Remarks on the theoretical significance of Marx’s Grundrisse ae ae Economy and Society Vol 3 No. 2 May 1974 Abstract In recent years much play has been made with the significance of the Grundrisse for the reinterpretation of Marx’s thought. The text has been represented as a vindication of those who have treated Marx’s work as a relatively direct development from the early writings of 1843 and 1844, and a rebuttal of those who have sought to establish that Marx’s later works constitute a radically distinct project from that of his youth, the two projects being separated by an epistemological break. ‘This paper examines the theoretical structure of the Grundrisse, the kind of concepts that it contains and the objects constructed by these concepts. I argue that the result of such an examination demonstrates that the latter of the two positions outlined here is the correct one. The Grundrisse is shown to be an incoherent, transitional work, and its ambiguities an index of the presence of a number of theoretical obstacles. 1. Introduction? In 1968 and 1969 three separate articles, appearing in the U.S.A. Britain and France (Howard, 1969; Nicolaus, 1968; Semprun, 196%’. drew attention to the importance of seven of Marx’s notebooks, dated August 1857-April 1958, published in Moscow first in 1939 under the title Grundrisse der Kritik der politischen Okonomie (Rohentsurf*. followed in 1941 by a supplementary volume. ‘These were then r°- published in 1953 as one volume by Dietz Verlag, Berlin. French and Italian editions appeared in the ’sixties, but we have had to wait \ the middle of 1973 for Nicolaus’ much heralded English translation Sections have however already appeared in English: the ‘1857 [-tr0- duction’, originally in 1904 and in several other versions; a seetio® entitled ‘Pre-Capitalist Economic Formations’ in 1964; the secti machines in Economy and Society in 1972; and McLellan’s fragment 1971. ‘A remarkable amount of significance has been attached to thes notes; they are ‘the centrepiece of Marx’s thought; any selection 0° Marx's writings that does not quote fairly widely from the Grundric must be judged severely inadequate; and any discussions of the co? tinnity of Marx's thought that does not take account of the Grundrisse A«arts on the theoretical significance of Marx’s Grundrisse tat weald be doomed from the start’ (McLellan, 1971: p. 3); ‘the only complete work on political economy that Marx ever wrote’ (Nicolaus, 1972/68: p. 309); ‘the Grundrisse challenges and puts to the cer every serious interpretation of Marx yet conceived’ (Nicolaus, gms: P- 7): Carrently, the ‘theme’ of ‘alienation’ provides the chief 373 of debate in attempts to prove a continuity between the early and foer works of Marx, together with more specific disputes concerning the relation of the Grundrisse to Capital by reference to the working plans of 1857-8 and 1865. In fact, the only book so far written on Je Gnundrisse, Rosdolsky’s Zur Entstehungsgeschichte des Marxschen "Kapital directs itself to this second problem, containing the only yy discussion of it (see Appendix I). ‘These disputes are not janocent of course, for the stake is the status of Marx's project, the ‘eootinuists’ representing a humanist attack on orthodox Marxism and {as strongest contemporary champions, the Parisian school. Semprun states this quite clearly: In fact, Marx’s manuscripts of 1857-58—and no-one can invoke the plea of ignorance any more since they are accessible in French—render precarious, if not the project, at least the ‘essentials produced by the work of Althusser and his friends. {Semprun, 1968: p. 61) 3 ié unfortunate that such weight should be placed on what remains a transitional and incomplete work, and it is apparent that those who make such inflated claims for the Grundrisse display a lamentable igporance of Theories of Surplus Value and Capital. This is indicated ‘Nicolaus’ article of 1968, where in emphasising the novelty of the Grendrisse be points to its theories of unequal exchange and capitalist » apparently unaware that the first is subsequently revised ‘fad the second abandoned, both being effects of a process of theo- ‘Feteal transition, The object of this paper however is not to discuss and evaluate a series of commentaries on the Grundrisse, but to establish the transitional nature of the work. It is tempting to approach this through the con- struction of terminological biographies (as has been done with ‘aliena- nation’ for example),? but this mode of procedure is unsatisfactory in that t destroys the unity of texts and converts concepts into words. Corre- respondingly. any adequate treatment of the Grundrisse founders if a Series Of “good bits’ are selected and presented as the core of the work, astor ample McLellan does. The principal feature of the Grundrisse, usually &fasped-by any honest reader, is its unrelenting repetition and confusion: this is however an effect of Marx’s theoretical struggle, his cae Pose problems without the means of correctly formulating ‘hem. “The selection of quotable quotes obscures this and thus represents a distortion Of the significance of the text. The Grundrisse is an incoherent work, producing a number of distinct objects which alternate and over-Keith Tribe lap? Tt labyrinthine matte stems directly from thi Maipot an tational work, "The method adopted in this pape to dsl With this problem i begin by eutning chments of the aac of Capt, ee 2 esa of ts cncpr frmatin and onder of eepntan dunn ofits objec the aa ofthe law of maton of he ene inode of producton nd a representation in competion TRC a te indents ware the structure ofthe Grundrae coor en Shstaces fo an aul of he captain made of preleee na! mpc object), This comtitotes the maton of ee aaa nee representa nly the beginning of work which can cae the Sega a theoreti moment in the wanstormaton of Maree ane theocaeal work area a support uch tener hae oon begun. Chronology the Grundrine can be ely lected Seas of wunidan, but this can only be thearsd curently noes fashion, Rancire (96s) h perhaps one ofthe fow to ave veoh the mitre of e cpatemologial bresk innugurted by Man teas doing 00 he confined Mins t the Par Mamuuritr aad Cop ‘riot venturing inthe prote of anion, Such work take Print of depute the labour of thesia trasornatan weet Epurats Sux rom the Cla! alta Econom, which has on feconly been identified as these of eri difcuiiee. An campo this i the conceptual couple xedferulaing capa, Joerba s ‘Gat! canes elo hone ats ih the theoical strutre ofthe Grandin sca to boat of constant warble apa Copal ee ‘Beh howe ow crates they co es operon these eny wit the stuctre, Thi fs the prelem of concepuaining @stacterl transformation who laping ito a historcam (simple ehvonoing) or atctrtivn (ample conbinatory af pgeoncoles) plurality and Digression—The Marx-Engels correspondence Tt may be of use t make some remarks concerning the corresponsere ‘covering the time fiom the start of Mary's work on the Grundrise ‘2 the publication of Capital, Vol. I. Here again selection has lot to certain interpretations of Marx’s theoretical development which #1€ faulty, for the correspondence does not provide the kind of erie running commentary on the obstacles that Marx encountered w2ch might be expected, and which some writers have implied. For example, we know that Marx started work on the ‘Introduction at end of August 1857, and then went on frantically working at his "6% for seven months until he fell il. But in the letters no mention & TAS itis assures 98 ee Ene Marx 1 at this time of the developing economie crisis which, the stimulus for this work; perhaps because for o directly involved, since he is convalescing for a perio The first prssing reference te the erisis comes 19fees on the theoretical significance of Marx’s Grundrisse 183 at St. Helier on October 31, 1857 (Marx, 1963b: p. 205). With return to Manchester an analysis is begun, and it is only by a emark in a letter dated December 8, 1857, that Marx first registers bie theoretical work: Jam working like mad through the night pulling my economic ‘studies together, so that at least I have the fundamental ‘outlines (Grundrisse) clear before the deluge. (Marx, 1963b: p. 225) Sappat is all. Further, it is tacked on as an afterthought to a discussion 1 ef coatemporary aspects of the crisis. ‘Occasionally Marx does give an account of his theoretical work, but there are two distinct forms: first, to people such as Lassalle and Kugelmann, Marx concentrates on giving an overview of how his work appears to him at that particular time. Second, there are a few detailed letters to Engels where Marx has stumbled on a new development, 60 instead of waiting until they next meet, he devotes an unusual amount of space to a particular problem and asks for a quick response from ‘Engels. The kind of argument that these two forms will support must therefore be strictly distinguished. A much-used example is the following: By the way, I’m getting some pretty developments, e.g. I have overthrown the whole theory of profit as it was. I have been greatly aided in the method of working, that, by mere accident— Freiligrath found a few volumes of Hegel originally belonging ‘to Bakunin and sent them to me as a present—I had leafed through Hegel's Logic. (Marx, 1963b: pp. 259-60) && this time Marx had not seen Engels for several months, so it is cult to locate when Marx believed that he had accomplished this ‘etvence, Stated in this way, of course, emphasis is placed on the chrono- logical location, rather than on the logical location which is the real problem. If Marx has made an advance, it is not necessarily a once and forall step forward, but is intimately connected with other achieve- de Gam Siffcultics, and is a mark of the process of detachment that t bears with respect, in this case, to the classical theory of roti. So far, if we take Marx at his word, But there remain difficulties, outlined Below, and it will become clear that'Marx is anticipating, that ee Marx has not won free of the classical theory of hel that he continues working at this problem in the early 1860s. hat Awiah to show here is that it is dangerous to support arguments saeerag the theoretical developments of Marx with his own state~ what he thinks he is doing at any one time—which is one of the basie lessons of Marxist theory, and should be applied to Marx as to anyone else.(me Keith Tribe 2. The structure of ‘Capital” (2) Some general observations One of the earliest debates concerning Capital was that of the relation ‘of the price theory of Vol. III to the value theory of Vol. 1. ‘This discussion continues in the dispute on the transformation problem von Bortkiewicz's neo-Ricardian solution re-emerging in vogue with the rise of a contemporary neo-Ricardian school around the work of Sraffa. The difficulty is an important one, since any attempted answer to the question of the unity/difference of the volumes leads directly tn statements concerning the epistemological status of Capital. Thus although discussion of the simplistic problem of the comparative status, of the volumes tends to lead nowhere (in much the same way that discussion of the two ‘plans’ does), it introduces some real difficulties that have up until recently remained largely concealed, Establet (1965: p. 337) identifics two versions of the relationship: one formulated first by Sombart and Schmidt, saw the progression fron T to TIL as a journey from the ‘abstract’ to the ‘real’, with the law nf ‘value operating as a ‘logical fact’ or a ‘necessary fiction’. The second he attributes to Godelier, who views the journey as one from micro- economics to macro-economics, or ‘abstract -models’ to ‘complex realities’ (Establet, 1965: p. 340). These are variants of an incorrect understanding of the theoretical status of Capital, a work which never leaves the sphere of the abstract, but rather advanees from principles developed for one branch of production (value, the Worker, Capital} to more complex forms where branches interact (productive money, ‘commodity capital, reproduction process, compctition, equalisation of the rate of profit). Vol. IIL is just as ‘abstract’ as Vol. I, since neither of them at any point deviate from the theoretical object, which is not empirically given, but is constructed in the text by the work of a set of concepts. In Vol. I we deal with the concept of the structure and general effects, whereas in Vol. II we pass to the structue’s particular effects; from the abstract in thought to the thought-conerete (Althuséet, 1970: pp. 189-90). . The problem which arises from this is that of the necessity of the ‘order of exposition ; why docs Marx in Capital develop his argument in the way that he does, what is the nature of the ‘mode of presentation’ (Darstellungsweise) as he called it in the ‘Afterword’ to the secon! German edition? It was to this problem that Establet and Macherex addressed themselves in their contributions to the 1963 edition of Lire le Capital, but unfortunately they fail to add anything 10 the suggestions thrown out by Althusser. As a consequence, this section will be confined to sketching some problems of the order of exposition For several years, the theoretical achievement of Marx has beet thought out with respect to his relation to Hegel, easting into the shadeFoeisets on the theoretical significance of Marx's Grundrisse 195 fe perhaps ‘more interesting’ predecessor, Ricardo. It can easily be * ‘that Marx in some nebulous way ‘revolutionised’ Ricardo and ical Political Economy, but it is a fact that many versions of ‘Mars’s ‘economics’ fail to provide any material differentiation between. Ricardo and Marx. This is crucial when we consider that Marx Ricardo as a scientific economist who, albeit with the use of ‘forced abstractions’, investigated the real law of motion of capitalist juction; Ricardo is not Marx however, and the theoretical gap between them is central to any grasp of Capital. This ‘gap’, which is spot'a simple space but is constituted by the radical intervention of an epistemological break, was not forged overnight, but was painstakingly constructed; therefore this distinction Marx/Ricardo is of importance hen considering transitional works such as the Grundrisse. According to Marx, one of Ricardo’s errors, associated with his ‘faulty architectonic’, was the way in which his Principles attempts to eal with contradictions all at once: One can therefore see that not only are commodities introduced in this first chapter—and nothing further should be introduced if value as such is under investigation—but also wage-labour, capital, profit, even the general rate of profit, as they arise in the process of circulation, just as the distinction of ‘natural and market price’, which last indeed plays a decisive role in the following chapters, ‘On Rent’ and ‘On Rent of Mines’. (Marx, 1967: p. 165) ‘So Marx emphasises that one cannot deal with everything at once, and farther, that the starting point is not arbitrary, but directly associated with the object of investigation. Accordingly, he starts Vol. I with wel. In all the many discussions of this, it is usually assumed that _ Marx’s mode of representation is adequate, and arguments are presented ‘» justify the given order. This is in my opinion an error, but I will ‘enfine remarks to indicating the consequences of such an order. ‘Value’ represents the social aspect of the capitalist production Proceas, existing only at the level of the mode of production as a whole. ‘The creation of value is performed not by an individual but by social » the “Total Labourer’ (Gesamtarbeiter) referred to by Marx. Ia Classical Political Economy, by contrast, value was treated as the veal nature of the object, to which price by some mechanism approxi- mated —as such this concept of value is concerned with an analysis of wealth. I Marx, this problematic is dissolved, value denoting the social Conditions of commodity production, while price denotes the Jriiton of its circulation. By beginning thus with value the relations mn specific to the capitalist mode of production are intro- = and the way is clear for a progressive exposition of the elements fode of production, a determinate combination of relations and forees Of production. Simultaneously a new conception of causalityNe ibe and structure is inaugurated, for the mode is not built up around an essence (eg, ‘man interacting with nature’) but a8 a process withous subject (the process of production and reproduction), ‘One of the central analytical problems that Marx is engaged on in Capital is the explanation of the creation of surplus-value, Clase, Political Economy concentrated on particular forms (rent, wage-labosr profit), secking to break away from previous explanations, such as ther ‘of Steuart, which derived it from circulation. They were unsuceessfut hhowever, and Marx's task is to explain how commodities exchenge st their values and stil produce surplus-value. (Mars, 1962: p. 180) as 4 means of doing this, Marx distinguishes between productive and ‘unproduetive labour, but unfortunately this distinction remains amihig- ‘uous, and the site of many contemporary difficulties. In Theories uf ‘Surplus Value any labour performed within the capitalist mode ce Production is productive whatever the use-value created—ie. is determined by the relations of production, When Marx came to Capital Vol. II however he tended to define productiveness according to whether it created a commodity or not, and so the commercial labour employed in the physical circulation’ of commodities was deemed unproductive, although within the capitalist mode of production "There is here a shift betwoen definition according to use value on the one hand and relations of production on the other; despite these difficulties however the distinction remains an essential one in the consteuction of a theory of surplus value, since failure to recognise it ‘ean easly result in a relapse to the position of Smith, Below it will be seen that where Marx has not developed the concept of productive ant ‘unproductive labour, even to the ambiguous level of the ‘istics, itis the index of a theoretical failure. However, apart from the place of these particular concepts, it is necessary t0 conceive of the mode of representation in Capital as rote than a pedagogic device, for itis intimately connected with the eon ception of the relationship between the ‘real’ and ‘apparent’ mover Only in Vol. IIT does Marx consider the way in which the product process is represented to its bearers through the operation of competition: If, as the reader to his regret has recognised, the analysis of the real, inner relationships of the capitalistic production process is ‘very involved thing and a very detailed work of labour: if it + a labour of science, which reduces superficial, merely apparent ‘movement to the real internal movement, soit is quite ‘understandable that ideas (Vorstellungen) must be built up i= the heads of the agents of production and circulation conce#nink the laws of production which completely deviate from these laws, and are only the conscious expression of the apparent ‘movement, The ideas (Vorstellungen) of a salesman, speculatof banker, are necessarily completely inverted (ganz verkehrt)wee We MME UTUNOTISSE 17 ee oe on ‘Those of the factory owners are falsified by the acts of circulation to which their capital is subject, and by the sation of the general rate of profit. Competition necessarily plays in these heads also a completely inverted role. (Marx, 19642: pp. 324-5) ‘Which brings us to the concept of representation. @) ‘Darstellung’ : the concept of representation ‘Marx’s emergent concept of Darstellung is the concept of the mode of presence of the structure (the articulated modes of production) in its eflects—as we saw above, the specification of the material necessity of the appearances given in competition. This is perhaps the central and decisive advance on Ricardo, and is at the root of the gradual develop- ment through Volumes I and II to the beginning of III where we are first able to examine the forms (Gestaltungen) produced by the pro- duction process. Marx summarised Ricardo’s method as follows: He starts out from the determination of commodity value by labour time and then investigates whether the remaining economic relations, categories, contradict this determination of value or how far they modify it. One can see at once the historical justification of this mode of procedure, its scientific necessity in the history of economics, but also simultaneously its scientific insufficiency, an inadequacy not only shown by the (formal) means of representation (Darstellungsart), but leads to erroneous results, since it leaps over necessary internal connections and secks to demonstrate in a direct manner the mutual congruence of economic categories. (Marx, 1967: p. 161)? Ua'a more logical way than Smith, Ricardo ‘leaps over’ the connection between the real and the apparent movement, or to be more specific, ‘be has no means of showing how the first is present in the forms, ‘fects of the second. As such the concept of Darstellung plays a double tele, di ing the real from the apparent, and then producing the Metemity of the appearance as an effect of the real movement. To ively analyse the capitalist mode of production this concept is Ghemtlal; for example, without it the extraction of surplus value ath the exchange of labour-power -against capital cannot be eorised. Several of the economists (e.g.' Bastiat and Carey) against ‘Shon, ‘Marx polemicises represent this as a ‘fair’, ‘equal’ exchange, in denna neither gains at the expense of the other. The Ricardian socialists cnounes’ this exchange, and asserted that since labour produced 2» the product should belong entirely to the worker. This is cuit of the theory Marx went on to build up, for it is a ‘“mgument which does not produce any knowledge of why a short moralisticth Tribe this precisely does not occur. What Marx had to do was to show hove @ surplus could be obtained from an equal exchange, of rather, hove the real relations could represent themselves in this form in the ida assigned to the bearers. In order to effectively demolish the arguments of a Nassau Senior, a Bastiat, Marx nceded to show how this necessary appearance was produced. In the Grundrise, however, Marx remain, A the level of Ricardo in this respect, sabotaging himself by starting ‘out from moncy and therefore ‘universal’ exchange. From this starting, point, and with the Ricardian mode of representation, Marx is unable to produce a refutation of Bastiart, he can merely denounce him, ‘This problem is reinforced by the structural absence of relations of production, which results from the starting-point of universal exchange: instead of Worker and Capitalist as representatives of wage-labour and capital, they confront each other in the pages of the Grundrise as individuals. Further, it can be shown that where the concept of representation is most noticeably absent in the text of the Grundrise this isthe precise site of a passage evoking the alienation of the subject—is therefore symptomatic ofa theoretical struggle in whch lapses occur. An example is the following passage: Circulation is the movement in which the general alienation appears as a general appropriation and general appropriation a: general alienation. As much, then, as the whole of this ovement appears as a social process, and as much as the individual moments of this movement arise from the conscious will and particular purposes of individuals, so much does the totality of the process appear as an objective interrelation, which arises spontaneously from nature; arising, itis true, from the mutual influence of conscious individuals on one another, but neither located in their consciousness, nor subsumed under them as a whole. Their ovsn collisions with one another prostuce an alien social power standing above thers, produce their ‘mutual interaction as a process and power independent of them. (Marx, 1973: pp. 196-7) ‘The absence of the relations of production as moments ofthe circulation process, signified by circulation being considered as between individuals leads to the inability to account for the representations of the ‘indi= viduals’ with respect to the process of circulation—we are trapped i a phenomenology, unable to go beyond the appearance of the proces* to its posited subject. And also, in the distinction made in fn. 7, we d© not know whether these are ‘Vorstellungen’ or ‘Einbildungen there js no means of analysing the material basis of these appearances: The analysis moves in this way from the appearance of a socal whole for 38 individual (i.e. the ideological societyjindividual problematical) t0 4 confirmation of the estrangement of the individual from the soc!enartaon the theoretical significance of Marx's Grundrise 18 ‘Thus where the concept of Darstellung and its associated word ‘Pimost noticeably absent, we have the site of support for a humanistic feading of the Grundrisse.* 3. Two exchange processes ‘As emphasised above, the concept of the relations of production is not cfiectively present in the pages of the Grundrisse, and this is most apparent when Marx talks directly of the exchange of labour against ‘The reciprocal and all-sided dependence of individuals who are indifferent to one another forms their social connection. This social bond is expressed in exchange-value, by means of which alone each individual’s activity or his product becomes an activity and a product for him; he must produce a general product—exchange-value, or, the latter isolated for itself and individualised, money. On the other side, the power which each individual exercises over the activity of others or over social wealth exists in him as the owner of exchange-values, of money. ‘The individual carries his social power, as well as his bond with society, in his pocket. Activity, regardless of its individual manifestation (Erscheinungsform), and the product of activity, regardless of its particular make-up, are always exchange-value, and exchange-value is a generality, in which all individuality and peculiarity are negated and extinguished. (Marx, 1973: PP. 156-7) Individuals are related to each other by undifferentiated social bonds ‘ach is equal before the great leveller, exchange-value, which is the sole criterion by which individuals can be divided into two groups But this is not the only difficulty, for what exchanges against what is ‘eo far from clear. Take this example: ‘What the worker exchanges with capital is his labour itself (the pacity of disposing over it); he divests himself of it (entauBert sie). What he obtains as price is the value of this divestitute. (EntauBerung), He exchanges value- positing activity for a Pre-determined value, regardless of the result of his activity. (Marx, 1973: pp. 322-3) Bi perestetica remark in the first sentence takes us to the heart of n, for it does not simply add to the previous statement, but contradicts i, The two versions are thu: (1) Labour :: capital (2) labour power :: capitalWhen Mar alls of exchange in the Grandi thee wo ae topaben inoduing«cntsdon ath ernie abo pee Peer cbsken ahh beeen yahoo go adm tops hom wih Ness ums breing seeps in Cae Beste mate in th folowing (4) labour (no intrinsic value) embodied in commodity capital (2) labour power labour process in which labour directed by capital. (Mars, 1962: p. 563) ‘This confusion is compounded by a failure to distinguish betvce productive and unproductive labour, associated with a eoncentat on exchange value. The exchange process is treated as exchange oi uuse-value (from the worker) for exchange-value (from the eapitalist) whether or not the use-value i in fact employed to create surplus-value or is a deduction from it, which has as a root the absence of a concept of the mode of production within which the exchanges are made: ‘The exchange between the worker and the capitalist is « simple exchanges each obtains an equivalent; the one obtains money, the other a commodity whose price is exaetly equal to the money paid for it; what the capitalist obtains from this simple exchange is a use-value: disposition over alien labour. From the worker's side—and service is the exchange in which he appears as seller—~it is evident that the use which the buyer makes of the purchased commodity is as irrelevant to the specific form of relation here as itis in the case of any other commodity, of any other usc-value. What the worker seis is his disposition over his labour, which isa specific one, specific skil, etc. What the capitalist does with his labour is completely irrelevant, althous! of course he can use it only in accord with its specific characteristics. ... Ifthe capitalist were to content hirnsclf with merely the capacity of disposing, without actually making the ‘worker work, eg. in order to have his labour as @ reserve, « then the exchange has taken place in full... . Tn general term the exchange-value of his commodity cannot be determined by the manner in which his buyer uses it, but only by the amount of labour required to reproduce the worker himself. For the uuscevalue which he offers exists only as an ability, a eapseity (Vermagen) of his bodily existence; he has no existence apart from that, (Marx, 1973: pp. 281-2)“Jouerts on the theoretical significance of Marx's Grundrisse 191 consequences of this analysis, which although starting out from the ‘de of the worker, generalises on this instead of proceeding to the side of the capitalist (and later made his point of departure) is to reduce the ‘Socker and the capitalist to the level of individuals. As a result a Humanist reading becomes possible which departs from these indi- edvals as human subjects, and the reading then transferred to Capital ‘here the exposition of the capitalist mode of production is read as the of the alienation of the subject. The error of such a reading of Capital is clearly that it imposes subjects on the text; which such a reading of the Grundrisse is erroneous in that it fails to pose the problem of what significance these ‘subjects’ have for the structuring of the text. ‘As [have argued they in fact constitute obstacles for a rigorous analysis of the capitalist mode of production. But the division of ‘labour’ into productive and unproductive elements js not the only form of this couple: capital is also divided in this way, and the necessary concept of productive capital then in turn requires the concepts of constant and variable capital, which scarcely figure in the Grundrisse. We find in their place instead fixed and circulating capital, the first in a series of ‘ersatz’ categories. 4. Fixed and circulating capital versus constant and variable“: Marx mentions in passing the terms constant and variable capital once in the Grundrisse, referring to them as proper to the production phase; he then passes directly to a discussion of competition. He again refers to ‘What we earlier called the constant part of capital’ (my translation, Marx, 1953: p. 630; Marx, 1973: p. 743) at the very end of the second section of the chapter on capital. The formula C + V + S = value of @xmmodity occurs once, but does not constitute part of the theoretical scructure. Instead, we find capital systematically divided into fixed and Sreulating elements, a distinction proper to the circulation process. As faxed by the Classical Political Economists the two were distinguished by the time they took to circulate, fixed capital having the slower rate mnce it only depreciated gradually. Marx's concepts of constant and "ziable capital on the other hand belong to the sphere of production -and distinguish between that part of capital devoted to raw materials, » machinery (so-called ‘dead labour’) and that part which mamntamns the labour force (‘living labour’). The distinction is essentially a the fixed/circulating couple remains a technological distinction, Ihe coenstant and variable capital on the other hand denote respectively ihe ondtions of labour and the labourer himself. Marx was not the lust to make such a distinction however: a Principle merit of Ramscy: ».uwt: that he in fact makes a distinction between constant and ‘Seriable capital. True it occurs in such a form that he retains asKein Tine solitary names the distinctions, taken over from the circulation process, between fixed and circulating capital, but explains fixed capital in such a way that it includes all the elements of constant capital. By fixed capital he understands therefore not only instruments, buildings in which the labour process gous on of the result of labour is stored, work and breeding cattle, but also all raw-material (half-fabricated, etc.) . ‘One can understand therefore that by ‘circulating capital he understands nothing but the part of eapital, dissolved in wwage-labour, and by fixed capital the part dissolved in objective conditions—means of labour and labour material. The error is indeed that this division, taken out of the direct production process of capital, is identified with the distinction stemming from the circulation process. This is the result of holding fast to the economic tradition. (Marx, 1968: pp. 320-1) It is necessary to emphasise that these two couples are not Ingica! equivalents, present respectively inthe sphere of production and culation. This kind of conception ofthe process of transition bets ven :heoretieal structures certainly makes life easier—it ean be maintairws that at a crucial moment Marx ‘perecives an error’ in his work, ant effcers a shift from the process of circulation to that of production by 2 generalised exchange of conceptual equivalents, the transition is effected by swapping homologies. This conception would however he incorrect, for it assumes that the set of concepts appropriate to each sphere exist in a homologous combinatory; such an explanation is therefore structuralist in that it conceives of theoretical transitions as the mass replacement of elements of homologous structures. In fact the transition from the sphere of circulation to that of production is 2 complex process which results ina conceptual structure specific t0 the concepts set to work in that sphere. In this transition process, tied and circulating capital cam at times function in ersatz roles, 28 showed above with respect to Ramsey, but the examination of belongs in a logical reconstruction of Marx's theoretical revolution. In the Grundritse Mars is on the way to breaking with the Clase conception which distinguished capital according o time, but partial nature of this is demonstrated by his position on the een duction of fixed capital, essentially the same as that of the Classica! theorists, who simply assumed that as fixed capital depreviates i simultaneously renewed ‘This problem of reproduction in fact designates the ersatz nature ot the concept of fixed capital in the Grundrise as the following passe" indicates, where Marx talks specifically of the depreciation of macbine®® as fved capital Its total value is completely reproduced, ic. is fully returned via circulation only when it has been completely consumed afiamerts on the ‘theoretical significance of Marx's Grundrisse 193 use value in the production process. As soon as it is completely dissolved into value, and hence‘completely absorbed into Circulation, it has completely passed away as use value and hence must be replaced, as a necessary moment of production, a new use value of the same kind, i.e. must be reproduced. ‘The necessity of reproducing it, i.e. its reproduction time, is determined by the time in which it is used up, consumed within. the production process. With circulating capital, reproduction is determined by circulation time; with fixed capital, circulation is determined by the time in which it is consumed as use value, in its material presence, within the act of production, i.e. by the period of time within which it is reproduced. (Marx, 1973: pp. 681-2) In so far as Marx specifies the process of reproduction, this is conceived ‘asa result of the activity of the worker, not of a particular branch of the production process: He therefore replaces the old labour-time by the act of working itself, not by the addition of special labour-time for this purpose. (Marx, 1973: p. 356) Although the site of this statement is in a discussion of the preservation of the means of production free of charge by the labourer, it does indicate that Marx has not clearly distinguished between the main- tenance of value and the reproduction of the means of production. The feproduction process is not yet conceived as a particular department of Production, although it must be emphasised that this is not an obstacle ‘poved by the nature of the concept of fixed capital. The orga composition of capital constructed in the Grundrisse consists of fixed and circulating ‘apital, the principal difference with the organic composition of capital ia Capital (Constant and variable capital) being in its effects on the rate of profit. Fluctuations in the value of fixed capital resulting from the introduction of new techniques will in the Grundrisse directly affect the expmnic composition of capital and the rate of profit, while in Capital the same fluctuations could be compensated for by e.g. the cheapening of raw materials, leaving the rate of profit unaltered. It was not until the early" sixties that Marx broke decisively with the Classical theory, as is indicated by a detailed letter to Engels criticising Ricardo’s rent theory. letter Marx presents an organic composition of capital based on ‘constant and variable portions (Marx to Engels, August 2, 1862; Marx, P. 267). This seems to be associated with Marx’s theoretical digestion of Quesnay’s Tableau Economique, a work of crucial importance \which fis not referred to at all in the Grundrisse.1° (See Appendix I.) : vent ome enieance of the reproduction schemes that Marx then vue it ct, the use of an ersatz organic composition of capi vow Mm particular for a central area of the Grundrise: the specific break4 Keith Tribe down of the capitalist mode of production, and the general problem of conceiving of transitions from one mode of production to another. Capitalist crisis or production breakdown? A difficulty touched on above is that the Grundrisse does not pose as its object the capitalist mode of production, rather it could be said 1 direct itself to capitalist society. In the section entitled ‘Forms whic! precede capitalist production’ some have claimed that Marx lays ont in analysis of the structure and periodisation of modes of production, This is not strictly true, as can be demonstrated by Marx's disertssie of crisis and breakdown in these forms. When Marx writes of capitalist crisis in Capital, Vol. 111, he clearly specifies the contradictions wh: specify this: The contradiction of this capitalist mode of production consists rather in its tendency to the absolute development of its productive forces, which continually conflict with the specific conditions of production, in which capital moves and can only move. (Marx, 1964a: p. 268) The real barrier of capitalist production is Capital itself, that is that capital and its self-realisation appears as a point of departure and arrival, as motive and aim of production; that production is only production for capital, and not the other way around, the means of production are merely a means for a constantly extended formation of the life-process for the society of producers. (Marx, 1964a: p. 260) to Marx’s theory of crisis and transition: central is that in order to specify the es its It is not necessary here to go i as developed in Capital, what particular forces which generate the contradictory tenden necessary to form the concept of a mode of production. In Grundrisse this is absent; instead we are presented with a theory socio-economic ‘forms’. Attempts have been made to elevate this in a theory of modes of production, but without a great deal af success It is important to recognise that at this stage Marx has not prodcent an adequate theory of periodisation and transition, the elements «f+ mode of production remain implicit in these passages, resulting i + particular way of conceiving of the transition: The survival of the commune as such in the old mode requires the reproduction of its members in the presupposed objective conditions. Production itself, the advance of population (this too belongs with production), necessarily suspends thi . conditions little by Tittle: destroys them instead of reproducing them, ete, and with that the communal system declines andpests on he theo sineance of Man's Grande 05, fall, together with the property relations on which it is based. (ara, 1973: P-486. See also p. 493) ‘what Hobsbawm presents as a more sophisticated analysis than the st’ succession of modes in the 1859 ‘Preface’ (Hobsbawm, 1964: p36) is in fact the index of a theoretical weakness, for although Marx See not imply determinate succession of stages here, he has