Help with Das Kapital Volume 3
- This topic has 5 replies, 5 voices, and was last updated 3 years, 1 month ago by
.
-
Posts
-
Hello so I’m trying to read through Das Kapital Volume 3 and I’m quite confused (I know David Harvey did a guide/help for understanding Volume 1 but I couldn’t find anything similar or any guide to understanding Volume 3 so I’m a bit confused). I tried asking this question on reddit, but the moderators keep on removing my posts and the last time I asked about the Economic Calculation Problem people on this forum were very helpful. I don’t know if people on this forum are Marxists, heresay, or perhaps subscribe to a more Bakunin/Kropotkin/Proudhon/Tucker view of society; but I would assume the chances of people on this forum believing in the Labour Theory of Value, or agree with Marx on it. So with that said I’m a bit confused with DK Volume 3
In Chapter 8, page 116, Marx says the following:
We have thus demonstrated that different lines of industry have different rates of profit, which correspond to differences in the organic composition of their capitals and, within indicated limits, also to their different periods of turnover; given the same time of turnover, the law (as a general tendency) that profits are related to one another as the magnitudes of the capitals, and that, consequently, capitals of equal magnitude yield equal profits in equal periods, applies only to capitals of the same organic composition, even with the same rate of surplus-value. These statements hold good on the assumption which has been the basis of all our analyses so far, namely that the commodities are sold at their values. There is no doubt, on the other hand, that aside from unessential, incidental and mutually compensating distinctions, differences in the average rate of profit in the various branches of industry do not exist in reality, and could not exist without abolishing the entire system of capitalist production. It would seem, therefore, that here the theory of value is incompatible with the actual process, incompatible with the real phenomena of production, and that for this reason any attempt to understand these phenomena should be given up.
I’m a bit confused at the last portion, it’s taking me a while to get through Das Kapital so please correct me if I’m wrong because i’m so confused. Marx seems to say that capitals of equal amount, but of dissimilar organic composition, should exhibit different profits. But that reality shows us that it is governed by the law that capitals of equal amount, without regarding differences in organic composition, yield equal profits. I’m a bit confused with the end portion of the quote, why is he saying “any attempt to understand these phenomena should be given up,” is he saying that the LTV is wrong? Surely not? I’m a bit confused at how this doesn’t yield a contradiction, any help appreciated
‘It would seem, therefore, that here the theory of value is incompatible with the actual process, incompatible with the real phenomena of production, and that for this reason any attempt to understand these phenomena should be given up.’
I’m no expert on economics and I’m sure that our economic guru (ALB) will enjoy answering your query in full but I think the key words in the passage you quote are ‘it would seem…’ i.e. a contradiction between appearance and reality. I may be wrong and as I say we have comrades steeped in Marxian economics so you won’t have long to wait for a better answer.
I don’t think Marx is saying that the labour theory of value cannot explain why capitals of equal value tend to make the same rate of profit even if their ratio of constant to variable capital is different.
This passage appears in the introductory chapter of a section headed “Conversion of profit into average profit”. All Marx is saying here is that,on the face of it, the LTV cannot explain why capitals of the same value tend to make the same rate of profit, before going in to explain in the following chapters how it can in fact explain this.
A different translation of the passage in the Penguin edition of volume 3 makes this clearer:
“The theory of value thus appears incompatible with the actual movement, incompatible with the actual phenomena of production, and it might seem that we must abandon all hope of understanding these phenomena.” (page 252).
Incidentally, we take a Marxist not an anarchist view of society and certainly not that of Proudhon and Tucker who envisaged maintaining the system of production for the market (which we along with Marx, and indeed Kropotkin, envisage coming to an end).
The analysis made by Adam is totally correct.
I do not know why several groups continue implying that Proudhon was the father of Anarchism, he was not an anarchist either, he had the same stand as Henry George
(I know David Harvey did a guide/help for understanding Volume 1 but I couldn’t find anything similar or any guide to understanding Volume 3 so I’m a bit confused).
There are problems with the Harvey guides, see here:
https://critisticuffs.org/texts/david-harveyA useful, though unfinished, guide to all three volumes could be this one by Simon Clarke:
https://libcom.org/library/reading-guide-capital-simon-clarkeThere is not any guide for volume 3 because most people only read volume 1. There is another one made by raya dunayeskaya but It would be the same thing as Harvey and Richard wolf is going to be the same thing
- You must be logged in to reply to this topic.