[lbo-talk] Marx's critique of neo classical economics

bhandari at berkeley.edu bhandari at berkeley.edu
Sun Apr 1 20:05:31 PDT 2007


Where to begin? There is no clear sense of what the hard core of neoclassical economics is. Even those opposed to a post autistic economics are not clear as to what they are challenging.

1. The fundamental relationship between capital and labor only appears as one of exchange but has long since been turned into its opposite--appropriation plain and simple: "The means of production, with which the additional labour-power is incorporated, as well as the necessaries with which the labourers are sustained, are nothing but component parts of the surplus product, of the tribute annually exacted from the working class by the capitalist class. Though the latter with a portion of that tribute purchases the additional labour-power even at its full price, so that equivalent is exchanged for equivalent, yet the transaction is for all that only the old dodge of every conquerer who buys commodities from the conquered with the money he has robbed them of." Capital I, chapter 24. Capitalism is in fact not an exchange economy, strictly speaking. 2. The factors of production approach--what Marx calls the trinity formula--is fetishism. no more, no less. Capital III 3. The production of commodities is not governed by demand; rather demand is a function of accumulation undertaken in the pursuit of ever greater quantities of surplus value. Capital volume II 4. Abstinence and waiting cannot be determinants of surplus value. Capital vol I 5. To say that the value of a good is whatever market price buyer and seller agree to conflates the mode of expression of value with value itself. vol I 6. In counting any income stream generating asset as capital, it cannot distinguish between capital and fictitious capital (a government bond). 8 The postulated tendency towards a set or vector of equilibrium prices which will clear markets is mythical. 9. The contraction of credit tends to express rather than cause general downturns. 10. Marx would not allow neo-classical economics to abstract away from the history of capitalism its constant wars, either at home or in the colonies, its armaments, its large military establishments, its struggles for plunders, its terrible human and material costs, and then assert that such things, enormous as they are, are excrescencies.



More information about the lbo-talk mailing list