on commodities, force and the law of value

Coverimage:DistributiondesRecompenses(DistributionofRewards),fromLesMisèresetlesMal-HeuresdelaGuerre(TheMiseriesandMisfortunesofWar),plate18,byJacquesCallot(1633).

ThroughoutthehistoryofMarxismstatetheoryhasdevelopedinwaves,witharenewedintereststimulatedbythecrisisofneoliberalismandthereturnofthestatebothtothepoliticsoftheleftandtheright.ColinBarkerdedicatedmuchofhislifetodevelopingadistinctiveaccountofstatepower.His1978essayforInternationalSocialismsituatedstatepowerwithinthewiderdebatesoftheInternationalSocialisttendencyatthetime.

Sincethe1990shisthinkingonstatepowermovedtowardsstressingtheimportanceof‘states’ratherthan‘thestate’,andtowardslookingathowviolenceandcoercionarewrittenintothecoreofcapitalistsocialrelationsitself.TheseideastooktheformofalongessaythatwentbacktoMarx’sbasiccategoriesinCapital.

Originallypublishedbyrevolutionaryreflectionsatrs21.org.uk,June2019

Oncommodities,forceandthelawofvalue

Bywayofintroduction

Marx’stheoryofthestateisseriouslyunderdeveloped,especiallywithregardtotheroleofthestatewithincapitalism,andthereforealsotothecommunistviewofthestruggletooverthrowthespecificallycapitaliststate.

SofarasthetrajectoryofMarx’sownthinkingandwritingisconcerned,thereareidentifiablereasonsfor(orpatternswithin)thistheoreticalunder-development.

Marx’searlywritings–uptothe1848revolutions–embodyvariousdevelopmentsofageneraltheme,arisingfromhisreflectionsontheFrenchRevolutionanditslimitations.Hearguedagainst‘statist’illusionsalonganumberoffronts:againstHegel’sseekingintheprincipleofthestateapointofreconciliation;againsttheJacobininheritancethatsawtheextensionof‘politicalemancipation’asthesolutiontosociety’sills;againsttheillusionthatthestatecouldsolveproblemsofpoverty.

Inbecomingacommunist,andinidentifyingthekeyagentofsocialtransformationintheproletariat,hisargumentbecamethatafarmorethorough-goingsocialrevolutionwasrequired,beyondtheachievementsof1776and1789.Thecriticismofsocietymustextendtoitsveryroots,andtotheformsofsociallifethatliberalthoughttookforgranted.Henceitwasnecessarytocriticise‘civilsociety’itself,whoseanatomywastobefoundin‘politicaleconomy’.

Atvariouspoints,hesuggeststhatthebirthsofthemodernstateandofcivilsocietyrestonthesamebasicfoundations;the‘totality’ofsocialrelationsmostdefinitelyincludedthestate.Buthisownstudiespushedhimtowardsafocusontheanatomyofonehalfofthisdoublerelationship,theanalysisofcivilsocietyandthecritiqueofpoliticaleconomy,withaparticularfocusonthe‘economiccategories’.

VariousofMarx’ssketchesforhiswholeplannedworksuggestareturntothematterofthestate,alongwithfurtherexplorationofsuchmattersasinternationaltrade,theworldmarketandcrises.Therewasindeedawarrantforsodoingevenintermsofthebasic‘agenda’ofclassicalpoliticaleconomy,ine.g.SmithorRicardo.Buthenevermanagedtomakethis‘return’tothetotality.

Beforenotingsomeofthemattersthatthisleftunexplored,weshouldperhapsnotethreegeneraleffectsofthe‘unfinished’natureofMarx’sCapitalandthewholelineofcritiquehedeveloped.Thefirstisthat

revolutionaryreflections|rs212

https://www.rs21.org.uk/2019/01/25/revolutionary-reflections-notes-on-capital-and-the-state-part-1/

http://rs21.org.uk

Marxistcritiqueofmodernsocietywastakenbymanyofhisreaderstobebasically‘economic’andnotsimultaneously‘political’.Inparticular,theargumentfortherevolutionaryoverthrowofexistingsocietycontainedatheme–theneedtoabolishthestateasaformofsocialrelations–thatwasneverfullyelaborated,althoughbothMarxandEngelsheldtoitconsistently,andrestateditpowerfullywithrespecttotheexperienceofthe1871ParisCommune.[1]Marxretainedtheanti-statistimpulseofhisyouth,butwithoutdevelopingafullanalysisofthemodernstateandwhythatneededtobeoverthrown.

Thesecondisthat,whileMarxatvariouspointsinsistedontheimportanceoftheworldmarketasanemergentfeatureofcapitalism,hedidnotdevelopmuchbywayofanalyticalinstrumentsforitsexploration,whetherbywayofinternationaltrade,investmentandthelikeorbywayofinter-statepolitics,orindeedofthedistinctionbetween‘national’and‘international’formations.

Thethirdisthatthecriticalanalysisofcapitalistsocietywasundertakenpredominantlyfromoneside,thatoftheanalysisofcapital,andnotsufficientlyalsofrom‘theotherside’,thecriticalexplorationoftheconstitutiveroleoftheworkingclassinboth‘making’capitalandchallengingit.[2]If,inthe1848Manifesto,allhistoryisthehistoryofclassstruggle,andifMarxsawclassstruggleasthemeansbywhichcapitalismanditsclasssystemcouldeventuallybeabolished,thatideaisratherrecessivewithinthemanuscriptsassociatedwithCapitalaswehaveinheritedthem.Inatleastthreesenses,therefore,Marx’stheorywasseriouslyunderdeveloped,or‘unfinished’.[3]

Here,myfocusisonthequestionofstatesincapitalism.Fromanystandpoint,thisissuehasincreasedinitssaliencesincethedeathsofMarxandEngels.[4]Itwouldseemincredible,wereMarxattemptingtobeginhisCritiqueofPoliticalEconomyacenturyandahalflater,thattheformsandactivitiesofstateswouldnotfiguremorecentrallyinhistheorisation.

WhatmustcountamongthequestionsthatMarxwouldhaveneededtoaddress?Or,intermsofwhatMarxhasleftus,wherearethelargerlacunaeinhistreatmentofcapitalistsociety?Mylistisanythingbutcomplete:

Shouldorganisedviolence,andinparticulartheroleofstates,becountedinanysenseaspartofthefundamental‘socialrelationsofproduction’ofcapitalism,oraretheyinsomesensealways‘superstructural’or‘secondary’?Shouldstatesbeseenasinherently‘parasitical’formations,asMarxwasinclinedtoregardtheBonapartistregimeofthe1850sand1860sinFrance,orhavetheyplayedamoreactiveandessentialpartinthedevelopmentofcapitalistproduction?ShouldMarx’sexplorationsoftheroleofforceatthedawnofcapitalism(inthe‘so-calledprimitiveaccumulationofcapital’)becarriedforwardintotheworkingsofdevelopedcapitalism?Whatsignificanceshouldbegiventothefactthatthe‘politicalform’ofcapitalismisnotasinglestate,butmanystates?Giventhatthereisverylittleexplicitdiscussionof‘competition’inthepagesofCapital–indeed,atonepointMarxreferstotheneedtoexplorethematterinacontinuationofthework–whatsignificanceshouldbegivento‘non-economic’formsofcompetition,andnotablytopreparationforandactualwagingofwar?Thosewhocontestedthetheoryof‘bureaucraticstatecapitalism’(developedbyTonyCliff,ChrisHarman,MikeHaynesandothers)arguedthatmilitarycompetitionwasinsufficienttomakeitsparticipants‘capitalist’,thatitwasmucholderthancapitalism,andindeedthatitwasnotreallyanalogousatall.Militarycompetition,theyargued,didnotinvolvematterstodowiththe‘lawofvalue’.Weretheycorrect,ordidtheproponentsofthetheoryofbureaucraticstatecapitalismneedtodevelopthetheoryofcompetitionfurther?AreMarx’sremarksinthePrefacetoCapitalVolumeIabouthisuseofEnglishdata,inonerespect,potentiallymisleading?Englandwasthefirsttorevealthepossibilitiesofcapitalistindustry,butdidtheneedfeltinotherstatesto‘catchupandovertake’notmeanthattheywouldusedifferentcombinationsofthemethodsandsocialrelationsoutlinedinCapital?Herequestionsabout‘combinedandunevendevelopment’suggestthemselves.Whatdifferencewouldtheadditionoftaxationtothedifferentformstakenbysurplus-value(industrialprofit,commercialprofit,interest,rent)inVolumeIIIofCapitalmaketotheoverallanalysis?


Howshouldsuchmattersasstates’partialandtotalownershipofindustrial,commercial,financialandlandedcapitalbetreated?Doestheexplorationofvalue-relationsrequireattentiontothemomentofforceintheirconstitutionandreproduction?Whatsignificanceshouldbegiventotheincreasingroleofstatesinthereproductionoflabour-power,throughallmannerofso-called‘welfare’provisions?WhatconcretelydoesMarx’sargumentthatworkers’movementsmustabolishtheexistingstateimplyinacapitalistworldwherepopularsuffragehasbecomewidespreadandwherestatesdevotesignificantpartsoftheiractivitiestoproviding‘welfare’tothelabourforce?

Forceandcommodityproduction–thesocialformofcommodityproductionandexchange

Iwanttoexploreapossiblestartingpointfortheexplorationofmatterstodowithforce,andstates,inthecapitalistmodeofproduction.Theapproachofsomewriterstothesematters,andtothekindsofquestionsIposedabove,istoturnimmediatelytothetheorisationofthestateanditsrelationshiptocapital.Forreasonsthatwill,Ihope,becomeapparentbelow,Ithinkthisimmediateconceptualleaptothestateismistaken.Rather,IwanttobeginatthesamepointthatMarxchoseforthebeginningofhispresentationofthe‘economiccategories’inCapital.VolumeIofthatworkopensitspresentationoftheworkingsofcapitalistsocietynotimmediatelywith‘capital’butwithonevitalfacetofitsexistence,namelythefactthatwealthincapitalismtakestheappearanceofanimmensecollectionofcommodities.Itwasonlyafterandthroughanextensiveexplorationofthenatureofthiselementary‘cell’formanditsimplications–notably,value,exchange,money–thatMarxbegantodefinethespecificcharacterofcapital.

Tobesure,theend-pointoftheargument,theanalysisofcapital,andespeciallyofcapitalonceithasseizedcontrolofproductionandsubordinatedthelabour-forcetoitself,isthevitalthing.Indeed,Marxargued,itisonlywhencapitalhassecuredmasteryovertheproductionprocessthatcommodityrelationsbecome‘generalised’throughthesubordinationofthelabouringclassitselftocommodityexchange.Thestartingpointofthepresentation,thegeneralisedcommodityform,turnsouttobetheresultofthedevelopmentofthesocialform,capital,towardswhichthefirstpartoftheanalysishasbeendriven.Nonetheless,thatstartingpointremainsvitalforthefurtheranalysisofcapital’smovementsinVolumesIIandIII.For,ifthelargerlatterpartofVolumeIabstractsfromfurtherdiscussionofthepresuppositionsofcommodityproduction–notablyexchangeandcompetition–theoutlinepresentationofthewholesystemofcirculationanddistributioninVolumesIIandIIIreturnsustothesemattersinafullerform.

‘Commodityproduction’isnotitselfa‘stageinhumanhistory’,butrathertheconceptualstartingpointforMarx’sexplorationofthenatureofcapitalism.ThelogicofCapitalisnotoneofhistoricalnarrative,butratherajourneyofcriticaldiscovery,[5]inwhichdifferentfacetsofcapitalismasan‘organicsystem’aresuccessivelyrevealed.ThetotalstructureofCapitalfollowsan‘expandingcurve’orspiral.[6]Eachsteppresumesthepreviousone,andaddsenrichedcontenttowhathasgonebefore,showingthestartingpointtobetheresultofthelaterconceptualdevelopment.Ifthestartingpointistheproductionofvalue,ofcommoditiesproducedforexchange,thejourneytakesustosurplusvalueandtocapital¸whosedominanceinproductionistheconditionforthe‘generalisation’ofcommodityproductionandcirculationandthenforitsfurtherexpositionascompetition.Eachsignificantstepinthejourneyenhancesandroundsoutwhathasgonebefore.

ThevariousdiscussionsbybothMarxandEngelsontheemergenceandpresencewithinhumansocietyofstatesadoptadefinitestancetowardsthephenomenon.Likeclasses,stateshavenotalwaysexisted;and,likeclasses,statesaresocialformswhosesupersessionanddisappearance(‘witheringaway’)areseenasnecessaryoutcomesoftheclassstruggle.ThesameMarxwho,in1844,recommended‘suicide’asthebestcontributionastatecouldmaketothesolutionofsocialproblems,wastocelebratetheParisCommunein1871asabeginningtotheoverthrowoftheveryprincipleofthestate.AndEngelscheerfullyadvisedhisreadersin1884tolookforwardtothetimewhenallthemajestyofthestatewouldbereducedtonothingmorethanadisplayintheMuseumofAntiquities.


Ingeneralterms,theyheld,whatpermitsandnecessitatestheemergenceandconsolidationofstatesisthatthemembersofsocietyareunabletogovernthemselves,lackingsufficientsocialpowerandcollectiveself-organisationtomanagetheirownmutualaffairsdirectly,withoutbeingruledbyaminority.However,historically,thespecificsocialcircumstancesthathavepromotedthisconditionarevaried.

Itiswithaneyetothisquestion–whatconditionspromotetheimpossibilityofcollectiveself-governmentbysociety’ssubjects?–thatwecanturntotheparticularsocialfeaturesofthecapitalisticformofsociety,wherehumanwealthappearsintheformofan‘immensecollectionofcommodities’.Marxasked,whatkindofsocietyisitinwhichtheproductionofcommoditiesisgeneralisedandbecomesdominant?Thatis,hedidnotsimplyasktheeconomist’squestion–namely,whatisthequantitativerelationbetweenthevaluesofcommodities,andhowisitdetermined?–butasocialanthropologist’squestion:whatsortofsocialrelationsare‘valuerelations’?Thatquestionisabouttheformsofsocialregulationinthisstrangesociety,andleadswellbeyond‘economics’.

Marxofferssomeremarksaboutthesocialrelationsinvolvedincommodityproduction,intheprocessofhisexpositionofthecommodity,moneyandexchange.Hisargumentisnotimmediatelyobvious,forinCapitalhelaunchesimmediatelyintothe‘economiccategories’ratherthanthesocialrelationsperse,orthenecessarypoliticalaspectthattheyexpressandreflect.WedependonEngels,forexample,foraninterpolationaddedtotheearlypagesoffourthGermanedition.AfterMarxhasexplainedthatathingcanbeause-valuewithoutbeingavalue,andthatinordertoproducecommodities,onemustproduce‘notjustuse-values,butuse-valuesforothers,socialuse-values’,Engelsaddedapassageinparentheses,explaininginanotethatmisconceptionshadarisenamongMarx’sreaders:

Andnotmerely[ause-value]forothers.Themedievalpeasantproducedacorn-rentforthefeudallordandacorn-titheforthepriest;butneitherthecorn-rentnorthecorn-tithebecamecommoditiessimplybybeingproducedforothers.Inordertobecomeacommodity,theproductmustbetransferredtotheotherperson,forwhomitservesasause-value,throughthemediumofexchange.[7]

Commodityproductionisthusaformofsocialproduction,butonenecessarilymediatedbyexchange.Onthenextpage,exploringthedualcharacterofthelabourembodiedincommodities,Marxhimselfexplainsthatcommodityproductionassumesaspecifickindofsocialdivisionoflabour:

LabourissociallydividedintheprimitiveIndiancommunity,althoughtheproductsdonottherebybecomecommodities.Or,totakeanexamplenearerhome,labourissystematicallydividedineveryfactory,buttheworkersdonotbringaboutthisdivisionbyexchangingtheirindividualproducts.Onlytheproductsofmutuallyindependentactsoflabour,performedinisolation,canconfronteachotherascommodities.[8]

Marx,distinguishingbetweenthetwoformsofvalue–therelativeandtheequivalent–pointsoutthatthevalueofacommoditycanonlybeexpressedinthevalueofanother.Valuerelationsinvolveasocialprocessofcreatingequivalencebetweendifferentsortsofcommodities,andoftheirproducers.‘Value’isapurelysocialproperty,arisingfromtheprocessofbringingcommoditiestogether,forpurposesofexchange.Theprocessofmakingthissocialconnectionconvertslabour–whichis‘likeallothercommodity-producinglabour,…thelabourofprivateindividuals’–into‘labourinitsdirectlysocialform’.[9]‘Private’,‘independent’producerscontinuallymakeandre-makethissocialconnection,exchangingtheirproductsbyweighingthemagainsteachotherintermsoftheirsharedcharacteristic,value.Thesetransactionsprovidethe‘germ’ofthemoredevelopedformsofvalue,andaboveallthemoney-form,itselftherootofcapital.

Whenhehasworkedthroughthese‘economic’argumentsabouttherelationoftheformofvaluetomoneyMarxsetsout,inthefinalsectionofchapter1(‘Thefetishismofthecommodityanditssecret’),somethingmoreexplicitaboutthesocialrelationsunderpinningandexpressedinthewholedevelopment.Humanlabourassumesasocialformoncehumanbeingsstartworkingforeachotherinanyway–somethingseen,indeed,attheverydawnofourspecies,anddefininghumanlifeingeneral.Butthesocialformsofthesereciprocalinteractionsvarythroughhumanhistory.Thequestionis,what


isthissocialformoncetheyareproducingcommodities?

Objectsofutilitybecomecommoditiesonlybecausetheyaretheproductsofthelabourofprivateindividualswhoworkindependentlyofeachother.Thesumtotalofthelabouroftheseprivateindividualsformstheaggregatelabourofsociety.Sincetheseproducersdonotcomeintosocialcontactuntiltheyexchangetheproductsoftheirlabour,thespecificsocialcharacteristicsoftheirprivatelaboursappearonlywithinthisexchange.[10]

It’sonlythroughtherelationsthattheactofexchangeestablishesbetweentheproducts‘andthroughtheirmediation,betweentheproducers’thattheprivateindividual’slabourmanifestsitselfaspartofthetotallabourofsociety.Onlythendoesitbecomeapparentthatthis‘private’labourisinfactsociallabour.

Producersinasocietywherethecommodityisthecharacteristicsocialformoftheproductareinvolvedinreciprocaldependenceoneachother,expressedintheconstantnecessityforexchange.

Thereciprocalandall-sideddependenceofindividualswhoareindifferenttooneanotherformstheirsocialconnection.Thissocialbondisexpressedinexchangevalue,bymeansofwhichaloneeachindividual’sownactivityorhisproductbecomesanactivityandaproductforhim.[11]

Wearedealingherewithahighlydevelopeddivisionoflabour,inwhicheveryactofproduction(includingthedailyreproductionofhumanbeingsthemselves)dependsontheconsumptionofhumanlyproducedorappropriated‘materials’whichothersproduceindistinctsocialsiteswhichareformally‘independent’ofeachother.Producingunitsareformally’free’toproducewhattheylike,howtheylike.Atthesametime,however,theyareconstrainedbytheneedtooffertheirproductsforothersviaexchangesona‘market’.Thetermsonwhichtheystrikebargainswiththosetowhomtheysellandfromwhomtheypurchasearenotundertheircontrol,butaresetthroughthemutualinteractionsofavastweboftransactingsocialpartners,allsubjecttothevagariesofshiftingpatternsofproductivity,demand,supplyandmuchelsebesides.Thisisaformofsocialcooperation,inwhichtheindividualsubjectsaresimultaneously‘freeagents’oftheprocessesofcommodityproductionandcirculation,andsubjectedtoandcoercedbyforcesbeyondtheircontrol.Theverypropertyof‘value’thatadherestotheirownproductsrulesthem,sothatitseemsthatsocialrelationsexistbetweenthings.

Theirownmovementwithinsocietyhasforthemtheformofamovementmadebythings,andthesethings,farfrombeingundertheircontrol,infactcontrolthem…Itis…preciselythisfinishedformoftheworldofcommodities–themoneyform–whichconcealsthesocialcharacterofprivatelabourandthesocialrelationsbetweentheindividualworkers,bymakingtheserelationsappearasrelationsbetweenmaterialobjects,insteadofrevealingthemplainly.[12]

Theserelationsaresimultaneouslyrelationsofneed,andrelationsofexclusionfromneed.Thatis,theyareinherentlycontradictory.Tobeacommodity,aproductmustfulfilaneedinanother,hencethecommoditypresumesaneedywould-beuser/consumer.Buttheproducerhasnotlabouredinordertomeetthatneedinanydirectsense,nordoestheproducerhavetheslightestinterestinthethecharacterorintensityofthatneed.Theproducerhasproduced,nottofulfiltheirownneedfortheotherperson,nortoexpressthemutualityoftheirneed,butsolelyinorderonlytoobtainthemeanstomeettheirownneeds.‘Indifference’totheotheristhemarkofcommodityproduction.[13]Ifthewould-beuserdoesnothave‘thereadies’thentheproducerwillnotpartcompanywiththeirproduct,andthewould-beuser’sneedtoconsumewillnotbemet.

Thesesocialrealitiesarereflectedinthecategoriesofbourgeoiseconomics,whicharevalid–‘andthereforeobjective’[14]–forjustthisformofsociety.Buttheyareonlyvalidandobjectiveforthisform,andfornoother.Marxdevotesseveralpagestoconsideringsomeofthemodesofsocialcooperationinwhichthecategoriesofbourgeoiseconomicsareanythingbutvalid:theimaginedislandofRobinsonCrusoe,feudalEurope,thepatriarchalpeasantfamily,andafutureassociationoffreemen(communism).[15]


Itisacentraltheoreticalweaknessofpoliticaleconomythatithasneveraskedwhylabourisexpressedinvalue,i.e.hasneverexploredtheformofvalue.Ithasneverasked,inotherwords,aboutthesocial-historicalcircumstanceswhichbroughtthesocialrelationsofcommodity-valueproductionintodominance.Ratherithastendedtotreatthemasnatural.

TherearepassagesintheGrundrissewhereMarxexploresthematteralittlemore.Henotesthereciprocaldependenceofproducersoneachother,expressedintheconstantnecessityforexchange.Ashesays,the(bourgeois)economiststreatthisasasituationwhereeveryonepursuestheirowninterest,therebyservingthegeneralinterest,butitcouldequallybesaidthat‘eachindividualreciprocallyblockstheassertionoftheothers’interests,sothat,insteadofageneralaffirmation,thiswarofallagainstallproducesageneralnegation’.Ratherthaneither,hesuggests,thepointisthat‘theprivateinterestisitselfalreadyasociallydeterminedinterest’.[16]

Heremarks,‘Thereciprocalandall-sideddependenceofindividualswhoareindifferenttooneanotherformstheirsocialconnection.Thissocialbondisexpressedinexchangevalue,bymeansofwhichaloneeachindividual’sownactivityorhisproductbecomesanactivityandaproductforhim’.[17]Eachpersoncarriestheir‘socialpower’overothers,aswellastheirbondwithsociety,intheirpocket.Ingeneralterms,

Thesocialcharacterofactivity,aswellasthesocialformoftheproduct,andtheshareofindividualsinproductionhereappearassomethingalienandobjective,confrontingtheindividuals,notastheirrelationwitheachother,butastheirsubordinationtorelationswhichsubsistindependentlyofthemandwhichariseoutofcollisionsbetweenmutuallyindifferentindividuals.Thegeneralexchangeofactivitiesandproducts,whichhasbecomeavitalconditionforeveryindividual–theirmutualinterconnection–hereappearsassomethingalientothem,autonomous,asathing…

Exchange,whenmediatedbyexchange-valueandmoney,presupposestheall-rounddependenceoftheproducersononeanother,togetherwiththetotalisolationoftheirprivateinterestsfromoneanother,aswellasadivisionofsociallabourwhoseunityandmutualcomplementarityexistintheformofanaturalrelation,asitwere,externaltotheindividualsandindependentofthem.Thepressureofgeneralsupplyanddemandononeanothermediatestheconnectionofmutuallyindifferentpersons…

(1)…individualsnowproduceonlyforsocietyandinsociety;(2)…productionisnotdirectlysocial,isnotthe‘offspringofassociation’,whichdistributeslabourinternally.Individualsaresubsumedundersocialproduction;socialproductionexistsoutsidethemastheirfate;butsocialproductionisnotsubsumedunderindividuals,manageablebythemastheircommonwealth.[18]

TheGrundrisse’sfollowingpagescriticisetheideathatsuchrelationsareeithernaturalorthehighestpointofhumandevelopment;rather,theyarebutahistoricallynecessaryway-stageinthedevelopmentofsocialhumanity.

Tosummarize:thepresuppositionsofthedominanceofthevaluerelationincludeaformofsocietyofaspecifickind.Theanalysisofthisformofsocietywastheworkofpoliticaleconomy,andMarxtookoverandfurtherdevelopedtheassumptionsofthatwork.

Commodityproductionandexchangepromoteakindofequalitybetweenparticipants,inthesameprocessthatcreatesanabstractequivalencebetweentheircommodities:

Eachofthesubjectsisanexchanger;i.e.eachhasthesamerelationtowardstheotherthattheotherhastowardshim.Assubjectsofexchange,theirrelationisthereforethatofequality.Itisimpossibletofindanytraceofdistinction,nottospeakofcontradiction,betweenthem;notevenadifference…Aworkerwhobuyscommoditiesfor3s.appearstothesellerinthesamefunction,inthesameequality–intheformof3s.–asthekingwhodoesthesame.Alldistinctionbetweenthemisextinguished.[19]


Theirmutualequality–andtheirindifferencetoeachother–istheproductoftheirmutualneedfortheother’scommodity,andthusfortheother’scontributiontosocialproduction.Thedifferencesbetweenindividualsandtheircommodities‘formthemotivefortheintegrationoftheseindividuals,fortheirsocialinterrelationasexchangers’andthisprocessofexchangepromotesnotonlytheirequalitybutalsotheirfreedom:

AlthoughindividualAfeelsaneedforthecommodityofindividualB,hedoesnotappropriateitbyforce,norviceversa,butrathertheyrecogniseoneanotherreciprocallyasproprietor,aspersonswhosewillpenetratestheircommodities.Accordingly,thejuridicalmomentofthePersonentershere,aswellasthatoffreedom,insofarasitiscontainedintheformer.Nooneseizesholdofanother’spropertybyforce.Eachdivestshimselfofhispropertyvoluntarily’.[20]

Akeyelementdifferentiatingmodernsocietyfrompreviousformsisitsparticularformofthesocialdivisionoflabour.Eachproducerspecializesintheproductionofaspecificpartofsociety’stotalneededproduct.Eachproducerisfreetoproducewhattheylike,inwhatconditionstheylike,towhatqualitytheylike,andtakingwhattimetheylike.Thatis,eachproducerisautonomousandindependent:thereisno‘centralauthority’–whethercustomorplan–thatinstructsproducers.

Forceandcommodityproduction–coercionandthelawofvalue

However,ifatfirstsightthereseemstobenocoercionorsocialregulation,furtherconsiderationsoonrevealsnotonlythatthereisstrictregulationofallproducersbutalsothatthisoccurs‘blindly’,throughtheveryprocessoftheirmutualinteraction.

Inordertobeabletolive,eachproducermustexchangeproductswithothersimilarlyplacedproducers.Eachhasneedoftheproductsofothers,butcaninprincipleonlyobtaintheobjectsoftheirneedbyenteringinrelationsof‘contractualexchange’withotherproducers.Thesearethecircumstancesinwhich,asMarxexplains,theproductsofhumanlabourbecome‘commodities’:productsarenotsimplyuse-valuesforothers,butpossessanadditionalsocialquality,anexchange-value.Whatdeterminesthatexchange-valueisthequantumof‘sociallynecessarylabour-time’thecommoditycontains.Allproducersfindthat,thoughtheybeformallyfreetoproduceasandwhattheylike,inpracticethelawofvalueactsonthemquiteascoercivelyasanydecree,compellingthemtoproducewithconstantregardtotheever-shiftingstandardofwhatis‘sociallynecessary’.Thatstandardisestablished,andcontinuouslyre-established,throughthepracticalinteractionsofproducersandtheircommodity-productsonthemarket.Onlythroughtheactualprocessofexchangedoproductsacquirethestampof‘socialvalidity’whichdeclaresthem–andthereforealsothelabourinvolvedintheirproduction–topossessanyvaluewhatever.

Throughexchange,awholehostofconcretelydifferentformsoflabourarereducedtoacommonstandard,andweighedagainsteachother:exchangeinvolvesapracticalprocessof‘abstraction’and‘equalisation’throughwhichproductsarefoundtocontainmerelydifferentquantitativeamountsofthesameessentialsubstance,humansociallabourassuch,or‘abstractlabour’.That‘abstractlabour’istheresultof‘theobjectiveequalisationofdifferentkindsoflabourwhichthesocialprocessforciblycarriesout’.[21]

Humanbeingswithincapitalismdonotandcannotcontroltheworldtheythemselvesproduce.TheideaofalienationwhichtheyoungMarxdevelopedreappearshereinthecritiqueofcommodityproductionandexchange.Justasintheworldofreligiousillusion,humanbeingsproduceinwaysthatinvolvetheirownproductsfallingoutoftheircontrolandreturningtoruleoverthem.Only,wheretherulebyhumanlyproduceddeitiesisan(understandable)illusion,theruleoftherelationsrequiredforcommodityproductionandexchangeisalltooreal.[22]

Thisisaformofsocialisedproduction,asEngelsputit,inwhich‘Anarchyreigns…[It]hasitspeculiar,inherentlawsinseparablefromit;andtheselawswork,despiteanarchy,inandthroughanarchy.’If,alongwithmanyliberalsandsomelibertarians,anyoneistemptedtothinkthatsuch‘anarchy’,inwhichnobodyrules–nodecreebyaruler,nocustom,nocommunaldecision–istheveryacmeofhuman


freedom,Engels’sargumentcontinuesimmediately:

The[laws]revealthemselvesintheonlypersistentformofsocialinterrelations,i.e.inexchange,andheretheyaffecttheindividualproducersascompulsorylawsofcompetition…Theyworkthemselvesout…independentlyoftheproducers,andinantagonismtothem,asinexorablenaturallawsoftheirparticularformofproduction.Theproductgovernstheproducers.[23]

Liberalism,whichcelebratesfreecompetitionandregardsitsabsenceasthenegationofindividualfreedom,forgetsthatthiskindof‘individualfreedomis…atthesametime…thecompletesubjugationofindividualityundersocialconditions(which)assumetheformofobjectivepowers,evenofoverpoweringobjects’,whichhavemadethemselvesindependentofindividuals.[24]Socialintegrationisachieved,notthroughthedirectjointactivityoftheproducers,but‘behindtheirbacks’.Humankindisdriven,blindly,bytheveryproductsthatmanifestthehumancapacitytocontroltheworld:thisistheacme,notoffreedom,butofalienation.

