17
CRITICISM OF “CAPITAL”
“Marx's doctrine all-powerful because it is true”.
Vladimir Lenin
ABSTRACT
The fallibility of Marxism is proved to practice. But it till now is not made by the theory. In offered article the labor theory of cost and the representations of Karl Marx based on it about the nature of a capitalist society criticize.
The criticism of the doctrine of Marx is carried out from positions new, relative, theory of the cost developed now by the author of the given article.
INTRODUCTION
The criticism of “Capital” is conducted under the second edition of Compositions of K. Marx and F. Engels.
All citations from “Capital” are supplied with the code in which the first designates number of page of the volume specified in heading, the second – number of the paragraph on this page, the third – number of the first, and the fourth – number of last sentence of the citation under their order in the given paragraph. And, numbers of sentence in the code are not specified, if the citation is distributed to the paragraph.
If the page specified in the code begins with continuation of the paragraph to this continuation number “zero” is given, and the account of offers in it is conducted from the first full sentence located on the given page.
Minor and too long citations, which text completely coincides with the text of “Capital”, will not be resulted. Counting upon that the reader of “Criticism” will work above it with the primary source on a table. This can be found in an electronic type to the following addresses:
http://msu-econ04.narod.ru/Downloads_tars.html ,
http://lugovoy-k.narod.ru/marx/marx.htm.
CRITICISM OF THE VOLUME #1
THE BEGINNING OF CRITICISM
CRITICISM OF THE LABOUR THEORY OF COST
43.2.1
"The commodity is first of all an external subject, a thing which due to its properties satisfies any human needs”.
Let's note, for the beginning, that the commodity in this definition is understood exclusively as material object. Ideas, services and other things capable to satisfy needs of people and to participate in an exchange are completely excluded from among the commodities.
Besides ability to satisfy human needs is too wide attribute for the goods. As far from are being all consumer goods become the commodities. Many of them go in use, passing process of an exchange.
As to “appearance” of the commodity, that, we shall specify, external the commodity always are only in relation to its buyer, instead of to the seller. Because, seller ideas, organs, and he entirely can act as the commodity.
44.1.1
“The utility of a thing makes it a use-value”.
A. Useful and harmful things
In these words the part of true is made only. Because, people, by virtue of the depravity, consume not only useful, but also obviously harmful products. And it means, that hazard of a thing makes it use-value with not smaller success, than it utility.
To be use-value, the thing completely not necessarily should be useful. It can be either useful, or harmful, or both simultaneously. The main idea not in that, the main idea – is it necessary for the person whether or not? Necessity – here that really makes object use-value.
B. A small stone to a kitchen garden of the utility theory supporters
Here it is appropriate to ask such question to attendants of the utility theory: if commodity value is defined by its utility, than then value of the harmful goods is defined? The value of drugs is one example.
44.1.4
“… The commodity body … itself is use-value or the good”.
As it has already been told, use-value can be not only useful, but also harmful things. Therefore it is impossible to identify use-value only with the good. Use-value can be both the blessing, and evil.
44.1.7
“Use-values of commodities…”
The sense of “use-value» concept
It is easy to see, that in the given use a “use-value” word-combination designates at Marx any more a thing as it was abovementioned but only property of the thing representing the commodity.
Thereby, it turns out, that the combination of words “use-value” has already two senses: а) the commodity and б) property of the commodity, its ability to satisfy the person need.
44.1.10
“…(Use-values) they are, in addition, the material depositories of exchange-value”.
A. The sense of “value” concept
Obviously: in word-combinations “use-value” and “exchange-value” the concept of value is used in different senses. In the first combination it designates a thing, capable to satisfy needs, and for the second – such characteristic of the commodities which is always connected to an exchange. On what specifies an epithet “exchange”.
Moreover, when the concept “use-value” is used not for a designation of a thing, but for a naming of commodity abilities to satisfy need a word “value” receives the third sense.
To remove a multiple meaning of a “value” word and to transform it thus into the term of political economy, there is a sense to refuse the use of “use-value” concept. Having replaced with its much more harmonious and much more exact concept – consumer good (CG).
And if we want to emphasize on consumer qualities of the commodity it is possible to use for this purpose a combination of words “use-value”. That there was no more mess with “value” concept.
B. Useless of a “exchange-value" combination
If to agree with the made sentence it is must recognize, that necessity for concept “exchange-value” disappears. In fact the characteristic “exchange” at value is necessary only for distinction exchange- and use-value. And time we have refused from a naming thing or its property to satisfy need a “value” word, what now sense for an adjective “exchange” at a “value” word?
In fact no exchange-value does not happen. Value in the sense left by us is such characteristic of the commodity which arises and can exist only within the limits of the certain kind of an exchange. Outside of an exchange of any value is not present. Therefore there are not necessities to emphasize that value related to exchange.
44.2.1-2
“Exchange-value, at first sight, presents itself as a quantitative relation, as the proportion in which values in use of one sort are exchanged for those of another sort, a relation constantly changing with time and place. Hence exchange-value appears to be something accidental and purely relative, and consequently an intrinsic value, i.e., an exchange-value that is inseparably connected with, inherent in commodities, seems a contradiction in terms”.
