S&S Quarterly, Inc.

Guilford Press

The Commodity-Form and the Dialectical Method: On the Structure of Marx's Exposition in
Chapter 1 of "Capital"
Author(s): Guido Starosta
Source: Science & Society, Vol. 72, No. 3 (Jul., 2008), pp. 295-318
Published by: Guilford Press
Stable URL: http://www.jstor.org/stable/40405574 .
Accessed: 20/06/2014 09:09

Your use of the JSTOR archive indicates your acceptance of the Terms & Conditions of Use, available at .
http://www.jstor.org/page/info/about/policies/terms.jsp

.
JSTOR is a not-for-profit service that helps scholars, researchers, and students discover, use, and build upon a wide range of
content in a trusted digital archive. We use information technology and tools to increase productivity and facilitate new forms
of scholarship. For more information about JSTOR, please contact support@jstor.org.

S&S Quarterly, Inc. and Guilford Press are collaborating with JSTOR to digitize, preserve and extend access to
Science &Society.

http://www.jstor.org

This content downloaded from 62.122.73.250 on Fri, 20 Jun 2014 09:09:46 AM

All use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions
 Vol. 72, No. 3,July2008, 295-318
Science& Society,

/'
V

The Commodity-Form and theDialectical

Method:On theStructureof Marx's
Expositionin Chapter1 of Capital

GUIDO STAROSTA*
ABSTRACT: The last10 or 15 yearshavewitnessed a renewed
interest
inMarx'sdialectical
method anditsimplications forvalue
theory.However, mostworks havenotsufficientlythematized the
peculiarroleof the of
phase analysis in Marx's dialectical
inves-
tigationgenerallyandin hispresentation inparticular.Further-
more,theyhavenotpaidsufficient attention tothespecificform
oftheanalyticalprocesswithin dialectical
thought, whichdistin-
guishesitfromthekindofanalysis characteristic
offormal-logical
methodologies. Those twoquestionsare crucialfora proper
comprehension ofthedialecticalstructure ofMarx'sargument
in Chapter1 ofCapitaland,in particular,toclarifythedetermi-
nateplacewheretheunfolding oftheexplanation ofthedeter-
minations ofprivately
performed abstractlaboras thesubstance
ofvalueis tobe found.Thatexplanation isactuallycontainedin
section3,whereMarxpresents thesyntheticdevelopment ofthe
expression ofvalueinto themoney-form.

THE PREFACETO THE FIRST EDITION of CapitalMarx

makesevident thathewaswellawareofthecomplexity ofthefirst
stepsin the of
critique politicaleconomy(Marx,1976a,89). In-
deed,theendlessdebatesovertherealmeaningandimplications of
Marx'sdiscussionof thecommodity-form seemto suggestthat,if
anything,Marx'swarning fellshortoftherealdifficulties
actually at
stake.On theotherhand,whether itis explicitly or
acknowledged
* I wouldliketothankSimonClarke, JuanIñigoCarrera,NicolásGrinbergandAxelKicillof
forhelpfulcomments on earlierdrafts
ofthispaper.The usualcaveatapplies.

295

This content downloaded from 62.122.73.250 on Fri, 20 Jun 2014 09:09:46 AM

All use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions
296 SCIENCE àf SOCIETY

not,itisclearthatthediversereadingsofMarx'scritiqueofpolitical
economy entaildifferent politicalimplications(DimoulisandMilios,
.
2004) Although a full
discussion ofthe questionexceedsthescope
ofthispaper,itshouldatleastbe notedthattheinvestigation ofthose
"minutiae" whichthedeterminations ofthecommodity-form "appear
to turnupon" (Marx,1976a,90) are ofparamount importance for
thekindofpoliticalactionthatthecritiqueofpoliticaleconomyin-
forms.1 Thisis shownnotonlyin Marx'sinsistence on theimpossi-
of
bility correctly grasping the determinations ofthe moreabstract
socialforms ofcapitalist societyfrom thebourgeois ofthe
standpoint
scienceofpoliticaleconomy(Marx,1976a,174),butalsoin thecen-
tralrolethesedeterminations playedin hiscritiqueoftheideologi-
calrepresentations ofthemcomingfromtheworking-class movement
itself, Proudhonian
e.g., socialism.2
Be thatas itmay,thecentralpointtobe arguedin thispaperis
thatthediversity in thewayMarx'sfollowers haveread theideal
reproduction of the determinations of the commodity-form con-
tainedin Capitalis closelyconnectedto thevariedmethodological
perspectives fromwhichthoseauthorshave attemptedto grasp
the latter.In otherwords,thosedifferent interpretationsof the
actualcontentofthefirst sectionsofCapitalexpressdifferentunder-
standings ofthevery form ofscientificknowledge unfoldedin that
book.

1 AsI havearguedelsewhere (see Starosta, 2003),elaboration oftheconnection between

thespecific formofMarx'sscientific
dialectical methodand itsrevolutionary contentis
perhapsthesinglemostimportant contribution ofLukács'HistoryandClassConsciousness.
A discussion ofthefundamental politicalimplications ofthemoreabstract determina-
tionsofcapitalcan be foundin Starosta, 2005.
2 See Clarke,1994andShortall, 1994forgoodreconstructions ofMarxs critique ofProud-
honiansocialism basedon thelatter's misunderstanding ofthenatureofthecommodity
andmoney-forms. Thus,thegistofMarx'scritiqueofGray'sproposaltopreserve private
commodity-production whilereplacing themoney-form withlabor-time issued
certificates
bya nationalbank,comesdownto thelatter'sinability to comprehend theimmanent
necessity ofthevalueofcommodities totakeon theindependent formofmoney(Elson,
1979b,135-136).Similarly, in theGrundrisse Marxridicules Darimon'sproposalofabol-
ishingtheprivilege ofmoney(thatofbeingdirectly exchangeable forall commodities)
bymaking"bydecree"all commodities directlyexchangeable(Marx,1993,126). In all
thesecases,thecommonthreadoftheMarxiancritiqueliesin theincapacity ofthose
authors tograspthenecessaryinnerconnection between thecommodity- andmoney-forms.
This,in turn,is underpinned bya methodological
shortcoming. AsI arguebelow,theories
basedon formal logiccanonlygraspsocialforms entities
as self-subsistent orimmediate
affirmations andnotas theself-negating modeofexistence ofa moreabstract socialform
( i.e.,themovement ofcontradiction). Asa consequence, theyareboundtorepresent their
necessary inner connections as merely externalones.

This content downloaded from 62.122.73.250 on Fri, 20 Jun 2014 09:09:46 AM

All use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions
 COMMODITY-FORM AND DIALECTICAL METHOD 297

The need to reconsider Marx'spresentation ofthecommodity-

forminChapter1 ofCapitalthrough a reassessment ofhisdialectical
method(in particular, to
itsconnection Hegel's ScienceofLogic)has
beenwidelyrecognized bya growing numberofscholars.In effect,
thelast10 or 15 yearshavewitnessed a renewedinterest in Marx's
dialecticalmethodanditsimplications forvaluetheory(see,among
Albritton
others, andSimoulidis, 2003;Arthur, 2002;Moseley, 1993;
and
Moseley Campbell, 1997; Murray, 1988; Smith, 1990). However,
despiteall thelightthattheseworkshavecaston theformofMarx's
argument, I thinkthattheyhavebeenmainly focusedon thesynthetic
aspectsofMarx'sdialecticalpresentation {i.e.,on theexposition ofthe
movement
dialectical from the"abstracttotheconcrete") . Inthissense,
itcouldbe arguedthatthisliteraturehasglossedovertwofurther fun-
damental aspects ofMarx's method.
dialectical those
First, works have
notsufficientlythematized thepeculiarroleofthephaseofanalysis in
Marx'sdialectical generally
investigation and in hispresentation in
particular.Second, theyhave not paid sufficient attention to the spe-
formoftheanalyticalprocesswithindialecticalthought?My own contri-
cific
butiontherefore thesegapsin theliterature.4
aimsatfilling
Thus,themainpurposeofthispaperistoprovide a methodologi-
callyminded critical
reading ofMarx's argument about thedetermi-
nationsofthevalue-formof theproduct of laborin thefirst of
chapter
Capital0Throughthisreading, I willalsotrytoshowthatmanyofthe
confusionsand misunderstandings amongbothfollowers and critics
springfrom an inadequategrasp ofthe structure
dialectical ofMarx's
exposition.
3 Thedistinction between analysis(in thesenseofdissectionofthe"whole"into"parts" or
ofdifferences")
"identification andsynthesis (inthesenseofreconstitution ofthe"unity"
ofthewhole)isnotpeculiartodialectics. AsI arguebelow,whatsetsthelatter apartfrom
formal-logicalmethodologies isthespecific
form takenbothbytheanalytical andsynthetic
processesin dialecticalthought. Zeleny(1980,ch. 10) provides of
a concisediscussion
thedifferent meaningsofanalysis and synthesisin scienceand philosophy, whichalso
tracesbacktheirintellectual lineage.
4 Theseotheraspectshavenotbeenentirely absentin theliterature.However, theycame
up in thedebateamong"newdialecticians" onlyquiterecently (Murray,2002;Reuten,
2000). See Brown,etal, 2002,fora discussion ofsomeoftheseissuesthrough a compari-
sonbetween critical
realismandsystematic Also,itismyviewthatcomparedto
dialectics.
thelightthrown on thesynthetic aspectsofMarx'smethodofpresentation, thenatureof
therelation between analysisandsynthesis in thepresentation and thewayinwhichthis
relatesto theformaldeterminations ofthedialecticalinquiry,havenotbeen explored
withthesameclarity.
5 In myownreadingI drawon themethodological approachto thecritiqueofpolitical
economydevelopedbyIñigoCarrera(1992;2003).

