At this point in my tutorial on the thought of Karl Marx, I am due to start talking about Marx's economic theories. This is an enormous subject [he wrote about 5000 pages on economics, all of which I have read]. I have written two books about it, and I can promise you that once I start, it is going to take many more posts even to skate over the surface in a systemtic fashion. This tutorial is now 7000 words long, so before I launch into the economic theories of Karl Marx, I would like to know whether anyone out there really wants me to go on. I am willing, despite teaching two courses and all, but let me know.
While I have your attention, here is an odd fact. I just discovered that the state of North Carolina, to save money, is not sending out tax return packets this year. We must either download the forms or go to some obscure office somewhere to pick them up. Now, am I the only one who thinks that the money they save this way is only a fraction of the money they will lose from people who fail to file? I mean, if these were American Idol ballots, I could see it.
You have my attention to keep going on.
ReplyDeleteI did have a question regarding Marx's numbers of economic text. It's a bit of a historical question and I hope I can ask it coherently.
I know Marx wanted to write roughly 7 volumes of On Capital. I forget the list of what he wanted to cover, but production (Volume I) was only one of 7 books he had in mind. I also know he kept delaying the publication of Volume I for over a decade, constantly demanding more time, and never living up to his publishers request. So my question is, if he had 7 volumes in mind, only produced 1, and the II-III are actually Engels editing, plus he had several thousand pages on surplus value (where these supposed to be volumes IV-VII?), what exactly was the problem here? He seems to have thousands of pages already written, if Engels and others could collaborate these later books, so why wasn't Marx publishing them? Furthermore, if Engels did have to piece these together, is there any idea just how close volume II-III are to what Marx intended? Is the piecing together helter-skelter, or does it form a coherent whole book? I'm confused at how Marx had such grand publishing plans, thousands of pages of written text, and yet only ONE book on Capital. Any elucidation to this sordid affair would be more than deeply appreciated.
Thank you.
My attention as well.
ReplyDeleteChris, I do not know about seven volumes, but he clearly intended the work to be in four volumes, the fourth of which is what eventually became the three volumes on Theories of Surplus Value, so that is six.
ReplyDeleteMy understanding is that all the materials were written before his death, and in pretty much the form in which we have them now.
Marx's dilatoriness was legendary. Indeed, many of the disapatches published under his name in the New York Herald were actually written by Engels, because Marx failed to meet the newspaper deadline. There are some amusing passages in the letters about Marx's resistance to letting the book go to the publisher.
Of one thing I am certain: What we have is just what Marx intended us to have. There is no secret unpublished doctrine known only to the elite and anointed. What you see is what you get.
By the way, when I speak airily of 5000 pages, I am including the Grundrisse, the Introduction to the Critique of Political Economy, Value Price and Profit, and the like. It may actually be more than 5000 pages.
please continue!
ReplyDeletePlease, do go on!
ReplyDeleteWhoops 6 volumes, here's a reference to it in the Grudrisse:
ReplyDeletehttp://books.google.com/books?id=bDyemaqiZjUC&pg=PA54&lpg=PA54&dq=Karl+marx+on+capital+six+volumes&source=bl&ots=wIFLzsIXOZ&sig=iTqYOEeIbqwEK86N2jXKBbJYpXA&hl=en&ei=9IA4TZujDoXLgQeg-PnXCA&sa=X&oi=book_result&ct=result&resnum=6&ved=0CDwQ6AEwBTgK#v=onepage&q&f=false
I would love to know more about his economic theories. Please continue in this direction.
ReplyDeleteI was curious, are you familiar with To the Finland Station by Edmund Wilson? Do you have an opinion of it? I'm half way through and find the book compliments your tutorial well.
Please know that your hard work is read and greatly appreciated.
Please continue. What you have said so far is very helpful.
ReplyDeleteYes! Please go on.
ReplyDeleteI'm with the others. Please do continue!
ReplyDeleteVanishing furniture?! Yes, the Wilson book is first rate, and very helpful in placing Marx in his historical context. I read it manyu years ago and enjoyed it enormously.
ReplyDeleteProbably some kind of esoteric reference to Berkley...haha
ReplyDeleteI have enjoyed the tutorial on Marx so far, and cannot wait for the primer on economics. Every day I am eagerly awaiting the next installment so please go on.
ReplyDeleteThank you.
Carry on!
ReplyDeleteThis comment has been removed by the author.
ReplyDeleteCarry on, but don't joke about American Idol ballots!!!!!!!!!!!
ReplyDeleteProfessor Wolff: I'm interested in your writings about Marx's economic theory. Please continue.
ReplyDeleteThanks.
The calculation miht be a bit off given that there are two other sets of notebooks which apart from the Grundrisse make up the three drafts of Capital. If Roman Rosdolsky is acclaimed to be one of the most important scholars with regards to analyzing the relation between thr Grundrisse and the published draft of Capital, then Enrique Dussel certainly deserves to be there given that he read all of teh drafts and did what he calls "an archeological reading". In other words, he focuses on the development and evolution of Marx's work. Dussel actually claims that at some point Marx had the draft of the three known volumes of Capital in front of him at some date (can't remember when). Check in the journal Rethinking Marxism. I don't remember the exact reference but they translated to english and republished one of Dussel's articles. Apart from that he has written like 5 books on the subject, all available in his website (i'm not sure if all of them are available in enlgish also). Two things that I do remember from the article (and from having the pleasure of hearing Dussel in a talk) and which are not necessarily original but give a taste as to how he thinks, are that the base/superstructure metaphor is completely foreign to Marx's method and that Althusser's division between the idealist and scientific,the young vs the mature Marx in terms of the role of Hegel is simply wrong. Hegel is all over the Grundrisse for example so this notion of "epistemological break" is problematic as a plausible explanation on the basis of Marx's own writing process.
ReplyDelete