120
PARTISAN REVIEW
I am no scho lar of the Ma rxi an corpu s and canno t eva lua te the
extent to whi ch Harrington represents correctl y Ma rx 's views. I will
simpl y say tha t I found the who le secti on of grea t interest, full of side
comments whi ch do not lend themse lves to easy summary. Let me
concentrate ra ther on the chapter on Ma rx 's economi cs (entitl ed "The
Anti-Economist").
There is an excell ent summa ry of Marx 's vi ew of capita li sm (pp.
95-99).
First of all , goods are commoditi es, i.e., produced for sale and
no t for use. But especiall y impo rtant is tha t labor power is sold by the
worker to the capitali st.
It
fo ll ows tha t producti on within the firm ,
controll ed by a single profit-maximi zing capitali st, is hi ghl y ra ti onal;
but the sys tem as a who le has n o pl an and is anarchi c and in effi cient.
In particul ar, producti on is diverted to anti- social ends (e.g., luxury
industri es) not becau se o f mali ce but becau se thi s directi on corresponds
to
maximization of profit, and th e entrepreneur wh o would do other–
wi se would be driven out of exi stence. The profit of the capitalist
derives from withholdin g some pa rt of the produ ct of labor. The value
of a product is measured , according to Marx , by the amount of labor
embodi ed in its producti on (includin g the amount of labo r embodi ed
in the raw ma teri als and capital used up in th e process); but the laborer
is paid onl y a lesser amount for hi s labor power.
.
However, thi s withholding o f surplus va lue by the capitali st is
con cealed by the na ture of the sys tem, since the worker enters into a
vo luntary contract. In feudali sm, on the contra ry, the worker's provi–
sion of labor to the lord is expli cit and open . Hence, the capitalist
system, it is asserted, mys tifi es the rela ti ons of expl o ita ti on , a po int·
excell entl y di scussed in Ch apter 5.
The present main stream of economi c tho ught , the so-call ed
neoclass ical school, has a criti cism of thi s vi ewpo int.
It
is the factor of
competiti on.
If
hiring la bor yields a surplus va lue, why do capitalists
not compete among themselves for labor? A g iven capita list will wish
to raise wages sli ghtl y, drawin g labo r away from o thers and thereby
receivin g surplus value from mo re workers. Thi s process will continue
until there is no more surplus va lue, or a t least until the ra te of profit
fall s to the po int where capitali sts no longer wi sh to accumul a te more
capital or even ho ld o n
to
the capital they have. (The so-call ed
"transforma tion probl em" exemplifi es thi s issue but is not necessary to
its sta tement. ) T o be sure, Ma rx and Harring ton are not un aware of
this po int. They argue tha t, as the profit ra te fall s, there will be a crisis,
and resulting unempl oyment , whi ch will reli eve the pressure on wages;
also, hi gh wages will induce innova ti ons and substituti on o f capital
