tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-5687347459208158501.post2014126836595145767..comments2024-03-29T03:19:09.227-04:00Comments on The Philosopher's Stone: THE THOUGHT OF KARL MARX PART ELEVENRobert Paul Wolffhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/11970360952872431856noreply@blogger.comBlogger8125tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-5687347459208158501.post-76929333959573373692011-02-01T23:51:33.187-05:002011-02-01T23:51:33.187-05:00BTW when Heidegger asked "why are there thing...BTW when Heidegger asked "why are there things that are rather than nothing at all?", he was just re-quoting Leibniz, since that was the negative form of his "principle of sufficient reason", the positive form of which states that "all things that are have a ground". I.e. the question is the perennial philosophical one of how existence is at all intelligible. So, applied to Marx, the question is how the existence of profits is at all intelligible, which, remarkably, hadn't be asked, let alone answered, by his predecessors.john c. halaszhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/06674692969448923049noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-5687347459208158501.post-69514073896930381762011-02-01T19:39:22.816-05:002011-02-01T19:39:22.816-05:00Do you have a recommended English translation, Pro...Do you have a recommended English translation, Professor Wolff?Mhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/11411530873269401673noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-5687347459208158501.post-27542616802670020842011-02-01T19:27:47.302-05:002011-02-01T19:27:47.302-05:00The waiting theory of profit is one of those thing...The waiting theory of profit is one of those things I struggle to understand why anybody would ever believe -- our world is <i>certainly</i> not one where the most prominent capitalists started life on an equal footing with their lowest-earning employees! There are two facts which scupper the waiting theory's plausibility, both perfectly obvious once you give the matter some thought: the more you have, the more the rewards (meaning that people who already have money in the bank, or access to it, have an enormous advantage to ones who don't) and that there is a certain amount of money everybody has to spend simply to keep themselves alive (and for the median earner, this takes up the vast majority of income, whereas the richer you are the less significant a portion this is, meaning the more money you have available for capitalist venture). Once you have people starting their productive lives at different levels of income (like we have, and have in spades), the waiting theory is no explanation at all of why rich people tend to earn far more than poor people.<br /><br />I tell myself and my students that if you look at an interesting philosophical problem and think that one side of the issue is obviously mistaken, then almost certainly you haven't properly grasped the problem. But here I am, where a major premise of much of what I am told about economics is, as far as I can tell, simply nonsense. It causes me unease. I comfort myself by the fact that economists aren't philosophers, but I still worry about it. Am I missing something?Marinushttps://www.blogger.com/profile/13492009758043047531noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-5687347459208158501.post-22416884010249782132011-02-01T18:59:43.168-05:002011-02-01T18:59:43.168-05:00By all means read CAPITAL. It is one of the great...By all means read CAPITAL. It is one of the great books of the western canon.Robert Paul Wolffhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/11970360952872431856noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-5687347459208158501.post-67555261149862371892011-02-01T18:51:00.266-05:002011-02-01T18:51:00.266-05:00I'm enjoying this series very much. When it...I'm enjoying this series very much. When it's done, I think I'll read your two books on Marx to get the complete story. Then, I may finally be emboldened to tackle Capital itself.Mhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/11411530873269401673noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-5687347459208158501.post-74439259934422263232011-02-01T15:58:29.882-05:002011-02-01T15:58:29.882-05:00Thanks. I actually ordered one of your books (I th...Thanks. I actually ordered one of your books (I think it was 'Moneybags') for our library, but it either hasn't arrived or the librarians are holding out on me.Unknownhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/13068383050573818153noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-5687347459208158501.post-55418284025098886442011-02-01T15:44:12.031-05:002011-02-01T15:44:12.031-05:00Tomorrow I will explain what the deep problem is. ...Tomorrow I will explain what the deep problem is. It is really very hard doing this inpieces, especially when I have already written two complete books about it, but this is a long story, and we must all be patient.Robert Paul Wolffhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/11970360952872431856noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-5687347459208158501.post-21048515428727815312011-02-01T13:45:04.173-05:002011-02-01T13:45:04.173-05:00A Minor thing: Presumably the rate the bank pays i...A Minor thing: Presumably the rate the bank pays its depositors and the rate the bank charges to borrowers are not identical, hence the hard worker does get more than the smooth talker?<br /><br />More importantly: What reason do we have to believe there that there is any deep question (to be answered by privation-theory or by Marx) about the existence of profits? On the surface we have a story about the existence of private property, supply and demand. What question about profit does this not resolve?<br /><br />Marx gives us nothing beyond the claim that there is something 'deep' at play: "Let us take two commodities, e.g., corn and iron. The proportions in which they are exchangeable, whatever those proportions may be, can always be represented by an equation in which a given quantity of corn is equated to some quantity of iron: e.g., 1 quarter corn = x cwt. iron. What does this equation tell us? It tells us that in two different things – in 1 quarter of corn and x cwt. of iron, there exists in equal quantities something common to both. The two things must therefore be equal to a third, which in itself is neither the one nor the other. Each of them, so far as it is exchange value, must therefore be reducible to this third."<br /><br />Marx does proceed to give an analogy to illustrate the idea, but does not argue for it. <br /><br />My problem is with the claim that, in the two commodities (under certain idealisations) "there exists in equal quantities something common to both". Why believe this?Unknownhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/13068383050573818153noreply@blogger.com