Marx's Capital and Hegel's Logic: A Reexamination

343 Pages·2014·5.082 MB·English

by  Fred Moseley and Tony Smith

Historical Materialism
Book Series
EditorialBoard
Sébastien Budgen(Paris)
SteveEdwards (London)
Marcelvander Linden(Amsterdam)
PeterThomas (London)
VOLUME 64
Thetitlespublishedinthisseriesarelistedatbrichom/hm
Marx’s Capital and Hegel’sLogic
AReexamination
Editedby
Fred Moseley and TonySmith
5E0]
Q 0
Q
o,
<
v
9( '9971V&
"[633
BRILL
LEIDEN | BOSTON
LibraryofCongressCataloging-in-PublicationData
Manr’sCapitalandHegel’sLogic:areexamination /editedbyFredMoseleyandTonySmith.
pagescm.—(Historicalmaterialism bookseries,ISSN1570-1522;volurne 64)
Includesbibliographicalreferencesandindex.
ISBN978-90-04-20952-7(hardback: alk.paper) —ISBN978-90-04-27002-2(e-book) 1.Marx,Karl,
1818-1883K.apital.2. Hegel,GeorgWilhelmFriedrich,1770—183W1.issenschaft der 3. Marxian
economics. 4. Dialectic. I.Moseley,Fred,1946- 11.Smith,Tony,1951­
HB501.M37M3922014
335.4’12—dc23
2014003298
Thispublicationhasbeen typesetinthemultilingual ‘Brill’typeface.Withover5,100characters covering
Latin,IPA.Greek,andCyrillic,thistypefaceisespeciallysuitable foruseinthehumanities.
Formoreinformation,pleaseseebrill.c0m/brill-typeface.
ISSN1570-1522
ISBN978900420952 7(hardback)
ISBN978900427002 2(e-book)
Copyright2014byKoninklijke BrillNV,Leiden,TheNetherlands.
KoninklijkeBrillNVincorporates theimprints Brill,BrillNijhoff,GlobalOriental and HoteiPublishing.
Allrightsreserved.Nopartofthispublicationmaybereproduced,translated,storedinaretiievalsystem,
ortransrrrittedinanyformorbyanymeans,electronic,mechanical,photocopying.recordingorotherwise,
withoutpriorwrittenpermissionfromthepublisher.
Authorizationtophotocopy itemsforinternal orpersonaluseisgrantedbyKoninldijkeBrillNVprovided
that theappropriate feesarepaiddirectlytoTheCopyrightClearanceCenter,222RosewoodDrive,
Suite 910,Danvers, MA01923,USA.Feesare subject tochange.
Thisbookisprinted onacid-freepaper.
MIX
Paperitem
F SC responsibleeoureee
macaw FSC‘ C109576
PrintedbyPrintforce,theNetherlands
Contents
Acknowledgements vii
Introduction 1
FredMoseleyand TorrySmith
PART 1
Idealism and Materialism 15
1 Hegel,Marxand the Comprehension ofCapitalism 17
TonySmith
2 Capital Breeds:Interest-Bearing CapitalasPurelyAbstract Form 41
MarkMeaney
3 Dialecticson ItsFeet,orthe Formofthe ConsciousnessoftheWorking
ClassasHistorical Subject 64
juan IfiigoCarrera
4 Which ‘Rational Kernel"?Which ‘MysticalShell"?AContribution tothe
Debate onthe Connection between Hegel’sLogicandMarx's
Capital 89
GastonCaligarisand GuidoStarosta
PART2
Hegel’sConcept and Marx’sCapital 113
5 TheUniversal and the Particulars inHegel’sLogicandMarx’s
Capital 115
FredMoseley
6 OnHegel’sMethodological Legacyin Marx 140
RobertoFineschi
7 LostinTranslation: OnceAgainonthe Marx—HegeCl onnection 164
RiccardoBelle/fore
8 TheSecret ofCapital's Self-Valorisation‘LaidBare’:
HowHegelHelped MarxtoOverturn Ricardo’sTheoryofProIit 189
PatrickMurray
9 ‘TheCircular Course ofOurRepresentation’: ‘Schein’,‘Grund’and
‘Erscheinung’in Marx'sEconomic Works 214
IgorHanzel
v1 CONTENTS
PART3
Different Viewsofthe Dialectic 241
10AnOutline ofthe Systematic-DialecticalMethod:
Scientificand PoliticalSignificance 243
GeertReuten
11Marx, Hegeland the Value-Form 269
Christopher1.Arthur
12Dialectics ofLabourandValue-ForminMarx'sCapital:
AReconstruction 292
Maria L.Robles-Bdez
References 318
Name Index 329
Subject Index 330
Acknowledgements
Iwould like to express special appreciation to Mount HolyokeCollegeforits
generousfinancialsupport forthe conferenceatwhichthesepaperswerepre­
sented,and foritssupport forthe manyInternational SymposiumonMarxian
Theory (ISMT)conferences over the years (seven in all).The ISMTwould not
existwithout the generous support ofMountHolyokeCollege.MountHolyoke
College’ssupport forthis‘politicallyincorrect’researchisashiningexample of
the highest idealsofliberalarts education —criticalthinking and the diversity
ofideas.
Ialsoespecially thank DawnLarderforher extremelycapable administra­
tiveassistance forthis conference and forpast conferences.The ISMTconfer­
ences at Mount HolyokeCollegewould not run nearly so smoothly without
Dawn.
FredMoseley

Introduction
FredMoseleyand TonySmith
Therelation between Hegel'sphilosophy and Marx’stheory has longbeen an
important question in Marxianscholarship,and acontroversialone,because
both authors are so wide-ranging and controversial in themselves, which
makesthe relation between them evenmorecomplicated.Theuniquefeature
ofthis book isthat ithas aspecificfocus—onthe influence ofHegel’slogicon
Marx’seconomic theory in Capital.Itwillnot bedirectlyconcerned with the
influence ofHegel’sphilosophy onMarx'searlywritings,oronMarx’stheoryof
history,orhis theory ofthe state, and soon.Rather,the main focuswillbeon
Marx’stheory in Capital.
In recent decades, there has been some new thinking about the relation
between Hegel’slogicand Marx’sCapitalwhichgoeslooselybythe name ‘New
Dialectics’,exemplified bythe work ofChrisArthur,TonySmith,GeertReuten
and Roberto Fineschi (allare authors in thisvolume;seethe Introduction to
Arthur 2002for a good introduction to this new line of research). The New
Dialecticsisdifferent fromthe oldMarxiandialectics(orDiamat),whichwas
concerned primarily with the influence ofHegelon Marx’stheory ofhistory,
andthe eventual triumph ofsocialism.TheNewDialectics,bycontrast, iscon—
cerned mainlywith the influence ofHegel’slogiconMarx’stheory inCapitalof
capitalism, as a given historically specific society;hence it isalso called ‘sys­
tematic dialectics’(asopposed to‘historicaldialectics’).Differentauthors have
differentinterpretations ofHegel’slogicand systematicdialectics,but theyall
agreethat Hegel’slogicisimportant forunderstanding Marx’stheoryinCapital.
Theaimofthis bookistocontribute tothisnewlineofresearch.
The papers in this volume were originallypresented at the 22nd annual
meetingofthe International SymposiumonMarxianTheory(ISMT)atMount
Holyoke College (where Fred Moseley is Professor of Economics) in August
2011,and the papers havebeen revisedforthisvolume.Thetwelveauthors are
dividedbetween seveneconomists andfivephilosophers,asisfittinggiventhe
interdisciplinary nature of the subject of the relation between Hegel’slogic
and Marx’seconomic theory.Sevenofthe authors areregularmembers ofthe
ISMTand fivewerespeciallyinvitedparticipants becauseoftheir expertiseon
this topic (Caligaris, Hanzel, Iiiigo Carrera, Meaney and Robles).This is the
Eighthconference-volume ofthe ISMT(pleaseseethelistoftitlesatthe endof
thisIntroduction).
© KONINKLIJKEBRILLNV,LBIDBN,2014 DOII0.]163/9789004270022_002
2 MOSELEYAND SMITH
InJanuary 1858,while working on the Grundrisse,the firstdraft of Capital,
Marxwrote awell-knownletter toEngelsinwhichhestated that arecent for­
tuitous review of Hegel’sLogichad been ‘ofgreat service’in his own theory,
especiallywith respect tothe methodemployedinhistheory ofprojit.Hecom—
mented that hehad ‘overthrown’allprevioustheories ofprofit:
Bythe way,Iam discovering some nice arguments. Forinstance, Ihave
overthrown thewholedoctrine ofprofit asitexistedup tonow.Thefact
that bymereaccident Iagainglanced through Hegel’sLogik...has been
of great service to me as regards the method of dealing with the
material.l
What exactly did Marx mean by this obviouslyimportant but too-cryptic
remark?What discoverieshad Marxmade?Which specificaspects ofHegel’s
LogicwasMarxreferringto?Andwhat wasthe relation between these aspects
of Hegel’slogic and Marx’stheory of profit specifically? Countless scholars
havecalled attention to this letter as evidence of the influence of Hegelon
Marx,but noonehassatisfactorilyansweredthese important questions about
the relation between Hegel’slogicand Marx’stheory of profit. These are the
kindsofquestion that Moseleyposedinorganisingthe conference.
Part1ofthisIntroductionwilldiscussthemainthemes and controversiesof
this volume, and Part 2 will provide brief summaries of the individual
chapters.
1 MainThemesand Controversies
1.1 Marx’s ‘Inversion’ofHegel’sLogic
Itiswellknown that Marxinterpreted Hegel’slogicasidealist (followingthe
generalinterpretation ofHegel’slogicat the time, especiallyFeuerbach), and
heclaimed that he‘inverted’Hegel’slogicinhisowntheory (inthe Postfaceto
thesecondGermanedition ofCapital):
My dialectical logic is, in its foundation, not only different from the
Hegelian, but exactly opposite to it. ForHegel,the process ofthinking,
whichheeventransformsintoan independent subject,under the name
of‘theIdea’,isthecreator oftherealworld,and the realworld isonlythe
externalappearance ofthe idea.Withmethe reverseistrue:the idealis
1 Marxand Engels1975a,p.93(bold emphasis added).
INTRODUCTION 3
nothing but the materialworldreflectedinthemindofman,andtrans­
latedinto formsofthought. ..
The mystification which the dialectic suffersin Hegel’shands by no
means prevents him frombeing the firstto present itsgeneralformsof
motion inacomprehensive and consciousmanner.Withhimitisstand­
ingonitshead. Itmustbeinverted,inordertodiscoverthe rationalkernel
within the mysticalshell.2
TonySmithhasarguedinpreviouswork,andinhischapterinthisvolume,that
Hegel’slogic can be interpreted as materialist rather than idealist,following
contemporary HegelscholarssuchasTerryPinkardandRobertPippen.Smith’s
interpretation can bebrieflysummarised asfollows:Hegelassumesthat there
isasetoffundamental objectivedeterminations intheworld.Theseobjective
determinations ofthe worldcanbecomprehended bythe determinations of
ourthought (ourthought is‘athome intheworld’).Furthermore,wecanthink
aboutourthinking andwecanconstruct anorderingoftheessentialdetermi­
nations ofthought. Sincewecan comprehend the world,the orderingofthe
essentialdeterminations ofourthought willalsobetheorderingoftheessen­
tialdeterminations ofthe world.Hegel’slogicappearstobeidealistic,because
itisabout the determinations ofthought. Butitisnotreallyidealistic,because
itisbasedonthematerialistpremisethatthesedeterminationsofthoughtcor­
respondtodeterminations ofreality.
RobertoFineschi’schapter interprets Hegelasakindofrealist.Accordingto
Fineschi, Hegel’sdialectic is not an external application of logical rules to
objectivereality,but isinstead basedonthe‘self-development’ofadetermined
content, or ‘the peculiar logic of a peculiar object’.Mark Meaney’schapter
presents a similar materialist interpretation of Hegel’slogicand arguesthat
Hegel’sAbsolute Spirit is not an external force,but isinstead (using strange
language) the internal unifyingprincipleofan independently givenobjective
reality,which isan organic whole.And becauseobjectivereality isan interre­
latedorganicwhole, certain materialist logicalrulesapplytothe theoryofan
organicwhole (the logicaldevelopment isfromthe abstract to the concrete,
andfromthe universal tothe particulars). Hearguesthat Marxfollowedthese
logicalrules closelybecause he regarded capitalismanorganicwhole.Itlooks
asifthese logicalrulesarean external application,but the logicalrulesofthe
theorymirror the relations ofdetermination ofobjectiverealityitself.
Sothe surprising conclusionofthislineofinterpretation isthat, although
Marxthought that he was ‘inverting’Hegel,he was in fact followingHegel's
2 Marx1976c[1867],pp.102—3(emphasis added).