Marxian Utopia? A theoretical critique of Marxism by Neven Sesardic and {an historical ertique by Domenico Settembrini Preface by Frank Chapple THE CENTRE FOR RESEARCH INTOMarxian Utopia? First published in January 1985 by ‘The Contre for Research into Communist Economies ‘c/o2, Loré North Steet, London SWIP 3L (©The Cane for Rene ino Communit Eeaneies Alt righ revered ISBN 0 948027 01 0 rita in Great Brin by contents Foreword by Usbo Sie Preece by Fra Change HOM Has manxisu suRviveD? iwigies Note and Acknowledgements From Piosophy Sean ~ ana Base “Latour power and “eatton” {Why supine" Nowaplinaton of exchange Libor thor of vue sandonad ‘Seach for ration The Retae of Pixopy Prado oemrath of nia? Cita sot presen Footnotes Woks ete ‘i Aico mromesy by Domanio Satemarat ™ tl Chinen Mar’ a ut (he Times, Deeemoe 81988), China wite “ora” oe aie, Sy Hi Onin Par Te Be Teloraph, December Was * 3 3 Foreword ‘Neven Sesardic's ertique would seem an appropriate opening for the series ndertanding Economic Syetema ince all Communit governments claim that thet economies ate based ‘on Mary's feachings. This study by the Zagreb lecturer has just been published in Yugoslavia, where Marsam ir the offical doctrines The paper is prefaced by the veteran Betis traceunion ner Frank Chapple, 4nd commented upon bythe ltalian specialist, Profesor Domenie ‘Scitembrni, who widens Sesadic theoretical approseh te historic! critique. Tei certainly temarkable ths of the eee contributors one was edueated in’ Communit countey whe the other two are former members of thelr national Coremanis Paris Since the authors find Marxism wanting, future CRCE. publications wil explore the duestion of how the doctrine has been modified to serve as bans for working economies. this context, iti interesting to nove tht the official Chinese Com, ‘unit People's Dally has Just accused ideology specs ot delaying progres, & report on the newspaper front page leading ‘ticle, a printed recently” in The Timer in teproduced ay an fannese to thie Paper together with an article fromm The Dell ‘Telegraph on the subsequent mitigation of the orginal tatement ‘The constitution of the CRCE requines that Trustees and ‘Advisors disociate themsalves from the snalyses contained in his Paper whichis nevertheles commended ae & unigue eontsibution {0 public understanding and dicusson. January 1985 1 In Puzo Stade XY (PetomphiSadee XV), he Almantek of he SanatPart | How has Marxism survived? CONTRIBUTION TO THE CRITIQUE OF MARXIAN UTOPIA, ‘Neven sesardié‘Biographical note Sesaric was bom in 1949 in Belgrade, He graduated in philosophy at the Zagreb Faculty of Pauosophy in 1974 from where he Msg Feceived his PhD. in 1082, Hie thst had the ile Pagscaom ad ‘ees published in Belgrade in 1964. At present he i's lecturer at the Department of Philosophy in Zagreb and his main inte is Dhilospay of natural and sacl scene, Acknowledgements ‘This essay fist appeared in Serbo-Crost inthe journal Flozofehe ‘tude 19 (1983), pp. 41-96, 1am grateful to many of my fends {or their comments and eviisiam of eaiy daft, 1 should lke specially to acknowledge the help of Zsjesdans Dukic, Leon Kojen shd Profesor UT Pace, ‘Transtatea by Mary Jansen and Clare McGregor Ineroauetion ‘The vision of a just society projected into the future eat the very centre of Alarsist theory” No standpoint can continue £0 be desctibed as Mapas if does not conta, oe ff rejects, the ‘on of a radical change in the exiting state Of afar there can bbeno Maraism without the des of communists, However, this projection of a globally afferent, more humane form of soci not character of Nara alone: Its the common feature of along tradition of utopian thinkers fom Plato to Skinner Marx himself aswel! ar those who continued hie work, veas particulary intersted in presenting hie vison ae being coer Tally diferent from other wopian, not leat from those wih pro ‘ounced soclalist features with which St had much in common, ‘And indeed, there i one difference whichis obvious snd beyond ‘pute. While today the work ofthe vo-ealled "utopian soca” 's practically forgotten or 8 considered of only historical interet, Marais still represents a theory of foremost significance and Influence on potical events in large pat ofthe word. Is this survival a reault of fundamental difernces between thete two type of socalt doctrine, or init metely 4 quetion of their having experionced «diferente for some pariulat reasons? This ay attempts to provide an anew,1, FROM PHILOSOPHY TO SCIENCE ~ AND BACK In is fist draft of the Cul War in France, Marx wrote ‘Although in their cnticam of presentday society” they have clr described the goal of the social movement, that 1s"the abolition of the eystam of hired labour with al ‘economic conditions of class rule, the utopian sect founders fave not found in society the material conditions for {fansformation, nor ln the working clas an oneanised ad conscious force of the movement.” hiare 1962, p97) This is one of many characteristic pages which criticise ‘the utopian socialists not forthe goal they set themeelve but for ‘the method by which they attempted to achiow it They wete ce sured for being unrealistic, ornalvely believing tha tei proposals {or anew socal order would be acepted al tured into fete fhe moment the advantage inherent inthis pertct and just order wware recognised. According to. the “clasicy of Marxism, the fundamental shortcoming of the theories of Cabet, Sain Simon, Fourler and Owen war that thir visions of society in the fare were not based on a study of socal relations ad laws, bul were (volved "out of the human bin” (Engels, 7), oF were "bound {or into shoe fantasies (id) In contrast, Marxism fom the beginning presentd ts proj tion of the fatze as founded on realty. I precialy the clam that the planned “Kingiom of Freedom” i alteady contained in ome way in the existing situation which represents perhaps the fost characonsic feature of Marxintrocial doctrine. The argu. ents used in attempting to provide eupport and foundation for the Marais. vision of the future can sentially be dinded into Atguments based on philosophy snd arguments asd on economics ‘Although in the chronological evolution of Marx's though, the Pllosphical bass for the utopia precedes the economic, I wil Siscuss them In the reverse oer. Ie eect £0 tne tha there it Strong justification for such a method. The history of Marist theory after Man shows « picture of development diametrically ‘opposed tothe way his own thought developed. The period of ‘lente socialism and of instance on economic laws and Geter fninism preceded the period, which continues today, when Marisa i nepited more ty the philosophical dimension of the. Baty Works, Thus the theoretical postion in sary Marsan it that of ‘the mature Mars, while more recent Marxiam ie dominated by ics of Marx's youth ‘This seemingly strange fact that Marxist doctine developed {nmany countie in he verse onder fot that of Marx Hinweis ‘everthlen not diffi to explain, Marx erivedtelatiely ea At his thesis thatthe source of injustice and inhumaaity in the ‘apitalist system should be sought in the sphere of economic rela: tions, and thatthe proletanat has histone mln to, berate {ocely ara whole: However ho wae not steed withthe coer ‘ration of his thse and tied to place them on firmer and more ‘ceptable foundations than those afforded by ie purely plo Sophical anthropology with ie Hegelian and quan’ Heglan cate fone. Thus ie was that Captel came into being i was writ Seiththeeplict sim ‘of “discovering Uae economic la of motion ‘Sf capitals society which “through iron necenity™ Leads to ke ollag and fo the birth ofa case seit could be ah tht the entire development of Marc's thought ir chamctared by the Geate to transfer the foundation of his utopia from the insecure Sd inappropriate philosophical sphere tothe sphere of scentift Sallam’ empirically valid laws whieh leave no room for doubt or Vacilation. This how Mary described the selene foundation ‘of his utopia, which should have made it esentially differen from fe’ dreams of other sociale visionaries, in hie arsine Engah Middle Case” forthe New York Day Tribune : “though temporary defeat may await the working classe, (reat ocil and econorsleal laws ate operation wich mar ‘Sventualy ensure thelr triumph.” (queted in Kolakowa 1978, 1, 9.303), However, while Marx progressed from philosophy to science inthe attempt to gve his social doctrine the best possible founds ‘Hon, Marna went in the reverse direction: from sence to plo. Sophy. During the Second Intemational, and for some time alter ‘wards, most Marxists considered the economic theory of explo. sion the crowning glory of Marx's teaching. The ear works of Marx which were avaable to the public at that tue were conse fed much les intresting andthe ew prevaed that nthe works ‘which he wrote as a young man he had stl ot developed his main ea. 'In thet period, “Marxism” and “selene soca” were Marxist’ dilemma ‘The change took pace atthe endof the 19h century and even ‘moro at the bognning of the 20¢h century, when the immense ‘Rethodologizal shortcomings and empirical ditfielties of Marxist ‘eonomic doctrine began to manifest emselves: "But during the 1920s we observe @ phenomenon that war scientifically much more imporant than revisionism. had‘been we find an increasing numberof socialist economists — tome of them quite radical in polities and not all evsonst, ‘hor "Tabourit’ in the poltical sense —who while professing the utmost respect for Marx, nevertheless began to realise that hie pure economics had become obgolete. Marxism re Inained their creed, and. Marc temained their alleganes, tit in purely seoromle mater, they began to ane like ‘or-Marxists.” (Schumpeter 1954, pp.882-884) In situation in which the defender of concepts contained in Capital were quite unable to cope withthe objection ase by trie and hed finally to eksowlge that the economic baie of Marni failed to meet ational ciel, Marxist face a emma, Should they accept the consequences of defeat inthe theoretical field and thue abandon Marxism, or try to transfer the stronghold ff Marxism from economics to spore where tne sharp edge of nites wat less likely to reach. ‘Those who chose the second ‘Gtemative did not need to waste any time in theie quest. They ‘Smply retumed to the postion, which Mare himself had aba oned ar unsatifactory of basing utopia on philosophy. Thus today too, among! the philosophers fllowing in Marx's footsteps the prevalent stream is that which oppose centife socal and tvhich wants to transfer the focus Of Marrism to pilosophical nhrepology. “ie ithe. current which rarely mentions tern ‘cha “re of profit", “atferntal rent, “production price” Sd “Accumelation of cipal, Dut where one often encounters Sich expresione as “alination” and “praxin” Iti important, Rowever, to realise that philosophy. asthe main stronghold of Utopia Topresentsfaute de minut solution. Marx had adhered fork unt he found a better nkerative, and Maras returned {2 utwhen that “beter” alterative got into dit. Tet us therfore follow the development of Marsiem ~ from science to philosophy, |THE COLLAPSE OF MARXIST ECONOMICS 14 was the dogmatic rather than the scientific element in aiariem that sipported = reat histone movement and blow fomed into’ an orthodox ideology. ‘The slentific lement ‘trophid for scince progresses by tral and error, and when itis forbidden to admit ror there can be no procres.” ‘oan Robinson Historical materialism reveals the exaggerated claims of Marnie economle doctrine, Ifthe ruperstructure i conditional ‘upon the economic base, as historia! materialism maintains, then the explanation of economic relations contains in essence the ‘heory of ciety” in all ie aspects Since economics determine ‘everything ee, we can deduce knowledge about al its eipheno- ‘mena from an understanding of society's economic base. ‘The difficulties of this standpoint are well known. What is not wel known since ir not forthcoming sa satisfactory answer {tb those dffclie from the advocates of historical materialism, Tt BS ditneat to see how one can avoid acknowledging a least Coviin degree of autonomy of the cultural and Sdeologel sper Structure from the economie base, and ies practically bordering ‘Sn abuuraity to deny thatthe economic onanaation of soclty Is Sot vometimes affected by events ofa purely poltical or siete ature, Aware of ths, Marssts have sriven, ever since the time ‘of Engels, to modilythe paradoxical umplication of sit une ‘rections causality fom he economic base to other socal and fuitaral phenomena, and they were ready to permit reversals of the rection of causal action in cerain cates, rach that in these faces lent the superstructure determines the baae. But, a2 ‘any snitics ve "ight “observed {Vor instance Kolakowsk 1548, fy pbér Aron 1981, p.185; Blanchard 1906, pp.276277), however innocent it may’ seem, by this simple step Marxists are it fact destroying User whole postion. ‘This new claim — that Gconomic Hatton sometimer omvwe events in the sphere of polities, scence and culture, and wometimes the other wey round Rojee lnnocuowr that nobody would want to deny ft. Instead of taping to defend the ong strong snd radien version of the Uet of hstonal mates in the face of a tack of empiseal fidence in ie favour, and abandoning it when this attempt fled, Marssts have bean watering i down and modifying unt fothing. more. than a teal, gonerally acceptable and entirely Snintoesting lao remained. ‘Tis strategy of weskening ones own thei in proportion to the strength of the counter arguments i typical of many Mapxst theoreticians, Tes one ofthe things whieh, from the methodolog ‘al point of view, have brought Marxism into depute. Those tho! modify or adapt thee thess to accommodate every new Sbiection of counterexample succeed in placing thelr position ‘Beyond the reach of enti: but in making thelr standpoint nmune from every pomble refutation in this way, they fal to ‘ulus that they are omltaneously rendering it devoid of intrest ‘This ea phonomen we shall encounter several times inthe course ofthis eae 1 wil now discuss some of the base difficulties with which Marni economic theory is confronted. The main aspect of my Interest will be the doctrine an presnted in Capita. For alongtime after Marx's death this aspect ofthe theory was regarded as the comentone of Marsim sid no significant changes oe mod fications In Je were fet to be necesary. In examining it {wl festiet myself mainly toa ducussion of sovalled “clasial” Maris, economics, This ie for two reasons. (a Ue fst place, this parof the eniay is designed to prowde a Mistrial anaes ‘Sf aperod inthe development of Marxism when, in the fis ‘ends ofthe 20th century, te sconomie theory cllapaed asthe ‘bse for Mars’ politial philosophy. Inthe light ofthis degeneci ‘on of ecientife socials the enaoe for Use eval of interest inthe Moris ofthe young Marx and inthe socalled "re philosopnieation”™ DF Marsimy‘eootne much cleaes. For when the fundamental Standpoint contained in Coit! became the target of eritcam to ‘nhick no reply could be found, those who were sill not prepared {abandon Marx's millenarian vison of the future had no choice but to rock new reasons for the Jusifiation of their unswerving loyalty to the ea. Secondly, although ently unorthodox versions of Marxist ‘economic they have boon evolved mote Teco, al times ‘Rand to say why they are decribed as "Marsist™ at all No clam Eade for thew revised tensions of Marxist economic theory that they aro dengned Uo serve, nor ded could they serve, ae & {oundation fora revolutionary politcal ideology Sine the inte {lon of the fit pat of thisesny not to discus Maras economics. out court, but rater to. present 4 cetigue of economics as 8 posible foundation Tor the Narnist utopia, It seems to me that Featkcting the analysis to "canonised Marxist teaching will not ‘iminish the general vaiity o my conchsions ‘Value depends on labour v2 ‘Mars betine hie analysis in the Capital with an attempt to determine what x common to ll objects which are exchanged fom the market and which cane said to have a value. He aves Surprisingly: quchlyand easly atthe conchasion that the only thing common to thee object isthe amount of labour embodied fn'them This bref and inadequate deviation which conta tually no engumentaion would hardly convines anybody wo ‘Sid no already beleve nthe labour theory of value The objective feader i bound to react to thisin asimular waco Emile Durkheim's ‘comment on Captain his lectures on socal “How many saistcal dasa, how many historical comparisons, how many studies would be necessary to resolve any of the humerous questions dealt with there! Is there any need to {call tat hole tory Of vale was enabled there Few lines? (Dunkheim 1928, pp.6-6) ‘Thomtain Veblen was even han in his Intute in 1906: Marx... “ffersno adoquate proof of his labour value theory Wis even safe to go further, and say that he offers no proof Gt. The feat which occupies the opening paragraphs ofthe Kapia and the eoreesponding passages of Zur Rik ct. not to be taken seriously as an tempt to prove his postion fn this head by the ordinary ecourae to argument Ii rather a selfsatisod moperiors playful mystitcation of those ‘rade (crite) whowe limited powers do not enable them to fee that. bir propontion ss tel'evdent"” (quoted om: Spiegel 1852, p.180) In fact, the simple solution Mars proposes is wrong on wo counts [eis nether uuethat there are no other properties common 1S jecte exchanged in the market no i rae that Wh com ‘mon property i the labour invested in thet production What & common to market objects is the fact that, for example, they stay some particular human need and that they ‘Se arable in muted quantities only, Why not rely, for instance, ‘there two proper hoor of valu? Mars elim {common property and sour {nhisreatoning. He says “ins the exchange relation of commodity is characterttd pracvely by it stration from thelr usesaes, Within the ‘ichange tlation, one sse-alue in worth just ss much other, provided only that it prevent in the appropriate ‘quantity. (Marx 1882, vol, p12) Ax Hochm-Bawerk rightly noted (1921, pp.989-984, and 1975, pp.74-75), Marx confused here the abstraction ffom a ‘propery and th abstraction fom the specific way im which thi [Property manifests isl. In explaining the proces of commodity {xchange we can consider the specific form of the se-alue of @ commodity a fiiy ielevant, bute eereanly does not follow from thir that ie having some ind of use-alue is iolevant (Gimniiary, when we are explaining the acceleration of = body herein no need co inguge about the nate ofthe free Ui it [rt om I whether i ir electto-magnti, gravitational oF some ‘ther Ieinds but i doos not follow from this that its ielevant thats fooe of rome Rind wating mie) Secondly, not all objects exchanged aren product of labour. Land, tanding timber, re objects accktetally discovered can ‘hive lage market value withow any labour having been invested Inthemn, Atsempts by Marat to dal with these direct counter txamples of thle theory of yalue ate extemely unconvincing” At the same time, its not dificult to think of objects which are falucles even though many hovrs of socially neces) labour” ‘of valve i bared om a lgieal fancyhaye been spent on their production, such at objects that are dificult to produce but satiety no human need, Plainly an object {hal cannot be ueed to stint some human noed has no vale. Confronted. with this dificulty, Marcas try to recognise the relevance of uel by postulating asa necenary condition {or the pomeaion of ralue the fact that an object must have at feast gome Kind of usevlue, Hut tia wll not meet Ue cae since {fis clear that the usevalue aid exchango-alue are stualy much Imote clucy linked then this would sungeet, The dea tha is ow ‘ing proposed io tht the value ofa commodity const of bare Pintaum which i contributed by ott, the remainder being ontruted by labour alone. ut this cannot be right ass shown fyrthe Tact that cetera panbus the vale is always proportional to wy. bat labour depends on value “The next difficulty for those who see the labour invsted as the primary determinant of economle alu sth indisputable fact tha dtferene sorts of labour contribute to a fering extent to talus, Thus five oun of labour by an unskilled worker produces Thuch lower value than five housework by aspect The defenders ‘of the labour theory of value need to find a kind of labour to Sthich all‘other typer could be reduced and which would then Inve a's common and universal measure of value. ‘Marx claims tht all other types of labour canbe reduced to uns or simple labour “More complex labour counts only a intenafed, or rather imultpted simple labour, 20 that a smaller quantily of Comples labor ie consdered equal tora lager quantity ‘tetmple labour” (Mars 1982, voll, p.135) 1 is eay to oe, however, that no reduction to a common rmomure is achieved by saying that complex labour counts ot fimple labour. This can bert be seen inthe analogy put forward by Boehm Hawerk (1921, pp.3883360). Lat us assume that rome- fone determines that the price of a railway ticket in a certain Country should be dependant axclsiely onthe distance covered, {et'ws ao asumne thats particular stretch of track was especially ‘iffcalt to buld and tat over this stretch the journey is twice {Sr expensve, In sich a situation, the person who established ‘tance asthe exclusive erterion forthe cost of the Joumey could ontinge to adhere to his asertion and apply method of eason- Ing analogous to that of Marx. Iie could say” ‘On the ai stretch ft track ane Klometre in fact counts ax wo ordinary (or simple) iometren and thes my inital sumption thatthe kllometret travelled ae the only factor determining the fare inl ere, Despite tis verbal justification, it clearly recognises that there are ‘other factors besides datance influencing the Price, Por one ko etre of railway docs not count as two simple Kilometres because realy conta theae two kilometres in ome way. The word “ounte at” simply indicate that one Kilometre of te Jourmey on the more difficult etch x, for one reason or another, te ae expen. iow, thn dome know tit one kilometre on this ich counts a fo tlc? Simply by the pe! The eeaanty tom ate wide Et there wa se acumen le {rn a wuld expan he cso ay eke en Ser was 'the conlnion iat they" Spon excel the eine tae bts datanc feat on some faces tnetred ot fn mutes or tlc tub how meh moe ‘Sato tae on tne oon than on other leat sections inshore tefalloang happens te dance eld seabed 1th dependent facor wich sone Sern te com of Rurter"ant to ong nance inter how one "con Sr) satlcaal bye win con oF uveog owes har sae “The ame i of colar contained in Mar’ resoning Hs edad the munter of boy of ecalymecsay saps Uber ie atthe common rkerton for he vale fa bjt, ‘ving tht gen mur of hosts of complex bor could Sieapr be sede to t peter (mie) numberof hou of Inns ldbuur I's howe que clea tht comple bow dee et'Sconte tiple bow a ry compesenie feaing t {he owt What"Wouil mean if ws ta fie hou a8 {King engines abou contained 0 hour of the abou ofan wenGheDGeser a r mst ely fad in nd ta he Sac eftnopslct wich set nenet reduces fe hours Toe Ser tane att of ie eodie whch an unde ‘orkerpreducty in hours, Hower he war hen gat Tcl the hd of chelsity: we sicountered em EEtusc alow dhe nmber ot hour of simple abo pent Sey ar we cps te ale oan ajc en Iegetly inperminie eer 20 rvewyen deter How Huby Vouraf ume bout we “embeded product Tha Sar din Yat commit tr Inept ten die faecy {iss chown by ie pata Ga! where he expe veer Srke in i ett fo sesace™ compen our fo ample IBsour alae 1982 vo. p.309) Some, Marsa (fr inane, Swesy, 1940, pp. 43-4 nuvin The ypsieh. AT a fending 140,94) Save ted tude Boller tekwael spect iy begining to ‘tute wa iar ly Wa tnd ws folie bo Gic2 OF compe id) labour nave propordonay Betevalue than products of simple (unskilled) labour because the Talue of the former not only inctudes the labour spent in pro {uclng them, but alo ll the labour whichis necessary to prepare {he produce! for a particular sil, that isto educate him, 1 Mack eaigdin mind what auch apologise, not without renson, ‘ire to him (Maxx 1982, Vol hp. 273), thon his reduction of ‘Smpiex labour to simple labour isnot elrealar, but pow contains agresus ed inde fnitum. By the very nature of things both the Itbour of the pupl and the Ibu of the teacher are, as Rubin a Init, spent on the process of education. But the teacher's abour i Mar sibple labour and cansot be calculated by the number of Four scaly spent. since the nbour spent on his efuation must tine 'be included The sme applies to the person who educates the {lscher and so om ad infinitum. Of course, inthis proces the de Of the “quantity of labour” has lost any link with empirial Shalt, and noting i left of the Tabor theory of value butts about power” and “exploitation” If the in of value is ald that ef objects are exchanged on ‘he market at prices proportional to te labour spent on producing titan how docs exploitation take place? Marx's falar eaim i that's worker fe not pid for his abou but rather thatthe expt it buye Hs lebourpower, This is the worker’ ally to, work find, like anyother commodity, has its value: the number of ‘Rous of labour neceaary #o maintals his abit to work. Though {he employer pays workers the fl salue ofthe labour power, he Ghplols them by making them work longer than would be the ‘Skuvalent af the wages received and it hissurplus vale which GE Gpealstheepe for himself. Thus with one (pald) part of Gir hbour, worker arm che maintenance of thelr working Ailty, while with the other (unpaid) part they ean profit forthe ‘apitalst (are wes later obliged to ineoduce 1 distinction be- {ffeen surplir valve and profit but we can dregard this inthe prevent context) ‘According tothe lou theory of value the value of about power a a commodity is taken 0 be the eguiaent of what i Reade to produce ft; that i, to what is needed to satisfy the order's necewory regulrementa’ What ae these necessary Te {hutemento? Lets ece what Mare himself sys about i sre the number end extent of ht socalled necesary re- Gulrement a lao she manne in which they ate sate, {Te themacives products of Mstory, and depend therefore {0 ‘Tipeat extent on the lve of eiviization attained by acount tuys in parcuar Uhey depend on the conditions in which, tnd consequently on the habits and expectations with which, the clas of free workers hasbeen formed. In contrast there fore, with the care of other commodities, the determination fof the vlue of Iabourpower contains «historical and mora ‘lement” (Marx 1082, vel 19.275), “Although i somed at ft sight that che “aluo of labour power" waa relatively clear and ely applicable Idea, turns Sut to “contain a certs historical and moral element and de- Dende “on the level of eiilzation ofa country” and even on the Iabits and expectations of free workers.” The end result ofthis txiveme relattnty of the Wes of "the value of habourpowee” Is ‘hat iis deprived of any empirical content. By having at thelr ‘Sep! tis eague and pony defined concep, the content of Sthich can be natrowed or expanded at il, Marxis have been Tle to say that rgardess ofthe amount of a workers wage na {Given tation, iti idenea! to the tlue of his labour power Since necesery requirements contain "histone and. moral ements a worker wil at one time sail his neoesaryre- Siurements ‘intaining tmelf and hie family a! subsistence iRve, while at another time these requirements wil io include Domain, of a house, the edclion of his edren ete. Thus we Evie at the absurd conclusion that, however much workers are Duld, the Marsit hese semaine tue that the wage makes it Dovsile to satiety ony" thir necensry requirements. Such Ire Fatally har cost deariy besnute, a any elementary textbook of the philosophy of selence teaches us, theory which ean explain ‘rerthings it fat explnins nothing "There is yet another interesting problem in connection with ‘he concept of labour power, Manx maintain Ut Use uniqueness of labourpomer ast commodity heen he fact at its uso creates A renter value than that neaded for st renewal (roproduction). Ii therefore the only possble source of surplus value and hence fof exploitation in general Surprisingly, Mars provides no_ arg ‘ments or empirical syppor for his ther tht labourpower is the ‘nly commotty which through consumption costes » greater Salute than tat needed for ier production, He toa this asserion Uicevident snd insitvely acceptable sthough this far from bing the cnn Strangely enough, most Marsists continue to take this claim for ranted, without feling any need to adduce some Kina of justifeaton for it One really ete the Impression that Tealess who. have absorbed the fist 50. pages or to of Copal {hu found sothing problematical or controversial, eed no further ‘Syument in ondento accept the training Parts. way Immediately aftr the fist volume of Capital was published, critic bapan pointing out the eontradition fying at the fouations of Marx's economic doctrine, which cannot be eliminated writhovt abandoning some of the basic promises, Ths ithe contra: ‘ction between the labour theory of flue and the theory of su- plus value Unlike the labour theory of value which maintaine that ‘ommodities ae exchanged in the market at prices which ae at Isat approximately proportional to the labour invested in their production, the ineviable consequence of the theory of surplus ‘alue ie that commoditie wil be exchanged at prices which are, (hue and systeratcnly different from their values tha eof flour “objectiied” in ther). "This consequence is arrived at in avery ditet and simple way, Since the epaiat's profi iu nothing other than the worker’ Unpaid Inbour, fe tanapiees Laat, everything else beng equal, the frenter the part of certain amount of capital expended on fibourpower the grester the profit the captalit wil raise Expresed in’ Manes vocabulary, the rate of profit fs higher In branches of production wil a lower organic compostion of ‘aplal: (The fe of profit le the ratio between the profit realised Sn the Gotal amount of capital invested inthe busines, while the ‘tranie compontion of capital ir the rato between the constant ‘Shit! nested inthe ‘mesne of production and the variable ‘ipttal expanded in the purchase of labour) Clearly, if Manis Fightin cauming tht labour isthe only source of profit follows {a captalat in labour intensive enterprises wil get more profit per unt of invested capital than in te capital intensive ener: Pris In gels, however, thre is no evidence that capitalists In Fee Geveloped and Tess indies branches ae in & postion tic iso much more favourable than that of others. Confronted with these facts, mbich cleat speak against his theory, Mary ha to ty to find Some kindof answer and he came Up with the following solution. Throw competition and move ‘ent of capital from one branch of production to another, {fenera rate of profit testable by par of the spl value in ihe i wee orn compen of ait Dowine branche with a higher oganie composition, Tnrovgh this eau Pilon the afuation le Teuched whereby’ all capitate rave Spprorimately the same percentage of profit per unt of inverted ‘apa. This pleture la no longer crudely at variance With ealty i wes the eae before, ut it now incorporates the contradict CGatween the labour theory of value and the theory of surplus ‘alu) which has ateedy been pointed out In the thied volume of Caplal which describes the deter rmination of & general rate of profit, Marx maintains, in diet fontradiction to the theory expounded atthe beginning of the fiat volume, thet products ae not exchanged at thet wala, Bt "thor at thie price of productions production price nals both the cost price (capital invested in mesne of production plus lnbourcost) and the average profit. Hower, the value at which, 1 Teas approximately. products are sol tthe labour theory of ‘nive holst good, asia include the cost price and the surpls ‘alse (that &, not the average profit but the value equivalent to the surplus value invested in producing the relevant commodity {or which the worker is not pad). In other word, since the ‘qullzaton of the general rate of profit leads to the flow of sur ‘plus valu (“abjectfed in products) from one branch to smother, {he rent hae commoditter of the branches with shih organic Ccompontion of capital ate ara rule sold above thelr tel vale sve in branchor with a higher orgunie composition ofcaptl, Drodkcts are likewise rystematcally sold below their fel tale ‘Marx was particulary concerned to prove that even after the introduction ‘of the price of production and the modifications In'the thd some 'f Capt the law of value sil remained in whatever way prices are determined... the law of value fovernt thelr movement ins far ar retution or Increase in fhe labour needed forthe production makes the price ff production nie or fl. Since iti the total value of commodities that governs the {otal surplus valu, while thir in tar governs the lve ‘reagan ence the generate of prot aa {fener law or ar governing the fctuations— i olows that {he law of value regulates the peices of production.” (Marx 43082, rol pp. 28081), “This cleaniy shows that, although the cosbpics of most commodities mst differ ‘rom thee values and hence theit ‘ont of production” from the total quantity of labour com. {sined in'them, nevertneleas those coats of production and those costprices are not only determined by the values of commodities, and confirm the law of Value instead of contre. Sioting sy but, moreover, that oaly on the foundation of ‘nive and itr law the very exstence of costs of production, nd owt prcer can be conceived, and becomer 4 meaningless ‘Ssurdty without that premise.” (Mars 1968, p78) “To explain, therefore, the general nature of profits, you must art ffon the theorem thet on un average, commodities are fold af thelr real values and that profits are derived from Sling chem at their rave, that tia proportion to ‘Quant of labour reise in them. If you cannot expla rote upon thie suppostion you cannot expla tt al” {ars 1835, p37) It isnot dfieul to dacoer the reason for Mar’ desperateattempt to preserve the validly of his basic analysis ofthe capita Tet Iyttem contained in the fst volume of Capita. It contains the {lintestence of his soci doctrine: the theory of exploitation, ‘fevoeding to Mare the explosation of workers ts nota matter of ffaud, theft or other Satay legal and immoral practises In ficted on them by the capalts. He malntans rater that i ome dzetly from the fondamental organisation of te capitalist Solem (that fom the appieation ofthe law of value, private ‘henenhip of the meane of production and the existence of fee {abourpower). From this in cam it follows that the injustice could fot be eliminated by fedual and legal meant (for instance, Through Parliamentary feform), but tnat the sjstem should be ‘veihrown and 2 completely different form of society conseu tea Mara’ relatively simple and initially plausible explanation of ‘explolation hat cleat political consequences and could be used 10 prove the need for revolutionary changes in the dieetion of ESmmunst utopia, The anaes contained in the third volume of ‘Capita on the other hand, eth all ts modifations,epicycles fon remonstations, clearly could not be used for this purpose. AS Ronald Mosk poins ov, no revolution would over have been ‘Sheved if fomolar with prices of production had been scribed fn the red banners. (Meek 1967, p, 108) Having demonstrated shy it was so important for Mans to lai that his analysis inthe tied volute of Capital did notin Salidte the law of alu, remain for me to stow to whal ex lt his claim canbe defend ‘Max tried 0 reconcile the prima face contradiction be: tween tie fis and third volume of Captal with the thesis sha prices of production, ston individualiy. do Indeed differ trom (alue, ut that, taken overal, the sum ofthe prices of production EMequivalent to the sum of their ives, (Marx 1982, Vol. 3, py, B13, p- 280), Boshm-Bawerk way one of the fist to point ok fhe lineveianee and inadequacy of this answer. The labour theory ff value should have explained the exchange of ines objects by means of the these thatthe value of each of them isa feast pproximately proportional to the labour invested in thelr pro- ‘duction, This theory cannot be salvaged by defending the quite different cla tha the value of all product, taken togetber 6 froportional to the labour spent i produeing them. Even i this fii were tive and made any sense, it would throw no ight on the proces of exchange, snd Yet it was precisely for ths purpose that the labour theory was advanced” mil fry to hatrate Marx's eror of subetituting one thesis for another by means of precelyapalogous invalid deduction. Let UF remain in the world of capitalism and suppose that someone claims thet the number of votes gained by each individual ean Gidate nan seston te proportional to the financial resources ‘rhc he spent on the ection campaign. When i is ieftbly [roved that there inno corelation whatsoever between succes [sections and money spent on the campaign, our man coud nevertheless decide to sick to his inital hypothesis and explain [tc apparent flsifiation by the evidence a follows: although the ‘fer of vote cast ee nda, dows nt depen he ources spent on the election campaign, taken ab a whol, the sum ‘Sf all te vote (forall the candidates) is proportional to the total honey spent I snould be noted that even the mew thesis Were true (una if the numberof people voting was dependent on the overalkitensty of the campaign), ualike the old teas, ean longer explain lector success i financial er, [tut look bt more closely at the relations between Maras lain identified here ax PL ad 2 Pi. = Individeal products are exchanged at prices, which tick taken on its'own, are approximately equivalent to the ‘objected abou inthe given product PQ Individual products are exchanged at prices which, twhen alded up. Ate approximately equivalent tothe” Sota ‘ecified abour all the products. : ‘The fit claim 6» much stronger and logieally entails the second but the reverse is not tue, When difleulties were untered ith Ply Marx wa simply content to replace i with the ‘weaker caim P2, not spparecly realizing that this was not such an Jnovent move the clamed, To begin wit did away with he povsiblity of explaining the procesr of exchange by means of the [about theory of salve sinc, on his own admission, the pies of product taken individually do not eorelate withthe number of [bout hours of rocally necessary labour tune "embodied In tem, This ha led to the labour theory of valu being abandon brcnuse as Samuelson (1971, p. 4917 50 aptly notes, the alleged Unnformation of value into pres ius ke te "transformation trhen someone takes 9 rubber and erases ah initial igure vale) {Ind Then begins agnn ant comer up wth the corey calculate Figure (price of prediction). Secondly, since Marx simpy replaced aim PL wher got into difficulties wits claim PZ which has 8 femer empirical content (that te st follows fom PI but not the ‘ther way ound), thie move in methodeogial terms represented typical example of a generating theory: Characteristic of such tycines is the contentdeereanng.trategy they cope with the Uificalties they enperence nat by widening snd deepening com prehension hut by incremingly iting and reticting Ue em Pineal content, thus avoiding any encounter with “unpleasant”Let us look at yot another of Marx's attempt to salvage the ality of the law of valve after the introduction of the prices ot production sn this is always reducible to the situation that whenever 1co| much surplus value goes into one commodity, too litle foes into another, and tht te divergences from value Ut Sptain in the production prices of commodities therfore Cancel each offer outs With the whole of capitalist pro- {tions always oniy ma very intricate and approximate vay, aan average of perpetual Huctuations which can never Be Hey Exes that the general law preva as Ue dominant dency.” (Meee 1082, Vol. 3, p. 261) ‘The idea is extremely imple: all products, strictly speaking are crobanged at prices of production, but, if we dsregard ae ‘ental fuctuations which cancel each other out it tanspres in the end that commodities seo io, afterall soldat thei values ‘The aor in Maras reasoning isnot dificult to spot. Satie tially itr permiable 0 ignore deviations from the mean value lind fo fren the average result esa fais approximation of reality nly if the meres differences between the data obtained Sr lindead the renlt of acedental Quctuntions and: not” of ye {ematie diversi. In Marx's cas tx precaely the ltt which toplies, Divegeneles of prices of production trom the value of Products are not fuctustions aosn he value as an average. Tat Ents a cave of systemati diffrence is claey shown by tho fact that commodities produced by enterpriee witha higher organic Sompoution of sxpal areas rule sold above their ra! values, ‘wile the prices of those produced by enterprises with a lower Composition ae constonty below their vals. Thus, quite con fury to Manes claim, "the dominant tendeney” iy thal. com- fmodiies are exchanged ab prices which differ from thet vals Hote entirely inacetrate 10 clam that "on the average” com tmoditier re nevertheless old st their values. In fact, ths lame [B'no mote valid that it would be to conclude from an average human lifespan (60 year) and an average Lifespan of «hamster (Gio years) tat people and hamsters ive an average 31 yeary, and {hon justify the claim by saying that we can disregard dverencies from the mean value (29 a hamsters and + 29 n man) which ‘Geel each ater out.” But jure az hamsters do. not live for tnylhing like 21 yours, so. commodities in the sense of Mart {heory are not exchanged a el valus, ‘We ean consiude therfore that despite Marx's attempts to prove’ the contrary. the Introduction ‘of prices of production Ennnot be seconciled with the frth ofthe law of value. During the Soin century many debater ave taken place on the question whether Marx was correct in one of i weaker claims inthis Context, namely thatthe asumption that commodities are sod a thelr vais must serve asthe point of deparcure in order for pies: Df production to be eleulatod a all Th weaker claim by Mars of simedly relevant to tha dacusson, ance ils main theme Is the tupects of hs economic doctrine which were intanded to legitimize his viaton of the future. Despite that, T would lke to frm attention to the fact that many contemporary authors have put forward strong arguments aginst the author of Capital on th Eccount ae well They belive that prices of production are cal ‘culated quite independently from vale (for example, Rabinson Sod Napoleon) oF that in contrat to Marx's standpoint, vals ‘must be calculated from prices. (Hoemer). or even that Mars’ le of devin prices trom values is logically inconsistent (Sted ‘nan “The unsolved mystery of price ‘The sim ofthe labour theory of value isto explain differen. cos in prices by the differences in the amount of socialy neces. Sry lbour time regufed for the production of various com. tmodities In order for i to have en explanatory function ts hoary must prove the empirical link between ts two parameters (he price and she number of hours of labour spent which mus, nd fhe jr of eardinal importance, be lopeally Independent of fone another Marist political economy. based on. the labour theory of valve har volaed both of these two fundamental fethodologal principles atone ume oF another and has thus ther, tay, made the necessary labour tie logiealy dependant ‘onthe pice lac. of not succeeded In establishing the empieal Tink between price and labour 1 gold ie x times more expensive that ion, how does one know without reference to prices that x mes mote laboutcime I necesary to exact gold than to extact iron? | do not believe thar anybody has actually counted the number of labour bouts bthor eave and fe not even clear bow this measuring procedure ‘ould be cared ost’ On the one hand, its nota question of the umber of Isbourhours actually spent (wich could-be de- termined test in prineple) but rather of the "socal necesary labourstime” for which the method of calculation i not speed ‘Gn the other hand, the problem mentioned eae of Reducing ‘Complex lout “smpie” labour remains unsolved Let us assume that one day huge deposits of gold are die covered which contain twice ar tnuch of the metal Sian al re Sous known deposits put together and ther explottion ie buns Lets also asume that gold from the newiyaisovered ‘deport considerably more difficult to extract than is usallythe case. This means that the soinlly necessary time for the pro- ‘Suction of gold isinereased and that, in eccordance withthe labour theowy of tue, the value of gold nerensd. Of coure, thls con Sew i rediutio od ebeurdum of the theory itself because is ‘Gute clear that withthe dicovery of new quantities of gold, te ‘Rive cannot be inrease, What would, infact, happenin soch 4 Mlustion is that under the more difficult conditions would ther not be worth exploiting the new deposta ori it were {he ncrewsed production would make the value of goid on world tmarketo tumble. If someone anewere in Mares defence that in {he example quoted the slue of old has indeed incensed and ‘nly the price har dropped due fo increased supply, then the Sicdod. methodological fale tat there must be some kindof ‘pineal lnk between the explanandum (price) and the explanans (Galuc) is violated if aisroportions between pices and valuescan [SSaroiteariy lage and arbitrarily long, ils clear that, whatever ‘alves we might postulate to begin wi no imaginable movement ‘fps would make s aban our iil assumption Unlike the first methodologically incorrect method. whereby the value of commodity waa determined by taking into con- Sidertion it pie in other worde, precaely what I should have ‘aplained), what la 'methodologially. wrong. with the second ‘Rathod ie that the values of commodities are now defined in such ‘vay that ie quit inelevant what happens to pices again pre any what they should explain) A good example of this second (nor into be found in Hilfeting’s stempt to reply to Boehm Bawer’sentiue of Mars “Boehm-Bawerk's mlatake is that he confuses value with ‘ree, being led into the contusion by his own theory. Only HPvaive (distegarding chance deviations, which may be ne- flected. because they ate mutually compensatory) were ‘entical with price, would permanent deviation of the ‘rots of individual Commodities from their values be a con Pfadiction to the law of valve,” (ifeding 1949, p. 186) In Hilterding’s view even the dicrepancy between values ‘and prices which remains after the "chance deviations” which Ate mutually “compenestory” wil not diupute tne vaiity of the Iw of value Hut we have to ask oumdlves, on whet basis this Iw & wild if thre sno ink whatsoever beewoen the commodlty pce and it ae ‘Let us examine this more closely. The labour theory of value contains three fundamental concepts value, abou and price. The lation between ine fist we ilogial bocase the values defined tS objecified labour. This definition, taken on is own, an arb ‘ary lingulstle convention which ax yet contains no information at tu about the economic sphere and which cannot therefore be the Subject of @ meaningfl scuston, Ae GDH. Cole said, “there eno way of ether provingordsproving the contention tha labour ls the only soure of ale i-value"meang imply ‘that of wih labour isthe soutee™ (Cole 1961, p. 287) Joan Robinson aio says something very similar: “Merc uses his analytical apparatus to emphasise the view that only nbour ir productive. In self, ths is nothing but a ‘erbal point Land tnd capital produce no clue, fo alu I {he pretuct of labour time.” (Robinson 1968, pp. 17-18) ‘To artve at an economic theory, the third concept (price) has to be introduced! in auch 8 way arto link fomehow empirically with fhe ist two. Unt certain empire ink between prices and ‘lus har boon indicate, we are dealing with an arbitrary defini {on rather than an economic theory whove tenablity we ean bean te discus, We see now the weakness of Hiferding’s defence of Marx's doctrine. Hosha-Bawerk har not “confused” value and price, 28 ‘terdng thinks, but has adopted the only methed by which ie labour theory of value ean be disputed, namely by indicating the lthence of any empirical interdependence of prices and vals. Hiterdings on the contrary, believes that though Ure telly is m0 erecment between prices and value, this does not constitute ‘Shalenge to Marx's theory of value In so dome he bas actualy feduced the theory toa iva and, by definition, true assertion Chalue = objected labour") whieh does not cla to say any {hing about pres or the actual proces of exchange. ‘What does sick out ike a sore thumb in elasical Maris economic tetching is the lack of seadiness on the part of his {Stlowers to put forward ang hind of concrete and clear claim Aout the nature of the link between ‘prices and “objectifed”™ Inbour. If, however, we rect the methodologically invalid form Uletons of the labour theory of wale, we must conclude that Wile they fal to ate any kind of contingent lnk between prices nd labour which could be subjected to empirical et, Marxists ae fot putting forward 8 theory but merely @ Set of claims which Took ike theory It is utile to try and remedy Uke matter, as do Marx (1982, ‘volt, 9 260) and Hilferding lac lt) by resorting to the thesit that value determines price m the final anaes. For when this Expresion "in the final analsas” s examined it boils down to { fpere surance tht the link between price and values does exist Sihough It has not yet been dacovered: By tang thls magic formula, Marasts need. no longer concern themselves with posible Gistord between their theory and the relevant empirieal facts, Jpecause they can now answer any such objection even before they Pave heard i i fall Their answer to any dacrepancy between pices and “objectificd labour, no matter how extreme, willbe Frat they never believed that this was a question of "iret agree: ment, but was only "inthe final analysis [No explanation of exchange Mares theory of value a# Ronald Meck cometly notes, “has crytalsed 4 bus methodoiogeal prinaiple ~ the principle that Onuditions of exchange should propery be analysed in terms of Conditions of production” (Mek 1977, p. 124). Although it might Sppeer tet this methodological prince represent an ently ZeRina wey of explaining the proces of exchange to which there ‘an be no objection, sal try to demonstrate how this point of ‘EGarture lec tos fundamentally eroncous strategy of research, "To this end it is neceaary, ft, to point out the cru itorence tween the twa types of explanation and two types of ‘Siplunatory rationdaip in which two phenomena or two types of Phenomena can stand with Yespeet to one another The (WO tspes Erenplanation are respectively geetle explanations and functional Skpianations, whe the relauonsnip is that of being geneteally or fanettoally explanatory the one of the other. In terme of this izinction phenomenon A Se said to be genetialy expanatory SP other phenomenon ff A explains how system B came into Ghutence and acquired the properties it has Such an explanation ‘Stnnot be expected to explin Bow system B.works, what tis Shout itemake-up that vest those properties, For that we equie ‘netional explanation in terms ofthe properties ofthe constitu nts ofthe system and the velaion to one another. For example, ‘Teribing the production proces can explain the genesis ofa tele Sion set but cannot explain how i fnetions Am investigation of the production proctor genetically explanatory of the existence (of the set and ila properties. It ean explain way tho tleision set. fis the siucture it han, but ie eanpot explain the Principle on Which it works, To. achieve the later, we have to refer to the Pystcel properties ofthe parts of Use set and thelr mutual ations hich together provide us wih a functional explanation of how The st works Tt is eny to see thatthe behaviour of system can only be Influenced by the properties itandits pars havea given moment fin thts apart from tse role in giving nyatem these properties, [Re pat and generis no longer have any continuing causal infuence If be syeeme teach « completely wenueal situation by totally ifort caura path, they ml behave identically since pees ably they bear no “trace” of their different paste, tat i, since {ilthe ptoperties they have are cominon to both, there is nothing in thei'conrtitution which cou cau them to Behave differently ‘Thus we see that although genetic explanation of the properties of a given system can tell us how it acquired those Dropertie, inorder o explain what te show is present onstt Elon that ver thowe properties this investigation needs to be eplaced by sn approach which pays attention exclusively tothe [netional properties of the pars of the ssstom. Armed withthe distinction, let sreturn to Mars. Hismethod clopcal principle, which requtes that the proces of exchange Should be explained by eference tothe labour whieh lakes place In'the sphere of production, amounts to an attempt to explain the Functioning of the market by meansof factors which aregeneially fxplanstory. and. not functionaly expanazory In contrat (0 Manx standpoint, we have to conclude in tse ight of ts sting. tion thatthe only things whch ean contribute to an explanation fof the exchange of commouitis are the properties ofthe market Situation as exists now (the quantity of certain products, thelr “Gulty, demand, to) A genetic explanation of how a commodity isin those proper camo pos hope 1 do the a of fxplaining what it that gives the commodity thos properties Geter ied now vunee "To avoid misunderstanding, i clear that until something is produced it cannot be exchanged. But it also clear that ft Was ‘ot the aim of Mars cconomie theory to “discover” tis teal truth which noboay would deny- It ad much greeter pretonsions Spot merely to demonstrate the cause dependence ofthe genesis ‘of the market situation on the situstion in prodvetion, but also fo explain movemente on the market by means of cerain facts ‘drawn from the sphere of production, The attempt to achieve this cron however, by the very nature of Unings, doomed to fale Uciute the lsbourprocesr sn production i hot functionally Planatory in eatin to the sphere of exchenge. The functioning fine market determined Only by te situation prevallng at & igen point in ime, regardless of ow i came about dust a tele forion ets of te same structure funetion identically regardless of the fat that they were semble in uiferent ways, 90 markets trith the same properties (election, quality and quantity of pro lets, buyer interest et.) function In te same way regardless St ne poualy very different types of production preceding them ‘Thus, analysitg market poenomens by reference to the labour proctat in production, which ir the emence of Max's economic roach, is samp an aetampt to explain exchange with the help XE peumetr wh spel a fe tel of expaation,(On what bass ate certain zelations and ratios of exchange betwen ferent products on the marker established? The only Donibie bass the global situation ata given moment and not Rome, pete distant pare which belongs to the phase of produc: ‘Mon Commodities donot bear labels stating how they were pro ‘Hadedand ow much labour wae expended on them. 1s there: {re impoatbte for their “genous” to exer an influence on their toe eeeiee market If some commocity were o reach the market ‘nba hming been produced by labour Dutrather rented seerety Trini and without any eff. by some magicians postion in ‘Gechange would not change a all all te objective properties of {iis product remand the same how could its "historical oddity” be recognised on tne market? ‘What made Marx's fly Smplauible idea of explaining ex change with production to some extent plausible was the unfort Ee and ofien repeated terminology he uses when speaking of ‘ieetiie labour and of lbour “embodied ina commodity” Howerer, no labour is embodied n'a commodity in any intelligible SenreThe work hat only been cated out beforehand, before te ‘Smmodity sequira final form, When the proces of production Pimple te objocte mo Longer bear any marks of the labour Spent Ge them, Thus in the proces of exchange What belongs 0 Report and Ta left no epee trace can no fonger be causally tffecive. ‘Thereafter itis only the properties which objects now five which are causally effective, Marx's Capita infact establishes {pew commodity fetihiam according to whic some crcumstances Sethe pus hisory of an arcle continue to act causally ins Siysergus and inenphicable way despite the Tact that the exe Ing properties of theariles ao tace of is past ha been preserved Labour theory of value abandoned by Marxists ‘Many Marxist tsoretcins who seriously concer themselves swith the economy have been forced to admit that there are enitcant aitfiulties in the foundations of ‘Marx's theory of ‘lve Tving sade this concession, they could hardly agzee with James Becker that the contemporary lack of interest inthe labour theowy of value temine something of a mystery (Becker 1977, TEI and ean oniy be explained by the ideological limitations of Bourgeos economists (ibid, pr 151), More seneible Marxists have ‘ealled that Marts labour theory of value can searcey be defended [an empirical theory which i supposed ¢o explain social peno- ‘ena So they have either tis, like Roemer (1882, pp. 150-191 Sd pp. 287.288), to preent ths theory aka consequence of the fucking, on the cia srugle, or msntained Ut iis only 8 “parable” (Hone 1978. pp. 11-145) which Is meant to prove the Thc of exploitation and aitertards be rejected? Others gen, Uke Stesdiman (1977, p. 162), Cohen (1979, pp. 838-360), Moria (9a p, 8 and’ pp. 198-108) and Meck (1977, p. 132, simply enctidea that the time has come to teect the labour theory of ‘Value and for Marxists, a Meek says, to"face goin realities’ 1 wil quote jst two such characteristic attitudes: ‘Por a thorough going Marxist t would be imposible to con. aie of Marsan ecanomice wihout de labour theory of Sue, Sine i promes the workers wth an inspiring ideo ‘Spal rationale! for thelr struggle against bourgeois regimes, Mlrasts would be greatly depressed by loang its euthonty, Tlowever, the most important tsk eof cours to strengthen the foundations, for it sess to bulla palatial) mansion ‘Oh sind One of the conelsions of this book is that Marx's Sconomce can acquire eltizenship in contemporary economic theory by detaching i om fe roots, the labour theory of ue. (Morshims 1973, pp. 185-194) fancies should therefore concentzate on developing the ‘materialist account of why production conditions and real (Waser are what they ae, leatng. the dscusion of “valve Thagntade’ fo thowe eancernad only withthe development Of fe new Gnostic. "(Stedman 1977, p. 162) " Te is important to understand that in this way Marx's baie idea Of founding the theory of exploitation, claw struale sd Smesgence of communi society on the labour theory of vale fim infact ben completely abandoned, Many contemporary Water agree at thi had, infect, been his central iden (for Crample’ Rbinson 1963, pp. 38°39; Lange 1970, p. 228; Meek 1977, p. 182; Schumpeter 1954, p, 650; Napoleoni 1974, pp. 208 416; Sarmuelon 1966, p. 1511, Sik 1972, p. 190; Morcha Tots, pp, 100194, Wolfe 1967, p. 210). According to Marx’ Goctrine expounded Yn Capa, exploitation is nota result of ffaud, violation of norm or theft, but rather i incorporated in the principle upon which capitalist solety functions Articles are ‘Seelanged a their values and nobody ean realive profit by system ‘2kcatg selng hi products above their vals or by Buying sore- ody iets products below their true taues, but exploitation Femains because workers do not rece the equivalent to their Flbour but the equivalent to ther lnbour power — the only com ‘mosity which Wey possss and which hey can market It the worker postion of inequality stemmed from some political injustice or aceidental social creumstancs, one could ey to improve auch rate of affes by reforms or parinmentary ‘Shonn Bet U explotation i not-a marginal phenomenon Dut 8 ‘Recoary and integral part of the log of the capitals ester {To'Mary maintains, then there is no way of abolbhing injustice‘ther than totally destroying thls system and buildingacompletely fnew and radically ferent fora of society, This cleanly shows how, fone accepts Mars thcory of value, it is easy to deduce the feed for global and radical socal change. Its therefore, not uprising tht io Mafxit tradition, the economic doctrine has often been wed a way of leptimising utopia. However, we must fen aloo understand that the fare ofthe labour Uscory of value fannot remain confined to tie economic sphere, Dut that must ‘owt fo some extent allo sake fhe foundations of the Maran “sion ofthe future "The methodological shortcomings of the labour theory of value and ofthe theory of surplus value ae so serious that i ‘ery fica today to defend Marx's oiginal stand in a rational ‘Way, Maruiste who reject these theories should not decelve them [ivc'that thelr rejection i harmless when could deeply eect. fon the status and defensiblty of tet politcal philosophy. “Pauperistion” disproved 1s follows fom the economic analysis in Capital hat the ‘working clase will become inereasngly impoverished, Thisso-called “Glory of pauperstion” lin deet contrat to istreal dow ‘lopment, On average real wages are now more than four times as tu inthe mig 1870 Howard & King 1975, p. 182), Discussing the fate of Marr's prdiction that the working class will become Incressngly imporerued, J Caropll a live in 8 typical London workingelass suburb, and my reightoure are typical London working dass people Ie these feighbour of mine ae the end product of 2 long historical process of Smpoverishment, then all 'can say i that th fsandfathers and. their prestgrandfathers must have been loody rch men” (Quoted by Meck 1967, p. 123) What ie mor intersting in all thsi that this prediction was Inaccurate even in, Mares time. Bertram. Wolfe has revealingy pointed out tat te detaed and careful statitical date about all Post spect ofthe econome situation which Marx put forward [nie main work are eately lacking in figures about the trend in ‘worker wages after 1800, Boeing in mind Marx's pedantry end Ihe undeniable knowledge of economic literature, i difiult to ‘xplain thls importane omision an accidental. The fat thas Marx ‘Gd fot mention this informacion, whieh he must ave known at Sthich contradicted his theory, led Wolle to comment lsonically "Tf slence speaks louder than words" (Wolfe 1967, p. 323), ‘Some Marxists have tried to look for way out by claiming that Marx war not thinking ofthe absolute but Tolatvepaupersar ‘on of workers, This means that although daily wages are on the increas, the proletariat i neverthelss increasingly exploited Hore ‘wevcan’caly dacern the manoeuvre which we have already FRequently encountered, namely that if the facts refute Mare’ theory iti modified in wuch a wa ab to reduce ts empirical com ent and thus ald ie Invalidation (content decreasing arate) Moreover if Mare had realy predicted tne so-called "elt {mmpovershment,” he would, ss Joan Robinson s9 witily oyerver (GBe8, p80), have tte in ie Menifnto of the Communist Pars” broletarians fave: noting to Tove but the prospect of ‘ruburban home and a motor ear” We must age that ths would ‘hat have been a particule naptng slogan If anyone thinks it not ently fae to refer to the Manifesto when enticing Marx's mature economic’ doctne, perp the Tollowing quotstion tron his paper entitled "Value, Price and Profit” (eal at sessiont ofthe General Couns of the international ‘Worker Association in mid1868) wil pel doubts about whether ‘Marx realy had absolute paupertation in mind in hs predictions “Thee few hints wil suic to show thatthe very develop ‘ent of modern industry must progressively tum te sale fivour of the capitalist against the working man, and that onmequently Use general tendency of capitate production ‘Sot to rae but fo sink the average standard of wages, oft put the ule of labour more or lest ite minimum limi” Firs 1898, p- 61 "alice inthe engin) ‘The fate of the prediction, based on the theory of pauperis. tion, that precuely because of continual worsening of is postion the proletariat wl have the historical mission of Hipeatng all of fosity and carrying out the revolution is also quite intersting. It'breame clear that, in the countries with the most develope Capitalist rytams workers were showing growing interes inthe ‘eformist movernent and in the palamentary seule for political ‘pits and the improvement oftheir ving conditions, and las and {ose interest a adical change in society. The explanation worked ‘ut by Lenin (1959, p, 238) war tht workers are not consaous of {hee histori! mason andl tha hieconseiouess mutt be"brought {them from without” Thus we sen that when confit arses ‘beeen the Marist theory ofthe proletariat and the may workers behave what needs to be corrected la not Mares theory But the ‘behaviour of people which doesnot conform tothe preditions of the theory Other predictions flied "There have been other unsuccessful predictions which have tormented the advocates of setenifie soctaium. Werner Sombart (G58 pp 8286 and pp. 99:96) pointed out that statistical recordsfon the econoine situation atthe end of the 19th and the begin ingore 20th century didnot accord withthe predictions of Jake theory of concentration that pre-capitalist economie forms ‘Mould disappear snd only largo enterprises remain) oF the theory Uf accumultion hat the number of capitalist magnates would onetantly decrete). Mars’ conclusion, drawn from his “laws of Spits about the increasingly frequent emergence of rset inrcpitlsin (arx 1989, Vol. 2, p. 2) was also contradicted by the aubeequent course of evens ‘One of Marx's most famous and significant predictions was ‘the ineltable colle ofeaptalam: “The knel of capitals private propery sounds, the. expropriaton. ae expropriated.” (Marx Toga: Wot ay. 029), There no doubt that Marx saw his a8 3 ‘tice of te" immediate future because in some of his works (ihe Poverty of Philosophy, Herr Vogt and Manifesto of the Communist Porty) he spoke’ of the revolutionary events which tre going on before ut own eyes” Hls expectation of the imminent collapse of eaptalisa is also born out by the following so fier tng ten 8 Sopa the Grund tam working madly through the nights on 1 synthesis of tmy szonorie studies ao that before the deluge, 1 shall at Tea have the outlines clea.” (MeLallan 1973, p, 200) and leer, during the transition ffom the 19th to the 20th cen ity, Markets were obeewed with this apocalyptic vision of the ollpee of capital society. As Camus i Mite revolutionary movement a the end of the 19th and the begining of te 20th century lived, lie the early Christians, Taniciption of the end ofthe word and the Parousia of the proletarian Cort (Camus 1951, p- 252) ven if we assume thatthe Parousa came about in 1917 (albeit further to Use Hast then orginally predicted) the fact stil remains ‘het the base predietion not come true the system in which pave property i logan has survived until this day. Mara believed that he had dicovered laws which at long lst cxpiained the principle on which the capital system functioned, nu i was fron Ute laws that he io derived hisrain predictions, ‘When they didnot come tue, the most natural thing todo was Conclude tht. there was something wrong with his theory. The ‘nly link between an empzical theory and its object lie in the {fet thats Popper (1950) observed long ago, erroneous predictions {paome extent cat doubt ona theory and lead tos re-examination, TRIER Grote, we ae et ony wh pens see ‘Some Marxists in fact oko tie ole surviving link between Man‘ ary an conomeaty by mining te cance ‘Of te erroneous predictions nthe attempt to defend against xin: They laed tat te flare ofthe predictons contained in Capital did ot indicate that Mares theory was wront, only that some tres etcumstances had erected which exerted a crucial Influence on the subsequent development of events and which Marcst hs times war unable to take Into consideration, This ue very quickly tuned into a general strategy of retaining Marc's tandaenal standpoints and explaining everything which {ld nt ft into the scheme of things by the specifi factors of the Situation. Ths meant that Marxist theory wes no longer required {ov and war consequently no longer able to adapt to the fact bekause We baste regulating mechaniom ‘had slopped, working Tcorect predictions no Yonge signalled tha. something. wat strong wit the theory ‘Naturally, when things aro done tis way, the outcome which faowed esto be expected Bu dnebedconcs when be “terit economice began badly to “degenerate” in the fst CGecade of this century when the German Marxists fled to feapond”eatively to" Bemtein's eevsionism, and has con tinued to “degenerate” ever sine, the unmistakable signs Of lohich are epics regurgitation of the same materials, the ‘Continual substation of appeals to authority for analysis, Shas perasontly negative asitude to empirical research,” itu Poe. 167) ‘The entre methodological analysis of Marx's economic doe: rine eapounded alien demonstrated thet the theory had been Bull on unrliale foundations and had so many serious short Comings that wee not surprising i could not go on developing Sh improving Sut wae steadily heading In the direction of an ‘reasing low of explanatory power and empiri relevance in ener When athe bopinning of tals century the economic and ‘Stntfic foundations of Marx's postion began to crumble, it theame clear that any fundamental difference between his wopia fd tia of the "utopian roca” hal been lost. The economic Eidyus presented in Capital should have demonstated the essen tia advantage ofthe Marsst utopia over the unrealistic visions of CCabet, Owen and Fourier. However, intend of proving that the Marsian utopia war founded on really, this economic analysis thowed iself to be 29 methodologially defective that i was in Reatard wher this wa ows, he "The fare ofeientific socialism has prevented Marist with 1 cicming Should they reject only the economle arguments andtry to replace them with something ele, or should they conclude {ha the falure to provide scienifie foundations hasalso discredited the utopia teef asa arbierary and unfounded vision ofthe fate, Sombartdesribed this historical moment of cris m a similar Way’ “the realiation that many of Marx’s theories do not cores pod to slencr, that they are fae was bound to givers rave confit ta the minds of orthodox socialite who were SPthe same time Marcie AE fist an attempt was made Hence the etiam by interpreting Marx diferent of by {ing etfical interpretations of suspect pasages But this Sao ctho seal Inthe end ic bad to be admted that Marx {Tet wrong on the mos fundamental points Now the ortho Gon Marnt found hime nse same postion asthe ortho- lox Chrstian men natural slences undermined the found Ronn am whieh the Bible wae bared. He faced a dilemma ‘liner to. sbundon hit faith, which wav cloaked is forms ‘ohich scence had demoted, o disregard ecientifie know ‘pe and thus save hie Ean (Sombar 1908. p95) ‘The sdoption of different rieatations in the station ze ed had farveacing consequences ai fed to a major split a ‘Gwinn of soils to reformsste (gradual) and revolutionists (Gatasrophiss), Reformat bebeved that the faure of Marxist ‘Gonomie docine must alo reflect on the statu ofthe Mares, ‘Sepia for which tne doctrine thould hae provided a foundation. It was thelr view that, following the flute of enti socal, Mars overanpitiou and unreaisable programme of providing 3 cenifc proof of the need for andthe desirably ofa laa and Fetical change in he soval system should be abandoned. 1 35 Fei that intend they should stm at bringing the socialist dea Stker'to tealty by presenting proposals for spec measures (0 bang about eral change in social relations. programme of Geta retorme n'a spnt of roialim should he prepared, which ‘would win the largest possible numberof follower and this have Teal chance of being implemented. The reormits did not have {he missionary conviction that they were th saviour of mankind ‘Sha wtneses toa Truth reveled only to Unem. which i wally ‘Sloclated with intolerance snd Yesort to undemocratic means ih ihe strupele against pola! opposition. They interpreted their movements an attempt to can the programme of reform to ie Cory through parliamentary stragele and. compromises with the followers of other programmes and paytes whose legtimacy they fly recognised Search fora rationalisation ‘Others were not inlined to take tis road and ge up Mann’ vision of the "ingdom of Freedom” The appalling dificlties encountered by his attempt to place this on sletiic foundations id notin their view, cat any doubt on te Marxian utopia set ‘The task wat simply’ 0 find new foundations to replace those trhich nado wihstond the test of te and the confrontation SHIN velit" A Tationasation had to be found for ther bli, Which remained untouched by the manifest failure of scientific Shcllam, The most natural thing Ia theso cteumstances was to Fesort to philosophy, which had ear served asthe main barion| tp which Mare Mntlf based his vision of the future. Ths is why the development of contemporary Marxism has been marked by & onstantelteration of the plilosophical dimension of Marc hough and by shifting the focus away from the later economic {hones onto his cary wetings. The abandonment ofthe master’s {doce which was no Tonger czedble and vetrating to his earlier postions which could not be so cs refuted, represents in Ernest Gainers witty formulation the tacts of reculer pour mieux rire (Gelier 1978, p- 198) 1, THE REFUGE OF PHILOSOPHY “.. this impatent philosophy which aims at creating ‘nee word without efficient preparation inthe opinions Ue feeling of ordinary men and women, Tiertrand Russell ‘The new Marxists found their bale inspiration in the “ster ology of altation” and they tid to prove that Marx's funda Trentat‘dens are conduined in Bary Works ard notin Capital ‘Tas maker it dftcut for them to explain, why, in bis lifetime, ‘Marx’ was not interested in publishing the "Economic and Philo, tole Manuscript" if they indeed contained the quintessence of Fi plilosophy. They have alo teed to clear Marx of any respons, {ty forthe application of dice to nature and for Engels? fae philosophy of sence. They, therefore, do not like to men {on the fact that Mare spoke very favourably about Ant Duehring, nd that in Capital he had advocated the applicablity of the ‘cts lawe.to nature and trated Ic withthe validity of the fiorofteansition of quantity ito qualty Inthe molecular theory ‘of modern chemity! "The more sensble of ther hed to admit hat Mars obviously id not have a high opinion of is say works, and that uch ‘Stony demarcation lie cannot be drawn between the thoughts ‘ Mars and Engels Injecting entific social and dialecticalmaterialism, they were aware that they were not following exactly In'Marv’s footsteps and they fad Uo pretend to understand Marx Detter than he understood himself, (Habermas 1971, p. 248) From 2Slogieal slewpotnt tere can be no objection, although i ond ‘athe oud to claim you understand the pilosopher better than be “cerstood himelf; when at Oe same time you regard him a he [Featert thinker in bstory. "Ther is, however, a much more serious difficulty fr the new ‘Maruste, Tnty contin to use many terms which, if one rejects {the Toundatiousofseenific social, no longer make any wens For inance, in contemporary Marsist dlcuasions reference i ‘ften "matte to explotation, Dut the theory of explotation & ‘tse om Marys cream of political economy, which we havea. eady shown to be unfounded. Anyone who uses the category of ‘aploitation today cannot ignore al the objections sinee the end ‘Fine 20th entry, whi have pointed tothe untenability of the Shaysis put forward tm Capel It he wants to legimiae his wage SF iis extremely controversial comsep he must not retiethim- SAL to speaking about jenation, human nature and praxis, but it make every effort to tehabitate Ma's econome doctrine ‘thou which the estegory of exploitation males no sense, Other Whe? ait the ential comments dizeeted at the labour theory of lus and the theory of surplus value hold good, and on this bass JWelave no choice but to agree with Novick tat “Marsan exploitation isthe exploitation of people's lack of “understanding of economies” (Nozick 1974, p. 202) ‘Another major question or whether thee i any sense in talk ing about the contradictions of expat society, Marx's we of the ‘Wbaiscontmadcton” was jasifed in so far ashe thought he had Proved that this system of production was permeated by icon Blable opposing tendenciet which, would inevitably lad to its ollapse Te abandon this apocalyptic vision and admit, os is Seryofien eimitied in contemporary Marxism, that caplism ths founda way of postponing its cllapse for an indefinite period by. making modifications, talk of the contradictions within Clete becomes superfluous: Having learned thelr lesion trom {Re ignominiow fae of Marx's prophesies contemporary Marsists ie cegey about making any epacifie predictions. What they donot um fo se that by tasking no predistlons about the colapse of eplalim, whove accuracy can be tested in the light of what ‘clully happens the claim that the conflets and opposing ten enclr within coptalism are tveconalable has heen abandoned ‘Ai Ghat's lett te the trie and eenealy acceptable thes thal ‘epitlsm, lke any other sysam, sr eharactensed by eonfiets and ‘opposing tendencies. What i revealing & the reaction of the new Marxists to Marns eronsous predictions. Let us look at Lukacs's characteris te deliberations on this problem “Lat us assume for the rake of argument Ut recent research hhc dapgoved once and for all every one of Marx's ind theses Even If this were to be proved, every serous “ortho. Gon" Marset would sil be sbleto accept all such modern findings witnow reservations and hence dams all of Marx's thoes in toto — without having to renounce his orthodoxy for single moment, Orthodox Maram, therefor, does not Imply the unctiteal seceptance of the felts of Marx's n- Nenigations, It not the “belief inthis or that then, nor the exeget of « asred? book: On the contrary othodony fefere etcisvey fo method. Tet the scien comvtion {hot dinleicl tasteiliom isthe oad to truth and that it tmethods ean be developnd, expanded and deepened only ‘Tong the lines laid downy its founders. ts the conviction, ‘moreover tat all attempts to surpass or “improve” it have Tad and rust lead to oversimpliieation,ervlty and eclec- ticwm (eukas 1971, 9.1) 1 interesting Ut Lukas, in his second preface to History ond Clas Conseioumest, 1967, singed out precisely this de nition of orthodoxy” a something which was “not only ob- Jetiely convect but could fogny, on the eve ofthe renaissance of Maram, aso be f great sigfeance™ "The new orthodoxy: method not results Tutus analyze these propositions in greater dell, The ‘orthodox Marci ie ot worsed nthe least about Marx's ncorect predictions because his orthodoxy feats exclusively Lo tmethod. Tt completaly unclear why he fw sure that he hs discovered “the ight method of invetgation” when he com. (hes tine posit that al the reste obtained” by tis method fay be wrong. We have to conclude that the orthodox Marxist {Zoce not havea bind belie In one o te other of Marx's theses Dut Unt he does Aave a blind belie in his method. Tet us turn our attention to the sophisticated way in which tuukacs trie to present the theortilan's virtues au defects and tice verse It might be thought that-a demonstration tat in ‘Usidua’theses contained tna theory are false should east doubt nthe method by which thes thee were areived at inthe fst place. If someone is prompted to feexanine his own method of [estigation av result of te failure of hie predictions, he demon Stress lnuale enitica attitude. towards the methodology ‘Sopeed is not tre as Lukacs es to suggest, thet by 60 ink Reb tated end ih “oversinplietion, tnvlity and ese Ticsm" On the contrary, an orthodox Marxist Is one who man{ests a fundamentally imational attitude because he admits th fhe will edhere to his method regarles of the results to whit it Toads him. Such an atitude, needle to say fmol open to ra tonal dcusion. ‘There is someting symbole i the fact that such vert dogmatism i prociimed in Hatory and Class Conscious, & ‘work which i generaly held to roprevent the dawn of the new Marais, This dogmati atitude isthe one common and peshaps mont dlinelnve characteristic of all the later followers of neo- Slarism "the firm resolve to vetain Marx's visio of the future tenn iden, derive the questionable nature of many of sin ‘Tildual these Since in ach short paper Teannot enter nto the bften subtle differences between te adherents to this iovement {ll iy to examin etal two aspects which, in my vem oa fain whet i mot Tepresentative of tis pilwophy:activim and abstractnes ACTIVISM Marx's th Thesis on Feuerbach (not published in his if time!) ie probably the sentence most fequently quoted by his Contemporary followers se containing the principle of activish “The plosophers have only interpreted the world, in various ‘vaya tthe potnt however, so change What noo-arxists are demanding, therefor, is that pilos- cophers should not restrict themselves explaining and theorising, that they" should commit themselves to changes in socal realty: with the lst of achieving the “Kingdom of Freedom. T tril point out some seriou ficulties which cast doubt on the Jistihcation of this spiraion to "tanmend the contemplative ‘ude’ [No choice of values tis usually believed that if someone commits himself to Amplementing eeetain goal, this gos! appears desirable to him in {he light of Cela values which he attaches to fe Ax there are trang’ ferent Ung to whic people aac valu, they set Um [ve ferent goals and ial, and iti in tne fesdom to adoot nd pursue these different goals and Ideals that individual choice nd ‘reedom consit. Many thinkers have maintained tht the Jfudzement ot an individual about what he believes to be of value ‘oteds and it's fundamental dispute abott values should are ‘knot be resoled satonally. Ite thie Fecogntion of autonomy sth tegpet to values wich constitutes the base principle ofthe Tiberdsiemocttic triton, namely tht mentally healthy adlts have te ght fo choose their ols for temlves and decide on the way of fife most acceptable to them. “The activism of the new Maris cannot be reconciled with scot ofthe Indus autonomy th here of a do not present Marx's utopia ae an idea, the advantages of tthich are identical with what most people believe to be the best ial system, but ata wsion of the future, Use sceeptabilty of ‘Which ‘tem trom ite bemg founded ‘on philosophical com Drehension. In other words in vacating the realation of their Utopia they ae not drawing on the values and aspirations of Indivals But on Marx's wetting. ‘This alo gives ie to the unusually frequent practice of passing with sumriing ate over everything that rea! ope de- ‘reand respect and of describing ll thi at "fale nods (Marcuse 1572 pp, 10.20), “folie consciousness" (Lukes 1871, p. 50), ‘hdwtorted satisfaction of weeds (Habermas 1971, p. 295) and Scqeidentalemotion®. divorced. from teal Intentions and wants” iorkheimer 1974, p._IT). The concept of alienation i alo item weed discount a illusory the dees which, Marxist Sntonarcs condemn: theyare not “real authentic” desires, bputmerely areal of contemporary man’s “alienation” ‘Many pilosophers, politicians and morals have exerted a salutary inluence on people by persuading them to accept new Salus of which our elation today is proud. Surely there ean bien obsetion to thr dente to coneite to moral improvement Sd the development of higher salves, However, amajorand util tference i sheer an atempt i made to pursuade by appealing to people's consciousness whe constants" and absolutely re Shectng their elves, or by the “teacher claiming to know better ‘Phat man’s desire are oF ought toe than the man himself 1 [precely this second, patemalistie, altitude which is cheractri tie oF the mew Marist They firmly eject. the role of moraist ta educator and ory to prove that their knowledge of "wue™ Salus stems from this comprehension ofthe human sence con- {ined manly inthe Bary Works. They do not therefore, present {his contribution of theirs in terms of proposal of new vals but 'tdacorery backed by phlosophica arguments While we can reject a propos we do not like, we cannot do the saine thing witha discovery because this would be to act en ionaly. 1 i tue hat what man aly" and fede" were Gecovered in the tld-19tn century, Uhen ain dividuals we o longer have any tredom to choowe our gols and eal: beens of varsous“astorting” factor, we can only be mix {akep about and unaware of our "pentine” needs and goals. The noo Marxists" poston involves the following considerable part ox: a man wining to Tear what he realy desies need not de- Iiberate over his future, bt simply ead the "Beonomie and Philo- opie Mauserips”Extenive deliberations are not necessary o gasp the dangers tnhereat in dsregarding the views of Snaleiduals when it cOmes (0 {itermining ther true” needs and interests. ven the greatest i tearm crimes can be Juried by claming that sc actions Jie al out stor the wellbeing” of the victims themedlves. HESS theoretical" jutifention of "war communi” may aay erming of how stil the step ie from the philosophy, SEP et ahd fae” ped end interests to a cynical defence of tence Mince, the peasants need a strong workers tate to protect ‘nig findownens the fac that te Bobhevik gover: tment forcibly taker food away’ from them is "objectives Intheit own interes!” ‘Bukharin, went even further when he claimed in The Feo- nom of the Transitional Period tat proletarian coercion in al 2 nwt, trom death by fing squad to forced labour, represents, forme how peralovidl Lie may stem, o method of bulding Ropamunine mankind from. the human material of the capitalist RE This method of seshaping “human material” by means of forced labour and death by firing sad dit not, however, appear fo'paradoxical™ to everyone Lani, for instance, noted alongside ‘ukkarn’s above sentence "ius 50°, whe his comment nthe tthole chapter was “brian.” [No neutral science "The division into value and factual judgements is a very ‘roquent ‘angel of attacks by contemporary Marxists, Accord- lye they ‘ertcie very soerly the thens about the value. realty of eeience For instance: “Sthuee late apologist of value-neutaity laud the subltera tole of thought which because of ts doubt fate now onky ais out the duty of « factotum of industrial society, ‘Statute on theother hand, docare that obedience is pusty, Sholay srctnst and such ke, lke eitizens ofa bol sate ‘Who desenbe thir alent suffering of tyranny as fitfulness {nd losalty.” (Hoekbetmer 1968, pp. 114118) Scientists are thus “obedient”, “harnessed to the soci mechanism bid, pr LdS)y servants of authoritarian aes” Tige'p 190), cline of “allenaton which in philosophical cer Conny ts manifested ae the reparation of values and savestigh tony of knowledge and ecivity" (bd. p. 157, Similar quotes outd easly be found in works by Habermas, Marcuse, Bloch, SMiome and ‘others ‘Their formulations are poignant, but not ‘the arguments. ‘the craxofthecritietm of value neutral science ha remained oul oe. Why wou th mination of vende from science in any way imply that scientists agree wth what faite? It ought to be obvious to. anyone that advocating value fevtralty means excluding both affirmative and negative aides [ ralify? The attempt to nd sclentiie standpoint of value. Crientatione represents imply another form of the fundamental Sipimation of every exciencr ~ the aptation for objets. Let ‘Bice ow Albert Einstein decebed this tendency in wince: “the scientific way of thinking as «further characteristic. ‘The concepts which uses to bulld up its coherent systems {enor express emotion” For the sient there 1 only ‘being, ‘but ne wabing, no valuing, no good, no eel in ‘ors no goal” Av long’ ar we remain within the realm of eience proper, we can never encounter a sentence of the {ape “ah shal nti ory vrei Purtans ‘trun n the acento senks truth he Keeps away from ‘rergthingvoluntanstie or emotional. Incidentally, this tat BiRe raul of a low development, pecular modem Wester shought. "(Einstein 1958, p. 779) If he wants to comprehend the tr about some aspect of realty, the sent mi try not fo allow valuestandpetnts to Ine him. They ‘eam only ude hit comprehension tn the ‘tron retin, inthe ducedon"of what Ne dates and approves Irth inthe cd he obtain pctre of his subject whieh does fot correspond to routy: However, it leary doesnot follow that atau he proceeds in ti way hes niafied with presen reality Sr opposed’ to change. With a stange pemistence and without Sholtniston, shew Marcie acc selene and he value etl pen af coming mew at extant ae [i he statu quot stage to have to explant philosophers aban slementary mater that vaiveneatal selene i indeed for revoutonary, but part pans tie not conservative either, ih eueneutea eoMaris mite thet woes agin repect fr fot, sho cate &Y feted "mer factiy te uncer powere, wy an ‘nteet in facts should be seowoed, Actual the mah tsk of Sclonce i to determine how thingy ae in realty, to inberet the {ete chjetively as pombe end fommulate lawn deriv thet, ‘Very often iis Rid Ot objective comprehension of Tact ‘whut nkes pone to change thor pect of Yay which are Mot in harmony with our vals If values are activated eat, in the phase of hiveagation, they would inal probebitty hinder ‘Speen pre Wom ai uh a et‘The following deliberation i typleal of neo Marxists fo much the wore for facta! This ra maxim of verifeation ‘which ag, im em ltcumtances, resulted in 0 ile adjust ent to face tha teauned the Eaglish, American and French revolutions "(Bloch 1977, p14) Here we can clearly see how Bloch i confusing the eistemo- logical and value satu of facta, an elementary confusion typical SE phigwopher who follow nin Marx's footsteps In fact, the togan “50 much the worse for face” wae hover the maxin of {erfiation forthe English, American and French revolutionaries, Weouldl possibly’ expres ther dacontent with Ue sltuaion in ‘rhich they lived and thet este for radial social change. If ‘They bad really bebavedinruch a way a to not recognise the facts In'the epistemolopcal sense and not actually “adjusted™ thelr irtions “lo the face", their revolutions Would simply have re tnained in their imagination, [At one point Horkheimer sys: “tt we, however, look upon states of afar given In percep- tion's products whieh ze in peincple under human contro ‘shouldbe, they lose the character of mete fect ‘Honeimes i988, . 158) Aesnat whom this invective about “mere factcty "directed? 1 would be Inteerting to see who Horkhelmer and other neo Marxists believe would be jncined to deny such a tal truth as that “ebieets are in principle controlled by humans ot at least hou bes Those who zeaiculy tepeat and defend a paitude ‘ike this ae fighting against windmill One of the rnin neo-Marsist objections to valueneutral sciences chat technology te practical appllation, speaks only of the best way of implementing goa, but offers no rational means fof electing (Habermas 1971, p. 816, x. se). Science permite ‘hiy techni atonalty (determining the means when the goat fia already been se) and levee the spre of foals and values ntiely To ipntionalty. Ths “decsioniem’ and abicrarnes lecting poss Teade, Wis si, to the alienation and spiital dis frentation of man today. A rational way of coping and oretal- Ing oneself sould als be intodieed into Une sphere of vals, ‘Neo-Marrists object to the valueneutmaity of slence beens it permite voto individual actudes towards realty but does not Commit iteell to formulating and advocating the one attude Sthichin thei ew, isthe only atonal one. The aitude of con Temporary cientita who hold that, since there is no rational Inethod for proving which values people should accept, euch Matters should be Iet tothe aphere of taviualcholce, totally ‘unacceptable to them. This in no way makes personal orientation ‘daze and goal altar or ization, as Habermas, Horthelne land Marcuse would have but rather makes them fee Marx knows best ‘The humanist rhetoric of such thinkers on the subject of “authentic existence", “true, happines” and. “diaiention conc slg ander the” ato the personality By claiming that someone other tan people them Eves lnows beter what their “genuine” interest are, contempar- fy Maras ar lesimising violence agaist te vials ard Atneatl freedoms. Two furtred year ago Kant warned about the dingerour consequences of woating the principle of autonomy en when justified “by benevolence towards people” oF by the Invocation of sme “higher” eo “A goverment established on the principle of benevolence tontrds the people, ke the benevolence of father toward ‘elds, that ln pateratie government, (mertum patemale) ~ where the subjects, like children under age who {fot line wat nant sata or harm fo mucin would be forced to behave Purely passively, to rely ony Go the judgement ofthe ead of sate with rela { the qucrion of how they should be happy. and to depend ‘onhisgoodvil in wanting tha aa isthe retest deapotim magia,» atuation which abolishes alte freedom ofthe subjects and in which they therefore have no eights of any Kind? (kant 1013, p- 970) Most scientist today live that anyone advocating and arguing in favour ofthe realiton of cera socal and pica foal on the basi of alleged sclnific pancpies and ting 10 {inderin his propoais withthe authorty of fis dixtpline, would Devneiosly excening Rs competence This is what Max Weber sevron the suet “"Thote of our youth aren err who react to aby saying, “Yen, but we bape to come to lectures In onde to exper. in tr eth mee asa ator a fact", The emor that they seek in te professor aomethi Aitfeent fom what stands before them. "They crave leat Shd'not a teacher, But-we ne placed upon the platform Solna teacher And Wear are two diferent thing, a8 me Em eacly sees" (emth& Mile 1948, p46) New Marxists, of course, could not agree with such an attitude precisely bacase they are commited to Jus such «programme of feaching adults how thoy ought to behave, I wil cite afew quota fons ffom the works of contemporary Marais, which clearlyshow that they present thelr philosophy a a collection of truthe throw mien alone can individuals hope to discover their “true” ‘value and ame "Genuine happines presepposes comprehension ofthe ruth people knowing what is attainable for them as the highest Pocubity of their existe, what their genuine interes i.” {iareuse 1965, p. 180) ‘in ential theory the concept of happiness has nothing i common with bourgeos conformism and rela; part of the gener objective truth which Bolds good forall [aviuals provided thst int te iter o allot them are soto” (bid p- 158) “Those who have had Use undeserved luck of not corespond- ing ently in tei spirtaal makeup to prevallag nore Imus! through moral effort and, soto speak, stead of others {nuncnte what the majority of thou on whose behalf they. Speak cannot eee, of fori, themaclves see, because of thet adaptation to realty." (Adorno. 1973, p, 51, sales ‘dea? “What does it mean when we sy ‘A man knows his own Interests pert" —"uhere dacs he get tis knowledge from and ‘where isthe proof tat his knowledge s right?” (Horkheimer 1074, p38) “Philwophy le neither a tool nor @hard-and-fast rue, Ian ‘only herald the path of prograst which Is determined by Togiel and eal necessities." (bid, p- 168) “By relating consciousness to the whole of society, it be- ‘ihe poate to infer the thoughts and feelings which men Srould have in a particular situation i they were able fo ase oth ie and the interes ars fkom tn, Now class com feiournest conse infact of the appropiate and rational fection “nputed” to a particular position in the proces Of production, This conssiosaoss la therefore, neither the Suny nor the average of what ir thought or felt bythe singe individ who make up the class" (Lakacs 1971, p. 91) “This is procsely what gives the class strugee of the pro letanat "special place amongst all class stages: the fact that it sequives ite sharpest weapon from genuine science, ftom sitar insight to reality So tong ss the decisive ‘tyres of cle strugaion inthe past were ideologies of all Ghd and lus, moa, and other foms of sored Consciousness the” clase struggle of the proietanat, the liberation war of the lest sobjugated cass, found its battle fy ad aio ir sttonges: weapon in the demonstration of the undiarised truth.” (Lukace 1977, p. $99, ilies added) ‘Thus the goals we choose and se for ourselves should not be determined by our perinal affinities and dese as individuals Instead of tis “purely subjective” and “arbivary” facto, real Values shouldbe sought in'the philosophical Mees offered by Marni These phiorophicl ia! are, unfortnatly, not equal Accesso to al, and certainly not “in the way in which poople with similar inteligence {quotient thovld be able to repost. natural sclences expert ‘ents or understand mathematical deductions” (AdorO 1973, p61) Marsistpllosophers sre therfore called upon to decide, on behalf ofather what their gerne goal and interest are Although ‘thers say have 4 “sul inteligence quotient”, browse of ett fitual make-up” they ate deprived ofthe philosophical dimen sion and so cannot penetrate to the ctrue science” and "clear inant into reality” which could show them what their "re happiness" 1 is precisely ere that the Joint roots of Leninism and neo Marsa are learly dacerible What both of these standpoints have in common i the conviction that Mars» philowophy makes posible to discover the "irie™ aime and interests of Dede tlthough they themselves are not conscious of them. In What Ie ‘To Be Done?, Lenin put forward fs fundamental iden that the working caer if left to ite own device, wil develop a "trade {imo and not authentie cla consciousness. Aceowtinly the fa of the minoety Instructed. In Marxism is fo. bring to th ‘workers front without, thelr “true” conscousness, even i thi it ‘mtrely contrary to hat they themselves might consider desirable Shd scteplable on the basi of thelr own spontaneous judgement. Ths standpoint eontans the politcal quintesonce of Bolshevism Sind. san ‘lps the more ready to understand abd expla many crents in the history of Marsistanspired movements, Thus when on Sih January 1018, Lenin and his Central Commitee, {ocible uisolved the legal constituent asembls, in when Socal Fevolutionancs hd large mejonty over tne Bolsheviks, he wat ‘cing entiey in ine with his own doctrine. He beloved hat is Marast view of the world made him = better iterpreter of the Interests of the Soviet prople than any democratieall-held elec tion or other expremion Of popular fein" As the above ques tions show many modem Marrs also claim on the bass of tir Bhlovophical insights that they ae-in a better penton to judge that sin other people's “gensine”snterts. om this follows the contention tha the views of individuals shoul be ignored, bing“, "alienated and the rel of "ase" aspirations, {Tnisdecaned sirepect forthe autonomy of the individual impliesthe rejection of traditional democratic decsion making methods fn pola isu Preudo-obectiviam ‘From where do the neo-Marxist philosophers get the idea ‘hat they have the ght to each healthy adult perons what is {bod for them and what isnot? Tisexplictly patemelieeattude PShrouded in Hegelian tenminology which le suppored to give it the appearance and dignity of s phowophica insight, For instance, In'more recent Maree erature it claimed that people are noi Yet what they tre (Adorno 1973, p. 274; Marcuse 1972, p. 11; Bloch 1977, p. 195), This meana that thelr empirical existence does not yot correspond tothe tel form of existence, that thelr “tacit” does not cormespond to their concept, that they ae ‘tlonated from their human essence, Its easy to perceive hee the id datinetion between farts and vas, between "6" and “ought for: It cannot be trad or “overcome” by simply shrouding it ‘nth Hegelian and peoudo-objoctve terminology Like Hegel's slleged transcendence of Kant’s dualism of the factual and the normative, the entre neo Marxist activism i based Iihal our scenife knowledge tele ware the marks ofa diamond, ‘The expremions “trve", “genuine” and "real" inthis case inicato Correspondence with a‘precke theoretical soncep. Such expres Sons, however, have an entirely sifferentfunetion in other con fexte Por example, when wo suy at some work gies Us Ze {enuine or rea satisfaction, we want to sa tha ite properties pul {Gr the top ofthe it of our personal preferences. Tho expressions Couine™ and teal" inthiscontext signify comempondence ‘The claim that an objet is areal diamond hs a purely cogni tive character because i simply deseibes the objective properties Df the object concerned and hat no vale ingredients, On the other ‘and, to fais that some work gives‘ satiation ito exprose« Yalue attude "to make tatoment of what we subjectively [Ppvecate and conser derbi The claim about tne rel dimond kn be texted by entirely objective methods: What i a sake Is ‘whether the object has al the properties which satisfy the scien {ae etna for something beng dimond: The ca bout el {tinct it posible to tat in thin way because i= Bat 8 {ustion of objective properties Out of what diferent poop con ‘Xder fo be real stefacton. In short, wlenee decides whether fomething is a real diamond, while individual value attitudes ‘cide wether something ford eal satisfaction, {By Bisley eoloting the ambieuty of thee exreaions bjctive philosophical comprehension of a higher arder. They (ay tha ran in no yet whale realy, that he wana from his true sovnce, that he has not realsed his genuine potential fd So oh. They are not aware that in cearng to use explicit hice terminologs. hey have not gone 2 single step further than Kant, The "is ought” diatinction ‘cannot be tanscendod by ‘Mlopting » quas-objectvet Hogelian Jargon In which certain value ‘ontotations are concealed and impli. Neo erste must deci {which of the two ways they want fo Interpret their muddled fd ambiguous ategores, “The first alternative efor them to understand “true human atures “man's esence” and "enue existence” es expressions Ielating to. way of life whieh cartan theoretical research has ‘Setermined ae Being genealy characterise of te human kind In thi cae there iso tason ‘whetroever why we should want to {unlfes our “essential” properties or rot 0 our te nacre If tre have pethape become salensed” from it. What we discover ‘out our "eaence™ in ths sense ned not necessarily be to our {ret of appea to ws es something for which we should seve Suppose a raicalined socoblology succeeded in proving thatthe fseenoe of man's behaviour it in hls absolute selfishness (Because feifhnens fe progmmed by his genes. a humana would then Undoubtedly ‘demand thas man anoud become at alienated. as posible fom his own tre essence! ‘The other method isto interpret the expressions “rue “genuine “man's easence” as tefering to's way of life whichis in'harmony with cereain valve nttudes and ideale. Ip this caso {the stetum to human ewence”, "authentic existence” and "di- Mlenetion™ would simply signly something of which neo Marxists fn people of sila eed onentations spprove and which they Considered erable. ‘The reason they finly resect sich an inter pretation is that they real Weir philosophy would then be Eeduced to shee morals “The Marxist “tendency” "There no other method open to contemporary Marxist ‘whic would ensble them to make tel uopia darebe by means SyiphiSeophicl aguments, Regardless of how profound the com prehension of the young Marr anthropology may be, his vision Erte fate cannot infvenee people’ behaviour by teling the Svat man i, but ony By telling them what he ought fo Be. Weisunderstandable why Marxists are not prepared to accept either of the melhode at theledaposa. Without steal connotations tir philosophy ceases #0 be tcall to setion and remains ine sphere EB pare theoretical knowledge: while with explicethial con: Rotations Ht cannot be universlsed because It maybe rejected by nybody. with different vlue atstudes. At Is sually Uh cas Imiddle-oCtheroad cdlalectie™ solution has to. be found: a Speci objectivist tum of phrase has been adopted which due to [Htmiguity snd lack of precision, bas allowed value qualifications {be altos impercetibiy drawe rom It as toe noed arises. With ‘cut hese expressions which contain a fundamental equivocation, the neo‘Maryie standpoint would not only Tove its force of per ‘Sharon, but could not even be formulated. ‘Crucial concepts auch as “tendency” and “possiblity” which are ofton used in contemporary Marie Heorature have a salar ‘atse. For the Sake of Hlustation, {wil quote two punages from Bloch’ which demonstrate the way these concepla are used to provides foundation for opis: vreawe mrt diferente very clearly between abstract Utopian and. thone' which. become concrete ones. Social ‘topiag in particular could have been abstract because their projection was not conveyed by the existing tendency Of pomsblity "(Bloch 197%e,p. 88) “itis no sumprive therefore whan Oscar Wilde says: “A ge: Graphical map on which the country Utopia i not marked doer not even deserve « glance” From objects themselves there Is kind of line extended, trv enough only by dots, towards something resembling that country and no amount ‘fering or concealment by all Ue postvss put together an diver it from what actully going ony ‘There are, therefore utopian edges not only of & being but also of {he ents already prevent exintnce and casence, which ‘Surround that whieh sprvent and actual witha much greater ‘bjective-eal posit." (id, p- 102) If there relly docs exist historical tendency which makes the achievement of Marsist utopia probable, it docs not neceasar follow that we should therefore be sale, oF that we shoud try fo bring this process of achievement to" an early conclusion, ‘Histol! tendencies can exist, and have existed, which should at allcoste be kept within the sphere of unreaised possbltis, In Connection with Bloch’s concept of “objctivezea! possiblities’ ean slo be qulte simply noted that even if i san objectively Zeal ponsbilty for someting to happen, tha niall docs not ‘oan that it also a good thing fart to happen. Bloch and other Slaraiste ‘re exploiting the other meaning ofthe concept of pos ‘lis, whih appear in sentencer ach a "he has real ae posibitics” or “thie young man hes west possibilitis”, and ‘which obvioully refer only to powiblities of which the speaker {pproved. The expression “possbilty” lik the other expresions ‘hentloned earlier, har ll he advantages which make itconvenient for the requirements of Marist philowphy. Its essentally am bigs, ad the transition from ier objective meaning toa meaning ‘coloured by value i practically imperceptible. In this way the iusiow ls crested that the desirability of Marxint stop proven by plosophiel arguments. [Non Marxists cannot entice Marais Very often, and not without pride, neo Marxists malntain that by ther activist postion they have achieved unity of theory find practice (for example, Lukace 1977, p. 83 and. 875; Bloch 2077, p. 415; Lukacs 1967, p. 71 and pp, 126-121; Horkheimer 1968p. 179-180; Marcuse 1968, p. 199-160). The contemplative ttside is “transcended in Mlarsiam by making acti end com ptehension indivnible: Or, Lakacy hay sal "The ewence of the proletarian clas struggle can be deter Imined by the fact the for ie theory end practice coinelde se comprehension lends to activity without ¢ fran (Lakaes 1977, p. 400 ~ italics are mine) ‘The direct consequence of fick a fasion ofthe tseoretial andthe practical that anybody whose stint x not i accordance ith Sarai simply demonstrating hi inadequate comprenension. If indeed Marsistcomprebenaton leads without ranstion to activity" then by contraponton we can conclude that an activity which It fot Marxist entails Tack of Maraist comprehension. AS many fnticy have noted (Kelakowki 1978, 1 p. 298; Tucker 1972, p. 229; Acton 1035, p. 177), the alleged unity of theory and Disciee it in act's myeieation which e prion prevents any Kind of atonal crtique of Marxist doctrine. Iki beyond dgpute that we can eiticise only that which we understand. If we accept (on the bass of this “fusion” of the {theoretical ‘and practical) that Marxist philosophy is really only Understood by people who actin keeping with it (ati sho ‘cept i, i follows that tis plosopiy can ony be enticed by those who agiee with it! Is dif to Imagine a more agree thie" theoreties) postion than ‘one which rejects @ mine: any ‘hjection hy filing back on the universal explanation tate Who ‘auestions the "vanguard doctrines merely proving he has not hereon Aton’ eoncuson etmeo e therfore, ees nth way the Marx i enabled to argue that no-one who docs not work on behalf of the Marais Communist Pare. {hn rally Undertand what Marsh Once more the smiar=ity with Pasea’s advice ~ to lear to bea Chistian by going {to Mase — ir obwoUs." ABSTRACTNESS ‘The basic characteristic ofthe Marrst utopia is its extreme sbataciness and indeterminacy. While Bloch and other Marxists ‘etme great efor to convince ur that thelr vision of the ‘tures tery concrete tel anurans ate In Yan as fog as they BS not set ou ine dete and specie pects oftheir wopia. TO des'asdnatogy by Aver (1860. P.277) om a different context: Jt ‘one Cannot prove that homes have wings by arbitrary ling! the word “horse" to. mean what ls ordinary meant by "fmtrow’ in the same ven ons eannot prove that Marxian utopia is onerete by uting the word “concrete” to denote things without Shy speifie characteristics. What kind of utopia? Unlike, Marsists the utopian socalits have described their leas for's socal system in eat deta and in veld colour Indeed that one of the reason sehy none of tse utopias oars {ns politcal model. Many of the deta they have proposed with {great enthusiasm would not be considered dsiraie by the majority Et people, They ao include ideas which should evoke general fevulson, Thus for example, in Cabets ear, the freon of the pres is wevetely estrsted In Bacon's New Allan the presenta Bi of any work of natace in a decorative and afificial manner find not jst sy banned Under the treat Of payment of & fine and gence, ty Mone Utopia, repeated adultery Is punish able by death and in Campanella’ Citas Sols “any woman who puts rouge on her fare out of 4 dette to be more beautiful ot eas shoes with hgh heels to look taller or dressy with trains 0 Tie her gy lige would be punished by death.” (Campaneia 1941, p. 130) ‘But even if we dlsegard these and slmllar details, the fact remains that historical utopias can no loner arouse any eriout {nterest today, They are the product of time when fe was believed {at's certain fundamental and global change In the socal system Could bring ebowt general happiest and be equally acceptable Si Theireonerete and evolved ston ofthe future are unacceptable {oun not only becnise they are hutosely obsolete and because the uthow" Meals were different from ours, but for a. much {Eceper reason inherent inthe very idew of utopia, Thue we must Sccbpt the fart that people ae fundamentally different from one Siothet and" with regard tothe form of = future soley they cherish desires, aspirations and interests which reglaly clash ‘Since experience teaches us that proposals for piecemeal political reforms give rc to sharp dlaputas and daagrevmenta, how much haiste needed to beive that everybody wihout exception (would weleome or accept 4 fundamental. global change tn the socal ster "The Marsst utopia has rtsined a certain topical appeal ‘due Iargely to fis abt nature, Mariels usualy deserbo their Strom af the future with, words coloured by values which are 30 [inerl and so undefined that Une are acceptable to most people Rete sume ime ey carefully avoid indieating Ue, pect ‘tsiuter"and qualities of thir "Kingdom of Freedom” which fight be the source of objections from people with diferent ‘ral judgements, Ths creates the ilusion tha a completely new orm of tociety has been dicovered which, unlike others before Jie eal because it brings general justice and universal happiness. For the sake ofiustetion I il mention Just afew of the most requent ways neo-Marsets describe thelr utopia: "a com Thunityof fe people", va seasble society", "the transformation St the toil entity" "ah bwciation of foe people in which every Se has an qual opportunity for development "aust sie “ie tnnucendence of socal injusce", "a dgnifed, peaceful and happy future for society" "a total stricl act, “the creation of 2"eehuine human ‘cofabunty®, "an authentic exitence”y Fadhcal change nana the realcation of man’s possibilities", ee 1 is quite clea that hardy anyone today is against “man, realising his posite”, o agaist "a community of fee people” ‘rita justsoiety" If Maram remains the level of such abtract Sha ‘undefined phrase 1 really does become almost generally ‘Erceptable, but fortis very team iis in danger of losing all ts fresning and becoming trivial and intersting. 1 think that in Ins respect the bref dialogue which Proudon ed with the judge chistadin 1048 should be instructive for contemporary Maras ‘The ge asked him whether he was a sola. ‘Certiny.” "Wels but wht, then is Socialism?” “ie'ig? replied Protdhon, "every pation towards the teal roi” “Thal preciely what I think,” seoined Prouon. “Quoted in Draper 1977, p. 88) Proudhon was, of course, wrong: not all people in his time ‘wero soils Simpy; not everybody today iv Marist, though Tort people would have no objection to many of the generalsspiretions found in abstract Marxist phrases with postive vale ‘The tema which Marist ue to deere thl utopia ari {ct partic oF "rupererens” predicates, They do not deride fecal phenomena rey, but are tue of such phenomens cay By ide of the act that there phenomens possess some thet Properties ‘which we may eal the “primary properties”. For Preesce a gaily jut (eupervenient property) by re of he {RG th wlan me tpt i cera my (mary gia community isan tsocation offre people (cube Peele property) by virtue ofthe fact tha he life of ts members Tar certan guitconerete and spel eetare (primary prope’). ‘and wo on ‘A society can poutes abstract and value-oloured properties (upemenient properin) only Hf fist posses certain value: (rerea proper which define trate and method of ora ition, talking shout thelr utopia, Marsists have failed to do the one thing without which the entre sory they ell makes no Sense ut all they have not begun to describe what thi ideal Siety of thes Tooke lke, hati they have not described ts Brimaly properties, ony te aupervenient ones. ‘Let us imagine that someone demands tht houses should be bout which are more stable at fonger and are more comfortable tnd. cheaper than today's hous, Sabi, durapiity, comfor: Sd low pice, nomevet, ae supervenentproperioe:«houie ca ive them only by virtue of having definite primary properties (ihe method of construction, the mater from whieh i» bul, 82), should be obvious, thecefore, that making uch a demand is othe same as providing 4 Sueprnt for the construction of uch Fousew The demand merely sets out the superenient properties, the desable features to be achieved by te proposed dea Tt Aes no bein to spelt the primary properties which the dee {ust inconporae in orde to achieve those objectives Im exactly the same way, despite repeated claims othe com trary, Martins eve completly fale to provide us witha Bue pant fore new type of socket. They have nimply enumerated te PeMtounly desiable sbjectner whieh Roped, wil pervene on {he primuy properioe spesifed in such a blueprint, I and when the blueprinc it prepared snd the plan efpaliy executed, Just ne houses cannot be ule fom sabi, dumbiity and comfort, but nly trom brick, cement, wood and other building materials faved in'a define srecrl teaton to one another, 30 more Parfect forma of soley cannot be constructed from auch objec fee as "jus “humane™ and wise", but only by an atl = Sepinction of sora Felatons (lor example, by funviaments change inthe electoral system, an increase in citizens legal vcur- Sy, mow elicit poi onl of that ofthe pica, Marx tls ut very tle when he say in hie “Contribution to the Cate of Hegel's Philosophy of Right: Introdution” that al the conditions in which a man isan abered, enslaved, thandoned, contemptible being, should be overthrown, (Tucker 1978, p60) ‘We probably ll ages that relations which “abase” and “enslave hhuntan beings ould be abolished, ut key ifferences in polit fal judgement are precisely over sock hind of relations should be considered repose fr this state of afar es preiely in reply to the question what should be changed and how should it ‘hinge to create "a more just" and “humane” society, that ‘peor today will give totally different answers Everyone can {gree on the ends. But to expect similar unanimity concern the meane by which those ends are to be echieved, is ike asking {or the moon and expecting to receive ‘The picture of Marxian utopia sometimes appears to be a eeneally Septal ideal simply beceue Ht dors ot contain any Feife programme for changing soceey, which would: be mich more and, for the Market tart, mich too contoversal. This Stopia hab only abetrect. qualities, wth posiie value connots ‘Hons which donot tall us at all what this "just society” would tally Took lke, Tat alone fe why It was posible for the Marxian Wision ofthe future not to be compromised by various unsucces Fi‘stempts st forming society on the bass of Marx's politcal philosophy, i hax ways Deen possible to say. that these failed Ettempls st conucting « socdlat wlopia were merely "deva- Hone” and “atortons™ of his "true™ Has which should cor tinue to reprewent a model I, however, politcal progamme fly amnounte fo cll to sive towards "jus, “humane” and fit" society, then that programme can never be compromise, fot because i offers the best soliton to ll human misforenes nd problem, but simply because i consist of empty absiace lone and hah sounding meaningless phrases ‘Vagueness licenses opportunism 1k would, however, be wrong to condlude that, because of tt ‘vagueness, Manset poical phlosophy. contains nothing contzo ‘esl On the contrary, since tt was balloved that Marx's vison ‘Of the furureytranscendntal and cred, gave meaning to all of human “prehistory”, the row emerged tha it was permisble to ‘eee pm cea ones t ahve sal above all four" Poles action also began to bo evaluated increasng'y Envthe aw of wheter sociey wa “objectively” Rettig nearerto this distant ides, while evaluations of such action in terme of Srdinary moral considerations were increasingly pushed Into the Gackyround, Finally, and quite consstenty, a decisive role was {ven to the principle of tactical effiecy and opportunism, atcord Fig to which no action (not even the most morally repulaive) isto betrjected prion iti soemn the best way to achieve the desired hd. By thor aboiing the vaiity of ethical principes and moral ‘Snsiderations pois, Marsim has opened up toe followers role scope for tagticel moves and an unusual amount of practical Fenty. At weave soen, this derives fom aiid and unreserved {Commitment 9 the ides of the revelutioney transformation of fete. Ar Lukacs so aptly put it". he nonvigidity of com mune tacit the direct consequence of the rigidity of eam niet prineplen "(Lakes 1972, p- 64) ‘Those who proclaim and ty to realise the idea of changing society in thespint of Maraism arenot bound by Unt "programme Dreveely beatae ts abstractness provides no hint about how to [et'in parular poitia! siuntione. The invocation of Martian Utopia bar lewtimied the slogan “land to the peasant” and, Ite lator, the taking away of land and collection, Tt hat iden licence to. the slogan “al power to the soviet” and, a itis earier, opposition to the institution of soviet. Te has jst led opposition to a oneparty system and, in another period of history, the introduction of rach ayntom.® What this states is the wel-estabihed fact that thors who te themives to 4 poiial programme full of grand words but lucing in specific content, Fave completey free hand in purit of thelr objectives. This = tlso the souree of the principe of extreme polieal pragmatism ‘which expresy charcteraes Marit hstorieal practice and Wat

You might also like

• The Subtle Art of Not Giving a F*ck: A Counterintuitive Approach to Living a Good Life

  

  From Everand

  The Subtle Art of Not Giving a F*ck: A Counterintuitive Approach to Living a Good Life

  Mark Manson

  Rating: 4 out of 5 stars

  4/5 (5814)
• The Gifts of Imperfection: Let Go of Who You Think You're Supposed to Be and Embrace Who You Are

  

  From Everand

  The Gifts of Imperfection: Let Go of Who You Think You're Supposed to Be and Embrace Who You Are

  Brene Brown

  Rating: 4 out of 5 stars

  4/5 (1092)
• Never Split the Difference: Negotiating As If Your Life Depended On It

  

  From Everand

  Never Split the Difference: Negotiating As If Your Life Depended On It

  Chris Voss

  Rating: 4.5 out of 5 stars

  4.5/5 (845)
• • Magazines
  • Podcasts
  • Sheet music
• Principles: Life and Work

  

  From Everand

  Principles: Life and Work

  Ray Dalio

  Rating: 4 out of 5 stars

  4/5 (609)
• The Glass Castle: A Memoir

  

  From Everand

  The Glass Castle: A Memoir

  Jeannette Walls

  Rating: 4.5 out of 5 stars

  4.5/5 (1717)
• Grit: The Power of Passion and Perseverance

  

  From Everand

  Grit: The Power of Passion and Perseverance

  Angela Duckworth

  Rating: 4 out of 5 stars

  4/5 (590)
• Sing, Unburied, Sing: A Novel

  

  From Everand

  Sing, Unburied, Sing: A Novel

  Jesmyn Ward

  Rating: 4 out of 5 stars

  4/5 (1104)
• Hidden Figures: The American Dream and the Untold Story of the Black Women Mathematicians Who Helped Win the Space Race

  

  From Everand

  Hidden Figures: The American Dream and the Untold Story of the Black Women Mathematicians Who Helped Win the Space Race

  Margot Lee Shetterly

  Rating: 4 out of 5 stars

  4/5 (897)
• Shoe Dog: A Memoir by the Creator of Nike

  

  From Everand

  Shoe Dog: A Memoir by the Creator of Nike

  Phil Knight

  Rating: 4.5 out of 5 stars

  4.5/5 (540)
• The Perks of Being a Wallflower

  

  From Everand

  The Perks of Being a Wallflower

  Stephen Chbosky

  Rating: 4.5 out of 5 stars

  4.5/5 (2104)
• The Hard Thing About Hard Things: Building a Business When There Are No Easy Answers

  

  From Everand

  The Hard Thing About Hard Things: Building a Business When There Are No Easy Answers

  Ben Horowitz

  Rating: 4.5 out of 5 stars

  4.5/5 (348)
• Bad Feminist: Essays

  

  From Everand

  Bad Feminist: Essays

  Roxane Gay

  Rating: 4 out of 5 stars

  4/5 (1018)
• Elon Musk: Tesla, SpaceX, and the Quest for a Fantastic Future

  

  From Everand

  Elon Musk: Tesla, SpaceX, and the Quest for a Fantastic Future

  Ashlee Vance

  Rating: 4.5 out of 5 stars

  4.5/5 (474)
• Her Body and Other Parties: Stories

  

  From Everand

  Her Body and Other Parties: Stories

  Carmen Maria Machado

  Rating: 4 out of 5 stars

  4/5 (822)
• The Outsider: A Novel

  

  From Everand

  The Outsider: A Novel

  Stephen King

  Rating: 4 out of 5 stars

  4/5 (1866)
• The Emperor of All Maladies: A Biography of Cancer

  

  From Everand

  The Emperor of All Maladies: A Biography of Cancer

  Siddhartha Mukherjee

  Rating: 4.5 out of 5 stars

  4.5/5 (271)
• The Sympathizer: A Novel (Pulitzer Prize for Fiction)

  

  From Everand

  The Sympathizer: A Novel (Pulitzer Prize for Fiction)

  Viet Thanh Nguyen

  Rating: 4.5 out of 5 stars

  4.5/5 (122)
• Angela's Ashes: A Memoir

  

  From Everand

  Angela's Ashes: A Memoir

  Frank McCourt

  Rating: 4.5 out of 5 stars

  4.5/5 (441)
• Brooklyn: A Novel

  

  From Everand

  Brooklyn: A Novel

  Colm Tóibín

  Rating: 3.5 out of 5 stars

  3.5/5 (1947)
• The Little Book of Hygge: Danish Secrets to Happy Living

  

  From Everand

  The Little Book of Hygge: Danish Secrets to Happy Living

  Meik Wiking

  Rating: 3.5 out of 5 stars

  3.5/5 (401)
• A Man Called Ove: A Novel

  

  From Everand

  A Man Called Ove: A Novel

  Fredrik Backman

  Rating: 4.5 out of 5 stars

  4.5/5 (4770)
• The World Is Flat 3.0: A Brief History of the Twenty-first Century

  

  From Everand

  The World Is Flat 3.0: A Brief History of the Twenty-first Century

  Thomas L. Friedman

  Rating: 3.5 out of 5 stars

  3.5/5 (2259)
• Steve Jobs

  

  From Everand

  Steve Jobs

  Walter Isaacson

  Rating: 4.5 out of 5 stars

  4.5/5 (807)
• The Art of Racing in the Rain: A Novel

  

  From Everand

  The Art of Racing in the Rain: A Novel

  Garth Stein

  Rating: 4 out of 5 stars

  4/5 (4203)
• The Yellow House: A Memoir (2019 National Book Award Winner)

  

  From Everand

  The Yellow House: A Memoir (2019 National Book Award Winner)

  Sarah M. Broom

  Rating: 4 out of 5 stars

  4/5 (98)
• Devil in the Grove: Thurgood Marshall, the Groveland Boys, and the Dawn of a New America

  

  From Everand

  Devil in the Grove: Thurgood Marshall, the Groveland Boys, and the Dawn of a New America

  Gilbert King

  Rating: 4.5 out of 5 stars

  4.5/5 (266)
• A Tree Grows in Brooklyn

  

  From Everand

  A Tree Grows in Brooklyn

  Betty Smith

  Rating: 4.5 out of 5 stars

  4.5/5 (1929)
• Yes Please

  

  From Everand

  Yes Please

  Amy Poehler

  Rating: 4 out of 5 stars

  4/5 (1898)
• A Heartbreaking Work Of Staggering Genius: A Memoir Based on a True Story

  

  From Everand

  A Heartbreaking Work Of Staggering Genius: A Memoir Based on a True Story

  Dave Eggers

  Rating: 3.5 out of 5 stars

  3.5/5 (231)
• Team of Rivals: The Political Genius of Abraham Lincoln

  

  From Everand

  Team of Rivals: The Political Genius of Abraham Lincoln

  Doris Kearns Goodwin

  Rating: 4.5 out of 5 stars

  4.5/5 (234)
• The Woman in Cabin 10

  

  From Everand

  The Woman in Cabin 10

  Ruth Ware

  Rating: 3.5 out of 5 stars

  3.5/5 (2522)
• Fear: Trump in the White House

  

  From Everand

  Fear: Trump in the White House

  Bob Woodward

  Rating: 3.5 out of 5 stars

  3.5/5 (738)
• Wolf Hall: A Novel

  

  From Everand

  Wolf Hall: A Novel

  Hilary Mantel

  Rating: 4 out of 5 stars

  4/5 (3811)
• John Adams

  

  From Everand

  John Adams

  David McCullough

  Rating: 4.5 out of 5 stars

  4.5/5 (2409)
• On Fire: The (Burning) Case for a Green New Deal

  

  From Everand

  On Fire: The (Burning) Case for a Green New Deal

  Naomi Klein

  Rating: 4 out of 5 stars

  4/5 (74)
• The Light Between Oceans: A Novel

  

  From Everand

  The Light Between Oceans: A Novel

  M.L. Stedman

  Rating: 4.5 out of 5 stars

  4.5/5 (789)
• Manhattan Beach: A Novel

  

  From Everand

  Manhattan Beach: A Novel

  Jennifer Egan

  Rating: 3.5 out of 5 stars

  3.5/5 (792)
• The Constant Gardener: A Novel

  

  From Everand

  The Constant Gardener: A Novel

  John le Carré

  Rating: 3.5 out of 5 stars

  3.5/5 (104)
• The Unwinding: An Inner History of the New America

  

  From Everand

  The Unwinding: An Inner History of the New America

  George Packer

  Rating: 4 out of 5 stars

  4/5 (45)
• Rise of ISIS: A Threat We Can't Ignore

  

  From Everand

  Rise of ISIS: A Threat We Can't Ignore

  Jay Sekulow

  Rating: 3.5 out of 5 stars

  3.5/5 (137)
• Little Women

  

  From Everand

  Little Women

  Louisa May Alcott

  Rating: 4 out of 5 stars

  4/5 (104)