dan swain - justice as fetish

7/27/2019 Dan Swain - Justice as Fetish

1/13

Justice as Fetish

Presented at the 2013 Marx and Philosophy Society Conference, Central London

15.06.2013

Dan Sain,

Abstract:

In this paper I challenge those who have argued that Marx's critical project ought to be

combined or supplemented with normative theories of distributive justice, particularly along the

model of liberal theorists such as John Rawls. hese arguments tend to suggest that Marx was

either incorrect or inconsistent in rejecting the language of rights, justice and distribution.

he wea!ness of such accounts lies in their use of an ideal theory method for deriving

principles of justice combined with a particular model of the individual subject. "rawing an

analogy with the wor! of #vgeny $ashu!anis, I argue that the model of the liberal subject

implied by such theories shares features with the commodity form in the same way as, according

to $ashu!anis, the legal subject. he liberal subject can thus be understood as a !ind of fetish.

%urthermore, the presumption in favour of ideal theory can tend to systematically mas! this

fact, presenting the liberal subject as the product of distanced reflection, rather than a specific

social form.

hese features of liberal theories of justice suggest that such theories are going to be limited in

their scope for radical criticism, and in particular that they do not fit easily into a Marxist

criti&ue. Marx had good reason to be suspicious of such theories.

1. !he "#estion of Marx$s attit#de toards "#estions of distri%#ti&e '#stice is a (#ch

de%ated one. )n the one hand, Marx fre"#ently explicitly re'ects the lan*#a*e of ri*hts

and '#stice, s#**estin* that it is either (eanin*less, or that it can only reflect the

existin* str#ct#re of society. )n the other, (any interpreters of Marx ha&e s#**ested

either that he relies on an i(plicit theory of '#stice, hich can occasionally %e seen to

rise to the s#rface, or that he o#*ht to ha&e had s#ch an explicit theory, and that his

pro'ect s#ffers as a res#lt. +n this paper + ant to s#**est so(e reasons to thin that

Marx had *ood reasons to re'ect certain aspects of li%eral theories of '#stice, and that it

o#ld %e a (istae to thin that his pro'ect o#ld %e co(ple(ented %y one.

+n partic#lar, + ant to ar*#e that Marx had *ood reasons to re'ect any pro'ect

that in&ol&es criticisin* a social syste( accordin* to its coherence to principles hich

are deri&ed fro( a -(ore or less co(plete &ision of an ideal society, so(ethin* + tae

1


2/13

to %e characteristic of conte(porary theories of '#stice. / paradi*(atic exa(ple of this

approach can %e seen in the folloin* passa*e fro( ohn als$ heory of Justice

/ co(plete conception definin* principles for all the &irt#es of the %asic

str#ct#re, to*ether ith their respecti&e ei*hts hen they conflict, is (ore

than a conception of '#stice it is a social ideal. !he principles of '#stice are

%#t a part, altho#*h perhaps the (ost i(portant part of s#ch a conception. /

social ideal in t#rn is connected ith a conception of society, a &ision of the

ay in hich the ai(s and p#rposes of social cooperation are to %e

#nderstood... 4#lly to #nderstand a conception of '#stice e (#st (ae

explicit the conception of social cooperation fro( hich it deri&es. 1

!here are to ey feat#res of this (odel of criticis(, -1 the ideal &ision, and -2 the

principles that are associated ith it. !he sorts of principles hich are deri&ed are

*enerally distri%#ti&e ones, concerned ith the allocation of reso#rces and ri*hts

-incl#din* ri*hts to those reso#rces. !hese principles are (ore or less #ni&ersal, and are

concei&ed of as *enerally orderin* society in a $'#st$ (anner. !hey are, in this sense,

co(plete, ran*in* across all of society.

