From: glevy@PRATT.EDU
Date: Thu Apr 26 2007 - 08:08:13 EDT
>Review > > > > >---------- >Introducing Marx's Capital > >Francis Wheen, Marx's Das Kapital, Atlantic >Books, 2006. Hardback, 130pp, £9.99. > >Reviewed by Mike Rooke > >WRITTEN IN the clear and succinct style of his >1999 biography of Karl Marx, this book offers an >account (a "biography") of the genesis and >fortunes of Marx's Das Kapital. Issued as part >of a "Books that shook the world" series that >includes the likes of Plato, Darwin, Paine, and >the Bible, the aim was clearly to offer a short >guide that would provide an introduction for >students and the general reader. The book >consists of three parts covering the genesis, >content and afterlife of Marx's magnum opus. In >contrast to the many commentaries that present >it as a work of Economics (or Political >Economy), Wheen sets out to present Capital as a >work that extends "beyond conventional prose >into radical literary collage", incorporating as >it does allusions and references to the "great" >works of literature – Classical Greek, >Shakespeare, Goethe, Balzac, etc. In other words >it can be understood as a "gothic" work of art >depicting capital as a devouring monster of >human labour (the phrase "capital is dead labour >which, vampire-like, lives only by sucking >living labour" adorns the back cover of the >book). Wheen makes a convincing case in support of this thesis. > >In tracing the gestation of Das Kapital, the >first volume of which was published in 1867, >with the second and third volumes appearing only >after Marx's death in 1883, Wheen begins with >Marx's 1844 Paris Manuscripts , where (under the >influence of Engels' 'Critique of Political >Economy') he engages critically with Political >Economy for the first time, and the category of >alienated labour is elaborated. The Paris >Manuscripts , The Poverty of Philosophy (1847), >the Theories of Surplus Value (mid-1860s) and >the Grundrisse (1857-58), were so many staging >posts in the developing work whose intended >final product was Das Kapital . It was thus a >lifelong work in progress, and of course, as >Wheen describes, incomplete at the time of Marx's death. > >The analysis of the commodity in the opening >chapters of Volume 1 of Das Kapital, where the >categories of use value and exchange value, >useful and abstract labour, the labour theory of >value, surplus value and commodity fetishism are >introduced, is given the standard treatment, but >in Wheen's admirably clear and economical prose >style. Along the way he disposes of several >objections traditionally levelled against Marx – >that his immiseration thesis is disproven by the >rising standard of living of the working class >of the "developed" countries, and that the >majority of workers are no longer exploited. >Wheen makes it clear that Marx's point was >always that the more productive labour became, >the greater the domination of capital (as >accumulated value) over it. The exploitation of >labour and the imperatives it gives rise to – >the pressure to work long hours and the >intensification of the work effort – remain the >driving forces behind capitalist industry and a >source of alienation for its workers. But while >Wheen takes the view that Das Kapital remains >relevant because "its subject still governs our >lives" (the baleful domination of humanity by >the imperative of production for the sake of >production), he implicitly rejects Marx's view >that the capitalist mode of production contains >within it its own negation, the conviction that >living labour can become a revolutionary force. >There is no appreciation of any logic pointing >beyond the continuing domination of capital. >Such an appreciation would have required a grasp >of the centrality of the dialectic to Das >Kapital. But Wheen's view of Marx's dialectic is >that it was a useful literary device (borrowed >from Hegel) that he employed to prevent his >predictions being dis-proven by the actual >outcome of events. In other words, for Marx >"dialectic means never having to admit that one >was wrong." This is a hopelessly inadequate >position to take, even if it appears to be >supported by a cursory remark made by Marx to >Engels in their personal correspondence. > >While Wheen treats the labour theory of value, >abstract labour and alienation as important and >central to Capital, he does not (along with most >other commentators) appreciate their unity. The >unity of alienated labour = abstract labour = >value, can only be understood as a dialectic of >social antagonism that drives forms of value >(commodity, money) to assert their autonomy from >labour (the source of value). This dialectic >thus has a diachronic aspect (it develops over >time) and proceeds through the struggle of class >against class. In failing to grasp this >dialectic orthodox Marxism never understood the >transformation that was required for the >abolition of wage labour. For it is only with >the full development of wage labour that the >pre-requisites for its supersession emerge: the >colonisation of all life by value, both >spatially in the world market, and in the >homogenisation of capitalist work. Only as a >dialectic does the development of the wage >labour-capital relation become intelligible as >communist critique. The subjectivity denied >living labour appears as its opposite in the >objectivity of value (fetishism), but this >objectivity is in turn the (contradictory) >foundation for the (reconstitution) of >subjectivity at a higher level – the conscious >direction of social labour by the associated >producers. Without the dialectic understood in >this way, the society of capital indeed appears >as the end of history, without a subject that >can subvert its dominance. Notwithstanding his >sympathy for Marx, Wheen's position is one of a >resigned fatalism in the face of capital. > >But why, asks Wheen, did Marx not encapsulate >his "economic" concepts in a short book the size >of Value, Price and Profit (1865), rather than >the thousands of pages of Das Kapital? He quotes >Ludovico Silva to the effect that "the delusive >nature of things" necessitated a critique of >traditional categories and the creation of >entirely new ones: "In short, Das Kapital is >entirely sui generis". This invokes Marx's >comment that if the appearance of things >coincided unproblematically with their essence >there would be no need for science. But this >only returns us to the relation of the dialectic >and Marx's critique. Das Kapital is a massive >and at times tortuous working through of >categories that express the contradictory >workings of the real – the unity of opposites >constituted by the value form of social labour. >It was necessarily difficult, not because Marx >had a penchant for metaphysical acrobatics, but >because the object was the inverted, >"topsy-turvy" world of the commodity form, whose >mode of appearance is necessarily fetishistic. > >In covering the "afterlife" of Das Kapital, >Wheen offers the reader a sprinkling of >interesting observations about the reception of >the first volume. Only in Russia was there any >enthusiastic response, and no English edition >appeared in Marx's lifetime. The publication of >the second and third volumes was the result of >editing work by Engels. But the real point is >that the dialectic of labour that animates and >structures Das Kapital, was not absorbed by the >first generation of Marxists after Marx. In this >way Hyndman, in keeping with most post-Marx >Marxists, could celebrate the book (and as Wheen >informs us, plagiarise it), but fail to grasp >its dialectic. Admittedly readers then did not >have the benefit of access to Marx's 1844 Paris >Manuscripts, and so might justifiably have had >difficulty in detecting the alienation of labour >that runs below the surface of the entire >analysis of Das Kapital. This failure however >had the consequence of leaving that generation >of Marxists with a limited conception of the >self-transformation of labour required for its >abolition. Marx bears some responsibility too – >in seeking to present a work whose "scientific" >credentials would disarm the bourgeois critics, >he left the dialectic of labour more "hidden" than was necessary. > >In the concluding part of the book Wheen takes a >justifiable swipe at the plundering of Marx by >the contemporary cultural studies brigade, and >points out that much of what passes as radical >critique and research in the academy, is in fact >recycled Marx. The message is – best to refer to >the original. For readers exploring Marx for the >first time, this book will provide a useful >antidote to the overly scholastic exegeses >produced by the academic Marx industry. It also >comes with a degree of Wheen humour that makes >for an entertaining as well as informative read. >But it must be treated with caution, lacking as >it does any appreciation of the dialectic that >is key to Marx's view of revolution. If it whets >your appetite, persevere with the opening >chapters of Das Kapital itself. There is ultimately no substitute. > > >----------
This archive was generated by hypermail 2.1.5 : Mon Apr 30 2007 - 00:00:17 EDT