[PEN-L:2360] How not to quote Marx

[JDevine@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx (James Devine)]

In a message titled "[PEN-L:2327] Re: Marx's value theory & Marx's
method," Gil Skillman writes: >>While we're in the GRUNDRISSE, we
should also note that Marx "explicitly and carefully" affirms that
usury and merchant's capital, when extended to small producers,
represents *capitalist exploitation* as Marx understands the term,
and not the "redistributive" type that Jim repeatedly speaks of.
This is inconsistent with marx's representation of such circuits
of capital in Volume I, Ch. 5.<<

I don't want to get into how explicit and careful Marx was in
the GRUNDRISSE, or to figure out the level of abstraction at
which Marx was working when he said what he said there or more
generally the context of the quotes (especially since Gil
doesn't actually provide the quotes he's citing here). One
question I can't get into, therefore, is what is meant by
"capitalist exploitation" in the various quotes, since that
concept covers a multitude of sins. How "Marx understands the
term," by the way, varies with context: Bertell Ollman pointed
this out quite awhile ago, in his book ALIENATION.

But it's important to realize that this book is a
posthumously-published collection of notebooks transliterated
from Marx's well-nigh illegible handwriting and written partly
in his shorthand -- and then translated from German to English.
We have to put a weight on every source depending on how
reliably it can be used to discover Marx's mature views. As an
analogy, when reading the news I don't take rumors as seriously
as eyewitness accounts.

More importantly, it is crucial to stress the word "mature." The
GRUNDRISSE is part of the process of Marx's development of his
ideas; in fact, if I remember correctly, Marx's ideas develop
during the G, so that late parts seem to go against early parts
(especially if read out of context). Written ten years before
CAPITAL vol. I's publication, it is not his final statement of
his theory, i.e., CAPITAL (which is incomplete itself, but at
least represents part of what Marx considered his own complete
theory).

It is quite iffy to reject an element of Marx's theory -- his
theory that capitalist (or other) domination in production is
needed if a surplus-product and surplus-value is to be produced,
which Gil summarizes by referring to "Volume I, Ch. 5" --
because it is allegedly contradicted by what Marx said in a
manuscript written much earlier.

Suppose that one wanted to go beyond Gil's purpose (which is to
argue, if I read it correctly, that the labor/labor-power
distinction is wrong in Marx's own terms but _can_ be justified
in Gil's terms, i.e., strategic bargaining theory). Suppose we
wanted to reject Marx's labor/labor-power distinction
_altogether_.

Then, it would be quite easy to quote some early work (say, the
"1844 manuscripts," or Marx's romantic poetry) that does not
employ that distinction. That would "prove" that Marx was
inconsistent. Bring in some economic history that doesn't use
that distinction and analyze Marx's theory without understanding
his method and the case is made.

Or suppose that I wanted to attack John Roemer's theory of
exploitation. (Gee, why would I want to do that? ;-))  I bet I
could find some of his earlier writings that explicitly reject
the use of neoclassical theory to restate Marxian theories or
the other premises and conclusions of his work. I might have to
dig into his "Progressive Labor Party period," but I bet it
could be done.

In sum, one has to be very careful in interpreting texts --
especially if one wants to know how "Marx understands" something.

So how does one quote Marx? Off-hand, I can think of three ways
to do Marxology well:

1. Be very clear from the start what Marx's method was and how
various quotes from Marx fit into the framework of Marx's
different levels of abstraction. This avoids the Bohm-Bawerk
trap of treating vols. I and III as being on the same level of
abstraction and thus contradictory. (To my mind, Gil falls in
this trap.)

One of the best examples of this I've seen is Mike Lebowitz's
BEYOND CAPITAL. He argues, in essence, that CAPITAL is an
incomplete book because it treats only one side of the
capitalist class struggle as a Subject (in Hegel's terms,
dealing seriously with the Master (capital) but the Servant (the
workers) despite their deep interconnection).  Then he uses all
sorts of quotes from the GRUNDRISSE to fill in the gap left
because Marx never finished his project by bringing in the
"political economy of wage labor."  (Mike, I hope I represented
your views correctly.)

2. Quote everything Marx said on the subject, being very clear
on the historical context. Hal Draper's multi-volume KARL MARX'S
THEORY OF REVOLUTION is an example of this.  I think he could
have used more of method #1.

Frankly, I think that methods #1 and #2 are complementary. They
are also extremely difficult. Because of the task's difficulty,
and my own anti-exegetical bias, I usually avoid Marxology
altogether. I have only one article which even approaches this
kind of stuff (in CAPITAL & CLASS, #29, Winter 1989, on the
"reduction" of skilled labor to simple labor).

3. Use various quotes from Marx as inspiration for further
thinking. This is what I try to do. I must say that I even use
neoclassical language and theory as a way of explicating a
Marxian theory -- though I stress that there are major
methodological and theoretical differences between Marx and the
neoclassicals. (See, for example, my article "Taxation without
Representation: A Reconstruction of Marx's Theory of Capitalist
Exploitation" in the soon-to-be-published book edited by Bill
Dugger, INEQUALITY: RADICAL INSTITUTIONALIST VIEWS ON RACE,
GENDER, CLASS, AND NATION, Greenwood Publ. Order your copy now
and avoid the rush!)

coda:

An obvious response is that one could argue that the three points
above is that it effectively insulates Marx from all criticism.
Maybe so -- but as Lakatos pointed out, every scientific research
program has a hard core that is immune to falsification.  (This
also applies to neoclassical economics, BTW.)

The problem of Marx being immune to criticism arises if one sees
Marx as the final word on anything.  I don't and I doubt that
anyone on earth does. I think it was Che Guevara who said he was
Marxist the way physicists are Newtonian. What's important to me
is the development of Marx-inspired theories that help us
understand the world, hopefully promoting the process of changing
it.

in pen-l solidarity,

Jim Devine   jdevine@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
Econ. Dept., Loyola Marymount Univ.
7900 Loyola Blvd., Los Angeles, CA 90045-8410 USA
310/338-2948 (daytime, during workweek); FAX: 310/338-1950
"Segui il tuo corso, e lascia dir le genti." (Go your own way
and let people talk.) -- K. Marx, paraphrasing Dante A.