"What is money? What is capital? The Spectre of Capital tackles such fundamental questions at a deep philosophical level. It argues that the modern world is ruled by a 'spectre', the spectre of capital. This insight is rooted in an original combination of the ideas of Marx and Hegel. It presents the most sophisticated argument to date for 'the homology thesis', namely that the order of Hegel's logical categories, and that of the social forms addressed by Marx's Capital, share the same architectonic. The systematic-dialectical presentation shows how capital becomes a self-sustaining power"--
Der Verfasser setzt sich mit Grundlagen der Werttheorie auseinander. Dabei folgt er einer Sichtweise, in der die Vorstellung der gesellschaftlichen Form des Wertes im Mittelpunkt steht. Gezeigt wird, dass Arbeit und Wert nicht positiv miteinander identifiziert werden können, sondern vielmehr als einander dialektisch durchdringende Gegensätze verstanden werden müssen. Ziel des Verfassers ist es, die Auswirkungen der Negativität aufzuzeigen, die sowohl dem Kapitalverhältnis wie dem Tausch intrinsisch ist. Hierzu entwickelt er eine neue Theorie der Wertbestimmung und einen neuen Begriff der abstrakten Arbeit. Er setzt sich mit dem Begriff der Zeit und dem Phänomen des Fetischismus der Arbeit auseinander. Dabei erscheint das Kapital als Subjekt der Produktion, das vor allem sich selbst produziert, während die Arbeit als dessen aufgehobene Grundlage negativ gesetzt ist. (ICE2)
AbstractFollowing the publication of my book The New Dialectic and Marx's 'Capital', and the symposium on it in Historical Materialism 13.2, a critique by Roberto Finelli recently appeared: 'Abstraction versus Contradiction: Observations on Chris Arthur's The New Dialectic and Marx's "Capital"' in Historical Materialism 15.2. Finelli argues that my systematic dialectic is not taken sufficiently far, in that I retain presuppositions not posited by the capitalist totality. Here, I argue against Finelli's closed totality of wholly abstract forms, not least because it affords no realistic exit strategy. I reaffirm that the logic of contradiction is required to conceptualise the capital relation.
This paper endorses Marx's deduction of the need for money to actualise value before exchange can be considered, so that, in exchange, money's function as means of purchase follows from money's ability to actualise value. This is contrasted with the Uno school, whose proponents mix concepts from Capital chapters 1 and 2. The paper goes beyond Marx in presenting a more dialectical derivation of money and a more rigorous account of the logic of exchange. The view of money advanced here gives a basis for its active role in the development of capitalism.
In a response to the two books questioning Rosdolsky's Contribution to the Critique of Political Economy as the dominant view on Marx's planned six books, the author re-addresses the issues from the perspective of value-form theory to argue that it is the law of motion of capital, not the last two planned books, that frames the struggle of wage labour. An exploratory discussion of the justification for the triadic "inner structure" of bourgeois society presents the value-form solution from the Grundrisse to assert that capital cannot produce capital unassisted, & presents questions about the relation of mutual presuppositions that exist between landed property, capital, & wage-labor. Alternative solutions to justification of Marx's first three books posit that the confusion of capital arises because capital itself produces those means of production. The addition of books on landed property & wage-labor are discussed in terms of capital's inner totality, & the tension between Lebowitz's conflictual argument for a separate book on wage-labor versus labour & capital's incorporation & mutual othering is delineated. The two missing books are concluded to not be of equal weight with Capital since they would presuppose & complement the first volume. References. J. Harwell
This essay is the author's reply to criticisms of his The New Dialectic and Marx's 'Capital'. It is noted that the criticisms considered here are only those to which the author has a ready response; this takes the essay beyond the scope of the original text itself. It is also mentioned that, in the book under discussion, there is no complete & consistent presentation of the author's ideas, although the general view is presented & defended there. The present article's intent, then, is to act as a starting point towards a more systematic treatment & a reorganization of some of the material from the original text, & to fill in some of the blanks presently existent; the criticisms of the author's views are considered helpful in achieving these aims. The author explains his views on a number of topics discussed by his critics, including dialectic & matter; how to begin a dialectic of categories; the logic of transition; system & structure; the scope of systematic dialectic; competition; closure of the dialectic; the place of use-value; form & content; simple commodity production; market & capital; class struggle; the capital relation; & differences with Marx regarding the point at which labor enters the dialectic. 2 Figures, 1 Appendix, 21 References. T. K. Brown
A symposium paper on Moishe Postone's Time, Labor and Social Domination that focuses on two of the book's core assertions. First is Postone's claim that capital is the self-constituted "Subject" of our era, with "Subject" & its impetus understood in the Hegelian sense, a point that is thoroughly persuasive. Second is Postone's insistence that the necessary critique not be based in the social perspective of the proletariat, which is only half as convincing. Thus, while all of his claims about the necessity of "labor" as a category for the existing social whole are valid, none of them rule out the proletariat from shaping itself counter to capital, & from active resistance to wage slavery. 15 References. K. Coddon
Tony Smith's (2001) identification of a homologous relationship between Karl Marx's logic of capital & G. W. F. Hegel's logic of the Idea is explored. Problems with Smith's account of the homology between Marx's capital & Hegel's Idea are highlighted; for example, it is asserted that Smith has conflated Marx's & Hegel's respective notions rather than acknowledging their parallel nature. Two defenses of the homologous connection between capital & the idea are then reviewed. It is contended that Smith has succeeded in highlighting only part of the connection between the logics of capital & the Idea; consequently, the three distinct levels of the connection between Marx's & Hegel's logics are illuminated, emphasizing the theoretical points at which Hegelians would repudiate the aforementioned homologous connection between Marx & Hegel. 4 References. J. W. Parker
