8/13/2019 Reseña Martin Jay del libro de postone http://slidepdf.com/reader/full/resena-martin-jay-del-libro-de-postone 1/12 Marx after Marxism Time, Labor, and Social Domination: A Reinterpretation of Marx's Critical Theory by Moishe Postone Review by: Martin Jay New German Critique, No. 60, Special Issue on German Film History (Autumn, 1993), pp. 181- 191 Published by: New German Critique Stable URL: http://www.jstor.org/stable/488672 . Accessed: 14/10/2012 12:46 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]. . New German Critique and Duke University Press are collaborating with JSTOR to digitize, preserve and extend access to New German Critique. http://www.jstor.org
This document is posted to help you gain knowledge. Please leave a comment to let me know what you think about it! Share it to your friends and learn new things together.
Time, Labor, and Social Domination: A Reinterpretation of Marx's Critical Theory by MoishePostoneReview by: Martin JayNew German Critique, No. 60, Special Issue on German Film History (Autumn, 1993), pp. 181-191Published by: New German CritiqueStable URL: http://www.jstor.org/stable/488672 .
Accessed: 14/10/2012 12:46
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].
.
New German Critique and Duke University Press are collaborating with JSTOR to digitize, preserve and
dibilityurvived heglobaldebacleofthoseregimes nd movementswho drew nspirationromhiswork, owever oorly hey nderstoodit? s itprematureo conclude hatwe have entered newera n which
post-Marxismas oined a hostofother post- phenomena s transi-tionalbridges o a future hoseoutlines re still nlydimly isible?
The answer o all of thesequestionsproposedbyMoishePostone'sremarkable ew bookis a resoundingnd unapologetic es.Without
worryingboutpatching p the llegedholes nMarxwith rgumentsfrom sychoanalysis,tructuralism,ational hoicetheory,econstruc-tionor otherpossible lternatives,e arguesthatvirtuallyll the re-sources re there nMarx'sownwritingsor viable ritiquefmodern
society.Without gonizing verthe unity nd coherenceofMarx'sthoughtrentertaininglvinGouldner'slaim hat herereat east woMarxisms,riticalndscientific,ith qualclaim o textualegitimation,he provides strong eading largely focusedn Capital nd the
Grundrisseofwhatheconsidersheessentialmessage f Marx'sworkas a whole. Not eventhe now familiar istinctionetween heyoungand matureMarx survives is desire to present Marx's critique f
systematicallyowerfula way spossible. 'Postone's ltimateoal snoless than he aying fa firm heoreticaloundation or detailed ccountofa global capi-talism hat s still ulnerable oMarxist ritique.
Yetfor llofPostone's napologetic idelityo the etter ndspiritfMarx'swork, here s nothing fthesectarian r thedogmaticnhis
reinterpretation.easonedargumentsather hanappeals to textual
salvage coreofdefensibledeas.Whathe terms traditional arxismnotonly ncompassestandard econd nternational,eninist,rotsky-ist, nd evenmostMarxist umanist ersions,ut lsoserves, eargues,as the strawman)argetfpessimisticriticsfMarx ikeFriedrichol-lock and moreoptimisticneslikeJirgenHabermas.He identifiestwith all theoretical pproaches thatanalyze capitalismfromthe
standpointf abor and characterizehat ocietyssentiallynterms fclassrelations,tructuredyprivate wnership fthe meansofpro-
ductionand a market-regulatedconomy 7). Following rom hispremise, eargues,s an imageof ocialism s the ollectivewnershipofmeansofproductionhat re no longernthe ervice fa domina-ting lass,butwhich re still ontinuouswith he ndustrialized odelthat haracterizesigh apitalism. otsurprisingly,he actuallyxist-
ingsocialism oftheformer ovietblocwas, n hiseyes, ar essofabreakwith apitalismhattpurportedo be. Intact,tsreliance n thecentralized lanningof a large-scalendustrialconomyshould be
1. Postone 19. (Hereafter,ll references ill be givenparenthetically ithin hetext.)fthere sanydistinction,eargues, t s notbetween youthfulumanist nd amature cientistic arx, butrather etween ne who thinksnmore universalisticcategoriesndone who smorerigorouslyistoricalnd self-reflexivebouthis ownhistoricalpecificity.
orm fstate-inter-ventionistapitalism 14) instead fa true lternative.
The traditionaleadingof Marxism,Postonecontends, eriouslymisrepresents arx's ttitude owardsabor,value andhistory. atherthanholding hat abor s the transhistoricalourceofvalue,a sourcewhich smerelylienated nder apitalism,Marx dentifiedapitalismprecisely ith systemnwhich abor- alienated rnot, dead or
living s a subordinatessue- has becometheprimaryonstituterof the social world.Rather hanbelievinghat xchangevalue is the
capitalisturrogate orthe real value createdby abor,Marx under-stood thevery ategoryf value as an expression fcapitalistocialrelations.Rather hanseeinghistorys an inevitable nd automatic
unfolding f a universalaw ofdevelopment,Marx understood uchlaw-like egularitiess themselves function fthecapitalistorm fsocial organization,n whichall relations re yoked togethern a
totalizingystem.ndeed,anytranshistoricallaims wereforeignoMarx's ritiquefcapitalism, hich emained oggedlyocused n ustthathistorical
ormationnd no other.
Accordingly,totalityas not
a positive ermnhisvocabularyignifyingtheoreticalraspofall of
historyr a normative oal to be realized n the socialist uture, utrather negative erm xpressing hecapitalist rive o subordinateotherness othe rule of the same.
Genuinesocialism,PostoneunderstandsMarx to be saying, an
onlybe saidto have arrivedwhen abor no longer erves s thecentralsocialmotor fa totalized ystemhat osits omethingalled value
(use,exchange, r abor)as itsstandard fworth.Marx'scritiquewas
farmorefundamentalhanhad been magined yfriendlynterpreterslike MauriceDobb,JoanRobinsonor Paul Sweezy,who readhimaslittlemorethan leftRicardian. ostone'sMarx stheauthor f radi-cal critique fpolitical conomy,ncludingts abortheory f value,not a critical ersion fpolitical conomy.
Becauseof hisunderstandingfthe need to overcome hedomina-tionof abor,Marxalsoknew hat heproletariat,s the aboring lass
sotar s it s itseltffunctionfthevery ypertrophyf abor that ha-racterizeshe ystemtseeks oovercome.Howeverunderstandablet
mayhave beento enhance hedignityf aborat a timewhenworkerswerebeing ncreasinglyxploited nd their ctualimmiserationdefinedbyPostone as theirworkgrowing one-sided and empty 347)
o transformhat lass ntothesaviors f mankind. o-calledpraxisphilosophers, hosought pointd'appui or heir ritiquen theactivityf a potentiallyniversal lass,werethusmisguided. reedom romabor as themediatingmotor fsociety,otthefreedomfJapecific ind fnon-alienated,ocial aborwillmark he ndofthe apitalistrder.Not theproletariats thenew
expressivemeta-subjectfhistory,s GeorgLukcs had thoughtn
Historynd ClassConsciousness,utrather he end ofall suchabstractlyuniversalmeta-subjectswill spell its transcendence.Overcoming
alienation,n this iew,nvolves he bolitionf heself-grounding,elf'mov-ing ubjectcapital) nd theform f aborthat onstitutesnd is consti-tutedbystructuresfalienation 224).
structuref the social totalitys a whole. t is apparentn the com-modity orm fthe market lace and thepolitical ormofbourgeoisdemocracy, othofwhich eveal splitbetweenoncrete-materialndabstract-socialimensions. o privilegeneortheothers tosuccumbtofetishism,hichmanifeststself,nterlia, in thereduction fab-stract abor to an instrumentalool fortheendlessmaximization f
profitthe ncrease fvalue), hereiticationfcommoditiess thingsdevoidofsocialmediation,nd the ubstitutionfabstractmarkersf
exchange money) or ealwealth. histetishisms evidentntheepi-stemologicalualisms,mostfamouslyhose fKant, hathaveplaguedbourgeois hought.
Perhaps the most fundamental expression - indeed source - ofthedouble-sided, fetishistic haracter f abor under capitalismoccurs
theme owhichPostonedevotesan especiallycutechapter. he categoryfvalue,heargues,screatedwhenabstract,nvariable,mechanically omogenized ime s split fffromhe ived ime fconcrete roduction.helatter,ostonehastenstoadd, smerelyhereverse ftheformernd shouldnotbe fetishizedas a fully ealizedform ftemporal xperiencen itselfor,as withLukAcs,urned nto romanticizedersion f historical s opposedtomechanical ime). ucha differentiationannotbeunderstood,s ithas beenbycommentatorsikeDavidLandes,merelynterms fnew
technicalnventions,uch as theescapement lockofthe thirteenthcentury,utas a result fsocialchanges n theorganizationf workand urban ife n combinationwith hat echnology.he result s theuncoupling f measure fworthnterms fabstract nits fthe imespent n aboringvalue)from measurebasedon theuse oftheprod-uctsproduced materialwealth).Althoughmoney, hecirculationfcommodities,nd evencertain orms fcapital e.g.merchant)an befoundat an earlierperiod,truecapitalism eginsonlywith hefull-
fledged mergence f value based on the abstraction f labor as atotalizingorce.Yet withthat emergencealso comes the germ of its demise.
