is analytical marxism marxism_lebotwitz

8/12/2019 Is Analytical Marxism Marxism_Lebotwitz

1/25

S&S Quarterly, Inc.

Guilford Press

Is "Analytical Marxism" Marxism?Author(s): Michael A. LebowitzReviewed work(s):Source: Science & Society, Vol. 52, No. 2 (Summer, 1988), pp. 191-214Published by: Guilford PressStable URL: http://www.jstor.org/stable/40402871.

Accessed: 20/02/2012 19:34

Your use of the JSTOR archive indicates your acceptance of the Terms & Conditions of Use, available at.

http://www.jstor.org/page/info/about/policies/terms.jsp

JSTOR is a not-for-profit service that helps scholars, researchers, and students discover, use, and build upon a wide range of

content in a trusted digital archive. We use information technology and tools to increase productivity and facilitate new forms

of scholarship. For more information about JSTOR, please contact [email protected].

S&S Quarterly, Inc.and Guilford Pressare collaborating with JSTOR to digitize, preserve and extend access to

Science & Society.

http://www.jstor.org
http://www.jstor.org/action/showPublisher?publisherCode=guilfordhttp://www.jstor.org/stable/40402871?origin=JSTOR-pdfhttp://www.jstor.org/page/info/about/policies/terms.jsphttp://www.jstor.org/page/info/about/policies/terms.jsphttp://www.jstor.org/stable/40402871?origin=JSTOR-pdfhttp://www.jstor.org/action/showPublisher?publisherCode=guilford


2/25

Science & Society,Vol. 52,No. 2, Summer1988,pp. 191-214

IS "ANALYTICAL MARXISM" MARXISM?MICHAELA. LEBOWITZ

A. COHN, JONELSTER, JOHNROEMER - with-out question, hese reprolificwriters ith n impres-siveseriesof articles nd books,who have becomeasignificantresencencommentariesnddiscussions fMarxismin recent ears.Myfirstnkling, hough,hatmorehademergedon the cene amefrom 1983 rticle yJohnGraypassed nbya skeptical riend); or, he articlehailedtheemergencef "apowerfulewschoolofAnalyticalMarxism,y uchoutstandingfiguress G. A. Cohen,JonElster ndJohnRoemer, ithwhoseworks hefuturefMarxism,f t has any,musthencefortheassociated"Gray,1983,1461).Is therendeed uch a school?The evidence fthe xistenceofsomesuchself-definedroup s overwhelming.n hisMakingSenseofMarx,Elster ndicates hatCohen'sKarl Marx'sTheoryofHistory ame as a ''revelation":'Overnightt changedthestandardsf rigour nd clarity hatwererequired o write nMarx and Marxism."Accordingly,e notes, smallgroupoflike-mindedolleagues ormedndbegan series f nnualmeet-ings n 1979.Their discussionsweredecisive or he haping fElster's ook- and, n particular,hecontributionsf Roemer(subsequentlytatedn his"path-breaking"GeneralTheory fExploitation nd Class) were "crucial" Elster,1985,xiv-xv).1In turn,Roemerbeginsthe atter ook (Roemer, 982)bynotinghis particularndebtednesso Cohenand Elster,ndicat-ing among hosewho werehelpfuleveral therswho alsoappear1 Elster speciallythanksCohen and Roemerfor heir omments.He does notidentifythergroup membersbut,includedamong those thankedforpre-publicationhelp are Pranab Bardhan,RobertBrenner, eifJohansen, ergeKolm,AdamPrzeworski,an Steedman,RobertvanderVeen,Phillippe vanParijs and Erik Wright.

191


3/25

192 SCIENCE & SOCIETYon Elster's list.2Mentionedon both lists,Erik Olin Wright or-roborates heexistenceof thegroup, its annual meetings nd itsorientationtoward 'AnalyticalMarxism" in the prefaceto hisrecentbook, Classes; as well, he testifieshat ts "new ideas andperspectives ave had a considerable mpacton mythinking ndmywork" (Wright,1985,2).3 Finally,definitively mbracing heself-designationf "AnalyticalMarxism"is Roemer'snew collec-tionbythatname - a collectionwhich ncludesthree ssays achby Roemer, Elster and Cohen plus individual efforts y severalothers (Roemer, 1986).4So, what do the adherents hemselves ee as the constituentelements n AnalyticalMarxism?For Wright, hecentral ntellec-tual threadis the "systematic nterrogationnd clarification fbasic [Marxian] concepts and theirreconstructionnto a morecoherenttheoretical tructure" Wright,1985, 2). Similarly,asnoted,Elster dentifiedrigorand clarity" s theunderlying rin-ciple in the formationof the group. The most explicit self-description fAnalyticalMarxism,however, omes fromRoemerin the Introduction o his collection: "Analytically ophisticatedMarxism" is pursuedwith"contemporary ools of logic,mathe-matics, nd model building" and committed o "thenecessity orabstraction,"to the "search for foundations"of Marxian judg-ments, nd to "a non-dogmatic pproach to Marxism" (Roemer,1986,1-2). An impressive etofelements, o be sure.Wheredo weapply forcandidate status n thisanalytically orrect ellowship?More thanrigor,however, etsAnalyticalMarxismapart -as JohnGray'spraisefor his"powerfulnew school" makes clear.For, hailing the early Austrian criticismsof Marx by Bhm-Bawerk,vonMises and Hayek and thatofright-wing .S. econo-mist Paul CraigRoberts) nd genuflecting efore theprodigiousvirtuosityfcapitalism" and the marvels f themarket,Graywasfar from a sympathetic ommentatoron Marxism ("the firstworld view in human history hatis genuinelyself-defeating");his praise for Analytical Marxism occurs in the contextof alengthyanti-Marxistpolemic ("The Systemof Ruins").2 These include Lief Johansen,Serge Kolm and Erik Wright.3 Wright dentifiesmong the members f thegroup:Cohen,Roemer,Elster,van Parijs, van der Veen, Brenner,Przeworski nd Hillel Steiner.4 Included in this collection are essays by Bardhan, Brenner,Przeworski,Wrightand Allen Wood.