This content downloaded from 62.122.73.250 on Fri, 20 Jun 2014 09:09:46 AM

All use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions
298 SCIENCE àf SOCIETY

and theDialecticalMethod:Controversies
Analysis,Synthesis

In Capital
Marxputsintomotionthemethodological discoveries
whichallowedhimtoovercome ofhisearlyaccountof
thelimitations
totheParis
In contradistinction
alienatedlaborand itssupersession.
Notes
and as he clearlystatesin theMarginal
Manuscripts, onAdolf
Wagner,
Marxtakesas a pointofdeparture neithertheconceptsofpolitical
economynoranyconceptwhatsoever (Marx,1975,198), in order
thereby to discoveralienatedlabor as theirpresupposition. As the
titleofhismostimportant workdenotes,thesubjectwhosedetermi-
nationsthedialectical investigationproceedstodiscover andpresent
which,as thealienatedsubjectofsociallife,becomes"the
is capital,
all-dominating economicpowerofbourgeois society" andmustthere-
fore"form aswellas thefinishing-point"
thestarting-point oftheideal
reproduction ofthe concrete(Marx,1993,107). In thissense,Marx's
exposition in Capitaldoesnotadvancetowards thediscovery ofalien-
ationbutstarts fromwhattheanalytic stageof the dialectical inquiry
revealedas itsmostabstract and generalform(IñigoCarrera, 2003,
286;Meikle,1985,71-72).6He starts withtheimmediate observation
ofthesimplest inwhichthealienation
concretum oflaborisexpressed
inordertodeveloptherealdeterminations specific tothissocialform
(Marx,1975,198). As has now been widely acknowledged, thisstart-
-
ingpointis notan ideal-typical or worse,historically existent -
simplecommodity-producing society,asintheorthodoxy derived from
Engels(1980) and popularizedby authorssuch as Sweezy (1968) and
Meek(1973).7In Marx'sownwords,he starts withthecommodity as
the"economiccell-form ofbourgeois society"(Marx,1976a,90).
However,Marx'spresentation does notdirectly startwiththe
essentialdeterminations ofthecommodity-form, butfromtheimme-
diateobservation ofan individual commodity in itsoutward appear-
ance.8In an exposition thatwillprovefullof"metaphysical subtleties

6 On themethodological differencesbetweentheearlycritiqueofalienatedlaborin the

anditsmoredevelopedformin Capital,
ParisManuscripts 2005,chs.1 and4.
see Starosta,
oftheEngelsian
7 Fora critique orthodoxy on thisquestionseeArthur, 1997;1998;Robles
Báez,2000;and Reichelt, 1995.
8 Properlyspeaking,thereisa previousstepinMarx'spresentation. withthe
starts
He first
forminwhichsocialwealthappearsincapitalist namely,
society, an "immense collection
ofcommodities"(Marx,1976a,125),theindividual commodity beingitselementary form.
The unfoldingofthedeterminations behindthisappearanceisnotcompleted untilVol-
umeII,wheretheunity ofthemovement intheformofthecircuit
ofsocialcapitalitself,
ofcommodity-capital,is revealedas positingsocialwealthin theformofan immense
ofcommodities
collection (Marx,1978,174-177).

This content downloaded from 62.122.73.250 on Fri, 20 Jun 2014 09:09:46 AM

All use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions
 COMMODITY-FORM AND DIALECTICAL METHOD 299

and theological niceties"(Marx,1976a,163),he showsthatwhatde-

termines thecommodity as a formofsocialwealthisnotonlythat,as
of it
anyproduct labor, possesses a use-value, butthatthelatter actsas
thematerial bearerofa secondattribute, namely exchange-value. The
further of
analysis thecommodity reveals thatexchange-value is actu-
allytheformofexpression ofa content distinguishable fromit- the
value-form,ortheattribute ofgeneral of the
exchangeability commodity
- thesubstance ofwhichresidesintheabstract laborcongealedinit,
andwhosemagnitude isconsequently determined bythesocially neces-
sary labor-time
abstract required for its production.
The abovelineofreasoning hasbeenthesubjectofall kindsof
objectionsputforward bythedifferent interpreters ofMarx.As I
argue below,those reservations about Marx's argument havetheir
sourceinan inadequatecomprehension of,orinsufficient attention
to,thenatureofthecrucialdistinction betweentwodifferent mo-
mentsinvolved inMarx'sdialectical and
inquiry presentation, namely
thestageofanalysis andthatofsynthesis. In particular, I thinkthatit
is confusionoverthesequestionsthatliesat thebasisofwidespread
critiquesofMarx'slineofargument aboutthedeterminations ofthe
not
commodity-form;onlyby well-known critics
such as Böhm-Bawerk
(1975),butalsoamongsomeofMarx'sdisciples.9 In brief,thegen-
eralthrust ofthose objections goes, Marx did not providein Capital
an adequate"logicalproof"thatcommodities havea "something" in
commonand thatthat"something" is congealedabstract labor.10

9 ThusbothReuten(1993,107)andArthur (1993,76) agreethatBöhm-Bawerk' s objections

toMarx'slineofreasoning aboutabstractlabouras thesubstance ofvaluearejustified; not
becauseMarxiswrongin seeingan innerconnection betweenabstract laborandvalue,
butbecausehisgrounding ofthatpointis defective froma "systematic-dialectical"per-
spective.UnlikeArthur, whoarguesthattheintroduction ofabstract laboras thesubstance
ofvalueshouldhavebeenpostponeduntilthedevelopment ofthecapital-form, Reuten
goesevenfurther in hisdistancefromMarx'spresentation andmakesa caseagainstthe
determination ofabstract ofvalue.Rather,
laboras substance he seesthemarket as trans-
forming concretelaborintoabstract labor(Reuten,1993,105).
10 A good and conciseaccountoftheessenceofthiscritiquecan be foundin Kay(1979,
48-58;see also Park,2003).Specifically, Böhm-Bawerk objectedthatMarxdid nottake
intoconsideration commonproperties otherthanbeingproducts oflabor- e.g.,utility,
scarcity,and so on - as determinants
possible ofexchange-value (Böhm-Bawerk, 1975,
74-75). In thissense,itmightbe worthnotingthatin theprocessof inquiry Marxdid
consider- butdiscardedand,hence,excludedfromthepresentation - "utility in gen-
eral"as thesubstance ofvalue.Thisisevidencedbythefollowing remarks fromthepre-
paratory Manuscripts of1861-63:
"Wehaveseenthatthebasisofvalueisthefactthathumanbeingsrelatetoeachother's
laboras equal,and general,and in thisformsocial,labor.Thisis an abstraction, likeall
humanthought, andsocialrelations onlyexistamonghumanbeingstotheextent thatthey
think,andpossessthispowerofabstraction fromsensuousindividualityandcontingency.

This content downloaded from 62.122.73.250 on Fri, 20 Jun 2014 09:09:46 AM

All use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions
300 SCIENCE àf SOCIETY

The firstpointat stakein thisobjectionhasalreadybeenforce-

fully made byotherscholars,so I willreferto itverybriefly. In a
the
nutshell, question comes down to the radical methodological
difference which,as Meikleinsightfully notes,separatesMarx'sdia-
lecticalapproachto sciencefromtheformalism and atomismof
bourgeoisconceptions(Meikle, 1985, ch. 3). Clearlybasedon the
Böhm-Bawerk's
latter, objections came from someonewhocouldonly
see scienceas a purely"logicalconstruct" and notthereproduction
in thought of"howthingsessentially are" (Meikle,1985,80). Thus,
with"thecharacteristic empiricist gapbetween'truths' and theenti-
tiestheyaresupposedtobe trueof (Meikle,1985,79),he couldonly
readMarx'sinitialpagesas an abstract, formalprocessof "logical
The
proof." possibility that those pages unfold therealnatureand
specificself-movement of a determinate content (thecommodity-
formoftheproductoflabor) and do notcontaina formaldeduc-
tionwasbeyondBöhm-Bawerk's formalisticfieldofvision(Kay,1979,
51-52).
Second,and moreimportant forthepurposeofthispaper,at
stakehereis anotheraspectofMarx'sargument in thefirst pagesof
Capitalthathasnotbeensufficiently orsatisfactorilyexploredbymost
scholars:thespecificnatureand significance ofthedifference be-
tweenthephaseofanalysis and thatofsynthesis within a dialectical
exposition.Thisdoublemovement inthedialectical isnot
presentation
an arbitrary or rhetorical
stylistic strategyintroduced byMarxbut
reflectsa realdifference characterizing specificity dialectical
the of
inquiry.The must
latter involve bothidentification of thedifferent
formstakenbythesubjectwhose determinations the dialecticalin-
vestigationattempts toreproduce inthought {i.e.,theanalytical sepa-
rationbetweensocialformsaccordingto theirrelativedegreeof
concreteness) andthe"tracking downoftheirinnerconnection" (i.e.,
thesyntheticdiscovery of the immanent realnecessity linkingthose