According o Postone'sMarx,althoughncreasedproductivityasedon technologicaldvancesdoes notmultiplyhevalueofthe abor ex-pended, t does increasematerialwealth.Capitalism's entral ontra-dictionsthus that alue remains hedeterminingorm fwealth ndof socialrelationsncapitalism,egardlessfdevelopmentsnproduc-tivity;owever,aluealso becomes ncreasinglynachronisticnterms
of thematerialwealth-producingotential f theproductive orces owhich tgivesrise 197).The proletariatlso becomesanachronistic;althoughts aborremains hesourceofvalue, t s no longer mpor-tant or he creation fmaterialwealth.
Becausethiscontradiction as notbeenresolved, ostoneconclu-des, thesystems stilldynamic nd proneto instability,rovidinggroundforresistinghepessimisticonclusion fthose ike theearlyFrankfurtchoolwhosawonly one-dimensional,dministered orld
replicatingtself d infinitum. n immanent ritique f capitalism'sdialecticalontradictions,nd not one thatmerely its deals againsttheirbetrayaln reality,s thus,despite everything,tillpossible.Whether r not t eads to classconflict, hetherrnot tproducesnew historical gent eager to overthrow he system, he contradictory
toryngeneral indeed,Postone xplicitlylaimsMarxrejects hisidea - butthere s one in thespecificocial formationalledcapita-lism. tsoutcome s an ever-intensiftyingension etween he potentialof thespecies-generalapabilities hathave been accumulated, ndtheir xistent,lienatedforms constitutedythedialectic fthetwodi-mensions f abor and oftime 360).
Even thishurriedynopsis fPostone'smuchricherndmorecom-
plicated rgument illgive omesense of ts mbition ndscope. It sno easytask orespond o iton the eveloftheoreticalophisticationthat tdemands.One question hat anquickly eanswered, owever,concerns heaccuracy f hisreading f Marx. t can be answeredbysimply y-passingt.Unlessoneiscaught p inthe ncreasinglyedious
game fdiscerningntentionsndrelyingn theiruthorityn egitimat-
ingarguments,t s irrelevanthetherr notPostone'sMarx s thereal one.Doubtless extualvidence ouldbe producedo showthatMarx idcount n the roletariatochallengeapitalismrreallydidholdto a transhistoricalotion f abor, ut 'm not ure here-sultswould eparticularlyelptulndealing ithhe heoreticalssuesPostone aises. ertainly,he ntellectualistorian illwant o knowwhyMarxwas oeasilyndconsistentlyisunderstoody hemultita-rious iguresostoneumps ogethernder herubricf traditionalMarxism ;his s not trivialssue. hemore ressinguestion,ow-
ever,swhetherrnotPostone's ersionfMarx's deas an urviventheirwnmerit.
Anumberffundamentalssuesmust e addressed ere. he firstconcerns he theme fdominatingbstraction,hichs central oPostone's eadingfMarx.Capitalisms particularlyernicious,etells s,because f ts ual bstractionf emporalitynd abor,whichthen roducesn alienatedystemfsocial elationsontrollingu-manityromwithoutike metaphysicalubject.n addressinghe
claims fearlierheoristsikeAlfredohn-Rethel,honoted herela-tionshipetweenbstracthilosophynGreecendthe ise f oinageandcommodities,eargueshatnlywithmodernapitalismoesthedominationf bstractionecome enuinelyotal.npriorystems,eclaims, ocialrelations eremoreexplicitnd immediate. ccording
appeartobe social tall.The structurefrelationsonstitutedy om-modity-determinedaborundermines arlier ystems fovert ocialtieswithout, owever, eplacinghemwith similar ystem.nstead,what emerges s a social universe hat Marx describesas one of
personal ndependence n a context fobjective ependence 259).As Postoneputs telsewhere,capitalism iffersundamentallyromother ocietiesn that tscharacterizingocial relations re notovertbut re objectively'onstitutednd, hence,do not ppeartobesocial-
ly pecifict all (273).To give final xample: he risis fcapitalism,heclaims, egins whenthe lienated ocialtotalityhatsgreaterhanitsparts ouldno longerbe understoodolelyn terms fthe ndivid-uals immediatelynvolvedn itsconstitution336).
Is itthecase, however,hat arlier ocietieswerenot dominatedbyalienated bstraction,ut nsteadmoreovertlyevealed heirocialre-lations s constitutedy ndividuals,r at eastconcealed hem nless
tanceofabstractionn the Greece xaminedbySohn-Rethelnd mo-dern apitalismshard ogainsay,he xistencefcommodities, oney,and abstracthilosophyntheearlierociety uggests nly differenceindegree, ot nkind. here re,moreover,ther ources f bstraction,whichmayalso dominate he humanssubjectto them, hatPostonenever dequately onsiders, erhapsbecausehedoes not see them s
Nor an hat o ess undamentalumannvention,anguage,hichnecessarilymploysbstractignifiersosignifyninfinityfdifferentphenomena.ostone'sritiquefHabermas'singuisticurncceptsperhaps ooeasily he notion hat anguage s primarily mediumof
stractingunction,ts xistence s an always lready xistingystem oone hasconsciouslyonstructed. is own stress n thereityingowerofabstractaborprevents imfrom onfrontingead-onthe mplica-tions of the linguistictheories that were so influential n the rise ofstructuralist nd poststructuralisthought.
bstractionothoseofcapitalism or at east oconsider nly apitalistbstractionas trulyominating isperhaps owhere s evident s inhisbriefon-siderationfDurkheim's ualisticociology:[Durkheim's]ppositionsofsocietynd the ndividual,ouland body, heabstract,eneral ndtheconcrete articular wherebynly hefirst,bstracterm feachopposition s understood s social- can be grasped s hypostatiza-tions and projections f thecommodity orm 225).Although nemightplausibly rguethatDurkheim'spolarity etween ocial and
non-socialmayreflecthe dominantdeology f hisday, tselfome-how a reflectionfcommodification,iscentral istinctionetweenthesacred nd theprofane annot.Additionally,nsofars thesacredis a categoryfvirtuallyllreligions,t s hard oconclude hat lienat-ingdifferentiations a functionfcapitalismlone.
The sacred, o be sure,maynotbe preciselyquivalent o theab-stract indeed, in certainrespects t s theopposite - but tdoes sug-gest hatprecapitalistocial relationswere essovert,esstransparent,than
Postone vers.n
fact, hevery ategoryf the social was notavailablefor xplicithematizationntil he ndustrial evolution. ri-or to that ime, ocial relationsweregenerallyast nnatural rtheo-logicalterms;what, fterll,was thepowerfulmetaphor fthe GreatChainofBeing,whichwassofundamentaloteudal ociety?o contendthat nlyunder apitalism oesthe lienationfthe ocialfirstccur sthusproblematic,lthoughtmaywell be construed s occurringnnewand moresinister ays.
If Postone's onceptualizationfprecapitalistocieties an be ques-tionedforunderestimatingheir ources fabstraction,o too can hisimplied mageofan alternativefterapitalism. hat mage s impliedbecausehe tries ofollow hetraditional arxistnjunction gainst e-pictingherealm f freedomstherealm fnecessity.nstead, earguesthat hecontradictionsfcapitalism oint owards ossibilities hoserealization annot be foreseen, thepotentialf the species-generalcapabilities hathave been accumulated 360). Still, ostone hrowsoutsufficientints o allowthereader opiecetogethersenseofwhat
thepost-capitalistrdermight e. First, eexplicitlyschews norma-tive antage ointbased on a romantic otion f mmediate nityndplenitudinous e-difterentiation,societynwhich ll workwouldbe-comeplay.Although e wants he bolition fabstract ocialdomina-tion, he is also waryof its simple negation in the name of lite or
the concrete thetype f program hat ften edromanticnti-capitalism ftheright).omehow t s theovercomingftheabstract/con-crete ichotomy,s well s other omparable ppositionsagency/struc-ture, ubject/object,anual/mentalabor, tc.), hat s histacit oal.
Second, lthough ewants otreeMarxfromhe mageof produc-tivist dvocate f ndustrialevelopment, e still ccepts he dea thatconsciouslynd deliberatelymaking the world s thedefinitionfsocialism. here s inhisthinkingoneofthatHeideggeriannflectedinvocation f unworked, inoperative r unavowed ommunities
thatnspirether riticsfproductivismikeJean-Lucancy rMauriceBlanchot, oneofthehostilityo thevalorizationfpoesisntherealmofaction s inthework f nArendt. Marx'sconception ftheover-
coming fcapitalism, ostone nsists,can be understoodnterms fpeople gainingcontrolover such quasi-objective evelopments, fprocessesofongoing nd acceleratingocial transformations,hichthey hemselves aveconstituted 384).
Such people arenot,however,o be understood s a meta-sub-
ject,norare
theydentified ith
nyspecificocial
groupsuch as the
proletariat; lthoughPostonemakes a fewhalf-heartedestures o-wardsnew socialmovements, e franklycknowledgeshat no exist-ing social formrepresentshedeterminate egationof capitalism(358).As a result, hepossibilities e detectsn the contradictionsf
capitalism emainthemselves roblematicallybstract,nd what he
says fHabermas- it snotevidentwhy he ppealtopracticaleas-on couldbemorethan n exhortation 241)- canbe turned gainsthis ownappeal to mmanent ontradictionshat ack nypracticalm-
bodiment. howing hat tructuralonditions or hange xist s a tarcry rom xplaining he motorofthechange tself.
Indeed,there s a danger n assuming hat uch mmanent ontra-dictionsnecessarilyr eventendentiallyroducethemotivation
subjective robjective fbr heir vercoming.Marx'sopposition, sPostonepresentst,between bstractalueand materialwealth per-ates on thepremise hat he atters an absolute lternativefthefor-mer, hat ne is dominatingnd theother iberating.etmighttnot
bepossible o see them smutuallyntailed,heoneneeding heotheras its ntithesis?ostone ecognizeshis nhisdiscussionftherelation-
shipbetween he varieties fvalue, nwhichhe refuses o uxtaposeuse value or value based on labor as completely nnocent alternativesto exchange value, but when it comes to the couplet value/wealth, he
ating t of all force r human relevance. ar from mbodyinghepossibilityfvalueas such, heuniverse fabsolutelyncompara-bility hich ameson ees as coming eforend,presumably,fterthe ra ofexchange-value,ould nfact llowfornopossibilityfvalueatall,since universe nwhichnothingould be comparedwith nythinglsebyany hared cale ofmeasurement ould be auniverse fabsolute nertness,rvaluelessness.2
Put in the termsof Postone's reading of Marx, some abstraction s
necessaryto provide the commensurabilityneeded to make wealth ameaningful ategory. n politicalterms, he same pointholds. Accord-
ing to Postone, postcapitalistdemocracywould require the abolitionof the abstract social compulsions rooted in the social formsgraspedbythe Marxian categories (41). Yet otherabstractionswould have to
fill hegap, forhow, after ll, can any democracyoperatewithout uch
categoriesas the people, popular sovereignty, citizenship, one
person, one vote, etc.,all of which require some sortof abstraction.Even the most doggedly anti-representative otion of direct demo-
cracymust depend on a radical egalitarianism hat evels differences.Althoughsuch political abstractionsmay not have thedominating ef-fectof thatof labor, theytoo may inadvertentlyxclude and margi-nalize some groups deemed outside theirreach.
In short,once the abstractionoflabor is overcome, assumingitcanbe, what is to preventother abstractions,perhaps equally totalizing,frommergingto take tsplace? Atone point in his argument,Postonechastises Habermas forfailing to allow for distinction mong forms
ofabstractions 257), a criticismwhich shows Postone recognizes thepossibilityhatnot all abstractions re to be subsumed under the domi-nationof labor. In general,however,the versionof Marx he presents
that ftheother ntinomiesfbourgeois houghtndlite,maywell beharder o master han Marximagined.Emancipation,whatever hatexaltedwordmaymean,maywell entail reedom rom he belief hatwe can evergathern all the alienated bstractionshathave definedhumanculturewell before he onset ofthattotalizingmeta-subjectcalledcapital.Postonehas dettlylerted s to the argerssuesraised
byMarx'sremarkable ork, ut he has openedmorequestions hanhe has answered.For Marxto remain reliableguide into the nextmillennium,t is thesequestionsthathis self-criticaletenderswillhave to address.Postonehas cleareda greatdeal ofground,but thetoundationsora newand strongerdifice restill o be constructed.