A. Correlative “value” definition
It is difficult to not agree that value is a ratio. And, the ratio understood here as the mutual relation of two amounts, two sets of the commodities, as the whole, made of two opposite relations.
Taking into account the made explanatory and that fact, that in the criticized citation a “use-value” word-combination designates simply the commodity, the formulation of correlative definition of value can be given in the following kind:
Cost of the commodities is a quantitative ratio in which the commodities of one sort exchange on the commodities of other sort.
B. Commodities value and commodity value
It is necessary to note that in the first sentence of the citation Marx speaks about value in general, about commodity value, about value without its binding to one of subjects of an exchange participating. And in the second he prophesies already about value of one, separate commodity.
Clearly, that commodities value and commodity value are things closely related, but, also is clear, that it is things not identical. And consequently they need to be mandatory distinguished.
C. Internal and external cost of the goods
From the fact of variability of a commodity ratio the author of “Capital” judges, that there are two kinds of value: external which “seems … something accidental and purely relative”, and “internal, inherent to the commodity”, and, probably, absolute, necessary and constant.
This is an obvious deviation from relative understanding of value to its absolute understanding. To understanding of value as that is capable to exist in one, separately taken commodity. The deviation which reason is the immemorial aspiration of the person in the fluid, changeable world to find something stable, constant, reliable, to find firm ground under foots.
45.2.1-4
“Let us take two commodities, e.g., corn and iron. The proportions in which they are exchangeable, whatever those proportions may be, can always be represented by an equation in which a given quantity of corn is equated to some quantity of iron: e.g., 1 quarter corn = x cwt. iron. What does this equation tell us? It tells us that in two different things — in 1 quarter of corn and x cwt. of iron, there exists in equal quantities something common to both”.
A. Equation of value
And this equation speaks us that here are made, at least, two mistakes. First, the relation of things is arbitrary replaced with their equality, and second, in the received equality is made co-measure of non-uniform, i.e. incommensurable, amount.
Absurdity of the Marx equation is better visible if to present it in the following kind:
1 quarter corn – а cwt. iron = 0. (1)
In fact to make such equality — all this it is equal what to speak as if
1 hour – 5 km = 0, (2)
Only on the grounds that speed of a body is the relation equal 5 km/hour.
B. Formula of commodity cost
Whether it is more reasonable to express of the commodity relation as the mathematic ratio? I. e. to consider, proceeding from supervision over practical use of “commodity value” concept, that value of A commodity (VА) is the relation to it of B commodity:
VA = B/A (3)
And value of the B commodity (VB) is the opposite of this the relation:
VB = A/B. (4)
Thus, it turns out, that value of the commodities is the most ordinary function of two variables. That amount for the given commodity depends in direct proportion on quantity of other commodity and in inverse proportion from quantity of the given commodity.
C. Common in the commodities
Certainly, in any two commodities there is something the common. But for an explanation of amount of value in the commodities it is necessary to search for the common only in the event when value of the commodities is understood as an absolute amount.
If to understand value of the commodities as the relation the question on the common in the commodities can be taken out from brackets of a question on amount of value. Because that amount is defined exclusively by quantities of the commodities included in the value relation.
Marx, having made one mistake (having replaced the relation by equality), with necessity makes also the second — is searched with the basis of arbitrary entered equality. As well understands, that is not present co-measure without uniformity, and equality without co-measure.
45.4.1-3
“This common “something” cannot be either a geometrical, a chemical, or any other natural property of commodities. Such properties claim our attention only in so far as they affect the utility of those commodities, make them use-values. But the exchange of commodities is evidently an act characterized by a total abstraction from use-value”.
46.3.1
“If then we leave out of consideration the use-value of commodities, they have only one common property left, that of being products of labour”.
Distinctive attribute of the goods
The second citation is rough distortion of the validity to please the labour theory of value (LTV).
In fact it is well-known, that there are very many commodities to which manufacture labour has no any relation. And it means that not all commodities refer to products of labour. The labour origin represents only one attribute of the commodity, and to distribute it to all their set — means to make an obvious logic mistake.
As to me it is thought now, there are two reasons of a Marx mistake in definition of a distinctive attribute of the commodities.
The first consists that all previous is adjustment under beforehand known result, there is a preparation for introduction of LTV main principle — a principle according to which value is defined exclusively by the labour spent for manufacture of the commodities.
The second reason — pure psychological. The matter is that when we have before ourselves some set of subjects (in our case — the commodities) to eyes rushes, first of all, that is inherent in the majority of representatives of the given set. And behind a board there is that important detail that there is a small amount of elements of set which does not possess the given attribute.
This minority we consciously or unconsciously (not seeing it) neglect. Therefore to all set the attribute of the majority, an attribute which actually is not present at all elements of set is attributed. And which subjects of the given set, therefore, cannot be a distinctive attribute of all in any way.
46.4
“Let us now consider the residue of each of these products; it consists of the same unsubstantial reality in each, a mere congelation of homogeneous human labour, of labour-power expended without regard to the mode of its expenditure. All that these things now tell us is, that human labour-power has been expended in their production, that human labour is embodied in them. When looked at as crystals of this social substance, common to them all, they are — Values.”