+t is i(portant to e(phasise these (ethodolo*ical "#estions in order to (ae

clear that so(ethin* *en#inely si*nificant is at stae. 4r#stratin*ly, in de%ates a%o#t

Marx$s attit#de to '#stice this is so(eti(es lost si*ht of. 4or exa(ple, ielsen s#**ests

that this disa*ree(ent (i*ht (erely %e a tri&ial &er%al one7.

2

/nyone ho conde(ns

capitalis( as exploitati&e or #ne"#al, he ar*#es, (#st a*ree... that capitalis( is indeed,

in the plain #ntechnical sense of the ter(, an #n'#st social syste(7.3Perhaps it is a

1 als, 1888, p. 8. +t is i(portant to note that + #se als here only as an exa(ple, al%eit a

paradi*(atic one. / nota%le difference %eteen als theory and so(e of those Marx re'ects isals$ restriction of -social '#stice to %ein* a property of political instit#tions. !he sense of '#stice +

tae Marx to %e re'ectin* is one %roader than this, that can apply to direct relationships %eteenindi&id#als, e.*. in the a*e relation. 9oe&er, this, it see(s to (e, does not alter si*nificantly the

(ethodolo*ical "#estions at stae.

2 ielsen, 18:8, p. 1;3.3 +%id, p. 1;0.

2


3/13

sy(pto( of too (#ch political philosophy, %#t it is entirely #nclear to (e hat the

plain, #ntechnical sense7 of '#stice is. +f it is (eant that $#n'#st$ is a si(ple ter( of

conde(nation, ith no attendant theoretical %a**a*e, then + can only a*ree. !he (ost

strai*htforard response to this "#estion is $?eca#se this has already happened$. !he

(ethodolo*y that + s#**est Marx re'ects is one hich has %eco(e do(inant in /n*lo@

/(erican li%eral political philosophy, lar*ely thro#*h the or of als. !here exists a

certain (ethodolo*y ith hich the ter( $'#stice$ is stron*ly associated. +f the %a%y is

thron o#t ith the %athater, + a( te(pted to say that alsians ha&e only the(sel&es

to %la(e.

2. Marx$s re'ection of the lan*#a*e of '#stice *oes hand in hand ith a re'ection of hat

in conte(porary philosophy is called ideal theory, %#t he tended to call #topian. +n

1:A;, ha&in* *ained an infl#ential position ithin the Lea*#e of the #st, one of Marx

and Bn*els$ first acts as to effect a na(e chan*e. +t as henceforth to %e non as the

Co((#nist Lea*#e. !he reasons *i&en for this ere as follos

!his na(e is therefore no lon*er s#ited to the ti(e and does not in the least

express hat e ant. 9o (any there are ho ant '#stice, that is, hat

they call '#stice, itho#t necessarily %ein* Co((#nists =e are not

3


4/13

distin*#ished %y antin* '#stice in *eneral anyone can clai( that for

hi(self %#t %y o#r attac on the existin* social order and on pri&ate

property, %y antin* co((#nity of property, %y %ein* Co((#nists.A

!his is part of a syste(atic %rea ith hat they considered to %e #topian (odes of

tho#*ht, a ay of thinin* that Bn*els o#ld later fa(o#sly characterise as follos

!he sol#tion of the social pro%le(s... the Etopians atte(pted to e&ol&e o#t

of the h#(an %rain. Society presented nothin* %#t ron*s to re(o&e these

as the tas of reason. +t as necessary, then, to disco&er a ne and (ore

perfect syste( of social order and to i(pose this #pon society fro( itho#t

%y propa*anda, and, here&er possi%le, %y the exa(ple of (odel

experi(ents.5

4or %oth Marx and Bn*els it as an essential political tas to re'ect this (ode of

tho#*ht, and to a&oid the sorts of &a*#e phrases and &isions on hich it relies.

Part of the (oti&ation for this re'ection is a *roin* #nderstandin* of socialis(

as re"#irin* the self@e(ancipation of the proletariat. M#ch of Marx$s pole(ic ith

others in this period in&ol&es a re'ection of &ario#s elitist (odels, in hich an

alternati&e &ision of society is handed don fro( on hi*h, either %y enli*htened despots

or radical intellect#als.

