Heinrich’s latest book in English is a detailed commentary on the first seven chapters of Volume 1 of Capital, which is a translation of Wie das Marxsche Kapital Lesen? published in 2018. An earlier version of this book on just the first two chapters was published in 2008. The publication of an English translation of Heinrich’s book is an important event in Marxian scholarship and it is important to critically engage with this important book in order to advance our understanding of this critical foundational chapter of Marx’s theory. This book will focus on Chapter 1 and will emphasize the quantitative issue of whether the magnitude of value is determined in production alone or also depends on supply and demand in exchange, which has been the main issue in the controversy over the value-form interpretation
However, I do not argue that Marx’s theory of value is about an individual commodity, taken in isolation, unrelated to other commodities; rather, I argue that Marx’s theory of value in Section 1 is about an individual commodity that represents all commodities and the properties that all commodities possess in common.
And the main property that all commodities possess in common is objectified abstract human labor, which is the result of abstract human labor expended in production to produce these commodities.
We can see that Marx assumes a relation of equality between a coat and 20 yards of linen, expressed as an equation, as in Section 1 of Chapter 1.The relation of equality between the coat and the linen implies that the two commodities each must possess a common element that makes them equal. And Marx concludes that the common property of the commodi-ties that makes the m equal is that they are all products of the same kind of labor.
Thus the nature (or “being”) of the value of commodities is “objec-tificationsof human labor as such ”.
This is the nature of value that must be expressed in the form of value . And this is also the way that Marx’s analysis of the commodity in Section 1 led to the conclusion that the social character of the labor that produces commodities is their general equality with each other in production (as discussed above). The “exchange relation” between the coat and the linen is a form of expression of the value of the lines in terms of a coat , not an act of exchange between the linen and the coat on the market.
- The highly mathematical and market-centric approach of general equilibrium theory doesn’t directly translate to the historical and class-based analysis characteristic of Marxist political economy.
- Some scholars have attempted to bridge the gap by constructing models attempting to explain crisis tendencies and exploitation within general equilibrium frameworks. However, these models are often criticized for simplifying or omitting crucial aspects of the Marxist critique of capitalism.
- Therefore, while there exists some exploration of bridging the two concepts, Marxist political economy primarily maintains its distinct analytical framework, focusing on class, power dynamics, and historical context rather than aiming for a single, universal equilibrium state.
gemini.google
