Date: Tue, 22 Oct 1996 10:52:55 -0600 (MDT)
Subject: M-TH: Re: HoPE article


What i take to be pivotal in any evaluation of Marx is the evaluator's 
interpretation and understanding of the main Marxian themes such as 
dialectics, ideology, value, and historical materialism.  If you know a 
person's interpretation of these issues you have a pretty clear idea of 
their evaluation of Marx (an absence of interpretation, may be most 
revealing, [i mean if these themes are not taken serious, as categories 
of economic concern, for example, this position is implicitly taken by most 
historians of economic thought, and of course most economists in general -- 
will the evaluation be of any surprise]). 
 
In this sense, i think methodological and philosophical issues are 
central to any evaluation criteria (which are all but absent in Brewer's 
article).  i mean *Capital* is a philosophical text and should read and 
evaluated as such; moreover, Marx's great contribution may be 
methodological.  That is he takes over the categories of political 
economy (in this sense there may not be much "new" in Marx), but then he 
dialectically reconstructs them, and political economy in the process.

Marx's methodological reversals, ideological critiques, explanatory 
critiques, category fissions and fusions are all very progressive.

Now why this did not penetrate mainstream thought (that is mainly English 
speaking mainstream) concerns ideology (in a strong sense, not merely 
political bias) and historical materialism.

Brewer's discussion of course is not set on such grounds, he avoids them 
in his criteria of evaluation.  Moreover, in the main, the nine 
respondents seem to accept these grounds.  This in itself is of great 
interest (to me).  But i won't pursue it here.

Ian (i thougt) made two very interesting comments.  First Ian writes:

> Brewer addresses Marx on crisis theory but notes that Marx's views are
> fragmentary. He notes Marx's schemes of reproduction but does not consider
> that the influence on Leontiev et al is significant. You could do pretty
> much the same sort of job on Adam Smith, of course. Adam Smith's price
> theory is inconsistent, fragmentary and outmoded (Of course, Smith can
> claim some originality for his sketches of "cost plus profit and rent",
> embodied labour and labour commanded price theories which Marx cannot, but
> Marx can claim some originality for his distinction between labour and
> labour power and his fragments of endogenous crisis theory, however
> supercede they may now be).

The influence on Marx's schemes of reprdocution are probably much more 
significant then Brewer gives credit.  But one important shortcoming in 
Marx is all his unfinished business.  Crisis theory may be his most 
glaring example. In fact i take (socio-)economic crisis (in the concrete) 
to be the genesis of Marx's studies in political economy.  It is quite 
ironic that he did not re-link his economic theory more concretely to 
explain crisis.  Of course it is certainly the case that Marx fragmented 
comments, (and not so fragmented comments in TSV) can be combined in very 
stimulating ways (Simon Clarke's recent work is quite useful), but the 
fragmentation of major themes in Marx have given many thinkers (and 
critics) good excuse and good grounds to accuse Marx of being inconsisent.
This is one reason why Marxian theory is so important.  Not only saving 
Marx himself but pushing him forward.

The second comment by Ian i would like to draw attention to is:

> Marx's assumptions tell a parable - capitalism is analogous to feudalism 
> and slavery - and neoclassical assumptions tell another parable - the 
> free and competitive exchange of commodities allows the social 
> co-ordination of private activities and gains from trade. Despite this 
> equivalence, mainstream economists somehow think their models are more 
> realistic than Marx's. But are variations in organic compositions of 
> capital any more essential to the workings of markets than departures  
> from perfect competition? 

i am in disagreement with Ian here.  i do not take Marx to be telling 
"parables".  Marx is realist, and should be evaluated as such.  
Instrumentally neo-classical theory has an advantage over Marx, it is 
reflecting reality, not necessarily explianing it.  If we take Marx to be 
some type of irrealist, neo-classical theory has much greater strength.  

i would agree with Ian that neo-classical theory is impoverished on 
realist grounds.  Now whether social science should by instrumental or 
realist is a different issue, depending where one falls in the naturalism 
debate.

i look forward to more discussion of this.

hans d.


     --- from list marxism-thaxis-AT-lists.village.virginia.edu ---