. . . Wehaveseenthatthebasisofvalueisthefactthathumanbeingsrelatetoeachother's
laboras equal,andgeneral,andinthisformsocial,labor.Thekindofpolitical economist
whoattacksthedetermination ofvaluebylabortimeon thegroundthattheworkper-
formedby2 individuals duringthesametimeis notabsolutely equal (althoughin the
sametrade),doesn'tyetevenknowwhatdistinguishes humansocialrelationsfromrela-
tionsbetweenanimals.He is a beast.Asbeasts,thesamefellows thenalsohaveno diffi-
cultyin overlooking identical(no 2 leaves,
thefactthatno 2 use valuesare absolutely
Leibniz)and evenlessdifficultyinjudginguse-values,whichhaveno commonmeasure
whatever, as exchangevaluesaccordingto theirdegreeofutility"(Marx,1988,232).

This content downloaded from 62.122.73.250 on Fri, 20 Jun 2014 09:09:46 AM

All use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions
 COMMODITY-FORM AND DIALECTICAL METHOD 301

different forms)(Marx,1976a,102).n A fundamental implication

followsfromthis:theexpositionof the explanation properof the
necessity underlying therelationsbetweendifferent socialforms -
whatwouldamounttoa "logicalproof"in thelanguageofformalis-
ticmethodological approaches- is nottobe foundin thedialecti-
cal analysis, butinthesynthetic
movement oftheexposition. Now,since
it is in thelatteronlythattheunfolding of thereal movement of
determination - hencetheexplanation - actually takesplace,the
presentation ofthefindings ofthedialecticalinquiry couldtake,in
a
principle,fully form
synthetic (IñigoCarrera, 2003,279). However,
thisis notthewayMarxstructured hisdialecticalexpositioninVol-
ume 1 of Capital(theonlyone he editedforpublication himself);
thisexposition tendstoinclude,in a "stylized"
form, briefpresenta-
tionsoftheanalytic Since
process.12 thispeculiarstructure ofMarx's
presentation of thedeterminationsof thecommodity-form actually
recursthroughout mostofVolumeI and itsmisunderstanding has
causedso manycontroversies among and
critics followersalike,it
mightbe worthproviding furtherelaborationon thislastpoint.13
In a nutshell, thisstructureofMarx'sdialecticalpresentation
starts bytakingtheimmediate concreteappearanceofthedetermi-
natesocialformatstake.Througha briefanalytic movement, itsub-
sequently uncovers itsinneressential
determination.14
Theexposition
11 Heremyapproachdiffers frombothMurray's andReuten's.Theformer seemssimply to
identifyinquiry(whathe calls"phenomenology") withanalysis
andsynthesis withpresen-
tation(Murray,2000,36-38). Reutendoesallowforsynthetic moments intheprocessof
inquirybutonlyas "provisional outlinesofinseparability
ofphenomena" (Reuten,2000,
143). Moreover, althoughhe is rightto see theneedforthedialectical presentation to
be fundamentally synthetic,he does notfullyexplorethepossibility thatthedialectical
researcherpresenting theresultsoftheinquiry mayinclude"stylized" moments ofanaly-
sisin ordertohighlight theunityofthedialecticalprocessofcognition. He onlymen-
tionsthispossibilityin passingwhendiscussing Banaji'sargument aboutthetwo-fold
startingpointofchapter1 of Capital(Banaji,1979,36-40;Reuten,2000,158). Butas
I arguebelow,thispresentational strategyplaysa centralroleat leastin thewholeof
VolumeI.
12 On theroleand theprosand consofthisanalytic momentin thepeculiarstructure of
thedialectical
exposition in Capital!,organized
aroundpresentational "nodes,"seeIñigo
Carrera,1992;2003,285.
13 Foran illustrationofthispresentational structure
withreference to thetransformation
ofmoneyintocapital,see Starosta, 2005.
14 Marxsometimes includesapparent (henceflawed)analyticalpathsin hisexposition that
are revealedtobe suchthrough a movement thatleadsthereaderbackto theunmedi-
atedstarting point,thatis,without makinganyprogresstowards thediscovery of the
underlyingspecificdetermination definingtheobjectunderscrutiny (IñigoCarrera, 2003,
282). The presentational roleoftheinclusionoftheseflawedanalytical movements is
mainlypedagogical;theyserveto place moreemphasison thecorrectanalytical path.

This content downloaded from 62.122.73.250 on Fri, 20 Jun 2014 09:09:46 AM

All use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions
302 SCIENCE à? SOCIETY

thenproceedsbysynthetically unfolding therealization ofthat(more

abstract)determination. This stagegoes on until thespecific poten-
tiality
defining theessentialdetermination ofthesocialformunder
scrutiny,andwhoserealization theexposition isideallyreproducing,
negates itselfas immediately carried by thatabstract socialformto
becomeaffirmed as immediately pertaining to the more concrete
formintowhichit has metamorphosed. Thissignalsthatthefirst
presentational nodehasbeenexhausted. A newone thereby begins,
butnowwiththemoreconcreteformwhosegenesishasbeentraced
intheformer as thesubjectofthemovement tobe ideally reproduced.
However, the new node does notdirectly startwiththeinnerdeter-
minations ofthismoreconcretesocialformbut,again,withitsim-
mediatemanifestation. Ananalytic movement therefore precedesthe
former.
Comingbackto ourmainargument aboutthegeneralaspects
ofthisformal structure ofMarx'spresentation: as mentioned above,
itis theexposition ofthedialectical that
synthesis reveals the "why" of
realrelations.The analytic stageonlyseparates a socialform from a
moreabstract one,whoserealizedpotentiality itcarrieswithin itself
in theformofitsownimmanent In
potentiality. thissense, the ana-
lyticstageis not about the why but about the what. Evidently, since
theseparationofsocialformsaccordingto theirrelative degreeof
abstractness/concreteness ideallyexpressestheobjectivenecessity
(therealrelations)residing in theobjectandarenottheproductof
thesubjective or
caprice imagination ofthescientist, themererefer-
enceto the"what" carriesimplicitly somehintofthe"why." Thus,if
thedialecticalanalysis revealsthatthevalue-form istheconcrete form
in whichtheobjectification oftheabstract character ofprivate and
independent labor affirms itselfas an abstract the
form, separation
between thetwoalready sayssomething abouttherealrelation involved.
Butthissomething is no morethan,as itwere,a "pointing out,"an

Marx'sconsiderationofthepossibilitythattheparticular
materialpropertiesofthecom-
modity underinvestigation constitute
themoreabstract formbehindtheattribute of
generalexchangeability is an exampleofthis(Marx,1976a,127-128).Incidentally, it
istobe notedthatthisistherealmeaningofwhatBöhm-Bawerk mistakenlysawas Marx's
"methodofexclusion," through whichhe allegedlyprovideda "purely
negative proof
ofabstractlaboras thesubstanceofvalue(Böhm-Bawerk, 1975,68-69).

This content downloaded from 62.122.73.250 on Fri, 20 Jun 2014 09:09:46 AM

All use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions
 COMMODITY-FORM AND DIALECTICAL METHOD 303

observation.The actualidealreproduction ofthatinnerconnection

- theexplanation - takesplacein thesynthetic movement.15
Withthisin mind,itis easytounderstand themainreasonwhy
thecriticismsleveledat Marxabouthisinadequateexplanation of
abstractlaboras thesubstanceofvalueare notsimplybased on a
misunderstanding abouttheparticularities ofhisargument, butare
completely offthemark.To putitsimply, thosecritiquessearchfor
an explanation in thewrongplace,thatis,in thepageswhereMarx
isjustpresenting theanalytic separationofrealforms, whichcom-
prisethe first
two sections ofChapter 1. Marx'sallegedexplanation
ofwhyabstract laboris thesubstance ofvaluein thosepagessounds
unconvincing simply becauseitis notthere.Asweshallsee,theun-
foldingof thisparticular "why" onlyoccursin section3, whichdis-
cussesexchange-value as theform ofmanifestation ofvalue.Before
engaging inthataspectofMarx'spresentation ofthedeterminations
ofthecommodity-form, letus firstprobe more deeplyintothespe-
cifically form
dialectical of theanalytical moment thatprecedesit.16

