This action might not be possible to undo. Are you sure you want to continue?
Assuming that precisely this possibility were to be an inescapable fate who could help smiling at the anxiety of our litterateurs lest future social and political developments might bestow on us too much 'individualism' or ‘democracy' or the like or that 'true freedom’ would not emerge until the present ‘anarchy' in our economic production and the ‘party machinations' in our parliaments had been eliminated in favour of ‘social order’ and an ‘organic structure’ - which means in favor of the pacifism of social impotence under the wing of the one quite definitely inescapable power, that of the bureaucracy in the state and the economy !"#$%
The laughable incomprehension of “the nature of the matter” by the literati, the decadent liberal intelligentsia (an orientation that persists to the present day!), is to believe that the capitalist economy is “anarchical” and that parliamentary politics is “Machiavellian” – that the problem that besets society is “too much ‘individualism ” or “democracy”, and that only “social order” !ill restore “true freedom”" #et it is precisely this “yearning” for a lost paradise of “true freedom” – the $chumpeterian Individualitat of the “entrepreneurial spirit” (%reedom) reconciled !ith the “scientific rationality of &conomics” (Truth) ', this un!illingness to grapple !ith the “anarchy” of capitalism and the “machinations” of politics that constitutes “the pacifism of social impotence” (the (iet)schean Ohn-Macht)* it is the un!illingness to tac+le the “inescapable fate” of conflict that !ill condemn us to “one definitely inescapable po!er, that of the bureaucracy in the state and the economy”! ,eber gives ample proof in this passage of ho! !ell he has understood (iet)sche s pitiless “-e'stru+tion” of the Vollendung, the “com'pletion” of ,estern values in science, philosophy and morality" $chumpeter s vain attempt to reconcile the Individualitat of the Unternehmergeist !ith the “scientificity” of the &conomics is definitely “overcome”" (ot only is it not possible to retain any “scientific” analysis of the &conomy that can “.uantify” its “conflict” and reduce it to the “rational individual choice” of the mar+et* not only can there be no “development” of the capitalist economy due to the “sub/ectivity” of the entrepreneur because “development” originates from a “system of needs and !ants” that curtails and conditions any “sub/ectivity”* but it is also the very conflict over the provision for needs and !ants “liberated” by capitalism !ith the formation of “free labor” organi)ed as a class that no! finally subsumes “scientific activity” itself to that conflict by means of the “rational organi)ation of free labor”"
In other words, far from being the outcome of the unstoppable expansion of the sphere of “empirical science” to the realm of social life and of the Economics in particular, the Rationalisierung theori ed b! "iet sche #philosophicall!$ and Weber #sociologicall!$ engenders the subsumption of the scientific process to the explosi%e, uncontainable conflict and antagonism between “the s!stem of needs and wants” aimed at “the care for external goods” #“the iron cage”$ and the abilit! of the capitalist mode of production “to guide and go%ern” it through a program of “de%elopment and growth” that “preser%es and reproduces” the existing capitalist
social relations of production& 'n! rational e%aluation of capitalism in the sense of “empirical science” as understood b! (chumpeter in the Theorie and b! the Economics is therefore )uite impossible* (cientific rationalit! itself is now subsumed to the conflict that capitalism generates as a motor of its own de%elopment&
0t is this “triptych” of the relationship bet!een social conflict from the democrati)ation of “labor”, its rational and scientific organi)ation in the direction of “capitalist development”, and the “political governance” needed to mediate the effects of “gro!th' through'crisis” that concerns ,eber in the all'important period bet!een 1213 and 1212 and that covers the lectures on Politik als Beruf and Wissenschaft als Beruf and then the series of papers on Parlament und Regierung"
A lifeless machine is congealed [crystallized] spirit &geronnener 'eist() *t is only this fact that gives the machine the power to force men to serve it and thus to rule and determine their daily working lives, as in fact happens in factories) +his same congealed spirit is, however, also embodied in that living machine which is represented by bureaucratic organisation with its specialisation of trained, technical work, its delimitation of areas of responsibility, its regulations and its graduated hierarchy of relations of obedience) ,ombined with the dead machine, it is in the process of manufacturing the housing of that future serfdom to which, perhaps, men may have to submit powerlessly, -ust like the slaves in the ancient state of .gypt, if they consider that the ultimate and only value by which the conduct of their affairs is to be decided is good administration and provision for their needs by officials (that is ‘good’ in the ‘pure' technical sense of rational administration). /ureaucracy achieves this, after all, incomparably better than any other structure of rule) !"01%
0t is the very “freedom” of “labor” that allo!s !or+ers to organi)e as a class and that permits therefore the “organi)ation” of conflict in a “rational” manner by “the living machine” of private capitalist and state bureaucracy, that is to say, “under the regular discipline of the factory”, ' of the factory as “lifeless machine” !ith its “congealed spirit” of “the system of !ants and needs”! The “lifeless machine” of capitalist production possesses a “congealed spirit”, and the “machinery of bureaucracy” is a “living machine” that stands “in the closest relation” to both capitalist “enterprise” and “state administration”" (o “rationality” is possible ithout the “free” e4pression of social antagonism over the !age relation" The reality of ,estern “economy and society” – against $chumpeter s misunderstanding of ,eber s Rationalisierung as “empirical science” replacing the “teleological rationality” of “metaphysics”, against ,erner $ombart s interpretation of “modern capitalism” as “economic rationality”, soon to be repudiated by ,eber in the Vorbermerkungen of 1256 – is that capitalism is “the rational organi)ation” of “free labor”! 0ndeed, it !ould not even be possible to spea+ of “true freedom”, of Individualitat, of individualism and democracy and “the 7ights of Man” !ithout the imponent push of the “conflict” that capitalism has “organi)ed under the regular discipline of the factory”" “0t is a piece of cruel self'deception to thin+ that even the most conservative amongst us”, even those of us most opposed to “freedom and democracy”, “could carry on living at all
today !ithout these achievements from the age of the ‘7ights of Man ”, that is, the 8merican and %rench 7evolutions and the &nlightenment, !hich have led through the “liberation of labor”, through “free labor” and its “autonomous mar+et demand”, to the +ind of “rational organi)ation of free labor”, of social conflict and antagonism embodied by the “all'po!erful trend to!ard bureaucrati)ation” – that is to say, the “provision” of “the most basic needs and !ants of social life”, to the “sociali)ation” that is the necessary pre'condition of bureaucracy" 0t is vital to discern ho! ,eber traces a strict lin+ bet!een “freedom and democracy”, and therefore the !emokratisierung, through to the “liberation” of “labor”, its constitution “as a class” that can press its “autonomous mar+et demands” in terms of “the care for e4ternal goods”, of its “needs and !ants” – all the !ay to the Vergesellschaftung, the “sociali)ation” of these conflicting needs and !ants as a result of the need for capital “rationally to organi)e this free labor” in the pursuit of “rationally calculable profit” (in opposition to the romantic "emeinschaft theori)ed by Tonnies as an echo to 9ant s “ungesellige "eselligkeit”) – that is, of its o!n “private” form of bureaucrati)ation in opposition to# and therefore separate from, the $tate bureaucracy to !hich it is yet “most closely related”" 8s !e !ill soon see in section :, here ,eber, because of his “reified” notion of “labor”, falls bac+ into and retraces the conceptual $chematismus of the (eo' 9antian “sociological %orms” theori)ed by $immel, distinct from their “content” not in terms of “historical'materialist e4perience” but only in terms of “durability” (the “%orms” being 9antian “concepts” or “categories” that have epistemological and scientific validity !hilst their “content” is purely variable and historically “contingent” or aleator%)" The same distinction applies to the Rationalisierung and to “bureaucrati)ation”" (ot until the Vorbermerkungen !ill ,eber see+ to deal e4plicitly and coherently !ith these matters"
*n view of the fundamental fact that the advance of bureaucratisation is unstoppable, there is only one possible set of questions to be asked about future forms of political organisation2 !"% how is it at all possible to salvage any remnants of 'individual' freedom of movement in any sense given this all-powerful trend towards bureaucratisation *t is, after all, a piece of cruel self-deception to think that even the most conservative amongst us could carry on living at all today without these achievements from the age of the '3ights of 4an') 5owever, let us put this question to one side for now, for there is another which is directly relevant to our present concerns2 !6% *n view of the growing indispensability and hence increasing power of state officialdom, which is our concern here, how can there be any guarantee that forces exist which can impose limits on the enormous, crushing power of this constantly growing stratum of society and control it effectively 5ow is democracy even in this restricted sense to be at all possible !"#$%
Therefore, “in vie! of the “gro!ing indispensability and hence increasing power of state officialdom ;bureaucracy<” that has been brought about by this gro!ing “sociali)ation”, the second .uestion is “!hat limits” can be imposed on this “enormous, crushing po!er” so as to be able – and this is the first .uestion ' “to salvage an% remnants of &individual'
its “freedom”. too.eber. but certainly in substance) +he entrepreneur. that becomes ine4orably more “indispensable” in terms of gauging and monitoring the “rationally calculable” functioning of the “system” – both the “needs and !ants” and the “profit motive” '. a “gro!th of control”. discovered and e4plained" 8nd the content itself cannot be rational merely in the sense of “calculable”" &ither !e find a “substantive rationality” or else . the most important of all. its needs and !ants. but at the same time gro!s ever less capable to decide “legitimately” the “direction” of the “system”! The “control of gro!th” re.freedom of movement in any sense at all”! These t!o .eber s Rationalisierung is sheer “mechanical violence” !hose “increasing . the politician in the other. be reconciled !ith the “rational conduct of capitalist business” for “profitability”.%< *n the sphere of the state the same applies to the leading politician) +he leading minister is formally an official with a pensionable salary) This is the Organisationsfrage for . ho! can its irrational conflict.uired for the preservation of e4isting relations of production – the “rational conduct of capitalist business” ' engenders a “gro!th of control” designed “to maintain” these relations of production that tends to stifle and smother the very “conflict” that “the system of needs and !ants” rationally organi)ed as “free labor” !ith an “autonomous mar+et demand” inevitably and irrepressibly generates" The result is e4actly the same as . the point at !hich the >roblemati+ of rational $ocialism coincides !ith that of capitalism= ho! can the present conflict'ridden “system of needs and !ants” – the congealed spirit of the lifeless machine – !hich under capitalism ta+es institutional shape as the “rational organi)ation of free labor as a class” that is represented by the social democratic !or+ers parties of the !hole of &urope be reconciled !ith that “rationality”? 0f indeed the “system” is founded on an irrational “iron cage” of “care for e4ternal goods”. for there is !8% a third question. its “science”? 0ndeed. both in the management of public. sits in an 'office') An army commander does the same)!":. is something different from an ‘official’) 9ot necessarily in form. which arises from any consideration of what is not performed by bureaucracy as such) *t is clear that its effectiveness has strict internal limits. ho! is it at all possible “to conduct business for profitability” rationall% !hen the “system of needs and !ants” e4pressed through the “autonomous mar+et demand” of “free labor” is not itself rational? This is the point at !hich the “content” of the presumed “rationality” of the overall “system of capitalist production” must be enucleated.eber had apprehended for “rational $ocialism”" The living machine cannot e4orcise the “congealed spirit” of the lifeless machine= ' only the “leading $pirit” can guide and govern it" 7et this too is not the only question of concern to us here.uestions have to do crucially !ith “the future forms of political organi(ation”" The attempt “to control gro!th” in such a manner that the e4plosive push of the system of needs and !ants and its ineluctable “conflict” can be mustered and then channeled into the preservation and reproduction of e4isting capitalist social relations of production – the profit motive – engenders an “increasing po!er of $tate bureaucracy”. the ‘entrepreneur’ in the one case. political affairs and in the private economic sphere) +he leading spirit.
uis custodiet ipsos custodes?”) so as to preserve “the autonomy of mar+et demand” and “the remnants of ‘individual freedom of e4pression in any sense at all”" @ut this presupposes that (a) the “conflict” inherent to “the iron cage” is itself inescapable – a “fate”* (b) that “the gro!th of control” is occasioned blindly and irrationally by “the system of needs and !ants” – that there are no other reasons outside of “the iron cage” for the “sociali)ation” of production and the increasing po!er of bureaucracy* and (c) that the very possibility of “governance” under capitalism through the Parlamentarisierung does not itself allo! for an alternative form of “governance” that.uires the “responsibility of the leitender Aeist”" The leitender "eist can only become the ultimate safety'valve of “the system” by assuming the “responsibility” for the “decisions” that must be made to guide and govern and direct “the system”" The “leader” is the e4pression of a particular. apart from the “leitender "eist” and its responsibility for decisions. its “gro!ing control” stands in the !ay of. those “most basic needs of social life”. by the “gro!th of control” engendered by the “need” to control gro!th? 0s the gro!th of control not itself the pro'duct of that need to control gro!th !ithin the bounds set by the . ho!ever distortedly. obtrudes and represses. far from being “an inescapable fate”. historical institutional e4pression of the conflict and antagonism of the capitalist “rational organi)ation of free labor under the regular discipline of the factory”" The leader is the culmination of social antagonism and its ultimate “legitimation”" This sho!s yet again ho! deficient !as $chumpeter s attempt to e4plain the phenomenon of capitalist “development” purely in terms of the sub/ective Individualitat of the entrepreneur able to trans'form the “!ants and provisions” of capitalist society. . is there not an “inter esse” that is finally e4pressed. the function of responsibility” for the entire “system”" @ut the concentration of legitimacy in the “figure” of the “leader” serves merely to display “disastrously”. rather than in terms of the “conflict” intrinsic to these “!ants and provisions” and its “rational organi)ation”! The leader is not “different” or “separate” from the bureaucratic machine= the leader represents merely the “moment of decision”.eber himself had traced bac+ to its “historical origins”! The .uestion of the alternative must then be posed" 0n other !ords. specific.po!er”. “catastrophically” the inability of the living machine of bureaucracy to live up to its “indispensability”" 8s the legitimacy of the leitender "eist declines so does the “effectuality” of the $tate administration – and so does the “systemic ris+” of the entire system gro!" The Parlamentarisierung is supposed to facilitate and allo! the “control of the controllers” (Bicero s parado4 – “. cannot resolve the conflict bet!een !ants and provision – a conflict that. those “needs and !ants” that ma+e it “indispensable”! This is !here the “effectiveness )of bureaucrac%# state and capitalist* has strict internal limits# both in the management of public# political affairs and in the private economic sphere ” in that there are things that “are not performed by bureaucracy”! The bureaucracy can only measure and monitor and perhaps even “repair” the e4isting “system”" @ut it cannot determine either the modalities of its o!n “gro!th” nor those of the “system” !hose operation it is supposed to measure and monitor= its “gro!ing po!er” gro!s the more oppressive and repressive the more it re.
