Written:
1887
First Published: 1887
Source:Pall Mall Gazette,
London
Transcription: Ted Crawford
Markup:Steve Palmer
Proofread:Unknown
Copyleft: Internet
Archive(marxists.org) 2009. Permission
is
granted to copy and/or distribute this document under the terms of
the Creative
Commons License.
G. Shaw, "Marx and Modern Socialism", Pall Mall Gazette, 7 May 1887.
Sir,
Will you allow me to state, in reference to a remark in your review of Karl Marx's analysis of modern capitalism -- the "Textbook of Modern Socialism" as you call it -- that modern Socialism is not based on Marx's theory of value? As the refutation of this theory is becoming a popular exercise with gentlemen in the early dawn of economic consciousness, it is but fair to warn them that they have been anticipated by the socialists themselves
I am sir your obedient servant
G. Bernard Shaw
29 Fitzroy Square W, May 6
Hyndman Reply - Pall Mall Gazette, 11 May 1887, p.11
Sir,
Mr Shaw is such an incorrigible joker that no one can know whether he is in jest or in earnest. I should be much obliged to him as ever, if he will name any Socialist of note in any country who has abandoned Marx's theories, economical and historical, as the main groundwork of modern Socialism. I speak, of course, of his theories not of his conclusions. It amuses me I confess to recall the fact that Mr Shaw was the man who with a self -confidence scarcely I fear, begotten of knowledge, rushed in to defend Marx against the criticism of Mr Wicksteed in To-Day, to which you refer in your article. It is true also that, as you state, his answer is no reply.
I am sir your obedient servant
May 9
H.M. Hyndman
Shaw Rejoinder - Pall Mall Gazette, 12 May 1887, p.11.
Sir,
When I, as an English Socialist, ventured to make a public statement concerning Socialism, I expected that Mr Hyndman would contradict me. I knew (the point being an economic one) that he would misunderstand me, and I feared that he would vilify me. He has done all three; but the edification has been so indulgently insinuated that I attribute it, not to ill feeling, but partly to inveterate habit, and partly to a sincere conviction that, though I may be capable of trifling with your journal and with the public, I must at least stop short of the absurdity of being perfectly serious when I differ with him. Of "Marx's theories, economical and historical," I said nothing: of Marx's theory of value specifically I repeat that there are numbers of educated Socialists here and in Germany who have never adopted it. Socialism does not stand or fall with either Mr Wicksteed's theory or Marx's, and those who pin their faith on the latter neither admit Mr Hyndman's authority on the subject nor pretend that the proof is complete while the third volume of "Das Kapital" remains unpublished.
As to the statement that I rushed in to defend Marx against the criticism of Mr Wicksteed in To-Day," that is only Mr Hyndman's way of recording the fact that, after vainly holding back for him to take the field, I consented, at the earnest request of the proprietors of the magazine, to write an answer to Mr Wicksteed from the Ricardian or Cairnesian point of view, stipulating the Mr Wicksteed -- who had the important advantage of being in the right -- should have the last word in a rejoinder. That rejoinder remains for Mr Hyndman to answer if he can. His original contributions to the economics of Socialism have hitherto consisted of onslaughts at friend and foe alike: and I and my colleagues are having an uphill fight against the impression made by him on the public as to the economic sanity of Socialists in general.
I am sir your obedient servant
G. Bernard Shaw
29 Fitzroy Square W, May 11
Hyndman - Rejoinder,
in Pall Mall Gazette, May 16th, p.2
Sir,
Mr Shaw, though he has written an angry letter, has not answered my question -- What Socialists of note in this country or abroad have given up Marx's theory of value or surplus value? When he does answer perhaps he will kindly tell me also where I can find the reasons for their surrender set out. Mr Shaw is quite mistaken in supposing that I am either disinclined to deal with what he entitled "The Jevonian Criticism of Marx," or that I held back from doing so when Mr Wicksteed wrote.
I am sir your obedient servant
May 12
H.M. Hyndman
Mrs Besant - Marx's Theory of Value, Pall Mall Gazette, May 24th, p.2
Sir,
In the controversy that has arisen in your columns between Mr, G. Bernard Shaw and Mr. H.M. Hyndman, the original point or dispute has disappeared. Mr. Shaw originally stated that " modern Socialism is not based on Marx's theory of value." Mr. Hyndman, after a personal reference not in the best possible taste, asked who had "abandoned Marxist theories, economical and political" -- a totally different issue, cleverly substituted for the original one. Will you permit me to give one only of the many reasons why some Socialists do not found on Marx's theory of value? Marx speaks of "value," "exchange value," and "use value" in the opening pages of the "Capital." He defines "value" as a "common substance" present in products of human labour, human labour being regarded "in the abstract." This "common substance" is the "same unsubstantial reality in each" product, "a mere congelation of homogeneous human labour."> It is obvious to any one familiar with the controversies of the Middle Ages, that Marx has entered the region of pure metaphysics, and metaphysics, moreover, of a discredited kind. His "common substance" is one of the old realities, analogous to the tabularity which is present in all tables. Marx, however, is clumsy in his use of his mediaeval weapon; to speak of a "substance" as an "unsubstantial reality" would have horrified the acute metaphysicians whose phrases he borrowed. We are then told that "a use value or useful article" has " value only because human labour in the abstract has been embodied or materialized in it" (p.5); so that use value is value as before defined plus utility of the product. Having grasped this conception, the student of Marx is startled to learn, two pages later, that "a thing can be a use value. without having value," as air, &c. (but why call this Use value, when value is absent?) and that "lastly, nothing can have value without being an object of utility," because "if the thing is useless so is the labour contained in it; the labour does not count as labour, and therefore creates no value." Now as we have already been told that the "labour" which "creates" " value" is "labour in the abstract," its utility or non-utility cannot possibly come into consideration; we are bidden to "put out of sight ... the useful character of the various kinds of labour" (p.5) in defining value. Although I have no pretence to be a "Socialist of note," I make bold to say that this quagmire of contradictions and bad metaphysics is no safe foundation for modern Socialism. In a discussion at the Fabian Society, opened by Mr. Hyndman, I challenged him on the contradictions set out above, and as his only explanation was that Marx has used the word value "loosely," I am entitled to suppose that no answer is possible.
May 20
Annie Besant