abstraction in marx methodx

8/8/2019 Abstraction in Marx Methodx

1/14

Abstraction in Marxs MethodRJ.Horvath and K.D. Gibson

University of Sydney Australian National University

INTRODUCTIONf achievements in science were simply the product ofscientific effort, the methodological basis of historicalI aterialism should now be firmly established Surelyno ground within the terrain of historical materialism has

been trodden more often than method. Yet, despite thisconsiderable effort, we still do not possess the consensusprerequisite to either a textbook summary or routinescientific application. Furthermore, like Western Marxismin general, attempts to reconstruct Marxs method havebeen dominated by philosophers (Anderson 1980). Thesignificance of this dominance is that the classic textswithin historical materialism have been read, as Alt-husser reminds us, from the point of view of philosophy.The difference between a philosophic reading and asocial scientific reading of a given set of texts lies in thequestions posed. As social scientists working within theMarxist tradition we approach the reconstruction andextension of Marxs method with specific questions inmind They are: (1) How do we complete Marxs un-finished scientific project of which Capital represents abeginning?(2 ) How does historical materialism rigorouslyinvestigate real concrete capitalist formations, such asEngland in 1867? (3 ) How do we explain changes thathave taken place, and are continuing to take place, withincapitalism? In this essay we shall argue that an importantpart of the answer to these questions emerges from aconsideration of Marxs conception of abstraction.Marx left little doubt that he regarded abstraction as afundamental part of his method, for as he stated in thePreface to Capital: In the analysis of economic formsneither microscopes nor chemical reagents are of assist-ance. The power of abstraction must replace them both(Marx 1976:90). On the other hand there is equally littledoubt that Marx left few clear indications of how a bstraction was to be used. Instead, we must infer from hisown scientific work how abstraction was employed as atool in its construction. Our task thus resembles that of thearchaeologist confronted by the great Egyptian pyramidswho must determine the role different tools played in theirconstruction. But our interest is not restricted to the

archaeology of Marxs method. We are also concerned torefashion abstraction so that it can help answer thequestions raised above. In the space of one essay, we willnot be able to engage in a critique of the variousreconstructions of Marxs method which have precededours. Ilyenkovs critique in The D ialectics of the Abstractand the Concrete in Marxs Capital clearly shows thatsuch commentary would require book length treatment.For the same reason we are not able to use the method ofabstraction to help clarify substantive problems such asthe development of Marxist theories of space, class or thestate in this paper.As the terrain we are about to traverse is difficult, webegin with a map that should help to chart our movements(see Figure 1). In brief, we argue that abstraction is anepistemological method which involves two kinds ofintellectual filtering of the fundamental features of a givenconcrete social formation. The first filter we term level ofabstraction. This involves identifying the degree of his-torical specificity which enters into the construction of aparticular theoretical category. We discuss four levels ofabstraction identified with Roman numerals as a matter ofconvenience. The second filter we term complexity ofabstraction. Used especially by Marx as an expositorydevice, this is the movement in thought from simple tocomplex abstraction, for example from the economy tothesocial formation.In Section 1 of the paper we discuss the differencebetween universal abstractions formulated at level I andhistorically specific abstractions formulated at level I1 ofabstraction. Also discussed is the movement from simpleto complex abstraction at the universal, level I of a bstraction. Broadly speaking Marxs scientific project wasconcerned with the difference between these two levels ofabstraction and it is in the discussion of this section thatthe methodological answer to the first question raisedearlier is addressed. In Section2 we discuss the relatonshipbetween abstract and concrete. Here we argue that Marxsmethod of abstraction requires us to distinguish betweenthe general concrete and the specific or real concrete. Themethodological answer to the second question concerningconcrete scientific investigation is thereby contained in

12


2/14

A TYPOLOGY OF ABSTRACTION

P R OD U C TI ON3

PRODUCER- NON-PRODUCER-R E L A T I O N S R E L A TI NS

U N I V E R S A L NON-PRODUCER NO N- PRODU CER

+ OMPLEXI M P L E ~SUBSTRUCTURE I SUPERSTF

THEORY OFS T A T E

A B S T R A C T I O N I ECONOMY ( 1 1 I S T A T E (2 )

C A P I T A L I S TI DE O LO G Y I NGE N E R A LVA R I N TI D E O L O G I E S

1 THEORY OF MODES OF I

C A P I T A L I S T S O C I A LFOR MA TI ONI N G EN ER ALA R T I U LA TE DFOR MA TI ON OFSUBMODES OFP R OD U C TI ON

I 1U C T IO N I NGEN E RA LI 1 1V A R I A N T OFTH E MOD E OFP R OD U C TI ONI VSPEC I I CCONCRETE

MODE OF PROD-C A P I T A L I N G EN ER AL

C A P I T A L I S TS T A TE I NGE N E R A LV A R I A N TS T A T EFORMS P E C I F I CCONCRETEC A P I T A L I S TS T A T E

C A P I T A L - CAP I A L -L A B 0 U R C A P I T A LR E L A T I O N S R E L A T I O N SVA R I N T V A R I A N TC - L c-cR E L A T I N S R E LA T I ON SA S P E C I F I C C ON CR E TE E CONOMY AS P E C 1F IC SPEC I I CCONCRETE CONCRETEc - L c -cR E L A T I O N S R E L A T I O N S

SUBMODES OF P R OD U C TI ON

C TU R E GE N E R A LI D E O L O G Y ( 3 ) I C O N C R E T E ( 4 )

AS P E C I F ICCONCRETEC A P I T A L I S TI D E O L O G Y

AS P E C I F I CCONCRETES O C I A LFORMAT I ON

*INCLUDING THE THEORY O F TH E ARTICULATION OF MODES OF PRODUCTIONFigure 1: A Typology of Abstraction

this section. In Section 3 we are concerned with the thirdquestion, namely, how do we theorize the major changeswhich have taken place within the history of the capitalistmode of production. Our answer is to suggest a level ofabstraction concerned with identifying structural-geneticvariants of capitalism.

SECTION 1: AHISTORIC (LEVEL I) ANDHISTORICALLY SPECIFIC (LEVELI I ) THEORYWithin the Marxist tradition the distinction betweenahistoric theory, employing universal or suprahistoricalcategories, and historically specific theory, utilizing cate-

gories which are relevant to particular epochs of humanhistory, is widely accepted. After all, this distinction ismost central to the method of historical materialism. Wewould like to formalize this theoretical differentia byarguing hat these two typesof theory are developed at twoseparate levels of logical and historical abstraction whichwe designate for convenience level I (universal theory)and level I1 (historically specific theory). Although thereare significant differences between the levelI abstractionsemployed by bourgeois theorists and those used by Mam,he did not deny the need for universal theory. Moreimportant for his, however, was theory which coulddescend from the empyrean heights of historical generalityto fi x upon the specific determinants of social life under

particular historical circumstances. In making this case inmore detail in this section, we would like to emphasize hatthe movement from level I to level I1 analysis embodiedfor Mam no discontinuity in the method of dialectical andhistorical materialist enquiry, but merely a systematicinclusion of more specifically historic abstractions.

Level I Abstractions and Theory(1) Marxs Critique. The projection of transitory

relations from one historical period onto all human societywas a fundamental flaw of bourgeois and socialist theoriesalike to which Marx objected. Marx felt that the real roleof general theory was misunderstood when ideologicalreflectionsof particular historic epochs were given universalapplication. Thus, his critiqueof existing theories involvesan identificationof their historical or social particularities.In Capital Marx argued that Proudhon creates his idealof justice, of justice eternelle, from the juridicial relationsthat correspond to the production of commodities ..(1976: 178f); and that Adam Smith was the quintessentialeconomist of the period of (capitalist) manufacture ..(1976:468f). His comments on Bentham are especiallysavage, for Bentham assumes that the modem pettybourgeois, especially the English petty bourgeois, is thenormal man... He applies this yardstick to the past, thepresent, and the future, rather than recognizing the

13


3/14

historical specificity of the E nglish shopk eeper( 19763759f).Marx argues that the principle of Benthams interest,namely utility, can only be ded uced after first having dealtwith hu ma n nature in general [our level I], and then w ithhuman nature as historically modified in each epoch(1976:759f).This separation of general from specific characteristicsby means of two levels of historical abs traction con stituteda major breakthrough for the scientific understanding ofhuman society. Not only did it allow Marx to build atheory of the essential relations which constitute history,but it provided a methodological gauge against whichtheoretical propositions pertaining to human society couldbe measured in order to determine their relative explanatorypower. Marxs critique of existing theory did not, however,preclude the appropriation of those insights generatedwithin a bourgeois framework which, onc e placed withintheir historically relevant co ntext, provided enlightenmen t.Con sider the way in which Ma rx both criticized and builtupon Ricardos theory of value. As Zeleny has clearlyshown M a m did not dismiss Ricardos investigationsinto the quantitative re lations of commod ity exchange asworthless for an understanding of the real basis ofexchangevalue and the character of capital. H e recog-nized their positive role in the acquisition of scientificknowledge of the objects under investigation (Zeleny1980: 13). While he appropriated into his own schemaRicardo s analysis of the qu antitative relationships betweenlabour input and exchange value, Marxs theory of valueis radically different because of the questions pu t aroundthis analysis, before it and after it (Zeleny 1980:17). F o rRicardo, value was a universal measure of concrete labourresident in the use, or value, of any co mmo dity; it could becalibrated in terms of absolute physical magnitudes ofdirect living labour and indirect labour embodied in themeans of production. By contrast, for Marx, value wasthe historically specific form that useful labour took withthe emergen ce of capitalist commo dity production. It was,in fact, anabstract analytical category which had no form ofexpression outside of capitalist commodity exchangerelations.A t base, the d istinction between historical specificityand gene rality which pervades M arxs criticism of classicalpolitical economy reflects a fundamental philosophicalrupture with bourgeois theory. Zeleny identifies Marxscentral departure from universalist theory a s a depa rturefrom the ontological conception of essence as fixed. H edescribes Marxs conception of essence as fluid anddialectical.

While for Ricardo essence is something quali-tatively fixed and non-differentiable, Mamsees and investigates the alteration of thatessence; he understands it as something his-torically transitory which proceeds throughdifferent levels of developmen t and qualitativechanges (Zelen y 1980:21).

(2) Marxs Universal Theory. Although Marx ex-pressed a n intention to produce a universal theory whichcontained the general abstract determ inants which obtainin more or less all forms of society, he did not completethe work and only left fragments of s u ch a theorycontained in scattered texts (Ma rx, 1973: 108).2O n the basis of these fragments, a number of attemptshave been made to create a more detailed theory ofhistorical materialist principles at the highest level ofhistorical abstraction (Althusser and Balibar 1970; Hindessand Hirst 1975; Cohen 1978). It is our opinion that muchof what h as been written in this vein attempts to read fartoo much into the isolated texts we have a vailable on thistopic. Th e resulting conc eptions of historical materialismare ove rly s ta ti c and n a r r ~ w . ~ntil more systematicanalyses of modes of production other than the c apitalistmode have been completed, and we have a more solidmaterial basis upon w hich to propose detailed determina-tions of universal validity, we prefer to entertain anextremely flexible conception of theory at level I. We findencouragement for this laxity in this noticeably looselanguage Marx engages in his discussions of generaltheory. H e speaks, for example, of determinants whichobtain m ore o r less in all societies. Furtherm ore, not alldeterminants are to be found in all societies: So me deter-minations belong to all epochs, others to a few. (Some)determinations will be shared by the most mode m an d themost ancient (Marx 1973:85). Universal theory isobviously undeveloped in the classical texts. Given therelatively unspecified nature of theory at the most generallevel we propose to lay down what are for us the fewessential qualities of a universal historical materialisttheory.Clear ly some type of universal theory is necessary inorder to logically identify the limited persistence of stab lehistorical relations. A t this level, a category such as p i eduction in general, which is an abstraction, but arational abstraction in so far as it really brings out andfixes the comm on element and thus saves us repetition(Marx 1973:85), perform s the relevan t analytical function.But a t the level of universal theory, M arx not onlyidentifies a se t of structural categories, such as production,he also identifies the broad dynamics of social life. ForMa rx, ea ch essential category has both a structural and agenetic or dynamic quality (Zeleny 1980:113- 14). Tha tis, each abstraction, to be of any use, must grasp therelative stability of an essential relation which is fixedwithin certain limits, and at the same time must embodythe instabilities which co mprise the self-developing, self-destroying capability of any social relation. W ha t followsbriefly indicates the na ture of Marxs universal categories.Marxs approach to human society began with anidentification of a general structure through which flowedhuman labour. The elements of this structure are level Iconcepts: nature; raw materials; tools and technology;direct producers; non-producers; juridicial, legal andadministrative fun ctions; and religion, science, philosophy

14


4/14


5/14

level I I : Abstractions and TheoryThe continuous oscillation between abstractdialectical development and concrete historicalreality pervades the whole of Marxs Capital.At the same time it must be emphasized thatthe Marxian analysisdetaches itself continuallyfrom the sequence and superficialities of histori-cal reality and expresses in ideas the necessaryrelations of that reality.Only thus could Marxgrasp historical actuality,only by forming his scientific account as theinner arrangement, somewhat idealized andtypified, of the historical actuality of capitalistrelations (Zeleny 1980:36).

MarxsCapital is an exemplary analysis of an economyguided by the principles of historical materialism butdeveloped at a more specific level of historical absraction(our level 11) than that ahistoric universal level at whichthese principles are laid out. In the three volumes ofCapital Marx distilled from the historical realities of theBritish and European 19th Century economy whichsurrounded him, those features which constitute theessential nature of the capitalist mode of productionstripped of its historically and geographically specificdetails. Using a profoundly historical method of analysiswhich differentiated his work from classical politicaleconomy, he did not produce a theory of competitivecapitalism which has long been outdated, as some of hiscritics would have believed The genius of Marx was thatin his definition of the abstract theoretical categoriesprivate property, capital accumulation, surplus value, andlabour power as a commodity, he was able to penetrate thehistorical specificity of the 19th century English socialformation to identify the fundamental defining character-istics of the capitalist mode of production as it exists in allof its historical forms. For this reason we call thesecategories and relations capital-in-general abstractions.They constitute the essential defining characteristics withthe appropriate degree of historical precision to fix uponthe speci$ca diyerentia of capitalism, as opposed tofeudalism or socialism, and of historical grossness ofdetail to include the manifest variation of forms exhibitedin concrete capitalist formations. Marx characterized hisabstractions as pure or ideal average concepts. Thus,he described the general rate of profit not as an empiricalaverage, but as a tendency toward equalization, seekingthe ideal average, i.e., the average that does not exist, i.e.,a tendency to take this ideal as a standard (Marx1967: 173). These ideal average tendencies were alsoformulated as pure concepts, i. e., unaffected by disturbing influences.6 Marx described his work as follows:

In a general analysis of this kind it is usuallyalways assumed that the actual conditionscorrespond to their conception, or, what is the

same, that actual conditions are representedonly to the extent that they are typical of theirown general case (1967:143).In Capital we find a theory of the capitalist mode ofproduction wherein the general and essential conditions of

existence of economic and social life are dialecticallyinterwoven, and capital is defined as a social relation ofproduction. The social aspect of capital is based on theexistence of two pure classes, the capitalist and the prole-tariat (including a reserve army of the unemployed). Theexistence of these classes constitutes the essential pre-condition of the mode of production and they are constantlyreproduced by capitalism (Marx 1976:711-724). Thecapital-labour relation is, then, the historically specificform (at level 11) that the universal (level I) directproducer-non-producer relation takes within the capitalistmode of production. Recall that Marx suggested that theinner secret of all economic formations is contained inthis relation and he especially directs our attention to themanner in which unpaid surplus-labour is pumped out ofthe direct producer. Under capitalism this takes thehistorically specific (11) form of the production andextraction of surplus value (S) . Variable capital (V ) isanother general economic category which

... s only aparticular historical form of appear-ance of the fund for providing the means ofsubsistence, or the labour-fund, which theworker requires for his own maintenance andreproduction, and which, in all systems ofsocial production, he must himself produceand reproduce (Marx 1976:713).

Similarly, constant capital (C) is the historically specificform of means of production which is owned by thecapitalist and is separated from the means of consumptionunder capitalism.Given these basic concepts (S , V and C) those capitalin general categories appropriate to the immediate sphereof production which are determinants of the laws ofmotion of the system as a whole, may be derived:

S=the rate of surplus value;V= organic composition of capital; andv r- c+v

-- - he rate of value profit.c+vIn that capital accumulation is nothing but capitalizedsurplus value or the reconversion of extracted surplusvalue into capital, we can see what Marx had in mindwhen he claimed that capital is not a thing, but a socialrelation between persons which is mediated throughthings (Marx 1976:932).On the whole Marx had little to say about relationsamong non-producers at the universal level. In Capital,however, social relations between capitalists, the capital-

16


6/14

capital relation, became a central interest. Marx identifiescapitalist competition, the necessary defining characteristicof non-producer relations in the mode of production, asthe historically specific dynamic which engenders funda-mental contradictions with the particularly capitalisticclass based nature of production, contradictions capableof inducing systemic breakdown. It is upon the capital-capital relation that Marx bases his theory of price,including that of cost price and prices of production, ofprice-profit, the general rate of profit and the tendency forthe general rate of profit to fall (Marx 1967:Par ts I-IV).Beyond specifying the generic relation of competitionbetween individual capitals, Marx defined fractions of thecapitalist class on the basis of their different mechanismsof surplus accumulation. Industrial capital derives itsprofit from the unequal exchange between capital andlabour in the direct process of production; commercialcapital derives its commercial profit by organising theunequal exchange of commodities between consumers inthe market place; banking capital derives its interest fromthe unequal exchange of money capital between investorsand borrowers; and landed capital derives its rent inpayment for the use of natural resources which it privatelyowns and controls.The architecture of Capi ta l is built, then, upon thefoundations of the capital-labour and capital-capital socialrelations of production. Marxs analysis shows that thedefining asymmetry of class relations to the means ofproduction gives rise to the contradictory interactionsmanifest in struggle between capital and labour over theproduction and extraction of value (the primary contradic-tion) and competition between capitalists over the appro-priation of surplus value (the secondary contradiction). Itis these relations and their interactions which produce andin turn are reproduced by the economic laws of motion ofthe system; capital accumulation( the expanded reproduc-tion dynamic) and the tendency for the profit rate to fall,that is for the capitalist class to undermine the basis oftheir own class power (the transition dynamic).Marxs analysis of the historically specific form thatuniversal social relations of history took revealed theimportant discovery that the capitalist system was itselfnot in perpetual equilibrium but had suffered painfulgenesis and continued toembody contradictory, potentiallydestructive tendencies. The revolutionary insight to whichthis analysis gave rise was that progressive social trans-formation will only come about via conscious and informedorganisation of the working class, the producers of socialwealth (surplus value) whose interests are directly opposedto those of capitalist employers. The triumph of theMarxist method of dialectical historical materialism wasthat this strategic prognostication was based upon ascientific examination of the inner arrangements andessential contradictions of the capitalist mode of produc-tion culminating in the identification of its systemictendency towards breakdown. It is this tendency whichforms the objective and necessary conditions for revolu-

tionary transformation, to which the subjective and SUR-cient conditions of organized class struggle must be joinedin order to effect socialist change (Marx 1970:21).We might add at this point that Capi ta l by no meanscontains a complete theory of capitalist society. If we referto Figure 1 we see that the superstructural aspects of themode of production, and the nature of the capitalist socialformation, have not been dealt with in any depth, if at all.Capital contains a theory of the economic sphere ofcapitalism. In this sense it is abstracted not only from thehistorical realities of a particular capitalist economy, aswe have been arguing above, but it is also abstracted fromthe complexities which comprise a whole capitalist society.SECTION 2: THE ABSTRACT-CONCRETEPOLAR IT Y

Another whole aspect of Marxs method concerns therelationship between abstraction and the concrete. Am-biguity and confusion surround the abstract-concretepolarity in Marxs work and this lack of conceptual claritystems in part from the famous introductionto the Grundrissewhere Marx juxtaposes the concrete to the abstract in tworather different ways (1973:lOO-108). In this text Marxconsiders concrete reality as the point of departure fromwhich to move towards abstract concepts. H e states: Itseems to be correct to begin with the real and the concrete,with the real precondition... (Marx 1973:lOO). As well,he speaks of a second kind of concrete, what he calls theconcrete in thought. This concept appears to be theproduct of thinking and its creation is by means of anepistemological procedure that Marx believed was theonly way in which thought appropriates the concrete,[and] reproduces it as the concrete in the mind (Marx1973:lOl). In the following discussion we wish to distirrguish in greater detail between what we call thespeczxc orreal concrete and thegeneral concrete(called the concretein thought in the Grundvisse).