!hose greatest merit for $chopenhauer consisted precisely in this “separation” of thing'in'itself from phenomena" . that is to say. . or. for the successful and lasting “integration” of “free labor organi)ed as a class” !ithin the machine of $tate and private capitalist bureaucracy under the legitimate and legal parliamentary oversight of the leitender "eist as the ultimate e4pression of the political ill of the +errenvolk" + . namely.eber s plans for “>arlamentarisierung und -emo+ratisierung”.uestioned.he bellum civium from -arx to Weber . not only is the satisfaction of “needs and !ants” – their “provision” – the essential aim of social life" @ut also the efficient satisfaction of these needs and !ants depends on the “rational and systematic organi)ation of free labor”" 8nd this “free labor” is understood as “operari”. the /host of "eeds in the -achine of 0abor @ut the . ho!ever. to “sociali)ation” and thence to !hat this last “inevitably means”. its “inescapability” .ir+'lich+eit”. its “creation and maintenance” by “the spirit of capitalism” traced to its historical origins" The very possibilit% of “conducting capitalist business for rational and s%stematic profitabilit%”.uestion still remains of !hat “modern industrial labour” means and of ho! it leads necessarily – “inescapably” – to “concentration”. as mere. through “the rational organi)ation of free labor under the regular discipline of the factory” needs to be e4amined" Cnly then !ill !e be able to assess realistically . the !ing an sich is still present in the entity of the .capitalist “rationality” of “profitability”? 8nd does this “rationality”.uantity” that does not itself “create” anything.ill" 0n $chopenhauer. sheer “labor po!er” or “force” – a homogeneous and measurable “. this “profitability” not rest on the “rational organi)ation of free labor under the regular discipline of the factor%” – and not on “autonomous mar+et demand”? Blearly the problem here is that . but rather “consumes” and “utili)es” the e4ternal !orld so as to satisfy and “provide” for its “!ants” – !ants that are deemed to be as “insatiable” as the $chopenhauerian .ill !hose “ob/ectification is the body”" Therefore “the e4ternal !orld” e4ists as !ell. an “actu'ality” in !hich the human operari is “conditioned” by scientific logico' mathematical “la!s” /ust as it !as in 9ant. though only as “representation” that can be “com'prehended” scientificall% by the Dnderstanding (Eerstand) in accordance !ith the >rinciple of $ufficient 7eason" 0n the $chopenhauerian version of the negatives -en+en the !orld is still a “. preferring instead to leave the !hole chain of historical connections entirely open" The ultimate foundation of social life is “the system of needs and !ants”" The ultimate aim and purpose of society is to satisfy these needs and !ants that are ineluctably “individual”" (ot only is “the individual” and “self'interest” the foundation of human society. a “!or+'li+eness”. pro'duce any goods.eber s “iron cage” itself needs to be revie!ed. “bureaucrati)ation”" This is an all'important chain of historical and theoretical transitions or passages that must be traced carefully" &ven as late as Parlament und Regierung.eber fails to do this.
ob'/ect) to the .ect of history” is fully comprehensible onl% through the “screen” of $chopenhauer s “reversal” of 9ant" The “separation” of noumenon and phenomenon also disappears in Machism* but this time it is the “thing'in'itself” that is entirely “eliminated” in favour of the “simple” mathematical con-nection bet!een phenomena or “sensations” (&mpfindungen) in an e-perimental relationship that is “predictable and regular”" Fi+e (eo'9antism. esse est percipi – to be is to be perceived.&4cept that $chopenhauer effects a “re'versal” (Dm'+ehrung) of 9ant s metaphysics= the “e4ternal” !orld therefore is not an “inscrutable Cb'/ect”. of !hich !e can only register “phenomena”" @ut because it is no! the “sub/ective side”. as e)g) =ay. in the phrase of one of the founders of the marginalist revolution.ill – a unity that overcomes the infamous 9antian “antinomies of thought” due to inscrutability of the “ob'/ective” (gegen-standliche) “thing'in'itself”" 0n this Welt-anschauung. the .'.ill. the opening chapters of . insisted on equating the exchange value of a commodity simply with the quantity of goods which it was possible to obtain for it in the market) *t was.5AAB A9C 4A3'*9AB D+*B*+7 "$8 . although in practice everybody definitely compares values of commodities with each other) +he psychological theory of value now seemed to demand such a standard of value in use also in economic theory) Against this doubts were raised whether it was substantially possible to measure 'quantities of intensity' and in particular whether valuations of different people could actually be compared) Yet " . to its “success” or. the “ob/ectifications” originate.xkurs' *@ in the third edition of the ositive !heory 5*=+A3*.ect-ob. is guaranteed by the unit% of their “re' presentation” (Eorstellung) as “sub.ect” in the .ue of 9ant s “formalism”. that is the “thing'in' itself” from !hich the “phenomena”.mpfindungen or “sensations”.AB =.rkenntnis und Irrtum") There is here a virulent and total re/ection of any “reality” or “substance” that may lie “behind” phenomena. effectively “instrumentalise” science reducing it to the state of a mere “tool”.ect-ob. of “the antinomies of bourgeois thought”.ven before =mith people had discussed the question of a standard of exchange value and it had been recogni>ed that there could be no standard that was unchangeable in itself) All the classical writers taught this. Fu+acs s criti. $tanley Gevons.f) /?hm.ir+lich+eit) itself and no longer mere phenomena (blosse &rscheinungen)" 0n this sense. Mach s phenomenology. the “representations” (Eorstellungen) are “reality” (. to a set of “predictions and regularities”" (Bf" for this. and his theori)ation of the proletariat as “the individual sub. however./awerk. simply considered impossible to measure the value in use. of any “meta'physics”" $cience is sheer “certainty” achieved in the “simplest” relations capable of being described and calculated !ith mathematical precision" *n connection with the discussion about the admissibility or possibility of introducing psychological factors into economics there stood the question of a standard of value) +his question became essential as soon as the theorists saw the excellent ob-ective measure of labour vanish) . while the old supporters of the theory of value in use. of phenomena. the . the “scientificity” of e4perimental observations. an un+no!able “reality” of noumena “op'posed” (Aegen'stand.ill.
$ +his method of basing the measurement of values on acts of choice of the individuals gained more and more adherents !Eareto. This had already been done. -)T0+. "conomic #octrines and $ethodology% %or . Mathematical Investigations into the Theory of Prices. mation of commodities according to their costs. the opposition between utility and value. (Fisher. !"#. that this correlation is explained with the help of the element of value in use.eber as for (iet)sche. that the calculations of the entrepreneur are merely the reflection of valuations on the part of the consumers. is the proof that in spite of appearances to the contrary the factor of wants and as a result from this the utility character of commodities determine all individual occurrences in the economy) %t first it was necessary to deal with the old antinomy of values." !=chumpeter. The distinctions between categories of want and the incitement of want..+*T/&. &n this lies the importance of the conception of 'marginal utility'. there cannot be any “separation” (Trennung) in the Mar4ian sense bet!een “labor” and the “means of production” because there as never an% union bet een them/ The human operari is entirely “instrumental” to its goal – the provision .) %. /oninsegni and others%) 7et it is possible to overcome the difficulties of the problem also in a different way)" +he primary fact with which the theory of marginal utility is concerned and in which its fundamental achievement consists and on which everything else is based. that there never had been any doubt that those facts on which the 'demand side' of the problem of price is based could be explained with its help and this had usually been considered as self-evident) /ut it was only the theory of marginal utility which based the 'supply side' of the problem on it and conceived costs as phenomena of value) *n this respect the decisive achievementF mostly overlooked by the criticsFlay in the proof that the esti"( )*+. and that in cases in which somebody estimates a commodity according to the value in use of commodities which he can obtain for it in the market1sub2ective e3change value1the 'e3changeability' and with it the sub2ective e3change value is based on alternative estimates of the value in use. which is so predominant in economic life. is merely an expedient abbreviation of the real correlation.+-&* .there is really no need for such a comparison and in measuring the valuations of one person it is quite possible to proceed merely from facts that can be observed if we start from the following formulation: The value of a quantity of a commodity for somebody is measured by that quantity of another commodity which makes the choice between both a matter of indifference to the economic individual.# +hus all facts relating to the determination of prices could be explained with the help of the basic principle) *t is true. help to overcome this opposition. This led to a uniform explanation of all occurrences in the e3change economy with the help of one single principle and in particular also to a classification of the relation between costs and prices. between the total value of a store and the value of partial quantities of which the store held by the economic individual is composed. however.
the bellum omnium contra omnes.eber s ascetic “renunciation of the !orld” or .ants. as “poverty”.for !ant" There is and there can be no "attungs esen. that can be given “social significance” or a “social %orm” – that can be “reified” – only through the “social osmosis” of the mar+et pricing mechanism !here individual . the state of nature in !hich homo homini lupus obtains and that $chopenhauer postulates in @oo+ %our of !ie Welt als Wille und Vorstellung. .ill”. “labor” can have no “utility” because it has no intrinsic “value”" 0nstead. the “labor” itself does not have “utility” because it is “the ob/ectification of the . of the “moral theology” of the Bategorical 0mperative" 0n the negatives !enken initiated by $chopenhauer in response to the Hegelian dialectic. from the “per'spective” of the “individual choice”" Dtility is an entirely sub/ective and inscrutable entity that can be “measured” as “Ealue”.elt'anschauung).ntsagung.uivalent to the “marginal dis'utility of labor” if the production of consumption goods is to be optimal! (eoclassical theory from Aossen on!ards begins !ith the notion that human living activity is “toil”. but rather through the “deferral of consumption” and the application of the 0rbeit to the construction of “tools” (means of production.orld”" Cnly the World is “!ealth”* only consumption goods have “utility” for the Will" They and they alone ultimately “measure” or “value” or “price” the marginal utility of “the means of production” not in an “ob/ective or substantive sense”.ills “clash” or “com'pete” for the same “scarce” consumer goods" The 0skesis. it is pain” and “!ant” (Bedarf) in search of “provision” (!eckung). let alone bet!een !or+ers and capitalists! Human beings are irreducibly and ontologically “things'in'themselves”* they are “. all means of production cannot serve as means for . no “original union” of !or+ers !ith tools because. “labor” is “effort” (9ampf). from its environment !hich supplies it (human operari) !ith “the means of production”" 8nd conse.thik. in terms of “time preference”. the instrumental “operari”. the 0rbeit. even as a “pro/ection” to!ard “the future”! 0n this “vie!” (8nschauung). “instincts of freedom” that can “co'operate” or “col'laborate” to the e4tent that their “needs”. in this “perspective” (.uite to the contrary. !ith its “evanescent . as “!ant”" 8ccordingly. the nature of human !ants and the “scarcity” of their provision ensure that there is “conflict” bet!een and among !or+ers. it is the “ob/ectification of the .ue of 9antian ethics in the "rundprobleme der . if anything and . is emphatically not attained through the pursuit of “labor as an end in itself”. no species'conscious being. after his pitiless criti.ill to Fife” !ith its unfathomable . or “capital”) that are “more roundabout” and therefore increase the productivity of “labor” by “saving” it" 8nd the higher Ealue derived from producing !ith “more roundabout methods of production” can be calculated not /ust in an instantaneous or timeless analytical dimension but even in a temporal one. it is “>ain” (Feid) !ithout “>leasure” (Fust)= “labor” is “dis-utilit%”! 8nd the “marginal utility” of the consumption goods produced “to provide for the !or+er s !ants” – the !age ' must be e. but merely from the “vie!point” ("esichtspunkt). as @ohm'@a!er+ styles them in the Positive 1heorie" 0t follo!s from this perspective that human living activity is conceptually “separated” from its “ob/ect”. it is the “operari”.uently human living labour is seen from the outset as pure and utter “destitution”. as (iet)sche describes them. their “iron necessities” and their “!ants” are provided for and satisfied" This is the Hobbesian status naturae. it is “effort”.ills” or.
