|
The capitalists earn interest because he contributes to the production process, and the goods are valued more than the remuneration to the original means of production (labor and land) because of time preference. Furthermore, this book is responsible for the murder and starvation of millions, as capital accumulation and the division of labor must necessarily disintegrate without private ownership over the means of production. As Bohm-Bawerk explained, the factors of production are co-dependent, that is, no factor produces anything on its own. He logically depicts what a world should look like if classical doctrines were correct; unfortunately, his conclusions are entirely at odds with the real world--it is the ultimate reductio ad absurdum.
Essentially, this book shouldn't be read by anyone serious, which is why it's basically only read by philosophy and English professors at community colleges. There is no contradiction, as the laborers demand capital in order to increase their productivity, and therefore their remunerations. The empirical evidence supporting this claim is torrential, as nations with plentiful and dynamic capitalists (and relatively minimal government interference) have the highest income per capita, and standard of living. And nations, who have taken this horrific book seriously, are forever trapped in poverty and face unspeakable human right violations. This book is one of the most ambiguous books ever written, mired in confusion, contradiction, and ultimately mysticism. There's about as much economics in this book as there is in the Dao Di Jing. It was known, long before Smith fused his own personal Calvinist beliefs with economics, that value does not exist in the material world, but rather is confined to the subjective preferences of individuals. Without the labor theory of value, you don't have exploitation, and therefore can't accept his dialectic.
Marx was fully aware of the transformation problem, and promised to fully explain it in this book, but fails to do so. Marxists and Neoclassical choose to ignore the fact that an apple today does not have the same value as an apple ten days from now, ten months from now, or ten years from now. The dramatic and inescapable contradiction which plagues this book is that, one the on hand, Marx focuses on social relation, and yet, at the same time, this book ultimately seeks to end all voluntary social interaction.Don't waste your money on this incomprehensible and barren book. This is why anti-liberal economists are forced to reject the Marxian framework in favor of Keynesian analysis.Furthermore, the so-called tension between the forces and relations of production are, of course, entirely illusory. The mixture of religion and economics inevitably breeds inescapable confusion and contradiction, as demonstrated by Ricardo who proclaimed, "I cannot get over the difficulty of the wine which is kept in the cellar for three or four years [i.e., while constantly increasing in exchange value], or that of the oak tree, which perhaps originally had not 2 s. To ignore the element of time is to ignore the primary cause of economic activity and social interaction.
Its ultimate virtue, however, is that Marx unwittingly puts to sleep the labor theory of value, first put forth by Adam Smith. Without capital, the laborer has nothing, and without nature, the capital cannot come into existence. Furthermore, the labor theory of value does not allow for mutually beneficial exchange, and therefore cannot explain why voluntary exchange takes place, and ultimately why prices emerge. Capital is heterogeneous, and complementary, and as such, requires disseminated ownership and a dynamic process of trial and error on the part of the capitalists, along with a functional price mechanism coordinating production. expended on it in the way of labour, and yet comes to be worth £100." The idea that labor magically creates value, on its own, is something even the most socialistically inclined economic student is unable to take seriously.
The book came in the right condition (as stated in the description) Great. The book arrived right on time and the person kept in contact telling me when it would arrive and such.
Within capitalist production, the worker is not longer selling a finished product, but only his labor time. That is how capitalism differentiates itself from artisanal production, requiring highly skilled persons. Thus he becomes a wage-slave. In the first volume of this series, Marx makes probably his most famous observation, when he talks about the alienation of the worker : ". the worker exists for the process of production, and not the process of production for the worker." Therefore, capitalism needed fragmenting the production process in small tasks, that all can be performed by relatively unqualified workers.
Also, unfortunately, there tends to be a large number of people that have never been exposed to Marx and listen to a small segment of the population that rallies against Marx due to either cold war ideological nonsense or dogmatic nonsense - Any serious reader of Capital will clearly see that this work lacks the politicized bias that has infiltrated most writings today. Nothing is viewed in isolation or analyzed individually. What it does not do is outline how to organize and make work a "socialist" or centrally planned economy. Not only is it truly exceptional, but it is the most important contribution to classical economic thought. Perhaps the main difficulty, and perhaps even the reason for such misunderstanding and misinterpretation, is that Marx did not build foundations of knowledge in the traditional way. The sheer depth of what Marx tries to tackle, regardless if one subscribes to it or not, is nothing short of amazing.and is reason alone to (attempt) to read Capital.
To conclude, for common misconceptions, Capital identifies the many inconsistencies and problems of political economy in the realm of the Capitalist mode of production. Nor is the analysis confined to things and things, essentially concealing the human element behind them that is characteristic of mainstream economic analysis. It is not a bible, and those who treat it as such most likely have not read it. His world is complex, as it should be, and everything relates to everything else. I can only write this general review - a concise overview would be, at my level, impossible. It is a stunningly accurate critique of political economy as it was then and as it has unfolded today.
To say that the decline of the 'socialist' states make Marx and his work obsolete is pure madness - he has been correct or nearly correct on many things both originated by him or built on from predecessors - Smith and Ricardo.
First, I wanna grab Karl Marx by the shoulders, shake him, and tell him that, however much physics envy he's got ("the rate and mass of surplus value"), he cannot make economics into a science, and that even if he could he wouldn't be able to write the authoritative foundational text for that science by just theorizing abstractly without doing any experiments. And now, just for you, I'm gonna type out the full text of all the parts of this book that deal with Marx's vision for a post-capitalist society, all both of 'em:p.
739: "In this way he spurs on the development of society's productive forces, and the creation of those material conditions of production which alone can form the real basis of a higher form of society, a society in which the full and free development of every individual forms the ruling principle."And that's it, two sentences in 1,100 pages. 515fn33: "The field of application for machinery would therefore be entirely different in a communist society from what it is in a bourgeois society."p.
I could write 10 pages on my specific agreements and disagreements with Marx's economics analysis, but this isn't the place for that. I thought Marx was at his best when he was most empirical: detailing the horrors of industrial wage slavery in Dickensian Britain and then tracing the contours of the debates on the Factory Acts, especially when he was righteously lacerating the apologists of the factory owners.
So anyone who wants to blame Marx for Stalin must seek their evidence elsewhere, possibly in Bakunin. I guess more than anything else I've got two lingering reactions.
Second, I want to thank and congratulate him for his automatic, human and above all honest identification with the struggle of the working against the capitalist classes, which I found indescribably refreshing after earning an econ degree from a neoliberal department where the norm was to take the opposite orientation and then clothe it in depoliticizing claims of objectivity.I was surprised by how often the great anti-capitalist agreed completely with capitalist orthodoxy, for example on the production benefits and human costs of the division of labor or on the need for money as a medium of exchange.
|
