Bello Fiore Concept of Labor in Marx

8/13/2019 Bello Fiore Concept of Labor in Marx

1/32

The Concept of Labor in Marx

Author(s): Riccardo Bellofiore and Richard DaviesSource: International Journal of Political Economy, Vol. 28, No. 3, The Enigma of Value (Fall,1998), pp. 4-34Published by: M.E. Sharpe, Inc.Stable URL: http://www.jstor.org/stable/40470723.

Accessed: 20/10/2013 16:57

Your use of the JSTOR archive indicates your acceptance of the Terms & Conditions of Use, available at.http://www.jstor.org/page/info/about/policies/terms.jsp

.JSTOR is a not-for-profit service that helps scholars, researchers, and students discover, use, and build upon a wide range of

content in a trusted digital archive. We use information technology and tools to increase productivity and facilitate new forms

of scholarship. For more information about JSTOR, please contact [email protected].

.

M.E. Sharpe, Inc.is collaborating with JSTOR to digitize, preserve and extend access toInternational Journal

of Political Economy.

http://www.jstor.org

This content downloaded from 128.114.163.7 on Sun, 20 Oct 2013 16:57:52 PMAll use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions
http://www.jstor.org/action/showPublisher?publisherCode=meshttp://www.jstor.org/stable/40470723?origin=JSTOR-pdfhttp://www.jstor.org/page/info/about/policies/terms.jsphttp://www.jstor.org/page/info/about/policies/terms.jsphttp://www.jstor.org/page/info/about/policies/terms.jsphttp://www.jstor.org/page/info/about/policies/terms.jsphttp://www.jstor.org/page/info/about/policies/terms.jsphttp://www.jstor.org/stable/40470723?origin=JSTOR-pdfhttp://www.jstor.org/action/showPublisher?publisherCode=mes


2/32

Int.Journal fPoliticalEconomy, ol.28,no.3, Fall 1998,pp.4-34. 1999M.E. Sharpe,nc.0891-1916 / $9.50 + 0.00.

RlCCARDO BELLOFIORE

TheConcept fLabor in MarxLabor eems quite imple ategory.heconceptionf abor nthisgeneral orm as labor s such is also immeasurablyld. Never-theless, hen t seconomicallyonceivednthis implicity,labor"is as modern categorys are the elations hich reate his impleabstraction.Marx, 973, . 103]

With thepublication of Marco Lippi's Value and Naturalism inMarx1 and the 1978 Modena conference on the labor theoryofvalue in Marx, which was followed by manydiscussion articlesin the review Rinascita,2 debate on the issue came to the fore.Theinnovationnthisdebatewas thattmoved hecenterfgravityf he iscussion.reviously,eflectionad oncentratedon whetherr notMarx's heoryfvaluewascompatibleithSraffa'sccountf he eterminationfrelativericesndof herateofprofit. ow attentionhiftedo thefoundationfthecategoryf value ndso to theverymeaningf the abor hatmakes pits ubstance.nother ords,here as a movefromTranslation 1999 M.E. Sharpe, nc. from heoriginal talian,published nRicercheEconomiche,3-4 (1979), pp. 570-590, exceptfor the sectiononMarxversus raffa. eprintedypermissionfthepublisher, cademicPress.Section7 waspart f theoriginalmanuscript,rittennOctober1978.English ranslationyRichardDavies. I wish lso to thank hrisArthurorbibliographical elp. In the following, have retained uotationsfrom heItalian ourcesbut refer otheEnglishversion rtranslation,henknown,nbrackets.4

http://www.jstor.org/page/info/about/policies/terms.jsphttp://www.jstor.org/page/info/about/policies/terms.jsphttp://www.jstor.org/page/info/about/policies/terms.jsp


3/32

FALL 1998 5

analyzinghemagnitudef value to ts orm ndcontent.Thiswas a welcome heoretical ove, ssential or rogressnresearchnddebate. ndeed, t concerned he pecificationf therelation etweenMarx'scategoriesnd theobjectof hisanalysis,namely,he apitalist odeofproduction,ith view oevaluatingthetheoreticalowerof thosecategories. his operation pensuptwoopportunities:ne is the hance o see ifandhowfar heMarxian difice s internallyonsistentndadequateto itsownsubjectmatter.he other s thepossibilityfworkingut a com-parisonbetween raffa's cheme ndMarx's theoryo uncoverthe causes thatdetermineheoutcomeof the "transformationproblem," nd to checkits consequences lsewhere n Marx'sworks.At the ametime,however,here s a seriousgap in theworkof theresearchers ho oined thisdebate.Theyall presupposethatMarxdefineshe ategoryf abor na conceptualpacethatis,at least npart, xternal o andindependent/thecritique fpolitical conomy,where hat ritiques understood s the m-manentnalysis f theconstitutionnd aws ofthemovementfcapital.Our criticismnd proposed lternativenterpretationreaksdown nto hefollowingtages.First,we set outtheparts f theaccounts fLippiandNapoleoni hat oncern he ssuein whichwe areparticularlynterested. e then onsiderhow Marx setsuptherelationf thehuman eing onature, hich s fundamen-talfor he wothinkersiscussed.This makespossibleourown account f thematter. he defi-nition f abstractaboras theexpression f a contradictione-pendsonMarx'streatmentfthe oncept f abor,which s itselfconnectedo a visionofthe ssenceofthehuman eing.There sa closerelation etweenhe oncept f abor nd thevisionof thehuman ssence, ntheonehand, nd,ontheother,Marx'sphilo-sophical ndepistemologicalhought.utthis s not external oor independentf thesubjectmatter f theanalysis.Quitethereverse. orMarx,the definitionf labor as theessence of thehuman einghas an internal istoricaleferenceo thetransition



4/32

6 INTERNATIONAL JOURNALOF POLITICAL ECONOMYfrom eudalism,nderstoods theexpressionfprebourgeoissocialforms,ocapitalism.ndeed,t s onlywith he apitalistmode fproductionhat he ocialnature f abor omes o ex-presstselfn tsuniversality.ncapitalism,his niversalitys anabstractniversality,hich akes oaccountf and s opposedto thedifferencesetweenypes f usefulabor;but t makespossible heconcreteniversalityn which hegeneral ocialrelationonnects ith recognitionf hose ifferences.3nthisway, herelationf human eings o naturendthe onceptflabor re onfiguredifferentlynprecapitalisticconomieshaninthosemodes fproductionhat refoundedncapital.Marxalways egins yofferingscientificnderstandingfcurrentconditions.Weshall henxamine he onsequencesfour eadingfthetheoryfvalue. nparticular,e look attherelation etweenexploitationndcapitalism,nd at how toclarifyherelationsbetween arx nd raffa.MarcoLippi:Abstractabor s real ocial ostLippi'sinterpretationan be summarizeds follows:4 arx'slabor heoryfvalue entersnthe ategoryf bstractabor.AsLucioCollettias rgued,5bstractabor snot mentaleneral-ization rrivedtbycomparisonf thevarious orts f usefullabor.Rather,t s a real bstractionrisingutof the ffectiveequalizationfconcreteabors hat omes bout nandthroughexchange,herexchangesunderstoods Uteormfreproduc-tion ndnot s a momentn thereproductiverocess.Abstractlabor spreciselyhat abor hat ecomesocial noppositionothemmediatelyrivateharacterf oncreteabor.InLippi'sview,Colletti ailed osee that hereductiono ahomogeneousuantityfdifferentorts fconcreteabor nacommodityocietys,forMarx, reciselyinsormr he pecificmode nwhich given istoricalpoch ctualizes"naturalaw"of"productionngeneral."orMarx, [l]abor s a measure fthedifficultieshatmust eovercome,s real ocialcost, s the



5/32

FALL 1998 7'immanentmeasure of the product,whatever hehistoricalmode ofproduction."7hus,abstractabor s theestrangedndfetishized orm nderwhich heequalization f labor,which slogicallyprior o themeasurementflabor, omes about n thecapitalistmodeofproduction.bstractabor ndvalue takeonadoublerole.On the nehand, ecause theirmagnitude,rquanti-tative xpression,s setbya principle fproductionngeneral,theyarise from natural"determinants;n this,Marx followsSmith ndRicardo.On theother and, hey xpress hewaythatthat rinciplepplies ogeneralized ommodityroduction.8To graspLippi's definitionf abor s the ubstance fvalue,it sworthiting im t ength:

[T]o fully nderstandabor s the ubstancef value threeteps rerequired.irst,abormust e seen as themanifestationf a generichuman apacity o bend natural rocesses o the humanwill,ab-stractingrom heparticularse towhich his apacitys put. ec-ond,all thevarious ndividualaborsmustbe reduced o a socialaverage,hroughnotherbstractiondifferentrom nd ubordinatetothefirst),his ime romhevaryingevelsofproductivityonse-quent o thedifferingbilitiesfthe ndividual orkersrthediffer-ent vailable ools.Third,his rocess fequalizationmust e seenas the result f a process lien to theconsciousdecisions f theproducershemselvesnd mposed n them s anexternalecessity.Theabstractionromheuseful haracteristicsf differentypes flabor ndfrom hevariationsmong he ndividuals hoperformthemsrequiredor nymeasurementfthedifficultiesncounteredinproduction.n capitalistociety, owever,his bstractions noteffectedhroughhe conscious egulationf social production;tthereforeadheres o" theproductsf labor s their alue.In theconsciousnessf he roducers,t hereforeppears s a naturalual-ity f hose roducts.9

FollowingRubin's account f the ategoriesnplay,10 ippi'sclaimcan be articulateds follows: abor that an be "positivelydefined n termsof its components,brains,muscles,nerves,hands, tc.,'"n isphysiologicallyqual and allowsthereductionof abor osimple abor,which s madehomogeneous yabstrac-tionfromhevarious ualificationsnd skills nvolvednit, nd



6/32

8 INTERNATIONALJOURNALOF POLITICAL ECONOMYtosocially qual abor,nwhich arious ates fproductivityrereducedo singlemeasure.hese eterminationsf abor re om-mon o he arious odesfproduction.bstractabormerelyivesa differentxpressionothose eterminationsnsuch way s toallow he enericmeasurementf he ifficultieshat roductionconfronts.his ormf xpressionsgearedo mode fproduc-tionnwhichroducersre ndifferentoone nother.Thereasoninghusmovesrom hysiologicallyqual abor oabstractabor. his s confirmednSalvatore eca's argumentsinsupportfLippi's ccount fMarx.12orVeca,Marx slook-ing t differencesfformnd tchangesnthemode fproduc-tion;to do so, however, e has to assume thatthere repermanentawsof materialeproduction,xpressedn thepastbythevarious orms,nd that here repossible rnonactualmodes fproduction.ence,we shouldnterprethe laim hatproductsre abor sexpressingforMarx) he lementfconti-nuitynhistory,nd, nterms fthehistoryf deas, s a notionthatMarx doptedromhe lassicals.ClaudioNapoleoni: hemetahistoricalntologyf aborNapoleoni'sriticismsfLippi's laim reparticularlynterest-ing.That laim s,hewrites,seriouslyartialndone-sided."13ForLippi'sMarx,bstractabor snothingut he historicalndnaturalecessityhat roductsngeneralandnot nly ommodi-ties) hould ave abor s theirnly eal ocial ost.Atthe ametime, ippifollows ollettinthinkinghat bstractabor s areal bstractionndnot mentaleneralization.ut inorderoreferhis eal bstractiono productionngeneral,' Lippire-gards tas the xpressionf the genericharacterf manasnaturalntity,"hus onflatinggenericnessnd he lienationfgenericness:owever,hegenericnessfnatural uman eing,understoods the nfiniteotentialityor veryetermination,squite ifferentromhe eductionfthat enericnessosepara-tion romlldeterminationsnamely,o bstractionromhem."Theformer,aysNapoleoni,eallys a merementaleneraliza-



7/32

FALL 1998 9tionand not a real abstraction, hichcan onlybe referringoalienatedgenericnessnd, so, onlyto commodity roduction.According oNapoleoni, tis realabtractionhat s bothupper-most nMarx and illuminatingor heunderstandingfcapital-ism; moreover, t is thisnotionthatradicallydistinguishesMarx's positionfrom hatof classical economics. ndeed,forMarx, aboris productivef value notbecause itproduces noutput,onsidereds naturalabor,but because of its historicalform, s "abstract" nd "alienated" aborproducing genericwealth namely,money.Napoleoni'sarticle s importantor wo reasons.First,tpicksup theweakpointsn theviews ofLippiand Veca. But,second,it helpsus see the reasonsthat ed Napoleoniat the Modenaconferenceodeclarehe ailuref heMarxianttemptorediscoverlabornthe alue f ommoditiesnd hatedhim,more enerally,oresolvehe ritiquefpoliticalconomynto hilosophy.

Readclosely, herelation etween ature ndhistory, hich sfundamentalor ippi's interpretation,s equallyfundamentalorNapoleoni.LippicriticizesMarxfornothaving rasped heradi-cal historicityfcapitalism,nd so the mpossibilityfreducingcapitalist roductiono a mereform, lbeit a twisted ne, ofproductionn general.Ringing hechanges,NapoleoniallowsthatMarxdoes talkaboutthenatural umanbeing,but he seesthat heconceptual ornerstonen whichhe can construct isunit of the capitalistmode of production,ased on the labortheoryfvalue, s thealienation f thegenericnesshat elongsto the naturalhumanbeing, somethinghat omes aboutonlywith hedawnofcapitalism.Nevertheless,t s clearthat, t thispoint,Napoleoniruns ntoa difficulty.bstractabor s the ame as alienated abor.But, fwe aregoing o talk bout lienated abor,we shouldhave someidea of what nonalienated aborwould be. Hence,we shouldclarify,n the one hand,what,forMarx,nonalienatedabor sand,ontheother,herelation etween lienated ndnonalienatedlabor. n otherwords,we should olve thepuzzle ofthe riseofabstract-alienabor nd, o,ofvalue.



8/32

10 INTERNATIONALJOURNALOF POLITICAL ECONOMYThis spreciselyheroute hatNapoleoni akes nan article nthis ssue inRinascita,14 hichpicksup the main thread fhiscontributionotheModena conference. is startingoint s theopposition etweenMarx's conception f labor and that f theclassicaleconomists.Where he atter egardwork s "negative,as naturallyndessentially egative, orMarx, aborhas an es-sentially ositive spect.For abor s therealizationfthehuman

being considered s a genericnaturalbeing''15Nevertheless,Marxrecognizeshat his ssence snegated ya givenhistoricalexistence; his s the basis of his criticism hatSmith onfuseshistoricallyeterminedaborwithabor ngeneral.16There retwopoints o stress:1 InNapoleoni'sview,whenMarxrefers oa natural eing,hemeans an essential eing.Likewise, headjective natural"shouldnot be understoods referringowhat omes before

history,ut o what s,so tospeak,metahistorical2. InNapoleoni'sview,Marx deriveshisunderstandingf his-torically eterminedaborby establishingts deviationromitsessence.This, nturn, as twocorollaries. irst,fhistori-cally given abor s defined elative o tsessence, nd Marxconfiguresheessence"philosophically"ather han scien-tifically,"henthatdefinitions an ontolgica definition,withall the attendantaggage. Second,since this essencecontainswithin t an opposition etween negativefinite)moment, hich s the cceptance f the awof the hing,nda positive infinite)moment,which s the assertion f thegenericnessr universalityf the humanbeingas a being,thenthere an alwaysbe a contradictionetween ssenceandexistence,which,with he bstractionf abor, ecomesa contradictionithinxistence.17In otherwords, in open disagreementwithColletti and

Bedeschi,18Napoleoni dissolves the identity etweenabstractlabor as wagelabor) ndalienated abor.The alienation f aborresides n the fact that abor is no longerexperienced s the



9/32

FALL 1998 11confirmationf thehuman ssence nd, o,existence ndes-senceare separated,r alienated. his is differentrom heabstractionf abor,where abor akes n anexistence istinctfrom hat fthe ubjecttheworker) hoperformstandwho,inturn, ecomes n appendagef it. t is onlywith bstractlaborthatwe have value.But abstractabor s theapex ofalienatedabor, heconcept f which anbe definednlybybeginning ith nanalysisf he umanssence s a philosophi-cal-ontologicalategory.Therelation etweenhehuman eing nd naturenMarxThus,LippiandNapoleoni greethat heMarxian heoryfvalue s basedon categorieshat re externalo thecapitalistmode fproduction,19ndthat re n someway nvolvedn theinvestigationf he elationetweenaturendhistory. e shallsee,however,hat his iew s mistaken.s a firsttep,we shalltry o reconstructarx'sown view of therelation etweenhumaneings ndnature.20s is wellknown,his s a problemwith lose inksoepistemologicalssues. etus seewhy.ForMarx, atures "bothnobjectiveondition,ndependentof hehumaneing,nd nobjectification,productf he ctiv-ityofhuman abor."21 ith hefirst art f this laim,Marxplaceshimselfnthe raditionfKant ndFeuerbach,traditionin which heres a cleardistinctionetweenuman eings ndnature.n termsfthe heoryfknowledge,t s thedistinctionbetweenubjectndobject, here heatterannot ereducedothe ormer.ather,egardedsanexternaleality,atures inde-pendentf andgeneticallyrior o consciousness.uthumanrealitys itselfart fnature,ndhistoricallyeterminedumanbeings an anddo come nto elation ith t.As for he econdpart f the laim,Marxpicks pthe he raditionfHegel, c-cordingowhich he xternal orlds, t one nd he ame ime,a humanroductnd self-production,nobjectivizationfthesubject. e neverthelessolds irmlyo theway hat uman c-tivitys performedngivennaturalndsocialconditions,nd



