Professional Documents
Culture Documents
introduction
poetics of capital/capital
contributors 246
index 249
1
Form analysis and critique:
Marx’s social labour theory of value
elena louisa lange
content has assumed that particular form, that is to say, why labour
is expressed in value, and why the measurement of labour by its
duration is expressed in the magnitude of the value of the product.1
3. A longer, more detailed version of this essay will appear as the first chapter in my
forthcoming monograph Value Without Fetish: Uno Kōzō’s Theory of Pure Capitalism
in Light of Marx’s Critique of Political Economy, Historical Materialism series, Leiden:
Brill, 2019. In it, I discuss the aporia and conceptual conflations in Smith’s and Ricardo’s
respective value theories in detail. This allows me to show – in contrast to common
understanding – that they had no labour theory of value to begin with.
24 capitalism: concept, idea, image
Misunderstanding Marx
Arthur insists that for the analysis of the capital, ‘an absolute
beginning without imposed conditions is needed’.4 We will see
how misinformed such a claim is as to the critical character of
Marx’s own method.
Geert Reuten sings the same tune when he claims the
value-form of money as a ‘constituent of value’ – and therefore
begs the question, because we want to know precisely why it is
that money represents value, why money can indeed buy all the
other commodities. Surprisingly, Reuten does not seem to find it
necessary to engage with Marx’s analysis. Instead, he meanders
in tautological ‘clarifications’ (and ‘proofs’ of the dispensability
of the concepts of ‘abstract labour’ and ‘substance’ based on
word counts!) that serve rather to obscure than to illuminate
the problem. 5 This becomes especially telling when Reuten
denounces Marx’s concept of the substance of value in abstract
labour as a mere ‘metaphor’.6 Yet, at no point in the text does he
state what substance is a metaphor for. At the same time, Reuten
4. Christopher J. Arthur, ‘Money and Exchange’, Capital and Class 90 (Autumn 2006),
p. 10; The New Dialectic and Marx’s ‘Capital’, Leiden: Brill, 2004, pp. 86, 12, 158. For a full
analysis and critique of Arthur’s The New Dialectic and Marx’s Capital, see Elena Louisa
Lange, ‘The Critique of Political Economy and the “New Dialectic”: Marx, Hegel, and the
Problem of Christopher J. Arthur’s “Homology Thesis”’, Crisis and Critique, vol. 3, no. 3
(2016), pp. 235–72.
5. Geert Reuten, ‘Money as Constituent of Value’, in F. Moseley (ed.), Marx’s Theory of
Money: Modern Appraisals, Basingstoke: Palgrave Macmillan, 2005, pp. 78–92.
6. Geert Reuten, ‘The Difficult Labor of a Theory of Social Value: Metaphors and
Systematic Dialectics at the Beginning of Marx’s Capital’, in F. Moseley (ed.), Marx’s
Method in Capital: A Reexamination, Atlantic Highlands NJ: Humanities Press, 1993, pp.
89–113; here, pp. 89, 106, 110.
26 capitalism: concept, idea, image
12. Karl Marx, Economic Works, 1857–1861, in Karl Marx and Frederick Engels, Collected
Works, vol. 29, London: Lawrence & Wishart, 1987, p. 466.
13. Ibid., p. 467.
form analysis and critique 29
logical thinking itself, validation consists in the Concept’s showing itself to be what
is mediated through and with itself, so that it shows itself to be at the same time the
genuinely immediate’ (ibid., p. 134).
19. This has to do with the semantic-pragmatic surplus meaning/cleft necessary
for the dialectical presentation. For more details, see Lange, ‘The Critique of Political
Economy and the “New Dialectic”’.
20. The matter is complicated by the fact that there are supporters (Arthur, Reuten)
and opponents (Murray) of Hegel’s alleged ‘presuppositionlessness’, but the claim itself
is never doubted. Murray, for example, says: ‘Marx does not leave the circle of Hegelian
systematic dialectics unbroken; he objects to the “presuppositionlessness” of Hegelian
systematic dialectics and insists that science has premises, which he and Engels sketched
in The German Ideology’ (Patrick Murray, ‘Marx’s “Truly Social” Labour Theory of Value:
Part I, Abstract Labour in Marxian Value Theory’, Historical Materialism, vol. 1, no. 7
(2000), p. 38). But at the time of The German Ideology Marx has not yet developed a
theory of value at all! This early work is set within a radically different methodological
framework and has different objectives than Marx’s later, economy-critical work.
form analysis and critique 31
21. Karl Marx, Das Kapital. Kritik der politischen Ökonomie, Volume 1, Book 1: Der
Produktionsprozess des Kapitals, Berlin: Dietz Verlag, 2008, p. 27.
22. Cf. Hegel, The Encyclopedia Logic, pp. 225–6.
32 capitalism: concept, idea, image
23. ‘It is not money that renders the commodities commensurable. Quite the contrary.
Because all commodities, as values, are objectified human labour, and therefore in
themselves commensurable, their values can be communally measured in one and the
same specific commodity, and this commodity can be converted into the common
measure of their values, that is into money. Money as a measure of value is the necessary
form of appearance of the measure of value which is immanent in commodities, namely
labour time’ (Marx, Capital, Volume 1, p. 188; emphasis added).
form analysis and critique 33
24. This is, of course, Marx’s main point against Proudon’s ‘People’s Bank’.
34 capitalism: concept, idea, image