Abstraction in Marx’s Method

RJ.Horvath and K.D. Gibson

University of Sydney Australian National University

INTRODUCTION archaeology of Marx’s method. We are also concerned to

refashion abstraction so that it can help answer the

I
f achievements in science were simply the product of questions raised above. In the space of one essay, we will
scientific effort, the methodological basis of historical not be able to engage in a critique of the various
materialism should now be firmly established Surely reconstructions of Marx’s method which have preceded
no ground within the terrain of historical materialism has ours. Ilyenkov’s critique in The Dialectics of the Abstract
been trodden more often than method. Yet, despite this and the Concrete in Marx’s ‘Capital’ clearly shows that
considerable effort, we still do not possess the consensus such commentary would require book length treatment.
prerequisite to either a textbook summary or routine For the same reason we are not able to use the method of
scientific application. Furthermore, like Western Marxism abstraction to help clarify substantive problems such as
in general, attempts to reconstruct Marx’s method have the development of Marxist theories of space, class or the
been dominated by philosophers (Anderson 1980). The state in this paper.
significance of this dominance is that the classic texts As the terrain we are about to traverse is difficult, we
within historical materialism have been ‘read,’ as Alt- begin with a ‘map’ that should help to chart our movements
husser reminds us, from the point of view of philosophy. (see Figure 1). In brief, we argue that abstraction is an
The difference between a philosophic ‘reading’ and a epistemological method which involves two kinds of
social scientific ‘reading’ of a given set of texts lies in the intellectual filtering of the fundamental features of a given
questions posed. As social scientists working within the concrete social formation. The first filter we term level of
Marxist tradition we approach the reconstruction and abstraction. This involves identifying the degree of his-
extension of Marx’s method with specific questions in torical specificity which enters into the construction of a
mind They are: (1) How do we complete Marx’s un- particular theoretical category. We discuss four levels of
finished scientific project of which Capital represents a abstraction identified with Roman numerals as a matter of
beginning? (2) How does historical materialism rigorously convenience. The second filter we term complexity of
investigate real concrete capitalist formations, such as abstraction. Used especially by Marx as an expository
England in 1867? (3) How do we explain changes that device, this is the movement in thought from simple to
have taken place, and are continuing to take place, within complex abstraction, for example from the economy to the
capitalism? In this essay we shall argue that an important social formation.
part of the answer to these questions emerges from a In Section 1 of the paper we discuss the difference
consideration of Marx’s conception of abstraction. between universal abstractions formulated at level I and
Marx left little doubt that he regarded abstraction as a historically specific abstractions formulated at level I1 of
fundamental part of his method, for as he stated in the abstraction. Also discussed is the movement from simple
Preface to Capital: “In the analysis of economic forms to complex abstraction at the universal, level I of a b
neither microscopes nor chemical reagents are of assist- straction. Broadly speaking Marx’s scientific project was
ance. The power of abstraction must replace them both” concerned with the difference between these two levels of
(Marx 1976:90). On the other hand there is equally little abstraction and it is in the discussion of this section that
doubt that Marx left few clear indications of how a b the methodological answer to the first question raised
straction was to be used. Instead, we must infer from his earlier is addressed. In Section2 we discuss the relatonship
own scientific work how abstraction was employed as a between abstract and concrete. Here we argue that Marx’s
tool in its construction. Our task thus resembles that of the method of abstraction requires us to distinguish between
archaeologist confronted by the great Egyptian pyramids the general concrete and the specific or real concrete. The
who must determine the role different tools played in their methodological answer to the second question concerning
construction. But our interest is not restricted to the concrete scientific investigation is thereby contained in

12
 A TYPOLOGY OF ABSTRACTION
SIMPLE ~ +COMPLEX
I
ABSTRACTION I
1
SUBSTRUCTURE
ECONOMY ( 1 1
THEORY OF MODES OF I
SUPERSTF CTURE
I STATE (2) IDEOLOGY ( 3 ) I GENERAL
CONCRETE(4)
I
PRODUCTION
UNIVERSAL
3
THEORY OF
PRODUCER- NON-PRODUCER- STATE
NON - PRODUCER NO N- PRODUCER
RELATIONS RE L A T IONS
I1 C A P I T A L I N GENERAL C A P I T A L I ST”
MODE OF PROD- CAPITAL - CAP IT A L -
‘ CAPITALIST CAPITALIST SOCIAL
UCTION I N L A B 0 UR CAPITAL STATE I N IDEOLOGY I N FORMATION
GEN E RA L RELATIONS RELATIONS GENERAL GENERAL I N GENERAL
I11 SUBMODES OF PRODUCTION ART ICU LATED
V A R I A N T OF VAR IANT VARIANT VARIANT VAR IANT FORMATION OF
THE MODE OF C-L c-c STATE IDEOLOGIES SUBMODES OF
PRODUCTION RELAT IONS RELATIONS FORM PRODUCTION
A S P E C I F I C CONCRETE ECONOMY A A A
IV SPEC1 F I C SPEC IF I C SPECIFIC SPEC I F I C SPECIFIC
CONCRETE CONCRETE CONCRETE CONCRETE CONCRETE
SPEC IFI C c- L c-c C A P I T A L I S T CAPITALIST SOCIAL
CONCRETE RELATIONS RELATIONS STATE IDEOLOGY FORMAT I ON

*INCLUDING THE THEORY O F THE ARTICULATION OF MODES OF PRODUCTION

Figure 1: A Typology of Abstraction

this section. In Section 3 we are concerned with the third particular historical circumstances. In making this case in
question, namely, how do we theorize the major changes more detail in this section, we would like to emphasizethat
which have taken place within the history of the capitalist the movement from level I to level I1 analysis embodied
mode of production. Our answer is to suggest a level of for Mam no discontinuity in the method of dialectical and
abstraction concerned with identifying structural-genetic historical materialist enquiry, but merely a systematic
variants of capitalism. inclusion of more specifically historic abstractions.

SECTION 1: AHISTORIC (LEVEL I) AND Level I Abstractions and Theory

HISTORICALLY SPECIFIC (LEVEL II) THEORY
(1) Marx’s Critique. The projection of transitory
Within the Marxist tradition the distinction between relations from one historical period onto all human society
ahistoric theory, employing universal or suprahistorical was a fundamental flaw of bourgeois and socialist theories
categories, and historically specific theory, utilizing cate- alike to which Marx objected. Marx felt that the real role
gories which are relevant to particular epochs of human of general theory was misunderstood when ideological
history, is widely accepted. After all, this distinction is reflectionsof particular historic epochswere given universal
most central to the method of historical materialism. We application. Thus, his critique of existing theories involves
would like to formalize this theoretical differentia by an identificationof their historical or social particularities.
arguingthat these two types of theory are developed at two In Capital Marx argued that “Proudhon creates his ideal
separate levels of logical and historical abstraction which of justice, of ‘justice eternelle,’ from the juridicial relations
we designate for convenience level I (universal theory) that correspond to the production of commodities...”
and level I1 (historically specific theory). Although there ( 1976:178f); and that Adam Smith was “the quintessential
are significant differences between the level I abstractions economist of the period of (capitalist) manufacture...”
employed by bourgeois theorists and those used by Mam, (1976:468f). His comments on Bentham are especially
he did not deny the need for universal theory. More savage, for Bentham “assumes that the modem petty
important for his, however, was theory which could bourgeois, especially the English petty bourgeois, is the
descend from the empyrean heights of historical generality normal man... He applies this yardstick to the past, the
to fix upon the specific determinants of social life under present, and the future,” rather than recognizing the

