150 Years of Das Kapital and No End in Sight. Unsystematic Remarks on a Never-Ending Story

2019 ◽  
Vol 29 (6) ◽  
pp. 23-46

Michael Heinrich, one of the leading Marx scholars, provides a general introduction into Das Kapital with emphasis on the latest interpretations of it. The circumstances surrounding its writing and publication are shown to have interfered with an adequate appreciation of it. The formal structure and organization of the first volume are obstacles to readers and demand much from their education and intellect. The article summarizes the basic trajectories of Marx’s criticisms of political economy, including the critique of naturalizing social forms arising under capitalism and Marx’s original monetary theory of value. The author disentangles Marx’s Das Kapital from views mistakenly ascribed to it, such as the idea that value is determined solely by labor and the prediction of pauperization of the masses. First, Marx’s theory of value goes well beyond explaining prices under capitalism. Second, his main prophecy concerned the inevitable growth of inequality between the masters of capital and the employed classes and did not forecast impoverishment. The paper also points out that the sequence of publication of different volumes of Das Kapital caused lacunae in interpreting Marx’s oeuvre. For instance Engels’ efforts made the third volume more accessible to readers but also obscured the overall pattern of Marx’s thinking. the article shows that Das Kapital was a dynamic and fluctuating project to such an extent that Marx himself several times revisited his views of the causes of economic crises and falling profits and also intended to deal extensively with ecological issues. Reaching an adequate understanding of the theory contained in Das Kapital cannot depend on the manuscripts of those volumes alone. Marx’s notebooks, which have only recently published, are an indispensable aid to understanding it.

2018 ◽  
Vol 40 (2) ◽  
pp. 217-241 ◽  
Author(s):  
Alain Béraud ◽  
Guy Numa

Jean-Baptiste Say’s notion ofdébouchéshas not been correctly understood, due to the lack of proper context within the framework of his broader political economy. We revisit Say’s writings on this topic, retrace the concept’s evolution, and lay out a framework that better illustrates the essence of Say’s thinking. We argue that Say’s theories on money and economic crises are much richer and more sophisticated than the traditional interpretation of Say’s Law would suggest. Say himself acknowledged that his monetary theory contradicted his initial articulations of the law, a point often missed by contemporary observers. This essay paints a more complete picture of Say’s work, showing how monetary changes could, under his framework, affect real variables. In so doing, it cuts against the many simplistic interpretations that pervade the existing literature on the subject.


2017 ◽  
Author(s):  
Guy Numa ◽  
Alain Béraud

Say’s notion of débouchés has not been correctly understood, for lack of proper context within the framework of his broader political economy. We revisit Say’s writings on this topic, retrace the concept’s evolution, and lay out a framework that better illustrates the essence of Say’s thinking. We argue that Say’s theories on money and economic crises are much richer and more sophisticated than the traditional interpretation of Say’s law would suggest. Say himself acknowledged that his monetary theory contradicted his initial articulations of the law, a point often missed by contemporary observers. This essay paints a more complete picture of Say’s work, showing how monetary changes could, under his framework, affect real variables. In so doing, it cuts against the many simplistic interpretations that pervade the existing literature on the subject.


2018 ◽  
Vol 69 (11) ◽  
pp. 31 ◽  
Author(s):  
Riccardo Bellofiore

The Marxian critique of political economy is inseparable from the "labor theory of value." But what exactly does this theory mean? This article considers Marx's value theory from five perspectives: as a monetary value theory, a theory of exploitation, a macro-monetary theory of capitalist production, a theory of individual prices, and a theory of crises.Click here to purchase a PDF version of this article at the Monthly Review website.


Author(s):  
Werner Bonefeld

Against the background of the contemporary debate about financialisation, the paper conceptualises the capitalist labour economy as fundamentally a monetary system. It argues that money is not a capitalist means of organising its labour economy but that it is rather a capitalist end. The argument examines and finds wanting conceptions of money in political economy, including Keynesianism and neoliberalism, and argues that the debate about financialisation is fundamentally based on the propositions of political economy. It holds that Marx’s critique of political economy conceives of money as the form of value and expounds money-making as the purpose of the capital labour economy. Thus, the labour theory of value is fundamentally a monetary theory of value, labour is the means of valorisation, and that is, of money in process, and as such capital. Making money out of money is capital as its most rational. In the form of credit, money posits wealth as a claim on future surplus value.


2021 ◽  
Vol 29 (2) ◽  
pp. 29-60
Author(s):  
Paula Maria Rauhala

Abstract Proponents of a monetary interpretation of Marx’s theory of value (monetäre Werttheorie) argue that one cannot estimate the amounts of socially necessary labour time that lie behind the prices, an interpretation usually ascribed to the West German Neue Marx‑Lektüre. As Hans-Georg Backhaus began fleshing out his monetary interpretation in the early 1970s, he referred explicitly to debate among economists in early‑1960s East Germany about the possibility of estimating quantities of labour value in terms of commodities’ labour content. In fact, scholars who articulated a powerful position in the latter discussion closely approximated the Neue Marx-Lektüre’s ‘monetary interpretation’. They held that expressing labour value in terms of labour time is impossible: the substance of value is not a measurable quantity of labour time but, rather, a social relation. Hence, it is problematic that Neue Marx-Lektüre adherents today should maintain an inaccurate contrast between their reading of Capital and that of ‘traditional Marxism’.


2019 ◽  
Vol 63 (1) ◽  
pp. 91-106
Author(s):  
GARETH STEDMAN JONES

ABSTRACTThis article examines radical and socialist responses to Malthus's Essay on population, beginning with the response of William Godwin, Malthus's main object of attack, but focusing particularly upon the position adopted by his most important admirer, Robert Owen. The anti-Malthus position was promoted and sustained both by Owen and the subsequent Owenite movement. Owenites stressed both the extent of uncultivated land and the capacity of science to raise the productivity of the soil. The Owenite case, preached weekly in Owenite Halls of Science, and argued by its leading lecturer, John Watts, made a strong impact upon the young Frederick Engels working in Manchester in 1843–4. His denunciation of political economy in the Deutsch-Französische Jahrbücher, heavily dependent upon the Owenite position, was what first encouraged Marx to engage with political economy. Marx initially reiterated the position of Engels and the Owenites in maintaining that population increase pressured means of employment rather than means of subsistence, and that competition rather than overpopulation caused economic crises. But in his later work, his main criticism of the Malthusian theory was its false conflation of history and nature.


Author(s):  
Eric Kurlander

This chapter illustrates how the National Socialist Workers' Party (NSDAP) appropriated supernatural ideas in order to appeal to ordinary Germans, enlisting the help of occultists and horror writers in shaping propaganda and political campaigning. By exploiting the supernatural imaginary, Hitler tied his political mission into something out of the Book of Revelation, as one ‘divinely chosen’ to create the Third Reich. The chapter then looks at three case studies. The first assesses Hitler's approach to politics through his reading of Ernst Schertel's 1923 occult treatise, Magic: History, Theory, Practice. The second considers the NSDAP's propaganda collaboration with the horror writer, Hanns Heinz Ewers. The third delves into the relationship between the NSDAP and Weimar's most popular ‘magician’, Erik Hanussen. In coopting Schertel's magic, enlisting Ewers, and forming an alliance with Hanussen, the Nazis diverted the masses from objective reality and toward the coming Third Reich.


1996 ◽  
Vol 76 (4) ◽  
pp. 830
Author(s):  
Nicholas Onuf ◽  
Manochehr Dorraj

Sign in / Sign up

Export Citation Format

Share Document