15 In hisScienceofLogic,Hegelrefers tothisdistinction betweentheroleofanalysis andsyn-

thesisas thedifference betweentheapprehension ofwhatis and itscomprehension (Hegel,
1999,793-794).
16 Regarding Chapter1 inparticular, thispresentational structurehasbeenbroadly recog-
nizedquiteearlyin thedebatebyBanaji(1979) andElson(1979b).However, theyboth
seemtoreducethecontentofthesynthetic stageofthepresentation simply totheques-
tionofrevealing exchange-value as thenecessary modeofexpression ofvalue,i.e. tothe
formalnecessity ofthemoney-form. Butas I arguebelow,thelatteris precisely themo-
mentwhereMarxissynthetically unfolding thenecessity ofprivately performed abstract
laboras thesubstance ofvalue.Yet,neither ElsonnorBanajiexplicitly addresses theques-
tionofwhereexactly the"why" ofabstract laboras thesubstance ofvaluecan be found.
Elsoninparticular seemstoconcurwithRubin(see below)thatitisactually insection4.
Murray (1988,148-149)rightly seesthestructure ofChapter1 as comprising a "double
movement" offormto contentand thenfromcontentto form.However, presumably
reducingthedialecticalmovement to thesynthetic stage,he sees nothingparticularly
in theform
dialectical ofthefirst movement (Murray, 1988,148);hencehisanalogywith
Descartes'analyticalreduction ofthebitofwaxtoprimary quality matter,i.e.a searchfor
a "third
party" orcommonelement(Murray, 1988,149). Inreality,thegeneralpointabout
thetwo-fold movement ofanalysis and synthesis in Marx'sexposition had alreadybeen
madebyRubinin hisseminalworkon thetheory ofvalue(Rubin,1972,113).However,
hisunderstanding ofthewaytheystructure theexposition is,I think,incorrect. In a nut-
shell,Rubinconsiders thatthecontent ofthesectionon fetishism iswhatinreality corre-
spondstothesectionon theformofvalueorexchange-value, i.e.thesynthetic exposition
ofthereasonwhytheproductoflabormusttakethevalue-form. Furthermore, although
Rubindoesdistinguish between theanalytic andthesynthetic (genetic,as hecallsit)stages
ofthepresentation, he alsoseemstorestrict ofthedialectical
thespecificity argument to
thelatter(Rubin,1978,110). In thisway,thespecific formofthedialectical analysis vis-
à-vistheanalysis offormal logicis overlooked.

This content downloaded from 62.122.73.250 on Fri, 20 Jun 2014 09:09:46 AM

All use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions
304 SCIENCE äf SOCIETY

ThePhaseofAnalysis

In ordertounderstand thespecific
formofMarx'sargument in
thefirstpagesofCapitalitis fundamentaltograspthedifference be-
tweenthedialectical
form oftheanalysis
andthatofformal logic.Many
authorshavehighlighted thedistinctionbetweentheabstractions of
Marx'scritiqueofpolitical
economy and those ofconventional social
science.17
However,as IñigoCarrerapointsout (2003,250),mostau-
thorshaveoverlooked thatthedifference in therespectivekindsof
abstraction as
emerges a resultofthevery
form ofthe of
process cogni-
tionon thebasisofwhichthoseabstractions areidentified.Thisdif-
ferencein formnotonlyappliesto thesynthetic or geneticphase-
as is usually assumed - but crucially
pertainsto theprocessofanalysisas
wellTheoriesbasedon formal logicanalyzea concrete formbysepa-
rating what repeatsitselffrom what does not in order to arriveat a
certaincharacteristic.In turn,thiscommonattribute makespossible
thementalconstruction ofa definition ofthatconcreteformas that
whichhasthisorthatattribute. Conversely, dialecticalthought analy-
sesa concrete formby,first ofall,facingitas embodying a qualitative
potentialityfortransformation. Second,bygrasping thatqualitative
potentialityas theconcrete form in which a more abstract formreal-
izesitsownqualitative potentiality, its
i.e., realnecessity. thedia-
Thus
lecticalidealappropriation oftheuniverse of differentrealforms does
notproceedthrough an identification ofthedistinctiveness offorms
on thebasisofthedegreeofrepetition ofcertain attributes. Rather, it
analyticallyseparatesthe different forms bydiscovering as immanent
ina particular concrete formtherealizedpotentiality ofanotherreal
form, whichisabstract withrespecttothefirst one,butconcrete with
respect to anotherform of which itis the realized potentiality. Hence,
whileformal-logical analysisgraspsthegeneraldetermination ofreal
forms eisimmediate -
affirmationshenceself-subsistent entities- the
distinctivemarkoftheprocessofanalysis in dialectical research is to
grasp, in the
same movement,
analytic both the concrete form under scru-
tinyand themoreabstract one ofwhichtheformer is thedeveloped
modeofexistence. Inotherwords, dialectical thought grasps eachform

has been posed in theliterature

17 The distinction vs.
as one between"realabstractions
mentalgeneralization"(Saad-Filho,2002) or "empiricist vs.determinate
abstractions
abstractions"
(Gunn,1992)."Empiricist abstractions" ab-
havealso beencalled"formal
(Clarke,1991)or "generalabstractions"
stractions" (Murray,1988).

This content downloaded from 62.122.73.250 on Fri, 20 Jun 2014 09:09:46 AM

All use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions
 COMMODITY-FORM AND DIALECTICAL METHOD 305

as theaffirmationthrough self-negation ofanother,moreabstract one

(hence, as the movement of contradiction).
In lightoftheabove,I thinkthatin theopeningpagesofchap-
ter1 Marxis notsearching fora commonproperty in commodities.
Rather, he issearching for(i.e.,notyetunfolding) thespecificdeter-
minationdefining thepotentiality ofthecommodity as a historical
formofsocialwealth.Thispotentiality Marxinitially
"discovers"by
lookingat theuse-value oftheindividual commodity, whichin capi-
talist
societiesactsas bearerofthatsecond,historically attribute
specific
oftheproductsoflabor,namely,exchange-value. Two thingsfollow
fromthis.First,thatinasmuch as itismaterially
bornebytheuse-value
ofthecommodity, thisattribute is intrinsic
to thecommodity itself.
Second,as arguedabove,Marxis nottrying toprovelogically
theexis-
tenceofa common but thecommodity
property in itsimmediacy,shows
itself,
thatithasthat"commonproperty" immanent
in it.
Herea problemmight arisebecauseMarxdoesnotexplicitly say
whatthatsecondattributeofthecommodity consists of.Hejustnames
and thendirectly
it (exchange-value) proceedsto itsanalysis.I be-
lievethereasonforthisis thatthemeaningofthatattribute wasself-
evidentin thenameitselfin lightofitseverydayusage at thattime.
The factthatcommodities have"exchange-value"simply means that
thatis, theaptitudetobetransformed
theyhave the powerofexchangeability,
use-valuewithoutthemediationofany materialtransforma-
intoa different
existence}^
tioninbodily Whatimmediately followsinMarx'sexposition
is,then,the dialectical of
analysis thissocialpowerofexchangeability
ofcommodities. Thatis,Marxproceedsto locatethesourceofthis
specific
potentialityintrinsic
tothecommodity, i.e.,themoreabstract
formappearing intheconcrete formofthepowerofexchangeability.
As happenswitheveryrealform,thefirstthinghe encounters
whenfacingtheexchangeability of thecommodity is itsimmediate
-
manifestation thequantitativerelation"inwhichuse-values ofone
kindexchangeforuse-values ofanother"(Marx,1976a,126).Thus,
thefirststepin theanalysisofexchangeability is theuncovering of
the more abstract
form(hence the content)behind that for-
specific
mal attribute of thecommodity, thisbeingtheonlywayin which
we can penetratethroughtheconcreteformin whichan abstract

18 I amindebtedtodiscussions
with
JuanIñigoCarrera(personalcommunication)
forthis
formulation
ofthefetishistic ofcommodities.
character

This content downloaded from 62.122.73.250 on Fri, 20 Jun 2014 09:09:46 AM

All use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions
306 SCIENCE & SOCIETY

formpresents itself.Again,thisis theimmediate objectofMarx'sex-

positionin the passages thatfollow,and not thesearch fora "common
something" or "third thing," theexistence ofwhich the distinctionbe-
tweenformandcontent presupposes.19Thisseparation between form
andcontent revealsthatthedifferent particular
exchange relationsthat
a commodity establishes withothercommodities areactuallyexpres-
sionsofsomething elsethatinheresin commodities andwhichgives
themtheidentical qualitative
potentialityofgeneral in a
exchangeability
certainmagnitude. Onceformandcontentoftheattribute ofgeneral
exchangeability are distinguished,Marxcontinues withtheanalysis
ofthelatter,whichconsistsin separating thatformofgeneralex-
changeability fromthemoreabstract formwhoserealizednecessity
it carrieswithinitselfas its"other."The particular formthatthis
analysistakes is,again, not the search fora common element,but
forthedeterminate actionwhichpositsthatspecificattribute exist-
ingin commodities. Afterbriefly considering and discardingthe
actionofpurely natural forces,Marxpointsoutthattheactionatstake
is a human actionin one ofitsfacets:productive laborin itsgeneral
or
character, abstract labor.Commodities havethis attributeofgen-
eralexchangeability as products oftheabstractcharacter ofthelabor
objectifiedin them.
Andherethereis a tricky aspectin Marx'spresentation, which
might havecontributed tomuchoftheconfusion. Because,although
atthatstageoftheargument he hasalreadyshownthatthecommon
"something" is theformofgeneralexchangeability, he does notac-
tuallyname it until in
separating, turn, thatform from itsmaterial
contentor substance.

