Dance of the Dialectic: Steps in Marx's Method Bertell Ollman http://www.nyu.edu/proj http://www.nyu.edu/projects/ollman/books/dd. ects/ollman/books/dd.php php
[Selected Chapters only] Introduction ar!ism" this #ale o$ #wo Cities I ar!ism" understood as the ideas o$ %arl ar! and &rederick 'n(els" o$$ers us a tale o$ two cities" one" which claims to ha)e $reedom but doesn*t" and the other" which which possesses bounti$ul $reedom $or all but $ew know where it is or how to (et there. #he $irst city is called +capitalism+. In this city" whose whose institutions are widely )iewed as the )ery embodiments o$ $reedom" nothin( is $ree. ')erythin( costs" and most thin(s cost more than those who need them can a$$ord. &or most o$ its citi,ens" what is called +$reedom+ is ha)in( the ri(ht to compete $or thin(s that remain just outside their (rasp. But no one keeps them $rom competin( or $rom thinkin( that one day they -or their children may succeed. #he other city is called +communism+. ere" people enjoy the $reedom to de)elop their potential as human bein(s in peace and $riendship with each other. #heirs #heirs is not the $reedom to want what cannot be had but to do and be and become what they want. #his city can*t be $ound on a map" because until now it only e!ists in the shadows o$ the $irst city. It is" in e$$ect" what capitalism could be" what it has all the means and conditions $or becomin(" once the inhabitants o$ capitalism o)erthrow their rulers alon( with the rules that o r(ani,e li$e in their city. #he rulers are the capitalist class" or those who own and control the means o$ production" distribution and e!chan(e" and the principal rule by which they operate is pro$it ma!imi,ation. #he #he capitalists ha)e mana(ed to keep communism a well (uarded secret by usin( their power o)er the mike0$or in this society you need a microphone to be heard0to ensure that no one learns that communism is really about $reedom" while endlessly repeatin( the canard that somethin( called +communism+ was already tried in a $ew underde)eloped countries and that it didn*t work. #here is a lot in ar!ism" o$ course" that cannot be captured by this tale o$ two cities" but it does help to brin( out the sin(ular nature o$ ar!*s subject matter: it is not capitalism" it is not communism" it is not history. 1ather" 1ather" it is the internal relations between all o$ these. It is how communism e)ol)es as a still unreali,ed potential within capitalism capitalism and the history o$ this e)olution stretchin( $rom earliest times to a $uture that is still $ar in $ront o$ us. 2naware o$ what e!actly ar! has set out to study" most writers on ar!ism" $riendly and un$riendly" ha)e (reat di$$iculty characteri,in( characteri,in( what he $inds. &or e!ample" in so $ar as ar! describes and e!plains how capitalism $unctions" some writers consider ar!ism a science. In so $ar as he presents capitalism as wantin(" others insist that ar!ism is essentially a criti3ue o$ capitalism. In so $ar as he disco)ers a potential in capitalism $or communism and outlines what that mi(ht look like" still others )iew ar! as mainly a )isionary. 4nd in so $ar as ar! ad)ocates a political strate(y $or mo)in( $rom here to there0and 5enin*s 3uestion +6hat is to be done7+ is always lurkin( somewhere in his consciousness0ar!ism (ets treated as a doctrine on how to make the re)olution. Science" criti3ue" )ision and strate(y $or re)olution are ordinarily understood apart $ rom one another0some would e)en maintain that they are lo(ically incompatible0and incompatible0and most interpreters o$ ar!ism ha)e emphasi,ed only o ne or a couple o$ these themes while d ismissin( or tri)iali,in( the others -or" in some cases" usin( them as occasions to berate ar! $or inconsistency. 8et" 8et" the e)idence $or the importance o$ all $our currents in ar!*s writin(s is )ery stron(. oreo)er" they are usually so intertwined and so mutually dependent that it is )ery di$$icult to separate them completely $rom each other. ence" I am inclined to )iew ar!ism as an unusual" perhaps
uni3ue" combination o$ all $our0science" criti3ue" )ision and recipe $or re)olution0and ar! himsel$ there$ore as a scientist" critic" )isionary and re)olutionary" with each o$ these 3ualities contributin( to and $eedin( o$$ the others. #he problem this raises" o$ course" is0how is this possible7 ow does one mi! thin(s that don*t appear to mi!7 6 hat allows ar! to construct theories0$or this is what I am claimin(0that are at the same time scienti$ic" critical" )isionary and re)olutionary7 &or the tale o$ two cities presented abo)e" this translates as0what allows ar! to disco)er communism inside capitalism" and how does what he $inds constitute both a criticism o$ capitalism and the basis o$ a strate(y to o)erturn it7 4t the core o$ e)ery science is a search $or relations" especially $or relations that are not immediately ob)ious" and in studyin( capitalism ar! unco)ers relations between what is" what could be" what shouldn*t be" and what can be done about it all. ar! $inds all this" $irst o$ all" because it is there" but what permits him to $ind it0while most students o$ capitalism only come up with the appearances -mislabeled as +$acts+0is his dialectical method. It is dialectics" and ar!*s dialectics in particular" that not only allows him to knit to(ether what most others consi(n to separate mental compartments but actually re3uires it. II 9ialectics" in one $orm or another" has e!isted e!isted $or as lon( as there ha )e been human bein(s on this planet. #his is because our li)es ha)e always in)ol)ed important elements o$ chan(e and interaction our en)ironment" taken as a whole" has always had a decisi)e limitin( and determinin( e$$ect on whate)er went on inside it and +today"+ +today"+ whene)er it occurred" always emer(ed out o$ what e!isted yesterday" includin( includin( the possibilities contained therein" and always led -and will lead" in the )ery same ways that it has" to what can and will take place tomorrow. In order to ma!imi,e the positi)e e$$ects o$ these de)elopments on their li)es -and to reduce their ne(ati)e e$$ects" people ha)e always tried to construct concepts a nd ways o$ thinkin( that capture0to the e!tent that they can understand it -and to the e!tent that the rulin( elites ha)e allowed it0what is actually (oin( on in their world" especially as re(ards the per)asi)eness o$ chan(e and interaction" the e$$ect o$ any system on its component parts -includin( each o$ us as both a system with parts and as a part o$ other systems" and the interlockin( nature o$ past" present and $uture. #he many ways our species has per$ormed this task has (i)en rise to a rich and )aried tradition o$ dialectical thou(ht" the $ull measure o$ which has yet to be taken. ar!*s )ersion o$ dialectics was deri)ed $rom his encounters on the philosophical plane with such (iants as 'picurus" 4ristotle" 4ristotle" Spino,a" 5eibni, and especially e(el" and throu(h his li)ed e!perience with a capitalism that had just recently come to maturity. Capitalism" Capitalism" it is important to note" stands out $rom earlier class societies in the de(ree to which it has inte(rated all major -and" increasin(ly" most most minor li$e $unctions into a sin(le or(anic system dominated by the law o$ )alue and the accompanyin( power o$ money" but also in the de(ree to which it hides and seeks to deny this sin(ular a chie)ement. #he $ra(mentation $ra(mentation o$ e!istence to(ether with the partial and one;sided character o$ sociali,ation under capitalism ha)e inclined people to $ocus on the particulars that enter their li)es0an indi)idual" a job" a p lace" etc.0but to i(nore the ways they are related" and thus to miss the patterns0class" class stru((le" and others0that emer(e $rom these relations. ore recently" the social sciences ha)e rein$orced this tendency by breakin( up the whole o$ human knowled(e into the speciali,ed learnin( o$ competin( disciplines" each with its own distincti)e lan(ua(e" and then b y studyin( almost e!clusi)ely those bits that permit statistical manipulation. In the process" capitalism" the bi((est pattern o$ all and one whose e$$ect on people*s li)es is constantly (rowin(" has become )irtually in)isible. I am pain$ully aware that many o$ those who reject ar!*s analysis o$ capitalism don*t simply disa(ree with it. #hat would make political discussions relati)ely easy. Instead" the typical reaction is to treat the capitalism ar! is speakin( about as i$ it isn*t there. I*m reminded o$ the mo)ie" +ar)ey"+ +ar)ey"+ in which
inch in)isible white rabbit. '!cept he is the only one who sees ar)ey. #hose around him see only an empty chair. Similarly" Similarly" when when ar! and ar!ists re$er to capitalism" the eyes o$ most o$ their readers
uni3ue" combination o$ all $our0science" criti3ue" )ision and recipe $or re)olution0and ar! himsel$ there$ore as a scientist" critic" )isionary and re)olutionary" with each o$ these 3ualities contributin( to and $eedin( o$$ the others. #he problem this raises" o$ course" is0how is this possible7 ow does one mi! thin(s that don*t appear to mi!7 6 hat allows ar! to construct theories0$or this is what I am claimin(0that are at the same time scienti$ic" critical" )isionary and re)olutionary7 &or the tale o$ two cities presented abo)e" this translates as0what allows ar! to disco)er communism inside capitalism" and how does what he $inds constitute both a criticism o$ capitalism and the basis o$ a strate(y to o)erturn it7 4t the core o$ e)ery science is a search $or relations" especially $or relations that are not immediately ob)ious" and in studyin( capitalism ar! unco)ers relations between what is" what could be" what shouldn*t be" and what can be done about it all. ar! $inds all this" $irst o$ all" because it is there" but what permits him to $ind it0while most students o$ capitalism only come up with the appearances -mislabeled as +$acts+0is his dialectical method. It is dialectics" and ar!*s dialectics in particular" that not only allows him to knit to(ether what most others consi(n to separate mental compartments but actually re3uires it. II 9ialectics" in one $orm or another" has e!isted e!isted $or as lon( as there ha )e been human bein(s on this planet. #his is because our li)es ha)e always in)ol)ed important elements o$ chan(e and interaction our en)ironment" taken as a whole" has always had a decisi)e limitin( and determinin( e$$ect on whate)er went on inside it and +today"+ +today"+ whene)er it occurred" always emer(ed out o$ what e!isted yesterday" includin( includin( the possibilities contained therein" and always led -and will lead" in the )ery same ways that it has" to what can and will take place tomorrow. In order to ma!imi,e the positi)e e$$ects o$ these de)elopments on their li)es -and to reduce their ne(ati)e e$$ects" people ha)e always tried to construct concepts a nd ways o$ thinkin( that capture0to the e!tent that they can understand it -and to the e!tent that the rulin( elites ha)e allowed it0what is actually (oin( on in their world" especially as re(ards the per)asi)eness o$ chan(e and interaction" the e$$ect o$ any system on its component parts -includin( each o$ us as both a system with parts and as a part o$ other systems" and the interlockin( nature o$ past" present and $uture. #he many ways our species has per$ormed this task has (i)en rise to a rich and )aried tradition o$ dialectical thou(ht" the $ull measure o$ which has yet to be taken. ar!*s )ersion o$ dialectics was deri)ed $rom his encounters on the philosophical plane with such (iants as 'picurus" 4ristotle" 4ristotle" Spino,a" 5eibni, and especially e(el" and throu(h his li)ed e!perience with a capitalism that had just recently come to maturity. Capitalism" Capitalism" it is important to note" stands out $rom earlier class societies in the de(ree to which it has inte(rated all major -and" increasin(ly" most most minor li$e $unctions into a sin(le or(anic system dominated by the law o$ )alue and the accompanyin( power o$ money" but also in the de(ree to which it hides and seeks to deny this sin(ular a chie)ement. #he $ra(mentation $ra(mentation o$ e!istence to(ether with the partial and one;sided character o$ sociali,ation under capitalism ha)e inclined people to $ocus on the particulars that enter their li)es0an indi)idual" a job" a p lace" etc.0but to i(nore the ways they are related" and thus to miss the patterns0class" class stru((le" and others0that emer(e $rom these relations. ore recently" the social sciences ha)e rein$orced this tendency by breakin( up the whole o$ human knowled(e into the speciali,ed learnin( o$ competin( disciplines" each with its own distincti)e lan(ua(e" and then b y studyin( almost e!clusi)ely those bits that permit statistical manipulation. In the process" capitalism" the bi((est pattern o$ all and one whose e$$ect on people*s li)es is constantly (rowin(" has become )irtually in)isible. I am pain$ully aware that many o$ those who reject ar!*s analysis o$ capitalism don*t simply disa(ree with it. #hat would make political discussions relati)ely easy. Instead" the typical reaction is to treat the capitalism ar! is speakin( about as i$ it isn*t there. I*m reminded o$ the mo)ie" +ar)ey"+ +ar)ey"+ in which inch in)isible white rabbit. '!cept he is the only one who sees ar)ey. #hose around him see only an empty chair. Similarly" Similarly" when when ar! and ar!ists re$er to capitalism" the eyes o$ most o$ their readers
(la,e o)er. 6ell" capitalism capitalism is not an in)isible rabbit" but neither is it somethin( that is immediately apparent. &or it to be noticed" let alone understood" people*s attention has to be drawn to certain relations the elements o$ which are not always ob)ious. But i$ most o$ its inhabitants don*t e)en see capitalism" the s ystem" any e$$ort to e!plain how it works must be accompanied by an e3ually strenuous e$$ort at displayin( it" simply showin( that it e!ists and what kind o$ entity it is. 6idely i(nored in the literature on ar!" re)elation" there$ore" is as crucial to ar!ism as e!planation" and indeed the latter is impossible without the $ormer. By allowin( ar! to $ocus on the interconnections that constitute the key patterns in capitalism" the dialectic brin(s the capitalist system itsel$" as a pattern o$ patterns" into +si(ht"+ and makes it somethin( real that re3uires its own e!planation. In a world made up o$ mutually dependent processes" howe)er" the interconnections interconnections between thin(s includes their ties to their own preconditions and $uture possibilities as well as to whate)er is e$$ectin( them -and whate)er they are e$$ectin( ri(ht now. Conse3uently" the patterns that emer(e and re3uire e!planation includes material that will e!tend ar!*s e!planation" when it comes" into the hitherto separate realms o$ criticism" )ision" and re)olution. Consider once a(ain the spread o$ relations unearthed in ar!*s tale o$ two cities. #he whole panoply o$ otherwise con$usin( dialectical cate(ories" such as +contradiction"+ +abstraction"+ +totality"+ +totality"+ +metamorphosis"+ etc. ser)e to a)oid static" partial" one; sided and one;dimensional -temporally speakin( understandin(s by makin( some part o$ these interconnections easier to think about and to deal with. 4ll o$ ar!*s theories ha)e been shaped by his dialectical outlook and its accompanyin( cate(ories" and it is only by (raspin( dialectics that these theories can be properly understood" e)aluated" and put to use. III y own encounter with dialectics be(an when I was doin( research $or my doctoral dissertation" later published as 4lienation: ar!*s Conception o$ an in Capitalist Society -?@A?. ar!*s writin(s were decidedly not one;sided nor did he seem to ha)e much trouble presentin( a world in constant motion where mutual interaction and interpenetration interpenetration o$ temporal dimensions were the rule and e)en lar(e scale trans$ormations a $re3uent occurrence. #hat much was clear. 6hat was less clear" especially to a youn( student steeped in analytical philosophy" were were the concepts he used to present such a picture. 9espite the absence o$ de$initions0$or de$initions0$or ar! ne)er o$$ered any0it was not hard to know" in a (eneral way at least" what ar! was talkin( about" but whene)er I pressed a point the precision and clarity I had been trained to look $or e luded me. 4nd 4nd when I sou(ht to construct my own de$initions $rom the way ar! used his key concepts in his writin(s" I was shocked to disco)er that their apparent meanin(s )aried with the conte!t" o$ten considerably. considerably. I was not the $irst" o$ course" to note or to be bothered by the elastic 3uality o$ ar!*s meanin(s. il$redo areto" the Italian sociolo(ist" pro)ided the classic statement o$ this problem lon( a(o when he said" +ar!*s words are like bats. One can see in them both birds and mice+ -areto" ?@D>" EE>. But once we reco(ni,e this problem" what are our choices7 ? 6e could i(nore it. > 6e could treat what ar! means -or seems to on most occasions" or on what we take to be the most important occasion" as what ar! really means by a particular concept. E 6 e could use this inconsistency as a club with which to beat ar! $or bein( hopelessly con$used" or sloppy" or e)en dishonest. Or F we could seek $or an e!planation o$ ar!*s usa(e in his )iew o$ the world and the place that lan(ua(e and meanin( ha)e in that )iew. I had spent too much time pu,,lin( o)er ar!*s lin(uistic practice to i(nore what I had $ound" and while it is possible to sin(le out one main meanin( $or some o$ ar!*s concepts" this le$t too many o ther meanin(s unaccounted $or. On the other hand" e)en with this di$$iculty" di$$iculty" I was already learnin( too much $rom ar! to dismiss him as irredeemin(ly con$used or careless. #hat le$t an in)esti(ation into his )iew o$ the world that may ha)e allowed and e)en re3uired just such a use o$ lan(ua(e. #akin( #akin( the latter path" I soon arri)ed at the philosophy o$ internal relations" a carryo)er $rom ar!*s apprenticeship with e(el" which treats the relations in which anythin( stands as essential parts o$ what it is" so that a si(ni$icant chan(e in any o$ these relations re(isters as a 3ualitati)e
chan(e in the system o$ which it is a part. 6ith relations rather than thin(s the $undamental buildin( blocks o$ reality" a concept may )ary somewhat in its meanin( dependin( on how much o$ a particular relation it is intended to con)ey. Could this be the answer to the parado! stated so elo3uently by areto7 4s it turned out" the philosophy o$ internal relations had recei)ed relati)ely little attention in the already e!tensi)e literature on ar!*s dialectic. 4nd while se)eral major interpreters o$ ar!" such as 5ukGcs" Sartre" 5e$eb)re" %osik" Holdmann and arcuse" appeared to reco(ni,e that ar!*s rejection o$ e(el*s idealism did not include his p hilosophy o$ internal relations" none saw $it to build their interpretation o$ dialectics dialectics around it nor to use it as a basis $or e!plainin( ar!*s unusual use o$ lan(ua(e. I did. owe)er" in what became 4lienation my chie$ aim in reconstructin( ar!*s dialectic was to understand what he said about human nature and alienation. 6hat ser)ed to e!plain a particular theory" thou(h" thou(h" was not enou(h to account $or how he arri)ed at this theory nor to help people study other aspects o$ society in the manner o$ ar!. #he philosophy o$ internal relations" a$ter all" is only a philosophy. It underlies and makes possible a certain method $or in3uirin( into the world and or(ani,in( and e!poundin( what one $inds" but an ade3uate (rasp o$ this method re3uires that e3ual attention be pa id to other elements o$ the dialectic" and especially to the +process o$ abstraction+. #he philosophy o$ internal relations bans $inite parts $rom ar!*s ontolo(y. #he world" it would ha)e us belie)e" is not like that. #hen" throu(h the mental process o$ abstraction" ar! draws a set o$ pro)isional boundaries in this relational world to arri)e at parts that are better suited0chie$ly throu(h the inclusion o$ si(ni$icant elements o$ chan(e and interaction0to the particular in)esti(ation in)esti(ation he has in mind. #he resultin( $indin(s" incapsulated in the theories o$ ar!ism" all bear the imprint o$ these initial abstractions. Conse3uently" in my ne!t major work on ar!ism" 9ialectical In)esti(ations -?@@E" the philosophy o$ internal relations cedes its position at the center o$ my account to ar!*s process o$ abstraction. #o(ether0and" #o(ether0and" despite the e)idence o$ my earliest writin(s" they must be used to(ether0the philosophy o$ internal relations and the process o$ abstraction o$$er the (reater part o$ what is d istincti)e about my approach to dialectics" an approach meant to ad)ance current e$$orts to study capitalism -or any part thereo$ as well as to help us (rasp and make better use o$ ar!*s own achie)ements. 1ecent years ha)e witnessed a modest renaissance o$ interest in dialectics as a (rowin( number o$ ar!ist writers ha)e adopted it as a pri)ile(ed )anta(e point $rom which to e!amine ar!*s other theories. #he latest sta(e o$ capitalism" what some ha)e dubbed +(lobali,ation"+ and the collapse o$ the So)iet 2nion ha)e also sent many o$ these same scholars back to the moment o$ method $or help in e!plainin( these phenomena. #he result is that dialectical method is one o$ the li)eliest areas o$ ar!ist research and debate today" particularly particularly in the 4n(lo;Sa!on 4n(lo;Sa!on world. 4mon( the more important contributors to this debate are 9a)id ar)ey" 1ichard 1ichard 5ewin" 1ichard 5ewontin" &rederick " E and F. Chapter ? (i)es an introductory o)er)iew o$ our entire subject. Chapter N" which is the lon(est and probably most important chapter in the book" details ar!*s process o$ abstraction and shows its or(anic tie to the philosophy o$ internal relations. Chapter = e!plains how ar!*s used his method to study the past in its internal relation to the present. Chapter A presents the kind o$ in3uiry and e!position that $ollows $rom ar!*s adherence to a philosophy o$ internal relations. Chapter e!pands on the work o$ the pre)ious chapter to include all the
di$$erent moments o$ ar!*s method and shows ho w it helped him arri)e at his understandin( o$ the capitalist state. Chapter @ e!plains how dialectical method is used to study the communist $uture in its internal relation to the present" and pro)ides the best summary o$ the earlier chapters. ere" one will also $ind most o$ the sca$$oldin( with which ar! constructed his #ale o$ #wo Cities. In chapters ?D and ??" ??" my interpretation o$ ar!*s method is contrasted with that o$ two increasin(ly popular schools o$ dialectical thinkin(" Critical 1ealism and Systematic 9ialectics. &inally" &inally" Chapter ?> o$$ers a case study in the use o$ some elements in ar!*s dialectical method to analy,e the more peculiar $eatures o$ the ;E. &or the elements o$ dialectics with which I ha)e been most concerned" chie$ly the ph ilosophy o$ internal relations and the process o$ abstraction" it is ar! who has pro)ided the bulk o$ my raw materials. 8et 8et I ha)e not hesitated to use 'n(els* comments in arri)in( at my own interpretation o$ ar!ism" includin( ar!ist dialectics" whene)er they seemed particularly help$ul" and I ha)e n o problem encoura(in( readers to do the same.
Chapter ? ; #he eanin( o$ 9ialectics I a)e you e)er tried to hop on a car while it was still mo)in(7 ow di$$erent di$$erent was it $rom enterin( a car that was stationary7 6ould you ha)e been able to (et into the mo)in( car i$ you were blind$olded7 6ould you ha)e been able to do it i$ you were not only blind$olded but didn*t know in which direction it was mo)in( or e)en how $ast it was mo)in(7 6hy all these silly 3uestions7 Ob)iously" we all a(ree on the answers" and anyone in his ri(ht mind would make sure to know how $ast and in which direction a car is mo)in( be$ore tryin( to climb aboard. 6ell" what about society7 Society is like a )ehicle that e)ery one o$ us tries to climb aboard to $ind a job" a home" )arious social relationships" (oods to satis$y our needs and $ancies 0in short" a whole way o$ li$e. 4nd who can doubt that society is chan(in(. In $act" no century has e!perienced as much social chan(e as ours" and no p eriod has e!perienced $aster chan(e than the period since 6orld 6ar II. But just how $ast is it chan(in(" and" more important" in what direction7 6ill 4merican" 4merican" or British or
(i)e you the thin(s you want $rom it" that you are e!pectin(" that you are preparin( $or7 Bein( an optimist" you may answer +yes"+ but i$ so" you are lookin(0and none too closely0at thin(s as they are now. But society" as you admit" is chan(in(" and )ery $ast. a)e you studied what our democratic capitalist society is chan(in( into" or are you like the blind$olded person tryin( to (et onto a mo)in( )ehicle" not knowin( either the speed or direction in which it is tra)elin(7 ow" then" does one study the in$initely comple! or(anism that is modern society as it e)ol)es and chan(es o)er time7 ar!ism enters the picture as the most systematic -thou(h" ob)iously" still incomplete e$$ort yet undertaken to pro)ide such an analysis. &ocusin( on how (oods (et produced" e!chan(ed" and distributed in the capitalist era" it tries to account $or the structure as well as the dynamics o$ the entire social system" includin( both its ori(ins and likely $uture. 6e also learn how the $ew who bene$it most $rom capitalism use a mi!ture o$ $orce and (uile to order the li)es and thinkin( o$ the (reat majority who would bene$it most $rom a radical chan(e. &inally" ar!ism also lays out a method -dialectics and a practice -class stru((le $or updatin( this study and helpin( to brin( about the most desirable outcome. Mo one who is about to climb aboard the mo)in( )ehicle that is our rapidly chan(in( society can a$$ord to proceed without it. II 6hat we understand about the world is determined by what the world is" who we are" and how we conduct our study. 4s re(ards this last" in our day the problems in)ol)ed in (raspin( reality ha)e been compounded by an approach that pri)ile(es whate)er makes thin(s appear static and independent o$ one another o)er their more dynamic and systemic 3ualities. Copernicus could ha)e been speakin( about the modern academy instead o$ the astronomers o$ his day when he said" +6ith them it is as thou(h an artist were to (ather the hands" $eet" head" and other members $or his ima(es $rom di)erse models" each part e!cellently drawn" but not related to a sin(le body" and since they in no way match each o ther" the result would be a monster rather than man+ -%uhn" ?@=>" E. #he e!istin( breakdown o$ kno wled(e into mutually indi$$erent and o$ten hostile academic disciplines" each with its own ran(e o$ problematics and methods" has replaced the harmonious enli(htenment we had been promised with a raucous cacophony o$ discordant sounds. In the con$usion" the a(e;old link between knowled(e and action has been se)ered" so that scholars can deny all responsibility $or their wares while takin( pride in knowin( more and more about less and less. It is as a way o$ critici,in( this state o$ a$$airs and de)elopin( an inte(rated body o$ knowled(e that a (rowin( number o$ researchers are turnin( to ar!ian dialectics. 6ith all the misin$ormation con)eyed about dialectics" it may be use$ul to start by sayin( what it is not. 9ialectics is not a rock;ribbed triad o$ thesis;antithesis;synthesis that ser)es as an all; purpose e!planation nor does it pro)ide a $ormula that enables us to pro)e or predict anythin( nor is it the motor $orce o$ history. #he dialectic" as such" e!plains nothin(" pro)es nothin(" predicts nothin( and causes nothin( to happen. 1ather" dialectics is a way o$ thinkin( that brin(s into $ocus the $ull ran(e o$ chan(es and interactions that occur in the world. 4s part o$ this" it includes how to or(ani,e a reality )iewed in this manner $or purposes o$ study and how to present the results o$ what one $inds to others" most o$ whom do not think dialectically. #he main problem to which d ialectics is addressed is set out clearly in ar!*s retellin( o$ the 1oman myth o$ Cacus -ar!" ?@A?" NE=;EA. al$ man" hal$ demon" Cacus li)ed in a ca)e and came out only at ni(ht to steal o!en. 6ishin( to mislead his pursuers" Cacus $orced the o!en to walk backward into his den so that their $ootprints made it appear that they had (one out $rom there. #he ne!t mornin(" when people came lookin( $or their o!en" all they $ound were $ootprints. Based on the e)idence o$ these $ootprints" they concluded that" startin( $rom the ca)e" their o!en had (one into the middle o$ a $ield and d isappeared. I$ the owners o$ the o!en had taken a methodolo(y course at an 4merican uni)ersity" they mi(ht ha)e counted the $ootprints" measured the depth o$ each step and run the results throu(h a computer0but they would ha)e arri)ed at the same wron( conclusion. #he problem here arises
$rom the $act that reality is more than appearances" and that $ocusin( e!clusi)ely on appearances" on the e)idence that strikes us immediately and directly" can be e!tremely misleadin(. ow typical is the error $ound in this e!ample7 4ccordin( to ar!" rather than the e!ception" this is how most people in our society understand the world. Basin( themsel)es on what they see" hear" and bump into in their immediate surroundin(s0on $ootprints o$ )arious kinds0they arri)e at conclusions that are in many cases the e!act opposite o$ the truth. ost o$ the distortions associated with bour(eois ideolo(y are o$ this kind. #o understand the real meanin( o$ the $ootprints" the owners o$ the o !en had to $ind out what happened the ni(ht be$ore and what was (oin( on in the ca)e that lay just o)er their hori,on. In a similar way" understandin( anythin( in our e)eryday e!perience re3uires that we know somethin( about how it arose and de)eloped and how it $its into the lar(er conte!t or system o$ which it is a part.
