[lbo-talk] wotsit madder

Carrol Cox cbcox at ilstu.edu
Thu Mar 4 10:41:43 PST 2004


In reference to the LOV, the FROP, and other elements in Marx's critique of political economy that _seem_ to be about the same question as economists ask (allocation of scarce resources, price, etc.) it is worth keeping in mind another possible perspective.

Independently of whether it can be transformed into price calculations, the Law of Value deals with how living human activity is allocated under given historical conditions, and this remains crucial regardless of whether the Transformation Problem can or cannot be solved. Similarly, whether or not FROP is correct or half-baked from the perspective of technical economics, it remains a major h istorical fact that the allocation of living human activity (and the relations of various people) are profoundly affected by what may or may not be of technical economic interest, namely the relationship between constant and variable capital. That is, FROP should be seen as a fundamental principle of _cultural_ analysis under given historical conditions. And one needs to know almost _nothing_ about economics to see the historical and political importance of the theory.

If one begins with Commodity Fetishism (and keeps clearly in mind that commodity fetishism has nothing to do with individual psychology), one can get a much better grip on these marxian principles than if one begins with economics.

See Fredy Perlman, "Introduction: Commodity Fetishism," in I.I. Rubin, Essay's on Marx's Theory of Value, tr. Milos Samardzija & Fredy Perlman (Detroit: Black and Red, 1972). Here is Perlman's second paragraph:

*****

If economics is indeed merely a new name for political economy, and if the subject matter which was once covered under the heading of political economy is now covered by economics, then economics has replaced political economy. However, if the subject matter of political economy is not the same as that of economics, then the "replacement" of political economy is actually an omission of a field of knowledge. If economics answers different questions from those raised by political economy, and if the omitted questions refer to the form and the quality of human life within the dominant social-economic system, then this omission can be called a "great evasion."[FN]******

Perlman's note: After the title of William Appleman Williams' _The Great Evasion_, Chicago: Quadrangle Books, 1964. Williams vividly describes some of the techniques of the evasion: "The tactics of escape employed in this headlong dash from reality would fill a manual of equivocation, a handbook of hairsplitting, and a guidebook to changing the subject."

Carrol

P.S. I only found out a few days ago when I googled his name that Perlman died in 1985. It was a loss.



More information about the lbo-talk mailing list