“urgent” – in contrast !ith the capitalist o!ner !ho can “defer” consumption – by the very fact that it does not no! have “provisions” for its subsistence and reproduction and survival! The culmination of this blatant nihilism implicit in the Weltanschauung of the negatives !enken can be found in the principal theoretical !or+s of the most prestigious member of the early 8ustrian $chool. as an instrument !hose “productivity” can be measured in terms of “units of output per unit of time”" 8nd for another.hat this means is that human living labour itself is already considered. none other than “the bourgeois Mar4” himself – &ugen @ohm' @a!er+" Here is ho! his greatest pupil. a “destruction of 7eason”. that living labor is only a “tool”. the @ody. barren misery – “potential” that can only become “actual” if. because . sheer “pro-ject” not bound to a particular. pace Fu+acs or Marcuse. is the sociological e. discussed here earlier. /ust li+e $chopenhauer s . specific mode of e4pression or activity" 0n practice. and only to the e4tent and manner that.ill to Fife and its “ob/ectification”.orld” – and therefore the identification of “labor” !ith “!ant and pain”" This ne4us is entirely missing in @entham /ust as it is in G$ Mill !ho espoused the Fabor Theory of Ealue as the last great representative of Blassical >olitical &conomy" @ut it is this $chopenhauerian ne4us that is vital to the early development of the theory of marginal utility" . as “renunciation of the . utter “possibility”.estern metaphysics that culminates in nihilism" 0n this perspective. Mar4 s “abstract labor”! . for one. summarises his !or+ in a manner that needs little commentary from us to be placed in the conte4t of our discussion – and that in connection !ith “interest”. that suffers “toil” and “pain” and “dis'utility” – and that “needs” capital (the means of production as “labour'saving tools”) in order to satisfy its “!ants” that are made “immediate”.e should note the difference bet!een Geremy @entham s Dtilitarian or “hedonistic” calculus of pleasure and pain and the strict ne4us established by $chopenhauer bet!een operari as “8rbeit” (labor) and “8's+esis” as “release from >ain”.uivalent of this decadence and nihilism of &uropean thought – not. this “abstract labour” is sheer. that is the most fundamental aspect of “profit” as the most unabashedly “natural” claim by the bourgeoisie over social !ealth (in the form of !hat Mar4 called “fructiferous capital”)= *n "11G there appeared /?hm-/awerk's critical work which established not only the untenable but also the superficial character of the existing explanations of interest and opened a . “7eason” itself is the “summum bonum” of . as a “tool”. it is the latter “vie!” of living labor – the assumption that living labor is only “mere potentiality” ' that serves as the premise that leads ine4orably to the former conclusion – that is. is purely abstract.uite conclusively. it is allo ed by “the la!s of supply and demand” to come into contact as a tool !ith “the means of production” that are the “endo!ment” and “possession” of the capitalist" %or the (eoclassics. na+ed. a “homogeneous force”. Goseph $chumpeter. then. it is seen as an activity or a “labour po er” that. as (iet)sche sho!ed .the e4pression or ob/ectification of human living labour but rather as “labour'saving devices”! . destitute poverty.eberIs entire understanding of Jfree labourJ. “labour” and !or+ers are by definition the factor of production that is in “!ant” or “need”. mere “potentiality”.
on the fact that a future satisfaction of wants stands much less vividly before people's eyes than an equal but present satisfaction) *n consequence. the establishment of a technical fact which so far had been unknown to the theorists. *n this 'third reason' for the phenomenon of interest there are contained two elements2 Iirst. the thesis that this technical fact is also an independent cause of an increase in value of consumption goods which are in existence at any given time) &nterest as form of income then originates in the price struggle between the capitalists on the one side. and landlords and workers on the other. on the difference between the present and the future level of supplies available for the members of the economy. makes it possible to obtain a greater return which is more than proportionate to the time employed) =econdly. as it were.new era for the theory of interest) +his book and the one entitled ositive !heorie% which followed four years later. who must be considered as merchants who offer goods which are ready for consumption. e. the adoption of 'detours' of production. 5ecause the latter value .g. secondly.5AAB A9C 4A3'*9AB D+*B*+7 "$$ producing for the moment. namely that the prolongation of the period of production.AB =. by a primitive search for food. The possession of such goods enables them to choose some methods of production which are more profitable but are more time4consuming: the possession of goods ready to be enjoyed in the present guarantees. thirdly. economic activity reacts less strongly to the prospect of future satisfaction than to that of present en-oyment and the individual members of the economy are in certain circumstances willing to buy present en-oyment with one that is greater in itself but lies in the future) The discrepancy between present and future values is. the possession of more such goods in the future. trained numerous theorists of interest and hardly a single one remained unaffected by them) Af all the works on the theory of marginal utility these two volumes had the deepest and widest effect) He find the traces of their influence in the way in which almost all theorists of interest phrased their questions and proceeded to answer them) +here are signs of this influence even in those writers who re-ected the concrete solution of the problem of interest as offered by /?hm-/awerk) +his solution is based on the fundamental idea that the phenomenon of interest can be explained by a discrepancy between the values of present and future consumer goods) +his discrepancy rests on three facts2 first. based on the fact that the possession of goods ready to be en2oyed makes it unnecessary for the economic individuals to provide for their subsistence by 5*=+A3*.
least of all at the moment of its ful'filment ($chopenhauer)! @ohm'@a!er+ is clearly intimating under the pretence of “economic theory” that the capitalist is “re!arded” !ith higher productivity of the “tools” (capital) he possesses by virtue of his “ascetic renunciation” or “deferral” of “immediate consumption” in order to devote his labor and e4isting capital to the construction of more “roundabout” methods of production that !ill yield higher productivity and therefore “profit” !hen they are utili)ed" 8s !e !ill see in >art T!o.thik that it is the >rotestant “calling” (@eruf) of “labor as an end in itself” that ma+es up “the spirit of capitalism” and constitutes “a specifically bourgeois economic ethic”" . as !e argued earlier and as .ill to Fife in its abulic.uotation above that in fact it is (eoclassical Theory that provides such “a specifically bourgeois economic ethic” because it lays emphasis of the source of Ealue on the “renunciation of immediate consumption” by the capitalist through the preference of “more roundabout” means of production (capital) rather than .present goods more highly and because the possible use of present stocks of consumer goods for a more profitable e3tension of the period of production is practically unlimited.eber argues in the .e can see already from the .eber s theory of the origins of capitalism in >art T!o" The first is that @ohm'@a!er+ s theory of the greater “productivity” of “more roundabout” methods of production (a feat of metaphysical fantasy une.eber s “devotion” to or “calling” for “labor as an end in itself” – !hich. landlords and workers receive their future product only with a deduction. as it were. of course.eber reali)ed. incessant and insatiable search for “pleasure” (Fust) that can never be satis'fied. is much closer to the Fabor Theory of Ealue of Blassical >olitical &conomy" The second point follo!s practically from the first. . the price struggle is always decided in favour of the capitalists. and that is that once again. +he achievement which this formulation contains was epochmaking and a great deal of the theoretical work of the last twenty years has been devoted to a discussion of it and to its criticism) !=chumpeter. &n consequence. “is al!ays decided in favour of the capitalists”" KKKKKKKKKKKK . with a discount for the present. the “refusal” of the “pain” (Feid) of the . given the premises of this theory. the entire concept of “interest or profit” is evidently founded in (eoclassical Theory on the idea of a “price struggle bet!een capitalists and !or+ers” that. "conomic #octrines and $ethodology)% The blunt brutality of $chumpeter s illations – conclusions dra!n from utterly ludicrous premises – need not detain us long here" @ut !e should dra! attention to t!o features that !ill be relevant to our discussion of .ualled in the sorry history of the &conomics – a bedtime story to ma+e children laugh) is yet another version of the $chopenhauerian “renunciation” (&ntsagung).
at p"2L6< that kind of pseudo-scientific operation with the concepts of class and class interests which is so frequent these days and which has found its most classic expression in the assertion (&ehauptung) of a talented author that the individual may be in error about his interests. the total absence of any “social syn'thesis”. society and the $tate" This “ontogeny of thought” is !hat allo!s .ill to >o!er" This much . physio'logical human conflict can and does allo! for human co'operation in a purely instrumental sense. li+e 7omain 7olland s “oceanic feeling” refuted by %reud in !ie Unbehagen der 3ultur) !ill be Fu+acs s plaintive longing for the “enchantment” of “totality”. to those of logic and mathematics. is a philosophical reflection of the politically'enforced “separation” (Trennung) that .eber s “ine4orable separation” (“ine4orable” because for him there is no e4istential basis !hatsoever for conceiving of a “union” of the !or+er !ith the means of production e4cept on the basis of “individual o!nership” of the latter) ' the “inescapability of bureaucratic rule over modern industrial labour” anticipates fatidically the philosophical synthesis operated by Heidegger only eight years later in 1253 !ith the publication of his epoch'ma+ing $ein und 2eit" Heidegger s ontology of human -a'sein. the complete lac+ of any inter esse in human -a'sein" Fife is “conflict”* it is “struggle”* it is . not less than that of “individual sub/ect'ob/ect of history”" .eber to reconcile (iet)sche s “true perspectivism and phenomenalism” !ith (eo'9antian epistemology and Machian philosophy of science" 9ant s transcendental idealism remained fundamentally “sub/ective”" The ontological universality of >ure 7eason is implicitly .uasi'religious invocation of “class consciousness” – /ust as e. to achieve practical purposes that satisfy individual “needs and !ants”" $ocial institutions. but that the class is infallible") %or the 5iet(schean . can lead to the “sociali)ation” of the instincts through “compromises” that channel human instincts of freedom to!ard the construction of an “ontogeny of thought” that stretches from the notions of consciousness and “ego' ity” (0ch'heit).uote fully here . of human being as “possibility”. and then to science. .uestioned in the .uotidianity” (8lltaglich+eit) and e4istential “estrangement” (Eerfall)" Pathetic (li+e $chopenhauer s “sym'pathy” derided by (iet)sche as “the perspective of the herd”.. these “literati” !ith their “romantic fantasies” fail to grasp the irreducible and overriding irreconcilabilit% of human individual “needs and !ants”.ually pathetic !ill remain Heidegger s appeals to “authenticity” in the face of the Vorhandenheit (instrumentality) of 1echnik" (The pro4imity of the t!o thin+ers is revie!ed by F" Aoldmann in 4ukacs et +eidegger" 0t may be enlightening to .conom% and $ociet%. both symbolic and political. individuality.eber s avuncular chiding of Fu+acs for his e4uberant Mar4ist concepts of “totality” and “class consciousness”.eber.eber has learned from $chopenhauer and (iet)sche combined" @ut this ineluctable. his late'romantic vision of the proletariat as “the individual sub/ect'ob/ect of history” and .eber deems “inescapable” and that Heidegger !ill misconstrue philosophisch for phenomenological “inauthenticity” (Dn'eigentlich+eit) or “averageness” or “.eber decries .
Eol"1. p)ix% 0ndeed. Mar4 himself ac+no!ledged this “flirtation” !ith Hegel (in the >reface to 3apital) and then coined the phrase “cr%stalli(ed labor'time” . 3apital< to indicate the “socially necessar% labor time” that is “embodied” in the means of production used by living labor “to valori)e” commodities in the process of production" Mar4 sought thereby to circumvent the obvious inconsistency that it is impossible for “mar+et prices”. of the definitive abandonment of the “summum bonum” of Aerman 0dealism of unifying metaphysics !ith epistemology – a surrender presaged already by 9ant in the Opus Postumum and the sub/ect of the dramatic clash at -avos bet!een Heidegger and Bassirer" 0n the (eo'9antian 4ebensphilosophie. pace Heidegger. in Philosophische 3ultur. to determine !hat is “sociall% necessar%” labor'time" 0t is something !ith !hich the most discerning Mar4ists have struggled since the publication of Eolume Three of !as 3apital" The finest among them have sought to reconcile the inconsistency by appealing precisely to this “crystalli)ation” of labor'time through the “reification” of human living labor that the “fetishism of commodities” engenders through the mar+et mechanism" ($ee especially Fu+acs s chapter on “7eification” in "eschichte and the final chapter on “Mar4ism= $cien)a o 7ivolu)ione?” in F" Bolletti s Ideologia e $ocieta'") The insuperable ob/ection to this “version” of Mar4 s criti.ue even if the limitations of >ure 7eason are already apparent there) and made to retreat to the Feibni)ian sphere of intuition and aesthetics. but this time * was led to do so by my general philosophical interests and under the influence of 5egel rather than any contemporary thinkers) !from ‘"$#: Ereface’.blosse Aerinnung von 8rbeits)eit.ue is that if “value” is sheer “mystification” and “fetishism”. though not. as Heidegger !ould argue later in the 3antbuch" (8 useful discussion of this point is in H'A Aadamer s 4es 6hemins de +eidegger.issenschaften !ill never be “united” again= the irretrievable “separation” of the $ub/ect from the Cb/ect is finally conceded" The social sciences must turn to the Unicum of the “$oul” !hich can e4'press and “e4ternali)e” its “spirit” through the $chematismus. !hich are “sub/ectively” allocated according to “demand”.ue”") (eo'9antism is the un illing avo!al of this “retreat of 7eason”. the %orm rescues the content of +no!ledge. then. until they become a “crystalli)ed $pirit” (geronnener Aeist – the phrase is $immel s. and the (orm . before . in the %irst Briti. >ractical 7eason saves e4perience. then it is absolutely impossible for it to determine the .eber adopted it) that dominates the lives of “individual souls”" The intellectual path of Fu+acs from !ie $eele und die 9ormen (adopting $immel s schema of “$oul” and “%orms” from the Philosophische 3ultur) to the elaboration of the concept of “reification” out of the Mar4ian “fetishism of commodities” in "eschichte und 3lassenbe usstsein describes faithfull% and fatefull% this “flirtation” of Mar4ism !ith the Vollendung of Aerman 0dealism= At the time.issenschaften and the "eistes.uire “a life of their o!n”. essay on “9ant et le tournant hermeneuti.6riti7ue of 8udgement (as 8rendt argues in 4ectures on 3ant's Political Philosoph%.uantitative allocation of social resources for production! (or is it possible for us to discern a !ay to evade this “fetishism”! Fu+acs himself confesses to the “overriding . through the “symbolic and social forms”" This is the essence of “sociali)ation” that mani'fests itself in all areas of human life even to the e4tent that these “%orms” ac. p":M. it was 4arx the ‘sociologist’ that attracted me and * saw him through spectacles tinged by =immel and 4ax Heber) * resumed my studies of 4arx during Horld Har *.ustifies the conduct" The 5atur.
