Ranciere - The Concept of 'Critique' and the 'Critique of Political Economy' (From the 1844 Manuscript to Capital)

8/22/2019 Ranciere - The Concept of 'Critique' and the 'Critique of Political Economy' (From the 1844 Manuscript to Capital)

1/26

PLEASE SCROLL DOWN FOR ARTICLE

This article was downloaded by: [Open University Library]

On: 24 September 2010

Access details: Access Details: [subscription number 770886906]

Publisher Routledge

Informa Ltd Registered in England and Wales Registered Number: 1072954 Registered office: Mortimer House, 37-

41 Mortimer Street, London W1T 3JH, UK

Economy and SocietyPublication details, including instructions for authors and subscription information:http://www.informaworld.com/smpp/title~content=t713685159

The concept of 'critique' and the 'critique of political economy' (from the1844 Manuscript to Capital)Jacques Rancire

To cite this Article Rancire, Jacques(1976) 'The concept of 'critique' and the 'critique of political economy' (from the 1844Manuscript to Capital)', Economy and Society, 5: 3, 352 376

To link to this Article: DOI: 10.1080/03085147600000016URL: http://dx.doi.org/10.1080/03085147600000016

Full terms and conditions of use: http://www.informaworld.com/terms-and-conditions-of-access.pdf

This article may be used for research, teaching and private study purposes. Any substantial orsystematic reproduction, re-distribution, re-selling, loan or sub-licensing, systematic supply ordistribution in any form to anyone is expressly forbidden.

The publisher does not give any warranty express or implied or make any representation that the contentswill be complete or accurate or up to date. The accuracy of any instructions, formulae and drug dosesshould be independently verified with primary sources. The publisher shall not be liable for any loss,actions, claims, proceedings, demand or costs or damages whatsoever or howsoever caused arising directlyor indirectly in connection with or arising out of the use of this material.
http://www.informaworld.com/smpp/title~content=t713685159http://dx.doi.org/10.1080/03085147600000016http://www.informaworld.com/terms-and-conditions-of-access.pdfhttp://www.informaworld.com/terms-and-conditions-of-access.pdfhttp://dx.doi.org/10.1080/03085147600000016http://www.informaworld.com/smpp/title~content=t713685159


2/26

The concept of 'critique'and the'critique of political economy'(from the 7844Manuscript to Capital )*Jacques RancihreCritique and science in Capital: Verausserlichung and theconstitution of FetishismPreliminariesThe concept of fetishism in Capital poses a problem which can beinitially formulated in the naive form: What is involved in fetishism?We know that this is the conception which acts as a foothold forthose who interpret Capital on the basis of the anthropology of theYoung Marx. For them fetishism is only a new name for alienation.In fetishism relations between men become relations betweenthings. Thus the activity of men passes into an alien being; itbecomes a determination of things and men are dominated by theserelations between things. Fetishism is therefore an anthropologicalprocess analogous to that of alienation.An opposite interpretation denies fetishism any of the characterof a real process and says that it is only a conception of economicrelations, an ideology.In fact we shall only understand fetishism if we think it incontinuity with what I have said about the structure of the processand the development of its forms.We have seen that as we passed to more and more concrete formsof the process of capitalist production the inner determination thatgoverns their motion disappeared, that the nuclear form disappearedin the completed form. It is this movement that is constitutive offetishism. A certain connection presents itself on the surface of theprocess that we can call a fetishistic structure. The fetishisticdiscourse is the elaboration of this connection of concrete formspresented on the surface of the capitalist process and reflected in theconsciousness of the agents of production.

This fetishistic discourse is summed up by Marx in what he callsthe trini ty ormula. The latter is constituted by three couples:CapitalIProfitLandIRentLabourlWagesThe three elements, capital, land and labour, appear as three sourceseach of which produces a revenue. Capital naturally produces profit,

The concept of 'critique and the, citique of politia conomy

(from the 1844Manusc to Capia/)*

Jacques Rancire

scc Capital: sslc s ss

Plmh ccp f fshs aita pss pbl whch c blly ld v f Wh s vlvd fshs?

W kw h hs s h ccp wch cs s fhld fs w p ata bss hplgy Yg Mx F fshs s ly w f lI fss ls bw bc ls bwhgs. hs cvy f psss l b; bcs d f gs d dd by hsls bw hgs. Fshs s f anthrooogicaprocess lgs h f l

A pps p ds fss y f h chc l pcss d sys s ly ccp ccls ideoogy.

I fc w shll ly dsd fss f w hk cy w wh I hv sd b h sc f pcssd dvlp f s fs.

W v s s w pssd d cc sf h pcss f cpls pc h d hgvs h dsppd h cl f dsppd cpld f I s s v s csv fshs A c connection pss slf h sfc f hpcss w c cll shsc sc fsscdscs s h lb f hs cc f cc fspsd sfc f h cpls pcss d flcd hcscsss f h gs f pdc

hs fshsc scs s s p by Mx w h cllsh trinity formua. h l s csd by h cplsCplPfdRbWgs

h h ls cpl l lb pp s h scsch f whch pcs v pl lly pcs f


3/26

Jacques Rancie re 353

labour wages, land re nt. This trinity represents th e systematizationof wh at th e agents of p rod uction perceive of th e forms in which theiractivity is inscribed .CommentMarx n otes th at i t wou ld be b etter to replace the first couple(CapitalIProfi t) with what i t in fact subsumes, namely theCapitalIInterest co uple. Profit is indeed a pheno menal form -that isto say, a fo rm of concealment-of surplus value. But it is still no t themo st co ncrete o r th e m ost m ediated fo rm of surplus value. It is stillrelated to the sphere of production. Interest, which is itself aphenomenal form or form of concealment of profit-i.e., aphenomenal form or form of concealment in the seconddegree-represents the most concrete and most mediated fo rm ofsurplus value. It is manifested outside th e sp here of pro du ction . Itsmechanism is as follows: a sum of m one y M advanced returns t o i tsowner in the form M ' (M + d ~ ) ,nd th at by virtue of a con tract .There is no longer any question here of a process of production b utonly of a con tract between tw o persons and of a my sterious powerwh ich m on ey possesses of increasing itself.It is in this form that capital appears on the surface of thecapitalist process. Th us it is the C apitalIInterest form ula th at reallyconsti tutes the first couple of th e trinity form ula.In order t o stud y the c onsti tution of fetishism I shall exam ine theconditions of possibility of one of the three couples, theCapitalIProfit (i .e., CapitalIInterest) couple. This condition ofpossibility is w h at Marx calls th e V eraz~sserlichung f th e relations ofcapital . In o rde r no t t o anticipate my elucidation of the meaning ofthis con cep t, I shall translate it directly as extern alization .The problem of the Verausserlichung of the relations ofcapital-by wh ich sho uld be und erstoo d capital as a relation ofproduction-is them atized by Marx particularly in Ch apter 24 ofVolume Three (pp.383 ff.), 'Externalization of the Relations ofCapital in th e F orm of Interest-Bearing Capital '.In this te x t t h e fo rm of interest-bearing capital is characterized asth e m ost externa lized (;lusserlichste) fo rm of th e relations of capital.On th e basis of this te x t and othe r texts in Volumes Three and F our Ican give a certain number of synonyms for this superlative-theydefine interest-bearing capital as the most concrete, the mostmed iated, th e mo st fetishized and the m ost al ienated(entfremdetste) form . This leads me to two interesting com men ts:o n the o ne han d, the m ovement of fet ishization seems to be identicalto the mov ement of externalization, on th e oth er, we f ind the keyconcep t of the anthropological cri tique, Eutfremdung (alienation),appearing as equivalent to the concept of Verausserlichung. In

qu nc

bur ws nd rnt. This trinity rprsnts th systtztn wht th nts prutin pri th rs in whih thirtiity is insribd.

ommenMr nts tht it wu b bttr t rp th irst upCpit/Prit) with wht it in t subsus ny thCpit/Intrst up. Prit is indd phnn rtht ist sy, r nnt surpus u. But it is sti nt thst nrt r th st ditd r surpus u. It is stirtd t th sphr prdutin. ntst, whih s ts phnn r r r nnt priti.

phnn r r r nnt in th sndrrprsnts th st nrt n st it r surpus u t is nstd utsd th sphr prdutin. Itshnis is s ws su ny M n rturns t tswnr in th r M I (M + dM), n tht by irtu ntrt.Thr is n nr ny qustin hr prss prdutin butny ntrt btwn w prsns nd ystrius pwrwhih ny psssss inrsin its

It is in this r tht pit pprs n th sur th

pitist prss. Thus it is th Cpit/Intrst ru tht rynstituts th irst up th trinity ru.In rr t stuy th nstitutin tishis I sh xin th

nditins pssibity n th thr ups, thCpit/Prit i., Cpit/Intrst) up. This nitin pssibiiy is wht Mrx s th Veusseun th rtns pit. n rdr nt t ntiipt y uitin th nin this npt, I sh trnst it dirty s exenazaon

Th prb th eussehung th rtins

pitby whih shud b undrstd pit s rtn prutinis thti by Mrx prtiury in Chptr 2 Vu Thr pp3 83.), xtrnitin th tins Cpit in th r Intrst-Brin Cpit.

In this txt th r intrstbrin pit is hrtri sth st xtrnid (ssese) r th rtins pit.On th bsis this txt nd thr txts n Vus Thr nd ur In i rtin nubr synnys r this suprtithyin intrstbrin pit s th st onee th stmedaed, th st feszed nd th st aenaed(enemdese r. This s t tw intrstin ntsn th n hnd, th nt tishiztn ss t b idntit th nt xtrnitin, n th thr w in th ynpt th nthrpi ritiqu Euemdung intin)pprin s quint t th npt eussehung In


4/26

354 The concept of 'critique'

Volumes Three and Four we are concerned with anEntfremdung/Verausser l ichung coup le strangely reminiscent of th edominant couple of the Manuscripts: Entfremdung/Entausserung.Hence the necessity to specify the meaning of the couple we areconcerned with here so as t o see wh ether it refers to the same thing asthe one in theManuscr ipts .What, therefore, is Verausserlichung? Let me pose the conceptsby which we can account for the struc ture of the process, in order todefine the structure of this mo vem ent which makes the constitutionof fetishism possible.These are the con cepts of :- elation-by which of course sho uld be und ersto od relation ofproduction-insofar as i t is these relations tha t underly the wh oleprocess,-f o rm , insofar as the fo rm is tha t by which th e relation isman ifested, by which it is represented in W irklichkeit,- origin and limit of t he process,- motion or development of the forms- esultI propose t o study th e t ransformation of these elements which make

possible the fetishized fo rm (figure) of th e process.A. TheBegriffslosigkeit of the formTh e ex terna lization of th e relations of capital dep end s first of all onthe fact that the form of interest-bearing capital is a begriffsloseFo rm , an a-conceptual form o r, if you prefer, a fo rm deprived o f aconcept . This is th e form M - M ' where M ' = M + m (o r M + d ~ ) .T h e Begriffslosigkeit lies in th e fac t th a t, in this form , th e processth at ma kes it possible disappears.

In fact the movement M - M ' which is posited here as aspontaneous movem ent of M is on ly possible if th e mon ey-ca pital Mente rs in to a process of prod uctio n in which i t is exp and ed in value.It is this expansion of value w ithin t he process of p repro duc tion o findustrial capital th a t makes possible th e increase&Fo r the true circuit undergone by this M , it is necessary t o po sit, inth e interval between M and M ', the w hole circuit of money-capital,which is one of th e three circuits, one of th e three functional formsof industrial capital studied by Marx at the beginning of VolumeTwo.We shall the n have:LM - M - C M p . . . . . . . . . P . . . . . . . . . C' r M '(C + c ) r M - M + m )

This process alon e perm its th e transition f ro m an initial value M t o avalue M ' equal t o M + d~ .'

4 T opt o qu

Vus Thr nd ur w r nrnd with nntrdung/Vrussrihung up strngy rinisnt thdinnt up th Mnur EnfrmdungEnurung

Hn th nssity t spiy th ning th up w rnrnd with hr s s t s whthr it rrs t th s thing sth n in hMnur

Wht thrr is Vrurhung? Lt ps th nptsby whih w n unt r th strutur th prss in rdr tdin th strutur this nt whih s th nstitutin tishis pssib.

Ths r th npts

- ron- whih urs shud b undrstd rtin prdutininsr s it is ths rtins tht undry th whprss,

form insr s th r is tht by whih th rtin Snistd by whih it is rprsntd in Wirihit

- orgn nd m th prss,- moon r dvomn th rs- ru

prps t study th trnsrtin ths nts whih

pssib th tishid r gur) th prss.A The grislosigki the

Th xtrnitin th rtins pit dpnds irst nth t tht th r intrst-bring pit is bgrffoForm n -nptu r r, i u prr r dprid npt This is th r M - M' whr M M + (r M + dM).Th Bgrffogk is in th t tht, in this r, th prsstht s it pssib dispprs

n t th nt M - M whih is psitd hr s spntnus nt M is ny pssib i th nypit Mntrs int prss prdutin in whih it is xpndd in ut is this xpnsin u within th prss p rprdutin industri pit tht s pssib th inrs d

Fr th tru iruit undrgn by thisM it is nssry t psit, inth intr btwn M nd M " th wh iruit ny-pit,whih is n th thr iruits n th thr untin rs industri pit studid by Mrx t th bginning VuTw

W sh thn hL C , M

'

M-MCMp

P .. . . ..(C+ c)-M(M m )

This prss n prits th trnsitin r n initi u M t u M' qu t M + dM'


5/26

Jacques Rancibre 355

Th e q uestion which interests us he re is t o know w hat are therelations b etwee n M and M ' in this circuit. Let u s ask first wh at is th eLspecific fo rm of M in the stageM-cM .Here is Marx's an sw er:In th is first stage,M circulates as mo ney. It assumes th e fun ctionsof m oney-capital , because on ly in i ts money state can it perform amo ney-func tion, can it transform itself int o the elem ents of P ,in to L and M P ,which stand op posed t o i t as comm odities. In thisc ircula tion act i t functions only as money (Vol.11, ~ . 4 5 ) . ~This means that M is not in itself capital. By itself it does notpossess any power of increase. It only fulfills a money-function (a

purchasing function) and not a capital-function (a function ofself-expanding value). What is it that transforms this puremo ney-func tion int o a cap ital-function? It is th e nature of i ts l inkwith the othe r stages of th e process.Bu t as this a ct 3 is the first stage of cap ital-value in process, i t issimultaneously a functio n of m oney-capital , by virtue of th especific use-form of th e com m oditie s L and M P which are boug ht(Vol.11, p.45) .This last hrase means tw o things:1. M - tip i s a func tion of money-capital, i t plays a part in thecapitalist process of reproduction insofar as it makes possible, byvirtue of th e special characte r of L and M P , tage P , which is th a t ofth e expansion of value.2. More particularly, the decisive thing here is the nature of thecommodi ty L (labour power). The process of t he expansion of thevalue of M is made possible by the presence on the market of thisabsolutely unique com mo dity, labour pow er. The form we areconcerned with thus conceals the opposition between capital andwage labo ur ; its stu dy reveals capitalist relations of p rod uctio n as th em oto r of th e circuit .In th e first place, this entire circuit is premised on th e capitalistcharacter of th e process of pro du ction , and therefore considersthis process together w ith the specific social conditions brough tab ou t by i t as the basis. M - C = M - cLp b u t M - L assumes theexistence of th e wage-labourer, and hence t he m eans ofprodu ction as part of productive capital . I t assumes therefore th atth e process of lab our and selfe xp ans ion of value, th e process ofpro du ction , is a functio n of capital (Vol.11, p.61) .No w let us consider M ' . t can neither be said to be the produc t of

M nor even that of P (except in certain special cases such as theproduc tion of gold). I t is th e conv erted form of c' .The re turn t o the

Jaqs Ran

Th qustin whih intsts us h is t nw wht thtins btwn M nd M

'in this iuit Lt us s ist wht is th

spii in th stg -hp.H is Mxs nswIn this ist st,M iuts s ny. It ssus th untins ny-pit, bus ny in its ny stt n it p nyuntin, n it tns its int th nts Pint nd M P, whih stnd ppsd t it s ditis. In thisiutin t it untins ny s ny VI, p.45.

This ns tht is nt n e pit By its it ds ntpssss ny pw ins. It ny uis nyuntin

puhsing untin nd nt pit-untin untin s-xpndin u. Wht is it tht tnss this punyuntin int pituntin? It is th ntu its inwith th th stgs th pss.

But s this t is th ist st pit-u in pss, it issiutnusy untin nypit, by itu thspii us th ditis nd M P whih buhtVI, p.45.

This stIhs ns tw thins M - cMP is untin nypit, it pys pt in th

pitist pss pdutin ins s it s pssib, byitu th spi ht nd P stg P, whih is tht th xpnsin u.

2 M ptiuy, th disi thing h is th ntu thdity bu pw. Th pss th xpnsin thu M is d pssib by th psn n th t thisbsuty uniqu dity, bu pw. Th w nnd with thus ns th ppsitin btwn pit ndw bu its study s pitist tins pdutin s tht th iuit.

n th ist p, this nti iuit is pisd n th pitistht th pss pdutin, nd th nsidsthis pss tth with th spii si nditins buhtbut by it s th bsis M C M - kp; but M - ssus thxistn th w-bu, nd hn th ns

pdutin s pt pduti pit t ssus th thtth pss bu nd sxpnsin u, th pss pdutin, is untin pit VI, p.6

w t us nsid M It n nith b sid t b th pdut M n n tht P xpt in tin spi ss suh s thpdutin d It is th ntd ' Th tun t th


6/26

356 Th e concept of 'critique'

money-form is a function not of money-capital but ofcommodity-capital C ' . The difference m, the money-form of thedifference c produced by stage P , does n ot represent a movem entwhich is attributable t o M itself.

Money-capital with in the circuit of indus trial capital perfo rms nooth er functions than those of m oney and . . . hese money -fun ctio ns assume th e significance of capital-functions on ly byvirtue of their interconnec tions with t he oth er stages of thiscircuit. Th e representa tion (Darstellung) of M ' as a relation of mto M , s a capital-relation, is no t directly a function ofmoney-capital but of comm odity-capital c ',which in its turn , as arelation of c and C , expresses bu t th e result of th e process ofpro duc tion, of the selfex pan sion of capital-value which too kplace in it (Vol.11, p.7 7) .It follows th at in the formula M ' = M + d~ which expresses th eresult of the circuit, there is no relation between M and M ' . Theeq ua tion is an impossible one. This positing of an impossible relationis, as we kn ow , expressed by Marx in th e co nc ept of the imaginary orzrratzo nal .Naturally a reason fo r this irrationa l or imaginary is fou nd in th econceptual formula which expresses the totality of the circuit ofmoney-capital and its link with th e o ther circuits. The imaginary anda-conceptual formula M ' = M + d~ is explained by the completeformula:L I IM - C M p . . . . . . . . . P . . . . . . . . . C -M

This formula expresses th e co nceptual relation, i.e.:1. it grasps the set of permutations and changes of form which

constitute the circuit and unite i t to the other circuits in theensemble of th e process of reproduc tion of capital;2. it indicates the dete rm inan t character of th e relation ofprod uction which u nderlies th e whole process of th e self-expansionof value.The impossible relation of M ' t o M can only be sustained by wh atgoverns the whole c ircuit: capital as arela tion o fpro du ction , with itscomplement, wage-labour.Th us the circuit of money-capital is th e on e which best expressesth e capitalist process. In fa ct i t is a peculiarity of this process th a t ithas as its principle th e selfex pan sion of value, as th e circuit from Mt o M ' clearly expresses. B ut th is de term ina te for m of th e process ofreproduction of cap ital, th e process of self-expansion of value madepossible b y th e relations of prod uctio n of capital and wage-labour,tends t o disappear in its result.

The concpt of crqu

mny-fm s fncn n f mnycp b fcmmdy-cp e Th dffnc m h mny-fm f hdffnc c pdcd by s P, ds n psn mmn

whch s bb M

sf.

Mnycp whn h cc f nds cp pfms nh fnns hn hs f mny nd . . hs mnyfncns ssm h snfcnc f cp-fncns ny by f h ncnncns wh h h ss f hscc Th psnn Darsteung fM s n f m M s cp-n s n dcy fncn fmny-cp b f cmmdy-cp e " whch n s n s

n f c nd e xpsss b h s f h pcss fpdcn f h sf-xpnsn f cp- whch pc n (V p.77

fws h n h fm M = M + dM whch xpsss hresut f h cc h s n n bwn M nd M Thqn s n mpssb nThs psn f n mpssb ns s w nw xpssd by Mx n h cncp f h magry rratona 4

y reason f hs n mny s fnd n hcncp fm whch xpsss h y f h cc fmny-cp nd s n wh h h ccs. Th mny nd-cncp fm M M + dM s xpnd by h cmpfm

L ,MeMP . . . . . P . . . . . . e -M

Ths fm xpsss h concetua reaton .1 sps h s f pmns nd chns f fm whch

cns h cc nd n h h ccs n hnsmb f h pcss f pdcn f cp;

2 ndcs h dmnn chc f h n fpdcn whch nds h wh pcss f h sfxpnsnf

Th mpssb n fM M cn ny b ssnd by whns h wh cc cp s reaton of roducton wh scmpmn wageabour

Ths h cc f mnycp s h n whch bs xpsssh cps pcss n fc s pcy f hs pcss h hs s s pncp h sf-xpnsn f s h cc fm M M cy xpsss B hs dmn fm f h pcss fpdcn f cp h pcss f sfxpnsn f mdpssb by h ns f pdcn f cp nd w-bnds dspp n s resut


7/26

Jacques Rancibre 357

Th u s M ' appears as a sum of values differen tiated within itself,func tiona lly (co nce ptua lly) distinguished within itself, expressingth e cap ital-relation. Bu t this is expressed o nly as a result, w ith ou tth e inte rven tion of th e process of which it is th e result (V ol. 11,p .43) .This circuit is therefore characterized by th e disappearance of theprocess in i ts result . I t th us lends itself , should it h appen t o beauto no m ized , t o the m isrecognition of th e capitalist process.In the ensemble of th e process of reproduc tion studied by M arx inVolum e Tw o, there is n o r isk of this autono miz at ion occurr ing. Th eau ton om y of the circuit of m oney-capital disappears in the circuit of

commodity-capital.Th e semblance of independence which the mon ey-form ofcapital-value possesses in th e first fo rm of its circuit (th e for m ofmo ney-capital) disappears in this second f or m , which th u s is acriticism of Form I and reduces i t to merely a special form (Vol.11, p.73) .The crit icism of this form (fgure) is performed by thedevelopment of the whole process of reproduction. But thisdevelopm ent o nly app ears in science.In reality this au tono m izatio n, this loss of con cept(Begriffslosigkeit) an d imaginariness, will in fa c t m anifes tthemselves the closer one gets t o the more concrete and moreme diated fo rm s of th e capitalist process.This sequence reaches i ts extrem e in th e for m of interest-bearingcapital . This form is indeed the m ost co ncrete and mediated fo rm ofcapital . I t n ot only presupposes th e transform ation of surplus value

int o pro fit , but th e division of profit int o profit of enterprise an dinterest . T he finance capitalist w ho advances the sum of mon ey Mremains outside the wh ole process of prod uction an d reproduc tion.All he does is to advance a sum M and withdraw a sum M ' .Whathappens between these tw o acts does no t concern him.Th us th e wh ole capitalist process has disappeared in th e form M '-M ' . T he Begriffslosigkezt expresses th e disap peara nce of all th eintermed iary term s whose con nection makes the relation of M t o M 'possible. It thereby expresses the disappearance of what underliesthis co nne ction and m akes it possible, th e capitalist relations ofpro du ction . This disappearance of th e relations of production in theBegriffslosigkeit of th e form is th e basis for th e extern alizatio n(Verausserlichung) of w ha t M arx calls th e relations of capital.We know that this disappearance is made possible by thedevelopment of fo rms which leads to the most concrete, mostme diated fo rm , th at of interest-bearing capital . This development of

Jaqs Ran 35

Thus M appears as a sum f vaues fferenae whn seffuncnay (cncepuay) snushe whn sef expressnhe caparean Bu hs s expresse ny as a resu whu

he nervenn f he prcess f whch s he resu (V IIp3)

Ths crcu s herefre characerze y he sappearance f heprcess n s resu I hus en sef shu happen eaunme he msrecnn f he capas prcess

In he enseme f he prcess f reprucn sue y Marx nVume Tw here s n rsk f hs aunmzan ccurrn Theaunmy f he crcu f mneycapa sappear n he crcu f

cmmycapaThe semance f nepenence whch he mneyfrm fcapavaue pssesses n he frs frm f s crcu (he frm fmneycapa) sappears n hs secn frm whch hus s acrcsm f Frm I an reuces merey a speca frm (VII p 3)

The crcsm f hs frm igure) s perfrme y heevepmen f he whe prcess f reprucn Bu hsevepmen ny appears n siene

In reay hs aunmzan(Bgrisosigi) an manarnesshemeves he cer ne e hemeae frms f he capas prcess

hs ss f cncepw n fac manfes

mre cncree an mre

Ths seuence reaches s exreme n he frm f neresearncapa Ths frm s nee he ms cncree an meae frm fcapa I n ny presuppses he ransfrman f surpus vaue

n prf u he vsn f prf n prf f enerprse annere The fnance capa wh avances he sum f mney Mremans use he whe prcess f prucn an reprucnA he es s avance a sum M an whraw a sum M . Whahappens eween hese w acs es n cncern hm

Thus he whe capas prce has sappeare n he frm MM The Begrisosige expresses he sappearance f a henermeary erm whse cnnecn makes he rean fM Mpsse I herey expresses he sappearance f wha uneres

hs cnnecn an makes pse he apiais raions oprouion Ths sappearance f he reans f prucn n heBegrisosigi f he rm s he ass fr he exernazan( Verusserihung) f wha Marx cas he reans f capa

We knw ha hs sappearance s mae psse y heevepmen f frms whch eas he m cncree msmeae frm ha f nereearn capa Ths evepmen f


8/26


form s and this co ncatenation of med iations themselves disappear inth e resultant fo rm . This fo rm which is th e most mediated f orm ofthe capitalist process presents itself as pure immediacy, as a purerelation of m one y-cap ital itself t o itself.Start ing from here we can understand the concept ofVerausserlichung. We know in fact tha t i t marks a relation betw eenrelation df production and form of the process. Moreover, we havealready recognized th e general mechanism of th e link relation/formand characterized it as a link of metonymic causality. In thebegriffslose Form wh ich has lost all th e characteristics which locatedit in a definite place in th e development and art iculation of th e form sof the process, this m eton ym ic causality produces i ts mo st radicaleffects.Before going into the details of these effects 1 can already no tethat the terms of the problem exclude a certain type ofinterpretation of Verausserlichung (and of Ent f remdung) . Th e termspresent are n o t sub ject , predicate and things, b u t relat ion and form.The becoming alien in question here does not mark theextern alization of the predicates of a subject in an alien en tity , b u tdesignates w hat b ecom es of th e relations of capital in' th e m ostmediated form of the process.B. The Verausserlichung of the re1a t onTh e concept of Verausserlichung is almost ritually accom panied bythree other concepts: those of Verri icktheit (absurdity),Versachlichung (materialization) an d Verkehrung (reversal).I shall leave the first term on one side; i t has no conceptualsignificance of i ts ow n. Th e co nce pt of Verkehrung , hough, doespose a problem . On th e one hand i t designates th e inversion of theinner determ ination of th e process in its com pleted form s, which hasalready been studied. B ut here i t takes o n a new meaning which Ishall examine later on .The concept of Versachlichung must be understood on th e basisof what I have already said about the consti tution ofGegenstandlichkeit and the mechanism of Darstellung. In theanalysis of th e com mo dity form we saw th at the thing, the object ,was the support of a relat ion and that the misrecognit ion of thissupport function, of the sensuous-supersensuous character of thething , trans form ed w hat was the expression of a social relation i nt o anatural property of th e thing.More precisely, everything turned on the function of the fo rm.Th e lat ter was simultaneously the f orm (guise) of the thing and thepheno men al form of th e relat ions of production.We rediscover t h e mechanism of Darstellung brought t o l ight by

35 op o q

fms and ths cncatenatn f medats themseves dsappea the esutat fm Ths fm whch s the mst medated fm fthe captast pcess pesets tsef as pue mmedacy as a pue

eat f meycapta tsef t tsefStatn fm hee we ca undestand the cncept frusshung We kw n fact that t maks a eat etweern prun adrm h prss Meve we haveaeady eced the eea mechasm f the k rn/rmand chacteed t as a k f metnymc causaty In thebgrss Frm whch has st a the chaactestcs whch catedt a defnte pace n the devepment ad atcuatn f the fmsf the pcess ths metnymc causaty pduces ts mst adca

effectsBefe t the detas f these effects I can aeady nte

that the tems f the pem excude a cetan type ftepetatn frussrhung(and fEnrmung) The temspeset ae nt suect pedcate and ths ut eatn and fmThe ecm ae quest hee des t mak theetenaatn f the pedcates f a suect n an aen entty utdesnates what ecmes f the eatns f capta the mstmedated fm f the pcess

B. The VJssrungthe relation

The cncept f russrhung s amst tuay accmpaed ythee the cncepts thse f rrkh (asudty)rshhung(mateaatn) ad rkhrung(evesa)

I sha eave the fst tem n ne sde t has cnceptuasnfcance f ts wn The cncept f rkhrung thuh despse a pem O the e hand t desates the nvrsn f the

nne detemnat f the pcess ts cmpeted fms whch hasaeady ee studed But hee t takes a new mean whch Isha exame ate n

The ccept f rshhungmust e udestd the assf what I have aeady sad aut the cnsttutn fGgnsnhk ad the mechansm f Dung In theanayss f the cmmdty fm we saw that the th the ectwas the suppt f a eat and that the msecntn f thssuppt fuctn f the sensuussupesesuus chaacte f theth tasfmed what was the expessn f a sca eatn nt anatuaprpry f the thn

Me pecsey eveyth tuned n the fuctn f thermThe atte was smutaeusy the fm (use) f the th and thephenmena fm f the eatns f pductn

We edscve the mechansm fDrsunguht t ht y


9/26

Jacques Rancihre 359

Marx in the relatio n between capital as a thing (a sum of m oney o r amass of material elements: raw materials, machines, etc . . .) andcapital as a relation of production for which the former serves as asuppor t .Capital is no t a thing, but rathe r a definite social produc tionrelation, belongingto a definite historical fo rm ation of society,which is man ifested (sich da rstellt) in a thing and lends this thing aspecific social chara cter (Vol. 111, p.794).

We rediscover the Verhaltnzs-Ding opposi t ion, an opposi t ionwhich has its m od e of existence in Darstellung. M isrecognition of th eDarstellung cancels the opposition and transforms capital into amere thing.The three terms here are:- capital as a relation of p rodu ction- h e capital form, which here is the a-conceptual form ofinterest-bearing capital- he thing (th e material elements of capital) which acts as asup port t o th e capital-relation by adopting th e guise of th e fo rm ofinterest-b earing capital.Now th e for m of interest-bearing capital has lost all m em ory ofw hat ma de it a special and determinate form of capital. I ts formaldeterminations will thus be confused with the materialdetermina tions of th e thing.Th e fo rm ceases t o perform its fun ction as a form because of i tsBegriffslosigkeit. The social determinations of the relations ofproduction will thu s find themselves reduced t o the materialdetermina tions of th e thing. Hence th e confusion betwe en w hatM arx calls material foun datio ns (things which perform t he fun ctionof supports) and social determinations. The latter become naturalproperties of the material elements of production. Thus thecapital-relation has beco m e a thing.But this thing has so m e very special properties. I ts mysteriouscharacter can be expressed in tw o ways:-If M is considered as a sum of value, the relation M - ' will tak eth e form of the incomprehensible (unbegreiflich)relation 4 = 5. T heissue here is the m ystery of th e increase.- Th e solution t o this mystery can be sought in the use-value ofth e material eleme nts of the thing M . An incomm ensurable relationis then substituted for an incomprehensible relation; the thing Mproduces surplus value, that is, a social relation. I shall state thismy stery adequa tely by giving this incommensurable relation its tru enam e: it is an imaginary or irrational relation.We can thus understand the possibility of this mystery and itssolution. The elucidation of th e concept of Verkehrung will provide

cqu Rnc 35

Marx in the reatin etween capita as a hng(a sum mney r amass materia eements raw materias machines etc ancapita as a reatin pructin r which the rmer serves as a

surtapita is nt a thin ut rather a einite scia pructinreatin enin a enite histrica rmatin scetywc s maneste (sich darstellt) a h h h specic scia character (V p94)

We reiscver the hnng ppsitin an ppsitinwhich has its me existence in rung Misrecnitin theung cances the ppsitin an transrms capita int a

mere thinThe three terms here are capita as a reatn pructin the c frm which here is the acnceptua rm

interestearin capita the thin (the materia eements caita whch acts as a

supprt t the capitareati y aptin the uise the rm nterest-earn cata

Nw the rm interestearin capita has st a memry

what mae t a speca an eterminate rm capta ts rmaeterminatins wi thus e cnuse with the materiaeterminatins the thin

The rm ceases t perrm its unctin as a rm ecause itsBgfgk The scia eterminatins the reatins ructn wi thus in themseves reuce t the materiaeterminatins the thin Hence the cnusin etween whatMarx cas mr fundtn (thns whch perrm the unctn supprts an sca eterminatins The atter ecme natura

r the matera eements pructn Thus thecaptareatin has ecme a hngBut this thin has sme very specia prperties ts mysterius

character can e expresse in tw waysIfM is cnsere as a sum vaue the reain M M wi take

the rm the ncmprehense unbgrch) reatin 4 = 5 Theissue here is the mystery the increase

The sutin t ths mystery can e suht n the usevaue the matera eements the thin M. An incmmensurae reatin

is then sustitute r an ncmprehensie reatn the hngMpruces surpus vaue that is a scia reatin sha state thismystery aeuatey y vin this incmmensurae reatin its truename t s an mgn r nreatin

We can thus unerstan the pssiiity this mystery an itssutn The euciatn the cncet khungw prve


10/26


us with the solution. Th is concept designates the following m otio n:the transformation of the social relat ion into a thing is equally atransform ation of the thing into a social relat ion. T he thing in whichthe social relat ion has disappeared has inherited the mo tion th at thesocial relat ion determ ines. This m otion is present in the thing as anatural fzculty or occult quali ty. Here we have the precise andcom plete meaning of th e con cealmen t by which Marx characterizesth e mo de of action of th e relations of pro duction.Th e effect of this m od e of a ction is first manifest in the fact th atth e thing appears to be an au tom aton endow ed with a determinatemotion. The t ransi t ion from 4 to 5 is possible because the thingpossesses in itself a reason for its increase. And it possesses thisreason because, as Marx said, it finds itself pregnant through thepresence inside i t of th e social relation . I t is theref ore th e imaginaryor i rra tional th at is th e reason for the increase of the th in g 5 Th eimaginary or irrational is thu s confirm ed in every sense of th e wordas th e reason for a nd of Wirklichkeit . T he mo de of presence of thesocial relation in t he thing enables th e tw o my steries t o beexplained: the mystery of the increase and the mystery of thepro du ction of a social relation by a mere thing. Th e thing-capital canthu s p roduce interest naturally and in a determin ate fashion (as landproduces rent). We can summ arize this motio n b y saying th at th ething has become an autonomous subject , something that Marxexpresses in th e co nc ep t of Versubjektivierung (subjectification).We are therefore dealing with a double motion: thematerial ization of th e social determina tions of production and th esubjectification of its material bases, of the things in which thesesocial determ ination s are represented an d concealed. Marx explainsthat this double motion was already perceptible in the simplestdetermination of the capital ist mode of production: thecomm odity-form of the labour prod uct .

Already implicit in the com m od ity, and even m ore so in th ecom m od ity as a produ ct of capital , is the material ization(Verdinglichung) of th e social determina tions of p roduction andth e personification (V ersubjektivierung) of th e materialfou nd ation s of pro duc tion, which characterize th e entirecapitalist mo de of p ro du ctio n (Vo l. 111, p.85 8).I t i s this double motion that const i tutes the second meaning,evoked ab ove, of th e co nce pt of Verkehrung, which I shall transla tehere as reversal (renv ersem ent). T h e result of this reversal is 'theen ch an ted , perverted, tops y-tu rvy wo rld' (Vol. 111, p.809).I believe that it is essential to distinguish between these twofunctions of the concept of Verkehrung, because only the first( inversion as a fun ct ion determined b y th e development of forms,

3 T cncp cqu

u wit te olutio. Ti cocept deigate te followig motiote traformatio of te ocial relatio ito a tig i equally atraformatio of te tig ito a ocial relatio Te tig i wic

te ocial relatio a diappeared a ierited te motio tat teocial relatio determie. Ti motio i preet i te tig a aatural faculty or occult quality Here we ave te precie adcomplete meaig of te cncement by wic Marx caracterizete mode of actio of te relatio of productio.

Te effect of ti mode of actio i firt maifet i te fact tatte tig appear to be a automato edowed wit a determiatemotio Te traitio from 4 to 5 i poible becaue te tigpoee i itelf a reao for it icreae Ad it poee ti

reao becaue, a Marx aid, it fid itelf pregat troug tepreece iide it of te ocial relatio. t i terefore te imagiaryor irratioal tat i te esn for te icreae of te tig Teimagiary or irratioal i tu cofirmed i every ee of te worda te reao for ad of Wkchket Te mode of preece of teocial relatio i te tig eable te two myterie to beexplaied te mytery of te icreae ad te mytery of teproductio of a ocial relatio by a mere tig Te tig-capital catu produce iteret aturally ad i a determiate faio (a lad

produce ret) We ca ummarize ti motio by ayig tat tetig a become a tnms sbject ometig tat Marxexpree i te cocept ofesbjektveng(ubectificatio)

We are terefore dealig wit a double motio tematerializatio of te ocial determiatio of productio ad teubjecticatio of it material bae, of te tig i wic teeocial determiatio are repreeted ad cocealed Marx explaitat ti double motio wa already perceptible i te impletdetermiatio of te capitalit mode of productio tecommodityform of te labour product

Already implicit i te commodity, ad eve more o i tecommodity a a product of capital, i te materializatio( edngchng) of te ocial determiatio of productio adte peroificatio ( esbjektveng) of te materialfoudatio of productio, wic caracterize te etirecaptalit mode of productio (Vol , p 858)

t i ti double motio tat cotitute te ecod meaig,evoked above, of te cocept of ekehng wic all tralateere a eves (envesement) Te reult of ti reveral i teecated, perverted, topyturvy world' (Vol , p809)

believe tat it i eetial to ditigui betwee tee twofuctio of te cocept of ekehng becaue oly te firt(iverio a a fucto determed by te developmet of form,


11/26

Jacques RanciL're 361

by the t ransi t ion from the Kerngestal t to the fertige Gestalt) iscapable of receiving a rigorous conceptual determination. Thesecond function fulfilled by the Verkehrung (double motion ofmaterialization of social relations and subjectification of materialsupports) is the one surrounded by a w hole anthropological halo,marked by an unreflected an d uncriticized reference t o an earlierconceptual domain.We must here examine closely the relation between this imageof reversal as a characteristic of the Verausserlichung of therelations of capital and the classical image of alienation as it isexpressed in th e M anuscripts. All th e term s of the m otio ndescribed here by M arx seem t o find their equivalents in th eManuscripts. The structure here constituted by the pair ofsynonyms Entfremdung/Verausserlichung and the concept ofVerkehrung corresponds in th e Manuscr ipts t o the structureconstituted by th e couple Entfremdung/Entausserung and the sameco ncep t of Ve rkeh rung ( this reversal designates, in th eanthropological critique, the ne plus ultra of the process ofalienation by which the subject becomes the object of i ts objectand at th e same t ime the speculative procedure th at confirms th eseparation and the reversal) . On the other hand, here, as in theManuscripts, the reversal is si tuated on the terrain of apersonlthing relation. Hence the necessity to specify thesignificance of the concepts in play here. Let us first consider them otio n of materialization (Versachlichun g o r Verdinglichung).What passes into th e thing is not t he essence of a subjectivity bu t arelation. In the Verausserlichung it is no t a subject which isseparated from itself, whose predicates pass in to an alien entity . I tis a form which b ecomes al ien to the relat ion th at i t supp orts and,in becoming alien to i t , becomes a thing and leads t o thematerialization of t h e relation. This defin ition of V erausserlichungapplies equally to Entfremdung.What is lost in fetishism is the s tructural implication t ha t foun dsth e distance of t he thing f rom itself , a distance w hich is preciselyth e site a t which th e econo mic relations are in play. This distanceis supp ressed in fetishis m , b u t it is arguable tha t it was suppressedjust as much in the 1844 Manuscripts, where the thing was seendirectly as the object of a subjectivity. I t was the suppression ofthis distance, of this special dimen sion of th e thing m anifesting th egrip of th e structure, th at m ade possible the amphibology o fobject a nd pro du ct. Th us the Versachlichung of the relations ofcapital cannot be understood as an objectif ication of thepredicates of a subject, except by suppressing the specificdimension in which capital determine s econom ic relations.As fo r subjectif ication, w e can see tha t i t is no m ore th e reversal

Jaqs a 36

by th tritio from th Kgs to th g Gs ipbl o rvg rgorou optul dtrmto o ftio flfill by th ug (obl motio of

mtrlzto o ol rlto d ubtto o mtrlpport i th o rro by whol thropologil hlomrkd by urltd d u rtzd rr to rlroptul dom.

W mut hr xm loly th rltio btw th mgof rvrl hrtriti of th ussug of thrlto o ptl d t ll mg o lto t xprd th Muss All th trm o th motiodrbd hr by Mrx m to fd tr quvlt th

Muss Th trutur hr ottutd by th pr oyoym Emdugussug th opt okug orrpo i th Muss to th trutrottutd by th oupl EmdugEussugd th mopt o kug (th rvrl dgt, ththropologl ritq th us u of th pro olitio by whih th ubt bom th obt o it obt t t m tim t pultv produr tht orm thprtio th rvrl O th othr h hr i thMuss th rvrl tutd o t trr o pro/thig rltio H th ity to piy thigifi of th opt i ply hr Lt firt oir thmoto o mtrlzto (sug or Vdgug)Wht p ito th thig i ot th of ubtivity bt rlto I t Vussug it ot ubt w prtd rom itlf who prit p ito li tity t orm wh bom l to t rlto tht t upport di bomg l to it bom thig d ld to thmtrilizto of th rltio Thi fiitio o ussugppli ully to Emdug.

Wt lot i ftm i t ruturl implto tt fouth dit of t thig rom itl dit whi i prilyt it t wi t oom rlto r ply Th t upprd tm but t rgubl tt t w upprdt muh i th 1844 Muss whr th tig w drtly t obt o ubtvty t w t uppro o

thi dit of thi pil dimio o th thig miftig thgrp o t trutur tt m pobl th mpbology oo d odu Thu th sug of th rltio opitl ot b udrtood obtito o thprit o ubt, xpt by upprg t piidmo w ptl dtrmi oom rto

A or suo, w tt t o mor t rvrl


12/26


of th e predicate of a substantial subject int o a subject. What Marxdesignates as the subjectification of the thing is the acquisition byth e thing of the function of m oto r of th e process. In th e process,th is funct ion does not belong t o a subject or to th e reciprocalaction of a subject an d an o bject, b ut t o th e relations ofprodu ction which are radically removed from th e space of subjectand object in which they can only find supports. The propertiesreceived by th e thing are no t the attr ibu tes of a subject b ut themo tive pow er of th e relations of p rod uctio n. It is insofar as th ething inherits the motion that i t presents i tself as a subject. Thecon cep t of a subjec t designates a func tio n which has its place in anillusory m otio n.

I can conclude from this that if , in a theoretical f ield l ike thatof th e M anuscripts, t h e conce pts of subjectif ication, materializa-tion and reversal ade quately express a certain conceptual conten t,in the theoretical f ield of C apital , th ey only designate a differentconce ptual c on tent. In C apital their register is no longer th at of aconceptual adequat ion to their objects , b u t rather that of analogy.Th at is how t he term s materialization, subjectif ication and reversalmask what everything hinges on: the funct ion of motor of theprocess and th e peculiar effectivity of th e relations ofp r o d ~ c t i o n . ~Let m e br ief ly express the difference between the tw o motions.In the M anuscripts t h e su bject ( the wo rker) invests an object withhis essence. This object increases the power of the alien entity(Capital), wh ich poses itself as sub ject in th e mo vem ent of reversaland reduces the w orker t o being the object of his object .In Capital the Verausserlichung lies in the fact tha t through the ,Begriffslosigkeit of th e fo rm , the relation sees its dete rm inatio nsreduced to material propert ies of th e thing (mater ial izat ion); th ething in which the relation has disappeared then presents i tself asan automaton-subject (subjectif ication). The worker and thecapitalist d o no t intervene in this m otion. T hu s the worker appearshere as a support of the wage-labour relation of production andn ot as the primordial sub ject of the process. T he mechanism ofEntfremdung does not concern him.We can therefore easily define two different structures. ButMarx tends constant ly t o confuse them , to think t h e Entfremdungof the relations of capital according t o the m odel of the alienationof the substantial subject, to think the Verkehmng-inversion as aVerkehrung-reversal.I should l ike t o take an example of this slide f rom C hapter 2 ofVolume Three which deals with the quest ion of the t rans-fo rm atio n of surplus value in to profit. We have seen th at profit is aphenomenal formlform of concealment of surplus value in which

2 T op o 't q

of e predice of ubil ubjec io ubjec. W Mrxdeige e ubjecficio of e ig i e cquiio bye ig of e unn of e proce. e proce,

i fucio doe o belog o ubjec or o e reciproclcio of ubjec d objec, bu o e n un wic re rdiclly removed from e pce of ubjecd objec i wic ey c oly fid u Te properiereceived by e ig re o e ribue of ubjec bu emoive power of e relio of producio. i iofr eig ieri e moio i pree ielf ubjec. Tecocep of ubjec deige fucio wic i plce i illuory moio.

c coclude from i if, i eoreicl field like of e Mnu, e cocep of ubjecificio, merilizio d reverl dequely expre ceri cocepul coe,i e eoreicl field of , ey oly gn differecocepul coe. eir regier i o loger of cocepul dequio o eir objec, bu rer ofngyT i ow e erm merilizio, ubjecificio d reverlmk w everyig ige o e fucio of moor of eproce d e peculir effeciviy of e relio of

producio.Le me briefly expre e differece bewee e wo moio

e Mnu e ubjec (e worker) ive objec wii eece. Ti objec icree e powe of e lie eiy(pil), wic poe ielf ubjec i e moveme of reverld reduce e worker o beig e objec of i objec.

e uhung lie e fc roug eBggk of e form, e relio ee i deermiioreduced o meril properie of e ig (merilizio); eig i wic e relio dippered e pree ielf uomoubjec (ubjecificio). Te worker d ecpili do o iervee i i moio Tu e worker pperere uppor of e wge-lbour relio of producio do e primordil ubjec of e proce Te mecim ofEnungdoe o cocer im.

We c erefore eily defie wo differe rucure. BuMrx ed coly o cofue em, o ik e Enung

of e relio of cpil ccordig o e model of e lieioof e ubil ubjec, o ik e khng-iverio khung

ould like o ke exmple of i lide from per 2 ofVolume Tree wic del wi e queio of e rformio of urplu vlue io profi. We ve ee profi i peomel form/form of cocelme of urplu vlue i wic


13/26


the determination of value by labour time and of surplus value bysurplus labour has disappeared, a form characterized by theinversion of the real motion of capitalist production. Now in thistext we shall see how this inversion reverts to the anthropologicalimage of the reversal and likewise how the first and second modelsof Entfremdung are confused in that indeterminacy which ischaracteristic of anthropological discourse.

The way in which surplus value is transformed into the form ofprofit by way of the rate of profit is, however, a furtherdevelopment of the inversion of subject and object that takesplace already in the process of production. In the latter, wehave seen, the subjective productive forces of labour appear asproductive forces of capital. On the one hand, the value, or thepast labour, which dominates living labour, is personified in thecapitalist. On the other hand, the labourer appears as barematerial labour-power, as a commodity (Vol.111, p.45).We are confronted with the following motion:

dead labour living labour.L 4,personification in bare material ofthe capitalist labour power: commodityThe scheme used here is the classical anthropological scheme:thing (object) person (subject)

\1person (subject) .Lthing (object)The development of the forms of the process of capitalistproduction, with the inversion which is characteristic of it, is thedevelopment of this initial subjectlobject reversal. If this scheme is

consistent, my whole proof has been destroyed. But in reality it isnot consistent. In fact what corresponds to the transformation ofliving labour into a commodity is the transformation of pastlabour into capital and not into the capitalist.Personification, in the strict sense that this concept receives inCapital, is something quite different. It designates the function ofthe subject as a support for the relation of production. As we haveseen, the relation of production determines on the one hand asubject function and on the other an object function. It is thisrelation of production which carries out the Darstellung of theobject and equally what I shall call, borrowing a term fromJacques Lacan, the staging or mise en sckne of the ~ u b j e c t . ~eknow that this excludes the subjectlobject couple functioning asthe motor of the process, or the motion of the process being themotion of the reciprocity of this couple. The rigorous function of

acq Ranc

t dtmati vau by labu tim ad suplus valu bysurplus labur has disappad a m haratizd by thnveon t ral mti apitalist pduti. Nw i tis

txt w shall s hw this ivrsi rvts t th athplgialimag t vsal ad likwis w t ist ad sd mdls Enemung a usd i that idtmiay whih isharatristi athrplgial disus.

T way i wi suplus valu is tasrmd it t m pit by way t at prit is hwvr, a urthdvlpmt t ivrsi subjt ad bjt tat takspla alady i th prss pduti. I t lattr w

av s t subjtiv pdutiv rs labu appa aspdutiv rs apital. O t ad th valu thpast labu wih dmiats livig labur is psiid i tapitalist O t t ad, t laburr appars as bamatrial labupw, as a mmdity Vl. p.4).

W ar td with th llwig mti:

dad labu livig labu

psiiati ba matrial th apitalist labur pwr mmdityT sm usd hr is t lassial atrplgial sm:

tig bjt) prs subjt)

prs subjt) thig bjt)

Th dvlpmt th ms th pss apitalistpduti with t ivsi wi is aratristi it is tdvlpmt tis iitial subjt/bjt vsal. tis sm is

sistt, my wl p has b dstyd But i ality it ist sistt at what rspds t t tasrmati livig labu it a mmdity is th trasmati pastlabur it cad t it t apitalist

Peoncn i th stit ss that this pt ivs i, is smtig quit dift. t dsigats t uti t subjt as a supprt t lati pduti. As w avs t lati prduti dtmis t ad asubjt uti ad t tr a bjt uti. It is tis

lati pduti wi ais ut t Dseung tbjt ad qually what shall all bwig a trm rmJaqus Laa, t stagig me en scne t subjt. Wkw tat thi xluds th subjt/bjt upl utiig asth mt th pss, th mti th prss big thmti th ripity tis upl. Th rigrus uti


14/26


personification as it is at work in Capital completely invalidatesMarx's use of this conc ept here.If we reconsider ou r scheme, we shall have:past labo ur living labour\1capital \1labour power

4capitalist Lworker(suppo rt of the relation (suppo rt of th e relationof production capital) of production wage labour)Labour power is now confron ted by capital and n ot b y a person(the capitalist). And in the same way the capitalist is confrontedwith another subject, the worker and not by a thing. Thesubjectlobject inversion no longer has any place here.That is, anthropology has no place in Capital except the onekept for it by relapses in Marx's discourse. Where Marx fails tolocate his concepts the latter arrange themselves aroundanthropo logical reference points. Where th e rigour o f his discourseslackens we see an anthropological model emerge. Such slidesnecessarily occur insofar as Marx does not rigorously criticize hisvocabulary. T he words which express th e new co ncepts introducedby Capital are in many cases the same as those which expressedthe anthropological conc epts of the y oun g Marx.It is necessary to insist on this distinction: we really areconcerned with different concepts. For example, in Capital wefind a concept of Verkehrung and a concept of Ent f remdungwhich are new concep ts in relation t o the Manuscripts, conceptswhich have a different content. But the same words express theanthropological concepts (which I shall call concepts I) and theconcepts of Capital (conc ep ts 11).

It is interesting t o emphasize tha t in bo th cases th e concep ts ofVerkehrung and Ent f remdung have a relational function. Theydesignate the relations between terms within a certain theoreticalspace. In theo retical space I th e terms brou ght in to relation by t h econcepts of Verkehrung and Entfremdung are those of subject,predicate, object, person, thing, empirie, speculation, etc. . . . Intheoretical space I1 these terms are simple form and complexform , relation and form , etc. . . .Th e tw o theoretical spaces have different properties. It followsthat relations of type I cannot be homologous with those of type11. Rigour therefore requires that the words in which theserelational concepts are expressed should likewise be different. AsMarx does no t me et th is demand f or rigour, th e first form (figure)always threatens to insinuate itself where it no longer has anyplace. The slide takes place in two stages: establishment of a

4 Th concpt of 'criqu

persofcao as s a work apitacompleely valdaesMarxs use of s cocep ere

If we recosder our sceme we sall ave

pas labour lvg labourt

capal labour power

capals worker(suppor of e relao (suppor of e relaoof produco apita) of produco wage aour)

Labour power s ow cofroed by capal ad o by a perso(e capals) Ad e same way e capals s cofroed

w aoer subjec e worker ad o by a g Tesubjec/objec verso o loger as ay place ere.

Ta s aropology as o place apita excep e oekep for by relapses Marx's dscourse Were Marx fals olocae s coceps e laer arrage emselves aroudaropologcal referece pos. Were e rgour of s dscourseslackes we see a aropologcal model emerge Suc sldesecessarly occur sofar as Marx does o rgorously crce svocabulary. Te words wc express e ew coceps roduced

by apita are may cases e same as ose wc expressede aropologcal coceps of e youg MarxI s ecessary o ss o s dsco we reay are

cocered w dffere onepts For example apita wefd a cocep of erkehrung ad a cocep of Enremdungwc are ew coceps relao o e Manusripts cocepswc ave a dffere coe Bu e same words express earopologcal coceps (wc I sall call coceps I) ad ecoceps ofapita(coceps 11).

I s eresg o empase a bo cases e coceps oferkehrung ad Entremdung ave a relaoal fuco Teydesgae e relaos bewee erms w a cera eorecalspace. I eorecal spe I e erms broug o relao by ecoceps of erkehrung ad Entremung are ose of subjecpredcae objec perso g empre speculao ec Ieorecal space II ese erms are smple form ad complexform relao ad form ec . . .

Te wo eorecal spaces ave dffre properes I follows

a relaos of ype I cao be omologous w ose of ypeII Rgour erefore requres a e words wc eserelaoa coceps are expressed sould lkewse be dffere AsMarx does o mee s demad for rgour e frs form igure)always reaes o suae self were o loger as ayplace e slde akes place wo sages: esablsme of a


15/26

Jacques Rancit 're 365

homology between relations of type I and relation of type 11, andreconsti tution thereby of theoretical space I in which an attemptis m ade t o insert theo retical space 11. Now in this at te m p t adistor tion is revealed w hich bears witness t o th e resistance of space11. I t is this distort ion tha t p rodu ces fo r instance th e inconsistencyof th e schem e we have just studied.We find d istortion s of th e sam e kind alm ost every tim e Marxuses schem ata borrow ed fr om the anthropological cri tique. T hetexts which take up the old scheme of the cri t ique of rel igiousalienation are particularly significant here. Whenever Marxemphasizes an analogy between th e process he is studying and t ha tof religious alienation (e.g., in th e first c hap ter of Capital), analysisshows tha t th e analogy is no t abso lutely r igorous.Another notable dis tort ion is presented by the formula oftenused by Marx to characterize fet ishism: relat ions between menbecome relations between things, a formula in which the twocom plem ents surrepti tiously take t h e place of subjects.The deeper reason for these sl ides remains to be seen. I haveargued th at Marx did no t carry ou t a critique of his vocabulary.Th is absen ce of a critique is n o t simply negligence. If Marx did n o tdee m it necessary t o establish terminological differences it isbecause he never rigorously thought the difference between hisdiscourse and the anthropological discourse of the Young Marx.We can d eterm ine in Marx's theoretical practice th e break th atMarx only affirmed, we can formulate the radical differencebetween the two problematics, but Marx himself never reallygrasped and conceptualized this difference.C. Displacement of the origin and transgression of the limitAn examinat ion of wh at happens t o the origin (Ursprung), th elimit (Grenz) and the result of this process will show us thecom pletion of i ts fet ishized fo rm .Th e origin in question is n o t a temp oral origin b u t th e origin ofth e capitalist process as such.

As the process of capitalist production is the process of theself-expansion of th e value of capital, th e origin th at concerns us isthe origin of surplus value: surplus labou r.This origin is n ot revealed in th e co ncre te form s of th e capitalistprocess. What is given are the results of this process, that is thefractions in to which the to tal surplus value is broke n do w n: pr ofi t ,interest and rent . A study of the grounds for compensat ing hasshown us th at the se fractions expressing th e distribution of surplusvalue present themselves as its con stitutive elemen ts.It is this appearance that constitutes the basis for vulgar

Jaq Ran 36

omolog bewee relaio o pe I ad relaio o pe II, adreotitutio tereby o teoretial pae I i wi a attempti made o e eoreial pae II Now i aemp a

dn i revealed wi bear wite to te reitae o paeII It i diorto at produe or iae te oeo te eme we ave ut tudied.

We d dorio o te ame kid almo ever ime Marxue emata borrowed rom te atropologial ritique. Tetext wi take up te old eme o te ritique o religioualieaio are pariularl iiia ere. Weever Marxempaie a aaloy betwee te proe e i tudyig ad tato religiou alieaio (e.g., i te irt aper op) aali

ow tat te aaloy i ot abolutely rigorou.Aoer oable dioro preeed b e ormula oeued by Marx to araterie etiim: relato betwee mebeome relaio betwee g, a ormula i wi e woomplemet urreptitiouly take te plae o ubjet

Te deeper reao o ee lide remai to be ee I aveargued a Marx dd o arr ou a rtique o i voabula.Ti abee o a riique i o impl eglgee. I Marx did odeem i eear o eabli ermiologial dieree i i

beaue e ever rigorouly tougt te dieree betwee idioure ad e aropologial dioure o te Youg Marx.We a deemne i Marx teoretial praie e break tatMarx ol ffmed, we a ormulae e radial diereebetwee te two problemati, but Marx imel ever reallygraped ad oepualied i dieree.

c. Displacemen t of the origin and transgression of the imit

A examatio o wat appe o te origi Upung), telimit en) ad te reul o ti proe will ow u teompleio o i eiied orm.

Te gn i quetio i o a temporal origi but te origi ote apitalit proe a u.

A te proe o apitalit produtio i te proe o teel-expaio o te value o apial e org a oer u ite origi o urplu value: urplu labour

Ti origi i o revealed i e oree orm o e apialiproe. Wat i give are te reult o t proe, tat teratio ito wi e toal urplu value i broke dow: proi,iteret ad ret. A tudy o te groud or ompeatig aow u ta ee ratio expreig e diribuio o urpluvalue preet temelve a it cnue eemen

I i i appearae tat oitue te bai or vulgar


16/26

366 T h e concept of 'crit ique'

economics, which finds its systematic origin in the theory of thethree sources of th e exoteric Adam Sm ith. Adam Smith's project isto make wages, profi t and rent, elements result ing from thebreak-down of the value produced in a determinate period, thecon stitutive elements of this value.8Adam Smith's operation can be divided into two stages. First,wages, profit and ren t are detach ed f ro m the ir origin (to ta l sociallabou r time realised in the v alue wh ose break-dow n the y represen t).They are then autonom ized and present thesmelves as form sindifferent to on e a no ther. It is therefore necessary t o find an originof i ts own for each o ne of these elements which have lost the formaldetermination conferred o n the m by their place in the process. Thetheo ry of the three sources does this when i t makes labour the originof wages, land th e origin of re nt a nd cap ital th e origin of pro fit.The three sources thu s ta ke th e place of th e misrecognized origin.The opposi t ion Ursprung/Quelle is not f ou nd in Marx by accident. Itmarks the transition from a process of socially determinedprodu ction t o a sort of natural process. Th e displacement from theorigin t o the source is com plementary to th e Versachlichung, o t h etransformation of the social relations of production into thingsdefined by material properties. It co mp letes the naturalization ofth e process.Th is disappearance of t h e origin is simultaneously a disappearanceof the limit. We kn ow th at this limit is determin ed by th e origin ofvalue (lab our tim e) an d of surplus value (surplus labour ). It is thetotal q uan ti ty of exp loited surplus labour which d etermines thelimits of surplus value. In this way the law of value acts as aregulatory law which specifies the limits within which thedistribution of surplus value into pro fi t , interest and rent can takeplace. All t he illusions engendered by a theo ry of th ree sources, eachnaturally producing a revenue, are thus shattered. A qualitativeconcep tual l imit determines the total q ua nti ty of value and surplusvalue produ ced.On the contrary, if capital naturally produces profit, if itfun ction s as an au tom ato n, every qualitative l imit is suppressed andthe production of profi t appears to follow the pure laws of ageometric progression. Hence the ingenious discovery by whichPrice thought he was able to resolve all the problems of statetreasuries:

Mo ney bearing c om pou nd interest increases a t first slowly. Butth e ra te of increase being co ntinually accelerated, it becom es insom e time so rapid, as t o mock all the powers of theimagination . . .A shilling pu t o u t t o 6%compou nd interest a t ou rSaviour's birth . . .would . . .have increased t o a greater sum tha nthe whole solar system could h old, suppo sing it a sphere equal in

3 onp o q

oo w f t ytat org t tory of ttr our of t xotr Aa t. Aa t prot to ak wag proft a rt t rutg fro t

brkow of t vau prou a trat pro tottutv t of t vau.8Aa t oprato a v to two tag Frt

wag proft a rt ar ta fro tr org (tota oaaour t rad t vau wo rakow ty rprt.y ar t autoo ad prt tv a fordffrt to o aotr. t trfor ary to f a orof t ow for a o of t t w av ot t foratrato ofrr o t y tr pa t pro.

tory of t tr our o t w t ak aour t orgof wag a t org of rt a apta t org of proft tr our tu tak t pa of t rogd or

oppoto rruQu ot fou Marx y at. tark t trato fro a pro of oay dtrproduto to a ort of atura pro. pat fro torg to t our optary to t Vrhhu to ttraforato of t oa rato of prouto to tgfd y atra proprt. t opt t aturaato of

t pro appara of t org utaouy a apparaof t t. W kow tat t t tr y t org ofvau (aour t a of urpu vau (urpu aour. t ttota quatty of xpotd urpu aour w tr tt of urpu vau. I t way t aw of vau at a arguatory aw w pf t t wt w tdtruto of urpu vau to proft trt a rt a takpa. A t uo gr y a tory of tr our a

aturay produg a rvu ar tu attr. A quatatvoptua t tr t tota quatty of vau a urpuvau prou.

O t otrary f apta aturay produ proft f tfuto a a autoato vry quatatv t upprd adt prouto of proft appar to foow t pur aw of agotr progro H t gou dovry y wr tougt wa a to rov a t pro of tattraur:

Moy arg o poud trt ra at frt owy. Butt rat of ra g otuay aratd t o o t o rapd a to ok a t powr of tagato . . A g put out to 6% opoud trt at ourSavour' rt . . . woud . . av rad to a gratr u tat wo oar yt oud od uppog t a pr qua


17/26

Jacques Ranci6re 367

diameter to th e diameter of Saturn's orbit . . .A stat e need nevertherefo re be und er any difficulties; for w ith th e sm allest savings itm ay in as little tim e as its interest can requ ire pay off t h e largestde bt s (cit. Vol.111, p p.3 86 -7) .Here we see the form (figure) of the capital ist au tom ato n at itsm ost ex trem e. T he illusion of geom etric increase is possible becauseth e qualitative limits o n t h e expansion of the value of capital havebeen misrecognized.T h e iden tity of surplus value and surplus labo ur imposes aqualitative limit upon the accumu lation of capital. This consistsof the to tal working day, and th e prevailing develop men t of th eproductive forces and of the p opulation, which l imits the num berof simu ltaneou sly exploitable working-days. But if on e conceivesof surplus value in the a-con ceptual form of interest, the limit isme rely q ua ntita tive and d efies all fan tasy (Vol.111, p.390 ).The obl i terat ion of origin and l imit thus put the cap on thefetishized form (figure) of the process, the form (figure) behindwh ich the econo mic relations are given t o the perception of theagents of prod uctio n:Th e concept of capital as a fetish reaches its height ininterest-bearing capital, being a conce ption which attrib ute s t oth e accumulated p roduct of labou r, and at tha t in the fixed formof mo ney, the inherent secret power (Kraft), as an auto m aton , ofcrea ting surp lus value in geom etrica l progression (Vol.111, p.390 ).

4. Th e Enchan ted WorldI have described th e con stitution of on e of th e three couples of th etrinity formula. I can draw two impo rtant conclusions from thisanalysis :1) The process of this consti tution introduces quite a differentst ructure from the subject/predicate/object structure of theManuscripts.2 ) Th e form s th at fet ishism presents are not form s deform ed byspeculation. Th ey are th e very fo rm s in which th e capitalist processexists fo r the agents of p rod uction .

In th e same measure as th e fo rm of p rofit hides its inner co re,capital m ore an d m or e acquires a material form , is transfo rm edmo re and mo re from a relationship in to a thing, bu t a thing whichem bo dies, which has abs orb ed, th e social relationship, a thing

Jaqu Ran 3

dameter to the dameter o Satur' orbt . . tate eed everthereore be uder ay dulte or wth the mallet avg tmay a ttle tme a t teret a requre pay o the largetdebt (t Vol., pp.3 86)

Here we ee the orm gue) o the aptalt uomon at tmot extreme The luo o geometr reae poble beauethe qualtatve lmt o the expao o the value o aptal havebee mreoged

The detty o urplu value ad urplu labour mpoe aqualtatve lmt upo the aumulato o aptalTh oto the o wokng ad the prevalg developmet o the

produtve ore ad o he populato, whh lmt the umbero multaeouly explotable workgday But oe oeveo urplu value the aoeptual orm o teret, the lmt merely quattatve ad dee all atay (V01, p3 9

The oblterato o org ad lmt thu put the ap o theethzed orm gue) o the proe the orm gue) behdwhh the eoom relato are gve to the perepto o theaget o produto

The oept o aptal a eth reahe t heght teretbearg aptal, beg a oepto whh attrbute tothe aumulated produt o labour, ad at that the xed ormo moey, the heret eret power (K) a a automato, oreatg urplu value geometral progreo (Vol, p39)

4. The Enchanted World

have derbed the ottuto o oe o the three ouple o thetrty ormula a draw two mportat oluo rom thaaly1 The proe o th ottuto trodue qute a derettruture rom the ubjetpredateobet truture o theMnuc2 The orm that ethm preet are ot orm deormed bypeulato They are the very orm whh the aptalt proe

ext or the aget o produto.

the ame meaure a the orm o prot hde t er ore,aptal more ad more aqure a materal orm, traormedmore ad more rom a relatohp to a thg but a thg whhembode, whh ha aborbed, the oal relatohp, a thg


18/26


which has acquired a fictitious life and inde pen den t existence inrelation t o itself, a sensuous-supersensuous en tity ; n this form ofcapital and profit it app ears superficially as a ready-madeprecondit ion. I t is the for m of its reality, o r ra th er its real for m ofexistence. A nd it is th e fo rm in which it exists in th e consciousnessand is reflected in th e conce ptions of its sup po rts , th e capitalists(TSV Pt . 3 , p.483-my emphasis)Here we re turn to ou r s tart ing-poin t , namely , the fa c t tha t th erelations which determ ine th e capitalist system can on ly exist in th eform of their conc ealm ent. Th e form of their reality is the fo rm inwhich th eir real mo tio n disappears.The analysis of fetishism confirms that the mystification is amystification of th e struc ture , th at i t is i ts very existence. T he'enchanted world' of fetishism 'in which Monsieur le Capital andMadame la Terre do their ghost-walking as social characters and atth e sam e tim e directly as me re things' (Vol.111, p.80 9), is thus th eperfect form of this connection of effects determined by th e absenceof th e cause. This absence of th e cause is reflected by M arx as a meredistance. It is l inked to the disappearance of mediations,obliviousness t o t h e inner determ inations of th e process.But this obliviousness is also constitu tive since we are no long erconcerned w ith th e develop me nt of a consciousness endow ed withth e Hegelian fac ulty of Erinneru ng.Therefore, beyond the inadequate images of distance andobliviousness , we are led back to the found ation, th at is t o th e factthat the phenomenal forms of the process are determined bysom ething which absolutely can no t be represented in th e field ofWirklichkeit w ith ou t being concealed there, nam ely th e relations ofpro du ction , relations which bear-that is, d o n o t bear-witness t o

th e process of form ation , the Entstehungsprozess of a determ inatemo de of production: the capital is t mo de of production.Fetishism thu s represents n ot an anthropological process b u t th especific dislocation according to w hich th e stru ctur e of th e capitalistmode of production presents itself in the field of Wirklichkeit, ofAlltagsleben (everyday life), and offers itself to the consciousnessand action of the agents of production, the supports of capitalistrelations of produc tion.It is on this basis th at th e form s of fetishism are elaborated an dsystematized in a special discourse, th a t of vulgar econom ics.'Vulgar economy actually does no more than interpret ,systematize and defe nd in doctrinaire fashion the conce ptions of th eagents of bourgeois production who are entrapped in bourgeoispro du ctio n relatio ns' (Vol.111, p.7 97 ).Starting from the forms of Wirklichkeit, of Alltaglseben, vulgar

36 T concp o cqu

wc a acqurd a fcttou lf ad dpdt xtc rlato to tlf, a uouupruou tty j t form ofc n r t appar uprfcally a a radymadprcodto. I h rm r r hr r rm n Ad t t form wc t xt t cocouad rctd t cocpto of t upport, t captalt(TSV t3 , p483my mpa)

Hr w rtur to our tartgpot, amly, t fact tat trlato wc dtrm t captalt ytm ca oly xt tform of tr cocalmt. T form of tr ralty t form wc tr ral moto dappar

T aaly of ftm cofrm tat t mytfcato amtfcato of t tructur, tat t t vr xtc. Tcatd world of ftm wc Mour aptal adMadam la Trr do tr got-walkg a ocal caractr ad att am tm drctly a mr tg' (Vol. , p80), tu tprfct form of t cocto of ffct dtrmd y t acoft cau. T ac of t cau rflctd y Marx a a mrdtac. It lkd to t dapparac of mdato,ovou to t r dtrmato of t proc

But t olvou alo cottutv c w ar o logrcocrd wt t dvlopmt of a cocou dowd wtt Hgla faculty ofErnnrung

Trfor, yod t adquat mag of dtac adolvou, w ar ld ack to t foudato, tat to t facttat t pomal form of t proc ar dtrmd yomtg wc aolutly caot rprtd t fld ofWrklckt wtout g cocald tr, amly t rlato ofproducto, rlato wc artat , o ot arwt to

t proc of formato, t Enhungsrs of a dtrmatmod of producto t captalt mod of producto.Ftm tu rprt ot a atropologcal proc ut t

pcfc dlocato accordg to wc t tructur of t captaltmod of producto prt tlf t fld ofWrkchk ofAgsbn (vryday lf), ad offr tlf to t cocouad acto of t agt of producto, t upport of captaltrlato of producto

It o t a tat t form of ftm ar laoratd ad

tmatzd a pcal dcour, tat of vulgar coomc.Vulgar coomy actuall do o mor ta trprttmatz ad dfd doctrar fao t cocpto of tagt of ourgo producto wo ar trappd ourgoproducto rlato (VolI, p 77).

Startg from t form of Wrkchk ofAgsbn vulgar


19/26


economics systematizes them in the three couples of the tr inityform ula, the alienated and irrational form s in which m ere things (th ematerial elemen ts of capital, land) engend er social relations (surplusvalue, ren t). These incom men surable relations represent the rationalkernel of the system for vulgar economics.

As soon as th e vulgar econo m ist arrives at this incom men surablerelation , everything becom es clear to him , and he no longer feelsth e need for fu rthe r thoug ht. For he has arrived precisely at th e'ratio na l' in bourgeois c on ceptio n (Vol.111, pp .79 7-8 ).Fro m th e po int we have now reached I can tr y t o characterize allth e typ es of discourse th at we have encou ntered.T he starting-point which is given t o perception is th e ' fixed formsof wealth', th e form s of Wirkl ichkei t which are th e business of th eagents of prod uction.T he vulgar econo mist is co nte nt t o systematize these forms, t ogive their rational kernel, i.e., precisely the imaginary or irrational.His discourse is a reflection of th e app aren t motion and a negation ofth e inne r essence and real motion of th e process.Classical economics proposes to dissolve these fixed forms, torestore them their essential inner unity. T hus for exam ple, i t reducesren t t o surplus prof i t. But i t can not carry ou t i ts project because i tdoes no t understand these forms as p h e n o m en a l f o r m s of the inneressence of the process. I t thus affirms the inner essence by thedogm atic negation of appearances and can only exorcize the form sof fetishism w itho ut understanding the m .Marx's the ory , on the co ntrary, understands these al ienated andimaginary form s as th e phenomenal form s of th e inner essence of the

process. I t can con stitute simultaneously th e theory of the processand th e th eo ry of i ts misrecognition.Here we can return to a fourth discourse: that of the 1844Manuscr ip ts . This discourse also has as its starting-point the'alienated and imaginary forms' t ha t I have just exam ined. Th e FirstManuscr ipt star ts f rom the three sources; and the Young Marxrejec ts the Ricardian bre ak do w n as abstract . Th us, he w rites in hisnotes on Ricardo:Political ec on om y, in o rder t o give its laws a greater consistencyand d etermina cy, has t o posit reality ( Wirk l i c hk e i t ) as accidentaland abs traction as real.9The discourse of the Manuscr ip ts is therefore a discourse whichstar ts f rom the al ienated and irrational form s and at te m pts t oconfine i tself t o th e level of Wirk l i c hk e i t .This m eans that for i t these

Jaqs Ran 369

coomic ytmati tm i t tr coupl of triityformua aatd ad raoal form i wc mr g matial lmt of capial lad d ocial rlatio urpu

valu r). T icommura rlatio rprt ratioal of t ym fo vua coomic

oo a vla coomit aiv at ti icommuabllao vryg bcom ca o m ad o logr flt d fo fu tout. o a aivd pciy at traoal' bougo cocpo (o.III pp 9-8).

rom po w av ow rcd I ca o caracrz at yp of dicou tat w av coutrd

T argpo wc gv o prcpo xd ormof wa' t form of Wrkchket wic ar t bu of tag o produco

T var coomt i cot o ymati t form togv r raoal krl, . prcly magnary or atonaH dicour a rflctio of appart moto ad a aio of r c ad ral moo of proc

laca coomic propo o diov t fixd form toror m r al r uy Tu for xampl rducr to urpu profit. But it caot carry ou it projct bcau ido o udrad orm aphenomena forms o rc of proc. t tu afirm t r c by domac aio o apparac ad ca oly xorc t ormo m wou udradg m

Marx ory, o corary udrad aliad admagar orm a pomal form o t r c of

proc. ca cotitut imultaouly tory of t procad ory o mrcogo.Hr w ca rur to a fourt dicour: tat of t 1844

Manuscrpts T dicour ao a a t artgpoit talad ad maga orm' a I av ju xamd. T rMaucrip ar from r ourc ad You Marxrjc Rcarda brak-dow aabstract Tu wr io o Ricardo:

olcal coomy, ordr o giv it aw a grar coicyad drmacy a o po raly Wrkchket a accdaad abtractio a ral9

T dcour o Manuscrpts ror a dcour wctar from t alatd ad rraoal form ad atmpt tocof l o lvl ofWrkchket Ti ma tat for it


20/26


irrational forms will be forms of unreason, of reason estranged,form s of m an beco me foreign t o himself .In oth er w ords, these aliena ted forms-and we have seen w ha tmea ning this term sho uld be given here-are for this discourse form sof alienation in the anthropological sense of the term .Thu s th e reduct ion of th e forms of wealth t o the determinat ion ofal ienated labour does not cons t i tute a t rue cr it ique of the form s ofeconomic Gegenstandlichkeit , but maintains the mere form of areversal in which determ inations of th e hum an subject and ofintersubjectivity are introduced everywhere in place of materialdeterm inations a nd relations between things (the most remarkableexample of this occuring in the amphibologies of wealth and ofcom merce). This discourse th us still remains captive t o the illustionsof Wirklichkeit,

I Remarks by way of conclusionI should like to close by raising a problem, the problem of thepossibility of th e disco urse of classical eco nom ics.Th ere is in fact o ne discourse w hose c ond itions of possibility areclearly defined: th at of vulgar economics. The prob lem is differentwhere classical economics is concerned. The latter is not basicallydepe nden t o n the conceptions of the agents of product ion. I t is onlydependent on them in i ts weaknesses (e.g. , in the exoteric AdamSmith) . How are we t o explain bo th the relative autonom y of th ediscourse of classical economics, an autonomy that enables i t todissipate the appearanc es of fetishism, and its essential limitedness,its inability to arrive at an understanding of the real motion ofcapitalist pro duc tion?

A fter praising th e dissolution carried o u t by classical econom ics,Marx states:Even the best spok esme n of classical eco nom y remain m ore o r lessin th e grip of the w orld of illusion which their criticism haddissolved, as cannot b e otherwise from a bourgeois stan dp oin t(Vol.111, p.809).How is this impossibili ty revealed? I can try to reflect on

the existence of two privileged points at which the misrecog-nition of the structure contained in the discourse of classicaleconomics is affirmed. There are two things that classicaleconomics does no t see.We have examined a t length the first po int, which concerns th emisrecognition of the value form. Here is how Marx poses the

30 T onp o ' qu'

nl fms wll be fms f unesn, f esn esnged,fms f mn becme fegn hmself

In he wds, hese aenated fmsnd we hve seen wh

menng hs em shuld be gven heee f hs dscuseormso aenaton n he nhplgcl sense f he emThus he educn f he fms f welh he deemnn f

lened lu des n cnsue ue cque f he fms fecnmc Geenstndchket u mnns he mee fm f evesl n whch deemnns f he humn sujec nd fnesujecvy e nduced eveywhee n plce f meldeemnns nd elns beween hngs (he ms emkbleexmple f hs ccung n he mphblges f welh nd f

cmmece Ths dscuse hus sll emns cpve he llusnsfWrkchket

II Remarks by way of conclusion

I shuld lke clse y sng plem, he plem f hepssly f he dscuse f clsscl ecnmcs

Thee s n fc ne dscuse whse cndns f pssly e

clely defned h f vulg ecnmcs The pblem s dffeenwhee clsscl ecnmcs s cncened The le s n scllydependen n he cncepns f he gens f pducn I s nlydependen n hem n s weknesses (eg, n he exec dmSmh Hw e we expln h he elve unmy f hedscuse f clsscl ecnmcs, n unmy h enbles dsspe he ppences f feshsm, nd s essenl lmedness,s nbly ve n undesndng f he el mn fcpls pducn?

fe psng he dsslun ced u by clsscl ecnmcs,Mx ses

Even he bes spkesmen f clsscl ecnmy emn me lessn he gp f he wld f llusn whch he ccsm hddsslved, s cnn e hewse fm uges sndpn(VlIII, p80

Hw s hs mpssbly eveled? I cn y eflec n

he exsence f w pvleged pns whch he msecgnn f he sucue cnned n he dscuse f clssclecnmcs s ffmed Thee e w hngs h clssclecnmcs des n see

We hve exmned lengh he fs pn, whch cncens hemsecgnn f he vlue fm Hee s hw Mx pses he


21/26

Jacaues Rancihre 371

necessity of this misrecogn ition in classical eco nom ics:It is one of th e chief failings of classical ec on om y th at it has neversucceede d, by means of its analysis of com m oditie s, an d, inparticular, of their value, in discovering th at for m und er whichvalue beco mes excklange-value. Even Adam Sm ith an d Ricardo,th e best representatives of th e schoo l, treat the form of value as athing of no impo rtance, as having no c onne ction with th e inherentnatu re of com mo dities. The reason for this is no t solely becausetheir at ten tio n is entirely absorbed in th e analysis of them agn itude of value. It lies deeper. T he value-form of th e pro du ctof labo ur is no t only th e m ost abstract, but is also th e m ostuniversal form , taken b y the p rod uc t in bourgeois prod uctio n,and s tam ps th at p rod uctio n as a particular species of socialpro du ctio n, and th ereb y gives it its special historical character. Ifthen we treat this mo de of prod uction as one eternally fixed byNa ture fo r every state of s ocie ty, we necessarily overlook th atwhich is th e differentia specifica of th e value for m , andconse quen tly of the com mo dity-form, and of i ts furth erdevelopments, m oney -form, capital-form, etc. (Vol.1, p80 n; T.1,p.83).What classical economics misrecognizes by allowing thevalue-form t o be classified as inessential is th e special historicalcharacter of the capitalist m ode of prod uctio n.The same is true in the analysis of the second point, whichconcerns the origin of surplus value. Practically all the errors ofSmith and Ricardo, all the false formulations that they give todifferent problems have this same consequence: to obscure theform ation of surplus value.Th ere is a distinc tion absent fro m the whole discourse of classicaleconomics, the distinction between variable

Documents

Ranciere - The Concept of 'Critique' and the 'Critique of Political Economy' (From the 1844 Manuscript to Capital)