Heterodox
This is another letter in a series I have been transcribing in which Marx discusses Capital. In this letter, he says one of the two best points in his book is his discussion of labor expressed in use value or in exchange value. Since I have not read (an english edition of) the first edition, I cannot be sure of my ground here. Apparently, Marx revised Chapter 1 quite extensively among editions. Anyways, I think this expression of labor gets at the distinction between concrete and abstract labor activities. I think the distinction between labor power and labor is a different, albeit related, distinction. Marx says that the other best point is his treatment of surplus value as an abstraction of profit, interest, and rent. I think this is an innovation not to be found in Ricardo or any
Topics:
Robert Vienneau considers the following as important: Karl Marx
This could be interesting, too:
Robert Vienneau writes Marxian Political Economy As Forward-Looking
Robert Vienneau writes A Letter From Marx To Engels In 1858 Outlining His Critique Of Political Economy
Robert Vienneau writes A History Of Production Processes In Volume 1 Of Capital
Robert Vienneau writes Keynes And Marx
This is another letter in a series I have been transcribing in which Marx discusses Capital. In this letter, he says one of the two best points in his book is his discussion of labor expressed in use value or in exchange value. Since I have not read (an english edition of) the first edition, I cannot be sure of my ground here. Apparently, Marx revised Chapter 1 quite extensively among editions. Anyways, I think this expression of labor gets at the distinction between concrete and abstract labor activities. I think the distinction between labor power and labor is a different, albeit related, distinction. Marx says that the other best point is his treatment of surplus value as an abstraction of profit, interest, and rent. I think this is an innovation not to be found in Ricardo or any other of his predecessors.
I wonder if Marx would have lived long enough to complete volumes 2 and 3, whether he would have had more concrete material and extracts from blue books in the later volumes, since Volume 3, at least, is at a lower level of abstraction. Given his work habits, he would have had to live a very long time. Every time he said he was going to write a few sentences on political economy, he wrote paragraphs. When he tried to write a paragraph, he wrote chapters. And a chapter would become a book. And all needed to be revised.
24 August 1867
Dear Fred,
I have received no further corrected proofs since the 2 last that I sent you. I am exceedingly vexed with Meissner. He has obviously held back what Wigand has sent him in order to send everything at once - and save 4d. postage!
The same Meissner wrote me last week that he is printing a certain part of my preface specially (and he has indeed made the right choice) to send to the German newspapers. I wrote asking him to send me COPIES of it at once. I reckoned that you would translate the thing into English (I shall then give it to The Bee-Hive, which is taken by Mill, Beesly, Harrison, etc.), and Lafargue with Laura's help into French for the Courrier français, finally I wanted to send ONE COPY to my correspondent in America. To save the 4d., Meissner has sent nothing. He will be sending it all together. But a great deal of time is lost in the process!
The best points in my book are: 1. (this is fundamental to all understanding of the FACTS) the two-fold character of labour according to whether it is expressed in use-value or exchange-value, which is brought out in the very First Chapter; 2. the treatment of surplus-value regardless of its particular forms as profit, interest, ground rent, etc. This will be made clear in the second volume especially. The treatment of the particular forms in classical political economy, where they are for ever being jumbled up together with the general form, is an olla potrida.
Please enter your desiderata, critical remarks, QUERIES, etc., on the corrected proofs. This is very important for me, as I am reckoning on a 2nd edition sooner or later. As regards CHAPTER IV, it was a hard job finding things themselves, i.e., their interconnection But with that once behind me, along came one BLUE BOOK after another just as I was composing the final version, and I was delighted to find my theoretical conclusions fully confirmed by the FACTS. Finally, it was written to the accompaniment of CARBUNCLES and daily dunning by creditors!
For the conclusion to the 2nd book (Process of Circulation), which I am writing now, I am again obliged to seek your advice on o ne point, as I did many years ago.
Fixed capital only has to be replaced in natura after, say, 10 years. In the meantime, its value returns partially and gradatim, as the goods that it has produced are sold. This PROGRESSIVE RETURN of the fixed capital is only required for its replacement (aside from REPAIRS and the like) when it becomes defunct in its material form, e.g., as a machine. Prior to that, however, these SUCCESSIVE RETURNS are in the capitalist's possession.
Many years ago I wrote to you that it seemed to me that in this manner an accumulation fund was being built up, since in the intervening period the capitalist was of course using the returned money, before replacing the capital fixe with it. You disagreed with this SOMEWHAT SUPERFICIALLV in a letter. I later found that MacCulloch describes this SINKING FUND as an accumulation fund. Being convinced that no idea of MacCulloch's could ever be right, I let the matter drop. His apologetic purpose here has already been refuted by the Malthusians, but they, too, admit the FACT.
Now, as a manufacturer, you must know what you do with the RETURNS on capital fixe before the time it has to be replaced in natura. And you must answer this point for me (without theorising, in purely practical terms).
Salut
Your
K. M.
Salut to Mrs Lizzy!
The children are still at Royan, near Bordeaux.