nowtellusisthathuman
Allthesethings labour-power hasbeenexpended
toproduce them,human labourisaccumulated inthem. ofthis
Ascrystals
which
socialsubstance, iscommon tothemall,they - commodity
arevalues
.
values [ Warenwerte]

19 In orderto avoidconfusions, I am notimplying thattheexistenceofa commonprop-

ertyandofexchangeequivalencearenotimportant elementsofMarx'sarguments. My
pointisthatMarxisnotlogically theexistenceofa commonproperty
proving orthatthe
onlypossiblesubstanceofthatcommonproperty isabstract thatcom-
labor.He "finds"
monproperty immanent in thecommodity itsimmediate
(actually, manifestation)and
thenproceedstoitsdialectical (i.e.,separation
analysis offormandcontent).See Kicillof
and Starosta,forthcoming, fora fullerdiscussionofwhybeingtheproductsof the
abstractcharacterof laboris theonlyreasonabledetermination behindthevalueof
commodities.

This content downloaded from 62.122.73.250 on Fri, 20 Jun 2014 09:09:46 AM

All use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions
 COMMODITY-FORM AND DIALECTICAL METHOD 307

Wehaveseenthatwhencommodities areexchanged,theirexchange-value
manifests as something
itself totally
independent oftheir Butif
use-value.
weabstract
from their there
use-value, remainstheir
value,asithasjustbeen
Thecommon
defined. factor
intheexchange relation,orintheexchange-
valueofthecommodity,isthereforeitsvalue.(Marx,1976a,128.)

Thatintrinsic attributeofgeneralexchangeability whichismanifested

in exchange-value, andwhichis positedbytheabstract character of
labor,is calledbyMarxvalue.Now,in oppositionto theclaimsofa
greatdeal ofcontemporary literatureon Marx'stheory ofthevalue-
form, I thinkthat the (analytic)search for thespecificdetermina-
tionsofthecommodity isnotachievedwiththediscovery ofabstract
laboras thesubstance ofvalue.20Quite to the that
contrary, very speci-
seemstohaveslippedthrough
ficity Marx'sfingers. In effect,although
he foundthespecificattribute ofthecommodity in itsvalue,when
he movedto accountforitssubstance he endedup withsomething
thatbearsnospecifically character:
capitalist "merely congealedquan-
titiesofhomogeneous humanlabor,i.e.,ofhumanlaborpowerex-
pendedwithout regardtotheformofitsexpenditure" (Marx,1976a,
128). But,as Marx's"thought experiment" about Robinson on his
islandillustrates (Marx, 1976a, 128),itis evidentthat in anyform of
society human beingsproductively expend their corporealpowers
andthattheexertion ofhumancapacitiesentailsbotha concreteor

20 Asa reactionto theahistorical, RicardianreadingofMarx'saccountofthevalue-form,

the"newconsensus" tendstosee abstract laboras a purelyhistorical, socialform
specific
(Arthur, 2001;Bellofiore and Finelli,1998;De Angelis,1995;Kay,1999;Postone,1996;
Reuten,1993;Saad-Filho, 1997).Fora further elaborationofourcase againstthepure
historicityof abstractlaborthrougha critiqueof Rubin'sapproach,see Kicillofand
Starosta,forthcoming. AsI arguebelow,abstract laborisa genericmaterial form, a "pro-
ductiveexpenditure ofhumanbrains,muscles, handsetc."(Marx,1976a,134).
nerves,
Whatis specificto capitalistsocietyis theroleit playsin beingdetermined as thesub-
stanceofthemostabstract formofobjectified socialmediation, namely, value.In a re-
centarticle, Murray(2000) comesveryclosetorecognizing thisthrough thedistinction
between"physiological" abstractlaborand "practically abstract"labor.A properdiscus-
sionofMurray's ownsolutionexceedsthescopeofthispaper.HereI wouldonlyliketo
notethatMurray's remarkable meritis tograsptheimportance ofhighlighting themate-
ofabstract
riality laborwhilemaking clearthatthisdoesnotnecessarily leadtoan asocial
perspective on thevalue-form.In thisway,hisrecentcontribution tothedebateprovides
a necessarycorrection towhatwesee as a formalist overreaction ofmuchrecenttheoriz-
ingon thevalue-form. See alsoReuten 's replytoMurray (Reuten,2000)and thelatter's
rejoinder (Murray,2002). Whilestillseeingabstract laboras capital-specific,
RoblesBáez
offersprobably one ofthebesttreatments ofthemovement ofthecontradiction
between the
generic,physiologicalmaterialityofabstract laboranditshistorically
specificsocialdeter-
mination as thesubstance ofvaluederiving fromtheprivate character oflaborincapital-
ism(RoblesBáez,2004).

This content downloaded from 62.122.73.250 on Fri, 20 Jun 2014 09:09:46 AM

All use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions
308 SCIENCE àf SOCIETY

particular character and an abstract or generalone. Whatis more,

Marxstatesexplicitly thatitis notfromlabor'sabstract aspectthat
thefetishism ofcommodities derives(Marx,1976a,164). Thusfar,
then,thisstageoftheanalytic processdoes noishowwhy thisgeneric
materiality takestheobjectified socialformofvalue.Itdoesnoteven
tellus whatisthehistorical formofsociallaborthatisdetermined as
It
value-producing.only tellsus what is the material determination of
thatwhichin capitalist societyis socially represented in theformof
value.Thisis whyMarxstillcarrieson withtheanalytic searchfor
the"formal determinants thatit containsas a commodity and which
stampitas a commodity." ThisleadsMarx'sdialectical analysis togive
closerscrutiny tothelaborthatproducescommodities. Asanyatten-
tivereadercouldtell,theanalytic process continues and itis onlyin
thesectionon thedualcharacter oflaborthatMarxfinally findsthe
historicallyspecific form of social labor that produces commodities
and,hence,value.
In effect, Marxobservesthattheindividualcommodity he is
is one
analyzing only amongmany within a totality of different com-
modities. Butthesamefollows fortheparticular laborsthatunderlie
thevarieduse-values takingthecommodity-form. In otherwords,
Marxpointsoutthatgeneralized commodity production presupposes
theexistence ofanextended socialdivision oflaborandthatthelatter,
as the"totality ofvarying deployments ofusefullabor"is an "eternal
necessityofnatureforthesakeofmediating thematerial interchange
between manandnature(i.e.,humanlife)"(Marx,1976b,12).On the
otherhand,thisanalysis also makesclearthatthereverserelation-
shipdoesnothold,thatis,thedivision oflabormustnotnecessarily
takethesocialformoftheproduction ofcommodities. The formal
determination of thecommodity musttherefore springfromthe
specificsocial form taken the
by organization of the division oflabor
in our present-day society.The commodity, Marx eventually con-
cludes,is theobjectification "ofmutually independent actsoflabor,
performed in isolation" (Marx, 1976a, 131). In other words, itis the
"laborofprivate individuals whoworkindependently ofeachother"
(Marx,1976a,165), or private and independent labor(hereafter, pri-
vatelabor),whichconstitutes thespecifically capitalist formoflabor.
In thissocialformofthehumanlife-process, theproducerhas the
fullconsciousproductive capacity to control the individual charac-
terofhis/herlaborbutcannotrecognizeand organize(i.e.,he/she

This content downloaded from 62.122.73.250 on Fri, 20 Jun 2014 09:09:46 AM

All use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions
 COMMODITY-FORM AND DIALECTICAL METHOD 309

about)thesocialdeterminations
is unconscious ofhumanindividu-
Hence
ality. theinversionofthosesocialpowersintoan attribute
of
of
theproduct labor,namely, thevalue-form.The analytic
process
completesthesearchforthespecific
determinations
ofthevalue-form
byrevealing ofgeneralexchangeability
thattheattribute ofthecom-
modity from
springs the or
abstract general of
character per-
privately
formedlabor init.Thecommodity,
materialized then,becomesknown
in itsessentialdeterminationas the materialized
generalsocialrelation
and
ofprivate independent producers.

Phase
The Synthetic

Itisonlynowthatthesynthetic stageofthepresentation begins.

Thisconsistsin ideallyfollowing therealizationof thediscovered
immanent
potentiality in thecommodity. Fromthenon, thecom-
modity ceases tobe grasped in its as an "inert"
exteriority socialform
- asa sheerexternal -
object and theexposition to
starts followitsself-
movement as thesubjectofthedevelopment ofthosedeterminations
- previouslydiscovered through - intoevermoreconcrete
analysis
21
forms(IñigoCarrera,2003,283). Thisis subtly indicatedbyMarx
at theend ofhisdiscussion ofthequalitative determinations ofthe
relativeformofvalue.

