IMPORTANT: If you cite this message, OPE-L policy
requires you not to reveal the identity of the author.
Pail Z has taken up some points in your reply to me, and Alejandro has
responded to those. I should like to go back to your reply below. I have
interpolated comments as is the usual practice.
Then in 6563 you say ' Paul B, Re my last. sorry, my eyes
must be going, you did write Vol. 1, Chris A
Thanks for that Chris. Now, it is not your eyes that worry me but your
concentration old chap! Lets see this article again.You say
'I disagree this article 'applies the Vol II schemas'.
Well - one can see that in the article Lenin takes care to explain
the essence of chapter 21 of Vol 2 Capital. ('given in a most concise form' (p83
Vol1) Lenin). He effectively repeats the 'First illustration', section
III, 1a, using the same figures. He does so because Krasin has used the schemas.
He corrects Krasin's use of the schemas. This undermines Krasin's argument,
being an imminent criticism. This is an application of the schemas in a
particular sense of course.
Lenin then asks p89 'The question now is , what relation has the theory
that has been expounded to 'the notorious market question'?' He
makes the point very clearly that ' evidently, the explanation of
how capitalism develops in general does not in the least help to clear
up the question of the 'possibility' (and necessity) of the development of
capitalism in Russia'. Here he anticipates any criticism about his use of
the process expounded in the reproduction schema by those who, examining
Marx's theoretical exposition, claim they cannot be of use because
Marx is examining capital in general. Lenin was not a fool. (Paul
Z expresses this by saying to you that Marx assumed that the capital / labour
relation was already universal, which is correct but not quite the best way of
making the methodological point here).
Lenin then goes on to create his own table, first assuming simple
reproduction and so using precisely the analytical basis Marx provides in the
section he (Lenin) has used to start the article. This new table expresses
the stages in the transformation of natural into capitalist economy.
Marx's theoretical categories, constant capital, surplus value, and the
exchanges between departments etc are all used quite properly as far as I can
see. It is a real advance in the use of Marx's theory. By p104
we see how Lenin stresses that his table does not claim to depict the whole
process in the development of capitalism. He expands on this in the
context of Russia. I cannot see therefore how you can say the article does not
apply the Vol 2 schemas, unless you mean in the most unimaginative, immitative,
mechanical and unthinking manner, which would of course be impossible in the
Russian context ( unless you were Krassin) as Lenin said. Nevertheless he does
apply the method in an exemplary fashion.
In this early work, Lenin cites the following from a discussion paper by
H.
>B. Krasin (theoretician of a group in St. Petersburg Lenin joined in
1893):
>'[There are] two essentially different features in the
accumulation of
>capital: 1) the development of capitalist production in
breadth, when it
>takes hold of already existing fields of labour, ousting
natural economy
>and expanding at the latter's expense; and 2) the
development of capitalist
>production in depth, if one may so express it,
when it expands
>independently of natural economy, i.e. under the general
and exclusive
>domination of the capitalist mode of production.' (cited in
V. I. Lenin 'On
>the So-called Market Question' Collected Works Vol. 1, p.
89)
There are clear issues of the understanding of Marx's method, and Lenin's
grasp of it here, and of how to apply Marx's method. It does no good jumping in
carelessly and making comments to boot such as ' If one can believe Lenin's
account'... (why not?) (re Krassin anticipating Luxemburg). I leave the rest of
your note as it stands.
Paul Bullock.
(There is only one significant reference to the
>transformation of
pre-capitalist forms by world trade. It is clearly a
>digression and
relates solely to the transition of commodity production to
>capitalist
commodity production. It is not relevant to the Russian case
>which has to
do with the survival of communal production. D. Fernbach
>translation,
Penguin, pp. 119-20) Furthermore there is nothing in it on how
>capital
originally developed; it is solely concerned with how capital
>accumulates
once it is fully developed and self-enclosed. Unfortunately
>then, it was
useless to the Russians in assessing their conditions.
