| Both sides previous revision
Previous revision
|
|
en:chris_wright:crisis_constitution_and_capital [Y-m-dH:i]
titorelli |
en:chris_wright:crisis_constitution_and_capital [Y-m-dH:i] (current)
titorelli |
| :: **Chris Wright**((Written for and published (the Swedish translation) in //riff-raff// no. 8, 2006.)) | :: **Chris Wright**((Written for and published (the Swedish translation) in //riff-raff// no. 8, 2006.)) |
| |
| What is the relationship of class struggle to the laws of motion of capital? What was Marx's method in //Capital//? What implications do these things have politically? These questions really form the centerpiece of Giacomo Marramao's essay “Theory of Crisis and the Problem of Constitution”((//Telos// no. 26, 1975--75)). Marramao specifically addresses these questions through a discussion of crisis and the problem of constitution, laying out on one side the opposition to a notion of economic crisis/catastrophe/breakdown vis-a-vis the views of Raniero Panzieri, Karl Korsch and Anton Pannekoek, and on the other side, the defense of a notion of crisis/catastrophe/breakdown as inherent to capital vis-a-vis the views of Rosa Luxemburg, Henryk Grossman and Paul Mattick. This can also be posed as the difference between the notion that crisis is caused by the subjective element ('proletarian autonomy') or the class struggle versus the idea that capital produces it own barriers and therefore its own crisis.((A similar discussion works itself out in Rothbart's essay “The Limits of Mattick's Economics”, in relation to Mattick and Yaffe versus the journal //Zerowork// and the group Socialism or Barbarism.)) | What is the relationship of class struggle to the laws of motion of capital? What was Marx’s method in //Capital//? What implications do these things have politically? These questions really form the centerpiece of Giacomo Marramao’s essay “Theory of Crisis and the Problem of Constitution”((//Telos// no. 26, 1975--75)). Marramao specifically addresses these questions through a discussion of crisis and the problem of constitution, laying out on one side the opposition to a notion of economic crisis/catastrophe/breakdown vis-a-vis the views of Raniero Panzieri, Karl Korsch and Anton Pannekoek, and on the other side, the defense of a notion of crisis/catastrophe/breakdown as inherent to capital vis-a-vis the views of Rosa Luxemburg, Henryk Grossman and Paul Mattick. This can also be posed as the difference between the notion that crisis is caused by the subjective element ('proletarian autonomy') or the class struggle versus the idea that capital produces it own barriers and therefore its own crisis.((A similar discussion works itself out in Rothbart’s essay “The Limits of Mattick’s Economics”, in relation to Mattick and Yaffe versus the journal //Zerowork// and the group Socialism or Barbarism.)) |
| |
| Marramao takes issue with Panzieri's claim that the theory of crisis developed in the Second International goes hand in hand with a fatalistic, gradualistic transition to socialism through the objective development of the productive forces. Marramao makes clear what is at stake: | Marramao takes issue with Panzieri’s claim that the theory of crisis developed in the Second International goes hand in hand with a fatalistic, gradualistic transition to socialism through the objective development of the productive forces. Marramao makes clear what is at stake: |
| |
| > …we are interested in showing how, at the beginning of the 1960s in Italy, an argument common to a large part of the European left in the 1920s and 1930s was proposed by a militant opposition within the labor movement: that revolutionary action should not attempt to insert itself into the presumed weaknesses and "internal contradictions" of the system, but should activate only the autonomous will, the modern "insubordination" of the working class-its exclusive organizability. | > …we are interested in showing how, at the beginning of the 1960s in Italy, an argument common to a large part of the European left in the 1920s and 1930s was proposed by a militant opposition within the labor movement: that revolutionary action should not attempt to insert itself into the presumed weaknesses and "internal contradictions" of the system, but should activate only the autonomous will, the modern “insubordination” of the working class-its exclusive organizability. |
| |
| In other words, for Marramao, nothing less than the role of revolutionaries and the process of the constitution of the proletariat as a revolutionary force is at stake. The debates in the 1920's and '30's represented the last prior serious attempt to grapple with these issues in what seemed to be a situation ripe with revolutionary potential, especially in Germany and in light of the ongoing social crisis in Europe that began in 1917 and ended in Spain in 1939. | In other words, for Marramao, nothing less than the role of revolutionaries and the process of the constitution of the proletariat as a revolutionary force is at stake. The debates in the 1920’s and ‘30’s represented the last prior serious attempt to grapple with these issues in what seemed to be a situation ripe with revolutionary potential, especially in Germany and in light of the ongoing social crisis in Europe that began in 1917 and ended in Spain in 1939. |
| |
| The debate had its roots in fact in the argument over the objective necessity of crisis, the possibility or not of overcoming such a crisis //and// the nature of the transition to socialism. Marramao takes issue with Korsch's critique of both sides as “passive and non-commital conceptions because they limit themselves to //reflecting// on the elapsed stages of the real movement.” (Section 3) Marramao critiques Korsch by claiming that he | The debate had its roots in fact in the argument over the objective necessity of crisis, the possibility or not of overcoming such a crisis //and// the nature of the transition to socialism. Marramao takes issue with Korsch’s critique of both sides as “passive and non-commital conceptions because they limit themselves to //reflecting// on the elapsed stages of the real movement.” (Section 3) Marramao critiques Korsch by claiming that he |
| |
| > avoids the complex problem of the "method of exposition" when, in his urgency to work out an economic analysis able to provide a "practical theory of revolution" supported by an "activist-materialist attitude," he reads the dialectical method of presentation of the mature Marx as a mere //allegory// meant to rouse the proletariat's will and revolutionary spirit. | > avoids the complex problem of the "method of exposition" when, in his urgency to work out an economic analysis able to provide a "practical theory of revolution" supported by an "activist-materialist attitude," he reads the dialectical method of presentation of the mature Marx as a mere //allegory// meant to rouse the proletariat’s will and revolutionary spirit. |
| |
| Marramao claims that Korsch is unable to differentiate between Luxemburg and Kautsky, since Luxemburg | Marramao claims that Korsch is unable to differentiate between Luxemburg and Kautsky, since Luxemburg |
| > never conceived of the model she described in the //Accumulation of Capital// as a pure and simple "reflection" of historical and empirical evolution of the capitalist mode of production. Rather, against Kautsky, she always refused to attribute the character of fetishistic objectivity to economic laws. | > never conceived of the model she described in the //Accumulation of Capital// as a pure and simple "reflection" of historical and empirical evolution of the capitalist mode of production. Rather, against Kautsky, she always refused to attribute the character of fetishistic objectivity to economic laws. |
| |
| There are several immediate problems with Marramao's work. Firstly, Marramao, like Luxemburg, conflates the theory of crisis, the theory that capital is necessarily crisis-ridden, that crisis is an inevitable part of capital, with the theory of collapse. He uses the two terms interchangably. This conflation serves to protect the theory of collapse from critique by allowing Marramao to argue that anyone who disagrees with the automatic breakdown or collapse of capital disagrees with the idea that capital necessarily generates crises. | There are several immediate problems with Marramao’s work. Firstly, Marramao, like Luxemburg, conflates the theory of crisis, the theory that capital is necessarily crisis-ridden, that crisis is an inevitable part of capital, with the theory of collapse. He uses the two terms interchangably. This conflation serves to protect the theory of collapse from critique by allowing Marramao to argue that anyone who disagrees with the automatic breakdown or collapse of capital disagrees with the idea that capital necessarily generates crises. |
| |
| his point of view has been critiqued from several different points. Pannekoek, contrary to Marramao, correctly critiqued this perspective, defended by Luxemburg first in her famous conclusion that the question of all questions was “socialism or barbarism”. In other words, when the collapse of capitalism comes, will capital be replaced by the victorious proletariat or will the world slide into chaos? This is the classical statement of a theory of decadence, not merely a theory of crisis, and this is what, at bottom, all theories of //collapse// are. Simon Clarke took up this same critique in his discussion of //Marx's Theory of Crisis//, where he argued that while crises are indeed inevitable under capital, collapse is not. Nor is there any specific mechanism in isolation that one could take as //the// source of all economic crises. Clarke effectively pokes holes in pretty much every specific theory of crisis from the point of view that all of the different moments of contradiction they fixate on can in fact be the well-spring of any given crisis. | his point of view has been critiqued from several different points. Pannekoek, contrary to Marramao, correctly critiqued this perspective, defended by Luxemburg first in her famous conclusion that the question of all questions was “socialism or barbarism”. In other words, when the collapse of capitalism comes, will capital be replaced by the victorious proletariat or will the world slide into chaos? This is the classical statement of a theory of decadence, not merely a theory of crisis, and this is what, at bottom, all theories of //collapse// are. Simon Clarke took up this same critique in his discussion of //Marx’s Theory of Crisis//, where he argued that while crises are indeed inevitable under capital, collapse is not. Nor is there any specific mechanism in isolation that one could take as //the// source of all economic crises. Clarke effectively pokes holes in pretty much every specific theory of crisis from the point of view that all of the different moments of contradiction they fixate on can in fact be the well-spring of any given crisis. |
| |
| //Aufheben// has the most recent critique of this decadence theory in their critique of theories of decadence in issues 2--4 of their journal. They specifically address Grossman, whom Marramao seems intent on defending in principle and I will allow them to speak for themselves: | //Aufheben// has the most recent critique of this decadence theory in their critique of theories of decadence in issues 2--4 of their journal. They specifically address Grossman, whom Marramao seems intent on defending in principle and I will allow them to speak for themselves: |
| |
| > Trotskyism as a tradition thus betrays its claim to represent what was positive in the revolutionary wave of 1917--21. The importance of the left and council communists is that in their genuine emphasis on proletarian self-emancipation we can identify an important truth of that period against the Leninist representation. However in the wake of the defeat of the proletariat and in their isolation from its struggle, the small groups of left communists began to increasingly base their position on the objective analysis that capitalism was decadent. However there was development. In particular Henryk Grossman offered a meticulously worked out theory of collapse as an alternative to Luxemburg's. Instead of basing the theory of collapse on the exhaustion of non-capitalist markets he founded the theory on the falling rate of profit. Since then, nearly all orthodox marxist theories of crisis have been based on the falling rate of profit. In his theory, which he argues is Marx's, the tendency for the rate of profit to fall leads to a fall in the relative mass of profit which is finally too small to continue accumulation. In Grossman's account capitalist collapse is a purely economic process, inevitable even if the working class remains a mere cog in capital's development. Grossman tries to pre-empt criticism: | > Trotskyism as a tradition thus betrays its claim to represent what was positive in the revolutionary wave of 1917--21. The importance of the left and council communists is that in their genuine emphasis on proletarian self-emancipation we can identify an important truth of that period against the Leninist representation. However in the wake of the defeat of the proletariat and in their isolation from its struggle, the small groups of left communists began to increasingly base their position on the objective analysis that capitalism was decadent. However there was development. In particular Henryk Grossman offered a meticulously worked out theory of collapse as an alternative to Luxemburg’s. Instead of basing the theory of collapse on the exhaustion of non-capitalist markets he founded the theory on the falling rate of profit. Since then, nearly all orthodox marxist theories of crisis have been based on the falling rate of profit. In his theory, which he argues is Marx’s, the tendency for the rate of profit to fall leads to a fall in the relative mass of profit which is finally too small to continue accumulation. In Grossman’s account capitalist collapse is a purely economic process, inevitable even if the working class remains a mere cog in capital’s development. Grossman tries to pre-empt criticism: |
| |
| >> Because I deliberately confine myself to describing only the economic presuppositions of the breakdown of capitalism in this study, let me dispel any suspicion of 'pure economism' from the start. It is unnecessary to waste paper over the connection between economics and politics; that there is a connection is obvious. However, while Marxists have written extensively on the political revolution, they have neglected to deal theoretically with the economic aspect of the question and have failed to appreciate the true content of Marx's theory of breakdown. My sole concern here is to fill in this gap in the marxist tradition. [p. 33] | >> Because I deliberately confine myself to describing only the economic presuppositions of the breakdown of capitalism in this study, let me dispel any suspicion of “pure economism” from the start. It is unnecessary to waste paper over the connection between economics and politics; that there is a connection is obvious. However, while Marxists have written extensively on the political revolution, they have neglected to deal theoretically with the economic aspect of the question and have failed to appreciate the true content of Marx’s theory of breakdown. My sole concern here is to fill in this gap in the marxist tradition. [p. 33] |
| |
| > For the objectivist marxist the connection is obvious, the economic and the political are separate, previous writings on the political are adequate and just need backing up with an economic case. The position of the follower of Grossman is thus: 1) We have an understanding of economics that shows capitalism is declining, heading inexorably towards breakdown. 2) This shows the necessity of a political revolution to introduce a new economic order. The theory of politics has an external relation to the economic understanding of capitalism. Orthodox theories of capitalist crisis accept the reduction of working class activity to an activity of capital. The only action against capital is a political attack on the system which is seen to happen only when the system breaks down. Grossman's theory represents one of the most comprehensive attempts to declare Marx's //Capital// a complete //economics// providing the blueprint of capitalist collapse. He insists that "economic Marxism, as it has been bequeathed to us, is neither a //fragment// nor a //torso//, but represents in the main a fully elaborated system, that is, one without flaws." This insistence on seeing Marx's //Capital// as being a complete work providing the proof of capitalism's decay and collapse is an essential feature of the worldview of the objectivist marxists. It means that the connection between politics and economics is obviously an external one. This is wrong; the connection is internal but to grasp this requires the recognition that //Capital// is incomplete and that the completion of its project requires an understanding of the political economy of the working class not just that of capital. But Grossman has categorically denied the possibility of this by his insistence that //Capital// is essentially a complete work. | > For the objectivist marxist the connection is obvious, the economic and the political are separate, previous writings on the political are adequate and just need backing up with an economic case. The position of the follower of Grossman is thus: 1) We have an understanding of economics that shows capitalism is declining, heading inexorably towards breakdown. 2) This shows the necessity of a political revolution to introduce a new economic order. The theory of politics has an external relation to the economic understanding of capitalism. Orthodox theories of capitalist crisis accept the reduction of working class activity to an activity of capital. The only action against capital is a political attack on the system which is seen to happen only when the system breaks down. Grossman’s theory represents one of the most comprehensive attempts to declare Marx’s //Capital// a complete //economics// providing the blueprint of capitalist collapse. He insists that "economic Marxism, as it has been bequeathed to us, is neither a //fragment// nor a //torso//, but represents in the main a fully elaborated system, that is, one without flaws." This insistence on seeing Marx’s //Capital// as being a complete work providing the proof of capitalism’s decay and collapse is an essential feature of the worldview of the objectivist marxists. It means that the connection between politics and economics is obviously an external one. This is wrong; the connection is internal but to grasp this requires the recognition that //Capital// is incomplete and that the completion of its project requires an understanding of the political economy of the working class not just that of capital. But Grossman has categorically denied the possibility of this by his insistence that //Capital// is essentially a complete work. |
| |
| While at this point Marramao concerns himself with showing that Luxemburg is not Grossman and vice versa, we can both agree with and immediately move beyond this point. Grossman attempts an analysis of crisis from within the relations of production, not at the level of realization. However, Marramao is intent to claim that Grossman rescues Luxemburg's “political application” (Section 4). What specifically is this political application? All we hear is that this discussion re-established the connection “between the theory of the crash and revolutionary subjectivity.” (Section 4) | While at this point Marramao concerns himself with showing that Luxemburg is not Grossman and vice versa, we can both agree with and immediately move beyond this point. Grossman attempts an analysis of crisis from within the relations of production, not at the level of realization. However, Marramao is intent to claim that Grossman rescues Luxemburg’s “political application” (Section 4). What specifically is this political application? All we hear is that this discussion re-established the connection “between the theory of the crash and revolutionary subjectivity.” (Section 4) |
| |
| The second point of crisis is in Section 5, where Marramao, following Mattick, defends Grossman's method of critique. Marramao writes, | The second point of crisis is in Section 5, where Marramao, following Mattick, defends Grossman’s method of critique. Marramao writes, |
| |
| > The method by which the critique of political economy proceeds is not aimed at the historical and empirical description of real processes, but at the abstract isolation of certain fundamental moments, in order to define the unity of the laws of movement of capitalist society. "For Grossmann, too," notes Mattick, "there are no purely economic problems. Yet, that does not prevent him, in his analysis of the law of accumulation, from //methodologically// limiting himself to the definition of purely economic presuppositions and thus to //theoretically// reach an objective limit of the system. The //theoretical understanding// whereby the capitalist system must necessarily collapse because of its internal contradictions //does not imply// at all that the //real collapse// is an automatic process, independent of men. | > The method by which the critique of political economy proceeds is not aimed at the historical and empirical description of real processes, but at the abstract isolation of certain fundamental moments, in order to define the unity of the laws of movement of capitalist society. "For Grossmann, too," notes Mattick, "there are no purely economic problems. Yet, that does not prevent him, in his analysis of the law of accumulation, from //methodologically// limiting himself to the definition of purely economic presuppositions and thus to //theoretically// reach an objective limit of the system. The //theoretical understanding// whereby the capitalist system must necessarily collapse because of its internal contradictions //does not imply// at all that the //real collapse// is an automatic process, independent of men. |
| In this quote, however, it is worth noting that Grossman does, if Marramao does not, understand that the theory of collapse and the theory of crisis are //not the same thing//. Rather, Grossman sees the theory of collapse as the 'necessary presupposition' of the theory of crisis, which for Grossman is solved in the “law of accumulation”, itself founded upon the law of value. I have not seen this point adequately defended anywhere and Marramao does not even seem conscious that a notion is developed which is central to Grossman’s point and upon which his theory must rise or fall. For Grossman, the theory of crisis rests upon a theory of the ultimate collapse of capital. | In this quote, however, it is worth noting that Grossman does, if Marramao does not, understand that the theory of collapse and the theory of crisis are //not the same thing//. Rather, Grossman sees the theory of collapse as the 'necessary presupposition' of the theory of crisis, which for Grossman is solved in the “law of accumulation”, itself founded upon the law of value. I have not seen this point adequately defended anywhere and Marramao does not even seem conscious that a notion is developed which is central to Grossman’s point and upon which his theory must rise or fall. For Grossman, the theory of crisis rests upon a theory of the ultimate collapse of capital. |
| |
| So we do indeed have a theory of decadence in Grossman, but at the same time attempted through a rigorous reading of the law of value. But what is this law of value? I am in agreement with both Grossman and Marramao that any notion of crisis is indeed grounded in Marx's critique of value, ut as we will see, Marramao and Grossman throw out the qualitative element in this critique, of value as not merely a law, but as a form. In this, Grossman and Marramao represent a significant step //backwards// from Grossman's contemporary I. I. Rubin, who first argued that rather than a 'labor theory of value', what Marx actually had was a value theory of labor: why does labor take this form under these historical conditions? | So we do indeed have a theory of decadence in Grossman, but at the same time attempted through a rigorous reading of the law of value. But what is this law of value? I am in agreement with both Grossman and Marramao that any notion of crisis is indeed grounded in Marx’s critique of value, ut as we will see, Marramao and Grossman throw out the qualitative element in this critique, of value as not merely a law, but as a form. In this, Grossman and Marramao represent a significant step //backwards// from Grossman’s contemporary I. I. Rubin, who first argued that rather than a 'labor theory of value', what Marx actually had was a value theory of labor: why does labor take this form under these historical conditions? |
| |
| Methodologically Grossman moves in exactly the opposite direction from Marx's work in Volume 2 of //Capital//. Grossman, //pace// Mattick, wants to show how capitalism must collapse, but Marx was interested in showing how capital could in fact reproduce itself in and through its contradictions and crises. Maybe this is why Clarke refers to “Grossman's (1929) idiosyncratic 'shortage of surplus value' theory of overaccumulation, based on a bizarre representation of Marx's reproduction schemas.” (p. 67, //Marx's Theory of Crisis//, 1994.) | Methodologically Grossman moves in exactly the opposite direction from Marx's work in Volume 2 of //Capital//. Grossman, //pace// Mattick, wants to show how capitalism must collapse, but Marx was interested in showing how capital could in fact reproduce itself in and through its contradictions and crises. Maybe this is why Clarke refers to “Grossman’s (1929) idiosyncratic 'shortage of surplus value' theory of overaccumulation, based on a bizarre representation of Marx's reproduction schemas.” (p. 67, //Marx's Theory of Crisis//, 1994.) |
| |
| Following Grossman, Marramao attributes to Pannekoek an economism-voluntarism and associates this with the reformist theoreticians like Hilferding and Braunthal. What is most intriguing in this statement is Marramao's seeming obliviousness to the fact that this movement of economism-voluntarism or what we could also call objectivism-voluntarism, is to be found in Lenin and the Bolsheviks as early as the turn of the century. Not only that, Luxemburg herself adopted a theory of decadence alongside a political passivism that displayed itself in 1918--19 in democratism and an educationalist attitude towards the class struggle.((For two scathing critiques of Rosa Luxemburg and the Spartakusbund, see “The Revolutionary Movement in Germany, 1917--1923”, Internationalist Communist Group and “On the Origins and Early Years of Working Class Revolutionary Politics: An Introduction to 'Left Communism' in Germany from 1914 to 1923” by Dave Graham, July 1994)) Both sides in fact represented certain limits within Social Democracy, and both held to a notion of decadence, to which Grossman also holds. | Following Grossman, Marramao attributes to Pannekoek an economism-voluntarism and associates this with the reformist theoreticians like Hilferding and Braunthal. What is most intriguing in this statement is Marramao's seeming obliviousness to the fact that this movement of economism-voluntarism or what we could also call objectivism-voluntarism, is to be found in Lenin and the Bolsheviks as early as the turn of the century. Not only that, Luxemburg herself adopted a theory of decadence alongside a political passivism that displayed itself in 1918--19 in democratism and an educationalist attitude towards the class struggle.((For two scathing critiques of Rosa Luxemburg and the Spartakusbund, see “The Revolutionary Movement in Germany, 1917--1923”, Internationalist Communist Group and “On the Origins and Early Years of Working Class Revolutionary Politics: An Introduction to 'Left Communism' in Germany from 1914 to 1923” by Dave Graham, July 1994)) Both sides in fact represented certain limits within Social Democracy, and both held to a notion of decadence, to which Grossman also holds. |
| |
| In relation to the development of class consciousness, Marramao goes with Grossman and Mattick, even as he understands there is a problem in their approach. In Section 5 therefore he goes along with revolutionary class consciousness as developing through the inevitable collapse of capital, in the //objective conditions of capitalist development and crisis//. With Mattick as with Grossman, it seems that it is the collapse of capital that gives rise to consciousness. As Aufheben noted in their above article, this approach does not accidentally make itself felt in periods of defeat or retreat where there is the tendency to wish a good kick in the asses of the masses to get them going. Such was certainly the case in the late 1920's and early 1930's, with fascism victorious in Italy and Poland, the working class defeated in Germany, Italy, Hungary, Britain, and China, depression breaking out, Stalinism overtaking the Comintern, fascism rearing up in Germany, etc. | In relation to the development of class consciousness, Marramao goes with Grossman and Mattick, even as he understands there is a problem in their approach. In Section 5 therefore he goes along with revolutionary class consciousness as developing through the inevitable collapse of capital, in the //objective conditions of capitalist development and crisis//. With Mattick as with Grossman, it seems that it is the collapse of capital that gives rise to consciousness. As Aufheben noted in their above article, this approach does not accidentally make itself felt in periods of defeat or retreat where there is the tendency to wish a good kick in the asses of the masses to get them going. Such was certainly the case in the late 1920's and early 1930’s, with fascism victorious in Italy and Poland, the working class defeated in Germany, Italy, Hungary, Britain, and China, depression breaking out, Stalinism overtaking the Comintern, fascism rearing up in Germany, etc. |
| |
| While I have made some comments on Grossman, my focus has been Marramao's use of Grossman. There are ways in which, if Marramao is correct, Grossman is in fact attempting to link value, crisis, relations of production, and the proper degree of mediation between the movement of capital and class struggle. The discussion in Section 7 is especially prescient. Clearly, Marramao challenges the idea that Grossman and Mattick are //per se// 'closed' or whether or not they simply assume closure for the purposes of a certain analysis. And it is admirable of Grossman to attempt to show how the antagonism between capital and labor presents itself only in a mediate fashion vis-a-vis the separation of use-value and exchange-value, the contradiction between means of production and relations of production, etc. The critique of “workers' autonomy” and of the need to abolish the commodity and wage are all well taken. | While I have made some comments on Grossman, my focus has been Marramao's use of Grossman. There are ways in which, if Marramao is correct, Grossman is in fact attempting to link value, crisis, relations of production, and the proper degree of mediation between the movement of capital and class struggle. The discussion in Section 7 is especially prescient. Clearly, Marramao challenges the idea that Grossman and Mattick are //per se// 'closed' or whether or not they simply assume closure for the purposes of a certain analysis. And it is admirable of Grossman to attempt to show how the antagonism between capital and labor presents itself only in a mediate fashion vis-a-vis the separation of use-value and exchange-value, the contradiction between means of production and relations of production, etc. The critique of “workers’ autonomy” and of the need to abolish the commodity and wage are all well taken. |
| |
| One of the more novel moments in the essay is in footnote 39, where Marramao relates some discussion of an article that challenged Grossman for mistaking what Marx is doing. The comments and Grossman's response are both instructive and yet too short. To me it seems that Grossman wants his cake and to eat it too. On the one hand | One of the more novel moments in the essay is in footnote 39, where Marramao relates some discussion of an article that challenged Grossman for mistaking what Marx is doing. The comments and Grossman's response are both instructive and yet too short. To me it seems that Grossman wants his cake and to eat it too. On the one hand |
| On the other hand, | On the other hand, |
| |
| > To Marx-assures the critic- it is not important to explain the capitalist reality (as I claim). The same critic proposes, besides, to furnish a 'theory' of crises. But what significance does the theory have unless one proposes not only to describe the data, but to understand it in its functional connections and thus to explain it?" Cf. Marx, op.cit., p. 99. | > To Marx -- assures the critic -- it is not important to explain the capitalist reality (as I claim). The same critic proposes, besides, to furnish a 'theory' of crises. But what significance does the theory have unless one proposes not only to describe the data, but to understand it in its functional connections and thus to explain it? (Cf. Marx, op.cit., p. 99.) |
| |
| Can we in fact have it both ways? Is there a splitting here or simply an operation at different levels? | Can we in fact have it both ways? Is there a splitting here or simply an operation at different levels? |
| >> seek a practical standard of value which would make possible the equalization of the products of labor on the market. This equalization takes place in reality every day of the process of market exchange. In this process, spontaneously, a standard of value is worked out, namely money, which is indispensable for this equalization." (Rubin, pp. 125) | >> seek a practical standard of value which would make possible the equalization of the products of labor on the market. This equalization takes place in reality every day of the process of market exchange. In this process, spontaneously, a standard of value is worked out, namely money, which is indispensable for this equalization." (Rubin, pp. 125) |
| |
| > What follows in Rubin's argument is pertinent to Negri's criticism of Marx. Negri looks at Marx's project through the distorted lens of Marxism, wherein overridingly Marx's theory of value is understood as positing that labour time is the practical means of the measure of value. Rubin on the other hand understands that because Marx was concerned with the social form of value, that his emphasis was really on demonstrating that labour power is the substance of value. The argument is theoretical, or ontological: the point is not a practical standard of value of labour, but to demonstrate how 'in a commodity economy the equalization of labor is carried out through the equalization of the products of labour". | > What follows in Rubin’s argument is pertinent to Negri’s criticism of Marx. Negri looks at Marx's project through the distorted lens of Marxism, wherein overridingly Marx's theory of value is understood as positing that labour time is the practical means of the measure of value. Rubin on the other hand understands that because Marx was concerned with the social form of value, that his emphasis was really on demonstrating that labour power is the substance of value. The argument is theoretical, or ontological: the point is not a practical standard of value of labour, but to demonstrate how 'in a commodity economy the equalization of labor is carried out through the equalization of the products of labour". |
| > | > |
| > Rubin introduces material from Theories of Surplus Value, a text which incidentally qualifies for treatment by the standards of aleatory materialism due to the absence of a strict phenomenological and dialectical schema of exposition, where Marx treats the theory of value, not as an external pre-established criterion of measure, but as the "Immanent standard" and "substance" of value. | > Rubin introduces material from Theories of Surplus Value, a text which incidentally qualifies for treatment by the standards of aleatory materialism due to the absence of a strict phenomenological and dialectical schema of exposition, where Marx treats the theory of value, not as an external pre-established criterion of measure, but as the "Immanent standard" and "substance" of value. |
| > The result? I submit that this part of her analysis of crisis provides little of use to the working class other than a formal argument about the inevitability of imperialism. | > The result? I submit that this part of her analysis of crisis provides little of use to the working class other than a formal argument about the inevitability of imperialism. |
| |
| he can simultaneously miss the point that you cannot just lump Grossman and Mattick with Luxemburg, just because Grossman and Mattick share with Luxemburg the idea of the inevitability of the collapse of capital and the conflation of such a thing with the inevitability of crises in capital. Cleaver also mistakenly refers to the “political totality”, but such a phraseology would have been foreign to Marx. Rubin is more correct in formulating Marx's addressing of simply 'the totality.' The “political” of Cleaver is connected to his essentially //immediatist// analysis, in which //Capital// is a book immediately about class struggle, without recognizing the mediations and levels of analysis to which a Grossman and a Mattick attend. Grossman wrote a quite excellent two part article that highlights his richness compared to Luxemburg theoretically, his attentiveness to dialectic and to the fact that Marx is not doing the work of political economy, originally reprinted in English in //Capital & Class// nos. 2 and 3.((Grossman makes the simple point that Marx repeatedly refers to Ricardo as the //end// of political economy and to John Stuart Mill, Say, et al as the beginning of vulgar economics in a survey that is simultaneously magisterial and succinct, but also pointing out that since Marx regards his distinction of the dual character of value as one of this three innovations (see pp. 38--39, “Marx, Classical Political Economy and the Problem of Dynamics, Part I”, Henryk Grossman, //Capital & Class// No. 2, Summer 1977. Also footnote 40, a translation of the letter being available at [[http://www.dreamscape.com/rvien/Economics/Essays/MyTranscription.html]].)) This analysis is sophisticated and hardly can be ignored, though in English we have merely one abridged translation of his masterpiece and Mattick's work, which pretty much put forward Grossman's analysis. | he can simultaneously miss the point that you cannot just lump Grossman and Mattick with Luxemburg, just because Grossman and Mattick share with Luxemburg the idea of the inevitability of the collapse of capital and the conflation of such a thing with the inevitability of crises in capital. Cleaver also mistakenly refers to the “political totality”, but such a phraseology would have been foreign to Marx. Rubin is more correct in formulating Marx's addressing of simply 'the totality.' The “political” of Cleaver is connected to his essentially //immediatist// analysis, in which //Capital// is a book immediately about class struggle, without recognizing the mediations and levels of analysis to which a Grossman and a Mattick attend. Grossman wrote a quite excellent two part article that highlights his richness compared to Luxemburg theoretically, his attentiveness to dialectic and to the fact that Marx is not doing the work of political economy, originally reprinted in English in //Capital & Class// nos. 2 and 3.((Grossman makes the simple point that Marx repeatedly refers to Ricardo as the //end// of political economy and to John Stuart Mill, Say, et al as the beginning of vulgar economics in a survey that is simultaneously magisterial and succinct, but also pointing out that since Marx regards his distinction of the dual character of value as one of this three innovations (see pp. 38--39, “Marx, Classical Political Economy and the Problem of Dynamics, Part I”, Henryk Grossman, //Capital & Class// no. 2, Summer 1977. Also footnote 40, a translation of the letter being available at [[http://www.dreamscape.com/rvien/Economics/Essays/MyTranscription.html]].)) This analysis is sophisticated and hardly can be ignored, though in English we have merely one abridged translation of his masterpiece and Mattick's work, which pretty much put forward Grossman's analysis. |
| |
| This work has its own strengths, to which Marramao and also Ron Rothbart attest in their articles. Rothbart notes in fact that the only real limit of Mattick's work, and by extension Grossman's essential thesis, | This work has its own strengths, to which Marramao and also Ron Rothbart attest in their articles. Rothbart notes in fact that the only real limit of Mattick's work, and by extension Grossman's essential thesis, |
| This process does exactly what Gunn criticizes, correctly, as the movement from the 'general concept' to the 'special case', or from a genus to a species.((Gunn, Richard, “Marxism and Philosophy”, //Capital & Class// no. 37, Spring 1989)) In the case of Grossman and Mattick, it also involves the above-mentioned treatment of quantity as just that, as mere quantity, rather than in its interconnection to quality and to form. | This process does exactly what Gunn criticizes, correctly, as the movement from the 'general concept' to the 'special case', or from a genus to a species.((Gunn, Richard, “Marxism and Philosophy”, //Capital & Class// no. 37, Spring 1989)) In the case of Grossman and Mattick, it also involves the above-mentioned treatment of quantity as just that, as mere quantity, rather than in its interconnection to quality and to form. |
| |
| As such, we can clearly object to what I think is Rothbart's fair presentation of the matter, as is Marramao's, on non-economic grounds, but on the grounds of the critique //of political economy// to which Grossman was vitally aware, but which it seems he could not wholly embrace, determined as he was to fid the causal mechanism of crises (a vain hope, in my opinion for a critique of capital interested in the rich, mutual determinations and therefore unlikely to seek a single originary cause or a causal model at all), proving the //necessity of crises// in capital and a //theory of the collapse of capitalism//. Therein lies another objection to Marramao (as well as to Ron Rothbart’s article.) Both in fact reproduce the limits of Grossman and Mattick's economics, and do not go much beyond. Their service lies primarily in giving attention to the strong critique of the subjectivist tendency in Marxism made by people like Mattick and Grossman. | As such, we can clearly object to what I think is Rothbart’s fair presentation of the matter, as is Marramao’s, on non-economic grounds, but on the grounds of the critique //of political economy// to which Grossman was vitally aware, but which it seems he could not wholly embrace, determined as he was to fid the causal mechanism of crises (a vain hope, in my opinion for a critique of capital interested in the rich, mutual determinations and therefore unlikely to seek a single originary cause or a causal model at all), proving the //necessity of crises// in capital and a //theory of the collapse of capitalism//. Therein lies another objection to Marramao (as well as to Ron Rothbart’s article.) Both in fact reproduce the limits of Grossman and Mattick's economics, and do not go much beyond. Their service lies primarily in giving attention to the strong critique of the subjectivist tendency in Marxism made by people like Mattick and Grossman. |
| |
| Rothbart, and by extension the others, makes the mistake of seeing economic crises as the context in which class struggle takes place. This clearly involves the very separation of class struggle and laws of motion of capital that they critique in Pannekoek, Korsch, Castoriadas, et al. It is a wholly insufficient way of posing the question, as it places class struggle and the laws of motion of capital as external to each other and therefore as requiring some integration or relating, rather than as internally related, as a relation of form and content. This is of course in rejection of the immediatist positing of the unity of class struggle and capital's laws where class struggle is conceived not as inherent in the split relations of value, labor, sociality, etc. into antagonistic but intertwined forms of social relations, but at the level of the phenomenal manifestations of these splits. | Rothbart, and by extension the others, makes the mistake of seeing economic crises as the context in which class struggle takes place. This clearly involves the very separation of class struggle and laws of motion of capital that they critique in Pannekoek, Korsch, Castoriadas, et al. It is a wholly insufficient way of posing the question, as it places class struggle and the laws of motion of capital as external to each other and therefore as requiring some integration or relating, rather than as internally related, as a relation of form and content. This is of course in rejection of the immediatist positing of the unity of class struggle and capital's laws where class struggle is conceived not as inherent in the split relations of value, labor, sociality, etc. into antagonistic but intertwined forms of social relations, but at the level of the phenomenal manifestations of these splits. |
| |
| By turns, one could deploy Rothbart's conclusions, and by extension Marramao's, as they tend in this direction, against the very heart of “Communism of Attack, Communism of Withdrawal” because it rejects, following Theorie Communiste, the very idea that | By turns, one could deploy Rothbart’s conclusions, and by extension Marramao’s, as they tend in this direction, against the very heart of “Communism of Attack, Communism of Withdrawal” because it rejects, following Theorie Communiste, the very idea that |
| |
| > …the intensified struggle over the rate of exploitation can actually become, or is in the process of becoming, a revolutionary struggle overflowing the bounds of the capital relation, how it can turn into a struggle against wage-labor, | > …the intensified struggle over the rate of exploitation can actually become, or is in the process of becoming, a revolutionary struggle overflowing the bounds of the capital relation, how it can turn into a struggle against wage-labor, |
| There is no notion of a break, of a non-continuity between labor as capital and labor against (and beyond) capital. In fact, for the conception in “Communism of Attack…”, there is no labor against, there is only being against labor. I think that Henrik has adequately critiqued this limitation, though there is indeed more to be said on certain aspects which Henrik did not address.((For my part, I found the whole discussion of the party, the state and revolution following from the previous at times dubious formulations and therefore re-producing aspects of the very problem inherent to councilism, autonomist Marxism and anarchism (anti-authoritarianism in general.))) | There is no notion of a break, of a non-continuity between labor as capital and labor against (and beyond) capital. In fact, for the conception in “Communism of Attack…”, there is no labor against, there is only being against labor. I think that Henrik has adequately critiqued this limitation, though there is indeed more to be said on certain aspects which Henrik did not address.((For my part, I found the whole discussion of the party, the state and revolution following from the previous at times dubious formulations and therefore re-producing aspects of the very problem inherent to councilism, autonomist Marxism and anarchism (anti-authoritarianism in general.))) |
| |
| The problem with Grossman's notion of accumulation is that it is essentially economistic and ignores the accumulation of capital as the extension of the capital--labor relation. As Geoff Hodgson stated in the 1970's around the same time as Marramao's piece, | The problem with Grossman’s notion of accumulation is that it is essentially economistic and ignores the accumulation of capital as the extension of the capital--labor relation. As Geoff Hodgson stated in the 1970’s around the same time as Marramao’s piece, |
| |
| > The accumulation of capital, therefore, cannot be simply reduced to the accumulation of homogeneous embodied labour. This error has continually re-occurred in the Marxian tradition. It is not uncommon for Marxists to treat reproduction schemes as if they reflect money prices, or even the physical scale of production, whereas these schemes are in value terms only. In the historic debates that were generated by the publication of Rosa Luxemburg's //The Accumulation of Capital// in 1913, Otto Bauer and others made the same error. Bauer ignored the problems uncovered by Luxemburg by concentrating exclusively on the accumulation of embodied labour values. Luxemburg on the other hand compounded this confusion by mistaking the accumulation of capital for the accumulation of money, and an increasing social product measured in price terms. | > The accumulation of capital, therefore, cannot be simply reduced to the accumulation of homogeneous embodied labour. This error has continually re-occurred in the Marxian tradition. It is not uncommon for Marxists to treat reproduction schemes as if they reflect money prices, or even the physical scale of production, whereas these schemes are in value terms only. In the historic debates that were generated by the publication of Rosa Luxemburg’s //The Accumulation of Capital// in 1913, Otto Bauer and others made the same error. Bauer ignored the problems uncovered by Luxemburg by concentrating exclusively on the accumulation of embodied labour values. Luxemburg on the other hand compounded this confusion by mistaking the accumulation of capital for the accumulation of money, and an increasing social product measured in price terms. |
| > | > |
| > In fact accumulation involves all these aspects, but is not reducible to any one of them; capital accumulation is not just the accumulation of things, or the augmentation of single quantities. Fundamentally, the accumulation of capital is the reproduction of capitalist social relations on an extended scale. It involves the extension of these relations over all other subordinate modes of production, which become destroyed or subsumed by capitalism, and the intensification of these relations, when, for instance, the means of production become monopolized by fewer capitalists. | > In fact accumulation involves all these aspects, but is not reducible to any one of them; capital accumulation is not just the accumulation of things, or the augmentation of single quantities. Fundamentally, the accumulation of capital is the reproduction of capitalist social relations on an extended scale. It involves the extension of these relations over all other subordinate modes of production, which become destroyed or subsumed by capitalism, and the intensification of these relations, when, for instance, the means of production become monopolized by fewer capitalists. |