Peter d Thomas Introduction to Roberto Finelli Abstraction Versus Contradiction Observations on Chris Arthurs the New Dialectic and Marxs Capital 1

copy Koninklijke Brill NV Leiden 2007 DOI 101163156920607X192066

Historical Materialism 15 (2007) 53ndash60 wwwbrillnlhima

Editorial Introduction

Peter Th omasDepartment of Political Science Universiteit van Amsterdam

thomas_p_auyahoocomau

Abstract Historical Materialism has previously published a signifi cant number of studies from the contemporary lsquoMarx Renaissancersquo Roberto Finellirsquos intervention into the debate over Chris Arthurrsquos Th e New Dialectic and Marxrsquos lsquoCapitalrsquo provides an opportunity to consider the international reverberations of this movement and its political presuppositions and consequences Working in a very diff erent tradition of Marxism Finellirsquos interpretation of Marx has decisive similarities with Arthurrsquos reading of the importance of Hegelrsquos Logic for the conceptual structure of Capital Yet whereas Arthur argues for a lsquodirect homologyrsquo Finelli proposes a heuristic lsquoanalogyrsquo Th e diff erent conclusions reached by the two theorists refl ect diff erent orientations both theoretical and political Comparison to theses of the Italian workerist tradition and other contemporary readings of Marx suggest that these diff erences are best comprehended in a political rather than solely intellectual register Despite their diff erences these various research projects are in agreement regarding the necessity of deriving concrete strategies for the contemporary socialist movement from theoretical debate

Keywords Marx Renaissance interpretations of lsquoCapitalrsquo Della Volpeanism the lsquonew Hegelrsquo living labour

One hundred and fifty years after the compilation of the notebooks that were only much later published as the Grundrisse and one hundred and forty years after the appearance of the first edition of Capital Volume I the study of Marxrsquos incomplete theoretical project still arouses vigorous and productive debates Th e continuing publication of the German critical edition of the works of Marx and Engels (MEGA) ndash including many previously unpublished texts the vast majority of which still remain unavailable in English ndash has provided new material for re-opening old debates and initiating new ones Above all however it has been the development of the post-1989 political conjuncture ndash intersected by the experiences of the Zapatistas Seattle 911 the largest international antiwar mobilisation in world history and continuing resistance to neoliberalism ndash that has prompted a return to Marxrsquos texts as

HIMA 152_f4_53-60indd 53HIMA 152_f4_53-60indd 53 52207 13933 PM52207 13933 PM

54 P Th omas Historical Materialism 15 (2007) 53ndash60

resources of renewal for a revolutionary Marxist theory freed from compromises with the experience of Stalinism Th e last decade has seen the appearance of a number of significant contributions to the elaboration andor reconstruction of the critique of political economy in various national-linguistic Marxist cultures the studies of Enrique Dussel in Latin America Jacques Bidet in France Wolfgang-Fritz Haug and Michael Heinrich in Germany Geert Reuten in the Netherlands and Riccardo Bellofiore in Italy (to cite only a few prominent examples) can be regarded as among the first offerings of a contemporary renaissance of studies of Marx and in particular of the critique of political economy

Over the last decade Historical Materialism has published studies of different aspects of the work of Marxrsquos lsquomaturityrsquo from a wide range of theoretical and political perspectives Th ese studies have ranged from the strictly philological and interpretative to the more exploratory and reconstructive All have been united in the conviction that it is only by attempting to inherit the research programme bequeathed to us by Marx even with its uncertainties and problems that we will be able to elaborate a systematic and totalising critique adequate for an anticapitalist and above all socialist politics today Alongside these ongoing debates in the pages of the journal a parallel publication programme in the Historical Materialism book series (published by Brill) has presented translations of important works previously unavailable in English (eg Maksakovskyrsquos Th e Capitalist Cycle or more recently Bidetrsquos Exploring Marxrsquos lsquoCapitalrsquo ) Both the journal and book series will continue to promote actively the diffusion of work originating outside the Anglophone world in accordance with Historical Materialismrsquos declared intention to promote a return to Marxismrsquos traditions of cosmopolitan debate We believe that a more regular exchange between theorists working in different national traditions and linguistic zones will prevent some of the needless duplication or repetition that has arguably characterised theoretical debates in different Marxist cultures in the past while the cross-fertilisation of perspectives from distinct intellectual and political traditions constitutes one of the most powerful resources for the revitalisation of Marxism as a consciously internationalist and integral conception of the world

HM 132 carried a symposium debating Chris Arthurrsquos Th e New Dialectic and Marxrsquos lsquoCapitalrsquo (HM Book Series 2002) Building upon work in value theory previously published in the journal this symposium included responses from such renowned value theorists and Marx scholars as Albritton Bidet Callinicos Hunt Kincaid and Murray As one might have expected many of these contributions took issue with the foundational thesis of the research project presented in Arthurrsquos book namely that there exists an homology


P Th omas Historical Materialism 15 (2007) 53ndash60 55

between the structure of the categories in Hegelrsquos Logic and the structure of categories deployed by Marx in Capital According to Arthur it was precisely by attending to such a purportedly lsquoidealistrsquo thinker ndash and not by peremptorily lsquosettling accountsrsquo with his erstwhile lsquophilosophical consciencersquo or by means of an lsquoepistemological breakrsquo ndash that Marx was able to unravel the mystery of the mode of being of capitalism as a lsquoldquospiritualisationrdquo of material interchange and practical activityrsquo1 While post-Althusserian debates have grown accustomed to the notion that Marx continued to draw upon Hegel more than the prior vulgate had allowed it was the extent of Arthurrsquos proposal ndash namely that Marx not only lsquoflirtedrsquo with the categories developed by the theorist of Absolute Spirit but that there existed a lsquodirect homologyrsquo between these categories and those used by Marx in his critique of capitalist political economy in its dual sense as ideology and mode of production ndash that prompted disagreements from a variety of perspectives

In this issue we continue the debate with a contribution by Roberto Finelli Currently full professor at the University of Bari and regular contributor to some of the leading Italian Marxist journals (such as Critica Marxista) Finelli is one of the most well known Marxist scholars and philosophers in contemporary Italy Staunch critic of the Della Volpean initiative in Italian Marxism with significant references also to Labriola Gramsci and further afield Althusser Finellirsquos thought has developed through engagement with a number of intellectual traditions He has previously published major studies on German idealism and in particular the development of the dialectic in the Hegelrsquos thought culminating in 1996 in the book-length study Mito e critica delle forme La giovinezza di Hegel (1770ndash1801) Alongside the work of his fellow Italian Domenico Losurdo Finelli has made an important contribution to the lsquonew Hegelrsquo that has been emerging over the last decades Th is research has emphasised the necessity of situating Hegelrsquos thought in its historical context and a close attention to the letter of his text rather than received preconceptions derived from overdetermined interpretative traditions Th e result in Losurdorsquos case has been an image of a Hegel radically at odds with the ndash lamentably ndash still influential caricature of a reactionary pantheist or even lsquototalitarianrsquo thinker according to the Popperian-Arendtian slander In Finellirsquos work it has led to an emphasis upon the Hegelian notion of Geist as a dynamism of alterity that is not easily reconciled with either idealism or materialism as traditionally conceived Another field of research is represented by the numerous studies Finelli has dedicated to psychoanalysis in particular

1 Arthur 2005 p 218



to Freud Here Finelli has aimed to elaborate of a theory of the unconscious in terms irreducible to those of identity and contradiction characteristic of discursive-logical thought and building upon the emphasis on relationality of his Hegel studies incompatible with the essentialism of traditional philos ophical anthropology

All of these concerns are integrated into Finellirsquos own distinctive conception of the philosophical presuppositions and political consequences of Marxrsquos thought signalled by Cristina Corradi in her recent Storia dei marxismi italiani as among the most original readings of Marx to have emerged in Italy in the post-WWII period Astrazione e dialettica dal romanticismo al capitalismo Saggio su Marx [Abstraction and Dialectics from Romanticism to Capitalism Essay on Marx] (1987) developed a novel conceptual and interpretative matrix that in many respects can be read as a detailed critique of the aporiai of Della Volpeanism particularly as it developed into the impasse of Collettirsquos lsquoreturn to Kantrsquo and subsequent exit from Marxism Conceptually this matrix was defined by the concepts of lsquoreal abstractionrsquo and the lsquocircle of presupposedposited [il circolo del presupposto-posto]rsquo as the essential terms of Marxrsquos critique of political economy In terms of interpretation Finelli opposed a long tradition both Marxist and otherwise by positing the process of abstraction-emptying out [svuotamento] of the concrete as the central tension of the Marxist dialectic rather than that of opposition-contradiction Th e result was a presentation of Marxrsquos magnum opus as an analysis of capital as the total subject of modernity capable of absorbing and redefining all social relations on the basis of its own expansive logic

More recently Finelli has published Un parricidio mancato Hegel e il giovane Marx [A Failed Parricide Hegel and the Young Marx] (2004) Th is is first in a planned two-volume research project that aims to offer a more concrete and conceptually precise presentation of theses sketched out in the earlier volume Th e fundamental thesis of this study is that the young Marxrsquos attempt to lsquokillrsquo his lsquophilosophical fatherrsquo Hegel failed Marxrsquos own claims and those of the materialist conception of history notwithstanding Finelli argues that Marxrsquos thought remained determined by an idealist problematic structurally subaltern to that of Hegel until at least the period of the Grundrisse and Capital Th e young Marx according to this reading remained a theorist of the unfolding via labour of the human species a theorist of lsquosubstance becoming subjectrsquo whose turn to Feuerbach in order to escape the lsquoanxiety of influencersquo of his relationship to Hegel produced an anthropology more and not less organicist and spiritualist than the Hegelian notion of the subject as that which becomes itself by means of its relations to the other In effect Finelli argues that the young Marxrsquos efforts resulted in an unwitting affirmation of the most



metaphysical elements of Hegelrsquos thought while failing to comprehend the critical dimensions hidden behind Hegelrsquos adoption of the only seemingly theologically inspired category of Geist

Even when the Marx of Capital finally succeeded in carrying out the parricide desired in his youth Finelli argues it was not due to his arrival on the continent of lsquomaterialismrsquo (as traditionally understood within Marxism) whether dialectical or otherwise On the contrary ndash and herein lies the novelty of Finellirsquos thesis distinguishing it from other readings of a lsquobreakrsquo in Marxrsquos intellectual development ndash Marx was able to overcome his youthful anxiety of influence only by returning to it and transforming it into the foundation of his lsquomaturersquo writings Finellirsquos analysis of Marxrsquos doctoral dissertation is decisive for sketching out the presupposition of this hypothesis While many interpretations of this work have been content to focus upon selected passages from the preparatory notebooks and their apparent lsquohumanistrsquo valorisation of a Promethean freedom Finelli takes seriously Marxrsquos substantive theses regarding the qualitative distinction between the thought of Democritus and the later Epicurus and in particular Marxrsquos use of the eminently Hegelian category of Formbestimmung [determination of form] in order to understand the fundamental coherence of Epicurusrsquos only apparently self-contradictory positions Th e theoretical matrix of this category according to Finelli was subsequently repressed in the rush to construct a materialist conception of history and communist politics that was all too anthropological but with the lsquoreturnrsquo of the concept of Formbestimmung from the Grundrisse onwards Marx was able to produce a theory adequate for the comprehension of modern society according to a lsquodualism of two worlds lsquoldquoWorld Irdquo that sphere of appearance and visibility animated by concrete things and individuals and ldquoWorld IIrdquo that sphere of essence and invisibility animated only by the abstraction of a wealth merely quantitative which precisely because it is mere quantity is not able to have any other goal for its becoming than that of its own quantitative accumulationrsquo

As the reader will have discerned and as Finelli succinctly summarises in his intervention there are thus important similarities between Arthurrsquos and Finellirsquos reading of the structure of Capital Both stress Marxrsquos continuing indebtedness to Hegel both emphasise the conceptual rather than historicist-teleological method of Marxrsquos presentation of simple commodity production both stress the importance for Marx of the notion and procedure of lsquoformal determinationrsquo and both insist that capital and the capitalist society that derives from it must be analysed in systematic terms as a tendentially self-affirming totality Nevertheless there are also profound differences between their readings Whereas Arthur posits an homology between Hegelrsquos Logic and



Capital (arguably running the risk of turning the latter into an applied version of the former) Finelli argues that there exists only an analogy According to this proposition Marx did make decisive conceptual advances over Hegel after all (and not merely those conceded by a change in the object of research) but these advances were made in a certain sense by turning Hegel against Hegel or by taking Hegelrsquos method seriously at precisely those moments when Hegel lsquorelapsedrsquo into categories derived from the metaphysical tradition From this perspective the real problem (for Marx and Marxism) in Hegelrsquos thought is not its supposed quasi-neo-Platonism (Spirit or Idea begetting the world) Rather it is the problematic of lsquospeculationrsquo from which Hegel was never able to escape presupposing and producing a subject transparent to itself and thus tending towards a humanist anthropology unable to grasp the constitution of the subject of capital as a social relation Whereas Hegelrsquos speculative method proceeds with the annulment of the other as an lsquoabsolute non-Beingrsquo that in turn annuls its antagonist (a dialectic of opposition-contradiction) Marxrsquos two-world analysis according to Finelli acknowledges the full reality of both the concrete and abstract but conceives of their constitution and antagonism in terms of the subsumption of the former by the latter followed by a dissimulation in which the abstract presents itself within the concrete as that which it is not (a dialectic of abstraction-emptying out)

Similarly whereas many of Arthurrsquos other interlocutors have expressed concern about the extent to which he offers a lsquospiritualistrsquo reading of Capital Finelli argues that Arthur does not go far enough in thinking through the conceptual consequences of a systematic account of the capitalist mode of production As Callinicos noted in the first series of critiques Arthur accepts a notion (also to be found in Dusselrsquos work among many others) of lsquoliving labourrsquo that regards it as irreducible fundamentally radically other and ultimately unable to be subsumed completely by capital the lsquoKantian momentrsquo that Arthur admitted in his lsquoReply to Criticsrsquo continues to inform his otherwise Hegelian orientation2 Finelli objects that this position contradicts the commitment to think capital in formal terms betraying a lingering suspicion that the lsquoformalrsquo can never be accorded completely the lsquorealityrsquo other traditions of thought have assigned to the lsquomaterialrsquo For Finelli instead

Th e logic of totalisation does not tolerate any presupposed [Vorgesetztes] element if it is not posited [Gesetztes] that is produced and re-signified by the

2 Callinicos 2005 p 53 For Arthurrsquos response see Arthur 2005 the following in particular lsquowe cannot allow that capitalrsquos dynamic creates the very substance of material production Th ere remains in it a ldquoKantianrdquo moment in that the things themselves are in the last analysis inaccessible to capital hence its blind destruction of the environmentrsquo p 200



totalising subject [T]he abstract occupies and itself invades the concrete filling it according to the exigencies of its expansive-reproductive logic

Th e notion of a lsquoKantianrsquo moment that resists capitalrsquos subsumption in this perspective would be merely one of the ruses or dissimulations of capital itself one of the forms in which it presents its own subjectivity as the only possible objectivity

Finally Finellirsquos suggestion that Arthur may here be lsquoin some wayrsquo still lsquoinfluenced byrsquo the tradition of English empiricismrsquo read in a certain fashion allows us to highlight some of the political consequences of this debate of the extent to which theoretical assumptions are shaped by and in turn shape concrete political strategies For the fact that such a lsquosubstantialistrsquo reading of Capital has in reality emerged from a wide variety of intellectual traditions at a much greater distance from Hume suggests that something more is at stake here than merely the influence of the history of philosophy on contemporary Marxist theory Apart from Dusselrsquos work (strongly influenced by a reading of Schelling on the one hand and above all the experience of Latin-American liberation theology on the other) and Della Volpeanismrsquos anti-historicism one could also refer to another Italian tradition whose presuppositions have found a wide echo in the alterglobalisation movement ndash namely operaismo Negrirsquos valorisation of the creativity of lsquoliving labourrsquo against the morbid parasitism of capital in particular posits an irreducible ontological priority of labour over capital (in this he continues the focus of early operaisti such as Panzieri or Tronti whatever their other disagreements) Th e political consequences of this reading run from an earlier lsquorefusal of labourrsquo through to contemporary calls for lsquoExodusrsquo ndash a strategy of lsquodelinkingrsquo within the lsquometropolisrsquo

Arthurrsquos and Finellirsquos attempts to analyse the expansive dimensions of capitalist subsumption provide some reasons why such a strategy may underestimate capitalrsquos capacity to repropose itself as a principle of modern socialisation and subjectification whose idealist logic is yet to be negated in practical terms At the same time both insist upon the necessity of working to define what Finelli describes as a lsquosocial subject with a diff erent economic and life projectrsquo or what Arthurrsquos terms a lsquocounter-subjectrsquo currently lsquovirtually present if empirically negatedrsquo3 Th e difference between their proposals ndash Arthur focusing upon capitalrsquos ideality as supplementary to labour whose primacy provides a permanent basis for working-class political organisation Finelli insisting that it is only within what he terms the lsquopostmodernrsquo that social relations of force adequate for a new mode of social organisation will

3 Arthur 2005 p 215



emerge ndash is overdetermined by a more fundamental agreement namely that the attempt to register the contemporary dominance of capital in theoretical terms far from leading to a Frankfurtian pathos or sterile academicism can and should contribute to determining the realistic bases for a socialist politics today

References

Arthur Christopher J 2005 lsquoReply to Criticsrsquo Historical Materialism 13 2 190ndash221 Callinicos Alex 2005 lsquoAgainst the New Dialecticrsquo Historical Materialism 13 2 41ndash59



resources of renewal for a revolutionary Marxist theory freed from compromises with the experience of Stalinism Th e last decade has seen the appearance of a number of significant contributions to the elaboration andor reconstruction of the critique of political economy in various national-linguistic Marxist cultures the studies of Enrique Dussel in Latin America Jacques Bidet in France Wolfgang-Fritz Haug and Michael Heinrich in Germany Geert Reuten in the Netherlands and Riccardo Bellofiore in Italy (to cite only a few prominent examples) can be regarded as among the first offerings of a contemporary renaissance of studies of Marx and in particular of the critique of political economy

Over the last decade Historical Materialism has published studies of different aspects of the work of Marxrsquos lsquomaturityrsquo from a wide range of theoretical and political perspectives Th ese studies have ranged from the strictly philological and interpretative to the more exploratory and reconstructive All have been united in the conviction that it is only by attempting to inherit the research programme bequeathed to us by Marx even with its uncertainties and problems that we will be able to elaborate a systematic and totalising critique adequate for an anticapitalist and above all socialist politics today Alongside these ongoing debates in the pages of the journal a parallel publication programme in the Historical Materialism book series (published by Brill) has presented translations of important works previously unavailable in English (eg Maksakovskyrsquos Th e Capitalist Cycle or more recently Bidetrsquos Exploring Marxrsquos lsquoCapitalrsquo ) Both the journal and book series will continue to promote actively the diffusion of work originating outside the Anglophone world in accordance with Historical Materialismrsquos declared intention to promote a return to Marxismrsquos traditions of cosmopolitan debate We believe that a more regular exchange between theorists working in different national traditions and linguistic zones will prevent some of the needless duplication or repetition that has arguably characterised theoretical debates in different Marxist cultures in the past while the cross-fertilisation of perspectives from distinct intellectual and political traditions constitutes one of the most powerful resources for the revitalisation of Marxism as a consciously internationalist and integral conception of the world

HM 132 carried a symposium debating Chris Arthurrsquos Th e New Dialectic and Marxrsquos lsquoCapitalrsquo (HM Book Series 2002) Building upon work in value theory previously published in the journal this symposium included responses from such renowned value theorists and Marx scholars as Albritton Bidet Callinicos Hunt Kincaid and Murray As one might have expected many of these contributions took issue with the foundational thesis of the research project presented in Arthurrsquos book namely that there exists an homology





1 Arthur 2005 p 218























3 Arthur 2005 p 215




References






1 Arthur 2005 p 218























3 Arthur 2005 p 215




References
























3 Arthur 2005 p 215




References



















3 Arthur 2005 p 215




References














3 Arthur 2005 p 215




References








3 Arthur 2005 p 215




References





References



Documents

Peter d Thomas Introduction to Roberto Finelli Abstraction Versus Contradiction Observations on Chris Arthurs the New Dialectic and Marxs Capital 1