The Washington socialist. [volume] (Everett, Wash.) 1914-1915, 1915-06-10
A REPLY TO KAUFMAN
Nv w. C. RAVE.


cialist Herald" | note an article In
which w. II. Kaufman attempts to
translate the term capital" 30 that
the "anti.monopolist" VIII understand
our scientific terminology and the
more readily embrace socialism.
Laying aside for the moment the
doubtful utility OF having every anti
monopolist with us" merely because
he has grievance against special
privilege" 1t should be pointed out
that the term "capitap as used by
Marx is not at all synonymous with
what the IMAM on the street" under
stands by private monopoly
The quotation that apparently
strikes Kaufman as particularly illumi.
mating is the one he gives, taken from
page 94s Vol. 5 of Capital"
Means of production by them
selves are no more capital than gold
and silver are money in themselves.
Capital signifies the means OF produc-
ton MoNoPoLIzED by certain
part of society," 3@ eG8AEHtl4
Then he proceeds to cut the term
"monopolized' from Its context and
places upon it, with reference to CAPT
tai. a construction quite naive II not
original by private monopoly the
man on the street means precisely what
Marx means by capital -" he
tells us further on.
Mr. Kaufman should read ''his
Marx again The venerable econo-
mist. as quoted above, says, Capital
signifies the means of production
monopolized by CERTAIN PART of
society,"" He says nothing about 'pri-
waite monopoly" which is vastly diff
ferent. Capital in the MARKHAM
sense certainly refers to the means
of exploitation and subsection of the
laborer," to which Kaufman accedes.
1t is monopoly, however, only in the
sense that capital (means of produc-
tom has become so complex and ex-
pensive that the workers could no
longer possess it. In other words the
means of production had really become
capital" They had passed into the
hands of the capitalist class, "a GER
tain part of society"
Capital is not, according to Marx,
a private monopoly in the sense that
it enables the capitalist to charge
monopoly prices which is certainly
what the man in the street" under
stands by monopoly" To infer that
Marx had in mind private monopoly,
i. e., the absence of competition is
to disregard entirely the fundamental
assumption upon which his economic
theories rest.
Kaufman complacently ignores a
criticism often brought against Marx
today, that his theories are no longer
tenable because they are based upon
competitive industry and that that
form of industry has passed or is pass
| ing. 1t must be remembered that
Marx based his theories on study OF
industry in England at time when
unrestricted competition prevailed
over quarter of a century before the
inception of private monopoly" His
theory of value, is in substance, that
commodities will exchange in proper
tion to the amount of social labor
consumed in their production under
average social conditions Broadly
! speaking, this means that they will
exchange at their cost of production
The fundamental assumption, to which
| referred moment ago, upon which
his theories rest, is that unrestrained
competition prevailed among individ
ual capitalists. 1t is this unrestrained
competition among workers today that
forces the value of labor power down
to it's cost of production" This is
the important point that Kaufman
overlooks.
AS soon as the element of monopoly
enters into production exchange value
tends to rise above the cost of pro
duction and is then more apt to be de
termined by what the consumer will
pay; or, as the phrase runs, the monop
olist will then be enabled "to charge
all that the traffic will bear"
If the MARKHAM theory of value will
no longer hold water all reasonable
men will want to know it, but to read
into it meaning utterly at variance
with facts snacks too much of at
tempting to make our propaganda
"presentable" at the expense of truth