4/25

ANALYTICALMARXISM 193The practitionersfAnalyticalMarxism can not,of course,bear the responsibility orwhat others like Gray) write aboutthem.They bearresponsibilitynlyfortheir wn work.But con-sider hatwork. ncludedbyElster s "dead" in Marx in his mostrecentbook, An Introductionto Karl Marx) are the following:"scientificsocialism"; "dialectical materialism"; Marxian eco-nomic theory in particular, ts two "main pillars," the labortheory f value ("intellectuallybankrupt")and the theory f the

fallingrateof profits; nd, "perhaps the mostimportantpartofhistoricalmaterialism," he"theory fproductive orces nd rela-tions of production"(Elster,1986, 188-94). Similarly, n a longmarchthroughMarxianeconomics n hisAnalyticalFoundationsofMarxian Economic Theory Roemer, 1981),Roemer eft ntactonly the Marxian theory f exploitation;he thenproceeded nRoemer 1982) tofind venthisfinalsurvivornadequate.Exploi-tation,Roemernow informs s, is simply nequality.But what,then, s the difference etween the AnalyticalMarxistpositionand that of non-Marxistphilosopherssuch as Rawls? Roemeranswersthat "it is not at all clear"; "the lines drawnbetweencontemporarynalyticalMarxism and contemporaryeft-liberalpolitical philosophy are fuzzy" Roemer, 1986, 199-200).One mustwonderwhatreally s left f Marxism n Analyti-cal Marxism. n whatfollows,we will examinesomeof thiswork(especially that of Elster and Roemer) in order to explore theextent owhich t can be considered Marxist."The conclusionisthatAnalyticalMarxism s notMarxism- and that, ndeed, t isin essence an/-Marxist."Neoclassical" or "Rational Choice" Marxism?

There are several lternativeabels which have beenattachedto AnalyticalMarxismand its practitioners; hey nclude Neo-classical Marxism, Game-Theoretic Marxism and Rational-Choice Marxism. Consideration of these labels themselvesprovides good pointofentryntoan examination ofAnalyticalMarxism."Neoclassical Marxism,"as Patrick Clawson describedPhil-lipe van Parijs' articleon the falling-rate-of-profitontroversy,would appear on its face to be an oxymoronClawson, 109).Howcould such a construct xist?After ll, neoclassicaleconomicthe-


5/25

194 SCIENCE & SOCIETYory begins from the atomistic ndividual conceived as ontologi-cally prior to the whole, the particular society.This is the"Cartesian" heritage,so well analyzed by Richard Levins andRichard Lewontin, which it shares with methodologicalapproaches in other spheres:The parts reontologically rior othewhole; hat s,theparts xistnisolation nd cometogethero makewholes.The partshave ntrinsicproperties, hichthey ossess n isolation ndwhich heyendto thewhole. (Levinsand Lewontin, 69.)In neoclassical analysis,we have atomistic ndividualswho,withexogenouslygiven assets and techniques,enter nto relationsofexchange with each other n orderto satisfy xogenouslygivenwants; and society is the sum-totalof these arrangements fexchange.Nothingcould be furtherromMarx's perspective. o beginwiththe solatedindividualforwhom the variousforms f socialconnectedness re a "mere means towardhis privatepurposes"was simply"twaddle" (Marx, 1973,84). "Privateinterest,"Marxemphasized, "is itself already a socially determined nterest,which can be achievedonlywithintheconditions aid down bysociety nd withthe meansprovidedbysociety."To be sure, tisthe nterest f individuals,ofprivatepersons;"but itscontent, swell as the form nd means of its realization, s givenby socialconditions independentof all" (Marx, 1973, 156).

Thus, in the dialectical in contrast o theCartesian)perspec-tive, parts have no prior independentexistenceas parts.They"acquire properties yvirtue fbeing partsofa particularwhole,propertiestheydo not have in isolation or as partsof anotherwhole" (Levins and Lewontin, 273, 3). Marx's startingpoint,accordingly, s to develop an understanding fsociety s a "con-nectedwhole," as an organic system; t is to tracethe intrinsicconnectionsand to revealthe "obscurestructuref thebourgeoiseconomic system,"the "inner core, which is essentialbut con-cealed" on the surface fsocietyMarx,1968,65; Marx, 1981,311).Only thendoes Marx proceedto explorewhatis realwithinthisstructure orthe ndividual agentsofproduction nd how thingsnecessarilyappear to them.Having developed,forexample, "the generaland necessary


6/25

ANALYTICALMARXISM 195tendencies fcapital' on thebasis of theconceptofcapital (capi-tal as a whole), it was thenpossible to demonstratehow "theimmanent laws of capitalist production" were manifestedthrough the actions of individual capitalists in competition(Marx, 1977,433). As Marx notedrepeatedlyn the Grundrisse,"competition xecutes he nner aws ofcapital; makes them ntocompulsory aws towardsthe individual capital, but it does notinventthem. t realizes them"(Marx, 1973,414,552, 651,751-2).To beginanalysis,on the otherhand,with those ndividualcapi-tals (and withthe connections s they ppear in "thephenomenaof competition") produces a distortionof the inner structurebecause "in competitioneverything lways appears in invertedform, lways standing on its head" (Marx, 1968, 165).From this perspective, here s absolutelyno compatibilitybetweenthe atomistic approach of neoclassical economics andMarxism."Neoclassical Marxism"is eithernotneoclassicalor itis not Marxism.Can we say the same, though,about "Game-Theoretic" or "Rational-Choice" Marxism? In a recentessay,Alan Carling has proposed "Rational-Choice Marxism" as thelabel mostcharacteristicf the work in question, describing tsdistinctivepresuppositionas the "view that societiesare com-posed of human individualswho, being endowed with resourcesof various kinds,attemptto choose rationallybetween variouscourses of action" (Carling, 26-7). But, is this ust neoclassicaleconomics by anothername? Roemer's descriptionof rationalchoice models (in an essayentitled Rational Choice Marxism")as "general equilibrium theory, ame theory nd thearsenal ofmodelling techniques developed by neoclassical economics"might seem to suggest as much (Roemer, 1986a, 192).However,it is criticalnot to confuseparticular techniqueswiththeir riginal emergence r the use which has beenmade ofthosetechniques; to do that would be to repeattheunfortunateexperience of Marxian economics with calculus, rejected as"bourgeois" despiteMarx's own significant xplorationsof thistechnique (Gerdes; Struik). In short, f it is a question of theappropriationof thesetechniqueswithina Marxian framework,thenAnalyticalMarxism may have much to offer.Considergame theory nd game-theoreticpproaches.Char-acteristic fbothElster nd Roemer s a very trong mphasison"game-theoretic"modeling; indeed,Roemer'sgeneraldefinition