one !ill notice immediately that the . insufficient attention has been paid to the actual practical convergence of the 8ustrian $chool and the Aerman Historical $chool that seemed so bitterly divided over the Methodenstreit in the final decades of the t!entieth century !ith the famous diatribe bet!een 9arl Menger and Austav $chmoller" 0n reality.see his !er 2 eck im Recht.eber – to conceive of the Rationalisierung in terms of its “instrumental purpose” (2 eck-rationalitat – !hat !e may call “mathesis”) and therefore “scientificity” that can be distinguished from its “(orm” or “Ealue” (Wert-rationalitat)" (The distinction bet!een causa efficiens and causa finalis actually belongs to the great Aerman /urist 7udolf von Ghering and pertains to political theory and the sociology of la! . trans" as 4a as a Means to an . the fact remains that both $chools had a common aim= ' and that is the “practical effectualit%” of “scientific” research! 0f one ta+es a closer loo+ at the .uest for “scientific la!s” e4pressible even in mathematical form of the 8ustrian $chool and the resolute opposition to such “generalities” from the Historical $chool.eber seems to have adopted it !ithout apparent ac+no!ledgement" $imilarly.eber s entire methodology from the “ideal type” ($immel s “%orm”) as a “sociological form” to the hermeneutic Verstehen of social phenomena (clearly dra!n from -ilthey) that allo!s the liberation of “social science” from its “normative content” (!ert'frei. not!ithstanding the apparent unbridgeable divide bet!een the . of the +istorismus that he vehemently denounced. formalistic “9antian $chematismus” !ould have seemed absurd to (iet)sche – part of that “moral theology” of Aerman 0dealism and of the Aerman Historical $chool of Fa!.eber and of “alienation” in Mar4 in his appositely titled early !or+ on Ma. ' but one into !hich he !as forced by his espousal of the “methodological individualism” of the 8ustrian $chool and the /udicial positivism of 9elsen and the Marburg $chool" 0n this specific and important regard.Weber and 3arl Mar-" This comple4 !eb of “sociological forms” characteri(es also . .eber himself had rebuffed !hen revie!ing the “older” Aerman Historical $chool in his Roscher und 3nies.e !ill discuss these themes in >art Three") Cnce more.sub/ectivism” of this frame!or+ (p"4viii) and indeed to its affinit% !ith . !e are bac+ full circle to $immel s (eo'9antian dualism of “$oul” (value. “value'free” science)" 0ndeed.nd<" . and indeed part of the “emanationism” that .elt'anschauung of the $chools.eber s entire sociology and “.eber moves very far from (iet)sche s much more consistent and sophisticated philosophical &nt!urf and original version of the Rationalisierung" . especially von Mises !ho had lin+s !ith . norm) and “%orms” (instrumental purpose)" @ut in pursuing this schema.issenschaftslehre” is founded on these $immelian “sociological %orms” that allo! him – as they do $chumpeter in the 1heorie and the 8ustrian $chool generally. !e !ill argue that .eber is more “ecumenical” than (iet)sche in highlighting the “irrational” elements of 9ultur – in !hich Ratio and “iron cage” are “crystalli)ations” or “%orms” of the “$pirit or $oul”" $uch a neat. .eber s o!n brand of (eo'9antian “rationali)ation” (as !e !ill see later) and Heidegger s phenomenological account of “inauthenticity” and “totality” in $ein und 2eit (p"44ii)" 0t is not an accident then if 9arl Fo!ith focused on the convergence of the concepts of “rationali)ation” in .eber s theory of the $tate as a “monopoly on the use of physical force” is derived from Ghering s /urisprudence" .
to a vision of the liberal “free and competitive” mar+et that championed the Planlosigkeit (spontaneous plan'lessness. not least. as the be all and end all of cosmic “reality” – thereby abolishing this “reality”. and that of capital (the rise of large cartels and corporations vertically and hori)ontally integrated) in !hat has been generally described as “the $econd 0ndustrial 7evolution” (see 8lfred Bhandler Gnr s 1he Visible +and). amounts to the “affirmation of the status . constituted po!erful forces in the concerted effort by capitalist bourgeois interests across &urope to counter the emergence of socialist parties and their ideologies in the name of an overall “methodological sub/ectivism” that displaced the entire focus of >olitical &conomy from “Fabour” to “individual Dtility” and therefore from the dramatic transformation and concentration of the labour process (Taylorism and %ordism). in the sense that its e4clusive focus on “historical research” (-ilthey). Austav $chmoller himself !ith his influential Verein fur $o(ialpolitik – testify to this “supporting role” of the Aerman Historical $chool in the “sociological” service of Aerman industry" Here it is the “interestedness” of the Historismus of the Aerman $chool that converges !ith the apparent Machian “dis'interestedness” of the 8ustrian $chool !hich.rror”)! (The best epistemological account of the methodology of the 8ustrian $chool remains %riedrich Haye+ s 1he 6ounter-Revolution of $cience") $een from the standpoint of the Aerman Historical $chool. for instance) that could serve as guidance for overall government policy and. as essential strategic ideological tools in the fight against the spreading socialist ideologies" -espite Mach s insistence on the “dis' interestedness” of scientific research in .Machism of the 8ustrian $chool !as aimed at establishing the simplest mathematical relationships bet!een events even at microeconomic level (regarding the price behavior of “firms and individuals”. anarchical freedom) of bourgeois civil society (%erguson s and Hegel s burgerliche "esellschaft) against the regimentation of the “planned”. the fact remains that Machism loo+s at “phenomena” as “sensations” – that is to say.Aelernte< to the mass !or+er).uo” and indeed to its elevation to epistemological and ontological status/ 0t is most important to note at this /uncture that the 8ustrian and Aerman $chools. this “meta'physics”. “organi)ed” economy advanced by the $o(ialismus" 0t is the “abandonment” of all “metaphysical illusions” – the better to . the practical outcome of its theoretical and methodological position !ould be absolutely identical. in such a !ay that the “regular and predictable” relationships (Gevons) that can be found bet!een “sense'impressions” (&mpfindungen) are ta+en to e4haust the entire “uni'verse” of “science”" 0t follo!s from this that Machism !ould regard the “present” social relations of production (capitalist ones) as the only truly “scientific” ones! 8ny “deviation” of social behavior from the “scientific la!s” based on the “present” social relations imposed by capital !ould be seen as “aberrant” and “erroneous” (hence the title to Mach s main !or+” “9no!ledge and . on the close concentration on individual “events” (Aeschehen) in “Thucydidean” fashion (Mar4 satirises “Thu+ydides' 7oscher” in chapter 2 of 3apital. Eolume 1) !ould be concerned !ith identifying “current practices” that could be put to “practical effective use” on the part of Aerman industry! The practical industrial activities and membership of the leaders of the $chool – chief among them. in effect. of the composition of the !or+ing class (from the s+illed .rkenntnis und Irrtum. ho!ever “heated” their controversy over the “methodology” of the social sciences in the “Methodenstreit”.
eber s o!n overriding concern !ith the “political effectuality” of the Parlamentarisierung !as never dictated by a genuine concern for the corresponding !emokratisierung of Aerman politics.eber s scornful /ibes at the “literati” and their “romantic fantasies” can be retorted !ith some /ustice against his o!n “petty'bourgeois nostalgic lamentations” about the “steel'hard casing” of “the care for e-ternal goods”. at his ethereal conceptions of a “crystallised $pirit” of modern industrial !or+ (to be e4amined belo!). and the staid “conservatism” of Aerman Historical $chool historicism that see+s to preserve the aura of “sub/ectivity”.cf" $chumpeter s last chapter in . Mises and $chumpeter. @ohm'@a!er+. or divine emanation).eber" (%or an initial outline of these arguments.ects of Aerman industrial domination in &urope. and the “&nt'seelung” (out'souling. together !ith the spread of Machism in science that subtended both the 8ustrian (Menger.conceal the greater illusion of “marginal utility” ' that !ill allo! the conceptual fusion by the Aerman ruling elites in the period to . later to mimetise into Heidegger s Uneigentlichkeit and $artre s mauvaise foi< ' by (iet)sche at length in the "enealogie) that he had espoused and proclaimed in his 0naugural Fecture at %reiburg in the attempt to bridge the divide bet!een the “revolutionary” and technocratic appeal of 8ustrian Machian empiricism. see M" Bacciari s “$ul >roblema dell Crgani))a)ione” in Pensiero 5egativo e Ra(ionali((a(ione") 0t is a fact beyond doubt that .ar T!o and beyond of the Aerman Historical $chool s focus on “individual”. and of the 8ustrian $chool s elevation of “individual” consumer choices in the liberalist “free mar+et mechanism” on the other" ((ot for nothing the “8ustrians” !ere dubbed in Aermany “Manchester mercantilists”! . it is that central notion of “free labor” that contains in its denotation of “autonomous mar+et demand” guiding and determining the “profitability” that is the benchmar+ of “the rational conduct of capitalist business” – it is this notion of “free labor” that hides . but rather by the need to smoothe and invigorate the political and economic “$taatsmacht” of the Aerman capitalist (ationaloe+onomie" . !hich sanctions the validity of “scientific methods” in the study of social life. as !e !ill see. specific interventionist pro. desecration) of political life through the “massification” of political parties (in Politik als Beruf). then Haye+) and the Fausanne (. for human e4istence" (The most e4plicit elaboration of this “methodological individualism” is in %riedrich Haye+ s 1he 6ounter-revolution of $cience and in $chumpeter s . must be seen as one co'ordinated and massive intellectual counter'attac+ by capital against the emergent !or+ing class !hose political e4pression !ill culminate !ith the overarching intellectual vision of Ma4 .eber s ultimate allegiance to the $pontaneitat of human “needs and !ants” intended as “the autonomous consumerist mar+et demand” that !e discussed earlier and the ‘optimistic liberal understanding of “mar+et competition” that is the centerpiece of bourgeois liberalism" Here . on one hand.orld .alras and >areto) $chools. of Hegelian Eer'geist'igung (embodiment of spirit.bad conscience or bad faith.conomic !octrine and Method") . (iet)sche s o!n philosophical &nt!urf.eber /ettisons the initial (iet)schean “7esolve” (the notion of "e issen or “conscience” or “responsibility” e4pounded and championed against its opposite – schlechte "e issen . and the “&nt')auberung” (dis' enchantment) of human e4perience through its “instrumental rationali)ation”" 8bove all.conomic !octrines:<) 0n this conte4t.
Barl $chmitt !ill publish his Politische 1heologie in a direct challenge to .infuhrung in die Metaph%sik") KKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKK . and in 1253.ilhelmine Oivilisation and to the 9ultur of .geronnener Aeist< (also translated as “ob/ectified mind” by Aerth and Mills in 9rom Ma. understood philosophisch here by . $immel s notion.eber s philosophical and scientific assumptions surrounding the Verfassungsfrage of the . for the present and for the foreseeable future.hereas in Mar4 technology re'produces (reflects and preserves) the e4isting po!er relations bet!een producers in a process that can be resolved or be super'seded dialectically – through the gro!ing “sociali)ation” (again. . by the mar+et mechanism! Cnly in this sense can a “lifeless machine” become a “congealed spirit” or a “crystallised spirit” . the !ants and needs embodied in the labor process).eber) of . but in reality possesses this po!er “onl%” (!) because it is the “resultant ob/ectification” – “operated” by the “living machine” of rational and systematic bureaucratic rule of private capitalists or state administration ' of their conflicting .Weber)" . published originally as . their “function”.eimar 7epublic. Heidegger s $ein und 2eit !ill serve as the epitaph to . they cannot have a “!ill” of their o!n" (evertheless.0t is the “machinery” of the “congealed spirit”. of the leitender "eist" &ven as late as 121N. the “responsibility” (Ae!iss. Eerant!ortung – categories e4pounded by (iet)sche in his mature !or+s).eber machines ob/ectify the “need' necessity” of human instincts in conflict !ith one another" . or “living” (rational bureaucratic rule) that .eber see+s to balance (the “opposition” he vehemently emphasi)es) !ith the !e(isionismus.Philosophische 3ultur<# but infuses it !ith (iet)schean meaning" Mar4 had intended (in 1he "erman Ideolog% and in the "rundrisse. opposed and irreconcilable self'interests as these are “filtered scientifically” and optimi)ed.eber can still believe in the “value'neutrality” of his parliamentary frame!or+" @ut as !e shall see. already in 1212 political developments inside Aermany had sha+en the self'assuredness of his “social'scientific” analysis and proposals" T!o short years after his death. in the “ob/ectification of their needs and !ants” must utili)e the “lifeless machine” that therefore onl% appears to have “the po!er to force them to serve it”.eber borro!s this e4pression from Mar4 .hat “in fact happens in factories” is that “the daily !or+ing lives of men” are “determined” by the “congealed spirit” of the “lifeless machine”" The means of production are the “lifeless machine”= as such. presaging the imminent “obscuring of the !orld”" (The phrase “obscurcissement du monde” is ta+en from the %rench translation of Heidegger s lectures delivered in >aris in 12LP.3apital< and $immel . shape and form ' their technological attributes are determined by the “material needs and !ants” of “the men” !ho in their operari.eimar" The (a)i Batastrophe !as /ust around the corner. in 1255. !hether “lifeless” (the care for e4ternal goods. for instance) that machines embody the social relations of production of a particular society* but in .
