reply to Anne Costello
by Charles van Gelderen It is difficult to know what Anne Costello is trying to prove with her article on Ernest Mandel's "An Introduction to Marxist Dconeriec Theory" (TH WEEK ~ Feb, Ujth. 1968), Is she criticising Mandel's presentation or Marx's economic theories? The pamphlet was originally presented as a course of lectures organised by the Paris Federation of the United Socialist Party in 19453. It set out to acquaint his listeners with the basic elements of Marxist economics. We can assume that the subject was fairly new to his audience. In one weekend - wich was the length of the course, and even aspirant Marxigs have to eat and sleep - it would not be possible to acquaint the students with Marx's economic theory as well as the criticisms of Joan Robinson, Sweezy, Baran etc. as well as his bourgeois critics, to say nothing of the intricacies of Keynesian economic theory. For this the reader will have to wait for the English edition of Mandel's "Treatise on Marxist Economics" where, no doubt, the criticisms raised by Anne Costello and the others will be fully dealt with. Is it really necessary for Mandel to explain within the compass of such a short outline wny pre-Keynesian and non—Marxist economists ignored the concept that the increasing organic composition of capital eventually causes a slump? Keynes? own research into the workings of capitalggm led him to the confirmation of this theory because he hed more objectivity and insight than his fellow bourgecis eccnomists, When we come to Anne Costello's criticism of Marx's labour theory of value we are nn firmer ground. It is a crude simplification to state that “Marx says the price of an article is determined by the amount of labour put into it." Merx was no economic simpleton end as well. aware as Miss Costello that prices fluctuate with supply and demand. In Volume IIT of CAPITAL he wrote quite clearly that market-prices and market-value would continue to differ, tie value of a comrodity being determined by the la our-time in it in only "a vague snd meaningless form", For cormodities to exchange with each other at their value, i.e. based on the labour-time contained in ther, three conditions sre necessary. There mist be (1) an established market; (2) large quantities exchanged, and (3) no monopoly.
Prices will fluctuate according tc suprly and demand bytover a definite period market-—prices over or below value will balance out. The fluctuations will centre round the basic value and market prices cannot be understood without reference to the labour theory of value. When Marx wrote CAPITAL British capitalism enjoyed almost a monopoly position on the world market. The United States, Germany and France were only on the threshold of large-scale capitalist development. With their emergence as competitors in the world market and with the increasing drive toward monopoly there are far preater divergences between market-prices and exchange value based on labour-time than in Marx's day. He could only see the beginnings of this and neither Marx nor Engels ignored it, just as they did not ignore the effect of the class struggle on wages and the living standards of the working class,
A_reply to Anne Costello - continued CAPITAL is not a Bible inspined by divine authority, Marx did not write the last word about capitalism. He wes a scientist working in a laboratory ~- 19th. century Britain - not a prophet with en infallable pre-view of the future. On the basis of his scientific resesrch he was able to expose the workings of the capitalist system vhich economiss till then had only succeeded in obscuring. His analysis has stood the test of time and it is Marx's critics who have usually been confounded by events. Ernest Mandel's panphlet is a very useful introduction to ea vast subject. It is , however, only an introduction and one can only hope that those who read it will be persuaded to a wider reading, both of Marx and his critics.