o$ it as one understands" and then proceeds to an e!amination o$ the part to see where it $its and how it $unctions" leadin( e)entually to a $uller understandin( o$ the whole $rom which one has be(un. Capitalism ser)es ar! as his jumpin(;o$$ point $or an e!amination o$ anythin( that takes place within it. 4s a be(innin(" capitalism is already contained" in principle" within the interactin( processes he sets out to in)esti(ate as the sum total o$ their necessary conditions and results. Con)ersely" to be(in with a supposedly independent part or parts is to assume a separation with its correspondin( distortion o$ meanin( that no amount o$ later relatin( can o)ercome. Somethin( will be missin(" somethin( will be out o$ place and" without any standard by which to jud(e" neither will be reco(ni,ed. 6hat are ca lled +interdisciplinary studies+ simply treat the sum o$ such de$ects comin( $rom di$$erent $ields. 4s with umpty 9umpty" who a$ter the $all could ne)er be put to(ether a(ain" a system whose $unctionin( parts ha)e been treated as independent o$ one another at the start can ne)er be reestablished in its inte(rity. #he in)esti(ation itsel$ seeks to concreti,e what is (oin( on in capitalism" to trace the means and $orms throu(h which it works and has de)eloped" and to project where it seems to be tendin(. 4s a (eneral rule" the interactions that constitute any problem in its present state are e!amined be$ore studyin( their pro(ress o)er time. #he order o$ in3uiry" in other words" is system be$ore history" so that history is ne)er the de)elopment o$ one or two isolated elements with its su((estion" e!plicit or implicit" that chan(e results $rom causes located inside that particular sphere -histories o$ reli(ion" or o$ culture or e)en o$ economics alone are decidedly undialectical. In ar!*s study o$ any speci$ic e)ent or institutional $orm" these two types o$ in3uiry are always interwo)en. #he $uller understandin( o$ capitalism that is the major result o$ such a study is now ready to ser)e as a richer and" there$ore" more use$ul startin( point $or the ne!t series o$ in)esti(ations. I Hi)en an approach that proceeds $rom the whole to the part" $rom the system inward" dialectical research is primarily directed to $indin( and tracin( $our kinds o$ relations: identity/di$$erence" interpenetration o$ opposites" 3uantity/3uality and contradiction. 1ooted in his dialectical conception o$ reality" these relations enable ar! to attain his double aim o$ disco)erin( how somethin( works or happened while simultaneously de)elopin( his understandin( o$ the system in which such thin(s could work or happen in just this way. In what ar! calls the common sense approach" also $ound in $ormal lo(ic" thin(s are either the same/identical or di$$erent" not both. On this model" comparisons (enerally stop a$ter takin( note o$ the way-s any two entities are either identical or di$$erent" but $or ar! this is only the $irst step. 2nlike the political economists" $or e!ample" who stop a$ter describin( the ob)ious di$$erences between pro$it" rent and interest" ar! (oes on to brin( out their identity as $orms o$ surplus;)alue -that is" wealth created by workers that is not returned to them in the $orm o$ wa(es. 4s relations" they all ha)e this 3uality" this aspect that touches upon their ori(ins" in common. #he interest ar! takes in delineatin( the special $eatures o$ production and o$ the workin( class without ne(lectin( all they ha)e in common with other economic processes and other classes respecti)ely are (ood e !amples o$ his approachin( identity and di$$erence $rom the side o$ identity. #he relations that stand in $or thin(s in ar!*s dialectical conception o$ reality are su$$iciently lar(e and comple! to possess 3ualities that0when compared to the 3ualities o$ other similarly constituted relations0appear to be identical and others that appear to be di$$erent. In in)esti(atin( what these are and" especially" in payin( e!tra attention to whiche)er hal$ o$ this pairin( is currently most ne(lected" ar! can arri)e at detailed descriptions o$ speci$ic phenomena without (ettin( lost in one;sidedness. 6hile the relation o$ identity/di$$erence treats the )arious 3ualities that are e!amined with its help as (i)en" the interpretation o$ opposites is based on the reco(nition that to a )ery lar(e de(ree how anythin( appears and $unctions is due to its surroundin( conditions. #hese conditionin( $actors apply to both o bjects and the persons percei)in( them. 4s re(ards the $ormer" $or e!ample" it is only because a machine is owned by capitalists that it is used to e!ploit workers. In
the hands o$ a consumer or o$ a sel$;employed operator" that is" conditioned by another set o$ $actors" operatin( under di$$erent imperati)es" it would not $unction in this way. 4s re(ards the latter" when someone conditioned as a capitalist looks at a machine" he sees a commodity he has bou(ht on the market" perhaps e)en the price he has paid $or it" and somethin( that is (oin( to make him a pro$it. 6hen someone conditioned as a worker" on the other hand" looks at the same machine he only sees an instrument that will determine his mo)ements in the production process. #he perspecti)al element0reco(ni,in( that thin(s appear )ery di$$erent dependin( on who is lookin( at them0plays a )ery important role in dialectical thou(ht. #his doesn*t mean that the truths that emer(e $rom )iewin( reality $rom di$$erent )anta(e points are o$ e3ual )alue. In)ol)ed as they are in the work o$ trans$ormin( nature" workers enjoy a pri)ile(ed position $rom which to )iew and make sense out o$ the de)elopmental character o$ the system" and with his interest in the e)olution o$ capitalism this is the )anta(e point that ar! most o$ten adopts $or himsel$. #he notion o$ the interpenetration o$ opposites helps ar! to understand that n othin(0no e)ent" institution" person or process0is simply and solely what it seems to be at a particular place and time" that is situated within a certain set o$ conditions. iewed in another way" or by other people or )iewin( them under drastically chan(ed conditions may produce not only a di$$erent but the e!act opposite conclusion or e$$ect. ence" the interpenetration o$ opposites. 4 losin( strike in one conte!t may ser)e as the start o$ a re)olution in another an election that is a $arce because one party" the 1epublicrats" has all the money and the workers* parties none could" with an e3uali,ation o$ the conditions o$ stru((le" o$$er a democratic choice workers who belie)e that capitalism is an ideal system when they ha)e a (ood job may be(in to 3uestion this when they become unemployed. 5ookin( $or where and how such chan(es ha)e already occurred and under what set o$ still;de)elopin( conditions new e$$ects are likely to occur helps ar! (au(e both the comple!ity o$ the part under e!amination and its dependence on the e)olution o$ the system o)erall. 6hat is called 3uantity/3uality is a relation between two temporally di$$erentiated moments within the same process. ')ery process contains moments o$ be$ore and a$ter" encompassin( both buildup -and builddown and what that leads to. Initially" mo)ement within any process takes the $orm o$ 3uantitati)e chan(e. One or more o$ its aspects0each process bein( also a relation composed o$ aspects0increases or decreases in si,e or number. #hen" at a certain point0which is di$$erent $or each process studied0a 3ualitati)e trans$ormation takes place" indicated by a chan(e in its appearance and/or $unction. It has become somethin( else while" in terms o$ its main constitutin( relationships" remainin( essentially the same. #his 3ualitati)e chan(e is o$ten" thou(h not always" marked by the introduction o$ a new concept to desi(nate what the process has become. Only when money reaches a certain amount" ar! says" does it become capital" that is" can it $unction to buy labor;power and p roduce )alue -ar!" ?@N" EDA;. 5ikewise" the cooperation o$ many people becomes a new producti)e power that is not only more but 3ualitati)ely di$$erent than the sum o$ indi)idual powers that compose it -'n(els" ?@EF" ?F>. 5ookin( $or 3uantity/3uality chan(e is ar!*s way o$ brin(in( into sin(le $ocus the be$ore and a$ter aspects in a de)elopment that most non;dialectical approaches treat separately and e)en causally. It is a way o$ unitin( in thou(ht the past and probable $uture o$ any on(oin( process at the e!pense -temporary e!pense o$ its relations in the broader system. 4nd it is a way o$ sensiti,in( onesel$ to the ine)itability o$ chan(e" both 3uantitati)e and 3ualitati)e" e)en be$ore research has helped us to disco)er what it is. 6hile the notion o$ 3uantity/3uality is in no sense a $ormula $or predictin( the $uture" it does encoura(e research into patterns and trends o$ a kind that enables one to project the likely $uture" and it does o$$er a $ramework $or inte(ratin( such projections into one*s understandin( o$ the present and the past. O$ the $our major relations ar! in)esti(ated in his e$$ort to make dialectical sense out o$ capitalist reality" contradiction is undoubtedly the most important. 4ccordin( to ar!" +in capitalism e)erythin( seems and in $act is contradictory+ -ar!" ?@=E" >?. e also belie)es it is
the +contradictory socially determined $eatures o$ its elements+ that is +the predominant characteristic o$ the capitalist mode o$ production+ -ar!" ?@AE" F @?. Contradiction is understood here as the incompatible de)elopment o$ di$$erent elements within the same relation" which is to say between elements that are also dependent on one another. 6hat is remarked as di$$erences are based" as we saw" on certain conditions" and these conditions are constantly chan(in(. ence" di$$erences are chan(in( and (i)en how each di$$erence ser)es as part o$ the appearance and/or $unctionin( o$ others" (rasped as relations" how one chan(es a$$ects all. Conse3uently" their paths o$ de)elopment do n ot only intersect in mutually supporti)e ways" but are constantly blockin(" underminin(" otherwise inter$erin( with and in due course trans$ormin( one another. Contradiction o$$ers the optimal means $or brin(in( such chan(e and interaction as re(ards both present and $uture into a sin(le $ocus. #he $uture $inds its way into this $ocus as the likely and possible outcomes o$ the interaction o$ these opposin( tendencies in the present" as their real potential. It is contradiction more than an y other notion that enables ar! to a)oid stasis and one;sidedness in thinkin( about the or(anic and historical mo)ements o$ the capitalist mode o$ production" about how they a$$ect each other and de)elop to(ether $ rom their ori(ins in $eudalism to whate)er lies just o)er our hori,on. #he common sense notion o$ contradiction is that it applies to ideas about thin(s and not to thin(s themsel)es" that it is a lo(ical relation between propositions -+I$ I claim *P"* I can*t at the same time claim *not P* +" and not a real relation e!istin( in the world. #his common sense )iew" as we saw" is based on a conception o$ reality di)ided into separate and independent parts0a body mo)es when another body bumps into it. 6hereas non;dialectical thinkers in e)ery discipline are in)ol)ed in a nonstop search $or the +outside a(itator"+ $or somethin( or someone that comes $rom outside the problem under e !amination and is the cause $or whate)er occurs" dialectical thinkers attribute the main responsibility $or all chan(e to the inner contradictions o$ the system or systems in which it occurs. Capitalism*s $ate" in other words" is sealed by its own problems" problems that are internal mani$estations o$ what it is and how it works" and are o$ten parts o$ the )ery achie)ements o$ capitalism" worsenin( as these achie)ements (row and spread. Capitalism*s e!traordinary success in increasin( production" $or e!ample" stands in contradiction to the decreasin( ability o$ the workers to consume these (oods. Hi)en capitalist relations o$ distribution" they can buy e)er smaller po rtions o$ what they themsel)es produce -it is the proportion o$ such (oods and not the actual amount that determines the character o$ the contradiction" leadin( to periodic crises o$ o)erproduction/underconsumption. &or ar!" contradiction belon(s to thin(s in their 3uality as processes within an or(anic and de)elopin( system. It arises $rom within" $rom the )ery character o$ these processes -it is +innate in their subject matter+" and is an e!pression o$ the state o$ the system -ar!" ?@AE" ?EA. 6ithout a conception o$ thin(s as relations" non;dialectical thinkers ha)e (reat di$$iculty $ocusin( on the di$$erent sides o$ a contradiction at the same time. #he result is that these sides are e!amined" i$ at all" in se3uence" with one in)ariably recei)in( more attention than the other" their mutual interaction o$ten mistaken $or causality. 4 $re3uent criticism ar! makes o$ political economists is that they try to +e!orcise contradictions+ -ar!" ?@=" N?@. By )iewin( capitalist $orces o$ production and capitalist relations o$ distribution separately they miss the contradiction. 4 lot o$ e$$ort o$ bour(eois ideolo(y (oes into denyin(" hidin(" or otherwise distortin( contradictions. Bad $aith and class interest politics" howe)er" account $or only a small part o$ these practices. &or non;dialectical thinkers" operatin( out o$ a common sense )iew" real contradictions can only be understood only as di$$erences" parado!" opposition" strain" tension" dise3uilibrium" dislocation" imbalance" or" i$ accompanied by open stri$e" con$lict. But without the dialectical notion o$ contradiction" they seldom see and can ne)er ade3uately (rasp the way processes actually interpenetrate" and can ne)er (au(e the $orces unleashed as their mutual dependence e)ol)es $rom its distant ori(ins to the present and beyond. &or ar!" on the other hand" tracin( how capitalist contradictions un$old is also a way o$ disco)erin( the main causes o$ comin( disruptions and comin( con$lict. On the basis o$ what he unco)ers in his study o$ identity/di$$erence" the interpenetration o$ opposites" 3uantity/3uality" and contradiction0a study that starts with the whole and proceeds
inward to the part" and which concei)es o$ all parts as processes in relations o$ mutual dependence0ar! reconstructed the workin( o$ capitalist society. Or(ani,in( reality in this way" he was able to capture both the or(anic and historical mo)ements o$ capitalism in their speci$ic interconnections. #he still un$inished results o$ this reconstruction are the particular laws and theories we know as ar!ism. It is clear that ar! could not ha)e arri)ed at his understandin( o$ capitalism without dialectics" nor will we be able to de)elop this understandin( $urther without a $irm (rasp o$ this same method. Mo treatment o$ dialectics howe)er brie$" there$ore" can be considered complete without a warnin( a(ainst some o$ the more common errors and distortions associated with this way o$ thinkin(. &or e!ample" i$ non;dialectical thinkers o$ten miss the $orest $or the trees" dialectical thinkers just as o$ten do the opposite" that is" play down or e)en i(nore the parts" the details" in de$erence to makin( (enerali,ations about the whole. But the capitalist system can only be (rasped throu(h an in)esti(ation o$ its speci$ic parts in their interconnection. 9ialectical thinkers also ha)e a tendency to mo)e too 3uickly to the bottom line" to push the (erm o$ a de)elopment to its $inished $orm. In (eneral" this error results $rom not (i)in( enou(h attention to the comple! mediations" both in space and o)er time" that make up the joints o$ any social problem. #here is also a related tendency to o)erestimate the speed o$ chan(e" alon( with a correspondin( tendency to underestimate all that is holdin( it back. #hus" relati)ely minor cracks on the sur$ace o$ capitalist reality are too easily mistaken $or (apin( chasms on the )er(e o$ becomin( earth3uakes. I$ non;dialectical thinkin( leads people to be surprised whene)er a major chan(e occurs" because they aren*t lookin( $or it and don*t e!pect it" because it isn*t an internal part o$ how they concei)e o$ the world at this moment" dialectical thinkin(0$or just the opposite reasons 0can lead people to be surprised when the e!pected uphea)al takes so lon( in comin(. In or(ani,in( reality $or purposes o$ (raspin( chan(e" relati)e stability does not always (et the attention that it deser)es. #hese are all weaknesses inherent in the )ery stren(ths o$ dialectical method. ')er present as temptations" they o$$er an easier way" a 3uick $i!" and ha)e to b e care$ully (uarded a(ainst. Mothin( that we ha)e said in our account so $ar should be taken to deny the empirical character o$ ar!*s method. ar! does not deduce the workin(s o$ capitalism $rom the meanin(s o$ words or $rom the re3uirements o$ his theories" but like any (ood social scientist he does research to disco)er what is the case. 4nd in his research he made use o$ the entire ran(e o$ materials and resources that were a)ailable in his time. Mor do we wish to claim that ar! was the only dialectical thinker. 4s is well known" most o$ his dialectic was taken o)er $rom e(el" who merely -7 $illed in and systemati,ed a way o$ thinkin( and an approach to studyin( reality that (oes all the way back to the Hreeks. 4nd in our time there are non;ar!ist thinkers" such as 4l$red Morth 6hitehead and &. . Bradley" who ha)e de)eloped their own )ersions o$ this approach. 9espite its hea)y ideolo(ical content" common sense" too" is not without its dialectical moments" as is e)idenced by such insi(hts as +')ery cloud has its sil)er linin(+ and +#hat was the straw that broke the camel*s back.+ 'lements o$ dialectics can also be $ound in other social science methods" such as structural $unctionalism" systems theory" and ethnomethodolo(y" where it constitutes most o$ what is o$ )alue in these approaches. 6hat stands out about ar!*s dialectical method is the systematic manner in which he works it out and uses it $or the study o$ capitalist society -includin(0because the dialectic re3uires it0its ori(ins and probable $uture" the united theory o$ knowled(e -set out in the still incomplete theories o$ ar!ism to which it leads" the sustained criti3ue o$ non;dialectical approaches -su((ested in our remarks on ideolo(y throu(hout that it makes possible" and0perhaps most strikin( o$ all0its emphasis on the necessary co nnection posed by dialectics itsel$ between knowled(e and action. 4s re(ards this last" ar! claims" the dialectic +is in its essence critical and re)olutionary+ -ar!"
?@N" >D. It is re)olutionary because it helps us to see the present as a moment throu(h which our society is passin(" because it $orces us to e!amine where it has come $rom and where it is headin( as part o$ learnin( what it is" and because it enables us to (rasp that as a(ents as well as )ictims" in this process in which e)eryone and e)erythin( are connected" we ha)e to power to a$$ect it. In keepin( in $ront o$ us the simple truth that e)erythin( is chan(in(" the $uture is posed as a choice in which the only thin( that cannot be chosen is what we already ha)e. '$$orts to retain the status 3uo in any area o$ li$e ne)er achie)e 3uite that. &ruit kept in the re$ri(erator too lon( (oes rotten so do emotions and people so do whole societies -where the proper word is +disinte(ration+. 6ith dialectics we are made to 3uestion what kind o$ chan(es are already occurrin( and what kind o$ chan(es are possible. #he dialectic is re)olutionary" as Bertolt Brecht points out" because it helps us to pose such 3uestions in a manner that makes e$$ecti)e action possible -Brecht" ?@=" =D. #he dialectic is critical because it helps us to become critical o$ what our role has been up to now. In ar!ist terms" one doesn*t ad)ocate class stru((le or choose to participate in it -common bour(eois misconceptions. #he class stru((le" representin( the sum o$ the contradictions between workers" broadly de$ined" and capitalists simply is" and in one way or a nother we are all already in)ol)ed" o$ten0as we come to disco)er0on the wron( side. On learnin( about it and where we $it into it" we can now decide to stop actin( as we ha)e been -the $irst decision to take and what more or else we can do to better ser)e our own interests. 6hat can be chosen is what side to take in this stru((le and how to conduct it. 4 dialectical (rasp o$ our socially conditioned roles and the e3ually necessary limits and possibilities that constitute our present pro)ides us with the opportunity $or makin( a conscious and intelli(ent choice. In this manner does knowled(e o$ necessity usher in the be(innin(s o$ real $reedom.
Chapter > ; Social 1elations as Subject atter I #he only e!tensi)e discussion o$ ar!*s concepts -or cate(ories and the conception o$ social reality that $inds e!pression in them appears in his un$inished Introduction to the Criti3ue o$ olitical 'conomy. #his seminal work" which was $irst published by %arl %autsky in ?@DE" has been unjustly i(nored by most 4n(lo;Sa!on writers on ar!ism.? ere we learn that +In the study o$ economic cate(ories" as in the case o$ e)ery historical and social science" it must be borne in mind that as in reality so in our mind the subject" in this case modern bour(eois society" is (i)en and that the cate(ories are there$ore but $orms o$ e!pression" mani$estations o$ e!istence" and $re3uently but one;sided aspects o$ this subject" this de$inite society+ -ar!" ?@DF" ED>. #his distinction between subject and cate(ories is simple reco(nition o$ the $act that our knowled(e o$ the real world is mediated throu(h the construction o$ concepts in which to think about it our contact with reality" in so $ar as we become aware o$ it" is contact with a conceptuali,ed reality. 6hat is unusual in ar!*s statement is the special relation he posits between cate(ories and society. Instead o$ bein( simply a means $or describin( capitalism -neutral )ehicles to carry a partial story" these cate(ories are declared to be +$orms+" +mani$estations+ and +aspects+ o$ their own subject matter. Or" as he says elsewhere in this Introduction" the cate(ories o$ bour(eois society +ser)e as the e!pression o$ its conditions and the comprehension o$ its own or(ani,ation+ -ar!" ?@DF" EDD. #hat is to say" they e!press the real conditions necessary $or their application" but as meanin($ul" systemati,ed and understood conditions. #his is not merely a matter o$ cate(ories bein( limited in what they can be used to describe the story itsel$ is thou(ht to be somehow part o$ the )ery concepts with which it is told. #his is e)ident $rom ar!*s claim that +#he simplest economic cate(ory" say" e!chan(e;)alue" implies the e!istence o$ population" population that is en(a(ed in production within determined relations it also implies the e!istence o$ certain types o$ $amily" class" or state" etc. It can ha)e no other e!istence e !cept as an abstract one;sided relation o$ an already ( i)en concrete and li)in( a((re(ate+ -my emphasis -ar!" ?@DF" >@F.
One o$ the more strikin( results o$ this approach to lan(ua(e is that not only the content but also the cate(ories are e)aluated by ar! in terms o$ +true+ and +$alse+. #hus" in critici,in( roudhon" ar! claims that +political;economic cate(ories+ are +abstract e!pressions o$ the real" transitory" historic" social relations+" and they +only remain true while these relations e!ist+ -my emphasis -ar!/'n(els" ?@F?" ?> ar!" ?@DF" ED? ar!" n.d." ??A;>>. By decidin( to work with capitalist cate(ories" roudhon" accordin( to ar!" cannot completely disassociate himsel$ $rom the +truths+ which these cate(ories contain. 4ccordin( to the common sense )iew" only statements can be true or $alse" and to use this same measure $or e)aluatin( concepts seems unwarranted and con$used. #hree conclusions stand out $rom this discussion: that ar! (rasped each political;economic concept as a component o$ society itsel$" in his words as an +abstract one;sided relation o$ an already (i)en concrete and li)in( a((re(ate+ that it is intimately linked with other social components to $orm a particular structure and that this whole" or at least its more si(ni$icant parts" is e!pressed in the concept itsel$" in what it is intended to con)ey" in its )ery meanin(. I$ these conclusions are unclear" it is because the kind o$ structure they take $or (ranted is still )a(ue and imprecise. #o properly understand concepts that con)ey a particular union" we must be at ease with the 3uality o$ this unity" that is" with the way its components combine" the properties o$ such combinations" and the nature o$ the whole which they constitute. Only by learnin( how ar! structures the units o$ his subject matter" only by becomin( aware o$ the 3uality and ran(e o$ what is known when he considers he knows anythin(" will the relations between concepts and reality that ha)e been set out in these conclusions become clear. II 6hat is distincti)e in ar!*s conception o$ social reality is best approached throu(h the cluster o$ 3ualities he ascribes to particular social $actors. #akin( capital as the e!ample" we $ind ar! depictin( it as +that kind o$ property which e!ploits wa(e;labor" and which cannot increase e!cept on condition o$ (ettin( a new supply o$ wa(e;labor $or $resh e!ploitation+ -ar! and 'n(els" ?@FN" EE. 6hat re3uires emphasis is that the relation between capital and labor is treated here as a $unction o$ capital itsel$" and part o$ the meanin( o$ +capital+. #his tie is e !tended to co)er the worker as well" where ar! re$ers to him as +)ariable capital+ -ar!" ?@N" >D@. #he capitalist is incorporated into the same whole: +capital is necessarily at the same time the capitalist . . . the capitalist is contained in the concept o$ capital+ -ar!" ?@AE" N?>. 'lsewhere" ar! asserts that +the means o$ production monopoli,ed by a certain section o$ society+" +the products o$ laborers turned into independent powers+" +money+" +commodities+ and e)en +)alue that sucks up the )alue creatin( powers+ are also capital -ar!" ?@N@b" A@F;N ar!" ?@N" ?NE ar!" NA?. 6hat emer(es $rom these di)erse characteri,ations is a conception o$ many tied $acets" whose sen se depends upon the relations ar! belie)es to e!ist between its components: property" wa(e;labor" worker" his product" commodities" means o$ production" capitalist" money" )alue -the list can be made lon(er still.> It is insu$$icient to accuse ar! o$ loose and misleadin( presentation $or" as we shall see" all social $actors are treated in the same manner. But i$ it is not incompetent writin(" then ar! is o$$erin( us a conception o$ capital in which the $actors we (enerally think o$ as e!ternally related to it are )iewed as co;elements in a sin(le structure. It is this system;ownin( 3uality o$ capital that he has in mind when he re$ers to it as a +de$inite social relationship+. #his conception is contrasted with 1icardo*s where capital +is only distin(uishable as *accumulated labor* $rom *immediate labor*+. In the latter case" where capital +is somethin( purely material" a mere element in the labor process+" ar! claims" +the relation between labor and capital" wa(es and pro$it" can ne)er be de)eloped+ -ar!" ?@=" FDD. ar! belie)es he is only able to trace out these connections because they are already contained in h is broad conception o$ capital. I$ they were not" he would" like 1icardo" draw a blank. ')ery $actor which enters into ar!*s study o$ capitalism is a +de$inite social relationship+.
