V a l u e T h e o r y R e c o n s i d e r e d in the Light of R e c e n t Debates, w i t h A p p l i c a t i o n to the N a t u r e of Value, the C o m p o s i t i o n of
Capital, and the T r a n s f o r m a t i o n P r o b l e m
A l f r e d o A n t o n i o Sa a d F i l h o D e p a r t m e n t of E c o no mi cs
School of Ori e n t a l and A f r i c a n S t u d i e s U n i v e r s i t y of L o n d o n
T h e s i s s u b m i t t e d for the d e g r e e of PhD, July 1994
1
ProQuest Number: 10672830
All rights reserved
INFORMATION TO ALL USERS
The qu ality of this repro d u ctio n is d e p e n d e n t upon the q u ality of the copy subm itted.
In the unlikely e v e n t that the a u th o r did not send a c o m p le te m anuscript and there are missing pages, these will be note d . Also, if m aterial had to be rem oved,
a n o te will in d ica te the deletion.
uest
ProQuest 10672830
Published by ProQuest LLC(2017). C op yrig ht of the Dissertation is held by the Author.
All rights reserved.
This work is protected against unauthorized copying under Title 17, United States C o d e M icroform Edition © ProQuest LLC.
ProQuest LLC.
789 East Eisenhower Parkway P.O. Box 1346
A C K N O W L E D G M E N T S
In the c o ur se of p r e p a r i n g this thesis, I h a v e b e e n hel p e d by m a n y people. I owe a great debt to t ho s e w ho read drafts of this w o r k and o f f e r e d c r i t i c i s m s and e n c ou r a g e m e n t : Chris Arthur, S u z a n n e de Brunhoff, G u g l i e l m o C a r c h e d i , Ge r a r d Dumenil, D u n c a n Foley, A l a n Freeman, P ao l o Giussani, L a u re nc e Harris, Ryoji Ishizuka, D e b o r a h Johnston, Derek Kerr, R i c h a r d Ketley, A n d r e w Kliman, C o s t a s Lapavitsas, P at ri c k Mason, B r i a n McGrail, John Miller, S i m o h Mohun, Fred Moseley, A l e j a n d r o R a m o s - M a r t i h e z , A d o l f o R o d r i g u e z - H e r r e r a , Ali Shamsavari, Frank T h o m p s o n and John Weeks.
My g r e at es t t h a n ks go to Ben Fine, w h o s u p e r v i s e d this thesis. H e c o n t r i b u t e d m or e than a ny on e else to its succes s f u l completion.
S u pport from m y parents, Zina and Alfredo, an d from M a r i n a and B e n i t o Caparelli, was indispensable. To them, my w a rm es t t h a n k s .
I am p l e a s e d to a c k n o w l e d g e the receipt of a s ch o l a r s h i p from the B r a z i l i a n M i n i s t r y of Education, t h r o u g h CAPES, w h i c h m ad e p o s s i b l e my s t udies in the U n i t e d Kingdom.
This w o r k is d e d i c a t e d to Rita, m y companion, m y wife.
A B S T R A CT
This t hesis is a c o nt ri b u t i o n to recent d eb a t e s on the l a bour t h e o r y of v a l ue (LTV). It bui l d s u p o n two dis t i n c t i v e features of the LTV; first, the c a t e g o r i e s u s e d in the in q u i r y are h i s t o r i c a l l y d e t e r m i n e d m o d e s of e x i s t e nc e of c a pi ta l is t social relations; second, it r e je ct s e q u il ib ri um as the o r g a n i z i n g p ri n c i p l e of the i n v e stigation. Six issues are a n a l y s e d in the light of these e l em en ts and the previous literature. First, the r el at io ns hi p b e t w e e n dialectical logic and the LTV is a d d r e s s e d t h r o u g h an e v a l u a t i o n of the
'new dialect i c s ' . This a p p r o a c h to M a r x ' s m e t h o d u n d e r s t a n d s the L T V as a s y s t em at ic dia l e c t i c a l theory, w h o s e ai m is the r e c o n s t r u c t i o n in tho u g h t of the m a i n c h a r a c t e r i s t i c s of capitalism. Second, the r e l at io ns hi p b e t w e e n labour and va l u e is a s s e s s e d t h r o u g h the real p r o c e s s e s that d e t e r m i n e v a lu e and price, the normalization, s y n c h r o n i z a t i o n and h o m o g e n i z a t i o n (NSH) of labour. T hree w e l l - k n o w n vi e w s of the LT V are a ss e s s e d in this light; the traditional, the Sraffian, and the 'abstract labour' view.
Third, the m o n e t a r y r ef o r m d e v i se d by the 'Ricardian socialist' e c on om is ts in the 19th Century, w h i c h was c e n t re d a r o u nd the i n st it ut io n of a 'l a b o u r - m o n e y '. T h i s plan, and M a rx ' s c r i t i q u e of it, are i nv es ti ga te d f r o m the v ie wp oi nt of the N SH of labour. Fourth, the d i s t i n c t i o n b e tw ee n the technical, o r g a n i c and v a lu e c om po s i t i o n s of capital (TCC, OCC and VCC). The e v o l u t i o n of M ar x' s use of t hese terms is reconstructed, and t h e ir place in his a n a ly si s is b ro u g h t to light. Fifth, the t r a n s f o r m a t i o n of v al ue s into p ri c e s of p r o d u c t i o n is r e i n t e r p r e t e d in the light of the d is t i n c t i o n be tw ee n O C C and VCC. T h i s v i e w of the t r a n s f o r m a t i o n is c o n t r a s t e d w i t h the c on c e r n s of the c r i t i c s of M arx's approach. Sixth, the c o n t r i b u t i o n of the 'new approach' to the t r a n s f o r m a t i o n p r o b l e m to the LT V is e v a l u a t e d in d e t a i l .
