Charlie Andrews' book

[Jim Devine <jdevine@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>]

I've only read the first 2 1/2 chapters of Charles (Charlie) Andrews'
recent book, _From Capitalism to Equality_ (Needle Press, 2000), but so far
I am quite impressed.

So far, it's the clearest expositions of volume I of Marx's _Capital_ I've
read. It's not just an exposition, of course, since it tries to relate the
discussion to the real world as much as possible. But the parts I've read
(on value and surplus-value) are straight out of Marx, but much better
written for a modern audience. The book would be a great supplement for a
class that's reading Marx's _Capital_.

I really like the discussion of value in chapter 2. Andrews distinguishes
clearly between use-value, exchange value (relative prices), and value
(socially-necessary abstract labor time). I knew the distinction, but it
was fuzzy at times. One advantage he has compared to Marx is that he makes
it clear from the beginning that exchange value is not the same as value.
"The magnitude of value is the quantity of abstract labor required to
_produce_ a commodity. The magnitude of exchange value, or price, is the
about of abstract labor a commodity _obtains in exchange_. The value of a
commodity and its exchange value are both quantities of abstract labor, but
not necessarily equal quantities." (p. 34, emphasis added.)

That is, there's a difference between the contribution to the societal flow
of abstract labor by the labor done to produce a commodity (labor embodied)
and the claim that a commodity owner can make on that flow of abstract
labor (labor commanded). "Unequal exchange" is a normal part of not only
capitalism but simple commodity production, as Andrews ably explains.

Chapter 3, or what I've read of it, is crystal-clear. If we'd read this
chapter beforehand, the famous pen-l debate with Gil Skillman over "chapter
5" of volume I of _Capital_ would not have happened. Andrews is much
clearer than Marx about what he is doing as he presents his argument.

I wish this book had appeared before so many people rejected Marx's "law of
value" (a.k.a., the "labor theory of value") or got bogged down in
ultra-academic debates about the so-called transformation problem.

Charlie's web-site is http://www.LaborRepublic.org

Jim Devine jdevine@xxxxxxx &  http://bellarmine.lmu.edu/~jdevine