Wesee,then,thateverything ouranalysisofthevalueofcommodities pre-

viouslytoldus is repeatedbythelinenitself,
as soonas itentersintoasso-
ciationwithanothercommodity, thecoat.Onlyitrevealsitsthoughts in a
languagewithwhichitalone is familiar,thelanguageofcommodities. In
ordertotellusthatlabourcreatesitsownvalueinitsabstract ofbeing
quality
humanlabour,itsaysthatthecoat,in so faras itcountsas itsequal,i.e.,is
ofthesamelabouras itdoesitself.
value,consists In ordertoinformus that

Arthur
21 Ina recentarticle, (2004,41-42)alsoacknowledges thisimportant aspectofMarx's
presentation.However, he stillmaintainsthatMarxfailedto providein Chapter1 an
adequateexplanation forthedetermination ofabstractlaboras thesubstance ofvalue
and shouldhavepostponedtheintroduction ofabstractlaboruntilthelevelofabstrac-
tionofthecapital-form (Arthur, 2005,119).The shortcoming ofthisview- alsoshared
byLapavitsas(2005) - is thatitleadsto a formalistic
understanding ofthevalue-form,
whichobscurestheveryquestionthatthelatter, initsownreified way,ismeanttosolve:
theestablishment ofthematerial unityofsociallaborwhenittakestheformofprivate
labor(Brown, 2004).Thisidiosyncraticseparationoftheformofvaluefromitssubstance
atthelevelofthecommodity-form hadalready beenadvancedbyItoh(1988). See Clarke,
1989,fora critiqueofItoh'sradicalseparationofthetheory oftheformofvalueandthe
theoryofthesubstance ofvalue.

This content downloaded from 62.122.73.250 on Fri, 20 Jun 2014 09:09:46 AM

All use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions
310 SCIENCE& SOCIETY

itssublimeobjectivity fromitsstiff
as value differs and starchyexistenceas
a body,it saysthatvalue has the appearance of a coat, and consequently
it and the
thatin so faras the linen itselfis an object of value [Wertding],
coat are as like as twopeas. (Marx, 1976a, 143-144.)

The unfoldingof thismovement spoken"in thelanguageof

commodities" isprecisely whatthesubsequent synthetic stageofthe
presentation consistsof.Value beinga purelysocialpowerof the
commodity, itcannotbe immediately expressedin itssensuouscor-
As the
porealmateriality. capacity of thecommodity tobe exchanged
forotherdifferent commodities, value can only be manifested inthe
socialrelationofexchangebetweencommodities. Therefore, the
valueofa commodity itself
expresses only
necessarily in the use-value
ofthecommodity thatisexchanged forthecommodity inquestionas
In
itsequivalent. thisway, valuetakes the concrete shapeofexchange-
valueas itsnecessary formofappearance.In itsmostdevelopedform,
valueacquiresindependent existenceas moneyand theexpression
ofvaluein theparticular commodity actingas moneybecomesde-
termined as price.The opposition inherent inthecommodity isthus
externalized through thedoublingofthecommodity-form intoor-
dinary commodities and The
money. power of directexchangeabil-
ityofcommodities negatesitselfas suchtobecomeaffirmed as a social
powermonopolizedbythemoney-form.
Itisinthecourseofthesynthetic movement ofthisdevelopment,
whenseen fromthepointofviewofitsqualitative content, thatthe
answertothe"why" questions which the analytic was
stage impotent
to provideis given.In otherwords,itis thedevelopment oftheex-
pressionofvaluethatunfoldstheexplanation as towhytheobjecti-
ficationoftheabstract characterofprivately performed labortakes
thesocialformofvalueor,to putitdifferently, whyprivate laboris
value-producing.
In a nutshell, theissuecomesdowntothefactthatitis onlythe
expression of value thatprogressively revealstous theproblemthat
thecommodity-form oftheproductoflaboris meantto solve.We
are referring to themediationin theestablishment oftheunityof
sociallaborwhenperformed in a private and independent manner.
And sincethisunitybecomescondensedin themoney-form, it is
theunfolding ofitsdeterminations, synthesized in the peculiarities
oftheequivalent-form and derivedfromitsgeneraldetermination

This content downloaded from 62.122.73.250 on Fri, 20 Jun 2014 09:09:46 AM

All use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions
 COMMODITY-FORM AND DIALECTICAL METHOD 311

as theformofimmediate exchangeability, thatprovidestheanswer

to thequestionas towhyprivate labormustproducevalue.
As theothersideofitstwo-step analytic discovery, thesynthetic
idealreproduction ofthedeterminations ofthevalue-form comprises
twoaspects,each one respectively corresponding to the second and
thirdpeculiaritiesoftheequivalent form.The first one,whereby the
concretelaborthatproducestheparticularcommodity actingas
generalequivalent becomes the form ofmanifestation of thegeneral
character ofhumanlabor,shows, why
precisely, thatmaterial expen-
ditureoflabor-power hasto actas thesocialformoflabor,i.e.,why
theabstractcharacter oflaboris thesubstanceofvalue.The second
one,whereby theprivatelaborthatproducestheequivalent commod-
itybecomes the immediate incarnation ofdirectly sociallabor,inturn
makesitevidentwhyprivate labormustproducevalueat all.
In effect,
through thegeneralexpression ofvalue,all commodi-
tiesrelateto each otheras possessing an identicalsocialessenceas
exchangeable thingsin thesamemagnitude. In otherwords,albeit
in a mediatedformthatreflects theirsocialformofvalueas theim-
mediateattribute ofthegeneralequivalent, theirsocialrelationof
generalexchangeability achieves its unity. sincetheyare only
But,
valuesas expressions ofthesamecommonsocialsubstance, i.e.,ab-
the
stractlabor, unity of the expression of value putsus before the
humanlabor.In determining
unityof undifferentiated theconcrete
laborthatproducedtheequivalent as theimmediate modeofappear-
anceofabstract humanlabor,nowthesocialrelationbetweencom-
moditiesitselfmakesplainthatthedifferent concretelaborsthat
producedthemarebutdifferent waysinwhichthetotallabor-power
ofsociety hasbeenexpended.Thosevariedusefullaborsnowshow
themselves tobe whattheyactually are:differentiations oftheexpen-
ditureofhumanlabor-power or determinate modes in whichthe
humanbodyhasbeenproductively exerted.In this"roundabout way,"
as Marxputsit,thedevelopment ofexchange-value confronts uswith
thegenericproblemthatanysocietymustconfront, namely,theso-
ofhumanlabor,which"is capable of
ofthedifferentiation
cial regulation
receivingeachandevery determination. . . butisundetermined just
in and foritself"(Marx,1976b,20), and whichis necessary forthe
reproduction ofhumanlife.The exposition ofthedialecticalanaly-
sis of the commodity had alreadydiscoveredthata commodity-
producing society
presupposedan extendeddivisionoflabor.Now

This content downloaded from 62.122.73.250 on Fri, 20 Jun 2014 09:09:46 AM

All use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions
312 SCIENCE& SOCIETY

we can see thatthe materialized social relation itself- the value-form

- as themediatorinthe articulationofthatdivisionof labor,
affirms
itself
i.e., establishing the relation between differentlabors as organic
in
specifications of human labor in general.

As valuesthecommoditiesareexpressionsofthesameunity, ofabstracthuman
labour. In the formof exchange valuetheyappearto one another as values
andrelatethemselves to one anotheras values.Theytherebyrelatethemselves
at the same timeto abstractlabour as theircommon Their
socialsubstance.
socialrelationship
consistsexclusivelyin countingwithrespectto one another
as expressionsof thissocial substanceof theirswhichdiffers onlyquantita-
tively,but which is qualitativelyequal and hence replaceable and inter-
changeablewithone another.... It is onlythe kindof thingthatcan turn
mereobjectsofuse into commodities and hence setintoa socialrapport.But
thisisjust what valueis. The formin whichthe commoditiescountto one
anotheras values- as coagulationsofhumanlabour- is consequently their
socialform.(Marx,1976b,28-29; italicsin original.)

The necessityof abstractlabor as the substance of value thus becomes

finallyunfolded. Abstractlabor is the substance of value not because
a logical argument says that it is the common propertyof commodi-
ties we were searching for in the name of sound principles of logic.
It becomes determined as the substance of value because in reality
value is the objectified social form that mediates the organization of
that purely material expenditure of the human body into its differ-
ent concrete forms across society. This being what the value-form
mediates, what else could be represented in that objectified form?
On the other hand, abstract labor does not cease to be a generic
material formbecause of thisdeterminationas the substance ofvalue.
Hence, as stated above, the determination of labor as abstract labor
is not the reason behind its existence as value-producing. What is
specific to capitalist society is that this purely material form negates
itselfas simplysuch to become affirmedas the producer of the (ob-
jectified) general social relation (Iñigo Carrera, 2003, 301). Once
objectified,the genericmateriality of the abstractcharacterof labor plays
a particular social role in the process of social metabolism by being
represented as the social objectivity ofvalue.

