Re: (OPE-L) New Dialectics and Critical Realism

[Christopher Arthur <cjarthur@xxxxxxxxxxxx>]

>Chris,
>
>If the 'new dialectics' is partly a criticism of the 'old dialectics', has
>any of its proponents taken under examination J.D. White, *Karl Marx and
>the Intellectual Origins of Dialectical Materialism*?  That book addresses
>precisely at least that part of the 'new dialectics' concern. The only
>attention I've seen to it is a review by Sayers, which led to my own reply
>in *Historical Materialism*, No. 8.  Neither considered any interface with
>'new dialectics'.
>
>Also, in my view, 'new dialectics' should confront the evidence for a
>declining influence of Hegel on Marx's thought, Althusser or no Althusser.
>
>Paul
 Dear Paul
I had an exchange with White. I attach my piece but I do not have an
electronic version of his reply.

I do not myself think there was a declining influence but a declining
visibility due to Marx's efforts at popularisation. But I accept this is a
vexed question. Note that I think systematic dialectic is a good idea
regardless of whether it fits Marx and in some cases I depart explicitly
from Marx.

Chris

{\rtf1\ansi\deff21 {\fonttbl {\f4\fnil Geneva;}{\f5\fnil
Monaco;}{\f16384\fnil Chicago;}{\f2053\fnil Zeal;}{\f14\fnil Zapf
Dingbats;}{\f2012\fnil Wingdings;}{\f14214\fnil Webdings;}{\f7204\fnil
Verdana;}{\f1110\fnil Trebuchet MS;}{\f2011\fnil Times New
Roman;}{\f21\fnil Times;}{\f24\fnil Symbol;}{\f17\fnil Palatino;}{\f3\fnil
New York;}{\f201\fnil Mishawaka;}{\f202\fnil Mishawaka Bold;}{\f2040\fnil
Impact;}{\f22\fnil Helvetica;}{\f12172\fnil Georgia;}{\f2006\fnil Courier
New;}{\f23\fnil Courier;}{\f4514\fnil Comic Sans MS;}{\f2003\fnil
Charcoal;}{\f15\fnil Bookman;}{\f12078\fnil Arial Black;}{\f2002\fnil
Arial;}{\f7103\fnil Andale Mono;}{\f13861\fnil %MAdobeSerMM_790
100;}{\f13862\fnil %MAdobeSerMM_790 900;}{\f13863\fnil %MAdobeSerMM_110
100;}{\f13864\fnil %MAdobeSerMM_110 900;}{\f6647\fnil %MAdobeSanMM_1450
50;}{\f6648\fnil %MAdobeSanMM_1450 1450;}{\f6649\fnil %MAdobeSanMM_50
50;}{\f6650\fnil %MAdobeSanMM_50
1450;}}{\colortbl\red0\green0\blue0;\red0\green0\blue255;\red0\green255\blue255;
\red0\green255\blue0;\red255\green0\blue255;\red255\green0\blue0;\red255\green25
5\blue0;\red255\green255\blue255;}
{\stylesheet {\f4 \fs20 \snext0
Normal;}{\*\cs10 \additive Default Paragraph Font;}{\s2 \qj \sl360
\tql\tx720 \tql\tx1440 \tql\tx2160 \tql\tx2880 \tql\tx3600 \tql\tx4320
\tql\tx5040 \tql\tx5760 \tql\tx6480 \tql\tx7200 \tql\tx7920 \tql\tx8640
\f23 \sbasedon222 \snext2 Default;}{\s3 \qj \fi-280 \li300 \sl360
\tql\tx300 \tql\tx720 \tql\tx1440 \tql\tx2160 \tql\tx2880 \tql\tx3600
\tql\tx4320 \tql\tx5040 \tql\tx5760 \tql\tx6480 \tql\tx7200 \tql\tx7920
\tql\tx8640 \f23 \fs20 \sbasedon222 \snext3 Footnote;}{\s4 \qj \sl360
\tql\tx720 \tql\tx1440 \tql\tx2160 \tql\tx2880 \tql\tx3600 \tql\tx4320
\tql\tx5040 \tql\tx5760 \tql\tx6480 \tql\tx7200 \tql\tx7920 \tql\tx8640
\f23 \sbasedon222 \snext4 Header;}{\*\cs5 \f23 \fs20 \snext5 Footnote
Reference;}{\*\cs6 \f22 \fs18 \snext6 Footnote Marker;}{\*\cs7 \f23 \fs18
\sub \snext7 My Subscript;}}
\ftnbj \sbknone \fet2 \aenddoc \paperw11880
\paperh16800 \margl1400 \margr1400 \margt1520 \margb1520 {\headerr \pard
\s4 \qr \sl360 \tql\tx720 \tql\tx1440 \tql\tx2160 \tql\tx2880 \tql\tx3600
\tql\tx4320 \tql\tx5040 \tql\tx5760 \tql\tx6480 \tql\tx7200 \tql\tx7920
\tql\tx8640 {\f23 \fs20 Marx and the Russians}{\f23     }{\f23 \fs18