7/25


8/25


9/25

198 SCIENCE & SOCIETYrelating o "free ider"problems, tc., renottheprincipalmatterof inquiry of the collectivegame. Epistemological priority sassignedto the determinationfthe structurewithinwhich ndi-viduals act.Yet, intra-coalitionmatters re not outside thepurviewofaMarxian analysis (any more than the considerationof how aclass-in-itself ecomes a class-for-itself).he manner in whichcapital attempts o divide workers nd to encouragecompetitionamong them n orderto secure ts own goals is an important artof Marx's explorationof a rationalstrategyor apital in thestra-tegicgame of capital and wage-labor see Lebowitz,1987a).And,his conclusion thatwhenindividualworkers ct in their ndivid-ual self-interest,he result s the worststrategy or workers s awhole (Lebowitz, 1987b) is a critical statement bout intra-coalition issues on the side of workers.As important s Marx'sinsightson these ntra-coalitionmatters re,it is essentialto rec-ognize thatthey an occuronlyafter heprior pecification fthecollective game.In contrastto the collectivegame, on the otherhand,whatwe may designateas the "individual game" has a differenttart-ing point. Beginningfrom heposition thatthere re no supra-individual entitieswhich act in the real world ("capital" doesnothing,etc.), it assertsthenecessity o considerthe behaviorofthe individual unit at a pre-coalitionlevel in the war of allagainstall. Thus, no longerat the coreof nquiry s thecharacterof the class relation. Substituted s a differentroblematic, heneoclassical problematic:the outcomes which emergefromtheinteractions f atomistic individuals. At its best,the overridingquestion in the individual game becomes one ofwhycoalitionsemerge,why and in what sense) there re classes-for-themselves.Thus, a game-theoretic pproach in itself an not be said tobe inconsistentwith a Marxistanalysis.Rather thanrigor s thedividing line between Marxismand "AnalyticalMarxism,"thecentral ssue is thenatureof theproblematicwithinwhich suchtechniquesare employed. t is preciselyn thiscontext hat Ana-lytical Marxism" should be considered.


10/25

ANALYTICALMARXISM 199Methodologicalndividualismnd Microfoundations

At thecoreofAnalyticalMarxisms the ategoricalmpera-tive:there haltbe no explanation t a level bove thatoftheindividual nit.Thus,Elster penshisMaking enseofMarxbyannouncing hathe will begin"by stating nd justifyingheprincipleof methodologicalndividualism." he doctrine squiteuncompromising:all socialphenomena their tructureand theirhange are nprinciplexplicablenways hat nlyinvolve ndividuals their roperties,heir oals,their eliefsand their ctions."To explain,Elsterproposes,t is necessaryto providemechansim,o open up the blackbox and showthe nuts andbolts, he ogs ndwheels,hedesires ndbeliefs hat enerateheaggregateutcomes"Elster, 985, ). Accordingly, ethodologi-cal individualismeaves hemacro evelfor hemicro,ndrejectsan explanationwhichdoes not proceedfrom ndividuals; tstandsin oppositionto methodological ollectivism,which"assumes hat hereresupra-individualntitieshat reprior oindividualsn theexplanatoryrder" 6).As Elster s wellaware,however,Marx'sdiscussionsbout"humanity,"capital," ndespeciallycapital ngeneral" s col-lectiveubjectsre nconsistentith his octrine fmethodolog-ical individualism.Citing one of Marx's statements ncompetitionn theGrundrisse,lster ndeedcomments:Onecouldnotwishfor more xplicit enialofmethodologicalndi-vidualism"7). He immediately,owever,nvokes n alternativeauthority JohnRoemer.In thisrespect,t is importanto recognizehatElsterhasreadMarxclosely,nd thatnot the ackoffamiliarityith ele-vantpassages althoughhis interpretationsreratheruestiona-ble at times) ut,rather,herejectionfthese s grievousrrorsand as "near-nonsense"nderlies is argument.What s to berescueds the Marxwho makes sense,"theMarxwho soundslikea methodologicalndividualist.lster's roject, imply,s togetridof thebad Marx ndpreservehegood- the eparationfthe "misguided ramework"romwhat he sees as valuable nMarx.The very amethemes an be found n Roemer's ssayonmethodnAnalyticalMarxism.Roemer sserts: Marxian naly-


11/25

200 SCIENCE & SOCIETYsis requiresmicro-foundations"Roemer, 986a,192).How, heasks,can we say thattheentity, apital,does anythinge.g.,divides nd conquersworkers)when n a competitiveconomythere s no agentwho looks after heneedsofcapital"?WhenMarxistsrgue n such a manner, eproposes,heyreguiltyf"a lazykind fteleologicaleasoning"191).Again, he dentifiedproject s thenecessityofindmicro-mechanisms:WhatMarx-istsmustprovide reexplanationsfmechanisms,t themicrolevel,for hephenomena hey laim come aboutfor eleologicalreasons" 192).The logic behind thisAnalyticalMarxistposition an beseenmost learlyn PhillipeVanParijs'responseothedescrip-tionofhisposition s one of "NeoclassicalMarxism."Noting hecontrastetweenrationalman or ndividualistic)nd structural(or systematic)xplanations," anParijs ndicateshat tructuralexplanationswhich refer o a structuralmperativee.g., arequirementlowing from hesystemtself") re "unambigu-ouslyrejectedy neoclassicalMarxism' (VanParijs,119).Why?Because"no explanation f B byA isacceptable nless nespeci-fies themechanism hroughwhichA generates ."Yet,"mechanism" as a ratherpecificmeaning orVanPar-ijs here.Forexample, hepropositionshat an be derived romthestructuredollective ameofcapitaland wage-laborwouldfailhis testfor cceptability.his is clear from is subsequentproposition:Or,equivalently,o explanatoryheorys accepta-ble unless t is providedwithmicrofoundations.'1How Proposi-tion I is equivalent oProposition issomethinghatVanParijsconsiderso self-evidenthat tneednot bementioned ) learlymissing rom is discussionsa critical roposition onewhichstates hat theonlymechanismywhich ne canexplain s onewithmicrofoundations."his,ofcourse,s theonlymechanismbywhich ne cangetfrom to I, and t s the ore f thematter.For, fwedo accept hatmissing roposition,t ofcourse ollowsthat"Marxismneeds microfoundations"120).But,why houldweaccept hepropositionhatmicrofoun-dations re theonlymechanismywhichone can explain?Allwe have areassertions.ut where s theproof?Where s thedem-onstrationhat"methodologicalollectivism" annotprovidevalid and, ndeed, etter)xplanation?Wheres thebasisfor e-scribingt as misguided,ear-nonsense,isastrouscientificrac-


