Bello Fiore Concept of Labor in Marx

The Concept of Labor in Marx Author(s): Riccardo Bellofiore and Richard Davies Source: International Journal of Political Economy,
Vol. 28, No. 3, The Enigma of Value (Fall, 1998), pp. 4-34 Published by: M.E. Sharpe, Inc. Stable URL: http://www.jstor.org/stable/40470723 . Accessed: 20/10/2013 16:57
Your use of the JSTOR archive indicates your acceptance of the Terms & Conditions of Use, available at . http://www.jstor.org/page/info/about/policies/terms.jsp
.
JSTOR is a not-for-profit service that helps scholars, researchers, and students discover, use, and build upon a wide range of content in a trusted digital archive. We use information technology and tools to increase productivity and facilitate new forms of scholarship. For more information about JSTOR, please contact support@jstor.org.
M.E. Sharpe, Inc. is collaborating with JSTOR to digitize, preserve and extend access to International Journal of Political Economy.
http://www.jstor.org
This content downloaded from 128.114.163.7 on Sun, 20 Oct 2013 16:57:52 PM All use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions
vol. 28, no. 3, Fall 1998,pp. 4-34. Int.Journal ofPoliticalEconomy, 1999 M.E. Sharpe,Inc. 0891-1916 / $9.50 + 0.00.
RlCCARDO BELLOFIORE
The ConceptofLabor in Marx