T h e G e n e r al C o n c r e t eThroughout the bulk of Marxs works the distinctiveontological position forged by historical materialism con-cerning the relationship between thought and being,abstract and concrete, permeates all an aly~i s .~ hatremains less clear is a distinctive epistemological pro-

cedure by which abstract and concrete are mediated.8 InCapital Marx had little to say about how abstractconcepts are discovered in the real concrete, let alone howhis theory could be applied to the scientific analysis of areal concrete social formation once it was developed. Hisconcern was mainly with the expository development ofthe theory of capital in a manner which led the reader froma consideration of certain simple abstract concepts to aconsideration of increasing numbers of concepts and their17


7/14

interrelations until a picture of the whole mode of pr od uotion at the economic level was created. Thus the endproduct, the three volumes of Capital, constitutes theessential charac teristics of capitalist economies recreatedas concrete-in-thought: concrete because it is the con-centration of many determinations, hence unity of th ediverse ( M am 1 973: lOl) .Th e radical difference in style and format between theGrundrisse an d Capital indicates the concern M arx hadfor theoretical exposition. Clearly, the structure ofCapitaldoes not reflect the actual ordering of thought processeswhich led to formation of the theory it contains. It doeshowever, reflect the principles by which scientific analysisof a complex system can proceed. By separating theeconomy from all instances comprising a social formation;and by separating for initial examination the immediatesphere of production (Capital Volume I) from that ofcirculation (Volume 11) and distribution (Volume III),Marxs examination of an historically specific form ofhuman society moves from simple abstraction o increasinglycomplex abstraction. A general concrete theory of th ecapitalist social formation would, however, go far beyondCapital Volume I to I11 to explore all those areas M arxhad originally conceived of addressing at the level I1 ofabstraction. A s it stands we have a well developed theoryof the capitalist mod e of production in general, but a s yetno systemically developed theory of capitalist politics ofcapitalist ideology in general. For this reason we are farfrom appro priating in the mind the totality of the cap italistsocial formation and its dynam ics at any level of historicalabstraction.We are not arguing here that the movement fromsimple to complex abstra ction forms a mechanical re cipefor theoretical appropriation of the world around us.Marxs grasp of capitalist society incorporated someawarenes s of all of its aspe cts and obviously a feel for all oftheir interrelations. W e are only stating that Ma rx usedthe logic of abstraction to system atically isolate from thecomplex whole particula r relations for examination. H echose to concentrate first upon those economic relationshe considered were fu ndamen tal to the functioning of thewhole and began his work by c onsidering those productionrelations upon w hich the econom y is based. By doing soMarx did not intend to understate the role politics andideology play in the reproduction of capitalist society; hejust did not have the time to begin to systematicallyanalyse all of their central connections to the economyand whole social formation.

On e of the comm on errors which some M arxists havemade is to confuse Marxs movement from simple tocomplex theory with a movem ent by uccessive approxi-mation to the real concrete (Sweezy 1970: 19); Fine andHarris 1 97 9:6 -ll ). Although it is true that a morecomplex theory is mo re realistic, in tha t it includes alarger number of determinations, it cannot be eq uated witha real concrete economy or social formation. A t level I1 oftheoretical abstraction increasingly complex determinations

can only more closely approximate all the pure, idealaverage aspects of the general concrete capitalist socialformation. What, then, of the specific concrete socialformation existing at a given time and place? W e ca n onlyanswer this question by co nsidering the alternative move-ment of abstraction between levels of historical specificity.The Specific Concrete

The relationship between the general laws ofmotion of capital-as discovered by Marx-and the history of the capitalist mode ofproduction is one of the most complex p ro blems of Marxist theory. Its difficulty can bemeasured by the fact tha t there has never yetbeen a satisfa ctory clarification of this relation-ship (Ma ndel 197 8:13).W hen one searches within M arxs writings for somerecognisable method for the app lication of theory to a realsociety, we find not surprisingly little or nothing which

resembles a bourgeois historiography or a social sciencemethodology. the reason for this silence was notunconsciousness on Marxs part, for he argued from 18 46onwards that human practice should mediate theory and aspecific conc rete situation.12 Capitalism was t o be over-thrown, and for Marx its collapse appeared so imminentthat the task of developing an historical materialistempirical method of validating the laws of motion ofcapital must have seemed less urgent.At present the imminence of capitalist demise seemsless likely and we are led to question whether M arxs viewis still justifiable. Is there a need to develop an explicitmethodology, able to relate abstract theory to specificconcrete situations? O ur view is that su ch a methodologyis a necessity, not in order to overthrow the centralmediating role of praxis, but as a necessary scientificsupplement and integral aid to class struggle. Indeed asSayer (1981:6) has argued ...the failure to grasp thespecifities of the conc rete inevitably weakens attempts toinform practice. Pra ctice alw ays takes place in the muddywaters of the concrete. Without such a procedure theMarx ist tradition has, as a n hypothesis testing methodology,only the spending of the working class in situationswhere a theoretically informed analysis of a specificconcrete situation is wrong. That such a procedure isunsocialist would seem t o go without saying. W e areinterested in developing a less expensive route totheoretical validation.O ur approach to the problem of engaging in theoreticallycoheren t and em pirically rigorous specific concrete analysisis to begin by examining the kind of abstraction whichresults from work at this level. Such is the differencebetween the conceptual knowledge produced by usingabstract theory to analyse specific concrete situations,and Marxs pure, ideal average, capital in general typeabstractions, tha t we envisage this knowledge as located

18


8/14

at yet another level of theoretical abstraction (IV).A specific concrete ab straction is produc ed by analysingthe impure, unique, and specific occurrence of a pure,ideal average abstraction in a given time and place. InoYneTwords, it is an abstraction lormed th o u & the unionof two distinct levels of abstraction whereby the specificindividualityofa mod e of production and its superstructureis identified. In such a move ment we would distinguish, forexample, the English eco nomy , state, ideology, and socialformation in 1867 from capital in general, the capitaliststate in general, capitalist ideology in general, and acapitalist social formation in general by their levels ofhistorical abstraction (Figure 1). It is at level IV ofabstraction that facts are produced within an historicalmater i a l i s t f r ame~0rk . l~hese facts, which may take theform of a record, text o r data series pertaining to a specificconcrete setting, are thus a reflection in thought of aparticular level I1 category such as the organic com positionof capital. Both facts and categories are abstractions,forms of the co ncretein-thought.Term inological confusion is avoided if we distinguishclearly between the specific concrete, which refers toabstractions at level IV alone, and the general concrete,which is synonom ous with social totalities at all four levelsof abstraction. Althussers conception of a social formationas a concrete complex whole comprising economicpractice, political practice and ideological practice at acertain place and stage of development (A lthusser andBalibar 1970:313) occurs in our schema where thespecific and the general concrete unite (Figure 1). We usethe term social formation, however, to refer to anygeneral concrete social totality at any level of abstraction.Why Althusser failed to recognise the two types ofconcrete mixed up in his concepts of social formationand conjuncture may relate to the idealist focus of hisproblematic (An ders on 1 980:6; M andel 1978: 18-24)which prevented him from seriously considering the levelof abstraction at which Marxia n emp irical work is conductedSECTION 3: TRANSITION THEORYWITHIN MODES OF PRODUCTIONIntroduction

Movem ent from the theory of a mode of production t oanalysis of its concrete form is more difficult than theprevious discussion would suggest. This is because theactual history of the developed object is inevitably at odd swith the theory of its ideal average form. Fo r example, inan analysis of a current capitalist economy we are forcedto take into account the historical developmentof capitalism,which includes the im pact of internal systemic transforma-tion, as we try to use the ideal average theory of capitaldeveloped by Mam. This raises the whole issue oftransition within and between modes of production, an

issue crucial to the development of a specifically Marxistempiricism, and yet it is here that methodological andtheoretical confusion reigns.To take the analysis of capitalism as our majorconcern the question must be posed how do we under-stand the historical development of the capitalist mode ofproduction an d by what method c an we apply the insightsof Marxs theory of capital to a particular concreteconjuncture given the obvious differences between thetheory as developed and the object as it exists? Rarelyapproached head on and debated within the Marxisttradition, these theoretical qu estions have been lo st in thepragmatic acceptance of stages of capitalist growth. Theemp irical identification of stages of capitalist developm entis usually based on the assertion tha t one, or a number ofthe inner tendenc ies of the ca pitalist system, have, throughtheir realization or intensification, perm anently transformedthe na ture of ca pitalist economies.14It is patently obvious that the capitalism of Marxs daydiffered in man y respects from the capitalism of the turn ofthe 20th century and from that which exists today. M arxhimself recognized the differences between th e ca pitalistmodes of production based upon manufacture and thespecifically capitalist mode of production based onmodem industry. The fact that in all these cases thedefining characteristics of the mode of production are truesuggests that capitalism is capable of transforming to adegree whilst remaining fundamentally unchanged Weare of the opinion that our method of abstraction can beginto address some of the problems associated with under-standing the dialectical relationship embo died by transitionwithin a theoretically constant set of characteristics. Weargue that it is possible to analyse the general definingrelations of the capitalist mode of production (C M P) at alower level of logical historical abstraction. A t this level(111) it is possible to examine the variety of specificallycapitalist forms generated by the inherent dynamic ofcapitalist relations. T ha t is, we can study the dynamic ofcapitalist developm ent in two ways: one, at the capital ingeneral level of abstraction where the potential for it togenerate breakdown and the transition between modes of pro-duction is demonstrated; and the other at a m ore historicallyconstrained level of abstraction w here the potential for itto generate new forms of capitalism and transitionbetween these forms can be shown.W e a re proposing that a method consistent with theprinciples by which the theory of capital in general isdeveloped can be used to derive a more integrated theoryof the historical chang es the capitalist mode of productionhas experienced. Th e levels of abstraction we propose arethus different from those employed by U no in that insteadof distinct methods and subject matter associated withdistinct levels of abstraction, o ur formulation suggests tha tmethod and subject matter remain the same. It is merelythe assumptions of historical generality and logical ideal-new that are relaxed so as to enable the theorizedidentification of variants of the mode of production,

19


9/14

elsewhere named submodes of production (Gib son , 19 8 1 ;Gibson, Graha m, Shakow and Ross, 1983; Gibson andHorvath, 1983% Gibson, 1983) .

Crisis and TransitionIt is a principle of historical materialism that crisis

plays a decisive role in the transition between modes ofproduction. S ystem ic crisis arises from clas s struggle as itinteracts with fundamental contradictions between theforces and relations of production of an existing mode(Marx 1970:20-21 ) . Th e theory of capitalist crisis en c a psulated by the tendency for the general rate of profit to fallis an ideal demonstration of how the law of value couldoperate to destroy the class relations at its very basis,namely capitalist class power over labour via ownershipof the means of production. Crisis accompanying break-down an d transformation of the mode of production wouldinvalidate the capitalist law of value and its associatedlaws of motion and would engender a new form ofproduction complete with its own specific reproductivedynamic. It is clear from a review of history that the m anyand frequent crises to which capitalism ha s been sub jectedhave not in general contributed to a transcendence ofcapitalist production relations. Rather than producingrevolutionary transformation of the mode of production,they have engendered restructuring of existing relations,reaffirmation of bourgeois clas s power a t all levels, and amaintenance or even expansion of the exploitative socialrelations of capitalist production. M oreov er it is the sameinter-class and intra-class struggles, a product of thedefining contradictions of the mo de, which play a significantrole in shaping the rearrangement and reinforcement ofcapitalist relations.Thus the dynamic relations of capitalist productioncreate crisis conditions which can be resolved throughclass struggle either by a restructuring of the mode ofproduction for the bourgeoisies own e nds or by a revolu-tionary transformation of the mode of production forworking class ends. It is our interest to consider at a lowerlevel of abstraction how the laws of motion operate toresolve capitalist crisis by transition within the mode ofproduction. By m oving to a lower level of abstrac tion wecan consider how the law s of capital ope rate in a modifiedway under, for instance, conditions of constrained ca pitaland labour mobility, and imperfect competition, wherevalue- price prop ortionality ca nnot b e a ssum ed a nd ageneral rate of profit cannot be formed. Given theserealities, the historically specific forms of the capital-labour and capital-capital relations crea te many differentconditions of value production and surplus value accumu-lation. Without the value-price assumptions engaged byMa rx in the Volume I11discussion of surplu s redistributionwithin the capitalist class, it is necessary to recognise therelative autonomy of the price and value spheres. Themodified relationship between price sphere phenomena ( a

product of the capital-capital relation) and value spherephenomena ( a product of the capital-labour relation) at thislower level of abstraction mea ns tha t the tendency for therate of profit to fall canno t be interpreted empirically. ASits constituent relations still, however, hold in the valuesphere, we must engage a more dialectical, modifiednotion of value-price relations and the c risis mechanism.The central contradictions of the capitalist mode ofproduction a ct to produce a tenden cy for individual valuerates of profit to decline. Decline need not necessarilystem from a general rise in the organic composition ofcapital throughout the whole economy. T he overt potentialof the wage earning population to erod e or resist the abilityof capital to extract surplus value either directly fromlabour or indirectly from other capitalists in the pricesphere in itself can create the conditions for a decline inindividual value profit rates.Dec line in the value sphere relationship is reflected inprice profitability in term s of a number of factors: risinglabour costs of production, increased disruption of produc-tion continuity, industrial sabotage and other generalmeasures of investment ri sk Crisis is then precipitatedby means of a slowdown in capital accumulation and areduced potential to obtain outside capital in its moneyform to finance restructuring. The unevenness producedby the range of price profit rates encourages ca pital, in itsmost mobile, money form, to move from industry toindustry investing and disinvesting according to differentialreturns offered in the price sphere.Devalorization of capital becomes the phenomenalmanifestation of capitalist crisis. Brought on by thewithholding of credit to pro ducers with relatively decliningprofit rates, devalorization involves the inability forproductive cap ital to realize its value. In its most drasticform devalorization is expressed as bankruptcy and plantclosure. Less visible expressions a re turndowns in the rateof production and reduce d expansion of production capacity.Th e actual proc ess of devalorization protects the collectiveinterests of capital as a class. It tends to further weakenthose individual entrepreneurs and industrial sectors thatare experiencing some challenge to capitalist hegemony,thus increasing the likelihood for easy takeover by strong ercompetitors. T he ag ent of devalorization is tha t individualor institutional actor w ho, in the quest for price profitability,consciously or unconsciously protects capitalist classinterests by denying capital to industries suffering adecline in value profit. Suc h agents may take m any formswithin different historical contexts.