T A B L E OF C O N T E N T S
I n t r o d u c t i o n . . ... 6
1 - The ’N e w D ialectics' and the L abour T h e o r y of V a l ue ..13
1.1 - The La b o u r T h e o r y of V a l u e as a S y s t e m a t i c D i a l e c ti c al T h e o r y ... ... 14 1.2 - The S t a r t i n g - P o i n t of ’Capital' ... 23 1.3 - C o n c l u s i o n ... . ...30 2 - N o rm al i z a t i o n , S y n c h r o n i z a t i o n and H o m o g e n i z a t i o n of La b o u r s in M a r x ' s T h e o r y of V a l u e ... 34 2.1 - C o mmodities, L a b o u r and V a l u e ... 35 2.2 - The N o r m a l i z a t i o n of L a bours ... 42 2.3 - The S y n c h r o n i z a t i o n of Lab o u r s ... 44 2.4 - The H o m o g e n i z a t i o n of Lab o u r s ... 48
2.5 - The 'Embodied Labour' A p p r o a c h to M ar x ' s V a l u e T h e o r y ... 56
2.6 - The 'Abstract L a b o u r ’ V e r s i o n of M a r x ' s T h e o r y of V a l u e ... 64
2.7 - C o n c l u s i o n ...70
3 - Labour, V a l u e and Money: A Co m m e n t on M a r x ’s C r i t i q ue of John G r ay 's P r op o s e d M o n e t a r y R e f o r m ... 72 3.1 - John G r ay ' s M o n e t a r y A n a l y s i s ... 73 3.2 - N or m a l i z a t i o n , S y n c h r o n i z a t i o n and H o m o g e n i z a t i o n of La b o u r and the L a b o u r - M o n e y S c he me ... 79 3.3 - M o n e y as the M e a s u r e of V a l u e s ...83 3.4 - O t h e r F u nc ti o n s of M o n e y ... 89 3.5 - C o n c l u s i o n ... 94 4
4 - The D e v e l o p m e n t of the C on c e p t s of Technical, O r ga ni c and V a l u e C o m p o s i t i o n of Capital: A n I n t e r p r e t a t i o n ..98 4.1 - The St a t i c Case ... 102 \ 4.2 - The D y n a m i c Case ...112 4.3 - C o n c l u s i o n ...118 5 - O r g a n i c or V a l u e C o m p o s i t i o n of C a p i t a l ? a Re-e v a l u a t i o n of thRe-e T r a n s f o r m a t i o n of V a l u Re-e s into Prices of P r o d u c t i o n ... 121
5.1 - S ur p l u s Value, Profit, and the C o m p o s i t i o n of Capital ... . .123
5.2 - The OCC and the T r a n s f o r m a t i o n P r o b l e m ... 125
5.3 - Fr o m V a l u e s to P rices of P r o d u c t i o n .. ... 128
5.4 - The T r a n s f o r m a t i o n of Input V a l u e s ... 135
5.5 - C o n c l u s i o n ... 139
6 - The 'New Approach' to the T r a n s f o r m a t i o n P r o b l e m and the C h a n g i n g Face of the L abour T h e o r y of V a l u e ... 143
6.1 - An O v e r v i e w of the E a r l y D e b a t e s ... 146
6.2 - Th e Con t e x t of the 'New Approach' ... 148
6.3 - General Equilibrium, C o m p e t i t i o n and Prices ...156
6.4 - V a l u e and General E q u i l i b r i u m ... 163
6.5 - The O p e r a t i o n on the Net P r o d u c t ...166
6.6 - The V a l u e of M o n e y and C o m m o d i t y Pr i c e s ... 170 6.7 - The V a l u e of La b o u r Power ... 174 6.8 - C o n c l u s i o n ... 179 C o n c l u s i o n ... 184 R e f e r e n c e s ... 190 5
I N TR OD U C TI ON
This t h e s i s b u il ds u p o n the labour t he o r y of v a lu e (LTV) to an a l y s e the r el a t i o n s h i p b e t w ee n labour, value, m o n e y and p r i c e at i n c re as i ng levels of complexity. This i nvestigation, and the c o nc lu si on s d r a wn from it, are p r e d i c a t e d u p o n two analyt i c a l principles; first, that the c a te g o r i e s of v a l u e a n a l y s i s sh o u l d be t r e a t e d as h i s t o r i c a l l y d e t e r m i n e d m o d es of e x i s t e n c e of c a p i talist social relations; second, that e q u i l i b r i u m s h o u l d not be one of the o r g a n i z i n g p r i n c i p l e s of the inquiry. T h e se features are essential, b e c a u s e they are at the core of M a r x' s theory of value, and d i s t i n g u i s h it fr o m o t h e r views. In addition, they are useful for the c r i t i q u e of so m e w e l l - k n o w n
c on c e p t i o n s of the labour t h e o r y of value. B r o a d l y speaking, these c o nc e p t i o n s are r e j e c t e d be c a u s e of t h e i r failure to bu i l d u p on some of the most d i s t i n c t i v e a s pe ct s of Marx's c r i t iq u e of political economy, and b e ca us e of the con f l a t i o n of some of its f e a tures w i t h those t y pical of R i c a rdo's approach, or e v en the neoclas s i c a l .
This th e s i s has six chapters. E a c h of t h e m bui l d s u p o n the p r e vi ou s l i te ra t ur e to p r e s e n t a d i s t i n c t i v e c o n tr i b u t i o n to the m a t t e rs b e i n g discussed, and th e y have b e en s tr u c t u r e d in s u c h a w a y that e a c h ch a p t e r can s ta n d a lone as a c o n t r i b u t i o n to the t op i c covered. The first e x a m i n e s the r e l a t i o n s h i p b e t w e e n d ia l e c t i c a l logic and the labour t heory of value. This issue has been the subject of d is pu t e for several decades; this cha p t e r a d d r e ss es it t h r o ug h a critical e v a l u a t i o n of the c o n tr i b u t i o n of the s o- c a l l e d 'new dial e c t i c s ' . This is a r e l a t i v e l y n e w a p p r oa ch to M a r x ' s method, w h o se d i s t i n g u i s h i n g f ea t u r e is the cl a i m that the l abour t h e o r y of v a l u e s h o u l d be seen as a s y s t e m a t i c d i a l e c t i c a l theory. A c c o r d i n g to the 'new dialectics', the p r i n cipal o b j e c t i v e of this t h e o r y is the r e c o n s t r u c t i o n in t h ought of the m a i n fea t u r e s of the c a pi ta li st m o d e of production. To a ch i e v e this, the labour t he or y of v a l u e sh o u l d be d e v e l o p e d in a c c o r d a n c e w i t h the rules of d i a le ct ic al logic.
The c o n t r i b u t i o n of the 'new dialectics' is important, first, b e c a u s e of the rigour w i t h w h i c h it add r e s s e s the co m p l e x issues of the s t r u c tu re and logic of the labour t he o r y of v a lu e and, second, b e ca us e of the emp h a s i s w h i c h it p la ce s u p o n the r el at i o n s h i p b e t w e e n the d i a l e ctical m e t h o d and e c on o m i c analysis. In this respect, the
i n t e l l e c t u a l c o n n e c t i o n b e tw ee n Hegel and M a r x is essential, and the careful r e - e v a l ua ti on of this link is one of the most imp o r t a n t as p e c t s of the 'new dialectics'. However, this line of th o u g h t is still in its infancy, w h i ch ma k e s it d if fi cu lt to i de n t i f y the ess e n t i a l e l e m e n t s of this
a pp r o a c h and d i s t i n g u i s h it from p r e v i o u s analyses. Therefore, the c o n t r i b u t i o n of this c h a p te r is two-fold; first, it p r e s e n t s the arg u m e n t for the 'new dialectics' t h o r o u g h l y and systematically, w h i c h has not be e n done in the past. Second, it b r i e f l y c o n s i d e r s the m a i n problems w i t h this a p p r o a c h to M a r x ' s method.