Laborseemsa quitesimple The conception of laborinthis category. - as laboras such - is also immeasurably form old. Nevergeneral in thissimplicity, whenitis economically conceived "labor" theless, is as modern a category as aretherelations which create thissimple abstraction. [Marx,1973,p. 103] With the publication of Marco Lippi's Value and Naturalism in Marx1 and the 1978 Modena conference on the labor theoryof value in Marx, which was followed by many discussion articles in the review Rinascita,2 debate on the issue came to the fore.
The innovation in thisdebate was that it movedthecenter of of the discussion. reflection had concentrated gravity Previously, on whether or notMarx'stheory of valuewas compatible with Sraffa's ofthe account determination ofrelative and of the prices rateof profit. Now attention shifted to the foundation of the of value and so to the of the labor that category very meaning makes In other there was a movefrom words, up itssubstance.
Translation 1999 M.E. Sharpe,Inc. from the originalItalian,publishedin Ricerche Economiche,3-4 (1979), pp. 570-590, except for the section on MarxversusSraffa. of thepublisher, AcademicPress. by permission Reprinted Section7 was partoftheoriginal written in October1978. manuscript, ChrisArthur for Englishtranslation by RichardDavies. I wishalso to thank I have retainedquotationsfromthe bibliographical help. In the following, Italiansourcesbutrefer to the Englishversionor translation, whenknown,in brackets. 4
FALL 1998
themagnitude ofvalue to its formand content. analyzing This was a welcometheoretical forprogress in move,essential and debate.Indeed,it concerned thespecification research of the relation between Marx's categories and theobjectof his analysis, thecapitalist modeofproduction, with a viewto evaluating namely, the theoretical of those This power categories. operation opens One is thechanceto see ifand how farthe up two opportunities: consistent and adequateto its own Marxianedificeis internally The other is the matter. ofworking outa compossibility subject to uncover parisonbetweenSraffa'sschemeand Marx's theory the outcomeof the "transformation the causes thatdetermine problem,"and to check its consequenceselsewherein Marx's works. there is a seriousgap in thework At thesame time, however, who joined thisdebate.They all presuppose of the researchers oflaborin a conceptual thecategory Marxdefines that space that of to and independent is, at least in part,external o/thecritique imis understood as the that where critique politicaleconomy, of and laws of themovement manent analysisof theconstitution capital. breaks and proposedalternative Our criticism interpretation we set out thepartsof the down intothefollowing stages.First, concern theissue in which accountsof Lippi and Napoleonithat how Marx sets We then consider interested. we are particularly whichis fundamenof thehuman beingto nature, up therelation discussed. thetwothinkers talfor The defiThis makespossibleour own accountof thematter. of a contradiction delabor as the expression nitionof abstract oftheconcept of labor,whichis itself pendson Marx's treatment to a visionoftheessenceofthehuman connected being.Thereis oflaborand thevisionofthe theconcept between a close relation Marx's philohuman essence,on theone hand,and,on theother, this is But not external to and thought. epistemological sophical of the analysis.Quite the of the subjectmatter or independent of labor as the essence of the reverse.For Marx,the definition reference to thetransition historical humanbeinghas an internal
INTERNATIONALJOURNAL OF POLITICAL ECONOMY
of prebourgeois as theexpression from understood feudalism, it with thecapitalist to capitalism. socialforms, Indeed, is only oflaborcomesto exthat thesocialnature modeofproduction In this is an in its itself press universality. capitalism, universality no account ofandis opposed which takes abstract universality, between of useful to thedifferences labor;butit makes types in whichthegeneral social possibletheconcrete universality In this with a recognition ofthose differences.3 relation connects to nature andtheconcept of of human beings way,therelation inprecapitalistic economies than labor areconfigured differently on capital. Marx in those modesofproduction that arefounded a scientific of current alwaysbegins by offering understanding conditions. We shallthen examine theconsequences ofourreading ofthe we the of In look at relation between value. particular, theory and at howto clarify therelations and capitalism, exploitation andSraffa. between Marx laboras realsocialcost MarcoLippi: Abstract can be summarized as follows:4 Marx's Lippi's interpretation on the labor of value centers of abstract labor. As theory category hasargued,5 labor is nota mental LucioColletti abstract generalarrived at by comparison of thevarious ization sorts of useful it is a realabstraction labor. outoftheeffective Rather, arising ofconcrete labors that comesabout in andthrough equalization where is understood as Ute ofreproducexchange, exchange form tionandnotas a moment in thereproductive Abstract process. laboris precisely that labor that becomes socialin opposition to the character ofconcrete labor. immediately private In Lippi'sview,Colletti failed to see that thereduction to a of different sorts of concrete labor in a homogeneous quantity tins or the is,for Marx, commodity society precisely form specific mode inwhich a given historical actualizes a "natural law" epoch of "production in general." ForMarx, as a measure of "[l]abor thedifficulties that must be overcome, as realsocialcost, is the
FALL 1998
' of the product, 'immanent measure whatever the historical mode of production."7 labor is the estranged and Thus,abstract fetishized form underwhichthe equalizationof labor,whichis of labor,comes about in the logicallypriorto themeasurement Abstract laborand value takeon a modeofproduction. capitalist becausetheir doublerole.On theone hand, or quantimagnitude, is set by a principle of production in general, tativeexpression, in "natural" Marx arise from follows this, determinants; they Smith and Ricardo.On theother hand,they expresstheway that to that production.8 applies generalized commodity principle of laboras thesubstance of value, To graspLippi's definition himat length: itis worth citing
of valuethree laboras thesubstance understand stepsare [T]o fully manifestation of a must be seen as the labor First, generic required. humancapacity to bend natural processesto the humanwill, abis put.Secuse to whichthiscapacity from theparticular stracting laborsmustbe reduced to a social ond,all thevariousindividual from andsubordinate abstraction another (different through average, levelsofproductivity consethevarying to thefirst), thistimefrom workers orthedifferoftheindividual abilities tothediffering quent must be seen thisprocessof equalization entavailabletools.Third, of a processalien to the consciousdecisionsof the as the result on them as an external andimposed themselves necessity. producers of different theuseful characteristics from The abstraction typesof who perform thevariations laborand from amongtheindividuals ofthedifficulties encountered is required for them anymeasurement this is not abstraction In capitalist in production. however, society, it of social the conscious effected production; regulation through value. In the of laboras their to" theproducts "adheres therefore ittherefore as a natural oftheproducers, consciousness appears qualof those products.9 ity
in play,10 Lippi's FollowingRubin'saccountof thecategories can be "positively as follows:Labor that claimcan be articulated definedin termsof its components, 'brains,muscles,nerves, "n hands,etc.,' is physiologically equal and allows thereduction of laborto simplelabor,whichis madehomogeneous by abstracand skillsinvolvedin it,and thevariousqualifications tionfrom
in which tosocially various rates ofproductivity are equal labor, toa single reduced measure. These oflabor determinations arecommon tothe various ofproduction. modes Abstract labor merely gives a different tothose in sucha wayas to determinations expression allowthegeneric measurement ofthedifficulties that production confronts. Thisform ofexpression is geared toa mode ofproducinwhich tion areindifferent tooneanother. producers Thereasoning thus moves to equallabor from physiologically Thisis confirmed in Salvatore abstract labor. Veca's arguments insupport ofLippi'saccount ofMarx.12 ForVeca,Marxis lookform inthemodeofproducat differences of and at ing changes he has to assume thatthereare tion; to do so, however, laws of material in thepast permanent reproduction, expressed and that there are possible or nonactual forms, by thevarious modesofproduction. we should the Hence, interpret claimthat are labor as ofconti(for Marx)theelement products expressing inhistory, ofthehistory ofideas,as a notion and,interms nuity that Marx from the classicals. adopted ClaudioNapoleoni: The metahistorical oflabor ontology criticisms ofLippi'sclaimareparticularly interestNapoleoni's andone-sided."13 ing.Thatclaimis,he writes, partial "seriously ForLippi'sMarx, abstract labor is nothing but the ahistorical and natural that ingeneral commodinecessity products (andnot only havelabor as their real social cost. At thesame ties)should only follows Colletti in that abstract labor is a time, Lippi thinking realabstraction andnota mental But"inorder to generalization. " refer thisrealabstraction to 'production in general,' reLippi of the"generic character of manas gardsit as theexpression natural thus andthealienation of entity," conflating "genericness the of natural human however, genericness genericness: being, understood as theinfinite is determination, potentiality forevery different from the reduction of that to separaquite genericness - namely, tion from all determinations toabstraction from them." The former, a is mere mental saysNapoleoni, really generaliza-
FALL 1998
whichcan only be referring tion and not a real abstraction, to alienatedgenericness and, so, only to commodity production. is real to it abtraction that is both According Napoleoni, upperfortheunderstanding mostin Marx and illuminating of capitalism; moreover,it is this notion that radically distinguishes Marx's positionfromthatof classical economics. Indeed, for of value not because it producesan Marx, labor is productive as natural considered labor,butbecause of its historical output, and "alienated" labor producing as "abstract" a generic form, wealth namely, money. fortworeasons.First, article is important itpicks Napoleoni's up theweak pointsin theviews of Lippi and Veca. But,second, it helps us see the reasons thatled Napoleoni at the Modena thefailure oftheMarxian torediscover todeclare conference attempt ledhim, more andthat to inthevalueofcommodities labor generally, ofpolitical into thecritique resolve economy philosophy. nature and history, whichis between Read closely,therelation for is fundamental for fundamental equally Lippi's interpretation, for not the radiMarx havinggrasped Napoleoni.Lippi criticizes of reducing and so theimpossibility of capitalism, cal historicity mere albeit a twisted to a form, one, of capitalistproduction in general.Ringingthe changes,Napoleoni allows production humanbeing,but he sees thatMarx does talkaboutthenatural on he can construct his cornerstone which thatthe conceptual based on the labor unit of the capitalistmode of production, is the of the thatbelongs alienation of genericness theory value, thatcomes about only to the naturalhumanbeing, something withthedawnofcapitalism. it is clearthat, at thispoint, Nevertheless, Napoleonirunsinto Abstract laboris thesame as alienatedlabor.But,if a difficulty. we are goingto talkaboutalienatedlabor,we shouldhave some labor would be. Hence, we should idea of what nonalienated labor is on the one hand,what,forMarx,nonalienated clarify, therelation between alienated and nonalienated and,on theother, labor.In other words,we shouldsolve thepuzzle of therise of laborand,so, ofvalue. abstract-alien
10
This is precisely theroute that on Napoleonitakesin an article thisissue in Rinascita,14 whichpicks up themain thread of his His starting contribution to theModena conference. pointis the between Marx's labor and thatof the of conception opposition workas "negative, Wherethelatter classical economists. regard for as naturally and essentially negative, Marx,laborhas an esofthehuman sentially positiveaspect.For laboris therealization a natural considered as being''15Nevertheless, being generic Marxrecognizes that thisessenceis negated by a givenhistorical thatSmithconfuses existence;thisis the basis of his criticism determined laborwith laborin general.16 historically Therearetwopoints to stress: 1. In Napoleoni'sview,whenMarxrefers to a natural he being, means an essentialbeing.Likewise,the adjective"natural" shouldnotbe understood to whatcomes before as referring but to what to so metahistorical is, history, speak, 2. In Napoleoni's view,Marx derives his understanding of hisdetermined laborby establishing its deviation torically from if itsessence.This,in turn, has twocorollaries. historiFirst, relative to itsessence,and Marx cally givenlaboris defined theessence "philosophically" rather than"scienconfigures then that definition is an tifically," ontolgica!definition, withall the attendant baggage. Second, since thisessence contains within it an opposition betweena negative(finite) whichis theacceptance ofthelaw ofthething, and moment, a positive(infinite) is which the assertion of the moment, or universality of the humanbeing as a being, genericness thentherecan always be a contradiction betweenessence and existence, withtheabstraction of labor,becomes which, a contradiction within existence.17 In other words, in open disagreementwith Colletti and betweenabstract Bedeschi,18 Napoleoni dissolves the identity labor(as wage labor)and alienated labor.The alienation of labor resides in the fact thatlabor is no longerexperienced as the
FALL 1998
11
of thehuman essenceand,so, existence confirmation and esor alienated. This is different sence are separated, from the oflabor, where labortakes on an existence abstraction distinct whoperforms from that ofthesubject itandwho, (theworker) of it. It is onlywithabstract in turn, becomesan appendage laboris the apex of laborthatwe have value. But abstract of which can be defined alienated labor,theconcept onlyby with an of the human essence as a analysis philosophibeginning cal-ontological category. inMarx thehuman and nature between The relation being of Thus,Lippi and Napoleoni agreethattheMarxian theory that are external to thecapitalist value is based on categories in the arein somewayinvolved andthat modeofproduction,19 nature andhistory. We shall between ofthe relation investigation As a first we shall is mistaken. that this view see,however, step, between Marx's own view of the relation tryto reconstruct is a is well this As nature.20 and human known, problem beings Letus seewhy. issues. toepistemological with closelinks an objective is "both nature ForMarx, condition, independent oftheactivan and human ofthe ^product objectification, being, Withthefirst labor."21 partof thisclaim,Marx ityof human of Kant and a tradition in the tradition himself Feuerbach, places human and between is a cleardistinction in which there beings itis thedistinction ofknowledge, ofthetheory In terms nature. to where thelatter cannot be reduced andobject, between subject nature is indeas an external theformer. Rather, reality, regarded to consciousness. But human of and prior genetically pendent andhistorically determined human ofnature, is itself part reality into relation with it. As the for second can and do come beings Marxpicksup thethetradition of Hegel,acoftheclaim, part external world at one and the sametime, which the to is, cording ofthe an objectivization anda self-production, a human product holds to the that human acHe nevertheless way firmly subject. in givennatural and and socialconditions, is performed tivity
12
and mediatednatureto whichthat insiststhatthe transformed a reality thatis objectiveand indeactivity gives riseconstitutes of the labor pendentof the subject;as such, it is a condition an if result of earlier even it is the process. productive process, ofthecontheimportance thistheoretical background Against in to realize its aims, After order labor is obvious. of all, cept to determined the must allow itself be humanlabor properties by world.At thesame ofmatter and,moregenerally, by theexternal to it, the humanbeing uses the time thathe subjectshimself to transform itfor hisownpurposes. ofnature properties Thereis an obviousepistemological analogy.We have to take both the that intoaccount dependson theobjectthat thought way if it is to be known, theobjecthas to is knownand thefactthat, whichthe object is thought is The conceptthrough be thought. a destination thatdependson extralogitherefore "botha result, thatwe cannotdo withand "theoriginal cal conditions," unity out."22 On the one hand,humansmustadapt theirlabor to external On theother, theyshape themon thebasis objectiveconditions. human oftheir and concepts, whichaim,through activity projects at the in accordancewiththe laws of nature, ultimately object In thisway, laboracquiresand thattheywill have transformed. all eternity, whichis not"a thing nature, appropriates givenfrom and of the the but the of ever same, product industry remaining state of society."23 This leads to a consequencethatis not always noticedby contributhose,such as Colletti,who have made fundamental tionsto theunderstanding of Marx's thought. As we shall see in detailin the coiningsections, thisis thattherelation of human in different differs historical periods.24 beings to nature Specificis in it the historical in which the ally, only phase "positive" of nature, is domiaspectof labor,as the activetransformation nant over the passive appropriation of naturethatit becomes betweenthe possible to hold the Marxianvision of therelation humanbeing and nature, and of labor as themediating termof human and naturalness.25 projects
FALL 1998
13
The radicalimmanence oftheconcept oflaborinMarx We accept that thedefinition oftheessence ofthehuman being is central notonly totheearly Marxofthe butalso Manuscripts, totheMarxofthecritique ofpolitical Thepoint with economy. which we differ is the the made claim, variously by commentators, that for Marxthat is ahistorical, ornatumetahistorical, category theessence ral Instead, to which Marxrefers can onlybe fully as theexpression ofcircumstances that arehisthought through and these circumstances are those of the determined, torically modeofproduction. In other ourclaimis that, words, capitalist for laboras theessence ofthehuman Marx, beingqua generic andthealienation ofthat natural essence in alienated-abbeing, areboth historical. stract labor radically we should In support ofthis examine thediscontinuity claim, Marxpositsbetween breakthat ecoor profound precapitalist of In the andthe mode nomic forms production. former, capitalist a specific tonature. Thisrelarelation thehuman occupies being with thelandand,more basicrelation tion is basedonthe genernature ofthis modeof thepredominantly agricultural ally,with characteristic of thelaborprocess Let us consider production. Thisis strongly the influenced thesemodesof production. by andextraneous becauseithas seemsandis external waynature nature is both notyetbeenmastered Thus, bythehuman being. that setsandfixes therhythms oftheecocondition theexternal and socialprocess andtheinsurmountable limits of that nomic is On This is static. the other prebourgeois why society process. modeofproduction, that inthemovetothecapitalist hand, spelimitation ofthereprocific relation is cutbackandthenatural is broken.26 ductive process is a distinction between thesocialrelations For Marx,there of capitalism to theadvent and thosefound thatobtain prior In the former relations within are a matter of case, capitalism. In the the mutual is malatter, dependence dependence. personal terial. Themutual relations between determinate individugiven are squashed als in a precapitalist of by therelation society
14
social arrangements, the generalized exchange.In prebourgeois relation betweenthehumanbeingand nature to whichwe have referred to a restriction of the individual corresponds "personal another." this "an with Capitalism by replaces objectiverestrictionof theindividual of himand suffiindependent by relations cientuntothemselves."27 The move from mode of protheprecapitalist to thecapitalist the transition fromfeudalism to duction,which is historically the the from ownis marked of worker capitalism, separation by from theland as the"natural ershipof themeansof production, In one refrom the means of subsistence. and, so, workshop," is the worker'schance foremancipation spect,this separation from thebond to a specificlaborprocess,and,so, from theselfin a from and the limitations of objectification specificproduct his own social relations. Thatis to say,it is theworker'schance to applyhimself to any and everylaborprocess,to acquirethe to produceanyuse value,and to enter intorelations with ability In another and at the same within the time, everyone. respect mode of this is alienation from capitalist production, separation themeansofproduction. It is notseparation from means specific of production but from of means Hence, it is every production. alienation from theobjectiveconditions of production and from thevery of his labor. product therealpossibility forthehumanbeingto Capital is therefore It offers thehistorical conditions for this developin all directions. its own But it the is also of this through dynamic. negation possito whichit giventhatthe social processand theproduct bility, notconcrete, universais. givesriseare abstract, The capitalist mode of production shouldbe seen as the link betweentwo phases of humanhistory. The first is "natural" in thatwithin therelation betweenthehumanbeingand nature the latter is dominant. The secondphase is "historical" in that human is dominant over a nature it remains exterthat, activity though nal, is ever moreunderhis control;and societybecomes truly these two social, which is to say, generalized.Of necessity, to two different of labor.Pickphases correspond configurations
FALL 1998
15
in criticizing himself Smith's ing up Marx's way of expressing in bothphases,theaims of labor,28 we maysay that, conception and the obstaclesare always external givens. But, in the first are dictated the external natural in phase, purposes by necessity; the second,theyare set by thehumanbeinghimself. An analodistinction mutatis for the obstacles. holds, mutandis, gous In the capitalist mode of production, the humanbeing is reon a nature that is stilllargely leased from notmedidependence This release is transformed ated by his activity. into another whichis no less a dependence forderiving from the dependence, In alienated social forces. this human one can connection, being's thatmakes itself felt speak,as some have, of a "second nature" and makes what are in fact social relationsseem like natural is evermoredistanced laws. After all, it is onlyas theindividual naturalenvironment, whichbecomes ever fromhis immediate in the thatit is possibleto speak of alienation morehis product, strict sense. In short,the separationor split betweenthe objective and subjective conditionsof productionis a necessaryhistorical fromthe "natuconditionsof the process of humanliberation ral" bond thatholds thehumanbeing to a determinate producand not a universal, and makes of hima particular, tivepattern processthatcreates,on the one hand,the being. The historical on the time and, other, capital,producesforthe first proletariat the real possibilitythatthe humanbeing can presenthimself fullyand consciouslyas the creatorof his own world. This makes him at once a natural being,one thathas a natureindeand a of genericbeing, one thattransforms pendent himself, and realizes himself in theobjectiveworldand that"confirms" But the real possibilitythat is in play thatobjectivization.29 as a "total here comes out upside-downand contradictory, Labor is immediately evacuation."30 and private,particular, not social labor and it has to become social labor through the mediationof exchange. This socializationhas to come about oppositionand has to give rise to universalbut abthrough stractlabor; it mustalso make itselffeltas a "law of nature,"
16
thattakes on the semblanceof as an objectivesocial necessity naturalness. To showthatthisis how,in his critique of politicaleconomy, Marx takes up and develops the philosophicalaccount of the in theManuscripts, we humanessenceand,so, of laborsketched from the offer one Grundrisse: veryexplicit passage just
as their whose social relations, developedindividuals, Universally to their own are hencealso subordinated own communal relations, are no product of nature, but of history. The communal control, of theabilities of thedevelopment by degreeand theuniversality becomespossible,supposesprovirtue of whichthisindividuality condition. valuesas a prior duction on thebasis of exchange Only at one and the same timethe thismode of production generates of theindividual from himself and from and alienation universality and comprehensiveness of his relabutalso theuniversality others, tions andcapacities.31
whichMarx If we takeintoaccountthecleardistinction under in the forms of produchis discussion of "precapitalist operates in "natural" orprecapitalist tion"between connections, whichthe relations ofproduction are specific and limited, and thehistorical in a rich of which relacomposed universal phases individuality to drawfrom tionsdevelops,it seemsreasonable thispassage: (i) thatthis individuality is describedas a historical confirmation based on exchange values is (ii) theidea that product; production a historically condition for the of this indinecessary possibility for it is that that and viduality, production permits requiresa universal of capacities, and henceofwealth, as well as of growth interhuman the that individurelations;32 (iii) argument capitalist because it is only capitalism thatorganialityis contradictory, such which are cally produces developedrelations, universally nevertheless and reified, extraneous and this naturally implies thattheserelations have a particular character and structure; and the conclusion that Marx defines alienation itself the as result (iv) ofproduction based on exchange values.33 exclusively Let us bring the threads of the The concept together argument.
FALL 1998
17
as a generic natural andoflabor ofthehuman as his being being determined. we is However define essence historically it,we do to explain either nothaveto lookto some"natural" the sphere to in all from which individual's the directions, ability develop incapitalism oflabor as alienated orthecondefinition follows, nature of the relation. These are results ofthe capitalist tradictory inparticular ofcapitalism itself. Ofcourse, historical the process, is labor, whoseessence is expressed "free socialindividual," in in form. In an inverted other the words, categocapitalism only oftherelation thehuman riesandtheconception between being form andnature that to this at one the and same are, correspond notlimited both determined andyet tocapitalist time, historically This unlike abstract labor. does mean not, however, production, thestandpoint ofa subseabstract laborfrom that Marxderives thepresence ofan objective tenhistorical phase.Rather, quent him this allows both to that toward analyze individuality dency features the ofthe andtoanticipate modeofproduction potential historical in thepostcapitalist free socialindividual phase.The a that not which Marx refers to "essence" is,therefore, category butitis inthe modeofproduction, hasapplication capitalist only of that it the mode with advent of the production capitalist only And it is onlyby in history. as an effective tendency appears we can start to discern thedevelthat from beginning capitalism it. beyond opment Oneis thecloser tobe clarified. aretwomatters There specifithat Marx of thesenseto be givento the"naturalness" cation The other is the modesof production. to precapitalist ascribes onthe onehand, free individrelation ofthe elucidation between, as given Marxdescribes whoseend-point by association uality, and control of themeansof based on thecommon ownership mode of on the the thatis other, and, production production, founded oncapital. we mayobserve for ofthese, the thefirst As for that, Marx, considered as a part ofnature and is a natural laborer individual, is external to him.Thisholdsforany that a nature as having in certain historical we modeof production. However, phases,
18
thefirst of his laborseemsto be can add that objectivecondition or theland,whicharenotproduced nature by himbutare already whichis presupposed in existence; thisis natural existence, prior to him.34 in prebourgeois even and external Moreover, relations, the community is a when it is not based on tribemembership, that ofproduction to factor can quickly becomea givencondition to itself: be constantly as alwaysidentical reproduced
- more In all theseforms, thereproduction ofpresupposed relations - of orlessnaturally arisen orhistoric as well,butbecometraditional with to his commune, a the individual together objective specific, of his relations bothto fortheindividual, existence, predetermined oflaborandtohiscoworkers, fellow etc. theconditions tribesmen, of development, which is therefore from theoutare thefoundation setrestricted, butwhich and falloncethese signifies decay,decline, limits areremoved.35
In thisway,Marx establishes a qualitative difference between economic formsthatwe have capitalismand the precapitalist been discussing. This difference affects boththeconceptof labor and thatof society.It attributes to the prebourgeois stages of relativeto bourgeois societythe same "natural"characteristic on the basis of the scientific ofthemodern society understanding In one respect,the "naturalness" relationsof production.36 of theseearliermodes of production nature's dominance expresses over a form thatis as yethardly mediated In by humanactivity. it expressesthe outstanding feature of reproduction of another, whatalreadyexists,namely, the staticness of precapitalist economicforms. For Marx,boththeseelements can be traced to the fact that thoseforms aremainly agricultural. This accountarises not out of a reconstruction of the actual courseof history or in thelight of a "philosophy of history," but out of an inquiry thatseeks thespecificdifference betweenprebourgeois formsof productionand capitalism.This inquiry, examinesthe history of thoseearlierforms from the therefore, of view of the theoretician of On the onehand, Marx point capitalism. can investigate thehistorical that leads to theisolation and process of "free" labor and of as the conditions of separation capital objective
FALL 1998
19
On the otherhand, he can clarify the causes that production. of precapitalist accountbothforthe staticnature modes of proand forthedynamic and contradictory nature of capitalduction, in thesephases istproduction. The ways thatlaboris constituted to thedifferences betweenthedifferexpression give thefullest entcases.37 The secondmatter is this:Within whatrelabourgeois society, tion is therebetweenthe development of the essence of the humanbeing and its alienation-abstraction? Mightthisnotbe a that Marx on passes judgment bourgeoissocietybased on an an that he has of the future ideal, namely, image society,of one is the denial? This does not seem to be whichthe present To show that this is so, we shouldonce more look at a right. VolumeI of Capital: passage ofMarx,from
Modern never viewsortreats theexisting form ofa producindustry tionprocessas the definitive one. Its technical basis is therefore all earlier whereas modeswereessentially conservarevolutionary, chemical and other methtive.By meansof machinery, processes, not the technical basis of ods, it is continually transforming only also of the but the functions worker and the social comproduction, of the laborprocess.At the same time,it thereby binations also of laborwithin revolutionizes thedivision and society, incessantly from throws massesofcapital andofworkers onebranch ofproductionto another. its necesThus,large-scale nature, by very industry, of labor,fluidity of functions, sitatesvariation and mobility of the in the worker all directions. On other hand itreproduces theolddivision oflabor with itsossified butinitscapitalist form But particularities, variation of laborimposes itself after themanner of an if,at present, natural theblindly destructive action of a law,andwith overpowering with natural law that meets obstacles everywhere, large-scale industry, itsverycatastrophes, makestherecognition of variation of through laborandhenceof thefitness of theworker forthemaximum numberofdifferent kinds oflaborinto a question oflifeanddeath.38
thispassage theideas relevant Let us extract from to our discussion of Marx's conceptof labor. Marx stressesthatcapital subsumesthe laborprocessunderitselfin such a way thatthis
20
to capital.As butreallysubjected processis notmerely formally to a phase in whichthe extracis well known, thiscorresponds Whenthisreal subis value dominant.39 tionof relative surplus is structure of production takes the technical sumption place, of thegreatest modified witha view to theextraction continually both the modification affects value. Technical possible surplus of labor within the labor functions and the social organization enhancement of maximum In this is the one respect, process. thelaborprocess,thebond theindiworkers'capacities.Within use value producedand in vidual has both withthe particular is andbranch ofproduction his skills with particular consequence a rethis comes about by creating broken.In another respect, theworker andthemeansofproduction. newedbondbetween By deterthe means of production takingon theircapitalistform, and thequality ofthecommodiminethefunctions oftheworker ties produced. The workeris hemmed in by the particular he at thesame timethat determination imposedby themachines, embodied within them. from thesocial knowledge is alienated our earlierclaim thatthe late Marx This seems to support to laboras the"essence" of humanbeing:butafter1857 returns or genericbeing is the the realization of himself qua universal of the (modern)humanbeing's capacityto be able explication thatis originated albeitcontra"to do anything" and expressed, as of itself. a dictorily, tendency capitalism Whatwe have said so farallows us to reconsider Lippi's positionand to indicate we feel it is incorrect. Recall thatLippi why form ofthesocial homogeabstract laboras thecapitalist regards to thereduction to physnization of labor,whichhe subordinates iologically equal labor. Likewise, value is the capitalist ofmeasurement to be expression by labor,whichforMarxought commonto all modes of production. is thus committed to Lippi the claim thatphysiologicalequalityis the presupposition of in terms measurement of labor,whereas we have arguedthat, for in labor is Marx, the exact oppositeis the case. Measurement the fact that a certainly possiblegiven (biological) genericlabor is in mode of But production. thephysiocapacity expended any
FALL 1998
21
infull oflabor comes about as wellas thesocial, equality logical, theparticularity that and is, when capitalism. Only, onlywithin of is cut oftheprecapitalist limitation process production away, indifference totheconandtheindividual's when labor mobility then arerealized doesthe crete labor historically; only performed a mental turn from abstraction anda being equality physiological intoan effective homogenization biologicalpresupposition of concrete social within the process production.40 In a more recent andcareful tohave contribution, Lippiseems theseissuesintoaccount his view,he taken and,in reiterating version inlabor offers a qualified ofit.41 Measurement initspure inthefirst then be operative form would phaseofthecollectivist in the as we see the Gotha Critique of society, Programme:
under as thelaw law,asserted [T]he general commodity production richto be ofuse in explaining the ofvalue,ifit is to be sufficiently modesofproduction, wholegamut ofsuccessive commodincluding from a phase of thisprocesssubsemustbe drawn ityproduction, and in thissense themostgeneral of all. This quentto all others the of cooperaorganized production phaseis precisely consciously tivesociety.42
we agreeand wherewe By now it shouldbe clearwhere view.Two points of continuing withLippi's revised disagree be noted. does not see that the First, Lippi may disagreement is thestarting modeof production pointthatallows capitalist theearlier modesofproduction andto outline Marxto analyze areto come.Second, from thefirst, those that is that following in laborcontinues into thefirst measurement of the comphase to which the the munist Gotha Critique society of Programme inthat because marked refers, production phaseis still precisely social relations.43 bycapitalist oflaborandexploitation Marx'sconcept we shall Inthe sections lookathowthe redefinition of remaining theconcept oflaboraffects discussion oftwocentral themes in
22
betweenMarx and and therelation Marxiantheory: exploitation Sraffa. First,exploitation. Accordingto Napoleoni's interpretation, the Marx sees substantial also at Modena conference, proposed withsuperficial difference betweencapitalistand preidentity In beexploitation. Napoleoni's view,thisis untenable capitalist does not as an "economic" cause thelabortheory ofvalue theory would showthat bear scrutiny. The outcomeof "transformation" be of the and thevalue of thesurplus product wage goods cannot referred back to laboralone. We musttherefore go beyondMarx between and showthat there is a substantive difference capitalist andprecapitalist exploitation. thisis exactly But ifwe have presented ourreading coherently, of value does show. For Marx,comwhatMarx's labor theory butlaboronlywhenlaboris modities can be reducedto nothing in abstract and therefore When,therefore, labor, only capitalism. received itis said that laboris exploited becausethecommodities back by thewage-worker containa lesseramountof laborthan in theproduct, thisis something the amountthathe objectified that can onlybe said in capitalism. It might Marxdoes speakof surplus laborand be objectedthat of exploitation societies.To thiswe would also forprecapitalist first as follows: is the Capitalism societyin whichtheproreply It is the first ductionof a surplusis made systematic. dynamic societyrelativeto the staticsocietiesthatprecede it. In those thedominant class has functions external to theproducsocieties, of laborfrom tiveprocess,and thededuction of theproducts the laborers class is based on a transparent relation by thedominant ofpersonal dependence. In other usewords,alwaysand in everymode of production, fullaborproducesuse-valuesonlybecause it is joined to certain of production. The "natural"character of objectiveconditions forms economic such that before is, however, precapitalist capitalismlabor is the prevalent factor in the laborprocessand the of the means of production tends to be fixed. configuration of the amount commodities Hence, produced dependswhollyon
FALL 1998
23
inproduction, element andthesurplus labor as theactive canbe but reduced tonothing labor." "surplus legitimately in capitalism, thecapitalist On theother as the hand, figures of We at least three ascapital. maydistinguish personification function. as thesubject ofanabstenofhisproductive First, pects which may open the way to the tion fromconsumption, value.Second, ofthe as hewhocompels reinvestment the surplus to ever labor. most of And, surplus wage-workerproduce greater the when labor subsumed within all,third, too,is really process, it is of material wealth.44 In productive capital, really capitalism, of exploitation thepresence is notimmediately obvitherefore, ous buthas to be uncovered that by a theoretical undertaking shows that thespecific wealth ofthecapitalist which is society, tosay(surplus) is nothing but labor. value, We mayconclude on thismatter: Vianello'sclaimat (i) that in the the Modena conference mode ofproduction, that, capitalist torefer thesurplus itis impossible valuebackto somecontribuonthe which is a mere tion ofcapital, fetishistic part appearance, on thebasisof thelabortheory can onlybe sustained of value that is that Vianello different (ii) capitalist exploitation rejects;45 from insubstance andinform and(iii) precapitalist exploitation; that thelabor of value the of theory provides only way avoiding that follow from thedifficulties as a conseexploitation defining of a would mean that there is (which quence having surplus in even a communist without driven exploitation society) being into theclaim that is tobe avoided exploitation only byworkers' control over the useofthe surplus. MarxVersusSraffa The recent on thetransformation debate has led some problem to argue thederivation writers that ofprices ofproduction from valueshas to be seen,in thewakeof SetonandSraffa, as both redundant andmistaken.46 As for itsbeing it is indeed to determine redundant, possible and the rate from a "value"scheme. But, production prices profit
24
of all, theresults first thatcan be reachedthisway do notmainof Marx's tain,exceptin some special cases, thetwo identities transformation: that the sum of values the sumof original equals and that the sum of values the of sum prices, surplus equals of labor thatwe start And, second,the veryquantities profits. withto fixrelative and the rate prices profit arejust one way of themethods ofproduction measuring (the"productive configurawhich could be other. What is ifwe more, tion"), replaced by any do not knowthemethods of production, but do know the"valrateare indeterminate. ues," pricesand theprofit As foritsbeingmistaken, itis arguedthat, evenwiththegiven of(direct andpast)laborneededto produce thevarious quantities with in distribution because of commodities, pricesvary changes theuneventemporal distribution oflabor.47 Some morerecentcontributions to the debateseem to allow modification of the previousconclusions.It has been shown48 that thetransformation Marx employsis onlythefirst procedure in the correct determination of step production prices,whichcan be arrived at bytherepeated ofthat first application step. There seem to us two possible sortsof objection, whichare to each other. One is this line on thetransthat, opposed by taking we haveto call on a concept oflaborthat is notMarx's, formation, because it defines labor in technical-natural terms rather thanin historical-social terms. The other is that, as argued it earlier, would stillbe true that thesystem of "prices" does notin factdependon but on the "values," productive configuration. Onlywhenthe"productiveconfiguration" is givenis there a one-to-one relation betweenthesystem ofvaluesand thesystem ofprices. To answertheseobjections, we shouldremind ourselvesthat the specificcharacteristic of capitalism is the dialecticbetween and crisis.An adequate expressionand scientific development accountof the capitalist relation can be offered only fromthe - the of view of the real of labor under point subsumption capital revolution thatgoes ahead and is constantly complete being rein laborproductivity, and peated,in theverymodeofproduction, in therelation betweencapitalists and wage-workers.49 Altvater,
FALL 1998
25
and Semmler50 are therefore to claim Hoffmann, absolutely right it is theassumption that of fixedtechnical coefficients or,rather, of a given"productive that the of configuration," expels theory theanalysesoffered Sraffa value from and the neo-Ricardians. by from we abstract accumulation variations and, so, from If,then, in the"productive we abstract from configuration," capitalitself. laborcannot In that butbe reducedto physicaland case, abstract concrete thatmysterilabor,surplusvalue to a surplusproduct out of the technical structure of and the ously seeps production, crisis to a mere possibility of thatreproduction's interruption ofthemarket.51 because oftheanarchy In thetwoconceptual theassumption constructions, therefore, of the real wage as given has different meanings.In the neoRicardian version,which assumes the "productive configuradetermination of the wage tion," it implies the simultaneous share.Hence, distribution is independent of production. On the Marxian account,which envisagesthe continualrevolution of methods and the production expressing determining reproduction of the capital relationas the dominant social relation, the asof therealwage as givenmeansthat is a distincthere sumption tion between the real wage and the relative wage. The determination of thisrelation is a variablethatdependson the ofcapital. accumulation The labor theory of value is therefore not falsified. Whatwe is a changein thesubject under matter consideration have,rather, relative to Marx. This leads to thepointlessness of muchrecent Marxist debateaboutwhether or notto accepttheresults ofProduction Commodities Means which,given of by of Commodities, areunavoidable. thepremises, And from thisfollowsthefetishistic outcome, to whichwe cannotgo back from according prices ofproduction to values,and we shouldcontent ourselves with the ofa processof "things" picture producing "things." Some further remarks this. The presupposition of mayclarify the neo-Ricardian is the capacityof the means of undertaking in with labor to produceuse-values in production conjunction excess ofthoseneededforself-replacement. This has an inherent
26
In one sense, this capacityexpressesa naturalfact ambiguity. In another, itis expressed as common to all modesofproduction. the factthatthe surplus on the technical strucproduct depends In thislatter tureofproduction. to a situation sense,itrefers that, to Marx,comes aboutconcretely onlywiththeadvent according mode of production. of thecapitalist For,in capitalism, producof the and scienceseem,and to some extent are,theeffect tivity If it is not of this is how then are, development capital. things to discover values behind because what possible prices, precisely is thereferral thisvisionoftheeconomicprocessexpresses ofthe to this material But vision can be sustained process capital. only if,insteadof lookingat theeconomicand social process,it looks of thatprocess.In doing so, it undeniably at isolatedmoments a a real But itdoes aspectof capitalist production. expresses fact, and mystifying form because it expelsfrom the so in a mystified which the mode the capitalist analysis specifically by "general . . . appearsas a from social combination force productive arising itis a historic natural fruit of social labor(although product)."52 In conclusion,the derivation of prices of production along neo-Ricardian linesdoes notcontradict thelabortheory of value, forit does not show thattheory to be logicallyflawed,as the of distribution is. Rather, it shows only that marginalist theory values are notthenecessary for starting point thedetermination of prices.But thisnonessentiality of "values" arisesfrom a slide in the subjectmatter of theanalysisto an issue thatis different from Marx's central concern. a reprise oftheMarxian Therefore, shouldbeginby concentrating on thedynamic theory analysisof and of its and crisis. This to would development capitalism, bring theforetheproblem in what we have been The implicit saying. in question two aspects.One is whether or not problem presents Marx's visionof thecapitalist is to into process adequate inquiry that is whether ornotthelabortheory ofvalue process.The other is theonlytheory thatis coherent withthat vision.Debate about whatsortof laboris, forMarx,thesubstance of value will thereforeadvance theoretical and if, undestanding only if, it helps Marxistinquiry overcomethe sharpdivide betweenthe recon-
FALL 1998
27
struction ofthetheory ofvalueandtheanalysis ofthereproduction ofcapital. Notes

1. Lippi, 1976 [Lippi, 1979]. 2. See Napoleoni, 1978; Garegnam, 1978; Vianello, 1978; Lippi, 1978b; and Semmler,1978 (Englishtranslations Colletti,1978; Altvater, Hoffmann, of all thesepapersappearin thisissue of IJPE). 3. On thisdistinction, see Rubin,1978. 4. We do notconsider to theModena conference here Lippi's contribution we return to itlater. (Lippi, 1978a), though 5. See Colletti'sBernstein and theMarxismof theSecond International (1968, also in Colletti, 1969a) [Colletti, 1972a]. 6. As citedby Rubin,Bauer stresses the Hegelian derivation of thisturn of phrase,whichMarx uses in discussing the measureof labor: " 'Immanent standard' does notheremeanthequantity whichis takenas a unitof measure, buta 'quantity' whichis connected withsome kindof existenceor some kind of quy" (Rubin, 1976, p. 101 [Rubin,1973, p. 126]). Lippi does not seem to take account of this clarification. Rubin's work as a whole providesmany forcriticism of Lippi; see, especially, his chapter 14. grounds 7. Lippi, 1976,p. 6 [Lippi, 1979,pp. xv-xvi]. 8. Ibid.,p. 11. [pp. xix-xx].See also Lippi, 1977. 9. Ibid.,p. 42 [pp. 24-25]. 10. See notes3 and 6. 11. Lippi, 1976,p. 44 fLippi,1979,p. 261. 12. Veca, 1977a; see also Veca, 1977b. 13. Napoleoni,1977,emphasisadded. 14. Napoleoni,1978 (quotation from thetranslation in thisissue). 15. Napoleoni(1978) quotesfrom and comments on a well-known passage of Marx on Adam Smith(fromthe Grundrisse [Marx, 1968, pp. 277-279; Marx,1973a,pp. 610-612]). Englishedition: 16. We mightobserve thatNapoleoni's criticism of Lippi's account of Marx echoes Marx's criticism of Smith.Lippi mistakenly as a law of regards naturethe reification of labor thatoccurs in the generalizedproduction of and thatis the consequenceof the alienation-abstraction of the commodities, essence of man.He maintains that Marxasserts that theproducts are labor,not because laboris alienated butbecause itis objectified. 17. See again Colletti's work,especially"Marxism: Science or Revolution?" (in Colletti,1969a, pp. 305-314 [Colletti,1972a, pp. 229-236]), but also 1970 [1972b] and 1974a [1974b]. 18. Bedeschi,1977. See also Bedeschi,1972. 19. For Lippi,it is themeasureof laboras a "law of nature" of production in general;forNapoleoni,itis thedefinition of laboras the"essence" of man. 20. In what follows,we draw on the writings of Lucio Colletti(1969b
JOURNAL OF POLITICAL ECONOMY 28 INTERNATIONAL

(1969) (1972, 1973a, 1973b). Schmidt [1973], 1975b) and of AlfredSchmidt a critiqueof the earlyMarcuse,whose workof 1932 and 1933 [1975, offers is at therootofNapoleoni's recent 1969,respectively] suggestions. added. 21. Colletti, 1973,p. x, emphasis 22. Colletti,1969b, pp. 357-358 [1979, p. 193], both "as a resultant, a of that on as well as "an arrival conditions" origipoint depends extra-logical nal organicunity thatis essential to them." 23. Marxand Engels,1975b,pp. 40 ff.[Marxand Engels,1976,pp. 39 ff.]. 24. See Schmidt,1973, pp. 27 ff.On this issue more generally, Lukacs, 1973 [Lukacs, 1971]. 25. See Schmidt, 1973,pp. 108 ff. 26. The following and Class ConsciousHistory passage of Lukacs, from themeaning ofthismove: ness,encapsulates Marx urgedus to understand "the sensuousworld,"the object,reality, as This meansthatman mustbecome consciousof humansensuousactivity. the subjectand object of the himself as a social being,as simultaneously as sociohistorical process.In feudalsocietyman could notyetsee himself werestillmainly natural. a social beingbecause his social relations Society over the totality of and had fartoo littlecontrol was fartoo unorganized of relations betweenmen forit to appear to consciousnessas the reality carried out the of man society. society process socializing Bourgeois barriers betweendifferent both the spatiotemporal Capitalismdestroyed betweenthe different lands and territories and also the legal partitions "estates."In its universethereis a formal equalityforall men; the ecothatdirectly determined the metabolicexchangebetween nomic relations Man becomes,in thetruesense of manand nature progressively disappear. the word,a social being. Societybecomes the realityforman. [Lukacs, 1973,p. 27] [Lukacs, 1971,p. 19] The forms of therelation between thedominant and thedominated classes limitedness of theprocessofproducare to be explainedby thisvery"natural" of thedominant class to theproduction.The same goes fortheexternalness shows itselfboth in the direction of the net tive process. This externalness and in the factthatthe whole economic process is productto consumption "outside"theeconomicsphere(see, again,Lukacs, 1973, subjectto something p. 129, and Napoleoni, 1976, p. 11). We thus findthatthereare important features of thesocial processthatare,and do notmerely of seem,independent theeconomicprocess. 27. Marx,1968,vol. I, pp. 106-107 [Marx,1973a,p. 164]. 28. Marx,1968,vol. II, pp. 277-279 [Marx,1973a,pp. 610-612]. 29. See the definition of the humanbeing as the genericnatural being in the 1844 Manuscripts account, (Marx, 1975a [Marx 1975b]). For a masterly see Colletti,1969b,ch. 11 [Colletti, 1979,ch. 11], Humanbeings' genericness consistsin their of all differences, as a matter of ideas or beingtheindifference reason.This genericness is realized in the "practicalcreationof an objective in whichwe see that"man is capable of producing world,"whichis activity
FALL1998 29
of everyspecies and of applying to the standards to each object its according standard" inherent (Marx, 1975a,pp. 78-79 [Marx,1975,pp. 328-329). 30. Pennavaja,1976 (pp. xxxiv-xxxv)providesan important discussionof boththepeculiarand contradictory nature of the relation of socializationand thatis characteristic of thecapitalist mode of production, and particularization the oppositionthatfollows fromit betweenthe "naturaland spontaneous" divisionof laborin preexisting and the"natural-spontaneous but communities, social" {naturwchsig divisionin capitalist gesellschaftlich) society. 31. Marx, 1968, vol. I, p. 104, emphasis added [Marx, 1973, p. 162; Nicolaus's translation has been slightly changed]. 32. Social bonds are indeedthemselves based on generated by production thatshows itself to be social notthrough exchangevalues, thatis, production the directrelation but through the indirect and thing-based among producers ofthemarket. mediation Indeed,as Marxargues, thisobjectiveconnection is preferable to thelack of anyconnection, or [as in precapitalist forms of production] a merely local connection on resting blood ties, or on primeval, naturalor master-servant relations.Equally certain is thatindividuals cannotgain mastery overtheir own social interconnections beforetheyhave createdthem.[Marx 1968, vol. I, p. 104, emphasisadded(pp. 160-161 oftheEnglishtranslation)]. 33. Napoleoni has shownthat,"accordingto Marx the derivation of abstract laborfrom thanfrom exchangeas suchrather capitalis onlyan apparent In fact, alternative. One can equally exchangewithout capitalis inconceivable. well say thatabstract laboris thatwhichproducesexchangevalue in theonly in whichthisis possible,namelycapitalist social conditions or that conditions, abstractlabor is wage labor, namelylabor as opposed to capital, which is thelaborthat, because ofthatopposition, can have no product other precisely thanexchangevalue" (Napoleoni, 1973, p. 143 [Napoleoni, 1975, p. 109, of theEnglishtranslation, whichhas been amended]). Fromwhichit followsthat"production based on exchangevalues," in the to mean the same as "capitalist quote fromMarx,shouldbe understood production."Only in generalized do social relations take commodity production on thegenerality and comprehensiveness to whichMarxrefers. We may further note thatMarx opposes, on the one hand, the natural in precapitalist connection modes of production and, on the other,capitalist and communism. to, forexample, society,considered historically, According Colletti(1978), thislastcannottherefore be regarded as thereunification of an and "natural" As between thetwo cases there is a radicaldifferoriginal unity. ence in the individual, in likewise,in the relationbetweenman and nature, Marx,we may say thatthemerepresence societyand in labor.To paraphrase of the "free"worker on the market is the outcomeof a universalhistory and a new epoch. announces 34. This themepermeates the entiresection on "pre-capitalist formsof in the Grundrisse production" (Marx, 1968, vol. II, pp. 94-147 [Marx, 1973, pp. 471-513).
30
35. Marx,1968,vol. II, p. 86 [Marx 1973,p. 487 oftheEnglishtranslation; slight amendements]. 36. See Hobsbawn,1974,pp. 18,41. of seems incoherent to supposethatthereis a "philosophy 37. It therefore of the in Marx's writings. an "ordering" Indeed,when Marx offers history" withthecapitalist social variouspastand future modesof production, he starts form and on thebasis of therelations of production thatbelongto it,and not witha conception of history as havinga goal, as the late Colletti by starting in this issue]). We rather (Colletti,1978 [Englishtranslation agree pretends withAlfredSchmidt: theeyes of theory does themodification "Only through of a form, itself thatform, without arisingfrom proveto be itshigher stageof decihas a methodologically development The bourgeoissocial formation in thatit providesthe starting sive role in dialecticalmaterialism point for of thefuture" boththepastand thepossibilities (Schmidt,1973b,p. disclosing 171 [Schmidt, 1971,p. 177]. See also Korsch,1969,p. 89 [Korsch,1963], for thetendencies inherwhomMarx's critique of politicaleconomy "investigates ent in capitalistcommodity which in the course of theirfurther production and ideobasis fortheeconomic, political, develpmennt producethenecessary of the proletarian overthrow class, and whichwill ultimately logical struggle relathebourgeoismode of production and advance to thehigher production tionsof a socialistic and communistic society." 38. Marx, 1970, Book I, vol. II, pp. 199-200 [Marx, 1976, pp. 617-618; this the translation has been amended]. Rossana Rossanda has highlighted 29, 1978). (January passage in her"Note di Studio,"// Manifesto of the fifth sectionof Volume I of Capital foran 39. On the importance Marx's see the of Claudio Napoleoni,espeof writings understanding project, cially his Lezioni sul capitolo sesto indito (Napoleoni, 1972), and of GianfrancoLa Grassa, especially Valore e formazionesociale (La Grassa, 1979). 40. Rubin,1976,p. Ill [Rubin,1973,p. 138]. 41. Lippi, 1978a, the written to the Modena conference contribution [the same argument in thepostscript to theEnglishtranslation, maybe found Lippi, 1979,pp. 120-133]. 42. Lippi, 1978a, p. 10 [Lippi 1979, p. 130]. According to Lippi,thisalso allows us to explainwhy Marx speaks of measuring labor even beforecommodities have beenproduced. 43. ComparewiththeCritiqueof theGothaProgramme: "We are dealing herewitha communist notas ithas developedon itsown foundations, society, buton thecontrary, from just as it emerges capitalist society.In everyrespect, it is thus still stampedwiththe birtheconomically, morally, intellectually, marksof the old societyfrom whose womb it has emerged"(Marx, 1971, p. 960 [Marx,1974,p. 346]). 44. On this, see Napoleoni,1972,pp. 177 ff. 45. The point does not appear in the written contribution forRinascita in thisissuel). translation (Vianello. 1978 [English 46. See Seton,1956,and Sraffa, 1960. The readershouldbe warnedagain
FALL1998 31
in 1978. The new approachesto the thatthe followingpages were written labortheory of value,including I mustalso myown,werestillin their infancy. confess that Sraffa from theSraffans. todayI wouldsharply distinguish of the history 47. For a shortsummary of the "transformation problem," see thetwo lastchapters ofNapoleoni,1972. For some ofthenegative concluto in thetext, see Steedman, 1977. sionsreferred and Catephores, 48. See Cini, 1974; Morishima 1978; Shaikh,1977. 49. See theResultsoftheImmediate Process ofProduction (Marx, 1969, p. 69 [Marx,1976b,p. 10351. and Semmler, 1978 [theEnglishtranslation 50. Altvater, is inHoffmann, cludedin thisissue]. sincethejustification 51. One morewordon thethird ofthefirst two point, is givenby thewhole of thispaper:The real cause of crisesis nothing butthe in social relations revolutions of production same incessant and in productive of capitalsimultaneously forces. The internal dynamism gives way to a fallin of the equilibrium the relativewage and to a modification exchangeratios to go on undisturbed. As a consequence, necessaryforextended reproduction of disproportionality as accumulation crisesdegeneratgoes on, thelikelihood into a of commodities increases. This train of generalglut ing thought maybe if hertwo economicworks(The Accumulatracedback to Rosa Luxemburg, to Political Economy) are taken into tion of Capital, and the Introduction accounttogether. 52. Marx, 1968, vol. II, pp. 394-395 [Marx, 1973, p. 700]. A powerful oftheSraffa-based to valuetheory is in Rowthorn, 1974. criticism approach
References
W. "II valoredi Marx."Rinascita,21 Altvater, E.; Hoffmann, J.;and Semmler, translation in thisissue.] (1978), pp. 41-42. [English Bedeschi, L. Alienazione e feticismo nel pensiero di Marx. Rome-Bari: Laterza,1972. . "Alienazione."In EnciclopdiaEinaudi,vol. 1. Turin:Einaudi,1977. Cini, M. "Il valore lavoro come categoria scientifica." Problemi del socialismo,21-22 (1974). L. "Bernstein e il Marxismodelia Seconda Internazionale." IntroducColletti, tion to E. Bernstein,/ prsupposa dei socialismo e i compiti dlia socialdemocrazia.Rome-Bari:Laterza, 1968, pp. vii-lxxxii. [Repr. in L. Colletti, Ideologia e societ. Rome-Bari:Laterza, 1969a, pp. 61-146; Enin L. Colletti, FromRousseau to Lenin.London:New Left glishtranslation Books, 1972a,pp. 42-108.] . Il Marxismo e Hegel. Rome-Bari:Laterza,1969b. [Englishedition:L. Marxism and Hegel. London:New LeftBooks, 1973.] Colletti, . "Introduction." In L. Collettiand C. Napoleoni (eds.), Il futurodel crollo o capitalismo: sviluppo. Rome-Bari:Laterza, 1970, pp. lxxi-cxii. translated "The Theoryof the Crash." Telos (Fall as L. Colletti, [Partially 1972b),pp. 34-46].
OF POLITICAL ECONOMY JOURNAL 32 INTERNATIONAL

// di naturain Marx. Rome-Ban: . Introduction to A. Schmidt, concetto Laterza,1973. "A dialettica.Rome-Ban: Laterza,1974. [Englishtranslations: L. Colletti, Political and PhilosophicalInterview." New LeftReview,86 (1974), pp. 3-28; L. Colletti, "Marxism and the Dialectic." New Left Review, 93 (1975), pp. 3-29.] . (1975b), Introduction to K. Marx,Early Writings. Harmondsworth, UK: Penguin/New LeftBooks, 1975. . "Valore e dialettica in Marx." Rinascita,18 (1978), pp. 23-24. [Enin thisissue.] glishtranslation . "Marxismo."In TraMarxismo e no. Rome-Bari: Laterza,1979. P. "La realtdello sfruttamento." Rinascita,9, 12, 13 (1978), pp. Garegnani, 31-32,25-27,25-26. Hobsbawn, E. "Introduction." In K. Marx, Forme economiche precapitalistiche.Rome: Editori Riuniti, 1974. [English original: E. toMarx, 1964.] Introduction Hobsbawn, Korsch, K. Karl Marx. Rome-Bari: Laterza, 1969. [English version: K. Karl Marx.New York: Russell& Russell,1963.1 Korsch, La Grassa,G. Valoreeformazione sociale. Rome: Editori 1979. Riuniti, del processo di Laise, D.; Pala, G.; and Valentino,P.A. "Lo svolgimento formazione dei prezzi."NoteEconomiche, 2 (1977). M. Marx: il valore come costo sociale reale. Milan: Etas Libn, Lippi, 1976. [Englishtranslation: M. Lippi, Valueand Naturalism in Marx. London: New LeftBooks, 1979.1 . "II valoredi Marx."Rinascita,18 (1977), pp. 35-36. . "La legge del valore-lavoro come 'forma'della legge gnraledelia unriesame." Mimeodistributed attheModenaConference, 1978a. produzione: . "II principio del valore-lavoro."Rinascita, 17 (1978b), pp. 2425. [English in thisissue.] translation Lukcs, G. "Storia e coscienza di classe." Milan: Mondadori,1971. [English translation: G. Lukcs, History and Class Consciousness.London: Merlin Press,1971.] filosofici del concettodi lavoro nella scienza Marcuse, H. "Sui fondamenti econmica."In Culturae societ. Turin:Einaudi,1969,pp. 147-187. . "Nuove fonti per la fondazione del materialismo storico." In Marxismo e rivoluzione. Turin:Einaudi,1975,pp. 63-1 16. della criticadeli'economiapoltica. FlorMarx, K. Lineamenti fondamentali ence: La Nuova Italia, 1968. [Englishtranslation: K. Marx, Grundrisse.
. Intervista con un saggio su "Marxismo e politico-filosofica,
Foundationsof the Critiqueof Political Economy (Rough Draft).
UK: Penguin/New LeftBooks, 1973a.] Harmondsworth, . //Capitale, Libro I, Capitolo VI medito.Florence:La Nuova Italia, 1969. [Englishtranslation: K. Marx,"Resultsof theImmediate Production Process." In Capital, vol. I, Harmondsworth, UK: Penguin/NewLeft Books, 1976b.] . Formeeconomiche Rome: Editori 1970a. Riuniti, precapitalistiche.
FALL1998 33
. //Capitale. Rome: EditoriRiuniti,1970b. [Englishtranslation: K. 3 vols. Harmondsworth, Marx, Capital: A Critiqueof Political Economy, LeftBooks, 1976-81.1 UK: Penguin/New . "Criticadel programma di Gotha." In K. Marx,Opere scelte. Rome: Editori Riuniti, 1971. [English translation: "Critiqueof the Gotha Proin First K. The International and After. Marx, Harmondsworth, gramme," LeftBooks, 1974.1 UK: Penguin/New . Storia dle teorie economiche.Libro quarto del Capitale. Rome: K. Marx, TheorieofSurplus NewtonCompton,1974. [Englishtranslation: Value,3 vols. Moscow: Progress Publishers, 1963-71.] . Manoscrittieconmicofilosofici.Turin: Einaudi, 1975. [English in K. Marx,Early Writings. UK: Penguin/New translation Harmondsworth, LeftBooks, 1975b,pp. 279-400.] Marx, K., and Engels, F. L'ideologia tedesca. Rome: Editori Riuniti, in K. Marxand F. Engels,CollectedWorks, 1975. [Englishtranslation vol. 5: Marx and Engels 1845-1847. London:Lawrence& Wishart, 1976.] and Growth.New Monshima, M., and Catephores,G. Value, Exploitation York: McGraw-Hill, 1978. Napoleoni,C. Lezioni sul capitolo sesto inditodi Marx. Turin:Boringhieri, 1972. . Smith, 1973. [Englishtranslation: Ricardo,Marx. Turin:Boringhieri, on theHistory C. Napoleoni,Smith, Ricardo,Marx: Observations of EconomicThought, Oxford: Blackwell,1975.] . Valore.Milan: Isedi, 1976. . "II Marxinutile di Lippl."Rinascita,13 (1977), pp. 31-32. . "L'enigma del valore." Rinascita, 8 (1978), pp. 23-24. [English in thisissue.] translation Rossanda,R. "La mobilitin Marx.Note di studio."// 29, manifesto (January 1978). R. Neo-Classicism,Neo-Ricardianism and Marxism. New Left Rowthorn, 86 (1974), 6S-87. Review, 1976. [EnRubin,I.I. Saggi sulla teoriadel valoredi Marx. Milan: Feltrinelli, Black Rose of Value. Montreal: glish:I.I. Rubin,Essays on Marx's Theory Books, 1976.] . "Abstract Labor and Value in Marx's System."Capital and Class, 5 (1978), pp. 107-139. Schmidt, A. Ontologia esistenziale e materialismo storico in Herbert Marcuse."In Rispostea Marcuse.Rome-Bari:Laterza,1969, pp. 13-47. . Storiae struttura. Bari: De Donato, 1972. . //concettodi naturain Marx. Rome-Bari:Laterza, 1973a. [English A. Schmidt, translation: TheConceptofNaturein Marx. London:New Left Books, 1971.] . "Stona e naturanel materialismo dialettico" (1973b). In Rispostea 1969. Marcuse.Rome-Bari: Laterza, Problem."Review of Economic Studies (June Seton,F. "The Transformation 1956).
34
Problem."In Shaikh,A. "Marx's Theoryof Value and the Transformation Jesse Schwartz(ed.), The Subtle Anatomy of Capitalism. Santa Monica: Goodyear,1977. I. MarxAfter London:New LeftBooks, 1977. Steedman, Sraffa. in Marx." Rinascita,11 (1977a), pp. Veca, S. "Ancora su scienza e filosofia 22-23. . Saggio sul programmascientifico di Marx. Milan: II Saggiatore, 1977b. P. Produzionedi mercia mezzodi merci.Turin:Einaudi,1960. [PubSraffa, lished in English as P. Sraffa, Productionof Commodities by Means of Commodities. Press,1960.1 Cambridge: Cambridge University Vianello,F. "L'anello spezzato."Rinascita(1978), pp. 23-24. [Englishtranslationin thisissue.]

Bello Fiore Concept of Labor in Marx

Enviado por

Dados do documento

Direitos autorais

Formatos disponíveis

Compartilhar este documento

Compartilhar ou incorporar documento

Opções de compartilhamento

Você considera este documento útil?

Este conteúdo é inapropriado?

Direitos autorais:

Formatos disponíveis

Bello Fiore Concept of Labor in Marx

Enviado por

Direitos autorais:

Formatos disponíveis

The Concept of Labor in Marx Author(s): Riccardo Bellofiore and Richard Davies Source: International Journal of Political Economy,

The ConceptofLabor in Marx

INTERNATIONALJOURNAL OF POLITICAL ECONOMY

INTERNATIONALJOURNAL OF POLITICAL ECONOMY

INTERNATIONALJOURNAL OF POLITICAL ECONOMY

INTERNATIONALJOURNAL OF POLITICAL ECONOMY

INTERNATIONALJOURNAL OF POLITICAL ECONOMY

INTERNATIONALJOURNAL OF POLITICAL ECONOMY

INTERNATIONALJOURNAL OF POLITICAL ECONOMY

INTERNATIONALJOURNAL OF POLITICAL ECONOMY

INTERNATIONALJOURNAL OF POLITICAL ECONOMY

INTERNATIONALJOURNAL OF POLITICAL ECONOMY

INTERNATIONALJOURNAL OF POLITICAL ECONOMY

struction ofthetheory ofvalueandtheanalysis ofthereproduction ofcapital. Notes

JOURNAL OF POLITICAL ECONOMY 28 INTERNATIONAL

INTERNATIONALJOURNAL OF POLITICAL ECONOMY

OF POLITICAL ECONOMY JOURNAL 32 INTERNATIONAL

. Intervista con un saggio su "Marxismo e politico-filosofica,

Foundationsof the Critiqueof Political Economy (Rough Draft).

INTERNATIONALJOURNAL OF POLITICAL ECONOMY

Você também pode gostar