BeyondnotingintheveryopeningsentenceofCapitalthatcommoditiesare‘theelementaryform’ofwealthwithincapitalistsociety,Marxhasnotimmediatelyintroducedcapitalinhisexposition.Nonetheless,alreadyinhisfirstchapterhehasbeguntocriticisecapitalismandmeasureitagainstotherformsofproduction,includingthosecharacterisingafuturecommunistsociety.[25]Hispoliticalcritiqueofcapitalismbeginswithacritiquenotofexploitation,butofthemarketandthesocialrelationsunderpinningit.[26]

Therelationsofmutualdependenceinvolvedintheproductionandexchangeofcommoditiescanbeunderstoodone-sidedly,asforexampleinEmileDurkheim’sDivisionofLabourinSociety.TheFrenchsociologistpresentshumanity’sdevelopmentsimplyintermsofashiftfrom‘mechanical’to‘organic’solidarity,wherethelatterdependsonanall-rounddevelopmentofthedivisionoflabourandinterdependenceofproduction.If,indeed,wefocusonnothingbuttheuse-valueaspectofcommodityproductionandexchange,thenwearepresentedwiththegrowthofhumancivilizationastheexpansionofanimmensecooperativecommonwealththatdrawsallindividuals,communities,nationsandpeoplesintoasingleinteractingsocialmechanismwhichprovidesthemeansforalltosupplytheneedsofothersandinturntodependonthoseothersfortheirsupportandaid.Suchafocus,ofcourse,showsontheonehandwhatrealpossibilitieslurkwithinthepresentformofsocialproduction–ifthereisaglobalrevolutionizingofsocialrelations.Ontheotherhand,itquitefailstoaccountfortheimmenseandgrowinginequalitiesinaccesstofundamentalneedsthatcharacterizethemodernworld,ortheviolenceandoppressionthatmarkeveryfacetofoureverydaylives.

Durkheimoffersafundamentallypositiveaccountofthisdevelopment,reservingtohislastpagessomeremarksabout‘pathological’formsofthedivisionoflabour,butwithnoattempttoprovideanintegratedaccountoftheircentralroleincapitalistsociety.Hedoesnotcapturethecontradictorycombinationofsocialdependenceandsocialantagonisminherentinthisform,where‘value’and‘use-value’standopposed.

Thosewhostandinneedofothers’productsmustofferinreturnsomeotherthingthattheproducersneed,inexchange–whetherthatbeadirectuse-value,itselfincommodity-form,oritsmonetaryequivalent.Inshort,theymustbeabletopay.Thosewholackthewherewithalshallnotgetthegoodstheyneed.‘Need’isnotthesameas‘demand’.Therearetwosidestothis:would-beconsumerscanbeexcludedfromconsumingforlackofthingstoofferinexchange,andbecompelledtolivewithoutmeetingtheirneeds,indeedtostarve;andwould-besellers,failingto‘findamarket’forthecommoditiestheyhavetooffer,canthusbeunabletogetbackanythinginreturn–again,withmajorconsequencesfortheirownreproduction.[27]

Thesocialrelationsunderpinningtheproductionandexchangeofcommoditiesarenot‘eternal’buthavehistorical–socialandmaterial–presuppositions.[28]ContrarytothewholeEnlightenmenttradition,noneofthesesocialrelationsandtheirassociatedvaluescanbederivedfrom‘nature’,anymorethanwecanderivethecategoriesofcapitalistpoliticaleconomyfromnature.Nofeatureofthemodernformofsocietycanbeexplainedbysomea-historicalprincipleoutsideitself.Thesesocial


relationsandpropertyformsarehistoricallyconstituted,asaretheirsocialandmaterialpresuppositions.

Furthermore,theconstitutionofthesesocialrelationsandformsinvolvedtheforcibledestructionofother,previousanddifferentsuchrelationsandforms.ThewholeprocesswhichMarxdubbed‘theso-calledprimitiveaccumulationofcapital’involvednotonlytheconstitutionbyforceofapropertylessproletariat,butalsotheviolentoverthrowofolderpropertyformsandalternative‘moraleconomies’.[29]ThisisthethemeofthefinalsectionofCapitalVolumeI,whereMarxoffersanhistoricalsketchofthewayinwhichthevariousnecessitiesofcapitalistproductionwerefirstbroughttogetherinEngland,inthe‘so-calledprimitiveaccumulation’ofcapital.Discussinghowthe‘differentmoments’ofprimitiveaccumulationaresystematicallycombinedinlate-seventeenthcenturyEngland,henotesthatthevariousmethodsalldependon‘bruteforce’.Headds:

…theyallemploythepowerofthestate,theconcentratedandorganisedforceofsociety,tohasten,asinahothouse,theprocessoftransformationofthefeudalmodeofproductionintothecapitalistmode,andtoshortenthetransition.Forceisthemidwifeofeveryoldsocietywhichispregnantwithanewone.Itisitselfaneconomicpower.[30]

Aquestionthatnaturallyarisesiswhetherthisremarkabout‘force’asan‘economicpower’isapplicableonlytothebirth-pangsofcapitalistsociety,asa‘once-for-all’process,orwhethertheongoingreproductionofthisformofsocietyalsodependsonthecontinuoususeandthreatofforce.Onthatquestion,therestofCapitalasMarxleftittousisaslargelysilentasitisonthewholematterofstateswithincapitalism.

Furtherelaborationofforceinthereproductionofcapitalistsocialrelations

Exchangerelationsinvolveakindof‘abstractcoercion’,inwhichthelawofvaluecompelsallparticipantstofollowprescribedpatternsofactivity.Butthereisanadditional,‘non-economic’sidetovaluerelations,entailingadefinitepatternofpolitical-juridicalrelationshipsamongthem.Toconsiderthese,weneedtolookagainatthesocialrelationsofcommodityproductionandexchange,onlythistimethroughadifferentwindow.IpartlyborrowherefromDavidHarvey,whohimselfacknowledgesadebttoBertellOllman:

Itisratherasif…Marxseeseachrelationasaseparate‘window’fromwhichwecanlookinupontheinnerstructureofcapitalism.Theviewfromanyonewindowisflatandlacksperspective.Whenwemovetoanotherwindow,wecanseethingsthatwereformerlyhiddenfromview.Armedwiththatknowledge,wecanreinterpretandreconstituteourunderstandingofwhatwesawthroughthefirstwindow,givingitgreaterdepthandperspective.Bymovingfromwindowtowindowandcarefullyrecordingwhatwesee,wecomecloserandclosertounderstandingcapitalistsocietyandallofitsinherentcontradictions.’[31]

OnlywhereHarveywritesof‘eachrelation’,Iamsuggestingthatwelookatthesameessentialrelation–thatexistingbetweenthoseengagedincommodityproductionandexchange–fromadifferentperspective.Fortherearequalitiesinherentinthesesocialrelationsthatremaintobeexplored.

AccordingtoMarx,aswehaveseen,commodityproductionandexchangeinvolvesaparticularkindofsocialdivisionoflabour.Whatitalsoinvolves,necessarily,isaparticulardivisionoftheworldofmaterialnecessities,intoseparate‘propertyparcels’.Eachseparate‘parcel’ofnecessitiesisattachedtoanindividualorgroup,as‘exclusiveproperty’.Itisasifalmosttheentireworldofnatureonthisplanetisfencedaroundandmarkedwithsigns:‘Privateproperty!Keepout!’Themeansofproductionandofconsumptionhavebeenmadeexclusive–or,tousethecontemporaryjargon,‘privatised’.Ifatonepointthisdelimitationofpropertywasconfinedtoland,water,tools,machines,buildings,foodstuffs,clothingandothernecessities,todaytheworldofhuman‘mentalproducts’,invention,discovery,ideas,images,melodiesandthelikearealsoclassified,labelledandturnedinto‘patents’,‘copyrights’and‘intellectualproperty’.

Privateproperty,inthis‘exclusive’sense,isanythingbut‘natural’,andhaditselftobecreatedthrough


historicalstruggles,involvingthedispossessionofclaims,customsandpreviousentitlementsthatwerebuiltintocustomarysocialarrangements.SuchprocessesformanessentialpartofwhatMarxtermedthe‘primitiveaccumulation’(or‘originalaccumulation’)ofcapital.Marxremarksoflandedpropertythatit‘receivesitspurelyeconomicformbythestrippingawayofallitsformerpoliticalandsocialembellishmentsandadmixtures’.[32]Itisnotonlythat,asMarxargued,thecriticalpresuppositionofcapitalistproduction,namely,apropertylessproletariatcompelledtosubsistonwagelabour,hadfirsttobecreatedthroughalongandviolentprocessofdispossession,butalsotheveryexistenceofdelimited‘privateproperties’withtheirbordersandfences,their‘limits’toothers,hadtobefullyconstituted.Landhadtobecomealienableanddefensibleprivateproperty.Allmovablepropertyandmeansofproductiontobetreatedsociallyasbelongingbyrightandlawtoadefinitepersonorgroup,territoryandpopulationtobeconstitutedas‘nation-state’,andsoforth.Thedelimitationofproperty,andsuchadivisionoftheworldofneededthingswithboundariessetbetweenthem,wasandremainsapreconditionofcommodityproductionandexchangeandthusthedominationof‘market’relations.

ThepointisillustratedratherwellinMarcBloch’saccountofthelackof‘freedom’ofthefeudallordinmedievalEuropetodisposeof‘land’inthewaythatamodernlandownermight:

…theword‘ownership’,asappliedtolandedproperty,wouldhavebeenalmostmeaningless…Fornearlyalllandandagreatmanyhumanbeingswereburdenedatthistimewithamultiplicityofobligationsdifferingintheirnature,butallapparentlyofequalimportance.NoneimpliedthatfixedproprietaryexclusivenesswhichbelongedtotheconceptionofownershipinRomanlaw.Thetenantwho–fromfathertoson,asarule–ploughsthelandandgathersinthecrop;hisimmediatelord,towhomhepaysdues,andwho,incertaincircumstances,canresumepossessionoftheland;thelordofthelord,andsoon,rightupthefeudalscale–howmanypersonstherearewhocansay,eachwithasmuchjustificationastheother,‘Thatismyfield!’Eventhisisanunderstatement.Fortheramificationsextendedhorizontallyaswellasverticallyandaccountshouldbetakenofthevillagecommunity,whichnormallyrecoveredtheuseofthewholeofitsagriculturallandassoonasitwasclearedofcrops;ofthetenant’sfamily,withoutwhoseconsentthepropertycouldnotbealienated;andofthefamiliesofthesuccessivelords.[33]

TheAmericanelementaryschoolparodyofWoodyGuthrie’ssongnicelybringsoutthedifferencebetweenthatsituationandwhatobtainsundermoderncapitalism:

Thislandismyland,andonlymylandI’vegotashotgun,andyouain’tgotone.Ifyoudon’tgetoff,I’llblowyourheadoff,Thislandisprivateproperty.[34]

Economicandjuridicalrelations

Thedivisionoftheworldintoparcelsofdelimitedpropertyisparalleledbyadivisionofhumansocietyintoproperty-owners,standingindefiniterelationstoeachother.ThisisthethemethatMarxbroachesinthesecondchapterofCapital,wherehebeginstoexplorethelegalpresuppositionsofcommodityexchange.

Commoditiesarejust‘things’andcan’ttakethemselvestomarketandperformexchangesintheirownright.Ifcommoditiesareunwillingtobemarketed,humanscanuseforceagainstthem,orasMarxputsit,‘takepossessionofthem’.Exchangerelationsinvolvepeopleadoptingaparticularstancetowardseachother,asanecessaryconditionofthewholeprocess:

Inorderthattheseobjectsmayenterintorelationwitheachotherascommodities,theirguardiansmustplacethemselvesinrelationtooneanotheraspersonswhosewillresidesinthoseobjects,andmustbehaveinsuchawaythateachdoesnotappropriatethecommodityoftheother,andalienatetheirown,exceptthroughanacttowhichbothpartiesconsent.Theguardiansmustthereforerecogniseeachotherasownersofprivateproperty.Thisjuridicalrelation,whoseformisthecontract,whetheraspartofadevelopedlegalsystemornot,isarelationbetweentwowillswhichmirrorstheeconomicrelation.Thecontentofthisjuridicalrelation(orrelationoftwowills)isitselfdeterminedbytheeconomicrelation.Herethepersonsexistforoneanothermerelyasrepresentativesandhenceowners,ofcommodities.


Afewpagesfurtheron,headds:

Thingsareinthemselvesexternaltoman,andthereforealienable.Inorderthatthisalienationmaybereciprocal,itisonlynecessaryformentoagreetacitlytotreateachotherastheprivateownersofthesealienablethings,and,preciselyforthatreason,aspersonswhoareindependentofeachother.[35]

Marxgoesontosaythatthecommodity-ownerisonlypreparedtopartwithhispropertyinreturnforcommoditieswhoseuse-valuesatisfieshisownneed.Hedoesn’tcareifhisowncommodityhasanyuse-valuefortheownerofanothercommodity:‘Fromthispointofview,exchangeisforhimageneralsocialprocess’.[36]

And,Marxnotes,essentiallyrepeatingtheargumentofthelastpartofchapterone,this‘relationshipofreciprocalisolationandforeignness’doesn’texistforthemembersofprimitivecommunitiesofnaturalorigin,etc.It’sonlyastheproductsofsuchcommunitiesbecomepartoftheir‘externalrelations’thatthey‘also,byreaction,becomecommoditiesintheinternallifeofthecommunity’.[37]

Marxisdescribingasocietywherethenecessarymeansofproductionandconsumptiontaketheformofexclusiveproperty,andwherethereisasystematicsocialdivisionoflabourwithvastnumbersofproducersdependentoneachotherforthemeanstosustainlifeandcontinueproduction.Insuchasociety,theonlylegitimatemannerinwhichitsparticipantscanobtainaccesstothethingstheyneedisbyenteringinto‘contractualrelations’withtheownersoftheirnecessities.Theymustmake‘offerstoexchange’,offerswhichcaninprincipleberejected.Theworldof‘freeexchange’isdefinitelynottheworldofMarioPuzo’sTheGodfather:Wemakeoffersthatcanberefused.Thereis‘pressure’toenterintotransactionsofexchangebutitderivesnotfrompoliticalorlegalcoercion,orthethreatofviolence,butfrommaterialneedforwhattheotherpossesses.Thestartingpointofmodernprivatepropertyisnotmutualexchange,butmutualexclusion.Participantsmustrecogniseeachother’srights,includingtherighttodenythemaccesstowhattheyneed.

The‘juridicalrelation’betweenthosewhoexchangenotonly,asMarxsuggests,mirrorstheeconomicrelationbutisindeeditsprecondition,oritsentailment.Ithasanumberofvitalimplications.Themomentofexchangeatleastisoneinwhichtheparticipantstreateachotherasequals,eachpossessedofrights,andinwhichthethingstheybringtotheexchangehavethemselvesbeenequalisedasvalues.Theyrecogniseeachother’sfreedom:eachisentitledtoofferandrefuseacontractualexchange.

TheBolsheviktheoristofjurisprudence,EvgenyPashukanis,takesthisrelationshipasthestartingpointforhistheoryoflegalregulation.Ashesuggests,therelationshipisnotonlymarkedbycontractualism,butbytheconflictofprivateinterests.AsMarxsuggests,theparticipantsinexchangeare‘indifferent’toeachother,andeachseekstogainadvantagefromtheotherintheirrelationship.Itisintheinterestoftheownerofthecommodityofferedforsaletosetthepricehigh,asitisintheinterestofthewould-bepurchasertosetthepricelow.Antagonismofinterestiscentraltotheworkingsofcommodityproductionandexchange.Hencetheadvicetoeveryoneenteringthemarket-place:Caveatemptor!

AsPashukanisnotes,the‘right’ofproperty–anecessaryaccompanimentofcommodityexchange–doesnotimplyanythingbywayofobligationtoothers,butratherthereverse.[38]Theendlesschainofcommodityexchangesis,viewedfromanotheraspect,simultaneouslyanendlesschainoflegalrelations.Commodityproductionismaintained,hesuggests,byapermanentlyrenewedsequenceof‘successfullyconcludedbusinessdeals’.Whatconstitutestheheartofthelegalform(theinherentaccompanimentofvaluerelations)is‘dispute’,conflictofinterest.

Itisaboveallinprivatelawthattheaprioriprinciplesandpremisesofjudicialthoughtbecomeclothedinthefleshandbloodoftwolitigatingpartieswho,vindictainhand,claim‘theirright’.[39]

The‘legalsubject’isthe‘atom’(wemightsay,followingMarx,the‘cell-form’)oflegaltheory.[40]The‘legalsubject’,thehumanpresuppositionofcommodityproductionandexchange,isnotsimplyaneedybeingstandinginrelationsofmutualdependencewithbillionsofothersuchpersons,butalsoatonce


thefigureoftheparticipantinthe‘duel’,assertinga‘right’notsimplyasa‘humanright’(aclaimtoequalityandhumanityoftreatmentbyothers)butasananti-social,privateright,incontradistinctiontoallother‘rights’andinregularoppositiontoothers’needs,andreadytobackupthat‘right’bytheexerciseofmight.

That‘legalsubject’isendowedwithorisa‘bearer’of‘rights’,thoughtheseareformalinnature.The‘subject’is‘eligible’toownproperty,anabstractrightthatendowsthemwithnothingtangible,exceptwith‘will’,with‘freedom’,withanautonomousandequalpersonalityrecognisedbyethicaltheory(itselfrootedincommodityproductionandexchange)asbotha‘moralsubject’andabeingofequalworth,yetonemarkedsimultaneouslybyanessentialegoism.

Thepersonengagedinexchangemustbeanegoist,thatistosaytheymuststicktonakedeconomiccalculation,otherwisethevaluerelationcannotbemanifestedasasociallynecessaryrelation.Thepersonengaginginexchangemustbethebearerofrights,thatis,theymustbeabletomakeautonomousdecisions,fortheirwillsupposedly‘residesinobjects’.Lastly,theyembodytheprincipleoftheessentialequivalenceofhumanpersonalities,for,inexchange,allformsoflabourareequalisedandbecomehumanlabourintheabstract.

Thusthethreeaspectsmentionedabove,or,aspeopleusedtocallthem,theprinciplesoftheegoism,freedom,andsupremelyequivalentworthofthepersonalityareindivisiblylinkedandrepresent,intheirtotality,therationalexpressionofasinglesocialrelation.Theegoisticsubject,thelegalsubjectandthemoralpersonalityarethethreemostimportantcharactermasksassumedbypeopleincommodity-producingsociety.Theeconomicsofvalue-relationsprovidesthekeytoanunderstandingofthejuridicalandethicalstructure,notinthesenseoftheconcretecontentoflegalormoralnorms,butinthesenseoftheformitself.[41]

Commoditiesandcrime

Onethingperhapsrequirestobeemphasisedagainabouttheserelations:theyarethewayinwhichneedsareopentobeingmetlegitimately.Thesocialdivisionoflabourinvolvesasystemofmutualsocialdependence,inwhichtheeverydayreproductionofindividualsnecessitatesrepeatedaccesstothingswhicharethepropertyand/ortheproductionsofothers.ItisthatmutualneedwhichalsoliesbehindavitalmatterwhichPashukanis,forallthebrillianceofhisexposition,doesnotdrawoutwithsufficientclarity.Exchangeisnottheonlypossiblemechanisminacommodity-producingsocietybywhichnecessitiesmaybesociallydistributed.Thereisanotherpossibility:crime.

WehavealreadyquotedMarxonexchange,suggesting,‘Nooneseizesanother’spropertybyforce.Eachdivestshimselfofhispropertyvoluntarily.’Thatistrue,ofcommodityexchange,orPashukanis’‘successfullyconcludedbusinessdeals’.Butthatisnotthewholestoryofeverydaylifeincommodity-producingsociety.Thereisthaturgentmatterofthegapbetweenneed,whateveritsexpression,andthemeansofsatisfactionofthatneed.Commodity-producingsocietyisalwayspotentiallyathief-producingsociety.Pashukanisisright:everyexchangeinvolvescontract,theheartofthelegalform.Butexchangeisnottheonlymechanismbywhichgoodschangehands–andIleaveouthereallissuestodowithgifts.Giventhecontradictionbetweenneedandmeansofsatisfaction,theformal‘right’ofproperty,the‘consent’oftheproperty-ownerandthelikeareinconstantthreatofbeingsubvertedby‘illegal’means,wherethereisindeed‘seizureofanother’spropertybyforce’.

NoneofthisisbroughtoutinMarx,[42]whilePashukanisrestrictshimselftoalmostgnomicremarks.Henotesthat,‘Legalintercoursedoesnot“naturally”presupposeastateofpeace,justastradedoesnot,inthefirstinstance,precludearmedrobbery,butgoeshandinhandwithit.’Alsohewrites,‘Inintercoursebetweencommodityowners,thenecessityforauthoritariancoercionariseswheneverthepeaceisdisturbedoracontractnotfulfilledvoluntarily’.[43]Hisfinalchapter,on‘Lawandlawbreaking’discussesmodernformsofpunishment,nottherootsof‘lawbreaking’itself.

Nevermind.It’susefultoremindourselvesthatholytextsareholey.They’resufficientlyrichthattheyoftenoffercluesabouthowtogobeyondthem.


Needandforce

Itnowbecomespossibletobeginananswertothequestion,wasthe‘forceasaneconomicpower’ofwhichMarxwrotewhendiscussing‘primitiveaccumulation’simplya‘once-for-all’process,ordoesitenterintothenecessitiesofcapitalismasasystem?Inthelightofourdiscussionoftherelationsofcommodityproductionandexchange,itseemsthattheverymaintenanceandre-productionoftheeverydayassumptionsofmodernprivatepropertyrelationsdependsonthesystematicuseorthreatofforce.

Thereasonisplainenough.Existingpropertyrelationssystematicallyseparateproducersfromtheobjectsoftheirneed,onaneverydayandcontinuousbasis.Incommodityproduction,‘need’and‘right’standopposed.Theorganisationofexistingsocietyconstantlyimpelsindividuals,groups,classesandothercollectivitiestowardswhatMacPhersontermedthe‘invasionoftherightsofothers’.[44]Themotivetotrespass,steal,invade,oppress,robandgenerallytransgresspropertyrightsiscontinuallyrecreatedthroughthepressureofmaterialneed.

Hencethissystemofsocialproductionrelationsgeneratesapermanentandgeneralrequirementformeansof‘defence’,i.e.formeansofviolenceanditsorganisation.Withoutaconstantthreatand/orapplicationofforce,commodityproductionwouldstandindangerofrapidsubversionandbreakdown.

Itturnsoutthattheexchangeofcommoditiesitselfdependson‘non-exchange’relations,theforcibleexclusionofparticipantsincommodityproductionandexchangefromtheobjectsoftheirneed.AsIhopetoshow,theformsofthese‘non-exchange’relationsrequirefurtherdevelopment.[45]

Thelogicoftheargumentisthattwopositionsaremistaken.Thefirstisthevulgarbourgeois-liberalone.Thistreatstheexistingsystemas‘natural’,i.e.asconformingto‘humannature’,andthusasdemandingnointerventionofforceexceptbywayoftheaccidentthatmanisalso‘bad’,i.e.pronetobreachthenaturalnessofprivatepropertybyhistendencytobeawolftoothermen,becauseofhisinherentlyfallenand‘competitive’nature.Inourargument,privatepropertyisnot‘natural’buthistoricallycreated,andhumantendenciestosinfulnessare,atleastinthisrespect,aproductofthespecifichistoricalforminwhichhumansocialcooperationisdeveloped.ThesecondisthatsetofversionsofMarxismitselfwhichseetheroleof‘extra-economicforce’inmaintainingothermodesofproductionthancapitalism(e.g.feudalism),butwhichonlyseetheroleofforceinconstitutingthecapitalistmode(‘theso-calledprimitiveaccumulationofcapital’,whereforceisthe‘midwife’actingatthebirth).Thesemissoutthepermanentnecessityofforceasaconditionofexchangeandsocialcooperationthrougheveryphaseoftheprocessesofcapitalistreproduction,anditsregularroleincompetitionandintheresolutionofcapitalism’srecurrentcrisesandinternalstruggles.

Allweneedasserthereisthat,atthemostabstractandgenerallevelofanalysis,forceisapre-requisiteforsocialproduction:allwesupposeforthemomentis‘commodityproduction’andnot(yet)exploitationofoneclassbyanother.Thesocialorganizationofnecessaryforceandthespecificmatterofthestatestillawaitfurtherdevelopment.Nonetheless,itisatthislevelofanalysisthatsuchgeneralconceptsas‘right’,‘contract’,‘force’andindeed‘law’belong.Theyarethelegal-politicalcorrelatesofsucheconomicconceptsas‘value’,‘exchange-value’and‘money’.Theyexpressthesamesocialrelations,onlyinadifferent,‘jurisprudential’aspect.InprincipletheydemandthesamekindofdialecticalpresentationasMarxoffersintheopeningpartofCapital,althoughthiswillnotbeattemptedhere.[46]

Ofcourse,ifmeansofviolenceforpurposesof‘defence’ofrightsarerequiredaspartofthenormaleverydayfunctioningofsocialproduction,thosesamemeansofviolencemayalsobedeployedfortheoppositepurpose:forthe‘offensive’invasionofthepropertyrightsofothers.Justas‘purchase’and‘sale’implyeachother,withinthesocialrelationofexchange,so‘attack’and‘defence’aremutualcorrelates.Themajordifferenceisthattheattackerandthedefenderarelesseasilydistinguishedinrealitythanarebuyerandseller.Conflictinginterpretationsandunderstandingsof‘right’abound;needsandrightsarepoorlymatched;‘rights’regularlyconflict.Inconflictsover‘right’,thereareandcanbenoultimatelyagreedprinciplesofsettlement.Rather,thereallyoperativetruthisthat‘MightisRight’.


Thosewhoseinterestitistoprotecttheirownpropertyandpositionarenotimmunefromthetemptationtoenhancetheirpropertyandpositionbyseizingthepropertyandpositionofothersbyforceorfraud.Thebiggestrobbersaretherichandpowerful,notthepoorandweak!

Ifthehistoricaleffortismadetotracebackparticular‘rights’totheirpointoforigin,againandagaintheywillbefoundtorestonactsofforce.Theboundariesseparatingproperties,asmuchasthoseseparatingkingdoms,andtheexclusionsassociatedwiththeseboundaries,werefoundedonactsofviolentexpropriation.Allthathashappenedisthatakindof‘StatuteofLimitations’hasbeenapplied,andtheftandmurderhavebeensanctified.[47]Thisisnotonlyamatterofpowerexercised‘fromabove’toestablishexistingrights,butequallyofpowerexercised‘frombelow’.Popularrevolutions,forexample,forciblyexpropriateexistingrightsandpropertyclaims.Werethisnotso,thecitizensoftheUSAwouldstillacknowledgeQueenElizabethastheirsovereignruler.

Thepointemphasisedhereisthat,withoutthecontinuousorganisationofmeansofviolence,theverypossibilityoftheworldof‘value’relationswoulddissolve.Theconstitutionandpreservationof‘property’andoftheboundarieswhichdemarcateitisaninherentlyconflict-pronesocialenterprise.‘Economic’processesdemand,asavitalpresupposition,theconsolidationofasystemof‘rights’and‘freedoms’andasetofmeansbywhichtheymaybemaintained.Itisnotsomuchthattheeconomic(inthisspecificsense)‘causes’thepoliticaland/orlegalframework;forthedevelopmentoftheeconomicdependsonthepolitical/legal,andviceversa.Therelationisoneofmutualentailment.Theconstitutionofthesocialrelationsofvalueproduction,rather,involvesthesimultaneousdevelopmentofitsvarioussidesasinterdependentconditions.

If,aswehavesuggested,‘value’and‘violence’areasmuchcorrelativeasantagonistic,weneedtoconsiderthesocialformsthroughwhichthenecessaryorganisationofperpetualthreatofforceisaccomplished.Properlydeveloped,theunderstandingof‘value’relationswithincommodityproductiondemandsatleasttheoutlineofatheoryofjurisprudence,politicsandwar,alongsideitstheoryofthe‘abstractoreconomiccoercion’ofthelawofvalue.


FrontispieceforThomasHobbes’Leviathan(1651).EngravingbyAbrahamBosse.

Violenceandcommodityproducingsocieties

Club-law(Faustrecht)

Atthispointintheargument,mostreaderswouldprobablyexpectustoturnto‘thestate’.Thisisthenormalmechanismforsecuring‘right’onwhichbothclassicalpoliticaltheoryandMarxismalikehavemostlyfocused.Thereis,however,anunder-discussedalternative,whichhassomeclaimstologicalpriority.

Everypropertyownerhastobevigilant,before,duringandafteranypassagethroughthecircuitsofcommodityexchange.Theexclusionofothersfromaccesstoone’sownpropertywithoutone’sconsentisanecessarypreconditionofcommodity-legalproduction,andmaterialmeansarenecessarytoachievethis.Onesolutionpotentiallyopentocommodityownersistosecureforthemselvestheirownmeansof‘self-defence’.Pashukanis’termforthisis‘self-help’.Indeed,ashecomments,‘Lawandself-help,thoseseeminglycontradictoryconcepts,are,inreality,extremelycloselylinked’.[48]ForPashukanis,thefoundationofalllegalforms,thesocialexpressionoflegalrelationsarisingfromprivateproperty,is‘theduel’.[49]

Theprincipleof‘self-help’issimple.Producerseitherprovideanddeploytheirownmeansofforcetodefendthemselvesand/ortowagewaronothers,or‘hire’otherstocarryoutthisfunctionforthem.Intherealworld,the‘hiringofothers’mayshadeoverintothepayingoftributetoa‘protectionagency’(a.k.a.‘securityspecialist’).Self-armamentwasavitalpoliticalprincipleofthefeudalrulingclass;itwasalsoanecessityformuchearlymerchantactivity.Inthe(mythical?)WildWest,thehiredgunplayedthispartbeforethearrivalofthefullpanoplyofstatepower;everypioneercarriedagun,andnotjustforhuntingmeat.Eveninthedevelopedworldofstatemonopolycapitalism,‘self-help’continuedtoplayitspart.JustasHenryFordhiredaprivatearmyof‘goons’(aswellas‘socialworkers’)inanefforttokeeptheunionsoutofhisauto-plants,so‘hiredgoons’findplentyofworktodayacrossthe


world.Privatesecurityagenciesproliferate,alongwithstoredetectives,videocamerasandelectronicdetectiondevices.Manyhouseholderskitthemselvesoutwithburglaralarmsintheminimalhopethatmarauderswillgonextdoor.

