tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-5687347459208158501.post1132747276254198600..comments2024-03-28T06:07:03.667-04:00Comments on The Philosopher's Stone: THE THOUGHT OF KARL MARX PART FOURTEENRobert Paul Wolffhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/11970360952872431856noreply@blogger.comBlogger8125tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-5687347459208158501.post-7871715609547125492011-02-05T22:47:45.524-05:002011-02-05T22:47:45.524-05:00Ok here's the third point.
I am trying to mak...Ok here's the third point.<br /><br />I am trying to make sense of the system of equations that you set up, and they do seem to be an abstraction, not in that they abstract a real feature of capitalism for special analysis (Marx's method of abstraction) but that they abstract away from a real feature of capitalism. Specifically it's assumed in this set of equations that there is only one firm in each branch that gets to set a price that it allows it an 'equal share' of the system-wide surplus.<br /><br />But if firms are actually competing against each other within a branch and perhaps even with capitalists in branches producing substitute good, it's not clear to me that prices would end up in the real world what the system of equations tell me that they would have to be.<br /><br />In short, what happened to cut-throat capitalist competition that follows from private ownership of the means of production, and wouldn't that affect how prices are determined? Can we abstract away from competition?Unknownhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/07370745564564640761noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-5687347459208158501.post-17677783861147951402011-02-05T22:45:09.764-05:002011-02-05T22:45:09.764-05:00This comment has been removed by the author.Unknownhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/07370745564564640761noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-5687347459208158501.post-9419389364864054752011-02-05T22:36:10.354-05:002011-02-05T22:36:10.354-05:00Hi I am trying to catch up on this remarkable seri...Hi I am trying to catch up on this remarkable series of posts. <br /><br />Here are a few brief comments.<br /><br />1. Raised a Jain, I loved the analysis of how an idealist Christian theory of history has something of a similar narrative mode as Hegel's rational Idealist narrative and Marx's materialist modes-of-production narrative, but I wonder whether Marx's view of history was actually more indebted to the Scottish enlightenment view of history as eventually developed by Richard Jones (from Jones he really gets important ideas about how to conceptualize relations of production and that can't be found in Christian theology or the Hegelian philosophy of history) and to the optimism expressed by French Enlightenment figures such as Condorcet (I am thinking of essays Meek and Henryk Grossmann, 1943). That is, is it possible that you may be exaggerating the Christian and Hegelian roots of Marx's theory of history? <br /><br />2. I am bit confused where money figures into your theory of value. It seems that Marx spent a lot of time trying to figure out the relations of commodities to money or rather how money, though born a commodity, came to be, well, money. Marx assumes that commodities and money have been commensurated in terms of socially necessary abstract labor time, but that accounts only for conditions for identity in exchange. <br /><br />But there is something of an opposition between commodities and money-- specifically money alone can be immediately converted into commodities while commodities must first prove itself in exchange with money before they can be exchanged for other commodities. In other words, there is both identity and difference in the exchange relation. <br /><br />An even more Hegelian way of putting this (favored by the Soviet logician Ilyenkov) is that generalized commodity production and money are mutually assuming though they are also mutually opposed in that money excludes any other commodity from having what Marx calls a monopoly on direct exchangeability. <br /><br />If there is a Hegelian influence in Marx, it would seem to be in the terminology with which he coquettes to analysis what he calls the value form once it has developed into its universal stage. <br /><br />OK still catching up on this remarkable series of posts.Unknownhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/07370745564564640761noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-5687347459208158501.post-3201784505672306052011-02-04T18:45:46.779-05:002011-02-04T18:45:46.779-05:00I entirely see what you're saying, and your in...I entirely see what you're saying, and your interpretation of Marx, and I think you're quite correct. There are two thing that compels me to see a moralistic sentiment in his philosophy:<br /><br />1. His earlier writings, especially that old high-school paper of his that's quite humanistic about society. Not to mention the EP 1848 Manuscripts.<br /><br />2. Marx might be detailing an economic history, and foreseeing the eventual downfall of capitalism, however, existentially - since there are no inherent ought to is gaps - it doesn't follow that he is required to take the side of the proles, or any side for that matter. yet he does. and he does so passionately. In the case of his historical materialism, existence really does precede essence, and he recognizes this, and chose the essence of pro-prole revolutionary.<br /><br />At least, that's my two cents on the matter.Chrishttps://www.blogger.com/profile/08250295324149056708noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-5687347459208158501.post-11310906631610578372011-02-04T17:13:07.981-05:002011-02-04T17:13:07.981-05:00This is a very large question. Lots and lots of M...This is a very large question. Lots and lots of Marx commentators seek to extract a moral theory from his writings, but I think that is the wrong way to go about things. Think of Marx as an Old Testament prophet, inveighing against the evils of the world but not telling people what they ought to do. I don't know whether I can explain this adequately in a reply to a blog comment. Marx, like Nietzsche [I think] sees moralizing as a confession of weakness. Those who cannot change the world make moral judgements about it Marx prefers simply to inform the capitalist masters of the universe that their day is done, and will be consigned to the ashheap of history by the inexorable laws of capitalist economy. You really need a complicated understansing of language and psychology to get a proper fix on what he is doing.Robert Paul Wolffhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/11970360952872431856noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-5687347459208158501.post-50471561556770932252011-02-04T17:01:29.083-05:002011-02-04T17:01:29.083-05:00Professor, although you're correct that Marx d...Professor, although you're correct that Marx does not derive an ought from an is, one can't help but read a lot of "ought" sentiments in his writings. Especially his earlier writings. Does Marx or Any Marx scholars ever touch upon morality explicitly?Chrishttps://www.blogger.com/profile/08250295324149056708noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-5687347459208158501.post-48909186873453881882011-02-04T15:44:04.271-05:002011-02-04T15:44:04.271-05:00Those who shudder at the name "Marx" pro...Those who shudder at the name "Marx" probably are not safe to use the term "exploitation." They are advised to defer to their betters. :)Robert Paul Wolffhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/11970360952872431856noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-5687347459208158501.post-62568457361103108432011-02-04T15:19:07.612-05:002011-02-04T15:19:07.612-05:00I think one could even show through Locke's se...I think one could even show through Locke's second treatise that Capitalism rest on exploitation. I prefer Marx to Locke, but for those who shudder in fear at the name 'Marx,' Locke is a safe alternative to prove the same point.Chrishttps://www.blogger.com/profile/08250295324149056708noreply@blogger.com