Evald Ilyenkov 1960

Dialectics of the Abstract & the Concrete in Marxs Capital

Written: 1960; Source: The Dialectics of the Abstract and the Concrete in Marxs Capital; Publisher: Progress Publishers 19!"; Translated: #nglish translation 19!" b$ %ergei &u'$a(o); Transcribed: And$ *lunden; HTM Marku!: And$ *lunden+ Chapter1: Dialectical& MetaphysicalConceptionof the Concrete Conception of the Abstract , the Concrete in Dialectics and in -or.al /ogic -ro. the 0istor$ of the Concepts of the Abstract and the Concrete The Definition of the Concrete in Marx 1n the 2elation of the 3otion to the Concept The Concept of Man and %o.e Conclusions fro. its Anal$sis The Concrete and the Dialectics of the 4ni)ersal and the 5ndi)idual Concrete 4nit$ as 4nit$ of 1pposites Chapter2 - The Unityof the Abstract& the Concreteas a Lawof Thought The Abstract as an #xpression of the Concrete The Dialectical , the #clectic6#.pirical Conception of Co.prehensi)e Consideration %piral6/i(e Character of De)elop.ent of 2ealit$ , its Theoretical 2eflection %cientific Abstraction 7Concept8 , Practice Chapter3 - Ascentfromthe Abstractto the Concrete 1n the -or.ulation of the 9uestion 0egels Conception of the Concrete Marxs :ie; of the De)elop.ent of %cientific Cognition Materialist %ubstantiation of Ascent fro. Abstract to Concrete in Marx Ada. %.ith Da)id 2icardo /oc(e and %pino'a on Political #cono.$ Deduction and the Proble. of 0istoricis. Chapter4 - LogicalDevelopmentand ConcreteHistoricism 1n the Difference *et;een the /ogical and the 0istorical Methods of 5n<uir$ /ogical De)elop.ent as #xpression of Concrete 0istoricis. in 5n)estigation Abstract and Concrete 0istoricis. Chapter5 - The Methodof Ascentfromthe Abstractto the Concretein MarxsCapital Concrete -ullness of Abstraction and Anal$sis as a Condition of Theoretical %$nthesis Contradiction as the Condition of De)elop.ent of %cience Contradictions of /abour Theor$ of :alue and their Dialectical 2esolution in Marx Conradiction as a Principle of De)elop.ent of Theor$
=5f 5 ;ere to begin ;ith the population this ;ould be a chaotic conception of the ;hole and 5 ;ould then b$ .eans of further deter.ination .o)e anal$ticall$ to;ards e)er .ore si.ple concepts fro. the i.agined concrete to;ards e)er thinner abstractions until 5 had arri)ed at the si.plest deter.inations+ -ro. there the >ourne$ ;ould ha)e to be retraced until 5 had arri)ed at the population again but this ti.e not as the chaotic conception of a ;hole but as a rich totalit$ of .an$ deter.inations and relations+? Marx

"ha!ter #ne $ %ialectical & Meta!hysical "once!tion o' the "oncrete 1

The Conception of the Abstract and the Concrete in Dialectics and in Formal Logic
The ter.s @the abstract and @the concrete are e.plo$ed both in e)er$da$ speech and in the special literature rather a.biguousl$+ Thus one hears of @concrete facts and @concrete .usic of @abstract thin(ing and @abstract painting of @concrete truth and @abstract labour+ This usage is in each case apparentl$ >ustified b$ the existence of shades of .eanings in these ;ords and it ;ould be ridiculousl$ pedantic to de.and a co.plete unification of the usage+ 0o;e)er things are different ;hen ;e are dealing not .erel$ ;ith ;ords or ter.s but ;ith the content of scientific categories that ha)e beco.e historicall$ lin(ed ;ith these ter.s+ Definitions of the abstract and the concrete as categories of logic .ust be stable and una.biguous ;ithin the fra.e;or( of this science for the$ are instru.ental in establishing the basic principles of scientific thought+ Through these ter.s dialectical logic expresses a nu.ber of its funda.ental principles 7@there is no abstract truth+ truth is al;a$s concrete the thesis of @ascending fro. the abstract to the concrete and so on8+ Therefore the categories of the abstract and the concrete ha)e <uite a definite .eaning in dialectical logic ;hich is intrinsicall$ lin(ed ;ith the dialectico6.aterialist conception of the truth the relation of thought to realit$ the .ode of theoretical reproduction of realit$ in thin(ing and so on+ As long as ;e deal ;ith categories of dialectics connected ;ith ;ords rather than ;ith ;ords the.sel)es an$ licence lac( of clarit$ or instabilit$ in their definition 7let alone incorrectness8 ;ill necessaril$ lead to a distorted conception of the essence of the .atter+ -or this reason it is necessar$ to free the categories of the abstract and the concrete fro. the connotations that ha)e been associated ;ith the. throughout centuries in .an$ ;or(s b$ tradition fro. force of habit or si.pl$ because of an error ;hich has often interfered ;ith correct interpretation of the propositions of dialectical logic+ The proble. of the relationship of the abstract and the concrete in its general for. is not posed or sol)ed in for.al logic for it is a purel$ philosophical episte.ological <uestion <uite outside its sphere of co.petence+ 0o;e)er ;hen it is a .atter of classif$ing concepts na.el$ of di)iding concepts into @abstract and @concrete for.al logic necessaril$ assu.es a <uite definite interpretation of the corresponding categories+ This interpretation appears as the principle of di)ision and .a$ therefore be established anal$ticall$+ 1n this point .ost authors of boo(s on for.al logic apparentl$ gi)e a rather unani.ous support to a certain tradition albeit ;ith so.e reser)ations and a.end.ents+ According to this traditional )ie; concepts 7or ideas8 are di)ided into abstract and concrete in the follo;ing .annerA
Concrete concepts are those that reflect reall$ existing definite ob>ects or classes of ob>ects+ Abstract concepts are those that reflect a propert$ of ob>ects .entall$ abstracted fro. the ob>ects the.sel)es+ B3 5 &onda(o)C

@A concrete concept is one relating to groups classes of things ob>ects and pheno.ena or to separate things ob>ects or pheno.ena++++ An abstract concept is a concept of properties of ob>ects or pheno.ena ;hen these properties are ta(en as an independent ob>ect of thought+ BM % %troga)ichC @Concrete concepts are those ;hose ob>ects actuall$ exist as things in the .aterial ;orld++++ Abstract concepts are those that reflect a propert$ of an ob>ect ta(en separatel$ fro. the ob>ect rather than the ob>ect itself+ B: - As.usC The exa.ples cited to illustrate the definitions are .ostl$ of the sa.e t$pe+ Concrete concepts are usuall$ said to include such concepts as @boo( @-ido @tree @plane @co..odit$ ;hereas abstract ones are illustrated b$ @;hiteness @courage @)irtue @speed @)alue etc+ Dudging fro. the exa.ples the di)ision is in fact the sa.e as in the ;ell6(no;n textboo( on logic b$ E+ 5+ Chelpano)+ 5.pro)e.ents on the Chelpano) definition are .ostl$ concerned not ;ith the di)ision itself but ;ith its philosophico6episte.ological foundation for Chelpano) ;as philosophicall$ a t$pical sub>ecti)e idealist+ 0ere is his )ersion of the di)ision of concepts into abstract and concrete onesA
Abstract ter.s are those that ser)e for designating qualities or properties, states, or actions of things+ The$ denote <ualities considered b$ the.sel)es ;ithout the things++++ Concrete concepts are those of things, objects, persons, facts, events, states of consciousness, if ;e regard the. as ha)ing definite existence+ +++ B Textbook on LogicC

The distinction bet;een @ter. and @concept is a .atter of indifference for Chelpano)+ @%tates of consciousness are in his )ie; in the sa.e categor$ as facts things and e)ents+ @0a)ing definite "

existence is for hi. the sa.e as @ha)ing definite existence in the indi)iduals i..ediate consciousness that is in his conte.plation conception or at least i.agination+ Chelpano) therefore regards as concrete an$thing that .a$ be concei)ed 7i.agined8 as a separatel$ existing single thing or i.age and he regards as abstract an$thing that cannot be so i.agined that can onl$ be thought of as such+ The indi)iduals abilit$ or inabilit$ to concei)e so.ething graphicall$ is in fact Chelpano)s criterion for the di)ision into the abstract and the concrete+ This di)ision ho;e)er sha($ it .a$ be fro. the philosophical standpoint is rather definite+ 5nas.uch as so.e authors endea)oured to correct the philosophico6episte.ological interpretation of the classification ;ithout changing the actual t$pe of exa.ples concerned the classification pro)ed to be open to criticis.+ 5f one includes a.ong concrete concepts onl$ those that pertain to objects of the material world, a centaur or Athena Pallas ;ill apparentl$ be regarded as abstract concepts along ;ith courage or )irtue ;hile -ido ;ill be included a.ong concrete ones along ;ith )alue+ Fhat is the use of such a classification for logical anal$sisG The traditional classification is destro$ed or confused b$ this (ind of a.end.ent introducing a co.pletel$ alien ele.ent into it+ 1n the other hand no ne; strict classification is obtained+ Atte.pts b$ certain authors to oppose a ne; principle or basis of di)ision to the one suggested b$ Chelpano) can hardl$ be regarded as apt too+ &onda(o) belie)es for instance that the di)ision of concepts into abstract and concrete should express a @difference in the content of concepts+ That .eans that concrete concepts .ust reflect things, and abstract ones properties and relations of these things+ 5f the di)ision is to be co.plete neither properties nor relations of things can be concei)ed in concrete concepts according to &onda(o)+ 5t re.ains unclear ho; one can concei)e of a thing or a class other than through a conception of their properties and relations+ 5n fact an$ thought about a thing ;ill ine)itabl$ pro)e to be a thought about so.e propert$ of this thing for concei)ing a thing .eans for.ing a conception about the entire totalit$ of its properties and relations+ 5f one frees the thought of a thing fro. all thoughts of properties of this thing there ;ill be nothing left of the thought other than the na.e+ 5n other ;ords the di)ision of concepts according to their content .eans in actual fact thisA a concrete concept is a concept ;ithout content ;hile an abstract one does ha)e so.e content though )er$ .eagre+ 1ther;ise the di)ision ;ill not be co.plete and ;ill thus be incorrect+ The principle of di)ision suggested b$ As.us @actual existence of the ob>ects of these concepts is >ust as unfortunate+ 0o; is one to understand this for.ulaG Do the ob>ects of concrete concepts actuall$ exist ;hile the ob>ects of abstract concepts are nonexistentG *ut the categor$ of abstract concepts e.braces not onl$ )irtue but also )alue ;eight speed that is ob>ects ;hose existence is no less real than that of a plane or a house+ 5f one .eans to sa$ that extension )alue or speed actuall$ do not exist outside a house a tree a plane or so.e other indi)idual things clearl$ the indi)idual things also exist ;ithout extension ;eight and other attributes of the .aterial ;orld onl$ in the head onl$ in sub>ecti)e abstraction+ 2eal existence is conse<uentl$ neither here nor there the .ore so that it cannot be .ade into a criterion of di)ision of concepts into abstract and concrete+ That can onl$ create the false i.pression that indi)idual things are .ore real than uni)ersal la;s and for.s of existence of these things+ All of this sho;s that the a.end.ents to the Chelpano) di)ision introduced b$ so.e authors are extre.el$ inade<uate and for.al and that the authors of boo(s on logic ha)e failed to .a(e a critical .aterialist anal$sis of this di)ision restricting the.sel)es to corrections of particulars ;hich .erel$ confused the traditional classification ;ithout i.pro)ing it+ Fe shall therefore ha)e to underta(e a s.all excursion into the histor$ of the concepts of the abstract and the concrete to introduce so.e clarit$ there+

From the History of the Concepts of the Abstract and the Concrete
H

The definition of abstract concepts shared b$ Chelpano) ;as clearl$ for.ulated b$ Christian Folff+ According to Folff abstract concepts ha)e for their content properties relations and states of things .entall$ isolated fro. things and represented as an independent ob>ect+ Folff is not the original source+ 0e .erel$ reproduces the )ie; ta(en in theological treatises of .edie)al scholastics+ All na.esIconcepts 7the$ did not distinguish na.e fro. concept8 denoting properties and relations of things the$ called abstract ;hereas na.es of things ;ere called concrete+ This usage ;as originall$ deter.ined b$ .ere et$.olog$+ 5n /atin @concretus .eans si.pl$ @.ixed @fused @co.posite co.pound; ;hile the /atin ;ord @abstractus .eans @;ithdra;n @ta(en out of @extracted 7or @isolated8 or , estranged+ That is all that is contained in the original et$.ological .eaning of these ;ords+ The rest pertains to the philosophical conception that is expressed through the.+ The opposition of .edie)al realis. and no.inalis. is not rele)ant to the direct et$.ological .eanings of the ;ords @abstract and @concrete+ *oth no.inalists and realists e<uall$ appl$ the ter. @concrete to separate sensuall$ percei)ed and directl$ obser)ed @things indi)idual ob>ects ;hile the ter. @abstract is applied to all concepts and na.es designating or expressing their general @for.s+ The difference lies in that the for.er belie)e na.es to be .erel$ sub>ecti)e designations of indi)idual concrete things ;hereas the latter belie)e that these abstract na.es express eternal and i..utable @for.s ha)ing their existence in the ;o.b of di)ine reason the protot$pes in accordance ;ith ;hich the di)ine po;er creates indi)idual things+ Conte.pt for the ;orld of sensuall$ percei)ed things for the @flesh that is characteristic of the Christian ;orld6)ie; in general and is particularl$ clearl$ expressed in realis. deter.ines the fact that the abstract 7estranged fro. the flesh fro. sensualit$ the purel$ cogniti)e8 is belie)ed to be .uch .ore )aluable 7both on the ethical and episte.ological planes8 than the concrete+ The concrete is here a full s$non$. of the sensuall$ percei)ed indi)idual carnal .undane transient 7@co.posite and therefore doo.ed to disintegration to disappearance8+ The abstract is a s$non$. of the eternal i.perishable indi)isible di)inel$ instituted uni)ersal absolute etc+ An indi)idual @round bod$ ;ill disappear but the @round bod$J in general exists eternall$ as for. as entelech$ creating ne; round bodies+ The concrete is transient elusi)e fleeting+ The abstract exists i..utabl$ constituting the essence the in)isible sche.e upon ;hich the ;orld is built+ 5t is the scholastic conception of the abstract and the concrete that is at the botto. of the anti<uarian respect for the abstract ;hich 0egel later so causticall$ ridiculed+ The .aterialist philosoph$ of the 16th and 1Kth centuries ;hich for.ing an alliance ;ith natural science co..enced to destro$ the foundations of the religious and scholastic ;orld)ie; in effect re6interpreted the categories of the abstract and the concrete+ The direct sense of these ter.s re.ained the sa.eA the ter. @concrete referred >ust as in scholastic doctrines to indi)idual sensuall$ percei)ed things and their graphic i.ages ;hile the ter. @abstract ;as used to refer to the general for.s of these things to i..utabl$ recurring properties and la;6 go)erned relations of these things expressed in ter.s na.es and nu.bers+ 0o;e)er the philosophico6 theoretical content of these categories beca.e the opposite of the scholastic one+ The concrete that ;hich is gi)en to .an in sensual experience ca.e to be understood as the onl$ realit$ ;orth$ of attention and stud$ and the abstract as a .ere sub>ecti)e ps$chological shado; of that realit$ its .eagre .ental sche.a+ The abstract beca.e a s$non$. for expression of sensual e.pirical data in ;ords and figures a s$non$. for a sign description of the concrete+ *ut this interpretation of the relationship bet;een the abstract and the concrete characteristic of the first steps in natural science and .aterialist philosoph$ )er$ soon ca.e into contradiction ;ith the practice of natural6historical research+ 3atural science and .aterialist philosoph$ of the 16th61!th centuries tended .ore and .ore to;ards .echanistic )ie;s and that .eant that te.poral and spatial characteristics and abstract geo.etrical for.s beca.e recognised as the onl$ ob>ecti)e <ualities and relations of things and pheno.ena+ The rest appeared as .ere sub>ecti)e illusion created b$ .ans sense organs+ 5n other ;ords e)er$thing @concrete ;as concei)ed as a product of the activity of the sense organs, as a certain ps$choph$siological state of the sub>ect as a sub>ecti)el$ coloured replica of the colourless abstract geo.etrical original+ the pri.e tas( of cognition ;as also )ie;ed in a ne; lightA to obtain the truth one had to erase or ;ash off all the colours superi.posed b$ sensualit$ upon the sensuall$ percei)ed i.age of things baring the abstract geo.etrical s(eleton the sche.a+ %o the concrete ;as interpreted as sub>ecti)e illusion .erel$ as a state of the sense organs ;hile the ob>ect outside consciousness ;as transfor.ed into so.ething entirel$ abstract+ L

The picture thus obtained ;as as follo;sA outside .ans consciousness there exists nothing but eternall$ i..utable abstract geo.etrical particles co.bined according to identical eternal and i..utable abstract .athe.atical sche.es ;hile the concrete is ;ithin the sub>ect onl$ as a for. of sensor$ perception of the abstract geo.etrical bodies+ 0ence the for.ulaA the onl$ correct ;a$ to truth is through soaring a;a$ fro. the concrete 7the fallacious false sub>ecti)e8 to the abstract 7as the expression of eternal and i..utable sche.es for constructing bodies8+ This deter.ines the strong no.inalistic bias in the philosoph$ of the 16th61!th centuries+ An$ concept except for the .athe.atical ones ;as si.pl$ interpreted as an artificiall$ in)ented sign a na.e ser)ing as an aid to .e.or$ to ordering the )aried data of experience to co..unication ;ith other .en etc+ Eeorge *er(ele$ and Da)id 0u.e the sub>ecti)e idealists of those ti.es directl$ reduced concepts to na.es to designations to con)entional signs or s$.bols be$ond ;hich the$ belie)ed it ;ould be absurd to loo( for an$ other content except for a certain si.ilarit$ of series of sensual i.pressions the co..on ele.ent in experience+ This tendenc$ beca.e particularl$ fir.6rooted in #ngland and is still li)ing out its da$s in the shape of neo6positi)ist conceptions+ The ;ea(nesses of this approach that ;as in its perfect for. characteristic of sub>ecti)e idealis. ;ere also peculiar to .an$ .aterialists of that age+ Particularl$ stri(ing in this respect ;ere the studies of Dohn /oc(e+ 0obbes and 0el)Mtius ;ere no exception either+ 5n their ;or( this approach ;as present as a tendenc$ obscuring their basicall$ .aterialist positions+ Ta(en to an extre.e this )ie; results in logical categories being dissol)ed in ps$chological and e)en linguistic gra..atical ones+ Thus 0el)Mtius defines the .ethod of abstraction as a .eans to fix @a great nu.ber of ob>ects in our .e.or$+ 0e regards @abuse of ;ords as one of the .ost i.portant causes of error+ 0obbes follo;s a si.ilar line of reasoningA =Fherefore as .en o;e all their True 2atiocination to the right understanding of %peech; %o also the$ o;e their #rrors to the .isunderstanding of the sa.e?+ %ince rational cognition of the external ;orld ;as reduced to a purel$ <uantitati)e .athe.atical processing of data and for the rest to ordering and )erbal recording of sensual i.ages the place of logic ;as naturall$ ta(en on the one hand b$ .athe.atics and on the other b$ the science of co.bination and di)ision of ter.s and propositions the science of the correct usage of ;ords created b$ .en+ This no.inalistic reduction of the concept to the ;ord the ter. and of thin(ing to the abilit$ for correct usage of ;ords that ;e oursel)es create under.ined the .aterialist principle itself+ /oc(e the classical representati)e and the originator of this )ie; found alread$ that the concept of substance could neither be explained nor >ustified as si.pl$ @the general in experience as the broadest possible uni)ersal as an abstraction fro. indi)idual things+ 3aturall$ *er(ele$ rushed into this broach using the /oc(ean theor$ of concept for.ation against .aterialis. and against the )er$ concept of substance+ 0e declared it to be a .eaningless na.e+ Continuing his anal$sis of the basic concepts of philosoph$ 0u.e pro)ed that the ob>ecti)e character of such a concept as causalit$ could also be neither pro)ed nor )erified b$ reference to the fact that it expressed @the general in experience for abstraction fro. the sensuall$ gi)en indi)idual ob>ects and pheno.ena fro. the concrete .ight >ust as ;ell express the identit$ of the ps$choph$siological structure of the sub>ect percei)ing things rather than an identit$ of the things the.sel)es+ The narro; e.pirical theor$ of the concept reducing it to a .ere abstraction fro. indi)idual pheno.ena and perceptions reflected onl$ the superficial ps$chological aspects of rational cognition+ 1n the surface thought indeed appears as abstraction of the @identical fro. indi)idual things as ascending to increasingl$ co.prehensi)e and uni)ersal abstractions+ %uch a theor$ ho;e)er .a$ e<uall$ ;ell ser)e dia.etricall$ opposite philosophical conceptions b$passing as it does the .ost i.portant point6the <uestion of the ob>ecti)e truth of uni)ersal concepts+ Consistent .aterialists realised the ;ea(ness of the no.inalistic )ie; of the concept its )ulnerabilit$ to idealist speculations and errors+ %pino'a stressed that the concept of substance expressing the @first principle of nature cannot be concei)ed abstractedl$ or uni)ersall$ and cannot extend further in the understanding than it does in realit$+ B%pino'a Improvement of the nderstanding, !thics and Correspondence trans+ to #nglish 1901C There is an idea running through %pino'as entire treatise6that si.ple @uni)ersals si.ple abstractions fro. the sensuall$ gi)en .ultifor.it$ recorded in na.es and ter.s are .erel$ a for. of )ague i.aginati)e cognition+ Eenuinel$ scientific @true ideas do not e.erge in that ;a$+ The establish.ent of @the differences the agree.ents and the oppositions of things is according to %pino'a the .ode of @chaotic experience uncontrolled b$ reason+ @Moreo)er its 7of the .ode of perception N #d+8 results are O

)er$ uncertain and indefinite for ;e shall ne)er disco)er an$thing in natural pheno.ena b$ its .eans except accidental properties ;hich are ne)er clearl$ understood unless the essence of the things in <uestion be (no;n first+ Bibid+C To begin ;ith the @chaotic experience for.ing uni)ersals is ne)er co.pleted so that an$ ne; fact .a$ o)erthro; the abstraction+ %econd it contains no guarantees that the gi)en uni)ersal reall$ expresses a genuine uni)ersal for. of things rather than a .erel$ sub>ecti)e fiction+ 5n opposition to @chaotic experience and its philosophical >ustification in e.piric conceptions %pino'a sets up a higher .ode of cognition based on strictl$ )erified principles and concepts expressing @the ade<uate essence of a thing+ These are no longer @uni)ersals no longer abstractions fro. the sensuall$ gi)en .ultifor.it$+ 0o; are the$ for.ed and ;here do the$ co.e fro.G Co..ents on this point often run as follo;sA these ideas 7principles uni)ersal concepts8 are contained in the hu.an intellect a priori and brought out b$ an act of intuition or self6conte.plation+ 5n this interpretation %pino'as position beco.es )er$ .uch li(e that of /eibni' or &ant and has )er$ little to do ;ith .aterialis.+ *ut in realit$ it is all rather different6<uite different in fact+ The thin(ing of ;hich %pino'a treats is b$ no .eans the thin(ing of a hu.an indi)idual+ This concept is b$ no .eans fashioned in his theor$ after the .odel of indi)idual consciousness but is actuall$ oriented at .an(inds theoretical self6consciousness at the spiritual6theoretical culture as a ;hole+ 5ndi)idual consciousness is ta(en into account onl$ insofar as it e.bodies this thin(ing that is thin(ing ;hich agrees ;ith the nature of things+ An indi)iduals intellect does not necessaril$ contain the ideas of reason at all and no self6conte.plation ho;e)er the rough it .a$ be can disco)er the. in it+ The$ .ature and cr$stallise in the hu.an intellect onl$ graduall$ through reasons indefatigable ;or( ai.ed at its o;n perfection+ These concepts are b$ no .eans self6ob)ious to an intellect that is not de)eloped through this (ind of ;or(+ The$ are si.pl$ absent in it+ 5t is onl$ reasonable (no;ledge ta(en as a ;hole that as it de)elops ;or(s out such concepts+ %pino'a fir.l$ asserts this )ie; b$ an analog$ ;ith the perfection of instru.ents of .aterial labour+
As far as the =.ethod for finding out the truth Bis concernedC the .atter stands on the sa.e footing as the .a(ing of .aterial tools++++ -or in order to ;or( iron a ha..er is needed and the ha..er cannot be forthco.ing unless it has been .ade; but in order to .a(e it there ;as need of another ha..er and other tools and so on to infinit$+ Fe .ight thus )ainl$ endea)our to pro)e that .en ha)e no po;er of ;or(ing iron+

=*ut as .en at first .ade use of the instru.ents supplied b$ nature to acco.plish )er$ eas$ pieces of ;or(.anship laboriousl$ and i.perfectl$ and then ;hen these ;ere finished ;rought other things .ore difficult ;ith less labour and greater perfection++++ %o in li(e .anner the intellect b$ its nati)e strength .a(es for itself intellectual instru.ents ;hereb$ it ac<uires strength for perfor.ing other intellectual operations and fro. these operations gets again fresh instru.ents or the po;er of pushing its in)estigations further and thus graduall$ proceeds till it reaches the su..it of ;isdo.+? Bibid+C Tr$ as one .ight this argu.ent can hardl$ be .ade to rese.ble the )ie; of Descartes according to ;ho. the higher ideas of intuition are directl$ contained in the intellect or to that of /eibni' according to ;ho. these ideas are so.ething li(e the )eins in .arble+ According to %pino'a the$ are innate in <uite a specific sense6as natural that is inherent fro. nature intellectual capabilities in precisel$ the sa.e ;a$ as .ans hand is originall$ a @natural instru.ent+ 0ere %pino'a atte.pts a funda.entall$ .aterialist interpretation of the innateness of @intellectual instru.ents deducing it fro. .ans natural organisation rather than fro. the @Eod of Descartes or /eibni'+ Fhat+ %pino'a failed to understand ;as the fact that the originall$ i.perfect @intellectual instru.ents are products of .aterial labour rather than of nature+ 0e belie)ed the. to be products of nature and in this and onl$ this point lies the ;ea(ness of his position+ *ut this ;ea(ness is shared b$ -euerbach e)en+ This defect can b$ no .eans be regarded as idealist ;a)ering+ That is .erel$ an organic shortco.ing of the entire old .aterialis.+ %pino'as rationalis. should therefore be strictl$ distinguished fro. the rationalis. of both Descartes and /eibni'+ 0is contention is that .ans abilit$ to thin( is inherent in .ans nature and is explained fro. substance interpreted in a clearl$ .aterialistic .anner+ Fhen %pino'a calls thin(ing an attribute, that .eans precisel$ thisA the essence of substance should not be reduced to extension onl$; thin(ing pertains to that )er$ nature to ;hich extension belongs6it is a propert$ >ust as inseparable fro. nature 7or substance8 as extension and corporealit$+ 5t cannot be concei)ed of separatel$+ 6

5t is precisel$ this )ie; that .oti)ated %pino'as criticis. of @abstract uni)ersals of those ;a$s in ;hich scholastics occasionalists and no.inalist e.piricists atte.pt to explain substance+ That is the reason ;h$ %pino'a held a lo; )ie; of the path fro. concrete existence to an abstract uni)ersal+ This .ode is incapable of sol)ing the proble. of substance al;a$s lea)ing a gap for scholastic and religious constructions+ %pino'a rightl$ belie)ed that the ;a$ leading fro. concrete existence to an e.pt$ uni)ersal the ;a$ explaining the concrete b$ a reduction to an e.pt$ abstraction ;as of little )alue fro. the scientific standpoint+
=Thus the .ore existence is concei)ed generall$ the .ore is it concei)ed confusedl$ and the .ore easil$ can it be ascribed to a gi)en ob>ect+ Contrari;ise the .ore it is concei)ed particularl$ the .ore is it understood clearl$ and the less liable is it to be ascribed through negligence of 3atures order to an$thing sa)e its proper ob>ect+? B ibid+C

3o co..ents are needed to realise that this )ie; is .uch closer to the truth than the )ie; of narro; e.piricis. insisting that the essence of rational cognition of things lies in regular ascents to increasingl$ .ore general and e.pt$ abstractions in .o)ing a;a$ fro. the concrete specific essence of things under stud$+ According to %pino'a this ;a$ does not lead fro. the )ague to the clear but on the contrar$ it leads a;a$ fro. the goal+ The ;a$ of rational cognition is precisel$ the re)erse+ 5t begins ;ith a clearl$ established general principle 7but not ;ith an abstract uni)ersal b$ an$ .eans8 and proceeds as a step6b$6step .ental reconstruction of a thing as reasoning ;hich deduces the things particular properties fro. its uni)ersal cause 7ulti.atel$ fro. substance8+ A genuine idea as distinct fro. a si.ple abstract uni)ersal .ust contain necessit$ follo;ing ;hich one can explain all the directl$ obser)able properties of the thing+ As for @uni)ersals the$ reflect one of the .ore or less accidental properties out of ;hich no other properties are deducible+ %pino'a explains this conception of his b$ citing an exa.ple fro. geo.etr$6a definition of the essence of a circle+ 5f ;e define a circle as a figure in ;hich @all straight lines dra;n fro. the centre to the circu.ference are e<ual e)er$ one can see that such a definition does not in the least explain the essence of a circle but solel$ one of its properties+ According to the correct .ode of definition a circle is @the figure described b$ an$ line ;hereof one end is fixed and the other free+ This definition indicating the mode of the origin of a thing and a co.prehension of the @proxi.ate cause and thereb$ containing a .ode of its .ental reconstruction enables one to deduce all the other properties of it including the one pointed out abo)e+ Bibid+C 1ne should thus proceed not fro. a @uni)ersal but rather fro. a concept expressing the actual real cause of the thing its concrete essence+ Therein lies the gist of %pino'as .ethod+
=+++ Fe .a$ ne)er ;hile ;e are concerned ;ith in<uiries into actual things dra; an$ conclusions fro. abstractions; ;e shall be extre.el$ careful not to confound that ;hich is onl$ in the understanding of the thing itself?+ Bibid+C

5t is not the Jreduction of the concrete to the abstractJ or explanation of the concrete through including it into a uni)ersal that leads to the truth but on the contrar$ deduction of the particular properties fro. the actual uni)ersal cause+ 5n this connection %pino'a distinguishes bet;een t;o (inds of general ideasA notiones communes, or concepts expressing the reall$ uni)ersal cause of the origin of a thing and the si.pler abstract uni)ersals expressing si.ple si.ilarities or differences of .an$ indi)idual things notiones generalis universales" The for.er include substance the latter for instance existence in general+ To bring an$ thing under the head of the general @uni)ersal of the existing .eans to explain absolutel$ nothing about it+ This used to be the )acuous preoccupation of scholastics+ Forse still is the deduction of the properties of things according to the for.al rules of s$llogistics ex abstractis N @fro. the uni)ersal+ 5t is difficult to stud$ and .entall$ reconstruct the entire process of the e.ergence of all the particular specific properties of a thing fro. one and the sa.e reall$ uni)ersal actual cause expressed in the intellect b$ the notiones communes+ This @deduction is .erel$ a for. of reconstructing in the intellect of the real process of emergence of a thing out of nature out of @substance+ This deduction is not for.ed according to the rules of s$llogistics but according to the @truth nor. the nor. of agree.ent unit$ of thin(ing and extension of the intellect and the external ;orld+ 5t ;ould hardl$ be appropriate to discuss here the shortco.ings of %pino'as conception as the$ are ;ell (no;nA %pino'a failed to understand the connection bet;een thin(ing and practical acti)it$ ;ith ob>ects bet;een theor$ and practice the role of practice as the onl$ ob>ecti)e criterion of the truth of a concrete K

concept+ -ro. the for.al standpoint %pino'as )ie; is of course inco.parabl$ deeper and closer to the truth than /oc(es+ /oc(es theor$ afforded an eas$ transition to *er(ele$ or 0u.e ;ithout an$ essential alterations .erel$ through interpreting its propositions+ %pino'as position is not a.enable to such an interpretation in principle+ 5t is not for nothing that conte.porar$ positi)ists brand this theor$ as @ran( .etaph$sics ;hereas /oc(e so.eti.es rates a polite bo;+ %pino'as conception of the nature and for.al co.position of concretel$ uni)ersal concepts 7that see.s to be the best ;a$ of rendering his ter. notiones communes8 as opposed 6to si.ple abstract uni)ersals abounds in brilliant anticipations of dialectics+ -or instance the concept of @substance a t$pical and principal exa.ple of such a concept is ob)iousl$ )ie;ed as a unit$ of t;o .utuall$ exclusi)e and at the sa.e ti.e .utuall$ assu.ing definitions+ Thin(ing and extension t;o attributes and t;o .odes of realisation of substance ha)e nothing abstract# general in co..on and neither can the$ ha)e an$thing of the (ind in co..on+ 5n other ;ords there is no abstract feature that ;ould si.ultaneousl$ for. part of the definition of thin(ing and of the definition of the external ;orld 7@extended ;orld8+ This feature ;ould be a uni)ersal that ;ould be broader than the definition of the external ;orld and of thin(ing+ %uch a feature ;ould not he co.patible either ;ith the nature of thin(ing or that of extension+ 5t ;ould not reflect an$thing real outside intellect+ The conception of @Eod characteristic of scholastics is constructed precisel$ out of such features+ According to Malebranche both extended and ideal things are @conte.plated in Eod6in that general ele.ent that .ediates bet;een the idea and the thing as a .iddle ter. as a feature co..on to both+ And such a co..on ele.ent 7in the sense of an abstract uni)ersal8 bet;een thin(ing and extension does not exist+ Fhat is co..on to both of the. is their pri.ordial unit$+ %pino'as Eod therefore e<uals nature plus thin(ing a unit$ of opposites of t;o attributes+ *ut in this case there is nothing left of the traditional Eod+ Fhat is called Eod is actuall$ the extended nature as a ;hole ;ith thought as an aspect of its essence+ 1nl$ nature as a ;hole possesses thin(ing as its attribute as an absolutel$ necessar$ propert$+ A separate li.ited+ part of the extended ;orld does not necessaril$ ha)e this propert$+ -or instance a stone as a .ode does not @thin( at all+ *ut it does for. part of @substance that thin(s it is its .ode its particle N and it .a$ ;ell thin( if it for.s part of an appropriate structure beco.ing e+g+ a particle of the hu.an bod$+ 7That ;as exactl$ the ;a$ in ;hich Diderot decoded the .ain idea of %pino'as teachingA can a stone feelG N 5t can+ All $ou ha)e to do is pound it gro; a plant on the po;der and eat the plant transfor.ing the .atter of the stone into the .atter of a sentient bod$+8 0o;e)er these brilliant glea.s of dialectics in %pino'a co.bined ;ith a funda.entall$ .aterialist )ie; of the hu.an intellect ;ere buried in the general flo; of .etaph$sical thin(ing in the 1Kth and 1!th centuries being deluged b$ it+ The /oc(ean theor$ of abstraction ;ith its bias to;ards no.inalis. for so.e reasons pro)ed to be .ore acceptable for the natural and social sciences of the ti.es+ The rational (ernels of %pino'as dialectics ca.e to the surface onl$ in Eer.an classical philosoph$ late in the 1!th and earl$ in the 19th centur$ and ;ere de)eloped on a .aterialist basis onl$ b$ Marx and #ngels+ 5..anuel &ant endea)ouring to reconcile the principles of rationalis. and e.piricis. on the basis of sub>ecti)e6idealist )ie;s of cognition ;as dri)en to the conclusion that a hard and fast di)ision of concepts into t;o classes abstract and concrete ;as in general i.possible+ As &ant puts it it is absurd to as( ;hether a separate concept is abstract or concrete if it is considered outside its lin(s ;ith other concepts outside its usage+
The expressions abstract and concrete refer not so .uch to the concepts the.sel)es6for an$ concept is an abstract concept6as to their usage" And this usage can again ha)e different grades;6according as one treats a concept no; .ore no; less abstract or concrete that is ta(es a;a$ fro. or adds to it no; .ore no; fe;er definitions ;rites &ant in his Logic+

According to &ant a concept if it is reall$ a concept rather than an e.pt$ appellation a na.e of an indi)idual thing al;a$s expresses so.ething in general a generic or specific definiteness of a thing and is thus al;a$s abstract ;hether it be substance or chal( ;hiteness or )irtue+ 1n the other hand an$ such concept is in so.e ;a$ or other defined @;ithin itself through a nu.ber of its features+ The .ore such featuresIdefinitions are added to a concept the .ore concrete it is in &ants )ie; that is the .ore definite richer in definitions+ The .ore concrete it is the fuller it characterises the e.piricall$ gi)en indi)idual things+ 5f a concept is defined through inclusion in @higher genera through @logical !

abstraction it is used in abstracts$ it is applicable to a greater nu.ber of indi)idual things and species but the nu.ber of definitions in its co.position is fe;er+
Through abstract usage a concept approaches a higher genus through concrete usage on the contrar$ it approaches the indi)idual++++ Through )er$ abstract concepts ;e learn little about .an$ things; through )er$ concrete concepts ;e learn .uch about fe; things;6thus ;hat ;e ;in on one side ;e lose again on the other+ B&ant op" cit"C

The li.it of concreteness is thus a sensuall$ conte.plated indi)idual thing a separate pheno.enon+ A concept ho;e)er ne)er reaches this li.it+ 1n the other hand the highest and .ost abstract concept al;a$s retains in its co.position a certain unit$ a certain s$nthesis of different definitions that one cannot brea( up 7through for.ulating the ulti.ate definition8 ;ithout .a(ing the concept senseless ;ithout destro$ing it as such+ -or this reason e)en the highest generic concept has a .easure of concreteness+ 0ere the e.piric tendenc$ the /oc(ean tradition apparentl$ .a(es itself felt+ 0o;e)er &ant co.bines ;ith it an extre.el$ rationalistic )ie; of the nature of @s$nthesis of definitions of a concept+ This s$nthesis or co.bining of definitions in the concept 7that is the concreteness of the concept8 naturall$ cannot be si.pl$ oriented at the sensuall$ gi)en e.pirical .ultifor.it$ of pheno.ena+ To clai. a theoretical significance this s$nthesis .ust be based on another principle the abilit$ to co.bine definitions a priori independentl$ of e.pirical experience+ The concreteness of a concept 7that is that unit$ in di)ersit$ the unit$ of different definitions that has a uni)ersal and necessar$ significance8 is thereb$ explained and deduced b$ &ant fro. the nature of hu.an consciousness ;hich allegedl$ possesses original unit$ the transcendental unit$ of apperception+ This latter is precisel$ the genuine basis of the concreteness of a concept+ 5n this ;a$ the concreteness of a concept has no fir. lin(s ;ith @things6in6the.sel)es ;ith the sensuall$ gi)en concreteness+ 0egel also assu.ed that an$ concept ;as abstract if abstractness is to be interpreted as the fact that a concept ne)er expresses in its definitions the sensuall$ conte.plated realit$ in its entiret$+ 0egel ;as in this sense .uch closer to /oc(e than to Mill or .edie)al no.inalis.+ 0e realised <uite ;ell that definitions of concepts al;a$s include an expression of so.ething general if onl$ because concepts are al;a$s e.bodied in ;ords and ;ords are al;a$s abstract the$ al;a$s express so.ething general and are incapable of expressing the absolutel$ indi)idual and uni<ue+ Therefore an$one thin(s abstractl$ and the thin(ing is the .ore abstract the poorer in definitions those concepts that one uses+ Abstract thin(ing is b$ no .eans a )irtue but on the contrar$ a shortco.ing+ That is the ;hole point N thin(ing concretel$ expressing through abstractions the concrete and specific nature of things rather than .ere si.ilarit$ .erel$ so.ething that different things ha)e in co..on+ The concrete is interpreted b$ 0egel as unit$ in di)ersit$ as unit$ of different and opposing definitions as .ental expression of organic lin(s of s$ncretis. of the separate abstract definitenesses of an ob>ect ;ithin the gi)en specific ob>ect+ As for the abstract 0egel interpreted it 7>ust as /oc(e did but not Mill or the scholastics8 as an$thing general an$ si.ilarit$ expressed in ;ord and concept a si.ple identit$ of a nu.ber of things ;ith one another ;hether it be house or ;hiteness .an or )alue a dog or )irtue+ The concept @house is in this sense in no ;a$ different fro. the concept @(indness+ *oth register in their definitions the co..on ele.ents inherent in a ;hole class series genus or species of indi)idual things pheno.ena spiritual states etc+ 5f a ;ord ter. s$.bol na.e express onl$ that N onl$ the abstract si.ilarit$ of a nu.ber of indi)idual things pheno.ena or i.ages of consciousness N that is not $et a concept according to 0egel+ That is .erel$ an abstractl$ general notion or representation %&orstellung', a for. of e.pirical (no;ledge of the sensual stage of consciousness+ This pseudo6concept al;a$s has a certain sensuall$ gi)en i.age for its .eaning or sense+ As for concepts the$ express not .erel$ the general but the general that contains the richness of particulars co.prehended in their unit$+ 5n other ;ords a genuine concept is not onl$ abstract 70egel of course does not negate that8 but also concrete6in the sense that its definitions 7;hat old logic calls features8 are co.bined in it in a single co.plex expressing the unit$ of things rather than .erel$ >oined according to the rules of gra..ar+ The concreteness of a concept lies according to 0egel in the unit$ of definitions their .eaningful cohesion N the onl$ .eans of re)ealing the content of a concept+ 1ut of context an indi)idual )erbal 9

definition is abstract and abstract onl$+ 5..ersed into the context of a scientific theoretical discourse an$ abstract definition beco.es concrete+ The genuine sense genuine content of each abstract definition ta(en separatel$ is re)ealed through its lin(s ;ith other definitions of the sa.e (ind through a concrete unity of abstract definitions" The concrete essence of a proble. is therefore al;a$s expressed through unfolding all the necessar$ definitions of the ob>ect in their .utual connections rather than through an abstract @definition+ That is ;h$ a concept according to 0egel does not exist as a separate ;ord ter. or s$.bol+ 5t exists onl$ in the process of unfolding in a proposition in a s$llogis. expressing connectedness of separate definitions and ulti.atel$ onl$ in a s$ste. of propositions and s$llogis.s onl$ in an integral ;ell6 de)eloped theor$+ 5f a concept is pulled out of this connection ;hat re.ains of it is .ere )erbal integu.ent a linguistic s$.bol+ The content of the concept its .eaning re.ains outside it6in series of other definitions for a ;ord ta(en separatel$ is onl$ capable of designating an ob>ect na.ing it it is onl$ capable of ser)ing as a sign s$.bol .ar(er or s$.pto.+ Thus the concrete .eaning of a separate )erbal definition is al;a$s contained in so.ething else6;hether it be a sensuall$ gi)en i.age or a ;ell6de)eloped s$ste. of theoretical definitions expressing the essence of the proble. the essence of the ob>ect pheno.enon or e)ent+ 5f a definition exists in the head separatel$ in isolation fro. the sensuall$ conte.plated i.age unconnected ;ith it or ;ith a s$ste. @of other definitions it is ratiocinated abstractl$+ There is certainl$ nothing co..endable about this ;a$ of ratiocination+ Thin(ing abstractl$ .erel$ .eans thin(ing unconnectedl$ thin(ing of an indi)idual propert$ of a thing ;ithout understanding its lin(s ;ith other properties ;ithout realising the place and role of this propert$ in realit$+ @Fho thin(s abstractl$G as(s 0egel; and his ans;er is @An uneducated person not an educated one+ A .ar(et6;o.an thin(s abstractl$ 7that is one6sidedl$ in accidental and unconnected definitions8 in regarding all .en exclusi)el$ fro. her o;n narro; prag.atic )ie;point seeing the. onl$ as ob>ects of s;indling; a .artinet thin(s abstractl$ in regarding a pri)ate onl$ as so.eone to be beaten up; an idler in the street thin(s abstractl$ in seeing a person being ta(en to execution onl$ as a .urderer and ignoring all of his other <ualities not interested in the histor$ of his life the causes of his cri.e and so on+ Contrari;ise a @(no;er of .en thin(ing concretel$ ;ill not be satisfied ;ith tagging pheno.ena ;ith abstract indices6 a .urderer a soldier a bu$er+ %till less ;ill the @(no;er of .en )ie; these general abstract tags as expressions of the essence of an object, pheno.enon .an e)ent+ A concept re)ealing the essence of the .atter is onl$ unfolded through a s$ste. through series of definitions expressing separate .o.ents aspects properties <ualities or relations of the indi)idual ob>ect all these separate aspects of the concept being lin(ed b$ a logical connection not .erel$ concatenated in so.e for.al co.plex gra..aticall$ 7b$ .eans of such ;ords as @and @or @if +++ then @is etc+8+ The idealis. of 0egels conception of the abstract and the concrete consists in that he regards abilit$ for s$nthesising abstract definitions as a pri.ordial propert$ of thin(ing as a di)ine gift rather than the uni)ersal connection expressed in consciousness of the actual ob>ecti)e sensuall$ percei)ed realit$ independent of an$ thin(ing+ The concrete is in the final anal$sis interpreted as the product of thought+ That is also idealis. of course but a .uch .ore @intelligent one than &ants sub>ecti)e idealis.+ /ate 19th6centur$ bourgeois philosoph$ that ;as graduall$ sliding to;ards positi)is. pro)ed incapable of re.e.bering e)en the )ie;s of &ant and /oc(e let alone %pino'a or 0egel+ To ta(e a particularl$ clear exa.ple N Mill belie)ed /oc(es theor$ of abstraction and its relation to concreteness to be an @abuse of those concepts that in his )ie; ;ere conclusi)el$ established b$ .edie)al scholastics+
=5 ha)e used the ;ords concrete and abstract in the sense annexed to the. b$ the school.en ;ho not;ithstanding the i.perfections of their philosoph$ ;ere unri)alled in the construction of technical language and ;hose definitions in logic at least ha)e seldo. 5 thin( been altered but to be spoiled+? BMill (ystem of LogicC

The /oc(e school in Mills )ie; co..itted an unforgi)able sin in extending the expression @abstract na.e to all @general na.es that is to all @concepts @;hich are the result of abstraction or generalisation+ Bibid+C %u..ing up Mill declaresA
*$ abstract, then 5 shall al;a$s in /ogic proper .ean the opposite of concrete$ by an abstract na.e the na.e of an attribute; b$ a concrete na.e the na.e of an ob>ect+J B ibid+C

This @usage is in Mill closel$ lin(ed ;ith his sub>ecti)e6idealist conception of the relation bet;een thought and ob>ecti)e realit$+ 10

Mill does not li(e /oc(es )ie; that all concepts 7except for indi)idual na.es8 are abstract all of the. being products of abstracting an identical propert$ the general for. of .an$ indi)idual things+ 5n Mills opinion this usage depri)es a ;hole class of ;ords of a brief specific designation na.el$ the class of na.es of attributes+ *$ attributes or properties Mill .eans general properties <ualities or relations bet;een indi)idual things that .a$ and .ust be concei)ed abstractl$ that is separatel$ fro. the indi)idual things as specific ob>ects+ Thus concepts li(e @house or @fire @.an or @chair cannot be thought of in an$ other ;a$ than as a co..on propert$ of indi)idual things+ @0ouse @fire @;hiteness @roundness al;a$s pertain to so.e indi)idual thing or other as their characteristic+ 1ne cannot concei)e @fire as so.ething existing separatel$ fro. indi)idual fires+ @Fhiteness too cannot be concei)ed as so.ething existing separatel$ outside indi)idual things and independent fro. the.+ All of these general properties exist onl$ as general for.s of indi)idual ob>ects onl$ in the indi)idual and through the indi)idual+ Therefore concei)ing the. abstractl$ ;ould .ean concei)ing the. incorrectl$+ Abstract na.es na.es of @attributes are <uite a different .atter+ Abstract na.es 7or concepts ;hich is one and the sa.e thing according to Mill8 express general properties <ualities and relations that not onl$ .a$ but e)en .ust be concei)ed independentl$ fro. indi)idual ob>ects as separate ob>ects although in direct conte.plation the$ appear to be the sa.e (ind of general properties of indi)idual things as @;hiteness @;oodenness @fire or @gentle.an+ A.ong such concepts Mill includes @;hiteness courage @e<ualit$ @si.ilarit$ @s<uareness @)isibleness @)alue etc+ These are also general na.es but the ob>ects of these na.es 7or ;hat in for.al logic is referred to as the content of these concepts8 should not be concei)ed as general properties of indi)idual things+ All these properties <ualities or relations are onl$ erroneousl$ ta(en to be the general properties of the 7indi)idual8 things the.sel)es sa$s Mill+ 5n actual fact all these @ob>ects exist not in the things but outside the. independentl$ fro. the. though the$ are .erged ;ith the. in the act of perception appearing as general properties of indi)idual things+ Fhere do such ob>ects exist then if not in the indi)idual thingsG Mills ans;er isA in our o;n spirit+ These are either @-eelings or %tates of Consciousness or @the Minds ;hich experience these feelings or @the %uccessions and Co6existences the /i(enesses and 4nli(enesses bet;een feelings or states of consciousness+ Bibid+C All these ob>ects should also be concei)ed abstractl$ that is separatel$ fro. things precisel$ because the$ are no properties <ualities or relations of these things+ Concei)ing the. separatel$ fro. things .eans concei)ing the. correctl$+ The funda.ental defect of this deli.itation lies in it stipulating that so.e concepts should be lin(ed in the .ind ;ith indi)idual things 7pheno.ena8 gi)en in conte.plation ;hile others should be considered outside this connection as specific ob>ects concei)ed <uite independentl$ fro. an$ indi)idual pheno.ena ;hatsoe)er+ -or exa.ple )alue in general )alue as such .a$ according to Mill be concei)ed in abstraction ;ithout anal$sing an$ of the t$pes of its existence outside the head+ This .a$ and .ust be done precisel$ for the reason that it does not exist as a real propert$ of ob>ects outside the head+ 5t onl$ exists as an artificial .ethod of assess.ent or .easure.ent as a general principle of .ans sub>ecti)e attitude to the ;orld of things that is as a certain .oral attitude+ 5t cannot therefore be considered as a propert$ of things the.sel)es outside the head outside consciousness+ According to this (ind of logic of ;hich Mill is a classic representati)e that is precisel$ ;h$ )alue should be regarded onl$ as a concept onl$ as an a priori .oral pheno.enon independent fro. the ob>ecti)e properties of things outside the head and opposing the.+ As such it exists onl$ in self6 consciousness in abstract thin(ing+ That is ;h$ it can be concei)ed @abstractl$ and that ;ill be the correct .ode of considering it+ Fe ha)e dealt ;ith Mills )ie;s in such detail onl$ because the$ represent .ore consistentl$ and clearl$ than others the anti6dialectical tradition in the interpretation of the abstract and the concrete as logical categories+ This tradition is .anifested not onl$ as an anti6dialectical one but also as generall$ anti6 philosophic+ Mill consciousl$ re>ects the argu.ents de)eloped in ;orld philosoph$ during the past fe; centuries+ -or hi. not onl$ 0egel or &ant ne)er see. to ha)e existed N e)en /oc(es studies appear in the light of un;anted sophistication in dealing ;ith things that ;ere established absolutel$ rigorousl$ and for all ti.e to co.e b$ the .edie)al %chool.en+ That is ;h$ e)er$thing see.s so si.ple to hi.+ The concrete is that ;hich is i..ediatel$ gi)en in indi)idual experience as an @indi)idual thing an 11

indi)idual experience and a concrete concept is a )erbal s$.bol that .a$ be used as a na.e of an indi)idual ob>ect+ That s$.bol ;hich cannot be used as a direct na.e of an indi)idual thing is @the abstract+ 1ne .a$ sa$ @That is a red spot+ 1ne cannot sa$ @That is redness+ The for.er is therefore concrete the latter abstract+ That is all there is to it+ All neo6positi)ists retain the sa.e distinction the onl$ difference being that the abstract and the concrete 7>ust as all philosophical categories8 are here treated as linguistic categories and the <uestion of ;hether phrases expressing @abstract ob>ects are per.issible or i.per.issible is reduced to that of fruitfulness or expedienc$ of their utilisation in building @language fra.es+ @The abstract is here consistentl$ treated as e)er$thing that is not gi)en in indi)idual experience as an indi)idual thing and cannot be defined in ter.s of those t$pes of ob>ects that are gi)en in experience cannot be a direct na.e of indi)idual ob>ects that are .oreo)er interpreted in sub>ecti)e6idealist .anner+ This interpretation of the ter.s @abstract and @concrete is refuted b$ the entire heritage of the histor$ of philosoph$ and b$ Marxist philosoph$; ;e are no; passing on to the exposition of the treat.ent of these <uestions in the latter+

The Definition of the Concrete in Marx

Marx defines the concrete as @the unit$ of di)erse aspects+ BMarx Contribution to the Critique of )olitical !conomyC This definition .a$ appear paradoxical fro. the standpoint of traditional for.al logicA the reduction of the sensuall$ gi)en di)ersit$ to unit$ appears at first sight to be the tas( of abstract (no;ledge of things rather than of concrete one+ -ro. the point of )ie; of this logic to realise unit$ in the sensuall$ percei)ed di)ersit$ of pheno.ena .eans to re)eal the abstractl$ general identical ele.ents that all of these pheno.ena possess+ This abstract unit$ recorded in consciousness b$ .eans of a general ter. appears at first sight to be that )er$ @unit$ ;hich is the onl$ thing to be treated in logic+ 5ndeed if one is to interpret the transition fro. li)ing conte.plation and notion to the concept fro. the sensual stage of cognition to the rational onl$ as reduction of the sensuall$ gi)en di)ersit$ to abstract unit$ Marxs definition ;ill certainl$ see. hardl$ >ustifiable in @logical ter.s+ The ;hole point is ho;e)er that Marxs )ie;s are based on a conception of thin(ing its goals and tas(s <uite different fro. those on ;hich old non6dialectical logic built its theor$+ This is reflected not onl$ in the substance of the solution of logical proble.s but in ter.inolog$ as ;ell+ And that is ine)itableA @#)er$ ne; aspect of a science in)ol)es a re)olution in the technical ter.s of that science+ BMarx Capital 1!!6 PrefaceC Fhen Marx defines the concrete as unit$ of di)erse aspects he assu.es a dialectical interpretation of unit$ di)ersit$ and of their relationship+ 5n dialectics unit$ is interpreted first and fore.ost as connection as interconnection and interaction of different pheno.ena ;ithin a certain s$ste. or agglo.eration and not as abstract li(eness of these pheno.ena+ Marxs definition assu.es exactl$ this dialectical .eaning of the ter. @unit$+ 5f one unfolds so.e;hat Marxs aphoristicall$ laconic for.ula his definition of the concrete .eans literall$ the follo;ingA the concrete, concreteness, are first of all s$non$.s of the real lin(s bet;een pheno.ena of concatenation and interaction of all aspects and .o.ents of the ob>ect gi)en to .an in a notion+ The concrete is thereb$ interpreted as an internall$ di)ided totalit$ of )arious for.s of existence of the ob>ect a uni<ue co.bination of ;hich is characteristic of the gi)en ob>ect onl$+ 4nit$ thus concei)ed is realised not through si.ilarit$ of pheno.ena to each other but on the contrar$ through their difference and opposition+ This conception of unit$ in di)ersit$ 7or concreteness8 is not .erel$ different fro. the one ;hich old logic proceeded fro. but is its direct opposite+ The conception approaches that of the concept of integrit$ or ;holeness+ Marx uses this ter. in those cases ;hen he has to characterise the ob>ect as an integral ;hole unified in all its di)erse .anifestations as an organic s$ste. of .utuall$ conditioning pheno.ena in contradiction to a .etaph$sical conception of it as a .echanical agglo.eration of i..utable constituent parts that are lin(ed ;ith each other onl$ externall$ .ore or less accidentall$+ The .ost i.portant aspect of Marxs definition of the concrete is that the concrete is treated first of all as an ob>ecti)e characteristic of a thing considered <uite independentl$ fro. an$ e)olutions that .a$ ta(e place in the cognising sub>ect+ The ob>ect is concrete b$ and in itself independent fro. its being 1"

concei)ed b$ thought or percei)ed b$ sense organs+ Concreteness is not created in the process of reflection of the ob>ect b$ the sub>ect either at the sensual stage of reflection or at the rational6logical one+ 5n other ;ords @the concrete is first of all the sa.e (ind of ob>ecti)e categor$ as an$ other categor$ of .aterialist dialectics as @the necessar$ and @the accidental @essence and @appearance+ 5t expresses a uni)ersal for. of de)elop.ent of nature societ$ and thin(ing+ 5n the s$ste. of Marxs )ie;s @the concrete is b$ no .eans a s$non$. for the sensuall$ gi)en i..ediatel$ conte.plated+ 5nsofar as @the concrete is opposed to @the abstract the latter is treated b$ Marx first and fore.ost ob>ecti)el$+ -or Marx it is b$ no .eans a s$non$. of the @purel$ ideal of a product of .ental acti)it$ a s$non$. of the sub>ecti)el$ ps$chological pheno.enon occurring in .ans brain onl$+ Ti.e and again Marx uses this ter. to characterise real pheno.ena and relations existing outside consciousness irrespecti)e of ;hether the$ are reflected in consciousness or not+ -or instance Marx spea(s in Capital of abstract labour+ Abstractness appears here as an ob>ecti)e characteristic of the for. ;hich hu.an labour assu.es in de)eloped co..odit$ production in capitalist production+ #lse;here he stresses that the reduction of different (inds of labour to unifor. si.ple labour de)oid of an$ distinctions @is an abstraction ;hich is .ade e)er$ da$ in the social process of production+ 5t is @no less real 7an abstraction8 than the resolution of all organic bodies into air+ BMarx Contribution to the Critique of )olitical !conomyC The definition of gold as .aterial being of abstract ;ealth also expresses its specific function in the organis. of the capitalist for.ation and not in the consciousness of the theoretician or practical ;or(er b$ an$ .eans+ This use of the ter. @abstract is not a ter.inological ;hi. of Marxs at allA it is lin(ed ;ith the )er$ essence of his logical )ie;s ;ith the dialectical interpretation of the relation of for.s of thin(ing and those of ob>ecti)e realit$ ;ith the )ie; of practice 7sensual acti)it$ in)ol)ing ob>ects8 as a criterion of the truth of the abstractions of thought+ %till less can this usage be explained as @a thro;bac( to 0egelianis.A it is against 0egel that Marxs proposition is directed to the effect that @the si.plest econo.ic categor$ e+g+ exchange )alue +++ cannot exist except as an abstract unilateral relation of an alread$ existing concrete organic ;hole @+ Bibid+C @The abstract in this (ind of context )er$ fre<uent in Marx assu.es the .eaning of the @si.ple unde)eloped one6sided frag.entar$ @pure 7i+e+ unco.plicated8 b$ an$ defor.ing influences8+ 5t goes ;ithout sa$ing that @the abstract in this sense can be an ob>ecti)e characteristic of real pheno.ena and not onl$ of pheno.ena of consciousness+
5t is precisel$ the predo.inance of agricultural peoples in the ancient ;orld ;hich caused the .erchant nations N Phoenicians Carthaginians N to de)elop in such purit$ 7abstract precision8 B ibid+C; it ;as not of course the result of predo.inance of the @abstracti)e po;er of thought of Phoenicians or the scholars ;riting the histor$ of Phoenicia+ @The abstract in this sense is b$ no .eans the product and result of thin(ing+ This fact is >ust as little dependent on thin(ing as the circu.stance that @the abstract la; of .ultipl$ing exists onl$ for plants and ani.als+

According to Marx @the abstract 7>ust as its counterpart @the concrete8 is a categor$ of dialectics as the science of uni)ersal for.s of de)elop.ent of nature societ$ and thought and on this basis also a categor$ of logic for dialectics is also the Logic of Marxis.+ This ob>ecti)e interpretation of the categor$ of the abstract is spearheaded against all (inds of neo6 &antian logic and episte.olog$ ;hich oppose in a crudel$ .etaph$sical ;a$ @pure for.s of thought to for.s of ob>ecti)e realit$+ -or these schools in logic @the abstract is onl$ a for. of thought ;hereas @the concrete a for. of a sensuall$ gi)en i.age+ This interpretation in the Mill60u.ean and &antian traditions in logic 7e+g+ Chelpano) and :)edens($ in 2ussia8 is alien and hostile to the )er$ essence of dialectics as logic and theor$ of (no;ledge+ The narro; episte.ological 7that is essentiall$ ps$chological in the final anal$sis8 interpretation of the categories of the abstract and the concrete beca.e fir.l$ rooted in .odern bourgeois philosoph$+ 0ere is a fresh exa.ple N definitions fro. the )hilosophical *ictionary b$ Max Apel and Peter /ud' B*erlin 19O!CA
abstractA di)orced fro. a gi)en connection and considered b$ itself onl$+ Thus abstract ac<uires the .eaning of conceptual concei)ed in opposition to gi)en in conte.plation+

+abstraction, the logical process for ascending through o.ission of features fro. that gi)en in conte.plation to a general notion and fro. the gi)en concept to a .ore general one+ Abstraction decreases the content and extends the )olu.e+ 1pposed to deter.ination+ 1H

+concrete, the i..ediatel$ gi)en in conte.plation; concrete concepts denote that ;hich is conte.plated indi)idual ob>ects of conte.plation+ 1pposed to abstract+ This one6sided definition 7abstraction is of course .ental separation a.ong other things but it is b$ no .eans reducible to it8 )aries but insignificantl$ fro. dictionar$ to dictionar$+ 5t has been polished in do'ens of editions and has beco.e generall$ accepted a.ong philosophers in capitalist countries+ That is certainl$ no proof of its correctness+ A @concrete concept is reduced b$ these definitions to @designating the sensuall$ conte.plated indi)idual things to a .ere sign or s$.bol+ 5n other ;ords @the concrete is onl$ no.inall$ present in thought onl$ in the capacit$ of the @designating na.e+ 1n the other hand +the concrete is .ade into a s$non$. of uninterpreted indefinite @sensual gi)enness+ 3either the concrete nor the abstract can according to these definitions be used as characteristics of theoretical (no;ledge in regard of its real ob>ecti)e content+ The$ characterise onl$ the @for. of cognitionA @the concrete the for. of sensual cognition and @the abstract the for. of thought the for. of rational cognition+ 5n other ;ords the$ belong to different spheres of the ps$che to different ob>ects+ There is nothing abstract ;here there is so.ething concrete and )ice )ersa+ That is all there is to these definitions+ The proble. of the relation of the abstract to the concrete appears in <uite a different light fro. Marxs point of )ie; the point of )ie; of dialectics as logic and theor$ of (no;ledge+ 5t is onl$ at first sight that this <uestion .ight see. a8 .erel$ @episte.ological one a <uestion of the relation of a .ental abstraction to the sensuall$ percei)ed i.age+ 5n; actual fact its real content is .uch ;ider and deeper than+ that and it is ine)itabl$ supplanted b$ <uite a different proble. in the course of anal$sis N the proble. of the relation of the ob>ect to itself that is relationship bet;een different ele.ents ;ithin a certain concrete ;hole+ That is ;h$ the proble. is sol)ed first and fore.ost ;ithin the fra.e;or( of ob>ecti)e dialectics N the teaching of the uni)ersal for.s and la;s of de)elop.ent of nature societ$ and thought itself and not on the narro; episte.ological plane as neo6&antians and positi)ists do+ 5nsofar as Marx treats the episte.ological aspect of the proble. he interprets the abstract as an$ one6 sided inco.plete lopsided reflection of the ob>ect in consciousness as opposed to concrete (no;ledge ;hich is ;ell de)eloped all6round co.prehensi)e (no;ledge+ 5t does not .atter at all in ;hat sub>ecti)e ps$chological for. this (no;ledge is @experienced b$ the sub>ect N in sensuall$ percei)ed i.ages or in abstract )erbal for.+ The logic 7dialectics8 of Marx and /enin establishes its distinctions in regard of the ob>ecti)e sense and .eaning of (no;ledge rather than in regard of the sub>ecti)e for. of experience+ Poor .eagre lopsided (no;ledge .a$ be assi.ilated in the for. of a sensual i.age+ 5n this case logic ;ill ha)e to define it as @abstract (no;ledge despite its being e.bodied in a sensuall$ gi)en i.age+ Contrari;ise abstract )erbal for. the language of for.ulas .a$ express rich ;ell6de)eloped profound and co.prehensi)e (no;ledge that is concrete (no;ledge+ @Concreteness is neither a s$non$. for nor a pri)ilege of the sensual6i.age for. of reflection of realit$ in consciousness >ust as @abstractness is not a specific characteristic of rational theoretical (no;ledge+ Certainl$ ;e spea( as often as not of the concreteness of a sensual i.age and of abstract thought+ A sensual i.age an i.age of conte.plation .a$ >ust as often be )er$ abstract too+ %uffice it to re.e.ber a geo.etric figure or a ;or( of abstract painting+ And )ice )ersa thin(ing in concepts .a$ and e)en .ust be concrete in the full and strict .eaning of the ;ord+ Fe (no; that there is no abstract truth that truth is al;a$s concrete+ And that does not .ean at all that onl$ the sensuall$ percei)ed i.age the conte.plation of an indi)idual thing .a$ be true+ The concrete in thin(ing also appears according to Marxs definition in the for. of co.bination 7s$nthesis8 of nu.erous definitions+ A logicall$ coherent s$ste. of definitions is precisel$ that @natural for. in ;hich concrete truth is realised in thought+ #ach of the definitions for.ing part of the s$ste. naturall$ reflects onl$ a part a frag.ent an ele.ent an aspect of the concrete realit$ N and that is ;h$ it is abstract if ta(en b$ itself separatel$ fro. other definitions+ 5n other ;ords the concrete is realised in thin(ing through the abstract through its o;n opposite and it is i.possible ;ithout it+ *ut that is in general the rule rather than an exception in dialectics+ 3ecessit$ is in >ust the sa.e (ind of relation ;ith chance essence ;ith appearance and so on+ 1n the other hand each of the nu.erous definitions for.ing part of the conceptual s$ste. of a concrete science loses its abstract character in it being filled ;ith the sense and .eaning of all the other definitions connected ;ith it+ %eparate abstract definitions .utuall$ co.ple.ent each other so that the abstractness of each of the. ta(en separatel$ is o)erco.e+ 5n short herein lies the dialectics of the 1L

relation of the abstract to the concrete in thin(ing ;hich reflects the concrete in realit$+ The dialectics of the abstract and the concrete in the course of theoretical processing of the .aterial of li)ing conte.plation in processing the results of conte.plation and notions in ter.s of concepts is the sub>ect6 .atter of stud$ in the present ;or(+ 1f course ;e cannot clai. to offer an exhausti)e solution to the proble. of the abstract and the concrete at all the stages of the process of cognition in general in all for.s of reflection+ The for.ation of the sensuall$ percei)ed i.age of a thing in)ol)es its o;n dialectics of the abstract and the concrete and a )er$ co.plicated one and that is e)en .ore true of the for.ation of the notion connected ;ith speech ;ith ;ords+ Me.or$ ;hich also pla$s an enor.ous role in cognition contains in its structure a no less co.plex relation of the abstract to the concrete+ These categories also ha)e a bearing on artistic creati)it$+ Fe are co.pelled to lea)e all of these aspects out of consideration as sub>ect6.atter of a special stud$+ The path of cognition loading fro. li)ing conte.plation to abstract thought and fro. it to practice is a )er$ co.plicated path+ A co.plex and dialecticall$ contradictor$ transfor.ation of the concrete into the abstract and )ice )ersa ta(es place in each lin( of this path+ #)en sensation gi)es a rougher picture of realit$ than it actuall$ is e)en in direct perception there is an ele.ent of transition fro. the concrete in realit$ to the abstract in consciousness+ The transition fro. li)ing conte.plation to abstract thought is b$ no .eans the sa.e thing as the .o)e.ent @fro. the concrete to the abstract+ 5t is b$ no .eans reducible to this .o.ent although the latter is al;a$s present in it+ 5t is the sa.e thing onl$ for those ;ho interpret the concrete as a s$non$. of an i..ediate sensual i.age and the abstract as a s$non$. of the .ental the ideal the conceptual+

On the elation of the !otion to the Concept

Pre6Marxian logic alien to the dialectical approach to the relation of the sensuall$ e.pirical stage or for. of cognition to the rational one ;as unable despite all its efforts to pro)ide a clear6cut solution to the proble. of relation of notions to concepts+ The concept ;as defined as )erbal designation of the general in a nu.ber of si.ple ideas 7notions8 as a na.eIter. 7/oc(e 0obbes8 or si.pl$ as an$ notion of a thing in our thought 7Christian Folff8 or as so.ething opposed to conte.plation inas.uch as it is a general notion or a notion of ;hat is co..on to .an$ ob>ects of conte.plation 7&ant8 or as a notion of definite una.biguous stable generall$ accepted .eaning 7%ig;art8 or a notion about a notion 7%chopenhauer8+ 3o;ada$s too ;idel$ current is the definition of concept as si.pl$ @the se.antic .eaning of a ter. ;hate)er the latter .ight .ean+ 3eo6 positi)ists often refuse to deal at all ;ith the relationship bet;een concept and notion proceeding to purel$ for.al definitions of the concept6specif$ing the concept as @the function of an utterance @prepositional function and so on+ Eenerall$ spea(ing this <uestion has re.ained extre.el$ confused in .odern bourgeois philosoph$ and logic+ :er$ t$pical is the )ie; expressed in 0einrich %ch.idts )hilosophical *ictionary" The concept is here defined as @the .eaningful content of ;ords and in the stricter @logical sense as a .eaningful content of a ;ord that is @freed fro. .o.entaneous perception in such a ;a$ that it .a$ be transferred to other si.ilar perceptions as their designation+ B19HLC The &irchner6Michaelis *ictionary of -asic )hilosophical Concepts atte.pts to a)oid the identification of concept and notionA @The concept is therefore not >ust a closed general notion it e.erges out of notions through their co.parison and extraction of that ;hich is co..on to the.+ B1911C The 2ussian logician :)edens($ a follo;er of &ant proceeds fro. the assu.ption that a notion differs fro. a concept not in the @ps$chological .ode of experience but in the fact that in the notion things are considered @;ith regard to an$ features ;hatsoe)er ;hile in the concept onl$ @;ith regard to the essential features+ 1n the next page ho;e)er he discards this distinction in a characteristic argu.ent that @so.ething .a$ be essential fro. one )ie;point and <uite a different thin fro. another+ *ut the <uestion of ;hether certain features are @essential or @inessential is sol)ed so.e;here outside logic as a for.al discipline so.e;here in episte.olog$ ethics or so.e such discipline+ Therefore logic according to :)edens($ is <uite right in artlessl$ considering an$ )erball$ recorded @general entit$ + an$ ter. regarded fro. its .eaningful aspect as a concept+ These argu.ent 7highl$ t$pical of non6Marxist anti6dialectical logic8 lead in the final anal$sis in a .ore or less roundabout ;a$ to one and the sa.e denoue.entA the ter. @concept is ta(en to .ean an$ verbally expressed .general+, an$ ter.inologicall$ recorded abstraction fro. the sensuall$ gi)en .ultifor.it$ an$ notion of ;hat is co..on to .an$ ob>ects of direct conte.plation+ 1O

5n other ;ords all the anti6dialectical )ersions of the concept ulti.atel$ go bac( to one and the sa.e classical source N the definition of /oc(e and &ant and at ti.es e)en further bac( to the definition of .edie)al no.inalis. ;hich did not distinguish bet;een ;ord and concept at all+ The funda.ental ;ea(ness of the conception of /oc(e and &ant lies in that its atte.pts to distinguish bet;een notion as a for. of sensual e.pirical (no;ledge and concept as a for. of rational (no;ledge are fir.l$ based on a 2obinson Crusoe .odel of episte.olog$ in ;hich the sub>ect of cognition is a separate hu.an indi)idual isolated fro. the concatenation of social lin(s and opposed to @all the rest+ That is ;h$ the relation of consciousness to ob>ecti)e realit$ is gi)en a )er$ narro; interpretation here6 onl$ as the relation of the indi)idual consciousness .an$ ti.es repeated to e)er$thing that lies outside this consciousness and does not depend on its existence and ;ill+ *ut it is not onl$ .aterial nature that exists outside of and independentl$ fro. the consciousness and ;ill of the individual / so does the extre.el$ co.plex and historicall$ shaped sphere of the .aterial and spiritual culture of mankind, of societ$+ 2ising to conscious life ;ithin societ$ the indi)idual finds pre6 existing @spiritual en)iron.ent ob>ecti)el$ i.ple.ented spiritual culture+ The latter is opposed to indi)idual consciousness as a specific ob>ect ;hich the indi)idual has to assi.ilate ta(ing into account its nature as so.ething <uite ob>ecti)e+ A s$ste. of for.s of social consciousness 7in the broadest possible sense including for.s of political organisation of societ$ la;+ .oralit$ e)er$da$ life and so on as ;ell as for.s and nor.s of actions in the sphere of thought gra..atical s$ntactic rifles for )erbal expression of notions aesthetic tastes+ etc+8 structures fro. the )er$ outset the de)eloping consciousness and ;ill of the indi)idual .oulding hi. in its o;n i.age+ As a result each separate sensual i.pression arising in indi)idual consciousness is al;a$s a product of refraction of external sti.uli through the extre.el$ co.plex pris. of the for.s of social consciousness the indi)idual has appropriated+ This @pris. is a product of social hu.an de)elop.ent+ Alone face to face ;ith nature the indi)idual has no such pris. and it cannot be understood fro. an anal$sis of the relations of an isolated indi)idual to nature+ The 2obinson Crusoe episte.ological .odel atte.pts to co.prehend the .echanis. of production of conscious notions and concepts precisel$ in the context of such a fair$6tale situation+ The social nature of an$ e)en the .ost ele.entar$ act of production of conscious notions is here ignored fro. the outset and it is assu.ed that the indi)idual fir6 t experiences isolated+ sensual i.pressions then inducti)el$ abstracts so.ething general fro. the. designates it b$ a ;ord then assu.es an attitude of @reflection to;ards this general regarding his o;n .ental actions and their products6general ideas 7that is general notions recorded in speech8 as a specific ob>ect of stud$+ 5n short the .atter is presented in the .anner outlined b$ Dohn /oc(e the classic representati)e and s$ste.atiser of this )ie; in his !ssay Concerning 0uman, nderstanding+ *ut the social hu.an nature of indi)idual consciousness ;hich this theor$ dri)es out of the door gets bac( through the ;indo;+ @2eflection that is consideration of the products of .ental acti)it$ and operations upon the. 7s$llogis.s reasoning based on concepts onl$8 re)eals it once that these products contain a certain result that is funda.entall$ inexplicable fro. the li.ited personal experience+ 5nsofar as social hu.an experience is here interpreted onl$ as reiterated personal experience as a .ere su. of separate experiences 7rather than as the histor$ of entire hu.an culture8 all for.s of consciousness that ha)e .atured in the long and contradictor$ de)elop.ent of culture appear to be in general inexplicable fro. experience gi)en a priori+ There is no ;a$ in ;hich the$ could necessaril$ be deduced fro. indi)idual experience and $et the$ .ost acti)el$ deter.ine this experience shaping the for. in ;hich it proceeds+ This conception is ulti.atel$ e.bodied in &ants doctrine of @the unit$ of transcendental apperception in connection ;ith ;hich &ant gi)es his definition of the concept as a general notion or notion of those general ele.ents that are inherent in .an$ ob>ects of conte.plation+ &ants doctrine of the concept is not reduced to this si.ple definition of course; but it underlies all his constructions and has integral ties ;ith the.+ At first sight this definition coincides ;ith one6sided e.pirical interpretation of the concept b$ /oc(e+ And that is indeed so+ *ut narro; e.piricis. is ine)itabl$ co.ple.ented b$ its counterpart the idea of extra6experiential non6e.pirical origin of a nu.ber of .ost i.portant concepts of reason the categories+ The categories of reason constituting a .ost co.plicated product of thousands of $ears of de)elop.ent of the culture of hu.an thought cannot be interpreted as general notions as notions about the general ele.ent in .an$ ob>ects gi)en in indi)idual conte.plation+ The uni)ersal concepts the categories 7cause <ualit$ propert$ <uantit$ possibilit$ and so on8 refer to all ob>ects of conte.plation ;ithout exception rather than to @.an$+ Conse<uentl$ the .ust contain a 16

guarantee of uni)ersalit$ and necessit$ a guarantee that a contradictor$ case ;ill ne)er co.e up in hu.an experience in the future 7a pheno.enon ;ithout a cause or a thing de)oid of <ualities or una.enable to <uantitati)e .easure.ent etc+8+ #.pirical inducti)e abstraction naturall$ cannot contain such a guarantee6it is al;a$s threatened b$ the sa.e (ind of unpleasantness that happened to the proposition @all s;ans are ;hite+ -or this reason &ant in fact adopts a funda.entall$ different definition for these concepts as a priori for.s of transcendental apperception and not at all as @general notions+ The )er$ concept of concept is thus rent b$ dualis.+ 5n actual fact there are t;o .utuall$ excluding definitions+ 1n the one band the concept is si.pl$ identified ;ith the general notion and on the other concept and notion are separated b$ a gap+ The @pure 7@transcendental8 concept a categor$ of reason pro)es to be entirel$ ;hereas the ordinar$ concept is si.pl$ reduced to a general notion+ That is the ine)itable retribution for the s ro;6 .inded e.piricis. ;hich no school of logic can escape ;hich identifies the concept ;ith the .eaning of an$ ter. ;ith the sense of a ;ord+ The .aterialist dialectics of Marx #ngels and /enin ga)e a fine solution to the difficulties of defining the concept and its relation to the notion expressed in speech as it full$ too( into account the socio6 hu.an socio6historical nature of all for.s and categories of cognition including the for.s of the e.pirical stage in cognition+ 1;ing to speech the indi)idual @sees the ;orld not onl$ and not so .uch through his o;n e$es as through .illions of e$es+ Marx and #ngels therefore al;a$s interpret notions as so.ething other than sensual i.ages of things retained in indi)idual .e.or$+ -ro. the standpoint of episte.olog$ centred on the social indi)idual a notion is a social realit$ too+ The content of a notion co.prehends that ;hich is retained in social .e.or$ in the for.s of this social .e.or$ as represented first of all b$ speech b$ language+ 5f an indi)idual has ac<uired a notion of a thing fro. other indi)iduals ;ho obser)ed it directl$ the ac<uired for. of consciousness of it is precisel$ that ;hich he ;ould ha)e recei)ed had he conte.plated this thing ;ith his o;n e$es+ 0a)ing a notion .eans ha)ing a sociall$ co.prehended 7that is expressed in speech or capable of being expressed in speech8 conte.plation+ 3either 5 nor so.e other indi)idual for. a concept of so.e thing if 5 through speech obser)e this thing through the e$es of another indi)idual or this other indi)idual conte.plates it through .$ e$es+ Fe engage in .utual exchange of notions+ A notion is precisel$ that6)erball$ expressed conte.plation+ Conte.plation and notion thereb$ appear as categories expressing the socio6historical nature of sensualit$ of the e.pirical for. of (no;ledge rather than an indi)iduals ps$chological states+ The notion al;a$s contains onl$ that ;hich 5 in .$ indi)idual conte.plation percei)e in a social .anner that is a. capable of .a(ing the propert$ of another indi)idual through speech and thereb$ .$ o;n propert$ as a sociall$ conte.plating indi)idual+ *eing capable of expressing the sensuall$ conte.plated facts in speech .eans being capable of transposing the indi)iduall$ conte.plated onto the plane of notion as social consciousness+ *ut this in no ;a$ coincides $et ;ith the abilit$ and capabilit$ of ;or(ing out concepts, the abilit$ for logical processing of conte.plation and notion into concept+ 5t does not $et .ean an abilit$ for proceeding fro. the first sensual stage of (no;ledge to the stage of logical assi.ilation+ 5n referring to theoretical processing of sensual data Marx ta(es these data .ostl$ to be so.ething different fro. ;hat the indi)idual carr$ing out this logical processing directly saw ;ith his o;n e$es or touched ;ith his fingers+ Marx al;a$s has in .ind the entire totality of the factual empirical data, the socially implemented contemplation+ The .aterial of logical acti)it$ a)ailable to the theoretician his sensual data are not onl$ and not so .uch ;hat he as an indi)idual conte.plated directl$ but rather e)er$thing that he (no;s about the ob>ect fro. all other .en+ And he can (no; all this fro. other .en onl$ through speech onl$ due to .illions of facts ha)ing been alread$ recorded in social notions+ This deter.ines an approach to co.prehending the process of cognition <uite different fro. the one that .a$ be established fro. the standpoint of no.inalist interpretation of thin(ing and its relation to sensualit$A conte.plation and notion are for Marx onl$ the first sensual stage in cognition+ And that is sharpl$ different fro. t e interpretation of the sensual stage of cognition characteristic of the follo;ers of /oc(e and 0el)Mtius+ The latter t;o ine)itabl$ refer that for. of consciousness that Marx calls notion 7&orstellung8 to the rational logical stage in reflection o;ing to their abstract anthropological conception of the sub>ect of cognition+ The difference bet;een concept and general notion expressed in ;ord ;as originall$ clearl$ established b$ the dialectician 0egel and he did it in the fra.e;or( of logic 7so.ething no one had done before 1K

hi.8+ The reason that he could do so ;as that his starting point in logic ;as .an(ind as a ;hole in its de)elop.ent rather than an isolated indi)idual+ 0egel pointed out on nu.erous occasions that if the process of cognition is considered fro. the ps$chological standpoint that is in the for. in ;hich it goes on in the head of an isolated indi)idual @one can stic( to the tale that ;e begin ;ith sensations and conte.plations and that intellect extracts so.ething general or abstract fro. the di)ersit$ of the latter+ B0egel (cience of LogicC This phase of the de)elop.ent 0egel calls the transition fro. conte.plation to notion that is a certain stable for. of consciousness an abstract general i.age that is gi)en a na.e an expression in speech in a ter.+ ho;e)er thought stri)ing for truth does not ta(e this for. of consciousness to be either its goal or result but .erel$ a pre.ise .aterial for its specific acti)it$+ 1ld logic notes 0egel constantl$ confuses ps$chological pre.ises of a concept ;ith the concept itself ta(ing an$ abstract general notion to be a concept once it has been expressed in a ter. a ;ord in speech+ -or old logic an$ abstract general+ notion recorded in a ;ord is alread$ a concept a for. of rational cognition of things+ -or 0egel it is .erel$ a prere<uisite of an actual concept that is of such a for. of consciousness ;hich expresses the real 7dialectical8 nature of things+ @5n the ne; ti.es no other concept fared ;orse than the concept itself the concept b$ and for itself for concept is usuall$ ta(en to .ean abstract definiteness and one6sidedness of conception or of intellectual thin(ing ;ith ;hich of course one cannot cogniti)el$ bring into consciousness either the entiret$ of the truth or beaut$ concrete b$ itself+ B0egel Lectures on 1estheticsC 0egel further explains that the concept is interpreted in this logic extre.el$ one6sidedl$ or lopsidedl$ na.el$ it is considered onl$ fro. the side ;hich is e<uall$ inherent both in the concept and in the general notion+ 5n this fra.e;or( the concept is essentiall$ e<uated ;ith the si.ple general notion and all those specific features of the concept o;ing to ;hich it pro)es to be capable of expressing the concrete nature of the ob>ect are left outside the sphere of interest of old logic+ @Fhat one usuall$ calls concepts and .oreo)er definite concepts e+g+ .an house ani.al etc+ are least of all concepts the$ are si.ple definitions and abstract notions N abstractions ;hich borro; fro. the concept onl$ the ele.ent of generalit$ and lea)e out the particular and the indi)idual thereb$ being abstractions precisel$ fro. the concept+ B0egel P16L !ncyclopediaC 5t is eas$ to see that this distinction is closel$ lin(ed ;ith 0egels criti<ue of the .etaph$sical approach in logic and episte.olog$+ 5n no ;a$ re>ecting the <uite ob)ious fact that the concept is al;a$s so.ething abstract in co.parison ;ith the sensuall$ concrete i.age of a thing 0egel sho;s at the sa.e ti.e the superficialit$ of the )ie; reducing the concept to .ere expression of the abstractl$ identical abstractl$ general propert$ feature or relation inherent in a ;hole series of pheno.ena+ This reduction explains absolutel$ nothing about its abilit$ to reflect the nature of the ob>ect .ore profoundl$ correctl$ and co.pletel$ than do conte.plation and notion+ @0o;e)er if ;hat is ta(en o)er into the concept fro. the concrete e)ent .ust ser)e .erel$ as a marker or sign it .a$ indeed be so.e .erel$ sensual indi)idual definition of the ob>ect+ B0egel (cience of LogicC The difference bet;een the i.age of li)ing conte.plation and the concept is thus reduced to a purel$ <uantitati)e one+ The concept expresses or to be .ore precise designates onl$ one of the sensual properties of the pheno.enon ;hereas the sensual i.age contains a ;hole series of the.+ As a result the concept is considered onl$ as so.ething .ore .eagre than the i.age of li)ing conte.plation6onl$ as an abstract one6sided expression of this i.age+ The transition fro. the i.age of conte.plation to the concept is thus regarded .erel$ as destruction of the sensuall$ gi)en concreteness as eli.ination of a great nu.ber of sensuall$ percei)ed properties for the sa(e of one of the.+ @The abstract Bsa$s 0egel in this connectionC is counted of less ;orth than the concrete because fro. the for.er so .uch of that (ind of .aterial has been o.itted+ To those ;ho hold this )ie; the process of abstraction .eans that for our subjective needs one or another characteristic is ta(en out of the concrete +++ and it is onl$ the incapacity of understanding to absorb such riches that forces it to rest content ;ith .eagre abstraction+ B/enin Conspectus of 0egel+s LogicC The transition fro. concrete conte.plation to abstractions of thought appears as a result onl$ as departure fro. realit$ gi)en in direct conte.plation onl$ as .anifestation of the @incapacit$ ;ea(ness 1!

of thought+ 3ot surprisingl$ &ant starting out fro. this pre.ise co.es to the conclusion that thought is incapable of attaining ob>ecti)e truth+ /enin too( )er$ copious notes of this passage in 0egel .a(ing this re.ar( 2 propos of itA
@!ssentially 0egel is co.pletel$ right as opposed to &ant+ Thought proceeding fro. the concrete to the abstract6 pro)ided it is correct 73*8 7and &ant li(e all philosophers spea(s of correct thought8 N does not get a;a$ fro. the truth but co.es closer to it+ Bibid+C

5n other ;ords the concept .a$ be so.ething abstract as co.pared to the sensuall$ percei)ed concreteness but its strength and ad)antages o)er conte.plation do not lie therein+ The ascent fro. the sensuall$ conte.plated concreteness to the abstract expression of it is .erel$ the for. in ;hich a .ore .eaningful process is realised6the process of attaining the truth ;hich conte.plation is incapable of grasping+ 5n co..enting on 0egel /enin points out that scientific 7that is correct serious not absurd8 abstractions reflect nature not onl$ .ore deepl$ and correctl$ than li)ing conte.plation or notion but also more full$+ And @.ore full$ in the language of dialectical logic .eans nothing else but @.ore concretel$+ @Conse<uentl$ Bcontinues 0egel in the passage <uoted b$ /eninC abstracting thought .ust not be considered as a .ere setting aside of the sensuous .aterial ;hose realit$ is said not to be lo;ered thereb$; but it is its transcendence and the reduction of it 7as .ere appearance8 to the essential ;hich .anifests itself in the 3otion onl$+ Bibid+C 5n the process the concrete is b$ no .eans lost as &ant belie)es along ;ith the e.piricists; on the contrar$ its real .eaning and content are brought out b$ thin(ing+ That is precisel$ ;h$ 0egel regards the transition fro. the sensuall$ conte.plated concreteness to the concept as a for. of .o)e.ent fro. appearance to essence fro. conse<uence to its antecedent+ A concept according to 0egel expresses the essence of conte.plated pheno.ena+ And that essence is b$ no .eans reducible to the abstractl$ identical in different pheno.ena to the identical ele.ents obser)ed in each of the pheno.ena ta(en in isolation+ The essence of an ob>ect is al.ost al;a$s contained in the unit$ of distinct and opposed ele.ents in their concatenation and .utual deter.ination+ That is ;h$ 0egel sa$s of the conceptA @As far as the nature of concept as such is concerned ta(en b$ itself it is not an abstract unity opposed to the distinctions of reality, but as a concept it is alread$ a unit$ of different definitenesses and thereb$ concrete realit$+ %o notions li(e =.an? =blue? etc+ should not be called concepts but abstract general notions ;hich onl$ beco.e concepts ;hen it is sho;n that the$ contain distinct aspects in unit$ ;hereb$ this unit$ deter.ined ;ithin itself constitutes the concept+ BLectures on 1estheticsC 5f .ans thin(ing .erel$ reduces the essentiall$ sensuall$ concrete i.age of an ob>ect to an abstract one6 sided definition it produces onl$ a general notion and not a concept+ This is <uite a natural process if it is interpreted as transition fro. conte.plation to notion+ *ut if it is ta(en to be ;hat it is not na.el$ transition to the concept the .ost i.portant feature of this transition is left unexplained+ /enin stressed on .ore than one occasion 0egels idea that transition fro. notion to concept should be considered in logic first of all as transition fro. superficial (no;ledge to deeper fuller and .ore correct (no;ledge+ =The ob>ect in its existence ;ithout thought and 3otion is an i.age or a na.eA it is ;hat it is in the deter.inations of thought and 3otion ? sa$s 0egel and /enin .a(es a .arginal note+
That is correctQ Image and thought, the de)elop.ent of both nil aliud+ B/enin Consp" 0egel+s LogicC

5n anal$sing 0egels argu.ents about the relation of notion to thought /enin dee.ed it necessar$ to point out that 0egels idealis. ;as not in e)idence in regard to this pointA @0ere in the concept of ti.e 7and not in the relation of sensuous representation to thought8 is the idealis. of 0egel+ Bibid+C 0egels .ain idea is that intellectual abstractions do not ta(e consciousness be$ond the e.pirical stage of cognition that the$ are for.s of sensual e.pirical consciousness be$ond the e.pirical stage of cognition that the$ are for.s of sensual e.pirical consciousness rather than thought in the strict sense of the ter. are notions and not concepts+ Confusing the t;o identif$ing notion ;ith concept on the grounds that both are abstractions is a .ost characteristic .ar( of .etaph$sics in logic of the logic of .etaph$sical thin(ing+ Therefore the first tas( of logic as a science stud$ing logical processing of e.pirical data into concepts 7transition fro. conte.plation and notion to concept8 is strict ob>ecti)e deli.itation of concept and )erball$ expressed notion+

19

This deli.itation is b$ no .eans a theoretical nicet$+ 5t is of enor.ous significance for episte.olog$ as ;ell as pedagogics+ -or.ation of abstract general notions is in itself a sufficientl$ co.plicated and contradictor$ process+ As such it for.s the sub>ect6.atter of special in)estigation although not in logic+ The tas( of logic as a science gro;s out of the real needs of the de)eloping cognition of the pheno.ena of the surrounding ;orld+ The <uestion ;ith ;hich a thin(ing .an turns to logic as a science is not at all the <uestion of ho; abstractions should be .ade in general ho; one can learn to abstract the general fro. the sensuall$ gi)en facts+ To do that one need not at all as( the logicians ad)ice one .erel$ has to ha)e a co..and of ones nati)e language and the abilit$ to concentrate ones attention on the sensuall$ gi)en si.ilarities and differences+ The <uestion ;ith ;hich one turns to logic and ;hich can onl$ be ans;ered b$ logic in)ol)es a .uch .ore co.plicated cogniti)e tas(A ho; is one to ;or( out an abstraction ;hich ;ould express the ob>ecti)e essence of facts gi)en in conte.plation and notionsG The .anner in ;hich processing a .ass of e.piricall$ ob)ious facts $ields a generalisation expressing the real nature of the ob>ect under stud$ N that is the actual proble. ;hose solution is identical ;ith that of the proble. of the nature of concepts as distinct fro. abstract general notions+ Concepts being defined as reflection of the essentiall$ general .aterialis. in logic co.pels one to distinguish bet;een ;hat is essential for the sub>ect 7his desires aspirations goals etc+8 and that ;hich is essential for the ob>ecti)e definition of the nature of the ob>ect entirel$ independent of the sub>ecti)e aspirations+ 3eo6&antian logic consciousl$ blurs this distinction purporting to pro)e that the criterion for distinguishing bet;een the sub>ecti)el$ essential and that ;hich is essential as far as the ob>ect itself is concerned can neither be found nor gi)en+ This )ie; is .ost consistentl$ de)eloped in prag.atist and instru.entalist conceptions+ An$ concept is construed as a pro>ection of sub>ecti)e desires aspirations and i.pulses on the chaos of sensuall$ gi)en pheno.ena+ Clearl$ it is not onl$ the boundar$ bet;een the sub>ecti)e and the ob>ecti)e that is obliterated here but also the boundar$ bet;een the spontaneousl$ for.ed notion and concept bet;een e.pirical and rational logical cognition+ As an illustration let us cite a characteristic exa.ple of present6da$ philosophising on the sub>ect of the abstract and the concrete6an article b$ 2udolf %chottlaender a Fest6Eer.an theoretician ;hich reflects as in a .irror the le)el of bourgeois thought in the field of dialectical categories+ The Alpha and 1.ega of his approach is the opposition of the abstract and the concrete as categories belonging to t;o funda.entall$ different spheres+ -or %chottlaender the abstract is onl$ a .ode of action of the sub>ect of cognition+ The concrete is identified ;ith the sensuall$ percei)ed i.age of li)ing conte.plation in its entiret$ ;hile the ob>ect outside consciousness is not distinguished at all fro. its sensual experience+ The sub>ect @ta(es out @extracts @ta(es a;a$ fro. the concrete certain general abstract features apparentl$ .oti)ated b$ a purel$ sub>ecti)e purpose constructing a concept out of these features+ Fhether the features abstracted are essential or inessential is deter.ined according to %chottlaender entirel$ b$ the goals of the sub>ect of cognition his @practical attitude to the thing+ 1ne cannot consider the essential from the standpoint of the object itself D %chottlaender belie)es ;ithout going bac( to the positions of the @scholastic <uintessence of the @real essence+ The abstract and the concrete are thereb$ .etaph$sicall$ distributed bet;een t;o different ;orlds6the ;orld of @the sub>ect of cognition and the ;orld of @the ob>ect of cognition+ 1n these grounds %chottlaender belie)es it expedient to drop the proble. of the relation of the abstract to the concrete as a question of logic, ;hich studies the ;orld of the sub>ect+ And since he is dealing ;ith logic it is not the concrete that he opposes to the abstract but the @%ubtrahendu. in)ented for the purpose that is e)er$thing that the sub>ect .a(ing an abstraction consciousl$ or unconsciousl$ lea)es aside the unused re.ainder of the richness of the sensuall$ percei)ed i.age of the thing+ And further lie belie)es it expedient in the spirit of the .odern se.antic tradition also to rena.e the abstract @#xtrahendu. 7that is ;hat is extracted and incorporated in the concept8+ 5n as .uch as a co.plete s$nthesis of abstractions corresponding to the infinite fullness of the sensual i.age is unattainable philosophical >ustification of an$ abstraction 7the @#xtrahendu.8 .a$ be reduced to an indication of the goal or )alue for the sa(e of ;hich the sub>ect of cognition has .ade the extraction+ The sensuall$ intrusi)el$ grasped fullness of the thing .inus the @#xtrahendu. is called the @%ubtrahendu.+ The latter is stored a;a$ b$ the sub>ect of cognition as reser)e for the occasion ;hen @the essential ;ill turn exit to be precisel$ there in the light of other ob>ecti)es )alues or aspirations+ "0

Lang"age
5n approaching the <uestion of the relation of concept to notion one .ust apparentl$ full$ ta(e into account the fact that the notion as a for. and a stage in reflecting ob>ecti)e realit$ in .ans .ind is also an abstraction ;hose for.ation is affected b$ a great nu.ber of factors and first of all the direct practical interest .ans need and the purpose reflecting the need ideall$+ The lin(s bet;een the concept6a theoretical abstraction expressing the ob>ecti)e essence of the thing6and practice is .uch broader deeper and .ore co.plicated+ 5n the concept the ob>ect is co.prehended fro. the standpoint of .an(inds practice in its entire )olu.e throughout the histor$ of ;orld de)elop.ent rather than fro. the standpoint of the particular narro; prag.atic ob>ecti)e and need+ 1nl$ this )ie;point coincides in the long run ;ith consideration of the ob>ect fro. the ob>ects o;n point of )ie;+ 1nl$ fro. this standpoint can one distinguish the ob>ecti)el$ essential definitions of the thing N @that in ;hich the ob>ect is ;hat it is; in other ;ords the abstraction of a concept is for.ed+ To define a concept does not at all .ean to find out the sense i.parted b$ .en to the corresponding ter.+ To define a concept .eans to define the ob>ect+ -ro. the standpoint of .aterialis. it is one and the sa.e thing+ The onl$ correct definition is therefore to arri)e at the essence of the .atter+ 1ne can al;a$s establish a con)ention or agree.ent on the .eaning or sense of a ter.; the content of a concept is <uite a different tiring+ Although the content of a concept is al;a$s directl$ brought out as the @.eaning of a ter. that is b$ no .eans one and the sa.e thing+ That is an extre.el$ i.portant point closel$ lin(ed ;ith the proble. of concreteness of the concept as interpreted in .aterialist dialectics 7dialectical logic8+ 3eo6positi)ists reduce the proble. of defining the concept to establishing the .eaning of a ter. in a s$ste. of ter.s built according to for.al rules and the <uestion of correspondence bet;een definitions of the concept and its ob>ect existing outside and independentl$ fro. consciousness that is fro. definition is thus eli.inated in general+ As a result the$ arri)e at the absolutel$ insoluble proble. of the so6called abstract ob>ect+ This designation refers to the .eaning of such a ter. that cannot be applied as a na.e to an indi)idual thing gi)en in the indi)iduals i..ediate sensual experience+ /et us note that the sensual i.age of the single ob>ect in the indi)iduals consciousness is here again na.ed the concrete ob>ect ;hich is in co.plete agree.ent ;ith the age6long traditions of extre.e e.piricis.+ 5nsofar as the ;hole of actual science consists of definitions that ha)e no i..ediate e<ui)alent in the indi)iduals sensual experience 7that is ha)e so.e @abstract ob>ect for their .eaning8 the <uestion of the relation of the abstract to the concrete is transfor.ed into the proble. of the relation of a general ter. to an indi)idual i.age in the consciousness+ As a <uestion of logic it is also ignored being replaced b$ a partl$ ps$chological partl$ for.al linguistic <uestion+ *ut on this plane it is indeed i.possible to sol)e the proble. of the ob>ecti)e truth of an$ general concept for the for.ulation of the <uestion itself precludes an$ possibilit$ of ans;ering it+ 3eo6positi)ist @logic focused on the stud$ of lin(s and transitions bet;een one concept and another 7in actual fact bet;een one ter. and another8 assu.ing beforehand that there is no transition fro. the concept to an ob>ect outside consciousness 7that is outside the definition and sensual experience8 and there can be no such transition+ Passing fro. ter. to ter. this logic can at no point disco)er a bridge fro. a ter. to an ob>ect rather than to another ter. a bridge to @concreteness in its genuine sense rather than to a thing gi)en to an indi)idual in his direct experience+ The onl$ bridge leading fro. ter. to ob>ect fro. the abstract to the concrete and bac( a bridge that per.its to establish a fir. una.biguous connection bet;een the t;o is as Marx and #ngels sho;ed alread$ in The 3erman Ideology, practical acti)it$ in)ol)ing ob>ects the ob>ecti)e being of things and .en+ The purel$ theoretical act is not enough here+ @1ne of the .ost difficult tas(s confronting philosophers is to descend fro. the ;orld of thought to the actual ;orld+ Language is the i..ediate actualit$ of thought+ Dust as philosophers ha)e gi)en thought an independent existence so the$ ;ere bound to .a(e language into an independent real.+ This is the secret of philosophical language in ;hich thoughts in the for. of ;ords ha)e their o;n content B3erman IdeologyC ;rote Marx as earl$ as 1!LO al.ost a hundred $ears before the latest positi)ist disco)eries in the field of logic ;ere .ade+ As a result of this operation @the proble. of descending fro. the ;orld of thoughts to the actual ;orld is turned into the proble. of descending fro. language to life Bop" cit" and it is percei)ed b$ philosophers of this trend as a tas( to be sol)ed )erball$ too as a tas( in in)enting special .agic ;ords ;hich ;hile re.aining ;ords ;ould ne)ertheless be so.ething .ore than .ere ;ords+ "1

5n The 3erman Ideology Marx and #ngels de.onstrated brilliantl$ that that tas( ;as an i.aginar$ one arising .erel$ fro. the )ie; that language and thought are separate spheres organised according to their o;n i..anent rules and la;s rather than for.s of expression of real life of ob>ecti)e being of .en and things+
@Fe ha)e seen that the ;hole proble. of transition fro. thought to realit$ hence fro. language to life exists onl$ in philosophical illusion++++ This great proble. +++ ;as bound of course to result finall$ in one of these (nights6 errant setting out in search of a ;ord ;hich as a word, for.ed the transition in <uestion ;hich as a ;ord ceases to be si.pl$ a ;ord and ;hich as a ;ord in a .$sterious super6linguistic .anner points fro. ;ithin language to the actual ob>ect it denotes+ B3erman IdeologyC

5n these da$s too .an$ bourgeois philosophers atte.pt to sol)e this pseudo6proble. rooted in the conception that the ;hole gigantic s$ste. of @abstract concepts is based on such a sha($ and elusi)e foundation as the indi)idual i.age in an indi)iduals perception as @the onl$ indi)idual that is apart fro. e)er$thing else ter.ed the @concrete ob>ect+ All this is but the old search for the absolute+ Fhile 0egel loo(ed for the absolute in the concept neo6positi)ists are searching for it in the sphere of ;ords or signs co.bined according to absolute rules+ Marx and #ngels resolutel$ discarding idealis. in philosoph$ )ie;ed thought and language as .only manifestations of actual life B3erman IdeologyC and definitions of concepts as )erball$ recorded definitions of realit$+ *ut realit$ ;as here construed not as si.pl$ a sea of indi)idual things in ;hich separate indi)iduals catch abstract general definitions in the net of abstraction but rather a concreteness organised in itself that is an articulate s$ste. of .ens relations to nature+ /anguage and thought are precisel$ a direct expression 7for. of .anifestation8 of this s$ste. of .en and things+ 1n this basis Marx and #ngels sol)ed the proble. of the ob>ecti)e .eaning of all those @abstractions ;hich to this da$ appear in idealist philosoph$ 7including neo6positi)ist philosoph$8 as specific @abstract ob>ects independentl$ existing in language+ Marx and #ngels ga)e a .aterialist interpretation to all those .$sterious abstractions ;hich according to idealist philosoph$ exist onl$ in consciousness in thought and language finding their ob>ecti)e factual e<ui)alents in concrete realit$+ The proble. of the relation of the abstract to the concrete thereb$ ceased to be one of relation of a )erball$ expressed abstraction to an indi)idual sensuall$ gi)en thing+ 5t e.erged as the proble. of internal di)ision of concrete realit$ ;ithin itself as the proble. of the relationship bet;een the discrete ele.ents of this realit$+ The solution of the proble. found b$ Marx and #ngels is apparentl$ )er$ si.pleA definitions of concepts are nothing but definitions of different ele.ents of the actual concreteness that is of the la;6go)erned organisation of a s$ste. of relations of .an to .an and of .an to things+ %cientific stud$ of this concrete realit$ .ust $ield @abstract definitions of concepts expressing its structure its organisation+ #ach abstract definition of the concept .ust express a discrete ele.ent that is actuall$ 7ob>ecti)el$8 singled out in the concrete realit$+ The solution is )er$ si.ple at first sight $et it cuts it a stro(e the Eordian (not of proble.s that idealist philosoph$ has so far been unable to unra)el+ The abstract is not fro. this point of )ie; >ust a s$non$. of the purel$ ideal existing onl$ in the consciousness in .ans brain in the shape of sense or .eaning of a ;ord6sign+ This ter. is also applied b$ Marx ;ith e)er$ >ustification to realit$ outside consciousness e+g+A @hu.an labour in the abstract BCapital :ol+ 5C abstract N isolated6hu.an indi)idual B%ee Theses on 4euerbachC or @3old as the material aspect of abstract wealth BContribution to Critique of )olitical !conomyC and so on+ All these expressions ;ill see. absurd and inco.prehensible to logicians and philosophers for ;ho. the abstract is a s$non$. of the purel$ ideal .ental intellectual ;hile the concrete is a s$non$. of the indi)idual sensuall$ percei)ed+ That is solel$ due to the fact that their (ind of logic ;ould ne)er be able to sol)e the dialectical tas( that the concrete realit$ of capitalist relations poses before thought+ -ro. the standpoint of school logic this realit$ ;ill appear ;holl$ .$stical+ 0ere for instance it is not @the abstract that has the .eaning of an aspect or propert$ of @the concrete but on the contrar$ the sensuall$ concrete has the .eaning of .ere for. of .anifestation of the abstractl$ uni)ersal+ 5n this in)ersion the essence of ;hich ;as not re)ealed before Marx lies the ;hole difficult$ of the understanding of )alue for.+ @This inversion, through ;hich the sensuall$ concrete e.erges onl$ as a for. of the abstractl$ general and not con)ersel$ the abstractl$ general as a propert$ of the concrete characterises the expression of )alue+ That is ;hat .a(es its co.prehension difficult+ 5f 5 sa$ that 2o.an la; and Eer.an la; are both ""

la;s that is self6ob)ious+ 5f 5 sa$ on the contrar$ the la; this abstraction realises itself in 2o.an la; and in Eer.an la; in these concrete la;s then the relationship beco.es .$stical+ BCapitalC And that is not si.pl$ a .$stif$ing for. of expressing facts in speech in language neither is it a speculati)e 0egelian turn of speech but rather a co.pletel$ accurate )erbal expression of the actual @in)ersion of ele.ents of realit$ connected ;ith one another+ That is an expression of nothing but the actual fact of uni)ersal dependence of the separate isolated lin(s of social production upon each other a fact co.pletel$ independent of either .ens consciousness or their ;ill+ To .an this fact ine)itabl$ appears as the .$stic po;er of @the abstract o)er @the concrete that is the po;er of a uni)ersal la; guiding the .o)e.ents of separate 7indi)idual8 things and persons o)er each indi)idual person and each indi)idual thing+ This @.$stical turn of speech so re.iniscent of the 0egelian .ode of expression reflects the real dialectics of @things and relations ;ithin ;hich the thing exists+ The .ost interesting point is ho;e)er that the .$stical nature of this expression results precisel$ fro. the fact that @the abstract and @the concrete are used in the sense attributed to the. b$ school logic+ 5ndeed if @concrete is applied to the definition of t thing and @abstract to the definition of a relation bet;een the. regarded as a special and independent ob>ect of thought and definition a fact li(e .one$ instantl$ begins to appear <uite .$stical+ -or ob>ecti)el$ apart fro. the illusions that one .a$ ha)e on this score @.one$ though a ph$sical ob>ect ;ith distinct properties represents a social relation of production BContribution to Critique of )olitical !conomyC 7italics .ine N #+5+8+ -or this reason bourgeois econo.ists as Marx re.ar(s are continuall$ a.a'ed @;hen the pheno.enon that the$ ha)e >ust ponderousl$ described as a thing reappears as a social relation and a .o.ent later ha)ing been defined as a social relation teases the. once .ore as a thing+ Bibid"C /et us point out that this @.$sti<ue is not a feature specific for capitalist production onl$+ The dialectics of the relation bet;een an indi)idual @thing 7that is the ob>ect of a @concrete concept8 and that @relation ;ithin ;hich the thing is this particular thing 7that is the ob>ect of the @abstract concept8 is a uni)ersal relation+ This is a .anifestation of the ob>ecti)el$ uni)ersal fact that there are in general no things in the ;orld that ;ould exist in isolation fro. the uni)ersal lin(s6things al;a$s exist in a s$ste. of relations to one another+ This s$ste. of interacting things 7;hat Marx calls concreteness8 is al;a$s so.ething deter.ining and therefore logically primary ;ith regard to each separate sensuall$ percei)ed thing+ The extraordinar$ situation ;hen @relation is ta(en for a @thing and a @thing for a @relation arises precisel$ due to this dialectics+ A s$ste. of interacting things a certain la;6go)erned s$ste. of their relations 7that is @the concrete8 al;a$s appears in conte.plation as a separate sensuall$ percei)ed thing but it appears onl$ in so.e frag.entar$ particular .anifestation that is abstractl$+ The ;hole difficult$ of theoretical anal$sis is that neither the @relation bet;een things should be regarded abstractl$ as a specific independent ob>ect nor con)ersel$ the @thing should be )ie;ed as an isolated ob>ect existing outside a s$ste. of relations to other things but rather each thing should be interpreted as an ele.ent or .o.ent of a certain concrete s$ste. of interacting things as a concrete indi)idual .anifestation of a certain s$ste. of @relations+ The turn of speech presenting @the concrete as so.ething subordinated to @the abstract and e)en as its product 7and that is the root of the entire 0egelian .$stification of the proble. of the uni)ersal the particular and the indi)idual8 expresses in actual fact the absolutel$ real circu.stance that each indi)idual pheno.enon 7thing e)ent etc+8 is al;a$s born and exists in its definiteness and later dies ;ithin a certain concrete ;hole ;ithin a s$ste. of indi)idual things de)eloping in a la;6go)erned ;a$+ The @po;er or the deter.ining action of the la; 7and la; is the realit$ of the uni)ersal in nature and societ$8 ;ith regard to each indi)idual thing the deter.ining significance of the ;hole in relation to its parts is exactl$ ;hat is percei)ed as the po;er of @the abstract o)er @the concrete+ The result is the .$stif$ing expression+ Marx unco)ered this .$stification b$ sho;ing the realit$ of @the concrete as a ;hole s$ste. of interacting things de)eloping and resulting fro. de)elop.ent as a ;hole di)ided in accordance ;ith so.e la; rather than as an indi)idual isolated thing+ Ei)en this interpretation an$ shade of .$stification disappears+ The concrete 7and not the abstract8 N as realit$ ta(en as a ;hole in its de)elop.ent in its la;6go)erned di)ision N is al;a$s so.ething pri.ar$ ;ith respect to the abstract 7;hether this abstract should be construed as a separate relati)el$ isolated .o.ent of realit$ or its .ental )erball$ recorded reflection8+ At "H

the sa.e ti.e an$ concreteness exists onl$ through its o;n discrete ele.ents 7things relations8 as their specific co.bination s$nthesis unit$+ That is exactl$ ;h$ the concrete is reflected in thought onl$ as a unit$ of di)erse definitions each of ;hich records precisel$ one of the .o.ents actuall$ distinguished in its structure+ Consistent .ental reproduction of the concrete is therefore realised as @ascent fro. the abstract to the concrete that is as logical co.bination 7s$nthesis8 of particular definitions into an aggregate o)erall theoretical picture of realit$ as .o)e.ent of thought fro. the particular to the general+ The order of singling out the separate 7particular8 definitions and lin(ing the. up is b$ no .eans arbitrar$+ This se<uence is generall$ deter.ined as the classics of Marxis.6/eninis. sho;ed b$ the historical process of the birth for.ation and gro;ing co.plexit$ of the concrete sphere of realit$ ;hich in this gi)en case is reproduced in thought+ The funda.ental pri.ar$ uni)ersal abstract definitions of the ;hole ;ith ;hich a theoretical construction should al;a$s begin are not for.ed here b$ an$ .eans through si.ple for.al abstraction fro. all the @particulars ;ithout exception ;hich for. part of the ;hole+ Thus )alue the pri.ar$ uni)ersal categor$ of Capital is not defined through abstractions that ;ould retain the general features e<uall$ inherent in co..odit$ .one$ capital profit and rent but through the finest theoretical definitions of one @particular na.el$ co..odit$ all the other particulars ho;e)er being strictl$ left out of account+ Anal$sis of co..odit$ this ele.entar$ econo.ic concreteness $ields uni)ersal 7and in this sense abstract8 definitions pertaining to an$ other particular for. of econo.ic relations+ The ;hole point is ho;e)er that co..odit$ is the (ind of particular ;hich si.ultaneousl$ is a uni)ersal condition of the existence of the other particulars recorded in other categories+ That is a particular entit$ ;hose ;hole specificit$ lies in being the uni)ersal and the abstract that is unde)eloped ele.entar$ =cellular? for.ation de)eloping through contradictions i..anentl$ inherent in it into other .ore co.plex and ;ell6de)eloped for.ations+ The dialectics of the abstract and the concrete in the concept reflects <uite precisel$ the ob>ecti)e dialectics of the de)elop.ent of one (ind of actual 7historicall$ defined8 relations bet;een .en into other (inds of relations >ust as actual .ediated b$ things+ The entire .o)e.ent of thought fro. the abstract to the concrete is therefore at the sa.e ti.e absolutel$ strict .o)e.ent of 6thought fro. fact to fact transition fro. considering one fact to considering another fact rather than .o)e.ent @fro. concept to concept+ This specific feature of Marxs .ethod had to be continuall$ stressed b$ the classics of Marxis. in their argu.ents against &antian interpretations of the logic of Capital" This specific feature consists in flat in appl$ing this .ethod @;e are dealing ;ith a purel$ logical process and its explanator$ reflection in thought the logical pursuance of its inner connection+ B%upple.ent to Capital :ol 555 on /a; of :alueC The proble. of the relation of the abstract to the concrete in the concept is correctl$ sol)ed onl$ on the basis of this approach+ #)er$ concept is abstract in the sense that it records onl$ one of the particular .o.ents of concrete realit$ in its entiret$+ #ach concept is concrete too for it does not record the for.al general @features of heterogeneous facts but rather in a .ore precise .anner the concrete definiteness of the fact to ;hich it pertains its specific feature due to ;hich it pla$s this and not so.e other role in the aggregate ;hole that is realit$ ha)ing this particular function and @.eaning and not so.e other+ #)er$ concept 7if it is reall$ a ;ell6de)eloped concept and not .erel$ a )erball$ fixed general notion8 is therefore a concrete abstraction ho;e)er contradictor$ that .a$ sound fro. the standpoint of old logic+ 5t is al;a$s a thing that is expressed in it 7that is a sensuall$ e.piricall$ stated fact8 but a thing considered ;ith regard to its propert$ ;hich it has specificall$ as an ele.ent of a gi)en concrete s$ste. of interacting things 7facts8 rather than si.pl$ as an abstract thing belonging to an indeter.inate sphere of realit$+ A thing regarded outside an$ concrete s$ste. of relations ;ith other things is also an abstraction N no better than relation or propert$ regarded as a specific ob>ect unconnected ;ith things the .aterial carriers of relations and properties+ The Marxist conception of the categories of the abstract and the concrete as logical 7uni)ersal8 categories ;as further elaborated in /enins nu.erous philosophical ;or(s and frag.ents as ;ell as in his excursions into logic ;hich he undertoo( in considering social politico6econo.ic and political proble.s+ Fhene)er he touched on these proble.s /enin uns;er)ingl$ defended the )ie;s de)eloped b$ Marx and #ngels e.phasising the ob>ecti)e significance of theoretical abstractions and sharpl$ re>ecting e.pt$ for.al abstractions ;hich record in )erbal for. arbitraril$ chosen for.al affinities "L

@si.ilar features of heterogeneous actuall$ unconnected pheno.ena+ -or /enin @the abstract ;as al;a$s a s$non$. of )erbiage di)orced fro. life a s$non$. of for.al ;ord6creation of an e.pt$ and untrue definition to ;hich no definite fact corresponds in realit$+ And on the contrar$ /enin al;a$s insisted on the concrete nature of the truth and of concepts expressing realit$ on the indissoluble lin(s bet;een ;ord and deed for it is onl$ these lin(s that ensure actual reasonable s$nthesis of the abstract ;ith the concrete of the uni)ersal ;ith the particular and the indi)idual+ /enins )ie;s on this score are of enor.ous i.portance for logic re<uiring further careful stud$ generalisation and s$ste.atisation+ 5t is eas$ to see that these )ie;s ha)e nothing in co..on ;ith the .etaph$sical di)ision of concepts gi)en once and for all into @abstract 7concepts of indi)idual things or facts8 and @concrete 7referring to relations and properties considered @in isolation fro. things as @specific ob>ects8+ /enin assessed concepts of both t$pe as e<uall$ abstract he did not )alue the. highl$ at all al;a$s insisting that facts and things should be co.prehended in their o)erall cohesion and concrete interaction 7that is in their @relations8 ;hile an$ consideration of social relations should al;a$s be based on a .ost careful and thoughtful treat.ent of @things of strictl$ attested facts the social relations ne)er to be ta(en as @a specific ob>ect considered separatel$ fro. things and facts+ 5n other ;ords /enin insisted on all occasions on concrete thin(ing for concreteness ;as to hi. >ust as to Marx a s$non$. of the ob>ecti)e .eaning and truth of concepts ;hile abstractness a s$non$. of their e.ptiness+ Fhat ;e ha)e said here ;arrants the follo;ing conclusionA both in dialectical and for.al logic it is inad.issible to di)ide concepts once and for all into t;o classes N abstract and concrete+ This di)ision is connected ;ith traditions in philosoph$ that are far fro. the best precisel$ those traditions against ;hich not onl$ Marx and /enin fought but also 0egel %pino'a and generall$ all those thin(ers ;ho understood that concept 7as a for. of thought8 and ter. 7a )erbal s$.bol8 ;ere essentiall$ different things+ There are certain grounds for di)iding ter.s into na.es of separate things sensuall$ percei)ed b$ the indi)idual and na.es of their @general properties and relations ;hile in regard to concepts this di)ision has no sense+ 5t is not a logical di)ision+ There are no grounds for it in logic+

The Concept of Man and #ome Concl"sions from its Analysis

/et us no; consider the concept of .an in the light of the abo)e+ Fhat is .anG At first sight the <uestion appears to be ridiculousl$ si.ple+ #ach of us lin(s up <uite a definite notion ;ith this ;ord easil$ distinguishing .an fro. an$ other being or ob>ect on the basis of this notion+ -ro. the standpoint of pre6 Marxian logic that .eans that e)er$ indi)idual of co..on sense possesses the concept of .an 0o;e)er no other concept it see.s has occasioned .ore acri.onious debate a.ong philosophers than this one+ According to the .etaph$sical 7anti6dialectical8 )ie; it is not difficult to define this concept >ust as an$ other+ -or this purpose one should abstract that general ele.ent that is e<uall$ inherent in e)er$ indi)idual representati)e of the hu.an race but not in an$ other beings+ An atte.pt to carr$ out this reco..endation ho;e)er i..ediatel$ runs into a nu.ber of difficulties of funda.ental philosophical significance+ 5t turns exit that before .a(ing such an abstraction on7 has to decide first of all ;hat li)ing beings could be included in the hu.an race and ;hat could not+ Considerations that are b$ no .eans of for.al nature i..ediatel$ co.e into pla$ fierce+ -or instance Aristotle did not ta(e sla)es into account ill ;or(ing exit his fa.ous definition of .an as a @political being+ %la)es ;ere included into a different @genus na.el$ that of @instru.ents albeit @spea(ing ones+ -or Aristotle as an ideologue of his o;n class onl$ the acti)it$ of a free citi'en ;as @genuinel$ hu.an+ #le.entar$ anal$sis of the concept of .an discloses at once that it is bound b$ a thousand ties to the existence and struggle of classes and their ;orld)ie;s and to a definite interpretation of hu.anis. that has ne)er been non6partisan or purel$ acade.ic+ The bourgeois s$ste. asserting itself in the struggle against feudal la; pro)ed its ad)antages b$ insisting that it ;as the onl$ structure to confor. to the genuine nature of .an ;hile feudalis. ;as based on distorted and false preconceptions of his nature+ The ideologists of conte.porar$ i.perialis. endea)our to pro)e that socialis. is inco.patible ;ith @the de.ands of hu.an nature onl$ to be satisfied under the @free enterprise s$ste.+ "O

/et us anal$se in this connection the situation depicted in a no)el b$ :ercors a progressi)e -rench author+ 5n a generalised acute and ;itt$ for. the no)el outlines the t$pical )ie;s of .an conflicting in the .odern ;orld+ The plot is as follo;s+ A co..unit$ of strange creatures is disco)ered ill a re.ote part of tropical forest+ According to so.e criteria current in .odern science these are anthropoid apes according to others the$ are .en+ 1ne thing is clearA it is an extraordinar$ pre)iousl$ un(no;n transitional for. bet;een the ani.al biological ;orld and the hu.an social ;orld+ The ;hole <uestion is ;hether the$ ha)e .ade the step across that hardl$ perceptible boundar$ that separates .an fro. ani.al or not+ That is see.ingl$ a purel$ acade.ic <uestion ;ith ;hich onl$ a specialist in biolog$ or anthropolog$ .a$ be concerned+ 5n these da$s ho;e)er there are no purel$ acade.ic <uestions and neither can there be+ The tropi 7as the creatures in)ented b$ the author are called8 )er$ soon beco.e the centre of conflicts of di)erse interests and therefore o different )ie;point+ An abstract theoretical <uestion @Are these .en or ani.alsG de.ands a definite and <uite concrete ans;er+ The .ain protagonist of the no)el consciousl$ (ills one of these beings+ 5f tropi are .en then he is a .urderer ;ho ;ill ha)e to be executed+ 5f the$ are ani.als there is no corpus delicti" The sa.e <uestion tor.ents the old clerg$.an+ 5f tropi are .en he is obliged to sa)e their souls to perfor. the rite of baptis.+ *ut supposing these are .erel$ ani.alsG 5n that case he ris(s a repetition of the sacrilege of %t MaRl ;ho being purblind baptised penguins+ Another po;erful interest is that of an industrial co.pan$ that sees the tropi as ideal labour force+ Trained ani.als that (no; neither trade unions nor class struggle nor needs abo)e the ph$siological ones N ;hat can be better fro. the point of )ie; of a capitalistG The co.pan$ on ;hose territor$ the tropi are disco)ered tries to pro)e that these are ani.als constituting the co.pan$s pri)ate propert$+ The debate about the nature of the tropi in)ol)es hundreds of .en do'ens of theories and doctrines its scope gets ;ider and the proble. itself .ore and .ore entangled the ;hole thing gro;ing into a debate about <uite different ob>ects and )alues+ The characters of the no)el are co.pelled to ponder the criterion for sol)ing the <uestion in a rigorous and una.biguous .anner+ This pro)es to be a .ore difficult tas( than .ight see. at first sight+ 5f preference is gi)en to a certain @propert$ of .an the tropi are included in the categor$ of .en and if another one is preferred the$ are not+ For(ing out a series of such features does not help either for in this case the <uestion arises as to the nu.ber of such features and the difficult$ re.ains the sa.e+ *$ increasing the nu.ber of .ens properties including in this nu.ber those ;hich the tropi do not ha)e one auto.aticall$ lea)es the tropi outside the hu.an race+ *$ paring do;n the nu.ber of features lea)ing onl$ those that both the pre)iousl$ (no;n .en and the tropi ha)e one obtains a definition ;hich includes the tropi in the fa.il$ of .en+ The thin(ing gets into the rut of a )icious circleA to define the nature of the tropi, one has to ha)e a pre)ious definition of .an+ *ut one cannot define .an unless one has decided beforehand ;hether one ;ill include the tropi as a species of the homo sapiens or not+ *esides interpretation of each of the features i..ediatel$ leads to explosi)e debate+ Fhat is one to understand b$ thin(ingG 0o; is one to interpret speechG 0o; is one to define labourG And so on and so forth+ 5n one sense of these concepts the tropi possess both thin(ing and speech ;hile in a different sense the$ do not+ 5n other ;ords on each attribute of .an the sa.e (ind of debate flares up as regards the concept of .an itself+ There is no )isible end to the debate it reaches the sphere of the .ost general philosophical concepts onl$ to flare up ;ith greater force and fur$+ The debate beco.es particularl$ acute ;hen it touches on the sub>ect of ;hich of the .odes of life acti)it$ should be regarded as @genuinel$ hu.an ;hat organisation of life @confor.s ;ith .ans nature and ;herein lies this @natureG All atte.pts to establish that @general and essential feature that ;ould per.it to distinguish strictl$ bet;een .an and non6.an again and again run into an ancient difficult$+ %uch a feature .a$ onl$ be defined if a boundar$ bet;een .an and his nearest ani.al forebears is pre)iousl$ dra;n; but ho; is one to dra; this boundar$ line unless one has in ones head that )er$ @general feature ;hich has to be deter.inedG 5t is not difficult to tell )er$ cold ;ater fro. )er$ hot; bait ;hat about ;ar. ;aterG 1ne stone does not .a(e a heap and neither do t;o stones+ 0o; .an$ stones does one need to .a(e a heapG Fhere is the point at ;hich a balding .an beco.es baldG Does such a clear6cut boundar$ exist at allG 5snt it si.pl$ an arbitrar$ i.aginar$ line dra;n for the sa(e of con)enience of classification onl$G 5n that case ;here should it lieG 5t ;ill be dra;n ;here the po;ers that be ;ill ;ant to dra; it6that is the con)iction to ;hich the hero of the no)el co.es+ 5ndeed the sub>ecti)e idealist doctrines 7prag.atis. instru.entalis. etc+8 hand o)er the solution of this <uestion to the po;ers that be+ Cheir )oice beco.es "6

the criterion of truth; e)er$thing is .ade dependent on their ;ill and caprice+ All the .isfortunes of this ;orld ste. fro. the fact that .en ha)e not grasped $et ;hat .an is and the$ ha)e not agreed about ;hat the$ ;ould li(e hi. to be6that is the ;a$ the protagonist of the no)el philosophises+ 0a)ing found fro. practical experience that the general and essential feature of .an is not so eas$ to disco)er as .ight appear at first sight the heroes of the no)el are co.pelled to loo( for a solution in philosophical and sociological conceptions+ *ut ;here is one to find the criterion of the truth of the latterG 0ere it all begins fro. the beginning+ :ercors and his heroes are fa.iliar ;ith Marxist ans;er to this <uestion+ Set it appears @one6sided to the.+ :ercors belie)es that a conception proceeding fro. @the real relations of .en in .aterial production ignores @other for.s of hu.an solidarit$ first of all @ritual philosoph$A @there are .an$ tribes in the ;orld ;hose hu.an solidarit$ is built on hunting ;ars or fetishist rituals rather than on .aterial production; @the strongest tie no; binding H00 .illion 0indus is their ritual philosoph$ rather than their bac(;ard agriculture+ The heroes of the no)el )acillate at the authors ;ill bet;een the Marxist and the idealist Christian definition of the general and essential criterion of the hu.an being daring to accept neither+ The$ are loo(ing for a third one that ;ould reconcile dialectical .aterialis. and Christianit$+ @#ach .an is a .an first and fore.ost and onl$ then is he a follo;er of Plato Christ or Marx ;rote :ercors in the after;ard to the 2ussian edition of the boo(+ @5n .$ )ie; it is .uch .ore i.portant to sho; the ;a$ in ;hich points of contact .a$ be found bet;een Marxis. and Christianit$ proceeding fro. such a criterion than to e.phasise as such regardless of their differences+ The essence of .an the ideological differences does not lie in adherence to so.e doctrine or other+ *ut ;herein does it lieG 5n the fact that .an is first and fore.ost +++ .an+ That is the onl$ ans;er that :ercors ;as able to oppose to the @one6sided )ie; of dialectical .aterialis.+ *ut this (ind of @ans;er ta(es us bac( to the starting point N to a si.ple na.e unendo;ed ;ith an$ definite content+ To .o)e a;a$ fro. the tautolog$ one ;ill ha)e to ta(e up the line of reasoning fro. the )er$ beginning+ The position so )i)idl$ and ;ittil$ outlined b$ :ercors expresses )er$ ;ell the attitudes of those sections of Festern intellectuals ;ho struggle agonisingl$ ;ith the burning issues of our ti.es $et ha)e not sol)ed so far the proble. for the.sel)es N ;here lie the ;a$s of redee.ing the noble ideals of hu.anis.G The$ see clearl$ that capitalis. is innatel$ hostile to these ideals+ Set the$ do not dare to ta(e up co..unis. for fear of losing in it @independence of thin(ing the sha. @pri)ileges of the thin(ing part of .an(ind+ Fhile this part of .an(ind agonises o)er the choice bet;een these t;o real poles of the .odern ;orld an$ unco.plicated theoretical <uestion gro;s out of an$ proportion into a .ost intricate and co.pletel$ insoluble proble. ;hile atte.pts to sol)e it ;ith the aid of the .ost sophisticated instru.ents of for.al logic ulti.atel$ lead to a tautolog$A A T A .an is .an+ 3othing else can result fro. a search for a definition of .an through establishing the abstractl$ identical propert$ ;hich each indi)idual representati)e of present6da$ .an(ind possesses+ /ogic based on this (ind of axio. is absolutel$ po;erless to do an$thing here+ The essence of .an to be expressed in the uni)ersal definition is b$ no .eans an abstraction inherent in each indi)idual it is not the identical feature ;hich each indi)idual representati)e of the hu.an race ta(en separatel$ possesses+ A uni)ersal definition of .an cannot be obtained on this path+ here one needs a different (ind of logic a logic based on the dialectical .aterialist conception of the relationship bet;een the uni)ersal and the indi)idual+ This essence is i.possible to disco)er in a series of abstract features inherent in e)er$ indi)idual+ The uni)ersal cannot be found here ho;e)er hard one .ight loo( for it+ The search along this path is fruitless also in the case ;hen it is assisted b$ .ost sophisticated logic+ An excellent illustration of this point is to be found in *ialectic, b$ Eusta) #+ Mueller an A.erican philosopher+ Dudging fro. the boo( the author has learnt so.ething fro. 0egel+ 0e e)en assi.ilated the 0egelian propositions oil the interpenetration of opposites on the role of contradictions in the de)elop.ent of scientific theses on the relation of consciousness to self6 consciousness and .an$ other things+ 0o;e)er all this for.al dialectical erudition runs idle resulting in )acuit$+ @Man could not (no; ;hat .an is could he not identity .an ;ith hi.self; $et e<uall$ .an could ha)e no experience of .an if he could not differentiate hi.self fro. ;hat he experiences of hi.self+ B19OHC A series of @identifications and @differentiations ;hich Muellers .an carries out ;ithin hi.self according to the rules of for.al dialectical sche.es bring hi. to constructions so unintelligible and in)ol)ed that their creator cannot untangle the. hi.self+ The end result of this pseudo6dialectical logic is as follo;sA .an is so co.plicated and contradictor$ a being that the .ore $ou stud$ hi. the less $ou can hope to understand hi.+ The onl$ @general feature that Mueller .anages to isolate in the intricate co.plexit$ of "K

interacting indi)iduals ulti.atel$ pro)es to be the @po;er of reflection and @lo)e for reflection+ @0is true hu.anit$ lies in this po;er of reflection+++ And the better the self thus (no;s itself the .ore <uestionable and uncertain it appears+ To e.brace in the <uestionable indi)idual the absolute is ;hat Plato calls !ros, lo)e+ Mans true self is Love"+ Bibid"C 1ne ;ould be hard put to it to discern here the @po;er of reflection+ Po;erlessness is .uch .ore in e)idence+ Mans essence certainl$ has nothing to do ;ith this+ Fhat is expressed here is .erel$ the essence of a philosopher and his lo)e for conte.plating the ;a$ he conte.plates+ 2eproaching Mueller hi.self for all this is both un(ind and useless+ The i.potence of his thought is first of all to be bla.ed on the conditions that create such a one6sided and abstract ps$cholog$6the ps$cholog$ of an intellectual co.pletel$ di)orced fro. the real life and struggle of the .asses the ps$cholog$ of the .an ;ho conte.plates onl$ the .anner in ;hich he conte.plates+ 5f Mueller sees this conte.plation of conte.plation as @true hu.anit$ it is eas$ to appreciate his positionA after all one .ust ha)e so.e consolation+ 0o;e)er real hu.anit$ the ;or(ing and fighting hu.anit$ ;ill hardl$ agree to its essence being identified ;ith the indi)idualit$ of a personalist philosopher nurturing in solitude his lo)e for i.potent conte.plation and conte.plation about this i.potent lo)e+ The essence of .odern hu.anit$ and thereb$ a uni)ersal definition of .an is of course a sub>ect6.atter ;orth$ of the closest attention of a philosopher+ A clear )ie; of the ;orld is the first and necessar$ pre.ise for approaching this proble. correctl$+ *ut one also needs a .ore de)eloped logic than that ;hich suggests that the solution lies in searching for the @general and essential propert$ inherent in all the indi)idual representati)es of .odern .an(ind ta(en separatel$ and reducing the uni)ersal to the .erel$ identical+ %uch logic cannot $ield an$thing but e.pt$ tautologies+ *esides the abstract .otto @/oo( for the general and thou shalt find the (no;ledge of the essence gi)es a free hand to arbitrariness and sub>ecti)is. in deli.iting the range of facts fro. ;hich the general is abstracted+ All of this is e)idence of the fact that the lin(s bet;een logic and ;orld)ie; are integral ones >ust as those bet;een the operations of generalisation and a definite part$ position in life and philosoph$+ A .ost sophisticated s$ste. of for.al rules for generalisation ;ill not ensure true generalisation unless it is co.bined ;ith a clear and progressi)e ;orld)ie; principle+ And another thing is no less true+ A progressi)e ;orld)ie; cannot be .echanicall$ co.bined ;ith a logic that posits its neutralit$ ;ith regard to an$ ;orld)ie; as a )irtue restricting itself to ;or(ing out such abstract rules as .a$ be e.plo$ed this ;a$ and that depending on the irrationall$ e.otional bias for so.e ;orld)ie; or other+ The Marxist6/eninist ;orld6)ie; is based on a scientificall$ ;or(ed out conception of facts rather than on ethical postulates+ 5t is logical through and through+ 0o;e)er the logic ;ith the aid of ;hich this ;orld)ie; has been ;or(ed out also contains ;ithin itself in its o;n propositions rather than so.e;here outside a certain ;orld)ie; principle+ The ;ar.est e.otional attach.ent to the ;or(ing class and co..unist ideals ;ill not redee. a theoretician if he e.plo$s the ancient purel$ for.al logic ;ith its clai. to @non6partisanship+ %uch a theoretician ;ill ne)er arri)e at correct conclusions and generalisations+ 5n his theses on -euerbach Marx opposed his dialectical .aterialist conception of the essence of .an to all pre)ious atte.pts to define this .uch tal(ed6of essence sa$ing that @the essence of .an is no abstraction inherent in each single indi)idual+ 5n its realit$ it is the ense.ble of the social relations+ BTheses on 4euerbachC+ This expresses not onl$ a ;orld6)ie; sociological truth but also a profound logical tenet or principle one of the .ost i.portant propositions of dialectical logic+ 5t is eas$ to see that this proposition assu.es a conception of the categories of the abstract the concrete the uni)ersal and the indi)idual <uite different fro. the one on ;hich old non6dialectical logic ;as based+ Translated into the language of logic this proposition .eansA it is useless to loo( for uni)ersal definitions of the essence of a genus through abstraction of the identical propert$ possessed b$ each indi)idual representati)e of this genus+ An expression of the essence of a genus is not to be found in a series of @abstractions hard as one .ight tr$ for it is not contained in this series+ The essence of hu.an nature in general and thereb$ the genuine hu.an nature of each .an can onl$ be re)ealed through <uite a concrete stud$ of the @ense.ble of the social relations through a concrete anal$sis of those la;s ;hich go)ern the birth and de)elop.ent of hu.an societ$ as a ;hole and of each hu.an indi)idual+ "!

0u.an societ$ is a .ost t$pical case of concrete co..unit$ and the relation of a hu.an indi)idual to societ$ is a characteristic instance of the relation of the indi)idual to the uni)ersal+ The dialectical nature of this relation appears here in sharp relief ;hile the <uestion of the relation of the abstract to the concrete is closel$ inter;o)en ;ith the proble. of the relation of the uni)ersal to the particular and the indi)idual+

The Concrete and the Dialectics of the $ni%ersal and the &ndi%id"al
The search for the essence of .an through ideall$ e<uating .en in the concept of the genus assu.es a .etaph$sical conception of the relation of the uni)ersal to the indi)idual+ -or the .etaph$sician onl$ the indi)idual is concrete N an indi)idual sensuall$ percei)ed thing ob>ect pheno.enon e)ent a separate hu.an indi)idual etc+ -or hi. the abstract is the product of .ental separation ;hose counterpart in realit$ is si.ilarit$ of .an$ 7or all8 indi)idual things pheno.ena .en+ According to this position the uni)ersal exists in realit$ onl$ as si.ilarit$ bet;een .an$ indi)idual things onl$ as one of the aspects of a concrete indi)idual thing ;hile its being separatel$ fro. the indi)idual thing its being as such is onl$ realised in .ans head onl$ as a ;ord as the sense and .eaning of a ter.+ At first sight this )ie; of the relation bet;een the uni)ersal and the indi)idual appears to be the onl$ .aterialist and co..on6sensical one+ *ut that is onl$ at first sight+ The thing is that this position co.pletel$ ignores in the )er$ approach to the proble. the dialectics of the uni)ersal and the indi)idual in the things the.sel)es in the realit$ outside the head+ This can be sho;n .ost graphicall$ b$ considering the ;a$ in ;hich the -euerbachian and Marxist6 /eninist conception of the essence of .an di)erge+ Fhile criticising 0egel <uite sharpl$ for his idealis. for ta(ing @pure thought to be the essence of .an -euerbach pro)ed to be incapable of opposing to 0egel a conception of dialectics contained in the relations of .an to .an and of .an to nature in the .aterial production of the life of societ$+ That ;as ;h$ he re.ained centred on the abstract indi)idual both in sociolog$ and episte.olog$ despite his o;n that he ;as concerned ;ith the @concrete @real @actual .an+ This .an pro)ed to be @concrete onl$ in -euerbachs i.agination+ 0e failed to see ;herein la$ the actual concreteness of .an+ Apart fro. e)er$thing else that .eans that the ter.s @the concrete and @the abstract ;ere used b$ -euerbach in a sense directl$ opposite to their true philosophical senseA ;hat he calls concrete is in fact as brilliantl$ pro)ed b$ Marx and #ngels extre.el$ abstract, and )ice )ersa+ The ter. @concrete is applied b$ -euerbach to an aggregate of sensuall$ percei)ed <ualities inherent in each indi)idual and co..on to all indi)iduals+ 0is conception of .an is based on these <ualities+ -ro. the point of )ie; of Marx and #ngels fro. the dialectical standpoint that is a t$picall$ abstract portra$al of .an+ Marx and #ngels ;ere the first to sho; fro. the .aterialist )ie;point ;herein lies the genuine concreteness of hu.an existence and ;hat is the ob>ecti)e realit$ to ;hich a philosopher is entitled to appl$ the ter. @concrete in its full .eaning+ The$ disco)ered .ans concrete essence in the o)erall process of social life and la;s of its de)elop.ent rather than in a series of <ualities inherent in each indi)idual+ The <uestion of .ans concrete nature is here for.ulated and sol)ed as the proble. of de)elop.ent of a s$ste. of social relations of .an to .an and of .an to nature+ The uni)ersal 7sociall$ concrete8 s$ste. of interaction bet;een .en and things appears ;ith regard to a separate indi)idual as his o;n hu.an realit$ that ;as for.ed outside of and independentl$ fro. hi.+ 3ature as such creates absolutel$ nothing @hu.an+ Man ;ith all his specificall$ hu.an features is fro. beginning to end the result and product of his o;n labour+ #)en ;al(ing straight ;hich @appears at first sight .ans natural anato.icall$ innate trait is in actual fact a result of educating the child ;ithin an established societ$A a child isolated fro. societ$ U la Mo;gli 7and such cases are nu.erous8 prefers to run on all fours and it ta(es a lot of effort to brea( hi. of the habit+ 5n other ;ords onl$ those features properties and peculiarities of the indi)idual that are ulti.atel$ products of social labour are specificall$ hu.an+ 1f course it is .other nature that pro)ides the "9

anatono.ic and ph$siological prere<uisites+ ho;e)er the specificall$ hu.an for. ;hich the$ ulti.atel$ assu.e is the product of labour and it can onl$ be co.prehended or deduced fro. labour+ Con)ersel$ all those properties of .an that are not a product of labour do not belong to the features expressing .ans essence 7e+g+ soft lobes of the ear although the$ are a @specific feature of .an and not of an$ other li)ing being8+ An indi)idual a;a(ing to hu.an life acti)it$ that is a natural biological being beco.ing a social one is co.pelled to assi.ilate all for.s of this acti)it$ through education+ 3one of the. are inherited biologicall$+ Fhat is inherited is the ph$siological potential for assi.ilating the.+ At first the$ confront hi. as so.ething existing outside and independentl$ fro. hi. as so.ething entirel$ ob>ecti)e as an ob>ect for assi.ilation and i.itation+ Through education these for.s of social hu.an acti)it$ are transfor.ed into a personal indi)idual sub>ecti)e possession and are e)en consolidated ph$siologicall$A an adult person is no longer able to ;al( on all fours e)en if he ;ants to do so and that is not at all because he ;ould be ridiculed; ra; .eat .a(es hi. sic(+ 5n other ;ords all those features the su. of ;hich .a(es up the .uch tal(ed6of essence of .an are results and products 7ulti.ate ones of course8 of socio6hu.an labour acti)it$+ Man does not o;e the. to nature as such still less to a supernatural force ;hether it be called Eod or b$ so.e other na.e 7e+g+ idea8+ 0e o;es the. onl$ to hi.self and the labour of pre)ious generations+ This is e)en .ore true of the .ore co.plex for.s of hu.an acti)it$ both sensual and ob>ecti)e 7.aterial8 and spiritual than of straight ;al(ing+ Man(inds culture accu.ulated throughout histor$ appears to a .odern indi)idual as so.ething pri.ar$ deter.ining his indi)idual hu.an acti)it$+ -ro. the scientific 7.aterialist8 point of )ie; the indi)idual the hu.an personalit$ should therefore be regarded as a unitar$ e.bodi.ent of uni)ersal hu.an culture both .aterial and spiritual+ This culture is naturall$ realised in the indi)idual in a .ore or less one6sided and inco.plete .anner+ The extent to ;hich an indi)idual can .a(e the riches of culture into his propert$ does not depend on hi. alone; to a .uch greater degree it depends on societ$ and on the .ode of di)ision of labour characteristic of societ$+ Actual assi.ilation of so.e area of culture or other so.e for. of hu.an acti)it$ or other .eans assi.ilating it to such an extent as to lie able to de)elop it further in an independent indi)idual and creati)e .anner+ 3othing can be assi.ilated through passi)e conte.plation6that is li(e building castles in the air+ Assi.ilation ;ithout acti)e practice $ields no results+ That is ;h$ the for. of assi.ilating uni)ersal hu.an culture b$ the indi)idual is deter.ined b$ the for. of the di)ision of labour+ 1f course there is one6sidedness and one6sidedness+ The principal achie)e.ent of Marx and #ngels in the solution of this proble. ;as their careful and concrete stud$ of the contradictions of the bourgeois di)ision of labour+ The antagonistic class di)ision of labour .a(es each indi)idual into an extre.el$ one6sided .an a @partial .an+ 5t de)elops so.e of his abilities through eli.inating the possibilit$ of de)eloping others+ Certain abilities are de)eloped in so.e indi)iduals ;hile others in other indi)iduals and it is this one# sidedness of de)elop.ent that lin(s indi)iduals ;ith one another as .en acting as the for. in ;hich uni)ersal de)elop.ent is realised+ The concrete fullness of hu.an de)elop.ent is here due to the fullness of personal indi)idual de)elop.ent to the fact that each indi)idual ta(en separatel$ pro)es to be a defecti)e one6sided that is abstract .an+ 5f -euerbach regarded such an objectively abstract indi)idual as a @concrete .an that ;as a .anifestation not onl$ of the li.itations of a bourgeois theoretician of an ideological illusion )eiling the actual state of things but also of the logical ;ea(ness of his position+ To construct a concrete conception of the essence of .an of .an as such -euerbach .ade an abstraction fro. all the actual differences de)eloped b$ histor$ loo(ing for that general propert$ that ;ould be e<uall$ characteristic of tailor and painter loc(s.ith and cler( peasant and clerg$.an ;age ;or(er and entrepreneur+ 0e endea)oured to find the essence of .an the genuine concrete nature of the hu.an being a.ongst properties co..on to indi)iduals of an$ class and an$ occupation+ 0e .ade an N abstraction precisel$ fro. all the ele.ents that constituted the real essence of .an(ind de)eloping through opposites as a totalit$ of .utuall$ conditioning .odes of hu.an acti)it$+ B%ee 0egel on Abstract EeneralC According to the logic of Marx and #ngels a concrete theoretical conception of .an a concrete expression of the essence of .an could onl$ be for.ed in the dia.etricall$ opposite ;a$ through considering exactl$ those differences and oppositions 7class professional and indi)idual8 ;hich H0

-euerbach ignores+ The essence of .an is real onl$ as a ;ell6de)eloped and articulated s$ste. of abilities as a co.plex s$ste. of the di)ision of labour ;hich in accordance ;ith its needs .oulds the indi)iduals N .athe.aticians philosophers entrepreneurs ban(ers ser)ants etc+ 5n other ;ords a theoretical definition of the essence of .an can onl$ consist in re)ealing the necessit$ ;hich gi)es rise to and de)elops all the .ultifor. .anifestations and .odes of socio6hu.an acti)it$+ 5n regard of the .ost general characteristic of this s$ste. of the @uni)ersal definition of 0u.an nature one .ust point out that that characteristic should express the real ob>ecti)el$ uni)ersal foundation on ;hich the entire ;ealth of hu.an culture necessaril$ gro;s+ Man as is ;ell6(no;n beco.es separated fro. the ani.al ;orld ;hen he begins to ;or( using i.ple.ents of labour ;hich he hi.self created+ Production of labour i.ple.ents is exactl$ the first and in ti.e logicall$ and historicall$8 for. of hu.an life6acti)it$ of hu.an existence+ B%ee #ngels )art )layed by LabourC Thus the real uni)ersal basis of e)er$thing that is hu.an in .an is production of instru.ents of production+ 5t is fro. this basis that other di)erse <ualities of the hu.an being de)eloped including consciousness and ;ill speech and thin(ing erect ;al( and all the rest of it+ 5f one ;ere to atte.pt a uni)ersal definition of .an in general a short definition of the concept it ;ould sound li(e thisA @.an is a being producing i.ple.ents of labour+ B-ran(lin see Capital 5 ch K+C That ;ill be a characteristic exa.ple of a concrete uni)ersal definition of a concept+ This definition fro. the standpoint of old logic is inad.issibl$ @concrete to be uni)ersal+ %uch undoubted representati)es of the hu.an race as Mo'art or 2aphael Push(in or Aristotle can hardl$ be included in this definition b$ .eans of si.ple for.al abstraction through a s$llogistic figure+ 1n the other hand the definition of .an as @a being producing i.ple.ents of labour+ That ;ill be assessed b$ old logic as a purel$ particular definition of .an rather than a uni)ersal one it ;ill be recognised to be a definition of <uite a specific t$pe class or occupation of .en N ;or(ers of .achine6 building plants or shop;or(s and nothing but+ Fhat is the cause of this di)ergenceG The fact of the .atter is that the logic of Marx on the basis of ;hich this concrete uni)ersal definition ;as ;or(ed out is founded on a different conception of the correlation bet;een the uni)ersal the particular and the indi)idual 7separate8 fro. that of non6dialectical logic+ Production of i.ple.ents of labour of instru.ents of production is indeed a real and therefore <uite specific for. of hu.an existence+ At the sa.e ti.e that does not .a(e it less real as a universal basis of the rest of hu.an de)elop.ent a uni)ersal genetic basis of all that is hu.an in .an+ Production of labour i.ple.ents as the first uni)ersal for. of hu.an acti)it$ as the ob>ecti)e basis for all other hu.an traits ;ithout exception as the si.plest ele.entar$ for. of .ans hu.an being N that is ;hat is expressed in the uni)ersal concept of the essence of .an in the s$ste. of Marx and #ngels+ *ut being an ob>ecti)el$ uni)ersal basis of .ans entire .ost co.plex social realit$ production of labour i.ple.ents ;as a thousand $ears ago is no; and ;ill be in the future <uite a particular for. of .ans acti)it$ actuall$ realised in indi)idual acts perfor.ed b$ indi)idual .en+ Anal$sis of the social act of the production of labour i.ple.ents should re)eal the internal contradictions of this act and the nature of their de)elop.ent gi)ing rise to such abilities of .an as speech ;ill thought artistic feeling and further class di)ision of the collecti)e e.ergence of la; politics art philosoph$ state etc+ 5n this conception the universal is not .etaph$sicall$ opposed to the particular and the individual as a .ental abstraction to a sensuall$ gi)en fullness of pheno.ena but is rather opposed as a real utilit$ of the uni)ersal the particular and the indi)idual as an ob>ecti)e fact to other >ust as ob>ecti)e facts ;ithin one and the sa.e concrete historicall$ de)eloped s$ste. in this case to .ans social and historical realit$+ The proble. of the relation of the uni)ersal to the indi)idual arises in this case not onl$ and not so .uch as the proble. of the relation of .ental abstraction to the sensuall$ gi)en ob>ecti)e realit$ but as the proble. of the relation of sensuall$ gi)en facts to other sensuall$ gi)en facts as the object+s internal relation to the object itself, the relation of its different aspects to one another as the proble. of internal differentiation of ob>ecti)e concreteness ;ithin itself+ 1n this basis and as a conse<uence of it it arises as the proble. of the relation bet;een the concepts expressing in this connection the ob>ecti)e articulated concreteness+ To deter.ine ;hether the abstract uni)ersal is extracted correctl$ or incorrectl$ one should see ;hether it co.prehends directl$ through si.ple for.al abstraction each particular and indi)idual fact ;ithout exception+ 5f it does not then ;e are ;rong in considering a gi)en notion as uni)ersal+ H1

The situation is different in the case of the relation of the concrete uni)ersal concept to the sensuall$ gi)en di)ersit$ of particular and indi)idual facts+ To find out ;hether a gi)en concept has re)ealed a uni)ersal definition of the ob>ect or a non6uni)ersal one one should underta(e a .uch .ore co.plex and .eaningful anal$sis+ 5n this case one should as( oneself the <uestion ;hether the particular pheno.enon directl$ expressed in it is at the sa.e ti.e the uni)ersal genetic basis fro. the de)elop.ent of ;hich all other >ust as particular pheno.ena of the gi)en concrete s$ste. .a$ be understood in their necessit$+ 5s the act of production of labour i.ple.ents that (ind of social realit$ fro. ;hich all other hu.an traits .a$ be deduced in their necessity, or is it notG The ans;er to this <uestion deter.ines the logical characterisation of the concept as a uni)ersal or non6uni)ersal one+ Concrete anal$sis of the content of the concept $ields in this case an affir.ati)e ans;er+ Anal$sis of the sa.e concept fro. the standpoint of the abstract logic of the intellect $ields a negati)e ans;er+ The o)er;hel.ing .a>orit$ of beings that are undoubtedl$ indi)idual representati)es of the hu.an race do not directl$ confor. to this definition+ -ro. the standpoint of old non6dialectical logic this concept is too concrete to be >ustified as a uni)ersal one+ 5n the logic of Marx ho;e)er this concept is genuinel$ uni)ersal exactl$ because it directl$ reflects the factual ob>ecti)e basis of all the other traits of .an ;hich ha)e de)eloped out of this basis factuall$ historicall$ the concrete uni)ersal basis of an$thing that is hu.an+ 5n other ;ords the <uestion of the uni)ersal character of a concept is transferred to another sphere that of the stud$ of the real process of development" The de)elop.ental approach beco.es thereb$ the approach of logic" This approach also deter.ines the proposition of .aterialist dialectics to the effect that the concept should not express the abstractl$ uni)ersal but rather that uni)ersal ;hich according to /enins apt for.ula e.bodies in itself the richness of the particular the indi)idual the single+ *eing the concrete universal" This richness of the particular and the indi)idual is naturall$ e.bodied not in the concept as such but rather in the ob>ecti)e realit$ ;hich is reflected in the concept that particular 7and e)en indi)idual8 sensuall$ gi)en realit$ ;hose characteristics are abstracted as definitions of a uni)ersal concept+ Thus it is not the concept of .an as a being producing labour i.ple.ents that contains in itself the concepts of all the other hu.an traits but rather the actual fact of producing labour i.ple.ents contains in6itself the necessit$ of their origin and de)elop.ent+ 5t is not the co..odit$ concept or )alue concept that contains in itself the entire di)ersit$ of other theoretical definitions of capitalis. but rather the real co..odit$ for. of lin(s bet;een producers is the e.br$o fro. ;hich all the @riches including the po)ert$ of the ;age ;or(ers de)elop+ That ;as ;h$ Marx ;as able to re)eal all the contradictions of .odern societ$ in his anal$sis of si.ple co..odit$ exchange as an actual directl$ obser)able relation bet;een .en+ 3othing of this sort naturall$ is to be obser)ed in the concept of co..odit$+ 5n his pole.ics ;ith bourgeois critics of Capital Marx had to e.phasise the fact that the first sections of this boo( do not contain an anal$sis of the concept of co..odit$ at all but an ele.entar$ econo.ic concreteness called co..odit$ relation N a real sensuall$ conte.plated fact and not an abstraction existing in the head+ The universality of the categor$ of )alue is therefore a characteristic not onl$ and not so .uch of the concept of .ental abstraction as first of all of the objective role pla$ed b$ the co..odit$ for. in the e.ergence of capitalis.+ 1nl$ as a result of this does uni)ersalit$ pro)e to be also a logical characteristic of the concept expressing this realit$ and its role in the structure of the ;hole under stud$+ The ;ord @)alue and the corresponding rather definite notion ;ere not created b$ Pett$ or %.ith or 2icardo+ An$thing that could be bought sold or exchanged e)er$thing that cost so.ething ;as referred to as )alue b$ an$ .erchant of those ti.es+ 0ad theoreticians of political econo.$ atte.pted an elaboration of the concept through abstracting the general ele.ent possessed b$ all referred to as @)alue in the traditional usage the$ ;ould ne)er construct a concept, of course+ The$ ;ould .erel$ brought out the .eaning of the ;ord @)alue precisel$ the sa.e .eaning that ;as i.plied b$ an$ .erchant+ The$ ;ould ha)e enu.erated the properties of those pheno.ena to ;hich the ;ord @)alue ;as applicable+ The ;hole thing ;ould not ha)e gone be$ond finding out the li.its of the applicabilit$ of the ;ord the na.e be$ond an anal$sis of the sense i.plied in the na.e+ The ;hole point is ho;e)er that the$ for.ulated this <uestion in <uite a different ;a$ so that the resultant ans;er to it pro)ed to be a concept+ Marx clearl$ sho;ed the real essence of such an approach+ The classics of political econo.$ beginning ;ith Pett$ did not at all engage in .a(ing abstraction fro. all those indi)idual cases that ;ere obser)ed on the surface of capitalist co..odit$ circulation and that H"

the current usage referred to as cases of the .o)e.ent of )alues+ The$ raised the <uestion <uite explicitl$ and directl$ of the real source of the )alue properties of things of the substance of )alue+ Their .ain achie)e.ent la$ precisel$ in that the$ atte.pted to strictl$ define the substance of )alue through considering ele.entar$ co..odit$ exchange+ 1;ing to this the$ disco)ered that the substance of )alue ;as contained in social labour+ 5n ;or(ing out the concept of )alue the$ actuall$ closel$ studied the exchange of one co..odit$ for another in an atte.pt to understand ;h$ on ;hat ob>ecti)e basis ;ithin ;hat concrete substance one thing ;as actuall$ e<uated ;ith another+ 5n other ;ords ;ithout realising clearl$ the logical essence of their operations the$ actuall$ considered one specific case of the .o)e.ent of )alues na.el$ the fact of simple commodity exchange" Anal$sis of this specific case $ielded the concept of )alue+ Fillia. Pett$ the first #nglish econo.ist obtained the concept of )alue b$ reasoning thusA @5f a .an can bring to /ondon an ounce of %il)er out of the #arth in Peru in the same time that he can produce a *ushel of Corn then one is the natural price of the other+ +++ BTheories of (urplus &alue 5:C /et us note that this argu.ent does not contain the ;ord @)alue at all N Pett$ spea(s of @natural price+ Set ;hat e.erges here is exactl$ the concept of value as the e.bodi.ent of sociall$ necessar$ <uantit$ of labour ti.e in a co..odit$+ A concept inas.uch as it is a real concept rather than .erel$ a general notion expressed in a ter. al;a$s expresses the concretely universal, not the abstractl$ uni)ersal that is it expresses a realit$ ;hich ;hile being <uite a particular pheno.enon a.ong other particular pheno.ena is at the sa.e ti.e a genuinel$ uni)ersal concretel$ uni)ersal ele.ent a @cell in all the other particular pheno.ena+ B%ee Capital Chapter 1ne P HC The classic representati)es of bourgeois political econo.$ spontaneousl$ b$ trial and error disco)ered this correct path of defining )alue+ *ut the$ did not <uite realise the genuine significance of this .ode of thought+ The philosoph$ of /oc(e at ;hich their thin(ing ;as consciousl$ oriented offered the. no (e$ to the proble. of defining uni)ersal concepts+ This led the. to a nu.ber of paradoxes <uite instructi)e fro. the logical )ie;point and a nu.ber of funda.ental difficulties the genuine .eaning of ;hich ;as onl$ elucidated in Marx anal$sis+ The cardinal difference bet;een Marxian anal$sis of )alue as the uni)ersal basis for all the other categories of capitalist econo.$ and that (ind of anal$sis ;hich ;as attained in bourgeois political econo.$ la$ precisel$ in the fact that Marx for.ed scientific definitions of @)alue in general @)alue as such on the basis of concrete consideration of direct exchange of one co..odit$ for another in)ol)ing no .one$+ 5n doing so Marx .ade a strict abstraction fro. all the other (inds of )alue de)eloped on this basis 7surplus6)alue profit rent interest and so on8+ 2icardos .ain error according to Marx la$ in his inabilit$ @to forget profit in considering @)alue as such so that his abstraction turns out to be inco.plete insufficient @for.al+ Marx includes in the definitions of @)alue in general onl$ those definitions that ;ere re)ealed through anal$sis of one (ind of )alue precisel$ that (ind of )alue ;hich pro)es to be ele.entar$ pri.ordial both logicall$ and historicall$ 7that is both in essence and in ti.e8 The product of his anal$sis are genuinel$ uni)ersal definitions of )alue in general definitions that ha)e the .eaning of concretel$ uni)ersal definitions in regard of .one$ and profit ali(e+ 5n other ;ords these are the concretel$ uni)ersal definitions of all the other specific (inds of .anifestation of )alue+ That is a .ost splendid exa.ple of a concretel$ uni)ersal concept+ 5ts definitions express that real 7rather than for.al8 general .o.ent ;hich constitutes the ele.entar$ @generic essence of all the other particular categories+ These genuinel$ uni)ersal definitions are further reproduced in .one$ in profit in rent constituting definitions co..on to all these categories+ *ut as Marx sho;s one ;ould ne)er ha)e been able to re)eal these definitions through si.ple for.al abstraction fro. the specific features of co..odit$ .one$ profit and rent+ 4ni)ersal definitions of )alue directl$ coincide in Capital ;ith the theoretical expression of the specific features of si.ple co..odit$ exchange of the la;s ;hich re)eal these specific features+ The reason for that is that the specific feature of si.ple co..odit$ for. lies exactl$ in that it constitutes the genuinel$ uni)ersal foundation of the ;hole s$ste. its @ele.entar$ cell the first real for. of .anifestation of @)alue in general+ 5n considering this specific instance Marx re)eals in it through his anal$sis b$ @the po;er of abstraction the uni)ersal definitions of )alue+ Anal$sis of exchange of linen for a coat an indi)idual instance at first sight $ields uni)ersal rather than indi)idual definitions as its conclusion+ 1ne sees at a HH

glance that this raising of the indi)idual to the uni)ersal is radicall$ different fro. the si.ple act of for.al abstraction+ The specific properties of the ele.entar$ co..odit$ for. distinguishing it fro. profit rent and other (inds of )alue are not ignored here as so.ething inessential+ 1n the contrar$ theoretical anal$sis of these properties leads to the for.ation of a uni)ersal concept+ That is the dialectical ;a$ of raising the indi)idual to the uni)ersal+ 1ld non6dialectical logic ;ould here reco..end a different approach+ 5n accordance ;ith its principles a definition of @)alue in general ;ould ha)e to be for.ed through abstraction fro. the specific features of all (inds of )alue including simple commodity exchange, through identif$ing the co..on features of co..odit$ profit rent interest etc+ The specific features of the co..odit$ for. of )alue ;ould ha)e been ignored as @inessential+ The uni)ersal ;ould ha)e been ta(en in isolation fro. the particular+ Marx practises <uite a different approach+ 5nsofar as the uni)ersal exists in realit$ onl$ through the particular and the indi)idual it can onl$ be re)ealed b$ a thorough anal$sis of the particular rather than an act of abstraction fro. the particular+ The uni)ersal is the theoretical expression of the particular and the indi)idual an expression of the la; of their existence+ The realit$ of the uni)ersal in nature is the la; of the existence of the particular and the indi)idual rather than .ere for.al affinit$ of pheno.ena in so.e respect ser)ing as a basis for including the. in one class+ 5t is Marxian dialectics that per.its to bring out the actual real general content of the co..odit$ for. of .one$ of profit and of all the other categories+ This general content cannot be re)ealed through an act of si.ple for.al abstraction+ 5t+ is onl$ useful in the initial classification of pheno.ena+ 5t pro)es inade<uate ;here a .ore serious tas( arises6that of ;or(ing out uni)ersal ob>ecti)e theoretical definitions concepts; .oreo)er it is here applied be$ond its sphere and cannot sol)e the tas(+ A .ore profound .ethod is needed here+ 5t is indicati)e that 0egel ;ho ca.e )er$ close to the correct dialectical conception of the proble. of the concretel$ uni)ersal betra$ed dialectics on the .ost significant point and that o;ing to the idealist nature of his conception+ 5n explaining his conception of the dialectics of the uni)ersal and the particular 0egel co..ents on the ;ell6(no;n argu.ent of Aristotle on geo.etric figures+ According to Aristotle =a.ongst figures onl$ the triangle and the other definite figures? the rectangle the parallelogra. etc+ =are reall$ so.ething+ -or the co..on is the figure; but this general figure that is the co..on does not exist? it is nothing real it is nothing an e.pt$ thing of the .ind it is onl$ an abstraction+ =1n the contrar$ the triangle is the first figure the real general ;hich also appears in the rectangle etc+? N the figure reduced to the si.plest definition+ 1n the one hand the triangle stands side b$ side ;ith the rectangle the pentagon etc+ as a particular thing but on the other hand6and here lies the greatness of Aristotles intellect N it is a real figure a reall$ general figure+ B0egel Lectures on the 0istory of )hilosophyC At first sight 0egel sees the principal difference bet;een the concrete uni)ersal concept and the e.pt$ abstraction in that it has an i..ediatel$ ob>ecti)e .eaning and expresses a certain e.piricall$ gi)en concreteness+ 0egel hi.self often ;arned ho;e)er that the relationship bet;een the uni)ersal the particular and the indi)idual should b$ no .eans be li(ened to .athe.atical 7including geo.etric8 i.ages and their relations+ The latter according to his explanation are .erel$ a certain allegor$ of a conceptA the$ are too .uch @burdened ;ith sensualit$+ The genuinel$ uni)ersal ;hich he interprets as a concept full$ freed fro. the @sensual .atter @fro. the .atter of sensualit$+ 0e attac(ed .aterialists on this point for their interpretation of the uni)ersal essentiall$ eli.inates the uni)ersal transfor.ing it into @the particular side b$ side ;ith other instances of the particular B-esonderenC+ The uni)ersal as such the uni)ersal ;hich includes the richness of the particular and the indi)idual exists according to 0egel onl$ as a concept onl$ in the ether of pure thought b$ no .eans in the sphere of @external realit$+ That ;as properl$ spea(ing the reason ;h$ 0egel belie)ed .aterialis. to be i.possible as philosoph$ 7for philosoph$ is a science of the uni)ersal and the uni)ersal is thought and nothing but thought8+ -or the sa.e reason the definition of .an as a creature producing labour i.ple.ents is >ust as unacceptable to 0egelian logic as a uni)ersal definition as it is to the logic that preceded it+ 5n 0egels )ie; that is also .erel$ a particular definition of .an a particular for. of the re)elation of his uni)ersal @thin(ing nature+ An idealist conception of the uni)ersal its interpretation onl$ as a concept directl$ leads 0egel to the sa.e result as its .etaph$sical interpretation+ 5f 0egels logic in its original dog.atic for. ;ere to be applied to the anal$sis of Marxs Capital, Marxs entire line of reasoning ;ould appear to be incorrect+ HL

According to 0egel definitions of )alue cannot be obtained in the ;a$ Marx obtained the.+ A 0egelian adept ;ould sa$ about the first sections of Capital that definitions of one particular for. of )alue are there ta(en to be uni)ersal definitions of )alue ;hile the$ are not uni)ersal definitions at all+ 0e ;ould reco..end to deduce uni)ersal definitions of )alue fro. definitions of reasonable ;ill 7the ;a$ the$ are deduced b$ 0egel in The )hilosophy of 5ight8+ All of this pro)es that 0egelian logic despite all its ad)antages o)er the old .etaph$sical logic cannot be adopted b$ .aterialis. ;ithout a radical criti<ue ;ithout radical eli.ination of all traces of idealis.+ The categor$ of )alue in Marx is funda.entall$ different fro. .ere for.al abstraction as ;ell as fro. 0egels @pure concept+ 5t is ob)iousl$ @burdened ;ith sensualit$ appearing as theoretical expression of the particular+ :alue sa$s Marx has a @sensual6supersensual character so.ething that fro. the 0egelian )ie;point >ust cannot be+ Moreo)er the si.ple 7uni)ersal8 for. of )alue as Marx e.phasises b$ no .eans ;as the uni)ersal for. of econo.ic relations at all ti.es not at the beginning+ 1nl$ capitalist de)elop.ent turned it into such a for.+ Direct co..odit$ exchange as a pheno.enon in considering ;hich one .a$ obtain a uni)ersal definition of )alue as a pheno.enon in ;hich )alue is represented in pure for. is realised before the appearance of .one$ surplus6)alue and other particular ;ell6de)eloped for.s of )alue+ That .eans apart fro. other things that the for. of econo.ic relations ;hich beco.es genuinel$ general under capitalis. ;as realised before that as <uite a particular pheno.enon or e)en as an accidental indi)idual pheno.enon+ 5n realit$ it al;a$s happens that a pheno.enon ;hich later beco.es uni)ersal originall$ e.erges as an indi)idual particular specific pheno.enon as an exception fro. the rule+ 5t cannot actuall$ e.erge in an other ;a$+ 1ther;ise histor$ ;ould ha)e a rather .$sterious for.+ Thus an$ ne; i.pro)e.ent of labour e)er$ ne; .ode of .ans action in production before beco.ing generall$ accepted and recognised first e.erge as a certain de)iation fro. pre)iousl$ accepted and codified nor.s+ 0a)ing e.erged as an individual exception fro. the rule in the labour of one or se)eral .en the ne; for. is then ta(en o)er b$ others beco.ing in ti.e a ne; universal norm" 5f the ne; nor. did not originall$ appear in this exact .anner it ;ould ne)er beco.e a reall$ uni)ersal for. but ;ould exist .erel$ in fantas$ in ;ishful thin(ing+ 5n the sa.e ;a$ a concept expressing the reall$ uni)ersal directl$ includes in it a conception of the dialectics of the transfor.ation of the indi)idual and the particular into the uni)ersal directl$ expressing the individual and the particular ;hich in realit$ outside .ans head constitutes the universal for. of de)elop.ent+ 5n his conspectuses and notes on 0egels logic /enin continuall$ refers to one of the pi)otal points of dialectics N to the conception of the uni)ersal as the concretel$ uni)ersal as opposed to abstractl$ uni)ersal distillations of the intellect+ The relation of the uni)ersal to the particular and the indi)idual is expressed in dialectics b$ @a beautiful for.ula as /enin puts itA
=3ot .erel$ an abstract uni)ersal but a uni)ersal ;hich co.prises in itself the ;ealth of the particular+? @Cf+ Capital,+ /enin .a(es a note in the .argin and then continuesA @A beautiful for.ulaA =3ot .erel$ an abstract uni)ersal but a uni)ersal ;hich co.prises in itself the ;ealth of the particular the indi)idual the single? 7all the ;ealth of the particular and the singleQ8QQ TrMs bienQ+ B/enin Conspectus of 0egel+s LogicC

The concrete uni)ersal expressed in the concept does not of course co.prise in itself all this ;ealth in the sense that it co.prehends all the specific instances and is applicable to the. as their general na.e+ That is exactl$ the .etaph$sical conception ;hich 0egel opposes and that is ;hat /enin appro)es about his position+ A concrete uni)ersal concept co.prises in itself @the ;ealth of the particulars in its concrete definitions6in t;o senses+ -irst a concrete uni)ersal concept expresses in its definitions the specific concrete content 7the internal la;6go)erned structure8 of a single <uite definite for. of the de)elop.ent of an ob>ect under stud$+ 5t co.prises in itself @the ;hole ;ealth of the definitions of this for. its structure and its specificit$+ %econd it does not express in its definitions so.e arbitraril$ chosen for. of de)elop.ent of the ob>ect as a ;hole but that and onl$ that for. ;hich constitutes the reall$ uni)ersal basis or foundation on ;hich @the ;hole ;ealth of other for.ations gro;s+ A .ost stri(ing exa.ple of such a concept is the )alue categor$ in Capital" This concept is the result of an exhausti)e anal$sis of one @.ost ele.entar$ econo.ic concreteness of the capitalist ;orld6direct exchange of one co..odit$ for another in)ol)ing no .one$+ The specificit$ of this for. consists in that it contains li(e a @cell or e.br$o the ;ealth of .ore co.plex .ore de)eloped for.s of capitalist HO

relations+ That is ;h$ @in this )er$ si.ple pheno.enon 7in this =cell? of bourgeois societ$8 anal$sis re)eals all the contradictions 7or the ger.s of all the contradictions8 of .odern societ$+ B/enins Consepectus of 0egels /ogicC That is ;h$ the result and product of this anal$sis expressed in definitions of the categor$ of )alue offers a (e$ to a theoretical conception of the ;hole of the capitalist ;orld+ The difference of this categor$ fro. .ere abstractions 7li(e @furniture @courage or @s;eetness8 is of funda.ental nature+ The latter of course do not contain an$ @;ealth of the particular and the indi)idual6 this @;ealth is .erel$ externall$ correlated ;ith the. as ;ith general na.es+ The concrete definitions of such concepts do not in an$ ;a$ express this ;ealth+ The concept of furniture in general records .erel$ the general ele.ent ;hich a table has in co..on ;ith a chair a cupboard etc+ 5t does not contain specific characteristics of chair table or cupboard+ Definitions of this (ind do not express a single species+ 1n the contrar$ the categor$ of )alue co.prises in itself an exhausti)e expression of such a species ;hose specificit$ lies in being si.ultaneousl$ the genus+ That does not of course belittle the significance and cogniti)e role of ele.entar$ @intellectual general abstractions+ Their role is greatA no concrete uni)ersal concept ;ould be possible ;ithout the.+ The$ constitute the prere<uisite and condition of the e.ergence of co.plex scientific concepts+ A concrete uni)ersal concept is also an abstraction6in the sense that it does not record in its definitions the absolutel$ indi)idual the uni<ue+ 5t expresses the essence of the t$pical and in this sense of the general .illion6fold repeated pheno.enon of an indi)idual instance that is an expression of the uni)ersal la;+ 5n anal$sing the si.ple for. of )alue Marx is not interested of course in the indi)idual features of a coat or linen+ 3e)ertheless the relation of coat and linen is ta(en for the i..ediate ob>ect of anal$sis and precisel$ for the reason that it is a t$pical 7and in this sense general8 case of si.ple co..odit$ exchange a case corresponding to the t$pical peculiarities of exchange ;ithout .one$+
5n a general anal$sis of this (ind it is usuall$ al;a$s assu.ed that the actual conditions correspond to their conception or ;hat is the sa.e that actual conditions are represented onl$ to the extent that the$ are t$picall$ of their o;n general case+ BCapital :ol 555C

1f course concrete uni)ersal concepts are for this reason si.ilar to si.ple intellectual abstractions in that the$ al;a$s express a certain general nature of indi)idual cases things pheno.ena also being products of @raising the indi)idual to the uni)ersal+ This .o.ent or aspect pointing to an affinit$ bet;een a scientific concept and an$ ele.entar$ abstraction is certainl$ al;a$s present in the concept and is eas$ to disco)er in it+ The point is ho;e)er that this .o.ent in no ;a$ gi)es a specific characterisation of the scientific concept it does not express its specificit$+ That is precisel$ the reason ;h$ logical theories that si.pl$ e<uate such abstractions as )alue and ;hiteness .atter and furniture on the grounds that both (inds e<uall$ refer to .an$ indi)idual pheno.ena rather than to a single indi)idual one and are in this sense e<uall$ abstract and general do not assert so.ething absurd at all+ Set this conception sufficient for si.ple abstractions is <uite inade<uate for co.plex scientific ones+ And if this is ta(en to be the essence of scientific concepts this )ie; beco.es false >ust as for instance the proposition @)alue is the product of labour is false+ A concrete pheno.enon is here characterised in a .uch too general and abstract ;a$ and therefore <uite incorrectl$+ 1f course .an is an ani.al and a scientific concept is an abstraction+ The inade<uac$ of such a definition ho;e)er lies in its extre.e abstractness+ Dialectical logic does not at all re>ect the truth of the proposition that a uni)ersal concept is an abstraction expressing the @general nature the @.ean t$pe of the separate cases indi)idual things pheno.ena e)ents $et it goes further and deeper and therein lies the difference bet;een its conceptions and those of old logic+ A dialectical conception of the uni)ersal assu.es the transfor.ation of the indi)idual into the uni)ersal and of the uni)ersal into the indi)idual a transfor.ation continuall$ going on in an$ actual de)elop.ent+ 5t is eas$ to see ho;e)er that this position presupposes a historical view of things of the objective reality expressed in concepts+ That is ;h$ neither /oc(e and 0el)Mtius nor e)en 0egel could gi)e a rational solution to the proble. of the relation of the abstract to the concrete+ 0egel ;as unable to offer such a solution because the idea of de)elop.ent the historical approach ;ere onl$ put full$ into practice in his s$ste. ;ith regard to thought but not to the ob>ecti)e realit$ itself constituting the sub>ect6.atter of thought+ 1b>ecti)e realit$ de)elops in 0egels )ie; onl$ inas.uch as it beco.es the external for. of the de)elop.ent of thought of spirit inas.uch as the spirit i.buing it <uic(ens it fro. ;ithin .a(ing it .o)e and e)en de)elop+ 1b>ecti)e sensual realit$ does not possess its o;n i..anent spontaneous .o)e.ent+ Therefore in his e$es it is not genuinel$ concrete for the li)ing dialectical interconnection and H6

interdependence of its different aspects belongs in fact to the spirit per.eating it rather than to realit$ itself as such+ Therefore in 0egel onl$ the concept and nothing but the concept is concrete as the ideal principle of ideal interconnection of indi)idual pheno.ena+ Ta(en in the.sel)es indi)idual things and pheno.ena are abstract and abstract onl$+ 0o;e)er this conception contains not onl$ idealis. but also a dialectical )ie; of cognition of the process of apprehension of sensual data+ 0egel calls an indi)idual thing pheno.enon or fact abstract and this usage is ;ell foundedA if consciousness has percei)ed an indi)idual things as such ;ithout grasping the ;hole concrete chain of interconnections ;ithin ;hich the thing actuall$ exists that .eans it has percei)ed the thing in an extre.el$ abstract ;a$ despite the fact that it has 6percei)ed it in direct concrete sensual obser)ation in all the fairness of its sensuall$ tangible i.age+ 1n the contrar$ ;hen consciousness has percei)ed a thing in its interconnections ;ith all the other >ust as indi)idual things facts pheno.ena if it has grasped the indi)idual through its uni)ersal interconnections then it has for the first ti.e percei)ed it concretel$ e)en if a notion of it ;as for.ed not through direct conte.plation touching or s.elling but rather through speech fro. other indi)iduals and is conse<uentl$ de)oid of i..ediatel$ sensual features+ 5n other ;ords alread$ in 0egel abstractness and concreteness lose the .eaning of i..ediate ps$chological characteristics of the for. in ;hich (no;ledge exists in an indi)idual head beco.ing logical 7.eaningful8 characteristics of (no;ledge of the content of consciousness+ 5f an indi)idual thing is not understood through the uni)ersal concrete interconnection ;ithin ;hich it actuall$ e.erged exists and de)elops through the concrete s$ste. of interconnections that constitutes its genuine nature that .eans that onl$ abstract (no;ledge and consciousness ha)e been obtained+ 5f on the other hand an indi)idual thing 7pheno.enon fact ob>ect e)ent8 is understood in its ob>ecti)e lin(s ;ith other things for.ing an integral coherent s$ste. that .eans that it has been understood realised cognised concei)ed concretely in the strictest and fullest .eaning of this ;ord+ 5n the e$es of a .aterialist .etaph$sician onl$ the sensuall$ percei)ed indi)idual is concrete ;hile the uni)ersal is a s$non$. of the abstract+ -or a dialectical .aterialist things are <uite different+ -ro. his )ie;point concreteness is first of all precisel$ the universal objective interconnection and interdependence of a mass of individual phenomena, @unit$ in diversity the unit$ of the distinct and the mutually opposed rather than an abstract identit$ the abstract dead unit$+ At best the latter onl$ indicates or hints at the possibilit$ of the presence in things of internal lin(s of latent unit$ of pheno.ena $et that is not al;a$s the case and b$ no .eans obligator$A a billiard ball and the %irius are identical in their geo.etric for. but it ;ould not do at all to loo( for an$ real interaction here of course+

Concrete $nity as $nity of Opposites

Fe ha)e thus established that thin(ing in concepts is directed at re)ealing the li)ing real unit$ of things their concrete connection of interaction rather than at defining their abstract unit$ dead identit$+ The anal$sis of the categor$ of interaction sho;s directl$ ho;e)er that .ere sa.eness si.ple identit$ of t;o indi)idual things is b$ no .eans an expression of the principle of their .utual connection+ 5n general interaction pro)es to be strong if an ob>ect finds in another ob>ect a co.ple.ent of itself so.ething that it is lac(ing as such+ @%a.eness is al;a$s assu.ed of course as the pre.ise or condition under ;hich the lin( of interconnection is established+ *ut the )er$ essence of interconnection is not realised through sa.eness+ T;o gears are loc(ed exactl$ because the tooth of the pinion is placed opposite a space bet;een t;o teeth of the dri)e gear rather than opposite the sa.e (ind of tooth+ Fhen t;o che.ical particles pre)iousl$ apparentl$ identical are @loc(ed into a .olecule the structure of each of the. undergoes a certain change+ #ach of the t;o particles actuall$ bound in the .olecule has its o;n co.ple.ent in the other oneA at each .o.ent the$ exchange the electrons of their outer.ost shell this .utual exchange binding the. into a single ;hole+ #ach of the. gra)itates to;ards the other because at each gi)en .o.ent its electron 7or electrons8 is ;ithin the other particle the )er$ sa.e electron ;hich it lac(s for this precise reason+ Fhere such a continuall$ arising and continuall$ disappearing difference does not exist no cohesion or interaction exists either; ;hat ;e ha)e is .ore or less accidental external contact+ HK

5f one ;ere to ta(e a h$pothetical case <uite i.possible in realit$6t;o pheno.ena absolutel$ identical in all their characteristics6one ;ould be hard put to it to i.agine or concei)e a strong bond or cohesion or interaction bet;een the.+ 5t is e)en .ore i.portant to ta(e this point into account ;hen ;e are dealing ;ith lin(s bet;een t;o 7or .ore8 de)eloping pheno.ena in)ol)ed in this process+ 1f course t;o co.pletel$ identical pheno.ena .a$ )er$ ;ell coexist side b$ side and e)en co.e into certain contact+ This contact ho;e)er ;ill not $ield an$thing ne; at all until it elicits in each of the. internal changes ;hich ;ill transfor. the. into different and .utuall$ opposed .o.ents ;ithin a certain coherent ;hole+ Patriarchal subsistence households each of ;hich produces ;ithin itself e)er$thing that it needs the sa.e things that a neighbouring household produces do not need one another+ There are no strong lin(s bet;een the. for there is no di)ision of labour an organisation of labour under ;hich one does so.ething that so.eone else does not+ Fhere differences arise bet;een subsistence households the possibilit$ for .utual exchange of labour products also arises for the first ti.e+ The bond e.erging++6here consolidates and further de)elops the difference and along ;ith it the .utual connection+ The de)elop.ent of differences bet;een once identical 7and precisel$ for this reason indifferentl$ coexisting8 households is the de)elop.ent of .utual links bet;een the. it is the process of their transfor.ation into distinct and opposed ele.ents of a single econo.ic ;hole integral producing organis.+ 5n general the de)elop.ent of for.s of labour di)ision is at the sa.e ti.e the de)elop.ent of for.s of interaction bet;een .en in the production of .aterial life+ Fhere there is no di)ision of labour not in the ele.entar$ for. e)en there is no societ$ N there is onl$ a herd bound b$ biological rather than social tied+ Di)ision of labour .a$ ta(e antagonistic class for. and it .a$ on the other hand ta(e the for. of co.radel$ collaboration+ Set it al;a$s re.ains division of labour and can ne)er be @identification of all for.s of labourA co..unis. assu.es .axi.al de)elop.ent of each indi)iduals capabilities both in spiritual and .aterial production rather than le)elling of these abilities+ #ach indi)idual here beco.es a personalit$ in the full and noble .eaning of this concept exactl$ because e)er$ other indi)idual interacting ;ith hi. is also a uni<ue creati)e indi)idualit$ rather than a being perfor.ing the sa.e stereot$pe standardised abstractl$ identical actions or operations+ %uch operations are in general .o)ed outside the scope of hu.an acti)it$ and handed o)er to .achines+ And exactl$ for this reason each indi)idual here is needed b$ and of interest to others .uch .ore than in the ;orld of capitalist di)ision of labour+ The social lin(s binding personalit$ to personalit$ are here .uch .ore direct co.prehensi)e and strong than the lin(s in co..odit$ production+ That is ;h$ concreteness understood as an expression of li)ing factual ob>ecti)e bond and interaction bet;een real indi)idual things cannot be expressed as an abstract identit$ bare e<ualit$ or pure si.ilarit$ of things under consideration+ An$ instance of real interaction in nature societ$ or consciousness he it e)er so ele.entar$ necessaril$ contains identit$ of the distinct a unity of opposites, rather than .ere identit$+ 5nteraction assu.es that one ob>ect realises its gi)en specific nature onl$ through its interrelation ;ith another ob>ect and cannot exist outside this relation as such as @this one as a specificall$ definite ob>ect+ To express the indi)idual in thought to understand the indi)idual in its organic lin(s ;ith other instances of the indi)idual and the concrete essence of their connection one .ust not loo( for a na(ed abstraction for an identical feature abstractl$ co..on to all of the. ta(en separatel$+ /et us no; ta(e a .ore co.plex and at the sa.e ti.e .ore stri(ing exa.ple+ Fherein lies for instance the actual li)ing concrete and ob>ecti)e bond bet;een the capitalist and the ;age ;or(ers that @general ele.ent ;hich each of these indi)idual econo.ic characters has in co.parison ;ith othersG The fact that both of the. are .en both of the. need food clothing etc+ both of the. are capable of reasoning tal(ing ;or(ingG 4ndoubtedl$ the$ ha)e all of these features+ Moreo)er all of this e)en constitutes the necessar$ premise of their bond as capitalist and ;age ;or(er $et it in no ;ise constitutes the )er$ essence of their relation as capitalist and wage worker" Their actual bond is founded on the fact that each of the. has an econo.ic trait that the other lac(s that their econo.ic definitions are dia.etricall$ opposed+ The point is that one of the. possesses a feature that the other lac(s and he possesses it exactl$ because the other does not ha)e it+ #ach .utuall$ needs the other because of the dia.etrical opposition of their econo.ic definitions+ And that is exactl$ ;hat .a(es the. the necessar$ poles of an identical relation binding the. stronger than an$thing the$ .ight ha)e in co..on 7@their sa.eness8+ 1ne indi)idual thing is as it is and not the other thing exactl$ because the other is dia.etricall$ opposed to it in all characteristics+ That is exactl$ ;h$ it cannot exist as such ;ithout the other outside its H!

connection ;ith its o;n opposite+ As long as a capitalist re.ains a capitalist and a ;age ;or(er a ;age ;or(er each of the. necessaril$ reproduces in the other a dia.etricall$ opposed econo.ic definiteness+ 1ne of the. appears as a ;age ;or(er because the other is a capitalist )is6U6)is the for.er the t;o econo.ic figures ha)ing dia.etricall$ opposed traits+ That .eans that the essence of their bond within the given concrete relationship is based precisel$ on co.plete absence of a definition abstractl$ co..on to both+ A capitalist cannot ;ithin this bond ha)e an$ traits that a ;age ;or(er possesses and )ice )ersa+ And that .eans that none of the. possesses an econo.ic definition that ;ould be si.ultaneousl$ inherent in the other that ;ould be co..on to both+ 5t is precisel$ this co..unit$ that is lac(ing in their concrete econo.ic bond+ 5t is a ;ell6(no;n fact that the banal apologists castigated b$ Marx insisted on loo(ing for the basis of the .utual lin(s bet;een capitalist and ;or(er in the co..unit$ of their econo.ic characteristics+ -ro. Marxs )ie;point the reall$ concrete unit$ of t;o or .ore interacting indi)idual Particular things 7pheno.ena processes .en etc+8 al;a$s appears as the unit$ of mutually exclusive opposites+ *et;een the. bet;een aspects of this concrete interaction there is nothing abstractl$ identical or abstractl$ general and neither can there be+ 5n this case the co..on as concretel$ general is exactl$ that )er$ .utual bond bet;een the ele.ents of interaction as polar .utuall$ co.ple.entar$ and .utuall$ presupposing opposites+ #ach of the concretel$ interacting sides is ;hat it is that is ;hat it is in the context of a gi)en concrete lin( onl$ through its relation to its o;n opposite+ The ter. @co..on does not coincide here in its .eaning ;ith @identical or @the sa.e+ Set this usage characteristic of dialectical logic is b$ no .eans alien to the co..on usage and is based on a shade of .eaning present in the ;ord @co..on+ Thus in all languages an ob>ect in >oint or collecti)e possession is called @co..onA e+g+ one spea(s of a @co..on field a @co..on ancestor and so on+ The dialectical approach has al;a$s been based on this et$.ologic6al shade of .eaning+ 0ere @co..on has the .eaning of bond ;hich b$ no .eans coincides in its content ;ith the identical features of different correlated ob>ects .en and so on+ The essence of the concrete bond bet;een .en +>ointl$ possessing a field is b$ no .eans contained in those identical traits the$ .a$ ha)e in co..on+ Mat is co..on to the. here is that particular ob>ect ;hich each of the. has outside the. confronting the. that ob>ect through relation to ;hich the relation bet;een the. is established+ The essence of their .utual bond is thereb$ gi)en b$ a .ore general s$ste. of conditions a s$ste. of interaction ;ithin ;hich the$ can pla$ .ost di)erse roles+ Fhat does a reader ha)e in co..on ;ith the boo( ;hich he reads ;hat is the essence of their .utual relationG Certainl$ the co..unit$ does not lie in that both reader and boo( are three6di.ensional that both of the. belong to spatiall$ defined ob>ects that both consist of identical ato.s .olecules che.ical ele.ents etc+ That ;hich is co..on to the. does not consist in the identical properties of both+ 9uite the contrar$A the reader is the reader exactl$ because he is confronted as a condition ;ithout ;hich he is not a reader b$ that ;hich is read the readers concrete opposite+ 1ne exists as such as a gi)en concretel$ defined ob>ect exactl$ because and onl$ because it is confronted b$ so.ething different as concretely different from it N an ob>ect ;hose definitions are all dia.etricall$ opposed to those of the for.er ob>ect+ Definitions of one are in)erted definitions of the other+ That is the onl$ ;a$ in ;hich concrete unit$ of opposites concrete co..unit$ is expressed in a concept+ The essence of concrete lin(s 7concrete co..unit$ concrete unit$8 is therefore deter.ined not b$ loo(ing for the identical traits abstractl$ inherent in each of the ele.ents of such a co..unit$ but b$ other .eans+ Anal$sis is in this case directed at the concrete s$ste. of conditions ;ithin ;hich t;o ele.ents ob>ects pheno.ena etc+ e.erge ;hich si.ultaneousl$ both .utuall$ exclude one another and .utuall$ assu.e one another+ To establish the opposites ;hose .utual relations gi)e existence to the interaction s$ste. in <uestion a gi)en concrete co..unit$ .eans to sol)e the tas(+ Anal$sis of dialectical co..unit$ therefore pro)es to be the stud$ of the process that creates the t;o ele.ents of interaction 7e+g+ capitalist and ;age ;or(er or reader and boo(8 each of ;hich cannot exist ;ithout the other because it has a characteristic ;hich the other does not possess and )ice )ersa+ 5n this case in each of the t;o interacting ob>ects a definition ;ill be disco)ered ;hich is inherent in it as a .e.ber of the gi)en uni<uel$ specific concrete .ode of interaction+ 1nl$ in this case in each of the H9

t;o related ob>ects that aspect ;ill be disco)ered 7and singled out through abstraction8 ;hich .a(es this ob>ect into an ele.ent of the gi)en concrete ;hole+ Concrete identity, identity of opposites N these are the dialectical for.ulasA identit$ of the different the concrete unit$ of .utuall$ excluding and therefore .utuall$ assu.ing definitions+ A thing has to be concei)ed as an ele.ent as an indi)idual expression of a uni)ersal 7concrete uni)ersal8 substance+ That is the tas( of cognition+ This point of )ie; explains for instance the difficulties ;hich pre)ented Aristotle fro. disco)ering the essence the substance of the exchange relation the .$ster$ of the e<ualit$ of one house and fi)e beds+ The great dialectician of anti<uit$ here too tried to find an internal unity of the t;o things rather than their abstract identity" 3othing could be easier than to find the latter ;hile disco)ering the for.er is <uite hard+ 5n considering the exchange relation bet;een a house and a bed Aristotle ca.e up against a tas( that ;as insoluble at the ti.e though not because he could not see an$thing that the t;o had in co..on+ A brain .uch less sophisticated in logic ;ill find abstract features co..on to both house and bed; Aristotle had plent$ of ;ords at his disposal to express so.ething that a house and a bed had in co..on+ *oth house and bed are e<uall$ ob>ects of e)er$da$ life part of .ans household en)iron.ent both are sensuall$ percei)ed things existing in ti.e and space both ha)e ;eight for. hardness etc+ ad infinitu.+ 5t should be assu.ed that Aristotle ;ould not ha)e been too .uch surprised if so.eone dre; his attention to the fact that both house and bed ;ere e<uall$ .ade b$ the hands of .an 7or sla)e8 that both ;ere products of hu.an labour+ %o Aristotles difficult$ did not at all lie in finding an abstract general propert$ co..on to both house and bed or in including both in a @co..on genus but rather in re)ealing the real substance in ;hich the$ are e<uated irrespecti)e of the ;ill of the sub>ect of the abstraction6.a(ing head and of the purel$ artificial de)ices .an in)ented for purposes of practical con)enience+ Aristotle gi)es up further anal$sis not because he cannot find an$thing that a house and a bed ;ill ha)e in co..on but rather because he cannot find an entit$ ;hich necessaril$ requires the fact of mutual exchange, of .utual substitution of t;o different ob>ects for its realisation or .anifestation+ Aristotles inabilit$ to find so.ething in co..on bet;een t;o so different things re)eals the dialectical strength and profundit$ of his thin(ing rather than a ;ea(ness of his logical abilities or lac( of obser)ation+ 3ot satisfied b$ the abstract general he atte.pts to disco)er the deeper roots of the fact+ 0e is not interested .erel$ in the proxi.ate genus in ;hich both .a$ be included if one so desires but in the real genus, of ;hich he has a .uch .ore .eaningful conception than that for ;hich the school tradition in logic has .ade hi. responsible+ Aristotle ;ants to find a realit$ that is onl$ i.ple.ented as a propert$ of a bed and a house due to the exchange relation bet;een the. so.ething general that re<uires exchange for its .anifestation+ 0o;e)er all those co..on properties that he obser)es in the. also exist ;hen the$ ha)e no reference to exchange and conse<uentl$ do not for. the specific essence of exchange+ Aristotle thus to;ers head and shoulders abo)e those theoreticians ;ho t;o thousands $ears after sa; the essence and substance of the )alue <ualities of a thing in its utilit$+ The utilit$ of a thing is not at all necessaril$ connected ;ith exchange it does not obligatoril$ re<uire exchange to be re)ealed+ 5n other ;ords Aristotle ;ants to find an essence ;hich .anifests itself onl$ through exchange and is in no ;a$ .anifested outside exchange though it constitutes the @latent nature of the thing+ Marx sho;ed clearl$ ;hat precluded Aristotles co.prehending the essence of the exchange relationA the absence of the value concept" Aristotle could not understand or re)eal the real essence the real substance of the exchange properties of things as this substance is in fact social labour+ The ;hole point is that the concepts of )alue and labour did not exist+ /et us point out at the sa.e ti.e that a general abstract notion of both did exist at his ti.e+ @/abour see.s to be a )er$ si.ple categor$+ The notion of labour in this uni)ersal for. as labour in general is also extre.el$ old BCritique of )olitical !conomyC and Aristotle ;as certainl$ a;are of it+ 5ncluding both house and bed in the abstract notion of @products of labour in general ;ould not ha)e been an o)erl$ co.plicated and still less insoluble logical tas( for Aristotle+ Fhat Aristotle lac(ed ;as the concept of )alue+ The ;ord the na.e that contained the si.ple abstraction of )alue did exist in his ti.e of course as in his ti.e too there existed .erchants ;ho regarded all things fro. the abstract )ie;point of bu$ing and selling+ *ut the concept of labour did not exist in that epoch+ That .erel$ sho;s once again that in Marxs ter.inolog$ a concept is so.ething different fro. an abstract general notion fixed in a ter.+ Fhat is it thenG L0

The concept of labour 7as distinct fro. and opposed to of it8 assu.es a realisation of the role of labour in the o)erall process of hu.an life+ 5n Aristotles epoch labour ;as not seen a substance of all pheno.ena of social life as the @real essence of all that ;as hu.an as the real source of all hu.an <ualities ;ithout exception+ The concept of a pheno.enon exists in general onl$ ;here this pheno.enon is understood not abstractl$ 7that is not as a recurring pheno.enon8 but concretel$ that is in regard to its position and role in a definite s$ste. of interacting pheno.ena in a s$ste. for.ing a certain coherent ;hole+ A concept exists ;here the particular and the indi)idual are realised as .ore than .erel$ the indi)idual and the particular 7though recurrent8 N the$ are realised through their .utual lin(s through the universal construed as an expression of the principle of these lin(s+ Aristotle did not ha)e such a conception of labour for .an(ind had not $et ;or(ed out at that epoch an$ clear realisation of the role and place of labour in the s$ste. of social life+ Moreo)er Aristotles conte.poraries did not belie)e labour to be a for. of life acti)it$ that .ight be included in the sphere of hu.an life proper+ 0e did not concei)e labour as the real substance of all for.s and .odes of hu.an life+ 3ot surprisingl$ he failed to understand it as the substance of the exchange properties of a thing+ 5n Marxs ter.inolog$ that .eans precisel$ this that he did not ha)e a concept of labour and )alue but onl$ an abstract notion of the.+ This abstract notion could not ser)e as the (e$ to understanding the essence of co..odit$ exchange+ The classic representati)es of bourgeois econo.$ ;ere the first to percei)e labour as the real substance of all for.s of econo.ic life including first and fore.ost such a for. as co..odit$ exchange+ That .eans that the$ ;ere the first to for. a concept of that realit$ of ;hich Aristotle had onl$ an abstract notion+ The reason for that is not of course that #nglish econo.ists pro)ed to be greater logicians than the %tagirite+ The reason is that the econo.ists studied this realit$ ;ithin a better de)eloped social en)iron.ent+ Marx sho;ed clearl$ ;hat ;as in)ol)ed hereA the ob>ect of stud$ itself in this case hu.an societ$ .atured to the degree that it ;as necessar$ and possible to stud$ it in ter.s of concepts expressing the concrete substance of all its .anifestations+ /abour as the uni)ersal substance as an @acti)e for. appeared here not onl$ in consciousness but also in realit$ as that @proxi.ate real genus ;hich Aristotle failed to see+ The reduction of all pheno.ena to @labour in general to labour de)oid of all <ualitati)e differences for the first ti.e too( place here in the realit$ of econo.ic relations itself rather than in the abstract6.a(ing heads of theoreticians+ :alue beca.e that goal for the sa(e of ;hich each thing ;as realised in labour; it beca.e an @acti)e for. a concrete uni)ersal la; go)erning the destinies of each separate thing and each separate indi)idual+ The point is that reduction to labour de)oid of all differences appears here as an abstraction but as a real abstraction @;hich is .ade e)er$ da$ in the social process of production+ BContribution to the Critique of )olitical !conomyC As Marx puts it this reduction is no .ore and no less of an abstraction than resolution of organic bodies into air+ @/abour thus .easured b$ ti.e does not see. indeed to be the labour of different persons but on the contrar$ the different ;or(ing indi)iduals see. to be .ere organs of this labour+ Bibid"C 0ere labour in general labour as such appears as a concrete uni)ersal substance and a single indi)idual and the single product of his labour as manifestations of this universal essence+ The concept of labour expresses so.ething greater than .erel$ the identical ele.ents that can be abstracted fro. the labour acti)ities of indi)idual persons+ 5t is a real uni)ersal la; ;hich do.inates the indi)idual and the particular deter.ines their destinies controls the. .a(es the. into its organs forcing the. to perfor. the gi)en functions and not so.e others+ The particular and indi)idual itself is for.ed in accordance ;ith the re<uire.ents contained in this real uni)ersal and the i.pression is that the indi)idual in its particularit$ appears as the indi)idual e.bodi.ent of the reall$ uni)ersal+ Distinctions bet;een indi)iduals the.sel)es pro)e to be a for. of .anifestation of the uni)ersal rather than so.ething standing side b$ side ;ith the uni)ersal and ha)ing no relation to it+ A concept is a theoretical expression of this uni)ersal+ Through a concept e)er$ particular and indi)idual ele.ent is apprehended precisel$ in those aspects ;hich belong to the gi)en ;hole is an expression of the gi)en concrete substance and is co.prehended as an e.erging and disappearing ele.ent of the .o)e.ent of the concrete specific s$ste. of interaction+ The substance itself the concrete s$ste. of interacting pheno.ena is understood as a s$ste. that ;as historicall$ for.ed+ L1

A concept 7as distinct fro. a general notion expressed in a ;ord8 does not .erel$ e<uate one thing 7ob>ect pheno.enon e)ent fact etc+8 to another in the proxi.ate genus extinguishing in it all its specific differences abstracting fro. the.+ %o.ething <uite different ta(es place in the conceptA the indi)idual ob>ect is reflected in its particular features ;hich .a(e it a necessar$ ele.ent of so.e ;hole an indi)idual 7one6sided8 expression of a concrete ;hole+ #ach separate ele.ent of an$ dialecticall$ di)ided ;hole expresses one6sidedl$ the uni)ersal nature of this ;hole precisel$ in its difference fro. other ele.ents rather than through abstract affinit$ to the.+ The concept 7in its strict and precise sense8 is not therefore a .onopol$ of scientific theoretical thought+ #)er$ .an has a concept rather than a general notion expressed in a ter. about such things as table or chair (nife or .atches+ #)er$bod$ understands <uite ;ell both the role of these things in our li)es and the specific features o;ing to ;hich the$ pla$ a gi)en role rather than so.e other one and occup$ a gi)en position rather than so.e other one in the s$ste. of conditions of social life in ;hich the$ ;ere .ade in ;hich the e.erged+ 5n this case the concept is present in the fullness of its definition and e)er$ .an consciousl$ handles things in accordance ;ith their concept pro)ing thereb$ that he has this concept+ Things li(e the ato. or art are <uite a different .atter+ 3ot e)er$ artist has a ;ell6de)eloped concept of art b$ an$ .eans although he .a$ create .agnificent ;or(s of art+ The present author is not asha.ed to ad.it that he has a rather )ague notion of the ato. as co.pared to a ph$sicist+ *ut it is not e)er$ ph$sicist that has a concept of the concept+ A ph$sicist ;ho shuns philosoph$ is not li(el$ to ac<uire it+ To a)oid .isunderstandings ;e shall ha)e to .a(e the follo;ing <ualification+ 5n the present ;or( thought is ta(en to .ean first of all scientific theoretical thought that is thought operating in scientific theoretical stud$ of the ;orld+ This restriction on the scope of the ;or( does not at all .ean that the so6 called e)er$da$ thin(ing is not ;orth$ of logic as science or that it de)elops according to different la;s+ The ;hole point is that scientific theoretical thought is the best de)eloped for. of thought+ 5ts anal$sis therefore per.its to establish ;ith greater facilit$ the la;s ;hich operate in thought in general+ 1n the other hand thought as it is practiced e)er$da$ does not so easil$ lend itself to the disco)er$ of these uni)ersal la;s and for.s of thoughtA the$ are al;a$s hidden fro. )ie; b$ a .ass of co.plications of )arious factors and circu.stances+ The process of thin(ing is here often interrupted b$ interferences due to pure association or purel$ indi)idual e.otional .oti)es; )er$ often a nu.ber of lin(s in the chain of reasoning is si.pl$ o.itted the gap being filled ;ith an argu.ent based on purel$ indi)idual experiences crossing ones .ind; no less fre<uentl$ .an orients hi.self in a situation in his relation to another .an or e)ent ;ith the aid of ;ell6de)eloped aesthetic taste and perception ;hile reasoning in the strict sense pla$s an accessor$ or auxiliar$ role etc+ etc+ -or all these reasons e)er$da$ thin(ing is a )er$ incon)enient ob>ect of logical anal$sis a stud$ ai.ed at establishing uni)ersal la;s of thought in general+ These la;s operate here per.anentl$ but it is .uch .ore difficult to stud$ the. in isolation fro. the effect of co.plicating circu.stances than in the anal$sis of the scientific theoretical process+ 5n the latter the uni)ersal for.s and la;s of thought generall$ appear in .uch @purer aspect; here as e)er$;here the .ore de)eloped for. enables us to understand the less de)eloped one in its genuine essence the .ore so that the possibilities and prospects of de)elop.ent to;ards a higher and .ore ad)anced for. can be ta(en into account+ %cientific theoretical thought is exactl$ in this (ind of relation to e)er$da$ thin(ingA anato.$ of .an offers a (e$ to the anato.$ of ape not )ice )ersa and @rudi.ents of .ore ad)anced for.s .a$ onl$ be correctl$ understood ;hen these .ore ad)anced for.s are (no;n b$ the.sel)es+ Proceeding fro. this general .ethodological assu.ption ;e consider the la;s and for.s of thought in general .ostl$ in regard to the ;a$ the$ appear in scientific theoretical thought+ Fe thereb$ obtain the (e$ to co.prehending all other for.s and applications of thought that are in a certain sense .ore co.plicated than scientific thought than application of the abilit$ to thin( to the solution of scientific theoretical proble.s of clearl$ and strictl$ delineated proble.s+ 5t stands to reason that the uni)ersal la;s of thought are the sa.e both in the scientific and so6called e)er$da$ thin(ing+ *ut the$ are easier to discern in scientific thought for the sa.e reason for ;hich the uni)ersal la;s of the de)elop.ent of the capitalist for.ation could be easier established in .id619th centur$ b$ the anal$sis of #nglish capitalis. rather than 2ussian or 5talian+ "ha!ter ( $ The )nity o' the *bstract & the "oncrete as a a+ o' Thou,ht

L"

The Abstract as an 'xpression of the Concrete

Fe ha)e thus established that (no;ledge reflecting an indi)idual fact though it .a$ be a fre<uentl$ recurring one but failing to grasp its internal structure and internall$ necessar$ lin(s ;ith other such facts is extre.el$ abstract (no;ledge e)en if it is direct and sensuall$ percei)ed+ That is exactl$ ;h$ @the general la; of the change of for. of .otion is .uch .ore concrete than an$ single JconcreteJ exa.ple of it B#ngels *ialectics of 6ature 3otes and -rag.entsC and e)en the .ost graphic exa.ples cannot .a(e a .eagre thought poor in definitions into a concrete one+ Eraphic exa.ples illustrating a .eagre abstraction can onl$ ca.ouflage its abstractness creating .erel$ an appearance or illusion of concrete consideration+ 2egrettabl$ this procedure is often resorted to b$ persons ;ho restrict theoretical consideration to a.assing exa.ples+ The interpretation of concreteness as sensual tangibilit$ of (no;ledge is naturall$ .ore con)enient for the. than Marxs definition for the latter re<uires further anal$sis of the facts+ Actuall$ this position has nothing in co..on ;ith that of Marx+ To be .ore precise there is so.ething @in co..on of course N the ;ords @abstract and @concrete+ Set these identical ;ords co)er up co.pletel$ opposed concepts of the abstract and the concrete an opposition of a genuine and i.aginar$ co.prehension of the role and place of both in thin(ing in processing conte.plation and notion+ Fherein lies according to Marx the reall$ abstract consideration of the ob>ectG Abstractness as such is in his )ie; one6sidedness of cognition the (ind of (no;ledge of a thing ;hich reflects onl$ that aspect of it ;hich is si.ilar or identical in .an$ other things of the sa.e (ind+ An abstraction expressing the concrete specific nature of a thing is <uite a different .atter+ 5n its logical characteristics such an abstraction is so.ething dia.etricall$ opposed to a si.ple abstraction to the abstract as such+ Fhat does it .ean to .a(e a genuine generalisation to create an ob>ecti)e concrete abstraction of a pheno.enonG 5t .eans considering a <uite particular recurring fact ;ith respect to its o;n i..anent content it .eans considering it @in itself as the fa.iliar phrase has it ignoring e)er$thing that this fact o;es to the entire totalit$ of the external influences of the broader sphere of realit$ in ;hich it exists+ That is the path Marx follo;s in Capital in stud$ing the pheno.ena of si.ple co..odit$ exchange+ 0e obtains the real ob>ecti)e characteristics of )alue @abstractl$ considered that is apart fro. circu.stances not i..ediatel$ flo;ing fro. the la;s of the si.ple circulation of co..odities +++ BCapital :olu.e 5 Chapter OC+ 1f para.ount i.portance here is the fact that Marx fro. the )er$ outset has in )ie; reproduction of the concrete in thought as the o)erall ob>ecti)e in the light of ;hich each separate logical procedure each separate act of for.ing abstraction is .easured+ #ach particular pheno.enon is regarded in Capital directl$ ;ith respect to its place and role in the ;hole in the concrete s$ste. ;ithin ;hich and through ;hich it ac<uires its specific definiteness+ #ach concrete abstraction registers this definiteness ;hich is not characteristic of each separate pheno.enon if it exists outside the gi)en concrete s$ste. and is ac<uired b$ it as soon as it for.s part of the s$ste.+ 5n actual fact Marx considers the uni)ersal interconnection of the ;hole that is of the entire totalit$ of the interacting particular pheno.ena through abstract anal$sis of a particular pheno.enon consciousl$ ignoring e)er$thing that the gi)en pheno.enon o;es to other pheno.ena interacting ;ith it+ At first sight this appears to be paradoxicalA the uni)ersal connectedness of pheno.ena is established though its opposite N a rigorous abstraction fro. e)er$thing that one pheno.enon possesses due to its uni)ersal interconnections ;ith others fro. e)er$thing that does not flo; fro. the i..anent la;s of the gi)en particular pheno.enon+ The point is ho;e)er that the )er$ right to consider the gi)en particular pheno.enon abstractly presupposes co.prehending its specific role and place in the ;hole ;ithin the uni)ersal interconnection ;ithin an ense.ble of .utuall$ conditioning particular pheno.ena; exactl$ the fact that si.ple co..odit$ exchange co..odit$ and for. of co..odit$ are considered abstractl$ is the logical expression of the <uite specific role pla$ed b$ co..odit$ in the gi)en and no other ;hole+ The fact that co..odit$ is considered abstractl$ independentl$ fro. all other pheno.ena of capitalist production expresses logicall$ 7theoreticall$8 its concrete historicall$ uni<ue for. of dependence on the s$ste. of production relations as a ;hole+ LH

The point is that the co..odit$6for. of connection pro)es to be the uni)ersal ele.entar$ for. of interconnections bet;een .en onl$ ;ithin the de)eloped s$ste. of capitalist production and in no other s$ste. of production relations+ 5n no other concrete historical s$ste. of production relations co..odit$ and exchange of co..odities ha)e pla$ed are pla$ing or can pla$ such a role+ This specific role and significance of the si.ple co..odit$ for. ;ithin de)eloped capitalis. is also theoreticall$ expressed in the circu.stance that the purel$ abstract consideration of co..odit$ and its i..anent la;s re)eals at the sa.e ti.e the universal theoretical definition of the system as a whole, an expression of its concrete uni)ersal regularit$+ 0ad an$ s$ste. of social production relations other than the capitalist one 7socialis. or feudalis. the pri.iti)e co..unal s$ste. or the sla)e6o;ning for.ation8 been theoreticall$ studied as the sub>ect6.atter nothing ;ould ha)e been .ore erroneous in Marxian logic than to consider the co..odit$ for. abstractl$ as it is considered in the econo.ic theor$ of capitalis.+ Abstract consideration of the co..odit$ for. ;ould be useless for a theoretical understanding of the uni)ersal connection of a s$ste. if this s$ste. had de)eloped fro. so.e other basis+ 5n that case in considering co..odit$ in the abstract thought ;ill not .a(e a single step for;ard in the concrete consideration of the econo.ic s$ste. under stud$ ;ill not abstract a single concrete theoretical definition of the ob>ect+ Fhile the theoretician has not .erel$ a right but e)en an obligation to consider the co..odit$ for. in abstraction ;ithin the capitalist s$ste. he has no logical right to consider >ust as abstractl$ an$ other for. of econo.ic connection in the sa.e capitalist organis. e+g+ profit or rent+ %uch an atte.pt ;ill not result in ;or(ing out a concrete theoretical understanding of the role and place of profit ;ithin the o)erall interconnection+ This is in general i.possible to do unless surplus6)alue .one$ and co..odit$ ha)e been first anal$sed+ 5f ;e single out the pheno.enon of profit at the outset ;ithout pre)iousl$ anal$sing co..odit$ .one$ surplus6)alue etc+ and begin to consider it in the abstract that is lea)ing aside all the circu.stances that do not flo; fro. its i..anent la;s ;e shall understand nothing in its .otion+ At best ;e shall obtain a description of the pheno.ena of profit .otion an abstract notion of the. rather than a concrete theoretical concept+ Thus the right to abstract consideration of a pheno.enon is deter.ined b$ the concrete role of this pheno.enon in the ;hole under stud$ in a concrete s$ste. of interacting pheno.ena+ 5f the starting point of the de)elop.ent of a theor$ is ta(en correctl$ its abstract consideration happens to coincide directly ;ith a concrete consideration of the s$ste. as a ;hole+ 5f abstract anal$sis deals ;ith so.e pheno.enon other than that ;hich ob>ecti)el$ constitutes the uni)ersal si.plest ele.entar$ for. of the being of the ob>ect as a ;hole its real @cell then abstract consideration re.ains abstract in the bad sense of the ;ord and does not coincide ;ith the path of concrete cognition+ Ta(ing the pheno.ena of profit one .a$ for. an abstract generalised notion of the.+ *ut one cannot obtain a concrete concept of profit on this path for a concrete conception of the place and role of profit in the .otion of the s$ste. of capitalist relations assu.es an understanding of their real proxi.ate substance surplus6)alue that is of a different econo.ic pheno.enon and the latter in its turn presupposes cognition of the i..anent la;s of .otion of the co..odit$6.one$ sphere an understanding of )alue as such irrespecti)e of profit or surplus6)alue+ 5n other ;ords abstract consideration of profit is itself possible onl$ ;hen pheno.ena independent fro. it are pre)iousl$ anal$sed+ Profit .a$ be understood through surplus6)alue onl$ through @so.ething different ;hereas surplus6)alue .a$ and .ust be understood @b$ itself and in anal$sing it one should strictl$ lea)e aside all circu.stances that do not directl$ follo; fro. its i..anent la;s; first and fore.ost one .ust lea)e alone profit+ 1ne cannot do an$thing of the (ind in anal$sing profit ho;e)er one cannot lea)e alone circu.stances follo;ing fro. the i..anent la;s of a different pheno.enon one cannot consider profit abstractl$+ This abstract consideration of a pheno.enon co.prises in itself a concrete approach to this pheno.enon and directl$ expresses its role in the gi)en concrete historical s$ste. of pheno.ena as a ;hole+ An abstract consideration of the sub>ect lea)ing aside all circu.stances that do not follo; directl$ fro. the i..anent la;s of the gi)en pheno.enon concentrates on the i..anent la;s on the anal$sis of the pheno.enon @in and for itself to use a 0egelian phrase+ Anal$sis of the la;s of .otion of the co..odit$6.one$ sphere in Marxs Capital is a .odel of such stud$+ The pheno.enon is here considered @b$ itself in strict abstraction fro. all the influences of other .ore co.plicated and LL

de)eloped pheno.ena connected first of all ;ith the production of surplus6)alue+ That also .eans that the pheno.enon is considered abstractl$+ This conception and application of abstract consideration is not .etaph$sicall$ opposed to concrete consideration but rather a real coincidence of the abstract and the concrete their dialectical unity+ Concrete consideration appears as one ;here the circu.stances that do not follo; fro. the i..anent la;s of the gi)en pheno.enon are ta(en into account rather than left aside+ Concrete understanding of the pheno.ena of the co..odit$6.one$ sphere coincides ;ith ta(ing into account all those influences exerted upon it b$ all the de)eloped and increasingl$ co.plicated for.s of econo.ic relations ;ithin capitalis.+ 5n other ;ords a concrete conception of co..odit$ that ;as originall$ considered onl$ in the abstract coincides ;ith the theoretical understanding of the entire totalit$ of the interacting for.s of econo.ic life of the entire econo.ic structure of capitalis.+ This conception is attained onl$ in the o)erall s$ste. of the science in the theor$ as a ;hole+

The Dialectical & the 'clectic('mpirical Conception of Comprehensi%e Consideration

5f ;e insist that the de.and for co.prehensi)e consideration of all facts of all the ele.ents of interaction alone can ensure genuinel$ concrete (no;ledge that is onl$ true on condition that the re<uire.ent of @all round consideration itself is interpreted dialecticall$+ This point is i.portant because this re<uire.ent is .ost fre<uentl$ and ;illingl$ exploited in the speculations ;ithin one of the anti6scientific for.s of thought N creeping e.piricis. posing as theoretical thought+ /enin a genius at appl$ing re)olutionar$ dialectics .an$ ti.es ;arned follo;ing Marx against confusing the dialectical conception of concreteness ;ith its eclectic parod$ the .ore so that this confusion often ac<uired direct political .eaning+ @5n falsif$ing Marxis. in opportunist fashion the substitution of eclecticis. for dialectics is the easiest ;a$ of decei)ing the people+ 5f gi)es an illusor$ satisfaction; it see.s to ta(e into account all sides of the process all trends of de)elop.ent all the conflicting influences and so forth ;hereas in realit$ it pro)ides no integral and re)olutionar$ conception of the process of social de)elop.ent at all+ B/enin (tate 7 5evolutionC These ;ords clearl$ refer N not onl$ to social de)elop.ent but to an$ field of (no;ledge or acti)it$ thereb$ containing a uni)ersal logical re<uire.ent+ 1ne of the .ost ;idel$ used argu.ents of the ene.ies of scientific co..unis. fighting against the theor$ of Marx #ngels and /enin is accusation of this theor$ and the political line follo;ing fro. it of @stubborn one6sidedness @abstractedness @lac( of flexibilit$ etc+ A characteristic exa.ple of eclectic falsification of dialectics is *u(harins opportunist position in the discussion on the trade unions at the Tenth Congress of the 2ussian Co..unist Part$ 7*olshe)i(s8+ Assu.ing the posture of an arbiter in the contro)ers$ bet;een the Part$ and the Trots($ group *u(harin .ade an atte.pt at a philosophical substantiation of his position+ 5n his argu.ents against *u(harins position /enin sho;ed brilliantl$ the deep essence of the dialectical interpretation of the concreteness of the truth+ This episode is )er$ instructi)e for logic as a science+ /et us briefl$ recall the circu.stances of this philosophical contro)ers$+ The debate concerned the principles of Part$ polic$ on trade unions+ The Part$s position on this point recorded in a nu.ber of docu.ents ;as as follo;sA %o)iet trade unions are a @school of co..unis.+ This short for.ula assu.ed that trade unions b$ their place and role in the s$ste. of the proletarian dictatorship are a .ass organisation ;hose goal is the education and enlighten.ent of the .asses in the spirit of co..unis. and preparation of the .asses for conscious participation in the .anage.ent of the national econo.$+ This conception ;as opposed b$ Trots($ ;ho for.ulated his o;n platfor. regarding trade unions first and fore.ost as an @ad.inistrati)e technical apparatus for production control+ That ;as a conflict of t;o clear6cut positions t;o political lines N the /eninist polic$ of the Part$ and the leftist polic$ of Trots($is. the notorious polic$ of @tightening the nuts+ 5n this situation *u(harin .ade an excursion into the field of philosoph$ tr$ing to find in it a substantiation of his political position a position that allegedl$ reconciled the opposing extre.es+ LO

The for.ula of the /eninist Part$ defined trade unions as @the school of co..unis. Trots($s for.ula as @ad.inistrati)e technical apparatus of control ;hile *u(harin reasoned thusA
@5 see no logical grounds for proof that either proposition is ;rong; both and a co.bination of both are right+

/enin sharpl$ conde.ned this @logical argu.entA @Fhen Co.rade *u(harin spea(s of JlogicalJ grounds his ;hole reasoning sho;s that he ta(es N unconsciousl$ perhaps N the standpoint of for.al or scholastic logic and not of dialectical or Marxist logic+ B/enin Danuar$ "O 19"1C Ta(ing up the ele.entar$ exa.ple used b$ *u(harin during the pole.ics /enin ga)e a brilliant de.onstration of the difference bet;een the dialectical interpretation of co.prehensi)e consideration and its eclectic )ariant+ A @logical argu.ent of the @on6the6one6hand on6the6other6hand t$pe an argu.ent .ore or less accidentall$ isolating )arious aspects of the ob>ects and placing the. in .ore or less accidental connection ;as rightl$ ridiculed b$ /enin as argu.ent in the spirit of scholastic for.al logic+ @A tu.bler is assuredl$ both a glass c$linder and a drin(ing )essel+ *ut there are .ore than these t;o properties <ualities or facets to it; there are an infinite nu.ber of the. an infinite nu.ber of J.ediaciesJ and inter6relationships ;ith the rest of the ;orld+ A tu.bler is a hea)$ ob>ect ;hich can be used as a .issile; it can ser)e as a paper;eight a receptacle for a capti)e butterfl$ or a )aluable ob>ect ;ith an artistic engra)ing or design and this has nothing at all to do ;ith ;hether or not it can be used for drin(ing is .ade of glass is c$lindrical or not <uite and so on and so forth+ 2easoning gliding fro. one abstract one6sided definition of the ob>ect to another >ust as abstract and one6 sided is endless and does not lead to an$thing definite+ 5f the Part$ reasoned about trade unions according to this principle there could be no hope for an$ principled scientificall$ ;or(ed6out political line+ 5t ;ould ha)e been tanta.ount to a co.plete re>ection of a theoretical attitude to things in general+ The position of the Part$ clearl$ expressed b$ /enin in no ;a$ re>ects the fact that tinder different social conditions and at different stages in the de)elop.ent of societ$ trade unions can pla$ different roles and be used for different purposes and that the for.s of their 1rganisation and .ethods of ;or( .a$ )ar$ accordingl$+ *ut a concrete for.ulation of the proble. proceeding fro. a realisation of the role ;hich trade unions pla$ or .a$ pla$ ob>ecti)el$ irrespecti)e of so.eones desires or aspirations in the s$ste. of the organs of proletarian dictatorship during the transition fro. capitalis. to socialis. leads to the conclusion that trade unions are not one thing on the one hand and another thing on the other but looked at from all sides, are a school of communism and a school of communism only, a school of unit$ a school of solidarit$ a school of the defence of the proletariats interests b$ the proletariat itself a school of .anage.ent and ad.inistration+ /enin stresses this point particularl$ pointing out that in the pole.ics against the erroneous platfor. propounded b$ Trots($ trade unions ha)e to be regarded as a school and in no other ;a$+ -or that is their onl$ ob>ecti)e role their goal pro.pted b$ their position in the s$ste. of proletarian dictatorship+ 5f an$one should use a tu.bler not the ;a$ it ought to be used N sa$ as a .issile rather than a drin(ing )essel there is no great har. in that+ *ut ;hen such an @ob>ect as trade unions is in)ol)ed the ;hole thing .a$ end in a disaster+ That ;as ;h$ the 2CP7*8 reacted so strongl$ to Trots($s platfor. according to ;hich trade unions are an @ad.inistrati)e technical apparatus for production control and to *u(harins atte.pt to >ustif$ this interpretation as a @one6sided one+ /enin stands b$ the )ie; that this platfor. cannot be accepted either as an exhausti)e definition or as an abstract one6sided definition of the essence of trade unions+ The concrete historical role purpose and place of trade unions in the s$ste. of organs of proletarian dictatorship are onl$ expressed in the Part$ positionA %o)iet trade unions an$ ;a$ $ou loo( at the. are a school. All other definitions are deri)ati)e fro. this basic principal and deter.ining one+ This definition expresses the specific nature of trade unions the reason ;h$ the$ can pla$ their role as an organ of proletarian dictatorship side b$ side ;ith the Part$ and state and in close cooperation ;ith the.+ That ;as ;h$ /enin continuing the ironic analog$ ;ith the tu.bler defines Trots($s position as that of a .an ;ho ;ants to use the tu.bler for its real purpose as an instru.ent for drin(ing but ;ishes that it should ha)e no botto.+ Fhile regarding %o)iet trade unions as an instru.ent of proletarian dictatorship Trots($ re>ects precisel$ that ;hich enables the. to pla$ their specific and necessar$ role distinct fro. the role of the state+ @0is 7Trots($s8 platfor. sa$s that a tu.bler is a drin(ing )essel but this particular tu.bler happens to ha)e no botto.+ L6

As for *u(harins position /enin describes it as dead and .eaningless eclecticis. that is senseless enu.eration of one abstract definition of the ob>ect after another an enu.eration that does not stop at an$thing concrete and does not lead an$;here .erel$ disconcerting the Part$+ To both these platfor.s /enin opposes a clear principled and concrete position of the Part$A %o)iet trade unions are an instru.ent of co..unist education of the broad ;or(ing .asses a school of co..unist unit$ solidarit$ defence of the interests of the proletariat fro. the bureaucratic ele.ents in the state organs a school of .anage.ent and ad.inistration it is an instru.ent for transfor.ing the ;or(ing people into conscious builders of co..unis.+ This concrete definition expresses an ob>ecti)e role of trade unions in the s$ste. of organisations i.ple.enting the socialist transfor.ation of societ$ that is their essence and nature independent of so.eones caprice or sub>ecti)e goals+ #clecticis. ;hich has al;a$s ser)ed as the .ethodolog$ of opportunis. and re)isionis. prides itself on its lo)e for all6sided approaches+ An eclectic ;ill ;illingl$ hold forth on the @har. of an$ one6 sidedness N and on the need to ta(e into account a thousand and one things+ 5n his hands ho;e)er the re<uire.ent for all6sided consideration beco.es an instru.ent of fighting dialectics and the principle of concreteness in its real .eaning+ The ;a$ to a concrete theoretical conception is here replaced b$ endless ;andering fro. one abstraction to another in no ;a$ different fro. the first+ 5nstead of ascending fro. the abstract to the concrete an eclectic ;ill .o)e fro. the abstract to so.ething >ust as abstract+ And his occupation is >ust as eas$ as it is fruitless+ 5t is eas$ because e)en the s.allest and .ost insignificant ob>ect indeed possesses an actuall$ infinite nu.ber of aspects and lin(s ;ith the surrounding ;orld+ #ach drop of ;ater reflects the entire richness of the uni)erse+ #)en apparentl$ unconnected pheno.ena ;orlds apart ;ill through a billion inter.ediate lin(s pro)e to ha)e so.ething in co..on; e)en 3apoleons cold in the head ;as a factor in the *attle of *orodino+ 5f one interprets the re<uire.ent of concrete anal$sis as a de.and for ta(ing account absolutel$ all ;ithout exception e.pirical details facts and circu.stances connected in so.e ;a$ or other ;ith the ob>ect under stud$ the concreteness 7>ust as an$ .etaph$sicall$ interpreted categor$8 ;ill pro)e to be a .ere na(ed abstraction a (ind of unattainable ideal existed ing .erel$ in i.agination but ne)er realised in actual (no;ledge+ The theoretician professing this conception of concreteness finds hi.self in the position of the Maeterlinc(s hero pursuing the *lue *ird ;hich ceases to be blue the .o.ent he touches it+ 0ere in the proble. of the relation of the abstract to the concrete .etaph$sics pro)es to be that bridge b$ ;hich thought ine)itabl$ arri)es at agnosticis. and in the final anal$sis at li<uidation of theor$ as such at the )ie; that theor$ is fore)er doo.ed to .o)e in the sphere of .ore or less sub>ecti)e abstractions ne)er grasping ob>ecti)e concreteness+ The .etaph$sical interpretation of concreteness as ta(ing into account absolutel$ all a)ailable circu.stances ine)itabl$ .a(es the person professing it extre.el$ susceptible to the argu.ents of sub>ecti)e idealists and agnostics+ The argu.ent @fro. the infinite co.plexit$ and confusion of the ;orld is probabl$ ;or(ed harder than an$ other argu.ent b$ conte.porar$ bourgeois philosophers in their struggle against the Marxist6/eninist theor$ of social de)elop.ent+ &arl Daspers the existentialist fran(l$ begins his attac( on Marxis. ;ith the state.ent that Marxs ;hole theor$ is based on the belief in the one and onl$ and is in nature of a total outloo(+ This belief in the abilit$ of thought to grasp the ob>ect in the entiret$ of all its necessar$ aspects and to percei)e it as @unit$ in di)ersit$ is according to Daspers an obsolete philosophical pre>udice gi)en up b$ @.odern science+ @The real .odern science+++ as opposed to the Marxist science of the integral is particularist sa$s Daspers; it has long gi)en up its pride being .odestl$ content ;ith @particulars+ @4nit$ of (no;ledge is an unattainable ideal or .$th according to Daspers+ Daspers expresses rather openl$ the cause of his disli(e for @Marxs total )ie;+ 0e resents @the unit$ of theor$ and @the unit$ of theor$ and practice na.el$ the practice of co..unist transfor.ation of the ;orldA @And this polic$ belie)es in its abilit$ based on this understanding to do ;hat no pre)ious polic$ ;as able to do+ 0a)ing a total )ie; of the past it can .a(e total plans and realise the.+ 0enri 3iel a -rench supporter of Daspers echoes the latters )ie;s+ 0e re>ects the dialectical .aterialist conception of concreteness for the sa.e reasons ;riting that ;hether in 0egelian or Marxist for. dialectics is based on .ans abilit$ to grasp .entall$ the totalit$ of existence and therefore ine)itabl$ beco.es a religion of the plan+ LK

#xistentialists belie)e that the for. of (no;ledge ;as borro;ed fro. 0egel and applied b$ a tour de force, to the specificall$ .odern content+ 5n actual fact Marxs and /enins conception of concreteness of theor$ is hostile and alien to an$ @superi.position of the for. of (no;ledge upon its .aterial upon the real di)ersit$ of pheno.ena+ To thin( concretel$ .eans @to build a reliable foundation of precise and indisputable facts that can be confronted to an$ of the JgeneralJ or Jexa.ple6basedJ argu.ents no; so grossl$ .isused in certain countries+ B/enin (tatistics and (ociologyC Precisel$ established and indisputable facts in their proper total interconnection facts ta(en as a ;hole as concretel$ and historicall$ conditioned N that is ;hat /enin insists on first of all in expounding the Marxist principle of @concreteness of thought+ The ;hole point of the principle is that @;e .ust ta(e not indi)idual facts but the sum total of facts ;ithout a single exception relating to the <uestion under discussion+ That is the principle attac(ed b$ Daspers as he .a(es a )irtue of the @particularis. allegedl$ inherent in .odern science that is of that )er$ tric( of arbitraril$ isolating facts fro. their ob>ecti)e interconnection to be further interpreted outside their connection outside a ;hole outside their interdependence ;hich is extre.el$ characteristic of bourgeois thin(ing in these da$s+ 0ere is another tirade of the sa.e sort+ @2ealit$ is )er$ confused+ *ut neither thought nor experience are in a position to present realit$ in its unit$ and entiret$+ Fe cannot concei)e realit$ or grasp it e.piricall$; ;e can onl$ experience it in its entiret$+ As for cognition the reasoning is as follo;s+ @An$ .ental cognition of infinite realit$ b$ the finite hu.an spirit is founded on the silent assu.ption that each ti.e onl$ a finite part of the sa.e can be the sub>ect of scientific perception and that this is the onl$ JessentialJ part in the sense that is ;orth (no;ing+ BMax FeberC The <uestion of ;hat ;e should be interested in and ;hat ;e .a$ neglect ;hat is @;orth (no;ing and ;hat is not @is a <uestion of )alue and can onl$ be sol)ed on the basis of sub>ecti)e assess.ents+ 5n other ;ords and ob>ecti)el$ 7i+e+ on an ob>ecti)e basis8 circu.scribed ;hole can ne)er for. the sub>ect6.atter of science N onl$ a particular area of facts ;hose boundaries an$ scientist is free to dra; an$;here he li(es+
@Choice is al;a$s of necessit$ sub>ecti)e+ Ma(ing choices is the business of each indi)idual .an of science+ 3o one can prescribe or e)en ad)ise hi. for choice is al;a$s lin(ed ;ith )alue+ *ut one cannot pro)e )alues+

Fhen it is a <uestion of the sub>ect6.atter of political econo.$ this )ie; co.es to .ean the follo;ingA the sub>ect6.atter of political econo.$ is @the field of interest of all those ;ho designate the.sel)es as econo.ists or of those ;ho are called so b$ others+ The sub>ect6.atter of political econo.$ thus co.prises e)er$thing that is so referred to b$ @all educated persons+ @The unit$ of the ob>ect +++ is not the logical structure of proble.s +++ ; it is the conceptual connections of the proble.s that constitute the ;or(ing area of a science+ These argu.ents are ta(en fro. the ;or(s of .ost di)erse authors N conte.porar$ bourgeois econo.ists existentialist philosophers 3eopositi)ists and representati)es of the @sociolog$ of (no;ledge+ The$ differ in .an$ respects $et the$ for. a united front against the .aterialist conception of @concreteness of (no;ledge+ The line of reasoning is e)er$;here the sa.eA since no single ;hole can be grasped b$ thought because of its infinite co.plexit$ one .ust be satisfied ;ith @particularist (no;ledge ;ith .ore or less arbitraril$ selected groups of facts+ @The .ost ;idel$ used and .ost fallacious .ethod in the real. of social pheno.ena is to tear out individual .inor facts and >uggle ;ith exa.ples ;rote /enin+ Conte.porar$ bourgeois philosoph$ .a(es a )irtue of this sharp practice+ 5t is of course .uch easier to select exa.ples and .inor facts to suit a pre)iousl$ chosen and co.pletel$ unpro)en proposition concerning @)alues than to stud$ facts ;ith the sa.e thoroughness as Marx did in collecting .aterials for Capital in the space of .ore than "O $ears+ *ut science cannot be guided b$ the principle of @ease or econo.$ of .ental effort+ %cience is hard ;or(+ he principle of concreteness of (no;ledge and truth+

#piral(Li)e Character of De%elopment of eality & its Theoretical eflection

L!

Thus .aterialist dialectics interprets concreteness of theor$ as a reflection of all the necessary aspects of the ob>ect in their .utual conditionalit$ and internal interaction. The .utual nature of conditioning t$pical of an$ dialecticall$ di)ided ;hole i.poses stringent de.ands on theor$ and at the sa.e ti.e gi)es theoreticians a clear criterion for singling out onl$ internall$ necessar$ definitions fro. the sensuall$ gi)en .ultifor.it$+ 5n a .ore i..ediate sense that signifies that each of the concrete abstractions 7;hose totalit$ constitutes a theor$8 reflects onl$ that for. of the existence of an ob>ect ;hich is at the sa.e ti.e a uni)ersal necessar$ condition of all the others and >ust as uni)ersal and necessar$ consequence of their interaction+ This condition is satisfied for exa.ple b$ the earlier anal$sed definition of .an as a being producing i.ple.ents of labour+ Production of labour i.ple.ents production of .eans of production is not onl$ a uni)ersal 7both logicall$ and historicall$8 prerequisite of all the other for.s of hu.an life acti)it$ but also a continuall$ reproduced result or consequence of the social de)elop.ent as a ;hole+ At each .o.ent in its de)elop.ent .an(ind is necessaril$ co.pelled to reproduce that is posit as its product its o;n uni)ersal basis the uni)ersal condition of the existence of the social hu.an organis. as a ;hole+ Toda$ the production of labour i.ple.ents that ha)e de)eloped into fantasticall$ co.plex .achines and asse.blies of .achines re.ains on the one hand a uni)ersal ob>ecti)e basis of the rest of hu.an de)elop.ent >ust as at the da;n of .an(ind+ *ut on the other hand it essentiall$ depends on the le)el of de)elop.ent of science its o;n re.ote offspring on its o;n conse<uence and the dependence is so strong that .achines .a$ be regarded 7;ithin a .aterialist fra.e;or(8 as @organs of the human brain created by mans hand B3rundrisse pO9LC+ 5n li(e .anner co..odities .one$ @free labour force N all these are no less products of capital conse<uences of its specific .o)e.ent than the$ are its historical pre.ises the conditions of its e.ergence+ And these are the (ind of products ;hich capital reproduces on an e)er increasing scale inconcei)able before its e.ergence+ This dialectics of all real de)elop.ent in ;hich the uni)ersal necessar$ condition of the e.ergence of an ob>ect beco.es its o;n uni)ersal and necessar$ conse<uence this dialectical in)ersion in ;hich the condition beco.es the conditioned the cause beco.es the effect the uni)ersal beco.es the particular is a characteristic feature of internal interaction through ;hich actual de)elop.ent assu.es the fro. of a circle or to be .ore precise of a spiral ;hich extends the scope of its .otion all the ti.e ;ith each ne; turn+ At the sa.e ti.e there is a (ind of @loc(ing in itself here ;hich transfor.s an aggregate of indi)idual pheno.ena into a relati)el$ closed s$ste. a concrete integral organis. historicall$ de)eloping according to its i..anent la;s+ Marx resolutel$ e.phasised this nature of interaction ;ithin the s$ste. of capitalist productionA @5f in a de)eloped bourgeois s$ste. +++ an$thing that is posited is at the sa.e ti.e a premise, the same thing takes place in an$ organic s$ste.+ B3rundrisse p1!9C The ;ords italicised in the abo)e directl$ express the fact that the @circular nature of interaction is b$ no .eans a specific la; of the existence and de)elop.ent of capitalis. but rather a universal law of dialectical de)elop.ent a la; of dialectics+ That is exactl$ the la; that underlies the logical la; of coincidence of the abstract and the concrete and the dialectical .aterialist conception of theoretical concreteness+ 0o;e)er the sa.e la; of spiral6li(e de)elop.ent of a s$ste. of interacting pheno.ena poses so.e specific difficulties for thought N difficulties that are not to be o)erco.e ;ithout the dialectical .ethod in general and ;ithout a clear conception of the dialectics of the abstract and the concrete in particular+ *ourgeois econo.ists as the$ ca.e up in their studies against this circu.stance the spiral6li(e nature of the .utual conditioning of the di)erse for.s of bourgeois ;ealth ine)itabl$ lapsed into circularit$ in defining the .ost i.portant categories+ Marx disco)ered this hopeless @circularit$ alread$ in his first atte.pt at an anal$sis of #nglish econo.ic theories in 1!LL+ 5n anal$sing %a$s argu.entation he disco)ers that the latter >ust as other econo.ists e)er$;here substitutes the concept of )alue for an explanation of pheno.ena ;hich are the.sel)es silentl$ assu.ed in explaining )alue e+g+ the concepts of @;ealth @di)ision of labour @capital etc+ @Fealth+ 0ere the concept of value, ;hich has not $et been de)eloped is alread$ assu.ed; for ;ealth is defined as Jthe su. total of )aluesJ Jsu. total of )aluable thingsJ that one possesses+ -ifteen $ears later returning to this point Marx re)eals the .$ster$ of this hopeless logical circleA @5n theor$ the )alue concept precedes the concept of capital but on the other hand assu.es a .ode of production based on capital as a condition of its pure de)elop.ent and the sa.e thing happens in L9

practice+ Therefore ine)itabl$ econo.ists no; regard capital as creator of )alues their source and no; assu.e )alues as pre.ises for the for.ation of capital representing capital itself as a su. total of )alues in a certain function+ BMarx 3rundrisse p+ 16HC This logical circularit$ in definitions ine)itabl$ happens for the reason that an$ ob>ect is in fact a product of dialectical de)elop.ent o;ing to ;hich the realit$ studied b$ science al;a$s appears as a s$ste. of mutually conditioning aspects as a historicall$ e.erging and de)eloping concreteness+ Assu.ing indeed both .one$ and )alue as premises for its e.ergence capital at its birth i..ediatel$ transfor.s the. into uni)ersal for.s of its o;n .o)e.ent into abstract .o.ents of its specific being+ As a result it e.erges before the obser)er conte.plating a historicall$ established relation as the creator of )alue+ The difficult$ here lies in that it is onl$ the e.ergence of capital that transfor.s )alue into a real universal econo.ic for. of all production of the entire s$ste. of econo.ic relations+ *efore that before the e.ergence of capital )alue is an$thing but the universal econo.ic relation if onl$ because it does not co.prise such a significant @particular factor of production as labour force+ 5t is i.possible to brea( up the logical circularit$ in the definition of )alue and capital b$ an$ sophisticated logical procedures or se.antic .anipulations ;ith concepts and their definitions for the circularit$ arises not fro. a fault in the definitions of concepts but fro. a failure to understand the dialectical nature of interaction bet;een the. fro. a failure to i.ple.ent a genuinel$ historical approach to the stud$ of this interaction+ 5t is onl$ a historical approach that enables one to find a ;a$ out of the )icious circle or rather a ;a$ into it+ 5nsofar as bourgeois econo.ists are alien to such an approach the circularit$ is hopeless for the.+ The failure of such atte.pts is deter.ined b$ the inabilit$ to grasp concreteness is a historicall$ de)eloped s$ste. of internall$ interacting pheno.ena ;hich undergoes further de)elop.ent as a historicall$ e)ol)ing @unit$ in di)ersit$+ *ut it ;as exactl$ this dialectical conception of concreteness that ga)e Marx a .ethodological (e$ to the solution of the basic theoretical proble.s of political econo.$; in particular it explains the fact that it ;as Marx ;ho re)ealed the .$ster$ of the fetishis. of co..odities+ The concreteness of the capitalist ;orld co.prises onl$ those ob>ecti)e for.s of .otion ;hich this ;orld assu.es as its prere<uisites and .oreo)er reproduces as its specific product, positing the. as its consequence. The sun co..odities natural resources .one$ free labour force a)ailabilit$ of .achines N all of these are e<uall$ ob>ecti)e pre.ises and conditions in the absence of ;hich capital can neither e.erge nor exist+ *ut neither the natural circu.stances of its origin nor the technical para.eters of .achines nor .ans anthropological features and his abilit$ to ;or( for. the uni)ersal and necessar$ i..anent for.s of the existence of capital+ Marxs anal$sis singles out as the concrete theoretical characteristics onl$ those uni)ersal and necessar$ conditions of the being of capital ;hich are reproduced b$ the .o)e.ent of capital itself+ Capitalis. does not reproduce labour force as such or natural resources and other .aterial co.ponents but rather labour force as co..odit$ that is as that social for. in ;hich labour force functions ;ithin the de)eloped s$ste. of capitalist relations+ /abour force as such as a su. total of ps$chological or ph$siological abilities is produced and reproduced b$ other process or processes+ Capitalis. does not produce it >ust as it does not produce sunlight or natural resources or air etc+ but it does produce those social for.s ;ithin ;hich and through ;hich all these things are in)ol)ed in its specific .o)e.ent and .o)e ;ithin its organis. as its for.s+ The criterion Marx applied here for distinguishing N i..anent for.s of the ob>ects .otion is essentiall$ a uni)ersal logical criterion+ That .eans that an$ indi)idual ob>ect thing pheno.enon or fact is gi)en a certain concrete for. of its existence b$ the concrete process in the .o)e.ent of ;hich it happens to be in)ol)ed; an$ indi)idual ob>ect o;es an$ concrete for. of its existence to the concrete historicall$ established s$ste. of things ;ithin ;hich it e.erged and of ;hich it for.s a part rather than to itself its o;n self6contained indi)idual nature+ Eold ta(en b$ itself is not .one$+ 5t beco.es .one$ in the circulation of .one$ and co..odities in ;hich it is in)ol)ed+ @A chair ;ith four legs and a )el)et canop$ is under certain circu.stances a throne; therefore this chair a thing that ser)es as a seat is not a throne through the nature of its use6 )alue that is to sa$ b$ its i..anent nature @in and for itself ta(en in abstraction fro. those specific conditions ;hich alone .a(e it a throne it is not a throne at all+

O0

5t thus beco.es apparent ;hat enor.ous significance the dialectical conception of the concreteness of theoretical abstractions had for the o)erco.ing of naturalist fetishist illusions )eiling the nature of )alue as ;ell as of all its deri)ati)e for.s including interest rent etc+ 5n its nature gold is no .ore .one$ than coal is fuel for a loco.oti)e the .oon a protectress of lo)ers and .an is sla)e or patrician proletarian or bourgeois philosopher or .athe.atician+ There is a fine point here ho;e)er that dialectics has to ta(e into account+ Eold coal and .an in the.sel)es ha)e to possess certain features and <ualities o;ing to ;hich the process ;herein the$ are in)ol)ed can transfor. the. into for.s of its o;n .o)e.ent of its existence+ 5t is gold rather than cla$ or bits of granite that pro)es to be the natural .aterial in ;hich the uni)ersal for. of )alue is realised+ 0ere the natural ph$sical6che.ical <ualities do pla$ a role+ *ut these natural properties are of no conse<uence ;hen ;e are dealing ;ith the essence, the nature of the .one$ for. of )alue as such+ This for. de)elops in co..odit$ circulation irrespecti)e of the natural properties of gold+ 5t is the sphere of circulation that de)elops the @pure econo.ic for. ;hich later @finds the .ost flexible .aterial for its i.ple.entation appropriate for its ai.s+ As soon as gold pro)es to be an insufficientl$ flexible and plastic .eans or substance for expressing ne;l$ de)eloping traits of the .one$ for. it is replaced b$ paper ban(6notes ;ritten6order clearing etc+ This discussion sho;s ;hat ob>ecti)e realit$ ;as .$stified b$ the Aristotelian 7and later 0egelian8 dialectics in the shape of the teaching of entelech$ of the @pure for. existing outside and independent of @.atter in ;hich it is subse<uentl$ e.bodied and ;hich it .oulds after its o;n fashion in accordance ;ith the re<uire.ents contained in it+ That is the real objective concreteness as a system of interacting things ;here the indi)idual thing once it gets into the s$ste. confor.s to its re<uire.ents and ac<uires a for. of existence pre)iousl$ un(no;n to it+ The dialectical .aterialist conception of concreteness thereb$ destro$ed the last refuge of intelligent dialectical idealis. as it ga)e a rational solution to the .$ster$ of entelech$ the .$ster$ of the uni)ersal as the @goal cause as @pure for. de)eloping outside and independentl$ of the ;orld of indi)idual things and subordinating these things to its specific .otion+ 2ealit$ ;hich is expressed in an idealist and .$stified .anner in the notion of concept as i goal cause as an acti)e for. is nothing but real ob>ecti)e concreteness that is a historicall$ e.erging and de)eloping s$ste. of .utuall$ conditioning pheno.ena a co.plex dialecticall$ di)ided ;hole ;hich includes each indi)idual thing and conditions the concrete nature and for. of the things+ The .aterialisticall$ interpreted categor$ of reciprocal action re)eals the .$ster$ of the @goal causeA @reciprocal action is the true causa finalis of thingsJ is the ;a$ #ngels for.ulates this proposition+ B*ialectics of 6ature 3otes and -rag.entsC The abo)e re<uires an essential <ualification+ #ach science ob)iousl$ reflects in its categories onl$ specific for.s and la;s of a concrete s$ste. of interacting pheno.ena constituting its special sub>ect6 .atter .a(ing abstraction fro. e)er$thing else despite the fact that ;ithout this @e)er$thing else its sub>ect6.atter is i.possible and inconcei)able+ -or exa.ple political econo.$ re)eals in a s$ste.atic for. the concrete totalit$ of social production relations bet;een .en lea)ing aside the technological aspects of co..unication and the biological relations bet;een indi)iduals despite the fact that .en do not and cannot exist ;ithout either+ 5t is <uite apparent that all those changes ;hich ta(e place ;ithin the s$ste. of production relations the entire e)olution of the s$ste. of production relations and for.s of econo.ic connection depend in actual fact on the de)elop.ent of .ans producti)e force and .oreo)er are deter.ined b$ this de)elop.ent+ 3e)ertheless Marx considers in Capital the s$ste. of capitalist relations as a @self6de)eloping s$ste. as a concreteness closed ;ithin itself in its internal contradictions in the i..anent contradictions of the econo.ic for.+ *ut strictl$ spea(ing the actual .oti)e forces of the e)olution of a s$ste. of production relations are not contained ;ithin the s$ste. itself but rather in the de)elop.ent of producti)e forces+ 4nless the producti)e forces de)elop no @internal dialectics of the s$ste. of econo.ic relations ;ill produce an e)olution+ 0o;e)er Marx studies the .ode of production as a ;hole and therefore registers a dialectical .utual conditioning of the producti)e forces and production relations+ The de)elop.ent of producti)e forces is here ta(en not b$ itself not onl$ as a cause but also as a conse<uence result and product of the re)erse action of the s$ste. of production relations on the producti)e forces+ -or instance Capital sho;s the .echanis. o;ing to ;hich the e.ergence of the econo.ic for. of relati)e surplus6)alue causes a gro;th in labour producti)it$ inducing the capitalist to replace .anual labour b$ .achine labour and to de)elop the technical basis of the production of surplus6)alue+ O1

5t is clear ho;e)er 7and it is sho;n b$ Marx hi.self8 that in actual fact it is the appearance of .achines that is the real cause of the absolute for. of surplus6)alue being ousted out b$ its relati)e for.+ 2elati)e surplus6)alue clearl$ beco.es the do.inant for. of surplus6)alue exactl$ for the reason that it is in better confor.it$ ;ith .achine labour than absolute surplus6)alue ;hich is increased b$ a si.ple lengthening of the ;or(ing da$ labour producti)it$ re.aining unaltered+ The ;hole point is ho;e)er that the correspondence itself bet;een the econo.ic for. of a stage in the de)elop.ent of a producti)e force is in its turn a dialectical correspondence+ 2elati)e surplus6)alue confor.s to .achine production exactl$ because it does not re.ain a passi)e for. ;ithin ;hich .achines ;or( but rather beco.es in active for. exerting a )er$ strong re)erse effect on .achine production that is on its o;n basis that ga)e rise to it de)eloping this basis and thereb$ creating a ne; incenti)e for its o;n .o)e.ent+ 0ere the transfor.ation of cause into effect ta(es place that is characteristic of an$ real de)elop.ent+ This circu.stance is extre.el$ i.portant for understanding the paths chosen b$ Marx in his research+ Marx considered the e)olution of the s$ste. of production relations based on ;age labour+ 0e ;as .ostl$ concerned ;ith those changes that ta(e place ;ithin the s$ste. of production relations ;ithin the econo.ic structure of societ$+ As for the de)elop.ent of producti)e forces as such independent fro. an$ for. of production relations it is not considered in Capital+ That is the sub>ect .atter of another science the science of technolog$+ Marx ta(es as gi)en the fact that the producti)e forces as such de)elop independentl$ fro. a certain concrete historical for. of relations bet;een .en assu.ing it to be fact that is not to be studied speciall$ ;ithin political econo.$+ Does that .ean that the de)elop.ent of production relations is in general considered b$ hi. as unrelated to the de)elop.ent of producti)e forcesG 1n the contrar$+ Actuall$ exactl$ those changes are considered ;ithin the s$ste. of econo.ic relations that are caused b$ the de)elop.ent of producti)e forces+ Moreo)er precisel$ because politicall$ econo.$ does not consider the de)elop.ent of producti)e forces in itself 7@an und f8r sich+, .an sich+, .f8r sich+8 the effect of this de)elop.ent on the s$ste. of econo.ic for.s its interaction ;ith the latter is concei)ed in a concrete historical .anner that is exactl$ in that for. in ;hich this effect ;or(s in the ;orld of pri)ate capitalist o;nership+ The nature of a change introduced b$ a no; accretion of the producti)e forces to the s$ste. of production relations entirel$ depends on the specific features of the s$ste. in ;hich this change is introduced+ An$ ne; accretion of the producti)e forces does not auto.aticall$ create an econo.ic relation or socioecono.ic for. directl$ confor.ing to it but rather deter.ines the direction in ;hich the alread$ existing historicall$ for.ed s$ste. of econo.ic relations e)ol)es+ The situation is @not affected b$ the fact that the earlier for.ed s$ste. of econo.ic relations is in its turn fro. beginning to end a product of the entire preceding de)elop.ent of the producti)e forces+ A concrete historicall$ for.ed s$ste. of econo.$ is al;a$s a relati)el$ independent organis. producing a re)erse effect on its o;n basis N the su. total of producti)e forces and refracting an$ effect of the latter through its o;n specific nature+ The totalit$ of econo.ic for.s ;o)en into a single s$ste. de)eloping out of an identical basis constitutes the specific nature of an econo.ic organis. ;hich thereb$ ac<uires a relati)e independence ;ith regard to the producti)e forces the.sel)es+ Political econo.$ as a special science has for its sub>ect6.atter exactl$ those for.s ;hich express the relati)e independence of the s$ste. of production relations+ The deter.ining effect of producti)e forces on production relations is re)ealed in a concrete historical .anner precisel$ because the de)elop.ent of producti)e forces as such is not considered; ;hat is considered is onl$ the internal logic of the e)olution of the s$ste. of production relations the internal logic of the for.ation and de)elop.ent of this s$ste.+ Thereb$ the process in ;hich producti)e forces create appropriate production relations is traced <uite concretely. 1ther;ise the stud$ ;ould re.ain abstract )erbiage+ All of this has a bearing not onl$ on political econo.$ but on an$ theoretical science+ #)er$ science is re<uired to de)elop a s$ste.atic conception of precisel$ those for.s of the existence of an ob>ect ;hich express its relati)e independence rather than of those abstract features it has in co..on ;ith others+ The producti)e forces do not create an$thing each ti.e ane; front scratch 7this is an actual possibilit$ onl$ at the da;n of hu.an de)elop.ent8; the$ deter.ine the t$pe and character of changes ta(ing place ;ithin an alread$ established s$ste. of production relations+ The situation is the sa.e in the de)elop.ent of all for.s of spiritual culture la; political institutions philosoph$ and art+ O"

@0ere econo.$ creates nothing ane; but it deter.ines the ;a$ in ;hich the bod$ of thought found in existence is altered and further de)eloped and that too for the .ost part indirectl$ stressed #ngels considering this point to be a .ost i.portant trait distinguishing the theor$ of historical .aterialis. fro. the abstract deliberation of )ulgar econo.ists ;ho reduced the entire concrete co.plexit$ of the actual process of spiritual de)elop.ent to the abstract insistence on the pri.ac$ of econo.$ and the deri)ed nature of e)er$thing else+ Thus historical .aterialis. full$ ta(es into account the fact that econo.$ al;a$s pre)ails @;ithin the ter.s laid do;n b$ the particular sphere itself that is one and the sa.e econo.ic shift produces a certain effect in the sphere or art and <uite a different one unli(e the for.er in the sphere of la; and so on+ The difficult$ is ne)er in reducing a certain pheno.enon in the sphere of la; or art to its econo.ic cause+ That is not so difficult to do+ *ut that is not historical .aterialis.+ 5n general Marxist philosoph$ ta(es the standpoint of deduction rather than reduction re<uiring that in each concrete case it should be understood ;h$ the gi)en shift in the econo.$ ;as reflected in politics or art in the gi)en rather than so.e other ;a$+ This tas( assu.es ho;e)er a theoretical understanding or the specific nature in ;hich the econo.ic shift is reflected and transfor.ed+ #ach of the superstructural spheres or the acti)it$ of social .an .ust be understood and explained as a s$ste. of historicall$ established concrete for.s specific for this sphere of reflecting econo.$ .ans social being+ All the philosophical and logical principles applied b$ Marx to the stud$ of the s$ste. or capitalist relations as a historicall$ established s$ste. of interaction are applicable to an$ natural or social science+ /et us consider onl$ one exa.ple N the origin of legal nor.s+ A necessar$ and uni)ersal condition for the e.ergence of an$ legal nor. is the @factual relation a ter. applied b$ >urists to a non6legal purel$ econo.ic fact+ This fact ta(en b$ itself is outside the co.petence of a la; scholar referring to the sphere of political econo.$+ The point is ho;e)er that it is not an$ econo.ic relation an$ @factual relation that engenders an appropriate legal nor. but onl$ one ;hich ob>ecti)el$ needs legal protection that is re<uires a forcible sub>ugation of the ;ill of indi)iduals+ 5n other ;ords onl$ that econo.ic relation needs protection ;hich ;ith the aid of a legal nor. is later asserted as the result of the fiction of law+ 4nder co..unis. for instance the need for la; and for a s$ste. of legal nor.s itself ;ill ;ither a;a$ exactl$ because the for. itself of econo.ic relations the co..unist for. of o;nership 7as a @factual relation8 ;ill assu.e a character that ;ill no longer need a legal for. for its assertion+ 5t follo;s that onl$ such an econo.ic relation a non6legal fact ;hich re<uires a legal for. for its assertion constitutes a real pre.ise and condition of e.ergence of a legal nor.+ 5n other ;ords onl$ that non6legal fact ;ill beco.e a real condition of a legal nor. ;hich is actively 7that is in conse<uence of appl$ing la;8 asserted and protected b$ the entire s$ste. of functioning la;+ 5f a certain @factual relation does not need legal protection and assertion if it is not a consequence of appl$ing la; then neither is it the cause of la;+ 5n this case a legal nor. does not e.erge at allA a .oral or so.e other nor. does+ Accordingl$ onl$ that econo.ic relation bet;een .en constitutes a real pre.ise and condition of the e.ergence of a legal nor. ;hich is asserted b$ the legal nor. as a product a consequence of its application and appears on the surface as a consequence of la; and not as its cause+ 5n this case ;e deal again ;ith a dialectical transfor.ation of cause into effect ;hich ste.s fro. the spiral6li(e character of an$ real de)elop.ent of .utuall$ conditioning pheno.ena+ 5t is this real fact being co.prehended and elucidated in a one6sided .anner onl$ fro. the standpoint of acti)e re)erse effect of social consciousness in all its for.s on social being on the sphere of econo.ic relations bet;een .en and of .en to nature ;hich gi)es rise to di)erse idealist conceptions+ Abstract absolutisation of this aspect of the acti)e re)erse effect of thought on all other spheres of acti)it$ including econo.$ and the field of relations bet;een .an and nature for.ed the basis for the 0egelian conception ;hich ulti.atel$ declared .ans entire social life and e)en nature itself to be a conse<uence or product of thin(ing in ter.s of concepts an outco.e of the logical acti)it$ of uni)ersal reason+ 5t is this fact of relati)e independence of thought of .ans logical de)elop.ent o;ing to ;hich thought has an acti)e re)erse effect on all spheres of .ans acti)it$ 7including econo.$8 that 0egel stresses one6sidedl$+ This one6sidedness coincides ;ith the ob>ecti)e6idealist )ie; of the relation of thought to being+ OH

2e>ecting the thesis concerning absolute independence of the logical process of the s$ste. of logical categories Marxist6/eninist logic ta(es into account relative of the sphere of social .ans logical acti)it$ acti)it$ of logical categories in the perception and anal$sis of sensual data+ Thought is not a si.ple passi)e replica of the @general for.s of sensuall$ gi)en facts it is rather a specific .ode of spiritual acti)it$ of a sociall$ de)eloped sub>ect+ The uni)ersal for.s in ;hich this acti)it$ is realised 7logical categories8 is not .erel$ an accidental aggregate of the .ost general abstractions but a s$ste. ;ithin ;hich each categor$ is concretel$ defined through all the others+ The s$ste. of logical categories i.ple.ents the sa.e subordination that the s$ste. of concepts of an$ science does ;hich reflects a dialecticall$ di)ided ;hole+ This subordination is not of the genus6to6 species natureA the categor$ of <uantit$ for instance is neither a species of <ualit$ nor a genus ;ith regard to causalit$ or essence+ A logical categor$ cannot therefore be in principle defined b$ inclusion in a higher genus and indication of its o;n specific feature+ This confir.s once again the fact that a real concept exists onl$ in a system of concepts and through it beco.ing outside a s$ste. an e.pt$ abstraction ;ithout an$ clear definition N a .ere ter. or designation+

#cientific Abstraction *Concept+ & ,ractice

Practice social .ans sensual ob>ecti)e acti)it$ has al;a$s been and still is a uni)ersal prere<uisite and condition on the basis of ;hich the entire co.plex .echanis. of .ans cogniti)e abilities acti)el$ transfor.ing sensual i.pressions e.erges and de)elops+ 0a)ing e.erged and still .ore so ha)ing de)eloped to a high le)el a s$ste. of for.s of logical acti)it$ 7categories8 has a )er$ considerable re)erse effect on practice itself+ 1n this basis Marxist6/eninist philosoph$ sol)es the proble. of the relation of e.pirical abstractions to the abstractions of theoretical thought+ 5n the pheno.enon open to direct conte.plation things .ostl$ loo( <uite different fro. ;hat the are in essence expressed in a concept+ 5f both coincided directl$ science as special theoretical anal$sis of pheno.ena ;ould not be needed at all+ And that is exactl$ ;h$ the .ere reference to the fact that such and such @general traits .a$ be recorded in a pheno.enon open to direct conte.plation cannot as $et ser)e as a ;eight$ argu.ent either for or against the abstraction of concept+ At the ti.e ;hen Dean6Dac<ues 2ousseau for.ulated his historical thesis @Man is born free and e)er$;here he is in chains .ost .en indeed spent their li)es )irtuall$ @in chains fro. the cradle to the gra)e+ The thesis that all .en fro. birth are essentiall$ e<ual could not at that ti.e be pro)ed b$ referring to the e.pirical general state of affairs+ And $et historicall$ and theoreticall$ the philosophical conceptions of the #nlighten.ent ;ere true and not those of their opponents+ Direct conte.plation and the abstractions arising fro. it al;a$s and e)er$;here reflect pheno.ena of the ;orld in the light of practical relations a.ong .en and of .en to nature existing at the .o.ent+ 3ature is conte.plated b$ a li)ing concrete historicall$ definite indi)idual ;o)en into a net;or( of social relations that is a being standing in an acti)e practical ob>ecti)e relation to the ;orld rather than the i.aginar$ allegedl$ @passi)el$ conte.plation sub>ect+ And that is exactl$ ;h$ socio6historical properties of things and of .an hi.self begin to see. eternal properties bound ;ith the )er$ essence of things+ These fetishist naturalist illusions 7co..odit$ fetishis. is onl$ an exa.ple8 and the abstractions expressing the. cannot therefore be refuted b$ .ere indication of things gi)en in conte.plation+ The things gi)en in conte.plation to an indi)idual of bourgeois 7@ci)il8 societ$ are superficiall$ exactl$ the ;a$ the$ see. to hi.+ These illusions and abstractions are for.ed not onl$ in the consciousness of an indi)idual of bourgeois societ$ but in the realt$ itself of the econo.ic social relations ;hich he conte.plates+ That ;as ;h$ Marx pointed out that the conte.plati)e )ie;point of the indi)idual .oulded b$ @ci)il that is bourgeois societ$ does not per.it to see realit$ in its genuine light+ -ro. this standpoint 7and that ;as as Marx pointed out the standpoint of the entire old .aterialis. including that of -euerbach8 things appear in conte.plation too shrouded in a .ist of fetishist illusions+ 5n li)ing conte.plation the indi)idual is al;a$s acti)eA @passi)e conte.plation ;hich allegedl$ per.its to see things as the$ are in actual fact belongs in the real. of fantasies of old philosoph$+ 5n real li)ing conte.plation things are al;a$s gi)en in the light of existing practice+ That does not .ean that things .ust appear in theoretical thought outside an$ connection ;ith practice being co.prehended @in a purel$ disinterested .anner as .aterialists before Marx belie)ed+ 1n the OL

contrar$+ The difference here is that abstractions of theoretical thought are lin(ed ;ith practice in a less direct ;a$ than abstractions of li)ing conte.plation but to .a(e up for that the lin(s are deeper and .ore co.prehensi)e+ #.pirical abstractions born in the head of a practicall$ acti)e .e.ber of bourgeois societ$ are criticised b$ Marx fro. the standpoint of practice itself+ *ut practice is here ta(en in its entire real scope and ;hat is e)en .ore i.portant in a certain perspecti)e+ Marxs principle of criticall$ o)erco.ing e.pirical abstractions of bourgeois consciousness is as follo;sA he proceeds fro. the fact that if one ta(es the standpoint of a conte.plati)e indi)idual of bourgeois societ$ things ;ill indeed loo( exactl$ the ;a$ the$ see. to hi.+ Conse<uentl$ a criti<ue of the abstractions of the indi)iduals e.pirical consciousness .ust begin ;ith the criti<ue of the )ie;point of the position fro. ;hich he considers things ;ith sho;ing up the narro;ness of this )ie;point+ A ;ider )ie; co.prehending the pheno.ena in their entire actual content coincides in Marx ;ith the standpoint of practice ta(en in its necessar$ perspecti)e .entall$ stretched into the future+ *rea(ing through the narro; hori'on of the existing 7bourgeois8 practice a theoretical )ie; of things brea(s a;a$ not fro. practice 7as it see.ed to -euerbach8 but onl$ ;ith its gi)en historicall$ transient for.+ Thereb$ a theoretical )ie; of things coincides ;ith practice in its real .eaning in its re)olutionar$ and re)olutionising .eaning and thus ;ith the standpoint of the class realising this practice+ Marxs episte.olog$ is lin(ed ;ith this interpretation of the relations of abstractions to practice+ The standpoint of practice as /enin indicates is the starting point of episte.olog$+ 1ne should onl$ bear in .ind that ;hat is .eant here is the actual standpoint of re)olutionar$ practice in its entire scope and perspecti)e and b$ no .eans the narro; prag.atic )ie;point as is slanderousl$ asserted b$ so.e re)isionists echoing the ;ishful tal( of bourgeois ideologists+ This interpretation is also lin(ed ;ith the )ie;s of Marx and /enin on concept in particular their proposition that a .ere correspondence to the directl$ obser)able @general features of the pheno.enon N is not N $et a criterion of the truth of a concept+ 5t .a$ co.e about as a result of practical change that those features of a thing ;hich ;ere obser)ed as constantl$ recurring or general ;ill disappear entirel$ and ;hat appeared to be exceptional in the pheno.enon open to conte.plation ;ill pro)e to be the expression of the essence of the thing+ To chec( ;hether our conception of the situation outside our consciousness is correct or incorrect 7that is ;hether our conception corresponds to the thing or not8 it is enough to loo( at the thing carefull$ co.paring the notion ;ith the actual situation ;ith the general in the facts+ *ut to define ;hether or not these general ele.ents are necessarily inherent in the thing in its concrete nature ;ill re<uire a different criterion+ The criterion is practice ;hich acti)el$ changes the thing rather than passi)e conte.plation ho;e)er thorough and attenti)e it .a$ be+ The truth of a concept is not pro)ed b$ co.paring its definitions ;ith e.pirical general features f facts but rather in a .ore co.plicated and .ediated .anner including a practical transfor.ation of e.pirical realit$+ Practice is the highest instance of )erif$ing a concept+ The correspondence of a concept to an ob>ect is full$ pro)ed onl$ ;hen a .an succeeds in finding reproducing or creating an ob>ect corresponding to the concept ;hich he has for.ed+ 5nas.uch as a concept expresses the essence of a thing rather than the abstract general features open to conte.plation and expressible in notions a concept can neither be confir.ed nor refuted b$ reference to all indi)idual facts a)ailable to conte.plation possessing 7or not possessing8 gi)en features at a gi)en .o.ent+ Marx ;as ne)er as conte.ptuous as in .oc(ing the .anner of theorising practised b$ )ulgar econo.ists ;ho belie)ed that the$ could refute a theor$ b$ sho;ing that things in pheno.enal for. loo(ed different fro. ;hat the$ appeared in essence expressed b$ concept+ The )ulgar econo.ist thin(s he has .ade a great disco)er$ ;hen in face of the disclosure of intrinsic interconnection he proudl$ states that on the surface things loo( different+ 5n fact he boasts that he stic(s to appearance and ta(es it for the ulti.ate+ Fh$ then ha)e an$ science at allG The essence of a thing expressed in a concept lies in the concrete s$ste. of its interaction ;ith other things in the s$ste. of ob>ecti)e conditions ;ithin ;hich and through ;hich it is ;hat it is+ #ach indi)idual separatel$ ta(en thing co.prises its o;n essence potentiall$ onl$ as an ele.ent of so.e concrete s$ste. of interacting things rather than in the for. of an actuall$ gi)en general feature+ This essence is not i.ple.ented in the thing in realit$ 7and therefore not in conte.plation either8 as the directl$ obser)able general and if it is that does not happen all at once but onl$ in the process of its .otion change and de)elop.ent+ OO

The significance of this point .a$ be ;ell illustrated b$ considering the histor$ of the concept of the proletariat a .ost i.portant categor$ of the Marxist6/eninist theor$+ Fhen Marx and #ngels ;or(ed out the concept of the proletariat as the .ost re)olutionar$ class of bourgeois societ$ as the gra)e6digger of capitalis. it ;as in principle i.possible to obtain this concept b$ considering an abstractl$ general trait inherent in each separate proletarian and each particular stratu. of the proletariat+ A for.al abstraction ;hich could be .ade in the .id619th centur$ b$ co.paring all indi)idual representati)es of the proletariat b$ the (ind of abstracting reco..ended b$ non6dialectical logic ;ould ha)e characterised the proletariat as the .ost oppressed passi)el$ suffering po)ert$6ridden class capable at best onl$ of a desperate hungr$ rebellion+ This concept of the proletariat ;as current in the innu.erable studies of that ti.e in the philanthropic ;ritings of the conte.poraries of Marx and #ngels and in the ;or(s of utopian socialists+ This abstraction ;as a precise reflection of the e.piricall$ general+ *ut it ;as onl$ Marx and #ngels ;ho obtained a theoretical expression of these e.pirical facts a conception of ;hat the proletariat ;as as a @class in itself 7@an sich8 in its internal nature expressed in the concept ;hat it ;as not $et @for itself 7@f8r sich8 that is in e.pirical realit$ directl$ reflected in a notion or si.ple e.pirical abstraction+ This conclusion this concept expressing the real ob>ecti)e nature of the proletariat as a class ;as obtained through stud$ing the entire totalit$ of conditions in ;hich the proletariat is ine)itabl$ for.ed as the .ost re)olutionar$ class called upon to destro$ to the )er$ foundation the ;hole s$ste. of social conditions ;hich ga)e rise to it+ The concept of the proletariat as distinct fro. the e.pirical general notion of it ;as not a for.al abstraction here but a theoretical expression of the ob>ecti)e conditions of its de)elop.ent containing a co.prehension of its ob>ecti)e role and of the latters tendenc$ of de)elop.ent+ The truth of the concept of the proletariat ;or(ed out b$ Marx and #ngels could not be pro)ed b$ co.paring it ;ith the feature e.piricall$ co..on to all proletarians+ This feature rather fits in ;ith the abstraction current a.ong philanthropists and utopians+ The truth of this concept ;as sho;n as is ;ell (no;n b$ the real transfor.ation of the proletariat fro. a @class in itself into a @class for itself+ The proletariat de)eloped in the full sense of the ter. to;ards a correspondence ;ith @its o;n concept ;ith the concept that ;as ;or(ed out b$ the classics of Marxis. on the basis of anal$sing the ob>ecti)e conditions of its for.ation the entire concrete totalit$ of the social conditions of its being as the proletariat+ Ceasing to be a .ass of oppressed and do;ntrodden labourers scattered throughout the countr$ and di)ided b$ co.petition it beco.es a .onolithic class realising its ;orld6historical .ission N re)olutionar$ abolition of pri)ate o;nership and of the class for. of the di)ision of labour in general+ The sa.e practice refuted the @correct notion ;hich reflected <uite precisel$ the trait that ;as co..on in direct e.pirical experience to each indi)idual proletarian+ 5t should be stressed in particular that ta(ing into account this .ost funda.ental re<uire.ent of .aterialist dialectics .ust for. the basis of ;or(ing out all the scientific concepts of the de)elop.ent of societ$+ 5t is ignoring 7or conscious distortion8 of the standpoint of practice as the starting point of theor$ that ser)es in the epoch of i.perialis. as the N basis of re)isionist and opportunist trends that do so .uch har. to the international ;or(ing6class .o)e.ent+ The policies of 2ight opportunists ha)e al;a$s been .ar(ed b$ a failure to understand the course of the ;orld6historical de)elop.ent of the re)olutionar$ practice of the ;or(ers of the ;hole ;orld+ Alread$ before the 1ctober 191K 2e)olution ;hich ushered in the practical transfor.ation of the ;orld on the principles of scientific co..unis. the opportunist &arl &auts($ forsoo( the path of re)olutionar$ Marxis. for the path of adaptation to the forces of ;orld i.perialis.+ 0e started ;ith a little thing li(e assu.ing the abstract h$pothesis of @ultra6i.perialis.+ The foresight of /enin ;ho diagnosed <uite precisel$ the danger of this disease in the international ;or(ing6class .o)e.ent ;as here sho;n in full .easure+ &auts($s abstract theoretical construction proceeded at first sight fro. entirel$ Marxist propositions+ 5n the "0th centur$ &auts($ argued capitalis. de)elops to;ards uniting the barons of capital in one single super6trust+ 5n &auts($s )ie; the struggle and co.petition of isolated state capitals .ust be extinguished in this i.perialist super6trust+ The ;orld s$ste. of i.perialis. ;ould thus beco.e an integral socialised econo.$ ;hich ;ould .erel$ ha)e to be for.all$ @nationalised to beco.e socialis.+ 3either re)olution nor proletarian dictatorship ;ould be needed but .erel$ a for.al legal sanction to depri)e the last o;ner of its pri)ate propert$ in fa)our of the ;hole of societ$+ 0ence the polic$ ;hich &auts($ reco..ended to the international ;or(ing6class .o)e.ent alread$ at that ti.eA to ;ait until i.perialis. ;ould socialise ;orld econo.$ b$ its o;n .eans and to help it in O6

this enterprise rather than ha.per it+ /enin unerringl$ pointed to the deepest roots of this in>urious theor$ and polic$A di)orcing theoretical thought fro. the actual de)elop.ent of re)olutionar$ proletarian practice and abstract reasoning+ /enin pointed out that an ultra6i.perialist stage in the de)elop.ent of ;orld capitalis. could ;ell be i.agined in abstract reflection+ @%uch a phase can be i.agined+ *ut in practice this .eans beco.ing an opportunist turning a;a$ fro. the acute proble.s of the da$ to drea. of the unacute proble.s of the future+ 5n theor$ this .eans refusing to be guided b$ actual de)elop.ents forsaking the. arbitraril$ for such drea.s+ 5f it ;as .erel$ a .atter of @drea.s one could ;ell ignore it+ The thing is ho;e)er that drea.s in politics ine)itabl$ beco.e a practical political platfor.+ 4nder no circu.stances can theor$ due to its nature and enor.ous role in social life beco.e di)orced fro. practice in general+ 5t can onl$ (eep aloof fro. certain for.s of practice+ *ut in this case too it is i..ediatel$ e.plo$ed b$ a different (ind of practice+ Theor$ is too )aluable a thing to re.ain long ;ithout an o;ner+ 5n continuing his critical anal$sis of &auts($s )ie;s /enin .ade a conclusion ;hich ;as later borne out ;ith literal accurac$ b$ the course of e)ents N precisel$ for the reason that /enin al;a$s held the real re)olutionar$ practice of .illions of ;or(ing people transfor.ing the ;orld to be the highest criterion of theoretical constructions+
@There is no doubt that the trend of de)elop.ent 7of capitalis. in the "0th centur$ N !&I+8 is towards a single ;orld trust absorbing all enterprises ;ithout exception and all states ;ithout exception+ *ut this de)elop.ent proceeds in such circu.stances at such a pace through such contradictions conflicts and uphea)als N not onl$ econo.ic but political national etc+ N that ine)itabl$ i.perialis. ;ill burst and capitalis. ;ill be transfor.ed into its opposite long before one ;orld trust .aterialises before the Jultra6i.perialistJ ;orld6;ide a.alga.ation of national finance capitals ta(es place+

Fhat features distinguish /enins theoretical thought fro. &auts($s abstract reasoningG -irst and fore.ost its concreteness. And that .eans the follo;ing+ &auts($s theoretical constructions ta(e into account the practice of i.perialis. its forces and representati)es the ;a$s this practice is going to ta(e+ *ut &auts($ co.pletel$ ignores a little thing li(e the practical acti)it$ and struggle of the oppressed .asses+ 0is constructions disregard the.+ /enin did not negate the fact that i.perialis. de)eloped in the direction on ;hich &auts($ discoursed that the de)elop.ent of .odern capitalis. did indeed contain the abstract possibilit$ of i.perialist @socialisation of ;orld econo.$ but he resolutel$ opposed to this abstract sche.e the funda.ental principle of re)olutionar$ Marxis.6the standpoint of re)olutionar$ practice of the ;or(ing classes+ This exa.ple sho;s clearl$ that onl$ this standpoint coincides ;ith the concrete )ie; of capitalist de)elop.ent under i.perialis.+ And another thing beco.es also apparentA &auts($s abstract )ie;point ine)itabl$ leads to a re>ection of dialectics+ 5n the na.e of his abstract theoretical sche.e he refuses to see the gro;ing acuteness of class struggle+ *ut the gro;ing acuteness of class antagonis. is precisel$ the for. ;hich capitalist @socialisation of ;orld econo.$ ta(es+ 5n &auts($ this @socialisation appears as a purel$ e)olutionar$ process of reconciliation of class contradictions+ Materialist dialectics of Marxis. is discarded in fa)our of the t$picall$ 0egelian idea of reconciliation of opposites in the na.e of @higher abo)e6class goals of .an(ind+ 5n the final anal$sis &auts($s abstract sche.e leads to a conception that is entirel$ false in its theoretical content to direct apolog$ of i.perialis. to a position hostile to existing socialis.+ The abstract scholastic non6re)olutionar$ conception of the theor$ of Marxis. pro)ed to be the bridge b$ ;hich &auts($ ine)itabl$ arri)ed at a co.plete betra$al of Marxis. both in theor$ and in politics+ /enins concrete theoretical anal$sis of the sa.e proble. is <uite different+ 5ts starting point is the standpoint of the re)olutionar$ practice of the ;or(ing classes of the .asses+ This principle thro;s light directl$ on the real concrete dialectics of the actual process in its contradictions and tension+ 5t also explains the fact that /enins theoretical forecast ca.e true ;ith literal accurac$ t;o $ears afterA in 191K ;orld i.perialis. burst at its ;ea(est lin( and the entire subse<uent histor$ too( the for. of .ore and .ore lin(s in the ;orld s$ste. of i.perialis. brea(ing do;n+ The dialectics of histor$ is such that replacing the ;ea( lin(s of the i.perialist s$ste. lin(s of a ne; econo.ic and political s$ste. e.erge and gain strength fro. da$ to da$ the lin(s of the co..unit$ of socialist countries+ That is the ;a$ the .odern ;orld is transfor.ed in exact agree.ent ;ith the concrete theoretical forecast of /enin that great .aster of dialectics+ OK

Therein lies the lesson for Marxist theoreticians endea)ouring to bring out in a scientific .anner the la;s of social de)elop.ent and to e)ol)e theoretical concepts of it+ "ha!ter - $ *scent 'ro. the *bstract to the "oncrete

On the Form"lation of the -"estion

5n anal$sing the .ethod of political econo.$ Marx ad)ances a nu.ber of propositions of enor.ous philosophical i.port+ These include the ;ell6(no;n thesis concerning ascent fro. the abstract to the concrete as the onl$ possible and correct procedure for the solution b$ thought of the specific tas( of theoretical cognition of the ;orld+ The concrete in Marxs conception is unit$ in di)ersit$
5t appears therefore in reasoning as a su..ing up a result and not as the starting point although it is the real point of origin and thus also the point of origin of perception and i.agination +++

@The totalit$ as a conceptual entit$ seen b$ the intellect is a product of the thin(ing intellect ;hich assi.ilates the ;orld in the onl$ ;a$ open to it a ;a$ ;hich differs fro. the artistic religious and practical spiritual assi.ilation of the ;orld+ BContribution to the Critique of )olitical !conomyC The .ethod of ascending fro. the abstract to the concrete ;here @abstract definitions lead to the reproduction of the concrete b$ ;a$ of thin(ing B3rundrisseC ;as defined b$ Marx as a correct .ethod fro. the scientific standpoint+ This .ethod is according to Marx that specific @.ode in ;hich thin(ing assi.ilates the concrete reproducing it as the spirituall$ concrete+ B3rundrisseC 5t is onl$ this .ethod that per.its the theoretician to sol)e his special tas( the tas( of processing the data of conte.plation and notion into concepts+ 5n )ie; of particular significance of these propositions for co.prehending the .ethod of Capital one should d;ell on the. in greater detail the .ore so that the$ ha)e fre<uentl$ beco.e ob>ects of falsification of Marxs econo.ic and philosophical ideas b$ bourgeois philosophers and b$ re)isionists+ /et us recall first of all that b$ the concrete Marx does not at all .ean onl$ the i.age of li)ing conte.plation the sensual for. of reflection of the ob>ect in consciousness and neither does he interpret the abstract as @.ental distillation onl$+ 5f one reads Marxs abo)e propositions fro. the standpoint of these notions of the abstract and the concrete characteristic of narro; e.piricis. and neo6&antianis. one ;ould arri)e at an absurdit$ inco.patible ;ith the theor$ of reflection+ 1ne ;ould ha)e the illusion that Marx reco..ends to ascend fro. a .ental abstraction as so.ething i..ediatel$ gi)en to the i.age of li)ing conte.plation as so.ething secondar$ and deri)ati)e in regard of thought+ 5n reading Marx one should therefore ta(e care to free oneself fro. the notions uncriticall$ borro;ed fro. pro6Marxian and neo6&antian treatises on episte.olog$+ -ro. the standpoint of Marxs definitions of the abstract and the concrete the abo)e propositions characterise the dialectics of the transition fro. li)ing conte.plation to abstract thought fro. conte.plation and notion to concept fro. the concrete as it is gi)en in conte.plation and notion to the concrete as it appears in thought+ Marx is first and fore.ost a .aterialist+ 5n other ;ords he proceeds fro. the )ie; that all those abstractions through ;hich and b$ the s$nthesis of ;hich a theoretician .entall$ reconstructs the ;orld are conceptual replicas of the separate .o.ents of the ob>ecti)e realit$ itself re)ealed b$ anal$sis+ 5n other ;ords it is assu.ed as so.ething <uite ob)ious that each abstract definition ta(en separatel$ is a product of generalisation and anal$sis of the i..ediate data of conte.plation+ 5n this sense and in this sense onl$ it is product of the reduction of the concrete in realit$ to its abstract abridged expression in consciousness+ Marx sa$s that all the definitions used in 7pre6Marxian8 political econo.$ ;ere products of .o)e.ent a;a$ fro. the concrete gi)en in the notion to increasingl$ .eagre abstractions+ 5n describing the historical path tra)ersed b$ political econo.$ Marx therefore characterises it as a path beginning ;ith the real and concrete and leading first to @.eagre abstractions and onl$ after that fro. the @.eagre abstractions to a s$ste. a s$nthesis a co.bination of abstractions in theor$+ The reduction of the concrete fullness of realit$ to its abridged 7abstract8 expression in consciousness is self6ob)iousl$ a prere<uisite and a condition ;ithout ;hich no special theoretical research can either proceed or e)en begin+ Moreo)er this reduction is not onl$ a prere<uisite or historical condition of O!

theoretical assi.ilation of the ;orld but also an organic ele.ent of the process itself of constructing a s$ste. of scientific definitions that is of the .inds s$nthesising acti)it$+ The definitions ;hich the theoretician organises into a s$ste. are not of course borro;ed read$6.ade fro. the pre)ious phase 7or stage8 of cognition+ 0is tas( is b$ no .eans restricted to a purel$ for.al s$nthesis of read$6.ade @.eagre abstractions according to the fa.iliar rules for such s$nthesis+ 5n constructing a s$ste. out of read$6.ade earlier obtained abstractions a theoretician al;a$s criticall$ anal$ses the. chec(s the. ;ith facts and thus goes once again through the ascent fro. the concrete in realit$ to the abstract in thought+ This ascent is thus not onl$ and not so .uch a prere<uisite of constructing a s$ste. of science as an organic ele.ent of the construction itself+ %eparate abstract definitions ;hose s$nthesis $ields the @concrete in thought are for.ed in the course of ascent fro. the abstract to the concrete itself+ Thus the theoretical process leading to the attain.ent of concrete (no;ledge is al;a$s in each separate lin( as ;ell as in the ;hole also a process of reduction of the concrete to the abstract+ 5n other ;ords one can sa$ that the ascent fro. the concrete to the abstract and the ascent fro. the abstract to the concrete are t;o .utuall$ assu.ing for.s of theoretical assi.ilation of the ;orld of abstract thin(ing+ #ach f the. is realised onl$ through its opposite and in unit$ ;ith it+ The ascent fro. the abstract to the concrete ;ithout its opposite ;ithout the ascent fro. the concrete to the abstract ;ould beco.e a purel$ scholastic lin(ing up of read$6.ade .eagre abstractions borro;ed uncriticall$+ Contrari;ise a reduction of the concrete to the abstract perfor.ed at rando. ;ithout a clearl$ realised general idea of research ;ithout a h$pothesis cannot and ;ill not $ield a theor$ either+ 5t ;ill onl$ $ield a dis>oint heap of .eagre abstractions+ And still ;h$ did Marx ta(ing all this into account define the ascent fro. the abstract to the concrete as the onl$ possible and scientificall$ correct .ode of theoretical assi.ilation 7reflection8 of the ;orldG The reason is that dialectics as distinct fro. eclecticis. does not reason on the @on6the6one6hand on6the6 other6hand principle but al;a$s points out the deter.ining aspect that ele.ent in the unit$ of opposites ;hich is in the gi)en instance the leading or deter.ining one+ That is an axio. of dialectics+ The specific and characteristic feature of theoretical assi.ilation 7as distinct fro. .ere e.pirical fa.iliarit$ ;ith facts8 is that each separate abstraction is for.ed ;ithin the general .o)e.ent of research to;ards a fuller and .ore co.prehensi)e that is concrete conception of the ob>ect+ #ach separate generalisation 7according to the for.ula @fro. the concrete to the abstract8 has a .eaning onl$ on condition that it is a step on the ;a$ to concrete co.prehension of realit$ along the ;a$ of ascending fro. an abstract reflection of the ob>ect in thought to its increasingl$ concrete expression in the concept+ 5f a separate act of generalisation is not si.ultaneousl$ a step for;ard in the de)elop.ent of theor$ a step along the ;a$ fro. the alread$ a)ailable (no;ledge to ne; and fuller (no;ledge if it does not push ahead theor$ as a ;hole enriching it ;ith a ne; general definition but .erel$ repeats ;hat ;as (no;n alread$ it pro)es to be si.pl$ .eaningless in respect of the de)elop.ent of theor$+ 5n other ;ords the concrete 7that is the continual .o)e.ent to increasingl$ .ore concrete theoretical co.prehension8 e.erges here as a specific goal of theoretical thought+ As such goal the concrete deter.ines as a la; the theoreticians .ode of action 7.ental action are .eant here of course8 in each particular case in each separate generalisation+ The abstract fro. this standpoint pro)es to be .erel$ a means of the theoretical process rather than its goal ;hile each separate act of generalisation 7that is of the reduction of the concrete to the abstract8 e.erges as a subordinate disappearing .o.ent of the o)erall .o)e.ent+ 5n the language @a disappearing .o.ent is one that has no significance b$ itself di)orced fro. the other .o.ents 6 it is onl$ significant in connection ;ith these in li)ing interaction ;ith the. in transition+ That is the ;hole point+ Precisel$ because Marx ;as a dialectician he did not restrict hi.self to a .ere state.ent of the fact that in theoretical thought both .o)e.ent fro. the concrete to the abstract and fro. the abstract to the concrete ta(e place but singled out first of all that for. of the .o)e.ent of thought ;hich in the gi)en instance pro)es to be the principal and do.inant one deter.ining the ;eight and significance of the other the opposite one+ %uch is the for. of ascent fro. the abstract to the concrete in special theoretical studies+ 5t is therefore a specific for. of theoretical thought+ 1f course that does not .ean at all that the other opposite for. has no place in thin(ing+ 5t .erel$ .eans that the reduction of the concrete fullness of facts to abstract expression in consciousness is neither a specific nor still less deter.ining for. of theoretical reflection of the ;orld+ O9

Man eats to li)e6he does not li)e to cat+ *ut onl$ a .ad.an ;ill conclude that .an .ust do ;ithout food at all; it ;ould be >ust as stupid to insist that this aphoris. depreciates the role of food+ The sa.e is true of the present instance+ 5t is onl$ a person <uite ignorant in scientific .atters that can ta(e the absorption of the sensuall$ concrete fullness of facts in abstraction for the principal and deter.ining for. of the theoreticians .ental acti)it$+ 5n science this is onl$ a .eans necessar$ for carr$ing out a .ore serious tas( the tas( ;hich is specific for the theoretical assi.ilation of the ;orld constituting the genuine goal of the theoreticians acti)it$+ 5eproduction of the concrete in thought is the goal ;hich deter.ines the ;eight and significance of each separate act of generalisation+ The concrete in thin(ing is not of course the ulti.ate goal an end in itself+ Theor$ as a ;hole is also onl$ @a disappearing .o.ent in the real practical ob>ecti)e exchange of .atter bet;een .an and nature+ -ro. theor$ transition is .ade to practice and this transition can also be described as a transition fro. the abstract to the concrete+ Practice no longer has a higher goal outside itself it posits its o;n goals and appears as an end in itself+ That is ;h$ each separate step and each generalisation in the course of ;or(ing out a theor$ is constantl$ co..ensurated ;ith the data of practice tested b$ the. correlated ;ith practice as the highest goal of theoretical acti)it$+ That is ;h$ /enin in spea(ing of the .ethod of Capital, points out one of its .ost characteristic featuresA @Testing b$ facts or b$ practice respecti)el$ is to be found here in each step of the anal$sis+ B/enins (ummary of *ialecticsC Constant correlation of @each step in the anal$sis ;ith the direction of the path of scientific research as a ;hole and ulti.atel$ ;ith practice is lin(ed ;ith the )er$ essence of Marxs conception of the specificit$ of the theoretical assi.ilation of the ;orld+ #ach separate step in the anal$sis each indi)idual act of reduction of the concrete to the abstract .ust fro. the beginning be oriented at the ;hole ;hich +looms in the notion+, in li)ing conte.plation the reflection of ;hich is the highest goal of theoretical ;or( 7of course onl$ as long as ;e deal ;ith theoretical ;or( as long as .an stands to the ;orld onl$ in a theoretical relation8+ Therein lies the profoundl$ dialectical .eaning of Marxs proposition that it is exactl$ ascent fro. the abstract to the concrete that constitutes a trait specificall$ inherent in the theoretical process and is the onl$ possible and therefore the onl$ scientificall$ correct .ode of de)eloping scientific definitions a .ode of transfor.ing the data of li)ing conte.plation and notion into concepts+ That .eans that all genuinel$ scientific 7not absurd or )acuous8 abstract definitions do not e.erge in the hu.an head as a result of .indless rando. reduction of the concrete to the abstract6the$ appear solel$ through consistent ad)ance.ent of cognition in the o)erall la;6go)erned de)elop.ent of science through concretisation of the a)ailable (no;ledge and its critical transfor.ation+ 5t ;ould be ;rong to ta(e the )ie; that each science has to go through a stage of one6sided anal$tical attitude to the ;orld a stage of purel$ inducti)e reduction of the concrete to the abstract and that onl$ later ;hen this ;or( is full$ acco.plished can it proceed to lin( up the abstractions thus obtained in a s$ste. to ascend fro. the abstract to the concrete+ Fhen Marx refers to the histor$ of bourgeois political econo.$ to the fact that at its origin it reall$ follo;ed the one6sided anal$tical path onl$ later to adopt the scientificall$ correct path he does not of course .ean that e)er$ .odern science should follo; this exa.ple that is first go through a purel$ anal$tical stage and later proceed to ascend fro. the abstract to the concrete+ The one6sided anal$tical .ethod ;hich is indeed characteristic of the first steps of bourgeois political econo.$ is b$ no .eans a )irtue that could be reco..ended as a .odel+ 5t ;as rathe an expression of the historical li.itations of bourgeois political econo.$ in particular conditioned b$ the absence of a ;ell6de)eloped dialectical .ethod of thought+ Dialectical logic does not at all reco..end .odern science first to ta(e up pure anal$sis pure reduction of the concrete to the abstract and later to proceed to pure s$nthesis pure ascent fro. the abstract to the concrete+ Concrete (no;ledge is not to be obtained on this path and if it is that can onl$ be due to the sa.e (ind of ;anderings ;hich the de)elop.ent of bourgeois political econo.$ ;as sub>ect to before Marx+ The exa.ple cited b$ Marx is rather an argu.ent in fa)our of the thesis that science in these da$s should fro. the )er$ beginning ta(e the road that is scientificall$ correct rather than repeat the ;anderings of the 1Kth centur$ it .ust fro. the )er$ outset use the dialectical .ethod of ascent fro. the abstract to the concrete in ;hich anal$sis and s$nthesis are closel$ inter;o)en rather than the one6sided anal$tical .ethod+ This is an argu.ent in fa)our of science ;or(ing out its abstract definitions fro. the )er$ outset in such a ;a$ that each of the. should at the sa.e ti.e be a step on the road of ad)ance.ent 60

to;ards concrete truth to;ards cognition of realit$ as a unified coherent de)eloping ;hole+ *ourgeois political econo.$ too( a different road at the beginning but that is no reason to ta(e it for a .odel+ %cience if it is genuine science rather than a conglo.eration of facts and )arious data should fro. the )er$ beginning reflect its ob>ect and de)elop its definitions in a ;a$ that Marx characterised as the onl$ possible and correct one in science and not lea)e this .ethod for later use in literar$ exposition of the alread$ obtained results as neo6&antian re)isionists li(e Cuno; 2enner and others ad)ised to do+ /ater ;e shall discuss in detail these atte.pts to distort the essence of Marxs thought about the .ethod of ascent fro. the abstract to the concrete to present this .ethod onl$ as a literar$ st$le of expounding a)ailable results allegedl$ obtained in a purel$ inducti)e .anner+ 1f course the .ethod of ascent fro. the abstract to the concrete is seen .ost clearl$ in those ;or(s of Marx ;hich expound his theor$ s$ste.aticall$A 9ur :ritik der politischen ;konomie 7A Contribution to the Criti<ue of Political #cono.$8 3rundrisse der :ritik der politischen ;konomie 71utline of a Criti<ue of Political #cono.$8 and in Capital" That does not .ean at all ho;e)er that the exposition is here funda.entall$ different in its .ethod fro. the in)estigation or that the .ethod applied b$ Marx in the in)estigation is directl$ opposed to the .anner of exposition of the results of the in)estigation+ 5f that ;ere so the anal$sis of the @logic of Capital ;ould contribute nothing to an understanding of the .ethod of research the .ethod of processing the data of conte.plation and notion applied b$ Marx+ Capital ;ould in this case be onl$ instructi)e as a .odel of literar$ exposition of results pre)iousl$ obtained and not as an illustration of the .ethod of obtaining the.+ 5n this case Marxs .ethod of in)estigation should not be reconstructed fro. an anal$sis of Capital but rather fro. an anal$sis of the rough notes excerpts frag.ents and argu.ents that ca.e into Marxs head in his original stud$ of the econo.ic facts+ 5n that case one ;ould ha)e to agree ;ith the insistence of the author of an anti6Marxist pa.phlet theologian -etscher ;ho ;rote thisA @The .ethod ;hich Marx follo;ed in Capital is essentiall$ the sa.e as the one applied b$ bourgeois scholars+ Dialectics ;as used b$ Marx as he sa$s hi.self in the 1fterword to the second edition of Capital onl$ as a J.ethod of presentationJ a .ethod ;hich indeed has a nu.ber of ad)antages and ;hich ;e shall not consider here in greater detail O as it has no bearing on the proble. of the .ethod of cognition+ -etscher offers here a rather free interpretation of Marxs ;ell6(no;n state.ent that the presentation of a theor$ in its de)eloped for. cannot but be different fro. the search that resulted in this theor$; but the for.al difference bet;een the t;o referred to b$ Marx does not affect the essence of the .ethod of thin(ing of the .ode of processing the data of conte.plation and notion into concepts+ This .ode of anal$sis re.ained the sa.e na.el$ dialectical both in the preli.inar$ processing of data and in their final elaboration although of course it ;as perfected as the ;or( ;ent on ;hich cul.inated in the creation of Capital" The .ain ad)antage of the .ode of presentation ;hich is b$ no .eans of literar$ st$listic character consists in that the author of Capital does not dog.aticall$ and didacticall$ present read$6.ade results obtained in so.e .$sterious .anner but rather goes through the entire process of obtaining these results the entire in)estigation loading to the. before the readers e$es+ @The reader ;ho reall$ ;ishes to follo; .e ;ill ha)e to decide to ad)ance fro. the particular to the general ;arned Marx alread$ in his Preface to 1 Contribution to the Critique of )olitical !conomy+ The .ethod of presentation loads the reader fro. a co.prehension of certain particulars fro. the abstract to the increasingl$ .ore concrete de)eloped general co.prehensi)e )ie; of econo.ic realit$ to the general as the result of co.bining the particulars+ 1f course the process of in)estigation is not reproduced in all the details and de)iations of .ore than t;ent$6fi)e $ears of research but onl$ in those principal and decisi)e features ;hich as the stud$ itself sho;ed reall$ ad)anced thought along the path of concrete understanding+ 5n the final elaboration of the facts for publication Marx no longer repeated those nu.erous de)iations fro. the principal the.e of in)estigation that are ine)itable in the ;or( of an$ scholar+ 5n the course of actual in)estigation facts are often considered that are not directl$ rele)antA it is onl$ their anal$sis that can sho; ;hether the$ are rele)ant or not+ *esides the theoretician has to recur as often as not to the consideration of facts that once see.ed to be exhausti)el$ anal$sed+ As a result research does not proceed s.oothl$ for;ard but .o)es ahead in rather co.plicated .anner ;ith fre<uent re)ersions and de)iations+ These .o.ents are not of course reproduced in the final presentation+ Due to this the process of in)estigation appears in its genuine for. free fro. accidental ele.ents and de)iations+ 0ere it is straightened out as it ;ere assu.ing the character of continuous .otion for;ard ;hich is in agree.ent ;ith the nature and .otions of the facts the.sel)es+ 0ere thought does not proceed fro. the anal$sis of 61

one fact to the anal$sis of the next one before it has reall$ exhausted this fact; that is ;h$ one does not ha)e to recur ti.e and again to one and the sa.e sub>ect in order to tac(le ;hat has been left unfinished+ Thus the .ethod of presentation of .aterial in Capital is nothing but the @corrected .ethod of its investigation the corrections not being arbitrar$ but in co.plete accordance ;ith the re<uire.ents and la;s dictated b$ the in)estigation itself+ 5n other ;ords the .ethod of presentation is in this case the .ethod of in)estigation freed fro. an$thing in the nature of accessories and an$ confusing ele.ents 6 a .ethod of in)estigation strictl$ confor.ing to the ob>ecti)e logical la;s of stud$+ That is a .ethod of in)estigation in pure for. in a s$ste.atic for. unobscured b$ de)iations and chance ele.ents+ As for the differences of for. of ;hich Marx spea(s in the 1fterword to the second edition of Capital the$ ha)e to do ;ith <uite different circu.stances in particular the fact that <arx personally beca.e fa.iliar ;ith the different circles of the capitalist hell in a se<uence that is different fro. the one that corresponds to the la; of their o;n de)elop.ent and is presented in Capital" The .ethod of ascent fro. the abstract to the concrete does not correspond to the order in ;hich certain aspects of the ob>ect under stud$ for so.e reason or other ca.e into the field of )ision of indi)idual theoreticians or the science as a ;hole+ 5t is oriented exclusi)el$ at the order ;hich corresponds to the ob>ecti)e interrelations of )arious .o.ents ;ithin the concreteness under stud$+ This genuine se<uence it goes ;ithout sa$ing is not realised all at once+ A >ustification of the .ethod of ascent fro. the abstract to the concrete .ust not be loo(ed for in the scientific careers of theoreticians or e)en the historical de)elop.ent of science as a ;hole+ %cience as a ;hole also arri)es at its genuine starting point through long and arduous search+ Marx for instance ca.e to the anal$sis and co.prehension of econo.ic relations fro. the stud$ of legal and political relations a.ong .en+ The sphere of la; and politics pro)ed for hi. the starting point of the stud$ of the structure of the social organis.+ 5n the presentation of the theor$ of historical .aterialis. Marxs re<uire.ent is to proceed fro. an understanding of econo.ic .aterial relations to an understanding of la; and politics+ Theoreticians of the -etscher t$pe .ight insist on these grounds that Marxs thesis according to ;hich the starting point for an understanding of all social pheno.ena .ust be econo.$ rather than la; or politics belongs .erel$ to the peculiarities of the literar$ .anner of presentation of Marxs theor$ ;hile in the in)estigation itself Marx and Marxists did the sa.e as an$ bourgeois scientist+ The point is ho;e)er that although the sphere of la; and politics ;as studied b$ Marx before he too( up econo.ic in<uir$ he understood this sphere correctl$ fro. the scientific 7.aterialist8 standpoint onl$ after he had anal$sed econo.$ be it in )er$ general outline+ The sa.e is true of Marxs )ie; of political econo.$+ Marx studied the la;s of .o)e.ent of .one$ profit and rent .uch earlier than he succeeded in realising the genuine dual nature of co..odit$ and of labour producing co..odities+ 0o;e)er+ until he understood the real nature of )alue his conception of .one$ and rent ;as incorrect+ 5n The )overty of )hilosophy he still shared the illusions of the 2icardian theor$ of .one$ and rent+ 1nl$ a clear conception of the nature of )alue attained in the 1!O0s sho;ed both .one$ and rent in the true light+ *efore that .one$ could not be understood in principle+ 5n the earl$ 1!O0s Marx spent .uch ti.e tr$ing to understand the confusion and conflicts in)ol)ed in the circulation of .one$ in ti.es of crisis and @prosperit$+ 5t is these atte.pts that led hi. to the conclusion that the la;s o the circulation of .one$ could not be understood unless one ;or(ed out in the greatest detail the concept of value" 0a)ing ;or(ed out the )alue concept he sa; that he had shared a nu.ber of 2icardos illusions+ The .ethod of ascent fro. the abstract to the concrete as a .ethod of in<uir$ into facts cannot therefore be >ustified b$ references to the order in ;hich the stud$ of data proceeded+ 5t expresses the se<uence in ;hich the ob>ecti)el$ correct conception corresponding to the ob>ect ta(es shape in the theoreticians .ind rather than the order in ;hich certain aspects of realit$ for so.e reason or other dra; the theoreticians attention and thus enter the field of science+ The .ethod of ascent fro. the abstract to the concrete expresses the internal la; of the de)elop.ent of scientific understanding ;hich in the course of historical ad)ance.ent pa)es its ;a$ rough a .ass of accidental .o.ents de)iations often in a roundabout ;a$ unbe(no;n to the theoreticians the.sel)es+ This la; is therefore difficult to disco)er on the surface of scientific de)elop.ent 7that is in the consciousness of theoreticians the.sel)es8+ 5n the consciousness of theoreticians this la; .a$ not appear at all for a long ti.e or it .a$ appear in a for. that ;ill .a(e it unrecognisable+ An indi)idual representati)e of science as Marx pointed out often has <uite an erroneous conception of ;hat 6 he 6"

actuall$ does and ho; he does it+ 5n )ie; of this one .ust not >udge a thin(er b$ ;hat he thin(s of hi.self+ 5t is .uch .ore i.portant 7and difficult8 to establish the ob>ecti)e significance of his )ie;s and their role in the de)elop.ent of science as a ;hole+ -or this reason the genuine significance of the facts of a scientists biograph$ and the genuine order of de)elop.ent of scientific definitions cannot be re)ealed through a purel$ biographical in<uir$+ The actual progress of scientific (no;ledge 7that is s$ste.atic ad)ances of thought to concrete truth8 often significantl$ di)erges fro. the ordinar$ chronological se<uence+ /enin in his frag.ent ;n the =uestion of *ialectics pointed out that chronolog$ ;ith regard to persons is unnecessar$ in the anal$sis of the logic of the de)elop.ent of (no;ledge that it does not al;a$s correspond to the actual order of stages b$ ;hich thought concei)es its sub>ect6.atter+ Ta(ing all this into account one can dra; the conclusion that all the characteristic features of Marxs .ethod of in<uir$ appear .ost clearl$ and distinctl$ in Capital and not in the rough notes excerpts and argu.ents that ca.e into his head as he ;as stud$ing the econo.ic facts+ That is ;here the genuine se<uence of the de)elop.ent of scientific definitions is re)ealed ;hich onl$ graduall$ ca.e to light in the course of preli.inar$ stud$ of the .aterial and ;as not al;a$s clearl$ realised b$ Marx hi.self+ A .ost characteristic trait of Marx ;as at all ti.es a sober critical attitude to his o;n achie)e.entA .an$ ti.es he resolutel$ corrected +post factum+, the errors and o.issions of the preli.inar$ stage of in<uir$+ 5n general it is possible to distinguish ;ith ob>ecti)e rigorousness bet;een the (ernels of ob>ecti)e truth and the for. in ;hich the$ originall$ appeared in consciousness onl$ after the e)entA the rudi.ents of .ore ad)anced for.s can onl$ be correctl$ understood ;hen these .ore ad)anced for. are alread$ (no;n+ Thus if one tried to reconstruct Marxs .ethod of in<uir$ fro. the .ass of rough notes and frag.ents fro. his archi)es rather than fro. Capital, that ;ould onl$ co.plicate .atters+ To understand the. correctl$ one ;ould all the sa.e ha)e to anal$se Capital first+ 1ther;ise @rudi.ents of .ore ad)anced for.s si.pl$ cannot be distinguished in the.+ *esides it is hard to understand ;h$ this in<uir$ should prefer an earl$ and preli.inar$ for. of expression to a later .ore refined and .ature for. of expression+ That ;ould onl$ result in the earlier for. of expression being ta(en for an ideal one and its later for. for a distorted )ariant+ The for.ulations and the .ethod of their de)elop.ent in Capital ;ould indeed ha)e to be attributed to the literar$ .anner of presentation and its perfection rather than to the enlarge.ent of the scope of thought of perception and .ethod of in<uir$+ 7This a;(;ard tric( is b$ the ;a$ assiduousl$ practised b$ present6da$ re)isionists ;ho insist that genuine Marxis. should be loo(ed for in the .anuscripts of the $oung Marx rather than in his .ature ;or(s+ As a result Capital is presented as a distorted conception of the so6called real hu.anis. de)eloped b$ Marx and #ngels in 1!LH61!LL8+ That ;as ;h$ /enin pointed out that in de)eloping The Ereat /ogic of Marxis. one should first of all ha)e in .ind Capital, and that the .ethod of presentation applied b$ Marx in Capital should ser)e as a .odel for a dialectical interpretation of realit$ and a .odel for the stud$ and elaboration of dialectics in general+ Proceeding fro. these preli.inar$ considerations one can underta(e a .ore detailed stud$ of the .ethod of ascent fro. the abstract to the concrete as a scientificall$ correct .ethod of for.ing scientific definitions as a .ethod of theoretical processing of the data of li)ing conte.plation and notion+ /et us recall once again in this connection that the data of li)ing conte.plation and notion are here ta(en to .ean so.ething different fro. ;hat an indi)idual personall$ conte.plation and pictures in sensual i.ages+ This interpretation characteristic of pre6Marxist philosoph$ and of the anthropological conception of the sub>ect of cognition is <uite false and extre.el$ narro;+ The data of conte.plation and notion ;ere al;a$s interpreted b$ Marx as the entire .ass of the sociall$ accu.ulated e.pirical experiences the entire colossal .ass of e.pirical data a)ailable to the theoretician fro. boo(s reports statistical tables ne;spapers and accounts+ 5t stands to reason ho;e)er that all these e.pirical data are stored in social .e.or$ in an abridged for. reduced to abstract expression+ The$ are expressed in speech in ter.inolog$ in figures tables and other abstract for.s+ The specific tas( of the theoretician ;ho uses all this infor.ation about realit$ does not of course consist in lending this abstract expression still .ore abstract for.+ 1n the contrar$ his ;or( al;a$s begins ;ith a critical anal$sis and re)ision of the abstractions of the e.pirical stage f cognition ;ith the critical o)erco.ing of these abstractions attaining progress through a criti<ue of the one6sidedness and sub>ecti)e character of these abstractions and re)ealing the illusions contained in the. fro. the standpoint of realit$ as a ;hole in its 6H

concreteness+ 5n this sense 7and onl$ in this sense8 the transition fro. the e.pirical stage of cognition to the rational one also appears as a transition fro. the abstract to the concrete+ 1f course the ascent fro. the cognition of the si.ple co..odit$ for. to the co.prehension of such ;ell6de)eloped for.s of bourgeois ;ealth as interest also appears fro. a certain standpoint as the .o)e.ent fro. the concrete to abstract for.s of its .anifestation on the surface of e)ents+ 5nterest for instance expresses in its i.personal <uantitati)e language the .ost co.plex and profound processes of capitalist production+ 5n interest surplus6)alue assu.es an extre.el$ abstract for. of .anifestation+ This abstract <uantitati)e for. is onl$ explained fro. its concrete content+ *ut this is also e)idence of the fact that an$ abstract .o.ent of realit$ finds a real explanation onl$ in the concrete s$ste. of conditions ;hich ga)e rise to it and it can onl$ be correctl$ understood through it+ Thus interest is concretely 7scientificall$8 understood onl$ in the final anal$sis as final result ;hereas on the surface of pheno.ena it appears as a )er$ abstract for.+ All of this .ust be ta(en into account+ 5n )ie; of the fact that Marx for.ulated his ideas on the .ethod of ascent fro. the abstract to the concrete in direct pole.ics ;ith its 0egelian interpretation it ;ill be appropriate to ta(e a critical loo( at the latter+ The .aterialist nature of Marxs .ethod ;ill stand out clearl$ and graphicall$ in co.parison ;ith it+

Hegels Conception of the Concrete

As ;e (no; 0egel ;as the first to understand the de)elop.ent of (no;ledge as a historical process sub>ect to la;s that do not depend on .ens ;ill and consciousness+ 0e disco)ered the la; of ascent fro. the abstract to the concrete as the la; go)erning the entire course of de)elop.ent of (no;ledge+ This la; is first of all sho;n to be a si.ple e.piricall$ stated fact N the fact of progressi)e de)elop.ent of the spiritual culture of .an(ind+ 5ndubitabl$ .ans spiritual culture his spiritual ;orld are graduall$ beco.ing increasingl$ rich co.plicated )aried and in this sense .ore concrete+ Despite all its co.plexit$ ho;e)er .ans spiritual ;orld re.ains an integral ;orld go)erned b$ the sa.e la;s thus constituting a genuine unit$ in di)ersit$+ Mo)e.ent fro. the abstract to the concrete appears in 0egel first and fore.ost as the e.piricall$ indubitable natural for. in ;hich the construction of the @(ingdo. of the spirit is co.pleted+ At first this (ingdo. 7the sphere of hu.an culture8 is naturall$ unco.plicated poor in established for.s that is extre.el$ abstract beco.ing in the course of ti.e increasingl$ .ore co.plex rich and )aried that is .ore concrete+ 5t is eas$ to see that there is as $et nothing dialectical or idealist in all this+ 5dealis. and at the sa.e ti.e specificall$ 0egels dialectics begin later ;hen 0egel tac(les the <uestion of the .oti)e forces of the de)elop.ent of the @(ingdo. of the spirit the sphere of consciousness+ The specific feature of 0egelian philosoph$ is the fact that the idea of de)elop.ent is full$ applied onl$ to the pheno.ena of consciousness+ 5n his )ie; nature existing outside and independentl$ fro. the spirit does not de)elop+ 5t confronts consciousness as a picture fro'en in ti.e identical fro. the )er$ beginning and for all ti.e to co.e+ Consciousness realises its restless acti)e nature through acti)el$ considering this .otionless picture this real. of things eternall$ standing in the sa.e relations to one another+ The acti)it$ of realisation as such also contains ;ithin itself the .ainspring of its o;n de)elop.ent+ The spirit is the onl$ concreteness that is the onl$ de)eloped and de)eloping s$ste. of li)ing interacting pheno.ena passing one into another+ This latter trait is in his )ie; entirel$ uncharacteristic of nature+ -or hi. nature is abstract through and through .etaph$sical in its )er$ essenceA all of natures pheno.ena are side by side ;ith one another isolated fro. one another l$ing outside one another+ As 0egel puts it nature falls ;ithin itself into its abstract .o.ents into separate things ob>ects processes existing side b$ side ;ith one another and independentl$ fro. one another+ At best genuine dialectics is onl$ )aguel$ reflected or di.l$ loo.s in nature+ The idealist nature of 0egels philosoph$ is here re)ealed in a )er$ stri(ing .annerA he directl$ attributes the .etaph$sical li.itations of conte.porar$ natural science the knowledge of nature, to nature itself as its eternal propert$+ Fhere conte.porar$ natural science ti.idl$ began to realise the dialectics of the things the.sel)es he also sees @rudi.ents of real concreteness of the li)ing dialectical interaction of pheno.ena+ Thus he sees 6L

an i.perfect for. of concreteness in organic life+ 0ere he disco)ers li)ing interaction lin(ing up all parts of the ani.al organis. in a unified s$ste. ;ithin ;hich each separate .e.ber exists and has a .eaning onl$ through its interaction ;ith othersA outside this interaction it cannot in general exist+ An a.putated hand deco.poses ceases to be a hand e)en in external for. and ulti.atel$ in na.e too+ 5t cannot exist separatel$ in abstraction+ 0ere 0egel sees a ;ea( rese.blance of the concreteness ;hich he regards as the exceptional propert$ of the spiritual ;orld+ 5n the ;orld of che.istr$ in his )ie; internal interaction is e)en ;ea(er although there are rudi.ents of it here as ;ell+ 0ere ox$gen for instance can and does exist side b$ side ;ith h$drogen e)en if the$ are not bound as ele.ents of ;ater+ This relation is i.possible in the organis.A the hand cannot exist separatel$ fro. the head both hand and head exist onl$ through their interconnection onl$ ;ithin this .utual connection and conditioning+ A particle possessing onl$ .echanical properties re.ains the sa.e particle ;hich does not change in itself depending on the (ind of .echanical bond ;ith other particles of the sa.e (ind+ 5solated or extracted fro. this bond that is in its abstracted for. it ;ill still re.ain the sa.e it ;ill not go bad or deca$ as the hand @abstracted fro. the bod$+ The 0egelian s$ste. of nature is built as a s$ste. of stages beginning ;ith the abstract sphere of .echanis. and ending ;ith the relati)el$ concrete sphere of organic life+ The ;hole p$ra.id is cro;ned b$ the spirit as the sphere ;hose entire .eaning lies in concreteness, in the absolute interconnectedness of all its pheno.ena+ Fherein lies the falsit$ of this 0egelian constructionG -irst of all in his ta(ing the historicall$ li.ited conceptions of conte.porar$ natural science ;hich did not indeed contain conscious dialectics to be the absolute characteristics of nature itself+ As for the fact that nature as a ;hole is an actuall$ de)eloping integral s$ste. of for.s of .otion of .atter .utuall$ conditioning one another that nature as a ;hole including .an is the real objective concreteness, this fact is .$stified b$ 0egel in his s$ste. in ;hich the abstract that is the .echanis. is the .anifestation of spiritual concreteness+ 0e credits no for. of .otion apart fro. the .otion of thin(ing reason the sphere of concepts ;ith an i..anent concreteness that is ;ith real .utual conditioning of pheno.ena ;ithin a natural ;hole+ 5n the sa.e ;a$ 0egel considers the sphere of the econo.ic life of societ$+ -or hi. that is the sphere of @;ant and intellect a sphere ;here single indi)iduals isolated one fro. another interact each of the. connected ;ith others onl$ because he has to preser)e hi.self as a single abstract indi)idual as a (ind of social ato.+ 5t is eas$ to see here as ;ell that 0egel too( the .etaph$sical li.itations of conte.porar$ political econo.$ 7he had a fair (no;ledge of the #nglish theoreticians8 for a .etaph$sical abstractl$ intellectual character of the economic sphere itself" The sphere of econo.ic life the sphere of ci)ic societ$ is supre.el$ go)erned b$ intellect, that is in 0egelian ter.s the abstractedl$ one6sided for. of consciousness+ 5n this sphere opposites re.ain un.ediated unreconciled the$ clash ;ith one another repulse one another re.aining the sa.e .etaph$sical opposites+ 2eal de)elop.ent is therefore i.possible here+ 1ne and the sa.e relation the eternal relation of need to .eans of gratif$ing it is eternall$ reproduced here+ Therefore the onl$ possible for. of transition to so.e higher stage in ;hich all abstract extre.es of the econo.ic sphere are resol)ed is the transition to legal realit$+ /a; e.erges as the highest concreteness ;hich is manifested as bro(en do;n into its abstract ele.ents in the sphere of econo.ic life+ 0ere ;e see that 0egels logic his dialectical $et at the sa.e ti.e essentiall$ idealist conception of the concrete and the abstract ser)es to >ustif$ that ;hich exists+ 5n natural science 0egels conception perpetuates the gi)en le)el of (no;ledge of nature and in sociolog$ it supports the apologetic attitude both to the econo.ic for. of propert$ and to the la; that sanctions this propert$+ 0egels attitude to political econo.$ should be considered in greater detail+ 5t is instructi)e in t;o respectsA on the one hand it is here in the conception of concreteness that the opposition bet;een 0egels idealist dialectics and Marxs .aterialist dialectics is seen .ost clearl$ and on the other hand it is seen >ust as clearl$ that idealist dialectics full$ excuses the .etaph$sical nature of the thin(ing of the classics of bourgeois econo.$ 7%.ith 2icardo and others8 b$ negating the genuinel$ dialectical nature of the sub>ect6.atter of political econo.$ itself declaring it to be a sphere in ;hich abstract intellectual definitions full$ correspond to the character of the sub>ect .atter+ 5n other ;ords the idealis. of 0egelian dialectics $ields the sa.e result ;hich in %.ith 2icardo and %a$ is conse<uence of the metaphysical .ode of in<uir$+ 6O

Fhat is the .ost stri(ing feature of his approachG The fact that the sphere of econo.ic life for hi. is not a concrete sphere it is not a s$ste. of interaction of .en and things ;hich has de)eloped+ historicall$ and can be understood as a reall$ concrete sphere+ -or 0egel econo.$ is onl$ one of the .an$ .anifestations of the @concrete spirit that is an abstract .anifestation of so.e higher nature of .an+ This higher nature also .anifested one6sidedl$ in the for. of econo.ic acti)it$ is nothing but the goal#directedly acting will N the substance of la; and econo.ic life politics and all the rest+ The goal6directed 7reasonable8 ;ill appears as a concrete substance ;hich is .anifested abstractl$ and one6sidedl$ in its products in its .odi N econo.$ la; politics etc+ As long as this is ta(en for a starting point as long as goal6directed reasonable ;ill 7or si.pl$ reason since ;ill in 0egel is a for. of the existence of reason in .an8 is presented as a uni)ersal concrete substance of all for.s of social acti)it$ he naturall$ regards econo.$ onl$ as so.ething that .a$ be interpreted as a manifestation of reasonable ;ill as one of its .an$ re)elations as a one6sided 7abstract8 .anifestation of reason and ;ill of the social indi)idual+ Therefore all definitions of econo.$ all categories of econo.ic life 7)alue profit ;ages etc+8 appear as abstract modi of reasonable will, as particular or specific for.s of its social being+ 5n econo.$ reason e.erges in a for. ;hich does not correspond to its uni)ersal nature but .erel$ to a single one6sided abstract .anifestation of it+ Concrete uni)ersal ;ill creates the for. that is ade<uate to its nature onl$ in la; and the state+ The state is according to 0egel the concrete realit$ of the uni)ersal ;ill co.prising in itself all the particular specific and therefore abstract for.s of its .anifestation including econo.$ the sphere of needs a @s$ste. of needs+ Fithin econo.$ the uni)ersal concrete substance of an$thing that is hu.an N reasonable ;ill N appears in an extre.el$ one6sided and abstract for.+ The sphere of .ens econo.ic acti)it$ is not therefore a concrete s$ste. of interaction of .en and things e.erging and de)eloping irrespective of the will and consciousness of indi)iduals+ 5t cannot constitute the sub>ect6.atter of a special science and can onl$ he considered in a s$ste. of uni)ersal definitions of reasonable ;ill i+e+ ;ithin the philosoph$ of spirit ;ithin the philosoph$ of state la;+ 0ere it appears as one of the specific spheres of the acti)it$ of reason as an abstract for. of re)elation of reason acting in histor$+ 5t is not difficult to see the dia.etric opposition bet;een the )ie;s of Marx and 0egel of econo.$ of the nature of its dialectical interconnection ;ith all the other .anifestations of social life and of its role in the social ;hole+ 1n this point Marx opposes 0egel as a materialist first and fore.ost+ The .ost interesting feature here is ho;e)er that it is materialism that enables hi. to de)elop a .ore profound )ie; of the dialectics of the sub>ect .atter+ -or Marx the sphere of econo.ic interaction of .en is a full$ concrete sphere of social life ;ith its o;n specific i..anent la;s of .otion+ 5n other ;ords it appears to be relati)el$ independent of all other for.s of social acti)it$ of .en and precisel$ for this reason constitutes the sub>ect6.atter of a special science+ The s$ste. of econo.ic interaction bet;een .en e.erges as a historicall$ arising and historicall$ de)eloped s$ste. all aspects of ;hich are .utuall$ connected ;ith one another through unit$ of origin 7geneticall$8+ 5t is i.portant to stress that the s$ste. of econo.ic relations is a s$ste. that is not onl$ relatively but also absolutel$ independent of the ;ill and consciousness of indi)iduals although the latters ;ill and consciousness do pla$ a .ost acti)e role in its for.ation+ The )er$ nature of this participation of conscious ;ill in the for.ation of the s$ste. is deter.ined b$ the s$ste. of econo.ic relations itself incorporating .en endo;ed ;ith ;ill and consciousness rather than b$ the @nature of the spirit beforehand and fro. the outside+ 5n other ;ords ;ill and reason the.sel)es appear here as .odi of so.e other substance as its abstract .anifestations and products+ All definitions of the ;ill and consciousness of indi)iduals in)ol)ed in the de)elop.ent of the econo.ic s$ste. are literall$ deduced fro. the nature of internal self6.o)e.ent of the s$ste. as a ;hole interpreted as products of the .o)e.ent of this s$ste.+ Thus fro. this point of )ie; e)er$thing loo(s exactl$ the re)erse as co.pared to the 0egelian constructionA e)er$thing is right side up+ 5t is .aterialis. that acts as the principal cause and condition of the fact that dialectics is applied to the understanding of econo.$ in a full .easure and .uch .ore co.prehensi)el$ than it is generall$ possible to do fro. the 0egelian positions+

66

-or 0egel the categor$ of concreteness is full$ applicable onl$ then and there ;hen and ;here ;e deal ;ith conscious ;ill and its products onl$ in the sphere of the spirit and its products its .anifestations 7!nt>usserungen8+ 5n Marxs )ie; this .ost i.portant categor$ of is full$ applicable everywhere, in any sphere of natural and social being, independentl$ of an$ spirit ;hatsoe)er and on this basis to the pheno.ena of life of the spirit itself that is to the de)elop.ent of an$ sphere of social consciousness including reasoning the sphere of logic+ According to the 0egelian construction and its idealist starting point no for. of .o)e.ent in nature can be understood as a concrete for. as a historicall$ e.erging self6de)eloping s$ste. of internall$ interacting pheno.ena+ An$ such sphere ac<uires so.e relation to concreteness onl$ ;hen it is in)ol)ed in the spiritual process ;hen one succeeds in interpreting it as a product of the spirit a .odus of the spiritual substance+ The attribute of concreteness pro)es to be an exclusi)e .onopol$ of the self6 de)eloping spirit ;hile nature in itself 7including the .aterial aspect of the hu.an social being8 has no concreteness at all in its existence+ 5n the e$es of 0egel interconnection is in general possible onl$ as ideal interconnection as posited b$ the spirit or concept+ The categor$ of concreteness one of the central categories of dialectics is therefore e.asculated in 0egels s$ste. to such an extent that it is i.possible to appl$ it to natural science or the .aterialist conception of societ$+ 5n short the categor$ of concreteness and conse<uentl$ dialectics as a ;hole ;hich is inconcei)able ;ithout this categor$ turns out to be inapplicable to an$thing but the sphere of the spirit+ To e)er$thing else it is onl$ applicable insofar as these other things are interpreted purel$ idealisticall$ as a .anifestation of the uni)ersal spirit as a one6sided 7abstract8 .anifestation of the concrete spirit of the concrete fullness and richness of the absolute spirit the absolute idea+ These idealist li.itations of 0egels conception of concreteness the narro;ness of this conception are indissolubl$ lin(ed ;ith the notion that nature is so.ething static that de)elop.ent belongs in the sphere of spirit onl$+ Concreteness indeed is indissolubl$ lin(ed ;ith de)elop.ent and dialectical de)elop.ent at that ;ith self6de)elop.ent through contradictions+ The latter 0egel sa; in consciousness and no;here else+ 0ence the narro;ness of his conception of concreteness a conception ;hich narrow as it is, is later extended to the entire field of nature+ Connected ;ith this is 0egels interpretation of the .ethod of ascent fro. the abstract to the concrete+ According to 0egel that .eans that the entire realit$ including nature and histor$ is the ascent of the spirit to itself a process that goes through a nu.ber of stages fro. the @.echanis. as the sphere of purely abstract manifestation of spiritualness, to the concrete hu.an spirit+ The ascent to itself is perfor.ed b$ the absolute, non6hu.an di)ine spirit+ As such this spirit is concrete in itself 7an sich8 e)en before it has re)ealed itself as @.echanis. @che.is. or @organis. in a one6sided abstracted .anner+ That is ;h$ pure logic in 0egels s$ste. precedes the philosophical consideration of nature the latter being presented as a nu.ber of stages in ;hich the concrete logical spirit reveals itself 7sich ent>ussert8 e)er .ore full$ and concretel$ in the for. of space and ti.e+ Ascent fro. the abstract to the concrete therefore coincides in 0egel ;ith the generation of the ;orld b$ the logical idea+ Thus the la; of spiritual reproduction of the ;orld b$ thought is here directl$ represented as the la; of production of this ;orld b$ the creati)e po;er of the concept+ This 0egelian illusion as Marx sho;ed is si.pl$ based on a one6sided )ie; of the philosopher and logician of realit$+ 0egel as logician ex professo, is interested e)er$;here and first of all in @the .atter of logic rather than in the logic of the .atter+ -ro. this )ie;point .an is considered onl$ as the sub>ect of logical theoretical acti)it$ and the ;orld onl$ as ob>ect onl$ as .aterial processed in this acti)it$+ This abstraction is ;ithin certain li.its >ustified in logic and as long as logic bears these li.itations in .ind there is nothing idealistic in this abstraction+ 0egels approach ho;e)er eli.inates these boundaries+ 0e considers thought not onl$ and not si.pl$ as one of .ans abilities but also as the substantional source of all the other hu.an abilities and (inds of acti)it$ as their essential foundation+ 0e treats the abilit$ to change practicall$ the external ;orld nature outside .an also as a .anifestation of the .ental principle in .an+ The actual process of practical transfor.ation of the ;orld appears in his philosoph$ as a conse<uence and .anifestation of purel$ spiritual acti)it$ N in the final anal$sis of purel$ logical acti)it$ ;hile the ;hole of .an(inds .aterial culture as a product of thought as a @reified concept as the @other6being of the concept+ 6K

5n realit$ the i..ediate basis of the de)elop.ent of thought is not nature as such but precisel$ the transfor.ation of nature b$ social .an that is practice+ 5f this ob>ecti)e practical basis of thought is presented as the product of thought as thought in its .aterial realisation one has to conclude that thin(ing has to do ;ith ob>ecti)it$ onl$ in appearance ;hile in actual fact essentiall$ it deals onl$ ;ith itself ;ith its o;n @other6being+ /ogical definitions that is those definitions ;hich the external ob>ecti)e ;orld o;es to thought appear as the absolute and onl$ genuine definitions of this ;orld+ The point of )ie; of logic beco.es in 0egel absolute and all6e.bracing+ 5f .ans essence is belie)ed to be in thought and the essence of ob>ecti)e realit$ in being a product of thought an @alienated concept the la; of de)elop.ent of thought appears as the la; of de)elop.ent of the real ;orld+ That is ;h$ .an and thin(ing in concepts pro)e to be co.plete s$non$.s in 0egel >ust as the ;orld and the ;orld in concepts the logicall$ assi.ilated ;orld+ The la; ;hich in actual fact deter.ines onl$ the acti)it$ of the theoreticall$ thin(ing head is .ade the supre.e la; of the de)elop.ent and practice of .an and of the ob>ecti)e ;orld+ The actual sub>ect6.atter of 0egelian logic re.ains despite his illusions onl$ the process of theoretical assi.ilation of the ;orld of .ental reproduction of the ;orld+ 5nsofar as 0egel studies this ;orld he arri)es at actual disco)eries+ 5nsofar as he ta(es this sub>ect6.atter for so.ething different fro. ;hat it actuall$ is for so.ething greater N the for.ation of the ;orld itself he ta(es the path of erroneous co.prehension of the ;orld and of thought too+ 0e depri)es hi.self of an$ possibilit$ of understanding the process of thin(ing itself+ As long as the actual conditions producing logical acti)it$ are presented as its o;n products and conse<uences the logical reasoning is suspended in .id air or rather in the @ether of pure thought+ The fact itself of the origin of thought and the la;s of its de)elop.ent beco.e <uite inexplicable+ 5t has no foundation in an$thing l$ing outside it+ The foundation is belie)ed to lie in itself+ That is ;h$ 0egel is co.pelled in the end to interpret the logical abilit$ the abilit$ to distinguish bet;een and co.bine concepts as a (ind of di)ine gift as acti)it$ of the self6de)eloping concept+ The la; of ascent fro. the abstract to the concrete disco)ered b$ 0egel in the .o)e.ent of theoretical cognition also re.ains inexplicable+ The <uestion as to ;h$ thought .o)es in one ;a$ rather than another is ans;ered b$ 0egelian philosoph$ in an essentiall$ tautological ;a$A such is the original and @non6creatable nature of thought+ Tautolog$ ceases to be a .ere tautolog$ here beco.ing an idealist lie+ That is the point at ;hich Marx le)els his criti<ue sho;ing that there is no explanation at all here and the atte.pt to pass an absence of an explanation for an explanation is tanta.ount to idealis.+ Although Marx discards the 0egelian conception of thought as the de.iurge of the ob>ecti)e ;orld he does not ho;e)er re>ect the la; ;hich 0egel established in the .o)e.ent of theoretical (no;ledge although he ga)e it a false idealistic interpretation+ The ascent fro. the abstract to the concrete as Marx points out is in actual fact nothing but a .ethod for hu.an thought to assi.ilate the concrete realit$ existing outside of and independentl$ fro. it+ As such this .ethod assu.es first the existence of uninterpreted concreteness second the practical ob>ecti)e of the social .an de)eloping independentl$ fro. and third an i..ediate sensual for. of reflection of ob>ecti)e concreteness in consciousness that is e.pirical consciousness conte.plation and notion for.ed <uite independentl$ fro. and prior to special theoretical acti)it$+ 5n other ;ords theoretical thought is posterior to the existence of the ob>ecti)e ;orld and .oreo)er to another for. of consciousness for.ed directl$ in the course of sensual practical acti)it$ N the practical spiritual mode of assimilation of the world as Marx referred to it+ 0egel presents all these pre.ises of theoretical thought as its products and conse<uences+ Marx puts all things in their proper places+ -ro. the .aterialist )ie;point as Marx sho;ed the .ethod of ascent fro. the abstract to the concrete .a$ and .ust be understood <uite rationall$ ;ithout an$ .$sticis. as the onl$ .ethod b$ ;hich thought can reproduce in the concept in the .o)e.ent of concepts the historicall$ established concreteness existing outside of and independentl$ fro. it a ;orld existing and de)eloping outside of and independentl$ fro. thought+

Marxs .ie/ of the De%elopment of #cientific Cognition

6!

As ;e (no; the <uestion of the relation of the abstract to the concrete in thought arose before Marx in the light of another .ore general proble.A ;hich scientific .ethod should be usedG B%ee 1 Contribution to the Critique of )olitical !conomyC This <uestion assu.es a )ie; of scientific de)elop.ent as of a natural historical process+ 5n general Marx has al;a$s been decidedl$ opposed to the /eftist )ie; of the de)elop.ent of spiritual culture ;hich ignores all the pre)ious attain.ents of hu.an thought+ 5n science >ust as in all the other fields of spiritual culture actual progress is al;a$s attained b$ further de)elop.ent of the )alues created b$ pre)ious de)elop.ent not b$ starting fro. scratch; b$ a theoreticall$ de)eloped head rather than b$ the /oc(ean tabula rasa" 5t goes ;ithout sa$ing that the assi.ilation of the results of pre)ious theoretical de)elop.ent is not a .atter of si.pl$ inheriting read$6.ade for.ulas but rather a co.plex process of their critical reinterpretation ;ith reference to their correspondence to facts life practice+ A ne; theor$ ho;e)er re)olutionar$ it .ight be in its content and significance is al;a$s born in the course of critical reassess.ent of pre)ious theoretical de)elop.ent+ /enin e.phasised this point in his struggle against the /eftist )ie;s of the proponents of the so6called proletarian culture ;ho insisted that proletarian culture should be de)eloped @straight fro. life N ;hile all attain.ents of hu.an thought should be discarded as N useless refuse+ The .ore re)olutionar$ a theor$ the greater its role of the genuine heir of pre)ious theoretical de)elop.ent and the degree in ;hich it assi.ilates the @rational (ernels accu.ulated b$ science in pre)ious de)elop.ent+ That is a necessar$ la; of the de)elop.ent of science of theor$+ A ne; theoretical conception of the e.piricall$ gi)en data al;a$s e.erges in the course of re)olutionar$ critical reassess.ent of the old theoretical interpretation of these f acts+ @%ettling critical accounts ;ith the earlier de)eloped theories is not a .atter of secondar$ i.portance but a necessar$ ele.ent in the elaboration of theor$ itself an ele.ent in the theoretical anal$sis of facts+ 5t is not accidental that Capital has a subtitle a second titleA 1 Critical 1nalysis of Capitalist )roduction" In Capital, the anal$sis of concepts de)eloped in the entire preceding histor$ of political econo.$ organicall$ coincides in essence ;ith an anal$sis of the stubborn facts of econo.ic realit$+ These t;o aspects of scientific6theoretical in<uir$ coincide or .erge in one single process+ 3either of the. is concei)able or possible ;ithout the other+ Dust as critical anal$sis of concepts is i.possible outside an anal$sis of facts theoretical anal$sis of facts is i.possible unless there are concepts through ;hich the$ .a$ be expressed+ Marxs dialectical logic full$ ta(es this circu.stance into account+ That is ;h$ dialectics is the area ;here conscious intentional coincidence of the inducti)e and the deducti)e .o.ents ta(es place the t;o constituting indissolubl$ lin(ed and .utuall$ assu.ing .o.ents of inquiry" 1ld logic ;as .ore or less consistent in interpreting induction as anal$sis of empirical facts, as for.ation of anal$tical definitions of the fact+ That is ;h$ induction appeared the basic, if not the onl$ for. of attaining ne; (no;ledge+ Deduction ;as .ostl$ considered as anal$sis of the concept as the process of establishing distinctions ;ithin the concept+ As such it largel$ appeared to be the process and for. of explication or exposition of alread$ existing (no;ledge (no;ledge that is alread$ there in the head rather than a for. of obtaining ne; (no;ledge and ne; concepts+ The point is that .an 7on condition of course that he reall$ for.s a conception of facts8 ne)er ta(es up anal$sis of facts ;ith an e.pt$ consciousness but al;a$s ;ith a consciousness de)eloped b$ education+ 5n other ;ords he al;a$s approaches facts ha)ing in .ind certain concepts+ Fhether he ;ants it or not he cannot acti)el$ grasp or concei)e facts in general ;ithout that condition N he .a$ at best onl$ passi)el$ conte.plate the.+ 5n the si.plest generalisation induction is indissolubl$ lin(ed ;ith deductionA .an expresses facts in a concept and that .eans that a ne; anal$tical definition of facts is at the sa.e ti.e for.ed as a ne; and .ore concrete definition of that concept ;hich ser)es as the basis for interpreting these facts+ 5f that is not the case an anal$tical definition of the fact os not for.ed at all+ Fhether .an ;ants it or not+ each ne; inducti)e definition of the fact is for.ed b$ hi. in the light of so.e read$6.ade concept ;hich at so.e ti.e learnt fro. societ$ in the light of so.e conceptual s$ste. or other+ 0e ;ho belie)es that he expresses facts @;ithout an$ bias ;hatsoe)er ;ithout an$ @preconcei)ed ideas is not actuall$ free fro. the.+ 1n the contrar$ he often pro)es to be sla)e to the .ost banal and absurd ideas+

69

0ere as ;ell as an$;here else freedo. lies in conscious .astering of necessit$ rather than in tr$ing to escape fro. it+ A genuinel$ unpre>udiced person does not express facts ;ithout an$ preconcei)ed ideas ;hatsoe)er he does it ;ith the aid of consciousl$ assi.ilated correct concepts+ Fith regard to philosophical categories this ;as de.onstrated <uite con)incingl$ b$ #ngels in his criti<ue of e.piricis.A a natural scientist ;ho prides hi.self on his freedo. fro. an$ logical categories pro)es to be a capti)e of the .ost banal conceptions of the.+ *$ hi.self he cannot for. the. out of facts N that ;ould he e<ui)alent to a clai. to do so.ething that can onl$ he done b$ .an(ind in its de)elop.ent+ 0e therefore in effect al;a$s borro;s logical categories fro. philosoph$+ The onl$ <uestion is fro. ;hat philosoph$ he ;ill borro; the.A fro. a good6for6nothing fashionable s$ste. or one that is actuall$ the pea( of de)elop.ent a s$ste. based on the stud$ of the entire histor$ of hu.an thought and its attain.ents+ This is true of course not onl$ of the concepts of philosoph$A the sa.e thing happens ;ith the categories of an$ science+ Man ne)er begins reasoning @fro. scratch @straight fro. the facts+ The great 2ussian scientist 5)an Pa)lo) said once that ;ithout an idea in the head $ou cant see facts+ Mindless conte.plation and induction ;ithout ideas are products of the i.agination >ust as @pure thought+ #.piricis. assu.ing that it @operates onl$ ;ith undeniable facts +++ operates predo.inantl$ ;ith traditional notions ;ith the largel$ obsolete products of thought of its predecessors+ B*ialectics of 6ature Chapter 6C That is ;h$ an e.piricist easil$ confuses abstractions ;ith realit$ realit$ ;ith abstractions and ta(es sub>ecti)e illusions for ob>ecti)e facts and ob>ecti)e facts and concepts expressing the. for abstractions and illusions+ As a rule he posits abstract truis.s as definitions of facts+ 5t follo;s that @e.pirical induction itself ta(es the for. of concretisation of notions an concepts that ser)e as the basis for considering facts that is the for. of deduction or process of filling the original concepts ;ith ne; and .ore detailed definitions obtained fro. facts through abstraction+ The old opposition of deduction and induction is rationall$ sublated in .aterialist dialectics+ Deduction ceases to be a .eans of for.al deri)ation of definitions contained a priori in the concept beco.ing a .eans of actual de)elop.ent of (no;ledge of facts in their .o)e.ent in their internal interaction+ This deduction organicall$ includes an e.pirical .o.entA it proceeds through a rigorous anal$sis of e.pirical facts that is through induction+ 5n this case ho;e)er the na.es @induction and @deduction express onl$ an external for.al rese.blance bet;een the .ethod of .aterialist dialectics and the corresponding .ethods of ratiocinati)e intellect6oriented logic+ 5n actual fact that is neither induction nor deduction but rather a third .ethod including the other t;o as sublated .o.ents+ 0ere the$ are realised si.ultaneousl$ as .utuall$ assu.ing opposites resulting in a ne; and higher for. of logical de)elop.ent precisel$ through their reciprocal action+ This higher for. an organic co.bination anal$sis of facts ;ith anal$sis of concepts is exactl$ the .ethod of ascent fro. the abstract o the concrete of ;hich Marx spea(s+ That is the onl$ logical for. of the de)elop.ent of (no;ledge ;hich corresponds to the ob>ecti)e nature of the thing+ The point is that no other .ethod can reproduce the ob>ecti)e concreteness in thought as realit$ that e.erged and de)eloped historicall$+ 1ne cannot do it in an$ other ;a$+ As such the .ethod of ascent fro. the abstract to the concrete is b$ no .eans .erel$ a .ethod for expounding a)ailable (no;ledge obtained in so.e other ;a$ as Marxs teaching has often been presented b$ re)isionists ;ho distorted the .ethod of Capital in the spirit of banal neo6&antianis.+ That is the ;a$ in ;hich the .ethod of ascent fro. the abstract to the concrete is interpreted b$ 2udolph 0ilferding+ 9uoting the Preface to Marxs econo.ic M%% of 1!OK6O! 7@1n the first path the full idea ;ill e)aporate until it beco.es an abstract definition; on the second abstract definitions lead to reproduction of the concrete through thin(ing8 0ilferding .a(es this co..entA @5t is clear fro. this alread$ ho; false it is to e<uate deduction and induction as sources of (no;ledge of the sa.e )alue+ 2ather deduction is onl$ a scientific method of presentation ;hich ho;e)er .ust be preceded in the spirit b$ induction if it should reall$ arri)e in the final anal$sis fro. the general to the presentation of the particulars 0ilferding calls the .ethod of ascent fro. the abstract to the concrete deduction and interprets it in an extre.el$ one6sided .anner onl$ ;ith regard to its external rese.blance to deduction as it is traditionall$ concei)ed den$ing that it has an$ ad)antages as a .ethod for the stud$ of real facts and reducing it .erel$ to a for. of s$ste.atic presentation of a)ailable (no;ledge ;hich .ust in his )ie; be obtained in so.e other ;a$ in ad)ance na.el$ the inducti)e ;a$+ &arl 2enner the ;ell6(no;n Austrian Marxist author of !conomy as a ?hole and (ocialisation follo;s the sa.e a)enue of thought in the Preface to his ;or(+ 0e reduces the essence of the .ethod of ascent K0

fro. the abstract to the concrete applied in Capital, to the .anner of presentation characteristic of Eer.an philosophers ;hich Marx according to 2enner learnt fro. his conte.poraries+ 5nsofar as this .anner of presentation has allegedl$ beco.e <uite alien to the .odern reader 2enner belie)es it appropriate to replace it ;ith <uite a different one+ @5 (no; no boo( gro;n out of such a great .ass of e.pirical data as Marxs Capital and onl$ a fe; boo(s ;hose .ethod of presentation is as deducti)e and abstract+ Therefore 2enner belie)es it expedient to present the content of Marxs theor$ in another .anner one ;hich @proceeds fro. the )isual e)idence of the facts of experience arranges the. in a certain order and thus graduall$ ad)ances to the abstract concept that is inducti)el$+ 5n this case 2enner belie)es the .ethod of presentation ;ill correspond to the .ethod of in)estigation ;hereas in Capital the t;o are in contradiction+ As a result 2enner generalises <uite uncriticall$ the e.pirical pheno.ena of .odern capitalis. as the$ appear on the surface passing off his generalisations for a theoretical expression of the essence of these pheno.ena+ -ollo;ing this path he disco)ers for instance that a ;or(er bu$ing shares thereb$ beco.es o;ner of the social .eans of production ;hich results in auto.atic @de.ocratisation of capital and @socialisation of social production .a(ing re)olution unnecessar$+ Thus 2enner supplants Marxs .ethod of stud$ing pheno.ena b$ the .ethod of apolog$ disguising it as a different .anner of presentation+ The .ethod of ascent fro. the abstract to the concrete can >ust as little be interpreted as a .ethod of purel$ logical s$nthesis of a)ailable abstractions 7pre)iousl$ obtained in a purel$ anal$tical .anner8 in a s$ste.+ The notion that cognition in)ol)es at first @pure anal$sis producing nu.erous abstractions follo;ed b$ >ust as @pure s$nthesis is the sa.e (ind of in)ention in .etaph$sical episte.olog$ as the idea of induction ;ithout deduction+ 5n substantiating this )ie; the de)elop.ent of science in the 1Kth and 1!th centuries is often ta(en as an exa.ple but the facts are often )iolated un;ittingl$+ #)en if one should agree that characteristic of that ti.e ;as indeed the anal$tical attitude to;ards facts 7although s$nthesis despite the illusions of theoreticians ;as carried out here as ;ell8 one .ust not forget that that ;as not the initial stage in the scientific de)elop.ent of .an(ind and that the @one6sided anal$sis characteristic of that epoch assu.ed ancient Eree( science as a prere<uisite+ And ancient Eree( science the real initial stage in the scientific de)elop.ent of #urope is .uch .ore characterised b$ a generalised s$nthetic )ie; of things+ 5n referring to the histor$ of .etaph$sics of the 1Kth and 1!th centuries one should bear in .ind that it is not the first but rather the second great epoch in the de)elop.ent of thought+ 5n that case it is s$nthesis rather than anal$sis that e.erges historicall$ as the first stage in the processing of facts in thought+ The exa.ple referred to thus sho;s so.ething dia.etricall$ opposed to ;hat it ;as intended to sho;+ Anal$sis and s$nthesis are 7and ha)e al;a$s been8 >ust as indissoluble internal opposites of the process of thin(ing as deduction and induction+ 5f at certain epochs one ;as o)eresti.ated to the detri.ent of the other+ this should not be raised to a la; that thought should be sub>ect to in the future a logical la;+ a precept according to ;hich each first pass through a purel$ anal$tical stage of de)elop.ent later to proceed on this basis to a s$nthetic one+ *ut that is exactl$ the conception on ;hich the opinion is based that the .ethod of ascent fro. the abstract to the concrete can be applied onl$ then and there ;here the concrete has pre)iousl$ been @distilled into the abstract+ The .ethod of ascent fro. the abstract to the concrete is first of all a .ethod of anal$sis of real e.pirical facts" As such it organicall$ co.prises in itself the re)erse .otion as its internall$ necessar$ oppositeA each step on this path is exactl$ an act of ascent fro. the sensuall$ gi)en concreteness to its abstract theoretical expression+ That is ;h$ the ascent fro. the abstract to the concrete in thought is at the sa.e ti.e a continuall$ rene;ed .o)e.ent fro. the concrete in conte.plation and notion to the concrete in the concept+ Abstract definitions of sensuall$ gi)en facts that are s$nthesised on the path of ascent to;ards the concrete truth are for.ed in the process of .otion itself+ The$ are b$ no .eans ta(en read$6.ade as products of the pre)ious allegedl$ purel$ anal$tical stage of logical cognition+ 5f there is an$ sense in the assertion that ascent fro. the abstract to the concrete assu.es a purel$ anal$tical reduction of the sensuall$ e.pirical concreteness to abstract expression as a special stage of logical de)elop.ent interior in ti.e and essence this .eaning ;ould appear to be that theoretical consideration of realit$ assu.es the existence of a ;ell6de)eloped )ocabular$ a spontaneousl$ for.ed ter.inolog$ and a s$ste. of abstract general conceptions+ This @purel$ anal$tical stage in the reflection K1

of ob>ecti)e realit$ in consciousness is onl$ a prere<uisite of logical theoretical acti)it$ rather than its first stage+ Thus ;e .a$ su. up the abo)e as follo;sA the .ethod of ascent fro. the abstract to the concrete is a specific for. of the acti)it$ of thought of logical transfor.ation of conte.plation and notion into concepts+ 5t is b$ no .eans an artificial procedure a .anner of presentation of alread$ existing (no;ledge or a for.al .ethod for co.bining a)ailable abstractions in a s$ste.+ This is first and fore.ost a natural la; of the theoretical de)elop.ent of .an(ind established b$ philosoph$ and in the second place a consciousl$ applied .ethod of de)elop.ent of theor$+ #ach inducti)e generalisation ta(en separatel$ 7according to the for.ula @fro. the concrete in conte.plation to the abstract in thought8 is in fact al;a$s realised in the context of the o)erall ad)ance of cognition and is in this sense onl$ a @disappearing .o.ent in the general .o)e.ent to concrete truth+ Thereb$ ascent fro. the abstract to the concrete in thought and the dialectics of thought are indissolubl$ lin(ed+ 5t is not for nothing that /enin ha)ing carefull$ copied a length$ definition of the path fro. the abstract to the concrete gi)en b$ 0egel in the last section of his greater /ogic describes it as follo;sA @This extract is not at all bad as a (ind of su..ing up of dialectics+ The definition <uoted b$ /enin characterises reasoning as ascent fro. the abstract to the concreteA
@+++ Cognition rolls for;ard fro. content to content+ This progress deter.ines itself first in this .anner that it begins fro. si.ple deter.inatenesses and that each subse<uent one is richer and more concrete" -or the result contains its o;n beginning and the de)elop.ent of the beginning has .ade it the richer b$ a ne; deter.inateness+ The uni)ersal is the foundation; the progress therefore .ust not be ta(en as a flo; fro. 1ther to 1ther+ 5n the absolute .ethod the 3otion preserves itself in its otherness and the uni)ersal in its particularisation in the Dudge.ent and in realit$; it raises to each next stage of deter.ination the ;hole .ass of its antecedent content and b$ its dialectical progress not onl$ loses nothing and lea)es nothing behind but carries ;ith it all that it has ac<uired enriching and concentrating itself upon itself+ +++ B/enin <uotingA 0egel+s Logic /CF+ H! p "H1C

5t is these sections of 0egels /ogic ;here the idea is expounded of ascent fro. an abstract uni)ersal definiteness of the ob>ect to its increasingl$ .ore concrete e.bodi.ent that /enin singles out in his conspectus as the sections in ;hich idealis. is felt least of all and ;here the dialectical .ethod is in the foreground+
@5t is note;orth$ that the ;hole chapter on the =Absolute 5dea? scarcel$ sa$s a ;ord about Eod 7hardl$ e)er has a =di)ine? =notion? slipped out accidentall$8 and apart fro. that N this 3* N it contains al.ost nothing that is specificall$ idealism but has for its .ain sub>ect the dialectical method" The su.6total the last ;ord and essence of 0egels logic is the dialectical .ethod N this is extre.el$ note;orth$+ And one thing .oreA in this most idealistic of 0egels ;or(s there is the least idealis. and the most materialism+ =Contradictor$? but a factQ B/eninA Conspectus of 0egel+s Logic :ol+ H! p "HLC

5n the dialectical )ie; of the process of cognition the .ethod of ascent fro. the abstract to the concrete fro. the uni)ersal theoretical definition of the object gi)en in conte.plation and notion to its increasingl$ .ore concrete definitions appears as a for. of theoreticall$ correct transfor.ation of e.pirical facts in a concept+ That is the )ie; ta(en b$ Marx in the Preface to his Contribution to the Critique of )olitical !conomy and b$ /enin in his notes on and e)aluation of the last chapter of 0egels /ogic+

The Materialist #"bstantiation of the Method of Ascent from the Abstract to the Concrete in Marx
The .ethod of ascent fro. the abstract to the concrete as a uni)ersal la; to ;hich scientific de)elop.ent is sub>ect ;as for.ulated b$ 0egel+ *ut it beca.e an actual .ethod of de)elop.ent of concrete scientific (no;ledge onl$ in the hands of Marx ;ho ga)e it a .aterialist substantiation ;hereas in 0egel o;ing to the idealist interpretation and application of it it appeared exclusi)el$ as a .ethod for constructing a speculati)e science of sciences an absolute s$ste. of the @;orld as a ;hole+ Marx not onl$ substantiated this la; on the general theoretical plane he actuall$ applied it to the de)elop.ent of a concrete science political econo.$+ Capital created ;ith the aid of this .ethod contains a concrete and extensi)e practical proof of the necessit$ of this .ethod its real .aterialist substantiation as the onl$ .ethod that agrees ;ith the dialectics of the ob>ecti)e realit$+ Anal$sis of Capital ;ith reference to the .ethod of in<uir$ applied in it should also sho; the concrete essence of the .ethod of ascent fro. the abstract to the concrete+ K"

5t should be sho;n as the onl$ .ethod that can ensure the solution of the central tas( of scientific in)estigation as it is seen in .aterialist dialectics N the tas( of tracing the concrete reciprocal conditioning of pheno.ena creating through their interaction a system that e.erged and de)eloped historicall$ and still continues to de)elop ne; for.s of its existence and internal interaction+ This tas( cannot be sol)ed in an$ other ;a$+ An$ other .ethod does not correspond to the ob>ecti)e nature of the ob>ect reproduced ;ith its aid in the spirit+ 5t ;ould be <uite erroneous to deri)e the need for the .ethod of ascent fro. the abstract to the concrete .erel$ fro. the fact that .ans consciousness is incapable of grasping the ob>ect in its entire co.plexit$ so that it has to ascend ;ill$6nill$ fro. inco.plete one6sided 7abstract8 notion of the ob>ect to e)er .ore co.plete and co.prehensi)e (no;ledge of it+ This explanation ;ould si.pl$ be <uite inade<uate+ To be .ore precise that is not an explanation but a reference to a ;ell6(no;n fact+ 5t is self6ob)ious that consciousness is indeed such+ *ut all properties and specific features of consciousness the.sel)es re<uire .aterialist explanation+ *esides such a reference to the nature of consciousness ;ould explain nothing generall$ spea(ing about the specificit$ of the .ethod of ascent fro. the abstract to the concrete as a .ethod of scientific theoretical in<uir$+ -a.iliarisation ;ith an ob>ect pheno.enon or s$ste. of pheno.ena also ta(es the for. of gradual and ordered assi.ilation of ne; details of transition fro. a one6sided and .eagre notion of an ob>ect to a co.prehensi)e 7though still e.pirical8 notion of it+ Accu.ulation of e.pirical infor.ation through ;hich realit$ beco.es fa.iliar but not $et cognised, also proceeds as de)elop.ent fro. one6sided to co.prehensi)e (no;ledge+ This interpretation ;ould thus ta(e into account onl$ those abstract identical features ;hich theoretical reproduction of concreteness in the concept has in co..on ;ith si.ple e.pirical fa.iliarisation ;ith pheno.ena and ;ould express the specificit$ of neither+ The .ethod of ascent fro. the abstract to the concrete is .erel$ a .ethod of reflection of concrete realit$ in thought rather than a .ethod of creation of it b$ the po;er of thought as it ;as presented b$ 0egel+ That is precisel$ ;h$ it does not depend on thought at all ;here logical de)elop.ent of concepts b$ this .ethod ;ill begin and in ;hat direction it ;ill proceed+ As Marx sho;ed it depends onl$ on the relation in ;hich the )arious aspects of the concrete ;hole stand to each other+ The .ethod of logical de)elop.ent .ust therefore correspond to the .ethod of internal di)ision of this ;hole to the dialectics of the for.ation of concreteness outside thought that is in the final anal$sis to the historical de)elop.ent of this concreteness although as ;ill be sho;n later this coincidence is b$ no .eans si.ple dead or .irror6li(e being concerned onl$ ;ith uni)ersal .o.ents of de)elop.ent+ The for.ula of .aterialis. in episte.olog$ and logic is the re)erse of ;hat has >ust been for.ulatedA the ob>ect is such that onl$ the gi)en rather than so.e other for. of acti)it$ of consciousness corresponds to it; the ob>ect is such that it can be reflected in consciousness onl$ ;ith the aid of the gi)en .ethod+ 5n other ;ords the discussion of the .ode of logical acti)it$ here too beco.es the stud$ of the objective nature of the objective reality, a further elaboration of the categor$ of concreteness as an objective categor$ expressing the uni)ersal for. of the existence of realit$+ 0ere too the principle of coincidence of logic episte.olog$ and dialectics is the do.inant oneA a <uestion that is purel$ logical at first sight is essentiall$ a <uestion of uni)ersal for.s in ;hich ob>ecti)e concreteness e.erges and de)elops+ A .aterialist substantiation of the correctness and necessit$ of the .ethod of ascent fro. the abstract to the concrete .a$ onl$ consist in de.onstrating the real uni)ersal la;s that e<uall$ do.inate the for.ation of an$ concrete s$ste. of interacting pheno.ena 7;hether it be the capitalist s$ste. or the solar s$ste. the che.ical or the biological for. of interaction etc+8+ 0ere again ;e run into the fa.iliar dialectical difficult$A the approach to dialectics is dialectical in itself+ 5t is apparentl$ i.possible to establish and theoreticall$ express the uni)ersal la;s of the for.ation of any concreteness on the path of inducti)e generalisation of abstraction of the general and identical features ;hich the capitalist s$ste. has in co..on ;ith the solar planetar$ s$ste. and the biological for. of interaction in nature ;ith the electro.agnetic or che.ical one+ -or.ulating the <uestion in this .anner .eans setting a tas( absolutel$ insoluble in its )er$ nature+ Man(ind as a ;hole does not (no; all cases of concrete interaction in infinite nature let alone the present author+ 3e)ertheless ;e face the tas( of establishing exactl$ the universal 7that is logical8 la;s of the for.ation of an$ ob>ecti)e s$ste. of concrete interaction+ 5n other ;ords ;e recur to one of the eternal proble.s of philosoph$ N ;hether it is possible to ;or( out a reall$ uni)ersal infinite generalisation on KH

the basis of stud$ing a li.ited and necessaril$ finite series of facts an if it is ho; is one to approach the tas(+ /uc(il$ philosoph$ has ne)er e)en tried to obtain this understanding ;ithin the inducti)e approach+ The actual de)elop.ent of science and philosoph$ has long found a practical ;a$ of sol)ing this antino.$ ;hich onl$ see.s insoluble in principle as long as it is for.ulated .etaph$sicall$+ 5n actual fact .an(ind has al;a$s obtained uni)ersal @infinite generalisations and conclusions not onl$ in philosoph$ but in an$ area of (no;ledge as ;ell through analysis of at least one t$pical case rather than through abstraction of those identical features that all possible cases ha)e in co..on+ %uffice it in this connection to re.e.ber the ;ords fro. #ngels *ialectics of 6atureA
@A stri(ing exa.ple of ho; little induction can clai. be the sole or o)en the predo.inant for. of scientific disco)er$ occurs in ther.od$na.icsA the stea.6engine pro)ided the .ost stri(ing proof that one can i.part heat and obtain .echanical .otion+ 100 000 stea.6engines did not pro)e this .ore than one but onl$ .ore and .ore forced the ph$sicists into the necessit$ of explaining it+ %adi Carnot ;as the first seriousl$ to set about the tas(+ *ut not b$ induction+ 0e studied the stea.6engine anal$sed it and found that in it the process ;hich .attered does not appear in pure form but is concealed b$ all sorts of subsidiar$ processes+ 0e did a;a$ ;ith these subsidiar$ circu.stances that ha)e no bearing on the essential process and constructed an ideal stea.6engine N 7or gas engine8 ;hich it is true is as little capable of being realised as for instance a geo.etrical line or surface but in its ;a$ perfor.s the sa.e ser)ice as these .athe.atical abstractionsA it presents the process in a pure independent and unadulterated for.+ B-rag.ent Induction and 1nalysisC

5t is not induction directed at the search of abstractions expressing the general features of all the particular cases but in depth analysis of one particular case ai.ed at re)ealing the process under stud$ in its pure for. that has been the .ethod of philosoph$ ;hene)er and ;here)er it reall$ arri)ed at ob>ecti)e disco)eries+ 5t is onl$ .en li(e Co.te and %pencer ;ho tried to follo; the path of induction and abstraction N ;ith suitabl$ .eagre results+ Philosoph$ has al;a$s been concerned ;ith its o;n specific proble.s essentiall$ different fro. the desire to find the abstract general features ;hich a crocodile has in co..on ;ith Dupiter and the solar s$ste. ;ith ;ealth+ Philosoph$ has al;a$s had its o;n serious proble.s the solution of ;hich brought it closer to the establish.ent of the uni)ersal la;s of e)er$thing that exists to re)ealing the content of categories+ Marx as is ;ell (no;n ga)e a critical anal$sis of the 0egelian s$ste. of uni)ersal categories but he did not do that b$ co.paring these categories ;ith the features ;hich .an(ind has in co..on ;ith the ato.ic nucleus or both of the. ;ith the structure of the great 4ni)erse+ 0egels s$ste. ;as criticall$ o)erco.e through its critical co.parison .ostl$ ;ith one instance of dialectical de)elop.ent 7but ;hat is .ost i.portant a .ost t$pical one8 N ;ith the dialectics of social production relations at one stage of their de)elop.ent+ A critical o)erco.ing of the uni)ersal categories historicall$ de)eloped b$ philosoph$ ;ith reference to at least one t$pical case is the real path al;a$s ta(en b$ the e)olution in understanding the content of uni)ersal categories+ The basic tas( of the theoretical anal$sis of the uni)ersal is al;a$s actualC reduced to the anal$sis of the indi)idual fro. the standpoint of the uni)ersal+ 1ne .ust onl$ be able to single out in the indi)idual that ;hich constitutes the uni)ersalit$ of this case rather than its indi)idualit$ or specificit$+ 5t is at this point that one .ost re<uires a conscious attitude to abstraction and the .ethods of it obtaining+ -or the .ost ordinar$ error of theoretical in<uir$ is .ade ;hen that ;hich actuall$ refers to the gi)en concurrence of transient circu.stances in ;hich a real uni)ersal for. is conte.plated is ta(en for the uni)ersal for. itself of the indi)idual fact+ To re)eal the content of such a uni)ersal categor$ as concreteness one .a$ and .ust stud$ at least one t$pical case of a li)ing dialecticall$ de)eloped s$ste. of internall$ interacting ob>ecti)e pheno.ena+ The s$ste. of capitalist relations bet;een .en t$pical instance of such a self6de)eloping relati)el$ independent s$ste. 7concreteness8+ Fe shall consider it as an i..ediate particular case of concreteness in general in ;hich the uni)ersal outlines of an$ concreteness .a$ and .ust be re)ealed+ Materials fro. other fields ;ill be considered to the extent in ;hich the$ are characteristic in the.sel)es+ The choice of this .aterial is deter.ined b$ reasons other than sub>ecti)e caprice or personal inclination+ A .uch .ore ;eight$ consideration in fa)our of this choice is that no other concreteness has been co.prehended as profoundl$ as this one+ 3o other s$ste. of concrete interaction has been presented to the .ind in the entire co.plexit$ and fullness of its internal dialectics in the entire co.plexit$ of its structure as the s$ste. of capitalist relations re)ealed in Capital and other ;or(s of the founders of KL

Marxis.6/eninis. and that is exactl$ ;h$ it is .ost expedient to use this .aterial as the basis for considering the uni)ersal characteristics of an$ concreteness for explicating the categor$ of concreteness in general+ This .ode of consideration full$ coincides ;ith ;hat Marx hi.self did in his cogniti)e practice+ Fhen Marx set hi.self the tas( of re)ealing the uni)ersal la; of capitalis. as such as a historicall$ deter.ined s$ste. of social production he did not ta(e the path of inducti)e co.parison of all ;ithout exception of capitalist de)elop.ent that too( place on the planet in hi. ti.e+ 0e acted differentl$ as a dialecticianA he too( the most characteristic and best developed case na.el$ capitalist realit$ in #ngland and its reflection in #nglish econo.ic literature and ;or(ed out a universal econo.ic theor$ .ostl$ on the basis of detailed in)estigation of this angle instance+ 0e understood that the uni)ersal la;s of the de)elop.ent of capitalis. are the sa.e for an$ countr$ and that #ngland ha)ing ad)anced farther than an$ other countr$ along the path of capitalist de)elop.ent de.onstrated all pheno.ena in their .ost distinct for.+ All that ;hich in other countries ;as present as a )er$ ;ea( and hardl$ distinguishable rudi.ent as a tendenc$ that ;as not $et full$ for.ed obscured and co.plicated b$ secondar$ external circu.stances existed here in the .ost de)eloped and classicall$ clear6cut for.+ 1n so.e occasions onl$ did Marx use .aterials concerning the capitalist de)elop.ent of other countries 7in his anal$sis of rent for instance he used nu.erous .aterials fro. the econo.ic de)elop.ent of the 2ussian )illage8+ This ;a$ the ;a$ of establishing the i..ediatel$ co..on features of different instances of capitalist de)elop.ent ;as not a ro$al road for arri)ing at a universal theor$ of capitalist de)elop.ent+ The ro$al road of his in<uir$ ;as in)ariabl$ the stud$ of #nglish econo.ic realit$ and a constructi)e criti<ue of #nglish political econo.$+ The sa.e considerations should apparentl$ be ta(en into account in tac(ling the proble. of the categories of dialectics as logic and episte.olog$ as the science of thought+ 5t is capitalist realit$ theoreticall$ re)ealed in Capital and other ;or(s of the sa.e c$cle 7both b$ Marx and b$ his best pupils and follo;ers in the first place b$ #ngels and /enin8 that pro)ides the .ost co.prehensi)e picture of a historicall$ e.ergent and de)eloped concreteness as a .ost t$pical instance of concreteness in general+ 5t is Capital that ;e regard as heretofore unsurpassed .odel of conscious application of the dialectical method, of dialectical logic in the fullness of its content+ 5t sho;s .an$ sciences their o;n future de.onstrating in classicall$ clear6cut for. all those aspects of the .ethod that ha)e not $et been realised in other sciences in the sa.e consistent .anner+ 5t should also be pointed out that constructi)e criti<ue of pre)ious theories N a necessar$ .o.ent of the theoretical elaboration of the scientific proble.s of our ti.es N assu.es that criticall$ assi.ilated is the best6<ualit$ theoretical 7.ental8 .aterial the reall$ best .odels of theoretical co.prehension of the actualit$ ;hich appears in the gi)en case as the ob>ect of attention and in<uir$+ As Marx de)eloped his econo.ic theor$ the principal theoretical opponents ;ith ;ho. he argued in ;or(ing out his co.prehension of realit$ ;ere the classic representati)es of bourgeois political econo.$ rather than the conte.porar$ representati)es of )ulgar econo.$ and of the @professorial for. of deca$ of theor$+ The latter ;ere Marxs conte.poraries onl$ chronologicall$ not fro. the standpoint of theoretical co.prehension of the sub>ect6.atter+ 5n regard to theor$ the$ ;ere infinitel$ inferior to the classics and ;ere b$ no .eans a theoretical opposition ;orth$ of serious argu.ent+ 4nfolding his theoretical co.prehension of realit$ in the for. of serious argu.ent ;ith the classics Marx .erel$ ridicules ;hene)er the occasion ;arrants such @theoreticians as %enior *astiat MacCulloch 2oscher etc+ Criticising these latter ;as onl$ appropriate ;hen the theoretical co.prehension of the sub>ect6.atter had alread$ been unfolded in its essence+ As far as philosophical categories the categories of dialectics are concerned classical bourgeois philosoph$ still re.ains the onl$ ;orth$ and serious theoretical opponent of the philosoph$ of dialectical .aterialis. ;hich ho;e)er does not at all eli.inate the tas( of fighting against .odern bourgeois s$ste.s but on the contrar$ helps to la$ bare their desire to escape the great philosophical proble.s+ The attitude of Marx #ngels and /enin to 0egel or -euerbach ;as funda.entall$ different fro. their attitude to %chopenhauer Co.te Mach or *ogdano)+ %harpl$ criticising the speculations of pett$ idealists the$ ne)er e)en tried rational (ernel in their ;ritings+ 5n denouncing the .ixed6up sophistic argu.entation of Machists /enin first of all reduces it to the classicall$ transparent and principled expression ;hich these )ie;s ;ere gi)en b$ *er(ele$ and -ichte+ That is not .erel$ a pole.ic .anoeu)re but the best ;a$ of theoretically unco)ering the essence of their position+ 1n the other hand ;hen /enin faces the tas( of further elaboration of .aterialist dialectics he KO

lea)es aside Machists as *er(ele$s theoretical adherents and goes bac( to a critical anal$sis of 0egels The (cience of Logic as the real pea( of bourgeois thought in co.prehending the uni)ersal la;s of nature societ$ and hu.an thought+ The abo)e .a$ be su..ed up as follo;sA a genuinel$ concrete substantiation of the .ethod of ascent fro. the abstract to the concrete as the onl$ scientificall$ correct .ethod of logical de)elop.ent as the onl$ .ethod corresponding to the ob>ecti)e dialectics should be loo(ed for in Marxs Capital, and in the anal$sis of its logical structure+ /ogic episte.olog$ and dialectics consistentl$ coincide in Capital, and this s$ste.atic coincidence the coincidence of induction and deduction of anal$sis and s$nthesis characterising the .ethod of ascent fro. the abstract to the concrete is the distinguishing feature of Marxs .ethod of in<uir$+ /et us first consider the proble. in its concrete econo.ic expression and then proceed to general .ethodological and logical conclusions+ /et us pose this <uestionA is it in general possible to understand theoreticall$ 7to reproduce conceptuall$8 the ob>ecti)e essence of such pheno.ena as surplus6)alue and profit if the categor$ of )alue has not been pre)iousl$ and independentl$ anal$sedG Can .one$ be understood if the la;s go)erning the .o)e.ent of si.ple co..odit$ .ar(et are not (no;nG Those ;ho ha)e read Capital and are fa.iliar ;ith the proble.s of political econo.$ are a;are that this is an insoluble tas(+ Can one for. a concept 7a concrete abstraction8 of cap ital through purel$ inducti)e generalisation of the abstract features obser)ed in an$ of the )arious (inds of capitalG Fill such an abstraction be satisfactor$ fro. the scientific point of )ie;G Fill such an abstraction express the inner structure of capital in general as a specific for. of econo.ic realit$G As soon as ;e pose the <uestion in this for. the need for a negati)e ans;er to it beco.es apparent+ This abstraction ;ill of course express the identical features that industrial financial co..ercial and usurious capital ha)e in co..on+ 5t ;ill indubitabl$ free us fro. repetitions+ *ut that ;ill exhaust its actual cogniti)e potential+ 5t ;ill not express the concrete essence of an$ of these (inds of capital+ 5t ;ill >ust as little express the concrete essence of their .utual connection their interaction+ These are precisel$ the features fro. ;hich an abstraction is .ade+ *ut fro. the standpoint of dialectics it is exactl$ the concrete interaction of concrete pheno.ena that constitutes the sub>ect6.atter and goal of thin(ing in concepts+ The .eaning of the general is contradictor$ as /enin pointed out; it deadens li)ing realit$ but at the sa.e ti.e is the onl$ possible .o)e to;ards its co.prehension+ 5n the gi)en instance ho;e)er it is eas$ to see that the general does nothing but deaden the concrete .o)ing a;a$ fro. it and being in no ;a$ at the sa.e ti.e a step to;ards it+ 5t is from the concrete, as fro. the @inessential that this general is an abstraction+ 3either does this abstraction express the uni)ersal nature of capital 7of an$ capital N industrial financial or co..ercial8+ Marxs Capital de.onstrates in a )er$ graphic .anner that the concrete econo.ic nature of co..ercial capital as a concrete aspect of the capitalist ;hole cannot in principle be understood or expressed in theoretical abstraction unless industrial capital is pre)iousl$ understood in its inner structure+ To consider the i..anent definitions of industrial capital is the sa.e as to re)eal the essence of capital in general+ 5t is >ust as undoubted that industrial capital cannot be understood before )alue+
@+++ The rate of profit is no .$ster$ so soon as ;e (no; the la;s of surplus6)alue+ 5f ;e re)erse the process ;e cannot co.prehend either the one or the other+ B Capital 5C

/et us stress that the point here is understanding 7expressing in a concept8 for it is of course <uite possible to create the abstraction of profit in general+ 5n the latter case it is sufficient to reduce the e.piricall$ obser)ed pheno.ena of profit to an abstract expression+ This abstraction ;ill be <uite ade<uate for distinguishing ;ith certaint$ bet;een the pheno.ena of profit and other pheno.ena for @recognising profit+ This is <uite successfull$ done b$ e)er$ entrepreneur ;ho can )er$ ;ell distinguish bet;een profit and ;ages .one$ and so on+ 5n doing so the entrepreneur does not understand, ho;e)er what profit is" 0e does not need it either+ 5n practice he acts as an instincti)e adherent of positi)ist philosoph$ and e.pirical logic+ 0e .erel$ lends a generalised expression to pheno.ena that are i.portant and essential fro. his point of )ie; fro. the standpoint of his sub>ecti)e goals and this generalised expression of pheno.ena excellentl$ ser)es hi. in practice as a concept per.itting hi. to distinguish ;ith certaint$ profit fro. non6profit+ As an honest6to6 K6

goodness positi)ist he sincerel$ belie)es all tal( about the inner nature of profit about the essence and substance of this pheno.enon so dear to his heart to be .etaph$sical sophistr$ philosophising di)orced fro. life+ 4nder conditions of capitalist production the entrepreneur does not ha)e to (no; an$ of this+ @An$one can use .one$ as .one$ ;ithout necessaril$ understanding ;hat .one$ is+ BTheories of (urplus &alue 555C The narro; practical intellect as Marx e.phasised is basicall$ alien and hostile to comprehension 7c+f+ the re.ar( about -riedrich /ist in Chapter 1ne of 1 Contribution to the Critique of )olitical !conomy8+ 5t .a$ e)en be har.ful to the entrepreneur to philosophise on the proble. of profit+ Fhile he is tr$ing to understand it other s.arter and .ore practical and push$ operators ;ill snatch his share of profit+ A business.an ;ill ne)er exchange real profit for an understanding of ;hat profit is+ 5n science in reasoning ho;e)er comprehension is i.portant+ %cience as thin(ing in concepts begins onl$ ;here consciousness does not si.pl$ express in other ;ords the conceptions of things spontaneousl$ thrust upon it but rather atte.pts to anal$se both things and conceptions of things in a goal6directed and critical .anner+ To comprehend a pheno.enon .eans to establish its place and role in the concrete s$ste. of interacting pheno.ena in ;hich it is necessaril$ realised and to find out precisel$ those traits ;hich .a(e it possible for the pheno.enon to pla$ this role in the ;hole+ To comprehend a pheno.enon .eans to disco)er the .ode of its origin the rule according to ;hich the pheno.enon e.erges ;ith necessit$ rooted in the concrete totalit$ of conditions+ it .eans to anal$se the )er$ conditions of the origin of pheno.ena+ That is the general for.ula for the for.ation of a concept and of conception" To comprehend profit .eans to establish the uni)ersal and necessar$ nature of its origin and .o)e.ent in the s$ste. of capitalist production to re)eal N its specific role in the o)erall .o)e.ent of the s$ste. as a ;hole+ That is ;h$ a concrete concept can onl$ be realised through a co.plicated s$ste. of abstractions expressing the pheno.enon in the totalit$ of conditions of its origin+ Political econo.$ as a science historicall$ begins ;here recurrent pheno.ena 7profit ;ages interest etc+8 are not .erel$ registered in ter.s of generall$ understood and generall$ acceptable designations 7that ta(es place before science and outside science in the consciousness of the practical participants of production8 but are co.prehended concretel$ through anal$sis of their place and role in the s$ste.+ Thus it is in principle i.possible to comprehend 7express in a concept8 profit unless surplus6)alue and the la;s of its origin are co.prehended pre)iousl$ and independentl$ fro. the for.er+ Fh$ is that i.possibleG 5f ;e ans;er this <uestion in a general theoretical for. ;e shall thereb$ sho; the real necessit$ of the .ethod of ascent fro. the abstract to the concrete its applicabilit$ to an$ field of (no;ledge+ Fe shall therefore turn to the histor$ of political econo.$+

Adam #miths &nd"ction and Da%id icardos Ded"ction0 The .ie/points of Loc)e and #pino1a in ,olitical 'conomy
The logical conflicts in the de)elop.ent of political econo.$ ;ould be inco.prehensible if ;e did not establish real connections bet;een it and conte.porar$ philosoph$+ The categories in ;hich #nglish econo.ists consciousl$ co.prehended e.pirical facts ;ere rooted in the philosophical s$ste.s current at the ti.e+ A characteristic fact that had a profound effect on the de)elop.ent of econo.ic thought in #ngland ;as that one of the first theoreticians of political econo.$ turned out to be none other than Dohn /oc(e the classical representati)e of e.piricis. in philosoph$+
@/oc(es )ie; is all the .ore i.portant because it ;as the classical expression of bourgeois societ$s ideas of right as against feudal societ$ and .oreo)er his philosophy served as the basis for all the ideas of the whole of subsequent !nglish political economy" BTheories of (urplus &alue 5C

/oc(es )ie;s pro)ed to be the inter.ediate lin( bet;een the philosoph$ of #nglish e.piricis. 7;ith all the ;ea(nesses of the latter8 and the e.erging theor$ of ;ealth+ Through /oc(e political econo.$ assi.ilated the basic .ethodological principles of e.piricis. in particular and especiall$ the one6sided KK

anal$tical and inducti)e .ethod the standpoint of the reduction of co.plex pheno.ena to their ele.entar$ constituents+ 0o;e)er >ust as in the natural sciences of that epoch the actual cogniti)e practice of the stud$ of econo.ic pheno.ena e)en in /oc(e hi.self differed essentiall$ fro. the (ind of episte.olog$ that could be and ;as reco..ended b$ consistent e.piricis.+ The .ethod ;hich ;as actuall$ used b$ theoretical econo.ists to for. theoretical definitions of things despite their one6sided episte.ological illusions did not tall$ ;ith e.pirical inducti)e logic+ Fhile consciousl$ appl$ing the one6sided anal$tical .ethod the theoreticians proceeded in fact ;ithout realising it clearl$ fro. a nu.ber of theoretical assu.ptions ;hich essentiall$ contradicted the principles of the narro; e.pirical approach+ The logic of pure e.piricis. ;as incapable of coping ;ith the tas( of ;or(ing out a theoretical )ie; of the pheno.ena of econo.ic realit$ for the si.ple reason that actual econo.ic realit$ ;as a .ost co.plex interlacing of bourgeois capitalist for.s of propert$ ;ith the feudal ones+ 4nder those conditions direct inducti)e generalisation of e.pirical facts ;ould ha)e $ielded at best onl$ a correct description of the results of interaction of t;o not .erel$ different but dia.etricall$ opposed and hostile principles of o;nership+ /oc(es e.pirical6deducti)e .ethod ;ould not ha)e per.itted to go deep into the inner @ph$siolog$ of bourgeois pri)ate o;nership+ 5t is ;ell (no;n that /oc(e hi.self did not .erel$ generalise ;hat he sa; but acti)el$ singled out in the e.pirical facts onl$ those for.s and .o.ents ;hich in his )ie; corresponded to .ans eternal and genuine nature+ 5n other ;ords the )er$ tas( of abstract anal$tical extraction of the ele.entar$ constituents the tas( of anal$sing e.pirical facts here as ;ell i.plied a certain uni)ersal criterion according to ;hich so.e for.s of econo.$ are described as @genuine as @corresponding to .ans nature ;hile others are eli.inated as @un6genuine+ The bourgeois indi)idualistic conception of @.ans nature ;as used b$ all the bourgeois theoretician as such a criterion+ /oc(e ;as one of the originators of this )ie;+ Clearl$ this uni)ersal and funda.ental principle of bourgeois science used as a $ardstic( to .easure e.pirical facts could as little be obtained b$ e.pirical induction as the concept of ato.+ 5n /oc(es ti.e bourgeois capitalist for. of o;nership ;as b$ no .eans uni)ersal and do.inant+ 5t ;as not an e.piricall$ uni)ersal fact and the conception of ;ealth as the starting point of bourgeois political econo.$ could not its 5f be for.ed b$ inducti)e generalisation of all the particular instances and (inds of o;nership ;ithout exception+ 5t ;as for.ed ;ith the aid of considerations <uite different than the purel$ logical ones+ The spontaneous social reason here too pro)ed to be stronger than the cannons of ratiocinati)e intellectual logic+ 5n other ;ords fro. its birth political econo.$ faced the sa.e logical proble. as 3e;ton did in his fieldA to .a(e e)en a single inducti)e generalisation an econo.ist ;ould ha)e to ha)e so.e conception at least i.plied of the uni)ersal genuine nature 7substance8 of the pheno.ena under consideration+ Dust as 3e;ton based all his inductions on the idea that onl$ the geo.etricall$ definable for.s of facts are the solel$ ob>ecti)e for.s econo.ists silentl$ assu.ed that onl$ those for.s of econo.$ ;hich corresponded to the principles of bourgeois pri)ate o;nership ;ere the genuine for.s+ All other for.s of econo.ic relations ;ore silentl$ eli.inated as sub>ecti)e errors of .en as for.s that do not correspond to the genuine natural and therefore ob>ecti)e nature of .an+ 1nl$ those definitions of facts ;ere incorporated in theor$ ;hich ;ere an i..ediate and direct outco.e of .ans @eternal nature N in actual fact of the specific nature of the pri)ate proprietor the bourgeois+ All theoreticians of bourgeois political econo.$ thus had to proceed and reall$ did proceed fro. <uite a definite uni)ersal basic principle fro. a clear conception of the substance the general ob>ecti)e nature of the particular cases and for.s of econo.$+ This conception of substance >ust as in natural science could not be obtained through e.pirical induction+ *ut /oc(ean episte.olog$ ;as silent on >ust this point N on the <uestion of the ;a$s of cognition of substance of the ;a$s of for.ation of the uni)ersal original foundation of science+ This foundation the conception of the substance of ;ealth had to be ;or(ed out b$ econo.ists 7/oc(e included8 in a purel$ spontaneous ;a$ ;ithout a clear understanding of the ;a$s of obtaining it+ 0o;e)er it .a$ be #nglish political econo.$ practicall$ sol)ed this difficult$ ;hen Fillia. Pett$ disco)ered this uni)ersal substance of econo.ic pheno.ena the substance of ;ealth in labour producing commodities, in labour perfor.ed ;ith the ob>ecti)e of alienating the product of labour in the free .ar(et+ K!

5nsofar as econo.ists actuall$ proceeded fro. this .ore or less clearl$ realised conception of the uni)ersal substance of ;ealth their generalisations ;ere theoretical in nature and differed fro. the purel$ e.pirical generalisations of an$ .erchant usurer or .ar(et ;o.an+ *ut this .eant that a theoretical approach to things coincided ;ith the desire to understand different particular for.s of ;ealth as .odifications of one and the sa.e uni)ersal substance+ The fact ho;e)er that classical political econo.$ ;as lin(ed up in its conscious .ethodological con)ictions ;ith /oc(es philosoph$ .ade itself felt directl$ and in a )er$ instructi)e for.+ As a result theoretical in)estigation of facts proper ;as continuall$ interlaced ;ith si.ple uncritical reproduction of e.pirical conceptions+ This is .ost clearl$ seen in the ;or( of Ada. %.ith+ The first econo.ist to express clearl$ the concept of labour as the uni)ersal substance of all econo.ic pheno.ena fie unfolded a theor$ in ;hich properl$ theoretical consideration of facts ;as continuall$ inter;o)en ;ith extre.el$ untheoretical descriptions of e.pirical data fro. the standpoint of a .an forcibl$ in)ol)ed in production and accu.ulation of )alue+
@%.ith hi.self .o)es ;ith great nai)ete in a perpetual contradiction+ 1n the one hand lie traces the intrinsic connection existing bet;een econo.ic categories or the obscure structure of the bourgeois econo.ic s$ste.+ 1n the other he si.ultaneousl$ sets forth the connection as it appears in the pheno.ena of co.petition and thus as it presents itself to the unscientific obser)er >ust as to hi. ;ho is actuall$ in)ol)ed and interested in the process of bourgeois production+ 1ne of these conceptions fatho.s the inner connection the ph$siolog$ so to spea( of the bourgeois s$ste. ;hereas the other ta(es the external pheno.ena of life as the$ see. and appear and .erel$ describes catalogues recounts and arranges the. under for.al definitions+ Fith %.ith both these .ethods of approach not onl$ .erril$ run alongside one another but also inter.ingle and constantl$ contradict one another+ BTheories of (urplus &alue 55C

%.ith hi.self did not of course notice the contradiction bet;een the t;o .odes of reflection of realit$ in abstractions+ 5t is eas$ to recognise here a scientist ;ho pictures the process of cognition in a purel$ /oc(ean .anner+ 5t ;as /oc(es episte.olog$ that ignored the distinction bet;een theoretical abstraction 7concept8 and si.ple e.pirical abstraction si.ple expression in speech of the sensuall$ stated si.ilarities and distinctions+ Da)id 2icardo as is ;ell (no;n .ade a decisi)e step for;ard as co.pared to Ada. %.ith+ The philosophical6historical significance of this step consisted first and fore.ost in that he ;as the first to distinguish consciousl$ and consistentl$ bet;een the tas( of properl$ theoretical consideration of e.pirical data 7the tas( of expressing these data in concepts8 and the tas( of si.ple description and cataloguing of pheno.ena in the for. in ;hich the$ are i..ediatel$ gi)en in conte.plation and notion+ 2icardo understood )er$ ;ell that science 7thin(ing in concepts8 dealt ;ith the sa.e e.pirical facts as si.ple conte.plation and notion+ 5n science ho;e)er these facts ha$7 to be considered fro. a higher point of )ie; N that of their inner connection+ This re<uire.ent ;as not consistentl$ and rigorousl$ satisfied in %.ith ;hereas 2icardo strictl$ insisted on it+ 2icardos )ie; of the nature of scientific in<uir$ is .uch .ore re.iniscent of %pino'as .ethod than the episte.olog$ of the e.piricist /oc(e; he consistentl$ adheres to the substanti)e standpoint+ #)er$ indi)idual econo.ic for.ation each separate for. of ;ealth .ust be understood as .odifications of one and the sa.e uni)ersal substance rather than si.pl$ described+ In this respect, too 2icardo and %pino'a are right ;here %.ith and /oc(e are ;rong+ Marx assessed 2icardos role in the de)elop.ent of the theor$ of political econo.$ ;ith classical clarit$ and decisi)enessA
@+++ 2icardo steps in and calls to scienceA 0altQ The basis the starting point for the ph$siolog$ of the bourgeois s$ste. N for the understanding of its internal organic coherence and life process N is the deter.ination of value by labour#time" 2icardo starts ;ith this and forces science to get out of the rut to render an account of the extent to ;hich the other categories N the relations of production and co..erce N e)ol)ed and described b$ it correspond to or contradict this basis this starting6point; to elucidate ho; far a science ;hich in fact onl$ reflects and reproduces the .anifest for.s of the process and therefore also ho; far these .anipulations the.sel)es correspond to the basis on ;hich the inner coherence the actual ph$siolog$ of bourgeois societ$ rests or the basis ;hich for.s its starting6point; and in general to exa.ine ho; .atters stand ;ith the contradiction bet;een the apparent and the actual .o)e.ent of the s$ste.+ This then is 2icardos great historical significance for science B ibidC

5n other ;ords 2icardos )ie; did not consist in the reduction of co.plex pheno.ena to a nu.ber of their ele.entar$ constituents but rather in the deduction of all co.plex pheno.ena fro. one si.ple substance+ K9

*ut that brought 2icardo face to face ;ith the need for consciousl$ abandoning the .ethod of for.ing theoretical abstractions reco..ended for science b$ /oc(ean logic+ #.pirical induction did not correspond to the tas( facing 2icardo the tas( of deducing theoretical definitions fro. one rigorousl$ applied principle N the conception of the nature of )alue as deter.ined b$ labour+ Ada. %.ith to the extent in ;hich he actuall$ produced so.ething .ore significant than .ere description of facts spontaneousl$ and unconsciousl$ contradicted at e)er$ step his o;n philosophical pre.ises borro;ed fro. /oc(e doing so.ething <uite different fro. ;hat he thought lie ;as doing ;hereas 2icardo <uite consciousl$ chose the path of theoretical deduction of categories+ The rigorousl$ deducti)e character of his reasoning has long beco.e pro)erbial a.ong political econo.ists+ *ut it ;as Marx alone ;ho correctl$ e)aluated the significance of this deduction sho;ing it as the natural logical expression of the greatest .erit of 2icardos theoretical approach N his desire to understand all for.s of bourgeois ;ealth ;ithout exception as .ore or less co.plex and re.ote products of labour producing co..odities of labour producing )alue and all categories of political econo.$ as .odifications of the )alue categor$+ Fhat distinguishes hi. fro. %.ith is his desire to regard e.pirical facts consistentl$ and ;ithout ;a)erings fro. one and the sa.e )ie;point rigorousl$ for.ulated in the definition of the basic concept N fro. the labour theor$ of )alue+ This standpoint is also present in %.ith and that .a(es hi. a theoretician+ *ut it is not the onl$ point of )ie; ;ith hi. and on this score 2icardo is decisi)el$ at )ariance ;ith %.ith+ 5n the latter theoretical consideration of facts 7that is their anal$sis fro. the standpoint of the labour theor$ of )alue8 all too often gi)es ;a$ to their purel$ e.pirical description+ 2icardo found spontaneousl$ and b$ trial and error the correct )ie; of the nature of theoretical anal$sis of facts+ 0ence his desire for a strictl$ deducti)e consideration of pheno.ena and categories+ This conception of deduction as is eas$ to see does not $et contain an$thing .etaph$sical or idealistic or for.al logical+ 5n this conception deduction is tanta.ount to a negation of eclecticis. ;ith regard to facts+ That .eans that a conception of the uni)ersal nature or substance of all the particular and indi)idual pheno.ena once established .ust re.ain the sa.e throughout the in)estigation pro)iding guidance for the understanding of an$ particular or indi)idual pheno.enon+ 5n other ;ords deduction in this interpretation 7and in this interpretation onl$Q8 is a s$non$. of a reall$ theoretical attitude to e.pirical facts+ The first for.al indication of decline of 2icardos school of political econo.$ ;as the gi)ing up of the atte.pt to de)elop the entire s$ste. of econo.ic categories fro. one established principle 7the labour theor$ of )alue8+ 2epresentati)es of the @:ulgar econo.$ and still .ore of hotchpotch co.pilation that Marx branded conte.ptuousl$ as the professorial for. of the deca$ of theor$ rebelled first of all against the teachers deducti)e .anner of in<uir$+ The$ re>ected that ;hich ;as 2icardos chief )irtue as a theoretician N his desire to understand each particular categor$ as a converted form of value, as a co.plex .odification of labour creating co..odities+ The principle of the )ulgar and professorial for. of theorising ;as thisA if one could not deduce a conception of real pheno.ena fro. one basis co..on to the. all 7in this case fro. the labour theor$ of )alue8 ;ithout running at once into a contradiction one had to abandon the atte.pt in general one had to introduce still another principle of explanation one .ore @point of )ie;+ 5f that did not help one .erel$ had to introduce a third and a fourth principle ta(ing into account this that and the other+ %upposing one could not explain the real .ar(et )alue 7price8 of a capitalisticall$ produced co..odit$ in ter.s of the necessar$ ti.e spent on its production+ That onl$ .eant that one need not persist in one6 sidedness+ Fh$ not assu.e that )alue co.es fro. .an$ different sources rather than fro. one single uni)ersal source as 2icardo belie)edG -ro. labour too but not onl$ fro. labour+ 1ne .ust not underesti.ate the role of capital and the role of natural fertilit$ of soil; one had to ta(e into account the ;hi.s of fashion accidents of de.and the effect of the seasons 7felt boots cost .ore in ;inter than in su..er8 and a host of other factors including the effect on the .ar(et situation of the periodical changes of the nu.ber of spots on the %un that ha)e an undoubted effect on crops and therefore on the price 7@)alue8 of grain and bread+ Marx ;as ne)er .ore sarcastic than in criticising the .anner of theorising characteristic of the )ulgar and professorial pseudo6theor$+ This eclectic .anner of explaining a co.plex pheno.enon b$ a nu.ber of factors and principles ;ithout an$ inner connection bet;een the. is in Marxs apt phrase a real gra)e for science+ There is no .ore theor$ science no .ore thin(ing in !0

concepts here onl$ a translation of the ;idel$ spread superficial notions into the doctrinaire language of econo.ic ter.inolog$ and their s$ste.atisation+ Dohn M+ &e$nes an ac(no;ledged classic of the entire present6da$ official science of the capitalist ;orld no longer per.its hi.self to spea( of )alue in general+ 5n his )ie; that is an e.pt$ ;ord a .$th+ The onl$ realit$ he recognises is .ar(et price+ The latter according to his theor$ is deter.ined b$ a concurrence of .ost di)erse circu.stances and factors ;here labour pla$s a )er$ insignificant role+ &e$nes insists for instance that the interest6rate entirel$ depends on the e.otions of the o;ners of capital and is therefore a purel$ ps$chological factor+ *ut that is not strong enough for &e$nesA
@5t .ight be .ore accurate perhaps to sa$ that the rate of interest is a highl$ con)entional rather than a highl$ ps$chological pheno.enon+ slu.ps and depressions according to &e$nes are @the .ere conse<uence of upsetting the delicate balance of spontaneous opti.is.+ 5n esti.ating the prospects of in)est.ent ;e .ust ha)e regard therefore to the ner)es and h$steria and e)en the digestions and reactions to the ;eather of those upon ;hose spontaneous acti)it$ it largel$ depends+ B&e$nes 19H6C

There can be no <uestion of theor$ or science here of course+ Fhere )ulgar econo.$ ;as .ostl$ bus$ translating popular superficial conceptions into the doctrinaire language assu.ing that it elaborated concepts .odern bourgeois science passes off the capitalists irrational e.otions in their scholastic expression for concepts+ That is the li.it as the sa$ing goes+ Marx sho;ed clearl$ that after 2icardo the height of bourgeois political econo.$ the latter entered the phase of degradation+ This degradation is certainl$ ca.ouflaged b$ high6sounding )erbiage and appeals for sober inducti)e e.pirical stud$ of facts etc+ 5n opposing their induction to 2icardos deducti)e .ethod the representati)es of the deca$ing bourgeois political econo.$ .erel$ ad)ocate eclecticis. as against rigorous theor$+ 0is desire to co.prehend all categories ;ithout exception fro. the consistent position of the labour theor$ of )alue is unacceptable to the. for as the$ .ight ha)e occasion to see this position ;hen one considers its tendenc$ of de)elop.ent ine)itabl$ leads to the conception of the s$ste. of bourgeois econo.$ as a s$ste. of insoluble antagonis.s and contradictions+ The .oti)e force behind this attitude to 2icardo and his deducti)e .ethod is si.pl$ an apologetic attitude to;ards realit$+ Thus 2icardo does not co.e to the choice of the deducti)e .ethod of considering e.pirical facts out of a lo$alt$ to rationalis.+ 0e applies this .ethod of de)eloping theoretical definitions because it is the onl$ one that ans;ers his desire to understand the s$ste. of bourgeois econo.$ as an integral s$ste. coherent in all its .anifestations rather than as a totalit$ of .ore or less accidental relations of .en and things+ 2icardo ;ants to deduce an$ particular specific for. of relations of production and distribution of ;ealth out of the labour theor$ of )alue out of a theor$ expressing the uni)ersal substance the real essence of all econo.ic pheno.ena+ This desire of 2icardo is his absolute .erit as a theoretician+ The gi)ing up of this desire is in general tanta.ount to a re>ection of theoretical attitude to e.pirical facts+ 0ere ;e see alread$ that the .ethod of reasoning ;hich proceeds fro. a uni)ersal theoretical expression of realit$ as a rigorousl$ tested basic principle can ensure a theoretical attitude to e.pirical facts+ 1ther;ise thought ine)itabl$ slides into eclectic e.piricis.+ 2icardo b$ no .eans re>ects the e.pirical ele.ent in in)estigation+ 1n the contrar$ he realises that a genuine understanding of e.piricall$ gi)en facts genuine 7rather than eclectic8 e.piricis. can onl$ be carried through if e.pirical facts are considered fro. a standpoint in itself substantiated as the onl$ correct and ob>ecti)e one rather than fro. an arbitrar$ standpoint+ %pontaneousl$ obe$ing the logic of things 2icardo thus co.es to the starting6point of theor$ that ;as later chosen b$ Marx consciousl$+ Set the fact that 2icardo arri)ed at this )ie; of realit$ and of ;a$s of reproducing it conceptuall$ in a purel$ spontaneous .anner ha)ing no clear idea of the dialectics of the uni)ersal the particular and the indi)idual ;ith ;hich he had to deal in realit$ this face left its i.print on his theor$+ The conscious philosophical conceptions that ;ere at his disposal N those of the relationship of deduction and induction the uni)ersal and the particular of essence and appearance etc+ had a direct bearing on the process of cognition as it ;as actuall$ carried out b$ hi.+ The$ had a significant effect on his in<uir$ and in so.e cases ;ere directl$ responsible for the failure of his search+ Fhat 2icardo actuall$ did ;as not at all deduction in the sense in ;hich it ;as interpreted b$ the .etaph$sical logic of his epoch; it ;as b$ no .eans speculati)e deduction of one concept fro. another concept+ 5n his hands it is in the first place a .ethod for theoretical expression of e.pirical facts of !1

e.pirical pheno.ena in their inner unit$+ As such this .ethod includes e.pirical induction+ *ut he does not go unscathed b$ the pure s .anner in ;hich induction and deduction coincide in his .ethod+ Fhere he has to ta(e a clear )ie; of his .ethod of stud$ing facts he is co.pelled to accept the conte.porar$ conception of deduction and induction of the relation of the uni)ersal to the particular of the la; to for.s of its .anifestation etc+ The .etaph$sical conception of the categories of logic and of ;a$s of reproducing realit$ in thought directl$ disorients hi. as a theoretician+ /et us anal$se 2icardos line of reasoning to sho; this .ore clearl$+ 0is .ethod is as follo;s+ 0e proceeds fro. the definition of )alue b$ the <uantit$ of labour ti.e ta(ing it as a uni)ersal basic principle of his s$ste.+ Then he atte.pts to appl$ this uni)ersal basic principle directl$ and i..ediatel$ to each of the particular categories ;ith the ai. of chec(ing ;hether the$ agree ;ith this uni)ersal basic principle or not+ #)er$;here he endea)ours to sho; direct coincidence of econo.ic categories ;ith the la; of )alue+ 5n the spirit of conte.porar$ .etaph$sical logic and philosoph$ 2icardo assu.ed that the uni)ersal definition on ;hich he based his deduction ;as a direct generic concept that is an abstract general concept co.prising in itself the features that ;ore directl$ co..on to all pheno.ena co.prehended b$ it and nothing .ore+ The relation of the )alue concept to the concepts of .one$ profit rent ;ages interest etc+ appeared to hi. a genus6to6species relation bet;een concepts+ According to this conception based on a .etaph$sical notion of the relation of the uni)ersal to the particular and the indi)idual the concept of )alue .ust include onl$ those features that are e<uall$ co..on to .one$ profit rent and an$ of the other categories+ 5n the sa.e spirit he belie)ed that an$ specific categor$ ;as not exhausted b$ traits expressed in the definitions of the uni)ersal concept and that each specific categor$ possessed apart fro. these definitions additional features expressing precisel$ the specificit$ of each particular categor$+ Conse<uentl$ it is b$ no .eans enough to subsu.e an$ categor$ under a uni)ersal principle or definition of a uni)ersal concept 7in this case the )alue concept8+ This operation ;ill sho; onl$ that in the particular categor$ ;hich is alread$ expressed in the definitions of the uni)ersal concept+ 5t is then necessar$ to find out ;hat definitions are present in it o)er and abo)e that the definitions expressing the distincti)e rather than the co..on identical features+ This logical conception applied to the categories of political econo.$ appears as follo;s+ Mone$ >ust as all the other categories is a particular for. of )alue+ 5t follo;s that real .one$ is sub>ect in its .otion to the la; of )alue first and fore.ost+ 5t follo;s that the labour theor$ of )alue is directl$ applicable to .one$; in other ;ords definitions contained in the )alue concept .ust abo)e all be included in the theoretical definition of .one$+ That is the ;a$ in ;hich the first definition of .one$ is deduced+ 5t is <uite clear ho;e)er that this does not exhaust the concrete nature of .one$+ The <uestion then naturall$ arises ;hat is .one$ as money, ;hat is .one$ o)er and abo)e the fact that it is the sa.e (ind of )alue as all other (inds ;h$ .one$ is .one$ rather than si.pl$ )alue+ At this point in the stud$ of the nature of .one$ and the for.ation of the necessar$ theoretical definitions of .one$ as a separate econo.ic pheno.enon all deduction naturall$ stops+ Deduction per.itted to distinguish onl$ those definitions of the nature of .one$ ;hich ;ere pre)iousl$ contained in the concept of )alue+ And ;hat is one to do nextG 0o; is one to disco)er in the actual e.pirical pheno.ena of .one$ circulation theoretical definitions that ;ould express >ust as necessar$ properties of .one$ as those that are deduced fro. the )alue conceptG 0o; is one to read in the real .one$ those characteristics that belong to it as necessaril$ as the uni)ersal )alue definitions $et at the sa.e /i.e constitute the difference of .one$ fro. all the other for.s of the existence of )alueG Deduction beco.es i.possible at this point+ 1ne has to resort to induction the goal of ;hich is the singling out of definitions that are e<uall$ inherent in all the cases of the .o)e.ent of .one$ N the specificall$ general properties of .one$+ That is the ;a$ 2icardo is co.pelled to act+ 0e constructs further theoretical definitions of the .one$ for. through i..ediate e.pirical induction through singling out those abstract general properties ;hich all pheno.ena of .one$ circulation ;ithout exception ha)e in co..on+ 0e directl$ generalises the pheno.ena of the .one$ .ar(et in ;hich si.ultaneousl$ di)erse for.s of .one$ circulate N .etal coins bullion paper .one$ etc+ 0e loo(s for the features that are co..on to .etal coins paper ban(notes gold and sil)er bullion ban( )ouchers pro.issor$ notes etc+ That is the fatal ;ea(ness of his theor$ of .one$+ !"

-ollo;ing this line 2icardo confuses theoretical definitions of .one$ as .one$ ;ith those properties ;hich .one$ actuall$ o;es to capital ;hose specific .o)e.ent in .one$ has nothing in co..on ;ith the pheno.ena of .one$ circulation as such+ As a result he ta(es the la;s of .o)e.ent of financial capital for the la;s of .one$ .o)e.ent and )ice )ersa N he reduces the la;s of financial capital to those of si.ple circulation of .etal coins+ Mone$ as such as a specific econo.ic pheno.enon is not co.prehended theoreticall$ >ust as before or rather it is concei)ed erroneousl$+ 2icardo hi.self sensed that this .ethod ;as inade<uate+ 0e understood that the purel$ e.pirical induction to ;hich he had to resort at this point did not and could not b$ its )er$ nature $ield the necessar$ conclusion about the nature of .one$+ This understanding did not co.e fro. purel$ logical considerations+ The fact is that he continuall$ argues ;ith heads of ban(s and financiers ;ho in his )ie; handle .one$ in a ;a$ that contradicts the )alue nature of .one$ rather than agrees ;ith it+ 0e regards this as the cause of all unpleasant conflicts and d$sfunctions in the sphere of .one$ circulation+ That is ;hat co.pels hi. to loo( for the genuine essence and nature of .one$ not the philosophical and logical interest+ The e.piricall$ gi)en picture of .one$ circulation presents so.ething directl$ opposed to the genuine nature of .one$ N the handling of .one$ that does not correspond to the nature of .one$ the results of incorrect handling of .one$ b$ ban(s+ %o purel$ e.pirical induction as 2icardo hi.self understood <uite clearl$ ;ill at best $ield a generalised expression of untrue .o)e.ent of .one$ one that does not correspond to the nature of .one$ and ;ill ne)er $ield a generalised expression of .o)e.ent of .one$ corresponding to the la; of its existence+ 5n other ;ords he ;ants to find a theoretical expression of the (ind of .o)e.ent of .one$ 7gold coins papers )ouchers etc+8 ;hich directl$ ans;ers the re<uire.ents of the uni)ersal la; of )alue and does not depend 7as in the e.pirical realit$8 on the ill ;ill cupidit$ and caprice of heads of ban(s+ 0e searches for the genuine nature of .one$ ;ith the ai. in )ie; that the practical financier should act differentl$ fro. the ;a$ he has acted pre)iousl$ N in accordance ;ith the needs flo;ing fro. the nature of .one$+ 0e endea)ours to sol)e this tas( b$ deducing the theoretical definitions of .one$ fro. the la; of )alue ;hich alone can sho; the necessar$ characteristics contained in the )er$ nature of .one$+ *ut he ;ill not be able to deduce the specific features of .one$ as such those that are not contained in the theoretical definitions of the uni)ersal la; of )alue but constitute the specificit$ of .one$ as a particular kind of value" 3o sophisticated procedures ;ill help to deduce the specific properties of .one$ fro. the definitions of )alue+ Fill$6nill$ the$ ha)e to be obtained not through deduction fro. a uni)ersal principle of the theor$ but through purel$ e.pirical induction b$ extraction of the abstract general fro. all for.s of .one$ circulation ;ithout exception including .etal coins paper .one$ state ban(notes and all the rest+ The conception of .one$ therefore re.ained one of the ;ea(est points of the theor$ of the 2icardian school+ 2icardos deduction actuall$ re.ains purel$ for.al enabling one to single out in the pheno.enon onl$ that ;hich ;as alread$ contained in the definitions of the uni)ersal concept ;hile induction re.ains purel$ e.pirical and for.al rather than theoretical; for.al induction does not per.it to abstract fro. the pheno.enon those of its aspects ;hich necessaril$ belong to it being bound to the nature of the pheno.enon as its attributes rather than e.erging in it through the influence of external circu.stances unconnected ;ith its nature+ The for.al nature of deduction in 2icardos s$ste. ;as still .ore apparent ;hen he atte.pted to include such pheno.ena as profit and surplus6)alue in the sphere of the la; of )alue+ 5n including profit in the uni)ersal categor$ of )alue 2icardo ca.e face to face ;ith the paradox that profit on the one hand could be included in the categor$ of )alue but on the other hand profit contained o)er and abo)e the established uni)ersal definitions so.ething that pro)ed to contradict the uni)ersal la; if one atte.pted to express this @so.ething through the categor$ of )alue+ The situation here is so.e;hat si.ilar to a h$pothetical case ;here one ;ould appl$ the dictu. @All .en are .ortal to a certain Caius and see that on the one hand the dictu. does appl$ to hi. but on the other his indi)idual special trait is precisel$ that he is i..ortal+ That is exactl$ the (ind of absurd situation in ;hich 2icardo found hi.self ;hen he tried to deduce theoretical definitions of profit fro. the la; of )alue ;hen he tried to appl$ the la; of )alue directly to profit+ True 2icardo hi.self did not notice this contradiction although it ;as he ;ho disco)ered it+ *ut it ;as i..ediatel$ noticed b$ ene.ies of the labour theor$ of )alue in particular b$ Malthus+ !H

2icardos adherents and follo;ers tried hard to pro)e ;hat could not be pro)ed that this contradiction in his s$ste. did not actuall$ exist and if it did it resulted .erel$ fro. the teachers )agueness of expression deficienc$ of his ter.inolog$ etc+ and could therefore be eli.inated b$ purel$ for.al .eans N through changes in the ter.s .ore precise definitions expressions etc+ etc+ These atte.pts signified the beginning of the decline of 2icardos school and factual re>ection of the principles of the labour theor$ of )alue despite for.al agree.ent ;ith the.+ Precisel$ because the logical contradiction bet;een the uni)ersal la; of )alue and the la; of the a)erage rate of profit established b$ 2icardos theor$ is a <uite real contradiction all atte.pts to present it as non6existent as the product of )ague expression and i.precise definition could not result in an$thing but factual re>ection of the )er$ essence of the theor$ of its rational (ernel+ The first and principal indication of the decline of 2icardos school ;as the factual discarding of the ob>ecti)e of de)eloping the entire s$ste. of econo.ic categories fro. one uni)ersal principle fro. the principle of defining )alue b$ the <uantit$ of labour ti.e fro. the conception of labour creating )alue as the real substance and source of all the other for.s of ;ealth+ At the sa.e ti.e the de)elop.ent of theor$ after 2icardo directl$ led to the need for a fir. grasp on the dialectics of the relation of the uni)ersal la; to de)eloped for.s of its realisation to the particular+ de)elop.ent of 2icardos theor$ led to the proble. of contradiction in the )er$ essence of the definitions of the sub>ect6.atter of theoretical in)estigation+ 3either 2icardo hi.self nor his orthodox follo;ers could cope ;ith the difficulties through ;hich the actual dialectics of realit$ .anifested itself to thin(ing+ Their reasoning re.ained essentiall$ .etaph$sical and naturall$ could not conceptuall$ express dialectics ;ithout re>ecting its o;n funda.ental logical notions including the .etaph$sical understanding of the relation of the abstract to the concrete of the uni)ersal to the particular and the indi)idual+ 5nabilit$ and un;illingness to consciousl$ express in concepts the contradictions the dialectics inherent in things ;as .anifested in reasoning as ob)ious logical contradictions ;ithin theor$+ Metaph$sics in general (no;s onl$ one ;a$ of sol)ing logical contradictions N elimination of them from reasoning, interpretation of contradictions as products of )agueness of expression definitions etc+ as purel$ sub>ecti)e e)il+ Although 2icardo approached facts and their theoretical expression in a spontaneousl$ correct ;a$ consciously he re.ained on the positions of the .etaph$sical .ethod of reasoning+ Deduction for hi. ;as still a .ethod of de)elop.ent of concepts ;hich per.itted to see in a particular pheno.enon onl$ that ;hich ;as alread$ contained in the .a>or pre.ise in the original uni)ersal concept and its definitions ;hile induction contained thereb$ to be one6sidedl$ e.pirical+ 5t offered no opportunit$ for singling out those traits of pheno.ena ;hich necessaril$ belong to the. and for for.ing a theoretical abstraction that ;ould express pheno.ena in their pure for. in their i..anent content+ Deduction and induction anal$sis and s$nthesis uni)ersal concept and concept expressing the specificit$ of a pheno.enon N all these categories still re.ained .etaph$sical opposites in 2icardo ;hich he could not lin( up+ Deduction continuall$ ca.e into conflict ;ith the tas( of inducti)e generalisation of facts in his s$ste.; in tr$ing to bring anal$tical abstractions into a s$ste. i+e+ to s$nthesise the. he ran into the insur.ountable difficulties of logical contradiction; a uni)ersal concept 7)alue8 pro)ed to be in .utual contradiction ;ith a particular concept 7profit8 in his s$ste. etc+ etc+ 4nder ene.$ fire these internal lifts ;idened and the ;hole labour theor$ of )alue deca$ed turning into co.pilation ;or( ;ithout an$ s$ste. ;hich could onl$ plu.e itself on e.pirical co.prehensi)eness totall$ unacco.panied b$ a theoretical understanding of the actual concreteness+ Philosoph$ and logic of 2icardos ti.e did not 7and could not8 pro)ide an$ correct indications concerning a possible ;a$ out of all these difficulties+ Fhat ;as re<uired here ;as conscious dialectics co.bined ;ith a re)olutionar$ critical attitude to realit$ N a .ode of reasoning that ;as not afraid of contradictions in definitions of ob>ects and ;as alien to an apologetic attitude to the existing state of things+ All these proble.s .et at one point N the need to understand the s$ste. of capitalist production as a concrete historical s$ste. as a s$ste. that e.erged and de)eloped to;ards its end+

Ded"ction and the ,roblem of Historicism

Fhile he )ie;ed the sub>ect6.atter of in<uir$ capitalist econo.$ as a single ;hole coherent in all its .anifestations as a s$ste. of .utuall$ conditioning relations of production and distribution 2icardo at !L

the sa.e ti.e did not regard this s$ste. as a historically emerging and developing integral totalit$ of relations bet;een .en and things in the process of production+ All the .erits of 2icardos .ethod of in<uir$ are closel$ connected ;ith the substanti)e )ie;point that is ;ith the conception of the ob>ect as a single ;hole coherent in all its .anifestations+ Contrari;ise all the defects and )ices of his .ode of unfolding his theor$ are rooted in co.plete failure to understand this ;hole as a historicall$ for.ed one+ The capitalist for. of production see.ed to hi. to be the natural eternal for. of an$ production ;hate)er+ That explains the non6historical 7and e)en anti6historical8 character of his abstractions and lac( of historicis. in the .ethod of obtaining the.+ Deduction of categories ;here it is co.bined ;ith a non6 historical co.prehension of the ob>ect reproduced ;ith its help in the concept ine)itabl$ beco.es purel$ for.al+ 5t is eas$ to see that deduction in its )er$ for. corresponds to the conception of development, of .o)e.ent fro. the si.ple undi)ided and general to the co.plex di)ided indi)idual and particular+ 3o; if ob>ecti)e realit$ reproduced in concepts deducti)el$ is in itself understood as non6de)eloping realit$ as an eternal and natural s$ste. of interacting pheno.ena deduction naturall$ and ine)itabl$ appears onl$ as an artificial procedure in the de)elop.ent of thought+ 5n this case too logic necessaril$ recurs to the )ie; of the nature of deduction ;hich ;as expressed in classicall$ clear for. b$ Descartes+ As he set about the construction of his s$ste. of the ;orld the deduction of all the co.plex for.s of interaction in nature fro. the .o)e.ents of the ele.entar$ particles of .atter defined exclusi)el$ in geo.etrical ter.s Descartes >ustified his .ode of theor$ construction in the follo;ing ;a$A @And its nature 7of the ;orld N !"I"8 is .uch .ore easil$ concei)ed if one thus ;atches its gradual origin than if one considers it as read$ .ade+ 4n;illing to co.e into open conflict ;ith the theological teaching of the creation of the ;orld Descartes i..ediatel$ <ualified this state.entA @At the sa.e ti.e 5 did not ;ish to infer fro. all this that our ;orld ;as created in the ;a$ 5 suggested; for it is .uch .ore li(el$ that fro. the beginning Eod .ade it in the for. it ;as intended to ha)e+ 5t ;as ob)ious to Descartes that the for. of deduction ;hich he consciousl$ applied ;as closel$ a(in to the conception of de)elop.ent and e.ergence of things in their necessit$+ That ;as ;h$ he faced the tic(lish proble. of reconciling deduction and the idea that the ob>ect ;as eternall$ e<ual to itself and had not co.e fro. an$;here in particular being once created b$ Eod+ 2icardo found hi.self in the sa.e (ind of situation+ 0e understood <uite ;ell that onl$ deducti)e .o)e.ent of thought could express pheno.ena in their inner connection and that one could onl$ cognise this connection in considering the gradual e.ergence of di)ers for.s of ;ealth fro. one substance co..on to the. all N fro. co..odit$6producing labour+ *ut ho; ;as one to lin( up this .ode of reasoning ;ills the idea that the bourgeois s$ste. ;as a natural and eternal s$ste. that could neither e.erge nor de)elop in realit$G %till 2icardo reconciled these t;o conceptions in their essence absolutel$ inco.patible+ This ;as reflected in his .ethod of reasoning in the .ethod of for.ing abstractions+ The fact that the construction of theor$ begins ;ith the categor$ of )alue later to proceed to the consideration of other categories .a$ be >ustified b$ the categor$ of )alue being the .ost general concept ;hich i.plies profit interest rent capital and all the rest N a generic abstraction fro. these real particular and indi)idual pheno.ena+ The .o)e.ent of thought fro. an abstract general categor$ to the expression of specific features of real pheno.ena therefore appears as .o)e.ent entirel$ in thought but b$ no .eans in realit$+ 5n realit$ all categories N profit capital rent ;ages .one$ etc+ N exist si.ultaneousl$ ;ith one another the categor$ of )alue expressing ;hat is co..on to the. all+ :alue as such actuall$ exists in the abstraction6.a(ing head onl$ as a reflection of the features ;hich co..odit$ has in co..on ;ith .one$ profit rent ;ages capital etc+ That generic concept co.prising in itself all the particular categories is )alue+ 0ere 2icardo reasoned in the spirit of conte.porar$ no.inalist logic rebelling against .edie)al realis. against creationist conceptions according to ;hich the general sa$ ani.al in general existed before the horse the fox the co; the hare before the particular species of ani.als and ;as subse<uentl$ transfor.ed or @split into the horse the co; the fox the hare etc+ According to 2icardo )alue as such can onl$ exist post rem, onl$ as a .ental abstraction fro. the particular (inds of )alue 7profit rent ;ages etc+8 b$ no .eans ante re. as an independent realit$ chronologicall$ preceding its particular species 7capital profit rent ;ages etc+8+ All these particular !O

species of )alue eternall$ exist side b$ side ;ith one another and b$ no .eans originate in )alue >ust as the horse does not actuall$ deri)e fro. the ani.al in general+ The trouble ;as ho;e)er that the no.inalist conception of the general concept >ustifiabl$ attac(ing the principal proposition of .edie)al realis. in general eli.inated fro. the real ;orld of indi)idual things along ;ith that proposition the idea of their real de)elop.ent+ 5nas.uch as 2icardo held the bourgeois )ie; of the essence of bourgeois econo.$ the one6sided and extre.el$ .etaph$sical conception of no.inalis. in logic appeared to hi. to be .ost natural and appropriate+ 1nl$ indi)idual pheno.ena belonging to the particular species of )alue existed eternall$ N co..odit$ .one$ capital profit rent etc+ As for )alue it ;as an abstraction fro. these indi)idual and particular econo.ic pheno.ena N universalia post rem, b$ no .eans universalia ante rem" That ;as ;h$ 2icardo did not stud$ )alue as such )alue in itself .ost rigorousl$ abstracted fro. profit ;ages rent and co.petition+ 0a)ing for.ulated the concept of )alue lie proceeded directl$ to the consideration of de)eloped particular categories directl$ appl$ing the )alue concept to profit ;ages rent .one$ etc+ That is the .ost natural logical .o)e if one concei)es realit$ reproduced b$ .eans of it as an eternal s$ste. of interaction of particular species of )alue+ 5f the content of the uni)ersal concept underl$ing the entire s$ste. of the theor$ is to be understood as a su. of features abstractl$ co..on to all particular and indi)idual pheno.ena one ;ill necessaril$ act as 2icardo did+ 5f the uni)ersal is understood as the abstract feature co..on to all indi)idual and particular pheno.ena ;ithout exception to obtain theoretical definitions of )alue one ;ill ha)e to consider profit rent etc+ and abstract ;hat is co..on to the.+ That ;as the ;a$ 2icardo acted+ And that ;as ;hat Marx sharpl$ criticised hi. for since here 2icardos anti#historical approach to )alue and its species ;as particularl$ apparent+ The greatest defect of 2icardos .ethod of in<uir$ according to Marx la$ in that he did not stud$ speciall$ the theoretical definitions of )alue as such co.pletel$ independent fro. the effects of production of surplus6)alue co.petition profit ;ages and all the other pheno.ena+ The first chapter of 2icardos principal ;or( treats not onl$ of exchange of one co..odit$ for another 7that is of the ele.entar$ for. of )alue )alue as such8 but also of profit ;ages capital the a)erage rate of profit and the li(e+
@1ne can see that though 2icardo is accused of being too abstract one ;ould be >ustified in accusing hi. of the oppositeA lac( of the po;er of abstraction inabilit$ ;hen dealing ;ith the )alues of co..odities to forget profits a factor ;hich confronts hi. as a result of co.petition+ BTheories of (urplus#&alue 55C

*ut this re<uire.ent the re<uire.ent of ob>ecti)e co.pleteness of abstraction is i.possible to satisf$ unless first one gi)es up the for.al .etaph$sical conception of the uni)ersal concept 7as a si.ple abstraction fro. the particular and indi)idual pheno.ena to ;hich it refers8 and second one accepts the standpoint of historicis. in the conception in this instance of the de)elop.ent fro. )alue to profit+ Marx de.ands fro. science that it should co.prehend the econo.ic s$ste. as a s$ste. that has e.erged and de)eloped he de.ands that the logical de)elop.ent of categories should reproduce the actual histor$ of the e.ergence and unfolding of the s$ste.+ 5f that is so )alue as the starting point of theoretical conception should be understood in science as an ob>ecti)e econo.ic realit$ e.erging and existing before such pheno.ena as profit capital ;ages rent etc+ can e.erge and exist+ Therefore theoretical definitions of )alue should also be obtained in <uite a different .anner than .ere abstraction of the features co..on to co..odit$ .one$ capital profit ;ages and rent+ All these things are assu.ed to be non#existent" The$ did not exist eternall$ at all but so.eho; and at so.e point did e.erge and this e.ergence in its necessit$ should be disco)ered b$ science+ :alue is a real ob>ecti)e condition ;ithout ;hich neither capital nor .one$ nor an$thing else is possible+ Theoretical definitions of )alue as such can onl$ be obtained b$ considering a certain ob>ecti)e econo.ic realit$ capable of existing before outside and independentl$ of all those pheno.ena that later de)eloped on its basis+ This ele.entar$ ob>ecti)e econo.ic realit$ existed long before the e.ergence of capitalis. and all the categories expressing its structure+ This realit$ is direct exchange of one commodity for another commodity"

!6

Fe ha)e seen that the classics of political econo.$ ;or(ed out the uni)ersal concept of )alue exactl$ through considering this realit$ although the$ had no idea of the real philosophical and theoretical .eaning of their acts+ 1ne ;ould assu.e that 2icardo ;ould ha)e been not a little perplexed if so.eone ;ere to point out the fact that both his predecessors and he hi.self did not ;or( out the universal categor$ of his science b$ considering an abstract general rule to ;hich all things ha)ing )alue are sub>ect N on the contrar$ the$ did so b$ considering a very rare exception from the rule N direct exchange of one co..odit$ for another ;ithout .one$+ 5nas.uch as the$ did so the$ obtained a reall$ ob>ecti)e theoretical conception of )alue+ *ut since the$ did not adhere strictl$ enough to the consideration of this particular .ode of econo.ic interaction extre.el$ rare in de)eloped capitalis. the$ could not full$ grasp the essence of )alue+ 0erein lies the dialectics of Marxs conception of the uni)ersal N the dialectics in the conception of the .ethod of elaborating the uni)ersal categor$ of the s$ste. of science+ 5t is eas$ to see that this conception is onl$ possible on the basis of an essentiall$ historical approach to the stud$ of ob>ecti)e realit$+ Deduction based on conscious historicis. beco.es the onl$ logical for. corresponding to the )ie; of the ob>ect as historicall$ e.erging and de)eloping rather than read$ .ade+
@1;ing to the theor$ of e)olution the ;hole classification of organis.s has been ta(en a;a$ fro. induction and brought bac( to =deduction? to descent N one species being literall$ deduced fro. another b$ descent N and it is i.possible to pro)e the theor$ of e)olution b$ induction alone since it is <uite anti6inducti)e+ B#ngels+ *ialectics of 6atureC

The horse and the co; did not of course descend fro. the ani.al in general >ust as the pear and the apple are not products of self6alienation of the concept of fruit in general+ *ut the co; and the horse undoubtedl$ had a co..on ancestor in the re.ote past epochs ;hile the apple and the pear are also products of differentiation of a for. of fruit co..on to both of the.+ This actual co..on ancestor of the co; the horse the hare the fox and all the other no; existing species of ani.als did not of course exist in di)ine reason as an idea of the ani.al in general but in nature itself as a <uite real particular species fro. ;hich di)ers other species descended through differentiation+ This uni)ersal for. of ani.al ani.al as such if $ou ;ish is b$ no .eans an abstraction co.prising in itself onl$ that feature ;hich is co..on to all the no; existing particular species of ani.als+ This uni)ersal ;as at the sa.e ti.e a particular species possessing not onl$ and not so .uch those traits that ;ere preser)ed in all the descendants as features co..on to the. all but also its o;n specific features partl$ inherited b$ the descendants partl$ entirel$ lost and replaced b$ ne; ones+ The concrete i.age of the uni)ersal ancestor of all the species existing at present cannot in principle be constructed out of those properties that these species ha)e in co..on+ Doing this sort of thing in biolog$ ;ould .ean ta(ing the sa.e ;rong a)enue b$ ;hich 2icardo hoped to arri)e at a definition of )alue as such of the uni)ersal for. of )alue assu.ing that these definitions ;ere abstractions fro. profit rent capital and all the other particular for.s of )alue that he obser)ed+ The idea of de)elop.ent as real descent of so.e pheno.ena fro. others deter.ines the dialectical .aterialist conception of deduction of categories of ascent fro. the abstract to the concrete fro. the uni)ersal 7;hich is in itself <uite a definite particular8 to the particular 7;hich also expresses a uni)ersal and necessar$ definition of the ob>ect8+ The basic uni)ersal foundation of a s$ste. of theoretical definitions 7the basic concept of science8 expresses fro. the standpoint of dialectics concrete theoretical definitions of quite a specific and definite t$pical phenomenon sensuall$ and practicall$ gi)en in e.pirical conte.plation in social practice and experi.ent+ This Pheno.enon is specific in that it is reall$ 7outside the theoreticians head8 the starting6point of de)elop.ent of the anal$sed totalit$ of interacting pheno.ena of the concrete ;hole ;hich is in the gi)en case that concrete ;hole that is the ob>ect of logical reproduction+ %cience .ust begin ;ith that ;ith ;hich real histor$ began+ /ogical de)elop.ent of theoretical definitions .ust therefore express the concrete historical process of the e.ergence and de)elop.ent of the ob>ect+ /ogical deduction is nothing but a theoretical expression of the real historical de)elop.ent of the concreteness under stud$+ To understand this principle correctl$ one .ust ta(e a concrete essentiall$ dialectical )ie; of the nature of historical de)elop.ent+ This .ost i.portant point of Marxs logic N his )ie; of the relation of !K

scientific de)elop.ent to historical one 7the relation of the logical to the historical8.ust be considered speciall$+ Fithout it the .ethod of ascent fro. the abstract to the concrete re.ains inexplicable+ "ha!ter / $ o,ical %evelo!.ent and "oncrete Historicis.

On the Difference 2et/een the Logical and the Historical Methods of &n3"iry
Fe ha)e alread$ co..ented on the .ost significant circu.stance that theoretical anal$sis of e.pirical facts al;a$s naturall$ coincides ;ith critical anal$sis of concepts ;ith creati)e de)elop.ent of the a)ailable historicall$ established categories and that no)el theoretical conception of facts 7a ne; s$ste. of categories8 ne)er e.erges out of no;here ne)er @straight fro. the facts as positi)ists and )ulgar scientists ;ould ha)e it but through a .ost rigorous scientific criti<ue of the a)ailable s$ste. of categories+ The proble. of creati)e continuit$ in the de)elop.ent of theor$ 7the proble. of the historical de)elop.ent of science8 is al;a$s pushed into the foreground ;hen the <uestion arises of the relation of scientific 7logical8 de)elop.ent to historical+ 5n his re)ie;s of Marxs Contribution to the Critique of Political conomy #ngels sho;ed clearl$ that the proble. of the relation of the logical to the historical directl$ e.erges before the theoretician as the <uestion of the way of criticising available theoretical literature+ @#)en after the deter.ination of the .ethod the criti<ue of econo.ics could still be arranged in t;o ;a$s N historicall$ or logicall$+ 0o;e)er inas.uch as a no)el theoretical conception of facts can onl$ be ;or(ed out through criti<ue of a)ailable theoretical literature the .ode of criti<ue of theoretical literature coincides essentiall$ ;ith the attitude to facts+ Theoretical categories are criticised b$ co.paring the. ;ith actual e.pirical facts+ 5n this respect there is no difference bet;een the logical and the historical .odes of anal$sis of concepts and facts and neither can there be+ The difference lies else;here+ 5n the so called historical .ode of criti<ue of pre)ious theories the$ are collated ;ith the sa.e historical facts on the basis of ;hich the$ ;ere created+ -or instance if Marx had chosen the historical .ode of criti<ue of 2icardos theor$ he ;ould ha)e had to co.pare this theor$ ;ith facts of 2icardos ti.e N that is the facts of capitalist de)elop.ent of the late 1!th6earl$ 19th centur$+ The theor$ of 2icardo its categories and la;s ;ould ha)e been criticall$ co.pared ;ith facts of .ore or less re.ote past ;ith facts of an unde)eloped stage of capitalist realit$+ Set this .ode of criti<ue assu.es that the facts the.sel)es ha)e been studied ;ell or .ust be studied ;ell ;hereas in this case the facts ;ere not studied or co.prehended scientificall$ .oreo)er the$ had not been e)en collected and su..ed up+ 4nder these conditions the historical .ethod of criti<ue ;as apparentl$ inexpedient+ 5t ;ould ha)e .erel$ dela$ed ;or(+ Therefore Marx preferred the so6called logical .ode of criti<ue and correspondingl$ the logical .ode of considering realit$+ 5n this .ode a historicall$ preceding theor$ is not criticall$ co.pared ;ith those )er$ facts on the basis of ;hich it e.erged but ;ith the facts existing at a difference stage in the de)elop.ent of the ob>ect N ;ith the facts directl$ obser)ed b$ Marx hi.self+ This .ode has t;o decisi)e ad)antagesA first the facts fro. Marxs o;n ti.e ;ere better (no;n to hi. and if need be could be thoroughl$ chec(ed out and second the$ re)ealed the tendencies of capitalist de)elop.ent .uch .ore distinctl$ and acutel$ than the facts of 2icardos ti.e+ #)er$thing that e.erged rather )aguel$ in the earl$619th centur$ assu.ed a .uch .ore .ature for. of expression b$ the .id619th centur$ N suffice it to .ention here the econo.ic crises+ The logical .ode therefore enables one to consider each econo.ic pheno.enon 7insofar as ;e are dealing ;ith political econo.$8 precisel$ at that point ;here it reaches a .axi.al expression and de)elop.ent+ Clearl$ logical co.parison ;ith the actual facts of de)eloped capitalis. re)ealed ;ith greater facilit$ both the falsit$ of so.e of 2icardos theoretical propositions and their rational (ernel+ At the sa.e ti.e !!

the realit$ of Marxs o;n ti.es ;as directl$ expressed+ These are the t;o decisi)e ad)antages of the logical .ode of anal$sis of concepts and facts as co.pared to the historical one+ %till these ad)antages ;ould not be apparent and the .ethod of logical anal$sis itself ;ould not be >ustified fro. the philosophical standpoint if ;e had not sho;n ;h$ and in ;hat ;a$ anal$sis of a higher stage of de)elop.ent can gi)e a historical conception of realit$ ;ithout recourse to a detailed stud$ of the past 7for in so.e cases it is extre.el$ difficult ;hile in others i.possible at all as for instance in the stud$ of cos.olog$8+ 5n other ;ords ;e ha)e to (no; ;h$ and in ;hat ;a$ theoretical 7s$ste.atical logical8 anal$sis of the present can simultaneously disclose the .$ster$ of the past N of the histor$ that led to the present+ /et us first anal$se t;o relations that .a$ in principle exist bet;een the de)elop.ent of science and the histor$ of its sub>ect6.atter+ 5n the first instance theor$ de)elops ;ithin a period of ti.e that is too short for the ob>ect itself to undergo an$ significant changes+ This relation is .ore characteristic of the natural sciences astrono.$ 7cos.olog$8 ph$sics che.istr$ etc+ 5n this case application of the logical .ode of anal$sis of concepts and facts is not onl$ >ustifiable but e)en the onl$ possible ;a$+ The different stages in the de)elop.ent of the science deal ;ith the sa.e historical stage in the de)elop.ent of the ob>ect ;ith the sa.e ob>ect at the sa.e stage of de)elop.ent+ Thus 3e;ton /aplace &ant and 1tto %ch.idt described the sa.e stage in the de)elop.ent of the solar6 planetar$ s$ste.+ Application of the logical ;a$ of criticising categories 7as ;ell as correspondingl$ the .ode of theoretical expression of facts8 is in this case naturall$ >ustified+ The old theor$ and its categories are concei)ed as an inco.plete one6sided and abstract expression of the truth+ The ne; theor$ appears as a .ore co.prehensi)e and concrete theoretical expression of the essence of the sa.e facts the sa.e ob>ect+ The rational (ernel of the pre)ious theor$ is included in the ne; one as its abstract co.ponent+ Fhat is discarded is the conception that the old theor$ co.prised in itself an exhausti)e expression of the essence of facts+ The old theor$ 7of course not all of it but the rational (ernel of it onl$8 beco.es in the process one of the shades of the ne; theor$ a particular instance of the uni)ersal principle of the ne; theor$+ The theoreticians right to appl$ the logical .ode of criti<ue of pre)ious theories is here based on the fact that theories and categories anal$sed ;ith reference to actuall$ gi)en facts reflected the very same object ;hich heIshe no; has before hisIher e$es+ The theoretician therefore arranges a confrontation bet;een theories constructed hundreds of $ears ago and the facts obser)ed at present usuall$ ;ithout an$ doubts as to hisIher right to do so+ Matters are .ore co.plicated in the second case ;here different stages in the de)elop.ent of science deal ;ith different historical stages in the de)elop.ent of the ob>ect+ 0ere the histor$ of science itself ser)es as a (ind of .irror for the histor$ of the ob>ect+ Changes in the science reflect .a>or historical changes in the structure of the ob>ect itself+ The ob>ect de)elops fast enough and the historical periods in its de)elop.ent coincide ;ith those of the de)elop.ent of the science and its categories+ 5t goes ;ithout sa$ing that this case is .ore characteristic of the social sciences+ A t$pical exa.ple here is political econo.$+ Aesthetics ethics episte.olog$ the science of la; are all in .uch the sa.e situation+ The doubt .a$ naturall$ arise ;hether the logical .ode of de)elop.ent of theor$ is in general applicable here+ 0o; can one co.pare the theor$ and categories de)eloped hundreds 7or e)en do'ens8 of $ears ago ;ith facts obser)ed at presentG 5n this case the ob>ect has changed considerabl$ during these $ears6 ;ill the logical .ode of criti<ue of categories be effecti)e in this caseG 1r ;ill it .erel$ lead to .isunderstandings to expression of different things in the sa.e categories to theoreticall$ fruitless debateG The dialectical6.aterialist conception of de)elop.ent disperses these doubts+ 5t should be ta(en into account that in this case too science throughout its de)elop.ent deals ;ith facts referring to one and the same object although this ob>ect appears at different stages and phases of its .aturit$+ That .eans that those reall$ uni)ersal and necessar$ la;s that .a(e up the @ele.entar$ essence of the ob>ect under stud$ the abstract outlines of its inner structure re.ain the sa.e throughout its historical de)elop.ent+ 1n the other hand those pheno.ena and categories ;hich appear at the earl$ stages of de)elop.ent but !9

disappear ;ithout a trace at the higher ones ob>ecti)el$ pro)e b$ the )er$ fact of their disappearance that the$ are not attributi)e internall$ necessar$ for.s of being of the ob>ect+ 5n his anal$sis of econo.ic theories and categories de)eloped b$ his predecessors 7not onl$ b$ Ada. %.ith and Da)id 2icardo but e)en b$ Aristotle8 Marx confidentl$ applies the logical .ode of criti<ue using the historical .ode onl$ occasionall$ as an auxiliar$ one+ This .ode of anal$sis of the theories of the past is not onl$ ad.issible but also the .ost expedient in the de)elop.ent of the general theory of so.e sub>ect as it lea)es aside all those .o.ents that are of historical significance onl$ characterising as the$ do .ore or less accidental circu.stances ;ithin ;hich the de)elop.ent of the ob>ect that is of interest for the general theor$ proceeded+ The logical .ode of criti<ue and de)elop.ent of theor$ gi)es Marx an ob>ecti)e criterion for distinguishing bet;een categories pertaining to the inner structure of the capitalist organis. and all those .o.ents that are connected ;ith for.s of production ousted out or destro$ed in the course of its de)elop.ent ;ith the purel$ local traits of capitalist de)elop.ent in that particular countr$ ;here the anal$sed theor$ e.erged etc+ The ad)antages of the logical .ode of criti<ue of pre)ious theories ste. fro. the fact that the .ore .ature stage in the de)elop.ent of the ob>ect ;ith ;hich the theories of the past are directl$ co.pared re)eals the attributi)e for.s of its structure ;ith greater clarit$ and distinctness sho;ing the. in their <uite pure for.+ The ad)antage of the logical .ode is pointed out b$ #ngels in his re)ie; of Marxs Contribution to the Critique of Political conomyA @+++ each factor can be exa.ined at the stage of de)elop.ent ;here it reaches its full .aturit$ its classical for.+ -or this reason ;e can criticall$ anal$se 0egels Logic ta(ing into account the facts of de)elop.ent of modern science rather than those of 0egels ti.es and this criti<ue ;ill result in dialectical elucidation of these facts as ;ell as in .aterialist conception of the categories of 0egelian dialectics of their rational (ernel+ Ta(ing this into account Marx belie)es it to be not onl$ >ustifiable but also .ost expedient to choose the logical .ode of criti<ue of pre)ious theories and of de)eloping their rational (ernel in the socio6 historical fields of (no;ledge as ;ell as in the natural sciences ;here the ob>ect re.ains i..utable throughout the de)elop.ent of science+ There is no gap in principle bet;een the natural and social sciences in this respect+ *esides the situation in the natural sciences is not so si.ple as it .a$ appear at first sightA although #instein dealt ;ith @the sa.e ob>ect as 3e;ton did the i..ediate facts fro. ;hich he proceeded in his criti<ue of 3e;tonian .echanics ;ere different+ The sensual6practical experi.ental acti)it$ of the social .an sho;ed hi. the sa.e ob>ect .uch .ore full$ and co.prehensi)el$+ Thus fro. this side too the right to appl$ the logical .ode of criti<ue and de)elop.ent of theor$ in the social sciences is substantiated >ust as ;ell as in the natural ones+ 5n both t$pes of sciences the social .ans sensual6practical acti)it$ pro)es to be the .ediating lin( bet;een the ob>ect @in itself and the theoreticians thought+ -or this reason practice appears as the decisi)e argu.ent in the anal$sis of the relation bet;een the natural and social sciences ;hich refutes the neo6&antian idea of the ab$ss that in principle exists bet;een the .ethods of the natural and the socio6 historical sciences+ 1f course Marx does not rule out the historical .ethod of criti<ue of his predecessors at all+ Marx continuall$ resorts to it re)ealing the historical circu.stances ;ithin ;hich the theor$ that he criticises e.erged+ %till the historical .ethod of criti<ue pla$s but a subordinate auxiliar$ role ;ith hi.+ The principal .ethod of the criti<ue and de)elop.ent of theor$ re.ains the logical one+ @To de)elop the la;s of bourgeois econo.$ it is not necessar$ to ;rite the real history of the production relations. *ut the correct )ie; and deduction of the latter as relations that gre; historicall$ al;a$s leads to certain first correlations N li(e the e.pirical nu.erical data in the natural sciences N ;hich point to the past l$ing behind this s$ste.+ These indications together ;ith correct conception of the present offer then the (e$ to the understanding of the past B!rundrisseC ;rote Marx in 1!O!+

Logical De%elopment as 'xpression of Concrete Historicism in &n%estigation

90

5n the abo)e ;e for.ulated the <uestion as follo;sA ;h$ and in ;hat ;a$ the theoretical anal$sis 7anal$sis of facts through a criti<ue of categories8 proceeding fro. the results of the historical process can in itself $ield an essentiall$ historical 7though logical in for.8 expression of realit$ e)en ;here real 7e.pirical8 histor$ leading to these results is not directl$ studied in detail+ The ans;er to this <uestion can onl$ be obtained through considering the real dialectical la;s ;hich go)ern an$ actual de)elop.ent in nature societ$ and in cognition itself in thought+ 5f in stud$ing the results of a certain historical process ;e can disco)er the histor$ of their e.ergence and de)elop.ent sublated in the. if ;e can proceeding fro. the results of histor$ theoreticall$ reconstruct the general outline of their e.ergence this possibilit$ is based in the first place on the fact that the ob>ecti)e result of the de)elop.ent preser)es in itself its o;n histor$ in a changed sublated for.+ 0ere again a logical proble. is transfor.ed into the proble. of la;6go)erned correlation bet;een historical de)elop.ent and its o;n results+ As ;e pointed out in the abo)e the reall$ uni)ersal and necessar$ .o.ents characterising the ob>ect as a concrete historical ;hole are preser)ed in it throughout its existence and de)elop.ent constituting the la; of its concrete historical de)elop.ent+ The proble. then is to find out in ;hat shape and for. the historical conditions of the ob>ects e.ergence and de)elop.ent are preser)ed at the higher stages of its de)elop.ent+ 0ere ;e confront the fact of dialectical relation bet;een the historicall$ preceding conditions of the e.ergence of the ob>ect and their later conse<uences that ha)e de)eloped on this basis+ The dialectics of this relation consists in a (ind of in)ersion of the historicall$ preceding into the subse<uent and )ice )ersa the transfor.ation of the condition into the conditioned of the effect into a cause of the co.plex into the ele.entar$ etc+ 1;ing to this ob>ecti)e dialectics a situation arises ;hich appears to be paradoxical at first sightA a logical presentation of the la;s of the historical process 7a conception of facts that is logical in for. and concrete historical in essence8 is a re)ersal of the picture that appears to be natural and corresponding to the e.piricall$ stated order of the de)elop.ent of the ob>ect+ To understand this dialectics the follo;ing fact should be ta(en into account+ An$ real process of concrete de)elop.ent 7in nature societ$ or consciousness8 ne)er begins fro. scratch or in the ether of pure reason but on the basis of pre.ises and conditions created b$ different processes sub>ect to different la;s and ulti.atel$ b$ the entire pre)ious de)elop.ent of the uni)erse+ Thus hu.anit$ begins its specific histor$ on the basis of pre.ises and conditions created before it and independentl$ of it b$ nature+ The e.ergence of life 7a specificall$ biological de)elop.ent8 i.plies )er$ co.plex che.ical co.binations for.ed independentl$ fro. life+ An$ <ualitati)el$ ne; for. of de)elop.ent e.erges ;ithin the context of circu.stances arising independentl$ fro. it and .oreo)er its entire subse<uent de)elop.ent la(es place ;ithin the sa.e context a )er$ co.plex interaction ;ith the.+ That .uch is clear+ *ut then ;e run into a difficult$ N the dialectical nature of relations bet;een lo;er and higher for.s of de)elop.ent and ob>ecti)e changes of their role in this relationship+ The point is that a historicall$ posterior result arising fro. the entire preceding de)elop.ent does not re.ain .erel$ a passi)e result .erel$ a conse<uence+ #ach ne;l$ arisen 7higher8 for. of interaction beco.es a no; uni)ersal principle do.inating all historicall$ preceding for.s transfor.ing the. into secondar$ external for.s of its specific de)elop.ent into @organs of its bod$ as Marx put it in connection ;ith one instance of this (ind+ The$ begin to .o)e according to la;s characteristic of the ne; s$ste. of interaction in ;hich the$ no; function+ The ne; and higher 7historicall$ later8 s$ste. of concrete interaction begins to preser)e and acti)el$ reproduce b$ its o;n .o)e.ent all the reall$ necessar$ conditions of its .o)e.ent+ 5t generates as it ;ere out of itself e)er$thing that ;as originall$ created b$ the pre)ious de)elop.ent and not b$ itself+ 5n this case too de)elop.ent ta(es the spiral6li(e for. ;hich ;e anal$sed in the first part of the ;or( as a .ost characteristic feature of internal interaction of concreteness in the genuine sense of the concept+ The necessaril$ assu.ed condition of historical e.ergence of the ob>ect beco.es in this case the necessaril$ posited conse<uence of its specific de)elop.ent+ 5n this for. the historicall$ necessar$ conditions of the e.ergence of the ob>ect are preser)ed in its structure throughout its de)elop.ent its specific .o)e.ent+ All those .o.ents ;hich though present at the birth of the ne; for. of de)elop.ent ;ere not absolutel$ necessar$ conditions of this birth are not in the final anal$sis preser)ed or reproduced+ These for.s are not obser)ed at the higher stages of de)elop.ent of the ob>ect N the$ disappear in the course of its historical .aturing beco.ing lost in the dar(ness of the past+ 91

-or this reason a logical consideration of the higher stage of de)elop.ent of an ob>ect of an alread$ de)eloped s$ste. of interaction re)eals a picture in ;hich all the reall$ necessar$ conditions of its e.ergence and e)olution are retained and all the .ore or less accidental purel$ historical conditions of its e.ergence are absent+ /ogical anal$sis does not therefore ha)e to free fro. the purel$ historical accidentals and fro. the historical for. the presentation of those reall$ uni)ersal and absolutel$ necessar$ conditions under ;hich the gi)en s$ste. of interaction could onl$ e.erge and ha)ing e.erged could continue to exist and de)elop+ The historical process itself does the ;or( of this purification instead of and before the theoretician+ 5n other ;ords the ob>ecti)e historical process itself carries out the abstraction ;hich retains onl$ the concrete uni)ersal .o.ents of de)elop.ent freed fro. the historical for. dependent on the concurrence of .ore or less accidental circu.stances+ Theoretical establish.ent of such .o.ents results in concrete historical abstractions+ That ;as the principle b$ ;hich Marx ;as confidentl$ guided in anal$sing the categories of political econo.$+ /abour po;er as such as abilit$ for ;or( in general one of the historical pre.ises of the origin of capital in the sa.e ;a$ as land air and .ineral deposits+ As such it re.ains a .ere pre.ise of the e.ergence of capital ;ithout being at the sa.e ti.e its conse<uence or product+ 1n the other hand capital acti)el$ reproduces 7engenders as its product8 labour power as commodity that is as the concrete historical for. in ;hich labour po;er functions in the capacit$ of an ele.ent of capital+ The sa.e thing occurs ;ith co..odities .one$ co..ercial profit rent etc+A as such the$ belong to @antedilu)ian pre.ises of capitalist de)elop.ent to its @prehistoric conditions+ As concrete historical for.s of being of capital reflecting in their .o)e.ent its specific histor$ the$ are products of capital itself+ As a result all the reall$ necessar$ conditions for the e.ergence of capital are obser)ed on the surface of de)eloped capital as its secondar$ for.s and the$ are obser)ed in a for. that is free fro. its historical integu.ent+ 2eproducing the. as its product capital erases all )estiges of their original historical i.age+ %i.ultaneousl$ logical anal$sis pro)ides indications for historical in<uir$ too+ 5n its conclusions it guides the historian to;ards the search for the reall$ necessar$ conditions and pre.ises of the e.ergence of a certain process pro)iding a criterion for distinguishing bet;een the essential and the .erel$ stri(ing the necessar$ and the purel$ accidental etc+ The dialectics described here does not of course ta(e place in the case of capital onl$+ That is a uni)ersal la;+ The sa.e thing .a$ be obser)ed for instance in the for.ation of the biological for. of the .o)e.ent of .atter+ 1riginall$ the ele.entar$ protein bod$ e.erges independentl$ of an$ biological processes si.pl$ as a che.ical product and a )er$ unstable product at that+ #)en no; ;e do not (no; ;ith sufficient precision in ;hat ;a$ and under ;hat concrete conditions this ele.entar$ biological for.ation e.erged+ Che.istr$ cannot as $et create a li)ing protein bod$ artificiall$ it cannot create conditions in ;hich such a bod$ ;ould necessaril$ e.erge+ That .eans that che.ists do not $et (no; ;hat those conditions ;ere+ Fhat is reliabl$ (no;n and ob>ecti)el$ established is the fact that ;ithin a de)eloped biological organis. these conditions 7the entire necessar$ totalit$ of these conditions8 are actuall$ present the$ are actuall$ realised as long as the organis. li)es+ The conditions under ;hich .atter co.ing fro. the outside is transfor.ed into protein into li)ing .atter can here be deter.ined <uite ob>ecti)el$ and strictl$+ At the sa.e ti.e the original products of the che.is. .a$ be disco)ered ;hich are capable of beco.ing a li)ing bod$ under proper conditions ta(ing into account that not an$ substance can be assi.ilated b$ the organis.+ Thus the stud$ of processes ta(ing place in the organis.s li)ing at present can and does gi)e a (e$ to an understanding of the origin of life on the earth N true in the .ost general outline onl$+ Fe can conclude that the logical de)elop.ent of categories presenting the internal structure of the ob>ect in the for. in ;hich it is obser)ed at the higher stages of its de)elop.ent leads in the first approxi.ation to a conception of the histor$ of its origin of the la; of the for.ation of this structure+ /ogical de)elop.ent therefore coincides ;ith historical de)elop.ent internall$ in the essence of things+ *ut this coincidence is profoundl$ dialectical and it cannot be achie)ed ;ithout a co.prehension of this dialectics+ 9"

Abstract and Concrete Historicism

A concrete understanding of realit$ cannot be attained ;ithout a historical approach to it+ The re)erse is also true N historicis. de)oid of concreteness is pure fiction pseudohistoricis.+ 5n these da$s one can hardl$ find a scientist ;ho ;ould re>ect the idea of de)elop.ent in its general abstract for.+ *ut the standpoint of historicis. unless it is co.bined ;ith the dialectical idea of concreteness ine)itabl$ beco.es e.pt$ )erbiage+ 3on6concrete that is abstract historicis. far fro. being alien to the .etaph$sical .ode of reasoning constitutes a .ost characteristic feature of it+ Metaph$sicians al;a$s expostulate ;illingl$ and at length on the need for a historical approach to pheno.ena .a(ing excursion into the histor$ of the ob>ect and ;or(ing on @historical substantiations of their theoretical constructions+ Distinguishing bet;een the concrete historicis. of the .ethod of .aterialist dialectics and the abstract historicis. of .etaph$sicians is not as eas$ as .ight see. at first sight+ 5t is )er$ eas$ to slide to the standpoint of abstract historicis. 7or pseudohistoricis.8+ Moreo)er this standpoint appears to be the .ost natural one+ 5ndeed isnt it natural to consider the histor$ ;hich created an ob>ect if one ;ants to for. a historical conception of the ob>ectG *ut this si.ple and natural )ie; <uic(l$ leads to insoluble difficulties+ To begin ;ith an$ historicall$ e.erging ob>ect has behind it as its past the entire infinite histor$ of the 4ni)erse+ Therefore an atte.pt to understand a pheno.enon historicall$ through tracing out all the processes and pre.ises preceding its birth ine)itabl$ leads into bad infinit$ and for this reason if not for an$ other ;ill not result in an$thing definite or concrete+ Fhether one ;ishes to do so or not but in going bac( one ;ill ha)e to stop so.e;here to begin at so.e point+ 3o; ;hat is one to begin ;ithG Abstract historicis. sets no li.its here for sub>ecti)is. and arbitrariness+ *ut that is not all+ The standpoint of abstract historicis. leads ine)itabl$ and irrespecti)el$ of ones desires to crude antihistoricis. under the guise of the historical approach+ 5t is not difficult to see ;h$ that is so+ *ourgeois econo.ists ;ho interpret capital as accu.ulated labour in general <uite logicall$ and naturall$ consider the hour of its historical birth to be the hour in ;hich the pri.iti)e .an pic(ed up a club+ 5f capital is concei)ed as .one$ bringing ne; .one$ fro. circulation the historical beginnings of capital ;ill ine)itabl$ be found so.e;here in Phoenicia+ An antihistorical conception of the essence or nature of the pheno.enon is in this case >ustified b$ @historical argu.ents+ There is nothing surprising about it N the co.prehension of the past is closel$ lin(ed ;ith the co.prehension of the present+ *efore one considers the histor$ of the ob>ect one is obliged to for. a clear conception of the nature of the ob>ect ;hose histor$ is to be studied+ The result of application of the principle of abstract historicis. is thisA the histor$ of a certain pheno.enon is described in ter.s of facts pertaining to the histor$ of <uite different pheno.ena those that .erel$ prepared the e.ergence of the for.er pheno.enon historicall$+ *$ this tric( the gi)en concrete historical pheno.enon appears to the theoretician either eternal or in an$ case )er$ ancient .uch .ore ancient than it actuall$ is+ A .ost stri(ing exa.ple of this abstract historical approach of conception that is historical in appearance and antihistorical in essence is the bourgeois econo.ists explanation of the pri.iti)e accu.ulation+ The bourgeois econo.ist also )ie;s this process @historicall$+ 0e ;ill easil$ agree that capital is not an eternal pheno.enon that it .ust ha)e e.erged so.e;here and in so.e .anner+ The histor$ of its origin consists in that the .eans of production ;ere in so.e ;a$ concentrated in the hands of a fe; persons+ 0o; did that happen historicall$G These ;a$s are extre.el$ )aried+ 5n an$ case the fact re.ains that the .eans of production ;ere first concentrated in the hands of the future capitalist in an$ .anner but exploitation of ;age labour through frugalit$ the future capitalists o;n labour successful co..ercial operations si.ple robber$ feudal legac$ and so on and so forth+ -ro. this the bourgeois econo.ist dra;s the conclusion that in its origin and conse<uentl$ in its essence capital is not the product of unpaid6for labour of the ;age ;or(er+ As for the ;or(er hi.self heIshe descended @historicall$ fro. the serf ;ho ran a;a$ to to;n fro. a cruel landlord or a crafts.an i.po)erished through inabilit$ or a la'$ )agabond+ 5n other ;ords the ;age labourer ;as created b$ processes other than capitalist exploitation+ The capitalist offering hi. ;or( no; appears as a benefactor+ 9H

5t is <uite apparent here that a for.all$ historical explanation is .ade into a .eans of sha.eless apolog$ for the existing state of things+ 0istorical substantiation beco.es an argu.ent in fa)our of an antihistorical conception of both the process of pri.iti)e accu.ulation and of the nature of capital+ 0istorical argu.ents are used to present capital as an @eternal and @natural relation+ The secret of the tric( is in the histor$ of the origin of the historical pre.ises of capital being directl$ presented as the histor$ of capital itself as a concrete historical pheno.enon+ The real historical beginning of the de)elop.ent of capital as Marx sho;ed ;as the point at ;hich capital began to build its bod$ out of the unpaid6for labour of the ;age ;or(er+ 1nl$ at this point does its specific concrete histor$ begin+ As for the original concentration of the .eans of production in the hands of the future capitalist it .a$ ta(e an$ for. ;hate)er N that has no significance for the histor$ of capital as capital and no rele)ance to the being of .an possessing it as the being of a capitalist+ 1riginall$ our .ode of appropriation is not that of a capitalist and the ;a$s in ;hich he appropriates the product of labour has no bearing on his histor$ as a capitalist+ The$ lie so.e;here belo; the lo;er boundar$ of the histor$ of capital >ust as processes that created the pre.ises of life the che.ical processes lie belo; the lo;er li.it of the histor$ of life pertaining to the field of che.istr$ rather than of biolog$+ The sa.e thing has to be borne in .ind in logic in order not to ta(e the histor$ of the pre.ises of a concept 7abstractions in general ;ords expressing the general in their .eaning etc+8 for the histor$ of the concept itself+ Thus the significance beco.es apparent of the principle of concrete historicism ;hich i.poses the re<uire.ent of establishing in a strictl$ ob>ecti)e .anner the point at ;hich the real histor$ of the ob>ect under consideration begins the genuinel$ concrete starting point of its origin+ The proble. is the sa.e ;hether ;e are dealing ;ith the e.ergence of the capitalist s$ste. or the historical origin of .an or the point at ;hich life ;as born on the earth or the abilit$ to thin( in concepts+ The precepts of abstract historicis. .erel$ disorientate the theoretician in this decisi)e field of theoretical anal$sis+ As is ;ell (no;n scientists often too( the biological prehistor$ of hu.an societ$ for an unde)eloped for. of hu.an existence and biological la;s for abstract ele.entar$ and uni)ersal la;s of hu.an de)elop.ent+ #xa.ples of the sa.e (ind are atte.pts to deduce .ans aesthetic feeling fro. certain externall$ si.ilar pheno.ena of the ani.al ;orld N the beaut$ of the peacoc(s tail the colours of the butterfl$s ;ing and other purel$ biological adapti)e pheno.ena+ The historicis. of the logical .ethod of Marx #ngels and /enin is concrete+ 5t .eans that the concrete histor$ of a concrete ob>ect should be considered in each particular case rather than histor$ in general+ The for.er is of course .ore difficult than the latter+ *ut scientific research cannot be guided b$ the principle of ease the principle of @econo.$ of intellectual effort despite the neo6&antian illusions+ %cientific de)elop.ent can onl$ be guided b$ the principle of correspondence ;ith the ob>ect and ;here the ob>ect is co.plex there si.pl$ is nothing to be done+ The logical de)elop.ent of categories in the for. of ;hich the construction of the s$ste. of science is co.pleted .ust coincide ;ith the historical de)elop.ent of the ob>ect in the sa.e ;a$ as reflection coincides ;ith that ;hich is reflected+ The se<uence of the categories itself .ust reproduce the real historical se<uence in ;hich the ob>ect of in)estigation and its structure are for.ed+ That is the .ain principle of dialectics+ The ;hole difficult$ lies in the fact that the concrete histor$ of the concrete ob>ect is not so eas$ to single out in the ocean of the real facts of e.pirical histor$ for it is not the @pure histor$ of the gi)en concrete ob>ect that is gi)en in conte.plation and i..ediate notion but a )er$ co.plicated .ass of interconnected processes of de)elop.ent .utuall$ interacting and altering the for.s of their .anifestation+ The difficult$ lies in singling out fro. the e.piricall$ gi)en picture of the total historical process the cardinal points of the de)elop.ent of this particular concrete ob>ect of the gi)en concrete s$ste. of interaction+ /ogical de)elop.ent coinciding ;ith the historical process of the for.ation of a concrete ;hole should rigorousl$ establish its historical beginning its birth and later trace its e)olution as a se<uence of necessar$ and la;6go)erned .o.ents+ That is the ;hole difficult$+ The capitalist s$ste. for instance does not e.erge out of nothing but on the basis of and ;ithin historicall$ preceding for.s of econo.ic relations its concrete de)elop.ent in)ol)ing the struggle and o)erco.ing of these for.s+ 0a)ing originall$ e.erged as a rather inconspicuous but .ore )iable .ode of econo.ic relations this s$ste. graduall$ transfor.s all t$pes of production existing at the ti.e of its birth in accordance ;ith its o;n re<uire.ents and in its o;n i.age+ 5t graduall$ con)erts earlier independent and e)en alien for.s of econo.$ into for.s of its o;n realisation subordinating the. 9L

partl$ brea(ing the. do;n so that there is not a trace of the. left partl$ continuing to drag 7so.eti.es for a )er$ long ti.e8 the debris that it had no ti.e to destro$ and partl$ de)eloping into full flo;ering so.ething that had pre)iousl$ existed onl$ as a tentati)e tendenc$+ As a result the historical de)elop.ent of a concrete ;hole concei)ed in its essence and expressed in logical de)elop.ent does not coincide ;ith the picture that is to be for.ed on the surface of e)ents that is open to the theoreticall$ na(ed e$e+ The essence and the pheno.ena here also coincide onl$ dialecticall$ onl$ through contradiction+ Therefore the logical de)elop.ent of categories intended to reflect the real historical se<uence of the for.ation of the anal$sed s$ste. of interacting pheno.ena cannot be directl$ guided b$ the se<uence in ;hich certain aspects of the ;hole in the process of for.ation appeared or pla$ed the decisi)e role on the surface of the historical process open to e.pirical conte.plation+ @5t ;ould be inexpedient and ;rong therefore to present the econo.ic categories successi)el$ in the order in ;hich the$ ha)e pla$ed the do.inant role in histor$ that ;as the ;a$ in ;hich Marx categoricall$ su..ed up the .ethodological significance of this real circu.stance+ The theoretician ;ho accepts abstractl$ interpreted historicis. is guided b$ the principle of anal$sis ;hich Marx defines as6inexpedient and ;rong+ Fhen he considers pheno.ena in the se<uence in ;hich the$ follo; one another in the historical ti.e in the se<uence ;hich appears at first sight as the .ost natural one in actual fact he considers the. in a se<uence that is the re)erse of the real and ob>ecti)e one+ The apparent and i.aginar$ correspondence bet;een the logical and the historical here conceals fro. the theoretician an actual absence of correspondence+ :er$ often 7.uch .ore often than the e.piricist belie)es8 the genuine ob>ecti)e cause of a pheno.enon appears on the surface of the historical process later than its o;n conse<uence+ -or instance the general crisis of o)erproduction in the capitalist ;orld is e.piricall$ .anifested first of all in the for. of disturbances in the sphere of ban( credits as a financial crisis later it in)ol)es co..erce and onl$ at the )er$ end does it re)eal itself in the sphere of direct production as a real general crisis of o)erproduction+ The superficial obser)er ;ho ta(es succession in ti.e for the onl$ historical principle concludes fro. this that .isunderstandings and conflicts in ban( clearances are the cause the basis and the source of the general crisis+ 5n other ;ords heIshe ta(es the .ost abstract and deri)ati)e effect for the real basis of e)ents ;hile the ob>ecti)e basis ine)itabl$ begins to see. the effect of its o;n effect+ 5n this ;a$ crude e.piricis. $ields the sa.e absurd result as the .ost refined scholasticis.+ Crude e.piricis. in general ine)itabl$ beco.es the ;orst (ind of scholasticis. ;hen it is raised to the principle of theoretical explanation of e)ents+ -ro. the standpoint of science and of genuine historicis. it is <uite ob)ious ho;e)er that o)erproduction had ta(en place before it had ti.e to .anifest itself in disturbances and confusion in the sphere of ban( clearance these disturbances .erel$ reflecting in their o;n ;a$ the actuall$ acco.plished fact and in no ;a$ creating it+ /ogical de)elop.ent of categories in the s$ste. of science corresponds to the genuine historical se<uence concealed fro. e.pirical obser)ation but it contradicts the external appearance the superficial aspect of this se<uence+ The correctl$ established logical order of de)elop.ent of categories in the s$ste. of science discloses the secret of the real ob>ecti)e se<uence of de)elop.ent of pheno.ena of the aspects of the ob>ect per.itting to understand the chronological se<uence itself >ust as scientificall$ rather than e.piricall$ fro. the standpoint of the ordinar$ person+ /ogical de)elop.ent of categories in science contradicts te.poral se<uence exactl$ because it corresponds to the genuine and ob>ecti)e se<uence of the for.ation of the concrete structure of the ob>ect under stud$+ 0erein lies the dialectics of the logical and the historical+ The @historicall$ anterior continuall$ beco.es the @logicall$ posterior in the course of de)elop.ent and )ice )ersa+ Pheno.ena that e.erged earlier than others as often as not beco.e for.s of .anifestation of processes that started .uch later+ The beginning 7the genuine beginning8 of a ne; branch of de)elop.ent of a no)el concrete historical s$ste. of interaction cannot be understood as a product of a s.ooth e)olution of the historicall$ preceding for.s+ Fhat ta(es place here is a genuine leap a brea( in the de)elop.ent in ;hich a funda.entall$ ne; concrete historical for. of de)elop.ent begins+ This ne; direction of de)elop.ent can onl$ be understood out of itself fro. its intrinsic contradictions+ #ach ne;l$ appearing concrete historical process has its o;n concrete historical beginning+ 5n regard of econo.ic de)elop.ent Marx expressed this circu.stance in these ter.sA 9O

@There is in e)er$ social for.ation a particular branch of production ;hich deter.ines the position and i.portance of all the others+ and the relations obtaining in this branch accordingl$ deter.ine the relations of all other branches as ;ell+ 5t is as though light of a particular hue ;ere cast upon e)er$thing tingeing all other colours and .odif$ing their specific features; or as if a special ether deter.ined the specific gra)it$ of e)er$thing found in it+ 7Marx 1 Contribution to the Critique of )olitical !conomy8 Clearl$ this la; is not restricted in its action to social de)elop.ent or social pheno.ena in general+ De)elop.ent in nature also ta(es this for. and cannot ta(e an$ other+ 0ere too a ne; concrete for. of de)elop.ent e.erges on the basis of and ;ithin the fra.e;or( of those that precede it beco.ing a concrete uni)ersal principle of a ne; s$ste. and as such in)ol)ing these chronologicall$ preceding for.s in its specific concrete histor$+ -ro. this point on the historical destin$ of these historicall$ preceding pheno.ena co.es to be deter.ined b$ entirel$ ne; la;s+ The che.ical substances in)ol)ed in the de)elop.ent of life beha)e in this process in <uite a different .anner fro. the ;a$ the$ had beha)ed before and independentl$ fro. it+ The$ are sub>ect to the uni)ersal la; of this higher ne; for. and their .o)e.ent can onl$ be understood fro. the la;s of life fro. the concrete uni)ersal la;s of this higher and chronologicall$ later for. of the .otion of .atter+ The la;s of these ele.entar$ for.s cannot of course be )iolated abolished or altered+ *ut the$ beco.e here subordinate la;s abstract uni)ersal la;s that can explain absolutel$ nothing in the .o)e.ent of the concrete ;hole the external .anifestations of ;hich the$ beca.e+ The de)elop.ent of organic life also results in the for.ation of @a special (ind of ether ;hich deter.ines the share of an$ being that exists in it+ This @specific ether that is the concrete uni)ersal principle of a ne; and higher for. of .o)e.ent that e.erges chronologicall$ at a later stage but beco.es the do.inant principle .ust be understood in science before an$ other and first of all on its o;n .erits fro. the internall$ inherent concrete uni)ersal contradictions+ The historicall$ preceding ele.ents that o;ing to the dialectics of de)elop.ent beca.e a secondar$ auxiliar$ .o.ent of the ne; for. of .o)e.ent a (ind of .aterial in ;hich so.e ne; concrete historical process is realised .a$ indeed be understood onl$ fro. the concrete uni)ersal la; of the higher for. in ;hose .o)e.ent the$ are in)ol)ed+ These historicall$ preceding ele.ents .a$ long pre6exist the logicall$ prior ones the$ .a$ e)en constitute the condition of origin of this logicall$ anterior concrete uni)ersal pheno.enon later beco.ing its .anifestation or product+ 2ent as a for. of capitalist econo.$ cannot be co.prehended before capital is co.prehended ;hile capital .a$ and .ust be understood in its internal contradictions before rent though rent historicall$ e.erged earlier than capital and e)en ser)ed as a historical condition of its origin+ 9uite a fe; landlords ha)ing accu.ulated feudal rent later began to use it as capital+ The sa.e is true of co..ercial profit+ The historical destin$ of rent and co..ercial profit as ele.ents of the capitalist ;hole as for.s of .anifestation and .odifications of capital .a$ be co.pared for graphic effect to the destin$ of a bloc( of .arble out of ;hich the statue of a .an is sculptured+ The concrete for. of .arble can in no ;a$ be explained fro. the properties of .arble itself+ Although it is the for. of .arble in its real substance it is b$ no .eans the for. of .arble as a product of nature+ Marble o;es its for. not to itself not to its o;n nature but to the process in ;hich it is in)ol)ed N the process of .ans artistic de)elop.ent+ -or .illions of $ears .arble la$ in the ground it appeared long before .an not onl$ before the sculptors ti.e but also before .an(ind as a ;hole+ *ut the concrete for. in ;hich it is displa$ed in the hall of a .useu. is the product of .ans de)elop.ent ;hich co..enced .uch later than .arble as such .arble as .ineral appeared+ That is an acti)e for. of so.e <uite different process a process that is realised in .arble and through .arble but naturall$ cannot be understood in ter.s of .arble alone+ The situation is the sa.e ;ith the concrete historical for. of the existence of rent interest co..ercial profit and si.ilar for.s and categories+ 5n capitalist production the$ are secondar$ subordinate for.s of econo.$ for.s of .anifestation of surplus6)alue of a for. that appeared .uch later than the$ the.sel)es did+ This concrete uni)ersal for. should be understood in science before and <uite independentl$ fro. all the their concrete histor$ as the histor$ of for.s of being of surplus )alue began ;hen and ;here the$ ;ere in)ol)ed in the production and accu.ulation of surplus6)alue so that the$ beca.e organs of its bod$ and 96

a .ode of its realisation+ *efore that point their destinies had no internal relation ;hate)er to the histor$ of capitalis. to the histor$ expressed in the se<uence of categories of political econo.$+ The$ had existed before that .o.ent outside the histor$ of capital side b$ side ;ith it but <uite independentl$ fro. it+ *ut the$ beca.e in)ol)ed in the for.ation of the capitalist s$ste. turning into concrete historical for.s and ele.ents of the gi)en s$ste. onl$ in those areas ;here the concrete uni)ersal for. of capital ;hich had de)eloped independentl$ fro. the. expressed its .o)e.ent through the.+ Thus logical de)elop.ent does not reproduce histor$ as a ;hole but rather the concrete histor$ of the gi)en concrete historical ;hole of the gi)en concrete s$ste. of pheno.ena interacting in a specific .anner+ The logical order of the categories of science directl$ corresponds to this histor$ and its se<uence; it is the latter that is expressed in a theoreticall$ generalised for.+ /ogical de)elop.ent of categories and their concrete definitions cannot therefore be guided b$ the principle of abstract historicis. 7or pseudohistoricis.8 the principle of te.poral se<uence of the e.ergence of di)erse for.s of the anal$sed ;hole in histor$+ Contrari;ise it is onl$ logical de)elop.ent of categories that is guided b$ the relation in ;hich the ele.ents of the anal$sed concreteness stand to one another in the de)eloped ob>ect in the ob>ect at the highest point of its de)elop.ent and .aturit$ that disco)ers the .$ster$ of the genuine ob>ecti)e se<uence of the for.ation of the ob>ect of the .oulding of its internal structure+ -ollo;ing this path ;e can al;a$s disco)er the genuinel$ natural 7rather than the see.ingl$ natural8 order of de)elop.ent of all the aspects of the anal$sed concrete historical ;hole+ 5n this case ;e shall attain a real coincidence of the logical and the historical+ 1ther;ise ;e can onl$ arri)e at a di)ergence bet;een the t;o at an e.pirical scholastic expression of histor$ but not at its ob>ecti)e theoretical reflection in concept+ The in<uir$ into the s$ste. of capitalist production in Capital ;as a splendid confir.ation of the correctness of this .ethodological principle of Marxs and #ngels philosophical )ie; of the dialectics of the historical process and its theoretical reproduction+ To for. a genuinel$ historical conception of the capitalist for.ation of the la;s of its historical e.ergence de)elop.ent and decline Marx studied first of all the e"isting state of this for.ation proceeding fro. the conte.porar$ situation fro. the relation in ;hich the di)erse ele.ents of its necessar$ structure stand to one another proceeding fro. this existing factuall$ stated situation he anal$sed the concepts and categories of political econo.$ studied these concepts criticall$ and unfolded on the basis of this anal$sis his theoretical conception of the facts a s$ste. of theoretical definitions+ #ach of the aspects and ele.ents of the structure of the capitalist organis. found therefore its concrete theoretical expression and ;as reflected in a concrete historical abstraction+ The theoretical definitions of each categor$ of political econo.$ ;ere for.ed b$ Marx through tracing the histor$ of its e.ergence not the e.pirical histor$ but the histor$ @sublated in its results+ This in<uir$ led hi. directl$ to a conception of the real historicall$ necessar$ pre.ises of the e.ergence of bourgeois econo.$ offering thereb$ a (e$ to a theoretical understanding of the e.pirical histor$ of its e.ergence and e)olution+ 1n the other hand o;ing to this .ethod of in<uir$ the bourgeois for.ation itself e.erged as a s$ste. of historicall$ .aturing pre.ises of the birth of another ne; and higher s$ste. of social relations N of socialis. into ;hich the capitalist s$ste. of production of .aterial life ine)itabl$ de)elops under the pressure of the internal contradictions of its e)olution+ "ha!ter 0 $ The Method o' *scent 'ro. the *bstract to the "oncrete in Mar12s Capital

Concrete f"llness of Abstraction and Analysis as a Condition of Theoretical #ynthesis

Fe shall no; turn to a consideration of the logical structure of Capital, co.paring it both ;ith the logic of 2icardian thought and the theoretical )ie;s of Marxs predecessors in the field of logic; this discussion should re)eal Marxs logic in its actual practical application to the anal$sis of facts to the anal$sis of e.pirical data+ 1ur tas( is that of singling out the uni)ersal logical ele.ents of Marxs treat.ent of econo.ic .aterials the logical for.s that are applicable due to their uni)ersalit$ to an$ other theoretical discipline+ 9K

Capital, as is ;ell (no;n begins ;ith a .ost thorough and detailed anal$sis of the categor$ of )alue i+e+ of the real for. of econo.ic relations that is the uni)ersal and ele.entar$ for. of the being of capital+ 5n this anal$sis Marxs field of )ision enco.passes a single and as ;e ha)e alread$ noted extre.el$ rare in de)eloped capitalis. factual relation bet;een .en N direct exchange of one co..odit$ for another+ At this stage of his in<uir$ into the capitalist s$ste. Marx intentionall$ lea)es out of account an$ other for.s N .one$ or profit or ;ages+ All of these things are as $et belie)ed to be non6existent+ 3e)ertheless anal$sis of this single for. of econo.ic relations $ields as its result a theoretical expression of the ob>ecti)el$ uni)ersal for. of all pheno.ena and categories of de)eloped capitalis. ;ithout exception an expression of a de)eloped concreteness a theoretical expression of )alue as such of the uni)ersal for. of )alue+ The ele.entar$ t$pe of the existence of )alue coincides ;ith )alue in general and the real actuall$ traceable de)elop.ent of this for. of )alue into other for.s constitutes the ob>ecti)e content of the deduction of the categories of Capital" Deduction in this conception unli(e the 2icardian one loses its for.al characterA here it directl$ expresses the real content of so.e for.s of econo.ic interaction fro. others+ That is precisel$ the point .issing in the s$ste.s of 2icardo and of his follo;ers fro. the bourgeois ca.p+ The conception of a uni)ersal concept underl$ing the entire s$ste. of the categories of science applied here b$ Marx cannot be explained b$ the specificit$ of the sub>ect6.atter of political econo.$+ 5t reflects the uni)ersal dialectical la; of the unfolding of an$ ob>ecti)e concreteness N natural socio6historical or spiritual+ This conception is of great significance for an$ .odern science+ To gi)e a concrete theoretical definition of life as the basic categor$ of biolog$ to ans;er the <uestion of ;hat is life in general life as such one ought to act in the sa.e ;a$ as Marx acted ;ith )alue in general that is one should underta(e a concrete anal$sis of the co.position and .ode of existence of an ele.entar$ .anifestation of life N the ele.entar$ protein bod$+ That is the onl$ ;a$ of obtaining a real definition and of re)ealing the essence of the .atter+ 1nl$ in this ;a$ and not at all b$ abstraction of the general features of all pheno.ena of life ;ithout exception can one attain a reall$ scientific and .aterialist conception of life creating the concept of life as such+ The situation is the sa.e in che.istr$+ The concept of che.ical ele.ent as such of che.ical ele.ent in general cannot be ;or(ed out through abstraction of the general and identical features that heliu. has in co..on ;ith uraniu. or silicon ;ith nitrogen or the co..on features of all the ele.ents of the periodic table+ The concept of che.ical ele.ent .a$ be for.ed b$ detailed consideration of the si.plest ele.ent of the s$ste. N h$drogen+ 0$drogen appears in this case as the ele.entar$ structure in the deco.position of ;hich che.ical properties of .atter disappear in general ;hether the anal$tical deco.position is perfor.ed in an actual experi.ent or onl$ .entall$+ 0$drogen is therefore a concrete uni)ersal ele.ent of che.is.+ The uni)ersal necessar$ la;s that e.erge and disappear ;ith it are the si.plest la;s of the existence of the che.ical ele.ent in general+ As ele.entar$ and uni)ersal la;s the$ ;ill occur in uraniu. gold silicon and so on+ And an$ of these ;ore co.plex ele.ents .a$ in principle be reduced to h$drogen ;hich b$ the ;a$ happens both in nature and in experi.ents ;ith nuclear processes+ 5n other ;ords ;hat ta(es place here is the sa.e li)ing .utual transfor.ation of the uni)ersal and the particular of the ele.entar$ and the co.plex ;hich ;e obser)ed in the categories of capital ;here profit e.erges as de)eloped )alue as a de)eloped ele.entar$ for. of co..odit$ to ;hich profit is continuall$ reduced in the real .o)e.ent of the econo.ic s$ste. and therefore in thought reproducing this .o)e.ent+ 0ere as e)er$;here else the concrete uni)ersal concept registers a real ob>ecti)e ele.entar$ for. of the existence of the entire s$ste. rather than an e.pt$ abstraction+ @:alue in general 7)alue as such8 @life in general @che.ical ele.ent N all these concepts are full$ concrete+ This .eans that the realit$ reflected in the. is the realit$ ob>ecti)el$ existing at present 7or at an$ ti.e in the past8 existing b$ itself as an ele.entar$ and further indi)isible instance of the gi)en concreteness+ That is exactl$ ;h$ it can be singled out as a specific ob>ect of consideration and .a$ be studied and obtained b$ experi.ent+ 5f one ;ere to concei)e )alue 7>ust as an$ other uni)ersal categor$8 onl$ as a reflection of abstract uni)ersal features existing in all developed particular pheno.ena ;ithout exception it could not be studied as such all these de)eloped pheno.ena strictl$ ignored+ Anal$sis of the uni)ersal ;ould in this 9!

case be i.possible in an$ other for. except that of for.al anal$sis of the concept+ 5n the sensuall$ gi)en ;orld there can be no @ani.al in general or @che.ical ele.ent as such or @)alue N as reflections of abstract general features the$ indeed exist onl$ in the head+ 2icardo had not the slightest in(ling that )alue should he studied concretel$ in its for. that it .ight in general be studied as such in strictest abstraction fro. profit rent interest capital and co.petition+ 0is abstraction of )alue therefore is as Marx sho;ed doubl$ defecti)eA @1n the one hand he 72icardo8 .ust be reproached for not going far enough for not carr$ing his abstraction to co.pletion for instance ;hen he anal$ses the value of the co..odit$ he at once allo;s hi.self to be influenced b$ consideration of all (inds of concrete conditions+ 1n the other hand one .ust reproach hi. for regarding the pheno.enal for. as immediate and direct proof or exposition of the general la;s and for failing to interpret it+ 5n regard to the first his abstraction is too inco.plete; in regard to the second it is for.al abstraction ;hich in itself is ;rong+ B1C 5t is not difficult to for.ulate Marxs o;n )ie; of the uni)ersal categor$ assu.ed b$ this e)aluation+ Abstraction .ust be first complete and second meaningful rather than for.al+ 1nl$ then ;ill it be correct and objective+ Fhat does that .ean ho;e)erG Fe ha)e sho;n alread$ that fullness of abstraction assu.es that it directl$ expresses so.ething <uite different fro. abstract uni)ersal features inherent in absolutel$ all particular pheno.ena to ;hich this uni)ersal abstraction refers; rather it expresses the concrete characteristics of the ob>ecti)el$ si.plest further indi)isible ele.ent of a s$ste. of interaction a @cell of the anal$sed ;hole+ 5n the capitalist s$ste. of interaction bet;een .en in social production of .aterial life this cell turned out to be a co..odit$ the ele.entar$ co..odit$ for. of interaction+ 5n biolog$ this cell is apparentl$ the si.plest protein structure in the ph$siolog$ of the higher ner)ous acti)it$ the conditioned reflex+ etc+ A this point the <uestion of @the beginning of science of the basic uni)ersal categor$ underl$ing the entire s$ste. of the concrete categories of science is closel$ lin(ed ;ith the <uestion of concreteness of anal$sis and of the ob>ecti)el$ ad.issible li.its of anal$tical di)ision of the ob>ect+ Concrete theoretical anal$sis .eans that a thing is di)ided into internall$ connected necessar$ for.s of its existence specific to it rather than into co.ponents indifferent to its specific nature+ Marxs anal$tical .ethod is dia.etricall$ opposed in this respect to the so6called one6sided anal$tical .ethod as illustrated b$ the practice of the classical bourgeois political econo.$+ The one6sided anal$tical .ethod inherited b$ the econo.ists of the 1Kth and 1!th centuries fro. conte.porar$ .echanistic natural science and the philosoph$ of e.piricis. 7through /oc(e8 full$ corresponds to the conception of ob>ecti)e realit$ as a (ind of aggregate of eternal and i..utable constituent ele.ents identical in an$ ob>ect of nature+ According to this conception cognising a thing .eans anal$sing it into these eternal and i..utable constituents and then co.prehending the .ode of their interaction ;ithin this thing+ @/abour @need @profit in the theor$ of %.ith and 2icardo are in this respect >ust as stri(ing an exa.ple of one6sided anal$tical abstractions in ;hich the entire concrete historical definiteness of the ob>ect is extinguished as @the particle of Cartesian ph$sics 3e;tons @ato. and si.ilar categories of the science of that ti.e+ *oth %.ith and 2icardo endea)oured to understand the capitalist s$ste. of interaction as a co.plex ;hole ;hose co.ponent parts are eternal realities identical for an$ stage of the de)elop.ent of .an(indA labour labour i.ple.ents 7capital8 needs surplus product etc+ This operation of anal$tical di)ision of the ob>ect can al;a$s be perfor.ed both experi.entall$ and .entall$+ A li)ing rabbit .a$ be anal$ticall$ deco.posed into che.ical ele.ents into .echanical @particles etc+ *ut ha)ing thus obtained an aggregate of anal$ticall$ singled out ele.ents ;e shall not be able to perfor. a re)erse operation e)en after a .ost detailed consideration of these ele.ents N ;e shall ne)er understand ;h$ their co.bination before the anal$tical dis.e.ber.ent existed as a li)e rabbit+ 5n this case anal$sis (illed and destro$ed exactl$ that ;hich ;e intended to understand in this ;a$ N the li)ing and concrete interaction specific for the gi)en thing+ Anal$sis .ade s$nthesis i.possible+ *ourgeois classical econo.ics the theor$ of %.ith and 2icardo ran into the sa.e difficult$+ %$nthesis a co.prehension of the necessar$ connection bet;een the abstractl$ considered constituent ele.ents of the ob>ect 7labour capital profit etc+8 pro)ed to be i.possible exactl$ because anal$sis that singled out these categories ;as one#sided anal$sisA it bro(e up that )er$ concrete historical for. of connection of these categories+ 99

The difficult$ of the proble. of anal$sis and s$nthesis ;as noted alread$ b$ Aristotle+ 0e sa; <uite ;ell that one6sided anal$sis could not b$ itself sol)e the proble.s of cognition+ 5n his <etaphysics he co.es to the conclusion that the tas( of cognition is dualA it is not enough to find out of ;hat parts a thing consists N one .ust also disco)er ;h$ these constituent parts are interconnected in such a ;a$ that their co.bination constitutes the gi)en concrete thing rather than so.e other one+ A thing gi)en in conte.plation is not difficult to anal$se into its constituent ele.entsA the chair is blac( .ade of ;ood ;ith four legs hea)$ ;ith a round seat etc+ etc+ That is an ele.entar$ exa.ple of e.pirical anal$sis and at the sa.e ti.e an exa.ple of e.pirical s$nthesis of abstract definitions in a >udge.ent about a thing+ 5t should be noted that a direct coincidence of anal$sis and s$nthesis ta(es place in this case too+ 5n the proposition @This chair is blac( one can discern both+ 1n the one hand that is pure s$nthesis a co.bination of t;o abstractions in a proposition+ 1n the other hand it is >ust as pure anal$sis N a singling out of t;o different definitions in a sensuall$ gi)en i.age+ *oth anal$sis and s$nthesis ta(e place simultaneously in an utterance of an ele.entar$ proposition 7>udg.ent8 concerning a thing+ 5n this exa.ple ho;e)er the guarantee and basis of correctness of anal$sis and s$nthesis is direct conte.plationA in it the features s$nthesised in the proposition appear as co.bined and at the sa.e ti.e distinct+ Conte.plation itself is the basis and criterion of correctness of the anal$tic singling out of abstractions lin(ed in the proposition+ 5t is thus eas$ to understand the coincidence of anal$sis and s$nthesis in a proposition concerning an indi)idual fact in an utterance expressing the actual state of things+ 5t is .uch .ore difficult to understand the relation bet;een anal$sis and s$nthesis in a theoretical proposition that has to be based on better grounds than .ere indication of the fact that a thing appears in conte.plation in a certain aspect rather than so.e other one+ The proposition @All s;ans are ;hite does not present an$ difficulties for co.prehension fro. the point of )ie; of logic precisel$ because it does not express the necessit$ of the connection bet;een the t;o definitions+ The proposition @All ob>ects of nature are extensi)e is <uite a different .atter+ A s;an .a$ >ust as ;ell be non6;hite ;hereas the proposition @All ob>ects of nature are extensi)e i.ple.ents a necessar$ s$nthesis of t;o definitions+ 4nextended ob>ects of nature are non6existent N and contrari;ise there can be no extension that ;ould not be an attribute of an ob>ect of nature+ 5n other ;ords a theoretical proposition is a lin(ing of abstractions each of ;hich expresses a definiteness ;ithout ;hich the thing ceases to be ;hat it is it ceases to exist as a gi)en thing+ A s;an .a$ be painted an$ colour other than ;hite N it ;ill not cease to be a s;an+ *ut extension cannot be ta(en a;a$ fro. an ob>ect of nature ;ithout destro$ing that ob>ect itself+ A theoretical proposition .ust therefore contain onl$ those abstractions ;hich express the for.s of existence of the gi)en ob>ect necessaril$ inherent in it+ Fhat is to guarantee that a proposition connects precisel$ these abstract definitionsG #.pirical conte.plation of a thing cannot ans;er this <uestion+ To separate the necessar$ for. of the being of a thing fro. one that .a$ or .a$ not exist ;ithout i.pairing the existence of a thing as the gi)en concrete thing 7a s;an a bod$ of nature labour etc+8 one should proceed fro. conte.plation to the sensually practical experiment, to man+s social practice in its entirety+ 5t is onl$ the practice of social .an(ind that is the totalit$ of historicall$ de)eloping for.s of actual interaction of social .an ;ith nature that pro)es to be both the basis and the )erification criterion of theoretical anal$sis and s$nthesis+ 0o; does this real proble. present itself in the de)elop.ent of political econo.$G This can be easil$ traced b$ considering the categor$ of labour and the categor$ of )alue connected ;ith it+ 5nas.uch as the )alue categor$ for.s the foundation of the entire theor$ and the theoretical basis of all other generalisations the conception of labour as the substance of )alue deter.ines the theoretical understanding of all other pheno.ena of the capitalist s$ste.+ 5s the proposition @The substance of )alue is labour trueG 5t is not+ This theoretical proposition 7>udge.ent8 is tanta.ount in its theoretical significance to the proposition @Man is b$ nature a pri)ate proprietor N an assertion that being a pri)ate proprietor is the sa.e (ind of attribute in .ans nature as extension in a bod$ of nature+ 5n other ter.s a consideration of the e.piricall$ gi)en situation re)eals abstract characteristics non7 of ;hich is necessaril$ contained in the nature of labour and )alue+ 100

Marx ga)e a lucid explanation of the ;hole .atter+ A historicall$ transient propert$ of labour is here ta(en for a characteristic expressing its absolute inner nature+ *$ far not all labour creates )alue not an$ historicall$ concrete for. of labour in the sa.e ;a$ that it is not .an as such that is an o;ner of pri)ate propert$ but a historicall$ concrete .an .an ;ithin a definite historicall$ concrete for. of social being+ *ut ho; is one to distinguish bet;een that ;hich is inherent in a historicall$ definite for. of .ans existence and that ;hich is inherent in .an in generalG This can onl$ be done b$ a detailed anal$sis of the realit$ on ;hich a theoretical >udg.ent is passed fro. the standpoint of the entire practice of .an(ind+ The latter is the onl$ criterion ;hich per.its confidentl$ to abstract or anal$ticall$ re)eal a definition that ;ould express the for. of being that is the ob>ects attribute+ *oth at the ti.e of %.ith and 2icardo and in Marxs ti.e .ans being as a pri)ate proprietor ;as an e.piricall$ uni)ersal fact+ The abilit$ of labour to create co..odities and )alue rather than .erel$ a product ;as also an e.piricall$ uni)ersal fact+ The classic representati)es of political econo.$ recorded this e.piricall$ uni)ersal fact in the proposition @The substance of )alue is labour N labour in general ;ithout further theoretical <ualifications expressing its concrete historical definiteness ;ithin ;hich it creates co..odit$ rather than product )alue rather than use6)alue+ 5nsofar as the classics of political econo.$ ;or(ed out abstract theoretical definitions ;ith the aid of the one6sided anal$tical .ethod the$ ;ere unable to understand ;h$ labour appeared no; as capital no; as ;ages no; as rent+ This logical tas( that ;as co..on both to the natural scientists of the 1Kth and 1!th centuries and to %.ith and 2icardo is essentiall$ insoluble+ The for.er atte.pted to understand ;h$ and in ;hat ;a$ ato.s particles and .onads could for. in different co.binations no; a cos.ic s$ste. no; the bod$ of an ani.al; the latter endea)oured to co.prehend ;h$ and in ;hat ;a$ labour in general generated no; capital no; rent no; ;ages+ 3either the for.er nor the latter could attain a theoretical s$nthesis N exactl$ because their anal$sis ;as not concrete but rather di)ided the ob>ect into indifferent parts co..on to an$ ob>ecti)e sphere or an$ historical for. of production+ /abour in general is an absolutel$ necessar$ condition of the e.ergence and de)elop.ent of rent capital ;ages and all the other specificall$ capitalist categories+ *ut it is also a condition of their non6being their negation and destruction+ /abour in general is >ust as indifferent to the being of capital as to its non6 being+ 5t is a uni)ersal necessar$ condition of its e.ergence but it is not an internally necessar$ condition a condition that i sat the sa.e ti.e a necessary sequence+ The for. of inner reciprocal action inner reciprocal conditioning is absent here+ Concerning this defect of one6sided anal$tical abstractions ;or(ed out b$ the classics of bourgeois science Marx re.ar(edA @5t is >ust as i.possible to pass directl$ fro. labour to capital as directl$ fro. different hu.an races to a ban(er or fro. nature to a stea.6engine+ B"C This is an echo of -euerbachs ;ell6(no;n aphoris. @Sou cannot directl$ deduce e)en a bureaucrat fro. nature; Marx dra;s the sa.e conclusion fro. this aspect of the .atter tooA all difficulties of theoretical anal$sis and s$nthesis are sol)ed in realit$ on the basis of the categor$ of concrete historical reciprocal action reciprocal conditioning of pheno.ena ;ithin a definite historicall$ de)eloped ;hole ;ithin a concrete historical s$ste. of interaction+ To put it differentl$ both anal$sisIs$nthesis and deductionIinduction cease to be .etaph$sicall$ polar and therefore helpless logical for.s onl$ on the basis of a conscious historical view of the anal$sed realit$ on the basis of the conception of an$ ob>ecti)e realit$ as a historicall$ e.ergent and de)eloped s$ste. of interacting pheno.ena+ This )ie; ga)e Marx a clear criterion ;hich he proceeding fro. the entire rationall$ co.prehended histor$ of the practice of .an(ind confidentl$ applied to the solution of the difficulties of theoretical anal$sis and s$nthesis and theoretical deduction and induction+ The practice of .an(ind in its historical entiret$ ;as used b$ Marx as a criterion for distinguishing bet;een e.pirical s$nthesis and theoretical synthesis of anal$tical abstractions reflecting the uni)ersal e.pirical state of things and theoretical abstractions the interconnection of ;hich reflects the internall$ necessar$ connection of pheno.ena ;hich the$ express+ 5n %.ith and 2icardo 7and e)en 0egel8 purel$ e.pirical s$nthesis is often set up as theoretical one; the$ continuall$ set up the historicall$ transient for. of the pheno.enon for its inner structure 7for its eternal 101

nature8 deducing the >ustification of the crudest e.pirical facts fro. the nature of things ;hereas Marxs .ethod raises the .ost rigorous logical and philosophical barriers in the ;a$ of such .o)e.ent of thought+ Deduction and induction anal$sis and s$nthesis pro)e to be po;erful logical .eans of processing e.pirical facts exactl$ because the$ are consciousl$ used in the ser)ice of an essentiall$ historical approach to research being based on the dialectical .aterialist conception of the ob>ect as a historicall$ e.ergent and de)eloping s$ste. of pheno.ena interacting in a specific ;a$+ -or this reason Marxs anal$tical .ethod the .ethod of ascent fro. the ;hole gi)en N in conte.plation to the conditions of its possibilit$ coincides ;ith the .ethod of genetic deduction of theoretical definitions ;ith logical tracing of the real descent of so.e pheno.ena fro. others 7of .one$ fro. the .o)e.ent of the co..odit$ .ar(et of capital fro. the .o)e.ent of co..odit$6.one$ circulation in ;hich labour force beco.es in)ol)ed etc+8+ This essentiall$ historical )ie; of things and of their theoretical expression enabled Marx to for.ulate clearl$ the <uestion of the real substance of the )alue properties of the labour product of the uni)ersal substance of all the other concrete historical categories of political econo.$+ 5t is not labour in general but the concrete historical for. of labour that ;as concei)ed as the substance of )alue+ 5n this connection ne; light ;as thro;n on theoretical anal$sis of the for. of )alueA it e.erged as the concrete uni)ersal categor$ ;hich per.its to understand theoreticall$ 7to deduce8 that real concrete historical necessit$ ;ith ;hich )alue is transfor.ed into surplus6)alue into capital ;ages rent and all the other de)eloped concrete categories+ 5n other ;ords for the first ti.e++ an anal$sis ;as gi)en of the starting6point fro. ;hich one can reall$ de)elop the entire s$ste. of theoretical definitions of the ob>ect the s$ste. that logicall$ reflects the necessit$ of the real genesis of the capitalist for.ation+ Fhat did concrete anal$sis of the for. of )alue consist in that )er$ anal$sis ;hich Da)id 2icardo failed to conductG The ans;er to this <uestion should gi)e us the (e$ to an understanding of the .ethod of ascent fro. the abstract to the concrete+ Ascent fro. a uni)ersal theoretical definition of the ob>ect to an understanding of the entire co.plexit$ of its historicall$ de)eloped structure 7concreteness8 assu.es a concrete and co.prehensi)e anal$sis of the basic universal category of the science+ Fe ha)e seen that insufficient concreteness of 2icardos anal$sis of )alue deter.ined the failure of his intention to de)elop the ;hole s$ste. of theoretical definitions to construct the entire building of science on a single solid foundation+ it did not per.it hi. to deduce e)en the proxi.ate categor$ .one$ not to .ention all the other categories+ Fherein lies the specific <ualit$ of Marxs anal$sis of )alue ;hich for.s the solid foundation of theoretical s$nthesis of categories enabling hi. to proceed in a .ost rigorous .anner fro. @ the consideration of )alue to the consideration of .one$ capital etc+G Thus for.ulated this <uestion co.pels logic to face the proble. of contradiction in the definitions of a thing a proble. ;hich ulti.atel$ contains the (e$ to e)er$thing else+ Contradiction as the unit$ and coincidence of .utuall$ exclusi)e theoretical definitions ;as disco)ered b$ Marx to be the solution of the riddle of the concrete and a ;a$ to express theoreticall$ the concrete in concepts+ Fe are no; passing on to the anal$sis of this point+ 13 Theories of %urplus6)alue 55 (3 Erundrisse s+ 1K0

Contradiction as the Condition of De%elopment of #cience

/ogical contradiction N the existence of .utuall$ exclusi)e definitions in the theoretical expression of a thing N has long interested philosoph$+ There has ne)er been one single philosophical or logical doctrine that ;ould not consider this <uestion in one for. or another and sol)e it in its o;n ;a$+ 5t al;a$s interested philosoph$ exactl$ because contradiction in definitions is first and fore.ost a fact independent fro. an$ philosoph$ a fact that is continuall$ and ;ith fatal necessit$ reproduced in scientific de)elop.ent in .an(inds thought including philosoph$ itself+ Moreo)er contradiction .ost una.biguousl$ re)eals itself as a for. in ;hich thought about things .o)es al;a$s and e)er$;here+ 10"

Ancient Eree(s understood full ;ell that truth ;as onl$ born in the struggle of opinions+ Criti<ue of an$ theor$ ;as al;a$s directed at disco)ering contradictions in it+ A ne; theor$ al;a$s asserted itself through de.onstrating a .ethod b$ ;hich contradictions ;ore sol)ed that had been insoluble ;ithin the fra.e;or( of the principles of the old theor$+ 0o;e)er if this e.pirical fact is si.pl$ described as a fact it ;ill appear that a contradiction is so.ething intolerable so.ething that thought al;a$s tries to get rid of in one ;a$ or another+ At the sa.e ti.e despite all atte.pts to get rid of it thought reproduces it again and again+ 5nas.uch as philosoph$ and logic stud$ this fact not content ;ith si.pl$ stating and describing it the <uestion arises of the causes and sources of its origin in thought of its real nature+ 5n philosoph$ this <uestion arises in the follo;ing for.A is contradiction ad.issible or inad.issible in the genuine expression of a thingG 5s it so.ething purel$ sub>ecti)e created onl$ b$ the sub>ect of cognition or does it necessaril$ e.erge as the outco.e of the nature of things expressed in thoughtG That is the boundar$ bet;een dialectics and .etaph$sics+ 5n the final anal$sis dialectics and .etaph$sics are t;o funda.entall$ opposed .ethods of sol)ing contradictions ;hich ine)itabl$ arise in scientific de)elop.ent in the de)elop.ent of theoretical (no;ledge+ The difference bet;een the. expressed in a .ost general for. is that .etaph$sics interprets contradiction as a .ere subjective phanto. ;hich regrettabl$ recurs in thought due to the i.perfections of the latter ;hile dialectics considers it as the necessary logical for. of the de)elop.ent of thought of the transition fro. ignorance to (no;ledge fro. an abstract reflection of the ob>ect in thought to an e)er .ore concrete reflection of it+ Dialectics regards contradiction as a necessar$ for. of de)elop.ent of (no;ledge as a uni)ersal logical for.+ That is the onl$ ;a$ to consider contradiction fro. the point of )ie; of cognition and thought as a natural historical process controlled b$ la;s independent fro. .ans desires+ B5t should be borne in .ind that here and in the follo;ing ;e .ean those contradictions in definitions ;hich arise in the course of .o)e.ent of thought that is correct fro. the standpoint of the logic of the ob>ect that is ;e .ean dialectical contradictions in reasoning+ As /enin pointed out in an$ en<uir$ there .ust be no logical contradictions in the narro; sense of the ;ord that is )erbal forced or sub>ecti)e contradictions+ 2ules barring these contradictions .ust be ;or(ed out b$ for.al logic+C The de)elop.ent of (no;ledge and science co.pels philosoph$ to recur to the proble. of logical contradiction again and again+ The <uestion of contradiction of its real significance its source and the cause of its e.ergence in thought arises in those areas ;here science approaches the stage of s$ste.atic expression of its sub>ect6.atter in concepts ;here reasoning has to construct a s$ste. of theoretical definitions+ 5n cases of uns$ste.atic recounting of pheno.ena there is no <uestion of contradiction+ An ele.entar$ atte.pt to s$ste.atise (no;ledge i..ediatel$ leads to the proble. of contradiction+ Fe ha)e alread$ noted the points at ;hich the de)elop.ent of the labour theor$ of )alue necessaril$ ran into this proble.A in 2icardo despite his ;ishes a s$ste. of theoretical contradictions arises exactl$ because he atte.pts to de)elop all categories out of one principle N that of deter.ining )alue b$ the <uantit$ of labour ti.e+ 0e noticed so.e logical contradictions in his s$ste. hi.self others ;ere .aliciousl$ pointed out b$ the opponents of the labour theor$ of )alue+ The .ain t$pe of logical contradiction that ;as the focal point of the struggle for and against the labour theor$ of )alue pro)ed to be the contradiction bet;een uni)ersal la; and the e.pirical uni)ersal for.s of its o;n realisation+ Atte.pts to deduce fro. the uni)ersal la; theoretical definitions of de)eloped concrete pheno.ena that regularl$ recur on the surface of the capitalist production and distribution of co..odities resulted in paradoxical conclusions at e)er$ step+ A pheno.enon 7sa$ profit8 is on the one hand included in the sphere of action of the la; of )alue its necessar$ theoretical definitions are deduced fro. the la; of )alue; but on the other band its specific distincti)e feature pro)es to be contained in a definition ;hich directl$ contradicts the for.ula of the uni)ersal la;+ This fatal contradiction .anifested itself all the .ore clearl$ the .ore efforts ;ere .ade to get rid of it+ Contradictions are b$ no .eans a @pri)ilege of political econo.$ that studies the antagonistic realit$ of econo.ic relations bet;een classes+ Contradictions are inherent in an$ .odern science+ %uffice it to recall the circu.stances of the birth of the theor$ of relati)it$+ Atte.pts to explain certain pheno.ena established in the Michelson experi.ents in ter.s of the categories of classical .echanics resulted in the appearance ;ithin the s$ste. of concepts of 10H

classical .echanics of absurd paradoxical contradictions in principle insoluble in these ter.s and #insteins brilliant h$pothesis ;as put for;ard as a .eans of sol)ing these contradictions+ The theor$ of relati)it$ did not of course eli.inate contradictions fro. ph$sics+ -or exa.ple one .a$ point out to the ;ell6(no;n paradox contained in the theoretical definitions of the rotating bod$+ The theor$ of relati)it$ lin(ing up the spatial characteristics of bodies ;ith their .otion expressed this connection in a for.ula according to ;hich the length of a bod$ is reduced in the direction of .otion proportionatel$ ;ith the speed of the bod$s .otion+ This expression of the uni)ersal la; of the .otion of a bod$ through space beca.e a fir.l$ established theoretical attain.ent of the .athe.atical arsenal of .odern ph$sics+ ho;e)er an atte.pt to appl$ it to a theoretical elaboration or assi.ilation of such an actual ph$sical pheno.enon as rotation of a hard disc round its axis results in a paradoxA the circu.ference of a rotating disc di.inishes ;ith an increase of the speed of rotation ;hile the length of the radius according to the sa.e for.ula re.ains unchanged+ /et us note that this paradox is no .ere curiosit$ but an acute test of the physical reality of #insteins uni)ersal for.ulas+ 5f the uni)ersal for.ula expresses an ob>ecti)e la; of ob>ecti)e realit$ studied in ph$sics one should assu.e the existence in the realit$ itself of an ob>ecti)el$ paradoxical relation bet;een the radius and the circu.ference of a rotating bod$ 7e)en in the case of the spinning top8 for the infinitel$ s.all decrease in the extent of the circu.ference changes nothing in the funda.ental approach to the proble.+ The con)iction that ph$sical realit$ itself cannot contain such a paradoxical correlation is tanta.ount to a re>ection of the ph$sical realit$ of the uni)ersal la; expressed in the #instein for.ula+ And that is a ;a$ to a purel$ instru.ental >ustification of the uni)ersal la;+ 5f la; ser)es theor$ and practice that is all to the good and one should not bother about the )acuous proble. ;hether it has an$thing to correspond to it in the @things in the.sel)es or not+ 1ne can cite <uite a nu.ber of other exa.ples sho;ing that ob>ecti)e realit$ al;a$s re)eals itself to theoretical thought as contradictor$ realit$+ The histor$ of science fro. Veno of #lea do;n to Albert #instein independentl$ fro. an$ philosoph$ sho;s this circu.stance to be an incontestable e.piricall$ stated fact+ /et us go bac( to the realit$ of capitalist econo.$ and its theoretical expression in political econo.$+ This is a good exa.ple because it is extre.el$ t$picalA it sho;s graphicall$ the cul6de6sacs in ;hich .etaph$sical thought ine)itabl$ lands itself in tr$ing to sol)e the pri.e tas( of science N that of unfolding a s$ste.atic expression of the ob>ect in concepts in a s$ste. of theoretical definitions of the ob>ect a s$ste. de)eloped fro. one general theoretical principle+ That is the first reason+ And the second and probabl$ .ost i.portant reason is that in Marxs Capital ;e find a rational ;a$ out of the difficulties and contradictions a dialectical .aterialist solution of the antino.ies ;hich destro$ed the labour theor$ of )alue in its classical 2icardian for.+

The Contradictions of the Labo"r Theory of .al"e and their Dialectical esol"tion in Marx
/et us recall that the logical theoretical contradictions of 2icardos s$ste. are the result of his effort to express all pheno.ena through the categor$ of )alue to understand the. fro. one principle onl$+ Fhere this effort is not .ade no contradictions arise+ The for.ula of )ulgar science 7capital N interest land N rent labour N ;ages8 des not contradict either itself or the ob)ious e.pirical facts+ 0o;e)er precisel$ because of that it does not contain a single grain of theoretical co.prehension of things+ There are no contradictions here for the si.ple reason that this for.ula does not establish an$ inner connection at all bet;een capital and interest bet;een labour and ;ages bet;een land and rent also because )ulgar science does not e)en atte.pt to deduce definitions of all these categories fro. a single principle+ The$ are not sho;n to he necessar$ distinctions necessaril$ arising ;ithin a certain co..on substance the$ are not understood as .odifications of this substance+ 5t is not surprising that there is no inner 10L

contradiction here but .erel$ an external contradiction bet;een different internall$ non6contradictor$ things+ And that is a situation ;ith ;hich a .etaph$sician ;ill be easil$ reconciled+ The$ do not contradict each other si.pl$ because the$ do not stand in an$ internall$ necessar$ relation at all + That is ;h$ the for.ula of )ulgar science has approxi.atel$ the sa.e theoretical )alue as the fa)ourite .axi.s of the pro)erbial school teacher fro. a short stor$ b$ Che(ho)A @horses eat oats and @the :olga flo;s into the Caspian+ 4nli(e )ulgar econo.ists 2icardo tried to de)elop the entire s$ste. of theoretical definitions fro. the principles of the labour theor$ of )alue+ And that is exactl$ ;h$ the ;hole realit$ as he describes it appears as a s$ste. of conflicts antagonis.s antino.ical .utuall$ exclusi)e tendencies dia.etricall$ opposed forces ;hose opposition creates the ;hole ;hich he considers+ /ogical contradictions ;hich econo.ists and philosophers fro. the bourgeois ca.p regarded as an indication of ;ea(ness of lac( of de)elop.ent of 2icardos theor$ actuall$ expressed <uite the re)erse N the strength and ob>ecti)eness of his .ethod of theoretical expression of things+ Fhat 2icardo ai.ed at first and fore.ost ;as correspondence of theoretical propositions and conclusions to the actual state of things and onl$ in the second place their correspondence to the .etaph$sical postulate that an ob>ect cannot contradict itself and neither can its separate theoretical definitions contradict one another+ 0e expressed the actual state of things in a bold 7and e)en as Marx put it c$nical8 .anner and the actuall$ contradictor$ state of things ;as reflected in his s$ste. as contradictions in definitions+ Fhen his pupils and follo;ers .ade it their principal concern not so .uch theoretical expression of facts as for.al coordination of alread$ a)ailable definitions sub>ect to the principle forbidding contradictions in definitions as the supre.e principle fro. flat point on the disintegration of the labour theor$ of )alue set in+ 5n his anal$sis of the )ie;s of Da.es Mill Marx statesA @Fhat he tries to achie)e is for.al logical consistenc$+ The disintegration of the 2icardian school JthereforeJ 7thereforeQ N #+5+8 begins ;ith hi.+ BHC 5n itself the desire for >ustif$ing 2icardos theor$ in ter.s of the canons of for.al logical se<uence does not of course spring fro. a Platonic lo)e for for.al logic+ This preoccupation is sti.ulated b$ a different .oti)e N a desire to present the capitalist s$ste. of co..odit$ production as an e)erlasting for. of production eternall$ e<ual to itself rather than as a historicall$ e.ergent s$ste. that can therefore turn into another higher s$ste.+ 5f a certain pheno.enon expressed and concei)ed in ter.s of the uni)ersal la; of )alue suddenl$ enters into a relation of theoretical 7logical8 contradiction ;ith the for.ula of the uni)ersal la; 7deter.ination of )alue b$ the <uantit$ of labour ti.e8 to a bourgeois theoretician this appears as e)idence of its de)iation fro. the eternal and i..utable foundations of econo.ic being+ All effort is directed at pro)ing that the pheno.enon directl$ corresponds to the uni)ersal la; ;hich in itself is concei)ed as existing ;ithout contradiction as an eternal and i..utable for. of econo.$+ More acutel$ than an$thing else bourgeois econo.ists feel the contradiction bet;een 2icardos uni)ersal la; of )alue and profit" An atte.pt to express the pheno.ena of profit in ter.s of the categor$ of )alue to appl$ the labour theor$ of )alue to profit re)eals alread$ in 2icardo contradictions in the definition+ 5nas.uch as profit is the hol$ of holies of the religion of pri)ate propert$ econo.ists direct their theoretical efforts at coordinating the definitions of profit ;ith the uni)ersal la; of )alue+ There are t;o ;a$s of directl$ coordinating theoretical definitions of )alue ;ith the theoretical definitions of profit as a specific for. as a specific .odification 7(ind8 of )alue+ The first ;a$ is to change the expression of profit in such a .anner that it .ight be included ;ithout contradiction in the sphere of application of the categor$ of )alue of its uni)ersal definitions+ The second ;a$ is to change the expression of value, to <ualif$ it in such a ;a$ that definitions of profit .ight be included in it ;ithout contradiction+ *oth of these ;a$s led to the disintegration of the 2icardian school+ :ulgar political econo.$ preferred the second ;a$ that of <ualif$ing definitions of )alue for the .otto of e.piricis. has al;a$s been @*ring the universal for.ula of a la; in agree.ent ;ith the e.piricall$ un<uestionable state of things ;ith that ;hich is identical in the facts in this case ;ith the e.pirical for. of the existence of profit+ This philosophical position appears at first glance to be the .ost ob)ious and sensible+ 5ts realisation ho;e)er is i.possible unless the uni)ersal theoretical propositions of the labour theor$ of )alue the )er$ concept of )alue are sacrificed+ /et us consider in detail ;h$ and in ;hat ;a$ this necessaril$ co.es about+ 10O

The paradoxical relation bet;een the theoretical definitions of )alue and profit is a stu.bling6bloc( for 2icardo hi.self+ 0is la; of )alue sa$s that li)e labour .ans labour is the onl$ source of )alue ;hile the ti.e spent on the production of an article constitutes the onl$ ob>ecti)e .easure of )alue+ Fhat do ;e obser)e ho;e)er if ;e appl$ this uni)ersal la; that cannot be either )iolated or abolished or altered 7expressing as it does the uni)ersal inti.ate nature of an$ econo.ic pheno.enon8 to the e.piricall$ un<uestionable fact of the existence of profitG 2icardo realised <uite ;ell @that profit could not be explained b$ the la; of )alue alone and that the entire co.plexit$ of the structure of profit ;as not exhausted b$ this la;+ 2icardo too( the la; of the a)erage rate of profit the general rate of profit as the second decisi)e factor ;hose interaction ;ith the la; of )alue could explain profit+ The general rate of profit is a purel$ e.pirical and therefore un<uestionable fact+ 5ts essence is thisA the .agnitude of profit depends exclusi)el$ on the aggregate .agnitude of capital and in no ;a$ depends on the proportion in ;hich it is di)ided into fixed and circulating capital constant and )ariable capital etc+ 2icardo applies this e.piricall$ uni)ersal la; to the explanation of the .echanis. of profit production treating it as a factor ;hich .odifies and co.plicates the action of the la; of )alue+ 2icardo did not in<uire into the nature of this factor its origin its inner relation to the uni)ersal la;+ 0e assu.ed its existence absolutel$ uncriticall$ as an e.piricall$ un<uestionable fact+ An$ .ore or less close anal$sis ;ill re)eal at once that the la; of the a)erage rate of profit directl$ contradicts the uni)ersal la; of )alue the deter.ination of )alue in ter.s of labour ti.e the t;o la;s being .utuall$ exclusi)e+
5nstead of postulating this general rate of profit, 2icardo should rather ha)e exa.ined in ho; far its existence is in fact consistent ;ith the deter.ination of )alue b$ labour6ti.e and he ;ould ha)e found that instead of being consistent ;ith it prima facie it contradicts it+ +++ BLC

The contradiction here is as follo;sA the la; of the a)erage rate of profit establishes the dependence of the .agnitude of profit solel$ on the .agnitude of capital as a ;hole; it stipulates that the .agnitude of profit is absolutel$ independent fro. the share of capital spent on ;ages and transfor.ed into the li)e labour of the ;age ;or(er+ *ut the uni)ersal la; of )alue states directl$ that ne; )alue can onl$ be the product of li)e labour it can b$ no .eans be the product of dead labour for dead labour 7that is labour earlier .aterialised in the for. of .achines buildings ra; .aterials etc+8 does not create an$ ne; )alue .erel$ passi)el$ transferring its o;n )alue bit b$ bit onto the product+ 2icardo sa; the difficult$ hi.self+ 0o;e)er entirel$ in the spirit of .etaph$sical thin(ing he expressed and interpreted it as an exception fro. the rule rather than a contradiction in the definitions of the la;+ 1f course that does not alter the situation and Malthus points out <uite correctl$ in this connection that as industr$ de)elops the rule beco.es an exception and an exception the rule+ 1 Thus a proble. arises that is co.pletel$ insoluble in .etaph$sical thought+ -ro. the point of )ie; of the .etaph$sicall$ thin(ing theoretician a uni)ersal la; can onl$ be >ustified as an e.piricall$ uni)ersal rule to ;hich all pheno.ena ;ithout exception are sub>ect+ 5n the gi)en case it turns out ho;e)er that so.ething directl$ opposing the uni)ersal la; of )alue a negation of the la; of )alue beco.es a uni)ersal e.pirical rule+ BOC A theoreticall$ established uni)ersal la; and an e.pirical uni)ersal rule the e.piricall$ uni)ersal ele.ent in the facts co.e here into an antino.$ an insoluble contradiction+ 5f one continues the atte.pts to bring into agree.ent the uni)ersal la; ;ith the i..ediatel$ general features abstracted fro. facts a proble. arises that is @.uch .ore difficult +++ to sol)e than that of s<uaring the circle++++ 5t is si.pl$ an atte.pt to present that ;hich does not exist as in fact existing+ B6C The proble. of correlation of the uni)ersal and the particular of a uni)ersal la; and an e.piricall$ ob)ious for. of its o;n .anifestation 7of the general in the facts8 of theoretical and e.pirical abstraction beca.e one of the stu.bling6bloc(s in the histor$ of political econo.$ that pro)ed insur.ountable to bourgeois theor$+ -acts are a stubborn thing+ 0ere too the fact re.ainsA a uni)ersal la; 7the la; of )alue8 stands in the relation of .utuall$ exclusi)e contradiction to the e.piricall$ uni)ersal for. of its o;n .anifestation ;ith the la; of the a)erage rate of profit+ 5t is i.possible to bring the. into agree.ent exactl$ because such an agree.ent does not exist in the econo.ic realit$ itself+ A .etaph$sicall$ thin(ing theoretician facing this fact as a surprise or paradox ;ill ine)itabl$ interpret it as a result of .ista(es earlier .ade in reasoning in the theoretical expression of facts+ -or a solution of this paradox he naturall$ resorts to purel$ for.al anal$sis of theor$ to specification of concepts and 106

correction of expressions+ The postulate that ob>ecti)e realit$ cannot be self6contradictor$ is for hi. the supre.e and indisputable la; for ;hich he is read$ to sacrifice an$thing at all+ Marx denounced the co.plete lac( of the scientific spirit in these attitudes their absolute inco.patibilit$ ;ith a theoretical approach in these ter.sA
0ere the contradiction bet;een the general la; and further de)elop.ents in the concrete circu.stances is to be resol)ed not b$ the disco)er$ of the connecting lin(s but b$ directl$ subordinating and i..ediatel$ adapting the concrete to the abstract+ This .oreo)er is to be brought about b$ a verbal fiction, b$ changing the correct na.es of things+ These are indeed J)erbal disputesJ the$ are J)erbalJ ho;e)er because real contradictions ;hich are not resol)ed in a real ;a$ are to be sol)ed b$ phrases+8 BKC

The la; forbidding contradictions in definition triu.phs but theor$ perishes degenerating into )erbal disputes into a s$ste. of se.antic tric(s+ 5ndicating contradictions in the theoretical definitions of the ob>ect does not in itself constitute a pri)ilege of conscious dialectics+ Dialectics is not .erel$ a desire for piling up contradictions antino.ies and paradoxes in theoretical definitions of things+ Metaph$sical thought is .uch better at this tas( 7true contrar$ to its intentions8+ Contrari;ise dialectical thought e.erges onl$ at that point ;here .etaph$sical thought is hopelessl$ lost in a .a'e of contradictions ;ith itself in the contradictions of so.e of its conclusions ;ith others+ The desire to get rid of contradictions in definitions through specif$ing ter.s and expressions is a .etaph$sical .ode of sol)ing contradictions in theor$+ As such it results in disintegration of theor$ rather than in its de)elop.ent+ %ince life co.pels a de)elop.ent of theor$ all the sa.e in the end it al;a$s turns out that an atte.pt to construct a theor$ ;ithout contradictions leads to the piling up of ne; contradictions that are still .ore absurd and insoluble than those that ;ere apparentl$ got rid of+ To repeatA the tas( of theor$ does not consist in .erel$ pro)ing that the ob>ecti)e realit$ al;a$s arises before theoretical thought as a li)ing contradiction de.anding a solution as a s$ste. of contradictions+ 5n the "0th centur$ this fact does not ha)e to be pro)ed and ne; exa.ples add nothing+ #)en the .ost in)eterate and confir.ed .etaph$sician cannot fail to see this ob)ious fact+ 0o;e)er the .etaph$sician of our ti.es starting out fro. his efforts at >ustif$ing this fact as resulting fro. intrinsic defects of .ans cogniti)e abilit$ fro. poor de)elop.ent of concepts definitions the relati)e and )ague character of ter.s expressions etc+ 3o; the .etaph$sician ;ill be reconciled ;ith the existence of contradiction N as ;ith an ine)itable sub>ecti)e e)il not .ore+ Dust as in &ants ti.es he is still not prepared to ad.it that this fact expresses inner contradictions of things @in the.sel)es of the ob>ecti)e realit$ itself+ That is ;h$ agnosticis. and sub>ecti)is. of the relati)ist t$pe resort to .etaph$sics in these da$s+ Dialectics proceeds fro. a dia.etricall$ opposite )ie;+ 5ts solution of the proble. is based first of all on the assu.ption that the ob>ecti)e ;orld itself the ob>ecti)e realit$ is a li)ing s$ste. unfolding through e.ergence and resolutions of its internal contradictions+ The dialectical .ethod dialectical logic de.and that far fro. fearing contradictions in the theoretical definition of the ob>ect one .ust search for these contradictions in a goal6directed .anner and record the. precisel$ N to find their rational resolution of course not to pile up .ountains of anti.onies and paradoxes in theoretical definitions of things+ The onl$ ;a$ of attaining a rational resolution of contradictions in theoretical definition is through tracing the .ode in ;hich the$ are resol)ed in the .o)e.ent of the objective reality, the movement and development of the world of things @in the.sel)es+ /et us go bac( to political econo.$ to see ho; Marx resol)es all those antino.ies ;hich ;ere recorded b$ the 2icardian school despite its conscious philosophical intention+ 5n the first place Marx gi)es up an$ atte.pts to bring directl$ into agree.ent the uni)ersal la; 7the la; of )alue8 ;ith the e.pirical for.s of its o;n .anifestation on the surface of e)ents that is ;ith the abstract general expression of facts ;ith the i..ediatel$ general features that .a$ be inducti)el$ established in the facts+ Marx sho;s that this direct coincidence of the uni)ersal la; and the e.pirical for.s of its .anifestation does not exist in the realit$ of econo.ic de)elop.ent itselfA the t;o are connected b$ the relation of .utuall$ exclusi)e contradiction+ The la; of )alue contradicts in actual fact not onl$ and not so .uch in 2icardos head the la; of the a)erage rate of profit+ 5n an atte.pt to pro)e their coincidence @crass e.piricis. turns into false .etaph$sics scholasticis. ;hich toils painfull$ to deduce undeniable e.pirical pheno.ena b$ si.ple for.al abstraction directl$ fro. the general la; or to sho; b$ cunning argu.ent that the$ are in accordance ;ith that la;+ B!C 10K

-inall$ realising the i.possibilit$ of doing so the e.piricist ;ill in this case dra; the conclusion that the for.ulation of the uni)ersal la; is incorrect and ;ill @correct it+ -ollo;ing this path bourgeois science e.asculate t e theoretical .eaning of the 2icardian la; of )alue losing as Marx pointed out the concept of )alue itself+ This loss of the )alue concept occurred in the follo;ing ;a$A to bring the la; of )alue into agree.ent ;ith that of the a)erage rate of profit and other irrefutable pheno.ena of econo.ic realit$ contradicting it MacCulloch changed the concept of labour as the substance of )alue+ 0ere is his definition of labourA
/abour may properly be defined to be an$ sort of action or operation ;hether perfor.ed .$ .an the lo;er ani.als .achiner$ or natural agents that tends to bring about an$ desirable result+ B9C

*$ .eans of this definition MacCulloch @gets rid of the 2icardian contradictions+ Marx has this to sa$ about the argu.entA @And $et so.e persons ha)e had the te.erit$ to sa$ that the .iserable Mac has ta(en 2icardo to extre.es he ;ho +++ abandons the )er$ concept of labour itselfQ B10C This @abandon.ent of the concept is ine)itable gi)en the desire to construct a s$ste. of theoretical definitions ;ithout contradictions bet;een a uni)ersal la; and the e.pirical for. of its o;n .anifestation+ Marxs .ode of action is different in principle+ 5n his s$ste. the theoretical definitions do not eli.inate the contradictions ;hich horrif$ the .etaph$sician ;ho does not (no; an$ other logic but the for.al one+ 5f one should ta(e a theoretical proposition fro. the first )olu.e of Capital and confront it ;ith a theoretical proposition fro. the third )olu.e it ;ill appear that the t;o are in logical contradiction ;ith each other+ 5n the first )olu.e it is sho;n for instance that surplus6)alue is exclusi)el$ the product of that part of capital ;hich is expended on ;ages ;hich beca.e the li)e labour of a ;age ;or(er that is the product of the )ariable part of capital and onl$ of that part+ *ut a proposition fro. the third )olu.e reads as follo;sA @0o;e)er that .a$ be the outco.e is that surplus6)alue springs si.ultaneousl$ fro. all portions of the in)ested capital+ B11C The contradiction established b$ the 2icardian school has not thus disappeared here but is on the contrar$ sho;n to be the necessary contradiction of the )er$ essence of production of surplus6)alue+ That ;as precisel$ ;h$ the bourgeois econo.ists after the publication of the third )olu.e of Capital triu.phantl$ stated that Marx had not been able to resol)e the antino.ies of the labour theor$ of )alue that he had not .ade true the pro.ises gi)en in the first )olu.e and that the entire Capital ;as nothing but a speculati)e dialectical tric(er$+ The logical6philosophical basis of these reproaches ;as again the .etaph$sical conception that a uni)ersal la; ;as pro)ed b$ facts onl$ ;hen it could be brought into agree.ent without contradictions directl$ ;ith the general e.pirical for. of the pheno.enon ;ith the general features in facts open to direct conte.plation+ That is exactl$ ;hat ;e do not find in Capital, and the )ulgar econo.ist raises a shout that the propositions of the third )olu.e refute those of the first insofar as the$ are in relations of .utuall$ exclusi)e contradiction ;ith the.+ 5n the e.piricists e$es that is e)idence of the falsit$ of the la; of )alue a proof that this la; is the @purest .$stification contradicting realit$ and ha)ing nothing in co..on ;ith it+ At this point )ulgar e.piricis. of bourgeois econo.ists ;as supported b$ the &antians+ -or instance Conrad %ch.idt see.ingl$ agreed ;ith Marxs anal$sis ;ith one reser)ation ho;e)erA he @declares the la; of )alue ;ithin the capitalist for. of production to be a pure although theoretically necessary, fiction+ B1"C The reason ;h$ the &antians regard this la; as a speculati)e h$pothesis or fiction is that it cannot be >ustified in ter.s of the i..ediatel$ general in the e.piricall$ un<uestionable pheno.ena+ The general in the pheno.ena N the la; of the a)erage rate of profit N is so.ething dia.etricall$ opposed to the la; of )alue so.ething that contradicts it and excludes it+ 5n the &antians )ie; it is therefore no .ore than an artificiall$ constructed h$pothesis a theoreticall$ necessar$ fiction N b$ no .eans a theoretical expression of the ob>ecti)el$ uni)ersal la; to ;hich all pertinent pheno.ena are sub>ect+ The concrete thus contradicts the abstract in Marxs Capital, and this contradiction does not disappear because of the fact that a ;hole chain of .ediating lin(s is established bet;een the t;o but rather is pro)ed as the necessar$ contradiction of econo.ic realit$ itself not as the conse<uence of the theoretical dra;bac(s of the 2icardian conception of the la; of )alue+ 10!

The logical nature of this pheno.enon .a$ ;ell be de.onstrated b$ .eans of an easier exa.ple ;hich does not re<uire special (no;ledge in the field of political econo.$+ 5n <uantitati)e .athe.atical description of certain pheno.ena self6contradictor$ s$ste.s of e<uations are )er$ often obtained in ;hich there are .ore e<uations than un(no;n <uantities e+ g+A W
xXxT" O0x X O0x T 10H+

The logical contradiction is patentl$ ob)ious here $et the s$ste. of e<uations is <uite real+ 5ts realit$ ;ill beco.e apparent on condition that x here denotes one (ope( and the addition of (ope(s ta(es place not onl$ and not so .uch in the head but in the sa)ings ban( too ;hich puts to an account three per cent interest per annum" 4nder these concrete and <uite real conditions the addition of (ope(s is <uite precisel$ expressed b$ the abo)e @contradictor$ s$ste. of e<uations+ Contradiction is here a direct expression of the fact that in realit$ it is not speculati)e pure <uantities that are added 7or subtracted or di)ided or raised to a po;er etc+8 but qualitatively definite magnitudes, and that the purel$ <uantitati)e addition of these .agnitudes produces at so.e point a <ualitati)e leap disrupting the ideal <uantitati)e process and resulting in a paradox in the theoretical expression+ An$ science runs into this proble. at e)er$ step+ /et us ta(e an ele.entar$ exa.ple+ 5t ;as established that as the te.perature of a gas decreases b$ one degree its )olu.e di.inishes b$ 1I"KH; ;ithin certain li.its the beha)iour of gases is strictl$ consistent ;ith this la;+ At )er$ lo; te.peratures ho;e)er the figures are <uite different+ The contradiction 7@lac( of agree.ent8 bet;een the basic la; and the .athe.atical expression of its action at )er$ lo; te.peratures is e)idence of the fact that at so.e point a ne; factor e.erges caused b$ the sa.e lo;ering of the te.perature ;hich effects the proportion; it does not pro)e at all that the contradictor$ nu.erical expressions are ;rong+ %cience has long learnt a ;a$ to treat these contradictions properl$+ 4n;illingness or inabilit$ consciousl$ to appl$ dialectics here results ho;e)er in the )ie; of .athe.atics as a @theoreticall$ necessar$ fiction a purel$ artificial instru.ent of the intellect+ Modern positi)ists spea( of .athe.atics ;hich runs into these paradoxes at e)er$ step exactl$ in the sa.e .anner in ;hich Conrad %ch.idt discussed )alue+ The$ >ustif$ pure .athe.atics also in an entirel$ prag.atic instru.entalist ;a$ N onl$ as an artificiall$ in)ented .ode of the sub>ects spiritual acti)it$ ;hich for so.e 7un(no;n8 reason $ields the desired result+ The grounds for this attitude to .athe.atics are the real circu.stance that direct application of .athe.atical for.ulas to the real <uantitati)e6 <ualitati)e de)elop.ent of pheno.ena to real concreteness in)ariabl$ and ine)itabl$ loads to a paradox to a logical contradiction in .athe.atical expression+ 5n this case ho;e)er 7>ust as in political econo.$8 the contradiction is not at all a result of errors .ade b$ thought in the theoretical expression of the pheno.enon+ 5t is a direct expression of the dialectics of the pheno.ena the.sel)es+ A real resolution of this contradiction .a$ onl$ consist in further anal$sis of all the concrete conditions and circu.stances in ;hich the pheno.enon is realised and in re)ealing the <ualitati)e para.eters ;hich disrupt the purel$ <uantitati)e series at a certain point+ The contradiction does not in this case de.onstrate falsit$ of the .athe.atical expression or its erroneousness but so.ething <uite differentA the falsit$ of the )ie; that the gi)en expression defines the pheno.enon in an exhausti)e .anner+ The e<uations x @ x A " O0x X O0x T 10H express <uite precisel$ the <uantitati)e aspect of the underl$ing fact and see. absurd onl$ until the concrete ob>ecti)e .eaning of the un(no;n <uantit$ is established and the concrete conditions are specified in ;hich addition of these un(no;n <uantities ta(es place+ 1ne can certainl$ en)isage a case ;here contradiction in e<uations of the illustrated t$pe ;ill be an indication and a for. of .anifestation of i.precision or errors .ade b$ the sub>ect+ Assu.e that the real )alue of x, for instance e<uals 1+0"!6 N ob>ecti)el$ independentl$ of the sub>ect perfor.ing the .easure.ent of the scale of .easure.ent and of the resolution of the .easuring de)ice; assu.e also that no <ualitati)e change occurs as a result of addition of the x+s" 5n this case the logical contradiction in the .athe.atical expression ;ill be <uite different fro. the abo)e in origin and ob>ecti)e .eaningA it ;ill .erel$ be e)idence of error or i.precision in .easure.ent of insufficient resolution po;er of the .easuring de)ice crude scale etc+ The contradiction is here to be bla.ed on the sub>ect and onl$ on the sub>ect ;ho in .easuring the su. of t;o xs ;as unable to notice and express the difference bet;een " and "+0O6 and in .easuring the su. of a hundred such x+s obtained a result in ;hich the difference 109

.anifested itself <uite clearl$+ This logical contradiction is naturall$ sol)ed in <uite a different .anner fro. the first case+ 0o;e)er it is <uite i.possible to conclude fro. the for.al .athe.atical structure of the e<uations alone ;ith ;hich particular case ;e are dealing and in ;hat ;a$ the contradiction .ust be resol)ed+ *oth cases re<uire additional concrete anal$sis of the realit$ in the expression of ;hich the contradiction ;as .anifested+ The difference bet;een dialectics and .etaph$sics on this score does not at all lie in the fact that .etaph$sics i..ediatel$ declares an$ contradiction in the definitions of the ob>ect an intolerable e)il ;hile dialectics regards it as )irtue and truth+ That is onl$ true of .etaph$sical logic but dialectics does not at all consist in asserting the opposite+ That ;ould not be dialectics but .erel$ in)erted .etaph$sics that is sophistr$+ Dialectics does not at all negate the fact that purel$ sub>ecti)e contradictions .a$ and )er$ often do figure in cognition contradictions that ha)e to be got rid of as soon as possible+ 0o;e)er it is <uite i.possible to conclude fro. the external 7for.al .athe.atical or )erbal s$ntactical8 for. of an e<uation or proposition ;ith ;hat contradiction ;e are dealing in each particular case+ %ince .etaph$sical logic in an$ case regards contradiction in definitions as a purel$ sub>ecti)e e)il as a result of errors and inaccuracies .ade earlier b$ thought contradictions in the ;a$ of .o)e.ent of thought beco.e insur.ountable difficulties for it+ 5f a contradiction arises in this fra.e;or( .etaph$sical logic forbids further de)elop.ent of thought reco..ending to go bac( and to find at an$ cost the .ista(e in pre)ious reasoning ;hich resulted in contradiction+ 4ntil contradiction is sho;n to be the sub>ects error there is a ban on the ad)ance of thought+ Dialectics does not at all negate a certain usefulness of chec(ing and double6chec(ing the pre)ious course of reasoning neither does it negate that in so.e cases the chec(s .a$ re)eal the contradiction to be a result of error or inaccurac$+ Fhat dialectics does re>ect is so.ething different na.el$ ion that a for.ula .a$ be ;or(ed out that ;ould per.it to recognise logical 7that is sub>ecti)e8 contradictions resulting fro. inaccurac$ or carelessness ;ithout recourse to anal$sis of (no;ledge in its real ob>ecti)e content+ That is the underl$ing clai. of both classical for.ulations of @exclusion of contradictions N the Aristotelian and the /eibni'6 &antian+ According to the first any proposition is forbidden ;hich expresses a contradiction of the ob>ect to itself @at one and the sa.e ti.e and in one and the sa.e relation+ According to the second an$ proposition or utterance is forbidden ;hich ascribes to a concept a predicate 7or attribute8 contradicting it+ The ban in its Aristotelian for.ulation applies as has long been established to the proposition expressing the fa.ous paradox of Vone concerning the fl$ing arro;+ That is ;h$ all logicians endea)ouring to raise the Aristotelian ban to an absolute ha)e for t;o thousand $ears .ade atte.pts as persistent as the$ ha)e been unsuccessful to present this paradox as the result of errors in the expression of facts+ The$ run the ris( of spending another t;o thousand $ears of )ain effort for Veno expressed in the onl$ possible 7and therefore the onl$ correct8 for. an extre.el$ t$pical case of the dialectical contradiction contained in an$ fact of transition .otion change or transfor.ation+ 1n the other hand the /eibni'6&antian for.ula ;ill absolutel$ forbid a proposition li(e thisA the ideal is the material transplanted into the hu.an head and transfor.ed in it+ This proposition also expresses a transition of the opposites into each other+ 5t therefore naturall$ defines the sub>ect through a predicate that cannot he i..ediatel$ connected ;ith it+ The ideal as such is not .aterial it is non6.aterial and )ice )ersa+ An$ utterance expressing the )er$ .o.ent the )er$ act of transition 7and not the result of this transition onl$8 ine)itabl$ contains an explicit or i.plicit contradiction and a contradiction @at one and the sa.e ti.e 7that is during transition at the .o.ent of transition8 and @in one and the sa.e relation 7precisel$ ;ith regard to the transition of the opposites into each other8+ That is exactl$ ;h$ an$ atte.pt to for.ulate the ban on contradiction as an absolutel$ un<uestionable for.al rule 7that is a rule for.ulated irrespecti)e of the concrete content of the utterances8 is doo.ed + to failure+ This rule ;ill+ either forbid along ;ith @logical contradictor$ propositions all propositions expressing the contradictions of real change of real transition of opposites or else it ;ill per.it the for.er along ;ith the latter+ That is <uite ine)itable for the t;o cannot in general be distinguished in the for. of expression in speech in the utterance+ As often as not ob>ecti)e realit$ contains an internal contradiction @at one and the sa.e ti.e and in one and the sa.e relation and the utterance expressing 110

this situation is regarded in dialectical logic as <uite correct despite the loud protestations of .etaph$sicians+ Thus if a contradiction in definitions of a thing necessaril$ e.erged as a result of the .o)e.ent of thought b$ the logic of facts characterising the .o)e.ent change of de)elop.ent of the thing the transition of its different ele.ents into each other that is not a logical contradiction though it .ight ha)e all the for.al indications of such but a <uite correct expression of an ob>ecti)e dialectical contradiction+ Contradiction is not in this case an insur.ountable barrier in the ;a$ of the .o)e.ent of the in)estigating thought but on the contrar$ a springboard for a decisi)e leap for;ard in a concrete in)estigation in further processing of e.pirical data into concepts+ *ut this leap characteristic of the dialectical de)elop.ent of concepts onl$ beco.es possible because contradiction appears in reasoning al;a$s as a real proble. the solution of ;hich is attained through further concrete anal$sis of concrete facts through finding those real .ediating lin(s through ;hich the contradiction is resol)ed in realit$+ The reall$ serious proble.s in science ha)e al;a$s been sol)ed in this ;a$+ -or instance the philosoph$ of dialectical .aterialis. for the first ti.e in histor$ ;as able to for.ulate and sol)e the proble. of consciousness exactl$ because it approached this proble. ;ith a dialectical conception of contradiction+ The old .etaph$sical .aterialis. ran at this point into an ob)ious contradiction+ 1n the one hand the proposition ad)ocated b$ an$ (ind of .aterialis. asserts that .atter 7ob>ecti)e realit$8 is pri.ar$ ;hereas consciousness is a reflection of this realit$ that is it is secondar$+ *ut if one ta(es abstractl$ a single isolated fact of .ans goal6directed acti)it$ the relation bet;een consciousness and ob>ecti)eness is the re)erse+ The architect first builds a house in his consciousness and then brings ob>ecti)e realit$ 7;ith the ;or(ers hands8 in agree.ent ;ith the ideal plan he has ;or(ed out+ 5f one ;ere to express this situation in philosophical categories it ;ould apparentl$ contradict the general proposition of .aterialis. be in @logical contradiction to it+ Fhat is pri.ar$ here is consciousness the ideal plan of acti)it$ ;hile the sensual ob>ecti)e i.ple.entation of this plan is so.ething secondar$ or deri)ati)e+ Materialists of the pre6Marxian epoch in philosoph$ could not as ;e (no; cope ;ith this contradiction+ As far as theoretical consciousness ;as concerned the$ ad)ocated the point of )ie; of reflection the proposition that being is pri.ar$ and consciousness secondar$+ *ut as soon as the debate s;itched to .ans goal6directed acti)it$ .etaph$sical .aterialis. ;as unable to .a(e head or tail of the situation+ 5t is not accidental that all .aterialists before Marx ;ere pure idealists in the conception of the histor$ of societ$+ 0ere the$ accepted the dia.etricall$ opposed principle of explanation in no ;a$ connected ;ith the principle of reflection+ 5n the theories of the -rench #nlighteners t;o unreconciled anti.onic principles of explanation of hu.an cognition and acti)it$ coexisted peacefull$+ Marx and #ngels sho;ed that .etaph$sical .aterialis. continuall$ lapsed into this contradiction because it failed to see the real .ediating lin( bet;een ob>ecti)e realit$ and consciousness N it failed to grasp the role of practice+ *$ disco)ering this .ediating lin( bet;een thing and consciousness dialectical .aterialis. sol)ed the proble. concretel$ explaining the sub>ects )er$ acti)it$ fro. a single uni)ersal principle and thereb$ full$ i.ple.enting the principle of .aterialis. in the conception of histor$+ The contradiction ;as in this ;a$ re.o)ed concretel$ resol)ed and explained as necessaril$ appearing+ This contradiction is eli.inated in .etaph$sical .aterialis. through abstract reduction of definitions of consciousness to definitions of .atter+ This @solution ho;e)er lea)es the real proble. untouched+ The facts that ;ere not included directl$ and abstractl$ into the sphere of application of the proposition on the pri.ac$ of .atter 7facts of .ans conscious acti)it$8 ;ere not of course thereb$ eli.inated fro. realit$+ The$ ;ere .erel$ eli.inated fro. the consciousness of the .aterialist+ As a result .aterialis. could not put an end to idealis. e)en ;ithin its o;n theor$+ -or this reason .etaph$sical .aterialis. did not li<uidate the real grounds on ;hich again and again idealist conceptions of the relationship bet;een .atter and spirit e.erged+ 1nl$ the dialectical .aterialis. of Marx #ngels and /enin pro)ed capable of sol)ing this contradiction retaining the basic pro.ise of an$ .aterialis. but i.ple.enting this pre.ise concretel$ in the understanding of the birth of consciousness fro. the practical sensual acti)it$ changing things+ 5n this ;a$ contradiction ;as sho;n to be a necessar$ expression of a real fact in its origin rather than eli.inated or declared to be false and in)ented+ 5dealis. ;as thereb$ dislodged fro. its .ost solid shelter N speculation on facts concerning the sub>ects acti)it$ in practice and cognition+ 111

%uch is in general the ;a$ for sol)ing theoretical contradictions in dialectics+ The$ are not re>ected or eli.inated but concretel$ resol)ed in a ne; and .ore profound conception of these facts in tracing out the entire chain of .ediating lin(s ;hich connects the .utuall$ exclusi)e abstract propositions+ The .etaph$sician al;a$s tries to choose one of the t;o abstract theses lea)ing it as abstract as it ;as before the choiceA that is the .eaning of the @either +++ or for.ula+ Dialectics i.poses the re<uire.ent of reasoning according to the @both +++ and for.ula $et it does not at all orientate thought at eclectic reconciliation of t;o .utuall$ exclusi)e propositions as .etaph$sicians often i.pute in the heat of the debate+ 5t orientates thought at a .ore concrete stud$ of the facts in the expression of ;hich the contradiction arose+ That is ;here dialectics see(s a solution of the contradiction N in a concrete stud$ of facts in tracing out the entire chain of .ediating lin(s bet;een the actuall$ contradictor$ aspects of realit$+ 5n the process each of the pre)iousl$ abstract propositions is transfor.ed into a .o.ent in a concrete understanding of facts and is explained as a one6sided expression of the real contradictor$ concreteness of the ob>ect and .oreo)er a concreteness in its de)elop.ent+ 5n de)elop.ent there is al;a$s a point ;here ne; realit$ appears ;hich though e)ol)ing on the basis of pre)ious for.s ne)ertheless re>ects these for.s and possesses characteristics contradicting the characteristics of the less de)eloped realit$+ -3 Theories of %urplus :alue 555 /3 Theories of %urplus :alue 55 03 ibid" 63 Theories of %urplus :alue 555 43 ibid" 53 Theories of %urplus :alue 5 93 ibid" 103 ibid" 113 Capital :ol+ 555 1(3 ibd"

Contradiction as a ,rinciple of De%elopment of Theory

/et us further anal$se the funda.ental difference bet;een deduction of categories in Capital and for.al6 logical deduction that is the concrete essence of the .ethod of ascent fro. the abstract to the concrete+ Fe ha)e established that the 2icardian concept of )alue that is a uni)ersal categor$ of the s$ste. of a science is an abstraction an inco.plete and for.al one and therefore also incorrect+ 2icardo regarded )alue as a concept expressing the abstract general features inherent in each of the de)eloped categories each of the concrete pheno.ena to ;hich it applies and he therefore does not stud$ )alue speciall$ in the strictest abstraction fro. all the other categories+ Thus the theoretical definitions of the basic uni)ersal categor$ and the .ethods of its definition contain alread$ as in an e.br$o the ;hole difference bet;een the deduction of categories b$ the .etaph$sician 2icardo and the .ethod of ascent fro. the abstract to the concrete used b$ the dialectician Marx+ 9uite consciousl$ Marx constructs the theoretical definitions of )alue b$ a .ost thoroughgoing concrete anal$sis of si.ple co..odit$ exchange lea)ing aside as irrele)ant a host of pheno.ena that de)eloped on this basis and the categories that express these pheno.ena+ That is on the one hand reall$ co.plete abstraction and on the other reall$ .eaningful rather than for.al 7@generic8 abstraction+ 1nl$ this conception assu.ing a concrete historical approach to things .a(es possible special anal$sis of the for. of )alue special in<uir$ into the concrete content of the uni)ersal categor$6anal$sis of )alue as a concrete sensually given reality, as an elementary economic concreteness, and not as a concept+ :alue is not anal$sed as a .ental abstraction of the general but rather as a full$ specific econo.ic realit$ actuall$ unfolding before the obser)er and therefore capable of being speciall$ studied as realit$ possessing its o;n concrete historical content the theoretical description of ;hich is identical ;ith elaboration of definitions of the concept of )alue+ Marx sho;s that the real content of the for. of )alue is not as 2icardo belie)ed si.pl$ abstract <uantitati)e identit$ of portions of labour but rather dialectical contradictor$ identity of the opposites of relati)e and e<ui)alent for.s of expression of the )alue of each co..odit$ entering the relation of 11"

exchange+ The point ;here Marxs dialectics opposes 2icardos .etaph$sical .ode of reasoning is the fact that Marx re)ealed the inner contradiction of the si.ple co..odit$ for.+ To put the .atter differentl$ the content of the uni)ersal categor$ of the concrete concept of )alue is not elaborated b$ Marx on the basis of the abstract identit$ principle but rather on the basis of the dialectical principle of the identit$ of .utuall$ assu.ing poles of .utuall$ exclusi)e definitions+ That .eans that the content of the )alue categor$ is re)ealed through establishing the inner contradictions of the ele.entar$ for. of )alue realised as exchange of a co..odit$ for another co..odit$+ Marx presents co..odit$ as a li)ing contradiction of the realit$ denoted b$ that ter. as a li)ing unresol)ed antagonis. ;ithin that realit$+ A co..odit$ contains a contradiction ;ithin itself in its i..anent econo.ic definitions+ /et us note that the inner dichoto.$ into .utuall$ exclusi)e and at the sa.e ti.e .utuall$ presupposing .o.ents is characteristic as Marx sho;s of each of the t;o co..odities participating in an act of exchange+ #ach of the. co.prises in itself the econo.ic for. of )alue as its i..anent econo.ic definiteness+ 5n an exchange in the act of substitution of one co..odit$ for another this inner econo.ic definiteness of each of the co..odities is .erel$ manifested or expressed and in no ;a$ created" That is the central point the understanding of ;hich deter.ines not onl$ the proble. of )alue but also the logical proble. of the concrete concept as a unit$ of .utuall$ exclusi)e and at the sa.e ti.e .utuall$ presupposing definitions+ The pheno.enon of actual exchange presents the follo;ing pictureA one co..odit$ is replaced in the hands of the co..odit$ o;ner b$ another and this replace.ent is reciprocal+ The replace.ent can onl$ ta(e place ;hen both .utuall$ substitutable co..odities are e<uated as )alues+ @Blie <uestion therefore arises in this for.A ;hat is )alueG Fhat is the econo.ic realit$ the nature of ;hich is re)ealed in an exchangeG 0o; is it to be expressed in a conceptG The actual exchange sho;s that each of the co..odities is )is6U6)is its o;ner exchange )alue onl$ and in no ;a$ use6)alue+ 5n the hands of the other o;ner each of the participants in the exchange sees use6)alue onl$ that is a thing that can satisf$ his needs+ That is the reason ;h$ he endea)ours to possess it+ And this relation is absolutel$ identical on both sides+ -ro. the point of )ie; of one co..odit$ o;ner each of the co..odities appears in different and na.el$ in directl$ opposed for.sA the co..odit$ he o;ns 7linen8 is only exchange )alue and b$ no .eans use6)alue N other;ise he ;ould not alienate that is exchange it+ The other co..odit$ 7the coat8 is on the contrar$ onl$ a use6)alue for hi. ;ith regard to hi. only an equivalent of his o;n co..odit$+ The .eaning of actual exchange lies in .utual substitution of the exchange6 and use6)alues of the relati)e and e<ui)alent for.s+ This .utual substitution .utual transfor.ation of polar .utuall$ exclusi)e and opposed econo.ic for.s of the product of labour is a true and factual transfor.ation ta(ing place outside the theoreticians head and co.pletel$ independent fro. it+ &alue is realised and i.ple.ented in this .utual transfor.ation of opposites+ #xchange e.erges as the onl$ possible for. in ;hich the )alue nature of each of the commodities is .anifested or expressed in a pheno.enon+ 5t is factuall$ ob)ious that this .$sterious nature can onl$ be manifested or revealed through .utual con)ersion of the opposites N exchange6 and use6)alues through .utual substitution of the relati)e and e<ui)alent for.s+ 5n other ;ords the onl$ ;a$ is thisA one co..odit$ 7linen8 appears as exchange )alue ;hile another 7coat8 as use6)alue; one of the. assu.es the relati)e for. of expression of )alue and the other the opposite the e<ui)alent for.+ *oth of these for.s cannot be co.bined in one co..odit$ for in this case the need for exchange disappears+ 1nl$ that is alienated through exchange ;hich does not constitute a direct use6)alue but onl$ an exchange )alue+ Marx gi)es theoretical expression to this actual state of thingsA @A single co..odit$ cannot therefore si.ultaneousl$ assu.e in the sa.e expression of )alue both for.s+ The )er$ polarit$ of these for.s .a(es the. .utuall$ exclusi)e+ B1HC The .etaph$sician ;ill undoubtedl$ be o)er>o$ed at reading this proposition+ T;o .utuall$ exclusi)e definitions cannot in realit$ be co.bined in one co..odit$Q A co..odit$ can onl$ assu.e one of the .utuall$ exclusi)e econo.ic for.s and b$ no .eans both of the. si.ultaneousl$Q 11H

Does that .ean that the dialectician Marx re>ects the possibilit$ of co.bining polar definitions in a conceptB It .a$ appear to be so at first glance+ 0o;e)er a closer anal$sis of the .o)e.ent of Marxs thought sho;s that the .atter is not so si.ple as that+ The point here is that the passage <uoted here cro;ns an anal$sis of the e.pirical for. of .anifestation of )alue and .erel$ leads up to the proble. of )alue as i..anent content of each of the co..odities+ The tas( of ;or(ing out a concept expressing this latter still lies ahead+ 2easoning ;hich so far registers the .ere for. of e.pirical .anifestation of )alue rather than the inner content of this categor$ indicates the fact that each of the co..odities .a$ assu.e in this .anifestation of )alue onl$ one of its polar for.s and not both of the. si.ultaneousl$+ *ut the for. assu.ed b$ each of the co..odities confronting each other is not value at all but .erel$ an abstract one6sided .anifestation of the latter+ &alue in itself, the concept of ;hich is $et to be established is a third <uantit$ so.ething that does not coincide ;ith either of the polar for.s ta(en separatel$ or ;ith their .echanical co.bination+ A closer consideration of exchange sho;s that the abo)e.entioned i.possibilit$ of coincidence in one co..odit$ of t;o polar .utuall$ exclusi)e econo.ic characteristics is nothing but a necessar$ form of manifestation of )alue on the surface of pheno.ena+
@The opposition or contrast existing internall$ in each co..odit$ bet;een use6)alue and )alue is therefore .ade e)ident externall$ b$ t;o co..odities being placed in such relation to each other that the co..odit$ ;hose )alue it is sought to express figures directl$ as a .ere use6)alue ;hile the co..odit$ in ;hich that )alue is to be expressed figures directl$ as .ere exchange6)alue+ 0ence the ele.entar$ for. of )alue of a co..odit$ is the ele.entar$ for. in ;hich the contrast contained in that co..odit$ bet;een use6)alue and )alue beco.es apparent+ B1LC

The .atter loo(s <uite different ho;e)er ;hen ;e are not dealing ;ith the external for. of .anifestation of )alue but ;ith )alue as such as an ob>ecti)e econo.ic realit$ concealed in each of the co..odities confronting each other in an exchange and constituting the hidden inner nature of each of the.+ The principle forbidding direct coincidence of .utuall$ exclusi)e for.s of being in one and the sa.e thing and at one and the sa.e ti.e 7and conse<uentl$ in the theoretical expression of this thing8 applies it appears to the external e.pirical for. of .anifestation of anal$sed realit$ 7)alue in this case8 but is directl$ re>ected ;ith respect to the inner content of this realit$ to the theoretical definitions of )alue as such+ The inner nature of )alue is theoreticall$ expressed onl$ in the concept of )alue+ The distincti)e feature of the Marxian concept of )alue is that it is re)ealed through identit$ of .utuall$ exclusi)e theoretical definitions+ The )alue concept expresses the inner relation of the co..odit$ for. rather than the external relation of one co..odit$ to another 7in the latter the inner contradiction is not directl$ .anifested but split into contradictions @in different relationsA in one relation in relation to the o;ner the co..odit$ appears as exchange )alue onl$; in another in relation to the o;ner of the other co..odit$ it appears is use6)alue although ob>ecti)el$ there is one not t;o relations To put it differentl$ a co..odit$ is here considered not in relation to another commodity but in relation to itself reflected through the relation to another commodity" This point contains the .$ster$ of Marxian dialectics and it is i.possible to understand an$thing either in Capital or in its logic unless this point this (ernel of the logic of Capital, is properl$ understood+ :alue the inner essence of each co..odit$ is onl$ .anifested or re)ealed 7reflected8 in the relation to another co..odit$+ This )alue this ob>ecti)e econo.ic realit$ is not created or born in the exchange but onl$ .anifested in it being one6sidedl$ reflected in the other co..odit$ as in a .irror that is onl$ capable of reflecting that side that is turned to it+ 5n the sa.e ;a$ the real .irror reflects onl$ .ans face although he also has the bac( of the head+ *eing reflected outside )alue appears in the for. of external opposites that do not coincide in one co..odit$ N as exchange6 and use6)alues the relati)e and the e<ui)alent for.s of expression+ 0o;e)er each of the co..odities inas.uch as it is a )alue is a direct unity of .utuall$ exclusi)e and at the sa.e ti.e .utuall$ assu.ing econo.ic for.s+ 5n the pheno.enon 7in the exchange act8 and in its theoretical expression this concrete dual econo.ic nature al;a$s appears di)ided as it ;ere into its t;o abstract .o.ents confronting each other each of ;hich .utuall$ excludes the other and at the sa.e ti.e assu.es it as a necessar$ condition of its existence a condition that is not ;ithin but outside it+ 11L

5n the concept of )alue these opposites abstractl$ confronting each other in the pheno.enon are united again though not in a .echanical ;a$ but exactl$ in the ;a$ the$ are united in the econo.ic realit$ of the co..odit$ itself N as li)ing .utuall$ exclusi)e and at the sa.e ti.e .utuall$ assu.ing econo.ic for.s of the existence of each commodity, of its i..anent content N )alue+ To phrase it differentl$ the concept of )alue registers the inner unrest of the co..odit$ for. the inner+ sti.ulus of its .o)e.ent its self6de)elop.ent N the econo.ic content that is inherent in a co..odit$ prior to an$ exchange and in no relation to other co..odities+ Proceeding fro. the established concept of )alue as a li)ing dialecticall$ contradictor$ coincidence of opposites ;ithin each separate co..odit$ Marx confidentl$ and clearl$ re)eals the e)olution fro. the ele.entar$ co..odit$ for. to the .one$ for. the process of generating .one$ b$ the .o)e.ent of the ele.entar$ co..odit$ .ar(et+ Fhat is the crux of the .atter here ;here does Marx see the necessit$ for the transition fro. the si.ple direct exchange of one co..odit$ for another ;ithout .one$ to exchange .ediated b$ .one$G The need for such a transition is deduced directl$ fro. the i.possibilit$ to resol)e the contradiction of the ele.entar$ for. of )alue ;hile re.aining ;ithin the fra.e;or( of this ele.entar$ for.+ The point is that each of the co..odities entering an exchange relation is a li)ing antino.$+ Co..odit$ A can onl$ be in one for. of )alue and not si.ultaneousl$ in t;o+ *ut if the exchange is perfor.ed in realit$ that .eans that each of the t;o co..odities assu.es in the other the )er$ for. ;hich the latter cannot ta(e because it alread$ has the opposite for.+ After all the other co..odit$ o;ner did not bring his co..odit$ to the .ar(et for so.eone to .easure b$ it the )alue of his co..odit$+ 0e hi.self .ust and ;ants to .easure the )alue of his o;n co..odit$ b$ the other co..odit$ that is he .ust regard the opposing co..odit$ as an e<ui)alent+ *ut it cannot be an e<ui)alent because it alread$ has the relati)e for.+ This relation is absolutel$ identical on both sides+ The o;ner of linen regards the co..odit$ N the coat N onl$ as an e<ui)alent and his o;n co..odit$ onl$ as a relati)e for.+ *ut the coat o;ner reasons in precisel$ the opposite ;a$A for hi. linen is an e<ui)alent and the coat onl$ an exchange )alue onl$ the relati)e for.+ And if the exchange does ta(e place that .eans 7to express the fact of the exchange theoreticall$8 that both co..odities .utuall$ measure their value and >ust as .utuall$ ser)e as the .aterial in ;hich )alue is .easured+ 5n other ;ords both coat and linen posit each other as that )er$ for. of expression of )alue ;hich the$ cannot assu.e for precisel$ the reason that the$ ha)e alread$ assu.ed the other for.+ /inen .easures its )alue in the coat 7that is .a(es it an e<ui)alent8 ;hile the coat .easures its )alue in linen 7that is .a(es it an e<ui)alent too8+ 0o;e)er as both linen and coat ha)e alread$ assu.ed the relati)e for. of )alue as both .easure their )alue in the other the$ cannot assu.e the role of the e<ui)alent+ *ut if the exchange actuall$ did ta(e place that .eans that both co..odities .utuall$ .easured their )alue in each other the$ .utuall$ recognised each other to be e<ui)alent )alues despite the fact that both of the. had been before that in the relati)e for. ;hich excludes the possibilit$ of assu.ing the opposite the e<ui)alent for.+ Thus real exchange is a real actuall$ occurring coincidence of t;o polar and .utuall$ exclusi)e for.s of expression of )alue in each of the co..odities+ *ut this cannot be the .etaph$sician ;ill sa$A it appears that Marx contradicts hi.selfQ 3o; he sa$s that a co..odit$ cannot assu.e both polar for.s of )alue and then again lie sa$s that in actual exchange it is co.pelled to be in both at the sa.e ti.eQ Marx ans;ers that this .a$ and actuall$ does ta(e place+ That is a theoretical expression of the fact that direct co..odit$ exchange cannot ser)e as a for. of the social exchange of .atter that ;ould proceed s.oothl$ ;ithout friction obstacles conflicts or contradictions+ That is nothing but the theoretical expression of the real i.possibilit$ against ;hich the .o)e.ent itself of the co..odit$ .ar(et runs N i.possibilit$ of precise establish.ent of the proportions in ;hich the sociall$ necessar$ ;or( is spent in di)erse branches of the sociall$ di)ided labour connected onl$ through the co..odit$ .ar(et that is the i.possibilit$ of precise expression of )alue+ Direct exchange of co..odit$ for co..odit$ cannot express the sociall$ necessar$ .easure of the expenditure of labour in )arious spheres of the social production+ The antino.$ of )alue in the fra.e;or( of the ele.entar$ co..odit$ for. therefore re.ains unresol)ed and unresol)able+ 0ere co..odit$ both .ust and cannot assu.e both .utuall$ exclusi)e econo.ic for.s+ 1ther;ise exchange according to value is i.possible+ *ut it cannot be si.ultaneousl$ in t;o for.s+ That is a hopeless antino.$ that cannot be resol)ed in the fra.e;or( of the ele.entar$ for. of )alue+ 11O

Marxs dialectical genius sho;ed itself in the fact that lie grasped this antino.$ and expressed it as such+ *ut inas.uch as exchange according to )alue still has to ta(e place so.eho; the antino.$ of )alue has to be so.eho; resol)ed in a relati)e ;a$+ The solution is found b$ the .o)e.ent itself of the si.ple co..odit$ .ar(et generating .one$ the .one$ for. of expression of )alue+ Mone$ in Marxs anal$sis e.erges as the natural for. in ;hich the .o)e.ent of the .ar(et itself finds a .eans for the solution of the contradiction of the ele.entar$ for. of )alue of direct exchange of one co..odit$ for another co..odit$+ This is a point ;here the funda.ental difference is .ost graphicall$ de.onstrated bet;een dialectic .aterialist .ode of sol)ing contradictions and all those .ethods that are (no;n to .etaph$sical thought+ Fhat is the .etaph$sicians procedure ;hen a contradiction arises in the definition of a theoretical expression of a certain realit$G 0e al;a$s endea)ours to sol)e it b$ .a(ing concepts .ore precise b$ setting stricter li.its upon ter.s etc+ he ;ill al;a$s atte.pt to construe it as an external rather than an internal contradiction as a contradiction in different relations ;ith ;hich .etaph$sics is ;ell reconciled+ 5n other ;ords all he does is change the expression of the realit$ in ;hich the contradiction has arisen+ Marx acts <uite differentl$ in a case li(e this+ 0e proceeds fro. the assu.ption that in the fra.e;or( of the ele.entar$ for. of )alue the established antino.$ in definitions is not resol)ed and cannot objectively be resol)ed+ 1ne therefore need not search for its solution in the consideration of the ele.entar$ for. of )alue+ This antino.$ is insoluble in direct exchange of co..odit$ for co..odit$ either ob>ecti)el$ 7that is b$ the .o)e.ent of the co..odit$ .ar(et itself8 or sub>ecti)el$ 7that is in theor$8+ 5ts solution .ust not therefore be loo(ed for in further reflection on the ele.entar$ for. of )alue 18tit in tracing out the ob>ecti)e spontaneous necessit$ ;ith ;hich co..odit$ .ar(et itself finds creates or ;or(s out the real .eans of its relati)e resolution+ The dialectical .aterialist .ethod of resolution of contradictions in theoretical definitions thus consists in tracing the process b$ ;hich the .o)e.ent of realit$ itself resol)es the. in a ne; for. of expression+ #xpressed ob>ecti)el$ the goal lies in tracing through anal$sis of ne; e.pirical .aterials the e.ergence of realit$ in ;hich an earlier established contradiction finds its relati)e resolution in a ne; ob>ecti)e for. of its realisation+ That is Marxs procedure in the anal$sis of .one$+ Mone$ is the natural .eans b$ ;hich use6)alue begins to transfor. itself into exchange )alue and )ice )ersa+ *efore .one$ appeared each of the co..odities co.ing together in an exchange had to perfor. si.ultaneousl$ ;ithin on7 and the sa.e indi)idual relation both of the .utuall$ exclusi)e .eta.orphoses 7fro. use6)alue into exchange )alue and at the sa.e .o.ent ;ithin the sa.e act to perfor. the re)erse transfiguration8+ 3o; it all loo(s different+ 3o; the dual transfor.ation is not realised as direct coincidence of the t;o .utuall$ exclusi)e for.s but as a .ediated act through transfor.ation into .one$ the uni)ersal e<ui)alent+ The transfor.ation of use6)alue into )alue no longer directl$ coincides ;ith the opposite transfor.ation of )alue into use6)alue+ #xchange of co..odit$ for another co..odit$ brea(s up into t;o different and opposite acts of transfor.ation no longer coinciding in one point of space and ti.e+ Co..odit$ is transfor.ed into .one$ not another co..odit$+ A use6)alue beco.es an exchange )alue no .ore and so.e;here at another point of the .ar(et possibl$ at a different ti.e .one$ beco.es a co..odit$ )alue beco.es use6)alue is replaced b$ it+ The coincidence of t;o transfor.ations in t;o dia.etricall$ opposed directions no; falls in the realit$ of exchange itself into t;o different transfor.ations no longer coinciding in ti.e or place N the act of selling 7transfor.ation of use6)alue into )alue8 and the act of bu$ing 7transfor.ation of )alue into use6 )alue8+ Mone$ full$ .onopolises the econo.ic for. of e<ui)alent beco.ing a pure e.bodi.ent of )alue as such ;hile all the other co..odities assu.e the for. of relati)e )alue+ The$ confront .one$ as use6 )alues onl$+ The antino.$ in the theoretical expression of co..odit$ exchange ;as apparentl$ resol)edA the contradiction 7as direct coincidence of t;o polar .utuall$ exclusi)e opposites of econo.ic for.8 no; .erged split as it ;ere bet;een t;o different things bet;een co..odit$ and .one$+ 5n actual fact ;ith the e.ergence of the .one$ for. of )alue the contradiction of )alue did not disappear or e)aporate at all N it .erel$ assu.ed a ne; for. of expression+ 5t continues to be 7though onl$ i.plicitl$8 an inner contradiction per.eating both .one$ and co..odit$ and conse<uentl$ their theoretical definitions+ 116

5ndeed a co..odit$ confronting .one$ has apparentl$ beco.e a use6)alue onl$ and .one$ a pure expression of exchange )alue+ *ut on the other hand each co..odit$ appears onl$ as exchange )alue in relation to .one$+ 5t is sold for .one$ precisel$ for the reason that it is no use6)alue for its o;ner+ And .one$ pla$s the role of an e<ui)alent precisel$ because it confronts an$ co..odit$ as the uni)ersal i.age of use6)alue+ The entire i.port of the e<ui)alent for. lies in that it expresses the exchange )alue of another co..odit$ as use6)alue+ The originall$ established antino.$ of the ele.entar$ co..odit$ exchange has thus been retained both in .one$ and in co..odities it still constitutes the ele.entar$ essence of the one and of the other although on the surface of e)ents this inner contradiction of both .one$ and co..odit$ for.s pro)ed to be extinguished+
Fe sa; Bsa$s MarxC +++ that the exchange of co..odities i.plies contradictor$ and .utuall$ exclusi)e conditions+ The differentiation of co..odities into co..odities and .one$ does not s;eep a;a$ these inconsistencies but de)elops a modus vivendi, a for. in ;hich the$ can exist side b$ side+ This is generall$ the ;a$ in ;hich real contradictions are reconciled+ -or instance it is a contradiction to depict one bod$ as constantl$ falling to;ards another and as at the sa.e ti.e constantl$ fl$ing a;a$ fro. it+ The ellipse is a for. of .otion ;hich ;hile allo;ing this contradiction to go on at the sa.e ti.e reconciles it+ B1OC

-ro. the external contradiction of use6)alue and exchange )alue Marx proceeds to the fixing of the internal contradiction contained in each of the t;o co..odities+ The fact that the contradiction first arises as contradiction in different relations 7exchange )alue in relation to one of the co..odit$ o;ners and use6)alue in relation to the other8 is for hi. an indication of abstractness of insufficient co.pleteness and concreteness of (no;ledge+ The concreteness of (no;ledge is .anifested in co.prehending this external contradiction as a superficial .ode of re)elation of so.ething <uite different na.el$ an internal contradiction a coincidence of .utuall$ exclusi)e theoretical definitions in the concrete concept of )alue+ 5ts significance .a$ be explained e+g+ b$ co.paring Marxs anal$sis of )alue ;ith a discourse on )alue in a ;or( b$ the #nglish e.piricist *aile$+
The latter too( the external for. of .anifestation of )alue in exchange for its genuine and onl$ econo.ic realit$ belie)ing all tal( about )alue as such abstract dialectical scholastics; he declaredA @:alue is nothing intrinsic and absolute+ 0is substantiation of this assertion ;as thisA @5t is i.possible to designate, or express the value of a co..odit$ except b$ a quantity of some other com.odit$+

To this Marx ans;eredA @As i.possible as it is to CdesignateC or CexpressC a thought except b$ a <uantit$ of s$llables+ 0ence *aile$ concludes that a thought is N s$llables+ B16C 5n this case *aile$ ai.ed at presenting )alue as a relation of one co..odit$ to another as an external for. of a thing posited b$ its relation to another thing ;hereas 2icardo and Marx endea)oured to find an expression of )alue as an inner content of each exchanged thing of each thing entering the relation of exchange+ The proper i..anent )alue of a thing is onl$ .anifested b$ no .eans created in the for. of a relation of one thing to another+ *aile$ being an e.piricist tries to present the inner relation of a thing ;ithin itself as an external relation of one thing to another+ 2icardo and Marx endea)our 7and therein lies the theoretical nature of their approach8 to see through the relation of one thing to another the inner relation of a thing to itself N )alue as the essence of a co..odit$ ;hich is onl$ .anifested in an exchange through an external relation of this co..odit$ to another one+ The .etaph$sician al;a$s atte.pts to reduce an inner contradiction of a thing to an external contradiction of this thing to another thing to a contradiction in different relations that is to a for. of expression in ;hich this contradiction is eli.inated fro. the concept of a thing+ Marx on the contrar$ al;a$s endea)ours to discern in the external contradiction onl$ a superficial .anifestation of an inner contradiction i..anentl$ inherent in each thing confronting its counterpart in the relation of external contradiction+ Therein lies the difference bet;een a genuinel$ theoretical approach and an e.pirical description of pheno.ena+ Dialectics consists exactl$ in the abilit$ to discern the inner contradiction of a thing the sti.ulus of its self6de)elop.ent ;here the .etaph$sician sees onl$ an external contradiction resulting fro. a .ore or less accidental collision of t;o internall$ non6contradictor$ things+ Dialectics re<uires in this case that external contradiction of t;o things be interpreted as a .utuall$ necessar$ .anifestation of the inner contradiction of each of the.+ The external contradiction e.erges as an inner identit$ of .utuall$ exclusi)e .o.ents .ediated through a relation to so.ething else and 11K

reflected through so.ething else as an internall$ contradictor$ relation of a thing to itself that is as a contradiction in one relation and at one and the sa.e .o.ent in ti.e+ Marx proceeds fro. an external .anifestation of a contradiction to establishing the inner basis of this contradiction from the appearance to the essence of this contradiction ;hereas the .etaph$sician al;a$s tries to act in a precisel$ re)erse .anner refuting the theoretical expression of the essence of a thing fro. the standpoint of external appearance ;hich he belie)es to be the onl$ realit$+ That is *aile$s .ode of reasoning in the abo)e+ That is the .ode of reasoning of a .etaph$sician ;ho al;a$s assu.es that the true interpretation of a contradiction is its interpretation as a contradiction in different relations+ And it al;a$s leads to a destruction of the ele.entar$ theoretical approach to things+ Marx regards )alue as the relation of a commodity to itself, rather than to another co..odit$ and that is ;h$ it e.erges as a li)ing unsol)ed and insoluble inner contradiction+ This contradiction is not resol)ed because on the surface of pheno.ena it appears as a contradiction in t;o different relations as t;o different transfor.ations N as bu$ing and selling+ The entire significance of Marxs anal$sis consists in sho;ing that the contradiction of )alue is insoluble in principle ;ithin the fra.e;or( of ele.entar$ co..odit$ exchange and that )alue ine)itabl$ appears here as a li)ing antino.$ in itself no .atter ho; .uch one specifies concepts or ho; deepl$ one exa.ines or reflects upon )alue+ A co..odit$ as an e.bodi.ent of )alue cannot si.ultaneousl$ assu.e both of the .utuall$ exclusi)e for.s of )alue+ $et it actuall$ does assu.e both these for.s si.ultaneousl$ ;hen the exchange according to )alue is perfor.ed+ This theoretical antino.$ expresses nothing but the real i.possibilit$ ;hich the .o)e.ent of the si.ple co..odit$ .ar(et continuall$ encounters+ An i.possibilit$ is an i.possibilit$+ 5t does not disappear if it is present in theor$ as a possibilit$ as so.ething uncontradictor$+ The .o)e.ent of the real .ar(et lea)es behind the for. of direct exchange of a co..odit$ for another co..odit$+ 5n considering extensi)e e.pirical data expressing this .o)e.ent Marx proceeds to the theoretical anal$sis of those .ore co.plex for.s b$ ;hich the .ar(et realises and at the sa.e ti.e resol)es this contradiction+ Therein lies the necessit$ of the transition to .one$+ /oo(ing at this .atter fro. the philosophical )ie;point ;e shall see that that is an expression of the materialist nature of Marxs .ethod of resol)ing contradictions in the theoretical expression of ob>ecti)e realit$+ 5n this .ethod the contradiction is not resol)ed b$ its eli.ination fro. the theor$+ 1n the contrar$ this .ethod is based on the assu.ption that contradiction in the ob>ect itself cannot be and is ne)er resol)ed in an$ other ;a$ than b$ the de)elop.ent of the realit$ fraught ;ith this contradiction into another higher and .ore ad)anced realit$+ The antino.$ of )alue finds its relati)e resolution in .one$+ *ut then again .one$ does not eli.inate the antino.$ of )alue N it .erel$ creates a for. in ;hich this antino.$ is realised and expressed as before+ This .ode of theoretical presentation of a real+ process is the onl$ ade<uate logical for. in ;hich the dialectical de)elop.ent of the ob>ect its self#development through contradictions .a$ be expressed in theor$+ The materialist nature of the .ethod b$ ;hich Marx resol)ed theoretical contradictions in the definition of the ob>ect ;as ;ell expressed b$ #ngels in his re)ie;+
Fith this .ethod ;e begin ;ith the first and si.plest relation ;hich is historicall$ actuall$ a)ailable++++ Contradictions ;ill e.erge de.anding a solution+ *ut since ;e are not exa.ining an abstract .ental process that ta(es place solel$ in our .ind but an actual e)ent ;hich reall$ too( place at so.e ti.e or other or ;hich is still ta(ing place these contradictions ;ill ha)e arisen in practice and ha)e probabl$ been sol)ed+ Fe shall trace the .ode of this solution and find that it has been effected b$ establishing a ne; relation ;hose t;o contradictor$ aspects ;e shall then ha)e to set forth and so on+ B1KC

5t is the ob>ecti)e i.possibilit$ of sol)ing the contradiction bet;een the social nature of labour and the pri)ate for. of appropriating its product through direct exchange of one co..odit$ for another ;ithout .one$ that is theoreticall$ expressed as an antino.$ as an insoluble contradiction of the ele.entar$ for. of )alue as an insoluble contradiction of its theoretical definitions+ That is ;h$ Marx did not e)en tr$ to get rid of the contradiction in the definition of )alue+ :alue re.ains an antino.$ an unresol)ed and insoluble contradiction a direct coincidence of .utuall$ exclusi)e theoretical definitions+ The onl$ real .ethod of the resolution of this antino.$ is a socialist re)olution eli.inating the pri)ate nature of the appropriation of the product of social labour appropriation through the co..odit$ .ar(et+ 11!

The ob>ecti)e i.possibilit$ of resol)ing the contradiction bet;een the social nature of labour and the pri)ate for. of appropriation of its products gi)en the dail$ need for realising the social exchange of .atter through the co..odit$ .ar(et sti.ulates the search for natural .eans and .ethods of doing so+ 5t is this factor that ulti.atel$ leads to the e.ergence of .one$+ 5n the sa.e ;a$ as .one$ e.erges in the real .o)e.ent of the co..odit$ .ar(et as a natural .eans of resol)ing the contradictions of direct co..odit$ exchange the theoretical definitions of .one$ in Capital are ;or(ed out as a .eans of resol)ing the contradiction in the definition of )alue+ 0ere ;e are dealing ;ith the .ost i.portant ele.ent of Marxs dialectical .ethod of ascent fro. the abstract to the concrete ;ith the dialectical .aterialist deduction of categories+ The sti.ulus of theoretical de)elop.ent the .oti)e force behind the unfolding of a s$ste. of theoretical definitions of a thing is the theor$s inner contradiction" 5t perfor.s this function precisel$ because and precisel$ in those cases ;hen it directly reflects the contradiction of the ob>ect that is the inner sti.ulus of its de)elop.ent of the gro;th of its co.plexit$ and de)elop.ent of its for.s of existence+ The theoretical expression of this sti.ulus in the concept is naturall$ preceded b$ extensi)e and thorough ;or( on the selection and anal$sis of e.pirical data characterising the de)elop.ent of these for.s+ -ro. this )ie;point the entire logical structure of Capital e.erges in a ne; light that is of funda.ental interestA else entire .o)e.ent of theoretical thought in Capital pro)es to be loc(ed in bet;een t;o originall$ established poles of the expression of )alue+ The first concrete categor$ follo;ing )alue .one$ e.erges as a real .ethod of .utual transfor.ation of the poles of expression of )alue as that .eta.orphosis through ;hich the t;o poles of )alue gra)itating to;ards each other and at the sa.e ti.e .utuall$ excluding each other .ust pass in the process of their .utual transfor.ation+ This approach ob>ecti)el$ orientates reasoning ;hen it faces the tas( of establishing the uni)ersal and necessar$ theoretical definitions of .one$A in considering the entire totalit$ of the e.pirical concrete sensual data onl$ those characteristics are singled out and registered ;hich are necessaril$ posited b$ the transfor.ation of )alue into use6)alue and )ice )ersa ;hereas all the e.pirical features of the .one$ for. ;hich do not necessaril$ follo; fro. this .utual con)ersion or cannot be deduced fro. it are left aside+ The funda.ental difference bet;een dialectical .aterialist deduction of categories and abstract intellectual deduction co.es to light here+ The latter is based on abstract general or generic concept+ A particular pheno.enon is subsu.ed under it and in considering this pheno.enon the traits are discerned that constitute the distincti)e features of the gi)en species+ The result is .ere appearance of deduction+ -or instance the 1rlo) trotter breed is included in the abstraction @horse in general+ The definition of this particular breed includes those features ;hich per.it to distinguish an 1rlo) trotter fro. an$ other breed of horses+ 5t is <uite clear ho;e)er that the specific features of an 1rlo) trotter are b$ no .eans included in the abstraction @horse in general and the$ therefore can in no ;a$ be deduced fro. it+ The$ are tac(ed on to the definitions of the @horse in general in a purel$ .echanical ;a$+ *ecause of this for.al deduction offers no guarantees that these specific differences are discerned correctl$ that the$ necessarily belong to the breed in <uestion+ 5t .a$ ;ell be that these specific traits of an 1rlo) trotter are found in so.ething that it has in co..on ;ith a trotter fro. the state of 1(laho.a+ The sa.e is the case as ;e ha)e seen ;ith 2icardos theoretical definitions of .one$+ 5n his conception the specific differences of the .one$ for. are in no ;a$ deduced fro. )alue+ 5t is for this reason that he cannot distinguish bet;een the reall$ necessar$ econo.ic characteristics of .one$ as such and those properties that the e.piricall$ obser)ed .one$ possesses because of the fact that it e.bodies the .o)e.ent of capital+ And it is for this reason that lie sees the specific definitions of .one$ in the characteristics of <uite a different pheno.enon N the process of circulation of capital+ Marxs approach ;as <uite different+ The fact that in his theor$ )alue ;as understood in the .o)e.ent of opposites and that theoretical definition of )alue in general contains a contradiction allo;ed hi. to discern in the e.piricall$ obser)ed pheno.ena of .one$ circulation exactly those and only those features ;hich are necessaril$ inherent in .one$ as .one$ and exhaustively define .one$ as a specific for. of the .o)e.ent of )alue+ Marx includes in the theoretical definition of .one$ onl$ those features of .one$ circulation ;hich are necessaril$ deduced fro. the contradictions of )alue being necessaril$ generated b$ the .o)e.ent of ele.entar$ co..odit$ exchange+ 119

That is ;hat Marx calls deduction" 5t is eas$ to state here that this (ind of deduction beco.es possible onl$ if its .a>or pre.ise is not an abstract general concept but a concrete universal one interpreted as unit$ or identit$ of .utuall$ transfor.ing opposites as a concept reflecting the real contradiction in the ob>ect+ 5t should be stressed again and again that this theoretical deduction is based on a .ost detailed and all6 sided consideration of a s$ste. of e.pirical facts and pheno.ena constituting the econo.ic realit$ that is the ob>ect of theor$+ That ;as the onl$ ;a$ in ;hich genuinel$ co.plete and meaningful rather than for.al abstractions could be obtained ;hich re)eal the specific essence of the .one$ for.+ Marx obtained theoretical definitions of .one$ b$ considering the process of circulation abstractedly, that is apart from circumstances not immediately flowing from the laws of the si.ple circulation of co..odities+ B1!C The circu.stances flo;ing fro. the i..anent la;s of si.ple co..odit$ circulation are precisel$ the products of the inner contradiction of )alue as such of the si.ple for. of )alue+ The dialectics of the abstract and the concrete is here .anifested in a .ost apparent and graphic for.A precisel$ because .one$ is considered in the abstract concrete theoretical definitions are obtained expressing the concrete historical nature of .one$ as a particular pheno.enon+ A football the planet Mars or a ball6bearing can all easil$ be included in the abstract general concept of the spherical but no effort of logical thought ;ill deduce fro. the concept of the spherical in general for none of these for.s originate in the realit$ reflected in the concept of the spherical in general that is in the actual si.ilarit$ or identit$ of all spherical bodies+ *ut the econo.ic for. of .one$ is deduced in a .ost rigorous .anner fro. the concept of )alue 7in its Marxian interpretation8 exactl$ because the ob>ecti)e econo.ic realit$ reflected in the categor$ of )alue in general contains a real ob>ecti)e necessit$ of generating .one$+ This necessit$ is nothing but the inner contradiction of )alue insoluble in the fra.e;or( of the si.ple exchange of one co..odit$ for another+ Marxs categor$ of )alue is a concrete uni)ersal categor$ exactl$ because it co.prises in its definitions an inner contradiction being a unit$ an identit$ of .utuall$ exclusi)e and at the sa.e ti.e .utuall$ assu.ing theoretical definitions+ The concreteness of the uni)ersal concept is in Marxs approach inti.atel$ lin(ed ;ith the contradiction in its definition+ Concreteness is in general identity of opposites ;hereas the abstract general is obtained according to the principle of bare identit$ identit$ ;ithout contradiction+ 5f one considers closel$ the .o)e.ent of Marxs thought fro. co..odit$ and )alue in general to .one$ co.paring it to the si.ilar .o)e.ent of 2icardos thought the result ;ill be a clear picture of the difference bet;een dialectics and .etaph$sics on the <uestion of the .oti)e forces of the unfolding of a s$ste. of categories+ 2icardo is sti.ulated in his progress b$ the contradiction bet;een the inco.pleteness po)ert$ and one6 sidedness of the uni)ersal abstraction 7)alue in general8 and the richness fullness and )ariet$ of aspects of the pheno.ena of .one$ circulation+ 5ncluding .one$ 7>ust as all the other categories8 in the sphere of application of the uni)ersal for.ula of the la; of )alue 2icardo sees that .one$ is on the one hand included in this sphere 7.one$ is also a co..odit$8 but on the other it possesses .an$ other properties that are not expressed in the abstraction of )alue in general+ 5n short he sees that .one$ apart fro. the general features registered in the categor$ of )alue possesses specific distinctions ;hich he proceeds to establish+ 5n this ;a$ he handles all of the de)eloped categories+ Fe ha)e alread$ seen ;hat that entailsA e.pirical data are assi.ilated in a theoreticall$ undigested for.+ Marxs results are different+ 5n Capital, the progress of thought to;ards ne; definitions is not sti.ulated b$ an$ contradiction bet;een @inco.plete abstraction and @fullness of the sensuall$ concrete i.age of realit$+ %uch a conception of the .oti)ating contradiction of theor$ ;ould not ta(e us a single step be$ond the /oc(ean co.prehension of theoretical interpretation of realit$ full$ identif$ing the .ethods of Marx and of 2icardo+ The theoretical de)elop.ent of categories in Capital is based on a .ore concrete understanding of the contradiction sti.ulating the progress of thought+ 2easoning is here guided b$ the follo;ing principleA an objective contradiction is reflected as a subjective, theoretical or logical task for reasoning, which may only be solved through further study of empirical facts, of sensual data" This further consideration of e.pirical facts is not done blindl$ but in the light of a rigorousl$ and concretely formulated theoretical tas( or proble. the latter being for.ulated each ti.e as a logical, that is for.all$ insoluble contradiction+ 1"0

Fe ha)e alread$ anal$sed the transition fro. the consideration of )alue to the consideration of .one$ establishing that in the real e.piricall$ gi)en pheno.ena of de)eloped .one$ circulation Marx singles out onl$ those and exactl$ those definitions ;hich .a(e .one$ understandable as a .eans of relati)e resolution of the inner contradiction of co..odit$ exchange+ Then thought faces a ne; theoretical contradiction a ne; theoretical problem, anal$sis of co..odit$6.one$ circulation sho;s that this sphere does not co.prise in itself an$ conditions under ;hich circulation of )alue could generate ne; )alue surplus6)alue+
Turn and t;ist then as ;e .a$ the fact re.ains unaltered+ 5f e<ui)alents are exchanged no surplus6)alue results and if non6e<ui)alents are exchanged still no surplus6)alue+ B19C

This generalisation ho;e)er is in the relation of .utuall$ exclusi)e contradiction ;ith another not less ob)ious fact N na.el$ that .one$ put into circulation fetches profit+ This also re.ains a fact @turn and t;ist as ;e .a$ and a )er$ ancient fact the sa.e age as .one$6lending and the latter is as old as .one$ itself+ 5n other ;ords anal$sis of the co..odit$6.one$ sphere has resulted in the conclusion that usurious capital is i.possible+ *ut far fro. being i.possible it re.ains a per)ading fact not onl$ under capitalis. but in all the earlier s$ste.s too N under the sla)e6o;ning s$ste. and feudalis.+ This ne; antino.$ the contradiction of the theoretical thought to itself contained a for.ulation of the problem, of the theoretical tas( ;hich Marx ;as capable of sol)ing for the first ti.e in the histor$ of econo.ic thought exactl$ because he ;as the first to for.ulate the proble. correctl$+ 0e ;ho has for.ulated the proble. correctl$ has half the ans;er to it+ 1ld logic as is ;ell (no;n did not in general stud$ the <uestion as a logical for. as the necessar$ for. of the logical process+ 5dealis. s(ilfull$ speculated on this dra;bac( of old logic+7Thus &ant stated that nature ans;ers onl$ those <uestions that ;e as( it .a(ing this an argu.ent in fa)our of his a priori conception of theoretical cognitionA the ans;er to a <uestion essentiall$ depends on the .anner of for.ulating it and the for.ulation is done b$ the sub>ect+8 The abilit$ to as( the right <uestion and to for.ulate the proble. correctl$ is one of the .ost i.portant tas(s of dialectical .aterialist logic+ Marx concretel$ sho;ed in Capital ;hat it .eant to for.ulate a concrete <uestion and ho; to find a concrete ans;er to it+ Marxs logic is brought into relief in the ;a$ he for.ulated and ans;ered the <uestion of the origin of surplus6)alue+ The <uestion is for.ulated here not arbitraril$ but on the basis of an ob>ecti)e anal$sis of the la;s of co..odit$6.one$ circulation and in a for. that brings the stud$ of the i..anent la;s of co..odit$6.one$ circulation to a theoretical contradiction"
5t is therefore i.possible for capital to be produced b$ circulation and it is e<uall$ i.possible for it to originate apart fro. circulation+ 5t .ust ha)e its origin both in circulation and $et not in circulation++++ These are the conditions of the proble.+ 0ic 5hodus, hic saltaQ B"0C

This for.ulation of the proble. b$ Marx is not accidental and is b$ no .eans onl$ an external rhetorical de)ice+ 5t is lin(ed ;ith the )er$ essence of dialectics as a .ethod of concrete anal$sis as a .ethod that follo;s the anal$sed realit$ as it de)elops through contradictions+ As the de)elop.ent of the realit$ occurs through the e.ergence of contradictions and their resolution so does thought occur as it reproduces this de)elop.ent+ This feature of the dialectical .ethod .a(es it possible not onl$ to as( the right <uestion but also to find its theoretical solution+ An ob>ecti)e in<uir$ into the co..odit$6.one$ circulation has sho;n that this sphere does not contain in it an$ conditions under ;hich an ob)ious un<uestionable and o.nipresent econo.ic fact is possible na$ necessar$A the spontaneous gro;th of )alue+ Thought is thus directed at defining that real econo.icall$ necessar$ condition in the presence of ;hich co..odit$6.one$ circulation beco.es capitalistic circulation of co..odities+ This result that ;e need .ust satisf$ a nu.ber of rigorous conditions it .ust be correlated ;ith the.+ These conditions of the theoretical tas( are established b$ the stud$ of the co..odit$6.one$ circulation as the uni)ersal foundation of the capitalistic co..odit$ s$ste.+ 5n this respect thought .o)es deducti)el$ in the full sense of the ter. N fro. the uni)ersal to the particular fro. the abstract to the concrete ;hich .a(es it goal6directed+ Marx for.ulates the tas( in the follo;ing ;a$A the onl$ condition on ;hich surplus6)alue is possible ;ithout )iolating the la; of )alue is @to find ;ithin the sphere of circulation in the .ar(et a co..odit$ ;hose use6)alue possesses the peculiar propert$ of being a source of )alue ;hose actual consu.ption therefore is itself an e.bodi.ent of labour and conse<uentl$ a creation of )alue+ B"1C 1"1

This point sharpl$ .ar(s the funda.ental opposition bet;een the dialectics of Marx that is .aterialist dialectics and the speculati)e idealist dialectics of 0egel his .ethod of constructing realit$ out of a concept+ The axio.atic and un<uestionable principle of 0egelian dialectics is that the entire s$ste. of categories .ust be de)eloped fro. the i..anent contradictions of the basic concept+ 5f the de)elop.ent of co..odit$6.one$ circulation into capitalistic co..odit$ circulation had been presented b$ an orthodox follo;er of 0egelian logic he ;ould ha)e had to pro)e in the spirit of this logic that the i..anent contradictions of the co..odit$ sphere generate b$ the.sel)es all the conditions under ;hich )alue beco.es spontaneousl$ gro;ing )alue+ Marx adopts the re)erse procedureA he sho;s that co..odit$6.one$ ho;e)er a long it .a$ go on ;ithin itself cannot increase the o)erall )alue of co..odities being exchanged it cannot create b$ its .o)e.ent an$ conditions under ;hich .one$ put into circulation ;ould necessaril$ fetch ne; .one$+ At this decisi)e point in the anal$sis thought goes bac( again to the empirics of the capitalistic co..odit$ .ar(et+ 5t is in the empirics that the econo.ic realit$ is found ;hich transfor.s the .o)e.ent of the co..odit$6.one$ .ar(et into production and accu.ulation of surplus6)alue+ /abour6 po;er is the onl$ co..odit$ ;hich at one and the sa.e ti.e is included in the sphere of application of the la; of )alue and ;ithout an$ )iolation of this la; .a(es surplus6)alue ;hich directl$ contradicts the la; of )alue both possible and necessar$+ 0ere ;e again see the enor.ous theoretical i.portance of the fact that co..odit$ ;as re)ealed b$ Marx to be a direct unit$ an identit$ of the opposites of )alue and use6)alue+ The essence of labour6po;er as co..odit$ is also re)ealed in Capital as a direct identit$ of .utuall$ exclusi)e definitions of )alue and use6)alueA the use6)alue of labour6po;er its specific propert$ consists onl$ in the fact that in the course of its consu.ption it is transfor.ed into its counterpart N )alue+ The econo.ic definitions of labour6po;er ;ithin the capitalistic co..odit$ s$ste. of conditions of production deri)e fro. this unit$ of .utuall$ excluding opposites fro. their antino.ical co.bination in one and the sa.e co..odit$ the use6)alue of ;hich exclusi)el$ consists in its abilit$ to be transfor.ed into )alue in the act of consu.ption itself+ Fhen labour6po;er figures as use6)alue 7the act of its consu.ption b$ the capitalist8 it e.erges at the sa.e ti.e as )alue .aterialised in the product of labour+ That is again a contradiction in one and the sa.e relation N in relation to the process of production and accu.ulation of surplus6)alue an inner contradiction of the capitalist process+ -ro. the logical point of )ie; one .ost significant circu.stance .ust be noted hereA an$ concrete categor$ of Capital e.erges as one of the for.s of .utual transformation of )alue and use6)alue that is of those t;o .utuall$ exclusi)e poles that ;ere established at the beginning of the research in the anal$sis of the @cell of the organis. under stud$ of those t;o poles ;hich in their antagonistic unit$ constitute the content of the basic uni)ersal categor$ underl$ing the entire subse<uent deduction of categories+ The ;hole deduction of categories e.erges fro. this angle as a co.plication of the chain of .ediating lin(s through ;hich both poles of )alue .ust pass in their transfor.ation into each other+ The for.ation of the capitalist organis. e.erges as the process of gro;ing tension bet;een the t;o poles of the original categor$+ The transfor.ation of the opposites of )alue and use6)alue into each other beco.es e)er .ore co.plicated+ 5n si.ple exchange of one co..odit$ for another the .utual transfor.ation of )alue and use6)alue is perfor.ed as a direct act ;hereas ;ith the e.ergence of .one$ each of the poles .ust first beco.e .one$ and onl$ later its o;n counterpart+ /abour6po;er e.erges as a ne; .ediating lin( of the .utual transfor.ation of for.s of )alue as a ne; for. of its realisation+ The poles of )alue gra)itating to;ards each other re.ain t;o extre.e points bet;een ;hich e)er ne; econo.ic for.s e.erge+ An$ ne; econo.ic realit$ assu.es a .eaning and significance onl$ if it ser)es the .utual transfor.ation of )alue and use6)alue if it beco.es a for. of realisation of )alue as a li)ing antagonistic unit$ of its inner opposites+ :alue beco.es the supre.e >udge of all the econo.ic destinies the highest criterion of the econo.ic necessit$ of an$ pheno.enon in)ol)ed in its .o)e.ent+ Man hi.self the sub>ect of the production process beco.es a passi)e pla$thing an @ob>ect of )alue the latter assu.ing @an auto.aticall$ acti)e character +++ being the acti)e factor in such a process+ B""C
5n si.ple circulation C N M N C the )alue of co..odities attained at the .ost a for. independent of their use6 )alues i+e+ the for. of .one$; but that sa.e )alue no; in the circulation M N C N M or the circulation of capital suddenl$ presents itself as an independent substance endo;ed ;ith a .otion of its o;n passing through a life6

1""

process of its o;n in ;hich .one$ and co..odities are .ere for.s ;hich it assu.es and casts off in turn B"HC N that is ;hat Marx sa$s of the role of )alue in the capitalistic co..odit$ .ode of production+

5t is not difficult to discern here a concealed pole.ics ;ith the )er$ essence of 0egelian philosoph$ its funda.ental substantiation in The )henomenology of the (pirit" 5n this ;or( containing the ;hole secret of 0egelian philosoph$ the idealist dialectician propounded this re<uire.ent to be i.posed on scienceA @to concei)e and to express the truth not as substance but in the sa.e degree as a sub>ect+ B"LC -or 0egel the sub>ect is tanta.ount to realit$ de)eloping through contradictions to the self6de)eloping realit$+ The ;hole point is ho;e)er that 0egel did not recognise this as a propert$ of the ob>ecti)e realit$ existing outside the spirit and independentl$ fro. it+ -or hi. the onl$ self6de)eloping substance is the logical idea and it is therefore assu.ed and substantiated that the re<uire.ent to concei)e and express the truth not as substance but in the sa.e degree as a sub>ect clan onl$ be realised in the science of thought onl$ in philosoph$ and in ob>ecti)e idealist philosoph$ at that+ 4sing 0egels ter.inolog$ in Capital, Marx e.phasises thereb$ the funda.ental opposition of his philosophical standpoint to that of 0egelianis. de.onstrating a .odel of materialist dialectics as the science of de)elop.ent through inner contradictions+ The essence of the Marxian uphea)al in political econo.$ .a$ be expressed in philosophical ter.s in the follo;ing .annerA in Marxs theor$ not only the substance of )alue labour ;as understood 72icardo also attained this understanding8 but for the first ti.e )alue ;as si.ultaneousl$ understood as the subject of the entire de)elop.ent that is as a realit$ de)eloping through its inner contradictions into a ;hole s$ste. of econo.ic for.s+ 2icardo failed to understand this latter point+ To attain such an understanding one had to ta(e the standpoint of conscious materialist dialectics" 1nl$ on the basis of this conception of the ob>ecti)e la;s of de)elop.ent through contradictions can one understand the essence of the logic of in<uir$ applied in Capital the essence of the .ethod of ascent fro. the abstract to the concrete+ At first sight )ie;ed fro. the external for. that is pure deduction .o)e.ent fro. a uni)ersal categor$ 7)alue8 to particular ones 7.one$ surplus6)alue profit ;ages etc+8+ The external .o)e.ent of thought rese.bles )er$ .uch traditional deduction N .one$ 7and subse<uentl$ surplus6)alue and other categories8 appears as a .ore concrete i.age of )alue in general as specific being of )alue+ At first glance )alue .a$ see. to be the generic concept the abstract general ;hile .one$ and the rest species of )alue+ Anal$sis re)eals ho;e)er that there is no genus6to6species relation here+ 5ndeed the content of @)alue in general is re)ealed as a directl$ contradictor$ unit$ of )alue and use6)alue+ As for .one$ and particularl$ paper .one$ it does not ha)e use6)alue realising in its econo.ic function onl$ one of the t;o definitions of )alue in general N that of the uni)ersal e<ui)alent+ :alue in general pro)es to be richer in content than its o;n species .one$+ The uni)ersal categor$ has a feature that is not present in the particular categor$+ Mone$ thus realises the t;o6fold nature of )alue onl$ in a one6sided 7abstract8 ;a$+ 3e)ertheless .one$ is a .ore concrete .ore co.plex historicall$ deri)ati)e econo.ic pheno.enon than )alue+ -ro. the standpoint of the traditional conception of deduction that is a paradox not deduction but so.ething else+ 5ndeed that is not deduction in the sense of old logic but rather .o)e.ent of thought ;hich co.bines in an integral .anner both the transition fro. the uni)ersal to the particular and )ice )ersa fro. the particular to the uni)ersal the .o)e.ent fro. the abstract to the concrete and fro. the concrete to the abstract+ All econo.ic realities reflected in the categories of Capital 7co..odit$ .one$ labour6po;er surplus6 )alue rent8 represent both the concrete and the abstract N ob>ecti)el$ independentl$ fro. their theoretical interpretation+ #ach of these categories reflects <uite a concrete econo.ic for.ation or pheno.enon and at the sa.e ti.e each of the. reflects a realit$ ;hich is .erel$ a one6sided 7abstract8 i.ple.entation of that ;hole of ;hich it is an integral part being a disappearing .o.ent in the .o)e.ent of this ;hole its abstract .anifestation+ Deduction reproduces the real process of the for.ation of each of these categories 7that is of each real econo.ic for.ation8 as ;ell as of their entire s$ste. as a ;hole disclosing real genetic lin(s genetic unit$ ;here on the surface there appear a nu.ber of see.ingl$ unconnected pheno.ena and e)en those ;hich contradict each other+ 0ence the funda.ental difference bet;een for.al6logical s$llogistic deduction and the .ethod of ascent fro. the abstract to the concrete+ 1"H

The basis or the .a>or pre.ise of the for.er is an abstract general generic concept the least .eaningful in content and the broadest in extent+ This concept applies onl$ to those particular pheno.ena ;hich do not contain a feature contradicting the properties of the uni)ersal concept+ Apart fro. that this concept does not appl$ to pheno.ena in ;hich at least one feature included in the definition of the content of the uni)ersal concept is absent" This pheno.enon ;ill be e)aluated fro. the standpoint of old logic as belonging to so.e other s$ste. to another genus of pheno.ena+ The axio. of old deduction readsA each of the particular pheno.ena to ;hich an abstract general concept .a$ appl$ .ust possess all the features contained in the definition of the uni)ersal concept and .ust not possess an$ features contradicting the features of the uni)ersal concept+ 1nl$ pheno.ena consistent ;ith this re<uire.ent are recognised in old deduction as belonging to the genus of pheno.ena defined b$ the uni)ersal concept+ The uni)ersal concept here functions as a criterion for selecting pheno.ena ;hich should be ta(en into account in considering a certain t$pe of pheno.ena and in logical parlance predeter.ines fro. the outset the plane of abstraction the angle fro. ;hich things are )ie;ed+ *ut as soon as ;e appl$ this axio. to the categories of political econo.$ ;e clearl$ see its artificial and sub>ecti)e nature+ Thus .one$ does not possess an attribute of )alue in general N use6)alue+ Capitalistic co..odit$ circulation co.prises in itself a feature that directl$ contradicts the la; of )alue the la; of exchange of e<ui)alents N the abilit$ to create surplus6)alue to ;hich the categor$ of )alue cannot appl$ ;ithout a contradiction+ %urplus6)alue therefore begins to see. a pheno.enon of so.e other ;orld not the sphere of the .o)e.ent of )alue+ Paradoxes li(e this confused the bourgeois econo.ists ;ho did not recognise an$ logic other than for.al logic or an$ deduction other than s$llogistic one+ The theoretical tas( posed b$ the de)elop.ent of pre6Marxian political econo.$ ;as this N to sho; that pheno.ena directl$ contradicting the labour theor$ of )alue beco.e not onl$ possible but also necessar$ on the basis of the la; of )alue and ;ithout an$ )iolations of it+ Fe ha)e alread$ sho;n in sufficient detail that this tas( is absolutel$ insoluble as long as )alue is understood as an abstract general, generic concept, and that it can be sol)ed rationall$ if )alue is interpreted as a concrete universal category reflecting <uite a concrete econo.ic realit$ 7direct exchange of one co..odit$ for another8 containing a contradiction+ This conception of )alue ga)e Marx a (e$ to the solution of all those theoretical difficulties that al;a$s present an obstacle to theoretical anal$sis of li)ing realit$ de)eloping through contradictions+ Marxs anal$sis disco)ers in )alue itself in the basic categor$ of theoretical de)elop.ent the possibilit$ of those contradictions ;hich e.erge in an explicit for. on the surface of de)eloped capitalis. as destructi)e crises of o)erproduction as a .ost acute antagonis. bet;een excess of riches at one pole of societ$ and unbearable po)ert$ at the other as direct class struggle ulti.atel$ resol)ed onl$ through re)olution+ Theoreticall$ presented this e.erges as the ine)itable result of the de)elop.ent of that )er$ contradiction ;hich is contained in si.ple co..odit$ exchange in the @cell of the ;hole s$ste. N )alue as in an e.br$o or (ernel+ 5t no; beco.es clear ;h$ )alue in the course of theoretical de)elop.ent of the categories of capitalist econo.$ pro)es to be a rigorous guideline per.itting to single out abstractl$ onl$ those features of anal$sed realit$ ;hich are lin(ed ;ith it as its attributes being uni)ersal and necessar$ for.s of the existence of the capitalist s$ste.+ The theoretical presentation of this s$ste. incorporates onl$ those generalisations to ;hich the definitions of )alue can appl$+ 0o;e)er this inclusion of the categories in the sphere of )alue as it is perfor.ed in Capital, is essentiall$ alien to the for.al subsu.ption of concepts under other concepts+ /abour6po;er for instance is included in the categor$ of )alue but that directl$ reflects the actual for.ation of the capitalist s$ste. of relations+ Anal$sis of this s$ste. has sho;n that co..odit$6.one$ circulation for.s the uni)ersal basis the ele.entar$ uni)ersal and necessar$ condition ;ithout ;hich capitalis. cannot e.erge exist or de)elop+ The theoretical definitions of co..odit$6.one$ circulation are thus sho;n to be reflections of those ob>ecti)e uni)ersal conditions that .ust be satisfied b$ an$ pheno.enon to be included at an$ ti.e in the .o)e.ent of the capitalistic co..odit$ organis.+ 5f a pheno.enon does not satisf$ the conditions dictated b$ the la;s of co..odit$6.one$ circulation that .eans that it could not and in general cannot be included in this process, it cannot beco.e a for. of the capitalistic co..odit$ .etabolis. in societ$+ 1"L

Definitions of )alue thus beco.e for theoretical thought a rigorous criterion of discerning and selecting those pheno.ena and econo.ic for.s that are inherent in capitalis.+ 1nl$ that ;hich actuall$ independentl$ of thought satisfies the conditions dictated b$ the i..anent la;s of the co..odit$6.one$ sphere onl$ that ;hich .a$ be assi.ilated b$ this sphere and .a$ assu.e the econo.ic for. of )alue .a$ beco.e a for. of .o)e.ent of the capitalist s$ste.+ Therefore reasoning ;hich abstracts fro. the boundless ocean of e.pirical facts onl$ that concrete historical definiteness of these facts ;hich the$ o;e to capitalis. as an econo.ic s$ste. is >ustified in abstracting onl$ those features of the anal$sed realit$ ;hich are included in the definitions of )alue+ 5f a certain fact does not satisf$ these definitions and re<uire.ents established in the anal$sis of the co..odit$6.one$ sphere and theoreticall$ expressed in the categor$ of )alue that is a clear and categorical indication that ob>ecti)el$ it does not belong to the (ind of facts the generalisation of ;hich .ust ser)e as the basis for constructing a theor$ a s$ste. of concrete historical definitions of capital+ #)er$thing that cannot assu.e the for. of )alue cannot beco.e capital either+ The entire significance of the categor$ of )alue in Marxs theor$ is contained in the fact that it reflects the uni)ersal and necessar$ ele.ent a @cell of capital constituting the uni)ersal and .ost abstract expression of the specific nature of capital and si.ultaneousl$ <uite a concrete econo.ic fact N direct exchange of a co..odit$ for another co..odit$+ #xtre.el$ indicati)e in this light is the theoretical transition fro. the consideration of the co..odit$6 .one$ sphere to the anal$sis of the production of surplus6)alue+ Fhat is the basis for the strictest logical necessit$ of this transitionG 5t is founded first of all on the fact that the anal$sis of production of surplus6)alue is approached fro. the definitions established b$ the anal$sis of the co..odit$6.one$ sphere+ %econd ;hat is analytically studied here is a real fact N the fact that .one$ put in capitalist circulation passing through all of its .eta.orphoses brings a return N surplus6)alue+ Then one has to go bac( to establish the conditions ;hich .a(e this fact possible+ 1ne of the conditions of this possibilit$ and an absolutel$ necessar$ one is alread$ established b$ the anal$sis of the co..odit$6.one$ for.+ 5t is the la; of )alue ;ith regard to ;hich it has been sho;n that on the one hand it is an absolutel$ uni)ersal la; of the anal$sed ;hole and on the other that it does not contain all the necessar$ conditions under ;hich surplus6)alue is ob>ecti)el$ necessar$+ A certain necessar$ condition of the anal$ticall$ studied econo.ic fact is still .issing+ Thought is then purposefully directed at finding this .issing condition the necessar$ condition of the possibilit$ of surplus6)alue+ The tas( is for.ulated in this for.A the un(no;n <uantit$ .ust be found not b$ logical construction but a.ong a nu.ber of real economic facts, in the empirical reality of developed capitalism" Fe do not $et (no; ;hat that fact is+ At the sa.e ti.e ;e (no; so.ething )er$ i.portant about it+ 5t .ust in an$ case be a co..odit$ that is an econo.ic realit$ entirel$ sub>ect to the la; of )alue to its indisputable re<uire.ents+ This co..odit$ ho;e)er .ust possess one specific featureA its use6)alue .ust consist exactl$ in its abilit$ to be transfor.ed into )alue in the act of consu.ption itself+ This second re<uire.ent i.posed on the un(no;n <uantit$ is as is eas$ to see an anal$ticall$ established condition of the possibilit$ of surplus#value, of capital+ #.pirical consideration of de)eloped capitalistic co..odit$ circulation sho;s that onl$ one econo.ic realit$ satisfies these conditions na.el$ labour6po;er+ The logicall$ correctl$ for.ulated <uestion here $ields the onl$ possible solutionA the un(no;n <uantit$ satisf$ing the theoreticall$ established conditions is labour6po;er+ This conclusion this theoretical generalisation of actual facts has all the .erits of the .ost perfect induction+ 5f the latter is to be interpreted as generalisation proceeding fro. actual facts+ This generalisation ho;e)er si.ultaneousl$ satisfies the .ost stringent de.ands of the adherents of the deducti)e character of scientific theoretical (no;ledge+ The .ode of ascent fro. the abstract to the concrete per.its to establish strictl$ and to express abstractedl$ onl$ the absolutel$ necessar$ conditions of the possibilit$ of the ob>ect gi)en in conte.plation+ Capital sho;s in detail the necessit$ ;ith ;hich surplus6)alue is realised gi)en de)eloped co..odit$6.one$ circulation and free labour6po;er+ The totalit$ of all the necessar$ conditions appears in this .ethod of anal$sis as a real and concrete possibilit$ ;hile de)eloped co..odit$6.one$ circulation is sho;n as an abstract possibilit$ of surplus6 )alue+ -or logical reasoning ho;e)er this abstract possibilit$ appears as impossibility, anal$sis of the 1"O

co..odit$6.one$ sphere sho;s that its i..anent la;s are in .utuall$ exclusive contradiction to surplus6)alue+ 5n the sa.e ;a$ the stud$ of the nature of labour6po;er as such re)eals that it cannot be considered as a source of surplus6)alue+ /abour in general creates a product a use6)alue and b$ no .eans )alue+ The scientific theoretical conception of surplus6)alue is in this .ethodological fra.e;or( focused on disco)ering the necessar$ conditions ;hich .a(e it possible onl$ in their concrete historical interaction" #ach of the. considered abstractedl$ outside concrete interactions ;ith others rules out in principle the )er$ possibilit$ of surplus6)alue+ 5n thought this appears as a .utuall$ exclusi)e contradiction bet;een the la; of )alue 7as an abstract possibilit$ of a fact8 and the fact itself N surplus6)alue+ ;nly concrete possibilit$ is real, onl$ the totalit$ of all the necessar$ conditions of the being of a thing in their concrete historical .utual conditioning+ A real solution of the contradiction bet;een the uni)ersal la; and the e.pirical for. of its realisation bet;een abstraction and concrete fact can onl$ be found through re)ealing this concrete totalit$ of conditions+ The abstractl$ expressed uni)ersal la; ine)itabl$ stands in relations of .utuall$ exclusi)e contradiction to the fact under stud$+ -ro. the standpoint of dialectical logic there is nothing to be afraid of here+ 1n the contrar$ logical contradiction is in this case onl$ an indication and feature of the fact that the anal$sed ob>ect is understood abstractedl$ and not concretel$ that not all the necessar$ conditions of its being are as $et disco)ered+ The logical contradictions necessaril$ arising in cognition are thus sol)ed in the unfolding of the concrete s$ste. of categories reproducing the ob>ect in the entire fullness of its necessar$ characteristics of the ob>ecti)e conditions of its being+ *ut concrete understanding does not co.pletel$ eli.inate all contradictions+ 1n the contrar$ it sho;s in detail that these contradictions are logicall$ correct for.s of reflection of the ob>ecti)e realit$ de)eloping through contradictions+ Concrete theoretical (no;ledge sho;s the necessit$ of the fact that pheno.ena directl$ contradicting the uni)ersal la; e.erge on its basis ;ithout )iolating changing or transfor.ing it in an$ ;a$+ 5n this cogniti)e process all the necessar$ conditions of the possibilit$ of the anal$sed pheno.enon are not si.pl$ listed or >uxtaposed but concei)ed in their concrete historical interaction in the genetic lin(s bet;een the.+ The .ere .echanical su. of the conditions of surplus6)alue 7de)eloped co..odit$6.one$ circulation and labour6po;er8 does not $et constitute its real concrete nature+ %urplus6)alue is the product of organic interaction bet;een the t;o a <ualitati)el$ ne; econo.ic realit$ and its concrete understanding is not si.pl$ .ade up of the characteristics that could be obtained fro. the consideration of co..odit$6.one$ circulation and labour6po;er+ /abour6po;er beco.es a factor in the production of surplus6)alue onl$ on condition that it co..ences to function in that social for. ;hich ;as de)eloped b$ the .o)e.ent of the co..odit$6.one$ .ar(et N in the for. of a co..odit$+ *ut the econo.ic for. of co..odit$ also beco.es a for. of the .o)e.ent of capital onl$ if it do.inates the .o)e.ent of labour6po;er+ The interaction of the la;s of co..odit$6.one$ circulation and of labour6po;er gi)es birth to a certain ne; econo.ic realit$ not contained in either of the. ta(en separatel$ outside their concrete interaction+ + Therefore the .o)e.ent of logical reasoning reproducing the necessar$ .o.ents of the de)elop.ent of surplus6)alue cannot consist in the for.al co.bination or s$nthesis of the theoretical definitions obtained in the anal$sis of its constituents that is of the definitions of the co..odit$6.one$ sphere on the one hand and labour6po;er as a co..odit$ on the other+ -urther .o)e.ent of thought in ;hich a conception of surplus6)alue is for.ed can onl$ proceed through new anal$sis of new facts N those of the .o)e.ent of surplus6)alue as a specific econo.ic pheno.enon that cannot in principle be reduced to its constituents+ 1n the other hand this further theoretical consideration of the .o)e.ent of surplus6)alue could not ha)e ta(en place in the absence of categories de)eloped in the stud$ of the la;s of the .o)e.ent of the co..odit$6.one$ .ar(et and or the specific features of labour6po;er as co..odit$+ 4nless these categories are pre)iousl$ de)eloped theoretical anal$sis of the e.pirical facts of the .o)e.ent of surplus6)alue is i.possible+ 5n this case onl$ abstract characteristics of the production of surplus6)alue ;ill be obtained reflecting .erel$ the external appearance of this process rather than concrete theoretical definitions+ Theoretical anal$sis directl$ coinciding ;ith the theoretical s$nthesis of the abstract definitions of surplus6)alue established earlier does not express the abstract superficial for.s of its .o)e.ent but rather the necessar$ changes that ta(e place in the .o)e.ent of the co..odit$6.one$ .ar(et ;hen this 1"6

.o)e.ent in)ol)es such an unusual co..odit$ as labour6po;er+ This co..odit$ introduces in the .o)e.ent of co..odit$6.one$ circulation precisel$ those changes ;hich transfor. the co..odit$6 .one$ circulation into the sphere of production of surplus6)alue+ /abour6po;er itself is not here regarded as an eternal characteristic identical for all for.ations but in its concrete historical definiteness as commodity" That .eans that the first thing that is disco)ered in it 7and recorded in a concept8 is the historically definite for. ;hich it assu.es onl$ in the sphere of co..odit$6 .one$ circulation+ That is ;hat distinguishes scientific theoretical reproduction of the creation of surplus6)alue fro. an abstract description of this process fro. a .ere abstract expression of its superficial pheno.ena+ To understand and express in concepts the essence of capitalist production of labour producing surplus6 )alue one .ust first establish the entire totalit$ of the necessar$ conditions on the basis of ;hich such labour beco.es possible in general and further trace the changes it introduces into the )er$ conditions of its realisation+ Anal$sis of changes introduced b$ labour6po;er in co..odit$6.one$ circulation in the production of )alue therefore assu.es preli.inar$ anal$sis of the conditions that undergo these changes that is anal$sis of the production of )alue N the process ;hich wage labour finds in existence+ Fithout this the origin of surplus6)alue is in principle i.possible to understand+ This .ethod of interpreting pheno.ena per.its .ore than a .ore description of the aspect in ;hich the$ e.erge before direct conte.plation on the surface of the de)eloped stage in their existence N it per.its to reproduce, in the full sense of the ter. their origination to trace their e.ergence and de)elop.ent into the present state through the strictl$ necessar$ stages+ The .ethod of ascent fro. the abstract to the concrete is founded at this point on the real circu.stance that the actuall$ necessar$ and uni)ersal conditions of the origin and development of the ob>ect are retained at each gi)en .o.ent as for.s of its existence" That is ;h$ thought can discern in the anal$sis of a de)eloped ob>ect its sublated histor$+ A historical approach to the stud$ of an ob>ect cannot be realised other than b$ the .ethod of ascent fro. the abstract to the concrete+ Therefore the picture presented in the .ost abstract parts of the theor$ 7e+g+ the first chapter of Capital' differs .ost radicall$ fro. the picture as it appears in the direct conte.plation and in the notions of the de)eloped stage of the process+ Contrari;ise the greater the nu.ber of la;6go)erned influences tendencies and sti.uli ta(en into account in the ascent fro. the abstract to the concrete and the .ore concrete the picture the closer it co.es to co.plete coincidence ;ith the picture gi)en in direct conte.plation and notion+ As a result Marxs Capital sho;s .ore than the @econo.ic s(eleton of the social organis. .ore than its inner structure+ /enin belie)ed it to be a great ad)antage of Marxs .ethod that in +explaining the structure and de)elop.ent of the gi)en for.ation of societ$ exclusively through production relations he ne)ertheless e)er$;here and incessantl$ scrutinised the superstructure corresponding to these production relations and clothed the s(eleton in flesh and blood+ Capital, as /enin pointed out
sho;ed the ;hole capitalist social for.ation to the reader as a li)ing thing N ;ith its e)er$da$ aspects ;ith the actual social .anifestation of the class antagonis. inherent in production relations ;ith the bourgeois political superstructure that protects the rule of the capitalist class ;ith the bourgeois ideas of libert$ e<ualit$ and so forth ;ith the bourgeois fa.il$ relationships+ B"OC

Capital also sho;s that these actual relations cannot be other than the$ are as long as the entire social life is based on pri)atel$ o;ned capitalistic co..odit$ econo.$ >ust as a person ;ith a cur)ature of the spine cannot be graceful+ 5t is onl$ the gra)e that can correct these actual relations+; As long as the la; of surplus6)alue ;or(s both crises and une.plo$.ent are ine)itable for the$ are .erel$ the external for.s of .anifestation of the deepest essence of the capitalistic co..odit$ organis. N the contradictions of the accu.ulation of surplus6)alue+ These contradictions are inherent in capitalis. in the sa.e ;a$ as protein .etabolis. is inherent in a li)ing bod$+ The$ are not spots on the surface but an expression of its )er$ essence+ That is exactl$ ;hat Capital sho;s and that is ;hat its .ethod is used for N the .ethod of attaining a co.prehension of pheno.ena fro. their uni)ersal essence the .ethod of ascent fro. the abstract to the concrete+ 0a)ing accepted Marxs .ethod it is i.possible not to accept all the conclusions of Capital" That is ;h$ it is so hated b$ the apologists of .odern capitalis.+ 5t pro)es that the crises of o)erproduction the existence of a reser)e ar.$ of the une.plo$ed and all the other si.ilar for.s of bourgeois @;ealth are 1"K

uni)ersal and absolute for.s of production and accu.ulation of surplus6)alue its integral for.s not onl$ the conse<uences but also the necessar$ conditions of this process+ -or this reason bourgeois philosophers and logicians ha)e long tried to discredit Marxs .ethod calling it @speculati)e construction @the 0egelian for. of reasoning allegedl$ adopted b$ Marx ;ithout due criticis. etc+ although as ;e ha)e ta(en pains to sho; the rese.blance to the 0egelian .ethod is purel$ external and for.al+ The deduction perfor.ed b$ Marx is .erel$ a s$non$. of the .aterialist .ethod a .ethod of explaining the spiritual6ideological political legal .oral and other relations fro. the .aterial relations fro. the relations of production+ In Capital, Marx indicated this fact <uite une<ui)ocall$A @5t is in realit$ .uch easier to disco)er b$ anal$sis the earthl$ core of the .ist$ creation of religion than con)ersel$ it is to de)elop fro. the actual relations of life the corresponding celestial for.s of those relations+ The latter .ethod is the onl$ .aterialistic and therefore the onl$ scientific one+ B"6C That is the .ethod ;hich insists that the tas( of scientific cognition of .one$ does not lie in grasping the fact that .one$ is also a co..odit$ but in tracing the reasons and the .anner in ;hich co..odit$ beco.es .one$+ That is a .uch .ore difficult but also a surer ;a$+ This .ethod sho;s the relations of real life ;hich are reflected in the ;ell6(no;n ideological for.s and .oreo)er it explains ;h$ the gi)en rather than so.e other ideological political legal and scientific for.s ha)e de)eloped+ All of these for.s are literall$ @deduced fro. the relations of real life fro. its contradictions+ 0erein lies the profound difference bet;een the Marxian and the -euerbachian criti<ue of the for.s of religious consciousness+ Therein consists the principal ad)antage of the dialectical .ethod of Marx #ngels and /enin and at the sa.e ti.e its .aterialistic nature in application to an$ field of in<uir$ N fro. political econo.$ to episte.olog$ and aesthetics+ Marxs Capital, is indeed the highest t$pe of school for theoretical thin(ing+ A scientist specialising in an$ field of (no;ledge can use it as a source of .ost )aluable ideas ;ith regard to the theoretical .ethod of research+ Philosophers and logicians .ust .a(e this treasur$ .ore accessible+ 1f course a single author and a single boo( can sol)e this tas( to a )er$ li.ited extent onl$+ 5n )ie; of the co.plexit$ and the a.ount of ;or( in)ol)ed this tas( ;ill re<uire a ;hole series of studies+

"ontents
1-3 Capital :ol 5 p O6 1/3 Capital :ol 5 p 6K 103 Capital :ol 5 p 106 163 Theories of (urplus &alue 555 143 Contribution to the Critique of )olitical !conomy 153 Capital :ol 5 p 1O6 193 Capital :ol 5 p 160 (03 Capital :ol 5 p 16H (13 Capital :ol 5 p 16L ((3 Capital :ol 5 p 1O" (-3 Capital :ol 5 p 1O"6H (/3 0egel )henomenology of (pirit PP 1"61H (03 /enin ?hat the .4riends of the )eople are+ and 0ow they fight the (ocial#*emocrats /CF :ol 1 pp1L16" (63 Capital :ol 5 p HO"

1"!