12/25

ANALYTICALMARXISM 201tice Elster,1985,4)? Arewe to assume thatthepoint, drawing tsforcefrom neoclassical conventionalism, s self-evident?Even if theAnalyticalMarxists re able to findexamples offunctionalist r teleological argumentsconducted at the supra-individuallevel, twould notprovethatmethodologicalcollecti-vismnecessarilyeads to functionalist r teleologicalargument.(Whilenotingthat methodological ollectivistxplanation"fre-quentlytakesthe form f functional xplanation, Elster dmits"there s no logical connection" 6).) Indeed,Przeworski, rennerand Elster themselves ll explore collectivegames in essays inAnalyticalMarxism.Further, an acceptable methodological individualist (ormicro)explanationwould notconstitute sufficient efutationfan explanation of social phenomenabased upon theconceptofsupra-individual ntities.Marx's argumentthatthecompetitionof capitalistsexecutesthe inner laws of capital is a rejectionofmethodological ndividualism and microfoundations but notof thereal existence f ndividualcapitalsand micro-phenomena.The conclusion thatonly microfoundationsan explain aggre-gateoutcomesthusrequiresfarmoredemandingproofthan Ana-lytical Marxism offers.Ultimately, f course,theproofof thepudding is in theeat-ing. So, rather hancriticizing heCartesianreductionism f theabove argumentsabstractly,et us considerspecificallyElster'sanswerto Marx's explicitdenial ofmethodological ndividualism- Roemer's "pathbreaking"work on exploitation. Elster des-cribes this centerpieceof AnalyticalMarxism as an approach"generatingclass relations and the capital relationshipfromexchangesbetweendifferentlyndowedindividuals n a competi-tive setting. . . The overwhelminglytrongargumentforthisprocedure s that t allows one to demonstrate s theoremswhatwould otherwisebe unsubstantiated ostulates" (Elster,1985,7).What, however, s wrongwiththeso-called"unsubstantiatedpostulates"?Recall thatMarx'sprocedurewas tobeginhis exami-nation of capitalismfromthepostulate of capitalistand wage-laborerin which the relation is specifiedas one in which theworkerhas sold the propertyrightover labor-powerwith thenecessary esultboththat theworkerworksunder thedirection fthecapitalistand thattheworkerhas no property ights n theproductof labor. Marx, n short,beginsfrom hespecification f


13/25

202 SCIENCE & SOCIETYa particular et of relations f production.Now, we mayask: wheredid thoseunsubstantiatedostu-latescomefrom? nd the nswer s obvious:from istory,romreal life, hereal concrete. he sale oflabor-power,orkunderthedirectionfthe apitalistndthe bsence fworkers'ropertyrightsn theproduct f laborare thehistorical remisesfthediscussion; nd they rebrought o the theoreticaliscussion fcapitalism s theexogenous ointofentry.o, theres indeedtheoreticallynsubstantiatedostulate, he capital/wage-laborrelation.What s critical,oo, s whatMarxproceedsodoonthebasis of thispremise.He explores henature f the nteractionbetweenapitalist nd workersn the ollective ame ndgener-ates the dynamic properties nherent n that structuredrelationship.Now considerwhatElster as saidaboutRoemer'spproach:Roemerwillgenerateheclassrelationshipromndividuals; ewilldemonstratehe api al/wage-laborelations a "theorem."An immediateesponsemight e:but, his s a differentheoreti-cal object;whatMarxtakes s hisstarting oint,Roemer ees shisresult. et, t s importanto rememberhat,n Marx's ialec-ticalanalysis, central equirement illbe todemonstratehatwhatwasa mere remisendpresuppositionanunsubstantiatedpostulate) fthetheorys itself eproduced ithin he ystemi.e., is also a result.n thisrespect,othMarx ndRoemer avethe ameobject todemonstrateheproductionf the lassrela-tion.But, heirtartingoints redifferent:arxbeginningromtheobservationf the oncreteelationshipsndRoemer rom .. . Roemerfromwhere?Wewillputthat uestion sidefor hemoment. etus askfirst: hatarewe to conclude f bothRoemerndMarx,havingstartedut from ifferentlaces, rrive t the amedestination?Are we to concludethatRoemer's uccessfulrrivalthederiva-tionof theclassrelation romtomisticndividuals) roves hatyoucan'tgetthere romMarx's tarting oint?Obviously ot.Toconclude hiswouldbe toconfusexplanationndnecessitation.At best,Roemer's rrivalwill havedemonstratedarx'sargu-ment hat ompetitionxecutes he nner awsofcapital- i.e.,thatmany capitals,thenecessaryorm f existence f capital,manifesthroughompetitionhe nnernature fcapital.On theotherhand, f we haveRoemer's erivation,o we needMarx's?


14/25

ANALYTICALMARXISM 203But, heres a begged uestionnall this: oesRoemer eallyarrive t that amepoint, hepointwhichforMarx s bothpre-mise and result thehistoricallyivencapitalist elations fproduction? ow,we will considerRoemer's tartingoint.El-sterhas already old us: "differentlyndowedndividuals." ut,let Roemer xplainmorefully.Responding o the criticismyNadvi 1985),he indicates hathismodel"has 'explained' omephenomena,nderivinghem romogically rior ata. nGTEC

[Roemer, 982], hedataare: differentialwnershipf themeansofproduction,referencesnd technology.verythings drivenbythese ata;class and exploitationreexplained obea conse-quenceof initialpropertyelations"Roemer,1986b,138).Wesee,notsurprisingly,hatRoemer lso starts romlogi-callypriordata" whichare not thesubject fhis analysis i.e."unsubstantiatedostulates").thappens o be the ame ogicallypriordata with which neoclassicaleconomics in particular,neoclassicalgeneral equilibrium heory) egins.And Roemerproposes hat, n thebasisof those ameneoclassical remises,ehas succeededndemonstratinghe xistence fexploitationndclass - a classiccase ofhoisting eoclassical conomics y tsown petard.Let us think,hough,bout theseogically rior ata. Thisparticularuccessmaybe a poisondraught orMarxism.)Wheredo they omefrom?Roemer nswers:history.The historicalprocesswhichgivesrise to the initialendowments heremymodelbegins s not a subject fmy nalysis. hat is a topicforan historian"Roemer, 986b, 38).Historyhushasyielded setof ndividualswho,withgivenpreferencesndtechnology,avedifferentialropertyndowments.s that t?Has history res-ented s with groupof tomisticndividuals hohavenopriorconnections,o prior nteractions individualswho are onto-logicallypriorto thesociety?Obviously ot. Whatwehave,rather,s that n analyst asdecided omodelthe ndividuals s if theywerenitiallyutsidesocietynd thenenteredntosociety o exchange. he startingpoint, hen,s nothistory,uthistory ediatedy n ideologicalassumption,ne identifiedyMarxas early s 1843 Marx, OntheJewish uestion,"1975).Now, t is easytounderstanduchan operationwhenconductedy neoclassicalconomist buta Marxist?


15/25

204 SCIENCE & SOCIETYRoemer's nstrumentalistesponse, owever, ouldbethatfthemodel succeeds n explaining hedesired henomena,henclearly he"modelhas madetherightsbtractions:t has gnoredthingswhich are not crucialto its topicand has focused urattentionorrectly"Roemer,1986b).Methodologically,his snotobjectionable ractice;Marx imilarlyngagesnabstractionand putsasidequestions ertainingo themembersf the etorcoalition. Many Marxists,however,will find the idea that

"society"s an appropriateictimfOccam'sRazorratherroub-lesome.Nevertheless,atherhandebating his ssue, t is morepertinentoconsiderwhetherhemodelhas indeed ucceedednitsobject whether,n short, oemer'smodelmakes therightabstractions."RoemerianExploitation

In discussingRoemer's uccess n generatings theoremsbothclassesand exploitationwithin apitalism,we must imitourselveso selectedspects fhistheorysdevelopedn hisbookand subsequent rticles. Some other ssues are raised n myreview f thebook; Lebowitz, 984.)We will not concern ur-selves, or xample,withtheexploitationhatRoemer iscoversin his linearproductionmodel of an economy fsimplecom-modityproducerswith differentialsset ownership ince theinequality hatRoemerfindshere s manifestlyrent," nd itsdesignations "exploitationn theMarxian ense"wouldneces-sitateholidaypayforhiswords;nor,for imilar easons,willweconsiderRoemer's socialistexploitation."The coreargumentn Roemer 1982)occurswhenRoemerintroduces labormarketntohismodelof ndividualswithdif-ferentialndowmentsfproductivessets.He demonstrateshat,as a consequence foptimizingehavior,hose ndividualswithlow endowments ill end up selling abor-powernd will beexploitedperformurplus abor)whereas hosewhohavehighendowments ill hire abor-powernd will be exploiters. heargument, eneratingheclassical Marxist roposition,ppearsquite powerful.Roemerproceeds,however, o introduce creditmarket(ratherhan labormarket)nd reveals ow a functionallyqui-valentresult: hosewith ow endowments irecapitaland are


16/25

ANALYTICALMARXISM 205exploitedperformurplus abor)whilethosewithhighendow-ments ent apital ndareexploiters.xploitations, ndeed, hesame n both ases.Accordingly,oemer ffers is"isomorphismtheorem"hat trulyt does notmatter hetheraborhires api-tal or capitalhires abor:thepoor are exploited nd the richexploit n either ase" (Roemer,1982,93).Now,this heoremwhose lauses uccessivelykewerMarx-ianandneoclassicalconomics)s centralo all that ollows. oe-merhimself rawsthe robust nferencehat "the fundamentalfeaturefcapitalistxploitations notwhathappensn the aborprocess,but the differentialwnership f productive ssets"(94-5).Yet,preciselyhewrong onclusion as beendrawn romthe isomorphismheorem: ather hanrevealing hepowerofRoemer's nalysis, t exposes tsweakness.Considerwhat has occurred. ogical priority as shiftedfrompecific elationsfproductionopropertyelations;heirconnectionasbeen nverted. ather han eeing apitalist rop-erty elationsKP) as theproductfcapitalistelationsfproduc-tion (KRP), Roemer argues that differentialwnershipofproductivessetsnecessarilyields apitalist elationsfproduc-tion, xploitationnd class. Since,further,hiscan be demon-stratedo occurwith ither labor or creditmarket,t followsthatunequalpropertyndowmentlusa factormarketresuffi-cient ogenerateclassrelations ndthe apitalrelationship"astheorems).Letus,however,tress hatMarx aw as critical lementsncapitalism. hese are: 1) the aleof thepropertyight ver abor-powerbythepersonwho ownsno means fproduction;nd, 2)thepurchase fthispropertyight y n owner f means fpro-ductionwhosegoal is valorizationM-C-M).The two elementshere learly resuppose apitalist ropertyelationsKP) - thespecificnequalityn propertywnership.However,KP is notsufficientoyield hese wo lements since asRoemer imselfdemonstrates)t s obvious hatKP can also support:la) thehir-ing ofmeansofproductionysomeonewhoownsonly abor-power nd(2a) therentingf the amebytheowner f means fproduction.P isa necessaryutnot ufficientonditionor ap-italismKRP).In short,woquitedistinctegimesan be generatedn thebasisofRoemer'sogicallypriordata,the nitialpropertyela-


17/25

206 SCIENCE & SOCIETYtions.A simplequestionreveals hatdifference:ho ownstheproduct flabor} n 1/2,propertyightsn theproduct f aborbelongto theowner f means fproductionwhoalsopurchasedthepropertyights ver hedispositionf abor-power);n la/2a,on theotherhand, t is theowner flabor-power hopossessesthepropertyight ver heproduct.t is notdifficultoestablishthatMarx'sanalysisof capitalismreferso 1/2- but not tola/2a.

For Marx, the situation n whichthepurchase f labor-powerdidnot occurwasexplicitlyre-capitalist. here heresformal ubsumptionflaborby capital the nitialform fthecapital relation), the relations f capital are essentiallyon-cernedwith ontrolling roductionnd . . . thereforeheworkerconstantlyppears n themarkets a seller ndthe apitalists abuyer"Marx,1977, 011). n contrasto formalubsumption,nthe otherhand,was the case where apital is to be foundbut"wheret hasnotemergeds thedirect urchaserf abor ndasthe mmediatewner f theprocess fproduction"as with, .g.,usury nd merchantapital)."Here wehave notyetreached hestageof formal ubsumptionf labourundercapital" (1023).Characteristicf pre-capitalistelationswas preciselyhecredit-marketasethatRoemer resents.hus, n theGrundrisse,Marxcommentedhatthe relationn whichtheproducer,tillindependent,acesmeansofproductionwhich re independent"forminghepropertyfa particularlassof usurers . . neces-sarily evelopsn all modes fproductionestingmore r essonexchange" Marx,1973, 53).Here,the worker is notyet ub-sumed ntotheprocess fcapital.The modeofproductionhere-fore oes notyetundergo ssential hange."There s,ofcourse,exploitation indeed, he"mostodiousexploitationf abor."In themodeofproductiontself,apital s still"materiallyub-sumedunder he ndividualworkersr thefamilyfworkers.. .Whattakesplace is exploitationycapitalwithout hemodeofproductionfcapital. . . This form fusury,nwhich apitaldoesnot seizepossession fproduction,ence s capitalonlyfor-mally,presupposeshepredominancefpre-bourgeoisormsfproduction"853). Marxsimilarlybserved hat"capitalarisesonlywhere radehas seizedpossession fproductiontself,ndwhere hemerchantecomes roducer,r theproducermeremer-chant" (859).


18/25

ANALYTICALMARXISM 207In short,pecificallyapitalist elations fproductionKRP)as examined yMarxrequiremore hanunequaldistributionfpropertyn means fproductionKP); theylsorequirehat api-tal has "seizedpossession f production"truefor1/2but notla/2a),that apitaldirects heprocess fproduction,hat roduc-tion s subordinatedo thegoalsofcapital.Onlywith his econdelemento wenecessarilyave two ssentialharacteristicsf thecapitalistaborprocess:hat theworker orks nder he ontrol

ofthe apitalistowhomhis abourbelongs" nd "theproductsthepropertyfthe apitalistndnotthat ftheworker,ts mme-diateproducer"Marx,1977, 91-2).Onlyhere s itcharacterisitcthat,rather han the worker mployingmeans of production,meansofproductionmploy he workera metaphorhat ap-turesMarx'sconception).Thus,Roemer's logically rior ata" cannot elect etweencapitalismndpre-capitalism.oes it matter?onsiderwhat ol-lowsfrom /2whichdoes not followfrom a/2a. The perfor-manceofsurplusaborwill be compelledgivenbyM-C-M ndthe aleof thepropertyight ver abor-power);.e.,therewillbeexploitationpecificocapitalist elations. he capitalist butnottheworker willgainby ncreasinghe ntensityf abor;the apitalist butnot theworker willbe thedirectecipientof gainsresultingromncreased roductivitynd thushas anincentiveo alter heproductionrocess. apitalist xploitationwill be thebasisofcapital ccumulation; RPwill bea sufficientcondition or hereproductionfKP, for apitalist istributionrelations.By contrast,nder a/2a (thecreditmarket ase), it is theproducerwho gainsfrom ncreased aborand productivityndwho decides ver heprocess fexpanded eproduction.Considerhow this ollective amewould differ rom hecapitalist ame.)Potentially,hisproducermay ucceedn securingmeans fpro-duction or elf s the esult f ntensivefforts.nlike he ase of1/2, he creditmarket ase is, in fact, "transitional" elation-ship.The dynamicroperties,he awsofmotion,nherentnthetwo structureslearlydiffer.What phenomena,"hen, ave beenderived rom oemer'slogicallypriordata,unequally ndowed tomisticndividuals?Whattheorems ave beensuccessfullyemonstratedymeans fthisprime xampleofmethodologicalndividualism?We find


19/25

208 SCIENCE fi?SOCIETYthat there s no distinction etween capitalist nd a pre-capitalist elation, o distinction etweenpecificallyapitalistexploitation ased on capitalist elationsfproductionndpre-capitalist xploitation asedmerelyn unequal propertyndow-ments.Roemer, fcourse, s entitled o call anything e wantscapitalismas is MiltonFriedman) but tshould notbecon-fused fora momentwithMarx's (and a Marxist) onceptofcapitalism.

Thus, Roemerdoes not arrive t the samedestinationsMarx.Rather hanstrengtheninghe case thatwe can proceedfrom ndividualswithdifferingropertyndowmentsogeneratecapitalist elationsfproductionnd capitalist xploitation,heveryndeterminacypparentn hismodel the somorphismheo-rem)underminesisargument.till, tmight erespondedhatall this simply provesthat Marx was wrongto distinguishbetweencapitalist exploitation where 1/2 holds) and pre-capitalistxploitationaseduponunequal propertyndowments(la/2a) sinceexploitations the samein both cases.To answerthisargument,we mustbrieflyonsiderRoemer'smodel.One of the criticalproblems n Roemer'smodel is hisassumption f a commonproduction unction or ll regimes.Precluded,hen, ydefinitions anyeffectfparticularelationsof production n the production unction. y assuming,forexample, n his linearproductionmodelsthat unit of labor-powerexudesa certain uantity f labor (i.e., thequality ndintensityf labor arepresumablyiventechnically),enotonlyeffectivelyssumes waythe content f the Marxiandistinctionbetweenabor-powernd labor,but also leavesus withproduc-tionconsideredmerelys a technical rocess ransformingnertinputs ntofinalproducts. hus, thedistinction oemer nceacknowledgedetweenheneoclassicalnd Marxistpproachthatthe Marxist sks "how hardare the workersaboring?"fadesaway (Roemer,1981,143-5).What s the mplication?onsider hedifferenceetweenhecreditmarketmodel nd the abormarketmodel. n theformer,theproducersecure he fruits f their wn labor i.e.,owntheproduct). heychoosewhetherr nottoselecteisure n theob.Presumably,here reno inherentroblemsf hirking,o neces-sary ostsof surveillancend monitoring,tc.,whichwouldbereflectedn theproductionunction.o assume he ameproduc-


20/25

ANALYTICALMARXISM 209tion oefficientsn the aseofthe abormarketmodel, owever,sto presupposehatworkers ho haveno propertyightsn theproductsftheir aborwill behave n the ameway s thosewhodo. (Norshouldwe ignore he ikelihood,n the atterase,thatthechoiceoftechniquend the division f labor will be deter-minednotsolelybytechnicalfficiencyut also bytheneed tomonitorasily nd toreduce he bilityfproducersoengagencoalitions.)

Although oemer oncludes hat apitalistxploitationoesnotrequire ominationt thepointofproductionecause theclass and exploitation elations f a capitalist conomy singlabourmarketsanbepreciselyeplicated ith capitalistcon-omyusing reditmarkets,"ismodels eneratehese esultsnlybecauseof his hidden ssumptionsRoemer, 986a,268). In amodel in whichproducerswish to maximize eisure whichincludeseisuren the pores" ftheworkday),he ssumptionfunchanged echnical oefficientsn thetwo cases amountstoassumingtheexistence f an efficientand costless) apitalistmonitoring rocess without cknowledgingheassumptionOnecanonly bstractrom he equirementfcapitalist omina-tionbyassumingas Roemer oesexplicitly)hat hedeliveryflaborfor hewage s "as simple ndenforceable transactionsthedeliveryf an apple for a dime" (269).In short,Roemer's iscoveryhat he abor market ase andthe reditmarketaseyield quivalentolutions ndthat, ccord-ingly, apitalist ominations notnecessaryeflects erelyheideological ssumption ehasimposed ponhis model.Havingassumed hatproductiveelations o notmatter, oemer indslittle ifficultyn then proving" hat hey on'tmatter; e is ofcoursenotthefirstobelieve hathe has provenwhat s merelyembeddedn his assumptions."Just"Exploitation

Forothersn theAnalytical arxismamp,Roemer's iscov-ery hat apitalistxploitation equires eitherabor-powers acommodityordominationnproductionas beenmostpersua-sive.Wright, orexample, nitially esisted heargument hatcapitalist ominationwasunnecessaryor xploitationut thenyielded- maintaining, owever, he importance f a link


21/25

210 SCIENCE & SOCIETYbetween omination n productionnd class relationsWright,1982,331). Subsequently,e succumbed n this atter ointaswell (acceptingRoemer's heorys the frameworkorhis ownempiricalwork) nd announced, I now think hatRoemerscorrect n thispoint" Wright,985, 2).Elster,oo, sunequivo-cal; after resentingoemer'sonclusion, lsterharacteristicallydeclares, I believethatRoemer's rguments an irrefutableobjection o the fundamentalist'iew that xploitationmustbemediatedydominationnthe abourprocess"Elster, 985, 81).Once thespecificharacteristicsfcapitalismndcapitalistexploitation avebeenobliteratedleaving nlyunequalendow-ments),however, an meditationsn "just" exploitation e farbehind?Posing thequestion"ShouldMarxists e InterestednExploitation?",Roemerrespondswith his "verdict . . thatexploitationheorys a domicile hatwe needno longermain-tain: t has provided homeforraising vigorous amilywhonow mustmoveon" (Roemer, 986a, 62).Havingemptied hehouseof all its contents, oemer'sup-marketmove s to "themodernoncept" fexploitations "an injusticen thedistribu-tion of incomeresulting rom distributionf endowmentswhich s unjust" Roemer, 986a,199).Exploitation,n short,ssimplyinequality- "the distributionalonsequences f anunjust inequality n thedistributionf productivessetsandresources"Roemer,1986a,281).The obvious mplications thatexploitation/inequalitysnot unjust f theoriginal nequality n propertyndowmentsitselfwas not unjust.While thispoint is indeedexploredbyRoemer1986a), t is Elsterwho most learly raws ut the ogicof the AnalyticalMarxistargument.We judge exploitationunjust,he proposes, ecause exploitationn history as almostalwayshada thoroughlynclean ausalorigin,nviolence,oer-cion, or unequal opportunities"Elster, 986, 9). But,what ftherewere "cleanpath"oforiginal ccumulation?What fpeo-pledifferntheir ime references?hat f omepeoplechoose osaveand invest ather han onsumetherebyuilding p a capi-talstock)? Couldanyone bject ftheynduce thers o work orthemby offeringhem wageabove whatthey ould earnelse-where?" Elster,1985,226). Here,Elsternotes, s a "powerfulobjection,hatmustbe taken eriouslyy nyonewho sets uttodefendMarx's theory f exploitation"227).


22/25

ANALYTICALMARXISM 211Thus, as counterexamples o the view that exploitation isinherently njust,Elsterand Roemereach present two-personcase where, s the result f thepatterns fcapital assetownershipand leisure preferences,he asset-poorperson 'exploits the richperson" (Roemer,1986a,274-7; Elster,1986,98). Elster'sconclu-sion fromthisexample is that"it demonstrates, think conclu-sively, that exploitation is not inherentlywrong" (98). In asecond example ("more relevantfor real-lifeproblems"),Elster

positstwopeople withthe same skills and capital buta differentorientationtoward presentconsumption. One postpones con-sumptionand thusaccumulatescapital - enough ultimately opay theotherto workfor her - at a wage thatexceeds what hecould gain by himself. True, he will be exploited - but whocares?" From this,Elster concludes that "the example suggeststhatexploitation s legitimatewhen theunequal capital endow-mentshave a 'clean* causal history" 99).All that s left o exploitation, hus, s thecontingent harac-teroforiginalaccumulation. Since exploitationhas been severedfrom ny connectionto thecapitalist processof productionandrestssolely upon the pre-existencef unequal endowments, llthatremains s thequestion as to whetherproperty ightswereviolated n the formation f those differentialndowments.Hav-ing begunby invertingheconnectionbetweenpropertyelationsand relations of production in an organic system,Elster andRoemerfindfrom heir pocryphalstories foriginalaccumula-tionthat"exploitation s nota fundamentalmoralconcept" Els-ter, 1986, 99).Sadly, it is as if the distinctionbetween"original capital"and thatwhich emergesfrom pecifically apitalistexploitationhad neverbeen made; as if Marx neverpointedout that even ifcapital were originally acquired by a person's own labor (thecleanest possible path to accumulation), "it sooner or laterbecomesvalue appropriatedwithout n equivalent" (Marx, 1977,715, 728). The inherentnjusticeofexploitation s just one moreelement hatdisappears n the course ofmaking"sense" ofMarx.Conclusion

It would be quite easy but,at thesame time, uite wrong)toconclude from heabove discussion thatAnalyticalMarxismhas