III #he relation is the irreducible minimum $or all units in ar!*s conception o$ social reality. #his is really the nub o$ our di$$iculty in understandin( ar!ism" whose subject matter is not simply society but society concei)ed o$ +relationally+. Capital" labor" )alue" commodity" etc." are all (rasped as relations" containin( in themsel)es" as inte(ral elements o$ what they are" those parts with which we tend to see them e!ternally tied. 'ssentially" a chan(e o$ $ocus has occurred $rom )iewin( independent $actors which are related to )iewin( the particular way in which they are related in each $actor" to (raspin( this tie as part o$ the meanin( con )eyed by its concept. #his )iew does not rule out the e!istence o$ a core notion $or each $actor" but treats this core notion itsel$ as a cluster o$ relations. 4ccordin( to the common sense )iew" a social $actor is taken to be lo(ically independent o$ other social $actors to which it is related. #he ties between them are contin(ent" rather than necessary they could be somethin( )ery di$$erent without a$$ectin( the )ital character o$ the $actors in)ol)ed" a character which adheres to that part which is thou(ht to be independent o$ the rest. One can lo(ically concei)e" so the ar(ument (oes" o$ any social $actor e!istin( without its relations to others. In ar!*s )iew" such relations are internal to each $actor -they are ontolo(ical relations" so that when an important one alters" the $actor itsel$ alters it becomes somethin( else. Its appearance and/or $unction has chan(ed su$$iciently $or it to re3uire a new con cept. #hus" $or e!ample" i$ wa(e;labor disappeared" that is" i$ the workers* connection to capital radically chan(ed" capital would no lon(er e !ist. #he opposite" naturally" is also true: ar! declares it a +tautolo(y+ that +there can no lon(er be wa(e;labor when there is no lon(er any capital+ -ar! and 'n(els" ?@FN" E=. a! irsch is clearly ri(ht" there$ore" when he points out that i$ +capital+ is de$ined as a +means o$ e!ploitation and subjection o$ the laborer+" a machine used by a $armer who owned it would not be capital" but it would be capital i$ he hired a man to operate it -irsch" ?@D?" D;?. 1ather than an ob)ious criticism" which is how irsch intends it" this parado! merely illustrates the character o$ capital as a social relation. In this study" I shall use the term + relation+ in two di$$erent senses: $irst" to re$er to a $actor itsel$" as when I call capital a relation" and also as a synonym o$ +connection+" as in speakin( o$ the relation between di$$erent $actors. ar! and 'n(els do the same. Besides callin( capital a +social production relation+ -erhQltnis" ar! re$ers to money as a +relation o$ production+" the mode o$ production itsel$ as the +relation in which the producti)e $orces are de)eloped+" and the list o$ such remarks is $ar $rom complete -ar!" ?@N@b" A@F ar!" ?@AE" ?>D ar!" n.d." ?EA. is use o$ +relation+ as a synonym o$ +connection+ is more e!tensi)e still" with the result that erhQltnis probably occurs more $re3uently than any other e!pression in ar!*s writin(" con$oundin( critics and translators alike.E It is not entirely satis$yin( to use +relation+ to con)ey both meanin(s but" rather than introduce a new term" I accede to ar!*s practice" with this sin(le chan(e: $or the remainder o$ this book" I shall capitali,e +relation+ -hence$orth +1elation+ when it re$ers to a $actor" as opposed to the connection between $actors" to aid readers in makin( this important distinction. Besides" such ob)ious alternati)es to +1elation+ as +structure+" +unit+ and +system+ su((est a closed" $inished character which is belied by ar!*s treatment o$ real social $actors. +1elation+ appeals to me" as it must ha)e to him" as the concept which is better adapted to take account o$ the chan(es and open;endedness that constitute so lar(e a part o$ social li$e. I #he outlook presented here must not be con$used with the )iew that has $ound (reat $a)or amon( sociolo(ists and others" which holds that social $actors are unintelli(ible e!cept in terms o$ relations. It is important to reali,e that ar! took the additional step indicated in his claim that society is +man himsel$ in his social relations+ -ar!" ?@AE" A?>. On one occasion" ar! speci$ically berates apparent allies who accuse economists o$ not payin( enou(h attention to the connections between production and distribution. is complaint is that +this accusation is itsel$ based on the economic conception that distribution e!ists side by side with production as a sel$;
contained sphere+ -ar!" ?@DF" >A=. ar!*s own )ersion o$ this relationship is presented in such claims as +roduction is . . . at the same time consumption" and consumption is at the same time production+ -ar!" ?@DF" >A.F &or the a)era(e social scientist0startin( with a conception o$ $actors as lo(ically independent o$ one another0the conjunction o$ parts in his analysis is mechanical" an intrusion it e!ists only where $ound and disappears once the in)esti(ator*s back is turned" ha)in( to be e!plained and justi$ied anew. One result is the endless attempts to account $or causality and the accompanyin( need to distin(uish between cause and condition. In such studies" one side o$ the interaction in)ariably wins out o)er the other -comes $irst leadin( to +economic determinism+ or +e!istentialism+ or other partial positions. In ar!*s case" all conjunction is or(anic" intrinsic to the social units with which h e is concerned and part o$ the nature o$ each that it e!ists may be taken $or (ranted. On this )iew" interaction is" properly speakin(" inneraction -it is +inner connections+ which he claims to study -ar!" ?@N" ?@. O$ production" distribution" consumption and e!chan(e" ar! declares" +mutual interaction takes place between the )arious elements. Such is the case with e)ery or(anic body+ -ar!" ?@DF" >@>. 6hat ar! calls +mutual interaction+ -or +reciprocal e$$ect+ or +reciprocal action+ is only possible because it occurs within an or(anic body. #his is the case with e)erythin( in ar!ism" which treats its entire subject matter as +di$$erent sides o$ one unit+ -ar!" ?@DF" >@?.N It is in this conte!t that we must place ar!*s otherwise con$usin( and con$used use o$ +cause+ and +determine+. #here are not some elements which are related to the $actor or e)ent in 3uestion as +causes+ -meanin( amon( other thin(s that which does not condition and others as +conditions+ -meanin( amon( other thin(s that which does not cause. Instead" we $ind as internally related parts o$ whate)er is said to be the cause or determinin( a(ent e)erythin( that is said to be a condition" and )ice )ersa. It is this conception which permits 'n(els to say that the whole o$ nature has +caused+ li$e -'n(els" ?@NF" >=A;. In practice" howe)er" +cause+ and +determine+ are (enerally used to point to the e$$ect produced by any entity in chan(in( one or more o$ the relations that make up other entities. But as each one de)elops with the direct and indirect aid o$ e)erythin( else" operatin( on )arious le)els" to sin(le out any aspect as determinin( can only be a way o$ emphasi,in( a particular link in the problem under consideration. ar! is sayin( that $or this $actor" in this conte!t" this is the in$luence most worth notin(" the relation which will most aid our comprehension o$ the rele)ant characteristics.= #he whole at rest which I ha)e been e!aminin( is but a limitin( case o$ the whole in mo)ement" $or" in aul 5a$ar(ue*s words" ar!*s +hi(hly complicated world+ is +in continual motion+ -5a$ar(ue" n.d." A.A Chan(e and de)elopment are constantly occurrin( structure is but a sta(e in process. #o introduce the temporal dimension into the $ore(oin( analysis" we need only )iew each social $actor as internally related to its own past and $uture $orms" as well as to the past and $uture $orms o$ surroundin( $actors. Capital" $or ar!" is what capital is" was and will be. e says o$ money and commodities" +be$ore the production process they were capital only in intention" in themsel)es" in their destiny+ -ar!" ?@A?" E@@;FDD. It is in this manner" too" that labor is seen in the product it will soon become and the product in the labor it once was. In short" de)elopment0 no matter how much $aceli$tin( occurs0is taken as an attribute o$ whate)er under(oes de)elopment. #he present" accordin( to this relational model" becomes part o$ a continuum stretchin( $rom a de$inable past to a knowable -i$ not always predictable $uture. #omorrow is today e!tended. #o speak o$ such a relation between the present and the $uture within the conte!t o$ $ormal lo(ic would indicate belie$ in a )italistic principle" di)ine will or some other metaphysical de)ice. But"
here" all social chan(e is concei)ed o$ as a comin( to be o$ what potentially is" as the $urther un$oldin( o$ an already e!istin( process" and hence" disco)erable by a study o$ this process taken as a spatial7temporal 1elation. #he +destiny+ o$ money is rooted in its e!istin( structure. So is the +destiny+ o$ any society. 6hat will become o$ it -or" more accurately" what is likely to become o$ it is pieced to(ether by an e!amination o$ the $orces" patterns and trends that constitute the major e!istin( 1elations. It is the result o$ such research into any particular $actor or set o$ $actors that is con)eyed by ar!*s concept +law+.@ #he common sense )iew reco(ni,es two types o$ laws: inducti)e laws" which are (enerali,ations based on the results o$ empirical research" and deducti)e laws" which are a priori statements about the nature o$ the world. &or the $irst" e)idence is rele)ant" and the predictions it occasions are ne)er more than probable. &or the second" e)idence is irrele)ant and the predictions occasioned are necessary. ar!*s laws possess characteristics that we associate with both o$ these types. 5ike inducti)e laws" ar!*s laws are based on empirical research. 2nlike them" howe)er" his laws are not concerned with independent e)ents whose ties with each other and with surroundin( circumstances are contin(ent. ar! says that in political economy +law is chance+ the elements related ha)e no ties other than those actually unco)ered by research -1ubel" ?@N@" N>. 6hereas" $or ar!" the relations he disco)ers are considered already present as real possibilities in the relations which preceded them -they e!ist there as temporally internal relations. 4s re(ards deducti)e laws" ar!*s laws also deal with the nature o$ the world" but do so on the basis o$ e)idence" and are $ore)er bein( modi$ied by e)idence. 4s a result" they cannot be encapsulated in simple $ormulae which hold true $or all time. Still" strictly speakin(" all ar!*s laws are tautolo(ies: (i)en these are +4*s+ relations" this is what +4+ must become and" in the becomin(" +4+ may be said to obey the law o$ its own de)elopment. Such laws e!press no more necessity than that contained in the particular (roup o$ relations $or which they are standin( in. #he )ery uncertainties in the situation are their uncertainties. 8et" by includin( within the law all possible de)elopments pre$i(ured by the rele)ant relations" the law itsel$ may be said to be necessary. 4ll that happens to a $actor is the necessary workin( out o$ its law. Conse3uently" rather than colorin( ar!*s $indin(s in a ny way" it is his $indin(s which lend these laws their entire character. #he relations bound up in any $actor (enerally make one kind o$ de)elopment more probable than others" and ar! o$ten uses +law+ to re$er to this de)elopment alone. +5aw+ in this sense is the same as +tendency+" and on one o ccasion" ar! (oes as $ar as to say that all economic laws are tendencies -ar!" ?@N" .?D I 2ntil this point" the discussion has been limited to social $actors which are (enerally reco(ni,ed as such0capital" labor" class" etc.0thou(h ar!*s interpretation o$ them was shown to be hi(hly unusual. owe)er" in seekin( $a)orable )anta(e points $rom which to analy,e capitalism" a system contained relationally in each o$ its parts" ar! sometimes $elt obli(ed to create new parts. #his was simply a matter o$ mentally car)in( up the whole in a di$$erent manner $or a particular purpose. #he result is" in e$$ect" a new social $actor" a new unit in which to think about and re$er to society. erhaps the most important new social unit created in this way is the +relations o$ production+" the core o$ which lies in the comple! interaction o$ production" distribution" e!chan(e and consumption. 4nother is +surplus;)alue+. #hese two 1elations occupy a central position in ar!*s work. #he no)elty o$ ha)in( the relations o$ production as a subject matter becomes e)ident when we consider the limited concern o$ most capitalist economists. #he latter are interested in studyin( -more particularly" in measurin( what (oes on in the +economy+" a sector o$ li$e arti$icially separated $rom other sectors" whose necessary links with human bein(s as re(ards both pre; conditions and results are seldom in)esti(ated.
6hat kind o$ producti)e acti)ity (oes on in a society where people obtain what they want throu(h the e!chan(e o$ )alue e3ui)alents7 6hat kind o$ political" cultural" reli(ious" and social li$e $osters such e!chan(e and is" in turn" $ostered by it7 #hese 3uestions are beyond the bounds o$ rele)ance established by capitalist economics" but they are well within the boundaries set by ar!. e tells us in Capital I" $or e!ample" that he wants to e!amine +6hy is labor represented by the )alue o$ its product and labor;time by the ma(nitude o$ that )alue7+ -y emphasis -ar!" ?@N" D. #his is really a 3uestion about how the particular +economy+ that capitalist economists are content to describe came into e!istence and how it mana(es to maintain itsel$. By conceptuali,in( his subject matter as +relations o$ production+" as a union o$ the main processes in)ol)ed -as a $actor centerin( upon this union" ar! $acilitates his e$$orts to deal with this wide ran(in( problem. #he result" Capital" is not properly speakin( an economic treatise" but0as many readers ha)e noted0a work on social pra!is. II 1eturnin( to ar!*s discourse" the problem o$ misinterpretation arises $rom what mi(ht be called his practice o$ makin( de$initions o$ a ll his descriptions. 6hate)er ar! disco)ers about any $actor" particularly i$ he considers it important" is incorporated into the meanin( o$ its denotin( term" becomes a part o$ its concept. ar!*s concepts" then" are meant to con)ey to us the already structured in$ormation they e!press $or him it is in this way that they ac3uire a +truth )alue+ distinct $rom that o$ the statements in which they are $ound -ar! and 'n(els" ?@F?" ?>. #here$ore" whate)er ar! understands about his society" includin( its processes o$ chan(e and the projections he has made $rom them" is already contained in each o$ the major concepts used to e!plain what it is he understands. Such meanin( lies hea)y on ar!*s terms. It is this which allows ar! to e3uate +economic cate(ories+ with + historic laws+" and which makes +lo(ic+ a synonym $or +law+ in ar!ism -ar! and 'n(els" ?@F?" ?>. +5aw+ re$ers to relations in the real world while +lo(ic+" as ar! ordinarily uses it" re$ers to these same relations as re$lected in the meanin(s o$ their co)erin( concepts. arcuse o$$ers the same insi(ht when he claims that ar!*s cate(ories are ne(ati)e and at the same time positi)e: +they present a ne(ati)e state o$ a$$airs in the li(ht o$ its positi)e solution" re)ealin( the true situation in e!istin( society as the prelude to its passin( into a new $orm. 4ll the ar!ian concepts e!tend" as it were" in these two dimensions" the $irst o$ which is the comple! o$ (i)en social relations" and the second" the comple! o$ elements inherent in the social reality that make $or its trans$ormation into a $ree social order+ -arcuse" ?@=F" >@N;=.?? #hat readers make any sense o$ ar!*s terminolo(y at all su((ests that many o$ the relations he sees in reality correspond" more or less" to our +common sense+ )iew o$ the world -which is not much to assume" and that it is these relations which constitute the core meanin(s o$ most o$ his concepts.?> #hou(h each o$ ar!*s major concepts has the theoretical capacity to con)ey the entire analysis made with its help" in practice ar!*s current interest (o)erns the de(ree to which the relations bound to(ether in any social $actor -and hence the meanin( o$ its co)erin( concept are e!tended. 4s ar! mo)es $rom one problem to the ne!t" whole new areas inside each social 1elation become rele)ant" and some areas which were rele)ant in the pre)ious conte!t cease bein( so. In this way" what was $ormerly assumed is e!pressed directly and what was e!pressed is now assumed. Class" $or instance" has a )ital role in e!plainin( the state" but only a small part in accountin( $or e!chan(e" and the si,e o$ the 1elation" class" in ar!*s thou(ht -and the meanin( o$ +class+ in ar!*s writin( )aries accordin(ly. It is this practice which is responsible $or the +manipulation+ o$ classi$icational boundaries -both
those which were (enerally accepted and those which he himsel$ seemed to lay down earlier that so many o$ ar!*s readers ha)e $ound in his work. -See my Introduction 8et" each such restriction o$ the social whole is merely practical" a means o$ allowin( ar! to (et on with his current task. Should he e)er want to e!tend the si,e o$ any $actor" and hence the meanin( o$ its concept" to its relational limits" he can do so. #hus" we learn" +an" much as he may there$ore be a particular indi)idual . . . is just as much the totality0the ideal totality0the subjecti)e e!istence o$ thou(ht and e!perienced society present $or itsel$+ -ar!" ?@N@a" ?DN III I$ each o$ ar!*s concepts has such breadth -actual or potential" and includes much o$ what is also e!pressed by other concepts" how does ar! decide on any (i)en occasion which one to use7 6hy" $or e!ample" call interest -which" $or him" is also capital +interest+ and not +capital+7 #his is really the same problem approached $rom the other side. 6hereas be$ore I accepted ar!*s nomenclature and tried to $ind out what he meant" I am now askin(0(i)en his broad meanin(s0why does he o$$er the names that he does7 #he unorthodo! answer (i)en to the $irst 3uestion has made this second one o$ special importance. It may appear that I ha)e only le$t ar! a nominalist way out" but this is not so. #he opposition between the )iew that the world (i)es rise to our conceptions and the )iew that namin( is an arbitrary process is" in any case" a $alse one. #he real problem is to disco)er the )arious precise ways in which what actually e!ists" in nature as well as in society" a$$ects the ways we concei)e o$ and label it and how the latter" in turn" reacts upon what e!ists" particularly upon what we take to be +natural+ structures. In short" this is a two;way street" and to be content to tra)el in only one direction is to distort. ar!*s own practice in namin( takes account o$ both the real world as it is" and his conceptuali,ation o$ it which decides -as distinct $rom determines what it can be. #he $ormer is seen in ar!*s acceptance o$ the core notion o$ each $actor" which is simply what the $actor" bein( what it is" strikes e)eryone that it is -the idea is o$ necessity 3uite )a(ue and the latter stands out in the decisi)e importance he attributes to the $unction o$ each $actor -(rasped as any part o$ its core notion in the particular subsystem o$ society which he is e!aminin(. In settin( out what can and cannot be called +$i!ed capital+" ar! says +it is not a 3uestion here o$ a de$inition" which thin(s must be made to $it. 6e are dealin( here with de$inite $unctions which must be e!pressed in de$inite cate(ories+ -ar!" ?@NA" >>=. #hus" capital in a situation where it $unctioned as interest would be called +interest+" and )ice )ersa. owe)er" a chan(e in $unction only results in a new name -as opposed to a descripti)e metaphor i$ the ori(inal $actor is actually concei)ed to be what it is now $unctionin( as. #hat is" capital can only act as or appear to be interest and" hence" ne)er really deser)e its name unless we are able to concei)e o$ the two as somehow one. #his" o$ course" is just what ar!*s relational conception allows him to do. #hrou(h its internal ties to e)erythin( else" each $actor is e)erythin( else )iewed $rom this particular an(le" and what applies to them necessarily applies to it" taken in this broad sense. #hus" each $actor has0in theory0the potential to take the names o$ others -o$ whate)er applies to them when it $unctions as they do" that is" in ways associated with their core notions. 6hen ar! calls theory a +material $orce+" or when 'n(els re$ers to the state as an +economic $actor+" they are misusin( words only on our standard -ar!" ?@AD" ?EA ar! and 'n(els" ?@F?" FF.?E On the relational )iew" theory and state are bein( (i)en the names o$ their own $acets whose core $unctions they are per$ormin(. #hus" ar! says" in the instance 3uoted" that theory becomes a material $orce +once it (ets a hold o$ men+" that is" once it becomes a dri)in( $actor in their li)es" stron(ly in$luencin( character and actions. #his role is (enerally per$ormed by a material $orce" such as the mode o$ production" but theory can also per$orm it" and when it does it is said to become a +material $orce+. #o understand ar!*s nomenclature" howe)er" it is not enou(h to know that namin( attaches to $unction" which in turn is concei)ed o$ within a relational whole. #he 3uestion arises whether the particular $unction obser)ed is objecti)e -actually present in society or subjecti)e -there because
ar! sees it to be. #he answer is that it is both: the $unctions" accordin( to which ar! ascribes names" e!ist" but it is also true that they are conceptuali,ed in a manner which allows ar! to take note o$ them. Other people )iewin( the same +raw $acts+ with another conceptual scheme may not e)en obser)e the relation he has chosen to emphasi,e. &or e!ample" when ar! calls the worker*s producti)e acti)ity +)ariable capital+" he is labelin( a $unction that only he sees in this case" because this is how such acti)ity appears +$rom the point o$ )iew o$ the process o$ creatin( surplus;)alue+" a unit that ar! himsel$ introduced -ar!" ?@N" >D@. It is only a$ter we $inish readin( Capital and accept the new concept o$ +surplus;)alue+ that +)ariable capital+ ceases to be an arbitrary name $or labor;power. Henerally speakin(" we understand why ar! has used a particular name to the e!tent that we are able to (rasp the $unction re$erred to" which in turn depends on how similar his conception o$ the rele)ant $actors is to our own. ar!*s concepts" it is clear" ha)e been tailored to $it both his uni3ue )ision o$ capitalism and his unusual conception o$ social reality. #he (reat lesson to be drawn $ rom all this is that ar!*s concepts are not our own" no matter how much they may appear so. In short" the $act that ar! uses the same words as we do should not mislead us into belie)in( that he has the same concepts. 6ords are the property o$ lan(ua(e and are common to all who use this lan(ua(e. Concepts" or ideas about the world which $ind e!pression in words -or words in so $ar as they contain such ideas" are best (rasped as the property o$ indi)iduals or o$ schools o$ thou(ht. '!pressin( what he knows as well as how he knows it" ar!*s concepts tell us much more -o$ten" much less -sometimes" and much di$$erent -always than we think they do. In his re$ace to the 'n(lish edition o$ Capital I" 'n(els says it is +sel$;e)ident that a theory which )iews modern capitalist production as a mere passin( sta(e in the economic history o$ mankind" must make use o$ terms di$$erent $rom those habitual to writers who look upon the $orm o$ production as imperishable and $inal+ -ar!" ?@N" N. 6 hether" the need $or new terms -concepts here is +sel$; e)ident+ is debatable that ar! $elt such a need is not. oreo)er" as i$ this were not enou(h" the )ery sense con)eyed by ar!*s concepts is unstable. 6hat he understands at any (i)en time o$ the interrelations which make up social reality is re$lected in the meanin(s o$ the words he uses. But these interrelations are constantly chan(in(" and" $urther" ar! is $ore)er learnin( more about them throu(h h is research. ence" ei(ht years later" in his Introduction to Capital III -a$ter a considerable )olume o$ misinterpretation had passed under the brid(e" 'n(els also warns that we should not e!pect to $ind any +$i!ed" cut;to;measure" once and $or all applicable de$initions in ar!*s works+ -ar!" ?@N@b" ?E;?F.?F #he lack o$ de$initions -that is" o$ statements ob)iously meant as de$initions in ar!*s writin(s has o$ten been belabored" but it should now be clear what di$$iculty he had in pro)idin( them. iewin( the world as under(oin( constant chan(e a nd as de)oid o$ the clear cut classi$icational boundaries that distin(uish the common sense approach" ar! could not keep a de$inition o$ one $actor $rom spillin( o)er into e)erythin(. &or him" any isolatin( de$inition is necessarily +one;sided+ and probably misleadin(. #here are critics" such as Sartre" who ha)e accepted 'n(els* dictum.?N ore typical" on the other hand" is the reaction o$ Carew;unt who is so con)inced o$ the impossibility o$ such an approach to meanin( that he claims -a(ainst the e)idence that ar! does not manipulate lan(ua(e in this way" thou(h his dialectic" accordin( to Carew;unt" re3uires that he do so -Carew;unt" ?@=E" ND. Basically unaware o$ ar!*s relational conception" most critics simply cannot take the concepts which are entailed by this conception $or what they are.?= IP 6hat emer(es $rom this interpretation is that the problem ar! $aces in his analysis is not how to link separate parts but how to indi)iduate instrumental units in a social whole that $ inds e!pression e)erywhere. I$ I am ri(ht" the usual approach to understandin( what ar! is (ettin( at must be completely re)ersed: $rom tryin( to see the way in which labor produces )alue" we must accept at the outset a kind o$ e3uation between the two -the two social 1elations e!press the
same whole0as ar! says" +alue is labor+" and try instead to see the ways in which they di$$er -ar!" ?@N@b" A@N. ar!*s law o$ )alue is concerned with the +metamorphosis o$ )alue+" with the )arious $orms it takes in the economy" and not with its production by labor. #his" and not what Smith and 1icardo had said be$ore" is the economic theory illustrated in the massi)e )olumes o$ Capital. So" too" instead o$ seekin( a strict causal tie between the mode o$ production and other institutions and practices o$ society which precludes comple! social interaction" we must be(in by acceptin( the e!istence o$ this interaction and then seek out the ways in which ar! belie)es that the e$$ects proceedin( $rom the mode o$ production and other economic $actors -narrowly understood are more important. Such interaction" as we ha)e seen" is a necessary part o$ each social 1elation. #his" and not technolo(ical determinism" is the conception o$ history illustrated in all ar!*s detailed discussions o$ political and social phenomena. I$ ar! is at ease with a $oot on each side o$ the $ence" it is because $or him the $ence does not e!ist. In li(ht o$ this analysis" most o$ ar!*s opponents are (uilty o$ critici,in( him $or answers to 3uestions he not only did not ask" but0(i)en his relational conception o$ reality0could not ask. ar!*s real 3uestions ha)e been lost in the process. #hey must be rehabilitated. ?. Ruite the re)erse is the case in &rance where a!imilien 1ubel" enri 5e$eb)re and 5ouis 4lthusser0to mention only a $ew o$ the better known writers0ha)e all made hea)y use o$ this work. >. ar! also says" +Capital . . . is nothin( without wa(e;labor" )alue" money" price" etc.+ -ar!" ?@DF" >@>. E. #hou(h (enerally translated as +relation+" +erhQltnis+ is sometimes rendered as +condition+" +proportion+ or +reaction+" which should indicate somethin( o$ its special sense. a!imilien 1ubel has mentioned to the author that +erhQltnis+" comin( incessantly into the d iscussion" was perhaps the most di$$icult term he had to deal with in his many translations o$ ar!*s writin(s into &rench. 4s well as usin( the &rench e3ui)alents o$ the words already listed" 1ubel also rendered +erhQltnis+" on occasion" as +systme+" +structure+ and +problme+. 4nother complication arises $rom the $act that +Be,iehun(+" another standard term in ar!*s )ocabulary" can also be translated into 'n(lish as +relation+" thou(h it is (enerally translated as +connection+. I intend the concept +relation+ to contain the same comple!ities which I take to e!ist in ar!*s concept +erhQltnis+. F. 4l$red eyer has )entured close to this $ormulation by presentin( ar!ism as amon( other thin(s a system o$ +reciprocally interdependent )ariables+ -eyer" ?@=E" >F$$. But this still be(s all the old 3uestions re(ardin( the 3uality o$ their interdependence: i$ the )ariables a re lo(ically independent" how can they reciprocally a$$ect one another7 I$ they are not" what does this mean7 It is my impression that in this manner what is called +$unctionalism+ is (enerally e ither inconsistent or incomprehensible. &or too many writers on ar!ism" $riends and $oes alike" talk o$ +interdependence+ and +interaction+ is simply a matter o$ paperin( o)er the cracks. But once these cracks appear -once we ascribe a lo(ical independence to $actors" they cannot be(otten rid o$ so easily and i$ we take the $urther step and dismiss the notion o$ lo(ical independence" the entire terrain o$ what is taken $or (ranted has been radically altered. N. #he +totality+ o$ social li$e which ar! seeks to e!plain is" as he tells us on another occasion" +the reciprocal action o$ these )arious sides on one another+ -ar! and 'n(els" ?@=F" ND. =. It is hi(hly si(ni$icant too that in his political and historical works" as opposed to his more theoretical writin(s in economics and philosophy" ar! seldom uses +bestimmen+ -+determine+" pre$errin( to characteri,e relations in these areas with more $le!ible soundin( e!pressions. 'n(lish translators ha)e tended to rein$orce whate)er +determinist+ bias is present in ar!*s work by (enerally translatin( +bedin(en+ -which can mean +condition+ or +determine+ as +determine+. Compare" $or e!ample" the openin( chapter o$ #he Herman Ideolo(y with the Herman ori(inal.
A. 5a$ar(ue was ar!*s son;in;law" and the only person to whom ar! e)er dictated any work. Conse3uently" 5a$ar(ue was in an e!cellent position to obser)e the older man*s thinkin(. O$ his subject matter" 5a$ar(ue says" ar! +did not see a thin( sin(ly" in itsel$ and $or itsel$" separate $rom its surroundin(s: he saw a hi(hly complicated world in continual motion+. #hen" 3uotin( ico who said" +#hin( is a body only $or Hod" who knows e)erythin( $or man" who knows only the e!terior" it is only the sur$ace+" 5a$ar(ue claims that ar! (rasped thin(s in the manner o$ ico*s Hod -1eminiscences" n.d." A. . 'lsewhere" ar! re$ers to the +destiny+ o$ man bein( to de)elop his powers -ar! and 'n(els" ?@=F" E?N. @. O$ economic laws and the political economy o$ his day" ar! says" +it does not comprehend these laws0that is" it does not demonstrate how they arise $rom the )ery nature o$ pri)ate property+ -ar!" ?@N@b" =A;. #he chan(es occurrin( in pri)ate property -which he in$lates here to the si,e o$ the economy are said to be disco)erable in its component relations. ?D. ar! also speaks o$ +a (eneral rate o$ surplus;)alue0)iewed as a tendency" like all other laws+ -ar!" ?@N@b" ?A>. ??. 2n$ortunately" arcuse does not attempt to e!plain how such a use o$ terms is possible" what it presupposes in the way o$ a conceptual scheme" and the problems o$ communication it necessarily poses. 6ithout the $oundations which I try to supply in chapters > and E o$ this work" such correct insi(hts0o$ which there are many in the writin(s o$ arcuse" %orsch" 5ukGcs" 5e$eb)re" Holdmann" 9unaye)skaya" Sartre" Swee,y" %osik" the early ook and a $ew others0 are le$t to han( unsupported" and are in the $inal analysis uncon)incin(. ?>. Common sense is all that strikes us as bein( ob)iously true" such that to deny any part o$ it appears" at $irst hearin(" to in)ol)e us in speakin( nonsense. In this work" I also use +common sense+ to re$er to that body o$ (enerally un3uestioned knowled(e and the e3ually un3uestioned approach to knowled(e which is common to the )ast majority o$ scholars and layman in 6 estern capitalist societies. ?E. Other strikin( e!amples o$ what most readers must consider a misuse o$ words are 'n(els* re$erence to race as an +economic $actor+" and ar!*s re$erence to the community as a +$orce o$ production+ -ar! and 'n(els" ?@F?" N?A ar!" ?@AE" F@N. ?F. Because the appearance o$ thin(s is constantly chan(in(" 'n(els declares" +the unity o$ concept and appearance mani$ests itsel$ as essentially an in$inite process+ -ar! and 'n(els" ?@F?" N>@. ?N. Sartre o$$ers an enli(htenin( comparison between ar!" whose concepts e)ol)e with history and his research into it" and modern ar!ists" whose concepts remain una$$ected by social chan(e: +#he open concepts o$ ar!ism ha)e closed in+ -Sartre" ?@=E" >=;EF. On this subject" see too" enri 5e$eb)re" 5o(i3ue $ormelle" lo(i3ue dialecti3ue" >DF;??. ?=. #he conception o$ meanin( presented here can also be $ound in e(el. ook is one o$ the $ew commentators who reco(ni,es their common and u nusual approach to meanin(" when" re$errin( to the )iews o$ ar! and e(el" he says" +eanin(s must de)elop with the objects o$ which they are the meanin(s. Otherwise" they cannot be ade3uate to their subject matter+ -ook" ?@=>" =N;=. It is interestin( to note that one o$ the major reasons that has led current lin(uistic philosophy to make a radical distinction between what a term means and what it re$ers to -between de$initions and descriptions is the alle(ed instability o$ the latter. #o e3uate what a term means with what it re$ers to is" $irst" to ha)e meanin(s that chan(e with time and place -sometimes
drastically" and" second" to (et in)ol)ed with those conditions in the real world that he lp make what is bein( directly re$erred to what it is. In short" this conception o$ meanin( inclines one toward a conception o$ internal relations. It is $rom this e!posed position that the currently in )o(ue 3uestion" +9on*t ask $or the meanin(" ask $or the use"+ marks a total retreat.
Chapter N ; uttin( 9ialectics to 6ork: #he rocess o$ 4bstraction in ar!*s ethod I #he roblem: ow to #hink 4de3uately about Chan(e and Interaction Is there any part o$ ar!ism that has recei)ed more abuse than his dialectical method7 4nd I am not just thinkin( about enemies o$ ar!ism and socialism" but also about scholars who are $riendly to both. It is not %arl opper" but Heor(e Sorel in his ar!ist incarnation who re$ers to dialectics as +the art o$ reconcilin( opposites throu(h hocus pocus"+ and the 'n(lish socialist economist" E. But perhaps the classic complaint is $ashioned by the 4merican philosopher" 6illiam @E;@F. #he real concrete is simply the world in which we li)e" in all its comple!ity. #he thou(ht concrete is ar!*s reconstruction o$ that world in the theories o$ what has come to be called +ar!ism.+ #he royal road to understandin( is said to pass $rom the one to the other throu(h the process o$ abstraction.