The se c o n d c h a p t e r i n v e s t i g a t e s the n a t u r e of value. In c o ntrast w i t h mo s t p r e v i o u s studies, that c on c e n t r a t e either on the logical d e r i v a t i o n of the c o ncept of v a l ue or the c al c u l a t i o n of values, this ch a p t e r a r g u e s that the r el at i o n s h i p b e t w e e n labour and v a l ue is best u n d e r s t o o d t h ro ug h the i de nt if i c a t i o n of the real p r o c e s s e s that u n d er li e the d e t e r m i n a t i o n of v a l ue and its e x p r e s s i o n as price. It is shown that c o m m o d it y v al u e s find their e x p r e s s i o n as pr i c e s as the labours that ha v e p r o d u c e d them go t h r o u g h three dis t i n c t real processes, the n ormalization, s y n c h r o n i z a t i o n and h o m o g e n i z a t i o n of labour. Their i de n t i f i c a t i o n and d es c r i p t i o n is one of the most important c on t r i b u t i o n s of this thesis.
The p r o c e s s e s of n o r m alization, s y n c h r o n i z a t i o n and h o m o g e n i z a t i o n of labours p ro v i d e a useful f r a m ework for the st u d y of c o m p e t i t i o n b e t w e e n ca p i t a l s of the same b ra n c h of industry, and for the a na l y s i s of t ec h n i c a l change. In addition, t h ey are u s ed in the a s se ss me nt of the r el at i o n s h i p b e tw ee n v a lu e and price, and in the d e v e l o p m e n t of the b a s is of a d is t i n c t i v e a p pr oa ch to the q ua nt it at iv e d e t e r m i n a t i o n of value. The latter is g r o u n d e d u p o n the c o n ce pt s of li v i n g and virtual labour. T h e i r d e f i ni ti on de p a r t s from the d i s t i n c t i o n b e t w e e n the labour time s o c i a l l y n e c e s s a r y to t r a n s f o r m the inputs into the output, and the labour time s oc i a l l y n e c e s s a r y to reproduce the i n p u t s .
This a p p r o a c h to va l u e t he o r y is not conventional, but it is useful and i ll u m i n a t e s some a s pects of the relations b et w e e n
labour and v a l ue that are o ft e n neglected. Therefore, it can be u s ed to a ssess the c o g e n c y of other, m o r e traditional views of the labour t h e o r y of value. This c h a p t e r considers in detail t hree of the b e s t - k n o w n views of this theory; the traditional, d e v e l o p e d by M a u r i c e Dobb, R o n a l d M e e k and Paul Sweezy, the r el at i v e l y m o r e m od e r n a p p r o a c h of the S r a ffian school, and the 'abstract labour' view, d e v e l o p e d in the 1970s by w r i t e r s ins p i r e d by the Soviet e c o n o m i s t Rubin.
The t h i r d c h a p t e r a s se s s e s the m o n e t a r y r e f o r m p r o p o s e d by the s o - c a l l e d R i c a r d i a n soc i a l i s t e c o n o m i s t s in the ea r l y and m i d - 1 9 t h Century. The mo s t i m p o rtant aspect of this r e f or m is the i n s t i tu t i on of a 'labour-money', a form of m o n e y w h o se s t a n d ar d is the hour of labour, i n stead of the p o u nd s t e r l in g or whatever. A c c o r d i n g to its proponents, this f o r m of m o n e y w o u l d lead to a c r i s i s - f r e e economy, w h o s e d e v e l o p m e n t w o u l d no longer be l im it e d by c o n st ra in ts s t e m m i n g fr o m the m o n e t a r y sphere. The c ri ti q u e of this idea is important, b e ca us e any d i sc us si on of v a l ue and m o n ey b as e d on the labour t h eo r y of va l u e has to come to terms w i t h the a p p a r e n t l y v e r y r e a s o n a b l e c on c e p t of labour money. In spite of the frequent ref e r e n c e s to the l a b o u r - m o n e y sc h e m e in the literature, this c h apter is i n no va ti ve in two ways; first, b e c au s e it s y s t e m a t i c a l l y e va l u a t e s the case for a l a bo ur - m o n e y t h r o u g h the wo r k s of the u t o p i a n s oc i a l i s t John Gray; second, the careful s c r u t i n y of M a r x' s c r it iq ue of the l a b o ur -m on ey s cheme b ri n g s to light some im p ortant a s pe ct s of M ar x ' s own t h e o ry of v a l u e and money. In addition, this study lends itself to the a n a ly si s of the fun c t i o n s of m o n e y and the role of m o n e y as the general e q u i v a l e n t .
The fo u r t h c h a p t e r a n a l y s e s a c o mplex issue, that has been the s ource of (much) c o n f u s i o n and (insufficient) d eb at e in st udies of the labour t h e or y of value: the d is t i n c t i o n b e t w e e n the technical, o r g a ni c and v a l ue c om p o s i t i o n s of
capital. E v e n t ho u g h this seems to be a r ather abstract matter, its i m p o r t a n c e is u ndeniable. M a r x e m pl oy s the c o m p o s i t i o n of capital, and the co n c e p t s w h i c h rep r e s e n t it, in his a n a l y s es of the us e of m a c h i n e s in industry, a c c u m u l a t i o n of capital, and the d i s t i n c t i o n b e t w e e n the v a r i o u s types of rent, not to speak of the role of the o r g a n i c c o m p o s i t i o n of capital in the t r a n s f o r m a t i o n of v a l u e s into p r i c e s of p r o d u c t i o n and the d e r i v a t i o n of the law of the t e n d e n c y of the rate of p rofit to fall.
This c h a p t e r be g i n s w i t h a brief su r v e y of the d i f f e r e n t i n t e r p r e t a t i on s of th e s e c o n c e p t s in the literature, w h i c h shows that t h e i r m e a n i n g has been u n d e r s t o o d in w i d e l y d i f f e r e n t manners. This p r o v i d e s the b a c k g r o u n d for the r e c o n s t r u c t i o n of the e v o l u t i o n of M ar x ' s ow n us e of these terms. This h elps b r i n g to light not o n l y the p r ec is e m e a n i n g of the technical, o r ga ni c and v a l ue c om p o s i t i o n s of capital, but also t h e i r r e s p e c t iv e p la ce s in M a r x 's analysis. It is shown that the p r o g r e s s i v e i n t r o d u c t i o n of these terms is a s y m p t o m of the i nc re a s i n g r e f i n em en t of M a r x ' s own p e r c e p t i o n of c e rt ai n t he o r e t i c a l problems, and that t h e y e n ab l e h i m to c l a r i f y the p r e s e n t a t i o n of his own point of view.
The fi f t h c h a p t e r app l i e s the p r e v i o u s a n a l y s i s of the c o m p o s i t i o n of capital to a r e - i n t e r p r e t a t i o n of M a r x ' s t r a n s f o r m a t i o n of v a l u es into p rices of production. The a p p r o a c h d e v e l o p e d in this c h a p t e r e l a b o r a t e s u p o n Ben F ine's (1983) seminal contribution, w h i c h ar g u e s that the d i s t i n c t i o n b e t w e e n the o r g a ni c and v a l u e c o m p o s i t i o n s of capital is central for the cor r e c t i n t e r p r e t a t i o n of Ma r x ' s t ra ns fo rm a t i o n . This a p p r o a c h is in s h a r p con t r a s t w i t h t r a d it io na l v i e w s of the t r a n s f o r m a t i o n problem, an d it shows that m u c h of the c r i t i c i s m that M a r x ' s t ra ns f o r m a t i o n has r e c e i v e d is m isguided; quite often, these c ri t i q u e s de r i v e f r o m the a n a l y s i s of a d i f f e r e n t set of problems, that m a y ha v e little in c o m m o n w i t h M a r x ' s ow n con c e r n s and
jthe issues that he a d d r e s s e s in his ow n st u d y of the r e l a t i o n s h i p b e t w e e n v al u e s and p r ices of production.
The i n n o v a t i v e a p p r o a c h to the t r a n s f o r m a t i o n d e v e l op ed here a rgues that, on c e the p r o b l e m in w h i c h M a r x is i nterested is a d e q u a t e l y d e f i n e d - namely, the effect on pr i c e s of the d i f f e r e n t p r o p o r t i o n s of labour p o w e r and m e a n s of p r o d u c t i o n e m p l o y e d by e a c h capital, i r r e s p e c t i ve of the va l u e of the m e a n s of p r o d u c t i o n or labour po w e r - it b e c o m e s c l e a r that M a r x is not p r i m a r i l y c o n c e r n e d w i t h the c a l c u l a t i o n of the v ec to r of p rices of p r o d u c t i o n as most of the l i te ra t ur e has argued. On the contrary, his main o b j e ct iv e in the t r a n s f o r m a t i o n is the d e m o n s t r a t i o n that p rofit is a form of sur p l u s value, and that p r i c e is a form of value. As a result, the two a g g r e g a t e equalities, b et we e n s u rplus v a l u e and profit, and v a l u e and price, n a t u r a l l y
follow
.
Finally, the s i x t h c h a p t e r c r i t i c a l l y a n a l y s e s of one of the b e s t - k n o w n m o d e r n a n al y s e s of the labour t h e o r y of value,
r e c en tl y put f o r w a r d b y D u n c a n Fo l e y and G e r ar d Dumenil. T h e ir 'new approach' to the t r a n s f o r m a t i o n p r o b l e m is b a s e d u p on a d i s t i n c t i v e i n te rp r e t a t i o n of the r e l a t i on sh ip b e t w e e n labour, v alue and price, and it d e s er ve s careful scrutiny. E v en t ho u g h this p e r s p e c t i v e has b ec o m e i n c r e a s i n g l y popular, the a na l y s i s of its p r e m i s es has, for the mo s t part, e s c ap ed the a tt en ti on of the literature. This c h a p t e r a d d r e s se s the ’n e w s o l u t i o n ’ to the t r a n s f o r m a t i o n p r o b l e m as the m e a n s to e v a l u a t e Dum e n i l and Foley's c o n t r i b u t i o n to v a l u e theory. Three i n n ov at iv e e l e me nt s of the 'new solution' are i n v e st ig at ed in detail; the emphasis on the net product, and the d e f i n it io ns of v a l ue of m on e y and v a l ue of labour power.
One of the mo s t important c o n c l u s i o ns of this c h ap te r is that, e v e n t ho u g h D u menil and F ol e y ' s a p p r o a c h offers important c o n t r i b u t i o n s to the labour t h e o r y of value, the
m et h o d a s s o c i a t e d w i t h this a p p r oa ch is o p en to question. The 'new approach' has an e x p o s t , c ir cu l a t i o n - b a s e d c o n c e p t i o n of value, m o n e y and price. B e c a u s e of this, it cannot u n a m b i g u o u s l y d i s t i n g u i s h b e t w e e n v a r i a b l e s such as value and su r p l u s value, and their forms of e x p r e s s i o n such as p r i c e and profit; this ma k e s it d i f f i c u l t to use this a p pr oa c h to m ak e f u rther progress, for e x a m p l e in the an a l y s i s of the p rofit rate or e c o n o m i c crises. N e v ertheless, it has the me r i t of, at least implicitly, r e c o g ni zi ng that e q u i l i b r i u m is an u n w a r r a n t e d context for v a l ue analysis, and that this is an i n ad eq ua te o r ga ni zi ng p r in ci pl e for inq u i r i e s b a s e d on the labour t he or y of value. Even t ho ug h m u c h of the material c ov e r e d in this th e s i s has be e n w o r k e d ov e r m a n y times before, and has b e n e f i t t e d from the c o n t r i b u t i o n of i ll u s t r i o u s scholars, this study has m uc h to add to the c u rrent literature. It c o n t r i b u t e s not on ly by i nt ro du c i n g n e w e l e m e n t s and an innova t i v e p e r s p e c t i v e into some of the most im p o r t a n t d e b a t e s on the labour t h e o r y of v a l ue but, per h a p s even m or e importantly, by p u r s u i n g the logic of M ar x' s own m e t h o d o l o g y c o n s i s t e n t l y and r i g o r o u s l y from one c ha p t e r to the next, and in the thesis as a whole.
1 - THE 'NEW DIALECTICS' AND THE LA B O U R T H E O R Y OF VALUE
This c ha p t e r d i s c us s es dialectics, a p p l i e d as the m e thod u n d e r l y i n g the labour t he or y of value. Th i s is a highly abs t r a c t issue, but it is ess e n t i a l for the ana l y s i s of
labour, value, and p rice in the f o r t h c o m i n g chapters. I n stead of s u r v ey in g the vast l i t e r a tu re on dialectical logic or the e x t e ns iv e d e b a t e c o n c er ni ng M a r x ' s m et h o d in
C a p i t a l, this c ha p t e r a d d r e s s e s these issues t h r o u g h the
an a l y s i s of the c o n t r i b u t i o n of the s o- c a l l e d ’new dialectics' (Arthur, 1993b). This r e l a ti ve ly new i nt er pr et at io n of the m e t h o d of the labour t h e o r y of value adds m u c h to the p re v i o u s literature, but still needs to be a d e q u a t e l y s ys te m a t i z e d and c r i t ic al ly examined.
Ev e n t ho u g h the roots of the 'new dialectics' can be t ra c e d back several de c a d e s (at least to L u k a c s 1 w o rk in the e a r ly
1
1920s; see, for example, Lukacs, 1971 [1922]), it was not until the late 1980s that there was a c on si s t e n t e ffort to c o n s o l id at e and e xp a n d this b o d y of knowledge. The d i s t i n g u i s h i n g features of this a p p ro a c h are the e m p h a s i s on the r e l a t i o n s h i p b e tw ee n Hegel and Marx, and the att e m p t to read M a r x ' s wo r k s w i t h a v i e w to H e g e l ' s method. This does not imply that M ar x' s c r i ti qu e of H e g e l ' s ide a l i s m is ig nored (even t h o u g h M a r x him s e l f never f u l ly d ev el op ed it), nor that t h e re is an attempt to p r o d uc e a s y n t h e si s of H e g e l ' s d i a l e c t i c s w i t h Marx's. On the contrary, the 'new dialectics' e m ph a s i z e s the n e e d to r e - i n t er pr et H e ge l' s work w i t h M a r x i a n eyes; on this basis, n e w ins i g h t s are sought w it h re g a r d to the s t r u c tu re of M ar x' s own work, e sp ec i a l l y
C a p i t a l .
R e fe r e n c e s su c h as L ukacs (1971 [1922]) i n d icate that the work was o r i g i n a l l y p u b l is he d in 1922, but the reference is
The e a r ly stage of e l a b o r a t i o n of the 'new dialectics' makes it d i f f i c ul t to p i np o i n t the m a i n e l e m e n t s of this line of thought and d et e r m i n e the b o dy of work that b e l o ng s to it. In spite of this, in wh a t follows an i nt e r p r e t a t i o n of the 'new dialectics' is proposed, w h i c h tries to o v e rc om e these problems. To do this, this c h ap te r dr a w s h e a v i l y upon works by Fred Moseley, Patrick Murray, Ali S ha m s a v a r i and Tony Sm i t h (even t ho u g h t heir w r i ti ng s are not n e c es sa ri ly h o m o g e ne ou s in e ve r y respect), and s u b s t a n t i a t e s their claims by r ec o u r s e to e ar li e r w r i ti ng s by Karel Kosik, E. V, Ilyenkov, J in d r i c h Z el e n y and others.
This c h ap te r is d i v i d e d into three sections. The first di s c u ss es the case for the u n d e r s t a n d i n g of the labour th e o ry of v a l ue as a s y s t em at ic d ia l e c t i c a l theory, w h i ch aims at the r ec o n s t r u c t i o n in thought of the essential ca te go ri es of the c ap i t a l i s t m o d e of p roduction. This is one of the m a i n claims of the 'new dialectics', and its i m p l i ca ti on s n e ed to be i nv es ti ga te d in detail. The second ana l y s e s one s p e ci fi c issue, the s ta r t i n g - p o i n t of Capital,
The reasons w hy Ma r x chose the c o m m o d i t y as the s ta rt in g - p o i n t of the book, and the status of the c om mo di ty at this stage in the analysis, are q u e s ti on s that ha v e been d is cu ss ed for decades. This se c t i o n will spell out the p e r s p e c t i v e of the 'new dialectics', that sheds ne w light up o n these issues. Finally, the third s e c t i o n s u mm ar iz es the most i m p o rtant claims of the 'new dialectics', and c r i t i c a l l y e va lu at es their c on s i s t e n c y and persuas i v e n e s s .
1.1 - THE LA B O U R T HE OR Y OF V A L U E AS A S YS TE M A T I C D IA L E C T I C A L T HE OR Y
Th e r e are w i d e l y d if f e r e n t i n t e r pr et at io ns of the met h o d of a n a lysis a pp r o p r i a t e to the labour t h e o r y of va l u e (see, for example, Althusser, 1969 [1965a], 1970 [1965b], Banaji,
1979, B a r an and Sweezy, 1966, Carver, 1980, Dobb, 1940, Engels, 1981b [1895], Mandel, 1968, Meek, 1956a, Moseley,
1993a, Pilling, 1980, Roemer, 1986, Smith, 1990, and Sweezy, 1968 [1942]). M o r e t r a d i tional views, s u c h as Engels' l o g i c o - h i s t o ri c a l approach, have been p o p u l a r for decades (for a critique, see S h a m s a v a r i , 1991). A l t h u s s e r ' s s t r u c t u r a l i s m has also b e e n influential, e s p e c i a l l y be t w e e n the late 1960s and the m i d 1970s (see, however, Hunt, 1984, and van Parijs, 1979), and the s o - c a l l e d A n a l y t i c a l M a r x i s m is no w in v o g u e in the US and other c o u n t r i e s (the claims of A n a l y t i c a l M a r x i s t s are c o n f r o n t e d by Lebowitz, 1994a and Smith, 1993a). The c o n t r o v e r s i e s sp a r k e d b y d i f f e r e n t views of M a r x ' s m e t h o d have p l a y e d a s i g n i f i c a n t role in the d e v e l o p m e n t of the labour t h e o r y of value, and there are reasons to b e l i e v e that they will be at least as lively in the future.
It is doubtful, however, that these d i s p u t e s w o u l d have be c o m e as far-reaching, and d e v e l o p e d su c h a prominence, if Marx had b e e n less c r y p t i c in his writings, e s p e c i a l l y
Capital, w i t h r egard to the m e t h o d us e d in his own analysis.
In the p o s t f a c e to the se c o n d e d i t i o n of V o l u m e 1, for example, Ma r x n o t e s that 'the m e t h o d e m p l o y e d in Capital has
2
be e n little understood' (Kl, p . 99). This c o n c l u s i o n is c o n f i r m e d b y the w i d e l y d i f f e r e n t o pi n i o n s of t r a ns la to rs and r e v i e w e r s of the book. U n f o rtunately, M a rx avoids a more d e t a i l e d a n a l y s is of the subject, and m o d e r n readers are left u ns u r e about M ar x' s v i e w of his own method.
This r e t i c e n c e can be e xp la in ed in at least two (not m u t u a l l y e xclusive) ways. For A r t h u r (1993a, p p . 63-64), this is due to M a r x ' s lack of c l a r i t y on the matter, e s p e c i a l l y w i t h r e g a r d to his own re l a t i o n to Hegel. For S m i t h (1993b, p . 47), M a r x d e l i b e r a t e l y d o w n p l a y e d the m e t h o d of Capital to
^ In this t h e s i s Capital (Marx, 1976 [1867], 1978b [1884], 1981b [1894]) is r e f e r r e d to as K, the T h e o r i e s of Sur p l u s
V a l u e (Marx, 1978a [1956], 1969 [1959], 1972 [1962]) as TSV,
the Contrtfcuiion to the C r i t i Q u e of Poli tical E c o n o m y (Marx, 1987 [1859]). as CCPE, and the G r u n d r i s s e (Marx 1981a [1953]) as GR. All italics in q u o ta t i o n s are o r i ginal unless o t h e r w i s e stated.
m a k e the book m o re a cc es s i b l e to his w o r k i n g - c l a s s readers. Therefore, S m i t h' s c o n j e c t u r e i n d icates that the tension b e t we en M ar x ' s des i r e to find an a t t r a c t i v e form for the book, and the i nt ri ns ic c o m p l e x i t y of its content, led him to n e gl ec t the e xp l i c i t c o n s i d e r a t i o n of m e t h o d o l o g i c a l issues and, perhaps, ev e n to include m o r e historical m a t erial than w o u l d be s t r i c t l y n e c e s s a r y (it is k n o w n that some 'extra' his t o r i c a l a n a l y s i s was i n c l u d e d due to M arx's p r o l o n g e d p e r i od s of illness, w h i c h p r e v e n t e d h i m from w o r k i n g on m or e a b s tr ac t matters; see Murray, 1988, and R o s d o l s k y , 1977 [1968]).
W hilst it is r e l a t i v e l y e a sy to accept S m it h' s position, e s p e c i a l l y in v ie w of some of M ar x ' s letters and the P re f a c e
3
to the F r e n c h e d i t io n of Capital t, A r t h u r ' s a rg u m e n t de m a n d s m or e careful scrutiny. If it is true that Marx was u n cl ea r about imp o r t a n t m e t h o d o l og ic al issues a ff e c t i n g his own work, e s p e c i a l l y the r el a t i o n of his o w n m e t h o d w i t h Hegel's, the c on se q u e n c e s w ou l d be f a r - r e a c h i n g for m o d e r n i n t e r p r e t a t i o n s of the labour t he or y of value. This t ho rn y issue c annot be d i s c u s s e d here. The a p p r o a c h d e v e l o p e d in this c h a p te r p r e su me s that it is p o s s ib le to interpret the labour t h e o r y of .value as a s y s t em at ic d i a l e c t i c theory. This p e r s p e c t i v e e m p h as iz es the r e l a t i o n s h i p b e t w e e n M ar x ' s m et h o d and H e g e l ' s dialectics, w h i c h has r e c e n t l y b e e n the
4 su bject of r e ne we d a tt e n t i o n fr o m d i s ti nc t pers p e c t i v e s . 3
In a letter to En g e l s in D e c e m b e r 8, 1861, Ma r x says that his n ew bo o k {Capital) 'will n o n e t h e l e s s be m u c h mo r e p op u l a r and the m e t h o d will be m u ch mo r e h i d d e n than in part 1 [the C o n t ri bu ti on ]' (quoted in Murray, 1988, p . 109). In the P r ef ac e to the F r e nc h e d i t io n of Capitol t f Marx a p p ro ve s of the t r a n s f o r m a t i o n of his book into a serial, in w h i c h case 'the book will be mo r e a c c e s s i b l e to the w o r k i n g class, a c o n s i d e r a t i o n w h i c h to me o u t w e i g h s e v e r y t h i n g e l s e . ' (K 1 , p .104).
4
The H e g e l - M a r x c o n n e c t i o n was reg a r d e d as h i g h l y important by Le n i n (1972 [1929]) for whom, as is well-k n o w n , '[i]t is i m po ss ib le c o m p l e t e l y to u n d e r s t a n d M a r x ' s C a p i t a l, and e s p e c i a l l y its first chapter, w i th ou t h a v i n g t h o r o u g h l y s t ud i e d and u n d e r s t o o d the w h o le of H e g e l ' s L o g i c . 1 ( p. 180). He also s ta te d (p.319) that '[i]f Ma r x di d not leave b eh in d
T h i s a p p r o a c h does not imply that o ther i n t er pr et at io ns of 1
•jthe labour t he o r y of v a l ue sh o u l d be rejected, nor does it c l a i m that e v e r y aspect of Capital (or of M a r x ’s earlier works) is a n e c e s s a r y step for the dialectical
r e c o n s t r u c t i o n of the c a p i t a l i s t m o d e of p r o d u c t i o n in thought. However, it c o n t e n d s that the m a i n features of
C a p i t a l, and its inner logic as a whole, can be u n d e r s to od
from this point of v i e w (see Smith, 1993b, p . 25).
W h e n c o n s i d e r e d as a s y s t e m a t i c d i a l e c t i c theory, the labour t h e o r y of v a l u e is a t h e o r y of categories. T h e s e cat e g o r i e s b e l o n g to d i s t i n c t a n al y t i c a l levels, some simpler and r e la ti ve l y a b s t r ac t (value, labour power, etc.), and others mo re c om p l e x and c o nc r e t e (market price, p r o d u c t i v e labour,
5
and so on). For S m i th (1993a, p . 115), a t he o r y follows a d ia le ct i c a l logic if:
him a "Logic" (with a capital letter), he did leave the
logic of C a p i t a l , and this ought to be u t i l i s e d to the full
in this question. In C a p i t a l, M a r x a p p l i e d to a single s ci e n c e logic, d i a le ct i cs and the th e o r y of k n o w l e d g e of m a t e r i a l i s m ... w h i c h has taken e v e r y t h i n g v a l u a b l e in Hegel and d e v e l o p e d it f u r t h e r . 1 The r e l a t i o n s h i p b e t w e e n Hegel and Ma r x is d i s c u s s e d by Banaji (1979), F r a c c h i a and Ryan (1992), I l y e n k o v (1982 [1979]), M o s e l e y (1993a), M u r r a y (1988, 1993), P i ll in g (1980), R o s d o l s k y (1977 [1968]), Shamsa v a r i (1991), S m i t h (1990, 1993a, 1993b) and Z eleny
(1980 [1972]); for a d i f f e r e n t opinion, see Colletti (1973 [1969] ) .
5
M a r x us e s the t e r m ’concrete' in two dis t i n c t cir c u m s t a n c e s . First, to d i s t i n g u i s h the actual fr o m the c o n c eptual and, second, to distinguish, w i t h i n the s p h e re of the conceptual, c o n c e p t s that are m o r e or less d e t e r mi na te in thought. The latter m e a n i n g is us e d here; the f ormer is u s e d below; the c o ntext sho u l d m a k e the m e a n i n g of the term u n a mbiguous. By the same token, the te r m ’a b s t r a c t ’ also has two d i f f er en t meanings: first as an empty, s imple or d e f i c i e n t concept, poor in d et e r m i n a t i o n s and a li en at ed from c o n c r e t e reality; second, as the co n c e p t itself, that is d e t e r m i n e d t h r o u g h r ea so ni ng and plays a n e c e s s a r y role in the i d e n t i f i c a t i o n of the e s s en c e of t hi ng s (see Carver,
1980, p . 199, Echeverria, 1978, p . 205, and Murray, 1988, p . 115) .
(a) c a t e g or i e s that a r t i c u l at e simple and a b s tract social s t ru c t u r e s are o r d e r e d p rior to c at eg o r i e s that define mo r e co m p l e x and c o n c r e t e s t r u c t u r e s and (b) each c a t e g o r y fixes a s t r u c t u r e that i nc or po ra te s the s t ru ct ur e s p r e s e n t e d in the p rior c a t e g o r i e s and in turn is i n c o r p or at e d in the s tr u c t u r e s fixed by subsequent categories. In this sense early c a t e g o r i e s are pri n c i p l e s for the d e r i v a t i o n of later ones.
For the 'new dialectics', s c i e n t i f i c i n v e s t i g a t i o n should be o r g a n i s e d a r o u n d the c o n s t r u c t i o n of o r g a n i z e d s y stems of categories, b e c a us e t h ought cannot i m m e d i a t e l y a p p r e he nd the c o mplex d e t e r m i n a t i o n s of the concrete. The c o n c r e te is c o mplex for two reasons; first, b e c a u s e the form of a p p e a r a n c e of the p h e n o m e n a does not i m m e d ia te ly reveal t heir essence, or inner relations. For Hegel (1991 [1830], 1993 [1812-16]), the a p p e a r a n c e is the n e c e s s a r y form of m a n i f e s t a t i o n of the e s s e n c e b e c a u s e the e s s e n c e has no i m m e d i a t e existence. As the e s s e n c e can ap p e a r on l y as phenomenon, its form of m a n i f e s t a t i o n s i m u l t a n e o u s l y c o n c e a l s it. The c o n t r a d i c t i o n b e t w e e n i m m e di ac y and r e f l e c t i o n that is i n tr i n s i c to the e s s e n c e implies that the r e ality is m o r e than a c o l l e c t i o n of sensual phenomena; on the contrary, it is the u n i t y of the e s s e n c e itself and its
7 forms of appearance.
However, this is not the on l y j u s t i f ic at io n for the above stance. The s econd r eason w h y the c o n c r e t e is complex is that n o t h i n g ex i s t s in i s o l ation but o n l y in a s ystem w it h other things. In ot h e r words, the c o n c r e te is a complex whole, and it has o r ga ni c unity. D e sp it e the fact that this g
Hegel and Ma r x use the term p h e n o m e n o n for the m er el y apparent, that has no r el a t i o n w i t h the real, and for the v i si bl e side of the e s se nc e (Dussel, 1988, p . 349). The latter is the sense of interest in this chapter.
^ See O a k l e y (1984, p . 151). It follows that, for Hegel, laws d e ri ve d from the i m m e diate a pp e a r a n c e s (empirical regular i t i e s ) lack e x p l a n a t o r y power, b e c a u s e they do not c on t a i n the proof of their o b j e c t i v e necessity.
s ys te m is l o g i ca ll y p r io r to e a ch p a r t i c u l a r thing, it does not app e a r as such. The on l y wa y to r e c o g n i z e that each thing is an e l ement (moment) of a c o n c r e t e s y s t e m of i n te ra ct i ng things, or a c o n c r e t e m a n i f e s t a t i o n of a s ystem of relations, is t h r o ug h the p r o gr es s of s ci en t i f i c analysis from the a bs t r a c t to the concrete, or the s t e p - b y - s te p logical c o m b i n a t i o n of p a r t i cu la r d e f i n i t i o n s into an overall p i c t u r e of r e a l i t y (see Ilyenkov, 1982 [1979], p . 57, and Murray, 1993).
Sc i e n c e is not, therefore, m e r e l y the wo r k of p i e rc in g t h r ou gh the e xt er n a l l y g i v e n form of a p p e a r a n c e to reveal the u n d e r l y i n g essence. There is ano t h e r side to it: it must also sh o w w h y the a p p e a ra n ce s b el on g to, and are a n ec es sa ry aspect of, the essence, w h i c h can be done o n l y t h r o ug h the i d e n t i f i c a t i o n of the m e d i a t i o n s w h e r e b y the e ss e n c e of p h e n o m e n a are e x p r e s s e d t h r o u g h their fo r m of appearance:
The c o nc r e t e and m at e r i a l has a d e p t h level u n d er l y i n g its s u rf a c e level of appearances. The task of tho u g h t is first to p i er c e t h r o u g h the a p p e a r a n c e s to that de p t h level ... and then to p r o c e e d to the m e d i a t i o n s that con n e c t the de p t h level w i t h the g i v e n a p pearances. To fulfill this task it is not s u f f i c ie nt for t h ought to assert its independence; it must a ssert its p r i m a c y over the a p pe a r a n c e s g e n e r a t e d by the real process. A d ia le ct ic a l r e c o n s t r u c t i o n of c a te go ri es a llows for this ... [Hence, the] i n t e l l i g i b i l i t y of the c o n c r e t e and m a t er ia l can o n l y be g r a s p e d t h r o u g h a s s e r t i ng the p r i o r i t y of the t h ought pr o c e s s over ho w the con c r e t e and m a t e r i a l is g i v e n in appearances. (Smith, 1990, p . 37, e m ph a si s omitted; see also Pilling, 1972, and Smith,
1993a, p . 78).
Therefore, the c o n cr et e u n d e r s t a n d i n g of the r e l a t i on sh ip b e t we en e s s e n c e and a pp ea r a n c e can be a c h i e v e d on l y t h rough a t w o- wa y process; first, the es s e n c e s h o u l d be g r a s p e d by m e an s of an a n al y s i s that de p a r t s from the appearance;
second, the i n t r i n s i c r e l a t i o n s h i p b e t w e e n the form of a p p e a r a n ce and the e s s e n c e sh o u l d be a c c o u n t e d for. As a result, the f e a tures of the a p p e a r a n c e are e x p l a i n e d by v i r t u e of the u n d e r l y i n g essence, and the reality is r e c o g n i z e d as a c o mplex logical figure w h i c h c o m p r i s e s the essence, the a p p e ar an c e w h i c h reflects it, and the form of
g
their n e c e s s a r y i n terdependence. For the ’n ew dialectics', this is p r e c i s e l y the work that Marx sets out to do in Capital. W i t h this aim he took over H e g e l ' s d ialectical logic, m o d i f i e d it, and d e v e l o p e d his own m e t h o d for the s y s t e m a t i c r e c o n s t r u c t i o n in thought of the essential
9 c a t e g o r i e s of the c a p i t a l i s t m o d e of production.
The s o u n d n e ss of this m e t h o d and the v a l i d i t y of its results are c o n t in ge n t up o n two requirements. First, the c o n t r a d i c t i o n s in the s i mpler con c e p t s s ho ul d be the source of the mo r e c o mplex ones. However, the latter s hould not reject the former; instead, the mo r e co m p l e x forms of the c oncept s h o u ld reveal the inner potential of the simpler D
See Dussel (1988, p . 242). This a p p r o a c h m ay be u s e d to shed ne w light on the p r o b l e m s in R i c a r d o ' s v a l u e theory, b e c a u s e it shows that the a b i l i t y to i d e n t i f y the e s s en c e of va l u e is insufficient. One must also show w h y the ess e n c e a p pears as it does (in this case, w h y and in w h i c h c i r c u m s t a n c e s does labour a ppear as value; see Fine, 1982, 1986a, and Pilling, 1980). The R i c a r d i a n socialists' idea that a 'labour-money' w o u ld do away w i t h e c o n o m i c crises suffers f r o m a s i milar i n a b i l i t y to link e s s e n c e wi t h a p p e a r a n c e (see c h a p t e r 3). M a r x 's ac c o u n t of the value-form, on the contrary, not only i d e n t i f ie s the e s s en ce of value, but also e x p l a i n s its (changing) form of a p p e a r a n c e (see c h a p t e r s 2 and 5).
q
A c c o r d i n g to S m i t h (1993a, p . 37), M a r x ' s aim in Capital is 'to tr a c e "the i n t r insic c o n n e c t i o n e x i s t i n g bet w e e n e c o n o m i c c a t e g o r ie s or the o b s c u re s t r u c tu re of the b o u r g e o i s e c o n o m i c s y st em ... [to] f a t h o m the inner connection, the physiology, so to speak, of the bou r g e o i s system." [T S V 2 , p . 165] This is n o t h i n g m o r e than the H e g e l i a n goal of r e c o n s t r u c t i n g the w o r l d in th o u g h t t h rough w o r k i n g out a s y st e m a t i c th e o r y of categories' (emphasis
omitted). See also p p . 15-20 and Kl, p p . 90, 92, K3, p p . 428, 817, 956, Arthur, 1992, Banaji, 1979, p p . 19-20, Dussel, 1988, p . 242, Kosik, 1976, p p . 2-3, and Murray, 1988, p p . 40-45, 158-59).
ones in a m o r e c o n c r et e context. Second, e a c h step of the a n a l y s i s mu s t be d e v e l o p e d w i t h the u tmost c a r e and precise a t t e n t i o n to detail. E v e ry concept or c a t e g o r y s hould be i n tr od u c ed by m e a n s of the p r o ce du re o u t l i n e d above; in particular, no a ss um p t i o n sh o u l d be m a d e w i t h regard to the s t r u c t u r e of the inquiry, the role of e a c h c o nc ep t in it, or their interrelations, u n l e ss it derives f r o m the process of u n f o l d i n g of n e w co n c e p t s from m o r e a b s t r a c t ones. In addition, the a n al y s i s sh o u l d take into a c c o u n t the fact
10
that, s ince all c o n c e p t s are linked, the s u b l a t i o n of a con c e p t by ot h e r s (or the s u b l a t i o n of a fo r m of the concept by a m o r e c o m p l e x one) o f t e n changes the m e a n i n g of other
11 c o n c e p t s .
This p r o c e s s of s y s t e m a t i c e v o l u t i o n in the s t r u c t u r e of the a n a l y s i s pl a y s a m a j o r role in the d e t e r m i n a t i o n of w h i c h c o n t r a d i c t i o n s or c o n c e p t s sho u l d be developed, or unfold, at any g i v e n point. B e c a u s e of this i n t r i n s i c a l l y d y na mi c framework, c o n c e pt s at d i s t i n c t levels of a b s t r a c t i o n always c o exist in d i al e c t i c a l analyses. Moreover, the e v o l u t i o n of the r e c o n s t r u c t i o n of the c on c r e t e in t h o u g ht d e p e n ds upon the d e v e l o p m e n t of the c o n t r a d i c t i o ns w i t h i n c o n c e p t s and
10
The w or d 'sublate' is us e d as the E n g l i s h e q u i v a le nt of H e ge l' s ' A u f h e b u n g 1 (to p r e s e r v e the p r e v io us c a t eg or y w h i le c le ar in g a w a y and s u b s t i t u t i n g it). 'Supersede' and 'suspend' have also f ul fi ll ed a s i m i la r role in the literature; see Hegel (1991 [1830], p p .x x xv -x xx vi and 154). 11
This issue is d i s c u s s e d further by A r t h u r (n.d.), Engels (1981a [1894]), M u r r a y (1988, 1993), S h a m s a va ri (1991), and S m i t h (1990, 1993a, 1993b). This has not e s c a p e d the a t t e n t i o n of the more careful a na l y s t s of M a r x ' s work. For example, in t heir s tu d y of the c o m p o s i t i o n of capital, Groll and O r z e c h (1989a, p . 57) point out that '[t]he basic d i f f i c u l t y in fully g r a s p i n g the m e a n i n g and s i g n i f i c a n c e of the c o m p o s i t i o n of capital is r o o t e d in Ma r x ' s m et ho do l o g i c a l a p p r o a c h to his e c o n o m ic research. Being s t ro n g l y i nf lu e n c e d by H e ge l ' s method, M a r x ' s c o n c e p t s have a d y na mi c m e a n i n g in t h e ir a p p ea ra nc es a n d t r a n s formations. His c a te go ri es r a r e ly have the strai g h t f o r w a r d , u nequivocal m ea n i n g s so f am i l i a r to, and e x p e c t e d by, the mo d e r n economist. On the contrary, th e y u s u a l l y h a v e multiple, s o m e ti me s c o m p l e m e n t a r y and s o m e t i m e s contradictory, m e a n i n g s .'
6 e t * ^ e n i n t e r r e l a te d concepts. U n l e ss these steps are f ol l o w e d at e v e r y stage, the an a l y s i s b e c o m e s prone to logical faults, w h i c h ma y e v e n t u a l l y h a n d i c ap its d e v e l o p m e n t and lead it astray.
As the i n ve s t i g a t i o n progresses, s u c c e s s i v e levels of a b s t r a c t i o n are bridged, and the an a l y s i s e n c o m p a s s e s more and m o re c o n c r e t e fea t u r e s of reality; in o t h e r words, it g r a d u a l l y r ec on st ru c ts the concrete:
A s c e n d i n g fr o m the ab s t r a c t to the c o n c r e t e is a mov e m e n t for w h i c h e v e ry b e g i n n i n g is a b s t r a c t and whose d ia le c t i c s c on s i s t s of t r a n s c e n d i n g this a b s t r a c t n e s s . . . A s c e n d i n g from the a b stract to the c o n c r e t e ... is the d ia le c t i c s of the c o n cr et e t ot a l i t y in w h i c h rea l i t y is i n t e l l e c t u a l l y r e pr od uc ed o n all levels a nd in all
d i m e n s i o n s . The p r oc es s of t hi n k i n g not o n l y t r a n s f o r ms
the c h a ot ic w h o l e of ideas into a clear w h o l e of concepts; but in this process, the w h o l e itself is outlined, d e t e r m i n e d and comprehended, too. (Kosik, 1976, p . 15; see also GR, p p . 100-02)
A n in q u i r y w h i c h f o llows this a p p r o a c h can n e v e r be completed, b e c a u s e all c o n c e p t s are i n t ri ns i c a l l y c o n t r a d i c t o r y and s u bject to t r a n s f o r m a t i o n and g r eater d ete r m i n a t i o n . This is not a defect of this m e t h o d but, rather, one of its virtues, b ec a u s e it r e c o gn is es that the e l e m e n t s and p r o p er ti es of r e a l it y are endless. However, it s hould be n o t e d that the r e c o n s t r u c t i o n in t h ought of the c a t e g o r i e s that c a pt u r e the essential f ea t u r e s of the real w o r l d is q u it e d i s t i n c t from an a t tempt to b ri dg e the gap b e t w e e n th o u g h t and reality, and present an a ll - e n c o m p a s s i n g e x p l a n a t i o n of c er ta i n as p e c t s of life. T h i s w o u l d be a s e l f - d e f e a t i n g exercise, b e ca us e t ho ug h t is un a b l e to o ve r c o m e the i n t r i n s ic a ut on o m y of the m at e r i a l world, r e ga r d l e s s of the c o m p l e x i t y of the analysis:
