1994-10-14_In 1994, Marx already

In 1994, Marx already

Published on [october 14, 1994]

We had already noted, in these columns, the return of Marx by reporting on a stimulating work by Michel Vadée "Marx, thinker of the possible" published by Méridiens Klincksieck in 1992, a return which continues. A strange return as shown in the "Marx file" of the "Literary Magazine". In which Louis Janover, Maximilien Rubel on one side and François Furet on the other coexist, who tends to erase all current events in Marx's thought by transforming him into a 19th century thinker. 

Can we, as Furet suggests, distinguish different Marxism, forgetting the unity of this thought in movement which had chosen the path of criticism of capitalism? How else can we explain the very foundations of his scientific project: demonstrate that the capitalist mode of production is not the only possible mode of production, that its overcoming is necessary to build society on other bases, to fight against exclusion, and, ultimately, to achieve equality, fraternity and freedom?

Marx always claimed that his great discovery was to scientifically demonstrate that there were other possibilities than just the horizon of capitalism. It is true that this discovery tends to be obscured, to make Marx a thinker "like any other", by removing this critical dimension, present in all his work and which underlies it. Without this critical perspective, he would not have formalized this essential concept of labor power, linked to that of value, a form which is not reduced to its phenomenal manifestations, use value and exchange value, like a reading " quantitativist" of Marx – inherited from the theoretical terrain of Ricardo – suggests it.

Furet, like many others in this moment of crisis in the representations and ideologies of the ruling class, would like to build a system based on Marx to understand, and reform, the capitalist mode of production. The return of a capitalist Marx of sorts. This attempt-temptation is felt a lot among – economists lacking theory - whereas until now they had superbly ignored it, presenting it as the last of the great classics, after Ricardo and leaving it in the hands of sociologists. The deep crisis of Marxism could leave them free rein...The recovery of Marx is a matter to follow.

Against this vision Janover and Rubel present Marx as the thinker of our time, and insist on his actuality. Not by slavishly running it, but by continuing its work, thanks to its m©thode and its concepts.

Return to text

Together, they have just published in the pocket collection " Folio Essais ", at Éditions Gallimard, " a collection of texts by Marx entitled " Philosophie". The presentation notes allow us to understand the context in which Marx evolves, and the ruptures punctuating his elaboration. In general these works, called youthful works, are highly underestimated. 

The response to Proudhon is very strongly marked by the concepts of Ricardo -- also a great classic economist such as Marx, as in " Travail, salariat“ and Capital, not having yet discovered the concept of labor power, this idea that the employee has not sold his work, but his capacity to work, a revolutionary discovery in every sense of the term which opens the way to the criticism of capitalism, on scientific grounds. We will have to wait for book I of "Capital" for the presentation of this new concept.

Does this mean that we should throw anterior works at "Capital" into the trash of history. Rubel and Janover's collection shows that this would be a serious error. So this reflexion, whose authors make it crystal clear in the introduction: "The essence of the press merges with the moral and rational essence of the liberty, while the character of the censored press is the essence of servitude. The absence of the freedom of the press makes all the other freedoms illusory. This work is at the level of the development of Marx's method. 

The theory of historical materialism, critical theory, bringing about a dialectical movement between philosophy of  Hegel and Feuerbach in particular that Marx will defend against all their detractors -, to eventually realise the fusion of the two. 

This movement explains the theoretical progression. This method allows the dao©passing of concepts, to analyze the laws of operation of the capitalist mode of production, and to identify as closely as possible the r©al, social abstractions, concealed by the α©crans that the maoame functioning of capitalism draws up, due to the ©existence of the f©€™tichism of the commodity, making the relations appear production and social as relationships between things.

This collection shows Marx's maturation work, the accumulation of knowledge to construct a practical theory, a theory which reveals the hidden springs of capitalist socialism, to make it readable in the eyes of each worker. A way to achieve awareness, and to offer irreplaceable tools of knowledge. And Janover are right to insist on the critical dimension of Marx's work, without forgetting would we be tempted to add, imagination. "The philosophers have made interpretations of the world of various ways ;  what matters is to transform it". Transforming it requires transforming it, but depending on the need to transform it, this interpretation can only be critical.

The choice of texts from 1835, Marx's dissertation -- equivalent to baccalaureate of an adolescent faced with the choice of a profession",  the afterword to the second German edition of Capital of 1873, and reproduces in full the text entitled "General Introduction To The Critic Of Political Economy" which clearly poses the principles of the so-called method of historical materialism. The journey opens the doors to this pensaï©e in movement, which aims to be a moving thinking paradigm.

Marx radicalises the synthesis of German philosophy, of French politics, from English economy to reverse and transform, thence allowing its destruction to pass through a mode of production. This passage assumes an actor, the open class, exploit class, becoming aware of itself, to remove all forms of classes, within society.

Unlike any interpretation given by Michel Beaud the end of the society of classes does not mean the end of all antagonisms, or all oppositions. This is one of the reasons why the existence of several political parties is a democratic necessity in a society in transition towards socialism.

Human being is truism, not governed by rationality, but by rationality of the system. Marxism, unlike a "structuralist" presentation, is not a system of "structuralists", it is a highlighting of the concealable springs, the morphos of the capitalist society. It allows us to understand that men make their own history in conditions that they will not freely determined, that the history, the sedimentation of the past acts strongly on the present, and to build thebfuture it is necessary to take into account the imagination, and revolution, the only possible levers to reduce the weight of the past.

The authors are right to insist on both the absence of a system and that Marx did not want to be a Marxist.

This lack is cruelly felt. It obliges us to continue the conceptual development, to start from existing concepts, and from the method forged by Marx. It is the definition of "Marxists": making Marx come alive, by continuing the theoretical reflexion. The issue, it must be emphasized, is political.

Marx and Wage Labor

Recalling these texts by Marx is not useless for understanding Henri Nadel's work, "Marx and Wage Labor," which L'Harmattan is reissuing, taking advantage of the current vogue for writings on Marx. The text itself dates from 1983 and apart from a preface, the author has made no corrections. He considers himself "Marxian" and not "Marxist." That is to say, he wants to read Marx's work from Marx's own perspective. The project revolves around the idea that "Neither capitalism, nor economic theory and its critique, are static. The historical development of capital, relentless, violent, and often barbaric, irreversible, demands to be made intelligible: Marxian theory still seems to contribute to this intelligibility. The latter remains a condition for social transformation."

We share this desire: to construct a theory adapted to the transformations of the capitalist mode of production, to interpret it critically and thus foster awareness, paving the way for its overthrow. Marx's objective is also ours: to enable the exploited to understand the reality of the capitalist mode of production in order to build a new world in which the economy would finally be placed at the service of human beings and not at the service of commodities. 

Returning to Marx's original text is perhaps a necessity, given the distortions inflicted upon it by Stalinism. The fall of the Berlin Wall could allow for a new reading. This world in transition, from the Cold War to an indeterminate future, should give rise to new utopias, new theories. Undoubtedly, they will emerge and take Marx as their starting point. For the moment, as we clearly see, it is the past that triumphs, and a reconstructed past—see the debate surrounding Mitterrand's youth—that tends to sever the bridges between generations who no longer have anything in common, neither ideology nor practice of struggle.

Marxism, in order to exist, has always needed to confront reality. Theory must be both logical and historical, corresponding to the facts and their explanation. It is by this standard that its progress is measured. It is not possible to remain strictly on the level of logic, even dialectical logic. This is the meaning that must be given to the theory of historical materialism. As capitalism evolves and transforms, the theory evolves with it, forging the tools necessary to understand its new developments.

How to analyze the working class?

Constructing the theory of wage is a fundamental step. By the same token, as we will understand, it means defining the working class, its role in the production process, and its divisions. But constructing this theory requires reconstructing Marx's overall theoretical framework. It is impossible to isolate the price of labor power—wages—without referring to Marx's succession of categories—to remain faithful to his method—Commodity—Value—Money—Capital (CVM). 

To this should be added—Marx did not have time to do so—as Rubel reminded us—the State, a category derived from Capital, as Pierre demonstrates. Salama. The State,” he writes, “is deduced, or, in other words, derived from Capital for two reasons: it is the guarantor of the maintenance of the production relation, and it participates decisively in the very institution of this relation.” A way of translating, of giving substance to Engels’ somewhat dry definition in “Anti-Döhring”.

The modern state, whatever its form, is essentially a capitalist machine, the state of the capitalists, the collective capitalist in idea.” Even if the state appears above classes—by virtue of the very existence of commodity fetishism—it is fundamentally a category necessary for the reproduction of relations of production capitalists. Each category overrides itself, and each category cannot be understood without the preceding ones.

Nadel wanted to focus on a single objective: to underline and Marx's contradictions concerning the definition of the "prolétariat" according to the absence of the key concept of labor power in works anteriors to "Capital", and his shortcomings in "Capital" which make him conclude an indetermination on the revolutionary nature of the open class.

Nadel does not write the term, but speaks of wage employment. The opposition of labor and capital has remained at the center of Marx's concerns, but his conclusion also manifests the limits to which the investigation leads. Marxian thought supports this call for a always decisive approach to the laws of capitalism; it does not trace the formulas of the history. "

On this last point, Marx always refused to "boil the pots of the future". From this point of view he never wanted to be a prophet, contrary to Schumpeter's presentation in "Capitalism, Socialism and Democracy", but a scientist and a revolutionary, synthesise in his critical will, who leads him to present the laws of operation of the capitalist mode of production as no one before him had done. The analysis of the commodity, of the value form in Marx, of "money“ equivalent general expressing the defense of abstract labor which becomes capital. like Roubine wrote. Thus the entire value system is based on a grandiose system of accounting and spontaneous social comparisons of the products of work of various species, executes by different individuals and appearing as fractions of total abstract social work.

In turn, this system of total abstract social work is set in motion by the development of the productive material forces Marx's theory of value is thus linked to his theory of historical materialism. "

 Nadel's distinguishes a clear break between Capital and the rest of Marx's works, without subscribing to the Althusserian conception of the epistemological break. He denies — without criticising it on the merits — the possibility of interrogating the Grundrisse from the categories of Capital, without saying why. It would be necessary to demonstrate that Marx's method, that of historical materialism, has changed. It is not enough to emphasise the absence of the concept of labour power.

The work of Rubel and Janover that we mentioned above shows — in other places, they tried to show it, like Mandel or Rosdolsky, or many others — the continuation. The political unity of his thought and his life is visible. That is the reason why we cannot separate Marx's economics, philosophy and praxis. He adopts the dialectical method of Hegel — the last of the great philosophers in the sense of a conception of the world — Ricardo's economics — the greatest of the classical economists, adopting the labour‑theory of value — and makes all of this his own conception of the world, which includes the struggle for the destruction of the capitalist mode of production. This dimension allows him to see what is concealed by the fetishism of the commodity: the capitalist relations of production embodied in the commodity itself, the object of Chapter One of Book I of Capital. Logically, the eighth section focuses on the birth of the capitalist mode of production, to show, historically speaking, what theory has to show.

Because one cannot dissociate or cut up his work, the choice of texts made by Nadel leaves us sceptical. He writes on page 231 — "Note about the choice of Marx's works" — "We have therefore retained the works which announce themselves as economic or critical of political economy, put in relation to our will to hold on to an approach to the Marxian conception of wage labour which is not dependent on politics." How can one analyse, with these restrictions, the open class?

Class in itself and for itself

First of all, it only exists concretely in the class struggle, which supposes the completion of the process by which it becomes aware of itself, organises, structures itself and fights — in short, the becoming of the class "for itself". The theory of the class "for itself" remains to be completed; Marx gives elements, but it is, by definition, always incomplete. The class "in itself" is defined by its place in the relations of production. Marx's demonstration could not be clearer. The operating laws of the capitalist mode of production are based on the expropriation of surplus value, arising from the value of the use of labour power, which the capitalists appropriate at its value (theoretically speaking), thereby creating value. This particular commodity has the ability to create wealth. This is the reversal of the labour‑theory of value of the classical economists.

In Section I of Capital Marx has in view only productive workers. As he writes several times in the Grundrisse, they are productive of surplus value. Unproductive workers, those who participate in the circulation of capital — bank employees, for example — are no less exploited, because they are under the domination of capital and participate in the rotation of capital, allowing the renewal of the productive process more quickly. Thus, and Nadel also emphasises this, the unproductive are not useless and are fully part of the working class.

Class in itself and for itself

First of all, it only exists concretely in the class struggle, which presupposes the completion of the process by which it becomes aware of itself, organises, structures itself and fights. In short, the becoming of the class "for itself". The theory of the class "for itself" remains to be completed; Marx gives elements, but it is, by definition, always incomplete. The class "in itself" is defined by its place in the relations of production. Marx's demonstration could not be clearer. The operating laws of the capitalist mode of production are based on the expropriation of surplus value, arising from the value of the use of labour power, which the capitalists appropriate at its value (theoretically speaking), thereby creating value. This particular commodity has the ability to create wealth. This is the reversal of the labour‑theory of value of the classical economists.

In Section I of Capital Marx has in view only productive workers. As he writes several times in the Grundrisse, they are productive of surplus value. Unproductive workers, those who participate in the circulation of capital — bank employees, for example — are no less exploited, because they are under the domination of capital and participate in the rotation of capital, allowing the renewal of the productive process more quickly. Thus, and Nadel also emphasises this, the unproductive are not useless and are fully part of the working class.

It is necessary to add — and we do have it, although not always clearly stated — the category of the State to understand the deployment of the preceding categories. The State also plays a role in structuring the open class, the class itself. Forgetting the State, on the pretext that it is a matter of politics, is an error of method, if indeed the theoretical framework set by Marx is accepted.

The unity of the open class is, therefore, a political construction, and resembles the work of Sisyphus. Antagonisms exist within the class itself, on the one hand and on the other, and more fundamentally the fetishism of the commodity makes class relations opaque. Nadel is right to insist on the importance of this concept, but he does not draw the necessary conclusions about the need to build the tools required to understand the forms of class awareness. We find this embryonic analysis of the state in Marx.

To explain the divisions within the open class, Nadel, with further precisions, only talks about salaried employment — is he building a new concept, a new category? The author proposes to differentiate rational workers from irrational workers. This is no longer a reading of Marx; it is a theoretical elaboration. He would have had to "interrogate himself to find out if he could arrogate this right". It is based on a remark by Marx who speaks of goods which have no value but only a price, and as such are not commodities — works of art, for example. On this basis, he considers employees "capital officials" — he speaks of "managers", but also of design workers — as irrational employees, not selling their labour power. It is not obvious that he has taken theory a big step forward by refusing to speak of an open class. It was previously obvious that "managers" were not part of the class. But a certain number of engineers and executives could share common interests, depending on their "proletarianisation". This concept raises questions when it is related to the absence of a class analysis "for itself", as if the divisions of the class were located solely on the objective terrain.

Nadel then wants to mix rational/irrational and productive/unproductive, and he is led to claim that irrational workers can be productive. From the point of view of the categories elaborated by Marx, we are faced with complete confusion. The productive worker is productive of surplus value, let us remember, and an "official of capital" could, if one follows the author's reasoning, produce surplus value without selling his labour power. If we continue the reasoning we could say that Capital produces surplus value. This is inconsistent.

A way of presenting Marx differing from that of Rubel and Janover

This is the hard core of the argument that he gives us, but to fix his object he begins by recalling Marx's biography, emphasising Engels's book "Sketch of a Critique of Political Economy", passing through the review of Proudhon via Ricardo, and arriving at the definition of the proletariat. How is the proletariat formed? From several facts, Nadel notes, which often lead to an indeterminacy, while the historical process of the constitution of capitalism and the open class is widely underlined. Nadel insists on Marx's demonstration of oppression, which makes oppression a historical necessity. He contests the assimilation of the proletariat to the serfs, without seeing that Marx speaks of the producer, by qualifying the modes of production.

The author conducts his analysis so as to show that Marx has no theory of the proletariat, or that he has several, while emphasising the absence of the concept of labour power in the earlier writings before Capital, particularly in the Grundrisse, harshly criticising the concept of "immiseration", both absolute — the reduction of wages to their minimum — and relative. We know that the notion of "absolute immiseration" was taken up by Thorez and the French Communist Party in the 1950s, at the time when capitalism was experiencing continuous growth. It was obviously wrong to claim that the open class was becoming poorer. We rather have the impression that the author criticises Thorez more than Marx. He forgets to question the notion of "minimum", which has nothing to do with the "iron law of wages" of which Lassalle would be a champion. Furthermore, immiseration will fit, in Capital in particular, into the consequences of the movement of accumulation which excludes workers from enterprises, and leads them straight to pauperisation.

Behind this criticism looms the idea that "At no moment does Marx present the modern proletariat as a really constituted class, a class for itself" (page 65). The notion of immiseration has the effect of denying the reality of the concept of the class for itself — which Nadel does not develop. However, immiseration, as we have known since Marx, does not serve class consciousness. It translates into the fragmentation of the class, reducing its capacity to organise itself, and opens the way to revolts of the "jacquerie" type at best, and "fascist" type at worst. Pauperism and lumpen‑proletariat go hand in hand. This analysis would have required developments on the processes by which the open class becomes aware of itself and on its forms of organisation, as we highlighted above. Nadel forgets the founding text of historical materialism, that famous Introduction to the Critique of Political Economy.

The "Manifesto of the Communist Party" is one of the agitational texts which poses the problem of the constitution of the proletariat as a class within a workers' movement. Marx and Engels sought to organise the proletariat and to make it play a role in the revolutionary movements that were preparing and which took place in 1848. They thought an alliance with the German bourgeoisie possible for a beginning of revolution. Their disappointment led them to conclude the necessity of the independent action of the proletariat from the bourgeoisie. The Paris Commune provided confirmation. Nadel obviously does not understand the place of this text, nor the political and social context of that 19th‑century environment.

We wanted to recall the totality of Nadel's positions, to show the will to reconstruct a Marx who forgets the concatenation of the categories and the division of society into classes. Wage is the price of labour power, but it does not undermine the definition of the working class or the laws of operation of the capitalist mode of production. It results in the formal submission of the worker to capital, but real submission requires analysis of the labour process, the extraction of relative surplus value. This labour process structures employment, and its solutions and changes must be at the heart of the discussions. It is impossible to remain at the level of generalities.

Let us hope that this renewal of studies on Marx will continue and that it will give birth to a renewed theoretical debate, so that the work of theoretical development of Marx can continue.

N.B.