!hich is a contradiction in terms as far as Mar4 s “criti. in other !ords.uantitative metre” (dead ob/ectified labor) in the form of the !age" The capitalist e4ploits politically the ineluctable “sociality” of the labor process in the attempt to reproduce its artificial “separation” both from the means of production and from labor interaction" The “mysti.eberian Fu+acs) try to find a “scientific proof” of “e4ploitation” in the very possibility of “socially . as Mar4 himself avo!s.human needs and the spreading inter'dependence of social labour. then these . !hich is entirely dependent on the “sub/ective valuations” of “autonomous or spontaneous mar+et demand” – in blatant contradiction of Mar4 s thesis! 8nd if.ue” of political economy and of capitalism goes for the simple reason that “reification” is a political practice that can in no !ay shape or form or manner be “transmuted” into the “measurable value content” of produced commodities – Mar4 s “socially necessar% labor time”! -ifferently put. it is “the mar+et” that decides ultimately !hat “labor'time” is “socially necessary” and !hat is not. conversely. this “pro/ect of domination” over living labor through dead labor or “crystalli)ed labor”" %or Mar4. then clearly it is not the production process (Mar4 s “process of valori)ation”) that determines “value”. “mar+et demand” is itself determined by the “amount of value” (of “crystalli)ed labor'time”) in possession of mar+et agents or “purchasers” in the form of monetary media. the “crystalli)ation” of labor'time.eber s once Mar4 (and the .ue” of capitalism is the legitimation of this act of violence – the reduction of living labor to mere “abstraction” both collectively from the means of production and individually from the “sociality” of human labor" %or Mar4 therefore the “congealment”. the “reification” of human e4perience has little to do !ith “mysticism” or “fetishism” but purely !ith sheer and ab/ect political “violence”! Mar4 s “crystalli)ed labor” corresponds to this congealment of living labour into “labor po!er” or “labor time” (Mar4 refers specifically to 8rbeits')eit) or “dead ob/ectified labor” imposed coercively and enforced in the factory by the authoritarian command of the capitalist over !or+ers in the labor process" The antagonism of the !age relation over the distribution of surplus value – the ratio bet!een the “necessary” portion of the !or+ing day and its “surplus” portion that constitutes the “e4ploitation” of !or+ers – is “mediated” by the means of production that “embody” or “crystalli)e” the socially necessary labor time or “value” that !ent into their original production" The means of production therefore are not mere “lifeless machines” but “embody” or “crystalli)e” value that is e4tracted by the capitalist in the process of production and that is to be “reali)ed” later by means of the sale of goods on the mar+et" 8nd yet Mar4 s analysis !ill converge !ith .uantifying” this “crystalli)ed labor'time” in the concept of “surplus value” or “theft of labor'time”. if.eber instead this “socialisation” reflects only the “rationally calculable” and efficient provision for the antagonistic needs of !or+ers and capitalists both !ithin and across the class divide" 0n Mar4 the means of production embody the political command of the capitalist !ho see+s “to divide” the ineluctable “interdependent interaction” – the inter esse – of social labor into the false “homogeneity” of “individual labors” remunerated in accordance !ith an “e4trinsic . for . but rather the process of “reali)ation” of value through the “sale” of goods. the “crystalli)ation” of labor'time consists precisely in the political continuity of this “capitalist design”.
this does not even remotely mean that therefore “timeQfree(es into an e4actly delimited. rational. the progressive elimination of the qualitative. the process of labour is progressively broken down into abstract. the period of time necessary for work to be accomplished !which forms the basis of rational calculation% is converted. day for day )))) .free(e<# it does not . quantifiable continuum filled with quantifiable 'things' !the reified. pp)1$-$.uotes directly from Mar4 s 3apital= +hrough the subordination of man to the machine the situation arises in which men are effaced by their labourJ in which the pendulum of the clock has becomes as accurate a measure of the relative activity of two workers as it is of the speed of two locomotives) +herefore.congeal< or .“monetary media” and the “amount of value” they represent must themselves have been determined by the “amount of value” alread% produced in the production process! 8nd here !e have the perfect circulus vitiosus e4posed by @ohm'@a!er+! The thought process by !hich Mar4 passes erroneously from the “reification” of the e-perience of the labor process by individual !or+ers to its “reification” as “labor time” that is “.uantifiable ‘things ” in terms of “value”! (o matter ho! much a capitalist may oppress a !or+er.% 0t is entirely evident here !hat atrocious non se7uitur Fu+acs has committed! $imply because “time . it becomes space) !'uK. we should not say that one man's hour is worth another man's hour.uantifiable” in terms of “output per unit of time” (productivity) is usefully illustrated by Fu+acs in his e4position of “7eification” in the "eschichte= *f we follow the path taken by labour in its development from the handicrafts via cooperation and manufacture to machine industry we can see a continuous trend towards greater rationalisation.!hereby< it becomes space”! It does not and cannot do so! Time remains time! 8nd the material products of living labor do not thereby become “. as mechanisation and rationalisation are intensified.ualitativeQnature” under the capitalist command of “the regular discipline of the factory” for !or+ers. . specialised operations so that the worker loses contact with the finished product and his work is reduced to the mechanical repetition of a specialised set of actions) An the other hand.uantifiable continuum filled !ith .cr%stalli(e<! (or does it “become space”! #et this is precisely the mista+e that Mar4 himself ma+es in his conceptualisation of “value” as “socially necessary labor'time”.Fu+acs should say “the !or+er s e-perience of time< sheds its . human and individual attributes of the worker) An the one hand. man is nothingJ he is at the most the incarnation of time) Luality no longer matters) Luantity alone decides everything2 hour for hour. but rather that one man during an hour is worth -ust as much as another man during an hour) +ime is everything. as “crystalli)ed labor'time”" Fu+acs . flowing natureJ it free>es into an exactly delimited. mechanically ob-ectified 'performance' of the worker. variable. wholly separated from his total human personality2 in short. from a merely empirical average figure to an ob-ectively calculable work-stint that confronts the worker as a fixed and established reality) Hith the modern 'psychological' analysis of the work-process !in +aylorism% this rational mechanisation extends right into the worker's ‘soul’< +hus time sheds its qualitative.uantifiable ‘things Q. time does not .
to enable him to claim that he had successfully “. as Bolletti has noted. in !hich case it is an aporetic concept because “competition” invariably ends up “destroying competition” (!)* or else “mar+et competition” is a sphere of activity that is “politically enforced”.uently. he needed it also to be able to retain the “political and social” foundations of capitalist “social relations of production” as historical phenomena that !ere not immutable (sub specie aeternitatis) but sub/ect to human action" The seeming o4ymoron of “historical materialism” encapsulates this constant search by Mar4 for a !ay to reconcile science and politics or history" Aiven that this is e. to have accepted that value is an entirely political category and that the capitalist economy is operated by concrete and identifiable social institutions !ould have meant for him to be lo!ered once again into “the +ingdom of shado!s”. he counted this. second. the discovery of the !oppelcharakter of the “commodity” labor po!er (its being at once living labor that “valori)es” capital and “labor po!er” that is e4changed on the mar+et). as perhaps his greatest achievement" 0t is /ust as certain.uivalent to “s. something he despised and spurned because he identified it mista+enly !ith the “ideological”.uaring a circle”. li+e Aod or the soul. physically.uantified” value and therefore to establish his labor theory of value on a “scientific” footing* but. “superstructural” public sphere of liberalism founded on the “optimistic” features of the mar+et (commutative and distributive /ustice)" . that for Mar4 value !as a “social hieroglyph” that. has no material e4istence and yet is “ob/ective” in that it conditions and guides human action" @ut. there can be no competition as a reality a se stante (that can stand on its o!n) and that allo!s “value” to be determined independentl% of politicall%-enforced rules/ #et Mar4 !or+ed precisely on the grim assumption of the Fa! of Ealue.uantity” of “things” produced in the capitalist process of production has nothing to do !ith the “value” of that production !hich is determined instead by the e4tent to !hich that production is done by employing “socially necessary labor'time”" (Bontrast this !ith ho! Fu+acs instead is clearly all at sea !hen dealing !ith matters that are not immediately philosophical – as is evinced by the remar+able difference bet!een the clearly incompetent discussions in “7eification” of “economic matters” . in !hich case. eo ipso. he had to persevere !ith his inconsistent theoretical frame!or+ because to have done other!ise.especially Marginal Dtility Theory< as against the sure mastery of his philosophical criti. into the shado!y !orld of the >olitical.ue in the section on “The 8ntinomies of @ourgeois Thought”") (or can it be doubted seriously that Mar4 !as a!are of the impossibility of reducing ob/ectively. this theory of value is inconsistent !ith the notion of mar+et competition" Cne of t!o things= ' either “mar+et competition” is regarded by Mar4 as an autonomous and spontaneous sphere of activity not enforced politicall% by one class against another. it is not surprising that Mar4 failed in the attempt" Mar4 !as certainly sufficiently intelligent and competent in “economic theory” to reali)e that the “. that capitalist society reproduces itself through the operation of the self'regulating mar+et. and here is the cru4. into the interpretation of capitalism as a set of specific historical institutions.Mar4 needed this notion of “crystalli)ed labor'time” to serve a dual purpose= ' first. heterogeneous labor to a homogeneous substance= indeed. especially its “pessimistic” feature – competition (the dira necessitas)" Bonse.
its >olitical homologation in the philosophy of Fiberalism – of the “$tate of Fa!” or “7echtsstaat”! (The classic e4position of this ignis fatuus of economic doctrine and ideology is in 9arl >olanyi s 1he "reat 1ransformation" Cf course. yield an “e. anarchic mechanism that can reproduce itself.eberian “rationali)ation” to every aspect of social life – even if this is only founded on “an illusion”! .ue” of capitalism to prove in “. that annul or balance one another and. in the “legitimacy” of legal categories that dra! Habermas s analysis bac+ into the orbit of 8rendt s “liberalist and /usnaturalist” rendition of the historical reality of “revolutions”! Habermas manages there!ith to undo the valid criti. Mar4 falls into this “scientistic trap” in !as 3apital. cannot see that indeed it is that “side” of Mar4 s theory and of $ocialism that believes in the fable of “the theft of labor time” that then must necessarily believe. of their self'interest" Bompetition is construed therefore as a /umble of conflicting and opposing forces. that can be in “e.ui'librium” of prices consistent !ith the “real value” of the goods sold on the mar+et" The “pessimistic” matri4 of this conception of competition.ue of 8rendt s On Revolution that he had e4pounded in his essay !ie "eschichte von den ( ei Revolutionen" $ee also >art %our discussion of these themes") Aiven the necessary failure of this “criti. !ho is almost entirely innocent of economic theoretical training. common to both Mar. ironically. vi rerum . they can offer no greater ob/ection to capitalism than the fact that it e4tends . but generally not in the "rundrisse !hich are therefore much to be preferred as the e4position of Mar4 s overall theory of capitalism" 0ncredibly.eber. Habermas argues that it !as Mar4 s finding of “the theft of labor time” in the “pure e4change” categories of bourgeois la! that “discredit. it is evident that Mar4 and Fu+acs must then turn to the “political” analysis of capitalist “social relations of production”= but here. (e!tonian mechanics" 0t is nothing other than the Hobbesian scientific h%pothesis of the “state of nature” !ith its “!ar of all against all” reproposed in “bourgeois” garb as the political convention of “the contractual la!s of competition” that could legitimi)e the ne!ly'founded “science of &conomics” and.uilibrium” only if its participants can discipline or police one another in the act of e4changing goods by virtue of their very egoism.uite obviously to be found in Hobbes s political theory and its scientific progeny.by force of things!<. by so doing. as a “system of conflicting needs and !ants”.and Weber. of surplus value as “theft of labor time” – the e4istence of “e4ploitation”.@ut the fact that Mar4 retained the “pessimistic” features of “mar+et competition” so as to prove “scientifically” his determination of “value” as “socially necessar% labor time” meant that essentially he replicated the fallacious notion of a homogeneous “substance” called “Ealue” that forms the “sub/ect'matter” of the &conomics both in its Blassical and (eoclassical versions! %rom $mith to .ed< so enduringly for Mar4ism both the idea of legality and the intention of (atural Fa! as such that ever since the lin+ bet!een (atural Fa! and revolution has been dissolved”! Habermas. in “(atural Fa! and 7evolution”. no! in 1heor% and Practice. the &conomics refuses to see the capitalist economy as a net!or+ of political institutions but sees it instead as an unplanned. above all. and including Mar4. because they are forced to move on the same conceptual grounds as “bourgeois political economy”.uantity”.uantitative” terms – in terms of “value as a . is . tugging in different directions.
ue that describes capitalism as “a necessary illusion”! 0f an “illusion” is “necessary”. if this atomisation is only an illusion it is a necessary one) !Bukacs. or “crystalli)ation” of labor'time into “value” – of capitalist production! This e4plains !hy Fu+acs in the "eschichte comes so close to sharing . “gro!th'through'crisis” – of capitalist industry and society" (The etymological ne4us bet!een “crisis” and “criti.eber s o!n analysis of the Rationalisierung in the precise conte4t of dra!ing up a specific political pro/ect of trans'formation of bourgeois political institutions around the Verfassungsfrage.violence< of capitalist command over living labor. as abstract members of a species identical by definition with its other members and. this isolation and fragmentation is only apparent< 5owever.nt icklung – “creative destruction”.eber s analysis of capitalism almost !ord for !ord! ($ee pp"2Pff !here Fu+acs . !hat Fu+acs “totally” ignored= the inevitability of crisis as a “decisive moment” of the utili)ation of class conflict in the . on the one hand. 'eschichte.eber understood. that constitutes the “necessity” – the “free)ing”. Fu+acs himself does have time to perceive the “necessity” of crisis in capitalism" #et he interprets it uncriticall% as merely a “moment” in !hich “the anarchy of capitalist production” leads to the “collapse” of the “system”= it is an echo of the infamous 2usammenbruchstheorie – the “theory of final collapse” – that !ill preoccupy and distract the political strategy of the 4inkskommunismus at the turn of the last century" Fu+acs therefore completely misunderstands the “strategic importance” of . pp)$"-6% (either Mar4 nor Fu+acs understand the “po!erlessness” (Chnmacht) of a criti. 7osa Fu4emburg") -espite his fallacious belief in a homogeneous entity called “labor”.eber at length from Parlament und Regierung.ue surrounding this late'romantic Fu+acsian notion of “reification” (!hich has spa!ned lamentably an entire industry of useless philosophes). having learned from $chumpeter. !ithout hint of criticism!) Fu+acs s incomprehension of the utterly reactionar% pathos of his “artisanal nostalgia” – “the village community”! ' against “speciali)ation” is .onsumer articles no longer appear as the products of an organic process within a community !as for example in a village community%)+hey now appear. as isolated ob-ects the possession or non-possession of which depends on rational calculations) Anly when the whole life of society is thus fragmented into the isolated acts of commodity exchange can the 'free' worker come into beingJ at the same time his fate becomes the typical fate of the whole society<) Af course. then it cannot be dispelled e4cept by changing the conditions that ma+e it necessary" @ut Mar4 and Fu+acs are clearly arguing here that it is the “illusion” of commodity fetishism. . and not the ./ut this implies that the principle of rational mechanisation and calculability must embrace every aspect of life) .uotes .uite breath'ta+ing" 0n this regard.eimar 7epublic" (8nd so does Hannah 8rendt.eber s contemptuous dismissal of the “socialist” charge of “separation” against “capitalist rationali)ation and mechani)ation” is entirely understandable and condivisible" 8midst the mysti. “congealment”. on the other hand. trans'crescence.ue” and “decision” is dra!n in fn" 1PP of 7" 9osellec+ s 3ritik und 3risis:) . the ne! Bonstitution of the . !hose On Revolution is a paean to the revolutionary $pontaneitat of the 4inkskommunismus promulgated by the heroine of her youth. .
of violence '. even if “individual labor” is“measured” in terms of “output” by means of sheer violence.e dealt before !ith Fu+acs s description of “necessary illusion” – !hich is an o4ymoron because “illusions” cannot be “necessary” and “necessity” cannot be “illusory”") Fu+acs perceives this problem !hen he asserts. the Mar4ian concept of “commodity fetishism” or the Fu+acsian e. formalism).eber and Mar4 rely ultimately on the fiction of “the self'regulating mar+et” (the la! of supply and demand) to determine “the e4change value” (the prices) of output and to provide “the social synthesis”. in other !ords. reification.eber s theory of “rationali)ation” so far is that it is not and cannot be “scientific” because its “unit of measurement” relies on the homogeneity of “labor”" .7uilibrium and . as (iet)sche argued in B". ho!ever “necessary” it may be “ob/ectively” and that therefore the bourgeoisie cannot be “the individual sub/ect'ob/ect of history”" 8s if “history” re. of the &conomics is precisely the “co'ordination of economic activity” is also cleverly perceived. as in the capitalist labor process. it is possible “to measure” value independently of political institutions.eber s “rationali)ation”. then !e have a contradiction because no “illusion”.volution" Cur o!n discussion of these matters !ill be the sub/ect of a forthcoming study called 6atalla-%= The @ourgeois Dtopia of &.uired . this “social synthesis” is achieved through a “necessary illusion” (fetishism of commodities. albeit still from the vie!point of the opposition of “fragmented alienated labor” against the “(lost!) totalit% of artisanal labor”. or the “co' ordination” necessary for the “reproduction” of the society of capital" (Haye+ s entire life!or+ !as dedicated to this conundrum of ho! a mass of atomi)ed individuals can reproduce a society through “the mar+et”" That the paramount and insurmountable problem. !hich is an o4ymoron! ' can +eep a social system in “reproduction”! (.uilibrium") Mar4 s inability to determine “value” and “prices” independently of the mar+et “mechanism” induced him to see+ the “ob/ectification” of value in the “fetishism of commodities” !hich served the same purpose as . on the contrary. in any case. ac+no!ledged and intelligently discussed by @rian Foasby in .The chief result of our study of ..eber ignores the fact that living labor is not and cannot be homogeneous for at least three reasons= the first is that it is impossible to divide social labor into “individual labors”* the second is that the maker of a pro-duct should never be mista+en !ith the product itself ' nor indeed. – let alone a “necessary fiction”.uivalent of “reification” simply cannot account for “the social synthesis”" Mar4 and Fu+acs understand that if this “social synthesis” is ob. then capitalism !ould be made “scientifically legitimate” and the only “ob/ection” to it !ould rest !ith its “efficiency” as a mode of production of social !ealth" 0f. the impasse. that “the limit to reification is its ‘formalism ” (in +66# p"161)" Habermas understands Fu+acs s statement to mean that !or+ers are a!are that the “reification” of labor time is “an illusion”.eber s “rationali)ation” – that of “measuring” the social synthesis. !hich is !hat Fu+acs translated into the concept of “reification”" Gust as !ith . !ith its o nership! 8nd the third reason is that. that “output” is not “homogeneous” across product industries (as even the greatest bourgeois economic theoreticians concede – see Bhamberlin and 7obinson and $raffa on “imperfect competition”) so that it cannot serve as a JmeasureJ on !hich this output can be JpricedJ for mar+et e4change! 0t is for this reason that both .ectivel% valid – if.
Fu+acs s analysis does not deal !ith the problem because.ue of Fu+acs on the ground that the reality of “reification” (!hich Fu+acs has rendered identical !ith . seem to indicate “formalism” as the internal limit of the !age relation in terms of the fact that “the mar+et mechanism” metamorphoses living labor into a “thing” but only “formally”. !hich entails opposing one “illusion” !ith another.eberian “rationali)ation” because of his erroneous acceptance of “mar+et competition”) cannot be “dispelled” by a mythical “class consciousness”! @y so doing. he can then accept this o4ymoron as indicating the “historical necessity” of the “commodity form” at a given stage of “the natural history of society”! Here is the proof in his o!n !ords= . only to preserve the idolatry of “. as Habermas rightly notes. only “abstractly” – not “in reality” or “necessarily” – and must therefore succumb to the “reality” of class antagonism! 0t is true that both Mar4 and Fu+acs ultimately fall into this vicious circle of “mar+et competition” leading to “abstract labor” and then to “value” as a “necessary illusion” – an operation that is impossible because “competition” cannot automaticall% turn living e4perience into a “thing”" Habermas. there is no “real” or “necessary” illusion behind reification but the na+ed blunt violence of the capitalist – “the discipline of the factory”" This is !hy “formalism” is the limit of capitalism= ' because “rationali)ation” is not an “ob/ective” (. then Heidegger'Marcuse) phenomenon. this “formalism” can be overcome only “philosophically” – through “class consciousness”. in the impossibilit% of “reification” or “fetishism” as a “necessary illusion”! – Bertainly not in Fu+acs s residual Hegelian “idealistic ob/ectivism”! The o4ymoron of “necessary illusion” to describe the “fetishism of the commodity” and “reification” is the mirror'image of the Mar4ian notion of “historical materialism”= on one side the phenomenon of “value” is an “illusion”. it is a sub/ective product of human “history”. 1heor% of 6ommunicative 0ction# Vol:="< The only !ay to lend validity to Fu+acs s position is to reflect that the “formalism” of reification. the “unreality” of values) an “arbitrary” one that responds to a strateg% of command and e4ploitation" Fu+acs does in fact.$ee Habermas. at the page reference cited by Habermas. ho!ever.anything li+e “individual sub/ect'ob/ects” for e4ploitation to occur! ((iet)sche !ould have a fit if he ever read Fu+acs!) Ruite obviously. of capitalist command over living labor that ensures the “abstraction” of living labor" 0n other !ords. Habermas demonstrates ho! little he has understood !here the actual problem !ith the !age relation and !ith Fu+acs s concept of “reification” (and Mar4 s “fetishism”) really lies= ' that is to say. because it is hard to see ho! the “necessary illusion” of reification could ever become “un'necessary”! (The old %ran+furt $chool reali)ed this. !ill defeat capitalism for the precise reason that !hat ma+es it possible is a reality of “antagonism”.ective and material “economic la!s of motion of society”" @ecause Habermas accepts the “scientific” basis of “historial materialism” based on the mista+en distinction he dra!s bet!een “instrumental action” and “interaction” or “reflection”.eber) or merely “ideological” (Mar4'Fu+acs. of the mythical la! of value. completely fails to see that this is the real political problem and engages instead in a criti. that is.0nstrumental< 7eason”)" . but rather (!ith (iet)sche s invariance. !hilst on the other side it is “necessary” because it e4emplifies the ob.
Fu+acs goes on to cite Mar4 on this very point! Civision of labor within the workshop implies the undisputed authority of the capitalist over men.6)% Cf course.apital ***.. but. has to run up against internal limits2 O+his rationali>ation of the world appears to be complete. for reasons that can be theoretically demonstrated. if social practice does not only accumulate the successes of instrumental action but also.. who are but parts of a mechanism that belongs to him) +he division of labor within society brings into contact independent commodity producers who acknowledge no other authority than that of competition. they rely on the notions of “fetishism” and “reification”. as part of this process. 5. neither Mar4 nor Fu+acs !ill ever succeed in sho!ing ho! “the mar+et mechanism” can “function”. p)". of course. +. . that has consolidated for them into an opaque system. then. Qol". very shortly after the passage cited by Habermas. to attribute the social . of the coercion e(erted by the pressure of their mutual interests. to provide the foundation for that comprehensive “irrationality” constituted by the capitalist !age relation – !hich is !hy Fu+acs can then fall prey to and s!allo! !holesale the “formal rationality” of a . on p"165. that has been abstracted from them and become independent of them) Bukacs shares this perspective with Heber as with 5orkheimerJ but he is convinced that this development not only can be stopped practically.P !4arx. Habermas is !rong because the conte4t in !hich Fu+acs discusses this “limit” to rationali)ation is precisely that of Mar4 s theory of capitalist crisis induced both by antagonism in the labor process and by inter'capitalist competition in the “mar+et”! 8s a matter of fact. ch)8. through class antagonism."( +he burden of proof that 4arx wanted to discharge in politico-economic terms. ho! “competition” bet!een capitalists can ever provide “the social synthesis” for the reproduction of capitalist society in any form !hatsoever. p)#6% . p)". least of all that of “value”! %or this reason. instead. respectively.4arx did not adopt an epistemological perspective in developing his conception of the history of the species as something that has to be comprehended materialistically) 9evertheless. quoted in Bukacs. chiefly $immel s “social forms“ – that afflicts Habermas s o!n analytical frame!or+! Here is Habermas again= +o the degree that the commodity form becomes the form of ob2ectivity and rules the relations of individuals to one another as well as their dealings with external nature and with internal sub-ective nature.P !5abermas. is the ingrained “transcendental ob/ectivism” – derived mainly from (eo'9antian sources. with a theory of crisis. produces and reflects on ob2ective illusion... it seems to penetrate to the very depths of man’s physical and psychic natureJ but it finds its limit in the formal character of its own rationalityP) &5.hat this reveals. now falls upon a demonstration of the immanent limits to rationali>ation. a demonstration that has to be carried out in philosophical terms. albeit to denounce its “formal limits”! 0t is much simpler for us. the lifeworld has to become reified and individuals degraded N as Osystems theoryP foresees N into an OenvironmentP for a society that has become external to them.A. p)8#"%) 8gain.eber. the analysis of history is possible only in a phenomenologically mediated !gebrochen% mode of thought) +he science of man itself is critique and must remain so) !KM5*.
namely the proletariat (p"L:M)" But he completel% misses the point that the “contra'diction” in capitalist social relations is not predominantly one that concerns “communicative action or competence”! 0nstead. “idealistic” and (eo' 9antian theori)ation of the !hole 7uaestio of “reason and rationali)ation” as a discrepancy (Missverhaltnis) bet!een “la!s of nature” or epistemology and “la!s of society” or social theory.eber and then “theori)ed” by 9eynes in terms of the money'!age as the fundamental unit of measurement in capitalist industry" Bapital must impose not /ust its “mode of production” through the labor process and technologies used in the production process* it must also impose and define “the mode of consumption” for !or+ers so that their living labor may be “rationally calculable” according to the la! of value and the e. that is to say in communicative &p)8#G( action itself. rather than on the political antagonism of the age relation! Habermas is entirely right to chide Fu+acs s “idealistic” reconciliation of theory and practice in the “class consciousness” of “the individual sub/ect'ob/ect of history”. on the one hand.ue” of Mar4 and Fu+acs is that his o!n notion of “communicative action” remains trapped in the voluntarism of “consciousness”. pp)8#8-G%) 0t must be stressed that capitalism in its guise as “social capital” becomes as much a “mode of consumption” as it is a “mode of production”" This is intuited by . imposed through a net!or+ of capitalist political and social institutions all of !hich ans!er ultimately to the stability of money'!ages and the price and monetary system" @ut this does not mean that Habermas has identified this real apory in Mar4 s and Fu+acs s theories – the aporetic notion of “labor value” as the foundation of the social synthesis of capitalist reproduction through mar+et competition! 8nd this failure.uali)ation of the rate of profit! @ut careful! The mode of consumption “closes the circle” of the circulation of capital. “the regular discipline of the factory”" Bonsumption simply allo!s that “osmosis” that ma+es antagonism “measurable” after the event. ' !hich does not mean that the “foundation” of capitalism is not “the !age relation”. Qol)".A. it is one that is intrinsic to the politics of the !age relation itself! >erhaps the !orst that can be said of Habermas s “meta'criti. and moral-practical and aesthetic-practical rationality. as “reali)ation” of !hat had preceded as “valori)ation” of capital. the money'!age acting as a “social !age” that ensures the “reproduction” of the !age relation" . as a standard that is inherent in the unabridged concept of practice.eber s “free labor”) – through “the mar+et” and the elfare state or $o(ialstaat – that supplies “the unit of measurement”.synthesis of the society of capital to the sheer violence of the !age relation. as “profit” and provides that “sphere of autonomy” to !or+ers (. the process of production first and foremost.P !+. that is. of valori)ation. !e argue. is a direct result of Habermas s persistent !rong focus on the “philosophical”. of morality and aestheticism= *t is characteristic of the pattern of rationali>ation in capitalist societies that the complex of cognitive-instrumental rationality establishes itself at the cost of practical rationalityJ communicative relations are reified) +hus it makes sense to ask whether the critique of the incomplete character of the rationali>ation that appears as reification does not suggest taking a complementary relation between cognitive-instrumental rationality. on the other.
preferred to spea+ of “tran7uilit%” rather than “e. the “$o)ialisierung” that .eber has to postulate the “purposive rationality” of human “free !ill” that arises not from its idealistic universality (as in Aerman 0dealism and in /usnaturalism) but rather from the very “conflict”. chpts" : to 16< and 8rendt . the seeming integration of !or+ers in the society of capital that Habermas correctly identifies as the overriding theoretical concern of . as if these !ere “. ch on ‘>ol"&man"in8m"Bonst" .ueville . ‘0nsurgencies . as !e have seen.uantities” rather than “social relations” that need special political intervention (regulation) to avoid “crises”" Brisis is not something that happens “occasionally” or “accidentally” or “e4ogenously” or “by mista+e” because of failure to apply the “correct economic measures or policies”" Brisis is instead the perennial# fundamental impossibilit% of measuring social antagonism in monetary terms.eber considered to be a result of “rationali)ation” simply cannot be e4plained unless !e penetrate and enucleate – e4plode – this notion by removing it from the field of “science” and by re'interpreting the entire notion of mathesis. . fail to specify the conditions under !hich the means are “available” and the ends are “proposed”" Dltimately. as the resultant of “the clash of !ills” that he (li+e (iet)sche) sees as a “universal condition”" . from physical all the !ay to “cultural” and propagandistic violence" Thus. .uilibria” (the only “e.uilibria” that are possible) e4plode in a full-blo n crisis" ($ee belo!.ual “value in consumption”" The problem is not that “there is not enough profit” (overproduction) or “not enough demand” (underconsumption)= the problem is that “profit” and “value” can no longer be “measured” monetarily !henever the “political e. Fivre 0E. !ho does not see the point< to Marcuse and @aran and $!ee)y) of the “apathy” of !or+ers in the face of “material (consumption) affluence” – the “!elfare state” or $o(ialstaat fully implemented under the (e! -eal" Those !ho accept “un'critically” the notion of “integration” (see especially Marcuse s One-!imensional Man or even the “cultural” pages in @aran and $!ee)y s Monopol% 6apital) have effectively forgotten $chumpeter s great discovery (adopted !holesale from Mar4) that capitalism is “crisis”.discussion in (egri. !ith characteristic genial intuition.This solves the conundrum of “the affluent society”.uilibrium” as a category of economic analysis (in 1he 0ccumulation of 6apital)" The “apathy” and “integration” of !or+ers is a direct result of the “division” of social labor into “individual labors” remunerated or re!arded !ith “individual money'!ages” and the corresponding “concentration” of monetary social resources in the “central government” !hich then uses the e4isting structure of government administration to impose its “constituted po!er”" This is achieved through various strategies that include various degrees of political “violence”. that it is based on antagonism" “6risis” does not /ust mean a “dysfunction” in the “production” of value or profit. !hich is due to the incongruence bet!een production and consumption derived from the corresponding impossibility of ma+ing “value in production” e.!emocratie en 0meri7ue.eber s account (for it cannot be called a “theory”) of the Rationalisierung yields.uote from p"L15") That is !hy Goan 7obinson. of 3alkulation. a notion of “freedom” that is confined to rational'technical instruments connecting available means to proposed ends that far from being “scientifically” indicated by “a4iomatic disciplines” based on “ideal types”. of “profit”" .estern Mar4ism since Fu+acs" This is the apparent parado4 (apparent even to Toc.
verything routine. the dictatorship of “self'consciousness” that (iet)sche combats vigorously" @et!een poiesis and techne.ill to Truth consists /ust in this “cr%stalli(ation” of human reality into “symbols” such as language. average !fallenness% is the opposite of this endeavor) +he sophist.uest for a thoroughgoing criti7ue ((iet)sche sa! himself as a “fearless critic”) of “the . precisely.rkenntnis und Irrtum. (iet)sche prefers the sensuousness.KKKKKKKKKK .e sa! in the 5iet(schebuch ho! (iet)sche unleashes in the "oet(es-!ammerung a pitiless tirade against the “dialecticians” $ocrates and >lato !ho are guilty in his eyes of see+ing to suppress the “self'interested” speculation of the $ophists against their championing of the “purity” of the “philosopher s .uently come to replace and “mas+” the “intuitive” reality of the individual s “representation” (Eorstellung.uali)ing the une. appoints himself to work on human beings. by emphasi)ing e4actly this distinction bet!een the “dis'interested” pursuit of truth by “the scientist” and the more “mercenary” efforts of the “artisan” interested only in short'term and “opportunistic” material gains" This “distinction” or “dichotomy” bet!een the “true pursuit” or “the pursuit of truth” on the part of the philosopher for the “being of beings” or ontology – the 8ristotelian prima philosophia ' as against the “interested” efforts of the $ophists for the utility of “beings”. on the contrary. is !hat Heidegger condemns in the very opening pages of his imposing Metaph%sical 9oundations of 4ogic= +he philosopher has &"8( taken upon himself the seriousness of the concept. . into “another !orld” so per-fect as to be unreal and unattainable – the empyrean of “>latonic 0deas”" 0t is the “crystalli)ation” of human reality through the “ontogeny of thought” or “the perspective of the herd”. logic and mathematics that conse. also “dissimulation”) of his o!n “self'interest” in the original state of nature" The merit of the $ophists for (iet)sche is that their “rhetorical” pursuit of self' interest is a more genuine e4pression of human reality than the pretended “dis'interested” dialectical philosophical efforts of $ocrates and his disciples" The $ophists “+no!” that “the Truth” is a mere “perspective” and that !hat matters are the “interests” of human beings – of the “body”" $ocrates and >lato instead absurdly believe in “the real !orld” and thereby render it into “a fable”. as rationali>er and know-it-all. (iet)sche describes in Uber den Wahrheit und 4uge ho! human beings abandon the Hobbesian bellum omnium of the state of nature to form the status civilis and by so doing are prompted by “con'venience” – by the social con'ventum or social contract – to enter into.ual”. by comparing the incomparable" The . “con'ventions” that by their very “symbolic conventionality” in fact “e4clude” the physio'logical reality of individual needs by “e. everyday. for mere “practical science”.ill to Truth”. of fundamental questioning) . the immanence of the latter" &rnst Mach begins his magnum opus. for “applied philosophy”.uest for the dis'interested and dis' passionate” 1ruth" 0n the earliest clear statement of his o!n novel . persuades them they must worry about one another's spiritual needs) !pp)"6-8% <) .
to enumerate for him his complexes. is always already thrown onto beings as a whole) !p)"#% <) +his fundamental philosophical question about man remains prior to every psychology.erden”. the decisive determination of human Casein lies in the insight that that which we call the understanding)of)being belongs to Casein's ontological constitution) 5uman Casein is a being with a kind of being to which it belongs essentially to understand something like being) He call this the transcendence of Casein. to the Machian “dis'interest” in the “applications” of scientific e4perimentation.*n the direction of this basic problem. from the concrete historical and material circum'stances and con'ditions of their “species'conscious” or “phylogenetic” being (Mar4 s "attungs. is not and never does become easily accessible) Ior this reason also it is constantly threatened by sophistry) Hhat is easier than. the essential feature of the negatives !enken (negative thought) is the utter denial of any inter esse in human being" %rom (iet)sche s “immanentist” opposition to “crystalli)ed” or “congealed” . in a comfortable and interesting way. to the Heideggerian “transcendental” destitution of the concrete “ontic” e4istence of “man” – in all these cases !e encounter the unbridgeable “separation” (Trennung) of human beings from their “being human”. only demonstrates one thing2 that this question. become completely irrelevant in the rightly understood fundamental philosophical question about man) Ehilosophy never RbusiesR itself with man in this hustling sense in which man can never take himself to be important enough) !p)":% <) +hus also the result of a philosophical effort has a character fundamentally different from the acquisition of particular sciences) +o be sure. potentials.esen)" . and to say this is philosophy *t is crucial that the human being. but also prior to all ethics and sociology) +he fact that the aforementioned appear wherever this question is more or less explicitly alive. and characterology. translated as “crystalli)ed”< human con'ventions that “dissimulate” the antagonism of the Hobbesian feral state of nature (cf" his 1N3L piece. in this sophistical sense. anthropology. and are even taken for essential in its stead. !e !ill see that in all cases. and with it the basic problem of philosophy. standpoints. to interest a human being in human beings. primal transcendence !see the second ma-or part of the lecture course%) *t is on the basis of transcendence that Casein comports itself to beings. but this knowledge is grasped in its genuine content only when in such knowledge the whole of existence is sei>ed by the root after which philosophy searches-in and by freedom) !p)"1% 0f !e combine these seemingly opposing “perspectives” on the relationship bet!een “+no!ledge and human interest”. from Hobbes to (iet)sche and through to Mach and Heidegger. Uber Wahrheit und 4uge). and failings. philosophi>ing-and it especially-must always proceed through a rigorous conceptual knowledge and must remain in the medium of that knowledge. “becoming fi4ed”.the term he uses is “$tarr' . one-sidedness.
and . that Hobbes had h%pothesi(ed so as to be able to establish “scientifically” the need for a convention by human beings to erect a $tate-machine that !ould represent rationall% (!) their other!ise ir'reconcilable self'interests! 0t is the feral “conflict” of the “!ar of all against all” – the . ob metum mortis”– a decision at once “free” and “unfree”. and ho! can its “legality” ta+e . &uclidean! – cf" Hobbes s o!n “.uite instructively for us.(Hannah 8rendt.eber s distinction bet!een the 3alkulation of “sober bourgeois capitalism” and the “opportunistic” nature of its historical predecessors is based on this notion of the “purity”. in On Revolution and in 1he +uman 6ondition.hat “legitimacy” can such a Regierung have. the actual living $pirit (Heidegger s e4pression in his doctoral thesis on -uns $cotus) needed “to guide and govern” the “lifeless machine” and the “free labor” that operates it" Together. already in 3apital .a theme developed later by Aiorgio 8gamben in +omo $acer<" @ut 8rendt completely misses this entire comple4 Hobbesian socio'theoretical frame!or+ of “status naturae” as the necessar% scientific h%pothesis . the problem poses itself of ho! the $tate'machine can effectuall% re'present and then “govern” the self'interests of free labor involved in the rational operation of the machine" . brilliantly captures this 7oman notion of homo. .lements of >hilosophy”< from !hich the free political con-vention of the “status civilis” can be ana-l%sed" 0n the process. the h%pothesi(ed conflict of the “iron cage” – that allo!s the “crystalli)ation” – the convention! – of the “spirit” that is represented /ointly by the “lifeless machine” (the technology adopted to ma4imi)e rationally the provision for “the care for e4ternal goods”) and the “living machine”. a “reason” made “rational” by its being “ultimate”" 8nd here. that is. she neglects Mar4 s o!n entire fundamental discussion of the "attungs esen. the “lifeless machine” and the “living machine” merely utili)e rationally the antagonism of self'interests= ' this is not a “re'conciliation” but a “decision in e-tremis. of the “spontaneity” of modern capitalism in its unflinching application of the Rationalisierung to the “organi)ation of free labor under the regular discipline of the factory”" %or . the !ar of all against all. as opposed to the /uridical status of the persona .indeed. an ultima ratio. the critical discussions on “technological development” in the “%ragment on Machinery” of the "rundrisse< !hich is light years more advanced than $ocrates s literally archaic dis.and unbe+no!nst to her. the “separation” of human beings from the “pro' duction” or ob/ectification of their o!n e4istence is both the sine 7ua non of “modern industrial !or+” – in the sense that it constitutes the “crystalli)ed spirit” of “the care for e4ternal goods” no! embodied by “the lifeless machine” – and the nec plus ultra of capitalist industry – in the sense that only because of this “separation” and the “conflict” that it engenders bet!een all economic agents is the full “rationali)ation” of production on the part of the “living machine” of capitalist bureaucratic rule made possible" &ssentially.eberian “care for e4ternal goods”. as in Hobbes and in $chumpeter. the “bare” human being of the status naturae.uisitions on “the soul” to !hich she gives great priority! These matters !e !ill discuss at length !hen !e e4amine specifically .eber duplicates for his o!n theory of capitalism the conditions of the state of nature.eber.eber s political sociology in >art %our") &ven . the 1rennung.