Devalorization becomes, then, the process whichleads to restructuring within the C M P. D isinvestment andslow downs in production tend to also weaken laboursposition vis-a-vis capital. Con tinued inter-firm and intra-industry competition forces scattered business failuresamongst the har dest hit capitalists and under utilization ofcapital stock. Both produce lay-offs and an erosion oflabours bargaining position. Thus fertile ground forreorganization of capital-labour and capital-capital re-20


10/14

lations are created giving rise to the potential for emer-gence of a new structure of production. It is within theseconditions that transition to new structural variants ofcapitalist production takes place. Restructuring can beseen, then, a s a response to crisis expressed as decline invalue rates of profit and devalorization, or disinvestmentin the prices sphere.Having dealt briefly with the notions of a modifiedcrisis theory and laws of motion of capital, it is necessaryto consider the inner organizational components of s u bmodes of production in order to identify more clearly thedegree of historical specificity( at level111)involved in ourstructural genetic variants of modes of production. Jus t asMarxs analysis of the capitalist mode of production ingeneral is based upon two contradictory social relation-ships, that of exploitation between capital and labour(Capi ta l I) and that of competition between capital andcapital (Capi ta l I1 and 111), so here the definition ofsubmodes of capitalist production is based upon theidentification of more historically specific variant formsofthese two sets of relations. We attempt to remain con-sistent with the logical structure of Capital in our expo-sition in order to avoid the methodological hiatus whichhas resulted from appending a stage theory to Capital(e.g., Lenin 1978) or negating the relevance of its pro-positions to the current phase of capitalism (Baran andSweezy 1968).At the capital in general level of abstraction theconditions of accumulation within the capital-labourrelations in the immediate sphere of production arespecified as:( 1) a labour force deprived of ownership of the means ofproduction and thus subsumed by capital;(2) the production of surplus value in the capitalistlabour process and the appropriation of this value bycapital as part of the wage contract;( 3 ) the existence of a surplus population (the industrialreserve army) which exerts a downward pressureupon the amount of value returning to the worker asvariable capital (Marxs level of accumulation);

In the sphere of exchange and distribution, involvingrelations between individual capitals, the conditions of thecapital-capital relation are specified by:the existence of three types of CapitaLproductive(P), money (M) and commodity (C) capital-allnecessary to the functioning of the system, all incompetition with each other for the highest rate ofreturn and structured in a contradictory relationshipsuch that M and C are dependent upon P in whosecontrol the process of value creation lies;(2 ) free capital and labour mobility creating conditionsof competition between individual productive capitals;(3 ) the formation of a general rate of profit by whichsurplus value is redistributed in the price spherefrom less to more efficient producers.

The three variants of the developed capitalist mode ofproduction that we identify must be considered at a morehistorically specific level of abstraction than that usedabove. These submodes of capitalist production arearticulated combinations of modified capital-labour andcapital-capital relations. The distinctive structural deter-mination of each submode is the interaction of its particularlever of exploitation and mode of surplus appropriation. Inthe competitive submode the lever available to capital is alocalized, undifferentiated surplus labouring population inthe classical mode of the industrial reserve army, whichcreates a downward pressure on the wages of all of theemployed labour force. Classical competition betweenmany small capitalists results in little redistribution ofsurplus value between capitals in the price sphere, exceptthat taking place between producers of one commoditywhose production conditions vary from the average or-ganic composition of capital and rate of exploitation forthat industry. The mode of surplus appropriation is onewhich, at least within the productive fraction, operates onan ad hoc basis internal to any one industry. Capitalaccumulation takes place via ruthless competition centeredaround the lowering of commodity prices by undercuttingmarket prices and pressuring the wage down to the level ofsubsistence or below.In the monopoly submode the lever available tocapital is a segmented labor force in which an industrialreserve army mechanism, as such, acts only upon the mostperipheral worker, while other groups within the laborforce are disciplined by more subtle modes, including theorganizational constructs they themselves set up. Mono-poly market dominance of one group of capitalists overanother within a sector or industry branch results in aredistribution of surplus value in the price sphere via anunequal exchange between subordinate suppliers, sub-contractors, and consumers with dominant monopolyproducers. The mode of surplus appropriation operates ona structured intrasectoral basis. The large monopolysubmode firms protect themselves from the vagaries ofunbridled capitalist anarchy by displacing the worsteffects of the business cycle onto their subordinatelyarticulated competitive suppliers; a highly exploited frac-tion of the workforce provides the means by whichmonopoly interests accumulate and their associatedworkers make progressive gains in wages and conditions.In the global submo de the lever available to capital isa revitalized industrial reserve army of peripheralized orsecondarized labor. Cheap labor a t any location can nowbe drawn into any facet of international production byhighly mobile capital, such that no one local group ofworkers is necessarily central to capital but all labor isrendered peripheral. Market and financial power ofcross-sectoral and cross-fractional conglomerates organ-ized on a global basis over smaller capitals in any onesector results in a redistribution of surplus value via rapidinvestment and disinvestment in smaller capitalist ventures,unequal exchange with both capitalist and working class

21


11/14

consumers of internationally monopolized commodities,and other financial manipulations such as differential taxwrite-offs. Th e mode of surplus appropriation operates o na cross-sectoral basis. Produ ctive activity is subordinatedto the interests of financial investment; capital transferfrom one productive activity or investment possibility toanothe r and the p laying off of one local labour force andpolitical investmen t climate against another becomes theprimary mode of expanding accumulation.Ma rx was able to m ore clearly specify the revolutionarypotential of the working class having analysed the com-ponent parts and dynamics of the capitalist mode ofproduction. W e would hope that our specification ofvariants of the capitalist m ode of production will assist inthe more detailed identification within capitalism ofrevolutionary potentials a nd countervailingforces. To thisend we must understand how it is that variants of thecapitalist mode of production articulate together inchanging asymmetrical arrangem ents of power. Th at is, acoherent view of the progressive strategies available tolabour must rest upon an understanding of the unevendevelopment of the system itself. In the pure, idealaverage theory of cap ital in general, uneven developmentswithin the system are abstracted from so as to minimizecomplexity. Thus the revolutionary strategy which em ergesfrom the analysis proposes broad based organization ofthe working class to withdraw labour from capital and thusundermine the reproductive ability of capitalist class re-lations. While categories developed at the capital ingeneral level can be examined in specific concrete situ-ations in all their uneven detail (see Aglietta 1979; Rey1973; Ma n d e ll 9 7 Q this type of study does not i lluminatethe issue of the relationship between developed and lessdeveloped components of the system. T he unevenness ofcapitalism is such tha t organization of labour at one pointis counterbalanced by increased exploitation of labour a tanother. O ur theoretical tools must enable us to grasp thisreality. Within the articulations of variant forms of thecapitalist mode of production we conce ive of the internalrelations of dominance and subordination structured byunequal flows of value between submodes. Given thisstructure, an appropriate strategy for labour involved inone submode of production is quite different from thatoffering any rev olutionary potential for labo ur involved inanother. Fo r instance, our analysis leads us to view thecurrent conjuncture of capitalism as determined by funda-mental crisis in the existing manifestations of a monop olysubmode, and emergence of an increasingly dominantglobal submod e of production. As this new form of globalcapital struggles to subordinate the existing representativesof the monop oly and compe titive submod es and other pre-capitalist modes of production the many different labourforces involved are faced with vastly different strategicagendas: opposition to plant closures and worker support ofstate protection on one hand and the basic right tounionize on another. How can one form of strugglecontribute to and strengthen another? It is this type of

question that we hope the development of our morehistorically specific theoretical analys is of capitalism canbegin to answer.