+f theory is to aid the ca#se of self@e(ancipation, it (#st %e capa%le of %ein*

taen #p %y those ho (#st e(ancipate the(sel&es. !his (#st %e in a deeper sense than

(erely inspirin* the( to action, rather they (#st %e capa%le of seein* it as their own,

not as i(posed %y an o#tside a#thority. 9oe&er, if this is to %e the case then s#ch ideas

sho#ld %e of the sort in hich they can acti&ely recognise the(sel&es. !his (eans they

(#st %e ideas hich at %est emerge fromthe str#**les of the proletariat, or at least can

A Marx, 1:A;.5 Bn*els, 1::0, p. 3:2.

A


5/13

%e related tothose str#**les. !his is precisely hat the ar*#(ents of %oth the Etopians

and the ideal theorists lac. +n fact, they conscio#sly a&oid reference to these thin*s. /s

s#ch they deny the possi%ility of their theories playin* this role in self@e(ancipation.

=hilst this is, in part, a pra*(atic concern F if the self@e(ancipation of the proletariat is

a prere"#isite for socialis( then thartin* it is #nise F it is also an ethical one F

thartin* self@e(ancipation is itself pro%le(atic.

Enderlyin* this is an #nderstandin* of the relationship %eteen political theory

and practice. +n the second hesis on %euerbachMarx offers reflections on acco#nt of

the li(its of p#rely theoretical noled*e

!he "#estion hether o%'ecti&e tr#th can %e attri%#ted to h#(an thinin* is

not a "#estion of theory %#t is apractical"#estion. Man (#st pro&e the

tr#th, i.e. the reality and poer, the this sidedness of his thinin* in practice.

!he disp#te o&er the reality or non@reality of thinin* that is isolated fro(

practice is a p#relyscholastic"#estion.6


6/13

ideas. )f co#rse these cannot %e pro&ed in practice, %#t they ere ne&er intended to %e.

!h#s Ste&en L#es char*es Marx ith #nderesti(atin* the potential of s#ch thinin*,

ar*#in* that GMarxis(H has failed to exploit the practical stren*th of #topian thinin*,

%rin*in* li%eratin*, non@ro#tine perspecti&es to %ear #pon intracta%le pro%le(s in the

here and no7.;More recently, /lex Callinicos has ar*#ed that +t is its &ery

re(oteness fro( hat co#nts as feasi%le in the de%ased c#rrency of conte(porary

li%eral@de(ocratic politics that (aes Gals$H difference principle... a standin*

reproach to a orld here ine"#alities are plainly arran*ed to %enefit the %est off.7 :

/ccordin* to this line of tho#*ht, #topian thinin* can play so(e sort of practical role,

hether or not its reco((endations are act#ally i(ple(ented, or e&en achie&a%le.

9oe&er, for Marx, s#ch thinin* as (ore than #seless it as acti&ely

pernicio#s. +n a letter of 1:;; Marx hars %ac to de%ates ith #topian socialis(,

referrin* to it as silly, stale and basically reactionary 7.8 !hinin*of this sort as not

'#st silly, it in factf#nctioned to reinforce the existin* state of thin*s. 4ar fro( offerin*

a &ision free of the li(itations of (#ndane, e&eryday concerns, s#ch thinin* is

necessarily constrained %y those concerns, and often reprod#ces the( in #ncritical

ays. +deal &isions of the f#t#re society are %#t a sanitised reflection of the existin*

society.

!hese ar*#(ents echo those of the (erman Ideology, incl#din* the fa(o#s

assertion that Co((#nis( is for #s not a state of affairs hich is to %e esta%lished, an

ideal to hich reality GillH ha&e to ad'#st itself. =e call co((#nis( the real (o&e(ent

hich a%olishes the present state of thin*s.710!he (erman Ideologycontains an all o#t

assa#lt on a certain ind of philosophical a%straction. Stirner, ?a#er, and (any others

; L#es, 18:;, p. A6.

: Callinicos, 2006, p. 222.

8 Marx, 1::;.10 Marx and Bn*els, 1:A5, p. 5;.

6


7/13

are pilloried in the (ost sa&a*e ter(s for their atte(pt to red#ce the (o&e(ent of

history to a%stract philosophical cate*ories. +n place of these a%stractions Marx and

Bn*els assert the necessary connection %eteen ideas and the li&ed (aterial reality of

people. !his is intended as a re'ection of the idea that it is possi%le to si(ply thin in a

ay that is #nconstrained %y the (aterial conditions of o#r on existence. ather, the

phanto(s for(ed in the %rains of (en are also, necessarily, s#%li(ates of their (aterial

life@process, hich is e(pirically &erifia%le and %o#nd to (aterial pre(ises7.11

!he ar*#(ent a*ainst this ind of ideal theorisin* therefore *oes lie this S#ch

thinin* is only e&er the phanto(@lie, s#%li(ated, reflection of o#r life@processes.

!herefore it is of li(ited #se in any critical pro'ect hich sees to radically transfor(

those processes. +n partic#lar it is a pro%le( if this fact is ignored, if it is pres#(ed that

s#ch thinin* can e&er %e (ore than this. !his thinin* p#rports to %e li%eratin*, %#t is

in fact profo#ndly li(itin*. /t the core of this is not so (#ch the (ain* of

a%stractions, so(ethin* hich is an #na&oida%le feat#re of h#(an tho#*ht, %#t the

privilegingof those a%stractions o&er the (aterial thin*s they are a%stracted fro(.

3. Marx offers a paradi*(atic exa(ple of this ind of pri&ile*in* of a%stractions o&er

(aterial reality in his disc#ssion of co((odity fetishis(. 4etishis( is the process %y

hich feat#res hich are a conse"#ence of social arran*e(ents %eteen people tae on

the appearance of o%'ecti&e reality. 4etishis( arises fro( the nat#re of co((odity

prod#ction and exchan*e, and si(#ltaneo#sly conceals the tr#e nat#re of that

prod#ction. Cr#cially, fetishis( itself taes on a sort of o%'ecti&e reality. +t is not (ere

ill#sion. Marx corrects the +talian econo(ist Ialiani %y pointin* o#t that hen he said

$Jal#e is a relation %eteen persons$ he o#*ht to ha&e added a relation concealed

11 +%id, p. A2.

;


8/13

%eneath a (aterial shell7.12

Since fetishis( taes on this o%'ecti&e reality, it cannot %e dispelled (erely

thro#*h demonstratingthe social nat#re of &al#e. Marx insists that the analysis of &al#e

#ndertaen %y hi(self and other political econo(ists (ars an epoch in the history of

(anind$s de&elop(ent, %#t %y no (eans %anishes the se(%lance of o%'ecti&ity

possessed %y the social characteristics of la%o#r7.13+n this respect, at least, this

represents a stron* contin#ity ith the ar*#(ents in the (erman Ideology. Marx is

ar*#in* 1. !hat certain ideas are for(ed as reflections of the (aterial conditions of

h#(an life. 2. !hat treatin* these ideas as if they ere not s#ch reflections leads to

(ystification and #ncritical reprod#ction of those conditions of life. 3. !hat (erely

explainingthis is ins#fficient to re(o&e these ideas. +t follos fro( this that ideas o#*ht

to %e exa(ined in their connection to (aterial life and ne&er ass#(ed to ha&e

o%'ecti&ity independent of it. ?#t it also follos that s#ch ideas ill persist #ntil there is

a chan*e in the (aterial conditions of h#(an life.

