Marx’s rent theory revisited? Landed property, nature and value

Ben Fine

DOI: https://doi.org/10.1080/03085147.2019.1663052

IF: 4.182

2019-07-03

Economy and Society

Abstract:Drawing upon recent interpretation of Marx's newly published papers, a debate published in the journal 40 years ago over Marx's theory of rent is revisited, for reassessment as such and to consider its relevance for the analysis of contemporary issues.

sociology,economics

What problem does this paper attempt to address?

Enlightenment Reason and Modernity: Marx’s Critical Reconstruction

Liu Tongfang

DOI: https://doi.org/10.1080/02529203.2016.1162002

2016-01-01

Social Sciences in China

Abstract:Reflection on and criticism of enlightenment reason is an indispensable part of the Enlightenment itself. It is an important counterbalance to the Enlightenment myth and the crisis of modernity, as well as being a major theoretical subject for political philosophy in the age of globalization. This reflection and criticism must be grasped and examined from both the external perspective of socio-historical requirements and the internal perspective of intellectual history. While giving full credit to the achievements of Enlightenment reason and modernity, we need to review their inherent conflicts, reveal the resultant social crisis, and sort out, reflect on and reference postmodernism's denunciation of Enlightenment reason and the crisis of modernity in order to provide a more far-reaching solution to these issues. Marx turned the critique of Enlightenment reason and modernity into a critical reconstruction of the logic of capital and the capitalist mode of production, seeing the resolution of these evils as lying in transcendence of capitalist private ownership. In this way, he brought the critique of Enlightenment reason to a climax and showed modern society a way to more advanced development.
Land, Abstraction, and Housing Provision

Javier Moreno Zacarés

DOI: https://doi.org/10.1080/14036096.2023.2292584

2024-01-04

Housing Theory and Society

Abstract:As Anne Haila ( Citation 1990 ) noted, when the debates around land rent of the 1970s and 80s extinguished themselves, its participants split in two directions. Some took a "nomothetic" route out of it: they formulated general principles about the spatial dimensions of capital accumulation from the vantage point of abstract speculation. For Haila, David Harvey's work was the foremost example. In The Limits to Capital (Harvey Citation 1982 ), Harvey's in-depth examination of Marx's categories of rent culminated in his famous thesis that land has a tendency to assume the behaviour of a pure financial asset under capitalism. This assertion, which provides the conceptual basis of his famous "capital-switching" approach, was the product of a deductive exercise. The extent to which this was actually true he left for others to determine: "[h]ow far capitalist social formations have advanced down such a path is a matter for historical investigation" (Harvey Citation 1982 , 371). Others took an alternative route out of the rent debate: an "idiographic" path. This second group grew suspicious of grand, abstract theorizing and opted for bringing concrete phenomena into focus instead. Haila identified Michael Ball as the prime example. In a series of pieces in the 1980s, Ball criticized the infatuation of his then-fellow Marxists with Marx's cryptic writings on rent, accusing them of losing sight of how the "structures of building provision" actually worked (Ball Citation 1983 , Citation 1986 ). Of course, Ball's interest in rent theory, as well as in historical materialism more broadly, fizzled out around the turn of the 1990s. But his focus on analysing concrete "structures of provision" remained, continuing to use this approach on a series of detailed studies of housing and urban institutions (e.g. Ball Citation 1994 , Citation 1999 ).

environmental studies,urban studies,regional & urban planning
Value, Nature, and Labor: A Defense of Marx

Matthew T. Huber

DOI: https://doi.org/10.1080/10455752.2016.1271817

2017-01-02

Capitalism Nature Socialism

Abstract:In this theoretical intervention, I argue that Karl Marx’s theory of value remains a powerful way to understand nature–society relations under capitalism. I suggest environmentalist critiques often misunderstand Marx’s value theory as a theory that “values” workers over nature. His critical theory is better understood as an explanation of how capitalist value exploits both workers and the environment. My defense of Marxian value theory is articulated through five “theses.” I provide empirical illustration based on recent research into the nitrogen fertilizer industry. (1) Value theory does not refer to all values. (2) Marx’s contention that nature does not contribute to value helps us explain its degradation under capitalism. (3) Marx’s value theory rooted in production allows for a critique of environmental economic valuation schemes (e.g. payments for ecosystem services) which are based on neoclassical value theories rooted in consumption/exchange. (4) Value is abstract social labor, but that means it also abstracts from nature. (5) Capital does value certain parts of nature and that matters. I conclude by advocating a “value theory of nature” in the spirit of Diane Elson’s powerful articulation of Marx’s “value theory of labor.”
Remarks on Marx and Changing the World