C ON C L U S I ON SIn this essay we have attem pted to set out a view of theplace of abstraction in Marx s method. W e are notclaiming tha t Mar x viewed his method exactly as we havedeveloped it here. Instead, it is our opinion that Marxnever fully settled how abstraction functioned in hisoverall method and certainly, a s is well recognised, neverwrote a satisfactory account of its role in his work.We have attempted to identify two movements in theintellectual filtering process of abstraction that Marxutilized to uncover the laws of motion of human society:the movement towards historical specificity and themovement from simple abstraction to logically complexabstraction. O ur analysis provides a basis upon which torespond to the three questions posed in the introduction.

W e have suggested that a completion of Marxs theory ofcapitalism involves first and forem ost a recognition of thelevel of abstraction at which the general theory of capital isdeveloped. Failure to recognise what we term level I1abstractions has led to claims, both w ithin and w ithout theMarxist tradition, that Capital is a theory of 1 9th centurycapitalism and is accordingly out of date. Another m istakenview is that a general theory of the capitalist state orideology is somehow inconsistent with Marxs scientificproject as the class struggles which appear to be pre-eminent within the political and ideological spheresrequire a more conc rete analysis. W e recognise the needfor concrete analysis of all of the aspects of capitalistformations, but argue that a completed general theory ofcapitalism would be an invaluable aid in such analysis.The investigation of real concrete capitalist or otherformations involves, we have argued, w ork at a differentlevel of abstraction. Level IV is where the scientificpractice of empirically identifying the laws of motion ofcapital as well as other theoretical c ategories of historicalmaterialism takes place. It is at this level of abstractionthat the problematic of Marxian empirics is situated.Clashes between Althusserians and Thompsonians overthe correct method of historical materialist scholarshiphave largely arisen from the abse nce of a satisfactory viewof a Marxist empirical method. In a forthcoming bookentitled Marxian Empirics written with Don Shakow andJulie Graham, we will offer a view of how the empiricalpractice of historical materialism can be moved beyondproviding illustration alone (M ar x 1976:90).Capitalism h as changed and continues to do so whileremaining capitalist in a fundame ntal sense. Ou r solutionto this apparent dilemma is to develop a theory oftransition within the capitalist mode of production at athird level of abstraction. The theory we propose at thislevel is formulated within the same theo retical format a s

22


12/14

in general Level I1 theory of capital. The theory ofsubmodes of capitalist production employs the notion ofvariants of the mode of production rather than the stageformat which has thus far dominated attempts to updateCupiful(Baran and Sweezy 1968; Fine and Harris 1979;Mandel 1978; Uno 1980).We recognise that abstraction is only one aspect ofMarxs method and that a systematic treatment of otheraspects (such as dialectics) of the methodological basis ofhistorical materialism is still required, W e will extend thisclarification of abstraction into other areas of Marxsmethod in our future work as well as demonstrate theutility of our clarified method for solving problemsinvolved in engaging in intellectual labour within aMarxist framework.

FOOTNOTESDesce ndants of this theoretical tradition, the ne eR ica rdi an s,reduce value to a physically uniform measure by m eans ofthe notion of dated labour-time. See Gerstein ( 1976:28), andColletti (1977:45 0) for a discussion of this.The more prominent texts include the Introduction to theGerman Ideology, the text on Precapitalist Modes ofProduction in the Grundrisse, the Preface to the Critique ofPolitical Economy, and Capital, Volume I (1 976:283-92) ;Volume 111 (1 959:79 1-92).Perhaps the most extreme version of a narrow theory ofhistorical materialism is that put forward by Co hen ( 1978) .Basing his work on the 7 00 word te xt within the P reface tothe Critique of Political Economy, Cohen constructs a setof universal principles which he cla ims are the essen ce ofMarxism. On the strength of his reconstruction Cohen isprepared to dismiss the foundations of Capital, namely thelabour theory of value and th e crisis tendency of the capitalistmode of production. In doing so he rejects some of theexplicitly historical an d innovative aspects of Ma rxs theoryin favor of further proliferation of universal claims. W ithou treference to anything more historical or material than a fewsmall texts he, in one movement, increases the number ofreal constraints within which social change mu st operate!N o clearer evidence of the poverty of non-dialecticalfunctionalism is available than Cohens defense.Thus C ohen h as recently argued for a technological deter-minist Marxism, one which gives priority to forces ofproduction, whereas Wright has responded with an argu-ment for the centrality of relations of production (Cohen1978; Wright 1981) . Obviously one could relate thedifferent paths followed in the USSR and Chin a towardsconstruction of a socialist society t o the different positionsupon primacy adhered to by the theoretical leaders of eac hrevolution.

5. Of which Wright has identified a few in his typology ofdeterminations (1 978: 15-29) .6. The se qualities of Marxs abstractions have been recognisedby many Marxists, thus U no ( 198O:xxvi-xxvii) speaks ofpure abstractions; Althu sser (Althusser and Balibar 1970:194-96) describes these alternatively as pure, ideal

average or core forms; Volpe characterizes these asdeterminate abstractions. Each, however, understandsthese qualities of Marxs abstractions from the perspectiveof different epistemological positions to that which we aretaking here.7. The similarities and differences between the Marxianontology and that of other philosophers is interestinglydiscussed by Zeleny (198 0: 196).8. Volpe (1978:99) and Althusser and Balibar ( 1 970) bothattempt very abstract discussions of such a procedure butneither produce , in our view, a very satisfactory or applicablemethod.9. In the Introduction to the Grundrisse Marx lays bare theorder oft he ambitious theoretical project upon which he hademba rked. Procee ding from what we have identified as levelI theory he planned to consider:

( 2) Th e categories which make up the inner structureof bourgeois society and on which the fundamentalclasses rest. Capital, wage labor, landed property.Their interrelation. Town and country. The threegreat social classes. Exchange between them. Cir-culation. Credit system (private). (3 ) Concentrationof bourgeois socie ty in the form of the state. Viewed inrelation to itself. Th e unproductive classes. T axes ,state debt. Public credit The pop ulation The Colonies.Emigration. (4) The international relation of ex-change. Export and import. Rate of exchange. ( 5 )Th e world market and crises (Ma rx 197 3: 108). A sis well known Marx died before progressing morethan halfway through project Num ber (2).10. W e can identify attem pts by various theorists to fill thissilence. Hollow ay an d Picciotto( 19 78) and others involvedin the Germ an debate have begun to elaborate the notion ofa capita l in general theory of the state, tha t is, an historicalmateri alist theory of politics specific to the capitalist modeof production. I t might be possible to develop Marxs viewof fetishism of commodities into a theory of capitalistideology in general, but this is mere speculation.1 1. Swee zys concep tion of the moveme nt through increasinglylower levels of abstraction from Volume 1 o111iscontradicted,as he himself points out, by the increasing absence offactual material. Th is he puts down to the unfinished state ofVolumes I1 and I11(1970: 19). The F ine a nd Harris versionof successive approximation is slightly different. Theyargue that logical order of increasingly complex conceptsfound in Capital somehow accords with material reality( 1 9 7 9 : l l ) .12. Ma rx writes Th e dispute over the reality or non-reality ofthinking which is isolated from practice is a purely scholasticquestion (M arx 2n d thesis on Feuerbach), and again, Thephilosophers have only interpreted the world in variousways; the point, however, is to change it (M arx 11 h thesis

on Feuerbach).13. Fro m the perspective of historical materialism we recognisethree types of facts: discursive, stylized and transformedfacts. Marxs Capital largely relies upon discursive facts asillustration. The se are facts, such a s those available infactory inspectors reports, which closely match varioustheoretical categories but rarely exist in a time series andthus canno t be used to identify th e tendential aspectsof thelaws of motion of capitalist societies. Stylized facts, suc h as

23


13/14

those used by Aglietta ( 197 9) or the authors (19 8 3b), arefacts produced within the framework of a non-Marxiantheory (for exam ple, Keyn esian profit data in a time seriesformat) which are employed as surrogate indicators ofMarxian categories. Transformed facts are those whichhave been either collected within a M arxia n framework ortransformed to become consistent with the categoriesdefined by M arxi st theory. A discussion of the above, alongwith an analysis of the American economy from 1947 to1978 using transformed facts is the basis of a forthcomingbook entitled Marx ian Empirics by Don Shakow, Ju lieGraham , Kather ine G ibson and Ron Horvath .