23/25

212 SCIENCE & SOCIETYlittle o offerMarxists.n fact, hesewritersose mportantues-tionsand challenges. hey reject,n particular,eleological ea-soning in Marx; it should be rejected. imilarly, unctionalexplanationsre viewed s suspect. heyare- and,where heyappear,they hould be scrutinized.nalyticalMarxism,n thisrespect, an keep us on our toes.Further,here reaspects fthework f thesewriters hichcan be incorporatedasilyntoMarxistnalysis.Roemer'sxami-nationofexploitations an implicit ounterfactualroposition(Roemer, 982)points o a way round heneoclassical bjectionthatthevery ale of labor-power roves hat thewage-laborerbenefitsrom heexchange compared o the xistinglternativeofnon-sale). lster's arly iscussionElster, 978) f the fallacyofcomposition"what s possiblefor nememberfa set s notnecessarilyrue or ll membersimultaneously)trikesirectlytattemptso reason from heposition f the solated ndividual(and all such Robinsonades f neoclassical conomics).And,Cohen's"lockedroom"parable, n his "The Structuref Prole-tarianUnfreedom,"ramaticallyosesthe contrast etweenheindividualworker'sbility o escape thestatus fwage-laborerand the structuralnability f theclass as a whole to do so(Cohen, 1986).These last two examples, n particular, rovidepowerfulargumentsgainstneo-classical onventions. regularlyntro-ducethemn thefirst eek fmy lass nMarxian conomicsas an introductiono the questionas to whyMarxsaw thenecessityo beginfrom he considerationf an organicwhole(whichis, of course,preciselyontraryo themethodologicalimperativef AnalyticalMarxism).Nevertheless,otonly s there otmuch fMarx eftn Ana-lyticalMarxism, ut ts essential hrustas tracedbove) s anti-Marxist. o whydo thesewriters ish to retain heironnectiontoanykindof Marxism?he answer,tappears,s that heyon-sider hemselvesocialists ndthat heMarxist labeldoesconveyat leastthat ertain undamentalnsights reviewed s comingfromMarx" Roemer, 986, ).AsElster uts t, if,by Marxist,youmeansomeonewhocan trace he ncestryfhismostmpor-tantbeliefs ackto Marx,then am indeed Marxist"Elster,1986,4).Yet, f selected eliefs nd insights etached rom Marxian


24/25

ANALYTICALMARXISM 21frameworkweresufficientordesignationas Marxism,then thetermwould lose all integralmeaning.For,situated n an alterna-tiveframework,hose electedbeliefs cquire quite differentrop-erties.The transformation,ithinthe neoclassicalframework,fMarx's theory f exploitation(one of Elster's "most importantbeliefs") into a conceptionof distributiveustice which acceptsthe possibilityof just exploitation illustrates his fundamentaldialectical principlequite well. WhatmakesAnalyticalMarxismanti-Marxists thatthe beliefs and insightsonce absorbed fromMarxhave been incorporatedwithinan anti-Marxist ramework,and the parts have acquired propertiesfrom that whole.Simon Fraser UniversityBurnaby,Canada

REFERENCESBradley, an and Ronald L. Meek. 1986.Matricesand Society.Middlesex: Pen-guin Books.Carling, Alan. 1986. "Rational Choice Marxism." New Left Review, 160(November/ ecember).Clawson, Patrick. 1983. "A Comment on Van Parijs's Obituary." Review ofRadical Political Economics, XV:2 (Summer).Cohen, G. A. 1986. "The Structure f ProletarianUnfreedom." n Roemer,1986a.Elster,Jon. 1978. Logic and Society. Chichester:Wiley.Elster,Jon. 1985.MakingSense ofMarx.Cambridge,England:CambridgeUni-versityPress.Elster,Jon. 1986.An Introduction o Karl Marx. Cambridge,England: Cam-bridgeUniversityPress.Gerdes,Paulus. 1985.MarxDemystifies alculus. Minneapolis:Marxist Educa-tional Press.Gray, John. 1983. "The System of Ruins." Times LiterarySupplement,December30, 1983.Lebowitz,Michael A. 1984.ReviewofRoemer,1982.Canadian JournalofEco-nomics, XVII:2 (May).Lebowitz,Michael A. 1987a. "Labour Strategiesn a WorldofCapital." PaperPesented to Canadian Political Science Association(Political Economy),June, 1987.Lebowitz,Michael A. 1987b."The Political EconomyofWage-Labor." Scienceb Society,51:3 (Fall).


25/25

214 SCIENCE & SOCIETYLevins, Richard and Richard Lewontin. 1985.The Dialectical Biologist. Cam-bridge,Mass.: Harvard UniversityPress.Maarek, Gerard. 1979. An Introduction to Karl Marx's Das Kapital. Oxford:Martin Robinson.Marx, Karl. 1968. Theoriesof Surplus Value. Vol. II. Moscow: ProgressPub-lishers.Marx, Karl. 1973. Grundrisse.New York: Vintage Books.Marx, Karl. 1975 (1843). "On the Jewish Question." Karl Marx and FriedrichEngels, Collected Works.Vol. 3. New York: InternationalPublishers.Marx, Karl. 1977. Capital. Vol. I. New York: Vintage Books.Marx, Karl. 1981. Capital. Vol. III. New York: Vintage Books.Nadvi, Khalid, 1985. "Exploitation and Labor Theoryof Value: A CritiqueofRoemer's GeneralTheoryof Exploitationand Class." Economic and Poli-tical Weekly,XX:35 (August 31, 1985).Nadvi, Khalid. 1986. "Exploitation and Labour Theoryof Value." Economicand Political Weekly,XXI:20 (May 17, 1986).Olson, Mancur. 1965. The Logic of CollectiveAction.Cambridge,Mass.: Har-vard UniversityPress.Roemer,John E. 1981.AnalyticalFoundations ofMarxian Economic Theory.Cambridge, England: Cambridge UniversityPress.Roemer,JohnE. 1982.A GeneralTheoryof Exploitationand Class. Cambridge,Mass.: Harvard UniversityPress.Roemer,John, d. 1986a.AnalyticalMarxism.Cambridge,England: CambridgeUniversityPress.Roemer,John. 1986b."Exploitationand Labour TheoryofValue." Economicand Political Weekly,XXI:3 (January18, 1986).Struik,Dirk. 1948. "Marx and ModernMathematics."Science rSociety,12:1(Winter).Van Parijs, Phillipe. 1983."WhyMarxistEconomicsNeeds Microfoundations:PostscriptTo An Obituary."ReviewofRadical Political Economics,XV:2(Summer).Wright,Erik Olin. 1982. "The Statusof the Political in theConceptof ClassStructure."Politics r Society, 11:3.Wright,Erik Olin. 1985. Classes. London: Verso.

is analytical marxism marxism_lebotwitz

Documents