Table Of Content

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).