14. The discussion of stages theories by, for example, Len in,IJno or Baran and Sw eezy, rarely hypothesizes the mann erin which concrete historical events are mirrored by a logicaldialectical theory of the development of the object ( theCMP) itself . Instead, Marx's categories are stretchedaround the fluid reality of 20th century capitalism andphases of development a re characterized by such criteria asdistinct forms of capitalist competition, oversea s imperialistpenetration or levels of technical developmenc all easilyrecognizable superficial changes which are claimed toreflect more significant underlying developments. Theproblem of such theories is that they abandon the con-ception of the capi talist syst em as a self-developing, lawfuland contradictory, but above all inter-connected whole. T heportrayal of systematic transformation as a result of move-ments of one or a few tendencies implies an overlyunidirectional view of change and a conception of thesystem quite divorced from that developed in Marx'sCapital. W ha t is needed is a more systemic consideration ofthe mode of production in transition.

15 . In naming these submodes we have appropriated threeterms widely used by political economists-competitive,monopoly and global. This is perhaps an unfortunateselection as one term is a spatial concept whilst the othertwo are ec onomic categories an d one s with m any differingdefinitions both within bourgeois economics and radicalpolitical econom y. T here is a dan ger that this nomenclatureconfuses our argument by conjuring up an image ofsomet hing quite different from the way in which we conc eiveof a submode. For this reason we can only assert that thenames are merely convenient shorthand terms of referenceto a complex set of relations. By appropriating them weground our analysis somew hat in the analyses of capitalismwhich have gone before, but by using them in conjunctionwith the category submode we radically differentiate ourwork from existing studies of these stages or forms ofcapital.

REFERENCESAglietta, M., 1979 ,A T heo rj OfCapitalistRegulation, London:Aithusser, L. , 1969 , For Marx, Harmondsworth: PenguinAlthusser, L., and Balibar, E., 1970 , Reading Capital, London:Anderson. P., 1980, Arguments Within Engl ish Marxism,Baran, P . and Sweezy, P . , 19 68, Monopoly Capital, N e w Y o r k

New Lef t Books.Books.New Left Books.London: New Left Books.Monthly Review.

Becker, J., 1977. Marxian Political Economj: New York:Cambridge IJniversity Press.Cohen, G.A . , 1978, Kar l Marx ' s T h e o g i ofHistoty: A Defense,Princeton, New Jersey: Princeton University Press.Colletti. L., 1977. 'Som e Comm ents on Marx's Theory ofValue,' in The Subtle Aiiatom,s of Capitalisni, E d . J .Schwartz, Santa Monica: Good Year.Fine, B. and Harris, L., 1979, Rereading Capiial, London:Macmillan.Gibson, K .D.. 1981 , 'Structural Change within the CapitalistMode of Production: The C ase of the Australian Economy.'IJnpubIished Ph.D. thesis, Clark [Jniversity.Gibson, K.D., 1983 , ' Industrial Reorganization and CoalProduction in Australia, 18 60 to 1982: An HistoricalMaterialist Analysis, ' Austrirlian Geographical Studies,forthcoming.Gibson, K.D., Gra ham , J. , Shakow. D. andR oss. R.. 1983:ATheoretical App roach to Capital and Labour Restructuring,'in Restructuring Regio ns-Ma rxist Interpretation.\ of Re -gional Ch ange in Advanced Capitalism, ed. J. Carney,London: Croom H elm.Gibson , K .D . andHorva th , R J . , 1983a ;Aspec tso faTheo ryo fTransition Within the Capitalist Mode of Production, 'Societjt and Space 1 , 2 .Gibson, K.D. and Horvath , RJ . . 3983b, 'Global Capital andthe Restructuring Crisis in Australian Manufacturing,' E c p

nomic Geography, 5 9 , 2 , April.Gerstein, Ira, 19 76, 'Production, Circulation and Value: TheSignificance of the "Transform ation Problem" in Marx'sCritique of Political Econo my,' Economji and Societj: 5 . 3.Hindess, B. and Hirst, P., 1975. Pre-Capitalist Modes ofProduction, London: Routledge and Kegan Paul.Holloway, J. and Picciotto, S. Eds . , 1978 , State and Capita1:AMarxist Debate. London: Edwa rd Arnold .Ilyenkov, E.V., 1982, Th e Dialectics of the Abstract and theConcrete in Marx's Capital, Moscow: Progress Publishers.Lenin, V.I., 1978, Imperialism. the Highest Stage o f Capitalism,Moscow: Progress Publishers.Mandel. E., 197 0, 'Th e Laws of Uneven Development. ' Ne wLeft Revieit' 59 .Mandel, E., 1978. Late Capitalism, London: Verso.Marx, K., 1967, Capital Volume I I I , New York: InternationalMarx, K.. 1970, A Contribution to the Critique of PoliticalMarx. K ., 1973 , Grundrisse, New York Vintage Books.Marx. K., 1976 , Capital. Vol. I Translated by Ben Fowkes,Mam, K., 1977, Capital. Vols. 2 an d 3,New York In ternationalRey, P., 1973. Les Alliances de Classes. Translated by J.Sayer. A. 198 , Abstrac tion: A Realist Interpretation,' Radical

Publishers.Economy, London: Lawrence and Wishart.

London: New Left Review.Publishers.

Becker, Paris: Maspe ro.Philosophj: 28, Summer .

24


14/14

Sweezy, P., 1970, The Theory of Capitalist Development, NewThompson, E.P., 1978, Th e Poverty ofThe ory, London: MerlinTucker, RC., Ed., 1972, T h e M a n - E n g e l s Re a de r, new Yo rkUno. K. , 1980, Principles of Political Econom?: Sussex:

York Monthly Review Press.Press.W.W. Norton and Company.Harvester Press.

Special Issue - Sudan N0.26

Volpe, G. della. 1978, Roussearc and Marx, London: LawrenceWright. E.O.. 1978. Class, Crisis and ihe Siaie, London: N ~ MZeleny, J. . 1980. The Logic q f M a m ; London: Black\\ell.

and Wishart.Left Books.

Subscription (3 issues) 6 individuals (U K & Africa). US$15(Elsewhere); Stude nts g4.50 (Sterling only). Cheques (US$ on U SBanks, International M.O. or Sterling) payable to ROAPE, 341Glossop Rd., S heffield S10 ZHP, England.I25

abstraction in marx methodx

Documents