Georg von Charasoff 15
_____________________________________________________________________________
Zurich, where she finished her medical studies in 1908 with a doctoral dissertation
(Kriegshaber 1908).
23
The list of courses she attended and the topic of her
dissertation suggest that she specialised in gynaecology. Interestingly, the account
books for lecture fees show that she also attended the course ‘Psychiatrische
Klinik’ by Professor Bleuler in the summer term 1907 (Kollegiengeldabrechnungen
der Universität Zürich für das Jahr 1907, Staatsarchiv Zürich).
7
On the Reception to Charasoff’s Contributions
It has rightly been suggested that Charasoff’s pioneering contributions were not
appreciated at the time because most contemporary economists lacked the
necessary mathematical training for a proper understanding of his work (Mori
2007). In addition, two further reasons can be given for the almost complete neglect
of Charasoff’s two books. First, Charasoff’s choice of the publisher was not very
fortunate: The Hans Bondy Verlagsbuchhandlung in Berlin only existed from 1908
to 1913,
24
its programme consisted predominantly of literary titles, and the print-
run was low, so that only very few copies of the two books are extant today.
Secondly, Charasoff’s rather polemical style not only offended readers, but also
turned their attention away from his original ideas and novel analytical concepts.
This can be exemplified with regard to three contemporary book reviews.
25
Charasoff’s first book was reviewed by Otto Bauer in the May issue 1909 of the
journal
Der Kampf (Bauer 1908-09a). According to Bauer, Charasoff rightly
pointed out that a central element of Marx’s theoretical system is the idea that
capitalism fails to develop the productivity of labour to the highest possible degree,
‘because the introduction of labour-saving methods of production is hindered by the
fact that the capitalist only pays for necessary labour, but not for surplus labour’
(1908-09a: 380). However, ‘this correct idea is presented by Charasoff in the
clumsiest possible way’, so that Marx’s important idea ‘is distorted by his
unfortunate style of presentation to the point of making it appear ridiculous’ (1908-
09a: 380-81). Bauer’s rather superficial review makes no mention at all of
Charasoff’s analysis of prices and distribution. This prompted Charasoff to send a
reply to Bauer, which the latter refused to publish. Instead, he provided a summary
account of Charasoff’s reply in a single paragraph of the July issue of Der Kampf.
In this short paragraph Bauer merely reported that ‘Charasoff complains about the
fact that my review did not discuss his solution of the contradiction between the
first and the third volume of Capital and his analysis of the relationship between
the law of the falling rate of profit and the crisis theory’ (1908-09b: 480).
Charasoff’s second book, Das System des Marxismus, was reviewed somewhat
more extensively by Bauer in the March 1910 issue of Der Kampf. Bauer conceded
that Marx’s transformation algorithm was ‘incomplete’, because Marx had ‘refrained
from showing how the formation of the prices of production must then in turn modify
the rate of profit’. But this ‘gap’ cannot be filled ‘by simply setting the prices of the
basic products [Grundprodukte] equal to their values, and by thus falling back into
the errors of the physiocrats. The value of the commodity exceeds the value of labour
power also in the surplus production [‘Mehrproduktion’, which is the term used by
Bauer for Charasoff’s term ‘Nebenproduktion’], and this surplus value is also
distributed among all capitals according to their size’ (1910-11: 237). Bauer’s
objection clearly missed the point of Charasoff’s procedure, which was to prove the
incompatibility of Marx’s two invariance postulates (‘sum of values = sum of prices’
and ‘total surplus value = total profits’). Bauer also failed to understand Charasoff’s
Downloaded by [Orta Dogu Teknik Universitesi] at 12:40 30 March 2016
16
History of Economics Review
_____________________________________________________________________________
proof of the determination of the general rate of profits in the basic industries alone.
(For a more detailed discussion of Bauer’s review, see Mori 2007.)
Das System des Marxismus was reviewed also by Conrad Schmidt in
Sozialistische Monatshefte, which was the revisionist counterpart of Kautsky’s Die
neue Zeit, the theoretical journal of the German Social Democrats. Schmidt’s
review opened with a complaint about Charasoff’s ‘tricky sophistry’ (verzwickte
Rabulistik), which ‘demands very hard work from the serious reader’ (1910: 850).
Schmidt then contended that Charasoff’s book ‘contains a damnation [Strafgericht]
of my article “Grundriß zu einem System der theoretischen Nationalökonomie”
(published in the Sozialistische Monatshefte)’ (cf. Schmidt 1909). Charasoff had
indeed criticised this article briefly in the Preface of his book. The remainder of
Schmidt’s book review is devoted to a defence of his own position on Marx’s
theory of value. In the quoted article, Schmidt had argued that the labour theory of
value should be abandoned altogether, and had also contended – without showing it
– that an analysis in terms of production prices suffices for a derivation of all the
important Marxian ideas, while at the same time avoiding the errors and
contradictions into which one is inevitably led by a further adherence to the labour
theory of value.
A third ‘review’ of Charasoff’s 1909 book appeared in Vorwärts, in the section
‘Literarische Rundschau’, of 21 February 1909. All that the reviewer, Gustav
Eckstein, had to say about Charasoff’s book is contained in the following passage:
If one wanted to note all the nonsense which is in this book, one would have
to transcribe it; if one wanted to set it right, one would have to expound the
entire economic system of Karl Marx. There is hardly any notion in Marx’s
theory which Mr. Charasoff has not misunderstood, hardly any doctrine
which he has not distorted. (Eckstein 1909)
No grounds are provided for this judgement.
8
Charasoff as a Student of ‘Oeconomia Publica’ at the University
of Zurich
In September 1910, Charasoff returned to Zurich with his new wife and four
children and took residence in Plattenstrasse 28; in the following year the family
then moved to larger premises in Ottikerstrasse 14 in Zurich-Oberstrass.
26
In
October 1910 Charasoff enrolled as a student at the Law Faculty of the University
of Zurich, with ‘Oeconomia publica’ as his main field of study. The account books
for lecture fees show that from the winter term 1910-11 until the end of the winter
term 1911-12 he attended all the lectures and seminars that are required for a
degree in economics. In the summer term 1912 the account books show no entries
for lecture fees any more, although Charasoff was still enrolled as a regular student.
He apparently terminated his studies at the end of the winter term 1911-12, without
passing a final examination and without de-registering. The available documents
suggest that Charasoff had embarked on this study with the intention of obtaining a
degree in economics, and that he worked seriously towards achieving this goal for
three semesters.
Political economy in Zurich
Until the last quarter of the nineteenth century political economy was taught at the
University of Zurich by professors in the Law faculty as a minor subject. It was
Downloaded by [Orta Dogu Teknik Universitesi] at 12:40 30 March 2016