10/32

12 INTERNATIONALJOURNAL OF POLITICAL ECONOMYinsists hat hetransformednd mediatednature o whichthatactivity ivesrise constitutesrealityhat s objective nd inde-pendent f the subject;as such, t is a condition f the laborprocess, ven f t s the esult fanearlier roductiverocess.Against his heoreticalackgroundhe mportancef the on-ceptof labor is obvious.After ll, in order o realize itsaims,human abormust llow itself obe determinedythepropertiesofmatternd,moregenerally, ythe xternal orld.At the ametimethathe subjectshimself o it,the humanbeinguses thepropertiesf natureotransformtfor isownpurposes.There s an obviousepistemologicalnalogy.We have to takeinto ccount oth hewaythat houghtepends n theobject hatis known ndthe fact hat,f t s tobe known, heobjecthas tobe thought. he concept hrough hichtheobject s thoughtsthereforeboth result, destinationhat epends n extralogi-cal conditions,"nd "theoriginal nity hatwe cannotdo with-out."22On the one hand,humansmust dapttheirabor to externalobjective onditions. n theother,hey hapethem n thebasisoftheir rojectsndconcepts, hich im, hroughuman ctivityin accordancewith he aws of nature, ltimatelyt theobjectthat heywill have transformed.n thisway, aboracquires ndappropriatesature, hich s not a thing ivenfrom ll eternity,remainingverthesame,but theproduct findustrynd of thestate fsociety."23This leads to a consequencethat s not always noticedbythose,suchas Colletti,who have made fundamentalontribu-tions o theunderstandingf Marx'sthought. s we shall see indetail n thecoining ections, his s that he relation fhumanbeingsto nature iffersn differentistorical eriods.24pecific-ally,it is onlyin the historical hase in whichthe"positive"aspectof labor, s the activetransformationfnature,s domi-nant over thepassive appropriationf nature hat t becomespossibleto hold theMarxianvision of therelation etween hehumanbeingandnature,ndof labor as themediatingerm fhuman rojectsnd naturalness.25



11/32

FALL 1998 13Theradicalmmanencef he onceptf abor nMarxWeaccept hat hedefinitionfthe ssence fthehumaneingis central ot nly othe arlyMarx f heManuscripts,ut lsoto theMarx fthe ritiquefpoliticalconomy.hepointwithwhich e differs the laim, ariouslyade y he ommentators,that orMarx hatategorysahistorical,etahistorical,rnatu-ral Instead,he ssence o whichMarx efersanonly e fullythoughthroughs the xpressionfcircumstanceshat rehis-toricallyetermined,ndthese ircumstancesre those fthecapitalist ode fproduction.n other ords,ur laim s that,forMarx,abor s the ssence f thehuman eing ua genericnaturaleing,ndthe lienationfthat ssence n alienated-ab-stractaborreboth adicallyistorical.Insupportfthis laim,we shouldxamine hediscontinuityorprofoundreak hatMarxposits etweenrecapitalistco-nomic ormsnd he apitalist ode fproduction.nthe ormer,thehumaneing ccupies specificelationonature. his ela-tion s based n the asicrelation ith he and nd,more ener-ally,with hepredominantlygriculturalature f thismode fproduction.et us considerhe aborprocess haracteristicfthesemodes fproduction.his s stronglynfluencedythewaynatureeems nd s externalndextraneousecause t hasnotyet eenmasteredythehumaneing. hus, aturesboththe xternalonditionhat ets ndfixes he hythmsfthe co-nomic ndsocialprocessndthe nsurmountableimits fthatprocess. his swhy rebourgeoisocietys static. nthe therhand,n themove o the apitalist ode fproduction,hatpe-cific elations cutback ndthenaturalimitationfthe epro-ductiverocesss broken.26ForMarx, heres a distinctionetween he ocialrelationsthat btain rior o theadvent f capitalismndthosefoundwithinapitalism.ntheformerase,relationsrea matterfpersonalmutualependence.nthe atter,he ependences ma-terial. hemutual elationsetweeniven eterminatendividu-als in a precapitalistociety resquashed y the relation f



12/32

14 INTERNATIONALJOURNAL OF POLITICAL ECONOMY

generalized xchange. n prebourgeoisocial arrangements,herelation etween he human eingand nature owhichwe havereferredorrespondso a "personal estrictionfthe ndividualbyanother." apitalism eplaces hiswith an objective estric-tionofthe ndividual yrelationsndependentfhimandsuffi-cient nto hemselves."27Themove from heprecapitalisto thecapitalistmodeofpro-duction,which s historicallyhe transition romfeudalism ocapitalism,s marked ythe eparationftheworker rom wn-ership fthemeans ofproduction,rom he and as the"naturalworkshop,"nd, so, from he means of subsistence.n one re-spect,thisseparations the worker's hanceforemancipationfrom hebond to a specificaborprocess, nd, so, from heself-objectificationn a specific roduct nd from he imitationsfhis own social relations. hat s tosay, t s theworker's hanceto applyhimself o anyand every aborprocess, o acquiretheability oproduce nyuse value,andtoenter ntorelationswitheveryone.n another espect nd at the same time,within hecapitalistmode ofproduction,his eparations alienation romthemeansofproduction.t snot eparationrompecificmeansofproductionutfrom verymeansofproduction. ence, t isalienation rom heobjective onditions fproductionndfromthevery roductfhis abor.Capital s thereforeherealpossibilityor hehuman eing odevelop nalldirections.t offershehistoricalonditions or histhroughtsowndynamic. ut t s also thenegationf thispossi-bility, iventhat hesocialprocessandtheproduct o which tgivesrise reabstract,ot oncrete,niversais.The capitalistmode ofproductionhouldbe seen as the inkbetween wophasesof humanhistory. he firsts "natural" nthatwithin herelation etween hehuman eingand nature helattersdominant.he secondphase s "historical"nthat umanactivitys dominant ver a nature hat, houghtremains xter-nal, is ever moreunderhis control; nd societybecomestrulysocial, which is to say, generalized.Of necessity, hesetwophases correspondo twodifferentonfigurationsf abor.Pick-



13/32

FALL 1998 15

ingup Marx'sway ofexpressing imselfn criticizingmith'sconceptionf abor,28 e may saythat,nbothphases, heaimsand the obstaclesare alwaysexternal ivens.But, in the firstphase,thepurposes re dictated yexternal atural ecessity;nthesecond, hey re setbythehumanbeinghimself.An analo-gousdistinctionolds,mutatismutandis,or he bstacles.In thecapitalistmode ofproduction,hehumanbeing s re-leasedfrom ependence n a nature hat s still argely otmedi-ated by his activity. his release is transformednto anotherdependence, hich s no less a dependence or eriving rom hehuman eing'salienated ocial forces.nthis onnection,necanspeak,as somehave,ofa "second nature" hatmakes tself eltand makeswhat are in fact social relations eem like naturallaws.Afterll,it s only s the ndividuals evermoredistancedfromhis immediate atural nvironment,hichbecomes evermorehisproduct,hat t s possibleto speakofalienationnthestrictense.In short, he separation r splitbetweentheobjectiveandsubjectiveconditionsof productions a necessaryhistoricalconditions f theprocessof human iberation rom he "natu-ral"bond thatholds the humanbeingto a determinateroduc-tivepatternnd makesofhim a particular,nd not a universal,being.The historical rocessthat reates, n the one hand, heproletariatnd,on theother, apital,producesfor he firstimethe real possibility hatthe humanbeingcan presenthimselffullyand consciouslyas the creatorof his own world.Thismakeshim at once a natural eing,one thathas a nature nde-pendent f himself, nd a genericbeing,one thattransformstheobjectiveworld nd that confirms" ndrealizeshimselfnthatobjectivization.29ut the real possibility hat s in playhere comes out upside-downand contradictory,s a "totalevacuation."30 abor is immediately rivate,particular, ndnotsocial laborand it has to become social laborthroughhemediation f exchange.This socialization has to come aboutthrough pposition nd has to give rise to universalbut ab-stractabor;it must lso make itselffelt s a "law ofnature,"



14/32

16 INTERNATIONALJOURNAL OF POLITICAL ECONOMYas an objective ocial necessity hat akeson the semblance fnaturalness.To showthat his s how, n hiscritique fpolitical conomy,Marx takesup and developsthephilosophical ccountof thehuman ssenceand,so,of abor ketchedntheManuscripts, eofferustonevery xplicit assagefrom heGrundrisse:

Universallyevelopedndividuals, hosesocialrelations,s theirowncommunalelations,re hence lso subordinatedo their wncommunal ontrol,re no product f nature, ut of history. hedegree nd theuniversalityf thedevelopmentfthe abilities yvirtue f which his ndividualityecomespossible, upposespro-duction n thebasis ofexchange alues as a prior ondition. nlythismodeof production eneratest one and thesametimetheuniversalitynd alienationf the ndividual rom imself nd fromothers,ut lso theuniversalityndcomprehensivenessf his rela-tions ndcapacities.31If we take nto ccount he leardistinctionnderwhichMarxoperatesnhis discussion fthe"precapitalistorms fproduc-tion"between natural" rprecapitalistonnections,n which herelations fproductionrespecific nd imited,nd thehistoricalphases nwhich rich ndividualityomposed funiversal ela-tionsdevelops, t seemsreasonable odrawfrom hispassage: i)confirmationhat his ndividualitys described s a historicalproduct;ii) the dea that roductionased onexchange alues sa historically ecessary ondition or hepossibilityf this ndi-viduality, or t is thatproductionhatpermits nd requiresuniversal rowthfcapacities,nd henceofwealth, s well as ofinterhumanelations;32iii) the rgumenthat apitalistndividu-ality s contradictory,ecause it is onlycapitalism hat rgani-cally produces uchuniversally evelopedrelations,whichareneverthelessxtraneousnd reified,nd thisnaturallympliesthat heserelations ave a particularharacterndstructure;nd

(iv) the onclusion hatMarxdefineslienationtself s theresultexclusively fproductionased onexchange alues.33Let us bring ogetherhe hreads f the rgument.heconcept



15/32

FALL 1998 17of hehumaneing s a genericaturaleingndof abor shisessenceshistoricallyetermined.owever edefinet,we donothaveto lookto some natural"phereoexplain itherheindividual'sbilityodevelopn all directions,rom hich hedefinitionf abor s alienatedncapitalismollows,rthe on-tradictoryaturef he apitalistelation.hese reresultsf hehistoricalrocess,nparticularf apitalismtself. fcourse,he"free ocial ndividual,"hose ssences labor,s expressedncapitalismnlynan invertedorm.nother ords,he atego-ries nd he onceptionfthe elationetweenhehumaneingandnaturehatorrespondo this ormre, t oneandthe ametime,oth istoricallyeterminedndyet ot imitedocapitalistproduction,nlike bstractabor. hisdoesnot, owever, eanthatMarxderives bstractabor romhe tandpointf a subse-quent istoricalhase.Rather,hepresencef anobjectiveen-dency owardhatndividualityllowshimboth oanalyze hismode fproductionnd oanticipatehe otentialeaturesf hefree ocial ndividualnthepostcapitalististoricalhase.The"essence"owhichMarx eferss,therefore,ot categoryhathas pplicationnlynthe apitalist ode fproduction,ut t sonlywith he dvent fthe apitalist ode fproductionhat tappears s an effectiveendencynhistory.nd t is onlybybeginningromapitalismhatwe can starto discernhe evel-opmenteyondt.Therere womattersobeclarified.ne s the loserpecifi-cation fthe ense o be given othe naturalness"hatMarxascribesoprecapitalistodes fproduction.he other s theelucidationf he elationetween,nthe nehand, reendivid-uality, hose nd-pointarxdescribess given yassociationbasedon thecommonwnershipnd control f themeans fproduction,nd,on theother,hemodeofproductionhat sfoundedncapital.As for hefirst fthese,wemay bservehat, orMarx, helaborersa naturalndividual,onsidereds a part fnaturendas having nature hats externalohim.This holdsfor nymodeofproduction.owever,ncertain istoricalhases,we



16/32

18 INTERNATIONALJOURNAL OF POLITICAL ECONOMYcan add that hefirstbjective onditionf his abor eems to benature r the and,which renotproduced yhimbut realreadyinexistence; his s naturalxistence, hich s presupposed riorand externalo him.34Moreover,nprebourgeoiselations,venwhen t is notbased on tribemembership,hecommunitys afactorhat anquickly ecome given ondition fproductionobe constantlyeproduceds always dentical o tself:

In all these orms,hereproductionfpresupposedelationsmoreor essnaturallyrisen rhistoricswell, ut ecome raditionalofthe ndividual o his commune,ogether ith specific, bjectiveexistence,redeterminedor he ndividual,f his relations oth othe onditionsf abor nd o hiscoworkers,ellowribesmen,tc.are thefoundationfdevelopment,hich s thereforerom heout-setrestricted,utwhich ignifies ecay, ecline,ndfalloncetheselimitsreremoved.35In thisway,Marxestablishes qualitative ifferenceetween

capitalism nd theprecapitalistconomic forms hatwe havebeendiscussing. his differenceffects oth he oncept f aborand thatof society. t attributeso theprebourgeois tagesofsocietythe same "natural" haracteristicelative o bourgeoissociety n thebasis of the cientificnderstandingf themodernrelations f production.36n one respect, he "naturalness" ftheseearliermodes ofproductionxpressesnature's ominanceovera form hat s as yethardlymediated yhuman ctivity.nanother,t expresses heoutstandingeature freproductionfwhatalready xists,namely, hestaticness fprecapitalistco-nomicforms. orMarx,both hese lements an be traced othefact hat hoseforms remainly gricultural.This account rises not outof a reconstructionf theactualcourseofhistoryr inthe ight fa "philosophyfhistory,"utout ofan inquiryhat eeks thespecific ifferenceetween re-bourgeoisformsof production nd capitalism.This inquiry,therefore,xamines hehistoryf thoseearlierforms rom hepoint fviewof he heoreticianf apitalism.n the nehand,Marxcan investigatehehistoricalrocess hateads tothe solation ndseparationf "free"abor ndof apitals the bjectiveonditionsf



17/32

FALL 1998 19

production. n theotherhand,he can clarify he causes thataccountbothfor hestaticnature fprecapitalist odes ofpro-duction,ndfor hedynamicndcontradictoryature fcapital-istproduction.hewaysthat abor s constitutednthesephasesgivethe fullest xpressiono thedifferencesetween hediffer-ent ases.37Thesecondmatters this:Within ourgeois ociety,what ela-tion is therebetween the development f the essence of thehumanbeingand itsalienation-abstraction?ight hisnot be ajudgment hatMarx passes on bourgeois ocietybased on anideal, namely, n image thathe has of thefutureociety, fwhichthepresent ne is thedenial? This does not seemto beright. o show that his s so, we should once more ook at apassageofMarx,from olume ofCapital:Modernndustryever iews rtreats he xistingormf a produc-tionprocess s the definitivene. Its technical asis is thereforerevolutionary,hereas ll earliermodeswereessentiallyonserva-tive.Bymeansofmachinery,hemical rocesses,nd othermeth-ods, it is continuallyransformingotonlythe technical asis ofproduction,ut lsothefunctionsf theworker nd the ocial com-binations f the aborprocess.At thesametime, t therebylsorevolutionizeshe division flaborwithinociety,ndincessantlythrowsmasses fcapital ndofworkersromne branch fproduc-tion oanother.hus, arge-scalendustry,y tsvery ature,eces-sitates ariation f labor, luidityf functions,ndmobilityf theworkern ll directions.nthe ther and treproduceshe lddivisionof aborwith ts ssifiedarticularities,utn ts apitalistorm Butif, tpresent,ariationf abormposestselffterhemanner f anoverpoweringaturalaw, ndwith heblindlyestructivection f anaturalaw thatmeetswith bstaclesverywhere,arge-scalendustry,throughtsvery atastrophes,akes herecognitionfvariation flabor nd hence fthefitness f theworkeror hemaximumum-ber fdifferentinds f abor nto questionf ife nddeath.38

Let us extract rom hispassagethe deasrelevant oour dis-cussionof Marx's conceptof labor. Marx stresses hat apitalsubsumes he aborprocessunder tself n such a way that his



18/32

20 INTERNATIONALJOURNAL OF POLITICAL ECONOMY

process s notmerely ormallyutreally ubjected ocapital.Asis well known, hiscorrespondso a phasein which he extrac-tionof relative urplus alue is dominant.39 henthisreal sub-sumption akesplace, the technical tructuref productionscontinually odifiedwith view to the xtractionfthegreatestpossible surplusvalue. Technicalmodificationffects oth thefunctionsnd the social organizationf labor within helaborprocess. n one respect, his s themaximum nhancement fworkers' apacities.Within he aborprocess, hebond the ndi-vidual has bothwiththeparticularse value produced nd inconsequencewithhisparticularkills nd branch fproductionsbroken. n another espect, hiscomes aboutby creating re-newedbondbetweenheworker nd themeansofproduction. ytaking n their apitalist orm,he meansofproduction eter-mine hefunctionsftheworkerndthe uality f the ommodi-ties produced.The worker s hemmedin by the particulardeterminationmposed ythemachines,t the ametime hatheis alienated rom he ocialknowledgembodiedwithin hem.This seems to support ur earlier laim thatthe late Marxreturnso laboras the essence"of human eing:butafter 857the realization f himself ua universal r generic eing s theexplication f the modern)humanbeing'scapacity o be able"to do anything"hat s originatedndexpressed, lbeitcontra-dictorily,s a tendencyfcapitalismtself.Whatwe have said so far llows us to reconsiderippi's posi-tion nd to indicatewhywe feel t s incorrect. ecall that ippiregardsbstractabor s the apitalistorm f the ocialhomoge-nization f abor,whichhe subordinateso thereductionophys-iologically equal labor. Likewise, value is the capitalistexpressionf measurementy abor,whichforMarxought o becommon o all modes ofproduction. ippi is thus ommittedothe claim thatphysiological quality s thepresuppositionfmeasurementnterms f abor,whereaswehaveargued hat, orMarx,the exactopposite s thecase. Measurementn laboriscertainly ossible given he biological)fact hat genericaborcapacitys expendednanymode ofproduction.utthephysio-