Tom Rockmore

DOI: https://doi.org/10.21146/0042-8744-2023-11-162-172

2023-01-01

Voprosy filosofii

Abstract:The article considers the personal interest of Marx and the Marxist tradition in changing the world. As a rule, and this can be explained by political reasons, Marx and Engels are credited with an identical position on this issue. The author shows that this is a simplification and offers his interpretation based on the primacy of philosophical origins for the development of Marx's ideas. In this case, Marx turns out to be a Hegelian and a critic of Aristotle, while Engels remains an anti-Hegelian. Engels follows Schelling in denying Hegel, and Marx builds his concept on the basis of Hegel's theory of the modern world, while simultaneously challenging the Aristotelian concept of economic value. Engels denies contemporary philosophy, giving priority to science and so-called scientific socialism. Marxist economics, on the other hand, arises as a reaction of Marx to Aristotelian intuitions. The author shows that Marx's philosophy and the Marxist tradition should be distinguished not only because of the various embodiments of the latter, but primarily because of their different philosophical origins. This differentiation of the ideas of Marx himself and the Marxism growing out of Engel's interpretation can be carried out based on the formulation of the question of the relationship of being and thinking in cognition proposed by Parmenides. For Engels, questions of epistemology boil down to the fact that thinking about being and being itself should coincide. Later, this materialistic approach will form the basis of reflection theory. Marx's position is more complicated and can be characterized as idealistic. It is this fundamental discrepancy that determines the difference between the attitude of Marx and the Marxist tradition to the question of the longing to change the world.
Marx, exploitation, and socioeconomic justice: Analytical and strategic possibilities

George Lafferty

DOI: https://doi.org/10.1111/ajes.12561

2024-01-10

American Journal of Economics and Sociology

Abstract:Marx's concept of exploitation, developed in Capital, retains the laissez‐faire premises of classical liberal political economy, whereby capitalist wage labor denotes a contract between formally free, legally equal, employers and workers. Marx, though, inserts the political‐economic conflict between capitalists and workers over surplus value, rendering the concept distinctively 'Marxist'. Both liberal economists and 'free marketeer' politicians had long since distanced themselves, to varying degrees, from the classical laissez‐faire construction, during the debates and campaigns leading to the UK's series of Factory Acts (1802–1853). A dialogue of socioeconomic justice had emerged, driven primarily by public outrage over employment conditions in the textiles industry. In engaging with this dialogue, Marx's critique of capitalist wage labor extends beyond the parameters of his own, political‐economic concept of exploitation, intersecting with other, moral‐economic critiques of capitalist wage labor. This paper examines these points of intersection, going on to evaluate the possibilities of analytical and strategic pluralism. It concludes by assessing the contemporary relevance of Marx's concept of exploitation: to what extent and in what ways might it retain analytical and strategic relevance, with respect to the achievement of socioeconomic justice?

economics,sociology
Reconstructing Marx's Critique of Political Economy from His London Notebooks

