William Baumol On Marx

by
Robert Vienneau
My articles My siteMy booksMy videos
Follow on:

This is more for my commonplace book. The first two quotations are part of a symposium with Morishima and Samuelson:

"This paper will suggest that the meaning of the relationship between values and prices described in Capital has been widely misunderstood. Commentators as eminent as Mrs. Robinson and Professor Samuelson have sought in the transformation discussion issues which Karl Marx never meant it to contain. Writers on 'the transformation problem' since L. Bortkiewicz have focussed on an issue that is largely peripheral; and others like E. B6hm-Bawerk have asserted that there is a contradiction between the analyses of Volumes I and III which is certainly not to be found there unless lne reads into them an interpretation different from that which Marx repeatedly emphasized.

Interpretation of the intentions of the writings of the dead is always a questionable undertaking, particularly since defunct authors cannot defend themselves. Yet there are some cases in which a careful rereading of the pertinent writings indicates that the author did speak for himself and spoke very clearly-the trouble in such cases seems to be that somethinv aboit the onriinal nresentation prevents most readers, even some very careful ones, from seeing what the writer intended.

A notable case in point is D. Ricardo's discussion of the labor theory of value. It is hard to understand how a careful reader of any edition of the Principles can overlook Ricardo's recognition of the role of the quantity and the durability of capital in the determination of price. The labor theory is explicitly proposed as a remarkably good approximation to the determination of competitive price. But, ultimately, Ricardo holds to a cost of production theory of pricing, not to a pure labor theory. Yet until Stigler's fine article on the subject (1958), in which this is documented beyond any shadow of a doubt, virtually any text was prepared to ascribe to Ricardo the purest of labor theories, and even J. H. Hollander and E. Cannan (see G. J. Stigler for references) suggested that Ricardo retreated grudgingly under fire to the cost of production model of the third edition. Only a few commentators, notably A. Marshall, J. Viner, and P. Sraffa, saw Ricardo's analysis for what it so plainly was from the first edition on.

I emphasize this case for two reasons; first, because I will try to show that the correct interpretation of Marx' intentions is equally evident, and second, because I will suggest that the false analogy between Ricardo's and Marx' value theories may help to explain our misunderstanding of the latter...

...In Ricardo, the labor theory of value was meant as a good approximation to a full explanation of the determination of prices. However Marx probably never intended to produce such an approximation and it certainly was not his intention when he wrote about the transformation problem; yet that objective, or something close to it, is often attributed to Marx.

I will provide evidence that Marx did not intend his transformation analysis to show how prices can be deduced from values. Marx was well aware that market prices do not have to be deduced from values (nor, for that matter, values from prices). Rather, the two sets of magnitudes which are derived more or less independently were recognized by Marx to differ in a substantial and a systematic manner. A subsidiary purpose of the transformation calculation was to determine the nature of these deviations. But this objective and, indeed, any explanation of pricing as an end in itself, was of very little consequence to Marx, for the primary transformation was not from values into prices but, as Marx and Engels repeatedly emphasize, from surplus values into the non-labor income categories that are recognized by 'vulgar economists,' i.e., profits, interest, and rent." -- William J. Baumol. 1974. The transformation of values: What Marx 'really' meant (an interpretation). Journal of Economic Literature 12(1): 51-62.

"2. I am surprised that 'On the question of whether [Marx's] purpose was successful in some sense or another [Samuelson] can find only a few relevant paragraphs in Baumol's text.' I am surprised because, so far as I know, there is no such paragraph. The only objective of my paper was to determine what Marx had set out to accomplish and how Marx believed he had accomplished his objectives, because I don't think it is appropriate to criticize anyone until we are sure we are criticizing what he actually said, not what we suspect he might have said, or should have said, or someone else says he might have said...

...4. Professor Samuelson proposes his peace terms, which require me to admit that for an explanation of 'actual wage-profits distribution,' presumably as for an explanation of actual pricing of commodities, 'the Volume I analysis is indeed a detour.' So much I admit readily and without reservations, and I contend Marx would readily have admitted it too, for in fact he did so repeatedly. Actual prices and actual wages, profits, rents and interest payments clearly were to him explainable by the classical mechanism, which is what he admittedly took over in Volume III. Marx never claimed, in fact he specifically denied, that one gets better numbers for any of these magnitudes from a Volume I than from a Volume III analysis.

Thus, for his part, all that Professor Samuelson has to do to end the disagreement between us is to admit that Marx himself was not particularly interested in the determination of these magnitudes, which he considered a surface manifestation and were important to him only because he believed them to conceal the underlying social production relationships...

...One final comment. Obviously, Ricardo is not easy reading, and our predecessors did often hold a multiplicity of views among which they themselves were not always able to distinguish, and such problems are brushed aside far too often in writings But there are some cases, albeit rare, where an author has said clearly and repeatedly, 'I do mean A, I do not mean B,' yet many people have refused to listen. Ricardo did repeatedly say that his was a cost of production model. He did say, at length, in every edition of the Principles that quantity and durability of capital make a difference to value. I suggest to any interested reader that he treat himself to a reexamination of pages 3043 (from the third edition) and 52-66 (from the first edition) of Volume I of Piero Sraffa [5, 1951] to see whether he can come away disagreeing with Jacob Viner's (humorous?) conclusion that 'Ricardo's actual words show that from the first he held that the relative values of commodities are always partly dependent on the relative amounts of fixed capital employed in their production' (Viner's italics) [6, 1930]." -- William J. Baumol. 1974. The fundamental Marxian theorem: A reply to Samuelson: Comment. Journal of Economic Literature 12(1): 74-75.

Baumol returned to Marx in 1983:

"I find few things as discouraging as the persistent attribution of positions to a writer whose works contain repeated, categorical, indeed emotional, denuciations of those views. Marx's views on wages are a prime example. Both vulgar Marxists and vulgar opponents of Marx have propounded two associated myths: that he believed wages under capitalism are inevitably driven near some physical subsistence level, and that he considered this to constitute of robbery of the workers and a major evil of capitalism. Yet Marx and Engels tell us aggain and again, sometimes in the most intemperate language, that these views are the very opposite of theirs. These observations, incidentally, are hardly new discoveries..." -- William J. Baumol. (1983). Marx and the iron law of wages. American Economic Review 73(2): 303-308