the inscrutable (metaphysical!) “individual choices” of each “separate” in'dividual! . the only “osmosis”. naturally “un'defined” and pure “potentiality” – sheer “force” (9raft) or “po!er” (Macht) that can be applied “rationally” as a physical .conomic !octrines)" Cne of the constant ob/ections to capitalist enterprise is precisely this – that it “reduces” all aspects of human social interaction to the “homogeneous” pursuit of “profit”" Blearly.e should note here ho! the Aerman Historical $chool and other early opponents of (eoclassical Theory ob/ected to it on the ground that “utility” is a “homogeneous” entity !hereas in fact the “motivations” behind “economic action” are . of sub/ective marginal utilities – the only “social synthesis” is through “the mar+et” and its competitive measurement of the “Ealue” of all consumer goods and of labor itself through the “marginal utilities”.eber" KKKKKKKKKKKK .uestion this fundamental assumption on the ground that “science” is not concerned !ith “ultimate values” or “metaphysical substances” illustrates !onderfully ho! instrumental !as Mach s empiricist understanding of !hat constitutes “science” in the development of marginal utility (see $chumpeter s dismissive one'sided account of these ‘apories in the last chapter of his . unsociable sociability) for the sa+e of ma4imi)ing the “autonomous or spontaneous mar+et demand” of (free) labor! %or .uantity in the process of production" @ecause this “labor” is naturally “separate” and its “!ants and needs” conflictual. a homogeneous 7ualitas occulta ' and it presumes as much because it starts from the phenomenology of capitalist social relations of production !hich are Jco'ordinated and measuredJ by mone%: &very economist from $mith to Mar4 to Gevons started from the fact that every JthingJ that is e4changed in the mar+et has a JpriceJ and that therefore all JthingsJ on the mar+et must have a homogeneous JEalueJ ' and that this JEalueJ must be the Jsub/ect'matterJ of a Jscience of &conomicsJ! The fact that (eoclassical Theory never even bothered to .eber “the machine” is !hat allo!s the conflicting !ants and needs of !or+ers in their “free” status “to converge” in the purely “instrumental aim” (the 2 eckrationalitat) to ma4imi)e the provision for and satisfaction of these “needs and !ants”! %ar from “dividing” !or+ers through capitalist command.uidditasJ is actuall% a $ub-stance.institutional. ho!ever.uite evidently “heterogeneous”" The error that the &conomics commits (!e call it Jthe &conomicsJ rather than JeconomicsJ to emphasi)e that the essence of JeconomicsJ is to serve as a strategy of political po!er) is to presume that its Jsub/ect'matterJ (its sub'iectum).eber does the e4act opposite of Mar4 – and ends up therefore !ith the same vicious circle! %or . !hat these ‘critics fail to do is to . its J.eber therefore this “labor” is naturaliter “un'sociable”. irreconcilably “selfish” interests to be “amalgamated” or “associated” (the 9antian “ungeselle Aesellig+eit”. parliamentar% form? The ne4t stage of the critical debate !ill involve the illiberal Hobbesian Barl $chmitt and the liberal “9elsenian” . of the “factory”! 0t is this “machine or factory” that allo!s the “congealed spirit” of irremediably. it is simply impossible for there to be any “separation” of something that !as never united! The only “union”. machinery actually “concentrates” free labor under the “rational bureaucratic rule” and “the regular discipline” of “the machine”. the only “homologation” of conflicting self'interests and individual choices.
uiring about “ho! synthetic a priori /udgements are possible”.instrumental</ The “machine” !ith its “crystalli)ed spirit” (indeed. ho! such a reduction of the heterogeneity of human activity to “homogeneous” and “rationally calculable enterprise” or “profit” is at all possible! (. though even he succumbed to the temptation of hypostati)ing “value”" The evident contra'diction for . the “la!”. as it does for Mar4.uidditas” that could constitute the “sub/ect'matter” of the &conomics bears !itness to the ability of the social production of “e4change value” and its politically'enforced transmutation into money. the “metaphysical .eber is that it is impossible for any form of human co' operation to be founded on the assumption of “irreconcilable self'interest”. to adapt (iet)sche s sardonic t!ist !hen he as+ed “!hy are a priori /udgements necessar%?”.eber. to mystify human social relations – as Mar4 too+ pains to emphasi)e.uestion as to ho! and !hy “utility” could be adduced as the “ectoplasm”.uiry and social activity that is “legal”! .uestion that !e are addressing here – that is.confront the central .ue” in. “the $tate” and “po!er” – for hypostatic and ineluctable “forms” of human +no!ledge that a social scientist or “observer” can analy)e in their epistemological specificity and “autonomy” from other “disciplines” and then apply scientificall% to specific historical realities! The fact that a great mind such as .eber ma+es the colossal (eo'9antian mista+e of assuming that there is a specific “form” of human “+no!ledge” or “action” that is singularly “economic” – /ust as he conceded to 9elsen that there is a specific dimension of human en. or indeed.eber ta+es the standpoint of the (eoclassical theory of Ealue" The means of production are mere “technological devices”. !e should also as+= “!hy are these categories necessar% for a capitalist strategy of command?”!) Here again . the human phylogenetic “common being”. the “dead or lifeless machine” is “congealed spirit” only because it allo!s individuals to ma4imi)e the satisfaction of their needs and !ants !hich remain at all times in conflict ith one another and cannot be . mere “labor'saving tools” that serve purely to ma4imi)e the production of goods !ith “labor” and “land” as the other “technical” factors of production" The “dead machine” does not re'present or “embody” for .e are performing perhaps a tas+ similar to 9ant s “criti.eber.machine” !hose only “spirit” is the “crystalli)ation” or “congealment” of the conflict inherent to “the care for e4ternal goods”! The “machine” serves only to ma4imi)e “rationally” the productivity of “free labor” in all its “free” conflictuality and antagonism. in all its “strife”" The process of production is not in the least antagonistic! The capitalist replaces machinery “to save labor” not to command living labor" >roduction is purely “technical”.eber simply mista+es !hat are mere and highly contingent “institutions” of human groupings – the “economy” and “value”. the attempt by the capitalist “to divide” or parcelise “social labor”. no “sociality”. coercively into “homogeneous individual labors” in competition !ith one another so as to e4tract surplus value from living labor" (ot at all! %or there is no “inter esse” in living labor. no “inter'action”! %or .reconciled< b% the labor process hich# for him# remains purel% . !hich is !hy it is “organi)ed rationally” by a “living . then money capital. and then profit. because of it!) does not and cannot reconcile the conflicting self'interests of !or+ers and capitalists ithin and across the class divide= ' for it remains a . of “inscrutable” marginal utilities" .eber s never even posed itself the .
3ather he installs the man at the machine on piece-wages and says2 'All right. this factory discipline. now workS * shall see how much you earn)' *f the man does not prove himself capable of earning a certain minimum wage he is told2 'we are sorry. say. bet!een their “limitless !ants” and the “scarce provisions”" Hhat characterises our current situation is firstly the fact that the private sector of the economy. a slave plantation or enforced labour on a manorial farm ( ronhof!. namely the area of industrial production) =econdly there is the fact that this process coincides with the introduction of mechanical production within the factory. The unique character of modern socialism could grow only on this soil.e can see ho! ultimately both Mar4 and . and thus with a local concentration of labour on one and the same premises. or similar. but bet!een the “self'interests” of all economic agents. of the “rational organi)ation of free labor under the regular discipline of the factory”! 0t follo!s therefore that the “crystalli)ation” of labor'time (Mar4) or of “$pirit” . 6ocialism of the most diverse kinds has e3isted everywhere$ at every period and in every country in the world.eber reason in identical terms! – 0n terms. it is this discipline which gives our present-day way of 'separating' the worker from the means of work (*rbeitsmittel) its special quality) &t was life lived under these conditions. everywhere) *n contrast to the use of slave labour in antiquity. and with common working discipline throughout the machine-shop or pit) Above all else. with the fact that the worker is tied to the machine. a “bureaucracy” (state or private capitalist)" 0t is only in the “mar+et” that the “conflict” bet!een self'interests can be and is manifested openly in the settling of the “value” of goods through the la! of supply and demand" The “conflict” is not bet!een !or+ers and capitalists and not really in the process of production !hose “rationality” can be established “scientifically” through the 3alkulation of “profitability”. p)618)% . a modern production plant functions on the basis of an e3traordinarily severe process of selection ("uslese!. that gave birth to modern socialism. every modem industrial firm rests on the principle of selection) +n the other hand this selection is driven to an e3treme of intensity by competition between entrepreneurs. % modern manufacturer does not employ 2ust any worker. we cannot use you)’ 5e is expelled because the machine is not working to capacity unless the man operating it knows how to utilise it fully) *t is the same. which ties the individual entrepreneur to certain ma3imum wages7 the inevitability (#wangslaufig$eit! of the workers8 earnings corresponds to the inevitability of discipline. but you are not suited to this occupation. in . where the lord was tied to whatever slaves he had !if one of them died. in con-unction with private bureaucratic organisation and hence with the separation of the worker from the means of operation (&etriebsmitteln)% dominates an area that has never exhibited these two characteristics together on such a scale at any time in history. that is.machine”. !‘=ocialism’. it was a capital loss for him%. 2ust because he might work for a low wage. in contrast to. This sub2ection to working discipline is felt so acutely by the production worker because.HE.
eber (approvingly) !e have a democratic market societ% and an authoritarian factor%! Ho! or hether to reconcile the t!o !ill be the greatest social problem of the century leading up to our present" Mar4 s “living labor” becomes violently “alienated” by capitalists through its “separation” from its “interaction”.ue converges !ith .wo. apart from capitalist coercion" 0t is this “crystalli)ation of labor time” that. but rather $ocialism as a specific “set of problems” intrinsic to capitalist industry and society! 0ndeed. Mar4 famously added to his definition of !hat is “socially necessary” for the reproduction of !or+ers “a social and cultural component”" @ut this is simply pathetic= ' because it does not address the issue of !hat ma+es “labor'time” sociall% necessar% in the first place.uivalent to the “labor'time” that is “socially necessary” for their reproduction" Cf course.uantity” that can be “divided” and “remunerated” through the payment of “!ages” to individual !or+ers commensurate !ith or e.ualisation of >rofit is simply not possible because “living labor” is inconsistent !ith its “. especially along the lines of production of substitutes for the luxury goods of the upper classes. as we will see in Part . allo!s the “rationally calculable” allocation of social resources in mar+et capitalism" 8s !e have sho!n. for Weber the central problem of capitalism is “the Problematik of rational (ocialism” – that is to say. of the “organi)ation of free labor under the regular discipline of the factory” that is dictated by the search for “profitability” on the part of capitalists !ho are themselves constrained by .uires for both theoreticians the “filter” of the “mar+et mechanism” to decide on the “distribution” of the goods produced in the factory and on the “selection” of the !or+ers and on the technologies to be used for production! 8nd this “distribution” or “selection” or “mar+et allocation of resources” responds for both Mar4 and . this “rational allocation” or Rationalisierung according to the Fa! of Ealue or of the &. its "attungs esen. for both Mar4 (disapprovingly) and . ho!ever.eber) really and truly boil do!n to one and the same thing= ' “the regular discipline of the factory”" @ut this “crystalli)ation”. namely a mass market demand. “$ocialism” not /ust as a “problem” e-ternal and opposed to capitalism. !'eneral "conomic +istory.eber. and from the means of production (1rennung) and ends up in the “fetishism of commodities” or “reification” of living labor as “crystalli)ed labor time”.uantification” or the “crystalli)ation of labor time”= it is an impossible “trans'substantiation” of realities that are toto genere heterogeneous and utterly incommensurable" #et Mar4 s criti. which again could arise only in a small proportion of the luxury industries through the democrati9ation of the demand.(“the care for e4ternal goods” or iron cage for .eber s notion of the Rationalisierung. p)8". as a “homogeneous . according to Mar4. re.eber to the “rational and systematic 3alkulation” or Rationalisierung made possible by the command over “free labor” on the part of capitalists in the factory for the pursuit of “profit”! The decisive impetus toward capitalism could come only from one source. !hich necessarily involves conflict and antagonism bet!een !or+ers and capitalists for Mar4 and bet!een all economic agents for .%) This is the ultimate “meaning and significance” of the !emokratisierung/ The “rationali)ation” operated by capitalist industr% has engendered also as part of the same process the emergence of “rational $ocialism”! In other words.
and of “the mode of consumption” in .hat Mar4 sees as the “violent e4ploitation” of !or+ers. in-ury. putting it mildest. and second because “conflict” is the %er! “essence” of the im2 balance between “want and pro%ision”3 conflict is absolutely inevitable and ineluctable It is life* Here is (iet)sche= <&B(ife itself is essentially appropriation.eber sees as the . and at the least.uantifiable” aspects of being human= ' “living labor” for Mar4 and “individual utility” for .the “autonomous or spontaneous mar+et demand” motivated by “human needs or species' conscious being” (Mar4) or the “iron cage” or stahl-hartes "ehause of “self'interested individuals” (. if it be a living and not a dying organisation. Aphorism 60$)% KKKKKKK .eber adheres to (eoclassical Theory in seeing the process of production as part and parcel of “the rational organi)ation of free labor” for the sa+e of “profits” that arise from “autonomous market demand” based on the ubi.eber" .must itself.nt-(auberung of human e4perience occasioned by the Rationalisierung of social life due to the universal conflict bet!een individuals over their “care for e4ternal goods”" There can be no “co'operation”. incorporation. suppression.eber)" @oth Mar4 and . attract to itself and acquire ascendancy .ower) !&eyond 'ood and "vil. conquest of the strange and weak. can there be antagonism or conflict intended as “exploitation” . do all that towards other bodies. which the individuals within it refrain from doing to each other2 it will have to be the incarnated Hill to Eower.eber s (iet)schean interpretation of the process of production" "or. but because it lives% and because life is precisely :ill to .uent fetishism and reification of social reality.eber" @oth approaches are “circuitous” (circuli vitiosi) and “metaphysical” because they see+ “to .ven the organisation within which. it will endeavour to grow. severity. either “mechanical” or “organic”. no -ur+heimian “solidarity”. ' there can be nothing that wor1ers can be alienated from #*$ in . . first because “conflict” cannot be “resol%ed” with such “teleological” notions. therefore. e3ploitation &Ausbeutung(J -.e !ill discuss in >art T!o !hether it is possible to unify these approaches that !e may describe as theories of “the mode of production” in Mar4.ualisation of >rofit !hat are “un.uantify” through the Fa! of Ealue and the &.but why should one for ever use precisely these words on which for ages a disparaging purpose has been stamped .eber thin+ in terms of “the regular discipline of formally free !or+ers in the factory” in combination !ith the determination of Ealue through the social osmosis or social synthesis of the mar+et mechanism through the Fa! of Ealue and the &.ualisation of >rofit" @ut !hereas Mar4 insists on the determination of “value” in the process of production through “e4ploitation” or “the theft of labor time” by capitalists. the individuals treat each other as equal--it takes place in every healthy aristocracy -. to gain ground. the alienation of their living labor on the part of capitalists in the process of production and the conse. no Mar4ian "attungs esen (species'conscious being) or Fu+acsian and Heideggerian “totality”. obtrusion of peculiar forms.uitous “conflict” bet!een “individual !ants” (the iron cage) over “scarce provisions”" . . as was previously supposed.not owing to any morality or immorality.