In one sense" the role ar! (i)es to abstraction is simple reco(nition o$ the $act that all thinkin( about reality be(ins by breakin( it down into mana(eable parts. 1eality may be in one piece when li)ed" but to be thou(ht about and communicated it must be parceled out. Our minds can no more swallow the world whole at one sittin( than can our stomachs. ')eryone then" and not just ar! and ar!ists" be(ins the task o$ tryin( to make sense o$ his or her surroundin(s by distin(uishin( certain $eatures and $ocusin( on and or(ani,in( them in ways deemed appropriate. +4bstract+ comes $rom the 5atin" +abstrahere+" which means +to pull $rom.+ In e$$ect" a p iece has been pulled $rom or taken out o$ the whole and is temporarily percei)ed as standin( apart. 6e +see+ only some o$ what lies in $ront o$ us" +hear+ only part o$ the noises in our )icinity" +$eel+ only a small part o$ what our body is in contact with" and so o n throu(h the rest o$ our senses. In each case" a $ocus is established and a kind o$ boundary set within our perceptions distin(uishin( what is rele)ant $rom what is not. It should be clear that +6hat did you see7+ -6hat cau(ht your eye7 is a di$$erent 3uestion $rom +6hat did you actually see7+ -6hat came into your line o$ )ision7. 5ikewise" in thinkin( about any subject" we $ocus on only some o$ its 3ualities and relations. uch that could be included0that may in $act be included in another person*s )iew or thou(ht" and may on another occasion be included in our own0is le$t out. #he mental acti)ity in)ol)ed in establishin( such boundaries" whether conscious or unconscious0thou(h it is usually an amal(am o$ both0is the process o$ abstraction. 1espondin( to a mi!ture o$ in$luences that include the material world and our e!periences in it as well as to personal wishes" (roup interests" and other social constraints" it is the process o$ abstraction that establishes the speci$icity o$ the objects with which we interact. In settin( boundaries" in rulin( this $ar and no $urther" it is what makes somethin( one -or two" or more o$ a kind" and lets us know where that kind be(ins and ends. 6 ith this decision as to units" we also become committed to a particular set o$ relations between them0relations made possible and e)en necessary by the 3ualities that we ha)e included in each0a re(ister $or classi$yin( them" and a mode $or e!plainin( them. In listenin( to a concert" $or e!ample" we o$ten concentrate on a sin(le instrument or recurrin( theme and then redirect our attention elsewhere. 'ach time this occurs" the whole music alters" new patterns emer(e" each sound takes on a di$$erent )alue" etc. ow we understand the music is lar(ely determined by how we abstract it. #he same applies to what we $ocus on when watchin( a play" whether on a person" or a combination o$ persons" or a section o$ the sta(e. #he meanin( o$ the play and what more is re3uired to e!plore or test that meanin( alters" o$ten dramatically" with each new abstraction. In this way" too" how we abstract literature" where we draw the boundaries" determines what works and what parts o$ each work will be studied" with what methods" in relation to what other subjects" in what order" and e)en by whom. 4bstractin( literature to include its audience" $or e!ample" leads to a sociolo(y o$ literature" while an abstraction o$ literature that e!cludes e)erythin( but its $orms calls $orth )arious structural approaches" and so on. &rom what has been said so $ar" it is clear that +abstraction+ is itsel$ an abstraction. I ha)e abstracted it $rom ar!*s dialectical method" which in turn was abstracted $rom his broad theories" which in turn were abstracted $rom his li$e and work. #he mental acti)ities that we ha)e collected and brou(ht into $ocus as +abstraction+ are more o$ten associated with the processes o$ perception" conception" de$inin(" reasonin(" and e)en thinkin(. It is n ot surprisin(" there$ore" i$ the process o$ abstraction strikes many people as both $orei(n and $amiliar at the same time. 'ach o$ these more $amiliar processes operate in pa rt by separatin( out" $ocusin(" and puttin( emphasis on only some aspects o$ that reality with which they come into contact. In +abstraction"+ we ha)e simply separated out" $ocused and put emphasis on certain common $eatures o$ these other processes. 4bstractin( +abstraction+ in this way is neither easy nor ob)ious" and there$ore $ew people ha)e done it. Conse3uently" thou(h e)eryone abstracts" o$ necessity" only a $ew are aware o$ it as such. #his philosophical impo)erishment is rein$orced by the $act that most people are la,y abstractors" simply and uncritically acceptin( the mental units with which they think as part o$
their cultural inheritance. 4 $urther complication in (raspin( +abstraction+ arises $rom the $act that ar! uses the term in $our di$$erent" thou(h closely related" senses. &irst" and most important" it re$ers to the mental acti)ity o$ subdi)idin( the world into the mental constructs with which we think about it" which is the process that we ha)e been describin(. Second" it re$ers to the results o$ this process" the actual parts into which reality has been apportioned. #hat is to say" $or ar!" as $or e(el be$ore him" +abstraction+ $unctions as a noun as well as a )erb" the noun re$errin( to what the )erb has brou(ht into bein(. In these senses" e)eryone can be said to abstract -)erb and to think with abstractions -noun. But ar! also uses +abstraction+ in a third sense" where it re$ers to a suborder o$ particularly ill $ittin( mental constructs. 6hether because they are too narrow" take in too little" $ocus too e!clusi)ely on appearances" or are otherwise badly composed" these constructs do not allow an ade3uate (rasp o$ their subject matter. #aken in this third sense" abstractions are the basic unit o$ ideolo(y" the inescapable ideational result o$ li)in( and workin( in alienated society. +&reedom"+ $or e!ample" is said to be such an abstraction whene)er we remo)e the real indi)idual $rom +the conditions o$ e!istence within which these indi)iduals enter into contact+ -ar!" ?@AE" ?=F. Omittin( the conditions that make $reedom possible -or impossible0includin( the real alternati)es a)ailable" the role o$ money" the sociali,ation o$ the person choosin(" etc.0$rom the meanin( o$ +$reedom+ lea)es a notion that can only distort and ob$uscate e)en that part o$ reality it sets out to con)ey. 4 lot o$ ar!*s criticism o$ ideolo(y makes use o$ this sense o$ +abstraction+. &inally" ar! uses the term +abstraction+ in a $ourth still di$$erent sense where it re$ers to a particular or(ani,ation o$ elements in the real world0ha)in( to do with the $unctionin( o$ capitalism0that pro)ides the objecti)e underpinnin(s $or most o$ the ideolo(ical abstractions mentioned abo)e. 4bstractions in this $ourth sense e!ist in the world and not" as in the case with the other three" in the mind. In these abstractions" certain spatial and temporal boundaries and connections stand out" just as others are obscure e)en in)isible" makin( what is in practice inseparable appear separate. It is in this way that commodities" )alue" money" capital" etc. are likely to be misconstrued $rom the start. ar! labels these objecti)e results o$ capitalist $unctionin( +real abstractions+" and it is chie$ly +real abstractions+ that incline the people who ha)e contact with them is re$errin( to when he says that in capitalist society +people are (o)erned by abstractions+ -ar!" ?@AE" ?=F. Such remarks" howe)er" must not keep us $rom seein( that ar! also abstracts in the $ irst sense (i)en abo)e and" like e)eryone else" thinks with abstractions in the second sense" and that the particular way in which he does both (oes a lon( way in accountin( $or the distincti)e character o$ ar!ism. 9espite se)eral e!plicit remarks on the centrality o$ abstraction in ar!*s work" the process o$ abstraction has recei)ed relati)ely little attention in the literature on ar!ism. Serious work on ar!*s dialectical method can usually be distin(uished on the basis o$ which o$ the cate(ories belon(in( to the )ocabulary o$ dialectics is treated as pi)otal. &or 5ukGcs" it was the concept o$ +totality+ that played this role -5ukGcs" ?@A? $or ao" it was +contradiction+ -ao" ?@= $or 1aya 9unaye)skaya" it was the +ne(ation o$ ne(ation+ -9unaye)skaya"?@> $or Scott eikle" it was +essence+ -eikle" ?@N $or the Ollman o$ 4lienation" it was +internal relations+ -Ollman" ?@A?" and so on. ')en when abstraction is discussed0and no serious work dismisses it alto(ether0 the main emphasis is (enerally on what it is in the world or in capitalism that is responsible $or the particular abstractions made" and not on the process o$ abstraction as such and on what e!actly ar! does and how he does it. ? Conse3uently" the implications o$ ar!*s abstractin( practice $or the theories o$ ar!ism remain clouded" and those wishin( to de)elop these theories and where necessary re)ise them recei)e little help in their e$$orts to abstract in the manner o$ ar!. In what $ollows" it is just this process o$ abstraction" how it works and particularly how ar! works it" that ser)es as the centerpiece $or our discussion o$ dialectics. III
ow ar!*s 4bstractions 9i$$er 6hat" then" is distincti)e about ar!*s abstractions7 #o be(in with" it should be clear that ar!*s abstractions do not and cannot di)er(e completely $rom the abstractions o$ other thinkers b oth then and now. #here has to be a lot o$ o)erlap. Otherwise" he would ha)e constructed what philosophers call a +pri)ate lan(ua(e"+ and any communication between him and the rest o$ us would be impossible. ow close ar! came to $all into this abyss and what can be done to repair some o$ the dama(e already done are 3uestions I hope to deal with in a later work. Second" in depictin( ar!*s process o$ abstraction as a predominantly conscious and rational acti)ity" I do not mean to deny the enormous de(ree to which what results accurately re$lects the real world. owe)er" the realist $oundations o$ ar!*s thinkin( are su$$iciently -thou(h by no means ade3uately understood to be taken $or (ranted here while we concentrate on the process o$ abstraction as such.> %eepin( these two 3uali$ications clearly in mind" we can now say that what is most distincti)e about ar!*s abstractions" taken as a (roup" is that they $ocus on and incorporate both chan(e and interaction -or system in the particular $orms in which these occur in the capitalist era. It is important to underline $rom the start that ar!*s main concern was with capitalism. e sou(ht to disco)er what it is and how it works" as well as how it emer(ed and where it is tendin(. 6e shall call the or(anic and historical processes in)ol)ed here the double mo)ement o$ the capitalist mode o$ production. 'ach mo)ement a$$ects the other" and how one (rasps either a$$ects one*s understandin( o$ both. But how does one study the history o$ a system" or the systemic $unctionin( o$ e)ol)in( processes" where the main d eterminants o$ chan(e lie within the system itsel$7 &or ar!" the $irst and most important step was to incorporate the (eneral $orm o$ what he was lookin( $or" to wit0chan(e and interaction" into all the abstractions he constructed as part o$ his research. ar!*s understandin( o$ capitalism" there$ore" is not restricted to the theories o$ ar!ism" which relate the components o$ the capitalist system" but some lar(e part o$ it is $ound within the )ery abstractions with which these theories ha)e been constructed. Be(innin( with historical mo)ement" ar!*s preoccupation with chan(e and de)elopment is undisputed. 6hat is less known" chie$ly because it is less clear" is how he thou(ht about chan(e" how he abstracted it" and how he inte(rated these abstractions into his study o$ a chan(in( world. #he underlyin( problem is as old as philosophy itsel$. #he ancient Hreek philosopher" eraclitus" pro)ides us with its classic statement when he asserts that a person cannot step into the same ri)er twice. 'nou(h water has $lowed between the two occasions so that the ri)er we step into the second time is not the same ri)er we walked into earlier. 8et our common sense tells us that it is" and our namin( practice re$lects this )iew. #he ri)er is still called the +udson+" or the +1hine+ or the +Han(es+. eraclitus" o$ course" was not interested in ri)ers" but in chan(e. is point is that chan(e (oes on e)erywhere and all the time" but that our manner o$ thinkin( about it is sad ly inade3uate. #he $low" the constant alteration o$ mo)ement away $rom somethin( and toward somethin( else" is (enerally missin(. 2sually" where chan(e takes place )ery slowly or in )ery small increments" its impact can be sa$ely ne(lected. On the other hand" dependin( on the conte!t and on our purpose in it" e)en such chan(e0because it occurs outside our attention0 may occasionally startle us and ha)e (ra)e conse3uences $or our li)es. ')en today $ew are able to think about the chan(es they know to be happenin( in ways that don*t distort0usually by underplayin(0what is actually (oin( on. &rom the titles o$ so many works in the social sciences it would appear that a (ood deal o$ e$$ort is bein( directed to studyin( chan(e o$ one kind or another. But what is actually taken as +chan(e+ in most o$ these works7 It is not the continuous e)olution and alteration that (oes on in their subject matter" the social e3ui)alent o$ the $lowin( water in eraclitus* ri)er. 1ather" almost in)ariably" it is a comparison o$ two or more di$$erentiated states in the de)elopment o$ the object or condition or (roup under e!amination. 4s the sociolo(ist"
Coleman" +the concept o$ chan(e must" as any concept" itsel$ re$lect a state o$ an object at a point in time+ -Coleman" ?@=" F>@. Conse3uently" a study o$ the chan(es in the political thinkin( o$ the 4merican electorate" $or e!ample" (ets translated into an account o$ how people )oted -or responded to opinion polls in ?@N=" ?@=D" ?@=F" etc." and the di$$erences $ound in a comparison o$ these static moments is what is called +chan(e.+ It is not simply" and le(itimately" that the one" the di$$erence between the moments" (ets taken as an indication o$ or e)idence $or the other" the process rather" it stands in $or the process itsel$. In contrast to this approach" ar! set out to abstract thin(s" in his words" +as they really are and happen"+ makin( how they happen part o$ what they are -ar! and 'n(els" ?@=F" NA. ence" capital -or labor" money" etc. is not only how capital appears and $unctions" but also how it de)elops or rather" how it de)elops" its real history" is also part o$ what it is. It is also in this sense that ar! could deny that nature and history +are two separate thin(s+ -ar! and 'n(els" ?@=F" NA. In the )iew which currently dominates the social sciences" thin(s e!ist and under(o chan(e. #he two are lo(ically distinct. istory is somethin( that happens to thin(s it is not part o$ their nature. ence" the di$$iculty o$ e!aminin( chan(e in subjects $rom which it has been remo)ed at the start. 6hereas ar!" as he tells us" abstracts +e)ery historical social $orm as in $luid mo)ement" and there$ore takes into account its transient nature not less than its momentary e!istence+ -y emphasis -ar!" ?@N" >D. But history $or ar! re$ers not only to time past but to time $uture. So that whate)er somethin( is becomin(0whether we know what that will be or not0is in some important respects part o$ what it is alon( with what it once was. &or e!ample" capital" $or ar!" is not simply the material means o$ production used to produce wealth" which is how it is abstracted in the work o$ most economists. 1ather" it includes the early sta(es in the de)elopment o$ these particular means o$ production" or +primiti)e accumulation"+ indeed whate)er has made it possible $or it to produce the kind o$ wealth it does in just the way it does -)i,. permits wealth to take the $orm o$ )alue" somethin( produced not because it is use$ul but $or purposes o$ e!chan(e. &urthermore" as part o$ its becomin(" capital incorporates the accumulation o$ capital that is occurrin( now to(ether with its tendency toward concentration and centrali,ation" and the e$$ect o$ this tendency on both the de)elopment o$ a world market and an e)entual transition to socialism. 4ccordin( to ar!" the tendency to e!pand surplus;)alue and with it production" and there$ore to create a world market" is +directly (i)en in the concept o$ capital itsel$+ -ar!" ?@AE" FD. #hat capital contains the seeds o$ a $uture socialist society is also a pparent in its increasin(ly sociali,ed character and in the (rowin( separation o$ the material means o$ production $rom the direct control o$ capitalists" makin( the latter e)en more super$luous than they already are. #his +history+ o$ capital is part o$ capital" contained within the abstraction that ar! makes o$ capital" and part o$ what he wants to con)ey with its co)erin( concept. 4ll o$ ar!*s main abstractions0 labor" )alue" commodity" money" etc.0incorporate process" becomin(" history in just this way. Our purpose here is not to e!plain ar!*s political economy" but simply to use some o$ his claims in this area to illustrate how he inte(rates what most readers would take to be e!ternally related phenomena" in this case its real past and likely $uture" into his abstraction o$ its present $orm. ar! o$ten uses the 3uali$yin( phrase +in itsel$+ to indicate the necessary and internal ties between the $uture de)elopment o$ anythin( and how it presents itsel$ at this moment. oney and commodity" $or e!ample" are re$erred to as +in themsel)es+ capital -ar!" ?@=E" E@=. Hi)en the independent $orms in which they con$ront the worker in capitalist society0somethin( separate $rom him but somethin( he must ac3uire in order to sur)i)e0money and commodity ensure the e!chan(e o$ labor power and throu(h it their own trans$ormation into means o$ production used to produce new )alue. Capital is part o$ what they are becomin(" part o$ their $uture" and hence part o$ them.
#o consider the past and likely $uture de)elopment o$ anythin( as inte(ral to what it is" to (rasp this whole as a sin(le process" does not keep ar! $rom abstractin( out some part or instant o$ this process $or a particular purpose and $rom treatin( it as relati)ely autonomous. 4ware that the units into which he has subdi)ided reality are the results o$ his abstractions" ar! is able to re; abstract this reality" restrictin( the area brou(ht into $ocus in line with the re3uirements o$ his current study. But when he does this" he o$ten underlines its character as a temporally stable part o$ a lar(er and on(oin( process by re$errin( to it as a +moment.+ In this way" commodity is spoken o$ as a +moment in e!chan(e"+ money -in its aspect as capital as a +moment+ in the process o$ production" and circulation in (eneral as a +moment in the system o$ production+ -ar!" ?@AE" ?FN" >?A. ar!*s namin( practice here re$lects the epistemolo(ical priority he (i)es to mo)ement o)er stability" so that stability0whene)er it is $ound0is )iewed as temporary and/or only apparent" or" as he says on one occasion" as a +paralysis+ o$ mo)ement -ar!" ?@A?" >?>. 6ith stability used to 3uali$y chan(e rather than the re)erse" ar!0unlike most modern social scientists0did not and could not study why thin(s chan(e -with the implication that chan(e is e!ternal to what they are" somethin( that happens to them. Hi)en that chan(e is always a part o$ what thin(s are" his research problem could only be ho w" when" and into what they chan(e and why they sometimes appear not to -ideolo(y. Be$ore concludin( our discussion o$ the place o$ chan(e in ar!*s abstractions" it is worth notin( that thinkin( in terms o$ processes is not alto(ether alien to common sense. It occurs in abstractions o$ actions" such as eatin(" walkin(" $i(htin(" etc." indeed whene)er the (erund $orm o$ the )erb is used. 5ikewise" e)ent words" such as +war+ and +strike+" indicate that to some de(ree at least the processes in)ol)ed ha)e been abstracted as such. On the other hand" it is also possible to think o$ war and strike as a state or condition" more like a photo than a motion picture" or i$ the latter" then a sin(le scene that (ets shown a(ain and a(ain" which remo)es or seriously underplays whate)er chan(es are takin( place. 4nd un$ortunately" the same is true o$ most action )erbs. #hey become action +thin(s.+ In such cases" the real processes that (o on do not (et re$lected0certainly not to any ade3uate de(ree0in our thinkin( about them. It is my impression that in the absence o$ any commitment to brin( chan(e itsel$ into $ocus" in the manner o$ ar!" this is the more typical outcome. 'arlier we said that what distin(uishes ar!*s abstractions is that they contain not only chan(e or history but also some portion o$ the system in which it occurs. Since chan(e in anythin( only takes place in and throu(h a comple! interaction between closely related elements" treatin( chan(e as intrinsic to what anythin( is re3uires that we treat the interaction throu(h which it occurs in the same way. 6ith a static notion o$ anythin( it is easy to concei)e o$ it as also discrete" lo(ically independent o$ and easily separable $rom its surroundin( conditions. #hey do not enter directly into what it is. 6hile )iewin( the same thin( as a process makes it necessary to e!tend the boundaries o$ what it is to include at least some part o$ the surroundin( conditions that enter into this process. In sum" as $ar as abstractions are concerned" chan(e brin(s mutual dependence in its wake. Instead o$ a mere se3uence o$ e)ents isolated $rom their conte!t" a kind o$ one;note de)elopment" ar!*s abstractions become phases o$ an e)ol)in( and interacti)e system. ence" capital" which we e!amined earlier as a process" is also a comple! 1elation encompassin( the interaction between the material means o$ production" capitalists" workers" )alue" commodity" money" and more0and all this o)er time. ar! says" +the concept o$ capital contains the capitalist+ he re$ers to workers as +)ariable capital+ and says capital is +nothin( without wa(e;labor" )alue" money" price" etc.+ -ar!" ?@AE" N?> ar!" ?@N" >D@ ar!" ?@DF" >@>. 'lsewhere" the +processual+ character o$ these aspects o$ the capital 1elation is emphasi,ed in re$errin( to them as +)alue in process+ and +money in process+ -ar!" ?@A?"?EA. I$ capital" like all other important abstractions in ar!ism" is both a process and a 1elation" )iewin( it as primarily one or the other could only be a way o$ e mphasi,in( either its historical or systemic character $or a particular purpose.
4s in his abstractions o$ capital as a process" so too in his abstractions o$ it as a 1elation" ar! can $ocus on but part o$ what capital contains. 6hile the temporally isolated part o$ a process is (enerally re$erred to as a +moment+" the spatially isolated aspect o$ a 1elation is (enerally re$erred to as a +$orm+ or +determination.+ 6ith +$orm"+ ar! usually brin(s into $ocus the appearance and/or $unction o$ any 1elation" that by which we reco(ni,e it" and most o$ten it is its $orm that is responsible $or the concept by which we know and communicate it. ence" )alue -a 1elation in its e!chan(eable $orm is called +money+ while in the $orm in which it $acilitates the production o$ more )alue" it is called +capital* and so on. +9etermination"+ on the other hand" enables ar! to $ocus on the trans$ormational character o$ any relational part" on what best brin(s out its mutual dependence and chan(eability within the interacti)e system. 2pon analysis" moments" $orms" and determinations all turn out to be 1elations. So that a$ter re$errin( to the commodity as a moment in wealth" ar! immediately proceeds to pick it apart as a 1elation -ar!" ?@AE" >?. 'lsewhere" ar! re$ers to interest" pro$it" and rent as $orms which throu(h analysis lose their +apparent independence"+ and are seen to be 1elations -ar!" ?@A?" F>@. 'arlier" we saw that some abstractions that contain processes could also be $ound in what we called common sense. #he same is true o$ abstractions that $ocus on 1elations. &ather" which contains the relation between a man and a child" is one. Buyer" which contains the relations between a person and somethin( sold or a)ailable $or sale" is another. But compared to the number and scope o$ relations in the world" such relations are $ew and mea(er in their import. 6ithin the common sense o$ our time and place" most social ties are thou(ht about in abstractions that $ocus on the parts one at a time" separately as well as statically. ar!" howe)er" belie)es that in order to ade3uately (rasp the systemic connections that constitute such an important part o$ reality one has to incorporate them0alon( with the ways in which they chan(e 0into the )ery abstractions in and with which one thinks about them. 4ll else is make;do patchwork" a one;sided" lopsided way o$ thinkin( that in)ites the ne(lect o$ essential connections to(ether with the distortion o$ whate)er in$luence they e!ert on the o)erall system. 6here ha)e we arri)ed7 ar!*s abstractions are not thin(s but processes. #hese processes are also" o$ necessity" systemic 1elations in which the main processes with which ar! deals are all implicated. Conse3uently" each process ser)es as an aspect" or subordinate part" o$ other processes" (rasped as clusters o$ relations" just as they do in it. In this way" ar! brin(s what we ha)e called the double mo)ement o$ the capitalist mode o$ p roduction -its history and or(anic mo)ement to(ether in the same abstractions" unitin( in his thinkin( what is united in reality. 4nd whene)er he needs to $ocus on but part o$ this comple!" he does so as a moment" a $orm or a determination. ar!*s abstractions seem to be )ery di$$erent" especially as re(ards the treatment o$ chan(e and interaction" $rom those in which most people think about society. But i$ ar!*s abstractions stand out as much as our e)idence su((ests they do" it is not enou(h to display them. 6e also need to know what (i)es ar! the philosophical license to abstract as he does. 6hence comes his apparent $acility in makin( and chan(in( abstractions7 4nd what is the relation between his abstractions and those o$ common sense7 It is because most readers cannot see how ar! could possibly abstract as he does that they continue to deny0and perhaps not e)en notice;the widespread e)idence o$ his practice. #here$ore" be$ore makin( a more detailed analysis o$ ar!*s process o$ abstraction and its place and role in his dialectical method and broader theories" a brie$ detour throu(h his philosophical presuppositions is in order. I #he hilosophy o$ Internal 1elations 4ccordin( to ar!" +#he economists do not concei)e o$ capital as a 1elation. #hey cannot do so without at the same time concei)in( o$ it as a historical transitory" i.e." a relati)e0not an absolute 0$orm o$ production+ -ar!" ?@A?" >AF. #his is not a comment about the content o$ capital" about what it is" kind o$ thin( it is0to wit" a 1elation. #o (rasp capital" as ar! does" as a
comple! 1elation which has at its core internal ties between the material means o$ production and those who own them" those who work on them" their special product" )alue" and the conditions in which ownin( and workin( (o on is to know capital as a historical e)ent" as somethin( that emer(ed as a result o$ speci$ic conditions in the li$etime o$ real people and that will disappear when these conditions do. iewin( such connections as e!ternal to what capital is 0which" $or them" is simply the material means o$ production or money used to buy such0the economists $all into treatin( capital as an ahistorical )ariable. 6ithout sayin( so e!plicitly and certainly without e)er e!plicitly de$endin( this position" capital becomes somethin( that has always been and will always be. #he )iew held by most people" scholars and others" in what we*)e been callin( the common sense )iew" maintains that there are thin(s and there are relations" and that neither can be subsumed in the other. #his position is summed up in Bishop Butler*s statement" which H. '. oore adopts as a motto: +')erythin( is what it is" and not another thin("+ taken in conjunction with ume*s claim" +4ll e)ents seem entirely loose and separate+ -oore" ?@DE" title pa(e ume" ?@NN" N. On this )iew" capital may be $ound to ha)e relations with labor" )alue" etc." and it may e)en be that accountin( $or such relations plays an important role in e!plainin( what capital is but capital is one thin(" and its relations 3uite another. ar!" on the other hand" $ollowin( e(el*s lead in this matter" rejects what is" in essence" a lo(ical dichotomy. &or him" as we saw" capital is itsel$ a 1elation" in which the ties o$ the material means o$ production to labor" )alue" commodity" etc." are interiori,ed as parts o$ what capital is. ar! re$ers to +thin(s themsel)es+ as +their interconnections+ -ar! and 'n(els" ?@ND" F. oreo)er" these relations e!tend backward and $orward in time" so that capital*s conditions o$ e!istence as they ha)e e)ol)ed o)er the years and its potential $or $uture de)elopment are also )iewed as parts o$ what it is. On the common sense )iew" any element related to capital can chan(e without capital itsel$ chan(in(. 6orkers" $or e!ample" instead o$ sellin( their labor;power to capitalists" as occurs in capitalism" could become sla)es" or ser$s" or owners o$ their own means o$ production" and in e)ery case their instruments o$ work would still be capital. #he tie between workers and the means o$ production here is contin(ent" a matter o$ chance" and there$ore e!ternal to what each really is. In ar!*s )iew" a chan(e o$ this sort would mean a chan(e in the character o$ capital itsel$" in its appearance and/or $unctionin( no matter how $ar e!tended. #he tie is a necessary and essential one it is an internal relation. ence" where its speci$ic relationship to workers has chan(ed" the means o$ production become somethin( else" and somethin( that is best captured by a concept other than +capital.+ ')ery element that comes into ar!*s analysis o$ capitalism is a 1elation o$ this sort. It is this )iew that underlies and helps e!plain his practice o$ abstraction and the particular abstractions that result" alon( with all the theories raised on them. It appears that the problem non;ar!ists ha)e in understandin( ar! is much more pro$ound than is ordinarily thou(ht. It is not simply that they don*t (rasp what ar! is sayin( about capital -or labor" or )alue" or the state" etc. because his account is unclear or con$used" or that the e)idence $or his claims is weak or unde)eloped. 1ather" it is that the basic $orm" the 1elation" in which ar! thinks about each o$ the major elements that come into his analysis is una)ailable" and there$ore its ideational content is necessarily misrepresented" i$ only a little -thou(h usually it is much more. 4s an attempt to re$lect the relations in capitalist society by incorporatin( them into its core abstractions" ar!ism su$$ers the same distortin( $ate as these relations themsel)es. In the history o$ ideas" the )iew that we ha)e been de)elopin( is known as the philosophy o$ internal relations. ar!*s immediate philosophical in$luences in this re(ard were 5eibni," Spino,a" and e(el" particularly e(el. 6hat all had in common is the belie$ that the relations that come to(ether to make up the whole (et e!pressed in what are taken to be its parts. 'ach part is )iewed as incorporatin( in what it is all its relations with other parts up to and includin( e)erythin( that comes into the whole. #o be sure" each o$ these thinkers had a distincti)e )iew o$ what the parts are. &or 5eibni," it was monads $or Spino,a" modes o$ nature or Hod and $or e(el" ideas. But the lo(ical $orm in which they construed the relation between parts and the whole was the same.
Some writers on ar! ha)e ar(ued $or a restricted $orm o$ internal relations that would apply only to society and not to the natural world -1ader" ?@A@" chapter >. But reality doesn*t allow such absolute distinctions. eople ha)e bodies as well as minds and social roles. 4lienation" $or e!ample" a$$ects all three" and in their alienated $orms each is internally related to the others. 5ikewise" capital" commodities" money" and the $orces o$ production all ha)e material as well as social aspects. #o maintain that the philosophy o$ internal relations does not respect the usual boundaries between nature and society does not mean that ar! cannot $or certain purposes abstract units that $all primarily or e)en wholly on one or the other side o$ this di)ide. 6hene)er he speaks o$ +thin(+ or" as is more $re3uent" o$ +social relations"+ this is what occurs" but in e)ery case what has been momentarily put aside is internally related to what has been brou(ht into $ocus. Conse3uently" he is unlikely to minimi,e or dismiss" as many operatin( with e!ternal relations do" the in$luences o$ either natural or social phenomena on the other. 6hat is the place o$ such notions as +cause+ and +determine+ within a philosophy o$ internal relations7 Hi)en the mutual interaction ar! assumes between e)erythin( in reality" now and $ore)er" there can be no cause that is lo(ically prior to and independent o$ that to which it is said to (i)e rise and no determinin( $actor that is itsel$ not a$$ected by that which it is said to determine. In short" the common sense notions o$ +cause+ and +determine+ that are $ounded on such lo(ical independence and absolute priority do not and cannot apply. In their stead we $ind $re3uent claims o$ the $ollowin( kind: the propensity to e!chan(e is the +cause or reciprocal e$$ect+ o$ the di)ision o$ labor and interest and rent +determine+ market prices and +are determined+ by it -ar!" ?@N@b" ?EF ar!" ?@A?" N?>. In any or(anic system )iewed o)er time all the processes e)ol)e to(ether. ence" no process comes $irst and each one can b e said to determine and be determined by the others. owe)er" it is also the case that one process o$ten has a (reater a$$ect on others than they do on it and ar! also uses +cause+ and especially +determine+ to re(ister this asymmetry. #hus" in the interaction between production" distribution" e!chan(e" and consumption0particularly thou(h not e!clusi)ely in capitalism0production is held to be more determinin( -ar!" ?@DF" >AF$$.. 4 (ood deal o$ ar!*s research is de)oted to locatin( and mappin( whate)er e!ercises a (reater or special impact on other parts o$ the capitalist system" but" whether made e!plicit or not" this always takes place on a backdrop o$ reciprocal e$$ect. -4nother complementary sense o$ +cause+ and +determine+ will be presented later. 1eturnin( to the process o$ abstraction" it is the philosophy o$ internal relations that (i)es ar! both license and opportunity to abstract as $reely as he does" to decide how $ar into its internal relations any particular will e!tend. akin( him aware o$ the need to abstract0since boundaries are ne)er (i)en and when established ne)er absolute0it also allows and e)en encoura(es re; abstraction" makes a )ariety o$ abstractions possible" and helps to de)elop his mental skills and $le!ibility in makin( abstractions. I$ +a relation"+ as ar! maintains" +can obtain a particular embodiment and become indi)iduali,ed only by means o$ abstraction"+ then learnin( how to abstract is the $irst step in learnin( how to think -ar!" ?@AE" ?F>. Operatin( with a philosophy o$ e!ternal relations doesn*t a bsol)e others $rom the need to abstract. #he units in and with which o ne thinks are still abstractions and products o$ the process o$ abstraction as it occurs durin( sociali,ation and" particularly" in the ac3uisition o$ lan(ua(e. Only" in this case" one takes boundaries as (i)en in the nature o$ reality as such" as i$ they ha)e the same ontolo(ical stature as the 3ualities percei)ed. #he role played by the process o$ abstraction is neither known nor appreciated. Conse3uently" there is no awareness that one can 0and o$ten should;re;abstract" and the ability and $le!ibility $or doin( so is ne)er ac3uired. 6hate)er re;abstraction (oes on" o$ necessity" as part o$ learnin( new lan(ua(es or new schools o$ thou(ht" or as a result o$ important new e!periences" takes place in the dark" usually unconsciously" certainly unsystematically" and with little understandin( o$ either assumptions or implications. ar!" on the other hand" is $ully aware that he abstracts and o$ its assumptions and implications both $or his own thinkin( and that o$ others0hence the $re3uent e3uation o$ ideolo(y in those he critici,es with their inade3uate abstractions.
In order to $orestall possible misunderstandin(s it may be use$ul to assert that the philosophy o$ internal relations is not an a ttempt to rei$y +what lies between.+ It is simply that the particular ways in which thin(s cohere become essential attributes o$ what they are. #he philosophy o$ internal relations also does not mean0as some o$ its critics ha)e char(ed0that in)esti(atin( any problem can (o on $ore)er -to say that boundaries are arti$icial is not to deny them an e!istence" and" practically speakin(" it is simply not necessary to understand e)erythin( in order to understand anythin( or that the boundaries which are established are arbitrary -what actually in$luences the character o$ ar!*s or anyone else*s abstractions is another 3uestion or that we cannot mark or work with some o$ the important objecti)e distinctions $ound in reality -on the contrary" such distinctions are a major in$luence on the abstractions we do make or" $inally" that the )ocabulary associated with the philosophy o$ internal relations0particularly +totality"+ +relation"+ and +identity+0cannot also be used in subsidiary senses to re$er to the world that comes into bein( a$ter the process o$ abstraction has done its work. In the philosophy o$ internal relations" +totality+ is a lo(ical construct that re$ers to the way the whole is present throu(h internal relations in each o$ its parts. #otality" in this sense" is always there" and adjecti)es like +more+ and +less+ don*t apply. But ar!*s work also contains constructed or emer(ent totalities" which are o$ a historical nature" and (reat care must be taken not to con$use the two. In the latter case" a totality" or whole" or system is built up (radually as its elements emer(e" cohere" and de)elop o )er time. +#he circumstances under which a relation occurs $or the $irst time"+ ar! says" +by no means shows us that relation either in its purity or in its totality+ -ar!" ?@A?" >DN. ere" too" unlike lo(ical totalities" some systems can be said to be more or less complete than others" or than itsel$ at an earlier sta(e. #here is nothin( in the philosophy o$ internal relations that inter$eres with the reco(nition o$ such totalities. 4ll that is re3uired is that at e)ery sta(e in its emer(ence each part be )iewable as a relational microcosm o$ the whole" includin( its real history and potential $or $uture de)elopment. #he ad)anta(es o$ usin( any relational part as a startin( point $or reconstructin( the interconnections o$ the whole" o$ treatin( it as a lo(ical totality" will increase" o$ course" as its social role (rows and its ties with other parts become more comple!" as it becomes in other words more o$ an emer(ent totality. One would not e!pect the commodity" $or e!ample" to ser)e as a particularly use$ul startin( place $rom which to reconstruct sla)e society or $eudalism" where it e!ists but only on the $rin(es -to the e!tent that there is some wa(e;labor and/or some trade between di$$erent communities" but it o$$ers an ideal startin( place $rom which to reconstruct the capitalist system in which it plays a central role -ar!" ?@A?" ?D>;E. 4 somewhat similar problem e!ists with the concept o$ +relation.+ erhaps no word appears more $re3uently in ar!*s writin(s than +erhaltnis+ -+relation+. #he crucial role played by +erhaltnis+ in ar!*s thinkin( is somewhat lost to non;Herman;lan(ua(e readers o$ his works as a result o$ translations that o$ten substitute +condition+" +system+" and +structure+ $or +relation+. +erhaltnis+ is usually used by ar! in the sense (i)en to it by the philosophy o$ internal relations" where parts such as capital" labor" etc." are said to b e 1elations containin( within themsel)es the )ery interactions to which they belon(. But ar! also uses +erhaltnis+ as a synonym o$ + Be,iehun(+ -+connection+" as a way o$ re$errin( to ties between parts that are momentarily )iewed as separate. #aken in this sense" two parts can be more or less closely related" ha)e di$$erent relations at di$$erent times" and ha)e their relations distorted or e)en broken. #hese are" o$ course" all important distinctions" and it should be ob)ious that none o$ them are $orei(n to ar!*s writin(s. 8et" i$ the parts are themsel)es 1elations" in the sense o$ internal relations" possessin( the same lo(ical character no matter what chan(es they under(o" it would seem that such distinctions could not be made. 4nd" indeed" this belie$ lays behind a lot o$ the criticism directed at the philosophy o$ internal relations. #he two di$$erent senses o$ +relation+ $ound in ar!*s writin(s" howe)er" simply re$lect two di$$erent orders o$ relation in his understandin(. #he $irst comes out o$ his philosophy o$ internal relations and applies to how he )iews anythin(. #he second is o$ a practical" empirical sort" and applies to what is actually $ound between two or more elements -each also 1elations in the $irst
sense that are presently )iewed as separate. ow ar! separates out parts that are concei)ed o$ as lo(ically internal to one another is" o$ course" the work o$ the process o$ abstraction. Once abstracted" all manner o$ relations between these parts can be noted and are in $act noted whene)er rele)ant. 1e$usin( to take the boundaries that or(ani,e our world as ( i)en and natural" the philosophy o$ internal relations admits a practice o$ abstraction that allows $or an e)en (reater )ariety o$ second;order relations than e!ists on the common sense )iew.
?. ossible e!ceptions to this relati)e ne(lect o$ abstraction in discussions o$ ar!*s method include '. . Ilyenko) -?@>" where the emphasis is on the relation o$ abstract to concrete in Capital 4l$red Sohn;1ethel -?@A" which shows how commodity e!chan(e produces certain ideolo(ical abstractions 9erek Sayers -?@A" which stresses the role o$ the process o$ abstraction in producin( ideolo(y 5es,ek Mowak -?@D" which p resents a neo;6eberian reconstruction o$ some aspects o$ this process 1oy Bhaskar -?@@E" which treats most o$ what occurs in abstraction under conceptuali,ation and aul Swee,y -?@N= -still the best short introduction to our subject" which stresses the role o$ abstraction in isolatin( the essentials o$ a ny problem. Insi(ht$ul" thou(h limited" treatments o$ abstraction can also be $ound in articles by 4ndrew Sayers -?@?" . 9iet,(en*s contribution to our subject is described brie$ly in chapter E abo)e. >. #he school o$ Critical 1ealism" associated with the work o$ 1oy Bhaskar" made just the opposite assumption" particularly in its earliest publications. See" $or e!ample" Bhaskar*s 4 1ealist #heory o$ Science -?@AN. In recent works" such as 9ialectic: the ulse o$ &reedom -?@@E" Bhaskar has (i)en the process o$ abstraction a much hi(her pro$ile in his system. &or my critical appreciation o$ this particular )ersion o$ dialectical thinkin(" see chapter ?D o$ this )olume.
#hree odes o$ 4bstraction: '!tension Once we reco(ni,e the crucial role abstraction plays in ar!*s method" how di$$erent his own abstractions are" and how o$ten and easily he re;abstracts" it becomes clear that ar! constructs his subject matter as much as he $inds it. #his is not to belittle the in$luence o$ natural and social -particularly capitalist conditions on ar!*s thinkin(" but rather to stress how" (i)en this in$luence" the results o$ ar!*s in)esti(ations are prescribed to a lar(e de(ree by the preliminary or(ani,ation o$ his subject matter. Mothin( is made up o$ whole cloth" but at the same time ar! only $inds what his abstractions ha)e placed in his way. #hese abstractions do not substitute $or the $acts" but (i)e them a $orm" an order" and a relati)e )alue just as $re3uently chan(in( his abstractions does not take the place o$ empirical research" but does determine" albeit in a weak sense" what he will look $or" e)en see" and o$ course emphasi,e. 6 hat counts as an e!planation is likewise determined by the $ramework o$ possible relationships imposed by ar!*s initial abstractions. So $ar we ha)e been discussin( the process o$ abstraction in (eneral" our main aim bein( to distin(uish it $rom other mental acti)ities. ar!*s own abstractions were said to stand out in so $ar as they in)ariably include elements o$ chan(e and interaction" while his practice o$ abstractin( was $ound to include more or less o$ each as suited his immediate purpose. #akin( note o$ the importance ar! (a)e to abstractions in h is criti3ue o$ ideolo(y" we proceeded to its underpinnin(s in the philosophy o$ internal relations" emphasi,in( that it is not a matter o$ this philosophy makin( such mo)es possible0since e)erybody abstracts0but o$ makin( them easier" and enablin( ar! to ac3uire (reater control o)er the process. 6hat remains is to analy,e in
(reater detail what actually occurs when ar! abstracts" and to trace its results and implications $or some o$ his major theories. #he process o$ abstraction" which we ha )e been treatin( as an undi$$erentiated mental act" has three main aspects or modes" which are also its $unctions )is )is the part abstracted on one hand and the system to which the part belon(s and which it in turn helps to shape on the other. #hat is" the boundary settin( and brin(in( into $ocus that lies at the core o$ this process occurs simultaneously in three di$$erent" thou(h closely related" senses. #hese senses ha)e to do with e!tension" le)el o$ (enerality" and )anta(e point. &irst" each abstraction can be said to achie)e a certain e!tension in the part abstracted" and this applies both spatially and temporally. In abstractin( boundaries in space" limits are set in the mutual interaction that occurs at a (i)en point o$ time. 6hile in abstractin( boundaries in time" limits are set in the distincti)e history and potential de)elopment o$ any part" in what it once was and is yet to become. ost o$ our e!amples o$ abstraction so $ar ha)e been drawn $rom what we shall now call +abstraction o$ e!tension.+ Second" at the same time that e)ery act o$ abstraction establishes an e!tension" it also sets a boundary around and brin(s into $ocus a particular le)el o$ (enerality $or treatin( not only the part but the whole system to which it belon(s. #he mo)ement is $rom the most speci$ic" or that which sets it apart $rom e)erythin( else" to its most (eneral characteristics" or what makes it similar to other entities. Operatin( rather like a microscope that can be set at di$$erent de(rees o$ ma(ni$ication" this mode o$ abstraction enables us to see the uni3ue 3ualities o$ any part" or the 3ualities associated with its $unction in capitalism" or the 3ualities that belon( to it as part o$ the human condition -to (i)e only the most important o$ these le)els o$ (enerality. In abstractin( capital" $or e!ample" ar! (i)es it an e!tension in both space and time as well as a le)el o$ (enerality such that only those 3ualities associated with its appearance and $unctionin( as a phenomenon o$ capitalism are hi(hli(hted -i.e." its production o$ )alue" its ownership by capitalists" its e!ploitation o$ workers" etc.. #he 3ualities a (i)en capital may also possess as a &ord otor Company assembly line $or makin( cars or as a tool in (eneral0that is" 3ualities that it has as a uni3ue object or as an instance o$ somethin( human bein(s ha)e always used0are not brou(ht into the picture. #hey are abstracted out. #his aspect o$ the process o$ abstraction has recei)ed least attention not only in our own discussion but in other accounts o$ dialectics. In what $ollows" we shall re$er to it as +abstraction o$ le)el o$ (enerality.+ #hird" at the same time that abstraction establishes an e!tension and a le)el o$ (enerality" it also sets up a )anta(e point or place within the relationship $rom which to )iew" think about" and piece to(ether the other components in the relationship meanwhile the sum o$ their ties -as determined by the abstraction o$ e!tension also becomes a )anta(e point $or comprehendin( the lar(er system to which it belon(s" pro)idin( both a be(innin( $or research and analysis and a perspecti)e in which to carry it out. 6ith each new perspecti)e" there are si(ni$icant di$$erences in what can be percei)ed" a di$$erent orderin( o$ the parts" and a di$$erent sense o$ what is important. #hus" in abstractin( capital" ar! not only (i)es it an e!tension and a le)el o$ (enerality -that o$ capitalism" he also )iews the interrelated elements that compose it $rom the side o$ the material means o$ production and" simultaneously" trans$orms this con$i(uration itsel$ into a )anta(e point $or )iewin( the lar(er system in which it is situated" pro)idin( himsel$ with a perspecti)e that in$luences how all other parts o$ the system will appear -one that (i)es to capital the central role. 6e shall re$er to this aspect o$ abstraction as +abstraction o$ )anta(e point.+ By manipulatin( e!tension" le)el o$ (enerality" and )anta(e point" ar! puts thin(s into and out o$ $ocus" into better $ocus" and into di$$erent kinds o$ $ocus" enablin( himsel$ to see more clearly" in)esti(ate more accurately" and understand more $ully and more dynamically his chosen subject. 4s re(ards the abstraction o$ e!tension. ar!*s (eneral stand in $a)or o$ lar(e units is e)ident $rom such statements as" +In each historical epoch" property has de)eloped di$$erently and under a set o$ entirely di$$erent social relations. #hus" to de$ine bour(eois property is nothin( else than to (i)e an e!position o$ all these social relations o$ b our(eois production . . . #o try to (i)e a de$inition o$ property an independent relation" a ca te(ory apart" an abstraction and eternal idea"
can be nothin( but an illusion o$ metaphysics and jurisprudence+ -ar!" n.d." ?NF. Ob)iously" lar(e abstractions are needed to think ade3uately about a comple!" internally related world. #he speci$ics o$ ar!*s position emer(e $rom his $re3uent criticisms o$ the political economists $or o$$erin( too narrow abstractions -narrow in the double sense o$ includin( too $ew connections and too short a time period o$ one or another economic $orm. 1icardo" $or e!ample" is reproached $or abstractin( too short a period in his notions o$ money and rent" and $or omittin( social relations in his abstraction o$ )alue -ar!" ?@=" ?>N ar!" ?@A?" ?E?. One o$ the most serious distortions is said to arise $rom the tendency amon( political economists to abstract processes solely in terms o$ their end results. Commodity e!chan(e" $or e!ample" (ets substituted $or the whole o$ the process by which a product becomes a commodity and e)entually a)ailable $or e!chan(e -ar!" ?@AE" ?@. 4s 4miri Baraka so color$ully points out: + untin( is not those heads on the wall+ -Baraka" ?@==" ?@AE. By thinkin( otherwise $or the ran(e o$ problems with which they are concerned" the political economists a)oid seein( the contradictions in the capitalist speci$ic processes that (i)e rise to these results. #he same narrowin( o$ abstractions obtains a similar ideolo(ical result in thinkin( about human bein(s. In order to ma!imi,e indi)idual $reedom" a! Stirner sou(ht to abstract an +I+ without any messy presuppositions" whether natural or social. ar!*s response is that by e!cludin( all that brou(ht it into e!istence and the $ull conte!t in which it acts" this +I+ is not a particularly help$ul abstraction $or understandin( anythin( about the indi)idual" least o$ all his $reedom -ar! and 'n(els" ?@=F" FAA;>. 8et somethin( like Stirner*s +I+" in the person o$ the isolated indi)idual" has become the standard way o$ thinkin( about human nature in capitalist society. It is the pre$erred abstraction o$ e!tension in which bour(eois ideolo(y treats human bein(s. Hranted the unusually lar(e e!tensions ar! (i)es his abstractions" we now need to know how this practice a$$ects his work. 6hat do such abstractions make possible" perhaps e)en necessary" and what do they make impossible7 Consider all that a wide;an(le photo(raph does in (i)in( )alue to what is included" to what crowds the ed(es as well as to what appears at the center. Motice the relations it establishes as important" or at least rele)ant" and e)en the e!planations that are implicit in what is included and what is le$t o ut. Somethin( )ery similar occurs throu(h the e!tension (i)en to units o$ thinkin( in the process o$ abstraction. It is by placin( so much in his abstractions0and by alterin( them as o$ten as he does0that ar! (reatly $acilitates his analysis o$ what we*)e called the double motion o$ the capitalist mode o$ production. In particular" ar!*s practice in abstractin( e!tension ser)es as the basis $or his theory o$ identity it underlies his criticism o$ e!istin( systems o$ classi$ication and their replacement by the )arious classi$icatory schemes that distin(uish his theories" i.e." the class di)ision o$ society" $orces/relations o$ production" appearance/essence" etc. and it enables him to capture in thinkin( the real mo)ements that (o on in both nature and society. 4s re(ards identity" ar! claims" +It is characteristic o$ the entire crudeness o$ *common sense"* which takes its rise $rom the *$ull li$e* and does not cripple its natural $eatures by philosophy or other studies" that where it succeeds in seein( a distinction it $ails to see a unity" and where it sees a unity it $ails to see a distinction. I$ *common sense* establishes distinction determinations" they immediately petri$y surreptitiously and it is considered the most reprehensible sophistry to rub to(ether these conceptual blocks in such a way that they catch $ire+ -ar! and 'n(els" ?@=?" EE@. 4ccordin( to the common sense approach" thin(s are either the same -the sense in which ar! uses +unity+ here or di$$erent. 4 $re3uent criticism ar! makes o$ the political economists is that they see only identity or di$$erence in the relations they e!amine -ar!" ?@A?" ?=" F@A" N>A. ar! has it both ways0he is $ore)er rubbin( these blocks to(ether to make $ire. ost strikin( are his numerous re$erences to what most people take as di$$erent subjects as identical. Such is his claim that +#he social reality o$ nature and human natural science" or natural science about man are identical terms+ -ar!" ?@N@a" ???. 9emand and supply -and in a +wider sense+ production and consumption are also said to be identical -ar!" ?@=" NDN. 4nd the list o$ such claims" both with and without the term identity" is )ery lon(. 4n e!ample o$ the latter is his re$erence to +Bour(eoisie" i.e." capital+ -ar! and 'n(els" ?@FN" >?.
In one place" ar! says by +identity+ he means a +di$$erent e!pression o$ the same $act+ -ar!" ?@=" F?D. #his appears strai(ht$orward enou(h" but in ar!*s case" this +$act+ is relational" composed o$ a system o$ mutually dependent parts. iewin( this mutual dependence within each o$ the interactin( parts" )iewin( the parts a s necessary aspects o$ each other" they become identical in e!pressin( the same e!tended whole. Conse3uently" ar! can claim that labor and capital are +e!pressions o$ the same relation" only seen $rom opposite poles+ -ar!" ?@A?" F@?. 2nderlyin( all such claims are abstractions o$ e!tension that are lar(e enou(h to contain whate)er is held to be identical. ar!*s theory o$ identity also helps us understand the pi)otal role he (i)es to the notion o$ $orm. 4 $orm" we will recall" is that aspect o$ a relation" centerin( either on appearance or $unction" $rom which its co)erin( concept is usually drawn. But +$orm+ is also ar!*s chie$ way o$ tellin( us that he has $ound an identity in di$$erence" as when he says rent" pro$it" and interest" which are ob)iously di$$erent in many respects" are identical as $orms o$ surplus;)alue -ar! and 'n(els" ?@F?" ?D=. 6hat is called +ar!ism+ is lar(ely an in)esti(ation o$ the di$$erent $orms human producti)e acti)ity takes in capitalist society" the chan(es these $orms under(o" how such chan(es are misunderstood" and the power ac3uired by these chan(ed and misunderstood $orms o)er the )ery people whose producti)e acti)ity brou(ht them into e!istence in the $irst place. alue" commodity" capital" money" etc." could only be (rasped as $orms o$ labor -and" e)entually" o$ each other and in)esti(ated as such because ar! abstracts each o$ these units lar(e enou(h to contain all these elements in their distincti)e relations. ar!*s theories o$ alienation and o$ the metamorphosis o$ )alue" in particular" o$$er many e!amples o$ this practice. 4bstracted more narrowly" as typically occurs in bour(eois ideolo(y" the identity o$ such elements (i)es way to similarity and other )a(ue kinds o$ connection" with the result that some part o$ the e$$ect and/or in$luence brou(ht into $ocus by ar!*s encompassin( abstractions is lost or seriously distorted. In adherin( to a philosophy o$ internal relations" the commitment to )iew parts as identical e!ists e)en be$ore they ha)e been abstracted $rom the whole" so that one can say that" in a sense" identity precedes di$$erence" which only appears with the abstraction o$ parts based on some appreciation o$ their distincti)eness. Such di$$erences" when $ound" do nothin( to contradict the initial assumption o$ identity" that each part throu(h internal relations can e!press the same whole. ence" the coe!istence o$ identity and di$$erence. It was noted earlier that ar!. used +totality+ and +relation+ in two senses" a lo(ical sense ha)in( to do with how he )iewed all reality and a reconstructed or emer(ent sense that applied to particular kinds o$ ties unco)ered in his research between parts that had already been abstracted as separate parts. +Identity"+ as we ha)e been usin( it so $ar" belon(s to this lo(ical )ocabulary and +di$$erence+ to the reconstructed one. owe)er" +identity"+ like +totality+ and +relation"+ is sometimes used in this second" subsidiary sense to hi(hli(ht closely related aspects o$ parts whose di$$erent appearances or $unctions ha)e already led to their abstraction as separate parts. In which case" one can also speak o$ thin(s as bein( more or less identical. Besides its e$$ect on the relation o$ identity" ar!*s practice in abstractin( e!tension also has major implications" as I ha)e indicated" $or the )arious classi$icatory schemes that $rame his theories. ')ery school o$ thou(ht stands out in lar(e measure by the distinctions it makes and doesn*t make" and by those it sin(les out as bein( in some respect the most important. ar!ism is no e!ception. 4mon( the better;known classi$ications $ound in ar!*s work are the ju!tapositions o$ $orces and relations o$ production" base and superstructure" materialism and idealism" nature and society" objecti)e and subjecti)e conditions" essence and appearance" the periodi,ation o$ history based on di$$erent modes o$ production" and the class di)ision o$ society -particularly the split between workers and capitalists. ost accounts o$ ar!ism try )ery hard to establish where one element in each o$ these classi$ications ends and the ne!t one be(ins" to de$ine neatly and permanently the boundaries that subdi)ide the structures into which ar! o r(ani,es human e!istence. owe)er" (i)en what
has just been said about ar!*s practice o$ abstractin( e!tension and his philosophy o$ internal relations" it should be clear that this is a $ruitless e!ercise. It is only because they assume that ar! is operatin( with a p hilosophy o$ e!ternal relations in which the boundaries between thin(s are taken to be o$ the same order as their other sense;perceptible 3ualities -hence determined and disco)erable once and $or all that these critics can so consistently dismiss the o)erwhelmin( e)idence o$ ar!*s practice. Mot only does ar! o$ten redraw the boundaries o$ each o$ these units" but with e)ery classi$ication there are instances where his abstractions are lar(e enou(h to contain most or e)en all o$ the 3ualities that seemed to $all into other contrastin( units. ar!*s materialist conception o$ history" $or e!ample" is characteri,ed by a set o$ o)erlappin( contrasts between mode o$ production and +social" political" and intellectual li$e processes"+ base and superstructure" $orces and relations o$ production" economic structures -or $oundations and the rest o$ society" and material and social e!istence -ar!" ?@DF" ??;?>. Since ar! did not take much care to distin(uish these di$$erent $ormulations" there is a lot o$ dispute o)er which one to stress in (i)in( an account o$ his )iews" but on two points there is widespread a(reement: -? that the $irst term in each pairin( is in some sense determinant o$ the latter" and -> that the boundaries between the terms in each case are more or less set and relati)ely easy to establish. But how clear cut can such boundaries be i$ ar! can re$er to +reli(ion" $amily" state" law" morality" science" art" etc.+ as +particular modes o$ production"+ community and the +re)olutionary class+ as $orces o$ production -which also has +the 3ualities o$ indi)iduals+ as its subjecti)e side" theory +in so $ar as it (ets a hold o$ people+ as a +material $orce"+ and can treat laws re(ardin( pri)ate property -which would seem to be part o$ the superstructure as part o$ the base" and class stru((le -which would seem to be part o$ political li$e as part o$ the economic structure -ar!" ?@N@a" ?DE ar!" ?@AE" F@N ar!" n.d." ?@= ar!" ?@AD" ?EA 4cton" ?@=>" ?=F7 It is worth notin(" too" that 'n(els could e)en re$er to race as an economic $actor -ar! and 'n(els" ?@N?" N?A. #o be sure" these are not the main uses to which ar! put these cate(ories" but they do indicate somethin( o$ their elasticity" somethin( about how encompassin( he could make his abstractions i$ he wanted to. 4nd it does show how $utile it is to try to interpret the sense in which one hal$ o$ each o$ these dichotomies is said to determine the other be$ore comin( to (rips with the practice that rearran(es the boundaries between them. 4 similar problem awaits any reader o$ ar! who insists on lookin( $or a sin(le $i!ed boundary between essence and appearance. 4s ar!*s in)esti(ation into capitalism is lar(ely a study o$ essential connections" the importance o$ this distinction is not in doubt. #he abstraction o$ appearance is relati)ely easy to d etermine. It is simply what strikes us when we look it is what*s on the sur$ace" what*s ob )ious. 'ssence is more problematical. It includes appearance" but (oes beyond it to take in whate)er (i)es any appearance its special character and importance. 4s such" essence (enerally introduces systemic and historical connections -includin( where somethin( seems to be headin( as well as where it has come $rom as p arts o$ what it is. It brin(s into $ocus an e!tended set o$ internal relations. But what (i)es appearances their special importance on any occasion is tied to the particular problem ar! is workin( on. ence" what he calls the essence o$ anythin( )aries somewhat with his purpose. So it is that the essence o$ man" $or e!ample" is said to be" in turn" his acti)ity" his social relations" and the part o$ nature that he appropriates -ar!" ?@N@a" AN ar! and 'n(els" ?@=F" ?@ ?@N@a" ?D=. #he answer that it is all these in their interconnection" an answer that would secure a $i!ed" i$ not necessarily permanent" essence $or human bein(s" misses the point that it is with +essence+ that ar! wishes to sin(le out one set o$ connections as crucial. In the present discussion" what needs to be stressed is that an approach that $ocuses on appearances and constructs its e!planations on this same plane is based on abstractions o$ e!tension composed only o$ appearances. 1ele)ance ends at the hori,on marked o$$ by our sense perceptions. #he rest" i$ not unreal" is tri)iali,ed as unnecessary $or understandin( or dismissed as mystical. 4 major ideolo(ical result o$ the sin(le;minded attention to appearances is an ima(inary re)ersal o$ real relations" as what strikes us immediately (ets taken as responsible
$or the more or less hidden processes that ha)e (i)en rise to it. ar! re$ers to mistakin( appearance $or essence as +$etishism"+ and sees it operatin( throu(hout society" its best;known e!ample bein( the $etishism o$ commodities" where the price o$ thin(s -somethin( e)eryone can obser)e in the market (ets substituted $or the relations between the people who made them -somethin( that can only be (rasped throu(h analysis. ar!" on the other hand" was aided in his in)esti(ation o$ essences by his practice o$ abstractin( units lar(e enou(h to contain them. &or him the absolute di)ision o$ reality into appearance and essence does not e!ist" since his main units o$ analysis include both appearance and essence. #hus" accordin( to ar!" +only when labor is (rasped as the essence o$ pri)ate property can the economic process as such be penetrated in its a ctual concreteness+ -ar!" ?@N@a" ?>@. 5abor" by which ar! means the particular kind o$ producti)e acti)ity that (oes on in capitalism" not only brin(s pri)ate property into e!istence but (i)es it its most distincti)e 3ualities" and hence is essential to what it is. It is only by (oin( beyond the apparent thin( like 3ualities o$ pri)ate property" only by sei,in( its essence in labor -which" a(ain" is dependent on constructin( an abstraction that is lar(e enou(h to contain both in their internal relation" that we can truly (rasp pri)ate property and the capitalist mode o$ production in which it plays such a crucial part. erhaps the classi$ication that has su$$ered the (reatest misunderstandin( as a result o$ readers* e$$orts to arri)e at permanent boundaries is ar!*s class di)ision o$ society. ar!*s abstraction o$ e!tension $or class brin(s to(ether many people but not e)erythin( about them. Its main $ocus is on whate)er it is that both enables and re3uires them to per$orm a particular $unction in the pre)ailin( mode o$ production. ence" ar!*s $re3uent re$erence to capitalists as the +personi$ication+ -or +embodiment+ o$ capital" (rasped as the $unction o$ wealth to e!pand throu(h the e!ploitation o$ wa(e;labor -ar!" ?@N"?D" N" N@>. 4s a comple! relation" howe)er" class contains other aspects" such a s distin(uishin( social and economic conditions -ones that (enerally accompany its position in the mode o$ production" a (roup*s opposition to other similarly constituted (roups" its cultural le)el" its state o$ mind -encompassin( both ideolo(y and de(ree o$ consciousness o$ itsel$ as a class" and $orms o$ inner;class communication and o$ inter;class political stru((le. But how many o$ these aspects ar! actually includes in abstractin( the e!tension o$ class or o$ any one o$ the classes into which he di)ides a society )aries with his problem and purpose at the time. 5ikewise" since all o$ these aspects in their peculiar con$i(uration ha)e e)ol)ed o)er time" there is also a decision to make re(ardin( temporal e!tension" o)er how much o$ this e)olution to abstract in. ow much ar!*s decisions in these matters may di$$er can be seen $rom such apparently contradictory claims as +4ll history is the history o$ class stru((le+ -where class contains a bare minimum o$ its aspects and +Class is the product o$ the bour(eoisie+ -where class is abstracted as a sum o$ all these aspects -ar! and 'n(els" ?@FN" ?? ar! and 'n(els" ?@=F" @E. 6hat class any person belon(s to and e)en the number o$ classes in society are also a$$ected by where e!actly ar! draws his boundaries. #hus" +workin( class"+ $or e!ample" can re$er to e)eryone who is employed by capitalists and the institutions that ser)e them" such as the state" or to all the people who work $or capitalists but also produce )alue -a smaller (roup" or to all the people who not only work $or capitalists and produce )alue but are also or(ani,ed politically as a class -a smaller (roup still. 4s re(ards temporal e!tension" ar! can also abstract a particular (roup to include where they seem to be headin(" to(ether with the new set o$ relations that await them but which they ha)e not yet $ully ac3uired. In the case o$ peasants who a re rapidly losin( their land and o$ small businessmen who are bein( dri)en into bankruptcy" this translates into becomin( wa(e;laborers -ar! and 'n(els" ?@FN" ?=. ence" the class o$ workers is sometimes abstracted broadly enou(h to include them as well" that is" people in the process o$ becomin( workers alon( with those who $unction as workers at this moment. ar!*s well;known re$erence to capitalism as a two;class society is based on his abstractin( all (roups into either workers or capitalists dependin( on where they seem to be headin(" the landlords bein( the major (roup that is mo)in( toward becomin( capitalists. 4bstractin( such lar(e spatial and temporal e!tensions $or class is considered help$ul $or analy,in( a society that is rapidly de)elopin( toward a situation where e)eryone either buys labor;power or sells it.
4t the same time" ar! could abstract much more restricted e!tensions" which allowed him to re$er to a )ariety o$ classes -and $ra(ments o$ classes based on as many social and economic di$$erences between these (roups. In this way" bankers" who are usually treated as a $ra(ment o$ the capitalist class" are sometimes abstracted as a separate moneyed or $inancial class -ar!" ?@=" ?>E. #his helps e!plain why ar! occasionally speaks o$ +rulin( classes+ -plural" a desi(nation that also usually includes landlords" narrowly abstracted -ar! and 'n(els" ?@=F" E@. Ob)iously" $or ar!" arri)in( at a clear;cut" o nce;and;$or;all classi$ication o$ capitalist society into classes is not the aim" which is not to deny that one such classi$ication -that o$ capitalists/landlords/workers enjoys a lar(er role in his work or that one criterion $or determinin( class -a (roup*s relationship to the pre)ailin( mode o$ production is more important. uch to the annoyance o$ his critics" ar! ne)er de$ines +class+ or pro)ides a $ull account o$ the classes in capitalist society. Capital" )olume III" contains a $ew pa(es where ar! appears to ha)e be(un such an account" but it was ne)er completed -ar!" ?@N@b" =>;E. In my )iew" had he $inished these pa(es" most o$ the problems raised by his theory o$ class would remain" $or the e)idence o$ his $le!ibility in abstractin( class is clear and unambi(uous. #hus" rather than lookin( $or what class a person or (roup belon(s to or how many classes ar! sees in capitalist society0the obsession o$ most critics and o$ not a $ew o$ his $ollowers0the rele)ant 3uestion is: +9o we know on any (i)en occasion when ar! uses *class*" or the label associated with any particular class" who he is re$errin( to and why he re$ers to them in this way7+ Only then can the discussion o$ class ad)ance our understandin(" not o$ e)erythin(" but o$ what it is ar! is tryin( to e!plain. It cannot be repeated too o$ten that ar! is chie$ly concerned with the double mo)ement o$ the capitalist mode o$ production" and arran(in( people into classes based on di$$erent thou(h interrelated criteria is a major means $or unco)erin( this mo)ement. 1ather than simply a way o$ re(isterin( social strati$ication as part o$ a $lat description or as a prelude to renderin( a moral jud(ment -thin(s ar! ne)er does" which would re3uire a stable unit" class helps ar! to analy,e a chan(in( situation in which it is itsel$ an inte(ral and chan(in( part -Ollman" ?@A" chapter >. Besides makin( possible his theory o$ identity and the )arious classi$ications that mark his theories" ar!*s practice o$ abstractin( broad e!tensions $or his units also enables him to capture in thou(ht the )arious real mo)ements that he sets out to in)esti(ate. In order to (rasp thin(s +as they really are and happen"+ ar!*s stated aim" in order to trace their happenin( accurately and (i)e it its due wei(ht in the system-s to which it belon(s" ar! e!tends his abstractions0as we saw0to include how thin(s happen as part o$ what they are -ar! and 'n(els" ?@=F" NA. 2ntil now" chan(e has been dealt with in a )ery (eneral way. 6hat I ha)e labeled the double mo)ement -or(anic and historical o$ the capitalist mode o$ production" howe)er" can only be $ully understood by breakin( it down into a number o$ sub;mo)ements" the most important o$ which are 3uantity/3uality" metamorphosis and contradiction.E #hese are some o$ the main ways in which thin(s mo)e or happen they are $orms o$ chan(e. Or(ani,in( becomin( and time itsel$ into reco(ni,able se3uences" they are some o$ the pathways that brin( order to the $low o$ e)ents. 4s such" they help structure all o$ ar!*s theories" and are indispensable to his account o$ how capitalism works" how it de)eloped" and where it is tendin(. Ruantity/3uality chan(e is a historical mo)ement encompassin( both buildup and what it leads to. One or more o$ the aspects that constitute any process;cum;1elation (ets lar(er -or smaller" increases -or decreases in number" etc. #hen" with the attainment o$ a critical mass0which is di$$erent $or each entity studied0a 3ualitati)e trans$ormation occurs" understood as a chan(e in appearance and/or $unction. In this way" ar! notes" money becomes capital" i.e." ac3uires the ability to buy labor;power and produce )alue only when it reaches a certain amount -ar!" ?@N" EDA;. In order $or such chan(e to appear as an instance o$ the trans$ormation o$ 3uantity into 3uality" ar!*s abstractions ha)e to contain the main aspects whose 3uantitati)e chan(e is destined to tri((er o$$ the comin( 3ualitati)e chan(e as well as the new appearances and/or $unctions embodied in the latter" and all this $or the time it takes $or this to occur. 4bstractin(
anythin( less runs the risk o$ $irst dismissin( and then missin( the comin( 3ualitati)e chan(e and/or misconstruin( it when it happens" three $re3uent errors associated with bour(eois ideolo(y. etamorphosis is an or(anic mo)ement o$ interaction within a system in which 3ualities -occasionally appearances but usually $unctions o$ one part (et trans$erred to other parts so that the latter can be re$erred to as $orms o$ the $ormer. In the key distin(uishin( mo)ement in ar!*s labor theory o$ )alue" )alue0throu(h its production by alienated labor and entry into the market0 (ets metamorphosed into commodity" money" capital" wa(es" pro$it" rent" and interest. #he metamorphosis o$ )alue takes place in two circuits. 6hat ar! calls the +real metamorphosis+ occurs in the production process proper" where commodities are trans$ormed into capital and means o$ subsistence" both $orms o$ )alue" which are then used to make more commodities. 4 second circuit" or +$ormal metamorphosis"+ occurs where the commodity is e!chan(ed $or money" another $orm o$ )alue and" on one occasion" ar! (oes so $ar as to e3uate +metamorphosed into+ and +e!chan(ed $or+ -ar!" ?@AE" ?=. #he )alue o)er and abo)e what (ets returned to the workers as wa(es" or what ar! calls +surplus;)alue"+ under(oes a parallel metamorphosis as it (ets trans$erred to (roups with )arious claims on it" appearin( as rent" interest" and pro$it. In both real and $ormal metamorphosis" new $orms are si(naled by a chan(e in who possesses the )alue and in how it appears and $unctions $or them" i.e." as a means o$ subsistence" a means o$ producin( more )alue" a means o$ buyin( commodities" etc. In metamorphosis" a process is abstracted that is lar(e enou(h to include both what is chan(in( and what it is chan(in( into" makin( the trans$ormation o$ one into the other an internal mo)ement. #hus" when )alue metamorphoses into commodity or money" $or e!ample" the latter assume some o$ the alienated relationships embodied in )alue0somewhat altered due to their new location0as their own" and this is seen as a later sta(e in the de)elopment o$ )alue itsel$. Otherwise" operatin( with smaller abstractions" commodity or money could ne)er actually become )alue" and speakin( o$ them as +$orms+ o$ )alue could only be understood metaphorically. #he essentially synchronic character o$ metamorphosis" no matter the number o$ steps in)ol)ed" is also dependent on the si,e o$ the abstraction used. #o some it may appear that the )arious phases in the metamorphosis o$ )alue occur one a$ter a nother" serially" but this is to assume a brie$ duration $or each phase. 6hen" howe)er" all the phases o$ this metamorphosis are abstracted as on(oin(" as ar! does in the case o$ )alue0usually as aspects o$ production abstracted as reproduction0then all phases o$ the cycle are seen as occurrin( simultaneously -ar!" ?@A?" >A@;D. ')ents occur simultaneously or in se3uence dependin( on the temporal e!tension o$ the units in)ol)ed. 6hen ar! re$ers to all the production that (oes on in the same year as simultaneous production" all its causes and e$$ects are )iewed as takin( place at the same time" as parts o$ a sin(le interaction -ar!" ?@=" FA?. #o (rasp any or(anic mo)ement as such" it is simply that one must allow enou(h time $or the interactions in)ol)ed to work themsel)es out. Stoppin( too soon" which means abstractin( too short a period $or each phase" lea)es one with an incompleted piece o$ the interaction" and inclines one to mistake what is an or(anic tie $or a causal one. In sum" metamorphosis" as ar! understands it" is only possible on the basis o$ an abstraction o$ e!tension that is su$$iciently lar(e to encompass the trans$er o$ 3ualities $rom one element in an interaction to others o)er time" which assumes a particular theory o$ $orms -mo)ement is re(istered throu(h elements becomin( $orms o$ one another" which assumes in turn a particular theory o$ identity -each $orm is both identical to and di$$erent $rom the others" that is itsel$ a necessary corollary o$ the philosophy o$ internal relations -the basic unit o$ reality is not a thin( but a relation. I$ 3uantity/3uality is essentially a historical mo)ement and metamorphosis an or(anic one" then contradiction has elements o$ both. 4s a union o$ two or more processes that are simultaneously supportin( and underminin( one another" a contradiction combines $i)e distinct thou(h closely
intertwined mo)ements. But be$ore detailin( what they are" it is worth stressin( once a(ain the crucial role played by ar!*s philosophy o$ internal relations. 4s re(ards contradictions" 'n(els says" +So lon( as we consider thin(s as static and li$eless" each one by itsel$" alon(side o$ and a$ter each other" it is true that we do not run up a(ainst any contradiction in them. 6e $ind certain 3ualities which are partly common to" partly di)erse $rom" and e)en contradictory to each other" but which in this case are distributed amon( di$$erent objects and there$ore contain no contradiction . . . But the position is 3uite di$$erent as soon as we consider thin(s in their motion" their chan(e" their li$e" their reciprocal in$luence on one another. #hen we immediately become in)ol)ed in contradictions+ -y emphasis -'n(els" ?@EF" ?EN. 'lsewhere" re$errin( to the bour(eois economists* treatment o$ rent" pro$it" and wa(es" ar! a sserts where there is +no inner connection"+ there can be no +hostile connection"+ no +contradiction+ -ar!" ?@A?" NDE. Only when apparently di$$erent elements are (rasped as aspects o$ the same unit as it e)ol)es o)er time can certain o$ their $eatures be abstracted as a contradiction. O$ the $i)e mo)ements $ound in contradiction" the two most important ones are the mo)ements o$ mutual support and mutual underminin(. ullin( in opposite directions" each o$ these mo)ements e!ercises a constant" i$ not e)en or always e)ident" pressure on e)ents. #he uneasy e3uilibrium that results lasts until one or the other o$ these mo)ements predominates. In the contradiction between capital and labor" $or e!ample" capital" bein( what it is" helps brin( into e!istence labor o$ a )ery special kind" that is alienated labor" that will best ser)e its needs as capital. 6hile labor" as the production o$ (oods intended $or the market" helps $ashion capital in a $orm that enables it to continue its e!ploitation o$ labor. owe)er" capital and labor also possess 3ualities that e!ert pressure in the opposite direction. 6ith its un3uenchable thirst $or surplus; )alue" capital would dri)e labor to e!haustion. 6hile labor" with its inherent tendencies toward workin( less hours" in better conditions" etc." would render capital unpro$itable. #o a)oid the temptation o$ misrepresentin( contradiction as a simple opposition" tension" or dys$unction -common ideolo(ical errors" it is essential that the chie$ mo)ements that reproduce the e!istin( e3uilibrium as well as those that tend to undermine it be brou(ht into the same o)erarchin( abstraction. 4 third mo)ement present in contradictions is the immanent un$oldin( o$ the processes that make up the +le(s+ o$ any contradiction. In this way" a contradiction becomes bi((er" sharper" more e!plosi)e both supportin( and underminin( mo)ements become more intense" thou(h not necessarily to the same de(ree. 4ccordin( to ar!" the capitalist contradictions +o$ use;)alue and e!chan(e;)alue" commodity and money" capital and wa(e;labor" etc." assume e)er (reater dimensions as producti)e power de)elops+ -ar!" ?@A?" NN. #he )ery (rowth o$ the system that contains these contradictions leads to their own (rowth. 4 $ourth mo)ement $ound in contradictions is the chan(e in o)erall $orm that many under(o throu(h their interaction with other processes in the lar(er system o$ which they are part. O$ the contradiction between use and e!chan(e;)alue" ar! says it +de)elops $urther" presents itsel$ and mani$ests itsel$ in the duplication o$ the commodity into commodity and money. #his duplication appears as a process in the metamorphosis o$ commodity in which sellin( and buyin( are di$$erent aspects o$ a sin(le process and each act o$ this process simultaneously includes its opposite+ -ar!" ?@A?" . #he same contradictions seem to under(o still another metamorphosis: the contradictions in commodity and money" which de)elop in circulation" are said +to reproduce themsel)es+ in capital -ar!" ?@=" N?>. #he contradiction between use and e!chan(e;)alue with which we be(an has mo)ed" been trans$erred" into the relation between commodity and money" and $rom there into capital. #his mo)ement is similar to what occurs in the metamorphosis o$ )alue0the systemic interactions are the same. '!cept here it is an entire contradiction that (ets metamorphosed. #he $i$th and $inal mo)ement contained in contradiction occurs in its resolution when one side o)erwhelms what has hitherto been holdin( it in check" trans$ormin( both itsel$ and all its relationships in the process. #he resolution o$ a contradiction can be o$ two sorts" e ither
temporary and partial or permanent and total. 4n economic crisis is an e!ample o$ the $irst. ar! re$ers to crises as +essential outbursts . . . o$ the immanent contradictions+ -ar!" ?@A?" NN. #he pree!istin( e3uilibrium has broken down" and a new one composed o$ reco(ni,ably similar elements" usually with the addition o$ some new elements" is in the process o$ replacin( it. 4 partial resolution o$ a contradiction is more in the order o$ a readjustment" $or it can also be said here that the old contradiction has been raised to a new and hi(her sta(e. In the case o$ simple economic crises" where economic breakdown is $ollowed sooner o r later by a renewed burst o$ accumulation" the initial contradictions are e!panded to include more thin(s" a lar(er area o$ the (lobe" more people" and a more hi(hly de)eloped technolo(y. 'ssentially" the stakes ha)e been raised $or the ne!t time around. 4 permanent and total resolution occurs when the elements in contradiction under(o major 3ualitati)e chan(e" trans$ormin( all their relations to one another as well as the lar(er system o$ which they are a part. 4n economic crisis that (i)es rise to a political and social re)olution is an e!ample o$ this. ere" the initial contradictions ha)e mo)ed well beyond what they once were" and are o$ten so di$$erent that it may be di$$icult to reconstruct their earlier $orms. 6hat determines whether the resolution o$ a contradiction will be partial or total" o$ course" is not its dialectical $orm" the $act that di$$erences (et abstracted as contradictions" but its real content. owe)er" such content is unlikely to re)eal its secret to anyone who cannot read it as a contradiction. By includin( the underminin( interaction o$ mutually dependent processes in the same unit" by e!pandin( this unit to take in how such interaction has de)eloped and where it is tendin( -its metamorphosis throu(h di$$erent $orms and e)entual resolution" it is ar!*s broad abstractions o$ e!tension that make it p ossible to (rasp these )aried mo)ements as internal and necessary elements o$ a sin(le contradiction. &inally" ar!*s lar(e abstractions o$ e!tension also account $or how the same $actor" as indicated by its proper name" can contain two or more contradictions. Commodity" $or e!ample" is said to embody the contradiction between use and e!chan(e;)alue as well as the contradiction between pri)ate and social labor. #o contain both contradictions" commodity must be (i)en a lar(e enou(h e!tension to include the interaction between the two aspects o$ )alue as well as the interaction between the two aspects o$ labor" and both o$ them as they de)elop o)er time -ar!" ?@A?" ?ED.
E. Other important dialectical mo)ements are mediation" interpenetration o$ polar opposites" ne(ation o$ the ne(ation" precondition and result" and unity and separation. '!cept $or +pre; condition and result"+ the main subject o$ the ne!t chapter" these mo)ements will recei)e $uller treatment in my ne!t book on dialectics. &or now" it is su$$icient to point out that the role that abstraction plays in constructin( and helpin( to make )isible the mo)ements o$ 3uantity/3uality chan(e" metamorphosis" and contradiction applies e3ually to them.
I 5e)el o$ Henerality #he second main aspect o$ ar!*s process o$ abstraction" or mode in which it occurs" is the abstraction o$ le)el o$ (enerality. In his un$inished Introduction to the Criti3ue o$ olitical 'conomy" ar!*s only systematic attempt to present his method" (reat care is taken to distin(uish +production+ $rom +production in (eneral+ -ar!" ?@DF" >=;AF. #he $ormer takes place in a particular society" capitalism" and includes as part o$ what it is all the relations o$ this society that enable it to appear and $unction as it does. +roduction in (eneral"+ on the other hand" re$ers to whate)er it is that work in all societies ha)e in common0chie$ly the purposi)e acti)ity o$ human bein(s in trans$ormin( nature to satis$y human needs0lea)in( out e)erythin( that distin(uishes di$$erent social $orms o$ production $rom one another. ar! makes a $urther distinction within capitalist production between +production as a whole"+
what applies to all kinds o$ production within capitalism" and +production as a speci$ic branch o$ industry"+ or what applies only to production in that industry -ar!" ?@DF" >AD. It is clear that more than a chan(e in e!tension is in)ol)ed in makin( these distinctions" especially the $irst one. #he relations o$ producti)e acti)ity with those who en(a(e in it as well as with its product are internal relations in both cases" but production in capitalism is united with the distincti)e capitalist $orms o$ producers and their products" while production in (eneral is united with them in $orms that share its own 3uality as a lowest common denominator. #he abstraction ar! makes in mo)in( $rom capitalist production to production in (eneral then is not one o$ e!tension but one o$ le)el o$ (enerality. It is a mo)e $rom a more speci$ic understandin( o$ production that brin(s into $ocus the whole network o$ e3ually speci$ic 3ualities in which it $unctions -and with it the period o$ capitalism in which all this takes place to a more (eneral understandin( o$ production that brin(s into $ocus the e3ually (eneral state o$ those conditions in which it occurs -alon( with the whole o$ human history as the period in which these 3ualities are $ound. Somethin( )ery similar is in)ol)ed in the distinction ar! makes between +production as a whole+ and +production in a particular branch o$ industry"+ thou(h the mo)ement here is away $rom what is more (eneral in the direction o$ what is more speci$ic. ow a particular branch o$ industry0car manu$acturin(" $or e!ample0appears and $unctions in)ol)es a set o$ conditions that $all substantially short o$ applyin( to the entire capitalist epoch. 6hat appears super$icially like a whole;part distinction is0like the earlier distinction between +capitalist production+ and +production in (eneral+0one o$ le)els o$ (enerality. Both capitalist production -or production as a whole and production in a particular industry are internally related to the rest o$ society" but each brin(s into $ocus a di$$erent period o$ history" the capitalist epoch in one case and what mi(ht be called +modern capitalism"+ or that period in which this branch o$ production has $unctioned in just this way" in the other. In this Introduction" ar! comes out in $a)or o$ concentratin( on production in its current historical $orms" that is" on capitalist and modern capitalist production" and critici,es the political economists $or contentin( themsel)es with production in (eneral when tryin( to analy,e what is happenin( here and now. #hen" $allin( $or the all too common error o$ mistakin( what is more (eneral $or what is more pro$ound" the political economists treat the (enerali,ations they ha)e deri)ed $rom e!aminin( di$$erent social $ormations as the most important truths about each particular society in turn" and e)en as the cause o$ phenomena that are peculiar to each one. In this way" $or e!ample" the (eneral truth that production in any society makes use o$ material nature" the most (eneral $orm o$ property" is o$$ered as an e!planation and e)en a justi$ication $or how wealth (ets distributed in capitalist society" where people who own property claim a ri(ht to part o$ what (ets produced with its help -ar!" ?@DF" >A?;A>. 6hile ar!*s discussion o$ the po litical economists in this Introduction oscillates between modern capitalism" capitalism as such" and the human condition" much o$ what he says elsewhere shows that he can operate on still other le)els o$ (enerality" and there$ore that a more comple! breakdown o$ what are in $act de(rees o$ (enerality is re3uired. Be$ore o$$erin( such a breakdown" I want to make it clear that the boundary lines that $ollow are all su((ested by ar!*s own practice in abstractin(" a practice that is lar(ely determined by his aim o$ capturin( the double mo)ement o$ the capitalist mode o$ production. In other words" there is nothin( absolute about the particular di)isions I ha)e settled on. Other maps o$ le)els o$ (enerality could be drawn" and $or other kinds o$ problems they could be )ery use$ul. %eepin( this in mind" there a re se)en major le)els o$ (enerality into which ar! subdi)ides the world" se)en plains o$ comprehension on which he places all the problems he in)esti(ates" se)en di$$erent $oci $or or(ani,in( e)erythin( that is. Startin( $rom the most speci$ic" there is the le)el made up o$ whate)er is uni3ue about a person and situation. It*s all that makes
or howe)er lon( what is uni3ue lasts" is brou(ht into $ocus. 5e)el two distin(uishes what is (eneral to people" their acti)ities" and products because they e!ist and $unction within modern capitalism" understood as the last twenty to $i$ty years. ere" the uni3ue 3ualities that justi$y usin( proper names" such as
biolo(ical or chemical or atomic properties. 4ll such properties e!ist to(ether" but one cannot see or study them at the same time. #he si(ni$icance o$ this obser)ation is e)ident when we consider that all the problems $rom which we su$$er and e)erythin( that (oes into sol)in( them or keepin( them $rom bein( sol)ed is made up o$ 3ualities that can only be brou(ht into $ocus on one or another o$ these di$$erent le)els o$ (enerality. 2n$oldin( as they do o)er time" these 3ualities can also be )iewed as mo)ements and pressures o$ one sort or another0whether or(ani,ed into tendencies" metamorphoses" contradictions" etc.0that taken to(ether pretty well d etermine our e!istence. Conse3uently" it is essential" in order to understand any particular problem" to abstract a le)el o$ (enerality that brin(s the characteristics chie$ly responsible $or this problem into $ocus. 6e ha)e already seen ar! declare that because the classical political economists abstract production at the le)el o$ (enerality o$ the human condition -le)el $i)e they cannot (rasp the character o$ distribution in capitalist society -le)el three. 4 similar situation e!ists today with the study o$ power in political science. #he dynamics o$ any power relationship lies in the historically speci$ic conditions in which the people in)ol)ed li)e and work. #o abstract the bare relation o$ power $rom these conditions in order to arri)e at conclusions about +power in (eneral+ -le)el $i)e" as many political scientists and an increasin( number o$ social mo)ement theorists ha)e done" ensures that e)ery particular e!ercise o$ power will be out o$ $ocus and its distincti)e $eatures under)alued and/or misunderstood. Hi)en ar!*s special interest in unco)erin( the double mo)ement o$ the capitalist mode o$ production" most o$ what he writes on man and society $alls on le)el three. 4bstractions such as +capital"+ +)alue"+ +commodity"+ +labor"+ and +workin( class"+ whate)er their e!tensions" brin( out the 3ualities that these people" acti)ities" and products po ssess as part o$ capitalism. re; and post;capitalist de)elopments come into the analysis done on this le)el as the ori(ins and likely $utures o$ these capitalist 3ualities. 6hat ar! re$ers to in his Hrundrisse as +pre;capitalist economic $ormations+ -the apt title o$ an 'n(lish translation o$ some historical material taken $rom this lon(er work are just that -ar!" ?@AE" FA?;N?E. #he social $ormations that preceded capitalism are mainly )iewed and studied here as early moments o$ capitalism abstracted as a process" as its ori(ins e!tendin( back be$ore enou(h o$ its distincti)e structures had emer(ed to justi$y the use o$ the label +capitalism.+ ar! also abstracts his subject matter on le)els two -modern capitalism and $our -class society" thou(h this is much less $re3uent. 6here ar! operates on the le)el o$ (enerality o$ class society" capitalism" $eudalism" and sla)e society are e!amined with a )iew to what they ha)e in common. Studies in $eudalism on this le)el o$ (enerality emphasi,e the di)ision o$ labor and the stru((le between the classes that it (i)es rise to" as compared to the breakdown o$ the conditions underlyin( $eudal production that (ets most o$ the attention when e!aminin( $eudalism as part o$ the ori(ins o$ capitalism" that is on le)el three -ar!" ?@N" art III. 4n e!ample o$ ar! operatin( on le)el two" modern capitalism" can be $ound in his discussion o$ economic crisis. 4$ter e!aminin( the )arious ways that the capitalist system" (i)en what it is and how it works" could break down" that is a$ter analy,in( it on the le)el o$ capitalism as such -le)el three" he then shows h ow these possibilities (ot actuali,ed in the immediate past" in what was $or him modern or de)eloped capitalism -ar!" ?@=" F@>;NEN. #o e!plain why the last $ew crises occurred in just the ways they did" he has to brin( into $ocus the 3ualities that apply to this particular time period and these particular places" that is recent economic" social" and political history in speci$ic countries. #his is also an e!ample o$ how ar!*s analysis can play o$$ two or more di$$erent le)els o$ (enerali,ation" treatin( what he $inds on the more speci$ic le)el as the actuali,ation o$ one amon( se)eral possibilities present on the more (eneral le)el-s. It is instructi)e to compare ar!*s studies o$ man and society conducted on le)els two" three" and $our -chie$ly three" capitalism with studies in the social sciences and also with common sense thinkin( about these subjects" which typically operate on le)els one -the uni3ue and $i)e -the human condition. 6here ar! usually abstracts human bein(s" $or e!ample" as classes -as a class on le)el $our" as one o$ the main classes that emer(e $rom capitalist relations o$ production
0workers" capitalists" and sometimes landowners0on le)el three" and as one o$ the many classes and $ra(ments o$ classes that e!ist in a particular country in the most recent period on le)el two" most non;ar!ists abstract people as uni3ue indi)iduals" where e)eryone has a proper name -le)el one" or as a member o$ the human species -le)el $i)e. In proceedin( in their thinkin( directly $rom le)el one to le)el $i)e" they may ne)er e)en percei)e" and hence ha)e no di$$iculty in denyin(" the )ery e!istence o$ classes. But the 3uestion is not which o$ these di$$erent abstractions is true. #hey all are in so $ar as people possess 3ualities that $all on each o$ these le)els o$ (enerality. #he rele)ant 3uestion is: which is the appropriate abstraction $or dealin( with a particular set o$ problems7 &or e!ample" i$ social and economic ine3uality" e!ploitation" unemployment" social alienation" and imperialist wars are due in lar(e part to conditions associated with capitalist society" then they can only be understood and dealt with throu(h the use o$ abstractions that brin( out their capitalist 3ualities. 4nd that in)ol)es" amon( other thin(s" abstractin( people as capitalists and workers. Mot to do so" to insist on stickin( to le)els one and $i)e" lea)es one blamin( particular indi)iduals -a bad boss" an e)il president or human nature as such $or these problems. #o complete the picture" it must be admitted that ar! occasionally abstracts phenomena" includin( people" on le)els one and $i)e. #here are discussions o$ speci$ic indi)iduals" such as Mapoleon III and almerston" where he $ocuses on the 3ualities that make these people di$$erent" and some attention is (i)en" especially in his earliest writin(s" to 3ualities that all human bein(s ha)e in common" to human nature in (eneral. But not only are such di(ressions an e !ception" more important $or our purposes is that ar! seldom allows the 3ualities that come $rom these two le)els to enter into his e!planation o$ social phenomena. #hus" when H. 9. . Cole $aults ar! $or makin( classes more real than indi)iduals" or Carol Hould says indi)iduals enjoy an ontolo(ical priority in ar!ism" or" con)ersely" 4lthusser denies the indi)idual any theoretical space in ar!ism whatsoe)er" they are all misconstruin( the nature o$ a system that has places0 le)els o$ (enerality0$or indi)iduals" classes" and the human species -Cole" ?@==" ?? Hould" ?@D" EE 4lthusser" ?@==" >>N;N. #he )ery idea o$ attributin( an ontolo(ical priority to either indi)iduals" class" or the species assumes an absolute separation between them that is belied by ar!*s conception o$ man as a 1elation with 3ualities that $all on d i$$erent le)els o$ (enerality. Mone o$ these ways o$ thinkin( about human bein(s is more real or more $undamental than the others. I$" despite this" class remains ar!*s pre$erred abstraction $or treatin( human bein(s" it is only because o$ its necessary ties to the kind" ran(e" and abo)e a ll le)els o$ (enerality o$ the phenomena he seeks to e!plain. It is not only the abstractions in which we think about people but also how we or(ani,e our thinkin( within each o$ these abstractions that can be set apart on the basis o$ le)els o$ (enerality. Belie$s" attitudes" and intentions" $or e!ample" are properties o$ the uni3ue indi)iduals who inhabit le)el one. Social relations and interests are the main 3ualities o$ the classes and $ra(ments o$ classes who occupy le)els two" three" and $our. owers" needs" and beha)ior belon( to human nature as such" while instincts apply to people as part o$ human nature but also in their identity as animals. #hou(h there is some mo)ement across le)el boundaries in the use o$ these concepts0 and some concepts" such as +consciousness"+ that apply in a somewhat di$$erent sense on se)eral le)els0their use is usually a (ood indication o$ the le)el o$ (enerality on which a particular study $alls" and hence" too" o$ the kind o$ problems that can be addressed. 4n inte(rated conception o$ human nature that makes $ull use o$ all these concepts" which is to say that or(anically connects up the study o$ people comin( $rom each o$ these le)els o$ (enerality" remains to be done. By $ocusin( on di$$erent 3ualities o$ people" each le)el o$ (enerality also contains distincti)e ways o$ di)idin( up humanity" and with that its own kinds o$ oppression based on these di)isions. '!ploitation" $or e!ample" re$ers to the e!traction o$ surplus;)alue $rom workers by capitalists that is based on a le)el three di)ision o$ society into workers and capitalists. #here$ore" as a $orm o$ oppression" it is speci$ic to capitalism. #he human condition" le)el $i)e" brin(s out what all people share as members o$ our species. #he only kind o$ oppression that can e!ist here comes $rom
outside the species and is directed a(ainst e)eryone. #he destruction o$ the ecolo(ical conditions necessary $or human li$e is an e!ample o$ an oppression a(ainst people that $alls on this le)el o$ (enerality. 6here certain classes0such as the capitalists throu(h their sin(le;minded pursuit o$ pro$it0contribute to this destruction" this only si(nals that this particular oppression must be studied and $ou(ht on two or more le)els. 5e)el $our" which is marked by a whole series o$ distinctions between people that are rooted in the di)ision between mental and manual work" enables us to see the be(innin( o$ oppressions based on class" nation" race" reli(ion" and (ender. #hou(h racial and (ender di$$erences ob)iously e!isted be$ore the onset o$ class society" it is only with the di)ision between those who produce wealth and those who direct its production that these di$$erences become the basis $or the distincti)e $orms o$ oppression associated with racism and patriarchy. 6ith the appearance o$ di$$erent relationships to the pre)ailin( mode o$ production and the contradictory interests they (enerate" with mutual indi$$erence replacin( the mutual concern that was characteristic o$ an earlier time when e)erythin( was owned in common" and with the creation o$ a (rowin( surplus that e)eryone wishes to possess -because no one has enou(h" all manner o$ oppressions based on both the e!istin( and new di)isions o$ society become possible and $or the rulin( economic class e!tremely use$ul. 1acism" patriarchy" reli(ion" nationalism" etc. become the most e$$ecti)e ways o$ rationali,in( these oppressi)e economic practices" whose underlyin( conditions they h elp o)er time to reproduce. 2pon $re3uent repetition" they also sink deep roots into people*s minds and emotions and ac3uire a relati)e autonomy $rom the situation in which they ori(inated" which makes it increasin(ly di$$icult $or those a$$ected to reco(ni,e the crucial economic role that these di$$erent oppressions continue to play. #o be sure" all the oppressions associated with class society also ha)e their capitalist speci$ic $orms and intensities ha)in( to do with their place and $unction in capitalism as a particular $orm o$ class society" but the main relations that underlie and (i)e $orce to these oppressions come $rom class society as such. Conse3uently" the abolition o$ capitalism will not do away with an y o$ these oppressions" only with their capitalist $orms. 'ndin( racism" patriarchy" nationalism" etc." in all their $orms and completely can only occur when class society itsel$ is abolished" and in particular with the end o$ the di)ision between mental and manual labor" a world historical chan(e that could only occur" ar! belie)es" with the arri)al o$ $ull communism. I$ all o$ ar!*s abstractions in)ol)e0as I ha)e ar(ued0a le)el o$ (enerality as well as an e!tension" i$ each le)el o$ (enerality or(ani,es and e)en prescribes to some de(ree the analyses made with its help" that is in its terms" i$ ar! abstracts this man y le)els o$ (enerality in order to (et at di$$erent" thou(h related problems -e)en thou(h his abstraction o$ capitalism as such" le)el three" is the decisi)e one0then the conclusions o$ his studies" the theories o$ ar!ism" are all located on one or another o$ these le)els and must be )iewed accordin(ly i$ they are to be correctly understood" e)aluated" and" where necessary" re)ised. ar!*s labor theory o$ )alue" $or e!ample" is chie$ly an attempt to e!plain why all the products o$ human producti)e acti)ity in capitalist society ha)e a price" not why a particular product costs such and such" but why it costs anythin( at all. #hat e)erythin( humans produce has a price is an e!traordinary phenomenon peculiar to the capitalist era" whose social implications are e)en more pro$ound because most people )iew it ahistorically" simply takin( it $or (ranted. ar!*s entire account o$ this phenomenon" which includes the history o$ how a society in which all products ha)e a price has e)ol)ed" takes place on the le)el o$ (enerality o$ capitalism as such" which means that he only deals with the 3ualities o$ people" their acti)ities" and products in the $orms they assume in capitalism o)erall. #he $re3uent criticism one hears o$ this theory that it doesn*t take account o$ competition in real marketplaces and" there$ore" cannot e!plain actual prices is simply o$$ the point" that is the more (eneral point that ar! is tryin( to make. #o account $or the $act that a (i)en pair o$ shoes costs e!actly $i$ty dollars" $or e!ample" one has to abstract in 3ualities o$ both modern capitalism -le)el two and the here and now -le)el one in a way that takes us well beyond ar!*s initial project. In Capital" )olume III" ar! makes some
e$$ort to re;abstract the phenomena that enter into his labor theory o$ )alue on the le)el o$ modern capitalism" and here he does discuss the role o$ competition amon( both buyers and sellers in a$$ectin( actual prices. Still" the con$usion $rom which innumerable economists ha)e su$$ered o)er what has been labeled the +trans$ormation problem+ -the trans$ormation o$ )alues into prices disappears once we reco(ni,e that it is a matter o$ relatin( analyses $rom two di$$erent le)els o$ (enerality and that ar! (i)es o)erridin( attention to the $irst" capitalism" and relati)ely little attention to the second" which un$ortunately is the only le)el that interests most non;ar!ist economists. #he theory o$ alienation o$$ers another strikin( e!ample o$ the need to locate ar!*s theories on particular le)els o$ (enerality i$ they are not to be distorted. ar!*s description o$ the se)ered connections between man and his producti)e acti)ity" products" other people" and the species that lies at the core o$ this theory $alls o n two di$$erent le)els o$ (enerality: capitalism -le)el three and class society -le)el $our. In his earliest writin(s" this drama o$ separation is (enerally played out in terms o$ +di)ision o$ labor+ and +pri)ate property+ -le)el $our. It is clear e)en $rom this more (eneral account that alienation reaches its ,enith in capitalist society" but the $ocus is on the class conte!t to which capitalism belon(s and n ot on capitalism as such. ere" capitalism is not so much +it+ as the outstandin( e!ample o$ +it.+ -Incidentally" this conclusion calls $or a modi$ication in the subtitle o$ my earlier work 4lienation" which has as its subtitle ar!*s Conception o$ an in Capitalist Society. In later writin(s" as ar!*s concern shi$ts increasin(ly to unco)erin( the double motion o$ the capitalist mode o$ production" the theory o$ alienation (ets raised to the le)el o$ (enerality o$ capitalism -le)el three. #he $ocus now is on producti)e acti)ity and its products in their capitalist speci$ic $orms" i.e." on labor" commodity" and )alue and the mysti$ication that has accompanied pri)ate property throu(hout class history (ets up(raded to the $etishism o$ commodities -and )alues. #he broader theory o$ alienation remains in $orce. #he conte!t o$ class society in which capitalism is situated has not chan(ed its spots" but now ar! has de)eloped a )ersion o$ the theory that can be better inte(rated into his analysis o$ capitalist dynamics. 6ith the introduction o$ this notion o$ le)els o$ (enerality" some o$ the major disputes re(ardin( ar!*s theory o$ alienation0whether it is mainly concerned with class history or with capitalism" and how and to what de(ree ar! used this theory in his later writin(s0are easily resol)ed. But it is not just ar!*s theories that must be placed on particular le)els o$ (enerality to be correctly understood. #he same applies to )irtually all o$ his statements. &or e!ample" what is the relation between the claim we ha)e already met in another conte!t that +4ll history [later 3uali$ied to class history] is the history o$ class stru((le+ and the claim that +class is the product o$ the bour(eoisie+ -ar! and 'n(els" ?@FN" ?> ar! and 'n(els" ?@=F" AA7 I$ +class+ in both instances re$ers to 3ualities on the same le)el o$ (enerality" then only one o$ these claims can be true" that is" either class has e!isted o)er the past $i)e to ten thousand years o$ human history or it only came into e!istence with capitalism" $our to $i)e hundred years a(o. owe)er" i$ we understand ar! as $ocusin( on the 3ualities common to all classes in the last $i)e to ten thousand years -on le)el $our in the $irst claim" and on the distincti)e 3ualities classes ha)e ac3uired in the capitalist epoch -on le)el three in the second -that which makes them more $ully classes" in)ol)in( mainly de)elopment in or(ani,ation" communication" alienation and consciousness" then the two claims are compatible. Because so many o$ ar!*s concepts 0+class+ and +production+ bein( perhaps the outstandin( e!amples0are used to con)ey abstractions on more than one le)el o$ (enerality" the kind o$ con$usion (enerated by such apparent contradictions is all too common. ar!*s remarks on history are especially )ulnerable to bein( misunderstood unless they are placed on one or another o$ these le)els o$ (enerality. #he role ar! attributes to production and economics (enerally" $or e!ample" di$$ers somewhat" dependin( on whether the $ocus is on capitalism -includin( its distincti)e ori(ins" modern capitalism -the same" class societies -the same" or human societies-the same. Startin( with human societies" the special importance ar! accords to production is based on the $act that one has to do what is necessary in order to
sur)i)e be$ore attemptin( anythin( else" that production limits the ran(e o$ material choices a)ailable just as" o)er time" it helps to trans$orm them" and that production is the major acti)ity which (i)es e!pression to and helps to de)elop our peculiarly human powers and needs -ar!" ?@N" ?E;F ar! and 'n(els" ?@=F" ??A Ollman" ?@A=" @;?D?. In class society" production plays its decisi)e role primarily throu(h +the direct relationship o$ the owners o$ the conditions o$ production to the direct di)ision o$ labor that comes into bein( in this period and producers+ -ar!" ?@N@b" AA>. It is also on this le)el that the interaction between the $orces and class based relations o$ production come into $ocus. In capitalism" the special role o$ production is shared by e)erythin( that (oes into the process o$ capital accumulation -ar!" ?@N" art III. In modern capitalism" it is usually what has happened recently in a particular sector o$ capitalist production in a (i)en country -like the de)elopment o$ railroads in India durin( ar!*s time that is treated as decisi)e -ar! and 'n(els" n.d." A@. 'ach o$ these interpretations o$ the predominant role o$ production applies only to the le)el o$ (enerality that it brin(s into $ocus. Mo sin(le interpretation comes close to accountin( $or all that ar! belie)es needs to be e!plained" which is probably why" on one occasion" ar! denies that he has any theory o$ history whatsoe)er -ar! and 'n(els" ?@N>" >A. It mi(ht be more accurate" howe)er" to say that he has $our complementary theories o$ history" one $or history as abstracted on each o$ these $our le)els o$ (enerality. #he e$$ort by most o$ ar!*s $ollowers and )irtually all o$ his critics to encapsulate the materialist conception o$ history into a sin(le (enerali,ation re(ardin( the role o$ production -or economics has ne)er succeeded" there$ore" because it could not succeed. &inally" the )arious mo)ements ar! in)esti(ates" some o$ which were discussed under abstraction o$ e!tension" are also located on particular le)els o$ (enerality. #hat is" like e)erythin( else" these mo)ements are composed o$ 3ualities that are uni3ue" or special to modern capitalism" or to capitalism" etc." so that they o nly take shape as mo)ements when the rele)ant le)el o$ (enerality is brou(ht into $ocus. 2ntil then" whate)er $orce they e!ercise must remain mysterious" and our ability to use or a$$ect them )irtually nil. #he mo)ement o$ the metamorphosis o$ )alue" $or e!ample" dependent as it is on the workin(s o$ the capitalist marketplace" operates chie$ly on the le)els o$ (enerality o$ capitalism -le)el three and modern capitalism -le)el two. iewin( the products o$ work on the le)els o$ (enerality o$ class society -le)el $our or the human condition -le)el $i)e" or concentratin( on its uni3ue 3ualities -le)el one0the ran(e o$ most non; ar!ist thinkin( on this subject0does not keep the metamorphosis o$ )alue $rom takin( place" just us $rom percei)in( it. 5ikewise" i$" +in capitalism"+ as ar! says" +e)erythin( seems and in $act is contradictory+" it is only by abstractin( the le)els o$ (enerality o$ capitalism and modern capitalism -(ranted appropriate abstractions o$ e!tension that we can percei)e them -ar!" ?@=E" >?. 6hat are called the +laws o$ the dialectic+ are those mo)ements that can be $ound in one or another reco(ni,able $orm on e)ery le)el o$ (enerality" that is" in the relations between the 3ualities that $all on each o$ these le)els" includin( that o$ inanimate nature. #he trans$ormation o$ 3uantity to 3uality and de)elopment throu(h contradiction" which were discussed abo)e" are such dialectical laws. #wo other dialectical laws that play important roles in ar!*s work are the interpenetration o$ polar opposites -the process by which a radical chan(e in the conditions surroundin( two or more elements or in the conditions o$ the person )iewin( them produces a strikin( alteration" e)en a complete turn about" in their relations" and the ne(ation o$ the ne(ation -the process by which the most recent phase in a de)elopment that has (one throu(h at least three phases will display important similarities with what e!isted in the phase be$ore last. Maturally" the particular $orm taken by a dialectical law will )ary somewhat" dependin( on its subject and on the le)el o$ (enerality on which this subject $alls. #he mutually supportin( and underminin( mo)ements that lie at the core o$ contradiction" $or e!ample" appear )ery di$$erent when applied to the $orces o$ inanimate nature than they do when applied to speci$ically capitalist phenomena. Strikin( di$$erences such as these ha)e led a (rowin( band o$ critics and some $ollowers o$ ar! to restrict the laws o$ dialectic to social phenomena and to reject as +un;ar!ist+
what they label +'n(els* dialectics o$ nature.+ #heir error" howe)er" is to con$use a particular statement o$ these laws" usually one appropriate to le)els o$ (enerality where human consciousness is present" $or all possible statements. #his error is abetted by the widespread practice0one I also ha)e adopted $or purposes o$ simpli$ication and bre)ity0o$ allowin( the most (eneral statement o$ these laws to stand in $or the others. Ruantity/ 3uality chan(es" contradictions" etc." that occur amon( the uni3ue 3ualities o$ our e!istence -le)el one" or in the 3ualities we possess as workers and capitalists -le)els two and three" or in those we possess as members o$ a class and human bein(s -le)els $our and $i)e" howe)er" are not simply illustrations $or and the workin( out o$ still more (eneral dialectical laws. #o be ade3uately apprehended" the mo)ements o$ 3uantity/3uality chan(e" contradiction" etc." on each le)el o$ (enerality must be seen as e!pressions o$ laws that are speci$ic to that le)el as well )ersions as o$ more (eneral laws. ost o$ the work o$ dra$tin( such multi;le)el statements o$ the laws o$ the dialectic remains to be done. #he importance o$ the laws o$ the dialectic $or (raspin( the pressures at work on di$$erent le)els o$ (enerality will also )ary. 6e ha)e just seen ar! claim that capitalism in particular is $ull o$ contradictions. #hus" )iewin( conditions and e)ents in terms o$ contradictions is $ar more important $or understandin( their capitalist character than it is $or understandin( their 3ualities as human" or natural" or uni3ue conditions and e)ents. Hi)en ar!*s (oal to e!plain the double mo)ement o$ the capitalist mode o$ production" no other dialectical law recei)es the attention (i)en to the law o$ de)elopment throu(h contradiction. #o(ether with the relati)ely minor role contradiction plays in the chan(es that occur in nature -le)el se)en" this may also help account $or the mistaken belie$ that dialectical laws are $ound only in society. 6hat stands out $rom the abo)e is that the laws o$ the dialectic do not in themsel)es e!plain" or pro)e" or predict anythin(" or cause anythin( to happen. 1ather" they are ways o$ o r(ani,in( the most common $orms o$ chan(e and interaction that e!ist on any le)el o$ (enerality both $or purposes o$ study and inter)ention into the world o$ which they are part. 6ith their help" ar! was able to unco)er many other tendencies and patterns" also o$ten re$erred to as laws" that are peculiar to the le)els o$ (enerality with which he was concerned. Such laws ha)e no more $orce than what comes out o$ the processes $rom which they are deri)ed" balanced by whate)er counter;tendencies there are within the system. 4nd like all the other mo)ements ar! in)esti(ates" the laws o$ the dialectic and the le)el speci$ic laws they help him unco)er are pro)ided with e!tensions that are lar(e enou(h to encompass the rele)ant interactions durin( the entire period o$ their un$oldin(. #wo major 3uestions relatin( to this mode o$ abstraction remain. One is0how do the 3ualities located on each le)el o$ (enerality a$$ect those on the others7 4nd second0what is the in$luence o$ the decision made re(ardin( abstraction o$ e!tension on the le)el o$ (enerality that is abstracted" and )ice )ersa7 #he a$$ect o$ 3ualities $rom each le)el on those $rom others" mo)in( $rom the most (eneral -le)el se)en to the most speci$ic -le)el one" is that o$ a conte!t on what it contains. #hat is" each le)el" be(innin( with se)en" establishes a ran(e o$ possibilities $or what can occur on the more speci$ic le)els that $ollow. #he actuali,ation o$ some o$ these possibilities on each le)el limits in turn what can come about on the le)els ne!t in line" all the way up to le)el one" that o$ the uni3ue. 'ach more (eneral le)el" in )irtue o$ what it is and contains" also makes one or a $ew o$ the many -thou(h not in$inite alternati)e de)elopments that it makes possible on less (eneral le)els more likely o$ actuali,ation. Capitalism" in other words" was not only a possible de)elopment out o$ class society" but made likely by the character o$ the latter" by the )ery dynamics inherent in the di)ision o$ labor once it (ot under way. #he same mi(ht be said o$ the relation between capitalism as such and the +modern+ 'n(lish capitalism in which ar! li)ed" and the relation between the latter and the uni3ue character o$ the e)ents ar! e!perienced.
It is within this $ramework" too" that the relation ar! sees between $reedom and determinism can
best be understood. 6hate)er the le)el o$ abstraction0whether we are talkin( about what is uni3ue to any indi)idual" a (roup in modern capitalism" workers throu(hout the capitalist era" any class" or human bein(s as such0there is always a choice to be made and some ability to make it. ence" there is always some kind and some de(ree o$ $reedom. On each le)el o$ (enerality" howe)er" the alternati)es between which people must choose are se)erely limited by the nature o$ their o)erlappin( conte!ts" which also make one or one set o$ alternati)es more $easible and/or attracti)e" just as these conte!ts condition the )ery personal" class" and human 3ualities brou(ht into play in makin( any choice. ence" there is also a considerable de(ree o$ determinism. It is this relationship between $reedom and determinism that ar! wishes to b rin( out when he says that it is people who make history but not in conditions o$ their own choosin( -ar! and 'n(els" ?@N?a" >>N. 6hat seems like a relati)ely strai(ht$orward claim is complicated by the $act that both the people and the conditions re$erred to e!ist on )arious le)els o$ (enerality" and dependin( on the le)el that is brou(ht into $ocus" the sense o$ this claim0thou(h true in each instance0will )ary. #he )iew o$ determinism o$$ered here is di$$erent $rom" but not in contradiction with" the )iew presented in our discussion o$ the philosophy o$ internal relations" where determinism was e3uated $irst with the reciprocal e$$ect $ound in an y or(anic system and then with the (reater or special in$luence o$ any one process on the others. #o this we can now add a third" complementary sense o$ determinism that comes $rom the limitin( and prescribin( a$$ects o$ o)erlappin( conte!ts on all the phenomena that $all within them. ar!*s success in displayin( how the latter two kinds o$ determinism operate in the capitalist mode o$ production accounts $or most o$ the e!planatory power that one $inds -and $eels in his writin(s. 4$$ects o$ e)ents on their lar(er conte!ts" that is" o$ 3ualities $ound on more speci$ic le)els on those that $all on more (eneral ones" can also be discerned. 6hene)er ar! speaks o$ people reproducin( the conditions o$ their e!istence" the re$erence is to how acti)ities whose main 3ualities $all on one le)el o$ (enerality help to construct the )arious conte!ts" includin( those on other le)els o$ (enerality" that make the continuation o$ these same acti)ities both possible and hi(hly likely. Such e$$ects" howe)er" can also be detrimental. In our time" $or e!ample" the unre(ulated (rowth o$ harm$ul $eatures associated with modern capitalist production -le)el two ha)e be(un to threaten the ecolo(ical balance necessary not only $or the continuation o$ capitalism -le)el three but $or the li$e o$ our species -le)el $i)e. 4s $or the relation between the choice o$ e!tension and that o$ le)el o$ (enerality" there would seem to be a rou(h correspondence between narrow abstractions o$ e!tension and abstractin( )ery low and )ery hi(h le)els o$ (enerality. Once the comple! social relations in which a particular phenomenon is situated are put aside throu(h a narrow abstraction o$ e!tension" there is little reason to brin( these relations into better $ocus by abstractin( the le)el o$ (enerality on which they $all. #hus" abstractin( an e!tension that sets indi)iduals apart $ rom their social conditions is usually accompanied by an abstraction o$ le)el o$ (enerality that $ocuses on what is uni3ue about each -le)el one. 6ith the social 3ualities that were abstracted $rom indi)iduals in e!tension now attached to the (roups to which they belon( -)iewed as e!ternally related to their members" e$$orts at (enerali,in( tend to bypass the le)els on which these social 3ualities would be brou(ht into $ocus -modern capitalism" capitalism" and class society and mo)e directly to the le)el o$ the human condition -le)el $i)e. So it is that $or bour(eois ideolo(y people are either all di$$erent -le)el one or all the same -le)el $i)e. 6hile $or ar!" whose abstractions o$ e!tension usually include a si(ni$icant number o$ social relations" choosin( the le)els o$ (enerality o$ capitalism" modern capitalism" and class society was both easy and ob)ious just as pri)ile(in( these le)els led to abstractions o$ e!tension that enabled him to take in at one sweep most o$ the connections that attention to these attention to le)els brin( into $ocus.
II 4nd anta(e oint
#he third mode in which ar!*s abstractions occur is that o$ )anta(e point. Capitalists" as we saw" are re$erred to as +embodiments o$ capital+ but capital is also said to $unction as it does because it is in the hands o$ people who use it to make pro$it -ar!" ?@N@b" A@F" NA;N ar!" ?@N@a" A@. #he state is said to be an instrument o$ the rulin( economic class but ar! also treats it as a set o$ objecti)e structures that respond to the re3uirements o$ the economy" as an aspect o$ the mode o$ production itsel$ -ar! and 'n(els" ?@FN" ?N ar!" ?@N@a" ?DE. #here are many similar" apparently contradictory positions taken in ar!*s writin(s. #hey are the result o$ di$$erent abstractions" but not o$ e!tension or le)el o$ (enerality. #hey are due to di$$erent abstractions o$ )anta(e point. #he same relation is bein( )iewed $rom di$$erent sides" or the same process $rom its di$$erent moments. In the same mental act that ar!*s units o$ thou(ht obtain an e!tension and a le)el o$ (enerality" they ac3uire a )anta(e point or place $rom which to )iew the elements o$ any particular 1elation and" (i)en its then e!tension" $rom which to reconstruct the lar(er system to which this 1elation belon(s. 4 )anta(e point sets up a perspecti)e that colors e)erythin( which $alls into it" establishin( order" hierarchy" and priorities" distributin( )alues" meanin(s" and de(rees o$ rele)ance" and assertin( a distincti)e coherence between the parts. 6ithin a (i)en perspecti)e" some processes and connections will appear lar(e" some ob)ious" some important others will appear small" insi(ni$icant" and irrele)ant and some will e)en be in)isible. In discussin( ar!*s conception o$ 1elation" we saw that it was more than a simple connection. It was always a connection contained in its parts as seen $rom one or another side. So capital and labor" $or e!ample" were 3uoted as bein( +e!pressions o$ the same 1elation" only seen $ rom the opposite pole+ -ar!" ?@A?" F@?. Or a(ain" ar! says" capital has one +or(ani,ational di$$erentiation or composition+ -that o$ $i!ed and circulatin( capital $rom the point o$ )iew o$ circulation" and another -that o$ constant and )ariable capital $rom the point o$ )iew o$ production -ar!" ?@=" NA@. Both circulation and production are part o$ the e!tended capital 1elation. 4 criticism o$ the political economists is that they try to understand capital only $rom the point o$ )iew o$ circulation" but to (rasp the nature o$ wealth in capitalism" ar! belie)es" the decisi)e )anta(e point is that o$ production -ar!" ?@=" NA. It is clear that the decisions ar! makes re(ardin( e!tension and le)els o$ (enerality (reatly a$$ect the kind o$ )anta(e points he abstracts" and )ice )ersa. #he amount o$ mutual dependence and process that is included in an abstraction o$ e!tension lar(ely determines what can be seen and studied $rom this same abstraction taken as a )anta(e point. Hi)in( production the e!tension o$ reproduction" or capital the e!tension o$ capital accumulation" $or e!ample" enables ar! to brin( into )iew and or(ani,e the system o$ which they are part in ways that would not be possible with narrower -or shorter abstractions. 5ikewise" in abstractin( a le)el o$ (enerality" ar! brin(s into $ocus an entire ran(e o$ 3ualities that can n ow ser)e indi)idually or collecti)ely -dependin( on the abstraction o$ e!tension as )anta(e points" just as other possible )anta(e points" or(ani,ed around 3ualities $rom other le)els o$ (enerality" are e!cluded. Con)ersely" any commitment as to a particular )anta(e point predisposes ar! to abstract the e!tension and le)el o$ (enerality that correspond to it and enables him to make the most o$ it as a )anta(e point. In practice" these three decisions -really" three aspects o$ the same decision as to e!tension" le)el o$ (enerality" and )anta(e point are usually made to(ether and their e$$ects are immediate" thou(h on any (i)en occasion one or another o$ them may appear to dominate. In the social sciences" the notion o$ )anta(e point is most closely associated with the work o$ %arl annheim -annheim" ?@E=" art . But $or annheim" a point o$ )iew is somethin( that belon(s to people" particularly as or(ani,ed into classes. #he conditions in which each class li)es and works pro)ides its members with a distincti)e ran(e o$ e!periences and a distincti)e point o$ )iew. Because o$ their separate points o$ )iew" e)en the $ew e!periences that are shared by people o$ opposin( classes are not only understood but actually percei)ed in 3uite di$$erent ways. 4s $ar as it (oes" this )iew0which annheim takes o)er $rom ar!0is correct. ar!*s conception o$ point o$ )iew (oes $urther" howe)er" by (roundin( each class* perceptions in the
nature o$ its habitual abstractions" in order to show how startin( out to make sense o$ society $rom just these mental units" within the pe rspecti)es that they establish" leads to di$$erent perceptual outcomes. In unco)erin( the co(niti)e link between class conditions and class perceptions" ar! helps us understand not only why annheim is ri(ht but how what he describes actually works. 4s part o$ this" point o$ )iew becomes an attribute o$ the abstraction as such -ar! speaks o$ the point o$ )iew or )anta(e point o$ accumulation" relations o$ production" money" etc." and only secondarily o$ the person or class that adopts it -ar!" ?@=E" EDE ar!" ?@A?" ?N= ar!" ?@AE" >D?. 6e can now e!plain why ar! belie)es workers ha)e a $ar better chance to understand the workin(s o$ capitalism than do capitalists. #heir ad)anta(e does not come $rom the 3uality o$ their li)es and only in small part $rom their class interests -since the capitalists ha)e an interest in misleadin( e)en themsel)es about how their system works. ore important" (i)en what constitutes the li)es o$ workers" the abstractions with which they start out to make sense o$ their society are likely to include +labor"+ +$actory"+ +machine"+ especially +labor"+ which puts the acti)ity that is chie$ly responsible $or social chan(e at the $ront and center o$ their thinkin(. 6ithin the perspecti)e set up by this abstraction" most o$ what occurs in capitalism (ets arran(ed as part o$ the necessary conditions and results o$ this acti)ity. #here is no more enli(htenin( )anta(e point $or makin( sense o$ what is" both as the outcome o$ what was and as the ori(ins o$ what is comin( into bein(. #his is not to say" o$ course" that all workers will make these connections -there are plenty o$ reasons comin( $rom their alienated li)es and $rom the ideolo(ical barra(e directed at them that militate a(ainst it" but the predisposition to do so rooted in the initial abstraction o$ )anta(e point is there. &or capitalists" just the opposite is the case. #heir li)es and work incline them to start makin( sense o$ their situation with the aid o$ +price"+ +competition"+ +pro$it"+ and other abstractions drawn $rom the marketplace. #ryin( to put to(ether how capitalism $unctions within perspecti)es that place labor near the end o$ the line rather than at the start simply turns capitalist dynamics around. 4ccordin( to ar!" in competition" +e)erythin( always appears in in)erted $orm" always standin( on its head+ -ar!" ?@=" >?A. 6hat are predominantly the e$$ects o$ producti)e acti)ity appear here as its cause. It is demands comin( $rom the market" itsel$ the product o$ alienated labor" $or e!ample" that seem to determine what (ets produced" as in the theory o$ +consumer so)erei(nty+. 4s with thinkin( in terms o$ processes and relations" common sense is not wholly de)oid o$ perspecti)al thinkin(. eople occasionally use e!pressions such as + point o$ )iew"+ +)anta(e point"+ and +perspecti)e+ to re$er to some part o$ what we ha)e been discussin(" but they are (enerally unaware o$ how much their points o$ )iew a$$ect e)erythin( they see and know and o$ the role played by abstractions in arri)in( at this result. 4s with their abstractions o$ e!tension and le)el o$ (enerality" most people simply accept as (i)en the abstractions o$ )anta(e point that are handed down to them by their culture and p articularly by their class. #hey e!amine their world a(ain and a(ain $rom the same one or $ew an(les" while their ability to abstract new )anta(e points becomes atrophied. #he one;sided )iews that result are treated as not only correct" but as natural" indeed as the o nly possible )iew. 'arlier we saw that one major )ariety o$ bour(eois ideolo(y arises $rom usin( too narrow abstractions o$ e!tension -dismissin( parts o$ both processes and relationships that are essential $or accurately comprehendin( e)en what is included" and that a second comes $rom abstractin( an inappropriate le)el o$ (enerality -inappropriate in that it lea)es out o$ $ocus the main le)el-s on which the 3ualities we need to understand are located. #here is a third major $orm o$ bour(eois ideolo(y that is associated with the abstraction o$ )anta(e point. ere" ideolo(y results $rom abstractin( a )anta(e point that either hides or seriously distorts the relations and mo)ements that pertain to the particular problem that concerns us. Mot e)erythin( we need or want to know emer(es with e3ual clarity" or e)en emer(es at all" $rom e)ery possible )anta(e point. 4 related $orm o$ ideolo(y results $rom e!aminin( a phenomenon $rom only one side" no matter
how crucial" when se)eral are needed0all the while bein( unaware o$ the limits on what can be learned $rom this side alone. #his is what e(el had in mind when he said" to think abstractly -in the ideolo(ical sense o$ the term is +to clin( to one predicate+ -e(el" ?@==" ??. urderers" ser)ants" and soldiers" who ser)e as e(el*s e!amples" are all much more than what is con)eyed by )iewin( them $rom the sin(le )anta(e point associated with the labels we ha)e (i)en them. ar! is e)en more e!plicit when" $or e!ample" he berates the economist" 1amsay" $or brin(in( out all the $actors but +one;sidedly+ and +there$ore incorrectly"+ or e3uates +wron(+ with +one;sided+ in a criticism o$ 1icardo -ar!" ?@A?" EN? ar!" ?@=" FAD. 6hat needs to be stressed is that ar! ne)er critici,es ideolo(y as a simple lie or claims that what it asserts is completely $alse. Instead" ideolo(y is (enerally described as o)erly narrow" partial" out o$ $ocus" and/or one;sided" all o$ which are attributable to $aulty or otherwise inappropriate abstractions o$ e!tension" le)el o$ (enerality" and )anta(e point" where neither these abstractions nor their implications are (rasped $or what they are. 6hile correctly pointin( to the material roots o$ ideolo(y in capitalist conditions and in the conscious manipulations o$ capitalists" and brin(in( out how it $unctions to ser)e capitalist interests" most discussions o$ ideolo(y completely i(nore the misapplication o$ the process o$ abstraction that is responsible $or its distincti)e $orms. 4mon( the major )anta(e points associated with bour(eois ideolo(y" where the error is not simply one o$ restrictin( analysis to a sin(le perspecti)e but where the one or $ew that are chosen either hide or distort the essential $eatures o$ capitalism" are the $ollowin(: the )anta(e point o$ the isolated indi)idual" the subjecti)e side o$ any situation -what is belie)ed" wanted" intended" etc." the results o$ almost any process" anythin( connected with the market" and all o$ what $alls on le)el $i)e o$ (enerality" particularly human nature. #he isolated indi)idual" man separated $rom both natural a nd social conditions" is not only the pre$erred abstraction o$ e!tension in which bour(eois ideolo(y treats human bein(s it also ser)es as its pre$erred )anta(e point $or studyin( society. Society becomes what social relations look like when )iewed $rom this an(le. 6hen one adds that within each person it is such subjecti)e 3ualities as belie$s" wants" intentions etc." that are bour(eois ideolo(y*s pre$erred )anta(e points $or )iewin( the rest o$ the person" it should be no surprise that the objecti)e $eatures o$ any situation o$ which people are a part are so under)alued. In this perspecti)e" an indi)idual is chie$ly what he belie)es himsel$ to be" and society itsel$ what many indi)iduals operatin( one at a time in the absence o$ stron( social pressures or si(ni$icant material restraints ha)e made it. #here is also an ob)ious link between abstractin( human bein(s narrowly in e!tension" abstractin( this e!tension on le)els one and $i)e o$ (enerality" and abstractin( this e!tension on these le)els o$ (enerality as pre$erred )anta(e points. By abstractin( the isolated indi)idual in e!tension" one omits the )arious social and other connections that would incline one to brin( le)els two" three" and $our o$ (enerality into $ocus in order to learn how these connections ha)e ac3uired the speci$ic characteristics that make them important. 4nd because the conte!ts associated with modern capitalism" capitalism" and class society are seldom i$ e)er brou(ht into $ocus" the 3ualities that $all on these le)els can hardly ser)e as use$ul )anta(e points. #o the limited e!tent that anythin( $rom these conte!ts does (et e!amined $rom the )anta(e points associated with bour(eois ideolo(y" the result is usually a hod(epod(e o$ mismatched 3ualities $rom di$$erent le)els o$ (enerality" with some more and some less in $ocus" all loosely held to(ether by the lan(ua(e o$ e!ternal relations. 6hate)er inte(ration is achie)ed by such studies only succeeds in breakin( up and dissemblin( the or(anic unity that e!ists on each o$ these le)els" makin( a systematic understandin( o$ any kind that much more di$$icult. Other than the isolated indi)idual and h is subjecti)e 3ualities" another $amily o$ )anta(e points that is well represented in bour(eois ideolo(y are the results o$ )arious social processes" especially those $ound in the market. 4lready narrowly abstracted in e!tension as $inished products" the processes by which these results ha)e emer(ed are no lon(er )isible. #hus" capital is simply the means o$ production a commodity0any (ood that is bou(ht and sold pro$it0
somethin( earned by capitalists and the market itsel$0an o)er;the;counter e!chan(e o$ (oods and ser)ices that $ollows its own e!tra social laws. 6hen used as )anta(e points $or )iewin( the capitalist system" these dead buildin( blocks can only construct a dead buildin(" an unchan(in( system whose emer(ence at a certain point in history is as much a mystery as its e)entual demise. #he ultimate distortion occurs in what ar! calls the $etishism o$ commodities -or capital" or )alue" or money" etc." when these results take on a li$e o$ their own and are )iewed as sel$ (eneratin(. 6hene)er any static and narrowly concei)ed o$ set o$ results are used as a )anta(e point $or e!aminin( ori(ins" there is a dan(er o$ substitutin( the end $or the be(innin( in this way. Still other )anta(e points put to hea)y use in bour(eois ideolo(y are whate)er is taken to be part o$ the human condition" the whole o$ le)el $i)e and especially human nature as such" or rather what is taken to be human nature. Startin( out $rom these )anta(e points" phenomena whose most important 3ualities $all on le)els one to $our lose their historical speci$icity and are made to appear as ob)ious and ine)itable as the $lat abstractions that introduce them. In this way" approachin( capitalist distribution" as the political economists are accused o$ doin(" $rom the )anta(e point o$ a le)el $i)e notion o$ production0that is" production in so $ar as it partakes o$ the human condition0makes it appear that the e!istin( capitalist di)ision o$ wealth is e3ually part o$ the human condition. ar!" who on occasion made use o$ all these )anta(e points" $a)ored )anta(e points connected with production" the objecti)e side o$ any situation" historical processes (enerally" and social class" particularly at the le)el o$ (enerality o$ capitalist society. #he reason ar! pri)ile(es such )anta(e points )aries" as does the e!tension he (i)es them" with the le)el o$ (enerality on which he is operatin(. Beyond this" ar!*s abstraction o$ )anta(e point0as indeed o$ e!tension and le)el o$ (enerality0can usually be traced to his theories and what they indicate is necessary to unco)er some part o$ the or(anic or historical mo)ement o$ the capitalist mode o$ production. One must be care$ul" here as elsewhere" not to place within ar!*s method many o$ the jud(ments and decisions re(ardin( priorities that could only come $rom the theories he de)eloped with its help. '3ually characteristic o$ ar!*s practice in abstractin( )anta(e points is the easy $acility he shows in mo)in( $rom one to the other. 4ware o$ the limitations inherent in any sin(le )anta(e point" e)en that o$ production" ar! $ re3uently alters the an(le $rom which he e!amines his chosen subject matter. 6hile whole works and sections o$ works can be distin(uished on the basis o$ the )anta(e point that predominates" chan(es o$ )anta(e point can also be $ound on )irtually e)ery pa(e o$ ar!*s writin(s. 6ithin the same sentence" ar! can mo)e $rom )iewin( wa(es $rom the )anta(e point o$ the worker to )iewin( it $rom the )anta(e point o$ society as a whole -ar!" ?@=E" ?D. ar!*s analysis o$ the comple! relations between production" distribution" e!chan(e" and consumption" which has already come into this work on se)eral occasions" a lso pro)ides what is perhaps the best e!ample o$ how o$ten he chan(es his abstractions o$ both e!tension and )anta(e point" and how important this practice and his $acility in it was $or obtainin( his results -ar!" ?@DF" >AF;@>. 4s with his abstractions o$ e!tension and le)el o$ (enerality" ar!*s abstractions o$ )anta(e point play a crucial role in the construction o$ all his theories. It is ar!*s abstractions o$ )anta(e point that enable him to $ind identity in di$$erence -and )ice )ersa" to actually catch si(ht o$ the or(anic and historical mo)ements made possible by his abstractions o$ e!tension" and to classi$y and reclassi$y the world o$ his perceptions into the e!planatory structures bound up in what we call ar!ism. 'arlier" in discussin( ar!*s theory o$ identity" we saw that abstractin( an e!tension that is lar(e enou(h to contain both identical and di$$erent 3ualities o$ two or more phenomena is what makes the coe!istence o$ identity and di$$erence possible" but one*s ability to actually see and there$ore to e!amine either set o$ 3ualities depends on the )anta(e point adopted $or )iewin( them. Stickin( with one )anta(e point will restrict understandin( any relation to its identical or di$$erent aspects when" in $act" it contains both. ar!" on the other hand" can approach the relation o$
pro$it" rent" and interest $rom the )anta(e point o$ surplus;)alue" o$ their identity or what they ha)e in common as the portion o$ )alue that is not returned to the workers who produced it" as well as $rom any o$ the )anta(e points located in di$$erences arisin( $rom who holds these $orms o$ surplus;)alue and how each $unctions in the economic system. 4bstractin( )anta(e points that brin( out the di$$erences between two or more aspects o$ an interacti)e system also hi(hli(hts the asymmetry in their reciprocal e$$ect. Hranted such reciprocal e$$ect" production was said to play the dominant role on all $i)e le)els o$ (enerality on which ar! operates. But it is only by abstractin( production as a )anta(e point that its special in$luence on other economic processes and on society as a whole on each le)el can be seen $or what it is. 4s ar! says" with the le)el o$ class societies in mind" the e!istence o$ the rulin( class and their $unctions +can on ly be understood $rom the speci$ic historical structure o$ their production relations+ -y emphasis -ar!" ?@=E" >N. 4lon( with his abstractions o$ e!tension" ar!*s abstractions o$ )anta(e point play an e3ually important role in establishin( the $le!ible boundaries that characteri,e all his theories. In ar!*s di)ision o$ reality into objecti)e and subjecti)e conditions" it is by abstractin( a )anta(e po int $irst in one and then in the other that he unco)ers the more objecti)e aspects o$ what is ordinarily taken to be subjecti)e -e!tendin( the territory o$ the objecti)e accordin(ly" and )ice )ersa. #o(ether with the a$orementioned theory o$ identity" it is chan(es in the abstraction o$ )anta(e point that enables ar! to actually see objecti)e and subjecti)e conditions as +two distinct $orms o$ the same conditions+ -ar!" ?@AE" E>. 5ikewise" it is by abstractin( a particular )anta(e point that ar! can see aspects o$ nature in society" or the $orces o$ production in the relations o$ production" or economic in typically non;economic structures" or the base in the superstructure" and then )ice )ersa" adjustin( the abstraction o$ e!tension $or each pairin( accordin(ly. 5ookin( at the relations o$ p roduction $rom the )anta(e point o$ the $orces o$ production" $or e!ample" e)en the cooperati)e power o$ workers can appear as a producti)e $orce -ar! and 'n(els" ?@=F" F=. ar!*s )arious class di)isions o$ society" based as we saw on di$$erent abstractions o$ e!tension $or class" are also discernible only $rom the )anta(e point o$ the 3ualities -$unctions" opposition to other classes" consciousness" etc. that ser)e as the criteria $or constructin( a (i)en classi$ication. #hat is" i$ class is a comple! 1elation made up o$ a number o$ di$$erent aspects" and i$ the composition o$ any particular class depends on which ones ar! includes in his abstraction o$ e!tension and brin(s into $ocus throu(h his abstraction o$ le)el o$ (enerality" then his ability to actually distin(uish people as members o$ this class depends on which aspect-s he abstracts as his )anta(e points $or )iewin( them. It also $ollows that as ar!*s )anta(e point chan(es" so does his operati)e di)ision o$ society into classes. In this way" too" the same people" )iewed $rom the )anta(e points o$ 3ualities associated with di$$erent classes may actually $all into di$$erent classes. #he landowner" $or e!ample" is said to be a capitalist in so $ar as he con$ronts labor as the owner o$ commodities" i.e." $unctions as a capitalist )is G )is labor -rather than as a landowner )is G )is capitalists" whene)er he is )iewed $rom this traditional capitalist )anta(e point -ar!" ?@=E" N?. iewed $rom the )anta(e point o$ any one o$ his 3ualities" the indi)idual*s identity is limited to what can be seen $rom this an(le. #he 3ualities that emer(e $rom the use o$ other )anta(e points are i(nored because $or all practical purposes" at this moment in the analysis and $or treatin( this particular problem" they simply don*t e!ist. ence" people abstracted as workers" $or e!ample0 that is" )iewed $rom one or more o$ the 3ualities associated with membership in this class0where the object o$ study is capitalist political economy" are presented as not ha)in( any (ender or nation or race. eople" o$ course" possess all these characteristics and more" and ar!0when dealin( with other problems0can abstract )anta(e points -usually as part o$ non;capitalist le)els o$ (enerality that brin( out these other identities. Hi)en ar!*s $le!ibility in abstractin( e!tension" he can also consider people $rom )anta(e points that play down their human 3ualities alto(ether in order to hi(hli(ht some special relation. Such is the case when ar! re$ers to the buyer as a +representati)e o$ money con$rontin(
commodities+0that is" )iews him $rom the )anta(e point o$ money inside an abstraction o$ e!tension that includes money" commodities" and people -ar!" ?@=E" FDF. #he outstandin( e!ample o$ this practice is ar!*s $re3uent re$erence to capitalists as +embodiments+ or +personi$ications+ o$ capital" where li)in( human bein(s are considered $rom the )anta(e point o$ their economic $unction -ar!" ?@N" ?D" N" N@>. #he school o$ structuralist ar!ism has per$ormed an important ser)ice in reco)erin( such claims $rom the memory hole to which an older" more class stru((le;oriented ar!ism had consi(ned them. owe)er use$ul decenterin( human nature in this manner is $or (raspin( some o$ the role;determined beha)ior that ar! wanted to stress" there is much that is )olunteerist in his theories that re3uires the adoption o$ distincti)ely human )anta(e points" and only a dialectical ar!ism that possesses su$$icient $le!ibility in chan(in( abstractions0o$ )anta(e point as o$ e!tension and le)el o$ (enerality0can make the $re3uent adjustments that are called $or. I$ ar!*s abstractions o$ e!tension are lar(e enou(h to encompass how thin(s happen as part o$ what they are" i$ such abstractions o$ e!tension also allow him to (rasp the )arious or(anic and historical mo)ements unco)ered by his research as essential mo)ements" then it is his abstractions o$ )anta(e point that make what is there0what his abstractions o$ e!tension ha)e +placed+ there0)isible. #he mo)ement o$ the trans$ormation o$ 3uantity into 3uality" $or e!ample" is made possible as an essential mo)ement by an abstraction o$ e!tension that includes both 3uantitati)e chan(es and the 3ualitati)e chan(e that e)entually occurs. But this trans$ormati)e process is not e3ually clear or e)en )isible $rom each o$ its moments. In this case" the pre$erred )anta(e point0not the only one possible" but simply the ideal0is one that brid(es the end o$ 3uantitati)e chan(es and the start o$ the 3ualitati)e one. iewin( the cooperation amon( workers" $or e!ample" $rom the )anta(e point o$ where its trans$ormation into a 3ualitati)ely new producti)e power be(ins pro)ides the clearest indication o$ where this chan(e has come $rom as well as where the process that brou(ht it about was headin(. #he mo)ement o$ metamorphosis" we will recall" is an or(anic mo)ement in which 3ualities associated with one part o$ a system (et trans$erred to its other parts. In the case o$ the metamorphosis o$ )alue" the main instance o$ this mo)ement in ar!*s writin(s" some o$ the central relationships that constitute )alue (et taken up by commodity" capital" wa(e;labor" etc. Only an abstraction o$ e!tension that is lar(e enou(h to include its di$$erent phases as internally related aspects o$ a sin(le system allows us to concei)e o$ metamorphosis as an internal mo)ement and o$ its subse3uent sta(es as $orms o$ what it starts out as. But to obser)e this metamorphosis and" there$ore too" to study it in any detail" we must accompany this abstraction o$ e!tension with an abstraction o$ )anta(e point in the p art whose 3ualities are bein( trans$erred. #hus" the metamorphosis o$ )alue into and throu(h its )arious $orms is only obser)able as a metamorphosis $rom the )anta(e point o$ )alue. 4s re(ards contradiction" ar! says" as we saw" +in capitalism e)erythin( seems and in $act is contradictory+ -ar!" ?@=E" >?. It is so0in reality" and with the help o$ ar!*s broad abstractions o$ e!tension" which or(ani,e the parts as mutually dependent processes. But it seems so only $rom certain )anta(e points. &rom others" the incompatible de)elopment o$ the parts would be missed" or misconstrued" or" at a minimum" seriously underestimated. #he )anta(e point $rom which ar! usually obser)es contradictions is the intersection between the two or more processes said to be in contradiction. It is a composite )anta(e point made up o$ elements $rom all these processes. O$ course" i$ one has not abstracted di$$erences as processes and such processes as mutually dependent" there is no point o$ intersection to ser)e as a )anta(e point. 6hat we*)e called the double mo)ement o$ the capitalist mode o$ production can be approached 0that is" )iewed and studied0$rom any o$ the major contradictions that compose it" and in each case0(i)en internal relations0the elements that are not directly in)ol)ed enter into the contradiction as part o$ its e !tended conditions and results. In this way" the )anta(e point that is adopted or(ani,es not only the immediate contradiction" but establishes a perspecti)e in which other parts o$ the system ac3uire their order and importance. In the contradiction between
e!chan(e and use;)alue" $or e !ample" the relations between capitalists and workers are part o$ the necessary conditions $or this contradiction to take its present $orm and de)elop as it does" just as one result o$ this contradiction is the reproduction o$ the ties between capitalists and workers. Hi)en the internal relations ar! posits between all elements in the system" this makes capitalists and workers subordinate aspects o$ the contradiction between e!chan(e and use;)alue. #he whole process can be turned around: adoptin( the )anta(e point o$ the contradiction between capitalists and workers trans$orms the relations between e!chan(e and use;)alue into its subordinate aspects" a(ain as both necessary preconditions and results. #he actual links in each case" o$ course" need to be care$ully worked out. ence" contradictions can be said to o)erlap they co)er much the same (round" but this (round is broken up in )arious ways" alon( a )ariety o$ a!es" based on as many di$$erent $oci. ')en when the shi$t in )anta(e points appears to be sli(ht" the di$$erence in the perspecti)e opened up can be considerable. &or e!ample" take the contradiction between capital and wa(e; labor on one hand and that between capitalists and workers on the other. #he )anta(e point $or )iewin( the $ormer is the intersection o$ two objecti)e $unctions" while the pre$erred )anta(e point $or )iewin( the latter is where the acti)ities and interests o$ the two classes who per$orm these $unctions intersect. 'ach o$ these contradictions contains the other as major dependent aspects -neither capital nor capitalists could appear and $unction as they do without the other" and the same holds $or wa(e;labor and workers. 8et" thou(h both contradictions can be said to co)er more or less the same (round" the di$$erent perspecti)es established by these contrastin( )anta(e points allows ar! to distin(uish how people create their conditions $rom how they are created by them" and to trace out the implications o$ each position without dismissin( or under)aluin( the other0all the while presentin( both contradictions as under(oin( similar pressures and in the process o$ a similar trans$ormation. ar!*s laws o$$er still another illustration o$ the crucial role played by the abstraction o$ )anta(e point. 4s was pointed out earlier" all o$ ar!*s laws are tendencies arisin( $rom the )ery nature o$ whate)er it is that is said to ha)e them. In e)ery case" it is ar!*s abstraction o$ e!tension that brin(s the )arious or(anic and historical mo)ements to(ether under the same rubric" makin( how thin(s happen a part o$ what they are" but it is his abstraction o$ )anta(e point that enables him -and us to actually catch si(ht o$ them as a sin(le tendency. #he law o$ the $allin( rate o$ pro$it" $or e!ample" is a tendency inherent in the relation o$ pro$it to the +or(anic composition+ o$ capital" which ar! understands as the ratio o$ constant to )ariable capital -or the in)estment put into the material means o$ production as compared to that put into buyin( labor power. 6ith the proportion o$ in)estment (oin( to constant capital because o$ technolo(ical de)elopment always on the rise" less and less o$ any (i)en in)estment (oes to buy )ariable capital. But only labor power creates )alue" and there$ore surplus;)alue. 6ith a constantly decreasin( proportion o$ in)estment in)ol)ed in producin( surplus;)alue" there$ore" the rate o$ pro$it as a percenta(e o$ total in)estment must also (o down -ar!" ?@N@b" art E. 5ike all tendencies in ar!*s work" this one too is subject to counter;tendencies" both on the same and on the other le)els o$ (enerality -state subsidies" in$lation" de)aluation o$ e!istin( capital" etc." which are o$ten stron( enou(h to keep the tendency $or the $allin( rate o$ pro$it $rom appearin( in the balance sheet o$ businessmen at the end o$ the year. #o obser)e this tendency" there$ore" and be in a position to study the constant pressure it e!erts on the concentration o$ capital -another law and throu(h it on the entire capitalist system" one must $ollow ar! in abstractin( an e!tension $or pro$it that includes its relation o)er time to the or(anic composition o$ capital" and )iew this 1elation $rom the )anta(e point o$ this composition -(ranted" o$ course" the capitalist le)el o$ (enerality on which both o$ these are $ound. 6 ithout such abstractions o$ e!tension" le)el o$ (enerality and )anta(e p oint" one simply cannot see" let alone (rasp" what ar! is talkin( about. 6ith them" one can see the law despite all the sand thrown up by counter; tendencies. ence" the irrele)ance o$ )arious attempts by ar!*s critics and $ollowers alike to e)aluate the law o$ the $allin( rate o$ pro$it based on analyses made $rom the )anta(e point o$ one o$ its possible results -the a ctual pro$its o$ real businessmen" or $rom capitalist competition" or
some other )anta(e point located in the marketplace. 4ll the laws in ar!ism can be described" studied" and e)aluated only inside the perspecti)es associated with the particular )anta(e points $rom which ar! both disco)ered and constructed them. III #he 1ole o$ 4bstractions in the 9ebates o)er ar!ism It will ha)e become e)ident by now that it is lar(ely di$$erences o$ )anta(e point that lay behind many o$ the (reat debates in the history o$ ar!ist scholarship. In the Mew 5e$t 1e)iew debate between 1alph iliband and Micos oulant,as on the character o$ the capitalist state" $or e!ample" the $ormer )iewed the state chie$ly $rom the )anta(e point o$ the rulin( economic class" while the latter )iewed what are essentially the same set o$ relations $rom the )anta(e point o$ the socio;economic structures that establish both the limits and the re3uirements $or a community*s political $unctions -oulant,as" ?@=@ iliband ?@AD.F 4s a result" iliband is better able to account $or the traditional role o$ the state in ser)in( rulin( class interests" while oulant,as has an easier time e!plainin( the relati)e autonomy o$ the state" and why the capitalist state continues to ser)e the rulin( class when the latter is not directly in control o$ state institutions. #he debate o)er whether capitalist economic crisis is caused by the tendency o$ the rate o$ pro$it to $all or arises $rom di$$iculties in the reali,ation o$ )alue" where one side )iews the capitalist economy $rom the )anta(e point o$ the accumulation process and the other $rom the )anta(e point o$ market contradictions" is o$ the same sort -attick" ?@=@ Baran and Swee,y" ?@==.N 4 somewhat related dispute o)er the centrality o$ the capitalist mode o$ production as compared to the international di)ision o$ labor -the position o$ 6orld System #heory $or chartin( the history and $uture o$ capitalism is likewise rooted in a di$$erence o$ pre$erred )anta(e points -Brenner" ?@AA 6allerstein" ?@AF. So" too" is the debate o)er whether bour(eois ideolo(y is mainly a re$lection o$ alienated li$e and rei$ied structures or the product o$ the capitalist consciousness industry" where one side )iews the construction o$ ideolo(y $rom the )anta(e point o$ the material and social conditions out o$ which it arises and the other $rom that o$ the role played by the capitalist class in promotin( it -epham" ?@A@ arcuse" ?@=N. 'arlier" in what is perhaps the most di)isi)e dispute o$ all" we saw that those who ar(ue $or a strict determinism emanatin( $rom one or another )ersion o$ the economic $actor -whether simple or structured and those who emphasi,e the role o$ human a(ency -whether indi)idual or class can also be distin(uished on the basis o$ the )anta(e points they ha)e chosen $or in)esti(atin( the necessary interaction between the two -4lthusser" ?@=N Sartre" ?@=E. #o be sure" each o$ these positions" here as in the other debates" is also marked by somewhat di$$erent abstractions o$ e!tension $or shared phenomena based in part on what is known and considered worth knowin(" but e)en these distin(uishin( $eatures come into prominence mainly as a result o$ the )anta(e point that is treated as pri)ile(ed. #he di$$erent le)els o$ (enerality on which ar! operates is also responsible $or its share o$ debates amon( interpreters o$ his ideas" the main one bein( o)er the subject o$ the materialist conception o$ history: is it all history" or all o$ class history" or the period o$ capitalism -in which earlier times are concei)ed o$ as pre;capitalist -%autsky" ?@ %orsch" ?@AD7 9ependin( on the answer" the sense in which production is held to be primary will )ary as will the abstractions o$ e!tension and )anta(e point used to brin( this out. &inally" the )arious abstractions o$ e!tension o$ such central notions as mode or production" class" state" etc." ha)e also led to serious disa(reements amon( ar!*s $ollowers and critics alike" with most schools seekin( to treat the boundaries they consider decisi)e as permanent. owe)er" as e)idenced by the 3uotations that practically e)ery side in these disputes can draw upon" ar! is capable o$ pursuin( his analysis not only on all social le)els o$ (enerality and $rom )arious )anta(e points but with units o$ di$$erin( e!tension" only (i)in( (reater wei(ht to the abstractions that his theories indicate are most use$ul in re)ealin( the particular dynamic he is in)esti(atin(. #he many apparently contradictory claims that emer(e $rom his study are in $act complementary"