{\field{\*\fldinst  DATE \\@ "dddd, MMMM dd, yyyy" \\* MERGEFORMAT
}{\fldrslt {\lang1024 Wednesday, October 09, 1996}}}}{\f23 \fs18  }{\f23
}{\f23 \chpgn }
}{\headerl \pard \s4 \qr \sl360 \tql\tx720 \tql\tx1440
\tql\tx2160 \tql\tx2880 \tql\tx3600 \tql\tx4320 \tql\tx5040 \tql\tx5760
\tql\tx6480 \tql\tx7200 \tql\tx7920 \tql\tx8640 {\f23 \fs20 Marx and the
Russians}{\f23     }{\f23 \fs18 {\field{\*\fldinst  DATE \\@ "dddd, MMMM
dd, yyyy" \\* MERGEFORMAT }{\fldrslt {\lang1024 Wednesday, October 09,
1996}}}}{\f23 \fs18  }{\f23                      }{\f23 \chpgn }
}{\footerr
}{\footerl }\pard \s2 \qj \sl360 \tql\tx720 \tql\tx1440 \tql\tx2160
\tql\tx2880 \tql\tx3600 \tql\tx4320 \tql\tx5040 \tql\tx5760 \tql\tx6480
\tql\tx7200 \tql\tx7920 \tql\tx8640 {\f2011 James D. White\par
}\pard \s2
\qj \sl360 \tql\tx720 \tql\tx1440 \tql\tx2160 \tql\tx2880 \tql\tx3600
\tql\tx4320 \tql\tx5040 \tql\tx5760 \tql\tx6480 \tql\tx7200 \tql\tx7920
\tql\tx8640 {\f2011 \b Karl Marx and the Intellectual Origins of
Dialectical Materialism}{\f2011  \par
}\pard \s2 \qj \sl360 \tql\tx720
\tql\tx1440 \tql\tx2160 \tql\tx2880 \tql\tx3600 \tql\tx4320 \tql\tx5040
\tql\tx5760 \tql\tx6480 \tql\tx7200 \tql\tx7920 \tql\tx8640 {\f2011
Macmillan 1996, London, 416 pp.\par
}\pard \s2 \qj \sl360 \tql\tx720
\tql\tx1440 \tql\tx2160 \tql\tx2880 \tql\tx3600 \tql\tx4320 \tql\tx5040
\tql\tx5760 \tql\tx6480 \tql\tx7200 \tql\tx7920 \tql\tx8640 {\f2011 ISBN
0-333-66857-X (pbk) \'a320.99\par
}\pard \s2 \qj \sl360 \tql\tx720
\tql\tx1440 \tql\tx2160 \tql\tx2880 \tql\tx3600 \tql\tx4320 \tql\tx5040
\tql\tx5760 \tql\tx6480 \tql\tx7200 \tql\tx7920 \tql\tx8640 {\f2011 \b
Lenin: The Practice and Theory of Revolution\par
}\pard \s2 \qj \sl360
\tql\tx720 \tql\tx1440 \tql\tx2160 \tql\tx2880 \tql\tx3600 \tql\tx4320
\tql\tx5040 \tql\tx5760 \tql\tx6480 \tql\tx7200 \tql\tx7920 \tql\tx8640
{\f2011 Palgrave 2001, Basingstoke and New York, 262 pp. \par
}\pard \s2
\qj \sl360 \tql\tx720 \tql\tx1440 \tql\tx2160 \tql\tx2880 \tql\tx3600
\tql\tx4320 \tql\tx5040 \tql\tx5760 \tql\tx6480 \tql\tx7200 \tql\tx7920
\tql\tx8640 {\f2011 ISBN 0-333-72157-8 (pbk) \'a314.99\par
}\pard \s2 \qj
\sl360 \tql\tx720 \tql\tx1440 \tql\tx2160 \tql\tx2880 \tql\tx3600
\tql\tx4320 \tql\tx5040 \tql\tx5760 \tql\tx6480 \tql\tx7200 \tql\tx7920
\tql\tx8640 {\f2011 \par
}\pard \s2 \qj \sl360 \tql\tx720 \tql\tx1440
\tql\tx2160 \tql\tx2880 \tql\tx3600 \tql\tx4320 \tql\tx5040 \tql\tx5760
\tql\tx6480 \tql\tx7200 \tql\tx7920 \tql\tx8640 {\f2011 reviewed by
}{\f2011 \i Chris Arthur\par
}\pard \s2 \qj \sl360 \tql\tx720 \tql\tx1440
\tql\tx2160 \tql\tx2880 \tql\tx3600 \tql\tx4320 \tql\tx5040 \tql\tx5760
\tql\tx6480 \tql\tx7200 \tql\tx7920 \tql\tx8640 {\f2011 \i \par
}\pard \s2
\qj \sl360 \tql\tx720 \tql\tx1440 \tql\tx2160 \tql\tx2880 \tql\tx3600
\tql\tx4320 \tql\tx5040 \tql\tx5760 \tql\tx6480 \tql\tx7200 \tql\tx7920
\tql\tx8640 {\f2011 White\'92s little book on }{\f2011 \i Lenin}{\f2011
packs in a great deal of original research, and fresh thinking, about its
subject: Lenin as a revolutionary. In the process he corrects the
distortions of the record perpetrated by those, beginning with Lenin
himself, with political axes to grind (a final}{\f2011  chapter surveys the
literature of \'91the Lenin legend\'92). Close attention to the real
history of the revolutionary movement in Russia, and the course of the
revolution itself, shows that Lenin was much less in control of events, and
much less prescient theor}{\f2011 etically, than is usually supposed.