13
 historical specificity of the English shopkeeper( 19763759f). (2) Marx’s Universal Theory. Although Marx ex-
Marx argues that the principle of Bentham’s interest, pressed an intention to produce a universal theory which
namely utility, can only be deduced after first having dealt contained “the general abstract determinants which obtain
with “human nature in general [our level I], and then with in more or less all forms of society,” he did not complete
human nature as historically modified in each epoch” the work and only left fragments of such a theory
(1976:759f). contained in scattered texts (Marx, 1973: 108).2
This separation of general from specific characteristics On the basis of these fragments, a number of attempts
by means of two levels of historical abstraction constituted have been made to create a more detailed theory of
a major breakthrough for the scientific understanding of historical materialist principles at the highest level of
human society. Not only did it allow Marx to build a historical abstraction (Althusser and Balibar 1970; Hindess
theory of the essential relations which constitute history, and Hirst 1975; Cohen 1978). It is our opinion that much
but it provided a methodological gauge against which of what has been written in this vein attempts to read far
theoretical propositions pertaining to human society could too much into the isolated texts we have available on this
be measured in order to determine their relative explanatory topic. The resulting conceptions of historical materialism
power. Marx’s critique of existing theory did not, however, are overly static and n a r r ~ w .Until
~ more systematic
preclude the appropriation of those insights generated analyses of modes of production other than the capitalist
within a bourgeois framework which, once placed within mode have been completed, and we have a more solid
their historically relevant context, provided enlightenment. material basis upon which to propose detailed determina-
Consider the way in which Marx both criticized and built tions of universal validity, we prefer to entertain an
upon Ricardo’s theory of value. As Zeleny has clearly extremely flexible conception of theory at level I. We find
shown “Mam did not dismiss Ricardo’s investigations encouragement for this laxity in this noticeably loose
into the quantitative relations of commodity exchange as language Marx engages in his discussions of general
worthless for an understanding of the ‘real basis of theory. He speaks, for example, of determinants which
exchangevalue’ and the ‘character of capital.’ He recog- obtain “more or less” in all societies. Furthermore, not all
nized their positive role in the acquisition of scientific determinants are to be found in all societies: “Some deter-
knowledge of the objects under investigation” (Zeleny minations belong to all epochs, others to a few. (Some)
1980: 13). While he appropriated into his own schema determinations will be shared by the most modem and the
Ricardo’s analysis of the quantitative relationships between most ancient” (Marx 1973:85). Universal theory is
labour input and exchange value, Marx’s theory of value obviously undeveloped in the classical texts. Given the
is radically different because of the questions “put around relatively unspecified nature of theory at the most general
this analysis, before it and after it” (Zeleny 1980:17). For level we propose to lay down what are for us the few
Ricardo, value was a universal measure of concrete labour essential qualities of a universal historical materialist
resident in the use, or value, of any commodity; it could be theory.
calibrated in terms of absolute physical magnitudes of Clearly some type of universal theory is necessary in
direct living labour and indirect labour embodied in the order to logically identify the limited persistence of stable
means of production.’ By contrast, for Marx, value was historical relations. At this level, a category such as “ p i e
the historically specific form that useful labour took with duction in general,” which is “an abstraction, but a
the emergence of capitalist commodity production. It was, rational abstraction in so far as it really brings out and
in fact, an abstract analytical category which had no form of fixes the common element and thus saves us repetition”
expression outside of capitalist commodity exchange (Marx 1973:85), performs the relevant analytical function.
relations. But a t the level of universal theory, Marx not only
At base, the distinction between historical specificity identifies a set of structural categories, such as production,
and generality which pervades Marx’s criticism of classical he also identifies the broad dynamics of social life. For
political economy reflects a fundamental philosophical Marx, each essential category has both a structural and a
rupture with bourgeois theory. Zeleny identifies Marx’s genetic or dynamic quality (Zeleny 1980: 113- 14). That
central departure from universalist theory as a departure is, each abstraction, to be of any use, must grasp the
from the ontological conception of essence as fixed. He relative stability of an essential relation which is fixed
describes Marx’s conception of essence as fluid and within certain limits, and at the same time must embody
dialectical. the instabilities which comprise the self-developing, self-
destroying capability of any social relation. What follows
While for Ricardo essence is something quali- briefly indicates the nature of Marx’s universal categories.
tatively fixed and non-differentiable, Mam Marx’s approach to human society began with an
sees and investigates the alteration of that identification of a general structure through which flowed
essence; he understands it as something his- human labour. The elements of this structure are level I
torically transitory which proceeds through concepts: nature; raw materials; tools and technology;
different levels of development and qualitative direct producers; non-producers; juridicial, legal and
changes (Zeleny 1980:21). administrative functions; and religion, science, philosophy

14
and art. Each element is combined with one or a number of unambiguous position expressed by Marx in this area is
others by the conceptual relations Marx fashioned at level his insistence that material production and the power
I: means of production; forces of production; relations of relationship between direct producers and non-producers
production; mode of production; politics and the state; remains the core relation of asymmetry in any human
ideology; social formation; substructure or economy society (Mam 1976:325; 1967:791-92).
(which is the same as mode of production); and superstruo The structural nature of Marx’s theory must not be
ture (Figure 2). The totality of human society is thus separated from its dynamic quality. Here we refer to thos
represented by the preceding elements and relations. movements of human labour through the system which
These concepts comprise, for Marxist scientists, tools enable either reproduction or breakdown of the whole to
with which we can begin to isolate a part of the social take place. In what must be one of his most cogent
whole for analysis without having to sever it from its statements of a structural-dynamic theory of human
defining place within the complete system. We return to society at level I Marx states:
consider further these relations in our discussion of the
concept of the general concrete in section 11. The specific economic form, in which unpaid
surplus-labouris pumped out of direct producers,
determines the relationshipof rulers and ruled,
1 CONCEPTUAL ELEMENTS CONCEPTUAL RELATIONS I as it grows directly out of production itself and,
in turn, reacts upon it as a determiningelement.
Upon this, however, is founded the entire
formation of the economic community which
grows up out of the production relations them-
selves, thereby simultaneously its specific
political form. It is always the direct relation-
ship of the owners of the conditions of production
1 I . NATURE I to the direct producers-a relation always
naturally corresponding to a definite stage in
C O R E RELIllONS WEDIATING RELATIONS
I ~ _ - _ - - l
the development of the methods of labour and
Figure 2: Level I Concepts thereby its social productivity-which reveals
the innermost secret, the hidden basis of the
In addition to this definition of parts of the whole and entire social structure, and with it the political
the relations within which the parts are embedded which form of the relation of sovereignty and de-
give a structure to the whole, Marx identified asymmetries pendence, in short, the corresponding specific
between the relations of the structure. Asymmetries can form of the state (1967: 791).
take the form of ( 1) contradictory relations or (2) dominant In this statement Marx emphasises the reproductive
and subordinate relations arranged in hierarchy. In the dynamic of surplus labour extraction. He demonstrates
Preface to A Contribution to the Critique of Political here why the key to the structural relations of a social
Economy Marx ( 1970) establishes the contradictory formation lies in identification of the dynamic mechanism
quality of the interaction between productive forces and by which surplus labour is produced and extracted. At this
relations of production as they move into conflict at a level of generality Marx had little to say about the contra-
given stage in their development. In this work he also dictory dynamic of systemic breakdown. Except to assert
expresses one of the relationships of domination between that the asymmetries upon which any class based society
historical materialist conceptual relations when he intre is built contain contradictory relations which have the
duces the well-known view that “the mode of production potential to engender systemic crises, Marx did not
of material life conditions the general process of social, elaborate a universal theory of the dynamics of breakdown.
political and intellectual life” ( 1970:20-21). The number What he did do in the “Preface” to the Critique of
and nature of possible asymmetries between the social Political Economy was identify the preconditions for
relations set out in Figure 2 are many and varied. In fact it systemic transformation, namely: ( 1) when forces of
has been the task of defining a structured hierarchy of production can develop no further under existingrdations
dominance and subordination between relations which of production, and (2) when revolutionary class struggle
has driven different schools of Marxism into bitterly occurs. Marx’s theory of historical materialist dynamics
opposed camps.4 We prefer not to enter this debate for at level I specifies the inherent disequilibrium of class
reasons set out at the beginning of this section. From our based society thereby scientificallyidentifymgthe structural
perspective the nature of hierarchical dominance between possibility for class struggle to effect qualitative social
relations is ambiguous in Marx’s work. We would rather transformation.
entertain the idea that there are many possible and In Capital Marx translates this theory of human
historically specific relations of asymmetry or structures society into an historically specific theory of an actual
of dominance, to use Althusser‘s expre~sion.~ The only mode of production.

15
level II: Abstractions and Theory same, that actual conditions are represented
only to the extent that they are typical of their
The continuous oscillation between abstract own general case (1967:143).
dialectical development and concrete historical In Capital we find a theory of the capitalist mode of
reality pervades the whole of Marx’s Capital. production wherein the general and essential conditions of
At the same time it must be emphasized that existence of economic and social life are dialectically
the Marxian analysis detaches itself continually interwoven, and capital is defined as a social relation of
from the sequence and superficialitiesof histori- production. The social aspect of capital is based on the
cal reality and expresses in ideas the necessary existence of two pure classes, the capitalist and the prole-
relations of that reality. tariat (including a reserve army of the unemployed). The
Only thus could Marxgrasp historical actuality, existence of these classes constitutes the essential pre-
only by forming his scientific account as the condition of the mode of production and they are constantly
inner arrangement, somewhat idealized and reproduced by capitalism (Marx 1976:711-724). The
typified, of the historical“actuality of capitalist capital-labour relation is, then, the historically specific
relations” (Zeleny 1980:36). form (at level 11) that the universal (level I) direct
producer-non-producerrelation takes within the capitalist
Marx’s Capital is an exemplary analysis of an economy mode of production. Recall that Marx suggested that the
guided by the principles of historical materialism but “inner secret” of all economic formations is contained in
developed at a more specific level of historical absraction this relation and he especially directs our attention to the
(our level 11) than that ahistoric universal level at which manner in which “unpaid surplus-labour is pumped out of
these principles are laid out. In the three volumes of the direct producer.” Under capitalism this takes the
Capital Marx distilled from the historical realities of the historically specific (11) form of the production and
British and European 19th Century economy which extraction of surplus value (S). Variable capital (V) is
surrounded him, those features which constitute the another general economic category which
essential nature of the capitalist mode of production
stripped of its historically and geographically specific ...is only aparticular historical form of appear-
details. Using a profoundly historical method of analysis ance of the fund for providing the means of
which differentiated his work from classical political subsistence, or the labour-fund, which the
economy, he did not produce a theory of competitive worker requires for his own maintenance and
capitalism which has long been outdated, as some of his reproduction, and which, in all systems of
critics would have believed The genius of Marx was that social production, he must himself produce
in his definition of the abstract theoretical categories and reproduce (Marx 1976:713).
private property, capital accumulation, surplus value, and Similarly, constant capital (C) is the historically specific
labour power as a commodity, he was able to penetrate the form of means of production which is owned by the
historical specificity of the 19th century English social capitalist and is separated from the means of consumption
formation to identify the fundamental defining character- under capitalism.
istics of the capitalist mode of production as it exists in all Given these basic concepts (S, V and C) those capital
of its historical forms. For this reason we call these in general categories appropriate to the immediate sphere
categories and relations capital-in-general abstractions. of production which are determinants of the laws of
They constitute the essential defining characteristics with motion of the system as a whole, may be derived:
the appropriate degree of historical precision to fix upon
the speci$ca diyerentia of capitalism, as opposed to S=the rate of surplus value;
feudalism or socialism, and of historical grossness of V
detail to include the manifest variation of forms exhibited
in concrete capitalist formations. Marx characterized his
abstractions as “pure” or “ideal average” concepts. Thus,
v Or- c+v = organic composition of capital; and

he described the general rate of profit not as an empirical c+v -

s
-- the rate of value profit.
average, but as a “tendency toward equalization, seeking
the ideal average, i.e., the average that does not exist, i.e., In that capital accumulation is nothing but “capitalized
a tendency to take this ideal as a standard” (Marx surplus value” or the reconversion of extracted surplus
1967: 173). These ideal average tendencies were also value into capital, we can see what Marx had in mind
formulatedas “pure” concepts, i.e., unaffected by “disturb when he claimed that “capital is not a thing, but a social
ing influences.”6 Marx described his work as follows: relation between persons which is mediated through
things” (Marx 1976:932).
In a general analysis of this kind it is usually On the whole Marx had little to say about relations
always assumed that the actual conditions among non-producers at the universal level. In Capital,
correspond to their conception, or, what is the however, social relations between capitalists, the capital-

16
capital relation, became a central interest. Marx identifies tionary transformation, to which the subjective and SUR-
capitalist competition, the necessary definingcharacteristic cient conditions of organized class struggle must be joined
of non-producer relations in the mode of production, as in order to effect socialist change (Marx 1970:21).
the historically specific dynamic which engenders funda- We might add at this point that Capital by no means
mental contradictions with the particularly capitalistic contains a complete theory of capitalist society. If we refer
class based nature of production, contradictions capable to Figure 1 we see that the superstructural aspects of the
of inducing systemic breakdown. It is upon the capital- mode of production, and the nature of the capitalist social
capital relation that Marx bases his theory of price, formation, have not been dealt with in any depth, if at all.
including that of cost price and prices of production, of Capital contains a theory of the economic sphere of
price-profit, the general rate of profit and the tendency for capitalism. In this sense it is abstracted not only from the
the general rate of profit to fall (Marx 1967:Parts I-IV). historical realities of a particular capitalist economy, as
Beyond specifying the generic relation of competition we have been arguing above, but it is also abstracted from
between individual capitals, Marx defined fractions of the the complexities which comprise a whole capitalist society.
capitalist class on the basis of their different mechanisms
of surplus accumulation. Industrial capital derives its
profit from the unequal exchange between capital and SECTION 2: THE ABSTRACT-CONCRETE
labour in the direct process of production; commercial PO LAR ITY
capital derives its commercial profit by organising the
unequal exchange of commodities between consumers in Another whole aspect of Marx’s method concerns the
the market place; banking capital derives its interest from relationship between abstraction and the concrete. Am-
the unequal exchange of money capital between investors biguity and confusion surround the abstract-concrete
and borrowers; and landed capital derives its rent in polarity in Marx’s work and this lack of conceptual clarity
payment for the use of natural resources which it privately stems in part from the famous introduction to the Grundrisse
owns and controls. where Marx juxtaposes the concrete to the abstract in two
The architecture of Capital is built, then, upon the rather different ways (1973:lOO-108). In this text Marx
foundations of the capital-labour and capital-capital social considers concrete reality as the point of departure from
relations of production. Marx’s analysis shows that the which to move towards abstract concepts. H e states: “It
defining asymmetry of class relations to the means of seems to be correct to begin with the real and the concrete,
production gives rise to the contradictory interactions with the real precondition...” (Marx 1973:lOO). As well,
manifest in struggle between capital and labour over the he speaks of a second kind of concrete, what he calls the
production and extraction of value (the primary contradic- “concrete in thought.” This concept appears to be the
tion) and competition between capitalists over the appro- product of thinking and its creation is by means of an
priation of surplus value (the secondary contradiction). It epistemological procedure that Marx believed was “the
is these relations and their interactions which produce and only way in which thought appropriates the concrete,
in turn are reproduced by the economic laws of motion of [and] reproduces it as the concrete in the mind” (Marx
the system; capital accumulation( the expanded reproduc- 1973:lOl). In the following discussion we wish to distirr
tion dynamic) and the tendency for the profit rate to fall, guish in greater detail between what we call the speczxc or
that is for the capitalist class to undermine the basis of real concrete and thegeneral concrete (called the concrete
their own class power (the transition dynamic). in thought in the Grundvisse).
Marx’s analysis of the historically specific form that
universal social relations of history took revealed the
important discovery that the capitalist system was itself The General Concrete
not in perpetual equilibrium but had suffered painful
genesis and continued to embody contradictory, potentially Throughout the bulk of Marx’s works the distinctive
destructive tendencies. The revolutionary insight to which ontological position forged by historical materialism con-
this analysis gave rise was that progressive social trans- cerning the relationship between thought and being,
formation will only come about via conscious and informed abstract and concrete, permeates all a n a l y ~ i s .What
~
organisation of the working class, the producers of social remains less clear is a distinctive epistemological pro-
wealth (surplus value) whose interests are directly opposed cedure by which abstract and concrete are mediated.8 In
to those of capitalist employers. The triumph of the Capital Marx had little to say about how abstract
Marxist method of dialectical historical materialism was concepts are discovered in the real concrete, let alone how
that this strategic prognostication was based upon a his theory could be applied to the scientific analysis of a
scientific examination of the inner arrangements and real concrete social formation once it was developed. His
essential contradictions of the capitalist mode of produc- concern was mainly with the expository development of
tion culminating in the identification of its systemic the theory of capital in a manner which led the reader from
tendency towards breakdown. It is this tendency which a consideration of certain simple abstract concepts to a
forms the objective and necessary conditions for revolu- consideration of increasing numbers of concepts and their

17
interrelations until a picture of the whole mode of produo can only more closely approximate all the pure, ideal
tion at the economic level was created. Thus the end average aspects of the general concrete capitalist social
product, the three volumes of Capital, constitutes the formation. What, then, of the specific concrete social
essential characteristics of capitalist economies recreated formation existing at a given time and place? We can only
as concrete-in-thought: “concrete because it is the con- answer this question by considering the alternative move-
centration of many determinations, hence unity of the ment of abstraction between levels of historical specificity.
diverse” (Mam 1973:lOl).
The radical difference in style and format between the The Specific Concrete
Grundrisse and Capital indicates the concern Marx had
for theoretical exposition. Clearly, the structure of Capital The relationship between the general laws of
does not reflect the actual ordering of thought processes motion of capital-as discovered by Marx-
which led to formation of the theory it contains. It does and the history of the capitalist mode of
however, reflect the principles by which scientific analysis production is one of the most complex prob
of a complex system can proceed. By separating the lems of Marxist theory. Its difficulty can be
economy from all instances comprising a social formation; measured by the fact that there has never yet
and by separating for initial examination the immediate been a satisfactory clarification of this relation-
sphere of production (Capital Volume I) from that of ship (Mandel 1978:13).
circulation (Volume 11) and distribution (Volume III),
Marx’s examination of an historically specific form of When one searches within Marx’s writings for some
human society moves from simple abstraction to increasingly recognisable method for the application of theory to a real
complex abstraction. A general concrete theory of the society, we find not surprisingly little or nothing which
capitalist social formation would, however, go far beyond resembles a bourgeois historiography or a social science
Capital Volume I to I11 to explore all those areas Marx methodology. the reason for this “silence” was not
had originally conceived of addressing at the level I1 of unconsciousness on Marx’s part, for he argued from 1846
abstraction.’ As it stands we have a well developed theory onwards that human practice should mediate theory and a
of the capitalist mode of production in general, but as yet specific concrete situation.12 Capitalism was to be over-
no systemically developed theory of capitalist politics of thrown, and for Marx its collapse appeared so imminent
capitalist ideology in general.” For this reason we are far that the task of developing an historical materialist
from appropriating in the mind the totality of the capitalist empirical method of validating the laws of motion of
social formation and its dynamics at any level of historical capital must have seemed less urgent.
abstraction. At present the imminence of capitalist demise seems
We are not arguing here that the movement from less likely and we are led to question whether Marx’s view
simple to complex abstraction forms a mechanical recipe is still justifiable. Is there a need to develop an explicit
for theoretical appropriation of the world around us. methodology, able to relate abstract theory to specific
Marx’s grasp of capitalist society incorporated some concrete situations? Our view is that such a methodology
awareness of all of its aspects and obviously a feel for all of is a necessity, not in order to overthrow the central
their interrelations. We are only stating that Marx used mediating role of praxis, but as a necessary scientific
the logic of abstraction to systematically isolate from the supplement and integral aid to class struggle. Indeed as
complex whole particular relations for examination. He Sayer (1981:6) has argued “...the failure to grasp the
chose to concentrate first upon those economic relations specifities of the concrete inevitably weakens attempts to
he considered were fundamental to the functioning of the inform practice. Practice always takes place in the muddy
whole and began his work by considering those production waters of the concrete.” Without such a procedure the
relations upon which the economy is based. By doing so Marxist tradition has, as an hypothesis testing methodology,
Marx did not intend to understate the role politics and only the “spending” of the working class in situations
ideology play in the reproduction of capitalist society; he where a theoretically informed analysis of a specific
just did not have the time to begin to systematically concrete situation is wrong. That such a procedure is
analyse all of their central connections to the economy unsocialist would seem to go without saying. We are
and whole social formation. interested in developing a less “expensive” route to
One of the common errors which some Marxists have theoretical “validation.”
made is to confuse Marx’s movement from simple to Our approach to the problem of engaging in theoretically
complex theory with a movement by “ successive approxi- coherent and empirically rigorous specific concrete analysis
mation” to the real concrete (Sweezy 1970: 19); Fine and is to begin by examining the kind of abstraction which
Harris 1979:6-ll).” Although it is true that a more results from work at this level. Such is the difference
complex theory is more “realistic,” in that it includes a between the conceptual knowledge produced by using
larger number of determinations, it cannot be equated with abstract theory to analyse specific concrete situations,
a real concrete economy or social formation. At level I1 of and Marx’s pure, ideal average, capital in general type
theoretical abstraction increasingly complex determinations abstractions, that we envisage this knowledge as “located”

18
at yet another level of theoretical abstraction (IV). issue crucial to the development of a specifically Marxist
A specific concrete abstraction is produced by analysing empiricism, and yet it is here that methodological and
the impure, unique, and specific occurrence of a pure, theoretical confusion reigns.
ideal average abstraction in a given time and place. In To take the analysis of capitalism as our major
oYneT words, it is an abstraction lormed t h o u & the union concern the question must be posed how do we under-
of two distinct levels of abstraction whereby the specific stand the historical development of the capitalist mode of
individuality of a mode of production and its superstructure production and by what method can we apply the insights
is identified. In such a movement we would distinguish, for of Marx’s theory of capital to a particular concrete
example, the English economy, state, ideology, and social conjuncture given the obvious differences between the
formation in 1867 from capital in general, the capitalist theory as developed and the object as it exists? Rarely
state in general, capitalist ideology in general, and a approached head on and debated within the Marxist
capitalist social formation in general by their levels of tradition, these theoretical questions have been lost in the
historical abstraction (Figure 1). It is at level IV of pragmatic acceptance of stages of capitalist growth. The
abstraction that facts are produced within an historical empirical identification of stages of capitalist development
materialist f r a m e ~ 0 r k . These
l~ facts, which may take the is usually based on the assertion that one, or a number of
form of a record, text or data series pertaining to a specific the inner tendencies of the capitalist system, have, through
concrete setting, are thus a reflection in thought of a their realization or intensification, permanently transformed
particular level I1 category such as the organic composition the nature of capitalist economies.14
of capital. Both facts and categories are abstractions, It is patently obvious that the capitalism of Marx’s day
forms of the “concretein-thought.” differed in many respects from the capitalism of the turn of
Terminological confusion is avoided if we distinguish the 20th century and from that which exists today. Marx
clearly between the specific concrete, which refers to himself recognized the differences between the capitalist
abstractions at level IV alone, and the general concrete, modes of production based upon manufacture and the
which is synonomous with social totalities at all four levels “specifically capitalist mode of production” based on
of abstraction. Althusser‘s conception of a social formation modem industry. The fact that in all these cases the
as a “concrete complex whole comprising economic defining characteristics of the mode of production are true
practice, political practice and ideological practice at a suggests that capitalism is capable of transforming to a
certain place and stage of development” (Althusser and degree whilst remaining fundamentally unchanged We
Balibar 1970:313) occurs in our schema where the are of the opinion that our method of abstraction can begin
specific and the general concrete unite (Figure 1). We use to address some of the problems associated with under-
the term “social formation,” however, to refer to any standing the dialectical relationship embodied by transition
general concrete social totality at any level of abstraction. within a theoretically constant set of characteristics. We
Why Althusser failed to recognise the two types of argue that it is possible to analyse the general defining
“concrete” mixed up in his concepts of social formation relations of the capitalist mode of production (CMP) at a
and conjuncture may relate to the idealist focus of his lower level of logical historical abstraction. At this level
problematic (Anderson 1980:6; Mandel 1978: 18-24) (111) it is possible to examine the variety of specifically
which prevented him from seriously considering the level capitalist forms generated by the inherent dynamic of
of abstraction at which Marxian empirical work is conducted capitalist relations. That is, we can study the dynamic of
capitalist development in two ways: one, at the capital in
general level of abstraction where the potential for it to
SECTION 3: TRANSITION THEORY
generate breakdown and the transition between modes of pro-
WITHIN MODES OF PRODUCTION duction is demonstrated; and the other at a more historically
constrained level of abstraction where the potential for it
to generate new forms of capitalism and transition
Introduction between these forms can be shown.
We are proposing that a method consistent with the
Movement from the theory of a mode of production to principles by which the theory of capital in general is
analysis of its concrete form is more difficult than the developed can be used to derive a more integrated theory
previous discussion would suggest. This is because the of the historical changes the capitalist mode of production
actual history of the developed object is inevitably at odds has experienced. The levels of abstraction we propose are
with the theory of its ideal average form. For example, in thus different from those employed by Uno in that instead
an analysis of a current capitalist economy we are forced of distinct methods and subject matter associated with
to take into account the historical developmentof capitalism, distinct levels of abstraction, our formulation suggests that
which includes the impact of internal systemic transforma- method and subject matter remain the same. It is merely
tion, as we try to use the ideal average theory of capital the assumptions of historical generality and logical ideal-
developed by Mam. This raises the whole issue of new that are relaxed so as to enable the theorized
transition within and between modes of production, an identification of variants of the mode of production,

19
elsewhere named submodes of production (Gibson, 198 1 ; product of the capital-capital relation) and value sphere
Gibson, Graham, Shakow and Ross, 1983; Gibson and phenomena( a product of the capital-labour relation) at this
Horvath, 1983%Gibson, 1983). lower level of abstraction means that the tendency for the
rate of profit to fall cannot be interpreted empirically. AS
its constituent relations still, however, hold in the value
Crisis and Transition sphere, we must engage a more dialectical, modified
notion of value-price relations and the crisis mechanism.
It is a principle of historical materialism that crisis The central contradictions of the capitalist mode of
plays a decisive role in the transition between modes of production act to produce a tendency for individual value
production. Systemic crisis arises from class struggle as it rates of profit to decline. Decline need not necessarily
interacts with fundamental contradictions between the stem from a general rise in the organic composition of
forces and relations of production of an existing mode capital throughout the whole economy. The overt potential
(Marx 1970:20-2 1). The theory of capitalist crisis encap of the wage earning population to erode or resist the ability
sulated by the tendency for the general rate of profit to fall of capital to extract surplus value either directly from
is an ideal demonstration of how the law of value could labour or indirectly from other capitalists in the price
operate to destroy the class relations at its very basis, sphere in itself can create the conditions for a decline in
namely capitalist class power over labour via ownership individual value profit rates.
of the means of production. Crisis accompanying break- Decline in the value sphere relationship is reflected in
down and transformation of the mode of production would price profitability in terms of a number of factors: rising
invalidate the capitalist law of value and its associated labour costs of production, increased disruption of produc-
laws of motion and would engender a new form of tion continuity, industrial sabotage and other general
production complete with its own specific reproductive measures of “investment risk” Crisis is then precipitated
dynamic. It is clear from a review of history that the many by means of a slowdown in capital accumulation and a
and frequent crises to which capitalism has been subjected reduced potential to obtain outside capital in its money
have not in general contributed to a transcendence of form to finance restructuring. The unevenness produced
capitalist production relations. Rather than producing by the range of price profit rates encourages capital, in its
revolutionary transformation of the mode of production, most mobile, money form, to move from industry to
they have engendered restructuring of existing relations, industry investing and disinvesting according to differential
reaffirmation of bourgeois class power at all levels, and a returns offered in the price sphere.
maintenance or even expansion of the exploitative social Devalorization of capital becomes the phenomenal
relations of capitalist production. Moreover it is the same manifestation of capitalist crisis. Brought on by the
inter-class and intra-class struggles, a product of the withholding of credit to producers with relatively declining
defining contradictions of the mode, which play a significant profit rates, devalorization involves the inability for
role in shaping the rearrangement and reinforcement of productive capital to realize its value. In its most drastic
capitalist relations. form devalorization is expressed as bankruptcy and plant
Thus the dynamic relations of capitalist production closure. Less visible expressions are turndowns in the rate
create crisis conditions which can be resolved through of production and reduced expansion of production capacity.
class struggle either by a restructuring of the mode of The actual process of devalorization protects the collective
production for the bourgeoisie’s own ends or by a revolu- interests of capital as a class. It tends to further weaken
tionary transformation of the mode of production for those individual entrepreneurs and industrial sectors that
working class ends. It is our interest to consider at a lower are experiencing some challenge to capitalist hegemony,
level of abstraction how the laws of motion operate to thus increasing the likelihood for easy takeover by stronger
resolve capitalist crisis by transition within the mode of competitors. The agent of devalorization is that individual
production. By moving to a lower level of abstraction we or institutional actor who, in the quest for price profitability,
can consider how the laws of capital operate in a modified consciously or unconsciously protects capitalist class
way under, for instance, conditions of constrained capital interests by denying capital to industries suffering a
and labour mobility, and imperfect competition, where decline in value profit. Such agents may take many forms
value-price proportionality cannot be assumed and a within different historical contexts.
general rate of profit cannot be formed. Given these Devalorization becomes, then, the process which
realities, the historically specific forms of the capital- leads to restructuring within the CMP. Disinvestment and
labour and capital-capital relations create many different slow downs in production tend to also weaken labour’s
conditions of value production and surplus value accumu- position vis-a-vis capital. Continued inter-firm and intra-
lation. Without the value-price assumptions engaged by industry competition forces scattered business failures
Marx in the Volume I11 discussion of surplus redistribution amongst the hardest hit capitalists and under utilization of
within the capitalist class, it is necessary to recognise the capital stock. Both produce lay-offs and an erosion of
relative autonomy of the price and value spheres. The labour’s bargaining position. Thus fertile ground for
modified relationship between price sphere phenomena ( a reorganization of capital-labour and capital-capital re-

20
lations are created giving rise to the potential for emer- The three variants of the developed capitalist mode of
gence of a new structure of production. It is within these production that we identify must be considered at a more
conditions that transition to new structural variants of historically specific level of abstraction than that used
capitalist production takes place. Restructuring can be above. These submodes of capitalist production are
seen, then, as a response to crisis expressed as decline in articulated combinations of modified capital-labour and
value rates of profit and devalorization, or disinvestment capital-capital relations. The distinctive structural deter-
in the prices sphere. mination of each submode is the interaction of its particular
Having dealt briefly with the notions of a ‘modified’ lever of exploitation and mode of surplus appropriation. In
crisis theory and laws of motion of capital, it is necessary the competitive submode the lever available to capital is a
to consider the inner organizational components of s u b localized, undifferentiated surplus labouring population in
modes of production in order to identify more clearly the the classical mode of the industrial reserve army, which
degree of historical specificity( at level 111) involved in our creates a downward pressure on the wages of all of the
structural genetic variants of modes of production. Just as employed labour force. Classical competition between
Marx’s analysis of the capitalist mode of production in many small capitalists results in little redistribution of
general is based upon two contradictory social relation- surplus value between capitals in the price sphere, except
ships, that of exploitation between capital and labour that taking place between producers of one commodity
(Capital I) and that of competition between capital and whose production conditions vary from the average or-
capital (Capital I1 and 111), so here the definition of ganic composition of capital and rate of exploitation for
submodes of capitalist production is based upon the that industry. The mode of surplus appropriation is one
identification of more historically specific variant forms of which, at least within the productive fraction, operates on
these two sets of relations. W e attempt to remain con- an ad hoc basis internal to any one industry. Capital
sistent with the logical structure of Capital in our expo- accumulation takes place via ruthless competition centered
sition in order to avoid the methodological hiatus which around the lowering of commodity prices by undercutting
has resulted from appending a stage theory to Capital market prices and pressuring the wage down to the level of
(e.g., Lenin 1978) or negating the relevance of its pro- subsistence or below.
positions to the current phase of capitalism (Baran and In the monopoly submode the lever available to
Sweezy 1968). capital is a segmented labor force in which an industrial
At the capital in general level of abstraction the reserve army mechanism, as such, acts only upon the most
conditions of accumulation within the capital-labour ‘peripheral’ worker, while other groups within the labor
relations in the immediate sphere of production are force are disciplined by more subtle modes, including the
specified as: organizational constructs they themselves set up. Mono-
poly market dominance of one group of capitalists over
( 1) a labour force deprived of ownership of the means of another within a sector or industry branch results in a
production and thus subsumed by capital; redistribution of surplus value in the price sphere via an
(2) the production of surplus value in the capitalist unequal exchange between subordinate suppliers, sub-
labour process and the appropriation of this value by contractors, and consumers with dominant monopoly
capital as part of the wage contract; producers. The mode of surplus appropriation operates on
(3) the existence of a surplus population (the industrial a structured intrasectoral basis. The large monopoly
reserve army) which exerts a downward pressure submode firms protect themselves from the vagaries of
upon the amount of value returning to the worker as unbridled capitalist anarchy by displacing the worst
variable capital (Marx’s ‘level of accumulation’); effects of the business cycle onto their subordinately
In the sphere of exchange and distribution, involving articulated competitive suppliers; a highly exploited frac-
relations between individual capitals, the conditions of the tion of the workforce provides the means by which
capital-capital relation are specified by: monopoly interests accumulate and their associated
workers make progressive gains in wages and conditions.
the existence of three types of CapitaLproductive In the global submode the lever available to capital is
(P), money (M) and commodity (C) capital-all a revitalized industrial reserve army of ‘peripheralized‘ or
necessary to the functioning of the system, all in ‘secondarized’ labor. Cheap labor at any location can now
competition with each other for the highest rate of be drawn into any facet of international production by
return and structured in a contradictory relationship highly mobile capital, such that no one local group of
such that M and C are dependent upon P in whose workers is necessarily ‘central’ to capital but all labor is
control the process of value creation lies; rendered ‘peripheral.’ Market and financial power of
(2) free capital and labour mobility creating conditions cross-sectoral and cross-fractional conglomerates organ-
of competition between individual productive capitals; ized on a global basis over smaller capitals in any one
(3) the formation of a general rate of profit by which sector results in a redistribution of surplus value via rapid
surplus value is redistributed in the price sphere investment and disinvestment in smaller capitalist ventures,
from less to more efficient producers. unequal exchange with both capitalist and working class