The commodities'social formis theirrelationshipto one anotheras equal

labour,hence - sincetheequalityof totocoelo[utterly]different
labourscan

This content downloaded from 62.122.73.250 on Fri, 20 Jun 2014 09:09:46 AM

All use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions
 AND DIALECTICALMETHOD
COMMODITY-FORM 313

onlyconsistin an abstraction
fromtheir - theirrelationshipto one
inequality
anotheras humanlabourin general:expendituresof human labour power,
which is what all human labours - whatevertheircontent or mode of
operation- actuallyare.In each social formof labour,the labours of dif-
ferentindividualsare relatedto one anotheras human labourstoo, but in
thiscase thisrelating countsas the specifically
itself socialformof the labours.
(Marx,1976b,32; italicsin original.)

To recapitulate, thus farwe have discussed how the development of

theexpression ofvalueand,in particular, theunfolding ofthede-
terminations ofthesecondpeculiarity oftheequivalent-form, con-
tainstheaccountofthereasonwhyabstract laboris thesubstanceof
value.Whatstillneedstobe answered iswhyabstract laboristhesub-
stance ofvalue. In other words, we have to see why human productive
activitybecomesdetermined in capitalist society as value-producing,
thesecondstepin thesynthetic movement referred to above.
In thesamewaythethirdpeculiarity oftheequivalent immedi-
ately follows from the second one, so does the answer to this ques-
tionfollow fromtheprevious one.In effect, as thesocialincarnation
of humanlaborin general,theconcretelaborthatproducesthe
equivalent acquiresinitsimmediacy theformofequality withrespect
totheotherconcreteusefullabors.In thisformofimmediate iden-
titywithevery otherconcretelabor,thelaborthatmaterializes inthe
generalequivalent is manifested as immediately social,whilethe useful
laborsproducing therestofcommodities cannotmanifest thissocial
character intheirimmediacy. Thustheexpression ofvalueintheform
ofexchange-value putsbeforeus thereasonwhytheorganization of
thedivision oflabormustnecessarily be mediatedinthisreified form
or,whatis thesame,whycommodity-producing laboris essentially
value-producing. Although materially dependentuponone another
as partofthe"primordial system ofthedivisionoflabor,"thisirre-
ducibly social character oí private isnotimmediately
labors manifested
whentheyareactually objectified in the direct of
process production.
Hence,thisnecessary socialarticulation ofprivate laborsis realized
through themediation oftheexchange oftheproducts ofprivate labor
as commodities. Only at that moment is it revealed whether the ex-
penditure of the portion of sociallabor which each producer personi-
fiesissociallyuseful. Thisisthereasonwhythesocialcharacter ofthe
privatelyperformed individual productive activities
isspecifically rep-

This content downloaded from 62.122.73.250 on Fri, 20 Jun 2014 09:09:46 AM

All use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions
314 SCIENCE äf SOCIETY

resented as a determinate objective oftheproducts

attribute oflabor:
theformoftheirgeneralexchangeability or theirvalue-form.The
basisofthisreifiedsocialmediationthusresidesin thefactthatthe
unityofsociallaboris manifested, as Marxputsitin theGrundrisse,
onlypostfestum, through exchangeoftheproducts
the oflabor(Marx,
the
1993,172). Furthermore, unity ofsociallaborthusbecomesso-
ciallyrepresented in the form of the particular productthat
private
therestofcommodities separate andwhich
as theirgeneralequivalent
eventually in
ossifies the money-form.tracing genesisofthe
In the
latterthrough theidealreproduction oftheexpressionofvalue,the
syntheticstage ofthe dialectical
exposition thereby unfolds
positively
thedeterminations ofthatwhichtheanalytic processcouldonlypoint
out thatthevalue-form oftheproductoflaboris thematerialized
socialrelationofhumanbeingsand,therefore, of
thesocialsubject
theform ofthesocialprocessofproduction of human-life.22

Conclusion

In thispaper,I haveattempted tocontribute to thegrowing lit-

eratureon thedialecticalstructure ofMarx'scritiqueof political
economybybringing out often-overlooked aspectsofhisargument
in Chapter1 of CapitalFirst,bybriefly highlighting thedistinction
betweenMarx'sviewofscienceas the"idealreproduction ofthereal
lifeofthesubjectmatter" and theformalism characterizing main-
streammethodological approaches, I established the precisenature
ofMarx'sdiscussion ofabstractlaboras thesubstance ofvaluewhich,
I argued,does notinvolvea purely deductive processof logicalproof.
Second,thepaperbroughtouttherespective rolesand signifi-
canceofthestagesofanalysis andsynthesis in thedialecticalpresen-
tationand,in addition,addressedthequestionofthespecific form of
theanalytical I
processin thedialecticalmethod. believe thislatter
in
point particular hasnotbeensufficiently addressedinthespecial-

22 Hence,thefetishism ofthecommodity-form couldbe saidto be formalinasmuch as it

to theform
onlypertains oftheprocessofsocialmetabolism, itscontentremaining the
productionofuse-values and,hence,ofhumanlife.Atthelevelofthecapital-form the
becomessubstantive
fetishism becauseitrefers notonlyto theformofthehumanlife-
As an attribute
processbutalso to itscontent. ofcapital,thealienatedcontentofsocial
reproductionbecomesdetermined as theproduction ofsurplus-value,withtheproduc-
hencehumanlifeitself,
tionofuse-values, as theunconscious resultofitsautonomized
movement.

This content downloaded from 62.122.73.250 on Fri, 20 Jun 2014 09:09:46 AM

All use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions
 COMMODITY-FORM AND DIALECTICAL METHOD 315

Still,I hope to havedemonstrated

izedliterature. thatitis essential
tograspwhymanyoftheobjectionsto theinitialstepsofMarx'sar-
gumentare simply misplacedand basedon a readingthatsees the
analyticalmovement unfoldedin thosepagesthrough thelensesof
formal-logical These
methodologies. generalmethodological insights
werethenutilizedto clarify thedeterminate place in Chapter1 of
Capitalwheretheunfolding oftheexplanation ofthedeterminations
ofprivately abstract
performed laboras
thesubstance ofvalueistobefound.
Thisis notinthefirsttwosections ofChapter1,as mostcritics ofMarx
havetendedtoassume.Butneither isitinsectionfouron commodity-
fetishism,as manyMarxists (perhapsinfluenced byRubin)usually
think.Asarguedinthispaper,thesynthetic unfolding ofthereasonwhy
theabstractcharacter ofprivatelaborconstitutesthesubstance ofvalue
canbe foundinsection 3,where Marx presentsthe formaldevelopment
oftheexpression ofvalueintothemoney-form.
In sum,we can nowappreciatethatthedialectical"minutiae"
involvedin theuncovering ofthedeterminations ofthecommodity-
formhavefar-reaching theoretical for
implications thecomprehen-
sionofthefirst stepsofthecritiqueofpoliticaleconomy.
DepartmentofSociology
ofWarwick
University
CoventryCV4 7AL
UnitedKingdom
ac.uk
g.starosta@warwick.

REFERENCES

Albritton,Robert,andJohnSimoulidis,eds. 2003. NewDialectics andPoliticalEconomy.

Basingstoke,England: PalgraveMacmillan.
Arthur,Christopher J. 1993. "Hegel's Logicand Marx's Capitar Pp. 63-88 in Fred
Moseley,ed., Marx'sMethod in Capital:A Reexamination.AtlanticHighlands,New
Jersey: Humanities Press.
. 1997. "Againstthe Logical-HistoricalMethod: Dialectical Derivationver-
sus Linear Logic." Pp. 9-37 in Fred Moseleyand MarthaCampbell,eds., New
InvestigationsofMarx'sMethod.AtlanticHighlands, NewJersey:Humanities
Press.
. 1998. "Engels,Logic and History."Pp. 3-15 in Bellofiore,ed.
. 2001. "Value,Labour and Negativity." Capitaland Class,73 (Spring),15-39.
. 2002. TheNewDialecticand Marx'sCapital.Lieden, The Netherlands:Brill
Academic Publishers.