Incidentally, White has a low opinion of Lenin as a polemicist, arguing
that he distorts the views of opponents, and makes selective use of the
facts. He provides a wealth of information about Lenin\'92s relations with
othe}{\f2011 r interesting figures such as Bogdanov.\par
}\pard \s2 \qj
\sl360 \tql\tx720 \tql\tx1440 \tql\tx2160 \tql\tx2880 \tql\tx3600
\tql\tx4320 \tql\tx5040 \tql\tx5760 \tql\tx6480 \tql\tx7200 \tql\tx7920
\tql\tx8640 {\f2011  White, in his grasp of the theoretical issues, is
superior to those such as Shub and Service whose biographies lack any
understanding of the \'91big picture\'92. He is especially original and
interesting on the early Lenin, and, more broadly, on the Russian
rev}{\f2011 olutionary movements of the time. But sometimes I feel he
overstates the case. It may well be true that the influence on Lenin\'92s
ideas of his brother Alexander, who was hanged for participating in an
assassination attempt in 1887, was more profound than ha}{\f2011 s hitherto
been thought. But it is surely too simple to say \'91Lenin became a
revolutionary through loyalty to his brother\'92. (}{\f2011 \i
Lenin,}{\f2011  p.39)\par
}\pard \s2 \qj \sl360 \tql\tx720 \tql\tx1440
\tql\tx2160 \tql\tx2880 \tql\tx3600 \tql\tx4320 \tql\tx5040 \tql\tx5760
\tql\tx6480 \tql\tx7200 \tql\tx7920 \tql\tx8640 {\f2011  The Introduction
details the way in which Marx\'92s ideas were received in Russia. This is a
very complex story which White investigates thoroughly in his previous
substantial work }{\f2011 \i Karl Marx and the Intellectual Origins of
Dialectical Materialism}{\f2011 . Indeed, it is impossible to make a fair
assessment of this Introduction without a study of the earlier book,
especially where White\'92s explanation of Marx\'92s failure to complete
}{\f2011 \i Capital}{\f2011  is concerned (I shall discuss this shortly).
\par
}\pard \s2 \qj \sl360 \tql\tx720 \tql\tx1440 \tql\tx2160 \tql\tx2880
\tql\tx3600 \tql\tx4320 \tql\tx5040 \tql\tx5760 \tql\tx6480 \tql\tx7200
\tql\tx7920 \tql\tx8640 {\f2011 The usual story that Russian
revolutionaries divided into Narodniks and Marxists is nonsense, since the
Narodniks had just as much right to call themselves followers of Marx as
Plekhanov and Lenin. According to White:\par
}\pard \s2 \qj \fi400 \li400
\sl360 \tql\tx720 \tql\tx1440 \tql\tx2160 \tql\tx2880 \tql\tx3600
\tql\tx4320 \tql\tx5040 \tql\tx5760 \tql\tx6480 \tql\tx7200 \tql\tx7920
\tql\tx8640 {\f2011 \'91Marx\'92s ideas entered Russia in not one, but two
forms. One was Marx\'92s original scheme that capitalism was necessarily a
world-wide phenomenon and that every country would be brought within its
ambit. The other form derived from Marx\'92s later conception of }{\f2011
capitalism based on empirical evidence. This was of a system that did
}{\f2011 \i not}{\f2011  necessarily expand into all countries, or even
into all areas of a given country. It was not necessarily a purely economic
phenomenon and might require political intervention to initiate and even to
perpetuate its  operations. It might function, moreover,}{\f2011  in a very
crude fashion wasteful of human life. The first variant of Marx\'92s ideas
came to be known in Russia as \'93Marxism\'94, while the second was given
the designation \'93Narodism\'94 by Plekhanov.\'92 (}{\f2011 \i
Lenin,}{\f2011  p.7)\par
}\pard \s2 \qj \sl360 \tql\tx720 \tql\tx1440
\tql\tx2160 \tql\tx2880 \tql\tx3600 \tql\tx4320 \tql\tx5040 \tql\tx5760
\tql\tx6480 \tql\tx7200 \tql\tx7920 \tql\tx8640 {\f2011 As White stresses
in both his books, Marx\'92s ideas changed precisely because of the Russian
case, which he began to study subsequent to the publication of the first
edition of }{\f2011 \i Capital}{\f2011  in 1867, and which he continued to
do for the rest of his life, in personal and literary contact with the
Russians, notably Danielson and Kovalevsky. Moreover he lent cautious
support to the Narodnik hope that Russia could avoid a capitalist phase of
its }{\f2011 development. This is documented in two letters that became
well-known in Russia (}{\f2011 \i Marx-Engels Collected Works}{\f2011 ,
Vol. 24, p. 196, p. 370). In both, he stressed that his }{\f2011 \i
Capital}{\f2011  pertained solely to Western Europe, and that it should not
be taken, as it had been in Russia, as a \'91historico-philosophical theory
of general development, imposed by fate on all peoples\'92 (MECW Vol. 24,
p. 200). But it has to be said that Marx played a li}{\f2011 ttle trick
here, in citing in both letters this passage from the chapter on
\'91primitive accumulation\'92: \'91The basis of this whole development is
the expropriation of the agricultural producer. To date this has not been
accomplished in a radical fashion anywhe}{\f2011 re except in England...
but all the other countries of Western Europe are undergoing the same
process\'92 (MECW Vol. 24, pp. 199-200). He underlined to his recipients
the restriction to Western Europe. What he did not say in referring  the
quotation to the Fr}{\f2011 ench edition of the first volume of }{\f2011 \i
Capital}{\f2011  was that Western Europe is }{\f2011 \i not}{\f2011
mentioned in any German edition! (Hence, also, it is not in the Russian
translation of the first edition.) There the passage ends: \'91The history
of this expropriation assumes different aspects in different countries, and
runs through its various phases in }{\f2011 different orders of succession,
and at different historical epochs. Only in England, which we therefore
take as our example, has it the classic form.\'92 (B. Fowkes translation,
Penguin, p.876)\par
}\pard \s2 \qj \sl360 \tql\tx720 \tql\tx1440
\tql\tx2160 \tql\tx2880 \tql\tx3600 \tql\tx4320 \tql\tx5040 \tql\tx5760
\tql\tx6480 \tql\tx7200 \tql\tx7920 \tql\tx8640 {\f2011 So why did Marx
change it for the French edition? Undoubtedly under the influence of the
new Russian literature with which he had now become acquainted. This
episode fits well into the theory put forward by White, that originally
Marx did hope to show that}{\f2011  capitalism would impose itself on all
peoples, but that he was forced to abandon this view, springing from his
attempt to model economic categories on Hegelian logic, as the empirical
evidence told against it. In }{\f2011 \i Karl Marx and the Intellectual
Origins of Dialectical Materialism}{\f2011  White situates Marx\'92s work
in the context of the ambtions of the German Romantics, culminating in the
speculative philosophy of Schelling and Hegel. In particular Marx took over
the idea of a totalising system that subsumed all available content, and he
t}{\f2011 ransferred it to the concept of capital. According to White,
cutting back on explicit Hegelian jargon in successive versions of his
\'91Critique of Political Economy\'92 could not get rid of the original
structure of Marx\'92s argument; hence he was unable to finis}{\f2011 h
}{\f2011 \i Capital}{\f2011 , not because of age or illness, but because a
yawning gap in its theoretical premises had opened. On White\'92s account,
when Marx started limiting his story to the West, and when he claimed only
to \'91flirt\'92 with Hegelian terms, he was stating how he wanted
h}{\f2011 is work now to be read rather than acknowledging its original
inspiration. Moreover the fact that Marx spent the last dozen years of his
life immersing himself in the literature on the land question in Russia
fits this picture. This was a crucial case that}{\f2011  defeated the
original thesis that capital would \'91batter down all Chinese walls\'92 to
its expansion. Hence the need to sift it carefully, especially the role of
the State in helping or hindering the proletarianisation of the
peasantry.\par
}\pard \s2 \qj \sl360 \tql\tx720 \tql\tx1440 \tql\tx2160
\tql\tx2880 \tql\tx3600 \tql\tx4320 \tql\tx5040 \tql\tx5760 \tql\tx6480
\tql\tx7200 \tql\tx7920 \tql\tx8640 {\f2011 In spite of the immense
scholarship White deploys to buttress this thesis in his }{\f2011 \i Karl
Marx and the Intellectual Origins of Dialectical Materialism}{\f2011  I am
not convinced by it. There are a number of complex issues to deal with
here: what is }{\f2011 \i Capital}{\f2011  supposed to achieve; what is the
role Hegelian dialectic might have in this; just where, precisely, does
this logic fail, if it does; and finally, why did Marx become so obsessed
with the Russian question? \par
}\pard \s2 \qj \sl360 \tql\tx720
\tql\tx1440 \tql\tx2160 \tql\tx2880 \tql\tx3600 \tql\tx4320 \tql\tx5040
\tql\tx5760 \tql\tx6480 \tql\tx7200 \tql\tx7920 \tql\tx8640 {\f2011 I
entirely agree with White that Marx\'92s logic of economic categories is
modelled on Hegel\'92s logic (}{\f2011 \i Lenin,}{\f2011  pp. 2-3). But
Hegel\'92s work is not all of a piece; at risk of simplification, it is
possible to separate its }{\f2011 \i systematic}{\f2011  character from its
philosophy of }{\f2011 \i history}{\f2011 . The books which develop in the
most rigorous style are those such as the }{\f2011 \i Logic}{\f2011  and
the}{\f2011 \i  Philosophy of Right}{\f2011  that do not pertain to history
but to a }{\f2011 \i given system}{\f2011 , for example, the system of
thought, or the system of right. It follows that the transitions in the
argument cannot be identified with any real change but are solely internal
to the project of exhibiting perspicuously the network of categorial
dependencie}{\f2011 s concerned. (See my \'91Systematic Dialectic\'92 in
}{\f2011 \i Science & Society}{\f2011 , Fall 1998, for the method to be
followed.) Hegel\'92s historical works are much looser, acknowledging the
role of contingency in the real process of change and development, even if
the touted identity of thought and being is supposed to ensure that history
}{\f2011 has a }{\f2011 \i telos}{\f2011 .\par
}\pard \s2 \qj \sl360
\tql\tx720 \tql\tx1440 \tql\tx2160 \tql\tx2880 \tql\tx3600 \tql\tx4320
\tql\tx5040 \tql\tx5760 \tql\tx6480 \tql\tx7200 \tql\tx7920 \tql\tx8640
{\f2011 On my reading of it, Marx\'92s }{\f2011 \i Capital}{\f2011  was
always intended to be a work of the first sort. Its dialectic is aimed at
grasping the system of categories as they are embodied in fully developed
capitalism. This is clear from the \'91Introduction\'92 Marx sketched in
1857. In }{\f2011 \i Capital}{\f2011  the historical excursions, such as
the description of the struggle over the working day, are illustrative of
tendencies inherent }{\f2011 \i to that given structure}{\f2011 .\par

}\pard \s2 \qj \sl360 \tql\tx720 \tql\tx1440 \tql\tx2160 \tql\tx2880
\tql\tx3600 \tql\tx4320 \tql\tx5040 \tql\tx5760 \tql\tx6480 \tql\tx7200
\tql\tx7920 \tql\tx8640 {\f2011 The bulk of }{\f2011 \i Capital}{\f2011  is
concerned with depicting its }{\f2011 \i logical}{\f2011  genesis; the
section on \'91original accumulation\'92 tacked on to the end of Volume
One, dealing with its }{\f2011 \i historical}{\f2011  genesis, could be
omitted without loss to the argument of the work as a whole. Moreover there
is no sign whatever within the last part of any dialectic, Hegelian or
otherwise. This is only to be expected since the logic of capital comes
into its own and r}{\f2011 igorously imposes itself on the material only
once all its presuppositions are in place; }{\f2011 \i thereafter}{\f2011
it \'91posits its presuppositions\'92, but this power cannot be projected
back into its own }{\f2011 \i historical }{\f2011 origins. The same lesson
applies to the spread of the capitalist system. There is no \'91logic\'92
here, only a }{\f2011 \i tendency}{\f2011  to create a world market that
may or may not be realised according to circumstances.\par
}\pard \s2 \qj
\sl360 \tql\tx720 \tql\tx1440 \tql\tx2160 \tql\tx2880 \tql\tx3600
\tql\tx4320 \tql\tx5040 \tql\tx5760 \tql\tx6480 \tql\tx7200 \tql\tx7920
\tql\tx8640 {\f2011 I entirely agree with\'a0White that Marx initially had
great confidence in capital\'92s power to subvert non-capitalist forms into
which it penetrated, and that he became more cautious about this later.
What I contest is that this could create a theoretical cris}{\f2011 is
sufficient to prevent the completion of }{\f2011 \i Capital}{\f2011 . The
depiction of the logic of the system as it obtains is separable from
historical questions of its origins and spread. Take as an example the
issue central to much of the debate, free labour. Marx introduces
doubly-free labour as a necessary pole of th}{\f2011 e capital relation,
and he shows how the logic of that relation reproduces itself, without
concerning himself with anything more at that point. Only in the historical
part at the end is the  issue of the origins of free labour in England
sketched. Moreover}{\f2011  in the very final chapter he demonstrates that
capitalism spreads to the colonies only insofar as some functional
equivalent of that separation from the land is set up. Logical and
historical genesis are separable, and are indeed separated in }{\f2011 \i
Capital}{\f2011 . In 1859 Marx had already made clear that \'91the
dialectical form of presentation is right only when it knows its own
limits\'92, stressing that \'91the general concept of capital\'92 is not
\'91an incarnation of some eternal idea\'92 and that it therefore requires
\'91a len}{\f2011 gthy historical process\'92 to establish its premises.
(MECW, Vol. 29, p. 505.)\par
}\pard \s2 \qj \sl360 \tql\tx720 \tql\tx1440
\tql\tx2160 \tql\tx2880 \tql\tx3600 \tql\tx4320 \tql\tx5040 \tql\tx5760
\tql\tx6480 \tql\tx7200 \tql\tx7920 \tql\tx8640 {\f2011 Before moving to
the concrete issues, it is important to take note also of the difference
between Marx and Hegel on the identity of thought and being. It is
interesting in this connection that White draws our attention to Marx\'92s
deployment of the category }{\f2011 of \'91subsumption\'92. This is not an
Hegelian category, and White believes Marx took it from Schelling. Be that
as it may, it is perfectly suited to conceptualising a relation between
ideal forms and the content regulated by them that is not \'91identical\'92
with t}{\f2011 his ideality. Hegel could proceed with perfect confidence to
show that logic is embodied in the real world and its historical
development, because his metaphysics guaranteed their unity in advance. For
a materialist theory such as Marx\'92s, no matter how pow}{\f2011 erful the
inherent logic of the form of capital, it must always have to }{\f2011 \i
impose}{\f2011  itself on a material realm that is }{\f2011 \i
other}{\f2011  than it, and even, in the case of labour, recalcitrant to
it. The content is not produced by the form but }{\f2011 \i
subsumed}{\f2011  by it.\par
}\pard \s2 \qj \sl360 \tql\tx720 \tql\tx1440
\tql\tx2160 \tql\tx2880 \tql\tx3600 \tql\tx4320 \tql\tx5040 \tql\tx5760
\tql\tx6480 \tql\tx7200 \tql\tx7920 \tql\tx8640 {\f2011 Now let us take up
the matter of how the origin and spread of capitalism was debated in
Russia. It is true that }{\f2011 \i Capital}{\f2011  was received initially
as a demonstration that capitalism is the historical destiny of all
peoples. In }{\f2011 \i Karl Marx and the Intellectual Origins of
Dialectical Materialism}{\f2011  White examines the mediating role of
Engels, Plekhanov, and Struve in this matter. But I hold this is an
incorrect reading even of the very Hegelian first edition, for the reasons
just given. Moreover the weak point in this reading was spotted
immediately}{\f2011  in Russia itself. In 1877 Yu. G. Zhukovsky complained
that Marx\'92s account of the origins of capitalism, the expropriation of
the peasants, and the formation of the proletariat, had a fortuitous and
anecdotal quality about it (cited in White }{\f2011 \i Origins,}{\f2011  p.