> Lenin did not
even try to base himself on Volume Two. His arguments on if
>and how
capitalism could develop in Russia are independent of it.
>However a
certain misreading of the schemes of reproduction, made famous by
>Rosa
Luxemburg, did have some relevance. If one can believe Lenin's
>account,
Krasin anticipated Luxemburg in arguing that the
restricted
>purchasing power of its own workers forced capital
to search out external
>markets; these could either be foreign
markets or rooted in the
>non-capitalist sector of a given country. Krasin
drew up a two-sector model
>of Russia in this spirit ('Market Question'
p.90). As Lenin observed, in
>his paper on 'The Market Question',
this view neglects the strength of the
>internal market for capital goods,
which powers the economy nicely, at
>least during upswings.
>But the
main isue was whether the capitalist sector could or could not
>overwhelm
the non-capitalist sector. The schemas are useless for this.
>Lenin's
arithmetical example of how capitalism DEVELOPS do not rely on
the
>schemas for the simple reason these discuss ALREADY developd
capitalism.
>Chris A
>
>
>>
Julian, Just for a start ... i don't know what you've read,
you
>>could try Lenin's 'On the so called Market
question'... for an
>>exposition (CW Vol1) , an application of
the reproduction schemas in a
>>crushing response to a schema
constructed by a Narodnik who aimed at
>>opposing the tsar and
proving this was to be done in a political and
>>social
environment in which capitalism could not develop... the
question
>>remained only one of the peasantry. I know
of no other independent
>>application of the schemas as a
political response... Lenin had an
>>amazing capacity to take Marx and
apply the critical ideas provided by
>>him. ( It is
interesting to see how for years entirely
forgetable
>>'academics' sought to undermine future
political use of the
>>reproduction schemas like this, through
trying to drown young radicals
>>in the so called
'transformation' problem) . .I don't know what
Jerry
>>means by 'statistics' , the point is that Lenin
established the objective
>>circumstances in which to fight by a study
of, and reinterpretation, of
>>the Russian Government statistics,
on the basis of Marx's scientific
>>achievement and this work
came to full fruition in 'The Development of
>>Capitalism in
Russia'... and then in his formulation of a
Party
>>programme properly dealing with the land
question. Marx wasn't
>>merely criticising 'PE'
,as Jerry seems to suggest... perhaps a little
>>ingenuously....
he was dissecting the scientific developments of
the
>>representatives of the progressive bourgeoisie, showing
their limits,
>>developing value theory on a methodologically complete
footing, and
>>attacking the later 'prize fighters' of the
bourgeoisie....It was a
>>political fight, an ideological battle.
Lenin understood that. Read
>>the article I suggest
Julian, asd an example, and see what you think.
>>Cheers Paul -----Original
Message-----
>>From:
P.J.Wells@xxxxxxxxxx <
P.J.Wells@xxxxxxxxxx>
>>To:
ope-l@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx <
ope-l@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>
>>Date:
11 February 2002 19:19
>>Subject: [OPE-L:6553] RE: Re: * poll: who has
advanced political econ om
>>y since Marx?
*
>>
>>>Jerry
wrote
>>>
>>>>Re Julian's
[6548]:
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>> I'd be
interested the hear the views of better-read comrades
than
>>>>> myself on this -- but do others agree with me
that Lenin
>>>>advanced > the *practical* *critique* of
political economy to
>>>>a marked
degree?
>>>>
>>>>At the risk of sounding
heretical, what exactly was that
advancement?
>>>
>>>Well, actually I was trying to
emphasise the *practical* critique -- he did
>>>participate in
a revolution, after all.
>>>
>>>I'd agree with Jerry
that many of those works of his which are best known to
>>>the
average revolutionary activist are either popularisations (i.e.,
not
>>>scientific works as such) or contemporary
polemics.
>>>
>>>Julian
>>>
>>>
>
>
>17
Bristol Road, Brighton, BN2 1AP, England
>
>