Karl Marx and the Close of His System: A Criticism. by Eugen v. Bohm-Bawerk; Alice M.

Macdonald; James Bonar Review by: John B. Clark Political Science Quarterly, Vol. 13, No. 4 (Dec., 1898), pp. 720-723 Published by: The Academy of Political Science Stable URL: http://www.jstor.org/stable/2139988 . Accessed: 12/01/2013 16:48
Your use of the JSTOR archive indicates your acceptance of the Terms & Conditions of Use, available at . http://www.jstor.org/page/info/about/policies/terms.jsp

.
JSTOR is a not-for-profit service that helps scholars, researchers, and students discover, use, and build upon a wide range of content in a trusted digital archive. We use information technology and tools to increase productivity and facilitate new forms of scholarship. For more information about JSTOR, please contact support@jstor.org.

The Academy of Political Science is collaborating with JSTOR to digitize, preserve and extend access to Political Science Quarterly.

http://www.jstor.org

This content downloaded on Sat, 12 Jan 2013 16:48:03 PM All use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions

720

POLITICAL

SCIEN-CE

QUARTERLY.

[VOL. XIII.

Karl Marx and the Close of His System: A Criticism. By Austrian Ministerof Finance, and EUGEN v. BOHM-BAWERK, of HonoraryProfessor of Political Economyin the University Vienna. Translatedby Alice M. Macdonald,witha prefaceby Co., I898. JamesBonar, M.A., LL.D. New York,The Macmillan
-221 pp.

It wouldbe difficult thiswork toohighly. It is a model to estimate of acute thought showing thatthechief and lucid statement. After thesisin thefirst partof Karl Marx's Capital is surrendered- and, study indeed,refuted -in the thirdpart,it makes an independent of certaintest passages in the earliervolumeand exposes their apology of Dr. Werner Sombart's weaknesses. It ends by a criticism for Marx's economicsystem, and shows the difficulty of takinga middleposition in reference to theessentialpartsof Marx'steaching. of Marx is the claim that exchange Centralin the theory value identifies itself withlabor. This meansthatgoodstendto exchange in ratiosthatare fixed of laborthatare foreach other bytheamounts of them. This is not a mere " socially for theproduction necessary" formula of thought, underwhicha man,if he will,may conceiveof the thethingtermedvalue without regardto thequestionwhether inthemarket willaccordwith theconception actualratesthatprevail of theessenceof Marx'stheory. or not. Realityis, on the contrary, It claims that commerce respectsthe labor law of value,and that in themain,the the prices of goods in the shops actually express, amountsof labor that are "congealed" in the severalarticles. A in a subtleand sciis worth thelaborit has cost,not merely thing entific sense,but in fact: it will buyanotherarticlethat embodies of labor. the same amount Marx has, indeed, noted in his first volume that the varying of differamounts of capitalthatcooperate withlaborin the making ent goods have an influence on values. Thus, if one unitof labor is combined withten unitsof capitalin the makingof the article A, whileone unit of labor is used in connection withonlyone unitof willnot of the articleB, thenthesetwothings capitalin the making tends to give exchangeforeach otherin the shops. Competition and employments; equal returns per unitto capital,in its different thatA withwages also tending thisfactrequires towarduniformity, the same amount shouldsell formorethanB. Yet, as theyembody in thetheory. Marx of labor,thereseems here to be inconsistency and notreal; and claimedthatthiscontradiction was onlyapparent, by the third partof his work. he promised to removethe difficulty

This content downloaded on Sat, 12 Jan 2013 16:48:03 PM All use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions

No. 4.]

REVIE WS.

721

to fulfil of disciples;but theattempt keptalive thefaith The promise in thevolumerecently it has been disastrous. It is nowadmitted, on thepartof the goods A and thatthereis no tendency published, calls for of price. The ruleof themarket B to cometo an equality of value is different prices for these goods; and the labor theory worldconof themercantile not the one to whichthe transactions definition leftof theoriginal thereis anything form. If, afterthis, of value,which a conception is merely of value,what it formulates at everypoint,that to remember, we can use onlyif we are careful powerof goods. withthe actual purchasing it does notcorrespond is a part of capital. One in wages what is paid In Marx'sformula outfit of tools, of a large the agency existence by articlecomesinto a small for payment and entails relatively etc., materials, buildings, and auxiliary sort, of the less capital calls for labor; while another all capital, formoreof thedirect wagescapital. If, in cases likethis, a uniform the at rate, pricesof is rewarded constantand variable, labor all to the thatthe correspond do not at the different goods of the prices on other hand, the the them entails. If, of production the are capitals embody, that they conform the labor to goods there is no escape. Value rewarded. Fromthisdilemma unequally rate of gain forcapital are accordingto labor only and a uniform conditions. irreconcilable v. B6hm-Bawerk as Professor shows,is a Marx's reconciliation, for uniform rate The of capital,says Marx,is what gain surrender. and values that accordwithmerelabor to tends give; competition tend to It does,however, not it does give are what give. expended a total of values that agreeswiththe sumtotalof laborexpended. each has cost a unitof It does not makeA exchangeforB, though that labor; but it makes thevalue of the two-on the assumption of sale -to be two units offered for are all the that are these goods v. Bohm-Bawerk's can exceed in clearnessProfessor labor. Nothing removalof the of this long-promised exposureof the real effect taken "All says Marx, together," unremovable articles, difficulty. values; and as some of them in effect, "sell for the sum of their values,otherssell forless, and the sell formorethantheir regularly variationscancel each other." What is this cancellationbut an and a dealingsolelywithaggregates? of comparisons abandonment to be accountedfor. We wereto were is that And it comparisons law told gold sells for more be why, by "an overruling of nature," Realism is taken cobblestones. for more than and iron thaniron, of the author's recently published by of theory value Marxian out the

