================= 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]