of Capital II as well as manuscripts that have more recently emerged in the second Abteilung of the Marx-Engels-Gesamtausgabe, I comment on Marx's text, and make the argument that, given a few minor interpretative assumptions, his account, both conceptual and numerical, is both coherent and error free. Finally, I make note of some of the omissions in Marx's description, so they may serve as a pointer for future work.
Among the differences between the first edition of Capital I and subsequent editions is that the ... more Among the differences between the first edition of Capital I and subsequent editions is that the crucially important "value-form" presentation, which forms the third section of the first chapter in subsequent editions, appears as an appendix to the volume, rather than being integrated into the main text. In fact, it was not Marx's original intention to include this in the volume at all; it was only at the stage of the checking of the final printer's proofs that Marx decided to write, and include, the "value-form" appendix. It is at first sight unclear whose idea the writing of the appendix was: Marx credits his friend Louis Kugelmann, with whom he was staying in Germany when the proofs were being prepared, in the Afterword to the second edition, although it is also clear from his correspondence that Engels too was unhappy with the original textual presentation of the value-form. The evidence in fact seems to suggest that in some way Marx followed the advice of both men-Engels and Kugelmann-when, right at the very last minute, he set himself to write the appendix.
In the "early and rude state" of the world, before there were capitalists and landlords, the whol... more In the "early and rude state" of the world, before there were capitalists and landlords, the whole of the produce of the worker belonged to the worker. However, once the means of production are in the hands of capitalists, the value the worker's labour adds to the means of production is shared between worker and capitalist in the forms of wages and profit. Under these circumstances, it is no longer the case that the relative prices of commodities are directly proportional to their labour values. This state of affairs, which in Marx falls under the problematic of the "transformation problem", was something that it is clear Smith was fully aware of, and understood. It is also the case that Smith's "resolution" of the price of a commodity into the components of wages, profit and rent, a procedure rejected by Marx on theoretical grounds, leads to powerful insights into the relationship between the labour embodied in commodities and their relative prices, which are in turn entirely consonant with the standpoint taken by Marx on the issues involved.
This text, which is a translated excerpt from the Introduction to the Apparat section of volume 1... more This text, which is a translated excerpt from the Introduction to the Apparat section of volume 13 of the second Abteilung of the Marx and Engels Gesamtausgabe, deals with some of the difficulties that Engels had when editing the section of the volume that dealt with the interaction of multiple capitals in their turnover process.
It is common to attribute to Marx the notion that “history repeats itself; the first time as trag... more It is common to attribute to Marx the notion that “history repeats itself; the first time as tragedy and the second time as farce”. In fact, when Marx said this, he was (mis)quoting Hegel. It is also the case that there is no shared understanding of what history is and what it does between the two thinkers. On examination, it is clear that Marx is making a very specific point regarding the nature of the consciousness required to make a “bourgeois” revolution, and that required for the “proletarian” one. The latter, he argues, because of its specific character, necessitates a degree of self-consciousness on the part of its agents without equal in human history.
On two occasions in Capital volume one Marx refers to the concept of ‘potenzierte Arbeit’ – ‘pote... more On two occasions in Capital volume one Marx refers to the concept of ‘potenzierte Arbeit’ – ‘potenzierte’ labour. This term has been translated as ‘intensified labour’ and ‘labour of a higher degree’, neither of which terms really capturing the essence of what Marx means. I argue here that potenzierte labour is a discrete category of labour, as such distinct from ‘intensified labour’, but also distinct from ‘more productive’ labour in the sense that Marx habitually uses the term. Neither is the concept equivalent to Marx’s category of ‘multiple’ or ‘complex’ labour (i.e. skilled labour), which is a category derived from a different level of abstraction.
With regard to the rate of profit (s C), where s = surplus-value, and C = total capital laid out)... more With regard to the rate of profit (s C), where s = surplus-value, and C = total capital laid out), and the factors that influence it, the fundamental relation that Marx establishes (in chapter 3 of volume 3 of Capital) is π = δ. v C , in which π = rate of profit, δ = rate of surplus-value (s v), and v = variable capital (capital laid out as wages): 'The rate
The classical Marxist model, developed with regard to the eighteenth-century French Revolution, p... more The classical Marxist model, developed with regard to the eighteenth-century French Revolution, painted a picture of bourgeois revolution as a result of a clash between, on the one hand, an ascendant capitalist bourgeoisie (drawing behind it the plebeian masses) attempting to free itself from the strictures of an overarching feudal order, and, on the other, a reactionary feudal aristocracy intent on maintaining a controlling position in political and economic life. The ensuing struggle, political in form, focusing on control of the apparatus of the state, was rooted in an antagonism between two different forms of socio-economic structure, represented by antagonistic social classes: the revolution was social in content, bilateral in terms of protagonists, and ‘national’ in geographical extent. Its result was the inauguration of a new social order based on the predominance of the capitalist mode of production and the social and political ascendancy of the bourgeoisie.
Anyone who has pretensions to being a revolutionary socialist nowadays, at the dawn of the twenty... more Anyone who has pretensions to being a revolutionary socialist nowadays, at the dawn of the twenty-first century, is surely obliged to answer one simple, if salient, question: what on earth has happened to the socialist revolution? For those of us who believe that the socialist transformation of society must through necessity pass through the gate of the revolutionary overthrow of the capitalist order the fact is that moves to do just that have, since the mid point of the last century, been almost entirely absent from our planet; and absolutely absent from that part of our planet where the locus of capitalist power is lies––the advanced metropolis of western Europe, north America and Australasia. While the first half of the last century, as we shall see, was indeed a period rich in revolutionary experience in just this part of the world capitalist system, since the restabilisation of social and political order following the Second World War the metropolitan capitalist citadel has remained pristine in its resistance to revolutionary challenge.
For sure, the quarter of a century following the Second World War witnessed a period of economic growth and social stability arguably without parallel in human history: that openly anti-capitalist struggles were marked only by their absence in the bourgeois democracies of the ‘west’ in this period was only to be expected. But what of the period which opened up at the cusp of the sixties and seventies of post-Second World War boom? Those who believed that the ‘long detour’ of the previous two decades would end in a renewal of the conditions favourable to placing the socialist revolution back on the historical agenda will have been sorely disappointed.
While some will surely use this state of affairs as further ammunition for the argument that the revolutionary struggle for socialism was always a chimera, it is incumbent for anyone maintaining a commitment to socialist transformation with a modicum of intellectual honesty to point out that other roads to socialism––the so-called parliamentary one, for example, or the once modish strategies of ‘counter-hegemony’ and the like––have been found even more wanting in their efficacy in shifting the power of the bourgeoisie and its political institutions than the socialist revolution. The hard truth is that capitalist power has only ever been directly and successfully challenged by a revolutionary socialism. So, if the conclusion that the struggle for socialist emancipation was only ever a naïve and utopian dream is to be avoided, the question poses itself in all its force: what is it that is absent from the current world set up that was present in the first half of the twentieth century; and what might be the circumstances that will announce its return?
In Capital, Marx argues that, in a given sector of production producing a given class of commodit... more In Capital, Marx argues that, in a given sector of production producing a given class of commodity, should one capitalist production unit introduce a productive technique based on a higher level of productivity of labour than that obtaining in the rest of the sector, that production unit will be able, through lowering the per-unit value of its commodity product, to reap a surplus-profit – a rate of profit higher than the sectorally-obtaining rate. Marx strongly suggests that the ability to reap this surplus profit why capitalists introduce more productive techniques in the first place (even though, once introduced, competition between production units forces the adoption of the new technique through the sector, and the innovator’s advantage disappears). Given that Marx imputes to capitalist reproduction a constant and consistent rise in the level of labour productivity, and given that this secular rise explains the key characteristics of capitalist reproduction itself (accumulation, the tendency of the rate of profit to fall, the very unstable dynamism of capitalist reproduction), the quest for surplus profit must lie at the heart of what is constitutive to capitalist production and reproduction. It is surprising, therefore, that the literature commenting on Marx’s theory almost in its entirety attributes the drive to adopt innovative and more productive techniques to competition. I reject this argument, and insist that, for Marx, it is the quest for surplus profit that drives capitalists to adopt innovative production techniques, not competition.
With regard to the rate of profit ( s C ), where s = surplus-value, and C = total capital laid ou... more With regard to the rate of profit ( s C ), where s = surplus-value, and C = total capital laid out), and the factors that influence it, the fundamental relation that Marx establishes (in chapter 3 of volume 3 of Capital) is π = δ. v
Recently, some French historians have called for an end to the discussion of the causes and meani... more Recently, some French historians have called for an end to the discussion of the causes and meaning of the French Revolution, declaring it to be 'terminated'. But an occurrence that raises such fundamental philosophical and moral questions can never end. For the dispute is not only over what has happened in the past but also over what may happen in the future. 1
In one part of his discussion of simple reproduction in the reproduction schemes at the end of Ca... more In one part of his discussion of simple reproduction in the reproduction schemes at the end of Capital II Marx discusses the replacement of fixed capital. Marx paints a numerical picture of some complexity, and Engels, his editor, at one point feels himself compelled to intervene in the text to point out an error in Marx's numbers. Surprisingly, Marx's discussion of this question in Capital II has received scant commentary in the literature. Here, basing myself on the final published version of Capital II as well as manuscripts that have more recently emerged in the second Abteilung of the Marx-Engels-Gesamtausgabe, I comment on Marx's text, and make the argument that, given a few minor interpretative assumptions, his account, both conceptual and numerical, is both coherent and error free. Finally, I make note of some of the omissions in Marx's description, so they may serve as a pointer for future work.
Among the differences between the first edition of Capital I and subsequent editions is that the ... more Among the differences between the first edition of Capital I and subsequent editions is that the crucially important "value-form" presentation, which forms the third section of the first chapter in subsequent editions, appears as an appendix to the volume, rather than being integrated into the main text. In fact, it was not Marx's original intention to include this in the volume at all; it was only at the stage of the checking of the final printer's proofs that Marx decided to write, and include, the "value-form" appendix. It is at first sight unclear whose idea the writing of the appendix was: Marx credits his friend Louis Kugelmann, with whom he was staying in Germany when the proofs were being prepared, in the Afterword to the second edition, although it is also clear from his correspondence that Engels too was unhappy with the original textual presentation of the value-form. The evidence in fact seems to suggest that in some way Marx followed the advice of both men-Engels and Kugelmann-when, right at the very last minute, he set himself to write the appendix.
In the "early and rude state" of the world, before there were capitalists and landlords, the whol... more In the "early and rude state" of the world, before there were capitalists and landlords, the whole of the produce of the worker belonged to the worker. However, once the means of production are in the hands of capitalists, the value the worker's labour adds to the means of production is shared between worker and capitalist in the forms of wages and profit. Under these circumstances, it is no longer the case that the relative prices of commodities are directly proportional to their labour values. This state of affairs, which in Marx falls under the problematic of the "transformation problem", was something that it is clear Smith was fully aware of, and understood. It is also the case that Smith's "resolution" of the price of a commodity into the components of wages, profit and rent, a procedure rejected by Marx on theoretical grounds, leads to powerful insights into the relationship between the labour embodied in commodities and their relative prices, which are in turn entirely consonant with the standpoint taken by Marx on the issues involved.
This text, which is a translated excerpt from the Introduction to the Apparat section of volume 1... more This text, which is a translated excerpt from the Introduction to the Apparat section of volume 13 of the second Abteilung of the Marx and Engels Gesamtausgabe, deals with some of the difficulties that Engels had when editing the section of the volume that dealt with the interaction of multiple capitals in their turnover process.
It is common to attribute to Marx the notion that “history repeats itself; the first time as trag... more It is common to attribute to Marx the notion that “history repeats itself; the first time as tragedy and the second time as farce”. In fact, when Marx said this, he was (mis)quoting Hegel. It is also the case that there is no shared understanding of what history is and what it does between the two thinkers. On examination, it is clear that Marx is making a very specific point regarding the nature of the consciousness required to make a “bourgeois” revolution, and that required for the “proletarian” one. The latter, he argues, because of its specific character, necessitates a degree of self-consciousness on the part of its agents without equal in human history.
On two occasions in Capital volume one Marx refers to the concept of ‘potenzierte Arbeit’ – ‘pote... more On two occasions in Capital volume one Marx refers to the concept of ‘potenzierte Arbeit’ – ‘potenzierte’ labour. This term has been translated as ‘intensified labour’ and ‘labour of a higher degree’, neither of which terms really capturing the essence of what Marx means. I argue here that potenzierte labour is a discrete category of labour, as such distinct from ‘intensified labour’, but also distinct from ‘more productive’ labour in the sense that Marx habitually uses the term. Neither is the concept equivalent to Marx’s category of ‘multiple’ or ‘complex’ labour (i.e. skilled labour), which is a category derived from a different level of abstraction.
With regard to the rate of profit (s C), where s = surplus-value, and C = total capital laid out)... more With regard to the rate of profit (s C), where s = surplus-value, and C = total capital laid out), and the factors that influence it, the fundamental relation that Marx establishes (in chapter 3 of volume 3 of Capital) is π = δ. v C , in which π = rate of profit, δ = rate of surplus-value (s v), and v = variable capital (capital laid out as wages): 'The rate
The classical Marxist model, developed with regard to the eighteenth-century French Revolution, p... more The classical Marxist model, developed with regard to the eighteenth-century French Revolution, painted a picture of bourgeois revolution as a result of a clash between, on the one hand, an ascendant capitalist bourgeoisie (drawing behind it the plebeian masses) attempting to free itself from the strictures of an overarching feudal order, and, on the other, a reactionary feudal aristocracy intent on maintaining a controlling position in political and economic life. The ensuing struggle, political in form, focusing on control of the apparatus of the state, was rooted in an antagonism between two different forms of socio-economic structure, represented by antagonistic social classes: the revolution was social in content, bilateral in terms of protagonists, and ‘national’ in geographical extent. Its result was the inauguration of a new social order based on the predominance of the capitalist mode of production and the social and political ascendancy of the bourgeoisie.
Anyone who has pretensions to being a revolutionary socialist nowadays, at the dawn of the twenty... more Anyone who has pretensions to being a revolutionary socialist nowadays, at the dawn of the twenty-first century, is surely obliged to answer one simple, if salient, question: what on earth has happened to the socialist revolution? For those of us who believe that the socialist transformation of society must through necessity pass through the gate of the revolutionary overthrow of the capitalist order the fact is that moves to do just that have, since the mid point of the last century, been almost entirely absent from our planet; and absolutely absent from that part of our planet where the locus of capitalist power is lies––the advanced metropolis of western Europe, north America and Australasia. While the first half of the last century, as we shall see, was indeed a period rich in revolutionary experience in just this part of the world capitalist system, since the restabilisation of social and political order following the Second World War the metropolitan capitalist citadel has remained pristine in its resistance to revolutionary challenge.
For sure, the quarter of a century following the Second World War witnessed a period of economic growth and social stability arguably without parallel in human history: that openly anti-capitalist struggles were marked only by their absence in the bourgeois democracies of the ‘west’ in this period was only to be expected. But what of the period which opened up at the cusp of the sixties and seventies of post-Second World War boom? Those who believed that the ‘long detour’ of the previous two decades would end in a renewal of the conditions favourable to placing the socialist revolution back on the historical agenda will have been sorely disappointed.
While some will surely use this state of affairs as further ammunition for the argument that the revolutionary struggle for socialism was always a chimera, it is incumbent for anyone maintaining a commitment to socialist transformation with a modicum of intellectual honesty to point out that other roads to socialism––the so-called parliamentary one, for example, or the once modish strategies of ‘counter-hegemony’ and the like––have been found even more wanting in their efficacy in shifting the power of the bourgeoisie and its political institutions than the socialist revolution. The hard truth is that capitalist power has only ever been directly and successfully challenged by a revolutionary socialism. So, if the conclusion that the struggle for socialist emancipation was only ever a naïve and utopian dream is to be avoided, the question poses itself in all its force: what is it that is absent from the current world set up that was present in the first half of the twentieth century; and what might be the circumstances that will announce its return?