21
consumers of internationally monopolized commodities, question that we hope the development of our more
and other financial manipulations such as differential tax historically specific theoretical analysis of capitalism can
write-offs. The mode of surplus appropriation operates on begin to answer.
a cross-sectoral basis. Productive activity is subordinated
to the interests of financial investment; capital transfer
from one productive activity or investment possibility to CONCLUSIONS
another and the playing off of one local labour force and
political investment climate against another becomes the In this essay we have attempted to set out a view of the
primary mode of expanding accumulation. place of abstraction in Marx’s method. We are not
Marx was able to more clearly specify the revolutionary claiming that Marx viewed his method exactly as we have
potential of the working class having analysed the com- developed it here. Instead, it is our opinion that Marx
ponent parts and dynamics of the capitalist mode of never fully settled how abstraction functioned in his
production. We would hope that our specification of overall method and certainly, as is well recognised, never
variants of the capitalist mode of production will assist in wrote a satisfactory account of its role in his work.
the more detailed identification within capitalism of We have attempted to identify two movements in the
revolutionary potentials and countervailingforces. To this intellectual filtering process of abstraction that Marx
end we must understand how it is that variants of the utilized to uncover the laws of motion of human society:
capitalist mode of production articulate together in the movement towards historical specificity and the
changing asymmetrical arrangements of power. That is, a movement from simple abstraction to logically complex
coherent view of the progressive strategies available to abstraction. Our analysis provides a basis upon which to
labour must rest upon an understanding of the uneven respond to the three questions posed in the introduction.
development of the system itself. In the pure, ideal We have suggested that a completion of Marx’s theory of
average theory of capital in general, uneven developments capitalism involves first and foremost a recognition of the
within the system are abstracted from so as to minimize level of abstraction at which the general theory of capital is
complexity. Thus the revolutionary strategy which emerges developed. Failure to recognise what we term level I1
from the analysis proposes broad based organization of abstractions has led to claims, both within and without the
the working class to withdraw labour from capital and thus Marxist tradition, that Capital is a theory of 19th century
undermine the reproductive ability of capitalist class re- capitalism and is accordingly out of date. Another mistaken
lations. While categories developed at the capital in view is that a general theory of the capitalist state or
general level can be examined in specific concrete situ- ideology is somehow inconsistent with Marx’s scientific
ations in all their uneven detail (see Aglietta 1979; Rey project as the class struggles which appear to be pre-
1973; M a n d e l l 9 7 Q this type of study does not illuminate eminent within the political and ideological spheres
the issue of the relationship between developed and less require a more concrete analysis. We recognise the need
developed components of the system. The unevenness of for concrete analysis of all of the aspects of capitalist
capitalism is such that organization of labour at one point formations, but argue that a completed general theory of
is counterbalanced by increased exploitation of labour at capitalism would be an invaluable aid in such analysis.
another. Our theoretical tools must enable us to grasp this The investigation of real concrete capitalist or other
reality. Within the articulations of variant forms of the formations involves, we have argued, work at a different
capitalist mode of production we conceive of the internal level of abstraction. Level IV is where the scientific
relations of dominance and subordination structured by practice of empirically identifying the laws of motion of
unequal flows of value between submodes. Given this capital as well as other theoretical categories of historical
structure, an appropriate strategy for labour involved in materialism takes place. It is at this level of abstraction
one submode of production is quite different from that that the problematic of Marxian empirics is situated.
offering any revolutionary potential for labour involved in Clashes between Althusserians and Thompsonians over
another. For instance, our analysis leads us to view the the correct method of historical materialist scholarship
current conjuncture of capitalism as determined by funda- have largely arisen from the absence of a satisfactory view
mental crisis in the existing manifestations of a monopoly of a Marxist empirical method. In a forthcoming book
submode, and emergence of an increasingly dominant entitled Marxian Empirics written with Don Shakow and
global submode of production. As this new form of global Julie Graham, we will offer a view of how the empirical
capital struggles to subordinate the existing representatives practice of historical materialism can be moved beyond
of the monopoly and competitive submodes and other pre- providing illustration alone (Marx 1976:90).
capitalist modes of production the many different labour Capitalism has changed and continues to do so while
forces involved are faced with vastly different strategic remaining capitalist in a fundamental sense. Our solution
agendas: opposition to plant closures and worker support of to this apparent dilemma is to develop a theory of
state protection on one hand and the basic right to transition within the capitalist mode of production at a
unionize on another. How can one form of struggle third level of abstraction. The theory we propose at this
contribute to and strengthen another? It is this type of level is formulated within the same theoretical format as

22
in general Level I1 theory of capital. The theory of average’ or ‘core forms;’ Volpe characterizes these as
submodes of capitalist production employs the notion of ‘determinate abstractions.’ Each, however, understands
variants of the mode of production rather than the stage these qualities of Marx’s abstractions from the perspective
of different epistemological positions to that which we are
format which has thus far dominated attempts to ‘update’ taking here.
Cupiful(Baran and Sweezy 1968; Fine and Harris 1979;
Mandel 1978; Uno 1980). 7. The similarities and differences between the Marxian
We recognise that abstraction is only one aspect of ontology and that of other philosophers is interestingly
discussed by Zeleny (1980: 196).
Marx’s method and that a systematic treatment of other
aspects (such as dialectics) of the methodological basis of 8. Volpe (1978:99) and Althusser and Balibar ( 1 970) both
historical materialism is still required, We will extend this attempt very abstract discussions of such a procedure but
neither produce, in our view, a very satisfactory or applicable
clarification of abstraction into other areas of Marx’s method.
method in our future work as well as demonstrate the
utility of our ‘clarified’ method for solving problems 9. In the Introduction to the Grundrisse Marx lays bare the
order ofthe ambitious theoretical project upon which he had
involved in engaging in intellectual labour within a embarked. Proceeding from what we have identified as level
Marxist framework. I theory he planned to consider:
“( 2) The categories which make up the inner structure
of bourgeois society and on which the fundamental
FOOTNOTES classes rest. Capital, wage labor, landed property.
Their interrelation. Town and country. The three
Descendants of this theoretical tradition, the neeRicardians, great social classes. Exchange between them. Cir-
reduce value to a physically uniform measure by means of culation. Credit system (private). (3) Concentration
of bourgeois society in the form of the state. Viewed in
the notion of dated labour-time. See Gerstein ( 1976:28), and
Colletti (1977:450) for a discussion of this. relation to itself. The ‘unproductive’ classes. Taxes,
state debt. Public credit The population The Colonies.
The more prominent texts include the Introduction to the Emigration. (4) The international relation of ex-
German Ideology, the text on Precapitalist Modes of change. Export and import. Rate of exchange. (5)
Production in the Grundrisse, the Preface to the Critique of The world market and crises” (Marx 197 3: 108). As
Political Economy, and Capital, Volume I (1 976:283-92); is well known Marx died before progressing more
Volume 111 (1 959:79 1-92). than halfway through project Number (2).
Perhaps the most extreme version of a narrow theory of 10. W e can identify attempts by various theorists to fill this
historical materialism is that put forward by Cohen ( 1978). silence. Holloway and Picciotto( 1978) and others involved
Basing his work on the 700 word text within the Preface to in the German debate have begun to elaborate the notion of
the Critique of Political Economy, Cohen constructs a set a capital in general theory of the state, that is, an historical
of universal principles which he claims are the essence of materialist theory of politics specific to the capitalist mode
Marxism. O n the strength of his reconstruction Cohen is of production. It might be possible to develop Marx’s view
prepared to dismiss the foundations of Capital, namely the of fetishism of commodities into a theory of capitalist
labour theory of value and the crisis tendency of the capitalist ideology in general, but this is mere speculation.
mode of production. In doing so he rejects some of the
explicitly historical and innovative aspects of Marx’s theory 1 1. Sweezy’s conception of the movement through increasingly
in favor of further proliferation of universal claims. Without lower levels of abstraction from Volume 1to 111is contradicted,
reference to anything more historical or material than a few as he himself points out, by the increasing absence of
small texts he, in one movement, increases the number of factual material. This he puts down to the unfinished state of
real constraints within which social change must operate! Volumes I1 and I11 (1 970: 19). The Fine and Harris version
No clearer evidence of the poverty of non-dialectical of successive approximation is slightly different. They
functionalism is available than Cohen’s ‘defense.’ argue that logical order of increasingly complex concepts
found in Capital somehow accords with material reality
Thus Cohen has recently argued for a technological deter- (1979:ll).
minist Marxism, one which gives priority to forces of
production, whereas Wright has responded with an argu- 12. Marx writes ‘The dispute over the reality or non-reality of
ment for the centrality of relations of production (Cohen thinking which is isolated from practice is a purely scholastic
1978; Wright 1981). Obviously one could relate the question’ (Marx 2nd thesis on Feuerbach), and again, ‘The
different paths followed in the USSR and China towards philosophers have only interpreted the world in various
construction of a socialist society to the different positions ways; the point, however, is to change it’ (Marx 1 1th thesis
upon primacy adhered to by the theoretical leaders of each on Feuerbach).
revolution. 13. From the perspective of historical materialism we recognise
5. Of which Wright has identified a few in his typology of three types of facts: discursive, stylized and transformed
determinations (1 978: 15-29). facts. Marx’s Capital largely relies upon discursive facts as
illustration. These are facts, such as those available in
6. These qualities of Marx’s abstractions have been recognised factory inspectors’ reports, which closely match various
by many Marxists, thus Uno (1 98O:xxvi-xxvii) speaks of theoretical categories but rarely exist in a time series and
‘pure’ abstractions; Althusser( Althusser and Balibar 1970: thus cannot be used to identify the tendential aspects of the
194-96) describes these alternatively as ‘pure,’ ‘ideal laws of motion of capitalist societies. Stylized facts, such as

23
 those used by Aglietta ( 1979) or the authors (1 983b), are Becker, J., 1977. Marxian Political Economj: New York:
facts produced within the framework of a non-Marxian Cambridge IJniversity Press.
theory (for example, Keynesian profit data in a time series
format) which are employed as surrogate indicators of Cohen, G.A., 1978, Karl Marx's Theogi ofHistoty: A Defense,
Marxian categories. Transformed facts are those which Princeton, New Jersey: Princeton University Press.
have been either collected within a Marxian framework or Colletti. L., 1977. 'Some Comments on Marx's Theory of
transformed to become consistent with the categories Value,' in The Subtle Aiiatom,s of Capitalisni, Ed. J .
defined by Marxist theory. A discussion of the above, along Schwartz, Santa Monica: Good Year.
with an analysis of the American economy from 1947 to
1978 using transformed facts is the basis of a forthcoming Fine, B. and Harris, L., 1979, Rereading Capiial, London:
book entitled Marxian Empirics by Don Shakow, Julie Macmillan.
Graham, Katherine Gibson and Ron Horvath. Gibson, K.D.. 1981, 'Structural Change within the Capitalist
14. The discussion of stages theories by, for example, Lenin, Mode of Production: The Case of the Australian Economy.'
IJno or Baran and Sweezy, rarely hypothesizes the manner IJnpubIished Ph.D. thesis, Clark [Jniversity.
in which concrete historical events are mirrored by a logical Gibson, K.D., 1983, 'Industrial Reorganization and Coal
dialectical theory of the development of the object (the Production in Australia, 1860 to 1982: An Historical
CMP) itself. Instead, Marx's categories are stretched Materialist Analysis,' Austrirlian Geographical Studies,
around the fluid reality of 20th century capitalism and forthcoming.
phases of development are characterized by such criteria as
distinct forms of capitalist competition, overseas imperialist Gibson, K.D., Graham, J., Shakow. D. andRoss. R.. 1983:A
penetration or levels of technical developmenc all easily Theoretical Approach to Capital and Labour Restructuring,'
recognizable superficial changes which are claimed to in Restructuring Regions-Marxist Interpretation.\ of Re-
reflect more significant underlying developments. The gional Change in Advanced Capitalism, ed. J. Carney,
problem of such theories is that they abandon the con- London: Croom Helm.
ception of the capitalist system as a self-developing, lawful Gibson, K.D. andHorvath, R J . , 1983a;AspectsofaTheoryof
and contradictory, but above all inter-connected whole. The Transition Within the Capitalist Mode of Production,'
portrayal of systematic transformation as a result of move- Societjt and Space 1 , 2.
ments of one or a few tendencies implies an overly
unidirectional view of change and a conception of the Gibson, K.D. and Horvath, R J . . 3983b, 'Global Capital and
the Restructuring Crisis in Australian Manufacturing,' E c p
system quite divorced from that developed in Marx's
Capital. What is needed is a more systemic consideration of
nomic Geography, 59, 2, April.
the mode of production in transition. Gerstein, Ira, 1976, 'Production, Circulation and Value: The
15. In naming these submodes we have appropriated three Significance of the "Transformation Problem" in Marx's
terms widely used by political economists-competitive, Critique of Political Economy,' Economji and Societj: 5 . 3.
monopoly and global. This is perhaps an unfortunate Hindess, B. and Hirst, P., 1975. Pre-Capitalist Modes of
selection as one term is a spatial concept whilst the other Production, London: Routledge and Kegan Paul.
two are economic categories and ones with many differing
definitions both within bourgeois economics and radical Holloway, J. and Picciotto, S. Eds., 1978, State and Capita1:A
political economy. There is a danger that this nomenclature Marxist Debate. London: Edward Arnold.
confuses our argument by conjuring up an image of Ilyenkov, E.V., 1982, The Dialectics of the Abstract and the
something quite different from the way in which we conceive Concrete in Marx's Capital, Moscow: Progress Publishers.
of a submode. For this reason we can only assert that the
names are merely convenient shorthand terms of reference Lenin, V.I., 1978, Imperialism. the Highest Stage of Capitalism,
to a complex set of relations. By appropriating them we Moscow: Progress Publishers.
ground our analysis somewhat in the analyses of capitalism Mandel. E., 1970, 'The Laws of Uneven Development.' New
which have gone before, but by using them in conjunction Left Revieit' 59.
with the category submode we radically differentiate our
work from existing studies of these stages or forms of Mandel, E., 1978. Late Capitalism, London: Verso.
capital. Marx, K., 1967, Capital Volume III, New York: International
Publishers.
REFERENCES Marx, K.. 1970, A Contribution to the Critique of Political
Economy, London: Lawrence and Wishart.
Aglietta, M., 1979, A Theorj OfCapitalistRegulation, London:
New Left Books. Marx. K., 1973, Grundrisse, New York Vintage Books.
Aithusser, L., 1969, For Marx, Harmondsworth: Penguin Marx. K., 1976, Capital. Vol. I Translated by Ben Fowkes,
Books. London: New Left Review.
Althusser, L., and Balibar, E., 1970, Reading Capital, London: Mam, K., 1977, Capital. Vols. 2 and 3, New York International
New Left Books. Publishers.
Anderson. P., 1980, Arguments Within English Marxism, Rey, P., 1973. Les Alliances de Classes. Translated by J.
London: New Left Books. Becker, Paris: Maspero.
Baran, P. and Sweezy, P., 1968, Monopoly Capital, New York Sayer. A. 198 I , 'Abstraction: A Realist Interpretation,' Radical
Monthly Review. Philosophj: 28, Summer.

24
Sweezy, P., 1970, The Theory of Capitalist Development, New Volpe, G. della. 1978, Roussearc and Marx, London: Lawrence
York Monthly Review Press. and Wishart.
Thompson, E.P., 1978, The Poverty ofTheory, London: Merlin Wright. E.O.. 1978. Class, Crisis and ihe Siaie, London: N ~ M
Press. Left Books.
Tucker, RC., Ed., 1972, TheMan-Engels Reader, new York Zeleny, J.. 1980. The Logic qf’Mam; London: Black\\ell.
W. W. Norton and Company.
Uno. K., 1980, Principles of Political Econom?: Sussex:
Harvester Press.

Special Issue - Sudan N0.26

I
Subscription (3 issues) €6 individuals (UK & Africa). US$15
(Elsewhere); Students g4.50 (Sterling only). Cheques (US$ on US
Banks, International M.O. or Sterling) payable to ROAPE, 341
Glossop Rd., Sheffield S10 ZHP, England.

25