19/32

FALL 1998 21

logical,s well s the ocial, qualityf abor omes boutnfullonlywithinapitalism. nly, hats,when heparticularityndlimitationfthe recapitalistrocess fproductions cut way,when abormobilitynd he ndividual'sndifferenceothe on-creteabor erformedrerealized istorically;nly hen oes hephysiologicalqualityurn romeing mentalbstractionndbiologicalpresuppositionnto an effectiveomogenizationwithinhe oncreterocessf ocial roduction.40Ina more ecentnd arefulontribution,ippi eems ohavetaken hese ssues nto ccountnd, nreiteratingisview,heoffersqualifiedersionf t.41 easurementn abor n tspureform ould hen eoperativenthe irsthase f he ollectivistsociety,s we see n heCritiquef heGotha rogramme:

[T]hegeneralaw,asserted nder ommodityroductions the awofvalue, f t s to be sufficientlyich o be of use inexplaininghewholegamutf uccessivemodes fproduction,ncludingommod-ityproduction, ust e drawn rom phaseof thisprocess ubse-quent o all others nd in this ense the mostgeneral f all. Thisphase s preciselyhe onsciously rganized roductionfcoopera-tive ociety.42By now it should e clearwherewe agree nd wherewedisagreewith ippi'srevised iew.Two points fcontinuingdisagreementaybe noted. irst, ippidoes notsee that he

capitalist odeofproductions thestartingoint hat llowsMarx oanalyze he arliermodes fproductionndto outlinethose hat re to come.Second, ollowingrom hefirst,s thatmeasurementn abor ontinuesnto hefirsthase f the om-munistocietyo which heCritiqueftheGotha rogrammerefers,reciselyecause roductionnthat hase s stillmarkedby apitalistocial elations.43Marx'sconceptf abor ndexploitationIn the emainingections eshall ook thow he edefinitionfthe onceptf abor ffectsiscussionf two entralhemesn



20/32

22 INTERNATIONALJOURNAL OF POLITICAL ECONOMYMarxian heory:xploitationnd therelation etweenMarx andSraffa.First, xploitation.According o Napoleoni's interpretation,proposed lso at theModenaconference, arx sees substantialidentity ithsuperficial ifference etween apitalist nd pre-capitalistxploitation.nNapoleoni'sview,this s untenable e-cause the abor heoryf valueas an "economic" heoryoes notbearscrutiny.he outcome f"transformation"ouldshowthatthevalue of the urplus roductndof thewage goodscannot ereferredack to labor lone.We must hereforeo beyondMarxand show that here s a substantiveifferenceetween apitalistandprecapitalistxploitation.But fwe havepresentedurreadingoherently,his s exactlywhat Marx's labortheoryf value does show.ForMarx,com-modities an be reduced onothingut aboronlywhen abor sabstractabor, nd thereforenly ncapitalism.When, herefore,it s said thatabor s exploited ecausethe ommoditieseceivedbackbythewage-workerontain lesseramount f laborthanthe amount hathe objectifiedn theproduct,his s somethingthat anonlybe said ncapitalism.Itmight e objected hatMarxdoesspeakofsurplusabor ndofexploitationlso forprecapitalistocieties.To thiswe wouldreply s follows:Capitalisms thefirstocietyn which hepro-duction f a surpluss made systematic.t is the first ynamicsocietyrelative o thestatic ocietiesthatprecede t. In thosesocieties,hedominantlass has functionsxternal o theproduc-tiveprocess, nd thededuction ftheproductsf aborfromhelaborers ythedominant lass is based on a transparentelationofpersonal ependence.In otherwords, lwaysandineverymodeofproduction,se-ful aborproduces se-values nlybecause t s oinedtocertainobjectiveconditions f production. he "natural" haracter fprecapitalistconomicformss, however, uch that efore api-talism abor s theprevalent actor n the aborprocessand theconfigurationf themeans of production ends to be fixed.Hence,theamount fcommoditiesroduced ependswholly n



21/32

FALL 1998 23labor s the ctive lementnproduction,nd he urplusanbelegitimatelyeducedonothingut surplusabor."On the ther and,ncapitalism,he apitalistiguress thepersonificationfcapital.Wemaydistinguisht least hrees-pects fhisproductiveunction.irst,sthe ubjectf nabsten-tionfrom onsumption, hichmayopen theway to thereinvestmentf he urplusalue. econd,s hewho ompelshewage-workeroproducever reaterurplusabor.And,most fall,third, hen he abor rocess,oo, sreallyubsumed ithincapital,t sreally roductivefmaterial ealth.44ncapitalism,therefore,hepresencefexploitations not mmediatelybvi-ous buthas to be uncoveredya theoreticalndertakinghatshows hat he pecific ealth fthe apitalistociety, hich sto ay surplus)alue,snothingut abor.Wemay oncludenthismatter:i) thatVianello's laim ttheModena onferencehat,n he apitalist ode fproduction,it s impossibleo referhe urplusalueback osome ontribu-tion nthe art f apital, hichs a mere etishisticppearance,canonly e sustainedn thebasis ofthe abor heoryf valuethat ianello ejects;45ii)that apitalistxploitationsdifferentin substancend nform romrecapitalistxploitation;nd iii)that he abor heoryfvalueprovideshe nlywayofavoidingthe ifficultieshat ollow romefiningxploitations a conse-quenceofhaving surpluswhichwouldmeanthat heresexploitationven na communistociety) ithouteing riveninto he laim hatxploitations tobeavoided nly yworkers'controlver he seof he urplus.MarxVersus raffaTherecent ebate nthe ransformationroblemasledsomewritersoargue hathederivationfprices fproductionromvalueshasto be seen, nthewakeofSeton ndSraffa,s bothredundantndmistaken.46As for tsbeing edundant,t s indeed ossible odetermineproductionricesnd he rofitate rom"value" cheme. ut,



22/32

24 INTERNATIONALJOURNAL OF POLITICAL ECONOMYfirstfall,theresults hat an be reached hiswaydo notmain-tain, xcept n some special cases,the twoidentities f Marx'soriginal ransformation:hat he um of valuesequals the umofprices,and thatthe sum of surplusvalues equals the sum ofprofits. nd, second,theveryquantities f labor thatwe startwith o fixrelative rices nd theprofitate re ustonewayofmeasuringhemethods fproductionthe productiveonfigura-tion"),which ould bereplaced y anyother.What smore,fwedo not know the methods fproduction,ut do knowthe "val-ues,"prices nd theprofitate re ndeterminate.As for tsbeingmistaken,t sargued hat,venwith hegivenquantitiesf directndpast) aborneeded oproduce hevariouscommodities,ricesvarywith hanges ndistributionecauseoftheuneven emporal istributionf abor.47Some morerecent ontributionso thedebate seem to allowmodification f theprevious onclusions. t has been shown48that hetransformationrocedureMarxemploys s onlythefirststep nthecorrect eterminationfproduction rices,which anbe arrived tbytherepeated pplicationfthat irsttep.There seem to us twopossiblesorts f objection,whichareopposed o each other. ne is that, ytakinghis ineonthe rans-formation,e haveto call on a concept f abor hat snotMarx's,because itdefines abor n technical-naturalerms ather han nhistorical-socialerms. he others that,s argued arlier,twouldstill e true hat he ystemf"prices" oes not nfact epend n"values," uton theproductiveonfiguration.nlywhen he pro-ductive onfiguration"s given s there one-to-oneelation e-tween he ystemfvalues and the ystemfprices.To answer heseobjections,we shouldremind urselves hatthespecific haracteristicfcapitalisms thedialecticbetweendevelopmentnd crisis.An adequateexpression nd scientificaccountof thecapitalist elation an be offerednlyfrom hepoint f view oftherealsubsumptionf aborunder apital thecomplete evolutionhatgoes aheadand is constantlyeingre-peated,ntheverymodeofproduction,n aborproductivity,ndintherelation etween apitalistsndwage-workers.49ltvater,