In Capital, Marx argues that, in a given sector of production producing a given class of commodit... more In Capital, Marx argues that, in a given sector of production producing a given class of commodity, should one capitalist production unit introduce a productive technique based on a higher level of productivity of labour than that obtaining in the rest of the sector, that production unit will be able, through lowering the per-unit value of its commodity product, to reap a surplus-profit – a rate of profit higher than the sectorally-obtaining rate. Marx strongly suggests that the ability to reap this surplus profit why capitalists introduce more productive techniques in the first place (even though, once introduced, competition between production units forces the adoption of the new technique through the sector, and the innovator’s advantage disappears). Given that Marx imputes to capitalist reproduction a constant and consistent rise in the level of labour productivity, and given that this secular rise explains the key characteristics of capitalist reproduction itself (accumulation, the tendency of the rate of profit to fall, the very unstable dynamism of capitalist reproduction), the quest for surplus profit must lie at the heart of what is constitutive to capitalist production and reproduction. It is surprising, therefore, that the literature commenting on Marx’s theory almost in its entirety attributes the drive to adopt innovative and more productive techniques to competition. I reject this argument, and insist that, for Marx, it is the quest for surplus profit that drives capitalists to adopt innovative production techniques, not competition.
With regard to the rate of profit ( s C ), where s = surplus-value, and C = total capital laid ou... more With regard to the rate of profit ( s C ), where s = surplus-value, and C = total capital laid out), and the factors that influence it, the fundamental relation that Marx establishes (in chapter 3 of volume 3 of Capital) is π = δ. v
Recently, some French historians have called for an end to the discussion of the causes and meani... more Recently, some French historians have called for an end to the discussion of the causes and meaning of the French Revolution, declaring it to be 'terminated'. But an occurrence that raises such fundamental philosophical and moral questions can never end. For the dispute is not only over what has happened in the past but also over what may happen in the future. 1
Uploads
Papers by Ed George
For sure, the quarter of a century following the Second World War witnessed a period of economic growth and social stability arguably without parallel in human history: that openly anti-capitalist struggles were marked only by their absence in the bourgeois democracies of the ‘west’ in this period was only to be expected. But what of the period which opened up at the cusp of the sixties and seventies of post-Second World War boom? Those who believed that the ‘long detour’ of the previous two decades would end in a renewal of the conditions favourable to placing the socialist revolution back on the historical agenda will have been sorely disappointed.
While some will surely use this state of affairs as further ammunition for the argument that the revolutionary struggle for socialism was always a chimera, it is incumbent for anyone maintaining a commitment to socialist transformation with a modicum of intellectual honesty to point out that other roads to socialism––the so-called parliamentary one, for example, or the once modish strategies of ‘counter-hegemony’ and the like––have been found even more wanting in their efficacy in shifting the power of the bourgeoisie and its political institutions than the socialist revolution. The hard truth is that capitalist power has only ever been directly and successfully challenged by a revolutionary socialism. So, if the conclusion that the struggle for socialist emancipation was only ever a naïve and utopian dream is to be avoided, the question poses itself in all its force: what is it that is absent from the current world set up that was present in the first half of the twentieth century; and what might be the circumstances that will announce its return?
For sure, the quarter of a century following the Second World War witnessed a period of economic growth and social stability arguably without parallel in human history: that openly anti-capitalist struggles were marked only by their absence in the bourgeois democracies of the ‘west’ in this period was only to be expected. But what of the period which opened up at the cusp of the sixties and seventies of post-Second World War boom? Those who believed that the ‘long detour’ of the previous two decades would end in a renewal of the conditions favourable to placing the socialist revolution back on the historical agenda will have been sorely disappointed.
While some will surely use this state of affairs as further ammunition for the argument that the revolutionary struggle for socialism was always a chimera, it is incumbent for anyone maintaining a commitment to socialist transformation with a modicum of intellectual honesty to point out that other roads to socialism––the so-called parliamentary one, for example, or the once modish strategies of ‘counter-hegemony’ and the like––have been found even more wanting in their efficacy in shifting the power of the bourgeoisie and its political institutions than the socialist revolution. The hard truth is that capitalist power has only ever been directly and successfully challenged by a revolutionary socialism. So, if the conclusion that the struggle for socialist emancipation was only ever a naïve and utopian dream is to be avoided, the question poses itself in all its force: what is it that is absent from the current world set up that was present in the first half of the twentieth century; and what might be the circumstances that will announce its return?