corre- Spoodingly no means of accounting for the rise and decline of forms: the form simply overproduces itself, and this overproduction is not Jeeated in a region specific for any form. The transition simply occurs, it precondition being the collapse of the old form, which is at root a ‘Given that there are severe weaknesses with Marx’s analysis of the taw of mation of economic forms in general, itis only to be expected that the theory of crisis that he presents for capitalist society suffers a8 ‘result. As mentioned earlier in the Introduction, Nicolaus at one” time drew attention to Marts statements concerning capitalist break down in the Grundritv, although interestingly he does not repeat them, in his Foreword, in fact implying that he disclaims such a position ‘Wicolaus, 1973: p. 51). In the Grundrisse two forms of crisis mist be sdatinguished, the periodic spasms which recreate the conditions for ‘production on an extended scale, and also the final breakdown of ‘opis: . Beyond a certain point, the development of the powers of. Production become a barrier for capital; hence the capital ‘elation for the development of the productive powers of labour. ‘When it has reached this point, capital, ie. wage-labour, enters into the same relation towards the development of social wealth and of the forces of production as the guild system, serfdom, slavery, and is necessarily stripped off as a fetter. The last form of servitude assumed by human activity, that of wage-labour on one side, capital, is thereby cast off like a skin, and this casting, 6 itself is the result of the mode of production corresponding, te capital; the material and mental conditions of the negation of earlier unfree forms of social production, are themselves the ‘eault of its production process. The growing incompatibility roeeen the productive development of society and its hitherto ‘timing relations of production expresses itself in bitter Saotraditions, crises, spasms. The violent destruction of capital = relations external to it, but rather as a condition of its PaRseation, isthe most striking in which advice is given Pe, Fone and to give room to a higher state of socal tection. (Marx, 1973: pp. 749-50) en then continues, stre the role of fixed capital in the ‘Meee of profitability, and then the prion f stated:” » Keith Tribe "Fhese contradictions, of course, lead to explosions, crises, in which momentary suspension of all labour and annihilation of a great part of the capital violently lead it back to the point where it is enabled (to go on) fully employing its productive powers without committing suicide. Yet, these regularly recurring catastrophes lead to their repetition on a higher scale, and finally to its violent overthrow. (Marx, 1973: p. 750) Earlier on this idea of the conditions and limitations of the capitalist production process is also elaborated: However, these limits come up against the general tendency of capital (which showed itself in simple circulation, where money as medium of circulation appeared as mercly vanishing, without independent necessity, and hence not as limit and barrier) to forget and abstract from: (1) necessary labour as limit of the exchange value of living labour capacity; (2) surplus as the limit of surplus labour and development of the forces of production; (3) money as the limit of production; (4) the restriction of the production of use values by exchange value. Hence overproduction: i.e. the sudden recall (Errinerung) of all these necessary moments of production founded on capital; hence general devaluation in consequence of forgetting them. (Marx, 1973: p. 416) ‘There are three major points to be made concerning these sections where Marx discusses crises. ‘The first of these concerns the theoretic! difference in the foundation of the two forms. ‘The periodic crisis is developed on the basis of particular tendencies"? which act together t» produce temporary suspensions, which refound the possibility of her capitalist production. This is formally similar to the theory of crisis presented in Capital, although it must be emphasised that here We have an ersatz organic composition of capital. Second, the idea of the final collapse of capitalism is not based on factors different from those which produce periodic crises, but ratier rests on an assertion of the development of the form to its self-abolition. In the first passage quoted above there is no indication of the source of this ‘overthrow'—whether it is an automatic process of collapse. °F whether it posits revolutionary class struggle. The passage rate zs the nature of the collapse, as such is indicative not of Marys ‘insight’ but of a lack of theoretical development. It might be objected that Marx does sketch out a theory of transition specific to capitalism in his section on machines, which brings us to the d point. For this objection introduces yet another ambiguity in fe Grundrisse, that of the nature of capital, for these machines are FePFe" sented as the most adequate expression of fixed capital (Mars, 19734seria on he theoretical significance of Marx's Grundrisse 197 694). The quotes above can be read as similar to passages in Capital fei the reservations already made) only so long as capital is conceived as a social relation. The problem is that Marx is not consistent on this § the Grundrisse, and this is shown precisely in the section on machines, ‘Thus although there are many passages where Marx emphasises the - pecal nature of the original accumulation of capital and the social bonds Of capital, when he comes to discuss reproduction this is conceived of asa heaping up of machines, a piling up of fixed capital. Here Marx in fact reverts to the Classical conception of fixed capital, tending to sssociate machinery in general with capitalism, which in Capital Vol. I is ted as an error committed by Classical Political Economy (larx, 1962: p. 465). So again there is a region of the Grundrisse where 4 seruggie with Classical theory is still under way, and concepts have - not yet been consistently formulated with which to effect a definitive break. : 6. Conclusion ‘This paper cannot of course do justice to the complexities of the Grundrisse; it is limited to indicating its transitional nature, drawing attention to the fact that the significance of the text does lie in new {enriched) theoretical revelations, but that it more simply shows Marx at work forging the necessary concepts for an adequate analysis of the ‘capitalist mode of production. For what we have in the Grundrisse is Marx's mode of investigation; an often incoherent review of the works from which he was breaking away. One of the principal difficulties of tackling the Grundrisse in the way done here is precisely its transitional asture, for all too often Marx’s varies the use of his concepts (as shown. with respect to fixed capital), such that it would be possible in some cases to extract passages which proved that Marx had here, for example, developed an adequate theory of surplus value. ‘This is not however the Point, for what is contended in this paper is that the inconsistency of the Grundrisse must be posed as the fundamental problem. The work ‘9 only be made coherent by the imposition of a problematic external “it, given the current lack of means theorising processes of transition. A painful reconciliation of the apparent incongruencies with quotes and ‘words avoids the necessity of taking these problems as the point of marture for new theoretical effort. ‘ Finally, two political consequences of the text can be isolated (8) Since the analysis proceeds in the sphere of circulatior possible to theorise the production of surplus value, since in circulation the agents of the process are posited as equals. The clearest index of this i that the text begins with money, exchanging which equalises the ‘agents @% money holders abstracted from the process by which the means Of exchange are distributed. Obscuring the relations of pro-98 = Keith rte duction in which surplus value is produced, this results in the conceale ‘ment of the dominant characteristic of the capitalist mode of production the appropriation of a surplus through commodity exchange, re analysis of surplus value therefore rests, in the last analysis, not ons theory of appropriation but on a (moral) principle of exploitation although this is concealed by certain categories. (2) The ‘theory’ of capitalist breakdown isin fact lacking theoretical support, and no criteria are advanced which differentiate this from the mechanisms of periodic crisis. Further, the role of the working class is, left obscure, and the text can lead to an economism by which the ‘apitalist mode of production is held to break down of sts own accord, with the working class performing at the most perhaps a coup de grace APPENDIX I: The ‘Two Plans’ Up until now, discussion of the theoretical relationship between the Grundrisse and Capital has been blocked by concentration on a chrono- logical problem, the relation of the two plans of 1857-8 and 1805-F, ‘The so-called ‘historical’ approach (Rosdolsky, Morf) coneenteates on establishing whether these two plans are really the same, and when any shifts occurred. This tends to divert attention from the problem of theoretical transition, but in so far as the questions posed are relevant some aspects of the debate are worth discussing. Tt has been asserted many times that the four volumes of Capital (including Theories of Surplus Value) represent merely the first of six books planned in 1857-8: (2) Capital (2) Landed Property G) Wage Labour (i) The State (5) International Trade (6) World Market ‘The basis for this assertion varies from ignorance (McLellan) to formalism (Rosdolsky) to an insufficient geasp of Mar’s theoretic! object (Nicolaus). Rosdolsky conducts his argument by discussing whether bits of the Grundrisse are similar to bits of the 1865-6 sche=e. that of Capital more or less as it subsequently appeared; by this meas he raises the score to three out of six. 1 will not discuss his argument Jength here since this has been done by Brewster (1972). Nicolaus 0 the other hand emphasises ‘the inner method and logic of the whole ‘The inner structure (of Capital) is identical in the main lines #2 the Grundrisse, except that in the Grundrisse the structure lies | ry the suiefare, Hike a seaTolding, while in Capital i is built 5Hanaris on the theoretical significance of Marx's Grundrisse 195 and this inner structure is nothing other than the materialist dialectic method. In the Grundrisse the method is visible; in Capital itis deliberately, consciously hidden, for the sake of more graphic, concrete, vivid and therefore more materialist- dialectical presentation. . . . The fact that much content in the Grundrisse is not cartied over into Capital—particularly the directly, outspokenly ‘revolutionary’ passages—is due precisely to the requirements of the method of presentation employed in Capital. (Nicolaus, 1973: pp. 60-1) Both these positions are erroneous, for the only adequate criterion for 4 discussion of the plans is the theoretical divisions which they pre- suppose. It has been shown that despite ‘the same method’ in the twe works Marx comes up with some very different answers, and that the supposedly ‘revolutionary’ passages have been left out for a more soun¢ reason than some form of cosmetics. Nicolaus is correct to emphasist the distinction between the mode of investigation and the mode: 6! representation, but by becoming entangled in ‘problems of method docs not see that this distinction centres around the order and mode o exposition of the object; the analysis of the capitalist mode of productior cannot be initiated arbitrarily but is subject to its own laws. The severt difficulties present in the Grundrisse (for example, the pre-occupatior, with the sphere of circulation) are theoretical in nature and not just the results of a preliminary investigation armed with a trusty method, Rosdolsky’s is unfortunately marred by his vice-like grip on a pair of scissors and a jar of paste. His book is chiefly long quotes from tht Grundrisse and Capital, which does indicate an extensive knowledge of these works, but results in a work which reads like a 500-page content! index, This is not the most suitable form in which to present an argu! tment, and it is consequently difficult to summarise; indeed it might teasonably be doubted that a coherent argument exists. : ., Roadolsky identifies the principal analytical movement in Capital ai the development from ‘capital in general’ to the ‘many capitals Wol. I-Vol. 111), and accordingly identifies the Grundrisse as a stageii thes process, remaining in the sphere of ‘capital in general’. "TResmit a confusion here, apart from the fact that Rosdolsky procera $0 eBument to support his assertion. In Capital Vol. I Marx examine fasga in general’ in such a way that he can introduce money apart etal ae which belongs to the analysi$ of competition, the equalisa- “gen, Of the rate‘of profit and prices (Vol. III). But in the Grundrisn ert introduced in such a notional way, but is part of the sami = xa once’ that marks the early chapters of Ricardo's Principles, sacteolty were right in identifying ‘capital in general’ as the crucial - fol. I, then the Grundrisse, dealing also with this, could not Recta slearly from Capital in the way that it does: instead Seems unable to deal with the real confusions of theow Keith Tribe Grande ad ioats one of the more obvious ‘similares’, when because of the role it plays in the structure is no similarity at all, ane ‘assembling a scries of quotes from Marx, he concludes: oo Readers familiar with the content of Marx's Capital will certainly know how to appreciate the meaning of these {quotations from the Rokenterurf. For what Marx sketched in 3857-8 is in fact also the programme of his later work (Rosdolsky, 1969: p. 71) ‘The ‘reason’ for this change is a follows: ‘The change of plan seems to be explained by completely diferent reasons than those touched on in the course of our investigation: namely, that after Marx has completed a considerable part of his work—the analysis of industrial capital-~ the old ‘self-understood” structure becomes superfluous. (Rosdolsky, 1969: p. 75) ‘The ‘reasons touched on’ were those of Kautsky and Grossmann, In the latter case, Rosdolsky quotes Grossmann to the effect that the change is one from an empirical to a theoretical treatment of the production process, inserts an exclamation mark, pastes in a criticism of this from Fr. Bebrens, and then remarks that their effectively common positinn is obvious. Grossmann is totally misrepresented by Rosdolsky, for he in fact produced remarkable argument which was the first attempt to deal with the theoretical development of Marx, and remains unsurpasses Since the Grundrisse was not published in 1929, Grossmann’s source for the six-part scheme is the 1859 ‘Preface’ to the Contribution ¢ Critique of Political Economy, but the plan is here identical to that of 1857-8 so that the argument remains the same. He poses the familiar ‘question for the first time: is Capital complete, or is it a fragment of a more extensive work? Grossmann opens by presenting # continusst argument and then criticising it: [And although this can be seen from a first glance, the fact of the change of plan of Marx’s Capital escapes Professor R, Wilbrandt—in spite of bows that he makes before this, ‘extraordinary work’, which is more or less a duty in his capacity as author of his work on Mars. In so far as he goes j the background (Entstebungsgeschichte) of the work and presents the original plan of 1859 as the plan of a six-part work he then announces to the world that the single volume of Cap that Marc himself edited remains a torso in a double sense. Not only because iti ‘only the fist of several volumes’ But secondly, ‘it is only the first volume of a work which in tu part of a whole: the first of six parts, which were considered bYeivat ergennnaniee U1 HLMIA OTUNOTISSE 201 on te EH the author as the solution of many problems, which in the first of the complete work, in Capital, he withheld from. ‘settling, holding them over for later works’. (Grossmann, 1929: P- 307) Iria rather disturbing to see the same arguments as are current now edvanced over forty years ago in the same simple form; in the case of S{cLelan, his argument is virtually identical with that of Wilbrandt (McLellan cites Grossmann in his Introduction, misquoting the title, ves no indication that he is acquainted with Grossman's argu- tment), Wilbrandt maintained that the presentation of wage-labour is gxomplete in Capital, without noticing that a change of plan inter- ‘ened. Kautsky on the other hand had noted this, but had never investigated it. Grossmann locates in the correspondence of the early sixties the signs of theoretical struggle, Marx stating that he has had to ceampletely reorganise his work (Marx to Engels, August 15, 1863; ‘Marx, 19646: p. 368). Grossmann associates this directly with the working through by Marx of the reproduction schemes: Ivis the task of the following presentation to show that there is not merely an external connection between the change of plan of Marx’s work and the methodological construction of the reproduction schemas, but also a necessary inner connection, that the methodological viewpoint in fact followed in the final construction of Capital—the articulation of empirical material according to the functions performed by capital in its circular flow—therefore the change of the original 1859 plan, must have necessarily followed from the way in which Marx conceived the problem. This problem, as I will show elsewhere, is: since exchange value in capitalist production—the increase of - exchange value—is the direct goal, it is important to know how to calculate it. (Grossmann, 1929: p. 313) What I wish to stress here is not the attempt to solve the reason for ‘tte change by emphasising an empirical problem—that belongs to a — study of Grossmann’s work. What is important is that JTossmann points to ime ii han, Pe a the recovery of Quesnay as of prime importance y in the Tableau Economique constructed a reproduction for a capitalist (agricultural) society, based on exchanges ‘Productive’ agriculture and ‘unproductive’ manufacture, who ‘worked up the products of agriculture. Out of these two sectors ¥ developed the class distinctions of the capitalist mode of a eidean were rejected by Smith, who however retained the istinction by differentiating between agriculture and _woeture. In this way Smith created an obstacle to an accurate {reatment of the-cireulation of commodities, and Marx in returning to merelymm ei Tog ~Quesnay replaced the productive/unproductive distinction with two departments of production—(1) the production of constant sts and (Il) the production of the means of consumption. ‘This sr treatment of the reproduction process of the capitalist mode at duction, based on the concepts of constant and Variable eapits crucial step forward for the theory of Capital In the Grundriste on other hand the only Physiocratic work referred to is the Daire cine of 1846, and from this Marx only notes Quesnay’s article on fern (Fermiers) in a few places. Perhaps the argument of this paper with respect to the ‘two Pans’ can be summarised as follows: Las (1) Theoretically, the Grundrise is unevenly developed cos with Capital, and as a direct result of this is much more «uns luted. (2) Materially, the Grundrisse represents the first book of the sine part scheme, which was later developed. If the compari be made, it can be said that Capital covers the first ths of the 1857-8 scheme in some way, and in any case Mary con sidered that it was in these first three books that the maize theoretical work would take place, the last three to be base « the first three, except perhaps for the relation of state forn.s + varying economic structures of society (the articulation of rx of production in social formations) which would require work. (Marx to Kugelmann, December 28, 1862; Marx, 10's . 639)" eras APPENDIX Il: Translations of ‘1857 Introduction’ Kautsky first published the ‘1857 Introduction’ in Newe Zeit in 1-7 4 revised version constitutes pp. 5-31 of the 1939~41 waitin Grundrise. ‘Revised! means that an improved transcription of Marx» almost ilegible handwriting has been made.) ‘The first English tr tion appeared as an appendix to A Contribution to the Cr Political Economy translated by N. I. Stone (1904). This is the 6 that McLellan has relied on, but contrary to his claitn to have its weaknesses, he reprints unaltered save for a few grant improvements. In 1973 the new Moscow translation of the Contribution appeared, translated from the Werke edition of 17 (Band 13) by S. W. Ryazanskaya; the ‘Introduction’ was publisied 3 an appendix (Marx, 1971: pp. 188-217). Finally Nicolaus provides ‘with yet another translation, this time from the 1939 44 «sition. ‘What I wish to show in this appendix is that there are flaw of these translations, and that this important theoretical €¥ suffered at the hands of ‘simplifying’ translators.e see onthe theoretical significance of Marx’s Grundrsse 203 Camperioon of texts = Eabibit 3: (Mars, 1953: . 10) 2a reslimieren: Es gibt allen Produktionsstufen gemeinsame Bestim- waogea, die von Denken als allgemeine fixiert werden—aber die Segenannten allgemeinen Bedingungen aller Produktion sind nichts als Boe abstrakten Momente, mit denen keine wirkliche geschichtliche Precuktionsstufe begriffen ist.’ reve, 2904: p. 274), “To sum up: all the stages of production have Sertuin destinations in common, which we generalise in thought; but the socalled general conditions of all production are nothing but sbaract conceptions which do not go to make up any real stage in the hinery of production.” : {AleLellan, 1971: pp. 21-2) Identical with Stone. (Movcow, 1971: p. 193) ‘To recapitulate: there are categories which ‘we common to all stages of production and are established by reasoning general categories; the so-called general conditions of all and any production, however, are nothing but abstract conceptions which do ‘tet define any of the actual historical stages of production’ ahs (eolaus, 1973: p. 88) ‘To summarise: There are characteristics ‘ehach all the stages of production have in common, and which are established as general ones by the mind; but the so-called general pre- conditions of all production are nothing more than these abstract moments, with which no real historical stage of production can be Graped.’ (Nicolavs’ translation is the most satisfactory and I would’ “-: et wish to make any alterations to it.) ‘Marx'is closing a critique of attempts, typified by Mill, to specify conditions in whose absence no production is possible. He admits that Senception of ‘production in general’, a set of pre-requisites, does havea limited usefulness, in that it ‘saves repetition’ (Marx, 1953: p- 7), but this is purely abstract, it has nothing to do with the real movement. “mbar they are abstract moments of a process, not as the Stone transla on, followed by McLellan and Moscow, suggests, conceptions in a cae heed of this process, A specific social formation, dominated by own ingy Production, cannot be adequately analysed by breaking it oduct, 4 St Of ‘general conditions’, cOnstituting the essence of pe at in that mode, nor by specifying pre-conditions. These nies Cannot grasp any ‘real historical stage of production’, for as we shall see later, the historical stage is an articulated combination, not a aH a . oe ‘The Stone translation shifts the sentence around so that torical stage of production’ becomes a ‘stage in the history: ef production’, displace the meaning from the Eolpce™ Yao “to its reproduction in thought. ‘This identifies the bistory of production withthe veal decopmen of producton,cousing te ection the ral movement ith the eal movement alah Seen cpt uustcd by the orignal peting a uber opens 2 wine Exhibit 2: (Marx, 1953: pp. 20-2) “Das Resultat, wozu wir gelangen, ist nicht, da Produktion, Distesbue tion, Austauseh, Konsumntion identisch sind, sondern da8 sie a Glieder einer Totalitit bilden, Unterschiede innechalb einer Einhest Eine bestimmte Produktion bestimmt also bestimmte Konsurstin, Distribution, Austausch und bestimmte Verkultnisse dieser verschirdnen Momente sueinander. . . . Es findet Wechselwirkung zwischen den verschiednen Momenten statt. Dies der Fall bei jedem organische:, Ganzen.’ (Stone, 1904: pp. 291-2) “The result we arrive at is not that ps0 duction, distribution, exchange, and consumption are identical, but that they are all members of one entity, different sides of one unit A definite (form of) production thus determines the (forms of) cn sumption, distribution, exchange and also the mutual relations bettceen these various elements... A mutual interaction takes place between the various elements. Such is the case with every organic body.’ (McLellan, 1971: p. 33) ‘The same, except substitutes ‘aspects’ for ‘sides’. (Moscow, 1971: pp. 204-3) “The conclusion which follows from: this js not that production, distribution, exchange and consumption ae identical, but that they are links of a single whole, different aspects of fone unit... . A distinet mode of production thus determines the spe. mode of consumption, distribution, exchange and the specific relations of these different phases to one another. .... There is an interaction between the various aspects. Such interaction takes place in any organ entity.” hat (Nicolaus, 1973: pp. 99-160) “The conclusion we reach is nvt thst production, distribution, exchange and consumption are identical, bt that they all form members ofa totality, distinctions within 3 unity A definite production thus determines a definite consumption, dist tion and exchange as well as definite relations beteoeen these difierst moments. . . . Mutual interaction takes place between the diferen moments. This is the case with every organic whole.’ (I let Nicu version stand.) ‘This passage is important for Marx's conceptions of total structure. “Totality’ is a whole which is internally differentiated determined by the moment of production, but with a complex P™on the theoretical significance of Marx's Grundrisse 205 jareraction. In 0 far as much of the terminology can be called Hegelian’, it is important to preserve this in the translation. on here are two forms of error in this set of translations: first, simple jeeractitude (‘organic body’ (Stone), ‘organic entity’ (Moscow) instead ‘organic whole’; ‘whole’, ‘entity’ instead of ‘totality’), Second are Q tic errors resulting from an empiricist reading. This can found in the use of ‘aspects, sides of a unit’ for ‘Unterschiede ~japerbalb einer Binheit’; and ‘elements, phases’ for ‘Momenten’. These falsifications, ‘distinctions’ are not ‘aspects’ or ‘phases’ because: 4) they cannot be conceived simultaneously as constituting a totality, instead first one ‘aspect’ is displayed and then another; (a) thus an essential unity is broken down, a differentiated eahole cy becomes a collection of elements; . (Gg) terms such as ‘aspect’ and ‘side’ refer to notions of vision, the aspects being ‘visible’ from particular angles, positing a subject for whom the aspects appear, diverting the process of movement from the whole to the perception of it by a subject. This is paralleled in the translations of ‘Moment’. ‘The Nicolaus translation, which is a good rendering of the original, * dearly does not posit a knowing subject in its language, unlike the ‘cher translations. Bshibit 3: (Marx, 1953: p. 28) 2a ware also untubar und falsch, die Skonomischen Kategorien in der Folge aufeinanderfolgen zu lassen, in der sie historisch die bestim- wenden waren. Vielmehr ist ihre Reihenfolge bestimmt durch die 3 Batichung, die sie in der modernen biirgerlichen Gesellschaft auf- ,fi@ander haben, und die genau das umgekehrte von dem ist, was als -iire nanirgemae erscheint oder der Reihe der historischen Entwicklung “f@upricht. Es handelt sich nicht um das Verhaltnis, das die ékono- Miechen Verhilmisse in der Aufeinanderfolge veschiedner Gesell- a men historisch einnehmen. Noch weniger um ihre Rei- Meafoige “in der Idee” (Proudhon) (einer verschwimmelten Vorstellung = Bewegung). Sondern um ihre Gliederung innerhalb modemen biirgerlichen Gesellschaft.” 1904: p. 304) ‘It would thus be impractical and wrong to : €conomic categories in the order in which they were the determining: factors in the course of history. Their order of sequence is are di by the relation to which they bear to one another in ems to ee eeeois society, and which is the exact opposite of wha seer Rabe their natural order or the order of their historical develop- relatie We are interested in is not the place which economic Peon gotcupy.in the historical succession of different forms of Saill leas are we interested in the order of their succession “inKeith Trine idea” (Proudhon) which is but a hazy (2) conception of the course bourgeois society.” (McLellan, 1971: pp. 41-2) As Stone, except for ‘in the idea’ and the ‘omission of the question mark after ‘hazy’. (Moscow, 1971: p. 213) ‘It would be inexpedient and wrong therefore to present the economic categories successively in the order in whics they have played the dominant role in history. On the contrary, theis order of succession is determined by their mutual relation in modern bourgeois society and this is quite the reverse of what appears to natural to them or in accordance with the sequence of hore] development. The point at issue is not the role that various economic relations have played in the succession of various social formatinns appearing in the course of history; even less is it their sequence “as concepts” (Proudhon) (a nebulous notion of the historical process) but their position within modern bourgeois society.” (Nicolaus, 1973: pp. 107-8) ‘It would therefore be unfeasible ant wrong to let the economic categories follow one another in the same sequence as that in which they were historically decisive. Their sequence is determined, rather, by their relation to one another in modern bourgeois society, which is precisely the opposite of that which seers to be their natural order or which corresponds to historical deveiop- ment. The point is not the historic position of the economic relations in the succession of iferent forms of society. Even ess is it their sequerse “in the idea” (Proudhon) (a muddy notion of historic movement) Rather, their order within modern bourgeois society.’ (I would hike ‘substitute ‘socal formations’ here for ‘forms of society’, and ‘combina: tion’ for ‘order’ in the last sentence.) ‘There are two issues here: the relation of concepts to a real proves and the nature of these concepts. Since the latter relates to probles raised in the two previous exhibits, 1 will discuss only the problem of concepts. ‘The social whole is 2 social formation, a ‘set’ of mozen"s dominated by the moment of production in a capitalist social form ‘This ‘set’ is not a statie combination, there are no general constr for its existence; their articulation specifies the social formation. > economic relations of previous societies are not just “lying aroun i9 # ‘modern ‘society’; they are part of a specific process. The term ‘Glieve- rung’ does not refer to the static presence ofa set of elements, but (0 the process oftheir combination—their articulation. If this is notemphaise the concept of a social formation based on the concept of the mode production collapses into the ideologieal notion of ‘society’. 4 * ‘empirical summing of an unspecified vet of levels, elements, °° problem corresponds to the ‘general conditions of produetion’ dite in Exhibit 1ton con the theoretical significance of Marx’s Grundrisse 207 ‘g. I wash to express my thanks to Mike Bleaney, Maurice Dobb, Stuart 7 cntyre and Bob Rowthorn for the helpful suggestions that they made “Bering revision of this paper. There remain certain substantial limitations to pie argument, primarily its formalism whereby the ‘weaknesses of the i Grendrise are registered in a recurrent reading by a comparison with the ”” of Capital’. This is discussed further in Fn. 4, but I would ‘emphasise that the positions adopted here are provisional, necessary ‘pediminarics to an adequate assessment of the development of Marx’s work. 3 Meszaros (1970) argues as follows: ® (2) Develop a theory of alienation from early and pre-Marxist writings {@) Assert its fundamental character for Marx’s work (e.g. p. 96) (3) ‘Prove’ by comparative quotation that the word turns up in later +" works, and hope that the reader does not notice some rather strange acs. _ variations (e.g. pp. 222-5) aoa SW) Discredit the discontinuist (orthodox) thesis by confining attacks to hacks such as Bell and Tucker (pp. 225~7) _ For all Meszaros’ undoubted scholarship, it appears that the effect on Aeowledge for him of Marxist theory is zero, as witnessed by the last two sdepters in his book, particularly his collapse into the banalities of the - ‘ans economy’ line of analysis (pp. 301-2). *y For example: ~ {> te) nature of money form in general { ©) petiodisation of economic forms £! © conceptualisation of circulation process in capital-society—not in the SE © mode of production. he Tuwe the term ‘ersatz’ categories to draw attention to certain “Seminological resemblances which at one level of a direct comparison of ‘twew can be read as substitutes for one another. They might take the form _da'word’ which is the same, or a combination of terms which are a in their mutual relationships. Such concepts typify transitional ‘wri, where to a certain extent they prop up the exposition of an object ‘bet directly given, the use of the term ‘ersatz’ drawing attention to later “Geveiopments in these regions. This of course introduces an element of teleology’, but in this paper I use the term strictly to draw attention to the lo-similarity of sets of concepts present in two works of Marx. This -fmeciee is made possible by the incoherence of the Grundrisse, an oherency which makes it difficult to construct criteria of adequacy for the “texts For precisely this reason an analysis of the Grundrisse at this level is forced into a ‘structuralism’, establishing its adequacy by reference to the a Tan Wlinferiority of another text. 1X [ie tte is actually a few days wrong, judging from internal evidence. ‘ad Co Maintain that the order of exposition of Capital is not definitive, aan ¥ Goodition for the development of Marx's theoretical work is to % Dre ‘sssumption made here. mote on terminology: ‘Darstellung’ has the sense of presenting coe INS “there? as in a discursive representation or a theatrical perlormance, As such it posits no subject for its process, and also suggests ‘al manipulative operation. A distinction also exists in German conceming the presentations of a subject (ideas, imagination, in English): fae tac ‘well-founded then it is a Vorstellung; if it is, or turns out to be, itis an Einbildung. There is a tendency for ‘imaginations of the208 Keith Tribe éapitalis’ to be readin the second sense. It must be emphasised thet Mar, tren describing hove the relations of production are represented in the production proten tots Bearer, ahtays uses "Vorstellungy ithe Stas Fives material bese, they ate nt illfounded, Ae the foundation for theory of the ideologies! process ofthe capitalist mode of production, the licarers are posited by the production process and assigned subjective they do not empirically preesist the mode of production 8° Given the nature ofthis text's handling of Capital and the Grandrine, i might be contended chet Tam operating an ati-humanist double. fandards on the one hand maintaining the disunity ofthe Grandhtive and {rough this presenting "humanist patsazes a9 abstaces; on the other tainting the unity of Capital and denying the importance or even fnstence of similar passages init. Thi would be a mascepresention of the feading made ofthe two text, which centres on the conceptal structure fnd its development, "Thin mteodices entra for atesing the logical hierarchy of text. Such a reading opposes the simple comparison of passages from different texts without recognising the problematic of which they ae a par. However, as anillustration here i a "humanist pasage from Capital Vol. HL According tits contralictory, contrasting nature, the capitalist mode of production proceeds, wasteful of the life and health of the workers, depressing the very conditions of existence to economise in the application of constant capital and as a means of raising the profit rate... Capitalist production is absolutely, i all nigeardiives, ‘wasteful of Buman material, just at on the other side, thanks to the ‘method of distributing its products through trade and its manner of competition proceeds very wasteful with material means, and on the lane side loses for the society what it guins for the single capitalist on the other. (Mane, 19648: pp. 96-7) ‘These passages and several occurring in this chapter (Ch. s—Eeonomy in the ‘Use of Constant Capita) could perhaps be usilised for an interpretation centering on the human subject as alienated by the socal process of production, which proceeds arbitrarily as a foree which dominates him— indeed the word ‘Entfremdung’ appears just before this passage. This chapter however deals with all forms of economy in the utilisation of capita, and Marx is here discussing the anarchistic nature of the capitalt ‘mode of production, where the regulation of production is effected by the Competition of capital against capital, One reading of these passages cout be of the human condition under eapitalism; but this plays @ quite subordinate role in the structure of the argument, and such humanistic (Geological) statements are observations on the empirical effets of capitalt prodiction, Marx emphasises in Capital that Worker and Capitalist are Simply personifications of the relations of production, the production process is not conceived of as an empirical process. ‘This is not however entirely clear in the Grundrise, and a humanistic reading of this Wxt that extent justified, Ie is quite a different thing however to seprescat what are in fact the theoretical obstacles of the Grundrite as the site of Marx's freatest achievement, 5. In such a reading two ways in which Marx uses ‘alcnation’ are un together—alination in the Feuerbachian sense, and also i the way tht Steuart spoke of ‘profit upon alienation’ —~in the sense of » deduction Mate when a product wus sold, Fora diseustion nf some distortions that have tssen, soe GA, Cohen's excellent short review of the Grundrize (i972! p. 379)et on te theoretic sgfeance of Mars Grndrise 2» pee Tele is mentioned in the Poverty of Phiorphy (Mare, 1959: thereto nation fm he contr ta ary hd end or "copy of i Even if he had, this a not the point for it ras nly Sa hes Mare comprehended the sigicance of Queanays wor, in Sebeam’ intobscton (964) infact fee beyond «presentation 4, Hab temps fo construct a theory of wennten where none ‘On he Auto mode of production ss Godelier (1965) web te fling rote of prof. Thin i an erate category forthe 5 Nome the category of orgie cornpoition to Be found inthe iemight be mentioned that Morf has another thread of continuity: the ‘Se plane are unitary, since they are both based on the analysis ofthe three ‘Gioos of bourgeois society and their antagonistic interests. Morf represents SPSS high point in wilful irelevance (1970: p. 103). Ta Man in this letter presents a summary of his project in hia fiat ser v9 Kugetmann. References’ MESS, Became pt oa BAG ie Caria, Sa 8 ke Bg etn cL, and Balibar, E. (1970) Dietz Verlag. Brier Canic tonton: New Le” Mare, (i961) Werke Bd. 13. Bestia: Soe (ot) 7s Le Mare ba) Dor Kept! 4.1 Bean Sara, London’ Fontana Collie. Wei id. 29. Besta: Diets Verlag” Marg, K Gabqn) Des Repel Ba 11, Moe ce Bi Brag Besenber {8555 eke Bday Bek: Ber Pee pe Marx Gotu) Dav Kapital Ba 11, Mone #5 SoM Kate Mara, (64h) Brige Jamar Meo afm Acne, Babar Stoney #86), Work Bd 3 Bern SSCL notion de Mar, (15540) Pre-Capitalit Reonomie = ‘No! anh pp ac Maras\ (sobs) Theoron Berton SSS ire, ee ite peas Netbnuplin Ger” Bes Dies Verlag SS ee Sele ts Mee eee Bere MeL eee ESS. Eee Se emma Boy ntmine Ma ld Sm e, slant a SETS! ocomine Sancta rench Translation gf ‘Mars, (1972) ‘Notes on Machines, Gp Since and Sons, Vol. 33, eonns and Saiery, Val.t, No. SS 4 Getrag Cif BNSC Galan, Ect ioentnete210° MeLellan, D. (1971) Maras "Gruncraat, Landon: Macmillan. Nicolaus, M, (068) "The Unknown Missi Nhe Lge Retin No. 8 BREE Che arin Mackburs (1972) Nicolaus, M. (973) ‘Foreword! to ‘Mars (1953) Pp. 7-63 Messen, 1 (920) Mara's Theory of Micrerion; London: Sern Pres. ‘Morf, 0. (1970) Geschichte und Keith Tite Diotehikin der paitichen Ohonomie Brenkfor 34, Buropsieche (otageanetate ono, (0) Zu Pte Fangigseicte set Maranon pia sexi Frankton: Baropesche 8" Venagsanetl Scmprun, J. (1968) ‘Eeonemiepoltigee ce picosophie dane les Grande ob Sikes [oHovone ela Sect, No 7, pp. 35-68.