235). Precisely; it does; but this is only to be expected since the logic
of capital\'92s circulation and reproduction kicks in only when all the
necessary presuppositions are in place; but the \'91story\'92 (not
\'91logic\'92) of their original emergence has a diffe}{\f2011 rent
theoretical status.\par
}\pard \s2 \qj \sl360 \tql\tx720 \tql\tx1440
\tql\tx2160 \tql\tx2880 \tql\tx3600 \tql\tx4320 \tql\tx5040 \tql\tx5760
\tql\tx6480 \tql\tx7200 \tql\tx7920 \tql\tx8640 {\f2011 White appears to
concede this point (}{\f2011 \i Origins}{\f2011  p. 236), and rests his
claims on the implications of Marx\'92s category of \'91circulation\'92.
This topic is that of Book II of }{\f2011 \i Capital}{\f2011  which was not
available to the first generation of Marx\'92s Russian readers but was
studied by Lenin\'92s generation, in a version edited by Engels from
Marx\'92s unfinished manuscripts. \'97}{\f2011 \i Necessarily}{\f2011
unfinished according to White. This is his thesis about Marx:\par
}\pard
\s2 \qj \fi80 \li400 \sl360 \tql\tx720 \tql\tx1440 \tql\tx2160 \tql\tx2880
\tql\tx3600 \tql\tx4320 \tql\tx5040 \tql\tx5760 \tql\tx6480 \tql\tx7200
\tql\tx7920 \tql\tx8640 {\f2011 \'91He would show that \'93the tendency to
create the world market is directly given in the concept of capital
itself\'94 [}{\f2011 \i Grundrisse}{\f2011  p. 408]....Having reached this
point of culmination the capitalist system, having nowhere further to go,
would then give way to a higher form of economic and social
organisation....It was when he came to make a full version of the second
section, on the c}{\f2011 irculation of capital, that Marx ran into serious
difficulties with his project, which prevented its ever being
completed....He believed that as capital circulated it \'93reproduced\'94
itself, so that its circuits were perpetuated. He also thought that as it
ci}{\f2011 rculated capital broadened its sphere of operation, giving rise
to \'93expanded reproduction\'94. This would cause it eventually to
penetrate throughout the world...removing more and more obstacles in its
way. These obstacles were the remains of any earlier econ}{\f2011 omic or
social systems....The reason which sent Marx back to the drawing-board was
the realization that in the real world the circulation of capital did not
act in this way. It did not necessarily expand into new areas, nor did it
inevitably destroy earlie}{\f2011 r forms of social and economic
organization.\'92 (}{\f2011 \i Lenin}{\f2011  p. 3; see also p. 115)\par

}\pard \s2 \qj \fi80 \sl360 \tql\tx720 \tql\tx1440 \tql\tx2160 \tql\tx2880
\tql\tx3600 \tql\tx4320 \tql\tx5040 \tql\tx5760 \tql\tx6480 \tql\tx7200
\tql\tx7920 \tql\tx8640 {\f2011 This is an original and challenging thesis.
It deserves scrutiny at the broad level, and, also specifically, with
respect to the claim made about \'91expanded reproduction\'92. The first
problem about this latter is that the term \'91expanded\'92 is ambiguous;
but in }{\f2011 the passage above White gives the wrong gloss on it. The
ambiguity was noted in the Russian discussion itself. In an early work,
Lenin cites the following from a discussion paper by H. B. Krasin
(theoretician of a group in St. Petersburg Lenin joined in 18}{\f2011 93):
\'91[There are] two essentially different features in the accumulation of
capital: 1) the development of capitalist production in breadth, when it
takes hold of already existing fields of labour, ousting natural economy
and expanding at the latter\'92s expe}{\f2011 nse; and 2) the development
of capitalist production in depth, if one may so express it, when it
expands independently of natural economy, i.e. under the general and
exclusive domination of the capitalist mode of production.\'92 (cited in V.
I. Lenin \'91On the }{\f2011 So-called Market Question\'92 }{\f2011 \i
Collected Works }{\f2011 Vol. 1, p. 89)\par
}\pard \s2 \qj \fi80 \sl360
\tql\tx720 \tql\tx1440 \tql\tx2160 \tql\tx2880 \tql\tx3600 \tql\tx4320
\tql\tx5040 \tql\tx5760 \tql\tx6480 \tql\tx7200 \tql\tx7920 \tql\tx8640
{\f2011 Now although Lenin gave a careful account of Marx\'92s chapter on
\'91Expanded Reproduction\'92, he understood that this pertained }{\f2011
\i solely to the second issue}{\f2011 , that is to say, it showed how
capital could expand }{\f2011 \i intensively}{\f2011 , not }{\f2011 \i
extensively}{\f2011  (\'91Market Question\'92 }{\f2011 \i Works }{\f2011
Vol. 1, p 89). There is nothing whatever in Volume Two of }{\f2011 \i
Capital}{\f2011 , as published by Engels, on if and how capital might
extend itself geographically. (There is only one significant reference to
the transformation of pre-capitalist forms by world trade. It is clearly a
digression and relates solely to the transition of co}{\f2011 mmodity
production to capitalist commodity production. It is not relevant to the
Russian case  which has to do with the survival of communal production. D.
Fernbach translation, Penguin, pp. 119-20) Furthermore there is nothing in
it on how capital origina}{\f2011 lly developed; it is solely concerned
with how capital accumulates once it }{\f2011 \i is}{\f2011  fully
developed and self-enclosed. Unfortunately then, it was useless to the
Russians in assessing their conditions.\par
}\pard \s2 \qj \fi80 \sl360
\tql\tx720 \tql\tx1440 \tql\tx2160 \tql\tx2880 \tql\tx3600 \tql\tx4320
\tql\tx5040 \tql\tx5760 \tql\tx6480 \tql\tx7200 \tql\tx7920 \tql\tx8640
{\f2011 Contrary to White\'92s imputation (}{\f2011 \i Lenin,}{\f2011  p.
34) Lenin did not even try to base himself on Volume Two. His arguments on
if and how capitalism could develop in Russia are independent of it.\par

}\pard \s2 \qj \fi80 \sl360 \tql\tx720 \tql\tx1440 \tql\tx2160 \tql\tx2880
\tql\tx3600 \tql\tx4320 \tql\tx5040 \tql\tx5760 \tql\tx6480 \tql\tx7200
\tql\tx7920 \tql\tx8640 {\f2011 However a certain }{\f2011 \i
misreading}{\f2011  of the schemes of reproduction, made famous by Rosa
Luxemburg, did have some relevance. If one can believe Lenin\'92s account,
Krasin anticipated Luxemburg (herself influenced by the Russian case
according to White: }{\f2011 \i Lenin,}{\f2011  p. 115) in arguing that the
restricted purchasing  power  of its own workers forced capital to search
out external markets; these could either  be foreign markets or rooted in
the non-capitalist sector of a given country. Krasin drew up a two-sector
model}{\f2011  of Russia in this spirit (\'91Market Question\'92 p.90). The
corollary that suggests itself is that, }{\f2011 \i if}{\f2011  and when
capital conquered the world so that there were no external markets, it must
collapse. The Luxemburg theory is a kind of inversion of the thesis that
capitalism }{\f2011 \i must}{\f2011  expand geographically; for it appears
capitalism must }{\f2011 \i not}{\f2011  expand or it cuts away a crucial
presupposition of its reproduction. Although White also reads Marx in this
way, it is a wrong-headed view. As Lenin observed, in his paper on \'91The
Market Question\'92, this view neglects the strength of the }{\f2011 \i
internal}{\f2011  market for capital goods, which powers the economy
nicely, at least during upswings. The real problem for capital is thus not
\'91under-consumption\'92 but \'91over-accumulation\'92; the limit of
capital is really internal not external. At all events the empirical
qu}{\f2011 estion of the scope of the internal market in Russia was a focus
for lively  debate amongst the intellectuals.\par
}\pard \s2 \qj \fi80
\sl360 \tql\tx720 \tql\tx1440 \tql\tx2160 \tql\tx2880 \tql\tx3600
\tql\tx4320 \tql\tx5040 \tql\tx5760 \tql\tx6480 \tql\tx7200 \tql\tx7920
\tql\tx8640 {\f2011 To return from these technicalities, for White the
crucial problem for Marx was the impossibility of realising  the original
concept of the chapter on expanded reproduction  at the end of Volume
Two.\'a0But in the light of both the possibility of a purely }{\f2011 \i
systematic}{\f2011 , i.e. non-historical, logic of exposition of capital,
and the possibility of focusing that chapter on intensive reproduction, I
am not convinced. Moreover there is little wrong (except for the muddled
arithmetical examples) with the said chapter as Engels}{\f2011  gave it to
us. There is no trace of \'91expanded reproduction\'92 in the
\'91broadening\'92 sense, nor, if I am right about Marx\'92s method, need
there be.\'a0White concedes the chapter as published has no reference to
capital\'92s geographical extension; his evidence of Mar}{\f2011 x\'92s
\'91original intentions\'92 comes therefore from earlier manuscript
material, such as the }{\f2011 \i Grundrisse}{\f2011 , and \'91Mss. 1\'92
of Volume Two, written in 1865, and discarded by Engels in his editorial
labours.\par
}\pard \s2 \qj \fi80 \sl360 \tql\tx720 \tql\tx1440
\tql\tx2160 \tql\tx2880 \tql\tx3600 \tql\tx4320 \tql\tx5040 \tql\tx5760
\tql\tx6480 \tql\tx7200 \tql\tx7920 \tql\tx8640 {\f2011 Even if something
is conceded to White\'92s account, the fact remains that there was no
logical obstacle to completing }{\f2011 \i Capital}{\f2011  as an account
of how the system worked, while leaving aside questions of its origin and
spread.\par
}\pard \s2 \qj \fi80 \sl360 \tql\tx720 \tql\tx1440 \tql\tx2160
\tql\tx2880 \tql\tx3600 \tql\tx4320 \tql\tx5040 \tql\tx5760 \tql\tx6480
\tql\tx7200 \tql\tx7920 \tql\tx8640 {\f2011 Another worry I have is that
White\'92s reading of Marx is too economistic. He assumes that if it can be
shown that the State supports, or even initiates, capitalist development,
this tells against Marx. He even cites the case of colonisation. Yet in the
very}{\f2011  last chapter of }{\f2011 \i Capital}{\f2011  Volume One Marx
himself stressed the role of government policies in this connection.
Moreover this was not in conflict with his original views, because in the
}{\f2011 \i Grundrisse}{\f2011 , the high point of his Hegelian ambition,
he says Wakefield\'92s theory of colonisation is \'91infinitely
important\'92 for understanding the difficulty capital has in spreading
into areas where its presuppositions do not yet exist. The point, again, is
that the p}{\f2011 ure logic of the economy begins its movement only when
these presuppositions have been secured, whether fortuitously or
deliberately.\par
}\pard \s2 \qj \fi80 \sl360 \tql\tx720 \tql\tx1440
\tql\tx2160 \tql\tx2880 \tql\tx3600 \tql\tx4320 \tql\tx5040 \tql\tx5760
\tql\tx6480 \tql\tx7200 \tql\tx7920 \tql\tx8640 {\f2011 Finally, why did
Marx delve deeply into the Russian question rather than finishing }{\f2011
\i Capital}{\f2011 ? Marx had originally planned to complement }{\f2011 \i
Capital}{\f2011  with books on }{\f2011 \i Landed Property}{\f2011  and
}{\f2011 \i Wage Labour}{\f2011 . At first sight the Russian material seems
appropriate to one of the other books. Yet whenever Marx mentioned his work
on Russian landed property he always assigned it to the continuation of
}{\f2011 \i Capital}{\f2011  itself (to Danielson 12 Dec. 1872; to Lavrov
11 Feb. 1875). But }{\f2011 \i where}{\f2011  in }{\f2011 \i
Capital}{\f2011 ? Engels naturally assumed it was meant for Book III, where
there is a substantial discussion on rent (}{\f2011 \i Capital}{\f2011
Volume Three, Fernbach trans. Penguin, p. 96). White, however, insists it
was meant for Book II on circulation, refuting Engels by saying: \'91In
Marx\'92s presentation, ground-rent was one of the various forms of surplus
value. To class his studies of Russia u}{\f2011 nder this head was to
reduce their significance immeasurably.\'92 (}{\f2011 \i Origins,}{\f2011
p. 282) It is vexing  that this cannot be settled by reference to Marx\'92s
letters. They always refer to \'91Volume Two\'92, but, after the
publication of Book I as Volume One, he planned to publish Books II and III
in one volume (See }{\f2011 \i Capital}{\f2011  I, Penguin, p.93). So
Engels could yet be right. Moreover the following footnote on the Irish
case Marx inserted into the second edition of }{\f2011 \i Capital}{\f2011
might support this: \'91The famine and its consequences have been
deliberately exploited both by individual landlords and by the English
Parliament through legislation so as to accomplish the agricultural
revolution by force and to thin down the population o}{\f2011 f Ireland to
the proportions satisfactory to the landlords.\'a0I shall show more fully
in Volume [Book] 3 of this work, in the section on landed property, how
this has been done.\'92 (}{\f2011 \i Capital}{\f2011  I p. 869;
incidentally it is deplorable that - as here - translators often confuse
\'91volumes\'92 and \'91books\'92. Marx distinguished them: \'91Books\'92
is the term he used to articulate the content of the work; \'91Volumes\'92
referred to the format of publication.)\par
}\pard \s2 \qj \fi80 \sl360
\tql\tx720 \tql\tx1440 \tql\tx2160 \tql\tx2880 \tql\tx3600 \tql\tx4320
\tql\tx5040 \tql\tx5760 \tql\tx6480 \tql\tx7200 \tql\tx7920 \tql\tx8640
{\f2011 However, contrary to White\'92s general thesis, there is no sign in
Marx\'92s letters on Russian land ownership that any theoretical crisis
centred on it. But - still - why did Marx pay so much attention to Russia?
I believe he was deeply disappointed by the fai}{\f2011 lure of Volume One
to make any impact. The only people who were interested in his work were
the Russians, who promptly translated it, and besieged  him with questions
springing from their own peculiar situation. It was natural for Marx too,
therefore, to g}{\f2011 et involved in their problem, whatever its
theoretical significance.\par
}\pard \s2 \qj \fi80 \sl360 \tql\tx720
\tql\tx1440 \tql\tx2160 \tql\tx2880 \tql\tx3600 \tql\tx4320 \tql\tx5040
\tql\tx5760 \tql\tx6480 \tql\tx7200 \tql\tx7920 \tql\tx8640 {\f2011 Both of
White\'92s books are recommended as valuable studies in their own right;
but }{\f2011 \i Lenin}{\f2011  is also a useful sequel to }{\f2011 \i Karl
Marx and the Intellectual Origins of Dialectical Materialism}{\f2011 .\par

}}

17 Bristol Road, Brighton, BN2 1AP, England