================= HES POSTING ======================= 
 
[In response to Aladar Madarasz -- RBE] 
 
Well, not only or necessarily the labour theory of value either.  Maybe 
the "surplus approach" would better describe it, but it is actually a 
combination of a number of characteristics. If we had to pinpoint one 
general characteristic distinguishing classical from vulgar Political 
Economy for Marx, however, it seems to be that the vulgar economists 
examine appearances--surface phenomena--while the classical school tries 
to dig beneath the surface, get past the appearance, and get at underlying 
"real relations" or the "hidden connections."  He therefore considered 
the classical authors "scientific" and the vulgar economists "apologetic." 
 
Two cites from Marx along these lines: 
 
"Once for all I may here state, that by classical Political Economy, I 
understand that economy which, since the time of W. Petty, has 
investigated the real relations of production in bourgeois society, in 
contradistinction to vulgar economy, which deals with appearances only, 
ruminates without ceasing on the materials long since provided by 
scientific economy, and there seeks plausible explanations of the most 
obtrusive phenomena, for bourgeois daily use, but for the rest, confines 
itself to systematising in a pedantic way, and proclaiming for 
everlasting truths, the trite ideas held by the self-complacent 
bourgeoisie with regard to their own world, to them the best of all 
possible worlds." (Capital, Volume 1, Part 1, Chapter 1, Section 4, 7th 
footnote of that section). 
 
"In fact, the vulgar economists--by no means to be confused with the 
economic investigators we have been criticising--translate the concepts, 
motives, etc., of the representatives of the capitalist mode of 
production who are held in thrall to this system of production and in 
whose consciousness only its superficial appearance is reflected.  They 
translate them into a doctrinaire language, by they do so from the 
standpoint of the ruling section, i.e., the capitalists, and their 
treatment is therefore not naive and objective, but apologetic.  The 
narrow and pedantic expression of vulgar conceptions which are bound to 
arise among those who are the representatives of this mode of production 
is very different from the urge of political economists like the 
Physiocrats, Adam Smith and Ricardo to grasp the inner connection of the 
phenomena." (Theories of Surplus Value, Part III, Addenda). 
 
Mat Forstater 
 
============ FOOTER TO HES POSTING ============ 
For information, send the message "info HES" to [log in to unmask]