23/32

FALL 1998 25Hoffmann,nd Semmler50re thereforebsolutely ighto claimthatt s the ssumptionf fixed echnical oefficientsr,rather,ofa given"productive onfiguration,"hat xpelsthetheoryfvaluefrom he nalyses fferedySraffand theneo-Ricardians.If,then,we abstract romccumulationnd, so, from ariationsinthe productiveonfiguration,"e abstract romapital tself.In that ase,abstractaborcannot utbe reduced ophysical ndconcreteabor, urplus alue to a surplus roduct hatmysteri-ouslyseepsout of thetechnical tructurefproduction,nd thecrisisto a merepossibility f thatreproduction'snterruptionbecause ofthe narchyfthemarket.51In the woconceptual onstructions,herefore,he ssumptionof the realwage as givenhas different eanings. n the neo-Ricardianversion,whichassumes the "productive onfigura-tion,"it impliesthe simultaneous eterminationf thewageshare.Hence,distributions independentfproduction. n theMarxianaccount,whichenvisagesthe continual evolution fproduction ethodsxpressingnddetermininghereproductionof thecapitalrelation s the dominantocial relation, he as-sumptionf therealwage as givenmeansthat heres a distinc-tion between the real wage and the relative wage. Thedeterminationf thisrelations a variable hatdependson theaccumulationfcapital.The labortheoryf value is thereforeotfalsified.What wehave,rather,s a change nthe ubjectmatternder onsiderationrelative o Marx. This leads tothepointlessnessf muchrecentMarxist ebate boutwhether rnot oaccept heresults f Pro-duction fCommoditiesyMeansofCommodities, hich, iventhepremises,re unavoidable.And fromhis ollows hefetishis-ticoutcome, ccording o whichwe cannotgo back from ricesofproductionovalues, nd we should ontenturselveswith hepicturef a process f "things"roducingthings."Some furtheremarksmayclarifyhis.Thepresuppositionfthe neo-Ricardian ndertakings thecapacityof themeans ofproductionn conjunctionwith aborto produceuse-values nexcessofthoseneededfor elf-replacement.hishas an inherent



24/32

26 INTERNATIONALJOURNALOF POLITICAL ECONOMY

ambiguity.n one sense,thiscapacity xpresses natural actcommon o allmodesofproduction.nanother,t sexpressedsthe fact hat hesurplus roduct epends n the technical truc-ture fproduction.n this atterense, trefers oa situationhat,accordingoMarx, omes aboutconcretelynlywith he dventof thecapitalistmode ofproduction.or, n capitalism,roduc-tivitynd scienceseem, nd to some extentre,theeffect f thedevelopmentf capital. f this s how things re,then t is notpossible o discover alues behind rices, recisely ecause whatthisvision f the conomic rocess xpressess thereferralfthematerial rocess ocapital.Butthisvisioncan be sustained nlyif, nstead f ooking t the conomic nd socialprocess,t ooksat isolatedmoments f thatprocess. n doingso, itundeniablyexpresses fact, realaspectofcapitalist roduction.ut tdoesso in a mystifiedndmystifyingorm ecause texpelsfrom heanalysisthespecificallyapitalistmodebywhichthe"generalproductiveorce rising rom ocial combination. . appears s anatural ruit fsocial abor althought s a historicroduct)."52In conclusion, he derivation f pricesof productionlongneo-Ricardianinesdoes notcontradicthe abor heoryfvalue,for t does notshowthat heoryo be logicallyflawed, s themarginalistheory f distributions. Rather,t showsonlythatvalues are notthenecessary tarting ointfor hedeterminationofprices.But thisnonessentialityf"values" arisesfrom slideinthesubjectmatter ftheanalysis o an issuethat s differentfromMarx's central oncern. herefore,reprise f theMarxiantheoryhouldbeginbyconcentratingn thedynamic nalysis fcapitalism,nd of tsdevelopmentnd crisis.Thiswouldbring othe fore heproblem mplicitnwhatwe have beensaying.Theproblemnquestion resentswoaspects.One is whetherr notMarx'svisionofthe apitalist rocess s adequate o nquiryntothat rocess.The other swhetherr not he abor heoryfvalueis theonly heoryhats coherent ith hat ision.Debateaboutwhat ort f abor s,forMarx, he ubstance fvalue willthere-foreadvancetheoreticalndestandingf,and onlyif, t helpsMarxist nquiry vercome hesharpdividebetween herecon-



25/32

FALL 1998 27structionfthe heoryfvalue nd he nalysisfthe eproduc-tion f apital.Notes

1. Lippi,1976[Lippi,1979].2. See Napoleoni,1978;Garegnam, 978; Vianello,1978; Lippi, 1978b;Colletti,1978; Altvater, offmann,nd Semmler, 978 (Englishtranslationsof all thesepapers ppear nthis ssueof JPE).3. Onthisdistinction,ee Rubin, 978.4. We donotconsider ippis contributiono theModenaconferenceere(Lippi,1978a), thoughwe returno t ater.5. See Colletti'sBernstein nd theMarxism ftheSecondInternational(1968,also inColletti, 969a) [Colletti, 972a].6. As citedbyRubin,Bauer stresses heHegelianderivationf this urnofphrase,whichMarx uses in discussing hemeasure f labor:" 'Immanentstandard' oes notheremeanthequantity hich s taken s a unit fmeasure,but a 'quantity'which s connectedwith ome kindofexistence r somekindofquy" (Rubin,1976,p. 101 [Rubin,1973,p. 126]). Lippidoes not seemtotake account of thisclarification. ubin's workas a whole providesmanygrounds or riticismfLippi;see,especially, ischapter 4.7. Lippi,1976,p. 6 [Lippi,1979,pp.xv-xvi].8. Ibid.,p. 11. [pp.xix-xx].See also Lippi,1977.9. Ibid.,p. 42 [pp. 24-25].10. See notes3 and 6.11. Lippi, 1976,p. 44 fLippi, 979,p. 261.12. Veca, 1977a; see alsoVeca, 1977b.13. Napoleoni,1977, mphasis dded.14. Napoleoni,1978 quotation romhe ranslationnthis ssue).15. Napoleoni 1978) quotesfromnd comments na well-knownassageof Marx on Adam Smith from heGrundrisseMarx, 1968,pp. 277-279;English dition:Marx, 1973a,pp.610-612]).16. We might bserve thatNapoleoni's criticism f Lippi's account ofMarxechoes Marx's criticism f Smith. ippimistakenlyegards s a law ofnature hereification f labor thatoccursin thegeneralizedproduction fcommodities,nd that s theconsequenceofthealienation-abstractionf theessenceofman.He maintains hatMarxasserts hat heproductsre labor,notbecause abor s alienated utbecause t sobjectified.17. See again Colletti'swork,especially"Marxism:Science or Revolu-tion?" in Colletti,1969a,pp. 305-314 [Colletti,1972a,pp. 229-236]), butalso 1970[1972b]and1974a[1974b].18. Bedeschi,1977. See also Bedeschi,1972.19. ForLippi, t s themeasure f abor s a "law ofnature" fproductioningeneral; orNapoleoni, t sthedefinitionf abor s the essence"of man.20. In whatfollows,we draw on thewritingsf Lucio Colletti 1969b



26/32

28 INTERNATIONALOURNALF POLITICALCONOMY[1973], 1975b)andofAlfred chmidt1972, 1973a, 1973b). Schmidt1969)offers critique ftheearlyMarcuse,whose workof 1932 and 1933 [1975,1969,respectively]s attheroot fNapoleoni'srecentuggestions.21. Colletti, 973,p. x,emphasis dded.22. Colletti,1969b,pp. 357-358 [1979, p. 193], both "as a resultant,point farrival hat epends n extra-logicalonditions"s well as "an origi-nal organicunityhat s essential othem."23. Marx andEngels,1975b,pp.40 ff.Marx ndEngels,1976,pp.39 ff.].24. See Schmidt, 973,pp. 27 ff.On this ssue moregenerally, ukacs,1973[Lukacs,1971].25. See Schmidt, 973,pp. 108 ff.26. The following assageofLukacs,fromHistorynd Class Conscious-ness,encapsulateshemeaning f thismove:Marxurgedus to understandthe sensuousworld," heobject,reality,shuman ensuous ctivity. hismeansthatman mustbecome consciousofhimself s a social being, s simultaneouslyhesubject ndobjectofthesociohistoricalrocess. n feudal ocietymancouldnotyet ee himself sa socialbeingbecause his social relations ere tillmainly atural. ocietywas far oo unorganizednd had far oo little ontrol ver thetotalityfrelations etweenmen for t toappearto consciousness s thereality f

man Bourgeois ociety arried ut theprocessofsocializing ociety.Capitalismdestroyed oththe spatiotemporalarriers etweendifferentlands and territoriesnd also the legal partitionsetweenthe different"estates." n its universe here s a formal qualityfor ll men;the eco-nomic relations hatdirectly eterminedhe metabolic xchangebetweenmanand nature rogressivelyisappear.Manbecomes, n the rue enseoftheword,a social being.Societybecomesthereality orman. [Lukacs,1973,p. 27] [Lukacs,1971,p. 19]The forms f therelation etween hedominant nd thedominated lassesareto be explained ythisvery natural" imitedness ftheprocessofproduc-tion.The samegoes for heexternalnessf the dominant lass to theproduc-tiveprocess.This externalness hows itselfboth n the direction f the netproduct o consumptionnd in thefactthat he whole economicprocessissubject osomethingoutside" heeconomic pheresee, again,Lukacs, 1973,p. 129, and Napoleoni,1976,p. 11). We thus find hat here re importantfeatures fthe ocialprocess hat re, nd do notmerelyeem, ndependentfthe conomic rocess.27. Marx, 1968,vol. I, pp. 106-107[Marx,1973a,p. 164].28. Marx, 1968,vol. II, pp.277-279 [Marx,1973a,pp. 610-612].29. See the definition f thehumanbeingas thegenericnatural eing nthe 1844ManuscriptsMarx, 1975a [Marx 1975b]). For a masterlyccount,see Colletti, 969b, h. 11 [Colletti, 979,ch. 11],Humanbeings'genericnessconsistsntheir eing he ndifferencefall differences,s a matterf deas orreason.This genericnesss realized n the"practical reation f an objectiveworld,"which s activityn whichwe see that man is capable ofproducing



27/32

FALL1998 29according othe standards fevery peciesand ofapplying o each object tsinherenttandard"Marx,1975a,pp.78-79 [Marx,1975,pp. 328-329).30. Pennavaja,1976 pp. xxxiv-xxxv) rovides n importantiscussion fboth hepeculiar ndcontradictoryature fthe relation fsocialization ndparticularizationhat s characteristicfthecapitalistmode ofproduction,ndthe opposition hatfollows from t betweenthe "natural nd spontaneous"division f abor npreexistingommunities,ndthe natural-spontaneousutsocial" {naturwchsigesellschaftlich)ivisionncapitalist ociety.31. Marx, 1968, vol. I, p. 104, emphasisadded [Marx, 1973, p. 162;Nicolaus's translationas beenslightly hanged].32. Social bondsare indeedthemselves enerated yproductionased onexchangevalues,that s,productionhat hows tself obe social notthroughthe direct elation mong producers utthroughhe ndirectnd thing-basedmediationfthemarket.ndeed, s Marx rgues,thisobjective onnections preferableothe ack ofanyconnection,r [asinprecapitalistorms fproduction] merelyocal connection esting nblood ties,or on primeval, atural r master-servantelations.Equallycertain s that ndividuals annot ainmasteryvertheir wnsocial inter-connections efore heyhave created hem. Marx 1968, vol. I, p. 104,emphasis dded pp. 160-161oftheEnglish ranslation)].

33. Napoleonihas shownthat, according o Marx thederivation f ab-stract aborfromxchange s suchrather han rom apital s only n apparentalternative.nfact, xchangewithoutapital s inconceivable. ne canequallywell saythat bstractabor s thatwhichproduces xchangevalue intheonlysocial conditionsnwhich his s possible,namely apitalist onditions,rthatabstract abor is wage labor,namely abor as opposed to capital,which isprecisely he aborthat, ecause ofthatopposition,an have no product therthanexchangevalue" (Napoleoni,1973,p. 143 [Napoleoni,1975,p. 109,oftheEnglish ranslation,hichhas beenamended]).Fromwhich t follows hat productionased on exchangevalues," n thequotefromMarx,should be understood omean thesame as "capitalist ro-duction."Only n generalized ommodity roduction o social relations akeonthegeneralityndcomprehensivenessowhichMarxrefers.We mayfurther ote that Marxopposes,on the one hand,the naturalconnectionn precapitalistmodesofproductionnd,on theother, apitalistsociety, onsidered istorically,ndcommunism. ccording o,for xample,Colletti1978), this ast cannot hereforee regardeds thereunificationf anoriginal nd "natural" nity.As between he wo cases there s a radicaldiffer-ence in theindividual,ikewise, n therelation etweenman and nature,nsociety ndinlabor.To paraphraseMarx,we may saythat hemerepresenceof the "free"worker n themarket s theoutcome f a universalhistoryndannounces newepoch.34. This themepermeates he entire ection on "pre-capitalistorms fproduction"n theGrundrisseMarx, 1968,vol. II, pp. 94-147 [Marx,1973,pp.471-513).



28/32

30 INTERNATIONALJOURNAL OF POLITICAL ECONOMY35. Marx, 1968,vol. II,p. 86 [Marx1973,p. 487 oftheEnglish ranslation;slight mendements].36. See Hobsbawn, 974,pp. 18,41.37. Itthereforeeems ncoherento supposethat heres a "philosophyfhistory"n Marx's writings.ndeed,when Marxoffersn "ordering" f thevariouspastand futuremodes ofproduction,e startswith he apitalistocialform nd on the basis of the relations fproductionhat elongto it, nd notby starting ith conception fhistorys having goal, as the ate CollettipretendsColletti,1978 [English ranslationn this ssue]). We rather greewithAlfred chmidt: Only throughheeyesoftheory oes the modificationofa form,withouttself rising romhat orm,rove o be itshigher tageofdevelopment The bourgeois ocial formation asa methodologicallyeci-sive role in dialecticalmaterialismn that t provides hestarting ointfordisclosing oth hepastand thepossibilitiesf thefuture"Schmidt, 973b,p.171 [Schmidt, 971,p. 177]. See also Korsch,1969,p. 89 [Korsch,1963],forwhomMarx'scritique fpolitical conomy investigateshe endenciesnher-ent in capitalist ommodity roductionwhich n thecourseof theirfurtherdevelpmenntroduce henecessary asis for he conomic, olitical, nd deo-logical struggle f theproletarianlass, and whichwillultimatelyverthrowthebourgeoismode ofproductionnd advanceto thehigher roductionela-tions f a socialistic nd communisticociety."38. Marx, 1970,Book I, vol. II, pp. 199-200 [Marx,1976,pp. 617-618;the translation as been amended].Rossana Rossanda has highlightedhispassage n her Note di Studio," /ManifestoJanuary9, 1978).39. On the mportancef the fifth ectionof Volume I ofCapital for nunderstandingfMarx'sproject, ee thewritingsf ClaudioNapoleoni, spe-cially his Lezioni sul capitolo sesto indito Napoleoni, 1972), and ofGianfranco a Grassa,especiallyValoree formazione ociale (La Grassa,1979).40. Rubin,1976,p. Ill [Rubin, 973,p. 138].41. Lippi, 1978a,the writtenontributiono theModena conferencethesameargument aybe foundnthepostscripto theEnglish ranslation,ippi,1979,pp. 120-133].42. Lippi, 1978a,p. 10 [Lippi 1979,p. 130].Accordingo Lippi,this lsoallows us to explainwhyMarxspeaksofmeasuringabor even before om-modities ave beenproduced.43. Comparewith heCritique fthe GothaProgramme:We aredealingherewith communistociety, ot s it hasdeveloped n itsownfoundations,butonthecontrary,ustas itemerges romapitalist ociety. nevery espect,economically,morally,ntellectually,t is thus stillstampedwiththe birth-marks f the old societyfromwhose womb thas emerged"Marx, 1971,p.960 [Marx,1974,p. 346]).44. Onthis, eeNapoleoni,1972,pp. 177 ff.45. The pointdoes not appearin the written ontributionorRinascita(Vianello.1978[English ranslationnthis ssuel).46. See Seton, 1956,andSraffa, 960. The reader houldbe warned gain



29/32

FALL1998 31that he following ages werewrittenn 1978. The new approaches o thelabor heoryfvalue, ncludingmyown,were till ntheirnfancy.must lsoconfess hat oday would harply istinguishraffa rom heSraffans.47. For a short ummaryf thehistoryf the "transformationroblem,"see the wo astchaptersfNapoleoni,1972. For some ofthenegative onclu-sionsreferredo nthe ext,ee Steedman, 977.48. See Cini,1974;Morishima ndCatephores, 978;Shaikh, 977.49. See theResults fthe mmediate rocessofProductionMarx,1 69,p.69 [Marx,1976b,p. 10351.50. Altvater, offmann,ndSemmler, 978 [theEnglish ranslations in-cluded n this ssue].51. One moreword nthe hird oint, incetheustificationfthefirst wois givenbythewhole of thispaper:The real cause ofcrises s nothing utthesame incessant evolutionsn social relations fproductionnd inproductiveforces. he internalynamismfcapital imultaneouslyiveswayto a fall nthe relativewage and to a modification f theequilibriumxchangeratiosnecessary or xtended eproductionogo on undisturbed.s a consequence,as accumulation oes on,the ikelihood fdisproportionalityrisesdegenerat-ing nto general lutofcommoditiesncreases. his train fthoughtmaybetracedback to Rosa Luxemburg,fhertwoeconomicworks TheAccumula-tionof Capital, and the Introduction o Political Economy)are taken ntoaccount ogether.52. Marx, 1968, vol. II, pp. 394-395 [Marx,1973,p. 700]. A powerfulcriticismf theSraffa-basedpproach ovaluetheorys inRowthorn,974.ReferencesAltvater, .; Hoffmann,.; ndSemmler,W. "II valoredi Marx."Rinascita, 1(1978),pp.41-42. [English ranslationnthis ssue.]Bedeschi, L. Alienazione e feticismonel pensiero di Marx. Rome-Bari:Laterza,1972.. "Alienazione." nEnciclopdiaEinaudi,vol. 1. Turin:Einaudi,1977.Cini, M. "Il valore lavoro come categoria scientifica." Problemi delsocialismo, 1-22 (1974).Colletti, . "Bernstein il Marxismo elia Seconda Internazionale."ntroduc-tion to E. Bernstein,/ prsupposa dei socialismo e i compitidliasocialdemocrazia.Rome-Bari:Laterza, 1968,pp. vii- xxxii.[Repr. n L.Colletti,deologia e societ. Rome-Bari:Laterza, 1969a,pp. 61-146; En-glish ranslationn L. Colletti, romRousseau to Lenin.London:New LeftBooks, 1972a,pp.42-108.]. Il Marxismo Hegel.Rome-Bari: aterza,1969b. English dition: .Colletti,Marxism ndHegel.London:New LeftBooks,1973.]. "Introduction."n L. Colletti nd C. Napoleoni eds.), Il futurodelcapitalismo:crollo o sviluppo.Rome-Bari:Laterza, 1970, pp. lxxi-cxii.[Partiallyranslateds L. Colletti, The Theory f the Crash."Telos Fall1972b),pp.34-46].



30/32

32 INTERNATIONALOURNALF POLITICALCONOMY. IntroductionoA. Schmidt,/ oncetto i natura n Marx. Rome-Ban:Laterza,1973.. Intervista olitico-filosofica,on un saggio su "Marxismodialettica.Rome-Ban:Laterza,1974. [English ranslations:. Colletti,APolitical and Philosophical nterview."New LeftReview,86 (1974), pp.3-28; L. Colletti,"Marxism and the Dialectic." New LeftReview, 93(1975), pp.3-29.]. (1975b), Introductiono K. Marx,Early Writings. armondsworth,UK: Penguin/NeweftBooks,1975.. "Valore e dialetticanMarx."Rinascita,18 (1978), pp. 23-24. [En-glish ranslationn this ssue.]. "Marxismo." n TraMarxismo no.Rome-Bari: aterza,1979.Garegnani, . "La realtdello sfruttamento."inascita, , 12, 13 (1978), pp.31-32,25-27,25-26.Hobsbawn, E. "Introduction." In K. Marx, Forme economiche pre-capitalistiche.Rome: Editori Riuniti, 1974. [English original: E.Hobsbawn,ntroductionoMarx,1964.]Korsch, K. Karl Marx. Rome-Bari: Laterza, 1969. [Englishversion: K.Korsch,Karl Marx.NewYork: Russell& Russell, 1963.1La Grassa,G. Valore formazioneociale. Rome: EditoriRiuniti, 979.Laise, D.; Pala, G.; and Valentino,P.A. "Lo svolgimento el processodiformazione eiprezzi."NoteEconomiche, (1977).Lippi, M. Marx: il valore come costo sociale reale. Milan: Etas Libn,1976. [English ranslation: . Lippi,Value andNaturalismnMarx.Lon-don: NewLeftBooks, 1979.1. "II valoredi Marx."Rinascita, 8 1977), pp.35-36.. "La leggedel valore-lavoroome 'forma'della legge gnraledeliaproduzione:nriesame."MimeodistributedttheModenaConference,978a.. "II principiodel valore-lavoro."Rinascita, 17 (1978b), pp. 24-25. [English ranslationnthis ssue.]Lukcs,G. "Storiae coscienzadi classe." Milan:Mondadori, 971. [Englishtranslation: . Lukcs,Historynd Class Consciousness. ondon:MerlinPress,1971.]Marcuse,H. "Sui fondamentiilosofici el concettodi lavoro nella scienzaeconmica." nCultura societ.Turin: inaudi,1969,pp. 147-187.. "Nuove fontiper la fondazione del materialismostorico." InMarxismo rivoluzione. urin: inaudi,1975,pp.63-1 16.Marx,K. Lineamentiondamentali ella criticadeli economiapoltica.Flor-ence: La Nuova Italia, 1968. [Englishtranslation: . Marx,Grundrisse.Foundations f theCritiqueofPolitical EconomyRoughDraft).Harmondsworth,K: Penguin/NeweftBooks,1973a.]. //Capitale,Libro , CapitoloVI medito.Florence:La Nuova Italia,1969. [English ranslation:. Marx, Results f the mmediate roductionProcess." In Capital, vol. I, Harmondsworth,K: Penguin/NewLeftBooks,1976b.].Forme conomicherecapitalistiche.ome:Editori iuniti, 970a.



31/32

FALL1998 33. //Capitale. Rome: EditoriRiuniti,1970b. [Englishtranslation: .Marx,Capital: A Critique fPoliticalEconomy, vols. Harmondsworth,UK: Penguin/NeweftBooks,1976-81.1. "Criticadel programmai Gotha." n K. Marx,Operescelte. Rome:EditoriRiuniti,1971. [Englishtranslation:Critiqueof the Gotha Pro-gramme,"nK. Marx,TheFirst nternationalndAfter. armondsworth,UK: Penguin/NeweftBooks,1974.1. Storia dle teorie economiche. ibro quartodel Capitale. Rome:NewtonCompton, 974. [English ranslation:. Marx,Theorie fSurplusValue, vols. Moscow:Progress ublishers, 963-71.]. Manoscritti conmico-ilosofici.Turin: Einaudi, 1975. [Englishtranslationn K. Marx,EarlyWritings.armondsworth,K: Penguin/NewLeftBooks, 1975b,pp.279-400.]Marx, K., and Engels, F. L'ideologia tedesca. Rome: Editori Riuniti,1975. [English ranslationn K. Marxand F. Engels,CollectedWorks,ol.5:Marx andEngels1845-1847. London:Lawrence& Wishart, 976.]Monshima, M., and Catephores,G. Value,Exploitation nd Growth.NewYork:McGraw-Hill, 978.Napoleoni,C. Lezionisul capitolosesto inditodi Marx. Turin:Boringhieri,1972.. Smith, icardo,Marx. Turin:Boringhieri,973. [English ranslation:C. Napoleoni,Smith, icardo,Marx: Observationsn theHistory fEco-nomicThought,xford: lackwell,1 75.]. Valore.Milan: sedi,1976.. "II Marx nutile i Lippl."Rinascita, 3 (1977), pp.31-32.. "L'enigma del valore." Rinascita,8 (1978), pp. 23-24. [Englishtranslationn this ssue.]Rossanda,R. "La mobilit n Marx.Note di studio."//manifestoJanuary9,1978).Rowthorn, . Neo-Classicism,Neo-Ricardianism nd Marxism. New LeftReview, 6 (1974), 6S-87.Rubin, .I. Saggisulla teoriadel valorediMarx. Milan:Feltrinelli,976. [En-glish: .I. Rubin, ssayson Marx's Theory fValue.Montreal: lack RoseBooks,1976.]. "Abstract aborand Value inMarx's System."Capitaland Class, 5(1978), pp. 107-139.Schmidt,A. Ontologia esistenziale e materialismostorico in HerbertMarcuse." nRisposte Marcuse. Rome-Bari: aterza,1 69,pp. 1 -47.. Storiae struttura.ari:De Donato,1972.. // oncetto i natura n Marx.Rome-Bari:Laterza,1973a. [Englishtranslation:. Schmidt, heConcept fNature nMarx. London:New LeftBooks,1971.]. "Stona e naturanel materialismo ialettico"1973b). In RisposteMarcuse.Rome-Bari:aterza, 969.Seton,F. "The Transformationroblem."ReviewofEconomicStudies June1956).



32/32

34 INTERNATIONALJOURNALOF POLITICAL ECONOMYShaikh,A. "Marx's Theoryof Value and theTransformationroblem." nJesse Schwartz ed.), The SubtleAnatomy fCapitalism.Santa Monica:Goodyear, 977.Steedman,. MarxAfterraffa. ondon:New LeftBooks,1977.Veca, S. "Ancorasu scienza e filosofia nMarx."Rinascita,11 (1977a), pp.22-23.. Saggio sul programma cientifico i Marx. Milan: II Saggiatore,1977b.Sraffa, . Produzionedi merci mezzodi merci.Turin:Einaudi,1960. [Pub-lished in Englishas P. Sraffa, roduction f Commodities yMeans ofCommodities.ambridge: ambridge niversityress,1960.1Vianello,F. "L'anello spezzato."Rinascita 1978), pp. 23-24. [English rans-lation n this ssue.]

Bello Fiore Concept of Labor in Marx

Documents

Transcript of Bello Fiore Concept of Labor in Marx