Thistendencyhasproliferatedintheyearsfollowing9/11,buteveninthe1990stherewasevidenceofthisburgeoningindustry.AformerheadoftheLondonpolice,SirRobertMark,toldasecurityconferencethatthepolicewereincapableofprotectingpeople’sproperty.DuncanCampbellreports:

Asrecessionbreedscrime,crimehas,initsturn,stimulatedaremarkablegrowthinthesecurityindustry…Whileotherindustrieshavewithered,theindicationsarethatsecurityhasnotonlysurvivedbutprosperedintherecession.In1989,theturnoverofmembercompaniesoftheBritishSecurityIndustryAssociationwas£1,107billion.Lastyear,ithadincreasedby19percentto£1,163billionandisestimatedthisyeartoreach£1,148billion.In1989,therewere59,000employedinBSIAcompaniesandthisyearthefigureislikelytobe62,500.Closedcircuittelevisioncompanies,whoselltogaragesandshops,haveseentheirturnoverincreasefrom£236millionto£304millionsince1989….DrOlingaTa’eed,ofMolynx,thecompanydevelopingtheIDStrackingsystemwhichcanfollowaburglarroundabuildingandzoominonhisface,saysthattherehasbeenagreatincreaseindemandforpropersecurity.‘Peoplearelookingformuchmoresophisticatedequipmentnow.Wehavehadalotofinterestbothfromindustryandthepolice.’…Itisnotjusthardwarethatisbeingpromoted.RoleManagement,basedinMiltonKeynes,offersadvicetovictimsofbankrobberiesandevenproduceanewslettercalledTraumaCounsellorwithdetailsoftheeffectsoftraumasuffered–‘lowlibido,shivering,shaking,numbnessanddisbelief.’….Traditionallythepolicehavebeenopposedtothegrowthofsecurityfirmscarryingoutprivatestreetpatrols;suchfirmschargebetween£3and£10amonthperhouseholdtopatrolinareaswheretherehasbeenahighrateofburglary.Buttherearenowsignsthatpoliceresistanceissoftening….Thereisanevenfastergrowthamongthe‘cowboy’companieswhoprovideeverythingfrombouncersforpubstonightwatchmenforwarehouses.Somefirmsofbouncershaveshrewdlyrealizedthattheycangiveadiscreetformofprotection;pubsthatdon’tpayfindtrouble-makersontheirdoorsteps.[50]

‘Self-help’isassociatedwithaparticularformoflaw.Marx’stermforitis‘club-law’(Faustrecht)[51]:

…everyformofproductioncreatesitsownlegalrelations,formsofgovernment,etc.Thecrudityandshortcomingsofthe[bourgeoiseconomists’]conceptionlieinthetendencytoseebutanaccidentalreflectiveconnectioninwhatconstitutesanorganicunion.Thebourgeoiseconomistshaveavaguenotionthatitisbettertocarryonproductionunderthemodernpolice,thanitwas,e.g.underclub-law.Theyforgetthatclub-lawisalsolaw,andthattherightofthestrongercontinuestoexistinotherformsevenundertheir‘governmentoflaw’.[52]

Under‘club-law’,ortherightofthestronger,thosewithpropertytodefendmustspendtodefendthemselves,toengagein‘self-help’.Meansofviolenceandexclusion-howevertheyareproduced,marketed,controlled,enforced-areinherentrequisitesofeverydayexchangeandcirculation,andnecessaryelementsinthecostsofproduction.Locksandkeys,alarmsystemsfromdogsandgeesetomodernelectronicsystems,knives,guns,bombs,tanks,warships,multiple-targetedre-entryvehiclesareallpartoftherealeconomicnecessitiesofcommodityproductioninitsmodern(i.e.capitalist)form.Soareallthemeansforprotectionagainstfraud,orcoverttheft.

Theexpensesofmaintainingprivatemeansofdefencefall,strictly,undertheheadof‘unproductivelabour’.Thisdoesnot,however,exemptthemfromthesamesocio-economicnecessitiesassociatedwiththe‘lawofvalue’.Nomore,ofcourse,arebanks,insurancecompanies,merchantandretailenterprises,andsoforth-centresparexcellenceofunproductivelabour-exemptfromthelawofvalue.

InhispreparatorymaterialsforCapital,Marxofferssomecomments,semi-satiricalintone,ontheconnectionbetweencrimeandthedevelopmentoftheproductiveforces:

Theeffectsofthecriminalonthedevelopmentofproductivepowercanbeshownindetail.Wouldlockseverhavereachedtheirpresentdegreeofexcellencehadtherebeennothieves?Wouldthe


makingofbank-noteshavereacheditspresentperfectionhadtherebeennoforgers?Wouldthemicroscopehavefounditswayintothesphereofordinarycommerce(seeBabbage)butfortradingfrauds?Doesn’tpracticalchemistryowejustasmuchtoadulterationofcommoditiesandtheeffortstoshowitupastothehonestzealforproduction?Crime,throughitsconstantlynewmethodsofattackonproperty,constantlycallsintobeingnewmethodsofdefence,andsoisasproductiveasSTRIKESfortheinventionofmachines.Andifoneleavesthesphereofprivatecrime:wouldtheworld-marketeverhavecomeintobeingbutfornationalcrime?Indeed,wouldeventhenationshavearisen?Andhasn’ttheTreeofSinbeenatthesametimetheTreeofKnowledgeeversincethetimeofAdam?[53]

Theworldof‘crime’and‘crime-prevention’hasitsownrapidlydevelopingtechnologies,itsownrisingorganiccompositionofcapital,anditsowntendenciestoconcentrationandcentralization.Likeproductive,commercialandfinancialcapital,ittoospillsacrossnationalboundaries.Heretoo,livinglabourplaysadiminishingpartinrelationtodeadlabour,whetheramongthepoachersorthegamekeepers,thepeoplewhodesignsages,andthosewhocrackthem.

‘Self-protection’tooissubjecttothelawofvalue,bothinrespectofthecostofthetechnologiesitemploysanditsownlabourprocesses.Asintheproductivesphere,sociallynecessarylabourtimealsoruleshere.Thecostsandeffectsof‘defence’inaworldwherethemeansofself-protectionarewoodenclubsorbowsandarrowsareverydifferentfromthoseinaworldwiththermiclancesandram-vehicles,computerfraud,tanksandMultiple-TargetedRe-EntryVehicles….Justas,incompetitionwithinthesphereofproductivelabour,thedevelopmentofnewmeansofproductionbyoneproducerhasprofoundconsequencesforallotherproducers,sotoointheinter-connectedfieldsofrobberyandself-defence:meansofforcemustmatchmeansofforce,whetherdirectlyorreciprocally.Insum:althoughthefieldoflegal-politicaldefenceofprivatepropertyisnotitself,directly,asphereofexchangeorofproductivelabour,itisnonethelessalsosubjecttothelawofvalue,whoseeffectsarejustasrealhereasinthedirectly‘economic’processesMarxandthepoliticaleconomistsexplored.Itisbynomeansonlyinthesphereofexchangeproperthathumanbeingsrelatetoeachotherthroughthings,andareindeeddominatedbythepropertiesofthoserelationsbetweenthings.

Whatdoesthe‘lawofvalue’dictate?Hereweshouldremindourselvesthatthelawofvalueisnotmerelya‘scientificlaw’,astatementofthegeneralprinciplesunderlyingprocessesofproductionandexchangeincommodity-producingsociety;itisalsoacoerciveforceoperatingonallproducers.AdaptingatermMarxuseselsewhere,wecanfairlysaythatcoercionisthe‘Mosesandalltheprophets’,thatis-thelawofvalueascommand.Tobuy,youmusthaveadequatecommoditiesatyourowndisposaltoexchange,andthesocialadequacyoftheseisshapedbythesociallynecessarylabour-timetheyembody.Tosell,yourownproductionmustnotonlysatisfyaneedinothers,butalsobeundertakenwithinsociallynecessarylabour-timeifyouaretoobtain,throughfreeexchangeandcontractualrelations,themeanstocontinuereproducingyourselfandyourmeansofproduction.Nowwemustaddthatthemeansof‘defence’mustalsobeadequatetotheconditionsinwhichyoufindyourself,andthesedependonwhatthosewhothreatenyouarecapableof.

Itis,thus,notonlyvia‘pricecompetition,monetarycompetition’thatthelawofvalueisabletotransmititself.‘Defencecompetition’isalsoavitaltransmitter.[54]Itistruethatthesphereinwhichthisismostopentodemonstrationisindeedthesphereofinternationalrelations,wheretheprincipleof‘self-help’(or‘club-law’)stillreignssupreme,asPashukanishimselfnoted,almostinpassing.[55]Butcommodityproductionalwaysimpliesandinvolvesthedevelopmentofmeansof‘self-help’or‘defence’,andthesearealsosubjecttothelawofvalue.Matterstodowith‘defenceofpropertyrights’arenotsomehowextrinsictotheanalysisofcommodityproduction,andthusofcapitalistproduction,butareessentialaspectsoftheverysocialformitself.[56][57]

Statesandforce

Onepossibilityopentothosewhoneedtodefendtheirproperty,wenoted,wasnottoprovidedirect‘self-help’,buttoturntosomekindof‘protectionagency’,possessingthemeansofviolence,to


performthisserviceforthem.Themostdevelopedformofsuchprotectionagenciesarestates.[58]Statesformaninherentpartofcapitalistsociety,yettheiranalysisandunderstandinghaveprovedtroublesometoMarxism.

Classicalliberalpoliticalthought,fromHobbestoHegel,connectedthenecessityofstateswiththeexistenceofprivateproperty.Indeed,akeystrengthofliberaltheorywasitsinsistenceonthislink.Characteristically,liberalthinkersconstruedafundamentaldistinctionwithinmodernsocietybetweentwospheres:ononeside,theprivatesphereof‘civilsociety’(Hegel),‘commercialsociety’(AdamSmith)orthe‘stateofnature’(Hobbes,Locke,Paineandothers),andontheothersideandthepublicrealmofthestate(AdamSmith’s‘civilmagistrate’).Civilsocietyremainsthesphereoftheegoisticpursuitofself-interest.Correspondingtocivilsociety,butoverandaboveit,thereneedsmustexistadistinctsphere,thatofthestate.

Inliberaltheory,modernstateshaveadualfunction.Ontheonehand,theyprotectprivatepropertyrights.Ontheother,theyrepresentalarger,communalinterestthananyactorsincivilsocietycanachieve-preciselybecauseoftheirpursuitofessentiallyprivateandselfishinterests.Hobbesoffersperhapsthemostextremeanduncomfortableversionofthetheory.Hepresentsasocietybrutallycharacterizedaslivinginaconditionof‘warofallagainstall’,whichmustendincommonruinunlessobediencebedemandedbyandgivenuptoLeviathan,anindependentstatepowerwhichrulesandprotectssociety‘foritsowngood’.Laterliberalthinkersweretosoftenthepresentation,buttheheartofthevisionremainedthesame:acompetitivecivilsocietyrequiresastatetogovernandprotectitsmembersfromeachother,andtoresolvepartlysomeoftheinternalcontradictionsofthatsociety.

Thisvision,inturn,generateditsownspecificseriesofpractical,moralandtheoreticalproblems,whichconstitutetheheartoftheagendaofliberalpoliticaltheory.Howshouldsuchstatesbecomposed,andhowcontrolled?Whatallegiance(‘obligation’)isowedtosuchstates,andwhenisrebellionjustified?Howfarcanandshouldthedangerouspowerofsuchstatesbepermittedtodevelop?Whatactivitiesisitproperforstatestoundertake,andwhatmattersarebetterlefttotheautonomousself-regulatingprocessofcompetitivewealth-creation?Theproblemsfacedbyliberalpoliticalthoughtmultipliedtothedegreethatitspractitionersrecognizedthecontradictionsgeneratedbythefreepursuitofprivategreed:classdivision,poverty,ignorance,vice,exploitation,inequality,hypocrisyandthelike.Classicalliberaltheorywasforcedtowrestlewith,andtoattemptaresolutionoftheparadoxesposedbysuchasocietyandsuchstates:‘privatevicesandpublickbenefits’;wealthforsomefoundedonpovertyformany;theinherentgenerationofpopularclassdiscontent;equalitybeforethelawalliedwithpracticalinequality;thedissociationofindividualandcommonmorality,thecontradictionbetweentheparticularandthegeneral.Thegreatestthinkers-amongthemRousseau,KantandHegel-couldrepresenttheproblemswithbrilliantacuity,butoffernothingbutessentially‘tragic’resolutions.[59]

Whatisinvolvedinthestate‘solution’totheproblemsofprovidingthenecessaryforcetosecureprivateproperty?Atthemostgenerallevel,asweremarkedabove,thenecessityandpossibilityofstatesarisesfromtheinabilityofcivilsociety’smembers,dividedandfragmentedastheyarebyspecialandantagonisticinterests,togovernthemselvesdirectly.States,inthissense,provideapoliticalanaloguetoAdamSmith’s‘hiddenhand’orMarx’s‘lawofvalue’.Thatis,statesdevelop,inconnectionwithprivateproperty,asintegratingandsocializingmechanisms,whichareoutofthedirectcontrolofthemembersofcivilsociety.States,quiteasmuchasmoney,bearthebirthmarkofhumanalienation.

Theformationofstatesisaninherently‘dangerous’enterpriseforallconcerned.Forstatesconstitutethemselveswithamonopolyoflegislative,armedandjudicialpoweroverthesocietiestheyrule.Theirestablishmentenablesthemto‘interfere’and‘intervene’inandto‘supervise’theeverydayconditionsofsocialreproduction.If,liketheAmericancop,states‘serveandprotect’,theyhavethecharacterofaprotectionracket:theydemand‘respect’,theycollect‘contributions’fromthosetheyprotect,andtheyenforcesubmissionfromthoseunwillingtocoughup.LiketheMafia,statesdomakeofferswecan’trefuse.Theemergenceofmodernstatesinvolvestheconstitutionofthemembersofcivilsocietyas‘legalsubjects’capableofowningandexchangingviapropertyrights.But,theyareconstitutedbystatesas‘subjects’beneaththemselves.

Statesmustthemselvessubsist,andtheyhavethemeanstoenforcetheirsubsistencecostsuponsociety.


Liberaltheoristsmayhavepresentedstates’existenceastheresultofa‘socialcontract’,butstates’relationswiththeirsubjectsarenotthemselvescontractual.Unlikethe‘commercial’relationsofcivilsociety,states’transactionswiththeirsubjectsarenotfirstandforemostconductedaccordingtotherulesofthemarket,thosefamousprinciplesoffreedom,equality,propertyandBentham.Thefreedomofthesubjectisalwaysconditional;statesmaydeclaretheirsubjectsfree,buttheyalsoconstitutethemastheircreatures.[60]Betweenstateandsubjectthereisnofinalpresumptionofequality:thereiscommandandobedience.Propertyrightsmaybeprotectedbystates,buttheyarebythatfactnolonger‘absolute’:statesmaketheirownclaim,inprinciple,onallproperty(evenincludingthefamous‘propertyinoneself’whichstateconscriptionoverrules.)Thepursuitofnakedself-interestmaybelicensedbystates,butonlyonconditionthatthe‘generalinterest’whosedefinitionthestatearrogatestoitselfisalwaysborneinmind.Raisond’étatisafinalargumentagainstallresistance:states,onceconstituted,developtheirownspecificinterests.Theinterestsofstatesmayconflictwithwhatmereprivateindividualsconsidertobetheirinterests,yetthosestatespossesstheviolentpowertoprevailinsuchacontest.

Bothto‘protecttheirsubjects’andtopursuewhattheydeterminetobethe‘generalinterest’,statesmustdevelop‘policies’forthemanagementofsociety.Thosepoliciescarrycostsaswellasbenefitsfordifferentgroupingsinsociety,whichtheymayprefernottomeetortohaveprovided.Theveryexistenceofstatesmaybeanecessityforthepreservationof‘free’commerceandtheworkingofthelawofvalue;buttheexistenceofstatessimultaneouslycontradicts,inprinciple,theworkingsofthatlaw.Statesliveabovesocietyandliveoffthefruitsof‘extra-economic’surplusextraction.Thenecessaryproductofcontradictionincommodity-producingsociety,theyalsocontradictthatsocietydirectly.Theymaystiffentheframeworkoflegalrelationsinsocietythroughtheirjudicialandpoliceapparatuses,butthefirstdecreeofstatesisstrictlyextra-legal:theirownsafetyandsecurity,theirownmajesty.

Asalreadyindicated,thedevelopmentofstateseffectsasignificanttransformationinthecontentofsocio-economicrelations.Initially,whenweconsidercontractualexchangerelations,itappearsthateverycontracthastwoparties,eachfreeandindependentofandequalinstatustotheother.Buttheintroductionofastateasguarantorofcontractlaw,andindeedasaformativeelementintheveryconstitutionofthepartiestocontractsasfreeandequallegalsubjects,involvesthepracticalintroductionintoeverycontractualrelationofa‘thirdparty’.This‘thirdparty’itselfstandsoverthecontractingparties,rulingandtaxingthem,givingthemlegaldefinitionasmembersofcivilsociety.Thusthedevelopmentofthecategoryof‘state’alsoinvolvesthemodificationofatheoreticalassumptionwhichunderliesthedevelopmentoftheeconomiccategoriesinCapitalaswehaveit.Commodityproductionpresumesequivalenceofexchangeasitsnormalandaveragebasis;thisisthestartingpointofMarx’sexposition.Asiswellknown,Marxwentontoshowthat,inpractice,thisprincipleisalreadysubvertedoncetheconceptsofcapitalandsurplusvalueareintroducedanddeveloped(seebelow).Sotoo,inthedevelopmentoftheconceptofstatesoutofthelegal-politicalexigenciesofcommodityproduction,wefindthatitisnecessarytointroduceanother,competinglogic,thatofstatetributeandtaxation.Withincapitalism,thesetwoformsofsurplusextraction–‘economic’and‘extra-economic’-arenotsimplyseparateandopposed,butareeachmutuallyentailedandcomplementaryfeaturesoftheother.

Asacommodityisatthesamemomentbotha‘thing’andasocialrelation,sostatesarebothorganizedcollectionsofpeopleandarelationtosociety.Theformofthatrelationis,inMarxistterms,a‘class-like’one:statesappropriatefortheirownpurposesashareofthesurplusproducedwithinsociety.Stateslive,inthatdirectsense,byexploitation:eitherdirectlyorthroughtheforcibleappropriationofsurplusesproducedelsewhere.[61]InVolume3ofCapital,Marxdiscussesthevariousphenomenalformsthatsurplus-valuetakeswithincapitalistsociety:industrialprofit,commercialprofit,interestonfinancialcapital,rentonland.Interestingly,hequiteignoresoneform:tax.[62]Anyfurtherdevelopmentofthecritiqueofpoliticaleconomymostdecidedlyrequiresthedevelopmentofthatcategory,fortaxcollectionisthepresuppositionofallstateintervention.

‘Property’isnotonlysomethingwhichisexchanged,orwhichrepresentsthemeanstoproducecommoditiesforexchange.Itisalso,whileitremainsinthehandsofthosewhopossessit,something


‘managed’and‘directed’bythosewithan‘interest’init.Fromthestandpointofstates,civilsocietyitselfappearsas‘theirproperty’.Thereismoretotheroleofstatesthansimplythatofguardianofthecivillaw,protectoroftherightsofpropertyownerswithincivilsociety.Fromitsbeginning,statesdevelopa‘managerial’or‘administrative’capacityinrelationto‘theirsubjects’;theyformulateandexecute‘policies’,[63]deployingtheirownarmedpowerandtheirowntax-collectinganddistributingpowersinpursuitofwhattheycometodefineasthe‘social’,‘general’,‘common’or‘national’interest.Farfrombeingmerelypassiveguardians,statesareactiveorganizersandshapersofsocietybeneaththemselves.Thus,inthemodernperiod(certainlyfromthe16thcenturyonwards),thedevelopmentofstatesismuchmorethanthedevelopmentofcivillaw:itisaprocessof‘state-building’,oftheformulationandre-formulationof‘statepolicy’andoftheinstrumentsforitspursuit.[64]

Inalloftheforegoing,therehasbeenadegreeofconsciousstick-bendingonmypart.Onthewhole,Marxisttheorizingaboutstatesandcapitalistsociety-includingmostofMarx’svariedandinterestingremarksonthesubjectinthe1840s-hasstressed,usuallydescriptivelyratherthananalytically,thewaysinwhichstatesaresubordinatedtotheimperativesofcapitalaccumulation,totheinterestsofthebourgeoisie,etc.Thisparticularsideoftheconcretefunctioningofcapitaliststatesundoubtedlyrequiresextensiveemphasisanddevelopment.Buttheproblemwithmuchofthisstyleoftheorizing,takenbyitself,isthatitisone-sided:itignoresthespecificcharacterofstatesthemselves.[65]TheneedforaMarxisttheoryof‘politics’and‘law’whichismorethansimply‘economistic’and‘derivationist’disappears;the‘class-like’natureofstates’poweroversocietyisplayeddown,andawayisleftopenfora‘reformist’politicsalientoMarx’sspirit.[66]

Forthepresent,thestressfallsonthewayinwhichstates-throughtheirveryexistenceandthroughtheiractivitiesandpolicies-modifythelawofvalue.Obviously,amoresystematicaccountwouldbepreferable;hereIjustnoteafewaspectsofthequestioninverygeneralterms.

Somekeystatefunctions

Statescollectandspendtaxes;theyrecruitandmayconscriptpersonnelwhomtheydeploytotheirvariousapparatuses;theypayandmayotherwisefeedandprovidesubsistencetotheirpersonnel;theypurchaseandmaycommandeerland[67],goodsandservices;theyshapethesupplyofcurrencyand,tothedegreetheyborrow,affectthepatternofinterestrates;theydirectlyorganizetheproductionofsomegoodsandservices;theymaysubsidizethepricesofsomeoftheirownproductsorothersthatare‘commercially’producedwhileequallytheymayinflatethepricesofotherproductsbyimposingavarietyoftaxesatthepointoftheirproductionand/orsale;theyenforceprocessesofeconomic‘redistribution’throughavarietyofspecificpolicies,frominvestmentpromotionto‘welfare’.Bytheseandothermechanismsof‘policy’statesgiveakindofdirectiontotheoveralleconomicprocessamongtheirsubjects,whetherconsciouslyorotherwise.Alltheseformsof‘intervention’bystatesinvolve,ingreaterorlessermeasure,modificationsoftheoperationofthelawofvaluewhicharebackedbystatepower.Asocietywhere‘commodityproduction’isthepredominantformcannotbecharacterized,solely,bythepredominanceofthelawofvalue,butonlybythesimultaneousco-existenceofthatlawwithitspracticalnegation.[68]If‘generalizedcommodityproduction’providesapossiblestartingpointfortheconsiderationoftheconceptof‘capitalism’,othernecessaryaspectsofthatstartingpointturnouttoincludethearmedandtribute-collectingpowerofstates,their‘interventions’and‘policy-formations’.Theyhavebeenuniversalandnecessaryaspectsofthewholeofcapitalisthistory.

Onefurtherpointneedstobemadeatthisstage.Ifstatesinsomesenserepresentthegeneralinterestofacommunitywhichisbothassociatedbutalsodividedbycommodityproductionrelations,andiftheydeploytheirvariouspowersinsupportofthatgeneralinterest,howdotheydeterminewhatthatinterestis?Whichofmanypossibleversionsofthecommunalinterestdostatesexpress?Giventhecompetitivediversitywithinsociety,anygivenpolicywilltendtoadvantagesomeinterestsandhurtothers.Whenstatescollectrevenuesandresourcesfromtheirsubjects,theactualpatternandleveloftribute-exactiontheyfollowwillhavesignificantconsequencesforallorsomeoftheirsubjects.Theveryexistenceandactivitiesofsuchstates,withtheirvariousextra-economicpowers,necessarilymakesthemobjectsofbothfearanddesirefortheirsubjects.Thepoliticsoftheircontrol,theirsteeringandtheirlimitation


becomesavitalmatterfortheirvarioussubjects.Howfarcanthisorthatstatebelobbied,diverted,persuaded,corrupted,resisted,captured,overthrown?State-societyrelationsbecome,inherently,objectsofpoliticalstruggle.

Againstthestate

Thepowerofstatesisthereverseofthepowerlessnessoftheirsubjects,theirlackofcontrolover,notsimplythemeansofproduction,buttheconditionsoftheirsocialactivity:socialrules,laws,theallocationofresourcestodifferentneeds,etc.Indifferentformsofsocialproduction(modesofproductionorcooperation),therootsofthisalienationoftheirpowerstoentitiesstandingoverthemaredifferent.Inthecapitalistformofsociety,wheresocialwealthtakestheformofanimmensecollectionofcommodities,andwheretheirproductsruleoverthem,statestaketheirplaceasvitalpartsofthelargermachineryofhumanalienation.Thestruggleagainstcapitalismisnecessarilyalsoastruggletodoawaywithstates.

Capitalandcommodityproduction

InMarx’spresentationintheearlychaptersofCapital,commodityproductionandexchangecontainsthepossibilityofcapital,developedasacategorythroughtheexplorationofthecirculationofcommoditiesandmoney.Itisonlywhencapitaltakesholdofproductionthattheconditionsarecreatedforcommodityproductionandexchangetobecomegeneral,fundamentalfeaturesofhumansocialcooperation.Andtheconditionforcapitaltakingholdofproductionisthecreationofaclassofworkers,lackingdirectaccesstothemeansofproduction,whomusthireouttheirlabour-powerinreturnforwages.Althoughhebeginshisexpositionwiththesocialrelationsofcommodityproductionandexchange,Marx’sargumentisthatthesethemselvesonlybecomedominantwherecapitalhasseizedcontrolovertheprocessofproductionitself:‘onlywherewage-labourisitsbasisdoescommodityproductionimposeitselfuponsocietyasawhole’.[69]AsJorgeLarrainnotes:‘Onecannotderivethecapital-labourcontradictionfromthecontradictionsimmanentincommodities;onthecontrary,theemergenceinhistoryofthecapital-labourcontradictionisthepreconditionfortheactualizationofthepotentialcontradictionsinherentincommodities’.[70]Thefloweringofcommodityproductionanditssocialassumptionsaredependentonthedevelopmentofcapital,notthereverse:capitaliscausenotconsequence.Theorderofpresentationisnotthesameastheorderofsignificance.

Commodityproductionandexchange,itturnsout,arenot‘self-subsistent’socialrelations,capableoftheirownreproductionwithoutother,distinctandnecessarysocialrelations.[71]Ontheonehand,asarguedabove,theapplicationofforceinsomeformisanecessaryentailmentofcommodityproductionandexchange.Ontheotherhand,thegeneralizationoftheproductionof‘value’(anditsassociatedpatternofsocialrelations)requiresthegeneralizedproductionof‘surplusvalue’.Onlyonthebasisofthedevelopmentoftheexploitationofwage-labourdothesocialrelationsthatMarx,Pashukanisandothersdecodedasunderlyingcommodityproductionandexchangebecomegeneralfeaturesofsocialproductionandsocialcooperation.Itturnsoutthatthesocialandlegalimplicationswehavebeenexploringundertheheadingofcommodityproductionandexchangearethoseofcapitalism.Onlywehavebeenlookingattheseinaone-sidedway.

Thefurtherexpositionofthesocialrelationsofcapitalistproductionandcirculationalsoinvolvestransformationsandfurtherdevelopmentsinourunderstandingofthesocialandlegalrelationsinherentinthismodeofproduction.Thefreedomofproducers,theequalizationoftheirproducts,theirmutualindifference,theirpropertyrightsandsoonallnowtakeonadditionalfeatures,andappearinanewlight.Sotoodothefigureswhopopulatedthelandscapeofcommodityproductionandexchange.Therelationbetweencommodityproducersofferswhatturnsouttobeacomplexandcontradictorystartingpointforconceptualizingcapitalism,butitisbynomeanstheterminus.Byitself,theanalysisofcommodityproductionenablesustograsp,inthedimmestoutline,aworldof‘privateproperty’whereproducersbuyandsell,wheretheymeetasfreeandequalcontractingagents,wheresomeforceisrequiredtoreproducetheirrelationswitheachotherandwhere,althoughveryabstractly,itispossibletoperceivethat‘crisesofreproduction’canoccur.[72]


Butwhatthemoreprecisecontentoftheserelationsis,wedonotyetknow.Nordoweknowunderwhatcircumstancestheserelationsofcommodityproductionbecomedominant.Weknowthatthereare‘subjectsandthings’,andsociallydeterminedrelationsof‘control’,‘ownership’and‘possession’betweenthese‘subjects’andthese‘things’,andthattherearelikewiserelationsofexclusion,butweknownothingofthesocialrolesofthesesubjectsorthecharacterofthesethings.Whoorwhatcountsasa‘subject’andwhatorwhoasan‘object’?Wemay,attheleveloftheanalysisofcommodityproduction,beabletoconstrueanoutlinetheoryof‘exchange-value’andoftherelationshipbetweencommodityvaluesandmoney;butmanyoftheimmediateformsinwhichwecomeacrossthesematters–‘wages’,‘profit’,‘interest’,‘rent’andthelike-arestillquiteinexplicable.Wecandeducethatsomekindoforganizationof‘force’isneededtokeepproperty‘privatized’,butnothowitisorganized;ifastateformexists,weknowlittleaboutit.Itisnotapparentwhat,ifany,patternofinequalityexistsinsociety,norwhethersocietyhasanymarkedpatternofdevelopmentor‘lawsofmotion’.

Once,however,weturntoestablishedcapitalistsocialrelations,thenormalfunctioningofthecapitalistunityofproductionandcirculationcanbeseenasreproducingmanyofitsownpreconditions.Theprocessofproduction,circulationanddistributionisone,throughwhich,simultaneously,goodsinthesocialformofcommoditiesareproducedandreproduced,butwhatisalsoproducedandreproducedisabasicshapeofsociety.Forattheendofeveryperiod,thelabour-forcehasearnedsufficientwagestoenablethemtocontinueasworkers,butwithoutovercomingtheirbasicpropertylessness,sothattheyarefacedagainwiththenecessityofofferingtheirservicesforhire;andthecapitalistshaveenlargedtheircapitalandremaincapitalists.‘Production’and‘reproduction’refernotonlytothemakingofneededthings,butalsoatthesametimetothemakingofsociety,itsrelationshipsandtheindividualswhocomposeit.Marx’sfamousremark–‘Menmaketheirownhistorybutnotunderconditionsoftheirownchoosing’-applieswithfullforcenotsimplytomomentsofrevolutionarychangebutequallytotheeverydayandordinarymakingandremakingofthesocialworldandourownplaceswithinit.Thosewhomake,say,Microsoftsoftwareareinvolvedthroughthesameactivityinreproducingthemselvesasworkers,butalsoinmakingBillGatesandhisexpandingwealth.Themakingofthingsembodiesthemakingof(class)society;thesearenotdistinctactivities,butthesameprocessconsideredfromdifferentaspects.

Thedevelopmentofspecificallycapitalistproductionrelations,foundedupontheexploitationbycapitalofwagelabour,notonlyprovidestheconditionsforthecompletegeneralizationof‘commodityproduction’,butitalsotransformsitsinnerdrives.

First,theformationandreproductionofaclassofpropertylessworkersenormouslyexpandsthefieldofactionofcommodityproductionandexchange.Now,themajorityofsocietycannolongersubsistontheirowndirectproduction.Notonlymusttheyhireouttheirlabourpowerin‘labourmarkets’,buttheymustspendtheirwagesonobtainingthenecessitiesoflife.Asproducersandasconsumersalike,theireverydaylifeisnownecessarilyinvolvedintheworldofmarketexchange.Allaspectsoftheirlivesarenow,directlyorindirectly,mediatedthroughmonetaryrelations.

Second,theinterdependenceassociatedwiththeparticularformofthesocialdivisionoflabourfoundwithincommodityproductionnowhasamoredefiniteshape.Thosedenominatedpreviouslyas‘producers’arenowidentifiableascapitalistenterprises.Eachone,separately,isstill‘independent’andyetpartofaninterdependentsystemofsocialproduction.Each,necessarily,iscompelledbythelogicofthatsystemtoproduceunderconditionsitdoesnotitselfdetermine.‘Sociallynecessarylabourtime’remainsagoverningprinciple,foreachenterprisetakenasaunitmust,asaconditionofitssurvival,keepupwithorcatchupwithallotherenterpriseswithwhomitstrugglesforamarket.Capitalistcommodityproductiondemands‘efficiency’intheuseofproductiveresources,andcondemnsthe‘inefficient’todestructionorabsorptionbythemoreefficient.

Underconditionsofcapitalistproduction,thepursuitof‘surplusvalue’becomesanunavoidableimperativeforthosewhocontrolandowncapital.Capital’sendlessself-expansionisaconditionforitssurvival.Thecompetitiverelationsbetweencapitalscompeleach,separately,tosearchconstantlyformeansofcuttingthecostsofproduction,ofimprovingandspeedingupthemethodsofproduction,andthusofreducingtheaverage‘sociallynecessarylabourtime’embodiedinthecommoditiesitproduces.Oneeffectistodistinguishthecapitalistclassfromallpreviousexploitingclassesinonecrucialrespect.


Whileapartofthesurplusvalueextractedfromthelabourofitsworkerscontinuestobedevotedtothecapitalistclass’sownconsumptionandenjoyment,such‘unproductive’or‘luxury’consumptionplaysaproportionatelysmallerpartthanwasthecasewithallpreviousexploitingclasses.Rather,thosewhoplaythepartof‘moderncapitalist’findthemselvescompelledtore-investthegreaterpartofthesurplusvaluethatcomestheirwaybackintotherenewalanddevelopmentoftheforcesofproduction.Whatcompelsthemtosuch‘productive’consumptionofsurplusvalueisthecompetitionbetweenthemall.TheidealcapitalististhusindeedonewhoconformstosuchpatternsasthoseprescribedbytheProtestantEthic:livinganausterepersonallife,spendingnomorethanisnecessaryonenjoymentanddecoration,andwiselyploughingwealthbackintothefieldofcapitalistproductionandcirculationtobefurtherfructifiedandexpanded.Thishappensnotoutofanyidealorreligiousconviction,butoutofsimplenecessity.Thosewho‘wastetheirsubstance’aredoomedtodestruction.

Theeffect,though,isconsiderable.Ascapital‘tookholdofproduction’,itlaunchedthatconvulsivedrivetoexpandtheproductiveforcesofsocietyandextendtheirglobalscopewhichhassomarkedthehistoryofthepasttwoorthreecenturies.


Capitalism:subjectsandobjects

Thetransitiontodiscussionofcapitalismalsoinvolvesatransformationinthenatureofsubjectsandobjects.SolongasweremainatthestartingpointofMarx’spresentationinCapital,namelycommodityproductionandexchange,itissufficienttoassumethatthepropertyrelationisone,asGeoffreyKayandJamesMottputit,consistingof‘persona-res’.[73]Thatis,the‘owner’ofpropertyisaperson,orperhapsafamilygroup,andthe‘object’ofpropertyisamaterial‘thing’:aphysicalcommodity,atoolormachine,apieceofland,etc.The‘rights’ofpropertyareattachedtopersons.

Atthelevelofcapitalism,however,thesesimpleassumptionsmustbemodified.Foronething,thankstotheconcentrationandcentralizationofcapital,‘ownership’becomesdissociatedfrom‘naturalpersons’(thatis,individualhumanbeings)andincreasinglyheldinthehandsofcorporateentities(limitedliabilitycompaniesandcorporations,andindeedstates).‘Rights’nowattachnotsimplytoindividualhumanbeings,buttocollectiveforms-‘thecompany’,‘theestate’,‘thecrown’,‘thestate’andthelike-whichlacktherealattributesofpersonalitybutarenonethelessendowedbylawwithalltheattributesof‘person-hood’.[74]‘Naturalrights’areattributedtoownershipintheabstract,tothe‘fictionalindividuals’thatcomprisetheseentities.Thesecorporateformsmayanddoasserttheirlegal‘rights’againstmererealpersons.Abstractpersonsandrealpersonsmayeachhavetheirdayincourt,thoughsuchabstractpersonscanusuallyaffordbetterlawyers.

Suchdevelopedformsofcapitalasthemoderncorporation(orindeedstate-ownedcapitalistproperty)[75]involveafurthersignificanttransformation.Wemighthaveassumedthatthefunctionsof‘ownership’and‘management’ofpropertyarecombinedinthesamepersonorgroup,andthusthatthefunctionof‘capitalist’isalwaysassociatedwithdirectpersonalownership.Butthedevelopmentofcapitalistpropertyformsallowsandinvolvesadissociationoffunctions,asnumerouscommentatorshavenoted-eveniftheyhavereadthesignificanceofthedevelopmentindifferentways.Insometheoriesof‘managerialrevolution’,itisassumedthatoncesalariedmanagerswithlessimmediate‘ownership’intereststakethehelmwithinbusinessenterprises,theybecomelessconcernedwith‘profit’andmoreopentothepursuitofother,andmore‘sociallyaware’goals.Ratherthanreviewawholeliteratureonthis,itissufficienttorecallthat,regardlessoftheindividualswhoheadandmanageenterprises,thoseenterprisesthemselves,as‘collectivesubjects’,arestillenmeshedinaworldofcompetitiverelationswitheachother.Thatworldofcompetitionitselfconstrainsmanagerialbehaviour,irrespectiveofthepersonswhooccupydecision-makingpositionswithinenterprises-andirrespectiveofwhethertheyare‘private’,‘corporate’oreven‘publiclyowned’.Occupancyofa‘directive’rolewithincapitalistenterprise,withtheresponsibilitiesthatcarries,isnormallysufficient-quiteindependentofany‘personalstake’-toensureadherencetotherulesofthecapitalistgame.The‘agents’ofcapitalistproductionandcompetitionneedtobeunderstood,first,intermsofthefieldofconstraintstheyoccupy,andthecompulsionstheyfindthemselvesunder,ratherthantheparticularroutesbywhichtheyacquiredtheir‘agencies’.RatherastheyoungMarxremarkedthat,underprimogeniture,thePrussianestateinheritedtheeldestson,onemightsayof‘managers’thattheirrelationtopropertyisthatitownsthemratherthanthereverse.[76]

Further,itisnotonlythe‘subject’ofthepropertyrelationwhichisinwardlytransformedthroughthedevelopmentofcapitalism,sotooisthe‘object’.Fornowlabour-power,theessentialhumancapacityfortransformativecreativeactivity,alsobecomesacommodityforhire.Theassumptionofliberalthoughtthatpropertymayexistina‘thing’butnota‘person’(forthatwoulddenythepostulateofequalfreedom)isnowalsosubverted.

Or,rather,itisbothsubvertedandnotsubverted.Workersretainownershipoftheirpowers,butallowtheuseofthemtopassintothecontrolofanotherfortheperiodoftheworkingday.Onemightsaythatthey‘hirethemout’.But,whereastheownerofalorrymayhireouttheuseofthevehicle,bothretainingitsownershipwhilespendingthedayinbed,theunfortunateowneroflabour-powerhastoaccompanythe‘commodity’ifitistobeusedbythehirer.Noonehasyetsolvedthetrickofhiringouttheirlabour-powerwhilestayinginbed.Realhumanpowersareinseparablefromtheirbearers.Tohirethecapacitytolabourisunavoidablyalsotohiretheself.


Fortheperiodoftheworkingday,theworker’scapacitiespassintotheeffectivepossessionofthehirer.Theonlywayinwhichthehirercan,inpractice,obtaintheuse-valueoflabour-powerisbydirectingtheworker’sactivities.Thatis,workersnecessarilyvoidtheirfreedomofactivityfortheperiodoftheworkingday,andworkunderanother’scommand.Theyhandoverpropertyinthemselvesandtheirpowers.Fortheperiodoftheworkingday,theworkerisadoubleentity:informalterms,afree,equalandself-possessingagent,(asopposedtoaslaveoraserf);inrealterms,theworkerhasbecomeaservant,onewhosubmitstoanother’swillanddoeswhatthey’retold,asmuchanother’spropertyasahorse.Wage-workersarebothfreeandnot-free,bothequalandunequal,bothaproperty-owneranddispossessedoftheirproperty,bothaBenthamitechaseraftertheirowninterestandonewhoischasedtodoanother’sbidding.

Attheendoftheworkingday,workerssliptheirarmsbackintothesleevesoffreedomandequality,andrecovercontroloftheirproperty.Thewholesituationhasanelementofparadoxaboutit,forthe‘unemployed’,would-beworkerswhocannotfindanemployer,maintaintheirfreedomalldaylong.Intheirownway,theytoodiscoverwhataformalthingtheirfreedomis.Needdrivesthemtoseekawayoutoftheirconditionoffreedom,toturntoeverycornerofthelabourmarketwithpleastoalltheymeet:‘Please,won’tyouexploitme?Pleasetakecommandofmyinherentlyhumanfreedomofwillinreturnforsomewages!’

Limitstoliberalism

Thetransitionfromunderstandingmodernsocietyfromoneside,asbasedontheprinciplesofcommodityproductionandexchange,toaviewofmodernsocietyascapitalist,andfoundedinexploitation,hasmorethansimply‘economic’implications.Marxprovidesthebasisforacritiqueofthe‘legal-political’assumptionsofthesameessentiallyliberaldoctrineswhichunderpinnedclassicalpoliticaleconomy.Manycommentatorshavepaidattentiontothegeneral‘philosophical’categorieswithwhichMarxattackedtheassumptionsofcapitalistsocietyinhisearlywritingsofthe1840sonsuchmattersas‘alienation’and‘estrangement’,andhaveargued(inmyview,correctly)thatthesesameissuescontinuedtomotivatehislaterwritings.Lessattentionhasbeenpaid,however,tothewayinwhichMarx’sCapitaldirectlyattacksthebasicassumptionsofliberalpoliticalandjurisprudentialthought.

Solongasweremainatthelevelofexchangerelations,Marxsuggests,liberalassumptionsretainanimportantelementofvalidity.Butthesocialrelationsembodyingtheseprinciplesbynomeansexhausttheessentialconstitutiverelationsofcapitalistsociety.Liberalism’saccountofcapitalismisnotsomuch‘wrong’asgrosslyone-sided.Itmistakesapartoftherealityofcapitalismforthewhole.

Inamarvellouspassage,MarxsumsupthelessonsofEnlightenmentthoughtastothelegalandpoliticalprinciplesofmarketexchangerelationsinwhatAdamSmithtermed‘commercialsociety’andHegelcalled‘civilsociety’:

Thesphereofcirculationorcommodityexchange…isinfactaveryEdenoftheinnaterightsofman.ItistheexclusiverealmofFreedom,Equality,PropertyandBentham.Freedom,becausebothbuyerandsellerofacommodity,letussayoflabour-power,aredeterminedonlybytheirownfreewill.Theycontractasfreepersons,whoareequalbeforethelaw.Theircontractisthefinalresultinwhichtheirjointwillfindsacommonlegalexpression.Equality,becauseeachentersintorelationwiththeother,aswithasimpleownerofcommodities,andtheydisposeequivalentforequivalent.Property,becauseeachdisposesonlyofwhatishisown.AndBentham,becauseeachlooksonlytohisownadvantage.Theonlyforcebringingthemtogether,andputtingthemintorelationwitheachother,istheselfishness,thegain,andtheprivateinterestofeach.Eachpaysheedtohimselfonly,andnooneworriesabouttheothers.Andpreciselyforthatreason,eitherinaccordancewiththepre-establishedharmonyofthings,orundertheauspicesofanomniscientprovidence,theyallworktogethertotheirmutualadvantage,forthecommonweal,andinthecommoninterest.[77]

Intermsofeconomictheory,politicaleconomyhaddifficultyexplainingthesourcesofcapitalistprofit


andtheotherformsofsurplusvalue-indeed,itcharacteristicallylackedageneralconceptof‘surplusvalue’.Itisjustatthecorrespondingpointinlegalandpoliticaltheorythatitsformulationsalsobegintobreakdown.AsMarxsuggests,liberaltheoryrestsonaseriesofassumptions:thattheindividualpossessesthefreedomtodeterminehisownexistence;thatindividualsareequalinstatusandrights;thatindividualspossesscertainpropertyrights,andnotleasttherighttopropertyinthemselves;andthatindividualshavetherighttopursuetheirownself-interestsolongasthatpursuitdoesnotdamageothers.Liberalismasageneraldoctrinethusstandsopposedtopoliticaldespotism,inequalityoflegalstatus,andslavery.Muchofmodernliberalism,indeed,goesfurtherandadvances-onsomethingliketheabovebasis-thenotionthatindividualsthereforehavetherighttoanequalshareindeterminingthelegislationgoverningtheirinteractions(somekindofpoliticaldemocracy).

Alloftheaboveiscompatiblewith,andmaybereadasalegalandpoliticalunderpinningoftheassumptionsofmarketexchange.Capitalismandfreedom,capitalismandhumanrights,areregularlytakentobesomehowessentiallycorrelated.Andtothedegreethat‘capitalism’istakentomeannomorethantheintrinsicrelationsofcontractualexchange,thepositionisindeedsupportable.Theadvanceofcapitalismhas,historically,beenassociatedwiththepracticaladvanceandextensionofjustthesekindsofvalues.Theconsistentliberalhasgroundstocelebratetheprogressmadeoverthepastseveralcenturiestowardsthetheoreticalandpracticaldevelopmentof‘humanrights’.Butthesameliberalhasgroundstooforconcernatthemanyplacesandsocialsituationsinwhichsuchrightsstillremainunfulfilled-politicalregimeswhichrob,torture,silenceandoppresstheircitizens;inequalityofstatusandtreatmentforparticularethnicgroups,migrants,women,children,theLGBTcommunity,andsoforth;thepracticalcontinuationofactualenslavementofpartsofthelabourforce.However,inthefaceofthestillonlypartialachievementoftheirvalues,liberalsmayremaincautiouslyoptimisticthathistoricalprogresssideswiththem,andthattheseproblemsremaininprinciplesoluble.AstheWealthofNationsflourishes,sotoosurelydoesandwilltheirfreedomgrow.

Marx’scritique,however,throwsallofthisinquestion.Theverydevelopmentofcapitalism,heinsists,notonlypromotesliberalism’scorevalues,butalsosystematicallydeniesthem.ThekeyturningpointinMarx’sexpositionofthesemattersoccursjustasthesellerandbuyeroflabour-powermeetandfreelybargainthetermsoftheircontractwitheachotherinthemarket-themomentofthepassagecitedearlieronFreedom,Equality,PropertyandBentham.That‘liberalmoment’initiatesthetransitiontoanothersocialworldinherentlyconstitutedonquitedifferentprinciples:theworldoftheworkplaceandofexploitation.AsMarxtakeshisbuyerandsellerovertheportalsofthisotherdomainofcapitalistlife-overwhosedoorsiswritten,inironicremembranceoftheentrytoDante’sHell,‘NoAdmittanceExceptOnBusiness’-theyundergoatransformation:

Whenweleavethissphereofsimplecirculationortheexchangeofcommodities,whichprovidesthe‘free-tradervulgaris’withhisviews,hisconceptsandthestandardbywhichhejudgesthesocietyofcapitalandwage-labour,acertainchangetakesplace,orsoitappears,inthephysiognomyofourdramatispersonae.Hewhowaspreviouslythemoney-ownernowstridesinfrontasacapitalist;thepossessoroflabour-powerfollowsashisworker.Theonesmirksself-importantlyandisintentonbusiness;theotheristimidandholdsback,likeonewhohasbroughthisownhidetomarketandnowhasnothingtoexpectbut-atanning.[78]

Onceinsidethe‘hiddenabodeofproduction’,liberalism’slegalandpoliticalpresuppositionssuddenlyceasetoapply.Theequalsofthemarketplacearenow‘masterandservant’,‘bossandhand’,‘managerandmanaged’.Onerulesovertheother,commandinghisorheractivity.[79]Hereworkersdonotdeterminetheirownlife-processes,butactaccordingtotheplansofothers.Here,thereisnot‘freedom’but‘despotism’.Herethepropertyoftheworkerinhimselforherselfhasbecomethepropertyofthecapitalistinitsuse.Theworldofimmediateexploitation,wheresurplusvalueisproduced,andwheretheessentialdistinctionsofclasssocietyarereproduced,reversesthe‘public’assumptionsofthesphereofexchange.Hereworkerspursue,nottheirownself-interest,buttheinterestofthosewhostandoverthem.Thecapitalistworkplacesubvertsliberalism’scoreprinciples.Herethereapplytheprinciplesofslavery–conditionedbythelimitsofitsdurationto‘wage-slavery’,butnonethelessoperative–ratherthanoffreedomandequality.Andthemorethatcapitalismdevelops,themoredevelopedisthisdespoticrelation.


Theseemingfreeexchangebetweencapitalistandworkerturnsouttobeillusory,evenifanecessaryillusionisinvolved:

Theexchangeofequivalents,theoriginaloperationwithwhichwestarted,isnowturnedroundinsuchawaythatthereisonlyanapparentexchangesince,firstly,thecapitalwhichisexchangedforlabourisitselfmerelyaportionoftheproductofthelabourofotherswhichhasbeenappropriatedwithoutanequivalent,and,secondly,thiscapitalmustnotonlybereplacedbyitsproducer,theworker,butreplacedwithanaddedsurplus.Therelationofexchangebetweencapitalistandworkerbecomesameresemblancebelongingonlytotheprocessofcirculation,itbecomesamereformwhichisalientothecontentofthetransactionitselfandmerelymystifiesit.[80]

Or,asMarxexpressedthematterintheGrundrisse:

Inpresentbourgeoissocietyasawhole,thispositingofpricesandtheircirculationetc.appearsasthesurfaceprocess,beneathwhich,however,inthedepths,entirelydifferentprocessesgoon,inwhichthisapparentequalityandlibertydisappear.[81]

Thesenon-exchangesbetweencapitalandlabournonethelessprovidethefoundingconditionsforthegeneralizationofcommodityproductionandcirculation,anditssocio-legalassumptions.Marx’sanalysisofexploitation,thatis,offersmorethanapurely‘economic’analysis,butinvolvesafundamentalcriticalassaultontheone-sidednessofliberaljurisprudenceandpolitics.Liberalism’sownvaluescanneverbeadequatelyrealizedwithintheframeworkofthecapitalismwhichitselfproducedthem.Capitalistsocietyrestsupon,atbest,acontradictorycombinationoffreedomandunfreedom,democracyanddespotism,equalityandinequalityofstatus,self-determinationandtotalitarianrule.Thecontradictionbetweenthemrunsthroughtheheartofthismodeofproduction,andisintrinsictoitscharacter.

Ifwecouldstoptheanalysisatthelevelofcommodityproductionandexchange,thenitwouldappearthatthemotiveofproductionandexchangeis,inhoweverpeculiaraform,thesatisfactionofmutualmaterialneed,i.e.ofconsumption,viatheindifferentpursuitbyeachparticipantoftheirownself-interest.Butthecontinuationoftheargumenttocapitalismtransformsthecharacterofthepredominant‘need’thatdrivesthisformofsocialcooperation.Nowitisthelimitlesshungerofcapitalforsurplusvaluethatistherulingmotiveofproductionandexchange.

Atthelevelofcommodityproductionandexchange,wehaveamultiplicity(or‘plurality’)ofcommodity-producers,whosemutualneedforeachothers’productsdrawsthemintorelationsofexchange.Butthegreaterconcretenessweattainoncewedealwithcapitalismgivestheseabstractfiguresnewdefinition:ontheonehand,aclassofcapitalists,stillinterdependentasmutualexchangers,butnowunderstoodasengagedinaperpetualscrambletoexpandtheircapital,toaccumulate,andontheotherhandaclassofworkershiringouttheirlabour-powertocapitalsinreturnforwageswhichtheyspendontheirmaterialconsumptionnecessities.Theself-seekingandmutualindifferenceofcommodityproducersistranslatedintocompetitionbetweencapitalsforsurplus-value,alongwithcompetitionamongworkersforopportunitiestohireouttheircapacities.[82]

Capital,asMarxremarked,canonlyexistasmanycapitals.Eachpartof‘capital’muststrugglewithitsfellowsforsurvival,andmustseektoexpanditselfasaconditionforitsownsurvival.Thecapitalistclassisthusaninherentlydividedclass,abandof‘hostilebrothers’.[83]Eachpartofthatclassiscompelledtostruggletoaccumulate,toproduceandrealizemoresurplusvaluewhichitmustre-investinproducingandrealizingstillmore.

Sincethesourceofthatsurplusvalueislabour,each‘productioncapitalist’isthusalsocompelledtostrugglewiththesectionofthetotallabour-forceofsocietythatithires,tomaintainandraisetherateofexploitation.Everyfacetoftherelationsofcapitalwithlabourisapotentialissueofpracticalconfrontationbetweentheopposedinterestsofeitherside:hoursofwork,intensityofwork,organizationoftheworkplace,managerialpower,wages,provisionforhealthandsafety,numbersandmake-upoftheworkforce,etc.Thedynamicandrestlesscompetitiveenergyofcapitalistproduction,itsconstantcyclesofreshaping,expansionandcrisis,meanthattheserelationscannever‘settledown’into


along-termpatternof‘customaryactivity’inwhicheithercapitalstakentogetherintheirmutualcompetitionorcapitalandlabourcanachieveasettledmodusvivendi.Socialdisturbanceandclassconflict-manifested,ofcourse,inathousandandonedifferentpatternsofactivityandinteraction-areinherentpropertiesofthissystemofsocialrelations.

Itisalsothiswhichaccounts,fundamentally,fortheenormousleapsinhumanproductivitywhichmarkthecapitalistera.Thedrivetoinnovationisnotapropertyarisingfromthenatureoffactories,machines,oreventechnicallyeducatedpersonnel,butisaproductofthecompetitiverelationsobtainingbetweencapitals.Growthandinnovationarenotoptionalforthosewhodirectrivalcapitals,theyareaconditionofsurvivalinthestruggleformarkets.Thedriveto‘growth’isacoercedandcompulsivebehaviourcharacteristicofcapitalism,adirectexpressionofitsinnersocialnature.Where,whenconsideringcommodityproduction,Marxalreadyrecognizedthatthisisaformofsocialproductioninwhichhumanity’sproductsrulethem,thisconditionisatoncetransformedandmagnifiedinacapitalistworldwherethedevelopmentofhumankind’sproductiveforcestakesonterrifyingnewaspectsofasociallydestructivecharacter:over-workandthreatstolifeandhealthincapital’swork-places,convulsiveeconomiccrises,famineandstarvationinthemidstofplenty,waranddestructiononascaleneverbeforedreamedof,andaloomingprospectofthemostextraordinarydevastationasthepoisoningeffectsofcapital’sindustryontheveryclimateareslowlydinningthemselvesintopopularconsciousness.[84]

IntheCommunistManifesto,MarxandEngelsrecordedthattheclassstruggleinpreviousmodesofproductionhad‘eachtimeended,eitherinarevolutionaryreconstitutionofsocietyatlarge,orinthecommonruinofthecontendingclasses’.Intheeraofglobalwarming,whichthreatensthelivesandlivelihoodsofmillionsuponmillionsofhumanbeings,that‘either-or’questiontakesonanewkindofmeaningandurgency.Itisdifficulttoconceivehow,withinacapitalistframework,thenecessaryglobalreorganizationofproduction,distributionandconsumptionrequiredbytoday’sthreatscanevenbeconceived.The‘generalinterest’ofhumanitydemandsthatsuchareorganizationbeundertaken.Butincapitalismthereisnogeneralinterest,onlytheantagonisticwarofallagainstall.


AlbrechtDürer,Knight,DeathandtheDevil(1513).

Manystates

Introduction

What,then,offorceandstatesundercapitalism?Withrespecttoourearlierdiscussion,thefirstpointtonoteisthatunderthesecircumstances,thepressuretotransgressthepropertyrightsofothersgainsanewurgencyandferocity.Ifthedevelopmentofcapitalisminvolvesthegeneralizationofcommodityproductionandexchange,italsoinvolvesthegeneralizationofendlessviolentattemptstobreachthelegallimitsofthecommodity,tobreakdownandremakethepropertyfencesandtheirassociated‘rights’.Itmighthaveseemedinthe19thcenturythatcapitalismandviolenceweresomehowopposed,thatthespreadoftheworldmarketandtheprinciplesofcommodityproductionandexchangemightsomehow‘soften’and‘pacify’socialinteractions.Today,weknowotherwise.

It’snotclear,however,thatthisisadequatelyregisteredinagooddealofMarxisttheorizing.Thereis,Isuggest,acorereasonforthis,itselfrootedinaprobleminMarx’sownthinkingabout‘states’.Inearlierwork,IdrewattentiontothisprobleminMarx[85],whichhasbeentoooftenreplicatedinlatertheorizing.[86]Ithascometobeknownasthe‘manystates’question.

Fromtheearly1970s,especiallyinGermany,variousgroupsofMarxisttheoristsattemptedto‘derive’atheoryofthestatefromMarx’sCapital.[87]Despitetheconsiderableinterestofmuchofthiswork,itsufferedfromamajorweakness:thewritersoftendidnotevenseemtonotice,andmostlydidnotattempttotheorize,afundamentalfeatureofthemodernstate:itsmultiplicity.[88]Or,theyaddeditonasanafter-thought,untheorizedinrelationtotheirprecedingarguments.Theyattemptedtoderivethecharacteristicsof‘thestate’asifitexistedinthesingular,andnotaspartofasystemofinter-relatedstates,whoseexternalrelationswitheachotherwereessentialtotheirdefinitionandtheirform.Theyfocusedonthestateasaformofdominationoversociety,aformofclassrule,butnotonthestate’sotherface,itsexistencesimultaneouslyasanagencyofconflictandcompetitionwithotherstates.

GoingbeyondMarx

OneproblemwasthatthetheoristsneverattemptedtogobeyondMarxbyexploringthelimitsofMarx’sownwork.ConsiderationoftwopassagesinMarxmayhelptoelucidatetheissue.


First,inthe‘Preface’toCapital,volumeI,MarxwarnedGermanreadersthinkingtheircountrywouldbeimmunetothedevelopmentsheidentifiedinEnglishcapitalistproduction:

WhatIhavetoexamineinthisworkisthecapitalistmodeofproduction,andtherelationsofproductionandformsofintercoursethatcorrespondtoit.Untilnow,theirlocusclassicushasbeenEngland.ThisisthereasonwhyEnglandisusedasthemainillustrationofthetheoreticaldevelopmentsImake.If,however,theGermanreaderpharisaicallyshrugshisshouldersattheconditionoftheEnglishindustrialandagriculturalworkers,oroptimisticallycomfortshimselfwiththethoughtthatinGermanythingsarenotnearlysobad,Imustplainlytellhim:Detefabulanarratur!

Intrinsically,itisnotaquestionofthehigherorlowerdegreeofdevelopmentofthesocialantagonismsthatspringfromthenaturallawsofcapitalistproduction.Itisaquestionoftheselawsthemselves,ofthesetendencieswinningtheirwaythroughandworkingthemselvesoutwithironnecessity.Thecountrythatismoredevelopedindustriallyonlyshows,tothelessdeveloped,theimageofitsownfuture.[89]

Capitalistdevelopmentsince1867suggeststheproblematicalcharacteroftheseremarks.Ofcourse,atonelevel,Marxisimmenselyinsightful.ManyoftheprocessesheanalysesinEnglandcanalsobeseenatworkinawholevarietyofothercountriesinthelaternineteenthandinthetwentiethandearlytwenty-firstcenturies,ofteninevenmoredramaticandfatefulform:forcibledestructionofpeasantriesandexpansionofaproletariatthrough‘originalaccumulation’;subordinationofmoreandmoreaspectsoflifetothenecessitiesofcompetitivecapitalaccumulation;centralizationandconcentrationofcapital;andsoon.Likewise,theconceptualdistinctionsdeveloped-forexample,thosebetweenabsoluteandrelativesurplus-valueproduction,orbetweentheformalandtherealsubordinationoflabour-proveimmenselyfruitfulinawholevarietyofnationalandhistoricalcircumstances.Yet,thatsaid,theimplicitunilinearityofsocialdevelopmentthatcanbereadintowhatMarxsaysisgravelymisleading.IfEnglandwasthe‘locusclassicus’ofdevelopment,itcertainlydidnotprovidea‘model’fordevelopmentelsewhere.Rather,theEnglishpatternofcapitalistdevelopmentneedstobeseenasparticularand‘peculiar’,shapednotleastbytheveryfactthatEnglandwasthe‘first’todevelopcapitalistproduction.ThedifferenceswithEnglishdevelopmentarequiteasimportantasthesimilaritiesinunderstandingcapitalistdevelopmentinotherpartsoftheworld.[90]ButthiswasoftennotgraspedbyMarx’sfollowers.[91]

Inthesecondpassage,fromMarx’sCritiqueoftheGothaProgramme,Marxcommentsonthemerelynationalformofthemodernstate:

The‘presentsociety’iscapitalistsociety,whichexistsinallcivilizedcountries,freedinvaryingdegreesfromtheadmixtureofmedievalism,modifiedinvaryingdegreesbytheparticularhistoricaldevelopmentofeachcountry,anddevelopedtoavaryingdegree.Incontrasttothis,the‘presentstate’changeswitheachcountry’sborder.ItdiffersbetweenthePrusso-GermanempireandSwitzerland,betweenEnglandandtheUnitedStates.‘Thepresentstate’isthusafiction.

Nevertheless,thevariousstatesofthevariouscivilizedcountries,despitetheirmotleydiversityofform,dohavethisincommon:theyallstandonthegroundofmodernbourgeoissocietyalthoughthedegreeofcapitalistdevelopmentvaries.Theythusalsosharecertainessentialcharacteristics.Inthissenseonecanspeakof‘presentstates’incontrasttothefuturewhentheirpresentroot,bourgeoissociety,willhavediedoff.[92]

Whatmakesmodernstatessimilar,Marxsuggests,isthatallthesedifferentstatesstandonthegroundofmodernbourgeoissociety.Butwhathedoesnotbringoutisthattheystandinsomekindofrelationstoeachotheronthatcommonground.Thedifferencesbetweenthemappearasmereaccidentsofhistory,andnotasaspectsoftheirmutualconnectedness.

Insummary,Marxneverseemstoofferanaccountofthesystemofstatesinthemodernperiod,andcertainlynotinanyformthatisadequatelytheorised.Thereareseveralreasonsthatmightbeadducedforthisgapinhiswork.


First,andasalreadynoted,hisowntheoreticalprojectwasmassivelyunfinished.HadhedevelopedatheorizationofsuchmattersastheState,InternationalTradeortheWorldMarketandCrises(theprovisionaltitlesforhisprojectedcontinuationsofCapital),hemightwellhavebeenforcedtodealwiththequestionsystematically.[93]

Second,perhapsMarxdidnotgetbeyondthelimitsofthequestionsaskedabout‘thestate’withinclassicalpoliticaleconomy.Therewasapoliticalreasonforthis.MuchofMarx’spoliticalargumentationwasfocusedonaspecificquestion,namelythelimitsofpurepoliticalrevolutions.ItisthatquestionwhichuniteshisearlyCritiqueofHegel’sPhilosophyofRight,OntheJewishQuestion,TheKingofPrussiaandSocialReform,andtheCommunistManifestowiththelaterCivilWarinFranceandCritiqueoftheGothaProgramme.Muchlesscentraltohisthinkingarequestionsaboutthelimitsofmerely‘national’revolutions-questionswhichbecameavitalissueoftwentiethcenturycommunismafterthe1917revolution.BothMarxandEngelscertainlytookadefinitepositionontheissue:seeTheGermanIdeologyof1845-6[94]andEngels’PrinciplesofCommunismof1847.Butitwasnevercentraltotheirthinking,inthesensethattheyworriedawayatittimeandagain.

Third,therelativesilenceinMarxmirroredasilenceamonghisforebears,thethinkersoftheEnlightenment,whichweshallexploreinthefollowingsection.

LimitsofEnlightenmenttheoriesofthestate

Whereshouldtheboundariesofstateslie?Whatsizeofterritoryandpopulationdostatescover,andwhy?Whyshouldthisgroupofpeopleoweobediencetothisparticularstate,andthatgroupoweittoanother?Manythinkersseemmerelytohavetakentheestablisheddivisionoftheworldintostatesasanaturalfeature.AdamSmith,forexample,listsasthefirstfunctionofthestatetheorganizationof‘defence’againstthreatsfromotherstates,butneverinquireswhythisshouldbenecessary.Nordoesherelatethisquestiontohismaster-issue,‘thewealthofnations’.Hesimplytookthenecessityofstatemilitaryorganizationforgranted.

Byandlarge,thethinkersoftheEnlightenmentregardedwarfareandconflictbetweennationsandstateswithdistaste.Buttheytendedtotreatthematterasaregrettablehangoverfrom‘feudalism’.Whentheyconsideredthematteratall,theylookedtotwoforcestoproduceamorepeacefulworld.OnewaswhattheysawasthegrowingpowerofReason;theotherwasthedevelopmentofworldtrade.Neitherforce,itmustbenoted,hasdonemuchtodatetopreventmutualslaughterbetweenpeoplesoverthepasttwocenturies,althoughcontemporaryproponentsofReasonandFreeTradesometimespleadthesameoldcases.

ImmanuelKant,whoexpressednothingbuthorroranddislikeforwarbetweenstatesandnations,nonethelessalsotooktheexistenceofseparate(andantagonistic)nationsandstatesforgranted.[95]Whilehehopedthat‘Reason’wouldgraduallyprevail,inthesensethatpeoplewouldcomeeventuallytopersuadetheirgovernmentstosubmittheirdisputestointernationalarbitrationratherthantothecontestofarms,hedidnotinquireintothecausesofthedisputesbetweenthem,andheexplicitlyruledoutthepossibilitythatthenational-stateformofgovernmentcouldeverbetranscended.

LikeKant,TomPaine-particularlyintheSmithian-influencedsecondpartofTheRightsofMan-assumedthatthecauseofwarwaschieflyoldgovernments,anciensrégimes,irrationalaristocraticformsofrule.Oncepoliticaldemocracydeveloped,andwithitthehugespreadofinternationaleconomicexchange,hesupposed,therewouldbenofurtherreasonforwar.Mankind,havingsecureditspoliticalrightsagainsttheoldregimes,couldlookforwardtoapeacefulandplentifulfuture.

Hegelperhapscameclosesttorecognizingtheproblem:

…sincethesovereigntyofstatesistheprinciplegoverningtheirmutualrelations,theyexisttothatextentinastateofnatureinrelationtooneanother,andtheiractualrightsareactualizednotinauniversalwillwithconstitutionalpowersoverthem,butintheirownparticularwills.Consequently,theuniversaldeterminationofinternationallawremainsonlyanobligation,andthe


[normal]conditionwillbeforrelationsgovernedbytreatiestoalternatewiththesuspensionofsuchrelations.

Thereisnopraetortoadjudicatebetweenstates,butatmostarbitratorsandmediators,andeventhepresenceofthesewillbecontingent,i.e.determinedbyparticularwills.[96]

Interestingly,Marx,inhis1843CritiqueofHegel,doesnotcommentonthispassage.Hegelresolvestheproblemhehasposedmystically:‘Therelationsbetweenstatesareunstable,andthereisnopraetortosettledisputes;thehigherpraetorissimplytheuniversalspiritwhichhasbeinginandforitself,i.e.theworldspirit.’Thisuniversalspiritis‘theworld’scourtofjudgement’.[97]

GrotiusandtheInternationalRelationstradition

Sincethebeginningofthe19thcentury,ScienceandReasonhavemultipliedtheireffectsuponsocietyanditsproduction;thedivisionoflabourandeconomicexchangehaveindeedextendedacrosstheglobe,andconqueredforthemselvesawholeworldeconomy.Buttheirextensionhasnotdoneawaywithwar,normadeitlessfrequentorterrible.Modern,republican,democraticandconstitutionalstateshavenotbeennotablylessbellicosethan‘traditional’,‘aristocratic’and‘totalitarian’regimes.

Themajortendencyofclassicalpoliticalthoughtwastotreat‘state’and‘nation’asunproblematicentities,naturalgivens.True,therewasasetofconservativetheorists–e.g.theGermanRomanticschoolwho‘introducedintoGermanpoliticalthoughtanoteofirrationalism’andrejectedKant’spoliticalcosmopolitanism.[98]Forthem,thestateandthenationcoincidedinan‘organiccommunity’.[99]Butthesetheoristsrepresented,inreality,whatwemightterman‘irrationalistrationalization’ofanalreadydividedworld.

Mostly,therelationsbetweenstateswerenottreatedasatheoreticalproblem.Therewere,however,theoriesofhowtheyoughttobehandled.Grotius,forexample,offeredadoctrineinwhich,internally,statescoulddoastheyliked-withinverybroadlimitsdeterminedby‘naturallaw’;theywereindisputablysovereignbodies.Theirrelationsbetweenthemselvesweresuchthattheycoulddomuchastheywished,solongastheydidnotinfringethesovereigntyofotherstates.Inthefieldofinternationalrelations,statesweretheonlyrelevantandlegitimateactors.Astatemaylauncha‘justwar’whenitisdefendingitsownsovereigntyandpropertyagainstassault,andwhenitdoesthiswith‘rightintentions’(i.e.whenitisnotpretendingself-defenceandinpracticeinvadingthepropertyandsovereigntyrightsofanotherstate).[100]Grotiustreatsthestateasanindividualproperty-ownerdefendingitsrightsinabasicallyanarchicworldratherakintoHobbes’stateofnature.Intheearlyseventeenthcentury,whenhewaswriting,thestatecouldfairlyeasilybetreatedasa‘person’,forthestatewas,inimportantsenses,stillencompassedbythenotionof‘ThePrince’.Butthiswasalsotheperiodwhenanewnotionwascomingtodominanceinpoliticaltheory,andreflectingashiftingreality:adoctrineof‘TheKing’sTwoBodies’thatbothproposedandforeshadowedthedevelopmentofthestateasacorporatebodywhichwasmuchmorethanasingleroyalindividual.[101]

Grotius’theoryassumedthatthestate(orprince)hadpropertyrightsinterritoryandinpopulation,andthusalsolegitimizedthedivisionoftotalterritoryandpeopleintodiscreteblocksof‘stateproperty’.How,then,diditlegitimizethisdivision?Inthecaseofindividualprivateproperty,wehaveeffortslikethatofLocketoprovideageneralphilosophicalunderpinningforit-intermsoftheindividualgaining‘rights’by‘mixinghislabour’withnature.Butwhatofstates?Their‘right’canhardlybefoundedinthisway.

ThereisarationalkernelinGrotius:intheworldemerginginhisperiod,stateswerebecomingexclusivepropertyowners,withtheboundariesoftheirestatesbeingdemarcatedmoreclearly,andwitheachbeingcompelled-bytheforceoftherelationsamongthemselves-torespectothers’boundaries(moreorless,ofcourse).Asageneraljustificationofasituation,Grotiusishopeless;asanempiricaldescriptionofanemergingoperativesetofrulesandprocedures,hehasitaboutright.


However,theinterestof‘politicaltheory’inthesequestionstendedtoberatherlimited.[102]Liberalismhassometimesprotestedatwar,butithasnotprovidedanyadequateorinterestingexplanation.Onereasonisthatithasnever,really,criticallyassessedthenatureofthestates-systemortheveryexistenceof‘nations’andtheirconflicts.Thereisalonglineofconservativenationalthinkerswhohavecertainlytakenseriousnoteoftheexistenceofthemodernsystemofstates,andoftheconflictsbetweenthem.Theirheritageisthemodernacademictheoryof‘Realism’inthestudyofinternationalrelations.Stateshavetheirinterests,andthoseinterestscollide:indeed,theyinsistontheprofundityofthattruth.‘Realism’inpoliticsbeginswiththerecognitionofthatelementarywisdom.Butastowhystatespopulateaspecialinter-stateworldakintoHobbes’stateofnature,theyhaveeithernoanswersor(atbest)historicallyunsatisfactoryones.Theyarepronetotaketheexistenceofstatesinconflictforgranted,ontheprinciplethat‘thatisjusthowitis’.Sincetheir‘politicalscience’hasusuallybeendevelopedundertheaegisofaparticularoneofthesestates,theyhavecommonlyconcernedthemselveswithpracticaldoctrines,oftenofaMachiavelliankind,foradvancingthetaken-for-grantedinterestsof‘their’stateinitsconfrontationswithothers.Notuncommonly,theyhavetakentheexistenceof‘nations’assomenaturallygivenphenomenon,withtwocorollaries:first,that‘states’somehowrepresentthese‘nations’and,second,thatthese‘nations’areforsomereasonnaturallypronetoclosureandtoconflictwithothersuch‘nations’.

Thus,ifpoliticalphilosophymighttrytoprescribebroadrulesofmoralbehaviourasbetweenstates,itseemstohavebeenmuchlesssuccessfulindevelopinganyadequatetheoryoftheprimaryexistenceofthesestatesandtheir‘property’and‘sovereignty’,andofthelinesofdivisionbetweenthem.Indeed,thisisnotsurprising:inpracticeitwouldbedifficulttofindarationaljustificationforanyparticularstate.Theboundariesbetweenstatesarehistoricallycontingentandaccidental,thecreationofcontestsofforce.Here,certainly,thebasicdoctrinehasindeedbeen‘MightIsRight’,orMarx’s‘club-law’.

Notheorythatattributestheexistenceofstatestothepriorexistenceof‘nations’cansatisfyus:foritwaspreciselythebusinessofstatestoconstruct‘nations’beneaththemselves,asabasisforwinningsupportandlegitimacyfromtheirowncitizen-subjects.Nationsweremade,notborn,andtheyweremade,notleast,inanantagonismwitheachotherthatreflectedtheantagonismoftheirmakersandorganizers,the‘nation-states’.

Marxiststatetheorysincethe1960s

OurreviewofstatetheorythecenturiesprecedingMarxshowsacommontheoreticalweakness,inafailuretotheorisethedivisionoftheworldintoasystemofnation-states.ThisisaweaknessthathasaffectedMarxismasmuchasliberalism,conservativismordisciplinessuchasInternationalRelations.

TherevivalofMarxistwritingfromthelater1960sneverreallygrappledwiththe‘manystates’question.Thus,solutionstoabasicquestion–'whatmakesthemodernstatecapitalist?'-tendedtobeunsatisfactory,sofarastheywerelimitedtothedomestic-nationalrelationsbetweenparticularstatesand(capitalist)classes.Insomecases,theformoftheorizingleftthequestionofthe‘capitalist’characterofthestateessentiallycontingent:inMiliband’sbest-sellingTheStateinCapitalistSociety,forexample,mostoftheargumentationconcernssociallinkagesbetweenbusinessandstateelitesviaeducation,sharedcultureandwealth-holding,leavingthewayopenforessentially‘reformist’conclusionstobedrawn.Moregenerally,Marxismcametobeassociated,inavarietyofsettings,witha‘statist’visionofsocialismthatcouldnotbesquaredwiththeprofoundanti-stateimpulseinMarxandEngels.

ItwasinpartthisparticulartheoreticallapseintheMarxistdebatesofthe1960sand1970swhichopenedthedoortoarevivalofneo-Weberianarguments.These,atleast,hadthemeritofdiscussingandtheorizingtheexistenceofthemodernstatessystem,although-becausetheysawthatsystemastheoretically‘autonomous’-theimplicationsoftheircasewerealso‘reformist’.First,intheiraccounts,therewasnothingespecially‘capitalist’aboutthemodernstatesystem,and,second,conflictsoverstatepolicy(especiallywithrespecttomattersofwarandmilitarism)wereseenasdistinctfromthoseovercapitalism.Thustheirtheorizingledtoalossofthesenseof‘totality’whichLukaćs,forexample,sawasabsolutelycentraltoMarxism.[103]


Tosumup,withreferencetopartofmyearlierargument,theweaknessesinMarxistwritingcanbeseenashavingseveralroots.First,thefoundationsofexclusionandforcewithincommodityproductionwereinsufficientlyexplored.Second,thecloselyconnectedissueofcompetitionappearstohaveattractedlittleattention.Third,the‘manystates’problemwasneverproperlyaddressed.Fourth,asnotedabove,MarxisttheoristshaveinsufficientlyexploredtheimplicationsofthesystematicallyunfinishedcharacterofMarx’sowncritiqueofpoliticaleconomy.[104]Theresultwasa‘one-sidedness’inthedevelopmentoftheMarxistcritiqueofcapitalism,withmoretheoreticalattentiongiventomattersofclassstruggle,dominationanddivision,andlesstotheother-and-simultaneouscentralfault-linewithincapitalism,thedivisionofsocietyintocompetingandestrangedindividualandcollectivesubjects.[105]Marx’sfollowersstayedtooclosetohisactualtextsandtotheproblemsexploredtherein,anddidnotgoontoaskwithsufficientfirmnesswhatquestionsremaintobeaddressedwithinthesameoverarchingsystemofconcepts-nor,therefore,howsuchfurtherexplorationsmightfeedbackintoanenrichedunderstandingofwhatMarxdidachieve.[106]

Re-thinkingthemultiplicityofstates

Inthelightofallthissenseoflack,wheremightwebeginagain?

Letmecomeattheissuealittlecrab-wise,byconsideringapresentationalquestion:howshouldthematterof‘manystates’beintroducedintoasystematicaccountofcapitalism?Whatisclearisthatthemultiplicityofstatescannotbe‘derived’fromtheconceptofcapital.Byprocessesof‘derivation’itisperfectlypossibleto‘derive’anempiricalabsurdity:namely,acapitalismwithasinglestate.[107]Marx’saimfortheorywastorepresenttheworldadequatelyintheoreticalconcepts.Hispresentationalmethodwasnot,actually,oneinwhichhederivedconceptfromconcept-evenifhesometimes,inthenameofart,madeitlookasifhedid.Rather,hismethodofpresentationinvolvedstrugglingtofindawayoforderingobservationsabouttherealworld,byintroducingeachofthematanappropriatepointintheoverallelaborationofhisconceptualsystem.Marx,inpractice,movesbetweendifferentlevelsofabstractioninthecourseofhisexposition,frommoregeneraltomorespecificconcepts.Ashedoesso,hechangestheangleoffocus,graduallyenrichingwhathasgonebeforeandfillingitwithadditionalcontent.

Thus,inthefirsttwovolumesofCapitalMarxexplorestheconceptof‘capitalingeneral’inordertodiscoverwhatitisthatdistinguishescapitalistproductionfromothermodesofexploitation,andindeedtoshowboththatcapitalistproductionisfoundedonexploitationandthattheproductionandcirculationofcapitalformaunity.Involume3heshiftstoadifferentlevelofabstraction.Uptonow,forthepurposesofexposition,hehasassumedthatcapitalisaunity,differentiatedonlyby‘Departments’;nowheintroducesthefactthat,actually,capitalismultiple,andthatbetweencapitalscompetitionreigns–bothwithin‘branches’andacrossthewholeeconomy.Thereareseveraleffectsonthetheoreticalpresentation.

First,conceptswhichweredevelopedatthemoreabstractlevelof‘capitalingeneral’nowhavetobetranslatedtomoreconcreteconcepts,closertotheeverydayworld.Where,inthefirsttwovolumes,Marxspokeof‘value’and‘surplusvalue’,nowhemustshiftregistertothelanguageof‘price’and‘profit’.Theearlierconceptsarenotsimplyabandoned,but‘transformed’.Thenewconceptsare‘surface’versionsoftheearlierones,androotedintheirassumptions.

Second,theintroductionofcompetitionbetweencapitalsinvolvesnotonlyaprogressforward‘fromtheabstracttotheconcrete’,butalsoareturntothemostabstractstartingpoint,thediscussionofcommodityproduction,thedivisionofsocialproductionintomanyproducersallentangledwitheachotherinasinglesystemofvalue-regulatedsocialproduction.Onlynowthatstartingpointitselfhasanewconcreteness,as‘socialnecessity’nowappearsintheformofall-roundcompetitionamongcapitalsandtheformationofageneralrateofprofitamongthem.

Third,ifinitiallycapitalappearsasaunifiedinterest,nowitsbearers,thecapitalistclass,appearasunifiedvis-à-vislabourbutdividedinternallyamongitsvariouspartsandmembers:itisabandof‘hostilebrothers’.


AsMarxthenprogressesthroughvolume3,heelucidatesthenatureofcapitalfurther,byturningtothefactthatcapitalsarenotsimply‘many’(andequivalent)butalsoheterogeneousinsizeandinform.First,theirorganiccompositionsarequantitativelydifferent.But,second,theyarealsoqualitativelydistinguishedintoindustrialandcommercialcapitals,intoprofit-receivingandinterest-receiving(finance)capitals,intoprofit-and-interestreceivingcapitalsandrent-receivinglandedproperty,itselfaformofcapital.Eachofthesedifferentformshasitsownparticularities,andeachitsownplaceintheoverallreproductionofcapitalistproductionasawhole.Ontheonehand,theinnercomplexityanddiversityofcapitalistpropertyisshown;ontheother,allthedifferentformsareshownasrootedinthesameessentialprocess:theproductionanddistributionofsurplusvalue.

TheformsofcapitalwhichMarxdiscusses,oncehehaslefttheinitial,andrelativelysimplegroundof‘productioncapital’,havehistoricaloriginsandformswhichlongpredatethedominanceofcapitalistproductionrelations:mercantilecapitalreceiving‘commercialprofit’,bankingcapitalreceiving‘interest’andofcourselandedpropertyreceiving‘rent’.Withinmoderncapitalism,theseapparentlyancientformsarenowtransfiguredbythenewrolesthattheyplaywithinthetotalprocessofcapitalistproduction,oncetheirmovementsareshownasdominatedbyandsubordinatedtotheessentialmovementsof‘productioncapital’.Theyhavebeenincorporatedandtransformedintheirfunctioningbythegrowingdominanceofcapitalistproduction.Togetherwithproductioncapitalproper,theyrepresentdifferentformsinwhichsurplusvalueisdistributed,andcontributetotheapparentcomplexityofthesocialdifferentiationofthecapitalistclass.[108]

Marx’smanuscriptbreaksoffatthispoint,asheisabouttobeginaformaldiscussionof‘classes’-tothedisappointmentofmodernsociology!However,intermsofthelogicofMarx’spresentation,afurtherstepmustsurelyhavefollowed.Someapproachtothequestionofthestatewouldseemtobetheapparentnextstep.For,asnotedearlier,Marxhasnotyetdiscussedonefinal,andcrucial,forminwhichsurplusvalueisdistributed:taxation,collectedbystatesfromtheongoingcapitalistproductionandcirculationprocess.[109]

HowMarxhimselfmighthavedevelopedhisaccountofthestatewecanonlyguess.Myowninterpretation(above)isthatitsexaminationwould,amongotherthings,havedrivenMarxbacktoconsiderthelegalandpoliticalaspectsofcommodityproduction,the‘exclusionist’natureofmodernproperty,andquestionsof‘propertydefence’.However,theproperintroductionofthequestionofthestateinrelationtocapitalism[110]necessarilymustinvolveafurthershiftinthelevelofabstraction.If,inthefirsttwovolumesofCapitalMarxdiscussed‘capitalingeneral’,andtheninvolume3hedifferentiatedthatconcept,hestillremainedthroughoutonthegroundofwhatwemightterm‘capitalistsocietyingeneral’.However,inordertogiveanadequatelytheorizedaccountofthemodernstate,afurthermovetowardstheconcreteisrequired.

Towardstheconcrete

Tobeclearwhatthatmoveis,considerawell-knownpassagefromCapitalvolume3,whichEngelseditedintoMarx’sdiscussionoflandedproperty.Marxisdiscussingingeneraltermshowtodifferentiatemodesofproduction:

Thespecificeconomicform,inwhichunpaidsurplus-labourispumpedoutofdirectproducers,determinestherelationshipofrulersandruled,asitgrowsdirectlyoutofproductionitselfand,inturn,reactsuponitasadeterminingelement.Uponthis,however,isfoundedtheentireformationoftheeconomiccommunitywhichgrowsupoutoftheproductionrelationsthemselves,therebysimultaneouslyitsspecificpoliticalform.Itisalwaysthedirectrelationshipoftheownersoftheconditionsofproductiontothedirectproducers-arelationalwaysnaturallycorrespondingtoadefinitestageinthedevelopmentofthemethodsoflabourandtherebyitssocialproductivity-whichrevealstheinnermostsecret,thehiddenbasisoftheentiresocialstructure,andwithitthepoliticalformoftherelationofsovereigntyanddependence,inshort,thecorrespondingformofthestate.[111]

Letusask:whatis‘theentireformationoftheeconomiccommunity’whichgrowsoutoftheproduction


relationsofcapitalism,andwhatis‘simultaneouslyitsspecificpoliticalform’?The‘economiccommunity’is,surely,themodernworldeconomy,thatis,theentiredevelopedandinter-relatedsystemofglobalproductionandexchange,ofinternationalinvestment,tradeandmovementsofpeople,offinancialtransactionsandsoforth.Andwhatisthecorrespondingpoliticalform?Thatmustbemodernsystemofnation-states,thatis,themodernconditionof‘manystates’andtheir‘internationalrelations’.

Thatis,ratherthanarriving,almostasanembarrassedafter-thought,atarecognitionofthemultiplicityofstatesinthemodernworld,oncetheseriousbusinessofdiscussingthenatureof‘thestate’iscompleted,apossibletheoreticalprocedurewouldbetobeginwiththatmultiplicity,oratleasttointroduceitatasuitablyearlystageinanytheoreticaldevelopment.Oncethisvitalmovehasbeenmade,itisthenpossibletomakesomeessentialpointsabout‘modernstates’andtheirsignificanceas‘thespecificpoliticalform’oftheworldeconomy.

Onceweshiftourangleofvisiontotheworld,itbecomesapparentthatawholeseriesofvariouslytheorizedclaimsandjustificationsforthestatearebankruptandempty.Inparticular,thenotionthatthestaterepresentsthe‘commoninterest’asagainstthe‘privateinterests’ofcivilsociety,theideaonwhichintheirdifferentwaysthinkersfromHobbestoHegelactuallyagreed,collapses.Eachstateisonlylocal,merely‘national’,islimited.Allidolatryof‘thestate’,whetherfromRightorLeft,turnsouttobeworshipofamerelypartial,pettythingwithnosustainableclaimstogeneralityoruniversality.Eachstateismerelya‘part’ofalargertotality,oneelementamongmany,dominatedinitsverydefinitionbyitsrelationtoothersuchpartsandbyitsrelationtothewhole.Inthesamewaythattheverynatureofacommoditycanonlybedefinedbyitsrelationtoothercommodities,sotoowithastate.

Inhisearlywritings,Marxdoubtedthepretensionsofthestate,byrevealingitsconnectionswithprivateproperty.Shiftingourangleofattentiontotheworld,andthusrecognizingthemerelylocalnatureofeveryseparatestateamongotherstates,suggeststhatMarxwasright,butonlyinaone-sidedfashion.Hisinsistencethatthestatecouldnotprovidethekeytothesolutionofmajorsocialproblems,andthatthegreatestcontributionitcouldmaketohumanwelfarewas‘suicide’,takesonawholenewmeaningoncewerecognizeitsmerelocalism.

Theworldofcapitalismischaracterized,notbythesuperimpositionof‘astate’butratherbyaconditionofpolitical‘anarchy’.Onlyanarchyisnotherelinkedwithaconditionofstatelessness,butbyaconditionofhavingmanystates.Tothatoldquestion-Quiscustodietipsoscustodes?(Whowillguardtheguardsthemselves?)-theansweris:Nobody.Thereisnouniversalsovereign,makinglawimpartiallyforall,enjoyingaWeberian‘monopolyofthemeansofthelegitimateviolence’.Statesacknowledgenosupremeruler,nomagistrateofmagistrates,nosupremecourt.Earlier,Iidentifiedtwopotentialsolutionstotheproblemoftheorganizationofforceinsociety–‘clublaw’and‘state’.Inthemodernworld,‘thestate’turnsouttoofferonlyapartialsolutiontothatproblem,andonethatisitselfdominatedbytheotherpossibility.Betweenstates,nothingbutclublaw,ortheprinciplethatMightisRight,holdssway.Eachstate’srelationswithotherstatesaremediatedbyarmedforce,bywaranddiplomacy,bypowerandwealth.

The‘modernstate’,asmerelyonestateamongmany,is‘Janus-faced’-itfacessimultaneouslyoutwardsattheworldofotherstates,andinwardsanddownwardsatitsownsubjects.Inthissense,thesystemofstatesmirrorsthepoliticalrelationsthatMarxdecodedwithintheessentialstructuresofcapitalistproductionrelations:statesstandinahierarchicalanddespoticrelationtothosetheyrule,whilebetweentheirmanyunitsthereisanarchy.Therivalrybetweenstates,andtheformalequalitybetweenthemthatisinvolvedintheirmutualrecognition,ismatchedbytheirexploitativerelationswiththeirsubjects.

Statesandproperty

Oneoftheclaimsmadeforstatesinavarietyofpoliticaltheoriesisthattheytranscendthelimitsofprivateproperty,standingabovetheseparateandselfishinterestsconstitutedwithincivilsociety.Notonlythat,but‘stateproperty’ispresentedasthenegation,theveryoppositeof‘privateproperty’and-in‘leftist’versions-thesolutiontoitsproblems.Thisideaunitesthe‘socialism’ofclassicalsocial


democracyandofStalinistcommunismalike.Butinaworldperspective,suchanotionappearsthinandridiculous.Rather,weshouldseethestateanditsproperty,notasanegationofprivateproperty,butasmerelyoneofitscontemporaryforms.

Thepropertyofthemodernstateconsists,first,intheexclusiveclaimitlaystoterritory,[112]andeverythingthereon-people,meansofproduction,naturalresourcesintheshapeofmineralsandotherrawmaterials,andsoon.OutsidetheicedwastesofAntarctica-andthereonlybecauseofinter-statetreaties-thereisnopartofthewholeland-areaoftheglobethatisnotthepropertyofastate.Indeed,theseastoooneverycoastlinearejealouslydivided.Inthesamewaythattheboundariesofprivatepropertyaremarkedaboutbyfences,actualandsymbolic,sotoowiththeterritoryofthemodernstate,whosebordersarecarefullydelimitedandguarded.Thepoliticalandeconomicgeographyofthewholeworldsystemismarkedbyfrontiersandborders,whosemaintenancebyforceandthethreatofforceisapermanentandnecessarycostoftheoperationsofthatsystem.Likeallboundariesaroundprivateproperty,thesebordershavenothing‘natural’aboutthem,butaretheproductofwaranddiplomacy.Theyaremarkedwithahostofsymbolsanddelimiters,celebratedwithsongsandflagsandrituals,andlegitimizedwith‘inventedtraditions’.[113]

Withintheirbounds,fictitiouscommunities-‘nations’or‘imaginedcommunities’[114]-areformed,eachmarkedbyitsdistinctionandseparationfromothers.The‘nation’is,alongsideterritory,asecondformofpropertyofthemodernstate,itselfconsistingofapopulation-anotherdistinctivecategoryofthemodernworld-itselfmadeupofthesubjectsoftheparticularstate.Thoseconstitutingthepopulationenjoywhateverequalorunequalpoliticalrightsthelocalstatepermitsthem,andaretheimmediatesourcesofitscollectionbothoftax-tributeandofthepersonnelforitsmilitaryandcivilapparatuses.Itistheirproductiveactivitywhichconstitutesthe‘wealthofnations’,andoftherelativepowerofeachstatetoothers.Theirquantitativeandqualitativecharacteristicsarevitalpropertiesofeverystate,andtheirstatisticalnumberingandclassificationbecomeanessentialbranchofstateactivity.[115]

Everystate,Isuggestedearlier,must‘manage’itspropertyinterritory,populationandproductivepower.Itdoesso,however,asamerelylocalpower,itsmanagerialactivitiesshapedbyitsrelationsofinterdependenceandantagonismtootherlocalpowers,withinthecontextofaworldsocietyandeconomywhosemovementsitcannomorecontrolthanKingCnutcouldrulethetides.Thetransactionsbetweenstates-theirmutualrecognitionassubjectswithpowersandrights,theirexchanges,alliancesandsoforth-areasmuchgovernedbya‘socialnecessity’externaltothemasarethevaluesofcommodities.Themaintenanceoftheirphysicalandsymbolicbordersagainsttransgression,too,demandstheregularapplicationofforcefulassertionof‘right’.Socialnecessity,theproductoftheirmutualinterdependence,imposestasksuponeachofthemwhichareinherently‘unproductive’,butwhichareinherentnecessitiesoftheprotectionoftheir‘nationalinterests’.JustinRosenbergrightlynotesthatthe‘balanceofpower’ininter-staterelationsisthepoliticalcorrelateofthe‘invisiblehand’inthemarket.[116]

Inaworldeconomyandsocietywhichiscapitalist,thesystemofstates,theirmutualinter-relationsandtheirseparateexistence,thedifferentlocalstructuresandtheirdistinctparticularpolicies,cannotbutbeshapedbytheirowncapitalistformtoo.Thecapitalisticnatureofthemodernstateisnot,firstandforemost,afunctionofthebiasesinsocialrelationsandattachmentsbetweenitspersonnelandthoseofcapitalistbusiness,asacertainkindof‘radicalsociology’proposes;itis,ratherafunctionofthefactthatthesystemofstatesisitselfthe‘specificpoliticalform’oftheglobalcapitalisteconomiccommunity.Theimperativesofcapitalaccumulationimposethemselvesuponeachstateassocialnecessity.

Historically,thoseimperativeswereperhapsfirstfeltmostpowerfullyinthefieldofthemilitaryrelationsbetweenstates.Herethesamelogicwhichcompelscapitalstoinnovateendlessly,inordertosurviveincompetition,alsoappears:intheshapeofarmsraces.Here,giventherestlessinventivenessandexpandedproductivityofmoderncapitalistindustry,armsracesnolongertaketheformofmerequantitativepilingupofsoldiersandmeansofwar.Rather,theyinvolveendlesstechnologicaldevelopment,theworkofmassivemilitary-industrialresearchanddevelopmentcomplexeswhich


absorbaneconomicallysignificantelementoftotalsurplus-value.JustastheFordMotorCompanymustmatchthestylinginnovationsofVolkswageninthepeacefulcompetitionoftheworldmarket-place,sorivalstatesandcoalitionsofstatesmustmatchthefirepowerinnovationsoftheircompetitors.Thelawofvalue,asInotedearlier,operateswithequalpowerinthe‘unproductive’worldof‘defence’.Theverycoreofmodernstatebusiness,thedefenceoftheartificialintegrityofthenation-state,isinthemodernworldindissolublytiedtotheassumptionsandproceduresofcapitalistproduction.

Butthegrowthofaworldmarketasanintrinsicelementofcapitalistdevelopmentalsoimposestasksoneachstatewhichareequallycompetitiveandaccumulation-driven.Themostobviousfieldinwhichthisistrueisthemanagementofthenationalmoney-currency,itselfdependentonsuchotherfactorsas‘balanceoftrade’,balanceofinvestment’,‘relativegrowth’,‘shareoftotalproduction’,etc.Therelativevalueofthenationalcurrencyto‘worldmoney’-aphysicallynon-existentyetpowerfulmoderatorofalleconomictransactions,sometimespartiallyrepresentedbythecurrencyofoneofotherespeciallypowerfulstate(Englishsterlinginthenineteenthcentury,theAmericandollarinthetwentieth)-setsmovingtargetsandlimitsforeverystate,eachwithitsownNationalBank.[117]Everystate,initsmanifoldformsofrivalrywithotherstates,mustinvolveitselfwiththematteroftheproductivityofitslabour,theeffectivenessoflocalcapitalinvestment,andsoon.Allsignificantindicatorsofstateperformanceareinherentlyrelationalmeasuresoftherelativeandshiftingpowerofstateswithrespecttoeachother.

The‘lawsofmotion’ofcapitalshapethebehaviourofstatesquiteasmuchastheyshapethebehaviourofthedirectorsofcompanies,evenifthefieldoftheirinfluenceandoperationisshapedbytheirdistinctinstitutionalstructures.Theverycontentofthelawswhichmodernstatespromulgateandadjudicate,andoftheimmenseadministrativeinterventionswhichtheymakeintotheeverydayfunctioningofthelocalfragmentsofworld‘civilsociety’whichfallundertheircommand,arepermeatedwiththeassumptionsofcapitalistproduction,accumulation,competition.

Inshort,andincontra-positiontotheneo-Weberiancasethatthesystemofstatesis‘autonomous’fromthesystemofworldeconomy,thetwoarebutdifferentfacesofthesamereality,themoderncapitalistsystem.Themodernstatehasbecomeasmuchsubordinatedtotheimperativesoftheunderlyingdrivesofmodernsociety,thecompetitiveaccumulationofcapital,asanytrader,factoryownerorproletarian.

Specificitiesofthecapitaliststate

Therehasbeenarecent,andverywelcome,revivalofinterestwithin‘Marxistpoliticaleconomy’inthe‘manystates’question.[118]Onequestionposedbythatdebateconcernswhetherthe‘manystatessystem’isaninherentpartofcapitalistworldeconomy,orwhetheritismerely‘historicallycontingent’andthusopentobeingreplaced,bysomemeansoranother,byasingleworldstate.ThelatterpositionhasbeenprofferedbyBennoTeschkeandHannesLacher;[119]astrongerversion,affirmingthe‘autonomy’oftheinter-statesystemfromcapitalistworldeconomy,isarguedbyseveral‘neo-Weberian’theoristsincludingAnthonyGiddens,MichaelMann,andThedaSkocpol.[120]Partoftheirargumentisthatthebirthofthe‘manystates’systempre-datestheemergenceofcapitalism,beinginessenceafeudalheritage.

However,thissupposesmorecontinuitybetweenlateEuropean‘feudal’politicsandmodern‘capitalist’politicsthancanbeeasilysustained.Attheendofthe15thcentury-aconventionalstartingdate-Europe’spoliticalsystemwascertainlycharacterizedbyamultiplicityofpartlyautonomous,partlyoverlappingpoliticalunits.CharlesTillysuggeststhatin1492therewere200-odd‘state-likeunits’,manyoverlappinginterritoryandcomprisingpatchworksofsemi-autonomousgovernments.By1992,despitethedisintegrationofUSSR,therewereonly35,withonlyafew(Andorra,Liechtenstein,Monaco,SanMarino,Vatican)recallingtheenclavemicro-statessocommoninthe1490s.[121]Intheearlierperiod,theboundariesbetween‘states’werefluidandoverlapping.Bythelatterperiod,theywerecarefullymapped,defined,andpoliced.Intheearlierperiod,‘states’werelargelypersonalizedsystemsofrulewithlittlecapacityfordirectinterventionintothelivesofsubjects;much‘administration’(ifthatisnotamisnomer),taxationandjudicialcontrolwasundertakenthrough


extensivelyautonomousintermediaries.Bythelattertime,stateshadbecomelargelydisconnectedfromthepersonsoftheirimmediaterulers,theyhaddevelopedextensivebureaucraticmachinesofinterventionandsurveillanceintotheeverydaylivesofacarefullyenumerated,classifiedanddelimited‘citizenry’.Thatsystemofstatecontrolreliedlessandlesson‘local’andaboveallautonomousintermediaries,andmoreandmoreadirectandcentrallycoordinatedmachineriesofstateruleandexploitation.

Muchofthisworkof‘statebuilding’wasundertakeninEuropeinthe19thcentury,sometimesthroughorinresponsetorevolution(France,Prussia),sometimesnot(England).Especiallyinthe20thcentury,althoughforeshadowedearlier,theytookonrolesinthedirectionofcapitalinvestmentandproduction,andofcourseintheconstruction’of‘welfare’apparatusesforthemanagementofwage-labour.Asforthe‘statessystem’,itisarguedthatthiswasgivenafirstformalrecognitionintheTreatyofWestphaliain1648.Thequestionofdatesislessimportant.Whatmattersisthatthereisaprofounddiscontinuitybetweenthenatureof‘thestate’intheperiodbeforetheriseofcapitalism,andthenatureof‘thestate’indevelopedcapitalistsociety;thereislikewiseaprofounddiscontinuity,intermsoforganization,form,andsignificance,betweenthe‘feudalorder’of(late)medievalEuropeandthemodernsystemofrivalsovereignstates.True,the‘parcellated’and‘tesselated’feudalorder[122]providedahistoricallaunchingpadforthedevelopmentofthemodernsystemofstates(andlikewiseforthedevelopmentofcapitalistrelationsofproduction)which‘worldempires’likeChinadidnotandperhapscouldnot.ButtheonlyelementincommonbetweenmedievalEuropeandthemodernworldisaformalnegative:neitherisanall-embracingempire.Betweenthelate15thcenturyandtodaywhatneedstobestressedaretheprofoundprocessesoftransformationofthepoliticalstructure.

Twoquestionsthensuggestthemselves.First,cananygeneralpatternbediscoveredinthesetransformations,whichmightberootedintheunderlyingcharacterofcapitalistproductionandcirculation?Second,aretherereasons,internaltothecapitalistmodeofproduction,thatsuggestwhythemany-statessystemmightbemaintained?

Combinedandunevendevelopment

Oneofcapitalism’sachievementsisitsunificationofthewholeglobeintoasingleinteractiveproductivesystem,underthedominanceofcapital.Capitalistindustrycreatesaworldeconomy.Expandingproductivitycreatesarapidlygrowingflowofcommoditieswhosevaluemustbeurgentlyrealized,pressingcapitaltoseekmarketsbeyondanynationallimits.Initsmoneyform,capitalseeksprofitableinvestmentoutletsacrosstheglobe.Itscheapenedcommodities‘batterdownChinesewalls’,underminingpre-capitalistproductionsystemsanddislocatingnationaleconomies.Mutualcompetitionbetweencapitalswithinasingle‘domestic’markettranslatesandscalesupinto‘international’pressureonthenationsandindustriesoftheentireworld.

Pre-capitalist‘unevendevelopment’betweendifferentregionsoftheworldbecameuniversally‘combineddevelopment’,complexlyintegratedbyhistoricallynewmechanisms,acoretopicofMarx’sCapital.Nopartoftheworldwasnowexemptfromtheirincreasinglydirectinfluence.The‘combined’characterofcapitalistdevelopmentconsistsinaformofsocialinterchangethatimposesitselfonproducerswhoareformallyautonomous,yetnecessarilyinterdependent,boundtogether,throughthemovementoftheirproducts,incompetitiveantagonism.

Ifonesingle‘law’expressesthecapitalistformofcombinedandunevendevelopmentinsummarymanner,itis‘thelawofvalue’.Thatlawhastwomainclauses:‘competitionforcesallproducerstoproducewiththeminimuminputofconcretelabourtime,andforcesatendencytowardanormalrateofprofitinallindustries’.[123]Existinglevelsofdevelopmentoftheproductiveforcesshapethevalidationofproductsviasociallynecessarylabourtime,ameasuregivenbythewholelevelofsocietaldevelopment.Producersarecompelledtotrytomatchthelatesttechnique,underadefinitethreatofpunishmentfornon-compliance–intheformofnon-validationoftheirproductiveactivityandthuseconomicfailure.Thelawofvalueis,torepeat,notmerelya‘descriptionofregularities’butaprescriptivecommand,moregenerallypowerfulinitsrealeffectsonbehaviourthananyedictorfatwa.Itsubordinatesnotonlyworkersandemployers,butthemightiestgovernments.Yetitsforcesderive,


notfromanypowerfuldeliberativeagency,butfromtheimpersonalworkingsofthecapitalistformofsocialcooperation.

ThelawofvalueexpressesandengendersadevelopmentalpatternwithincapitalismforwhichIknownobettertermthan‘combinedandunevendevelopment’.[124]Thatgovernsnotonlythemovementofcapitals,butalsothedevelopmentofnationsandstates,throughtheforceof‘coercivecomparison’.

WehavealreadyseenMarxnotingthepoliticaldifferencesbetweennation-statesamongtheadvancedcapitalistpowersofthenineteenthcentury,and-intheconceptualdevelopmentwithinCapital-introducingthequantitativeandqualitativedistinctionsamongformsofcapital.Ofcourse,difference,unevennessandinequalitygoesmuchfurtherthanthis.Noaccountoftwentiethcenturycapitalismcanfailtoobservethevastdifferencesinlevelsofproductivecapacitybetween,say,theUnitedStatesandAfghanistan,SwedenandBurundi.Thecapitalistworldismarkedbywideninginequalitiesanddeepeningunevennessasbetweenitsnations,peoples,regions,partsaswellasclasses.Indifferentpartsoftheworld,capitalismanditsstatessystemtakeonveryvariedaspectsandcolours.

Everymoderntheoryrecognizes‘difference’and‘unevendevelopment’.However,thissimpleobservationis,byitself,insufficient.Theunevennessofdevelopmentwithincapitalismisnotasetofsimpledifferencesamongparallel,disconnectedanddistinctsystems,asonemightsaythatshirtsaredifferentintheirsizeandcolour.Forunevennessinworldcapitalismexistsbetweenelementsofasinglesystemofinteractingparts.Differenceis‘differencewithinaunity’;unevennessiscombined.Unevennessindevelopmentasbetweendifferenthumansocietiesacrosstheglobehasaveryancientlineage,but‘combinedandunevendevelopment’ispeculiarlyanantagonisticpropertyofthemodernworld.Forwhere,inthepast,unevendevelopmentreflectedtheseparationofsocialworlds,seenatitsmostextremeinthetotalsocialisolationforwholemillenniaofEurasiaandtheAmericasandAustralasia,inthemodernepochallareasoftheworldarelinkedtogetherinasinglecomplexofcultural,economicandpoliticalinterchanges.Differencesbetweenthedifferentelementsmakingupthemodernworldsystemaresignificant,bothbecausetheyaffectthebehaviourandinternalorganizationofeachpartandbecausetheyaretheproductofthemutualinteractionsbetweentheparts,whicharealldefinedbytheirparticularlocationswithintheoverallworldsystem.Withtheirsingulardifferencesandparticularities,eachnation-stateformsanelementinatotalitycomprisedbyitsinternalinter-dependencies.Thereisthusaformof‘unityindifference’markingtheglobalsystemofcapitalism.Theideaof‘combinedandunevendevelopment’isanecessaryelementinanytheoryofcapitalismasanorganicwhole.

Trotsky’stheoryof‘combineddevelopment’wasfirstformulatedtoaccountfortheparticularpatternofrevolutionarypossibilitiesappearinginRussiain1905,andmoredecisivelyin1917,andformsanintegralelementofhistheoryofpermanentrevolution.Asatheoryaboutbackwardcountries,itisimmediatelygeneralizable.Backwardnessis,ofcourse,acomparative,relationalmeasure.Backwardnessappearsasapracticalproblemonlyinaworldinwhichcoercivecomparisonsaremadebetweencountries,andwherebackwardnessimposesdirectcostsandpainsonthosewhoexperienceit.Thesemaybefeltinmilitary,economicorothercompetitivestruggles.AsIarguedelsewhere:

Onlyfromtheangleofworldeconomy,ofthecombineddevelopmentofthedifferentcountrieswithinit,dowordslike‘advanced’and‘archaic’haveanymeaning,asmeasuresofcoercivecomparisonwithinalargersystemofcompetitiveinteractions.Nothingintrinsicmakesathing‘backward’.Wecanturnahorse-drawnguncarriageeverywayup,subjectittoallmannerofchemicalandothertests,andnothing‘backward’willappearinitsmake-up.Butsetitagainstamotorizedtank,anditsbackwardnesssoonappears.Trotsky’sspecificusageof‘combineddevelopment’assumesawiderfieldofcombinedandunevendevelopment,inthe‘extended’sense.[125]

Theimpactofunevendevelopmentisfelt,intheshapeofunequalpowerindirectcontestsandinresistancetodomination,as‘traumatic’shockinbackwardcountries.[126]Itcompelsthemtoadoptnewformsandconditionsofproduction;itunderminesexistinghierarchiesandtransformsthesituationofrulingelites;itinitiatesnewpatternsofthoughtandsetsupnewstandardsofevaluation,notleastthosedrawnfromtheexternalarena;itinducesaconsciousnessofbackwardness.Thewayacollision


betweentheadvancedandthebackwardisexperiencedisdifferentiatedbyvariouscircumstances,ofwhichoneofthemostsignificantconcernsthe‘independence’ofthebackwardcountry’sstate.Inanimperial-colonialencounter,thetermsofthebackwardarea’sresponsesaredeterminedinthemetropolis,externally.Buttheindependentstatehastheopportunity,ifitcansoorganizeitsforcesandmusteritsresources,toadoptnewmethods,withinasettingwhereoldersocialforms,assumptionsandstandardsofevaluationarechallenged.

Insomecircumstances,therefore,theexperienceofbackwardnesscanitselfbeapropellantofchange.Here,externalneedsare‘internalized’.Newstandardsofevaluationimportedalongwiththecoerciveshocksofencountercontributetotheformation,withinparticulargroups,ofnewaspirations,newgoals,newgrievances.Suchinternalization,however,dependsontheinter-relationbetweenexternalpressuresandinternalconditions,onthecapacityofsocialforceswithinthebackwardcountrytosore-shapethemobilizationofinternalandexternalresourcesthatacompetitiveresponseisorganized.Thisdependsonthenatureofexistinginternalstructures,andonstrugglesamongclassesandgroupsinthebackwardcountry.Notinfrequently,amoreorlessrevolutionarytransformationofinternalrelationsisapreconditionofdeployingthe‘privilegeofbackwardness’.Inthe1860s,forexample,thepatternofthecountrieswhichwouldjoinBritainindominatingworldpoliticalandeconomicstrugglesduringmostofthe20thcenturywassetthroughaseriesof‘revolutionsfromabove’,ineachcasetakingaparticularform:thedeploymentofstatepowerinFranceunderLouisBonapartetopromoteindustrialdevelopment,theunificationthroughinternalwarsofGermany,ItalyandtheUSA,theserf-emancipationinRussia,theMeijiRestorationinJapan.Thedisadvantagefacedbycolonies,bothformalandinformal,wasthatpoliticalforceswithinthemhadfirsttoestablishtheir‘nationalindependence’beforeevertheycouldbegintore-shapetheirrelationtotheworldeconomy-andthemajorwaveofde-colonizationwouldnotbeginforanothereightyyears,whenthe‘privilegeofbackwardness’hadbecomedecidedlylessapparent.

Backwardcountrieswhichareinthispositioncan,asTrotskynoted,appendoraddonelementsofadvanceddevelopmentlearnedelsewhere,mixingthemintotheirexistingsocio-politicalandeconomicdomesticstructureswithouthavingtogothroughthelongtravailofactuallydevelopingthemforthefirsttime.Itisnotnecessarytore-inventthewheeltouseit.[127]

Intheprocess,suchstatesdonotrepeattheformsoforganization,northetemposofdevelopment,ofthosetheyemulateandcompetewith.Rather,developmentoutofbackwardnessregularlyinvolvesbothemulationandinnovationinpoliticalandeconomicforms.Onecommonpattern,apparentfromthelaternineteenthcenturyonwards,involvedgreaterrelianceonmorecentralizedmodesofeconomicandpoliticalcoordination,whetherthroughbankingsystemswhichweremoredirectlyinvolvedinindustrialinvestment(asforexampleintheUSA,GermanyandJapan)orthroughthedirectuseofthecentralstatetomobilizeandshapethepatternofindustrialinvestment(asforexampleinJapanandTsaristRussia).

Heretheveryneedtomobilizeresourcesinadifferentwayfortheforciblysharedprojectofcompetitivecapitalaccumulationinducesachangeinthenatureofthedirectingagentsofcapitalistdevelopment.WhereinEnglandsmallcapitalisttenant-farmersandmanufacturers,includingformerartisans,playedafundamentalroleinsettingEnglishpoliticaleconomyontheroadtoindustrialcapitalism,nowotherkindsofsocialfiguresadapttheirpositionstoplayasimilarfunctionalpart.Bankers,statebureaucrats,militarypersonnel,former‘feudal’samurai,Saint-Simoniansocialists,nationalists,fascists,communists,Islamicideologuesandotherswereall,overthelaternineteenthcenturyandthetwentiethcentury,toplaytheroleof‘capitalist’indifferentlocalcircumstances.[128]Thatroleinvolves,atitsheart,subordinatingtheirnationalsocietiesandeconomiestotheimperativesofworldcompetition,organizingtheexploitationoflocallabourforcesanddirectingthefruitsofthatexploitationintoindustrialandmilitaryinvestment.

Whatbecomesapparentisthatdifferentrelationshipsbetweenstatesandcapitaldevelopindifferentnationalandregionalsettings.Thereisnosingleformulawhichcancatchthesevaryinginter-relations,consideredbythemselves,inisolationfromtheonwarddevelopmentoftheworldeconomyasawhole.Theveryexistenceof‘nationalpeculiarities’,asthisappearswithintheframeworkofexpandinganddevelopingcapitalismacrosstheglobe,isnotsimplyafunctionofinheriteddifferencesinstarting


points,but,isaproductoftheworkingsoftheworldsystemitself,astheseareinflectedwithineachseparatenationalstate.Thesepeculiaritiesincludenotsimplyvaryingstructuralrelationsamonglocalstates,localcapitalsandlocallabourforces,butalsothewholepoliticalandculturalwebsofsocialrelationsinwhichtheseareimplicatedandthecorrespondinglocalformsof‘civilsociety’.

Thesenationaldifferencescannotbeunderstoodadequatelybythesimplemethodsofa‘comparativesociology’whichlaysitsunitsforcomparisonsidebyside,eachonitsown,withoutattentiontotheinter-relationsbetweenthem.Norcanitbeunderstoodbybeginningwithsome‘norm’ofdevelopment,basedontheexperienceofoneorafewcountries,andthenfindingotherpatternstobesomehow‘deviations’ordemonstrations’of‘incompleteness’orbackwardness.[129]Foreachcountryispartofalargerwhole,standinginaparticular,andshifting,nexusofrelationswiththeotherpartsandwiththewhole,shapedsimultaneouslybothbythedevelopmentofsocialrelationswithinitsbordersandbythemultipleformsofeconomic,political,militaryandculturaltrafficacrossthosesameborders.Indeed,assuggestedabove,theverybordersthemselvesarethehistoricproductsofforcefulinteractionswithotherstates,requiringthedeploymentofexternalforcetomaintainthevery‘integrity’ofthecountryitselfasadistinctunit.‘Nationaleconomy’isitselfsomethingfashionedbydivisionoftheworld,anachievementaswellasastartingpoint.‘Unevenness’isnotmerelyaninheritedproblem,whichfurtherdevelopmentwilltendtosmoothoutandhomogenize(asintheprojectiveideologiesof‘modernization’theory),but,isitselfadynamicallyproducedeffectoftheveryinteractionsandinterdependenciesthatdrivethewholecapitalistworlddevelopmentprocess.

Differentiationthusbeginswithinheriteddifferences,includingvariable‘naturaladvantage’,andwiththevariablelocationandtimingoftheincorporationofdifferentpartsoftheglobeintothemodernworldsystem,buttheveryinheritanceisitselfsubjecttofurthertransformationsandthenaturaladvantagepatternshiftswithadditionaldevelopment.Ifatonestagethesectoralmapofworldcapitalismappearsrelativelysimple,withsomeregionsplayingthepartof‘agriculturaloutposts’oftheindustrialmetropolitancentres,sothatinequalitiescorrelatequitesimplywithsectoraleconomicroles,furtherdevelopmentcomplicatesthispattern.(ThehistoryofAustralia,ormorerecentlyofthe‘AsianTigers’,willsufficebywayofexample.)Ifthereislearning,copyingandemulatingamongthebackwardintheirdealingwiththeadvanced,theoutcomeisnotamechanicalprocessofrepetitionof‘stages’ofdevelopmentineachseparatecountry,buttheelaborationofdifferencesinmodesofbeinga‘capitaliststate’.

Iftheideaofcombinedandunevendevelopmentwasfirstdevelopedtoaccountforthepeculiaritiesofdevelopmentinbackwardcountries,andtoexplainthesystematicnatureofnationaldifferences,ashiftofangleofperceptionsuggeststhatitalsooffersawayofconceptualizingworldcapitalistdevelopmentasatotality.Theveryaccumulationofdifferences,andtheself-transformationofthepartsoftheworldsystemintheirmutualcompetitionwitheachother,revealthemselvesinlarger,overallpatternsofdevelopmentattheleveloftheworldasawhole.

One‘sub-clause’ofthelawofvaluedealswiththelawofthe‘tendencyoftherateofprofittodecline,anditscounteractingtendencies’.Theinteractionofcapitals,throughthecircuitofproductionandcirculation,involvesunevenlyadvantagedcapitalswhichdifferentiallyinvestinnewmeansofproduction,thustendingtocheapencommoditiesatthepointofsale.Theyactthiswaybecauseofcompetitionbetweenthem,andbecause,inanycase,technicalchangedoesnotoccurevenly.Thosecapitalistswhoadvancetheirproductivetechniqueandtherebyreducethevalueoftherelevantcommoditiesdeliveranastyshocktothosewhostickwitholdmethodsofproduction.Fornow,thesefind,whentheycometomarket,thatthegeneralpricehasfallenandtheiroutputofcommodities(andthustheircapital)hasbeendevalued.Theantagonisticprocessofcombineddevelopmentthatdefinestherelationsbetweenthe‘enemybrothers’(Marx)whoconstitutethecapitalistclassnotonlyassumesastartingpointofunevennessbut,moretothepoint,generatesunevendevelopmentamongthem,intheshapeofwhatWeekstermsa‘stratificationofcapitals’withintheindustry,andaredistributionofcapitalamongparticipatingcapitalists.AsWeekscomments,‘Thelawassuchandthecounteractingtendencies…comeintoplayasaresultofadynamicprocessofunevendevelopment….theprocessofaccumulationhaswithinitthedevaluationofexistingcapitals’.[130]

Hereisaneatdialecticindeed,whereoneprocess,accumulation,engendersthroughitsverylogicits


opposite,devaluation.Initscombinedcapitalisticform,unevendevelopmentgeneratesnewformsoutofitself.

Thereareotherdirectlycontradictorytendenciesarisingfromtheformofcombinedandunevendevelopmentwefindwithincapitalism.Letmedrawattentiontojusttwo.First,thereisthecontradictionnotedvividlybyTrotsky,betweenatendencyto‘equalization’andacounter-actingtendencyto‘differentiation’withintheveryexpansivenessofcapitalism:

Bydrawingthecountrieseconomicallyclosertooneanotherandlevellingouttheirstagesofdevelopment,capitalism…operatesbymethodsofitsown,thatistosay,byanarchisticmethodswhichconstantlyundermineitsownwork,setonecountryagainstanother,andonebranchofindustryagainstanother,developingsomepartsofworldeconomy,whilehamperingandthrowingbackthedevelopmentofothers.Onlythecorrelationofthesetwofundamentaltendencies-bothofwhicharisefromthenatureofcapitalism-explainstousthelivingtextureofthehistoricalprocess.[131]

And,Trotskycontinues,imperialism–itself,ofcourse,theoutgrowthoftheworkingsofcapitalism’sinnertendenciestoexpansionandcentralization–‘lendsvigourtoboththesetendencies’.Inlinkingtheworldtogether,itbothmakesitsmethodsandformsmoreidenticaland,simultaneously,

…itattainsthis‘goal’bysuchantagonisticmethods,suchtiger-leaps,andsuchraidsuponbackwardcountriesandareasthattheunificationandlevellingoftheworldeconomywhichithaseffected,isupsetbyitevenmoreviolentlyandconvulsivelythanintheprecedingepochs.[132]

Second,Bukharinistheauthorwho,mostsharply,recordsasecondcontradictorytendencyinworldeconomyandimperialism.[133]First,capitaltendstospillovernationalbordersandto‘internationalize’itscircuitsofproductionandcirculation.But,second,thatverytendencygeneratesacounter-tendencyto‘nationalization’ofcapitalandtheformationof‘statecapitals’.Actualhistoricaldevelopmentconsistsinthecontinualcontradictoryinterplayofthesetwotendencies;innosensedoesoneofthemrendertheotherineffectual.

Inallofthis,ofcourse,forceplaysanintrinsicpart.ItwasnotonlythroughcheapeningofcommoditiesthatBritaininthe1840s‘battereddownChinesewalls’.Japanwasforcibly‘opened’totheworldbythesimpleAmericannavalexpedientofthreateningtobombardEdo(modernTokyo)inthe1850s.Warsforandagainst‘expansion’ofmarkets,borders,territories,populationshavemarkedandcontinuetomarktheonwarddevelopmentofcapitalism.Theexerciseandthreatofstateforceisquiteasintrinsictocapitalismasmarketcompetition;itisitsotherface.

Inturn,militarycompetitionreactsbackontheinternalorganizationofstatesandtheirnationaleconomies,compellingthesameconstantrevolutionizationofthemeansofdestructionthatisapparentasaneffectofcapitalistmarketcompetition.AsBukharinrecorded:‘Everyimprovementinmilitarytechniqueentailsareorganizationandreconstructionofthemilitarymechanism;everyinnovation,everyexpansionofthemilitarypowerofonestate,stimulatesalltheothers’.[134]Here,too,asnotedabove,thelawofvalueexercisesitseffectsthroughthreatofanddefenceagainst‘crime’.TorepeatmyearlierquotationfromMarx’seconomicmanuscripts:‘ifoneleavesthesphereofprivatecrime:wouldtheworld-marketeverhavecomeintobeingbutfornationalcrime?Indeed,wouldeventhenationshavearisen?’

WarplayedamajorroleinshrinkingthenumberofstatesinEurope,butalsoinre-shapingtheminternally.Untilthelater19thcentury,militaryspendingconstitutedthelargestpartofstates’budgets.Thepoliticalshapeoftheworldsystemwasthusformedbytheexerciseof‘club-law’,bycrystallizedviolence.

Considerationof‘thesystemasawhole’posesvariousmethodologicaldifficulties,notleastbecause-asnoted-therelevantdataarecollectednotfortheworldbutseparately,countrybycountry,asnationalstatistics.Worldsociety,asanobjectofstudy,remainselusive.[135]Itis,however,possibletoarguethat,ifeachcountrydoesnotseparatelygothroughthesamesetof‘stagesofdevelopment’asthose


foundinthefirstnationstoindustrialize,therearestill‘stagesofdevelopment’-onlythesearestagesorbroadperiodsofglobaldevelopmentwhicharemarkedbythepredominanceofparticularformsofcapitalandofstateandofcompetitivestrategies.[136]Equally,therearephasesandconditionsofworldsociety,whichincludevariationsbetweenperiodswhenpeacefuldevelopmentandwarfaredominate,orbetweenperiodsofoverallboomandoverallslump.Theseworldconditions,ofcourse,settheparametersofpossibilityforeachseparatenationalandlocalunit.Thenotionofcombinedandunevendevelopmentthusoffersapotentialperspective,notsimplyontheelaborationofdifferencesacrosstheglobe,butalsoontheinnerdynamicsofthewholeofcapitalistcivilization,onmodernworldhistoryconsideredasacomplexunity.Thechangeinangleofvisionpermitsustoseethatdevelopmentwithinanyoneelementofthesystemcannotbetreatedinisolation,andnotsimplyundertheimpulseofitsowninnertendenciesandforces,butoccursundertheinfluence,indeedthevitalpressure,oftheexternalmilieu,whichitselfhasitsownoverallshapeandpatternofmovement.Themovementsofpartsandwholesareinextricablyinterconnected.Inthissense,theideaofcombinedandunevendevelopmentrepresentsanelaborationonandaconcretizationofMarx’s‘lawofvalue’.Atthesametime,considerationofcombinedandunevendevelopmentinvolvesamethodologicalstepbeyondtheboundsofMarx’sextantcritiqueofpoliticaleconomy.Itbringsustoanewlevelofconcretenessinthestudyofcapitalism,itsclassesanditsstates.Where,inCapital,theactorsonMarx’sstagearestillwearing‘charactermasks’,lackingsubjectivityexceptinthemostformalsense,wehavenowtakenastepclosertotheactualhistoricalprocess,whereclassesandstatesandtheirrepresentativesfaceconcreteandcomplexopportunitiesandbarrierstotheiraction,andwheretheirresponsesanddecisionsbegintomaketheirmarkintheory.Herethemechanismsoftransmissionincompetitionandexploitationinvolvelearning,emulating,copying,showinginitiative,seizingthetime-andsucceedingandfailing.Herethebalancebetweentheelementsoftheclassicanalyticalproblemof‘structureandagency’beginstochange,asitbecomespossibletoconsidertheactualhistoryandgeographyofcapitalistdevelopment,andtheresponsibleactionsandideasofrealhumanbeingsinactualsettings.

Abolishingthemanystates?

Isitlikely,orevenpossible,thatwithintheframeworkofcapitalismthepresent‘many-states’systemmightbedoneawaywithinfavourofasingleworldstate?KarlKautsky,ofcourse,arguedintherun-uptotheFirstWorldWarthat‘ultra-imperialism’couldinvolvepeacefulorganizationoftheworldunderthesloganCapitalistsofalllands,unite!Morerecently,similarideashavebeenfloatedwithrespecttothepossibleeffectsof‘globalization’.Thedissolutionandtranscendenceofthe‘nation-state’,however,seemsunimaginable,atleastwithoutaprocessofworldwarcomparedwithwhichthetraumasof1914-18and1939-45wouldappearmere‘cabinetwars’.Inanycase,asChrisHarmanhasarguedmostpowerfully,tosupposethatmodernnation-statescouldbesimplydoneawaywithistoarguethattheinnerdifferentiationsbetweenformsofcapitalareoflittlesignificance.[137]Capitalcanonlybeunderstoodasaprocessofendlesstransformations,asitmovesbetweenthreeconstantlyalteringforms,throughthecircuitsofmoney,commoditiesandproduction.Asmoney,tobesure,capitalisimmenselymobile.Billionscanbetransferredacrosstheglobeatthetouchofabutton.Ifcapitalwereonlymoney,wecouldeasilyarguethatithasnocountry.Butcommoditiespossessaphysicalform,asmaterialuse-values.Althoughtheirmobility–theircapacitytobetransferredfromhandtohand–isaconditionoftheirexistence,ittakesmorethanacomputermessagetotransportthemaroundtheworld.Theiractualmaterialtransfersformpartofthechainsofsocialproduction,andnotsimplyofexchange.Theyrequireships,lorries,planes,trains–andtheroadsandrailwaylines,theportsandmarshallingyardsandwarehouses,etc.,betweenwhichtheycirculate.Andwhenweturntoproduction,ithasthemostterritorialrequirementsofall:fixedcapital,land,areadilyavailableworkforce,etc.Capitalistproductioncanneverleavetheearthorleavepeoplebehind.

Inpractice,capitalsdonotonlycompetewitheachother,butformwhatClaudiavonBraunmühlterms‘boundedcomplexesofproductionandcirculation’.[138]Theseinvolvesupplychainsofmaterialandfinancialinputsandoutputs,tiedtospecificterritoriallocationsandphysicalenvironments,tospecificlabourforces,andtosharedlanguageandculture,alldependentonthedevelopmentofongoingsocialrelationsamongthemselvesandwithlocalstatepersonnel.Capitalsinoneenvironmentgrowupdifferentlyfromthoseinanother.Asbetweenonestateandanother,andwithongoingchangesover


time,therearedifferentdegreesofmonopolizationofindustry,commercialandfinancecapital,differentdegreesofstateownershipandcontroloverinvestment,differentlyorganizedsourcesoffinance,differentrolesforstatesandprivatesectorsintraininglabourandproviding‘welfare’,etc.Forparticularcapitals,securingcredit,theessentiallubricantofcapitalistreproduction,dependsonthedevelopmentoflocalpatternsof‘contacts,‘trust’and‘reputation’,developedwithinongoingsocialnetworksinvolvingcompanies,banksandstates.[139]

Nowhereisthismoreapparentthanincrises,whencapitalsturnpredominantlytonationalbanksandstatesforaidandsustenanceasaconditionoftheirverysurvival.‘Nationaleconomies’andnation-states,formedaroundsuchboundedcomplexes,aretheotherfaceofworldeconomyasadifferentiatedtotality.

References

BenedictAnderson,ImaginedCommunities:ReflectionsontheOriginandSpreadofNationalism(London:Verso,1991).

PerryAnderson,LineagesoftheAbsolutistState(London:NewLeftBooks,1979).

SchlomoAvineri,Hegel’sTheoryoftheModernState(Cambridge:CUP,1972).

JoelBakan,TheCorporation:ThePathologicalPursuitofProfitandPower(London:Constable,2004).

JairusBanaji,‘Fromthecommoditytocapital:Hegel’sdialecticinMarx’sCapital’,in:DianeElson(ed.),Value:TheRepresentationofLabourinCapitalism,(London:CSEBooks,1979),pp.14-45.

ColinBarker,‘Muscularreformism’,InternationalSocialism,FirstSeries,102(1977).

—‘Anoteonthetheoryofcapitaliststates’,CapitalandClass4(1978):118-126;reprintedin:SimonClarke,(ed.)TheStateDebate(London:Macmillan,1991),pp.204-13;availableathttp://www.marxists.de/theory/barker/capstates.htm).

—‘Thestateascapital’,InternationalSocialism,Secondseries,1(1978):16-42;availableathttp://www.marxists.de/theory/barker/stateascap.htm).

—‘A“New”Reformism?—AcritiqueofthepoliticaltheoryofNicosPoulantzas’,InternationalSocialism,Secondseries,4(1979):88-108(alsoathttp://www.isj.org.uk/?id=294#extrabarker_21).

—‘SomereflectionsontwobooksbyEllenWood’,HistoricalMaterialism,1(Autumn1997):22-65.

—‘Industrialism,capitalism,value,forceandstates:sometheoreticalremarks’,Anglo-BulgarianComparativeHistorySeminar,WolverhamptonUniversity(1997).

—‘BeyondTrotsky:extendingcombinedandunevendevelopment’,in:BillDunnandHugoRadice(eds.),100YearsofPermanentRevolution:ResultsandProspects(London:Pluto,2006),pp.72-87.

—‘Industrialism,capitalism,forceandstates:sometheoreticalandhistoricalissues’,InternationalJournalofManagementConceptsandPhilosophy,3.4(2009):313-31.

MartinBarker,‘KantasaproblemforMarxism’,RadicalPhilosophy,19(1978):24-9.

—TheNewRacism:ConservativesandtheIdeologyoftheTribe(London:JunctionBooks,1978).

DanielBensaïd,MarxforourTimes:AdventuresandMisadventuresofaCritique(London:Verso,2002).

DavidBlackbournandGeoffEleyThePeculiaritiesofGermanHistory:BourgeoisSocietyandPolitics


inNineteenth-CenturyGermany(Oxford:OUP,1984).

TomBottomore,ElitesandSociety(Harmondsworth:Pelican,1966).

ClaudiavonBraunmühl,‘Ontheanalysisofthebourgeoisnationstatewithintheworldmarketcontext’in:JohnHollowayandSolPicciotto(eds.),StateandCapital.AMarxistDebate(London:Arnold,1978).

NikolaiBukharin,EconomicsoftheTransformationPeriod,withLenin’sCriticalRemarks(NewYork:Bergman,1971).

—ImperialismandWorldEconomy(London:Merlin,1972).

J.H.BurnsandMarkGoldie(eds.),CambridgeHistoryofPoliticalThought1450-1700(Cambridge:CUP,1991).

AlexCallinicos,ImperialismandGlobalPoliticalEconomy(Cambridge:Polity,2009).

DuncanCampbell,‘Securityfirmsfindtherecessionisasafebet’,TheGuardian(14January1993).

TerrellCarver,KarlMarx:TextsonMethod(Oxford:Blackwell,1975).

SimonClarke(ed.),TheStateDebate(London:Macmillan,1991).

LucioColletti,FromRousseautoLenin:StudiesinIdeologyandSociety(London:NewLeftBooks,1976).

JohnCommons,TheLegalFoundationsofCapitalism(Madison:UniversityofWisconsinPress,1968).

NeilDavidson,‘Fromuneventocombineddevelopment’,in:BillDunnandHugoRadice(eds.),100YearsofPermanentRevolution(London:Pluto,2006),pp.10-26.

—‘Manycapitals,manystates:contingency,logicormediation?’in:AlexAnievas(ed.),MarxismandWorldPolitics:ContestingGlobalCapitalism(London:Routledge,2009).

MichaelEldred,CritiqueofCompetitiveFreedomandtheBourgeois-DemocraticState:OutlineofaForm-AnalyticExtensionofMarx’sUncompletedSystem(København:KURASJE,1984).

FriedrichEngels,TheOriginoftheFamily,PrivatePropertyandtheState,in:KarlMarxandFrederickEngels,SelectedWorksinTwoVolumes,vol.2(Moscow:ForeignLanguagesPublishingHouse,1958).

—Anti-Dühring.HerrEugenDühring’sRevolutioninScience(Moscow:ForeignLanguagesPublishingHouse,1959).

BobFine,DemocracyandtheRuleofLaw:LiberalIdeasandMarxistCritiques(London:Pluto,1984).

AlexanderGerschenkron,EconomicBackwardnessinComparativePerspective(Cambridge,Mass.:HUP,1972).

LucienGoldmann,TheHiddenGod(London:Routledge&KeganPaul,1964).

PeterGowan,‘TheGulfWar,Iraqandwesternliberalism’,NewLeftReview,187(1991).

AntonioGramsci,SelectionsfromthePrisonNotebooks,trans.QuintinHoareandGeoffreyNowell-Smith(London:LawrenceandWishart,1971).

PeterGreen,‘Reviewessay:TheCulminationofCapital:EssaysonVolumeIIIofMarx’s‘Capital’,editedbyMarthaCampbellandGeertReuten(London:PalgraveMacmillan,2001)’,HistoricalMaterialism12.2(2004):249-67.


JürgenHabermas,LegitimationCrisis(London:Heinemann,1976).

ChrisHarman,‘Thestateandcapitalismtoday’,InternationalSocialism,secondseries,51(1991):3-54.

—‘Analysingimperialism’,InternationalSocialism,Secondseries,99(2003):3-81.

—ZombieCapitalism.GlobalCrisisandtheRelevanceofMarx(London:Bookmarks,2009).

NigelHarris,OfBreadandGuns.TheWorldEconomyinCrisis(Harmondsworth:Pelican,1983).

DavidHarvey,TheLimitstoCapital(Oxford:Blackwell,1984).

—TheNewImperialism(Oxford:OUP,2003).

MichaelHaynes,NikolaiBukharinandtheTransitionfromCapitalismtoSocialism(London:CroomHelm,1985).

G.W.F.Hegel,ElementsofthePhilosophyofRight,trans.AllenW.Wood(Cambridge:CUP,1991).

MichaelHeinrich,‘AmbivalencesofMarx’scritiqueofpoliticaleconomyasobstaclesfortheanalysisofcontemporarycapitalism’,PaperdeliveredatHistoricalMaterialismConference,London,October2004.

EricHobsbawmandTerenceRanger(eds.),TheInventionofTradition(Cambridge:CUP,1992).

JohnHollowayandSolPicciotto(eds.),StateandCapital:AMarxistDebate(London:Hodder&Stoughton,1978).

BobJessop,‘Statism’,HistoricalMaterialism:ResearchinCriticalMarxistTheory,15.2(2007):233-42.

ErnstKantorowicz,TheKing’sTwoBodies:AStudyinMedievalPoliticalTheology(Princeton:PUP,1957).

GeoffreyKay,‘Rightandforce:aMarxistcritiqueofcontractandthestate’,in:MichaelWilliams(ed.),Value,SocialFormandtheState(London:Macmillan,1988),pp.115-33.

GeoffreyKayandJamesMott,PoliticalOrderandtheLawofLabour(Houndmills:Macmillan,1982).

BaruchKnei-Paz,TheSocialandPoliticalThoughtofLeonTrotsky(Oxford:OUP,1978).

JoelKovel,TheEnemyofNature:TheEndofCapitalismortheEndoftheWorld?(London:Zed,2007).

JohnLambert,‘Europe:thenationdieshard’,Capital&Class,43(1991).

CostasLapavitsas,‘Relationsofpowerandtrustincontemporaryfinance’,HistoricalMaterialism:ResearchinCriticalMarxistTheory,14.1(2006):129-54.

JorgeLarrain,MarxismandIdeology(Houndmills:Macmillan,1983).

MichaelLebowitz,BeyondCapital:Marx’sPoliticalEconomyoftheWorkingClass(London:Macmillan,1992).

GyörgyLukaćs,ADefenceofHistoryandClassConsciousness[1924],trans.EstherLeslie(London:Verso,2000).

C.B.Macpherson,ThePoliticalTheoryofPossessiveIndividualism:HobbestoLocke(Oxford:OUP,1962).


MichaelMann,States,War,Capitalism:StudiesinPoliticalSociology(Oxford:Blackwell,1988).

KarlMarx,AContributiontotheCritiqueofPoliticalEconomy[1859],trans.NahumIsaacStone(Chicago:CharlesH.Kerr,1904).

—TheoriesofSurplusValue.PartTwo[1863],ed.SalomeaRyazanskaya;trans.RenateSimpson(London:Lawrence&Wishart,1969).

—Pre-CapitalistEconomicFormations,ed.EricHobsbawm;trans.J.Cohen(London:Lawrence&Wishart,1964).

—TheEthnologicalNotebooksofKarlMarx,ed.LawrenceKrader(Assen:VanGorcum,1972).

—Grundrisse[1861],trans.MartinNiclaus(Harmondsworth:Penguin,1973).

—‘CritiqueoftheGothaProgramme’[1875],in:KarlMarx,TheFirstInternationalandAfter.PoliticalWritings,ed.DavidFernbach,vol.3(Harmondsworth:Penguin,1974),pp.339-59.

—‘CritiqueofHegel’sdoctrineofthestate’[1843-4],in:KarlMarx,EarlyWritings,trans.RodneyLivingstoneandGregorBenton(Harmondsworth:Penguin,1975),pp.57-198.

—‘ExcerptsfromJamesMill’sElementsofPoliticalEconomy’[1844],in:KarlMarx,EarlyWritings,trans.RodneyLivingstoneandGregorBenton(Harmondsworth:Penguin,1975),pp.259-78.

—Capital.ACritiqueofPoliticalEconomy[1867],vol,1,trans.DavidFernbach(Harmondsworth:Penguin,1976).

—Capital.ACritiqueofPoliticalEconomy[1863-83],vol.3,ed.FriedrichEngels,trans.DavidFernbach(Harmondsworth:Penguin,1981).

—‘EconomicManuscriptsof1861-3’,in:KarlMarxandFrederickEngels,CollectedWorks,vol.30(London:Lawrence&Wishart,1988).

KarlMarx,andFriedrichEngels,TheGermanIdeology[1846],trans.SalomeaRyazanskaya(London:Lawrence&Wishart,1965).

DavidMcNally,AgainsttheMarket:PoliticalEconomy,MarketSocialismandtheMarxistCritique(London:Verso,1993).

ChinaMiéville,BetweenEqualRights.AMarxistTheoryofInternationalLaw(Chicago:Haymarket,2006).

RalphMiliband,TheStateinCapitalistSociety(London:Weidenfeld&Nicolson,1969).

OliverNachtweyandTobiastenBrink,‘Lostintranslation:theGermanworld-marketdebateinthe1970s’,HistoricalMaterialism:ResearchinCriticalMarxistTheory,16.1(2008):37-70.

JonathanNeale,StopGlobalWarming,ChangetheWorld(London:Bookmarks,2008).

ClausOffe,ContradictionsoftheWelfareState(London:Hutchinson,1984).

EvygenyPashukanis,LawandMarxism.AGeneralTheory,trans.BarbaraEinhorn(London:InkLinks,1978).

HansReiss(ed.),Kant’sPoliticalWritings(Cambridge:CUP,1970).

GeertReutenandMichaelWilliams,Value-formandtheState:TheTendenciesofAccumulationandtheDeterminationofEconomicPolicyinCapitalistSociety(London:Routledge,1989).


JustinRosenberg,TheEmpireofCivilSociety:ACritiqueoftheRealistTheoryofInternationalRelations(London:Verso,1994).

MarshallSahlins,IslandsofHistory(Chicago:UCP,1985).

DerekSayer,TheViolenceofAbstraction:TheAnalyticalFoundationsofHistoricMaterialism(Oxford:Blackwell,1987).

TeodorShanin,‘LateMarxandtheRussian“peripheryofcapitalism”’,MonthlyReview35.2(1983).

—LateMarxandtheRussianRoad:Marxand‘ThePeripheriesofCapitalism’(London:Routledge&KeganPaul,1983).

MartinShaw(ed.),War,StateandSociety(London:Macmillan,1984).

FeltonShortall,TheIncompleteMarx(Aldershot:Avebury,1994).

BennoTeschke,TheMythof1648:Class,GeopoliticsandtheMakingofModernInternationalRelations(London:Verso,2003).

BennoTeschkeandHannesLacher‘Thechanging“logics”ofcapitalistcompetition’,CambridgeReviewofInternationalAffairs,20.4(2007):565-80.

E.P.Thompson,‘ThemoraleconomyoftheEnglishcrowdinthe18thcentury’,PastandPresent,50(1971).

CharlesTilly,BigStructures,LargeProcesses,HugeComparisons(NewYork:RussellSageFoundation,1984).

—‘Warmakingandstatemakingasorganizedcrime’,in:PeterEvans,DietrichRueschmeyer,andThedaSkocpol(eds.),BringingtheStateBackIn(Cambridge:CUP,1985),pp.169-91

—Coercion,CapitalandEuropeanStatesAD990-1990(Oxford:Blackwell,1990).

—EuropeanRevolutions1492-1992(Oxford:Blackwell,1993).

LeonTrotsky,TheThirdInternationalafterLenin,trans.JohnG.Wright(NewYork:Pioneer,1957).

—‘ThedraftprogramoftheCommunistInternational-acriticismoffundamentals’,in:TheThirdInternationalafterLenin,pp.3-230.

—AHistoryoftheRussianRevolution[1930],trans.MaxEastman(London:Gollancz,1965).

JohnWeeks,CapitalandExploitation(Princeton:PUP,1981).

—‘Thelawofvalueandtheanalysisofunderdevelopment’,HistoricalMaterialism:ResearchinCriticalMarxistTheory,1(1997):91-112.

EllenMeiksinsWood,TheEmpireofCapital(London:Verso,2005).

Footnotes

[1]BobJessopseesfittotreatMarx’sviewsontheCommuneasevidenceofalapseinto‘anarchism’:anecessarystepperhapsforanyattempttofitMarxintotheProcrusteanbedofsocialdemocracy:BobJessop,‘Statism’,HistoricalMaterialism:ResearchinCriticalMarxistTheory,15.2(2007):233-42.

[2]HereMichaelLebowitz’scontributionisimportant:MichaelLebowitz,BeyondCapital:Marx’sPoliticalEconomyoftheWorkingClass(London:Macmillan,1992).


[3]WecouldalsonotethatMarxandEngelssaidverylittleaboutthelimitsof‘national’revolutions.Thattheybelievedinthenecessityofworldrevolutionisclear,buttheywereneverfacedwiththeneedtoarguethisagainstproponentsof‘socialisminonecountry’.

[4]HerewecouldputthebasicfiguresongrowthofstatespendingasaproportionofGNPs,frome.g.HaynesorBudd.Notealsohowithaschangeditscomposition,witharmsspending–exceptduringworldwars–fallingasaproportionofthewhole.

[5]JohnWeeks,CapitalandExploitation(Princeton:PUP,1981),p.43.

[6]JairusBanaji,‘Fromthecommoditytocapital:Hegel’sdialecticinMarx’sCapital’,in:DianeElson(ed.),Value:TheRepresentationofLabourinCapitalism,(London:CSEBooks,1979),pp.27-8.

[7]KarlMarx,Capital.ACritiqueofPoliticalEconomy[1867],vol,1,trans.DavidFernbach(Harmondsworth:Penguin,1976),p.131–passageaddedbyEngels:seefootnote.

[8]Marx,Capital,vol.1,p.132.



[11]KarlMarx,Grundrisse[1861],trans.MartinNoclaus(Harmondsworth:Penguin,1973),pp.156-7.

[12]KarlMarx,Capital,vol.1,pp.167-8.

[13]Inthefinalparagraphsofhisearly‘ExcerptsfromJamesMill’(1844),Marxdrawsoutbeautifullythecontrastbetweenthesesocialrelationsandthosethatwouldobtainif‘weproducedashumanbeings’:KarlMarx,EarlyWritings,trans.RodneyLivingstoneandGregorBenton(Harmondsworth:Penguin,1975),pp.277-8.

[14]KarlMarx,Capital,vol.1,p.169.

[15]Elsewhere,aswe’veseen,henotesthattheseexchangerelationsdonotobtainwithinthecapitalistfactory.

[16]Marx,Grundrisse,p.156.

[17]Marx,Grundrisse,pp.156-7.

[18]Marx,Grundrisse,pp.157-8.

[19]Marx,Grundrisse,pp.241,246.


[21]KarlMarx,AContributiontotheCritiqueofPoliticalEconomy[1859],trans.NahumIsaacStone(Chicago:CharlesH.Kerr,1904),p.68.AsMichaelHeinrichcomments:‘…abstractlabourisaviolentabstractionfromthedifferencesoflabour,anabstractionwhichisonlypresentinexchange,intherelationofcommoditytocommodity’:MichaelHeinrich,‘AmbivalencesofMarx’scritiqueofpoliticaleconomyasobstaclesfortheanalysisofcontemporarycapitalism’,PaperdeliveredatHistoricalMaterialismConference,London,October2004,p.3.

[22]‘Justasmanisgoverned,inreligion,bytheproductsofhisownbrain,so,incapitalistproduction,heisgovernedbytheproductsofhisownhand’:Marx,Capital,vol.1,p.772.


[23]FriedrichEngels,Anti-Dühring.HerrEugenDühring’sRevolutioninScience(Moscow:ForeignLanguagesPublishingHouse,1959),p.374.


[25]Marx,Capital,vol.1,pp.169-71.

[26]Foradevelopedversionoftheargument,anditssharpapplicationagainsttheoriesof‘marketsocialism’,DavidMcNally’sworkisfundamental:DavidMcNally,AgainsttheMarket:PoliticalEconomy,MarketSocialismandtheMarxistCritique(London:Verso,1993).

[27]‘Itmustneverbeforgotten,thatincapitalistproductionwhatmattersisnottheimmediateuse-valuebuttheexchange-valueand,inparticular,theexpansionofsurplusvalue.Thisisthedrivingmotiveofcapitalistproduction,anditisaprettyconceptionthat…abstractsfromitsverybasisanddepictsitasaproductionaimingatthedirectsatisfactionoftheconsumptionoftheproducers’:KarlMarx,‘EconomicManuscriptsof1861-3’,in:KarlMarxandFrederickEngels,CollectedWorks,vol.30(London:Lawrence&Wishart,1988),p.495.

[28]Marx’sdiscussionofthisundertheheadingof‘commodityfetishism’ismatchedbyhisexploratorydiscussionof‘pre-capitalisteconomicformations’intheGrundrisse,pp.471-514.Therelevantpassagesarebroughttogether,withausefulintroductionbyEricHobsbawm:Pre-CapitalistEconomicFormations,ed.EricHobsbwm;trans.J.Cohen(London:Lawrence&Wishart,1964).Thenatureofpre-capitalistsocietiescontinuedtoexerciseMarxandEngelsduringthe1870sand1880s:TheEthnologicalNotebooksofKarlMarx,ed.LawrenceKrader(Assen:VanGorcum,1972),whichEngelsdrewonwhenwritingTheOriginoftheFamily,PrivatePropertyandtheState,in:KarlMarxandFrederickEngels,SelectedWorksinTwoVolumes,vol.2(Moscow:ForeignLanguagesPublishingHouse,1958).

[29]UsingtheusefulexpressionofEPThompson:‘ThemoraleconomyoftheEnglishcrowdinthe18thcentury’,PastandPresent,50(1971).


[31]DavidHarvey,TheLimitstoCapital(Oxford:Blackwell,1984),p.2.

[32]KarlMarx,Capital.ACritiqueofPoliticalEconomy[1863-83],vol.3,ed.FriedrichEngels,trans.DavidFernbach(Harmondsworth:Penguin,1981),p.755.

[33]DerekSayer,TheViolenceofAbstraction:TheAnalyticalFoundationsofHistoricMaterialism(Oxford:Blackwell,1987),citingMauriceBloch,FeudalSociety.

[34]ThankstoKeithGibbardforthis.Thewebsitehttp://en.allexperts.com/e/t/th/this_land_is_your_land.htm(accessed16August2009)listsandclassifiesotherversions:

‘Anti-imperialist’:‘Thislandismyland,andonlymyland/AndIjusttakelandifIcan’tbuyland/AndifIspyland,well,thenit’smyland/Thislandwasmadeforonlyme.’

‘NativeAmerican’:‘Thislandisyourland,itoncewasmyland/BeforeIsoldyouManhattanIsland/Youbanishedmynation,tothereservation/Thislandwasstolenbyyoufromme.’

‘Anarchist’:‘Thislandistheirland,itisn’tourland/FromtheWallStreetoffice,totheCadillaccar-land/Fromtheplushapartments,totheHollywoodstarland/Thislandisnotforyouandme/Ifthisisourland,You’dneverknowit/Sotakeyourbullshit,andkindlystowit/Let’sgettogether,andoverthrowit/Thenthislandwillbeforyouandme.’


http://en.allexperts.com/e/t/th/this_land_is_your_land.htm

[35]Marx,Capital,vol.1,p.178-9,182.


[37]Marx,Capital,vol.1,p.182.‘Money’sabilitytobuyrestsonthe“foreign-ness”ofcommodityownersfromeachother,thatis,ontheweakinfluenceoncommodityownersofkinship,hierarchy,religion,andsoon.Moneyisthesocialbondof“foreigners”,thenexusrerumholdingcommodityownerstogetherinthemarketandbeyond.’:CostasLapavitsas,‘Relationsofpowerandtrustincontemporaryfinance’,HistoricalMaterialism:ResearchinCriticalMarxistTheory,14.1(2006),p.144.

[38]EvygenyPashukanis,LawandMarxism.AGeneralTheory,trans.BarbaraEinhorn(London:InkLinks,1978),p.99.

[39]Pashukanis,LawandMarxism,p.80.InafootnotetheeditornotesthattheVindictameantoriginallytheliberatingrodwithwhichaslavewastouchedinmanumissionceremony;itcametomeanameansofassertingordefending–aprotectionordefence.Theterm’smostcommonderiveduseinEnglishis‘vindication’.

[40]Pashukanis,LawandMarxism,pp.109,112-13.

[41]Pashukanis,LawandMarxism,p.152.

[42]ThereisapassageinMarx’spreparatorymaterialsforCapital,inwhichMarx,inrathersatiricaltone,brieflyconsidersthecontributionsofcrimetocapitalistdevelopment.Idrawonthispassagehere.

[43]Pashukanis,LawandMarxism,pp.134,144.

[44]C.B.Macpherson,ThePoliticalTheoryofPossessiveIndividualism:HobbestoLocke(Oxford:OUP,1962).

[45]MythankstoAdrianBuddforpressingmetodevelopthispoint.

[46]Butsee,forexample,aswellasPashukanis,workbyBobFineandGeoffreyKay:BobFine,DemocracyandtheRuleofLaw:LiberalIdeasandMarxistCritiques(London:Pluto,1984);GeoffreyKay,‘Rightandforce:aMarxistcritiqueofcontractandthestate’,in:MichaelWilliams(ed.),Value,SocialFormandtheState(London:Macmillan,1988),pp.115-33.NotealsoDanielBensaïd’sremark:‘Itisindeedthecasethatright,whileitisnotreducibletoforce,isneverwhollyforeigntoit,evenintheinitialestablishmentofitslegitimacy’:DanielBensaïd,MarxforourTimes:AdventuresandMisadventuresofaCritique(London:Verso,2002),p.134.

[47]Oftheclassicalpoliticalphilosophers,itwasRousseau,inhisDiscourseonInequality,whostressedthismoststrongly.ThepointismadeveryclearlyinanoldGlaswegianjoke.AshipyardworkerisorderedofflandownedbyaScottishlaird:

‘Whatmakesityours,Jimmy?’

‘Iinheriteditfrommyfather,mygoodman.’

‘Andwheredidhegetit?’

‘Heinheriteditfromhisfather,andsoonbackelevengenerations.’

‘Andwheredidhegetit?’

‘Hefoughtforit.’


‘Right,Jimmy,I’llfightyouforit…’

[48]EvgenyPashukanis,LawandMarxism:AGeneralTheory,tr.BarbaraEinhorn(London:InkLinks,1978),p.134.OntheBolsheviklegalscholarEvgenyPahsukanis,seepartone.

[49]Seealso:ChinaMiéville,BetweenEqualRights.AMarxistTheoryofInternationalLaw(Chicago:Haymarket,2006).

[50]DuncanCampbell,‘Securityfirmsfindtherecessionisasafebet’,TheGuardian(14January1993).FormerCommissioneroftheMetropolitanPolice,SirIanBlair(interviewedinTheGuardian2November2009)expressedtheviewthatthepolicecannothandleeverything,andthatprivatesecuritycompanieswilltendtotakeupstillmoreoftheslack….

[51]Editor’snote–analternativetranslationofFaustrechtwouldbe‘lawofthejungle’or‘lawofthestreet’,itsliteraltranslationis‘fistjustice’,whichhasnoEnglishcounterpart.

[52]KarlMarx,AContributiontotheCritiqueofPoliticalEconomy[1859],trans.NahumIsaacStone(Chicago:CharlesH.Kerr,1904),pp.273-4.InthePenguineditionofMarx’sGrundrisse[1861],trans.MartinNoclaus(Harmondsworth:Penguin,1973),p.88,thesamepassageappearsasfollows:

…everyformofproductioncreatesitsownlegalrelations,formofgovernment,etc.Inbringingthingswhichareorganicallyrelatedintoanaccidentalrelation,notamerelyreflectiveconnection,they(thebourgeoiseconomists,CB)displaytheircrudityandlackofconceptualunderstanding.Allthebourgeoiseconomistsareawareofisthatproductioncanbecarriedonbetterunderthemodernpolicethan,e.g.ontheprinciplethatmightmakesright.Theyforgetonlythatthisprincipleisalsoalegalrelation,andthattherightofthestrongerprevailsintheir‘constitutionalrepublics’aswell,onlyinanotherform.

TheMarx/EngelsCollectedWorkstranslation(volume28,p26)returnstothemorefelicitous‘club-law’phrasing.

[53]KarlMarx,Capital.ACritiqueofPoliticalEconomy[1863-83],vol.3,ed.FriedrichEngels,trans.DavidFernbach(Harmondsworth:Penguin,1981),pp.309-10.

[54]MythankstoEmmaBirchamforforcingme,in2002,toclarifymythinkingonthismatter.

[55]Pashukanis,LawandMarxism,pp.134,162.

[56]TherehasbeensomedisputeamongMarxisteconomistsaboutwhether‘militarycompetition’canbeplacedalongside‘economiccompetition’astwoformsofthesamerelation.Ononeside,JohnWeekstreatsthetwoformsasmerelydifferentmeans:

Overnootherissueisthedifferencebetweenneo-classicalandmaterialisttheorymoreunmistakablethanforcompetition.Theformertheoristslauditasthemechanismforharmonyandsocialwelfaregains;intheanalysisofthelattercompetitionisthesourceofinstabilityandunevendevelopment,whichcanprovokearmedconflictamongcapitaliststates.Inmaterialisttheory,warfareisthecontinuationofmarketcompetitionbyothermeans.

(JohnWeeks,‘Thelawofvalueandtheanalysisofunderdevelopment’,HistoricalMaterialism:ResearchinCriticalMarxistTheory,1(1997),99).

Ontheotherhand,GeertReutenandMichaelWilliamsthinkit’sacategorymistaketoequaterivalrybetweenstatesforpowerandinfluence(orevenforeconomichegemony)withcompetitionamong‘competitionsubjects’,especiallycapitalists:GeertReutenandMichaelWilliams,Value-formandtheState:TheTendenciesofAccumulationandtheDeterminationofEconomicPolicyinCapitalistSociety(London:Routledge,1989).IaminclinedtoagreewithWeeks,butatthesametimetoinsistthatthemechanismthatlinksthetwoformsisnotthesame:competitionthroughthepricemechanismis


differentfromthatthroughpropertydefence,althoughtheonepresupposestheother–andbothexpressthesameunderlyingformofsocialrelations.

[57]Intheproductionandexchangeofcommodities,whatistocountassociallynecessarylabour-timeisdetermined‘postfactum’,intheunityofproductionandcirculation.Onlyaftercommoditieshaveactuallybeenexchangeddoproducersdiscoverwhethertheymetthedemandsofsocialnecessity.Ofcourse,theyhavetoproduceinanticipationofwhattheyexpecttoreceivefortheircommodities.Gettingthiswrongisverypainfulinitsconsequences.Thesameprincipleappliesalsoinrelationtotheproductionanddeploymentofmeansof‘defence’.Householdersbarricadetheirpropertyagainstthieves-atwhatever‘sociallynecessary’cost-inanticipationofthepossibilityofbeingburgled.Theyfindout,afterthefact,whethertheydidenough.Militarycommandersandmanagersofdefencebudgetsdeveloptheirarmedpowerinanticipationofwhattheymayneedtodo.Theydiscoverinbattleiftheiranticipationswereaccurate.Hitlerthought(anticipated)thathecouldconquerStalin’sRussia,withwhathethoughtwouldprovetobeasatisfactorymixtureofgoodtactics,militarymoraleandsuperiorproductive-cum-militarystrength.Heprovedwrong.

[58]Onewriterwhostressesthepredatory,Mafia-likecharacteristicsofthestateformisCharlesTilly:‘Warmakingandstatemakingasorganizedcrime’,in:PeterEvans,DietrichRueschmeyer,andThedaSkocpol(eds.),BringingtheStateBackIn(Cambridge:CUP,1985),pp.169-91.

[59]Onthe‘tragic’elementattheapexofbourgeoisthought,see:LucienGoldmann,TheHiddenGod(London:Routledge&KeganPaul,1964);also,respectivelyonRousseau,KantandHegel:LucioColletti,FromRousseautoLenin:StudiesinIdeologyandSociety(London:NewLeftBooks,1976);MartinBarker,‘KantasaproblemforMarxism’,RadicalPhilosophy,19(1978):24-9;SchlomoAvineri,Hegel’sTheoryoftheModernState(Cambridge:CUP,1972).

[60]Thedualityofmeaningintheterm‘subject’isanotablecaseofthedialecticalunityofopposites.Ingrammarandepistemology,the‘subject’istheactiveagentinaction.Inpolitics,the‘subject’isfirsttruetoitsetymologicalorigin(Latin:subjectus=castbeneath)andappearsastheobjectofstatepropertyandpolicy,buttheninthehandsofliberalandlaterliberal-democratictheorystrives,notwithfullsuccess,toovercomeitssubjectionandtobecomeagainsubjective.

[61]MarshallSahlinsnotesthemythicawarenessamongHawaiansthatkingsandchiefseatpeople,that‘achiefisasharkthattravelsonland’:IslandsofHistory(Chicago:UCP,1985),p.27.

[62]Notthroughignorance,ofcourse.AtvariouspointsinhispreparatorymaterialsMarxmentions‘tax’.ButthematterclearlycouldnotbeproperlydiscussedunlessMarxproceededtoasystematicdiscussionofTheState,amatterwhichhehadreservedto‘acontinuationofthework’-whichcontinuation,ofcourse,heneverseemstohavebegundraftingout,eveninoutline.(Theearly‘outlines’foraworkonthestatefromthe1840sarequiteinsufficientforthepurposethatwouldberequiredofa‘BookontheState’whichwouldformanintegralpartofCapital.)

[63]Theeighteenth-centurytermwas‘police’(GermanPolizei).CharlesTillydescribestheeffectofthegrowthofthefoodmarketonEuropeanstatesthroughthe16thto19thcenturies:

…themanagersofstateswerebalancingthedemandsoffarmers,foodmerchants,municipalofficials,theirowndependents,andtheurbanpoor-allofwhomcausedthestatetroublewhenitharmedtheirparticularinterests.StateandnationalofficialsdevelopedthetheoryandpracticeofPolice,inwhichthedetectionandapprehensionofcriminalsplayedaminorpart.Beforethenineteenthcenturyproliferationofprofessionalpoliceforcesasweknowthem,thewordPolicereferredtopublicmanagement,especiallyatthelocallevel;regulationofthefoodsupplywasitslargestsinglecomponent.

(CharlesTilly,Coercion,CapitalandEuropeanStatesAD990-1990(Oxford:Blackwell,1990)).

[64]Gramsciremindsusthat‘laissezfaire…isaformofstate“regulation”,introducedandmaintained


bylegislativeandcoercivemeans.Itisadeliberatepolicy,consciousofitsownends,andnotthespontaneous,automaticexpressionofeconomicfacts.Consequently,laissez-faireliberalismisapoliticalprogramme,designedtochange-insofarasitisvictorious-aState’sleadingpersonnel,andtochangetheeconomicprogrammeoftheStateitself….’:AntonioGramsci,SelectionsfromthePrisonNotebooks,trans.QuintinHoareandGeoffreyNowell-Smith(London:LawrenceandWishart,1971),p.160.

[65]Marx’semphasisonthestate’sdependenceoncivilsocietycannotbeseparatedfromhisinsistenceontheincapacityofthestate,howeverreformed,toresolvethecontradictionsofmodernsociety:thisstressinMarxwasessential,giventhebattlethathewasconductingbothagainstHegelianstatetheoryandagainsttheremnantsoftheJacobintraditionintheEuropeanrevolutionarymovementofhisownday.Inthe20thcentury,thedominanceintheinternationalworking-classmovementofreformistideas-regularlyassociatedwithillusionsinnationalstates-alsorequiresacontinualde-bunkingofthepretensionsofstate-centredactivity,andthespecificationofthedecidedlimitsofstatepower.Atthesametime,theMarxisttraditionhasalwaysinsistedonthenecessityoftherevolutionaryoverthrowoftheexistingstate;itisrathernecessarythatthecharacteroftheobjecttobeoverthrownbeidentified!

[66]Inthelate1960sandearly1970s,MarxistdebatearoundthestatewasdominatedbytheargumentbetweenRalphMilibandandNicosPoulantzas.Itturnedoutthatboththeir‘instrumentalist’and‘structuralist’theorieswereequallycapableofassimilationtoreformisttheoryandpractice.Intheend,foralltheheatoftheargumentbetweenthem,theirpoliticalprescriptionswereremarkablysimilar:ColinBarker,‘Thestateascapital’,InternationalSocialism,SecondSeries,1(1978):16-42;availableathttp://www.marxists.de/theory/barker/stateascap.htm);id.,‘A“New”Reformism?—AcritiqueofthepoliticaltheoryofNicosPoulantzas’,InternationalSocialism,SecondSeries,4(1979):88-108(alsoathttp://www.isj.org.uk/?id=294#extrabarker_21).

[67]InAmericanjurisprudence,thelawof‘eminentdomain’allowsthestatetocompulsorilyobtainsuchlandasitthinksnecessary.

[68]Forsomemodernwriters,therehasbeenarecenttendencyto‘de-commodification’ofsocio-economictransactionsinconditionsofmonopolycapitalism,asseeninphenomenalikethedevelopmentof‘welfarestates’:JürgenHabermas,LegitimationCrisis(London:Heinemann,1976);ClausOffe,ContradictionsoftheWelfareState(London:Hutchinson,1984).Butthereisnothing‘recent’aboutthetendencyto‘de-commodification’associatedwiththecapitaliststate:itisinscribed,abinitio,inthestate’sverycharacter.

[69]KarlMarx,Capital.ACritiqueofPoliticalEconomy[1867],vol,1,trans.DavidFernbach(Harmondsworth:Penguin,1976),p.773.

[70]JorgeLarrain,MarxismandIdeology(Houndmills:Macmillan,1983),p.155.

[71]Thisisbutonereasonwhyitisamistaketospeakof‘simplecommodityproduction’asifitwereahistoricalstageprecedingcapitalism.

[72]Foreachandeveryindividualproducer,thispossibilityexistsallthetime.Theymayfailtomeetthestandardof‘socialnecessity’intheirproduction,andthusbeunabletoobtainthemeanstokeepproducingandreproducing.Thedarksideofthe‘independence’oftheproducersistheriskofeconomiccollapseiftheirproductiveandself-defensiveactivityfailstorespondtothe(alwaysunclear)signalscomingoutoftheprocessofsocialinterchange.Thecomplexityofthatprocessissuchthatits‘demands’canneverbefullyknownorpredicted.But‘crisesofreproduction’arealsopossibleatthelevelofthewholesystem.Sincereproductionrequiresthecontinuouscirculationofgoodsandmoneythroughanendlesssequenceofsalesandpurchasesmediatedbymoney,itisalwayspossiblethatthechainofexchangescouldbebrokenorcouldgetintosomekindof‘disequilibrium’.Thosewhosellmaynotpurchase,butratherholdontotheirmoney.

[73]GeoffreyKayandJamesMott,PoliticalOrderandtheLawofLabour(Houndmills:Macmillan,


http://www.marxists.de/theory/barker/stateascap.htm

http://www.isj.org.uk/?id=294#extrabarker_21

1982).

[74]IntheUS,bywhatJoelBakanterms‘abizarrelegalalchemy’,thenotionof‘personhood’hadbythelate19thcenturybeenpracticallyextendedtocorporations,whichwereendowedwiththesamekindof‘rights’asthe‘persons’whoseprotectionhadbeenguaranteed,withintheUnitedStates,bythe14thAmendmenttotheConstitution.Anti-slaverylegislationcametobenefitprivatecapital:businessinterestinvokedthe14thAmendmentbeforethecourts288timesbetween1890and1910,comparedwith19suchinvocationsbyAfrican-Americans:JoelBakan,TheCorporation:ThePathologicalPursuitofProfitandPower(London:Constable,2004),pp.172-3.

[75]MarxrecognizedsuchacategoryalreadyinthesecondvolumeofCapital(p97),inhis‘NotesonAdolfWagner’:TerrellCarver,KarlMarx:TextsonMethod(Oxford:Blackwell,1975),p.200;asdidEngels:Anti-Dühring.HerrEugenDühring’sRevolutioninScience(Moscow:ForeignLanguagesPublishingHouse,1959).

[76]KarlMarx,‘CritiqueofHegel’sdoctrineofthestate’[1843-4],in:KarlMarx,EarlyWritings,trans.RodneyLivingstoneandGregorBenton(Harmondsworth:Penguin,1975),p.175.RecallMarx’sobservationthatthecapitalistisalsoalienated,evenifheis‘happyinhisalienation’.



[79]JohnCommons,theAmericanlegaltheorist,correctlydefinedtherealbasisofthelabourcontractas‘thesaleofapromisetoobey’:TheLegalFoundationsofCapitalism(Madison:UniversityofWisconsinPress,1968),p.284.


[81]Marx,Grundrisse,p.247;seealsopp.509-10.

[82]Thiscompetitionamongtheranksofthosewhoarecompelledtohireouttheircapacitiesinwage-labourispoliticallysignificant,notleastforanyMarxisttheoryof‘classstruggle’and‘socialmovements’.Butthisposesquestionsbeyondthescopeofthisarticle.

[83]Inagooddealof‘radicalsociology’thisisoftenforgotten,andthecapitalistclassispresentedasifitconformedtotheprescriptionsof‘elitetheory’.Thatis,itappearstobeaunified,coherentactorwithacommonconsciousnessandinterests.Onelitetheorygenerally,see,e.g.:TomBottomore,ElitesandSociety(Harmondsworth:Pelican,1966).Onthebasisofthatkindofaccount,itisthennotdifficulttodrawapictureofthepoliticsofcapitalistsocietyassomethingakintoa‘conspiracy’-abreathingtogether-ofasetofeconomicandpoliticalactors,capitalistsandstatepersonnel.Therealproblemsofformingacommoninterestamongthemembersandsectionsofaclassthatisinherentlydividedagainstitselfbycompetitiontherebydisappear.Foranexampleofthiskindof‘elitetheory’whichhasoftenbeenmisrepresentedas‘Marxist’,see,e.g.:RalphMiliband,TheStateinCapitalistSociety(London:Weidenfeld&Nicolson,1969).

[84]JoelKovel,TheEnemyofNature:TheEndofCapitalismortheEndoftheWorld?(London:Zed,2007);JonathanNeale,StopGlobalWarming,ChangetheWorld(London:Bookmarks,2008).

[85]ColinBarker,‘Industrialism,capitalism,value,forceandstates:sometheoreticalremarks’,Anglo-BulgarianComparativeHistorySeminar,WolverhamptonUniversity(1997);ColinBarker,‘Industrialism,capitalism,forceandstates:sometheoreticalandhistoricalissues’,InternationalJournalofManagementConceptsandPhilosophy,3.4(2009):313-31.

[86]ColinBarker,‘Anoteonthetheoryofcapitaliststates’,CapitalandClass4(1978):118-126;


reprintedin:SimonClarke,(ed.)TheStateDebate(London:Macmillan,1991),pp.204-13;availableathttp://www.marxists.de/theory/barker/capstates.htm);ColinBarker,‘Thestateascapital’,InternationalSocialism,SecondSeries,1(1978):16-42;availableathttp://www.marxists.de/theory/barker/stateascap.htm).

[87]SomeofthebestofthatworkwaspublishedinEnglishintwocollections:JohnHollowayandSolPicciotto(eds.),StateandCapital:AMarxistDebate(London:Hodder&Stoughton,1978);SimonClarke(ed.),TheStateDebate(London:Macmillan,1991).Othernotablecontributionsinclude:GeoffreyKayandJamesMott,PoliticalOrderandtheLawofLabour(Houndmills:Macmillan,1982);GeertReutenandMichaelWilliams,Value-formandtheState:TheTendenciesofAccumulationandtheDeterminationofEconomicPolicyinCapitalistSociety(London:Routledge,1989).

[88]ThemajorexceptionwasClaudiavonBraunmühl:ClaudiavonBraunmühl,‘Ontheanalysisofthebourgeoisnationstatewithintheworldmarketcontext’in:JohnHollowayandSolPiccioott(eds.),StateandCapital.AMarxistDebate(London:Arnold,1978).

[89]KarlMarx,Capital.ACritiqueofPoliticalEconomy[1867],vol,1,trans.DavidFernbach(Harmondsworth:Penguin,1976),pp.90-1.

[90]Marxhimselfdidnottreatthisashislastwordonthesubject.InalettertoMikhailovsky,heprotestedagainstanyattempttoturnananalysisofthehistoricaldevelopmentofWesternEuropeintoaunilinearphilosophyofhistorywhichsetoutauniformsequencethatallcountriesmustfollow.HethoughtthatthedevelopmentofIndiamightresultfromtheimpactofBritishcapital,butaslikelyfromtheeffortsofthe‘Hindoos’toexpeltheBritish(seereferencestoShaninbelow).Intheprefacetothe1882editionoftheManifesto,healludedtothepossibility(whichhewasconsideringurgently)thatRussiamightleapacrosscapitalismdirectlytocommunism,ifworldconditionswerefavourable.VariousdiscussionsofIrelandrevealaconcernwiththequestionofunevendevelopmentanditsimpactonworking-classconsciousnessandpolitics.

[91]SomeofMarx’sfollowersalsodrewpoliticalconclusionsfromwhattheyreadMarxtobesaying,amongthemtheAustro-MarxistsandtheRussianMensheviks,andlatertheStalinistCommunistParties.Theyarguedthat,sincedevelopmentmustgothroughthestagesMarxidentifiedinEngland,andsincecapitalismwasasyetunder-developedinbackwardcountries,theroleofMarxiststheremustbetoaidthefuturedevelopmentofcapitalismbeforeeverthinkingaboutsocialism.A‘revolutionarybourgeoisie’mustbeidentified,andsupportedinitseffortstocarrythroughaprogressivebourgeois-democraticrevolution.Socialistsshouldactassecond-stringcheerleadersforprogressivebourgeoisiesinbackwardcountries,leavinguntil‘later’anyindependentrolefortheworkingclass.ThisledthemtoignoreandcontradicttheverydifferentlessonswhichMarxdrewastheresultofhisexperiencesinthe1848revolutions.See,e.g.:Trotsky’ssharpcriticalremarksabouttheMensheviks’readingofMarx:AHistoryoftheRussianRevolution[1930],trans.MaxEastman(London:Gollancz,1965).

[92]KarlMarx,‘CritiqueoftheGothaProgramme’[1875],in:KarlMarx,TheFirstInternationalandAfter.PoliticalWritings,ed.DavidFernbach,vol.3(Harmondsworth:Penguin,1974),pp.354-5.

[93]TeodorShaninpointstoevidencethatinhislastyearsMarxwasmovingwellbeyondtheschematicsofthe‘Preface’.ThroughhisreflectionsontheRussianpeasantcommune,Marxappearstohavebeenmovingtowardsamorecomplexassessmentoftheproblemof‘unevendevelopment’andsimultaneouslyoftheroleoftheworldmarketintheshapingofnationalpathsofdescribedatworkintheEnglishcase.Thus,herefers,indiscussionoflateTsaristRussia,toaspecific‘typeofcapitalismgeneratedbythestateontheaccountofthepeasants’.Marx,commentsShanin,‘hadcometoassumeamultiplicityofroadsofsocialtransformationnotonlyforprecapitalistsocieties,asintheGrundrisse,butalsoforthecapitalistepoch’:‘LateMarxandtheRussian“peripheryofcapitalism”’,MonthlyReview35.2(1983);LateMarxandtheRussianRoad:Marxand‘ThePeripheriesofCapitalism’(London:Routledge&KeganPaul,1983).

[94]InthefirstfullEnglishtranslationofthiswork,thefollowingsentenceappears:‘Empirically,


http://www.marxists.de/theory/barker/capstates.htm

http://www.marxists.de/theory/barker/stateascap.htm

communismisonlypossibleastheactofthedominantpeoples“allatonce”andsimultaneously,whichpresupposestheuniversaldevelopmentofproductiveforcesandtheworldintercourseboundupwithcommunism’:(MarxandEngels1846(1965):46-KarlMarx,andFriedrichEngels,TheGermanIdeology[1846],trans.SalomeaRyazanskaya(London:Lawrence&Wishart,1965),pp.46-7.ThenormallyreverentialMoscoweditorsherefeltimpelled-giventheirstate’sfoundingdoctrineof‘socialisminonecountry’-toaddanote(pp.671-2).AbetterdocumentedsourceforLenin’sviewscanbefoundin:Trotsky,HistoryoftheRussianRevolution,AppendixII:pp.1219-57.

[95]HansReiss(ed.),Kant’sPoliticalWritings(Cambridge:CUP,1970).

[96]G.W.F.Hegel,ElementsofthePhilosophyofRight,trans.AllenW.Wood(Cambridge:CUP,1991),p.368.

[97]Hegel,ElementsofthePhilosophyofRight,p.371,p.339-40.

[98]Reiss(ed.),Kant’sPoliticalWritings,p.13.

[99]ThereareelementsofcontinuityandcomplementaritybetweentheseideasandwhatMartinBarkerhastermed‘thenewracism’:MartinBarker,TheNewRacism:ConservativesandtheIdeologyoftheTribe(London:JunctionBooks,1978).

[100]SeePeterGowan’saccountofGrotiusandKantinhisusefulcritiqueofliberalapproachestothe1991GulfWar:‘TheGulfWar,Iraqandwesternliberalism’,NewLeftReview,187(1991).

[101]ErnstKantorowicz,TheKing’sTwoBodies:AStudyinMedievalPoliticalTheology(Princeton:PUP,1957).

[102]Itisinterestingtonotethatthesemattersoccupyalmostnospaceorattentionin:J.H.BurnsandMarkGoldie(eds.),CambridgeHistoryofPoliticalThought1450-1700(Cambridge:CUP,1991).ThechapteronGrotius,forinstance,hashardlyanythingtosayabouthistheoryoftheconductofinternationalrelations.Here,itseems,theclassicacademicdivisionbetweenmainstreamPoliticalTheory,whichfocusesontherelationsbetweenstatesandtheirsubjects,andInternationalRelations,specializinginrelationsbetweenstates,isstillverymuchmaintained.

[103]GyörgyLukaćs,ADefenceofHistoryandClassConsciousness[1924],trans.EstherLeslie(London:Verso,2000),ch.1.

[104]Thoughsomeworkinthe1990sdidbeginaddressingthesequestions:MichaelLebowitz,BeyondCapital:Marx’sPoliticalEconomyoftheWorkingClass(London:Macmillan,1992);FeltonShortall,TheIncompleteMarx(Aldershot:Avebury,1994).

[105]Thisone-sidednessinmaterialistcritique,amongotherthings,facilitatedtheslideamongformersocialistsinthelater1980sandthe1990stowardsanuncriticaladulationof‘themarketanditsprinciples,andthusbacktowardsmereliberalism.Butforacorrectiveseee.g.:DavidMcNally,AgainsttheMarket:PoliticalEconomy,MarketSocialismandtheMarxistCritique(London:Verso,1993).

[106]Forreasonsofspace,IhavenotdirectlyconsideredtheworkofthegenerationofMarxistswhodidbegintoaddressatleastpartofthesetasks,intheperiodaroundtheFirstWorldWarandtheRussianRevolution.Inparticular,theworkofLuxemburg,Lenin,BukharinandTrotskyrequiresitsowncriticalexamination,alongwiththosewhohaveextendedtheiranalyticalprinciplesinthepost-waryears-notablyCliff,Harmanandothers.TherevolutionaryMarxistsoftheearlydecadesofthe20thcenturywereveryboldtheorists,althoughtheywerecharacteristicallylessinterested,onthewhole,intheimplicationsoftheirowntheorizingforthefundamentalsofMarxistthought.Forusefulcriticalevaluation,asthesetheoriststouchedonproblemsofthestatesystem,warandimperialism,seeworkbyCallinicos,Harman,HaynesandShaw:AlexCallinicos,ImperialismandGlobalPoliticalEconomy(Cambridge:Polity,2009);ChrisHarman,ZombieCapitalism.GlobalCrisisandtheRelevanceofMarx


(London:Bookmarks,2009);MichaelHaynes,NikolaiBukharinandtheTransitionfromCapitalismtoSocialism(London:CroomHelm,1985);MartinShaw(ed.),War,StateandSociety(London:Macmillan,1984).NeilDavidsonsuggeststhatonesourceofweaknessinthetheoristsofthatperiodwastheirtendencytotreatinter-staterelations–not,aswe’veseenaproblemthatoccupiedMarxinthe19thcentury–asifitwereaspecificproblemofarecent‘stage’incapitalistdevelopment,ratherthanaproblemconcerningcapitalismperse:‘Manycapitals,manystates:contingency,logicormediation?’in:AlexAnievas(ed.),MarxismandWorldPolitics:ContestingGlobalCapitalism(London:Routledge,2009).

[107]Anotherstrategy,termed‘form-analytic’,isfollowedbyEldredandbyReutenandWilliams.Thedifficultywiththeirworkisthat,whiletheycanarrive,totheirownsatisfaction,atanaccountofthe‘bourgeoisstate’andthe‘bourgeois-democraticstate’,theyoffernomeansoftheorizingformsofstatethatundermineprivatepropertyandcitizenshiprightswhilestillprovidingaframeworkinwhichcapitalaccumulationoccurs:fascism,authoritarianand‘communist’statesliebeyondtheirtheoreticalhorizons:MichaelEldred,CritiqueofCompetitiveFreedomandtheBourgeois-DemocraticState:OutlineofaForm-AnalyticExtensionofMarx’sUncompletedSystem(København:KURASJE,1984);ReutenandWilliams,Value-formandtheState.

[108]Indeed,thatcomplexitycontributestothepromotionofillusionsastothenatureoftheclassrelationsofcapitalistsociety,inparticularthe‘Trinityformula’withinclassicalpoliticaleconomywhichplacedlandedproperty,productionandmerchantcapital,andlabourallonthesametheoreticallevel,as‘sourcesofrevenue’,therebyobscuringthekeyprocesswhichbothunifiesanddividesthem,thegenerationofsurplusvalue.

[109]Ricardo,whosewritingsMarxverycarefullydissectedinthenotebookspublishedasTheoriesofSurplusValue,entitledhismajortheoreticalworkPrinciplesofPoliticalEconomyandTaxation.

[110]Thisquestion,itmightbenoted,Marxthoughtwasthemajortheoreticaldifficultywhichstillneededtobesurmounted.

[111]KarlMarx,Capital.ACritiqueofPoliticalEconomy[1863-83],vol.3,ed.FriedrichEngels,trans.DavidFernbach(Harmondsworth:Penguin,1981),p.927.

[112]MichaelMann,States,War,Capitalism:StudiesinPoliticalSociology(Oxford:Blackwell,1988).

[113]EricHobsbawmandTerenceRanger(eds.),TheInventionofTradition(Cambridge:CUP,1992).

[114]BenedictAnderson,ImaginedCommunities:ReflectionsontheOriginandSpreadofNationalism(London:Verso,1991)

[115]GeoffreyKayandJamesMott,PoliticalOrderandtheLawofLabour(Houndmills:Macmillan,1982).

[116]JustinRosenberg,TheEmpireofCivilSociety:ACritiqueoftheRealistTheoryofInternationalRelations(London:Verso,1994),p.139.

[117]JohnLambertsuggeststhateverynation-state,asthosewhounifiedGermanyandItalyinthe19thcenturyknewwell,needsatminimumaNationalBankandanArmy:JohnLambert,‘Europe:thenationdieshard’,Capital&Class,43(1991).

[118]NotablyinthepagesoftheCambridgeReviewofInternationalAffairs,andalsoinsomesignificantbooks(Harman2009;Harvey,TheNewImperialism,2003;Wood,EmpireofCapital,2005).

[119]BennoTeschke,TheMythof1648:Class,GeopoliticsandtheMakingofModernInternationalRelations(London:Verso,2003);BennoTeschkeandHannesLacher‘Thechanging“logics”ofcapitalistcompetition’,CambridgeReviewofInternationalAffairs,20.4(2007):565-80.


[120]TheyhavebeenlatterlyjoinedbyNigelHarris.

[121]CharlesTilly,EuropeanRevolutions1492-1992(Oxford:Blackwell,1993),p.26.

[122]PerryAnderson,LineagesoftheAbsolutistState(London:NewLeftBooks,1979).

[123]JohnWeeks,CapitalandExploitation(Princeton:PUP,1981),p.40.

[124]IamawarethatthisisnotpreciselythesameusageasthatintroducedbyLeonTrotsky(Trotsky,HistoryoftheRussianRevolution),whousedittorefertothewaysthatunevendevelopmentinworldeconomygeneratestheconditionsforcombineddevelopmentwithinvariousnations,asanessentialelementinthetheoryofpermanentrevolution:NeilDavidson,‘Fromuneventocombineddevelopment’,in:BillDunnandHugoRadice(eds.),100YearsofPermanentRevolution(London:Pluto,2006),pp.10-26.My‘extended’usageis,Ibelieve,implicitinTrotsky’sownposition,anddeservesfurtherdevelopment:ColinBarker,‘BeyondTrotsky:extendingcombinedandunevendevelopment’,in:DunnandRadice(eds.),100Years,pp.72-87.

[125]Barker,‘BeyondTrotsky’,p.78.Perhapsitispossibletosubstitutethetermsubaltern,asawayofavoidinganylingeringevolutionistassumptionsin‘backwardness’,buttherelationholds.

[126]BaruchKnei-Paz,TheSocialandPoliticalThoughtofLeonTrotsky(Oxford:OUP,1978),p.95.

[127]TheexampleoftheyoungMeijibureaucratswhoseizedpowerfromtheTokugawaclanin1868isinstructive:theysentembassiestothemajorEuropeanpowerstocherry-picksuitableelementsoflegalandconstitutionalpracticeandtechniquefortheirnewstate.

[128]Gerschenkroniscorrecttodrawattentiontothechangingideologiesunderwhichnationaleconomicdevelopmentispursued:AlexanderGerschenkron,EconomicBackwardnessinComparativePerspective(Cambridge,Mass.:HUP,1972),

[129]DavidBlackbournandGeoffEleyofferssomeverypertinentobservationswithregardtothisflawedmethodinrelationtotheunderstandingofGermanhistory:DavidBlackbournandGeoffEleyThePeculiaritiesofGermanHistory:BourgeoisSocietyandPoliticsinNineteenth-CenturyGermany(Oxford:OUP,1984).Moregenerally,see:ColinBarker,‘Muscularreformism’,InternationalSocialism,FirstSeries,102(1977).

[130]Weeks,CapitalandExploitation,pp.204-5.AsPeteGreenremarks,‘Inpractice,capitalismsimultaneouslysetsinplaytendenciestowardstheequalizationofprofitandtendenciestowardstheirdifferentiation,betweenandacrosssectors’:PeterGreen,‘Reviewessay:TheCulminationofCapital:EssaysonVolumeIIIofMarx’s‘Capital’,editedbyMarthaCampbellandGeertReuten(London:PalgraveMacmillan,2001)’,HistoricalMaterialism12.2(2004),256.

[131]LeonTrotsky,TheThirdInternationalafterLenin,trans.JohnG.Wright(NewYork:Pioneer,1957),p.19.

[132]LeonTrotsky,‘ThedraftprogramoftheCommunistInternational-acriticismoffundamentals’,in:TheThirdInternationalafterLenin,pp.19-20.

[133]NikolaiBukharin,EconomicsoftheTransformationPeriod,withLenin’sCriticalRemarks(NewYork:Bergman,1971);NikolaiBuhkarin,ImperialismandWorldEconomy(London:Merlin,1972).

[134]Bukharin,ImperialismandWorldEconomy,p.127.

[135]Onsomeofthemethodologicaldifficulties,see:CharlesTilly,BigStructures,LargeProcesses,HugeComparisons(NewYork:RussellSageFoundation,1984).


[136]Thus,forvariouspurposes,distinctionsmaybemade,forexample,betweenperiodsinwhichmercantileratherthanindustrialcapitalwasdominant,inwhich‘imperialism’and‘statecapitalism’seemedtorepresent‘thehigheststageofcapitalism’(Lenin),andinwhich‘trans-nationalcapitalism’and‘finance’appearedtobegaininganewdominance.

[137]ChrisHarman,‘Thestateandcapitalismtoday’,InternationalSocialism,secondseries,51(1991):3-54;Harman,ZombieCapitalism,ch.4.

[138]vonBraunmühl,‘Ontheanalysis’.

[139]CostasLapavitsas,‘Relationsofpowerandtrustincontemporaryfinance’,HistoricalMaterialism:ResearchinCriticalMarxistTheory,14.1(2006):129-54.

CreatedwithCalibre


https://calibre-ebook.com

Contents

Value,force,manystatesandotherproblems 2Oncommodities,forceandthelawofvalue 2

Bywayofintroduction 2Forceandcommodityproduction–thesocialformofcommodityproductionandexchange 4Forceandcommodityproduction–coercionandthelawofvalue 8Furtherelaborationofforceinthereproductionofcapitalistsocialrelations 10Economicandjuridicalrelations 11Commoditiesandcrime 13Needandforce 14

Violenceandcommodityproducingsocieties 16Club-law(Faustrecht) 16Statesandforce 18Somekeystatefunctions 21Againstthestate 22

Capitalandcommodityproduction 22Capitalism:subjectsandobjects 25Limitstoliberalism 26

Manystates 30Introduction 30GoingbeyondMarx 30LimitsofEnlightenmenttheoriesofthestate 32GrotiusandtheInternationalRelationstradition 33Marxiststatetheorysincethe1960s 34Re-thinkingthemultiplicityofstates 35Towardstheconcrete 36Statesandproperty 37Specificitiesofthecapitaliststate 39Combinedandunevendevelopment 40Abolishingthemanystates? 45

References 46Footnotes 50


on commodities, force and the law of value

Documents