636
PARTISAN REVIEW
blasphemous to most Marxist fundamentalists . They believe that Marx dis–
covered a unique, unfailing method of analysis which enabled him to grasp
scientifically the essence of economic processes hidden beneath the surface of
phenomena, and that he proved what that value really is . This is the view
shared by the translator of
Grundnsse,
Martin Nicolaus. His long foreword
provides us with a clear and instructive account of the historical origins of
Marx 'swork, a less than clear attempt to show the relevance of Hegelian logic
to Marxian method, and a number of remarks on the extraordinary efficiency
of this method in explaining and predicting social processes , an efficiency
which is particularly evident in the case of the theory of value . The same
foreword contains an encomium of Lenin and Mao (both eminent philoso–
phers in the author's opinion) , and exhorts us to go to China and Vietnam in
order to see the emergence of the new man of Communism as predicted by
Marx . These pieces of harmless piety can be put aside . The author presents a
more or less standard Marxist tenet in the law of value ruling the capitalist
economy . Neither he nor, to my knowledge, any of the followers of this
standard version have tried to explain how the following two statements made
byMarx can square with each other :
1)
It
is a tautology to say that labor is the
onlysource ofexchange value; 2) That labor isthe onlysource ofexchange value
should be considered a law explaining basic features of the capitalist economy.
It
is not clear, to say the least, how a tautology could be at the same time a law
governing real social processes. (I mean, of course, the definition stating what
the value really is-not the obviously true statement that changes in the
productivity of labor usually result in changes in prices , such a statement
being neither specifically Marxist nor logically dependent on the labor theory
of value .)
It
would be silly , however, to try
to
discuss here the question which has
been the subject of unremitting argument for the last hundred years . A brief
remark may be added insofar as the question is relevant to the special position
of the
Grundnsse
in Marx 's intellectual development.
The labor theory of value , that is, the general statement that the real
value of a commodiry is determined by the effective or average labor time used
in producing it , was employed for centuries as a conceptual instrument
intended
to
cope with various theoretical and practical problems : What do all
commodities have in common that makes them basically exchangeable? What
is the " just price " of commodities , that is , how to define the equivalent
exchange? How can the economic growth of a country be measured irrespec-
tive of fluctuations of prices? How can price fluctuations be explained?
Marx 's labor theory of value differs from the version he inherited from
classical economics in at least four important points. First , Marx explicitly
stated that labor is not only the measure but also the only source of exchange