Kohei Saito

DOI: https://doi.org/10.14452/mr-067-07-2015-11_6

2015-12-06

Monthly Review

Abstract:Lucia Pradella, Globalization and the Critique of Political Economy: New Insights from Marx's Writings (London: Routledge, 2015), 218 pages, $160, hardback. In 2012, the second section of the new historical-critical edition of Marx and Engels's complete writings, the Marx-Engels-Gesamtausgabe (MEGA), was finally completed, and all the editions and manuscripts of Capital became available in order to trace Marx's own theoretical development and Engels's editorial works. The remaining three sections are, however, only halfway completed, and it will likely take at least another twenty years before all the work is finished.… What is more, a great number of them are Marx's journal fragments and excerpts, which have not yet been published in any language. In this sense, the distinct importance of continuing the MEGA project is the further publication of these unknown notebooks, which promise to reveal Marx's unfinished undertaking, the critique of political economy.… It is therefore no coincidence that a new trend has emerged in the last few years of scholars studying Marx's notebooks. Works like Kevin Anderson's Marx at the Margins , Heather Brown's Marx on Gender , and my own article on Liebig in Monthly Review have shown the underestimated theoretical dimensions of anti-colonialism, gender, and ecology in Marx's thought. Click here to purchase a PDF version of this article at the Monthly Review website.
Revisiting Marx’s Critique of Liberalism

Igor Shoikhedbrod

DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-030-30195-8

2019-01-01

Abstract:Revisiting Marx’s Critique of Liberalism offers a theoretical reconstruction of Karl Marx’s new materialist understanding of justice, legality, and rights through the vantage point of his widely invoked but generally misunderstood critique of liberalism. The book begins by reconstructing Marx’s conception of justice and rights through close textual interpretation and extrapolation. The central thesis of the book is, firstly, that Marx regards justice as an essential feature of any society, including the emancipated society of the future; and secondly, that standards of justice and right undergo transformation throughout history. The book then tracks the enduring legacy of Marx’s critique of liberal justice by examining how leading contemporary political theorists such as John Rawls, Jürgen Habermas, Axel Honneth, and Nancy Fraser have responded to Marx’s critique of liberalism in the face of global financial capitalism and the hollowing out of democratically-enacted law. The Marx that emerges from this book is therefore a thoroughly modern thinker whose insights shed valuable light on some of the most pressing challenges confronting liberal democracies today.
Private property, labour and the transformation of Political Economy in 1844 Manuscripts

Evgenia Thanopoulou

DOI: https://doi.org/10.12681/dia.38175

2024-06-23

Abstract:This paper intends to show that, from a methodological point of view, the 1844 Manuscripts are an integral part of the Marxist corpus and not an "epistemological break". Marx thematizes the object of Political Economy (1844 Manuscripts) by transforming its discourse. Then, proceeds to the analysis of the capitalist economy (Capital), using the revised categories of Political Economy. However, a necessary condition for such a reading is the non-ignorance of Marx's ontology. Marx reverses the Hegelian dialectics based on the relationship between man and nature. Starting from the social practice (labour), Marx sublates the contradictions between private property and labour, on the level of content, and that between Political Economy and Philosophy (necessity and freedom), on the level of discourse. Their mutual passage renders possible the transfer of the object to reality as a reflection or as a product of thinking (a real thing). Thematizing the political-economic fact, Marx returns to social being, sublating social oppositions too.
The Evolution of Urban Rent Theory: Class and Distribution

Ely Melchior Fair

DOI: https://doi.org/10.1080/00213624.2024.2344443

2024-06-12

Journal of Economic Issues

Abstract:Rent as a category has been analyzed within economics for over 250 years. Though much has changed since the days of David Ricardo, and Johann von Thűnen, most contemporary theorists consider themselves to be aligned with these early thinkers. More significantly, there is a pervasive belief that the power relationships explicated in the late 1700s and early 1800s hold for urban rent today. This has had two consequences. First, as urban economists continue to justify their work within a much older tradition, the move from production cost theories towards marginalist approaches has occurred largely without comment. Second, the existing urban power structures, with their particular causes and evolutionary histories, have been under-evaluated. The result is landlords seen as either exclusively functional, or as landed aristocrats, neither view producing instrumentally useful analysis for the urban market today. The first portion of this paper outlines the evolution of urban rent approaches, calling attention to the theoretic shifts which have occurred in the meaning of the market. This establishes the need for the latter half of the work, which outlines the basis for an institutionally grounded approach to urban rent. Such a theory is necessary if there is any hope of illuminating the distributional impacts of rental housing allocation.

economics
Marxist State Theory in a Globalized Age

Yu Jianxing

2007-01-01

Social Sciences in China

Abstract:Marx's state theory is not only an important component of historical materialism, but also a necessary part of his political thought. After long years of silence, Marxist state theory revived after WWII and developed anew in the era of globalization. Study of its main ideas, historic fate, further development and new agenda can confirm its explanatory power in the present day and promote its reconstruction and enrichment in the era of globalization. However, some questions in the intellectual structure of Marxism are still open to further study: for instance, the relations between civil society and the state and between the economic foundation and superstructure, the withering away of the state as the end of politics, human emancipation and its conditions, the economic and political forms of the transition from a capitalist to a communist society, and particularly the form of organizational system adopted by the dictatorship of the proletariat, and the ideology of the crucial link of the reproduction of social relations. At the same time, we need to learn from and integrate new social science theories and actively respond to the great changes in political organization and structure brought about by globalization, while actively participating in the great theoretical debates of today.
Capitalist Critique of Karl Marx on Surplus Value

Gerald Kelvin Onuoha,Ishmael U Gwunireama

DOI: https://doi.org/10.33750/ijhi.v5i1.143

2022-03-28

International Journal of Humanities and Innovation (IJHI)

Abstract:Karl Marx (1818–1883) was an outstanding German philosopher of political economy. His disdain and displeasure for capitalism as an economic and political system logically stems from his claim that it is unjustifiably exploitative, dehumanizing, and alienating. He conceives of it as being characterised by wage labor, and this leads to industrial disharmony between the capitalists and the laborers. This paper examines Marx’s conception of surplus value, the nature and character of labour theory of value, and alienation, which are key issues in Marxist-Leninist political philosophy. It is, particularly, a reaction to the Marxian claim that surplus value is created in the course of production. It argues that profit and extra capital are the basis for the survival of many businesses. Therefore, it concludes that what Marx refers to as surplus value actually is a return on investment that the capitalist further puts back into the business to enable the equipment, payment of wages, salaries, and delivery of welfare packages/incentives to workers in order to make a business a going concern. As a result, there is no surplus value, and it is not a valid basis for industrial disharmony between capitalists and laborers as long as the parties are bound by the employment contract negotiated in accordance with the legal regime.
Can Human Rights Be Reconciled with Modern Citizenship? Reconsidering Marx’s Zur Judenfrage Today

David Ingram

DOI: https://doi.org/10.17990/rpf/2024_80_1_0435

2024-07-31

Revista Portuguesa de Filosofia

Abstract:This essay critically re-examines Marx’s youthful analysis of the separation of church and state and his complex views about the function of rights in the modern state. I argue that Marx’s condemnation of Christian nationalism and endorsement of citizenship for Jews is consistent with his view that the modern, secular state cannot emancipate itself entirely from religiosity, as evidenced by the continuing legacy of nationalism and cultural identity politics today. Although Marx correctly follows Hegel in identifying modernity with a structural differentiation between civil society and state, I argue that he misunderstands the nature of this separation and, along with it, the relationship between private property rights, on one side, and civil, political, and social rights on the other. I conclude that Marx’s mistake resides in his failure to adhere to his own Rousseau-inspired social understanding of rights. In the final analysis, far from rejecting the deontological moral intuition underlying rights according to which individuals possess a human dignity (social nature) that merits protection, he rather upholds this idea against what he perceives to be its degradation in service to narrow sectarian self-interest, whose pursuit obstructs rather than promotes the full development of our humanity.
Revitalizing science and technology studies: A Marxian critique of more-than-human geographies

Martín Arboleda

DOI: https://doi.org/10.1177/0263775816664099

2016-09-20

Environment and Planning D: Society and Space

Abstract:This article revisits Marx’s philosophy of history with respect to technological change, outlining some elements for the elaboration of a research agenda for materialist studies of science and technology. I argue that dominant thinking on the subject has been insufficiently attentive to relations of production and to the constitutive role of practical, transformative activity. The article suggests that a focus on class relations not only foregrounds the eminently open and contested nature of technology but also renders into view the multiplicity of actors and agencies involved in the making of natures. I draw from a subterranean strand of Marxist theorists of technology to develop a more-than-human approach to political agency through an interrogation of the complex interactions between human and machine in the everyday, experiential practicalities of the labor process. On this basis, the article contends that foregrounding the class preconditions for an alternative scientific praxis should assert itself as the starting point and horizon of a materialist Science and Technology Studies.
The Money-Energy-Technology Complex and Ecological Marxism: Rethinking the Concept of “Use-value” to Extend Our Understanding of Unequal Exchange, Part 1

Alf Hornborg

DOI: https://doi.org/10.1080/10455752.2018.1440614

2018-02-22

Capitalism Nature Socialism

Abstract:This is Part 1 of an article arguing for an extended application of Karl Marx’s insight that the apparent reciprocity of free market exchange is to be understood as an ideology that obscures material processes of exploitation and accumulation. Rather than to confine this insight to the worker’s sale of his or her labor-power for wages, and basing it on the conviction that labor-power is uniquely capable of generating more value than its price, the article argues that capital accumulation also relies on asymmetric transfers of several other biophysical resources such as embodied non-human energy, land, and materials. It proposes that the very notions of “price” and “value” serve to obscure the material history and substance of traded commodities. Such a shift of perspective extends Marx’s foundational critique of mainstream economics by focusing on the unacknowledged role of ecologically unequal exchange, but requires a critical rethinking of the concept of “use-value.” It also suggests a fundamental reconceptualization of the ontology of technological progress, frequently celebrated in Marxist theory. Part 1 of the article introduces the argument on unequal exchange, the ideological function of money, some concerns of ecological Marxism, and the conundrum posed by three contradictory understandings of “use-value.”
How to Understand the Reestablishing Individual Ownership of Marx and Engels

Wang Xiaoyun

DOI: https://doi.org/10.3969/j.issn.1674-0416.2008.04.036

2008-01-01

Abstract:The Reestablishing individual ownership has been neatly elaborated by Karl Marx in his masterpiece The Capital.Friedrich Engels mentioned the thought in his works as well.However,great controversy has been risen on the explanation to the theory after being been proposed.According to the author,three aspects are the keys to understanding the theory accurately.Firstly,it should be judged in the context of the original theory of Marx and Engels.Secondly,the purpose of the theory should be taken into account.Thirdly,the realistic preconditions for the theory should be clarified with a long term view.
Commodifying what nature?

Noel Castree

DOI: https://doi.org/10.1191/0309132503ph428oa

IF: 7.602

2003-06-01

Progress in Human Geography

Abstract:In this essay contemporary Marxist writings on the commodification of nature in capitalist societies are reviewed systematically. Recent research on commodities in human geography, cultural studies and related fields have been largely post or non-Marxist in tenor and have paid relatively little attention to the ‘natural’ dimensions of commodities. By contrast, recent Marxist writings about capitalism-nature relations have tried to highlight both the specificity of capitalist commodification and its effects on ecologies and bodies. This fact notwithstanding, it is argued that the explanatory and normative dimensions of this Marxist work are, respectively, at risk of being misunderstood and remain largely implicit. On the explanatory side, confusion arises because the words ‘commodification’ and ‘nature’ are used by different Marxists to refer to different things that deserve to be disentangled. On the normative side, the Marxian criticisms of nature's commodification are rarely explicit and often assumed to be self-evident. The essay offers a typology of commodification processes relating to specific natures with specific effects to which a variety of criticisms can be applied. Though essentially exegetical rather than reconstructive, the essay tries to pave the way for a more precise sense of how the commodification of nature in capitalist societies works and why it might be deemed to be problematic.

geography
Understanding Marx's Concept of Justice

Wei Xiaoping

DOI: https://doi.org/10.1521/siso.2020.84.4.485

2020-10-01

Abstract:Did Marx's critique of capitalism involve a concept of distributive justice? This question arose in a dispute that started in the 1970s, based on the argument by U. S. analytical Marxist Allen Wood. The dispute lasted for decades, and spread to China. But if we follow Marx's thinking, we see that this controversy already appeared then, in Marx's critique of capitalism. Marx's theory formed in response to the viewpoints of the Young Hegelians, the National Economists, and others. Some key points of the dispute can be clarified by tracking Marx's critical thought, from the standpoint of both its historical and its normative dimensions, juridical judgment and value judgment, the theoretical dimension and the dimension of reality. The research draws in particular on the text of the new MEGA.

social sciences, interdisciplinary
Landownership relations and the development of modern British agriculture

Sarah Whatmore

DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/978-94-011-5962-3_7

1986-01-01

Abstract:The lack of theoretically informed analyses of the role of landownership relations in modern British agriculture constitutes a remarkable gap in contemporary agrarian and rural research. While both agriculture and landownership have been marginalised within the national political economy, land and the property rights governing its use have remained central to the productive relations of agriculture itself. This blindspot in agrarian research is all the more remarkable because we have at our disposal the valuable theoretical legacy of the nineteenth century classical economists, most notably Marx and Ricardo, whose ‘theories of rent’ specifically examined the ways in which the productive relations of agriculture were modified by the ownership of land under a system of exclusive property rights.1 This body of theory has been revitalised in recent years, however, not by those interested in contemporary agricultural questions, but in the context of the urban land development process and the production of the built environment (Ball et al 1984).
Revisiting Connections Between Capital and Nature I: The Importance of Labour

Peter Somerville

DOI: https://doi.org/10.1080/10455752.2020.1797845

2020-08-18

Capitalism Nature Socialism

Abstract:This paper reconsiders Marx's theory of capital in the light of more recent discussions of the relationship between capital and nature. It points out how this theory continues to be misrepresented and misunderstood by a number of scholars, and argues that one reason for such failings is a tendency to neglect the role of labour in mediating this relationship. Further, the paper reviews literature relating to the value of nature, primitive accumulation, natural capital and the production of nature, in order to show the importance of the concept of labour and the limitations of approaches that do not recognize that importance.
Why Marx Stay at the Radical Democracy:Reproducing Marx's Political Philosophy during German-French Yearbook Times

Zou Shi-peng

2012-01-01

Abstract:Quite a long time our academia have given a high valuation on Paris Manuscript and totally looked down to Young Marx's thought,thus ignoring Marx's meaningful stay at radical democracy in 1843.According to my investigation,this stay means a thoughts' transformation,that is,from young Hegelians' religion critique to radical political critique which based on the position of Materialism and Atheism,means an outstanding from the Europe enlightenment tradition to the political society construction which suited for the production of historical materialism,and means absorbing and accumulating related social and political thoughts during this turn from classical liberalism to socialism thoughts as well.In some degree,the rise of post-Marxism,is but return to the horizon of this radical democracy in 1840s.

Marx’s rent theory revisited? Landed property, nature and value

Enlightenment Reason and Modernity: Marx’s Critical Reconstruction

Land, Abstraction, and Housing Provision

Value, Nature, and Labor: A Defense of Marx

Remarks on Marx and Changing the World

Marx, exploitation, and socioeconomic justice: Analytical and strategic possibilities

Reconstructing Marx's Critique of Political Economy from His London Notebooks

Revisiting Marx’s Critique of Liberalism

Private property, labour and the transformation of Political Economy in 1844 Manuscripts

The Evolution of Urban Rent Theory: Class and Distribution

Marxist State Theory in a Globalized Age

Capitalist Critique of Karl Marx on Surplus Value

Can Human Rights Be Reconciled with Modern Citizenship? Reconsidering Marx’s Zur Judenfrage Today

Revitalizing science and technology studies: A Marxian critique of more-than-human geographies

The Money-Energy-Technology Complex and Ecological Marxism: Rethinking the Concept of “Use-value” to Extend Our Understanding of Unequal Exchange, Part 1

How to Understand the Reestablishing Individual Ownership of Marx and Engels

Commodifying what nature?

Understanding Marx's Concept of Justice

Landownership relations and the development of modern British agriculture

Revisiting Connections Between Capital and Nature I: The Importance of Labour

Why Marx Stay at the Radical Democracy:Reproducing Marx's Political Philosophy during German-French Yearbook Times