This content downloaded on Sat, 12 Jan 2013 16:48:03 PM All use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions

722

POLITICAL

SCIENCE

QUARTERLY

[VOL. XIII.

leftof it but a conceptthatconfessedly volume. Thereis nothing is notlike thefact. kind that thinkof a value of an imaginary One may,however, to invent then, shall consistsolely in labor. It will be necessary, foractualvalue in exchange. If thisbe done,it willbe term another betweenthe actual purchasing possible to estimatethe difference is called powerof an articleand what,in our special nomenclature, for aims to save apology Marx'stheory Sombart's itsvalue. Werner fromthe wreck. The labor that has gone into the this fragment and thequantity says Sombart, maybe measured, of a thing making in sense, of as constituting, somephilosophical of it maybe thought thevalue of the article. One would,of course,alwayshave to be thatmarkets respectthisstandard; on his guard againstimagining standard for use the imaginary but,if he were to do this,he might a theoretical purpose. Marx's changing v. B6hm-Bawerk showsthatthisinvolves Professor his statements. Sombartis actual meaning. It is re-interpreting of value whichis that is unlike the theory defendingsomething I ventureto say, in volume. undoubtedly presented Marx's first of Marx's work were so changed as thatiftheearlier part however, work wouldaccomwhole the to Sombart's interpretation, to conform a dialectical it is principally purpose. At bottom plishone important of a rather than presentation and statingthings, way of conceiving interest. a against true. It is ponderous argument whatis objectively to dissociatethe by long and involvedthought, It is an attempt, thecapital,and to attach it to labor. An productof capitalfrom value, which the marketdoes not respect,may fitthe imaginary needs of such an argument. A coat thatwouldnothave come into as well as effort, ifit had notbeenfortoolsand materials, existence, labor only. If of as created by empty-handed maystillbe thought or tools we without make the materials, garment we ordera man to labor of the relation of of our theunreality conception shall perceive to products. The coat willnotbe made. Whenwe speak of things as simplythe productsof labor,we mustknowthat we are subliin the something but thetheory mayaccomplish mating thetheory, of bit salvage-the conceptof a state. Dr. Sombart's sublimated in -harmonizes withthe kind of valuethat can exist imagination and that also sole creator of wealth, of thelaborthatis the concept for not real formula A but exists onlyin imagination. dialectical of the real a but not origin theory values fits dialectical measuring of wealth.

This content downloaded on Sat, 12 Jan 2013 16:48:03 PM All use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions

No. 4.]

REVIEWS.

723

Here is the bottomof the whole matter; and a point of great independent v. Bohm-Bawerk's withProfessor in connection interest is whether of theseveraltestpointsin the Marxiansystem criticism from whichall othersspring. He has he has exposed the fallacy much refutes partof Marx'streatise provedthatthethird completely of the argument exposedthefaultiness of the first. He has further by which Marx soughtto provethatlaboris the "commonfactor" in exchangeablegoods. He has exposed the fallacyinvolvedin labor" condensed." Has Marx's proof thatskilledlaboris common of all is the denial of the produche shownthat the parentfallacy of capital? tivity The answer to this questionwould require that we ascertain brillianttheoryof interest whetherProfessorv. Bohm-Bawerk's of capital. Formally, it controthe productivity denies or affirms to it handicapsa critic theories;and adherence vertsall productivity errorof the Marxian in a simpleform, the fundamental in stating, does not makeit imposv. Bohm-Bawerk's theory system. Professor under a most againstthaterror;but it putsthecritic sible to contend to thinkof interest as seriousdisadvantage. It makesit necessary withfuture goods,and not on present a premium goods,as compared withtheproductof labor. of capitaland as cobrdinate as a product an elusiveconthe argument to carry through It makesit necessary in of periodsof time. It makes it necessary, ceptionof the effect ofwealth, to say Marx'sclaimthatlaboris theonly producer refuting view, seems to mean the same thing,and what,to the superficial meanstheopposite ofMarx's. really thento provethatthisstatement v. Bohm-Bawerk's theopinion thatProfessor remorserecord I must cannotfully falof Marx's theory exposetheoriginal less dissection so far as it is, to be sure,incomparable lacy in it. The criticism morethanmanyvolumesof ordinary convastly goes, and is worth thatcapitalearnsits pay,Probut in claiming troversial literature; to do so byan argument thatbegins is forced v. Bohm-Bauerk fessor sense of terms, " In theordinary capitaldoes not by sayingin effect, a unitof capitaladded produce." A businessmanwouldsay: " With I can producemoregoods every day. The added to myequipment, of product. It earns its pay. The capital creates the increment on the capitalis theday's productof it." Common day's interest makesshortworkof Marx'sfundamental fallacy. thought
JOHN B. CLARK.

This content downloaded on Sat, 12 Jan 2013 16:48:03 PM All use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions