Heterodox
Over years, I have considered how Marx continues and differs from classical political economy. I have also documented some foreshadowings and outlines of the transformation problem. This is another letter in a series In this letter, Marx alludes to prices of production and the transformation problem. Apparently, he thinks at this time that volumes 2 and 3 will be a single volume. Here he sets out three points which he thinks are original to the first volume of Capital. The first is that he abstracts from rent, interest, and profits to the general form of surplus value. Previously, he told Engels this is one of the two best points in his book. His second point in which he thinks he is original, he also thinks is one of his best points: namely, the treatment of concrete and abstract
Topics:
Robert Vienneau considers the following as important: Karl Marx
This could be interesting, too:
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
Robert Vienneau writes New Interpretations Of Marx
Over years, I have considered how Marx continues and differs from classical political economy. I have also documented some foreshadowings and outlines of the transformation problem. This is another letter in a series
In this letter, Marx alludes to prices of production and the transformation problem. Apparently, he thinks at this time that volumes 2 and 3 will be a single volume.
Here he sets out three points which he thinks are original to the first volume of Capital. The first is that he abstracts from rent, interest, and profits to the general form of surplus value. Previously, he told Engels this is one of the two best points in his book. His second point in which he thinks he is original, he also thinks is one of his best points: namely, the treatment of concrete and abstract labor activities. His third original point is how he treats both time and piece wages. This is another example of abstraction. I think Marx was, despite his differences, always aware of his debt to the Ricardian socialists. Maybe, he treats them elsewhere with more respect than he ever treats Proudhon after ensuring that they never again would be drinking buddies.
8 January 1868
Dear Fred,
Ad vocem Duühring. It is a great deal from this man that he gives almost positive acceptance to the section on 'primitive accumulation'. He is still young. As a follower of Carey he is in direct opposition to the FREETRADERS. Furthermore, he is a university lecturer, and therefore not displeased that Professor Roscher, who blocks the way for them all, is receiving some kicks. One thing in his description struck me very strongly. That is, as long as the determination of value by labour time is itself left 'undetermined', as it is with Ricardo, it does not make people SHAKY. But as soon as it is brought exactly into connection with the working day and its variations, a very unpleasant new light dawns upon them. I believe one reason that Duühring reviewed the book at all is malice against Roscher. Indeed it is easy to scent his anxiety that he might also be 'Roscher'ed. Curiously, the fellow has not detected the three fundamentally new elements of the book:
1. that in contrast to all previous political economy, which from the outset treated the particular fragments of surplus value with their fixed forms of rent, profit and interest as already given, I begin by dealing with the general form of surplus value, in which all these elements are still undifferentiated, in solution as it were;
2. that the economists, without exception, have missed the simple fact that, if the commodity has the double character of use value and exchange value, then the labour represented in the commodity must also have a double character; thus the bare analysis of labour sans phrase, as in Smith, Ricardo, etc., is bound to come up against the inexplicable everywhere. This is, in fact, the whole secret of the critical conception;
3. that for the first time wages are shown as the irrational outward form of a hidden relationship, and this is demonstrated exactly in both forms of wages: time wages and piece wages. (It was a help to me that similar formulae are often found in higher mathematics.)
As for Mr Dühring's modest objection to the determination of value, he will be astonished when he sees in Volume II how little the determination of value counts for 'directly' in bourgeois society. Actually, no form of society can prevent the labour time at the disposal of society from regulating production in ONE WAY OR ANOTHER. But so long as this regulation is not effected through the direct and conscious control of society over its labour time - which is only possible under common ownership - but through the movement of commodity prices, then things will remain as you so aptly described them already in the Deutsch-Französische Jahrbücher.
Ad vocem Vienna. I am sending you various Vienna papers (of which you must return to me the Neues Wiener Tagblatt which belongs to Borkheim, and keep the rest), from which you will see two things: firstly how important Vienna is at this moment as a market place, since there is new life there; and secondly the way the matter should be handled there. I cannot find the address of Prof. Richter. Perhaps you have Liebknecht's letter which gives it. If not, ask him to send it to you, and then dispatch the article direct to Richter, but not via Liebknecht.
It seems to me that Wilhelmchen is by no means ALTOGETHER bona fide. He (for whom I have had to find so much time to make good his asininity in the Allgemeine Augsburger, etc.,) has so far found no time even to mention publicly the title of my book or my name. He overlooks the affair in the Zukunft so as not to be put in the embarrassing position of sacrificing his own independent greatness. And there was also no time available to say a solitary word in the workers' paper (Deutsche Arbeiterhalle, Mannheim), which appears under the direct control of his friend Bebel. In short, it is certainly no fault of Wilhelmchen that my book has not been totally ignored. First, he has not read it (although to little Jenny he made fun of Richter, who thinks that he needs to understand a book before he can publicise it), and secondly, after he had read it or claimed to have read it, he has had no time, although he has time, since I got him Borkheim's SUBVENTION, to write letters twice weekly to Borkheim; although, instead of sending the shares to Strohn for the money, which was transmitted to him through me and obtained by my good offices, he asks for Strohn's address, in order to play his tricks with him directly, behind my back, and swamp him with epistles as he does Borkheim. In short, Wilhelmchen wants to make himself important, and in particular the public should not be distracted from its interest in Wilhelmchen. We must now act half as if we did not notice this, but still treat him with caution. As for his call to Austria, you cannot believe him until it has happened. And secondly if it should come to this, we shall not dissuade him, but IF NECESSARY, simply explain to him what I explained to him when he joined Brass's Norddeutsche, that, if he should compromise himself again, he will be, if necessary, publicly disavowed. I told him this, in the presence of witnesses, when he moved off to Berlin at that time.
I think you can send articles direct to the enclosed Neue Freie Presse (Vienna). The present joint owner, Dr Max Friedländer (Lassalle's cousin and deadly enemy), was the person for whom I acted as a correspondent for a longish period for the old Vienna Presse and for the Oder-Zeitung.
Finally, with regard to the Internationale Revue, Fox (who was sent to Vienna by an English paper to pay a visit and establish connections) asked me, from Vienna a few days ago, for a letter of introduction to Arnold Hilberg. I sent it to him, and at the same time told the said Hilberg in this letter that circumstances had prevented us writing, that we would do something this year, etc.
Fortnightly Review. Professor Beesly, one of the triumviri who secretly direct this paper, has told his special friend Lafargue (whom he constantly invites to dine at his house) that he is morally certain (it completely depends upon him!) that a review would be accepted. Lafargue would hand it in to him himself.
Ad vocem Pyat. In today's Times you will see the ADDRESS of the FRENCH DEMOCRATS about FENIANISM. (which appeared 4 weeks ago) and was sent in by Pyat. What has happened is this. The French government has launched an investigation (particularly visites domiciliaires at the homes of our correspondents in Paris) against the International Association as a société illicite. Ditto probably sent to the British government letters about FENIANISM written by our Dupont. Mr Pyat, who always ran down our 'Association' as non-revolutionary, Bonapartist, etc., is afraid of this TURN of things, and is swiftly seeking to give the appearance that he has something to do with the matter and is 'MOVING'.
Ad vocem Benedek: can I have the journal for A FEW DAYS? YOU have now proven yourself twice a prophet, firstly a tactical prophet (in the Sevastopol affair), and secondly a strategic prophet (in the Prussian-Austrian affair). But the sense of sensible men cannot predict the stupidities of which man is capable.
Ad vocem carbuncles. Consulted doctors. Nothing new. Everything which the gentlemen have to say indicates that one has to have private means to live in accordance with their prescriptions, instead of being a poor devil like me, poverty-stricken as a church-mouse. When you see Gumpert, you can tell him that I feel (up to THIS MOMENT that I write) a stinging prickle in my body, that is my blood. It seems to me that for this year I shall not be quite over the affair.
My COMPLIMENTS TO Mrs Burns.
Salut
Your
Moor