Marx tals a%o#t the relationship %eteen '#stice and social life often in exactly

these ter(s. )n al(ost all of the occasions here he re'ects the lan*#a*e of '#stice it is

%eca#se they are seen as (erely reflectin* the existin* str#ct#re of society, So fa(o#sly

he ar*#es that ri*ht can ne&er %e hi*her than the econo(ic str#ct#re of society and its

c#lt#ral de&elop(ent hich this deter(ines.7 +n the Preface to the )ontribution to the

)riti&ue of $olitical #conomyhe rites that neither le*al relations nor political for(s

co#ld %e co(prehended hether %y the(sel&es or on the %asis of a so@called *eneral

de&elop(ent of the h#(an (ind, %#t on the contrary they ori*inate in the (aterial

conditions of life7.1A+n the$overty of $hilosophy Le*islation, hether political or

12 Marx, 1:6;, p. 16;n.

13 +%id, p. 16;.1A Marx, 1:58, p. 1;3.

:


9/13

ci&il, ne&er does (ore than proclai(, express in ords, the ill of econo(ic

relations.715

Marx rites in )apitalJol#(e 3 that

!o spea here of nat#ral '#stice... is nonsense. !he '#stice of transactions

hich *o on %eteen a*ents of prod#ction rests on the fact that these

transactions arise as nat#ral conse"#ences fro( the relations of prod#ction.

!he '#ristic for(s in hich these econo(ic transactions appear as &ol#ntary

actions of the participants, as expressions of their co((on ill and as

contracts that (ay %e enforced %y the state a*ainst a sin*le party cannot,

%ein* (ere for(s, deter(ine this content. !hey (erely express it. !his

content is '#st hene&er it corresponds to the (ode of prod#ction, is

ade"#ate to it. +t is #n'#st hene&er it contradicts that (ode. 16

+t$s orth notin* fro( this that it is possi%le to declare that so(e thin*s in capitalis( are

#n'#st. ot payin* a*es at the a*reed rate, ithholdin* holiday ti(e, enforcin* #npaid

o&erti(e, these are all #n'#st in this sense. )n this %asis capitalist society is -de facto

riddled ith in'#stices, %#t it is not #n'#st si(ply %y &irt#e of %ein* capitalist.

+t is th#s i(possi%le to assert that capitalis( is #n'#st, %eca#se the &ery (eanin*

of $'#stice$ is deter(ined %y the capitalist econo(ic str#ct#re. !o clai( that the a*e

relation is #n'#st is to (ae a radical error. 9oe&er, the o%&io#s response to this

ar*#(ent is to point o#t that (ost of those ho e(ploy theories of '#stice do not

e(ploy the do(inant notion of '#stice #nder capitalis(. ather, they are ar*#in* for

differentprinciples of '#stice to the ones instantiated %y capitalist relations of

prod#ction. or(an Ieras, for exa(ple, endorses a theory of '#stice hich expands its

scope to co&er the *enerality of social ad&anta*es, especially the relati&e a&aila%ility of

15 Marx, 1:A;, p. ;6.16 Marx, 1:8A, p. 33;@:.

8


10/13

free ti(e, ti(e, that is, for a#tono(o#s indi&id#al de&elop(ent7.1;!his is #ndo#%tedly

so(ethin* (ore radical than the do(inant ideas of '#stice #nder capitalis(. 9oe&er, it

is i(portant that Marx refers to theformof '#stice hich expresses the content

deter(ined %y the (ode of prod#ction. !his s#**ests a si*nificantly (ore radical clai(

+t is not '#st a (atter of partic#lar principles of '#stice %ein* li(ited to capitalis(, %#t of

the partic#lar for( that those principles tae.

!here are a n#(%er of for(al feat#res hich it is possi%le to dra o#t of theories

of '#stice. !hey are concerned ith distri%#tion -of *oods, entitle(ents, etc.. !hey rely

on a notion of the recipients of that distri%#tion the s#%'ect. Conse"#ently, they rely on

a notion of the relation %eteen the s#%'ect and that hich is %ein* distri%#ted -a notion

of $ri*ht$. 4inally, they rely -so(eti(es explicitly, #s#ally i(plicitly, onsomething to

do thedistributing the state.

=hat o#ld it (ean to say that this for( is inti(ately connected to the capitalist

(ode of prod#ction> =e can find a de*ree of analo*y ith the insi*hts of the So&iet

'#rist B&*eny Pash#anis. Pash#anis$ ai( as to do for le*al theory hat Marx does

for econo(ics, to analyse the %asic definitions of the le*al for( in the ay that

political econo(y analyses the %asic and (ost *eneral definitions of the for( of a

co((odity or of &al#e7.1:!his analo*y ith the le*al str#ct#re and the co((odity

for( is ey. #st as Marx sa the co((odity for( as ha&in* a fetish character, of

tain* on a life of its on in the (inds of people #nder capitalis(, Pash#anis sa the

le*al for( as de&elopin* in exactly the sa(e ay. Central to Pash#anis$ ar*#(ent is

that there is a homology%eteen the co((odity for( and the le*al for( of capitalist

society, i.e. they share a str#ct#re deter(ined %y the (aterial relations fro( hich they

e(er*e.

1; Ieras, 18:5, p. ;A.1: Pash#anis, 18:0, p. A1.

10


11/13

=hat are the characteristic for(s of la #nder capitalis(> !he (ost %asic #nit

of la #nder capitalis( is the le*al s#%'ect.18!he le*al syste( pres#pposes a person

endoed ith a ri*ht and acti&ely assertin* it7.20!o (aintain a syste( %ased on

co((odity prod#ction and exchan*e, it is necessary to de&elop an #nderstandin* of

people as indi&id#als ith the entitle(ent to possess and dispose of property.

!he s#%'ect as the %earer and addressee of all possi%le de(ands, and the

chain of s#%'ects %o#nd %y de(ands addressed to one another, is the %asic

'#ridic fa%ric correspondin* to the econo(ic fa%ric, i.e. to the social

relations of prod#ction hich depend on the di&ision of la%o#r and

exchan*e.21

4#rther(ore, '#st as capitalis( re"#ires a ay of #nderstandin* all la%o#r as a%stract,

i(personal, non@specific la%o#r, it has to #nderstand the la%o#rers the(sel&es as

a%stracted, #ndifferentiated %earers of properties and ri*hts +n the sa(e ay that the

nat#ral (#ltiplicity of the #sef#l "#alities of a prod#ct is in a co((odity a si(ple (as

of its &al#e, hile the concrete species of h#(an la%o#r are dissol&ed into a%stract

h#(an la%o#r as the creator of &al#e so the concrete (#ltiplicity of (an$s relationship to

an o%'ect appears as the a%stract ill of the oner, hile all the concrete pec#liarities,

hich distin*#ish one representati&e of the species*omo sapiensfro( another, are

dissol&ed into the a%straction of (an in *eneral as a le*al s#%'ect.7 22

+f Pash#anis is correct then the le*al s#%'ect is inextrica%ly lined to capitalist

social relations. + thin this criti"#e of the le*al s#%'ect can %e extended, at least

partially, to the (oral s#%'ect, #nderstood as an independent, a#tono(o#s possessor and

disposer of ri*hts, hich is characteristic of theories of '#stice. =hilst this s#%'ect is,

18 B&ery le*al relation is a relationship %eteen s#%'ects. / s#%'ect is the ato( of le*al theory, thesi(plest and irred#ci%le ele(ent. /nd ith +t e %e*in o#r analysis.7 +%id, p. ;A.

20 +%id, p. ;2.

21 +%id, p. ;1.22 +%id, p. ;6.

11


12/13

typically, renched fro( its le*al context, it retains exactly this for(. +t re(ains a

'#ridical (odel of the s#%'ect, and one hich %ears all the scars of the social relations

hich *a&e rise to it.

A. +t is possi%le to dra o#t so(e concl#sions fro( the ar*#(ents offered a%o&e

concernin* theories of '#stice

1. !heories of '#stice hich are dependent on ideal (odels of society are

inade"#ate %eca#se they fail to connect ith the li&ed experience of those ho

(#st act#ally transfor( society. !hey cannot therefore %e ade"#ately

incorporated into a pro'ect of self@e(ancipation

2. !heories of '#stice are inade"#ate %eca#se they tae a for( hich is necessarily

conditioned %y the capitalist (ode of prod#ction, and therefore inade"#ate to a

re&ol#tionary criti"#e of it.

3. !he ideal theory characteristic of -1 reinforces and contri%#tes to the for(al

li(itations descri%ed in -2. !he (ethodolo*y in&ol&ed in ideal theories

dis*#ises the extent to hich principles of '#stice are (erely ideolo*ical

reflections of the existin* state of affairs.

+n this sense theories of '#stice are %oth too close and too far fro( the (aterial %ase of

society. !hey are too far, %eca#se they fail to en*a*e ith people$s li&ed experience

they are too close, %eca#se they reprod#ce #nconscio#sly and #ncritically capitalist

prod#cti&e relations.

+n closin*, it is orth notin* that if it is correct to #nderstand aspects of the

li%eral s#%'ect as fetishes, then this has so(e conse"#ences. ecall that Marx does not

say that reco*nisin* so(ethin* as a fetish is s#fficient to free #s fro( its *rip. Doin*

that re"#ires transfor(in* the social relations on hich the fetish relies. !he pro%le( in

12


13/13

that sense is not so (#ch the fact that the s#%'ect is a fetish, %#t that the fetish character

is (ased %y a #ni&ersalisin* tendency. /cnoled*in* that theories of '#stice are a

for( partic#lar to o#r present society does not necessarily (ean e sho#ld ne&er

en*a*e ith the(, (erely that e sho#ldn$t ele&ate the( to a #ni&ersal stat#s they do

not deser&e. +n fact, s#ch an acnoled*e(ent (i*ht help #s no ho and hen to

#se the( as part of a str#**le for a %etter orld.

Bibliography

Callinicos, /lex, 2006,Resources of )riti&ue, Polity.

Bn*els, 4riedrich 1::0, $Socialis( Etopian and Scientific$, in Marx, K., and Bn*els, 4.,

+elected or!s in -ne olume, Larence and =ishart, 186:, pp. 358@A10.

Ieras, or(an, 18:5, $!he Contro&ersy /%o#t Marx and #stice$,/ew 0eft Review

1150, pp. A;@:5.

L#es,Ste&en, 18:;,Marxism and Morality, )xford.

Marx, Karl and 4riedrich Bn*els, 1:A5, he (erman Ideology, Pro(ethe#s ?oos,

188:.

Marx, Karl, 1:A;a, $Circ#lar to Me(%ers of the 4irst Con*ress of the Co((#nist

Lea*#e$.

Marx, Karl, 1:A;%, he $overty of $hilosophy, 4orei*n Lan*#a*es Press, Pein*, 18;:.

Marx, Karl, 1:58, $Preface to a )ontribution to the )riti&ue of $olitical #conomy$, in

Marx and Bn*els, +elected or!s in -ne olume, Larence and =ishart, 186:, pp.

1;2@1;6.

Marx, Karl, 1:6;, )apital olume 1, Pen*#in, 18;6.

Marx, Karl, 1:;;, $Letter to 4riedrich /dolfe Sor*e$.

Marx, Karl, 1:8A, )apital olume 2, in Marx and Bn*els, )ollected or!s3;,

Larence and =ishart, 188:.

ielsen, Kai, 18:8,Marxism and the Moral $oint of iew,=est&ie Press.

Pash#anis, B&*eny, 18:0,+elected ritings on Marxism and 0aw,?ierne and Sharlett

eds., /cade(ic Press.

als, ohn, 1888, heory of Justice, )xford.

13

dan swain - justice as fetish

Documents