This content downloaded from 62.122.73.250 on Fri, 20 Jun 2014 09:09:46 AM

All use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions
316 SCIENCE àf SOCIETY

. 2004. "Moneyand the Form of Value." Pp. 35-63 in Riccardo Bellofiore

and Nicola Taylor,eds., TheConstitution ofCapital.Essayson Volume I ofMarx's
Capital.Basingstoke,England: Palgrave Macmillan.
. 2005. "Value and Money."Pp. 111-123 in Fred Moseley,ed., Marx'sTheory
ofMoney:ModernAppraisals.Basingstoke,England: PalgraveMacmillan.
Banaji,Jairus.1979. "Fromthe Commodityto Capital: Hegel's Dialecticin Marx's
Capital^ Pp. 14-45 in Elson, ed.
Bellofiore,Riccardo,ed. 1998. MarxianEconomics. A Reappraisal.Volume 1: Essayson
Volume III ofCapital.Method, Valueand Money. Basingstoke, England:Macmillan.
Bellofiore,Riccardo,and RobertoFinelli. 1998. "Capital,Labour and Time: The
MarxianMonetaryTheoryofValue as a Theoryof Exploitation."Pp. 48-74 in
Bellofiore,ed.
Böhm-Bawerk,Eugene von. 1975. Karl Marx and theCloseofHis System. London:
MerlinPress.
Brown,Andrew.2004. "The Labour Theory of Value: MaterialistVersus Idealist
Interpretations." Unpublished Manuscript.
Brown,Andrew,GarySlater,and David A. Spencer. 2002. "Drivento Abstraction?
CriticalRealismand the Search forthe'InnerConnection' of Social Phenom-
ena." Cambridge JounralofEconomics, 26:6, 773-788.
Clarke,Simon. 1989. "The Basic Theoryof Capitalism:A CriticalReviewof Itoh
and the Uno School." Capitaland Class,37 (Spring), 133-149.
. 1991.Marx,Marginalism andModern Basingstoke,
Sociology. England:Macmillan.
. 1994. Marx'sTheory ofCrisis.
New York: St. Martin's.
De Angelis,Massimo. 1995. "Beyond the Technological and Social Paradigms:A
PoliticalReading of AbstractLabour as the Substance of Value." Capitaland
Class,57 (Autumn), 107-134.
Dimoulis,Dimitri,andJohnMilios.2004. "CommodityFetishismvs.CapitalFetish-
ism: MarxistInterpretationsVis-à-VisMarx's Analysesin Capital."Historical
Materialism, 12:3, 3-42.
Elson, Diane, ed. 1979a. Value.TheRepresentation ofLabourin Capitalism. London:
CSE Books.
Elson, Diane. 1979b. "The Value Theoryof Labour." Pp. 115-180 in Elson, ed.
Engels,Friedrich.1980. "La Contribucióna la Críticade la Economia Politica de
Karl Marx."Pp. 333-343 in Karl Marx, Contribución a la Criticade la Economia
Politica.Mexico City,Mexico: Siglo XXL
Gunn, Richard. 1992. "AgainstHistoricalMaterialism:Marxismas a First-Order
Discourse."In WernerBonefeld,RichardGunn and KosmasPsychopedis,eds.,
OpenMarxism.Volume II: Theory and Practice.London: Pluto Press.
Hegel, Georg Wilhelm Friedrich. 1999. Hegel'sScienceofLogic.Amherst,NewYork:
HumanityBooks.
Iñigo Carrera,Juan.1992.El Conocimiento Dialéctico.BuenosAires,Argentina:Centro
para la Investigacióncomo CríticaPráctica.
. 2003. El Capital:RazónHistórica,SujetoRevolucionario y Conciencia. Buenos
Aires,Argentina:Ediciones Cooperativas.
Itoh, Makoto. 1988. TheBasic Theory ofCapitalism:TheFormsand Substanceofthe
CapitalistEconomy. Basingstoke,England: Macmillan.

This content downloaded from 62.122.73.250 on Fri, 20 Jun 2014 09:09:46 AM

All use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions
 COMMODITY-FORM AND DIALECTICAL METHOD 317

Kay,Geoffrey.1979. "WhyLabour is the StartingPoint of Capital." Pp. 46-66 in

Elson, ed.
. 1999. "AbstractLabour and Capital."HistoricalMaterialism, 5 (Winter),255-
279.
Kicillof,Axel,and Guido Starosta.Forthcoming."On Materiality and Social Form:
A PoliticalCritique of Rubin's CirculationistValue-FormTheory."Historical
Materialism.
Lapavitsas,Costas. 2005. "The UniversalEquivalentas Monopolyof the Abilityto
Buy."Pp. 95-110 in Fred Moseley,ed., Marx'sTheory ofMoney:ModernApprais-
als. Basingstoke,England: PalgraveMacmillan.
Marx,Karl. 1975. "Noteson AdolfWagner."Pp. 161-219 in TerreiCarver,ed., Karl
Marx: Textson Method.Oxford,England: Basil Blackwell.
. 1976a. Capital,Volume I. Harmondsworth, England: Penguin.
. 1976b. Value:StudiesbyMarx.London: New Park Publications.
. 1978. Capital,Volume II. Harmondsworth, England: Penguin.
. 1988. "EconomicManuscripts1861-63." KarlMarxandFrederick EngelsCol-
lectedWorks, Volume 30. London: Lawrenceand Wishart.
. 1993. Grundrisse.Foundations oftheCritiqueofPoliticalEconomy. Harmonds-
worth,England: Penguin.
Meek, Ronald. 1973. Studiesin theLabourTheory ofValue.London: Lawrence and
Wishart.
Meikle,Scott.1985.EssentialismintheThought ofKarlMarx.La Salle,Illinois:Open Court.
Moseley,Fred, ed. 1993. Marx'sMethodin Capital:A Reexamination. AtlanticHigh-
lands, NewJersey:HumanitiesPress.
Moseley,Fred,and MarthaCampbell,eds. 1997. NewInvestigations ofMarx'sMethod.
AtlanticHighlands,New iersey:HumanitiesPress.
Murray,Patrick.1988. Marx'sTheory Knowledge.
ofScientific AtlanticHighlands,New
Jersey: Humanities Press.
. 2000. "Marx's 'TrulySocial' Labour Theory of Value." Part I: "Abstract
Labour in MarxianValue Theory."Historical Materialism,6 (Summer), 27-65.
. 2002. "Replyto GeertReuten." Historical Materialism, 10:1, 155-176.
Park,Cheol-soo. 2003. "On ReplacingLabor as the SubstanceofValue: Earlyand
RecentArguments."Scienceàf Society, 67:2, 160-172.
Postone, Moishe. 1996. Time,Laborand SocialDomination.Cambridge,England:
CambridgeUniversity Press.
Reichelt, Helmut. 1995. "Whydid Marx Conceal his Dialectical Method?"Pp. 40-
79 in WernerBonefeld,Richard Gunn,John Hollowayand Kosmas Psycho-
pedis,eds., OpenMarxism. Volume 3: Emancipating Marx.London: Pluto Press.
Reuten,Geert. 1993. "The DifficultLabor of a Theoryof Social Value, Metaphors
and Systematic Dialecticsat the Beginningof Marx's 'Capital'." Pp. 89-114 in
Moseley, ed.
. 2000. "The InterconnectionBetweenSystematicDialecticsand Historical
Materialism."Historical Materialism, 7 (Winter),137-166.
RoblesBáez, MarioL. 2000. "La Influenciadel Método 'Lógico-Histórico'de Engels
en las InterpretacionesSobre el Objeto de la Sección Primeradel Tomo I de
El Capitalde Marx: Crítica y Propuesta." Paper presented at International

This content downloaded from 62.122.73.250 on Fri, 20 Jun 2014 09:09:46 AM

All use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions
318 SCIENCE & SOCIETY

WorkingGroup in Value Theorymini-conference, EasternEconomicAssocia-

tion,CrystalCity,Washington,D.C.
. 2004. "On theAbstractionof Labour as a Social Determination."Pp. 151-
166 in Alan Freeman,AndrewKliman and JulianWells,eds., TheNew Value
Controversy and theFoundations ofEconomics.Aldershot,England:EdwardElgar.
Rubin,Isaak Illich. 1972. EssaysonMarx'sTheory ofValue.Detroit,Michigan:Black
and Red.
. 1978. "AbstractLabour and Value in Marx's System."Capitaland Class,
5 (Summer), 107-139.
Saad-Filho,Alfredo. 1997. "Concrete and AbstractLabour in Marx's Theory of
Value." ReviewofPoliticalEconomy, 9:4, 457-477.
. 2002. The ValueofMarx:PoliticalEconomy forContemporary Lon-
Capitalism.
don: Routledge.
Shortall,Felton. 1994. TheIncomplete Marx.Aldershot,England: Avebury.
Smith,Tony. 1990. TheLogicofMarx'sCapital:RepliestoHegelianCriticisms. Albany,
NewYork: SUNY Press.
Starosta,Guido. 2003. "ScientificKnowledgeand PoliticalAction:On theAntino-
mies of Lukács' Thought in History Scienceof Society,
and Class Consciousness"
67:1 (Spring), 39-67.
UnpublishedPhD thesis.Departmentof
. 2005. Scienceas PracticalCriticism.
Sociology,University of Warwick,Coventry.
Sweezy,Paul. 1968. TheTheory ofCapitalist NewYork:MonthlyReview
Development.
Press.
Zelenyjindrich. 1980. TheLogicofMarx.Oxford,England: Basil Blackwell.

This content downloaded from 62.122.73.250 on Fri, 20 Jun 2014 09:09:46 AM

All use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions