Please read the attached file.

Introduction

Learning Objectives

Reading Assignments

Commentary

4. 2 Chapter 13 by Hunt & Lautzenheiser

Study Questions

Supplementary Materials/Suggested Reading

References C ourse G uide

U nit 4: M arx and Early M arxian A pproaches to Political Econom y

In t r o d u c t io n

K arl M arx w as one of the m ost influential thinkers to em erge in the 19th century. W hile his theories sought to

explain the w orld around him , his w riting contained an overt appeal to political action in the nam e of social

justice. M arx is often considered a classical political econom ist, but his view s often differed quite significantly.

A s you w ill see, he w as critical of his predecessors, particularly A dam Sm ith and D avid R icardo, for their

ahistorical and rom antic view s about the developm ent of capitalism and the inherent inequality im bued in

capitalist m arkets. M arx’s ideas w ould later inspire thinkers such as H obson, Luxem burg, and Lenin w ho w ould

expand on and further develop M arx’s insights regarding finance capital and im perialism . C ourse G uide

U nit 4: M arx and Early M arxian A pproaches to Political Econom y

L e a r n in g O b je c t iv e s

A fter com pleting this unit, you should be able to

1. outline K arl M arx’s labour theory of value.

2. explain w hy labour pow er w as a special com m odity according to M arx.

3. outline M arx’s theory of overproduction.

4. com pare and contrast H obson, Luxem burg, and Lenin’s understandings of im perialism .

5. define the follow ing term s:

6. abstract labour

7. constant capital

8. surplus value

9. useful labour

10. variable capital C ourse G uide

U nit 4: M arx and Early M arxian A pproaches to Political Econom y

R e a d in g A s s ig n m e n t s

From H istory of Econom ic Thought, read

1. “Chapter 9, K arl M arx”

2. “Chapter 13, Theories of Im perialism : The W ritings of H obson, Luxem burg, and Lenin” C ourse G uide

U nit 4: M arx and Early M arxian A pproaches to Political Econom y

C o m m e n t a r y

4 .1 C h a p te r 9 b y H u n t & L a u tz e n h e is e r

K arl M arx’s (1818-1883) intellectual influence extended far beyond econom ics. From social and political

thought to philosophy, history, literature, and even psychology, M arx added a significant scholarly legacy to the

social sciences. W hen considering M arx’s ideas, it is im portant to keep in m ind the influence of his life-long

friend and collaborator, Friedrich Engels. Together, they co-authored num erous articles, pam phlets, and texts,

and they often served as each other’s editor. W hile all of their ideas are independently im portant, this unit is

lim ited to an analysis of M arx’s w ritings on political econom y. N ote also that although H unt and

Lautzenheiser’s chapter focuses on an array of M arx’s insights, this com m entary focuses on those m ost relevant

to this course.

K arl M arx, best know n for his w ork,

C apital: A C ritique of Political Econom y.

U nlike Sm ith, R icardo, and M althus (and m ost political econom ists exam ined in this course), K arl M arx did not

hold an academ ic post at a university. H e lived m ost of his life in poverty and destitution, relying for financial

support on his ever-faithful com rade, Friedrich Engels. M arx earned his living (w hen possible) as a journalist and w riter. H e w rote volum inous texts, yet often had difficulty fully com pleting his w ork as he tended to m ove

from one subject to another. H e read voraciously and w idely. U pon m eeting M arx, philosopher M oses H ess w as

so im pressed w ith M arx’s encyclopaedic breadth of know ledge that he rem arked: “Im agine R ousseau, Voltaire,

H olbach, Lessing, H eine, and H egel united in one person. I say united and not juxtaposed – and you have D r.

M arx” (W heen, 1999, p. 37).

A lthough deeply influenced by the w ork of Sm ith and R icardo, M arx nevertheless criticized them (as w ell as

later w riters) for their ahistorical analysis of capitalism . In M arx’s view , their theories suffered from a m ajor

flaw — they confused m arkets w ith capitalism . W hile m arkets had certainly existed since ancient tim es, it w as

only in the 16th and 17th centuries that the m arket began to penetrate the sphere of production. In feudal tim es,

trade and m arkets w ere restricted to the arena of exchange w ithout significantly assessing the allocation and

distribution of resources. W ith the rise of capitalism , the profit m otive becam e the chief determ inant in the

realm of production (recall W ood, and H unt & Lautzenheiser, U nit 2). This m isidentification of capitalism w ith

exchange (or the m arket) led to several theoretical w eaknesses in the classical political econom ists’ argum ents.

R ather than view ing the act of exchange as an arrangem ent betw een tw o equal individuals, M arx believed the

act of exchange could not be considered w ithout first exam ining the relationships of production. This w as

w here the interests of the tw o m ajor social classes increasingly clashed— those w ho ow ned and controlled the

m eans of production (capitalists) versus those w ho had nothing to sell but their capacity to labour (w age-

dependent w orkers). A lthough Sm ith and R icardo recognized that labour w as the ultim ate source of value, they

could not fully explain the origins of capitalist profits. The classicists knew that profits originated in the realm

of production and that labour w as the chief agent of value, but they could not explain how labour created profits

for the capitalists or the m anner in w hich these profits w ere appropriated.

M arx identified tw o different w ays of view ing labour and the labour process: useful labour and abstract labour.

U seful labourproduced item s of varying use value, that is, item s that satisfied an im m ediate w ant or need.

Labour that created exchange value w as labelled abstract labour. A bstract labour, or an average type of labour,

stripped aw ay “the differences in the qualities of the various kinds of useful labour (H unt & Lautzenheiser,

2011, p. 209). A lthough the classicists understood that exchange value w as determ ined by the quantity of labour

tim e em bodied in a com m odity, M arx insisted that this w as not enough. It w as im portant for the quantity of

labour to be m easured by the socially necessary (or average) conditions of labour productivity that existed at a

particular tim e. For instance, M arx thought it odd to conclude that the value of a com m odity not take into

consideration differences in the am ount of tim e it took for an individual or com peting industries to produce a

good (consider the lazy w orker w ho spends m ore tim e producing som ething than an efficient w orker).

O ther im portant differences m ust also be taken into account in w hat M arx referred to loosely as “skilled” versus

“unskilled” (or rudim entary) w ork. For him , skilled labour had to be considered as a m ultiple of unskilled

w ork. Thus, to use labour tim e as a m easure of value, one had to consider the differences in the skill levels and

job types and then assum e an average type of labour. B ut unlike the independent entrepreneurialism of Sm ith

and R icardo, M arx argued that production w as inherently a social process, and thus w orkers w ere connected in

m any w ays. A s H unt and Lautzenheiser (2011) explain: In a com m odity-producing society, any given producer w orked in isolation from all other producers. The

producer w as, of course, socially and econom ically connected, or related, to other producers: m any of them

could not continue their ordinary daily patterns of consum ption w ithout the given producer creating a

com m odity, w hich the other producers consum ed; and the producer could not continue this pattern of

consum ption unless the innum erable other producers continuously created the com m odities that the initial

producer needed. Thus, there w as a definite, indispensible social relationship am ong producers. (p. 211)

TO P

H erein lies the genius of M arx’s labour theory of value. M arx understood that labour pow er (the capacity to

w ork) w hen perform ed, becam e em bodied in a com m odity, and thus w as a determ iner of the com m odity’s

value. H e then deduced that the only possible source of profits (i.e., surplus value) w as the difference betw een

labour pow er as a com m odity and the value of the com m odity produced, w hich em bodied the actualized labour.

H ence, the uniqueness of labour pow er as a com m odity— it is the only com m odity capable of creating value in

excess of its ow n. B ut how does one determ ine the value of labour pow er?

For M arx, labour pow er w as a com m odity that could be bought and sold like any other com m odity. The value

of labour pow er w as equal to the socially average tim e required for the replenishm ent of the w orker’s basic

necessities of life, w hich include item s such as food, clothing, shelter, and other m aterials. This w as not a

physiological or biological m inim um , but rather a social m inim um , w hich w ould vary given custom and

tradition. A ccordingly then, profits arose from the difference betw een the socially necessary tim e required to

replenish the w orker’s needs and the statute labour that w as given freely to the capitalist. For exam ple, if the

average tim e necessary to replenish a w orker’s basic necessities w as four hours a day and the length of the

w orking day w as eight hours, then the profits derived from the w orker’s four hours of surplus value. A ccording

to M arx, the rate of surplus value w as determ ined by the ratio of surplus labour (or value) to necessary labour.

This form ula helps determ ine how m any hours the w orker toiled to create the value equivalent to their ow n

subsistence needs and the am ount of tim e required to generate profits for the capitalist. Thus, M arx’s labour

theory of value is prem ised on the notion of exploitation as the surplus labour is appropriated not by the actual

producers (i.e., the w age earners), but by the capitalists.

W hen capitalists spent m oney to buy the com m odities necessary for the production process, M arx w as able to

distinguish betw een constant capital and variable capital.

C onstant capital w as defined as all tools, m achines, buildings, and raw m aterials— all nonhum an m eans of

production. It w as called constant because these com m odities transferred only their ow n value to the value of

the final product. . . .Variable capital w as defined as the labor pow er that the capitalist purchased. Its value w as

increased w hen the potential labor purchased becam e actual labor em bodied in a produced com m odity. (H unt &

Lautzenheiser, 2011, p. 220)

For M arx, only the variable capital (i.e., the labour pow er) creates value; constant capital does not. C onstant

capital m erely transfers the previously injected or em bodied value to the value of the product. C onsequently,

through the process of production, constant capital loses its value, that is, it depreciates as the em bodied value

dim inishes. For instance, old m achines w ill need new parts or replacing altogether and equipm ent requires m aintenance and so on. In sum , the principal insight gleaned from M arx is that the difference betw een labour

and labour pow er is the source of surplus value. In his view , only labour pow er m ade possible the creation of

surplus value. O ther form s of capital, such as interest-bearing capital, do not em ploy w orkers w ho create

surplus value.

The process of dispossession and enclosure as it pertains to M arx’s insights (and discussed in U nit 2) deserves

som e brief com m entary. U nlike Sm ith, M althus, and R icardo, w ho argued that capitalism developed “naturally”

or w as the culm ination of age-old practices, M arx believed that the creation of the capitalist m ode of production

cam e “dripping from head to foot, from every pore, w ith blood and dirt” (H unt & Lautzenheiser, 2011, p. 234).

For M arx, there w as very little that w as natural or eternal about a w ealthy, propertied class and a poor w orking

class. R ather, these situations had historical antecedents. M arx called this process original or prim itive

accum ulation and it entailed “conquest, enslavem ent, robbery, m urder, [and] briefly force” (M arx, cited in

H unt & Lautzenheiser, 2011, p. 233). The unceasing quest for profits, w hich M arx called law s of m otion, w as

w hat propelled the entire capitalist system forw ard.

“A s capitalism developed, M arx argued, w ealth and pow er w ould becom e concentrated in the hands of few er

and few er capitalists” (H unt & Lautzenheiser, 2011, p. 235). C om peting capitalists w ould crush or absorb the

w eaker ones and lead to m onopolies (or oligarchies). Technology w ould also increase productivity and

w henever possible, displace labour. If som e w orkers began to dem and higher w ages or to w ithhold their labour

pow er, capitalists w ould m erely attem pt to squeeze greater profits out of the other w orkers by lengthening or

increasing the intensity of the w orkday. M oreover, the com petition betw een w hat M arx referred to as the

reserve arm y of labour (that is, the unem ployed or redundant w orkers w ho lived below the level of

subsistence) w ould ensure that the capitalists had a “m ass of hum an m aterial alw ays ready for exploitation”

(H unt & Lautzenheiser, 2011, p. 239).

M arx noted that if all of above failed to generate am ple profits, then capital could use its secret w eapon— the

pow er of the state. U nlike the classicists, w ho saw the state as a neutral arbiter or paternalistic overseer of the

“com m on good,” M arx recognized that the state w as not neutral. R ather, as the capitalists’ w ealth and pow er

grew , they w ould use their econom ic pow er and political clout to affect adm inistrative and legal changes

(consider the earlier industrialists w ho organized to repeal the C orn Law s). For M arx, the state increasingly

cam e to defend the interests of the ruling class over those of the w orking class. Law s w ere enacted to lim it the

right of labour to unionize; free trade polices w ere legislated; industry received tax breaks and subsidies; and

w orkplace health and safety standards as w ell as m inim um w age law s and w orker age requirem ents w ere often

resisted or repealed in tim es of “crisis.” Society w ould com e to be divided into a great m ass of poor, w age-

dependent w orkers and a sm aller, but m uch w ealthier capitalist class.

A lthough capitalists em ployed a variety of labour-saving or profit-m axim izing strategies, the logic behind

capital nevertheless led to periodic crises. R ather than view ing the m arket and its forces of supply and dem and

as ensuring general stability, M arx noted that the structurally antagonistic class relationships that w ere rooted in

the sphere of production w ould lead to interm ittent recessions and/or depressions. U nlike other classical

political econom ists (even they entertained the idea of a “general glut”), M arx believed these periods of crisis

w ere not accidental or atypical, but rather a consequence of the logic behind capital. In other w ords, econom ic

instability, w age repression, and unequal pow er relationships w ere structural and endem ic to capitalism . These things w ere largely the result of tw o processes: 1) the tendency for the rate of profit to fall, and 2)

overproduction. (W e focus only briefly on the first process as it rem ains a com plex and ongoing point of

contention am ong M arxist and non-M arxist theorists.) In brief, M arx’s theory of the “tendency for the rate of

profit to fall” posits that as capitalists continually endeavour to increase their rate of surplus value extraction,

they eventually reach a point w here constant capital outpaces variable capital and encounter a tendency for the

rate of profit to fall. This did not prevent total profits from increasing how ever (even as the rate of profit fell); it

w as m erely a tendency that w as m ore or less influenced by countervailing factors such as the production of

m ore specialized goods, im proved technology, and increased com petition am ong firm s producing sim ilar

products.

W hen considering M arx’s theory of overproduction, tw o theoretical points m ust be kept in m ind: 1) the basic

m otive of capitalist production is the creation of surplus value, and 2) w orkers’ w ages tend tow ard the socially

defined level of subsistence. Thus, the low er the w ages, the higher the rate of surplus value creation and

accum ulation. O f course, in order for capitalists to realize this surplus, the goods produced by the w orkers had

to be sold. If the capitalists could not sell their products, then the process of accum ulation com es to a halt. A s a

result, w hile new com m odities w ere being produced and put on the m arket, the w orkers’ w ages w ere being

restricted, w hich lim ited consum er dem and. H ence the conundrum — the m ore surplus value that is extracted

from the w orkers, the less ability they have to consum e that w hich is being produced.

For M arx, the originating cause of econom ic instability and recession stem m ed from the structural im balance

betw een w ages and profits. H is theory posited that there com es a point w hen the production of capital goods

w ould out-run the increased dem and, because the total m ass of goods cannot grow indefinitely w ithout a

subsequent increase in consum er dem and. Even w hen the production of goods decreased, w orkers w ere fired,

total w ages declined, and consum er dem and fell. The result w ould be a general recession as a declining spiral

caused accum ulation to grind to a stop.

M arx believed that w orkers w ould eventually resist any further intensified exploitation of them selves. For him ,

capitalism w as an inherently dehum anizing and unjust system that im poverished the m ajority of the people so

as to benefit a sm all m inority. B ut this im poverishm ent of the w orking class, or w hat M arx called the “law of

the increasing m isery,” m ust be considered in both its absolute and its relative form s. B y absolute, M arx m eant

the point at w hich the degree of polarization betw een the richest and poorest of the earth’s inhabitants grew ever

greater; w hereas by relative, he m eant the degree of variation and context in the hierarchy of this exploitation.

In absolute term s, the gap betw een the richest and poorest nations, despite advancem ents in technology, w ealth

creation, and so forth can, in m any w ays, be considered unprecedented in hum an history. H ow ever, the relative

w ealth— the gap betw een the top 20 and bottom 20 percent— varies significantly both dom estically (or

regionally) and am ong nations.

M arx sought to provide an analysis that revealed the inner w orkings of capitalism . Eventually, so he hoped, this

anarchic system of production w ould be replaced by a socialist system in w hich the fruits of labour (i.e., the

profits) w ould be distributed equally am ong the producers. For M arx, it w as about m ore than sim ply the

redistribution of w ealth; it w as about the com m on ow nership of the m eans of production. H is system w as based

upon planning, cooperation, and hum an developm ent, and the collective and social gains w ould replace individual gains. A lthough m ore than a century has past since the tim e of M arx’s w ritings, and m ore than tw o

centuries have passed since capitalism cam e to be the dom inant m ode of production, M arx’s theoretical insights

continue to offer fertile ground on w hich to begin thinking about the w ay society w orks.

TO P C ourse G uide

U nit 4: M arx and Early M arxian A pproaches to Political Econom y

4 .2 C h a p te r 1 3 b y H u n t & L a u tz e n h e is e r

A s the above analysis of M arx has show n, capitalism is at the heart of a system that is prem ised on continual

expansion and grow th. In this sense, it is at the root of internationalizing; its law s of m otion are constantly at

w ork seeking to overcom e barriers to w ealth accum ulation. From the tim e of the C hristian C rusades to the

forceful colonizing of A frica, the A m ericas, A sia, and the M iddle East, capitalism w ould not have been able to

flourish w ere it not for m an’s plunder, theft, subjugation, and exploitation of the earth’s natural resources,

people, and societies. From the m iddle to the late 19th century, European im perialist expeditions dispossessed

and forcefully reoriented entire civilizations in their efforts to achieve their profit-m aking goals. Later,

A m erican im perialism w ould have the U nited States continually seeking its ow n sphere of influence around the

globe. W ar, invasion, and the m ilitary suppression of indigenous peoples w ould decim ate entire populations. B y

the late 1800s, m ore than 25 percent of the w orld’s population w as under the control of the capitalist

governm ents of Europe and N orth A m erica.

Inter-im perialist rivalries at the beginning of W W I. A dapted from A ndrew 0921, W ikipedia. C lick on

the im age to open the m ap in a larger w indow ..

This history of prim itive accum ulation underm ined num erous nonm arket, noncapitalist societies in order to

expand the com m ercial exploitation and appropriation of valuable resources. M any traditional institutions and

w ays of life w ere destroyed and econom ic dependence on the m arket secured so that the im perialist nations

could have cheap and disposable sources of labour, slavery, and natural resources. Increasingly, financial, industrial, and com m ercial pow er w as being concentrated in the hands of giant corporations. The once self-

sufficient, subsistence w orkers w ere gradually dispossessed of their lands and resources and left w ith nothing

but their labour pow er to sell. A s H unt and Lautzenheiser (2011), note:

N eoclassical econom ists never addressed any of their theoretical inquiries to the issue of im perialism . . . . They

sim ply ignored it as im proper subject m atter for econom ists, and then, once such conquest w as accom plished,

they ignored the relative bargaining pow er of the exchangers (as they did in virtually all their analyses of

exchange) and extolled the universal beneficence and harm ony that resulted from the exchange. (pp. 349-350)

John A tkinson

H obson. B ritish

Library of Political

& Econom ic

Science.

John A . H obson’s (1858-1940) book, Im perialism : A Study, played an im portant role in bringing this

underground history to the surface. For H obson, im perialism w asn’t a m onolithic policy bloc, but rather a

phenom enon that encom passed nationalism , patriotism , religion, and m ilitarism and w as fundam entally

connected to the capitalists’ insatiable appetite for greater profits. O fficial state propaganda and scholarly

textbooks often expounded the virtues of these “civilizing m issions.” H obson argued that beneath the veneer of

such m issionary w ork w as a m ore insidious goal— that of the politicians’ and businessm en’s quest to

accum ulate capital and to invest the profits derived from this capital into other new and equally profitable

sources for capital.

H obson argued that as capitalism developed, the large banks and financial institutions cam e to dom inate foreign

investm ent. G iven their enorm ous potential for generating even greater profits and acquiring m ore econom ic

and political pow er, H obson claim ed that the bankers and financiers w ere directing these im perialist expeditions

solely for their ow n gain. N ot only did they benefit, so too did industries that w ere engaged in export trade and

m anufacturing w eapons. For H obson, im perialism did not benefit the nation as a w hole. R ather those w ho

gained w ere the w ealthy, and they did so at the expense of the w orkers and the poor (not to m ention the

residents of the colonized countries). H obson argued that in order for a deeper form of dem ocracy to take root,

w ealth and incom e w ould have to be redistributed. Like M arx, he advocated for enhanced trade unions, labour

rights, and a society based on socialistic principles.

TO P R osa L uxem burg’s (1870-1919) The Accum ulation of C apital rem ains an im portant text for both advocates

and detractors of capitalism . In it, she describes how a necessary requirem ent of capitalism is to constantly

expand and grow . In order to so, she w rites, capitalists “m ust capture new , noncapitalist m arkets in order to . . .

realize their profits” (H unt & Lautzenheiser, 2011, p. 356). A s dom estic and national sources of internal

expansion w ere saturated or exhausted, foreign im perialist expeditions becam e crucial to the grow th of

capitalism .

R osa Luxem burg, author of The A ccum ulation of C apital

and co-founder of the C om m unist Party of G erm any

(K PD ). W ikim edia C om m ons.

W hereas capitalists could spend their profits on either investm ent or consum ption, w orkers did not have such a

choice— virtually all of their incom es w ere spent on subsistence goods. Since the capitalists’ productive

capacity outpaced the w orkers’ (and even their ow n) ability to consum e new goods, Luxem burg argued that an

eventual im balance w ould occur as profitable investm ent opportunities dried up. For capitalists, im perialism

w as the solution to this problem . She w rites,

These new investm ent outlets w ould reduce the glut of capital at hom e and stim ulate a dem and for the

im perialist country’s exports— that is, for the m aterials for building harbors, roads, railroads, and all the

necessary physical m eans for exploiting the conquered territory. (H unt & Lautzenheiser, 2011, p. 358)

For Luxem burg, im perialism and prim itive accum ulation w ere m utually reinforcing processes: capitalism had

to constantly extend its borders, and m ilitarism w as an integral tool to m aking such expansion possible.

H ow ever, the socioeconom ic and political structure of capitalism w as unsustainable in the long run. Eventually,

society itself w ould have to take precedence over accum ulation; it w ould need to m ove tow ard socialistic

principles based upon developing the productive forces of society in an equitable and socially just m anner. V ladim ir Iiyich Lenin. G erm an

Federal A rchives, W ikim edia

C om m ons.

V ladim ir Ilyich L enin (1870-1924) w as an intellectual and a prolific w riter. A s one of the leaders of the

B olshevik party, his ideas quickly gained prom inence throughout R ussia’s largely agricultural-based econom y.

In 1917, the R ussian R evolution w itnessed Lenin’s installation as H ead of State of the Soviet U nion. W hat Is To

Be D one? and Im perialism , the H ighest Stage of C apitalism are tw o of his m ost popular w orks. Throughout the

late 19th and early 20th centuries, Lenin, like M arx and his contem poraries H obson and Luxem burg, w as

observing the gradual, but steady concentration and centralization of capital.

In Lenin’s view , the grow ing pow er of the capitalist class w as best represented by the accum ulation of riches of

the people in the banking and financial sectors. H e argued that these sectors w ould eventually oversee the

interests of the ruling class as a w hole. A distinguishing feature of w hat Lenin called the im perialist stage of

capitalist developm ent w as that finance capital w ould increasingly dom inate industrial capital.

The control exercised by the banks constituted a financial oligarchy because the banks created a com plex,

interw oven netw ork of controls over industrial and com m ercial corporations through the ow nership of stocks,

and, m ore im portant, through the creation of interlocking boards of directors betw een the banks and the other

corporations, as w ell as am ong the other various non-banking corporations. (H unt & Lautzenheiser, 2011, p.

364)

The interests of the industrial and com m ercial capitalists w ere being subsum ed by the pow er of the financial

interests. B ut as these oligopolistic associations, cartels, syndicates, and trusts grew into m ultinational firm s, they sought

to carve out their ow n “spheres of influence” in their quest to dom inate w orld trade. C entral to the im perialist

practices of finance capital w as the coercive pow er afforded to it by the state. Lenin argued that the personal

relationships that existed betw een banks and industry w ere often assisted by their ‘insider connections’ w ith

governm ent. The m ultinational banks and firm s w ho w ere supported by their ow n im perialist state continued to

look for m ore sources for profitable investm ent. Lenin anticipated that this situation w ould eventually lead to

inter-im perialist rivalries betw een nations. For Lenin, conflict and w ar w as integral to the nature of capitalist

expansion.

TO P C ourse G uide

U nit 4: M arx and Early M arxian A pproaches to Political Econom y

S t u d y Q u e s t io n s

W hen you have finished the assigned reading for this unit, test your com prehension of the m aterial by

review ing the unit’s learning objectives and preparing brief w ritten responses to the questions below . If you

have any difficulty w ith the m aterial presented, contact your tutor for assistance as soon as possible.

1. W hat w as M arx’s m ajor theoretical breakthrough concerning his labour theory of value? H ow did he extend

and develop the earlier labour theories of value developed by Sm ith and Ricardo?

2. For M arx, w hy w as production an inherently social process?

3. W hy is labour pow er such a special com m odity?

4. W hat is the significance of M arx’s “reserve arm y of labour”? H ow did this factor influence capitalist

production?

5. O utline M arx’s theory of overproduction. D oes this theory still m atter today?

6. W hy did H obson believe that there w as m ore to the W est’s “civilizing m ission” than som e had thought?

7. For Luxem burg, w hat problem did im perialism solve, and w ho did this benefit m ost?

8. For Lenin, w hy w as im perialism the highest stage of capitalist developm ent? C ourse G uide

U nit 4: M arx and Early M arxian A pproaches to Political Econom y

S u p p le m e n t a r y M a t e r ia ls /S u g g e s t e d R e a d in g

In addition to the required readings for this unit, you m ay w ant to consult the follow ing list of readings to

broaden or deepen your understanding of the concepts relevant to this unit. U se the m aterials listed here and in

the “PO EC 302 C ourse B ibliography” to research your responses to the course assignm ent questions. C onsult

the A thabasca U niversity Library’s online catalogue and indexes for these and other pertinent books and

articles.

B uchholz, T. G . (2007). “C hapter V I.” N ew Ideas from D ead Econom ists: An Introduction to M odern Econom ic

Thought. 2nd rev. ed. N ew York: PLU M E.

H eilbroner, R obert L. (1999). “C hapter V I.” The W orldly Philosophers: The Lives, Tim es, and Ideas of the

G reat Econom ic Thinkers. R evised 7th ed. N ew York: Sim on & Schuster.

M ilios, J. (2000). “Social C lasses in C lassical and M arxist Political Econom y.” Am erican Journal of Econom ics

and Sociology, 59(2): 283-302. C ourse G uide

U nit 4: M arx and Early M arxian A pproaches to Political Econom y

R e f e r e n c e s

H unt, E. K ., & Lautzenheiser, M . (2011). H istory of Econom ic Thought: A C ritical Perspective. 3rd ed. N ew

York: M . E. Sharpe.

W heen, F. (1999). K arl M arx. London: Fourth Estate Ltd.