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, 3741 Mortimer Street, London W1T 3JH, UK

Economy and Society

Publication 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 the 1844 Manuscript to Capital)
Jacques Rancire

To cite this Article Rancire, Jacques(1976) 'The concept of 'critique' and the 'critique of political economy' (from the 1844

Manuscript to Capital)', Economy and Society, 5: 3, 352 376 To link to this Article: DOI: 10.1080/03085147600000016 URL: http://dx.doi.org/10.1080/03085147600000016

PLEASE SCROLL DOWN FOR ARTICLE

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 or systematic reproduction, re-distribution, re-selling, loan or sub-licensing, systematic supply or distribution in any form to anyone is expressly forbidden. The publisher does not give any warranty express or implied or make any representation that the contents will be complete or accurate or up to date. The accuracy of any instructions, formulae and drug doses should 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 directly or indirectly in connection with or arising out of the use of this material.

The and the The concept concept of of 'critique' 'critique'and the , critique of 'critique of political political economy' economy'

(from ( fro m the t he 1844 7844Manuscript to Capita/)* Capital )*

Jacques Ranciere Rancihre

Critique and science in constitution of of Fetishism

Preliminaries Preliminaries

Capital: Capital: Verausserlichung and the

The concept of fetishism in Capital poses a problem which can be initially formulated in the naive form: What is involved in fetishism? fetishism? We know that this is the conception which acts as a foothold for those who interpret Capital on the basis of the anthropology of the Young Marx. For them fetishism is only a new name for alienation. In fetishism relations between men become relations between things. Thus the activity of men passes into an alien being; it becomes a determination of things and men are dominated by these relations between between things. Fetishism is therefore therefore an anthropological process analogous to that of alienation. An opposite interpretation denies fetishism any of the character of a real process and says that it is only a conception of economic relations, an ideology. In fact we shall only understand fetishism if we think it in continuity with what I have said about the structure of the process and the development of its forms. We have seen that as we passed to more and more concrete forms production the inner determination determination that of the process of capitalist production governs their motion disappeared, that the nuclear form disappeared in the completed form. It is this movement that is constitutive of fetishism. A certain connection presents itself on the surface of the process that we can call a fetishistic structure. The fetishistic discourse is the elaboration of this connection of concrete forms presented presented on the surface of the capitalist process and reflected reflected in the consciousness of the agents of production. This fetishistic discourse is summed up by Marx in what he calls the trinity formula. formula. The latter is constituted by three couples: Capital/Profit CapitalIProfit Land/Rent LandIRent Labour/Wages LabourlWages The three elements, capital, land and labour, appear as three sources each of which produces a revenue. Capital naturally produces profit,

Jacques Ranciere Ranciere Jacques

353 353

labour wages, land rent. This trinity represents the systematization agents of production production perceive perceive of the forms forms in which their of what the agents activity is inscribed.

Comment

t o replace the first couple Marx notes that it would be better to (CapitalIProfit) (Capital/Profit) with what it in fact subsumes, namely the Capital/Interest CapitalIInterest couple. Profit is indeed a phenomenal form-that form-that is say, a form of concealment-of concealment-of surplus value. But it is still not the to say, surplus value. It is still most concrete or the most mediated form of surplus t o the sphere of production. production. Interest, which is itself a related to profit-i.e., a phenomenal form or form of concealment of profit-i.e., phenomenal form or form of concealment in the second degree-represents the most concrete and most mediated form of degree-represents value. It is manifested outside the sphere of production. Its surplus value. mechanism is as follows: a sum of money M advanced returns to its + d M), ~ )and , that by virtue of a contract. (M + owner in the form M 'I (M of a process of of production but There is no longer any question here of of a mysterious power only of a contract between two persons and of of increasing itself. itself. which money possesses of of the It is in this form that capital appears on the surface of CapitalIInterest formula that really capitalist process. Thus it is the Capital/Interest constitutes the first couple of the trinity formula. t o study the constitution of of fetishism I shall examine the In order to of possibility possibility of one of of the three couples, the conditions of CapitalIProfit (i.e., Capital/Interest) CapitalIInterest) couple. This condition of of Capital/Profit possibility is what Marx calls the Veraz~sserlichung of the relations of of possibility Verausserlichung of t o anticipate my elucidation of the meaning of of capital. In order not to this concept, I shall translate it directly as externalization. The problem of of the Verausserlichung of of the relations of capital-by which should be understood understood capital as a relation of of capital-by production-is thematized by Marx particularly in Chapter 2 24 of production-is 4 of Volume Three (pp.383ff.), of the Relations of of (pp. 3 83 ff.), 'Externalization of Capital in the Form of of Interest-Bearing Capital'. In this text the form of of interest-bearing capital is characterized as of the relations of of capital. the most externalized (;lusserlichste) (llUsserlichste) form of On the basis of this text and other texts in Volumes Three and Four I of can give a certain number of of synonyms for this superlative-they superlative-they define interest-bearing capital as the most concrete, the most fetishized and the most alienated mediated, the most fetishized (entfremdetste) form. This leads me to two interesting comments: on the one hand, the movement of of fetishization fetishization seems to be identical to the movement of of externalization, on the other, we find the key concept of Eutfremdung (alienation), (alienation), of the anthropological anthropological critique, Eutfremdung appearing as equivalent t o the concept of Verausserlichung. In to

354 354

The of Theconcept concept of'critique' 'critique'

Volumes Volumes Three Three and and Four Four we we are are concerned concerned with with an an Entfremdung/Verausserlichung couple couplestrangely strangely reminiscent reminiscent of of the the Entfremdung/Verausserlichung Entfremdung/Entausserung. dominant couple couple of of the the Manuscripts: Manuscripts: EntfremdunglEntausserung dominant . Hence Hence the the necessity necessity to t o specify specify the the meaning meaning of of the the couple couple we we are are concernedwith withhere hereso soas asto t osee seewhether whether it itrefers refersto tothe thesame samething thingas as concerned theManuscripts. theone onein inthe the Manuscripts. What, therefore, therefore, is is Verausserlichung? Verausserlichung? Let Let me me pose pose the the concepts concepts What, by by which which we we can canaccount accountfor forthe thestructure structureof ofthe theprocess, process,in inorder orderto to define the the structure structure of ofthis thismovement movementwhich which makes makesthe theconstitution constitution define offetishism fetishism possible. possible. of These Theseare arethe theconcepts conceptsof: of: -relation-by relation-by which which of of course course should shouldbe be understood understood relation relation of of production-insofar production-insofar as as it it is is these these relations relations that that underly underly the the whole whole process, process, form, insofar -form, insofar as as the the form form is is that that by by which which the the relation relation 1S is manifested, manifested,by bywhich whichit itis isrepresented represented in inWirklichkeit, Wirklichkeit, -origin originand andlimit limitof ofthe theprocess, process, -motion motion or ordevelopment developmentof ofthe theforms forms

-result result

propose to t ostudy studythe thetransformation transformationof ofthese theseelements elementswhich whichmake make IIpropose possible possiblethe thefetishized fetishizedform form(figure) (figure)of ofthe theprocess. process.
A. A.The TheBegriffslosigkeit Begriffslosigkeitof ofthe theform form

The Theexternalization externalizationof of the the relations relations of of capital capitaldepends dependsfirst firstof ofall allon on the begriffslose the fact fact that that the the form form of of interest-bearing interest-bearing capital capital is is aa begriffslose Form, Form, an an a-conceptual a-conceptualform formor, or,if if you you prefer, prefer,aaform formdeprived deprived of of aa ' whereM ' M+ concept. M-M M ' where M ' =M +m m (or (orM M+ +dM). d~). concept. This This is isthe the form form M The The Begriffslosigkeit Begriffslosigkeit lies lies in in the the fact fact that, that,in inthis thisform, form,the theprocess process that thatmakes makesit itpossible possibledisappears. disappears. ' which is In In fact fact the the movement movement M M -M M ' which is posited posited here here as as aa spontaneous movement of M is only possible if the money-capital spontaneous movement of M is only possible if the money-capitalM M enters entersinto intoaaprocess processof of production production in inwhich which it itis isexpanded expandedin invalue. value. It Itis isthis thisexpansion expansion of of value valuewithin within the theprocess process of ofp preproduction reproductionof of industrial &. . industrialcapital capitalthat thatmakes makespossible possiblethe theincrease increasedM For Forthe thetrue truecircuit circuitundergone undergoneby bythis thisM, M ,it itis isnecessary necessaryto toposit, posit,in in the theinterval interval between betweenM M and andM M ',the the whole wholecircuit circuit of of money-capital, money-capital, which which is isone oneof of the thethree three circuits, circuits,one oneof of the thethree threefunctional functionalforms forms of of industrial industrial capital capital studied studied by by Marx Marx at at the the beginning beginning of of Volume Volume Two. Two. We Weshall shallthen thenhave: have: ' ' C , M C' M' L L -C M r M-MC M pp ... . . .PP .. . .. .. .. . .. .. .. .(C M-M . )(( (C + + cc ) r MM ++ m m)) M M ..
= " .

This Thisprocess processalone alonepermits permits the the transition transitionfrom froman aninitial initialvalue valueM M to t oaa ' equalto value valueM M ' equal t oM M+ +dM d~ .' .'

Jacques Rancibre Ranc iere Jacques

355

to what are the The question which interests us here is t o know what ' and M Let us ask first what what is the relations between M M and M ' in this circuit. Let L . M in the stage M M - cM c h p. of M specific form of p Marx's answer: Here is Marx's
-

In this first stage, M money. It assumes the functions M circulates as money. of perform a of money-capital, because only in its money state can it perform P, money-function, can it transform itself itself into the elements of of P , Land commodities. In this into L and M MP, P ,which stand opposed to it as commodities. circulation (VoLlI, ~ p.45).2 circulation act act it functions only as as money (Vol.11, .45).~
M is not in itself itself it does not This means that M itself capital. By itself possess possess any any power of of increase. It It only only fulfills a money-function (a capital-function (a function of of purchasing function) and not a capital-function purchasing self-expanding value). What is it that transforms this pure money-function into a capital-function? nature of of its link capital-function? It is the nature of the process. with the other stages of

But as this act3 act3 is the first stage of of capital-value in process, it is simultaneously a function of of the of money-capital, by virtue of of the commodities L and M MP specific use-form of Land P which are bought (Vo (Vol.11, p.45). UI, p.45).

This last ILhrase means two things: 1. M M - cMP is i s a function of of money-capital, it plays a part in the 1. capitalist process of of reproduction insofar as it makes possible, by MP, P, of L and M P ,stage P , which is that that of virtue of of the special character of of L the expansion of of value. 2. 2. More particularly, the decisive thing here is the nature of of the commodity L L (labour power). The process of of the expansion of of the value of M M is made possible by the presence on the market of of this absolutely unique commodity, labour power. The form we are concerned with thus conceals the opposition between capital and wage labour ; its study reveals capitalist relations of labour; of production production as the motor of the circuit.

tip

In the first place, this entire circuit is premised on the capitalist character of the process of production, and therefore considers this process together with the specific social conditions brought about by it as the basis. M k\ p;;but but M M -C C =M M -c cLp M -L L assumes the existence of the wage-labourer, and hence the means of production as part of productive capital . It assumes therefore that capital. the process of labour and self-expansion selfexpansion of value, the process of production, is a function of capital (Vol.11, (VoLlI, p.61). p.61).
= -

M '' It It can neither be said to to be the product of of Now let us consider M M M nor even that that of P P (except in certain special cases such as the
.

' production of gold). It It is the converted form of c c' .The return to t o the
.

356

The concept of 'critique'

money-form is a function not of money-capital but of ' C' .. The difference m, the money-form of the commodity-capital e commodity-capital P, does not represent a movement difference c produced by stage P, M itself. which is attributable to M Money-capital within the circuit of industrial capital performs no other functions than those of money and . . . these money moneyfunctions assume the significance of capital-functions only by virtue of their interconnections with the other stages of this circuit. The representation M ' as a relation of m representation (Darstellung) of M' to M, M ,as a capital-relation, is not directly a function of money-capital but of commodity-capital e c "', which in its turn, as a relation of c and e, C , expresses but the result of the process of production, of the self-expansion selfexpansion of capital-value which took place in it (Vol.lI, (Vol.11, p.77). p.77). It follows that in the formula M M' =M M + + dM d~ which expresses the M and M M' ' .. The result of the circuit, there is no relation between M one. This positing of an impossible relation equation is an impossible one. is, as we know, expressed by Marx in the concept of the imaginary or
=

'

Naturally a reason for this irrational or imaginary is found in the conceptual formula which expresses the totality of the circuit of conceptual money-capital and its link with the other circuits. The imaginary and M' ' =M M + + dM d~ is explained by the complete a-conceptual formula M formula: , , L M-CMp . . .. . . .. .. P . . .. . .. . . . .. . e C I -M -M I M . . -eM P .. .
=

zrratzonal .4 irrational.

This formula expresses the conceptual relation, i.e.: 1. it grasps the set of permutations and changes of form which constitute the circuit and unite it to t o the other circuits in the reproduction of capital; capital; ensemble of the process of reproduction 2. it indicates the determinant character of the relation of 2. production production which underlies the whole process of the self-expansion of value. value. ' M ' to M M can only be sustained by what The impossible relation of M governs the whole circuit: relation of production, with its circuit: capital as a arelation ofproduction, complement, wage-labour. Thus the circuit of money-capital is the one which best expresses the capitalist process. In fact it is a peculiarity peculiarity of this process that it M selfexpansion of value, as the circuit from M has as its principle the self-expansion ' M ' clearly expresses. expresses. But this determinate form of the process of to M reproduction of capital, the process of self-expansion self-expansion of value made reproduction possible by the relations of production of capital and wage-labour, tends to disappear in its result.

Jacques Jacques Ranciere Rancibre

357 357

Thus within itself, Thus M' M ' appears appears as as a a sum sum of of values values differentiated differentiated within itself, functionally (conceptually) (conceptually) distinguished distinguished within itself, itself, expressing expressing the the capital-relation. capital-relation. But But this this is is expressed expressed only only as as a a result, result, without the 11, the intervention intervention of of the the process process of of which it it is is the the result result (Vol. (Vol. II, p. 4 3 ). p.43). This circuit is therefore characterized by the disappearance of the process in its result. result. It thus lends itself, should it happen to t o be autonomized, to t o the misrecognition of the capitalist process. process. autonomized, In the ensemble of the process of reproduction studied by Marx in Volume Two, there is no risk of this autonomization occurring. occurring. The autonomy of the circuit of money-capital disappears in the circuit of commodity-capital. commodity-capital. The semblance of independence which the money-form of capital-value possesses in the first form of its circuit (the form of money-capital) disappears in this second form, which thus is a t o merely a special form (Vol. criticism of Form I and reduces it to (Vol. II, 7 3 ). 11, p. p.73). The criticism of this form (figure) (fgure) is performed by the development of the whole process of reproduction. reproduction. But this development only appears in science. In reality this autonomization, this loss of concept (Begriffslosigkeit) (Begriffslosigkeit) and imaginariness, will in fact manifest themselves the closer one gets to t o the more more concrete concrete and and more more process. mediated forms of the capitalist process. This sequence reaches its extreme in the form of interest-bearing capital. capital. This form is indeed the most concrete and mediated form of capital. capital. It not only presupposes the transformation transformation of surplus value into profit, but the division of profit into profit of enterprise and interest. interest. The finance capitalist capitalist who advances the sum of money money M M remains outside the whole process of production production and reproduction. reproduction. All he does is to M and withdraw a sum M M' ' . What t o advance a sum M happens between these two acts does not concern him. him. Thus the whole capitalist process has disappeared in the form M M ''M M' ' . The Begriffslosigkelt Begriffslosigkezt expresses the disappearance of all the intermediary terms whose connection makes the relation of M M to toM M' ' possible. possible. It thereby expresses the disappearance of what underlies this connection and makes it possible, the capitalist relations of of production. This disappearance of the relations of production production in the Begriffslosigkeit of the form is the basis for the externalization ( Verausserlichung) of what Marx calls the relations of capital. (Verausserlichung) capital. We know that this disappearance is made possible by the development of forms which leads to t o the most concrete, most mediated form, form, that of interest-bearing capital. This development of
.

358 358

The concept concept of of 'critique' 'critique' The

forms and this concatenation of mediations themselves disappear in the resultant form. form, This form which is the most mediated form of the capitalist process presents itself as pure immediacy, immediacy, as a pure relation of money-capital itself to t o itself. Starting from here we can understand the concept of between Verausserlichung. We know in fact that it marks a relation between Verausserpchung. df production and form relation of form of the process. Moreover, we have already recognized the general mechanism of the link relation/form metonymic causality. causality. In the and characterized it as a link of metonymic begriffslose Form which has lost all the characteristics which located development and articulation of the forms it in a definite place in the development of the process, this metonymic causality produces its most radical effects. 1 can already note Before going into the details of these effects I that the terms of the problem problem exclude a certain type of interpretation of Verausserlichung Verausserlichung (and of Entfremdung). The terms interpretation predicate and things, but relation and form. present are not subject, predicate question here does not mark the The becoming alien in question externalization of the predicates of a subject in an alien entity, but in' the most designates what becomes of the relations of capital in mediated form of the process.
B. B. The VeriJUsseriichung Verausserlichung of of the relation re1a t ion

The concept of Veriiusserlichung Verausserlichung is almost ritually accompanied by three other concepts: those of Verritcktheit Verriicktheit (absurdity), Versachlichung (materialization) and Verkehrung (reversal). (reversal). I shall leave the first term on one side; side; it has no conceptual significance of its own. own. The concept of Verkehrung, Verkehrung, though, does pose a problem. On the one hand it designates the inversion of the inner determination of the process in its completed forms, which has already been studied. But here it takes on a new meaning which I shall examine later on. on. The concept of Versachlichung must be understood on the basis of what I have already said about the constitution of Gegenstandlichkeit and the mechanism of Darstellung. In the Gegenstiindlichkeit analysis of the commodity form we saw that the thing, the object, was the support of a relation relation and that the misrecognition of this support function, of the sensuous-supersensuous sensuous-supersensuous character of the thing, transformed what was the expression of a social relation into a natural property property of the thing. thing. More precisely, everything turned on the function of the form. form. The latter was simultaneously the form (guise) of the thing and the phenomenal form of the relations of production. We rediscover the mechanism of Darstellung brought to t o light by

Jacques Jacques Ranciere Rancihre

359 359

Marx in the relation between capital as a thing (a sum of of money or a mass of material elements: raw materials, machines, etc . . . ) and elements: .) capital as a relation of of production for which the former serves as a support. Capital is not a thing, but rather a definite social production relation, belonging to a definite historical formation of belongingto of society, which is manifested (sich (sich darstellt) darstellt) in a a thing and lends this thing a a specific 794). specific social social character character (Vol. (Vol. III, 111, p. p.794). We Verhaltnzs-Ding opposition, opposition, an an opposition opposition We rediscover rediscover the the Verhditnis-Ding which has its mode of existence in Darstellung. Misrecognition of the Darstellung cancels the opposition and transforms capital into a mere thing. The three terms here are: are: - capital as a relation of production - the capital form, form, which here is the a-conceptual form of interest-bearing capital - the thing (the material elements of capital) which acts as a of the form of support to the capital-relation by adopting the guise of interest-bearing capital. Now the form of interest-bearing capital has lost all memory of what made it a special and determinate form of of capital. capital. Its formal determinations will thus be confused with the material determinations of the thing. thing. The form ceases to t o perform its function as a form because of its Begriffslosigkeit. The social determinations of the relations of production will thus find themselves reduced to t o the material of the thing. thing. Hence the confusion between what determinations of Marx calls material foundations foundations (things which perform perform the function of of supports) and social determinations. determinations. The latter become natural properties of properties of the material elements of of production. production. Thus the capital-relation has become a thing. properties. Its mysterious But this thing has some very special properties. character can be expressed in two ways: IfM -If M is considered as a sum of value, the relation M M -M M '' will take the form of of the incomprehensible (unbegreiflich) (unbegreiflich)relation 4 = 5. The issue here is the mystery of the increase. increase. - The solution to t o this mystery can be sought in the use-value of of the material elements of of the thing M. M . An incommensurable relation relation; M is then substituted for an incomprehensible relation ; the thing M produces surplus value, that is, a social relation. relation. I shall state this giving this incommensurable relation its true mystery adequately by giving relation. name: it is an imaginary or irrational relation. We can thus understand the possibility of this mystery and its solution. Verkehrung will provide solution. The elucidation of of the concept of of Verkehrung
=

360 360

The The concept concept of of 'critique' 'critique'

us with the solution. This concept designates the following motion: the transformation of the social social relation into a thing is equally a transformation of the thing into a social relation. The thing in which the social relation has disappeared has inherited the motion that the social social relation determines. This motion is present in the thing as a natural fzculty or or occult occult quality. quality. Here we have have the precise and natural faculty complete complete meaning meaning of of the concealment concealment by which Marx characterizes characterizes the mode mode of of action action of of the relations of of production. The The effect effect of of this this mode mode of of action action is is first first manifest manifest in in the the fact fact that that the thing appears to be an automaton endowed with a determinate appears an automaton a motion. to 5 5 is is possible because the thing motion. The transition from 4 to possesses in itself a reason for its increase. And it possesses this a its Marx said, it finds itself pregnant through the reason because, as as said, finds presence inside it of of the social social relation. It It is is therefore the imaginary or 5 The thing5 or irrational that is is the reason for the increase increase of of the thing. imaginary imaginary or or irrational irrational is is thus confirmed confirmed in every sense of of the word as as the reason for and and of of Wirklichkeit. Wirklichkeit. The mode of of presence of the social social relation relation in in the the thing thing enables enables the the two two mysteries mysteries to t o be be explained: the mystery mystery of of the increase and and the mystery of of the explained: production of of a a social social relation by a a mere thing. thing. The thing-capital thing-capital can can thus thus produce interest naturally naturally and and in a a determinate fashion (as (as land produces rent). rent). We can can summarize this motion by saying saying that the thing thing has has become an an autonomous subject, subject, something something that Marx expresses in the concept concept of of Versubjektivierung Versubjektivierung (subjectification). (subjectification). We are are therefore dealing with a a double motion: motion: the materialization of of the the social social determinations determinations of of production production and and the the materialization subjectification subjectification of of its its material material bases, bases, of of the the things things in in which these these social determinations determinations are are represented represented and and concealed. concealed. Marx Marx explains explains social that this this double double motion motion was already already perceptible perceptible in in the the simplest simplest that determination determination of of the the capitalist capitalist mode mode of of production: production: the the commodity-form of of the the labour labour product. product. commodity-form

Already implicit implicit in in the the commodity, commodity, and and even even more more so so in in the the Already commodity as as a a product product of of capital, capital, is is the the materialization materialization commodity of the the social social determinations determinations of of production production and and ((Verdinglichung) Verdinglichung) of the personification personification ((Versubjektivierung) of the the material material the Versubjektivierung) of foundations of of production, production, which characterize characterize the the entire entire foundations 111,p. p.858). capitalist mode mode of of production production (Vol. (Vol. III, capitalist 858). It is is this this double double motion motion that that constitutes constitutes the the second second meaning, meaning, It evoked above, above, of of the the concept concept of of Verkehrung, which I I shall shall translate translate evoked here as as reversal reversal (renversement). The The result result of of this this reversal reversal is is 'the 'the here 111,p.809). p.809). enchanted, perverted, topsy-turvy topsy-turvy world' (Vol. (Vol. III, enchanted, I believe believe that that it it is is essential essential to t o distinguish between these these two two I functions of of the the concept concept of of Verkehrung, Verkehrung, because because only only the the first first functions as a a function determined determined by by the the development development of of forms, forms, (inversion as

Jacques Jacques Ranciere RanciL're

361 361

to the fertige by the transition from the Kerngestalt to fertige Gestalt) is capable capable of receiving a rigorous conceptual determination. The second function fulfilled by the Verkehrung (double motion of materialization of social social relations and subjectification of material supports) supports) is the one surrounded by a whole anthropological halo, uncriticized t o an earlier marked by an unreflected and un criticized reference to conceptual domain. We must here examine closely the relation between between this image of reversal as a characteristic of the Verausserlichung of the relations of capital and the classical image of alienation as it is expressed in the Manuscripts. All the terms of the motion o find their equivalents in the described here by Marx seem t to constituted by the pair of Manuscripts. The structure here constituted synonyms Entfremdungl Verausserlichung and the concept of Entfremdung/Verausserlichung t o the structure Verkehrung corresponds in the Manuscripts to constituted by the couple EntfremdunglEntausserung Entfremdung/Entausserung and the same concept of Verkehrung (this (this reversal designates, in the anthropological critique, the ne plus ultra of the process of alienation by which the subject becomes the object of its object and at the same time the speculative procedure that confirms the separation and the reversal). On the other hand, here, as in the Manuscripts, the reversal is situated on the terrain of a personlthing relation. relation. Hence the necessity necessity to t o specify the person/thing significance of the concepts in play here. here. Let us first consider the (Versachlichung motion of materialization ( Versachlichung or Verdinglichung). What passes into the thing is not the essence of a subjectivity but a relation. relation. In the Verausserlichung it is not a subject which is separated from itself, whose predicates pass into an alien entity. It is a form which becomes alien to t o the relation that it supports and, in becoming alien to it, becomes a thing and leads to t o the materialization of the relation. relation. This definition of Verausserlichung Entfremdung. applies equally to Entfremdung. What is lost in fetishism is the structural implication that founds the distance of the thing from itself, a distance which is precisely the site at which the economic relations are in play. This distance is suppressed in fetishism, but it is arguable that it was suppressed 1844 Manuscripts, where the thing was seen just just as much in the 1844 directly as the object of a subjectivity. It was the suppression of this distance, of this special dimension of the thing manifesting the grip of the structure, that made possible the amphibology of object and product. Thus the Versachlichung of the relations of capital cannot be understood as an objectification of the predicates of a subject, except by suppressing the specific dimension in which capital determines economic relations. As for subjectification, we can see that it is no more the reversal

362 362

Theconcept conceptof of 'crit 'critique' The ique'

of the the predicate predicate of of a a substantial substantial subject subject into into a a subject. subject. What What Marx Marx of designates as as the the subjectification subjectification of of the the thing thing is is the the acquisition acquisition by by designates the thing thing of of the the function of of motor motor of of the the process. process. In In the the process, process, the this this function function does does not not belong belong to to a a subject subject or or to t o the the reciprocal reciprocal action of of a a subject subject and and an an object, object, but but to t o the the relations relations of of action production which which are are radically radically removed removed from from the the space space of of subject subject production and and object object in in which which they they can can only only find find supports. supports. The The properties properties received by by the the thing thing are are not not the the attributes attributes of of a a subject subject but but the the received motive power power of of the the relations relations of of production. production. It It is is insofar insofar as as the the motive thing inherits inherits the the motion motion that that it it presents presents itself itself as as a a subject. subject. The The thing concept concept of of a a subject subject designates designates a a function function which which has has its its place place in in an an illusory illusory motion. motion. can conclude conclude from from this this that that if, if, in in a a theoretical theoretical field field like like that that II can of the the Manuscripts, Manuscripts, the the concepts concepts of of subjectification, subjectification, materializa materializaof tion and and reversal reversal adequately adequately express express a a certain certain conceptual conceptual content, content, tion in the the theoretical theoretical field field of of Capital, Capital, they they only only designate designate a a different different in conceptual content. content. In In Capital Capital their their register register is is no no longer longer that that of of a a conceptual conceptual adequation adequation to to their their objects, objects, but but rather rather that that of of analogy. analogy. conceptual That That is is how how the the terms terms materialization, materialization, subjectification subjectification and and reversal reversal mask mask what what everything everything hinges hinges on: on: the the function function of of motor motor of of the the process and and the the peculiar peculiar effectivity effectivity of of the the relations relations of of process prod~ction.~ production.6 Let Let me me briefly briefly express express the the difference difference between between the the two two motions. motions. In the the Manuscripts Manuscripts the the subject subject (the (the worker) worker) invests invests an an object object with with In his essence. essence. This This object object increases increases the the power power of of the the alien alien entity entity his (Capital), which which poses poses itself itself as as subject subject in in the the movement movement of of reversal reversal (Capital), and and reduces reduces the the worker worker to t o being being the the object object of of his his object. object. In Capital Capital the the Verausserlichung Verausserlichung lies lies in in the the fact fact that that through through the the, In Begriffslosigkeit of of the the form, form, the the relation relation sees sees its its determinations determinations Begriffslosigkeit reduced reduced to to material material properties properties of of the the thing thing (materialization); (materialization); the the thing in in which which the the relation relation has has disappeared disappeared then then presents presents itself itself as as thing an automaton-subject automaton-subject (subjectification). (subjectification). The The worker worker and and the the an capitalist capitalist do d o not not intervene intervene in in this this motion. motion. Thus Thus the the worker worker appears appears here here as as a a support support of of the the wage-labour wage-labour relation relation of of production production and and not not as as the the primordial primordial subject subject of of the the process. process. The The mechanism mechanism of of Entfremdung does does not not concern concern him. him. Entfremdung We can can therefore therefore easily easily define define two two different different structures. structures. But But We Marx tends tends constantly constantly to t o confuse confuse them, them, to to think think the the Entfremdung Entfremdung Marx of the the relations relations of of capital capital according according to t o the the model model of of the the alienation alienation of of the the substantial substantial subject, subject, to t o think think the the Verkeh Verkehmng-inversion as a a of ru ng inversion as
-

Verkehrung-reversal. Verkehrung-reversal. II should should like like to t o take take an an example example of of this this slide slide from from Chapter Chapter 2 2 of of
Volume Volume Three Three which which deals deals with with the the question question of of the the trans transformation of of surplus surplus value value into into profit. profit. We We have have seen seen that that profit profit is is a a formation formlform of of concealment concealment of of surplus surplus value value in in which which phenomenal form/form phenomenal

Jacques Jacques Ranciere Rancihre

363

determination of value by labour time and of of surplus value by the determination disappeared, a form characterized by the surplus labour has disappeared, of the real motion of of capitalist production. production. Now in this inversion of text we shall see how this inversion reverts to the anthropological of the reversal and likewise how the first and second models image of of Entfremdung Entfremdung are confused in that indeterminacy which is of characteristic of anthropological discourse. The way in which surplus value is transformed into the form of profit by way of the rate of profit is, however, a further development of the inversion of subject and object that takes production. In the latter, we place already in the process of production. have seen, seen, the subjective productive forces of labour appear as productive forces of capital. On the one hand, the value, or the past labour, which dominates living labour, is personified in the capitalist. On the other hand, the labourer appears as bare (Vol.111, p.4S). p.45). material labour-power, as a commodity (Vol.II1,
We are confronted with the following motion: dead dead labour labour

personification in bare material of labour power: commodity the capitalist The scheme used here is the classical classical anthropological scheme: scheme: person (subject) thing (object) (object) (subject) person (subject)

. L

living labour
4,

t \1

thing (object) (object)

t L .

The development development of of the forms of the process of of capitalist production, with the inversion which is characteristic of it, is the development of this initial subject/object subjectlobject reversal. If this scheme is consistent, my whole proof proof has been destroyed. But in reality reality it is not consistent. In fact what corresponds to t o the transformation of transformation of of past living labour into a commodity is the transformation labour into capital and not into the capitalist. Personification, in the strict sense that this concept receives in Capital, is something quite different. It designates the function of the subject as a support for the relation of production. As we have seen, the relation of of production production determines on the one hand a subject function and on the other an object function. It is this relation of of production which carries out the Darstellung of the object and equally what I shall call, borrowing a term from Jacques Lacan, the staging staging or mise en scene subject.7 sckne of the ~ u b j e c t We .~ know that this excludes the subject/object subjectlobject couple couple functioning as of the process, or the motion of the process being the the motor of motion of of the reciprocity of this couple. The rigorous function of

364 364

' The Theconcept conceptof of'critique 'critique'

personification as as it it is is at at work work in in Capital Capital completely completely invalidates invalidates personification Marx's Marx's use use of of this thisconcept concept here. here. If we we reconsider reconsider our ourscheme, scheme,we weshall shallhave: have: If past labour labour livinglabour labour past living
capital capital

\1 t

labour power power labour

\1

capitalist worker capitalist worker (support of of the the relation relation (support of the the relation relation (support (support of capital) of production production wage wage labour) labour) of production production capital) of of Labour power power is is now now confronted confronted by by capital capital and and not not by by a a person person Labour (the capitalist). capitalist). And And in in the the same same way way the the capitalist capitalist is is confronted confronted (the with another another subject, subject, the the worker worker and and not not by by a a thing. thing. The The with subjectlobject inversion inversion no no longer longer has hasany any place place here. here. subject/object Capital except except the the one one That is, is, anthropology anthropology has has no no place place in in Capital That kept for for it it by by relapses relapses in in Marx's Marx's discourse. discourse. Where Where Marx Marx fails fails to to kept locate his his concepts concepts the the latter latter arrange arrange themselves themselves around around locate anthropological reference reference points. points. Where Where the the rigour rigour of of his his discourse discourse anthropological slackens we we see see an an anthropological anthropological model model emerge. emerge. Such Such slides slides slackens necessarily occur occur insofar insofar as as Marx Marx does does not not rigorously rigorously criticize criticize his his necessarily vocabulary. The Thewords wordswhich which express express the the new new concepts conceptsintroduced introduced vocabulary. Capital are are in in many many cases cases the the same same as as those those which which expressed expressed by Capital by the anthropological anthropological concepts conceptsof of the the young young Marx. Marx. the It is is necessary necessary to to insist insist on on this this distinction: distinction: we we really really are are It concepts. For For example, example, in in Capital Capital we we concerned with with different different concepts. concerned a concept concept of of Verkehrung Verkehrung and and a a concept concept of of Entfremdung Entfremdung find a find which are are new new concepts concepts in in relation relation to to the the Manuscripts, Manuscripts, concepts concepts which words express express the the which have have a a different different content. content. But But the the same same words which anthropological concepts concepts (which (which II shall shall call call concepts concepts I) I) and and the the anthropological conceptsof of Capital Capital (concepts (concepts11). 11). concepts It is is interesting interesting to to emphasize emphasize that that in in both both cases casesthe the concepts concepts of of It Verkehrung and and Entfremdung Entfremdung have have a a relational relational function. function. They They Verkehrung designate the the relations relations between between terms terms within within a a certain certain theoretical theoretical designate space. space. In In theoretical theoretical space space II the the terms terms brought brought into into relation relation by by the the Verkehrung and and Entfremdung Entfremdung are are those those of of subject, subject, concepts of of Verkehrung concepts . In In predicate, object, object, person, person, thing, thing, empirie, empirie, speculation, speculation, etc etc. . . .... predicate, I1 these these terms terms are are simple simple form form and and complex complex theoretical space space II theoretical form, relation relation and and form, form, etc etc. form, . ...... The two two theoretical theoretical spaces spaces have have different different properties. properties. It It follows follows The that relations relations of of type type II cannot cannot be be homologous homologous with with those those of of type type that 11. Rigour Rigour therefore therefore requires requires that that the the words words in in which which these these II. relational concepts concepts are are expressed expressed should should likewise likewise be be different. different. As As relational (figure) Marx does does not not meet meet this this demand demand for for rigour, rigour, the the first first form form (figure) Marx always threatens threatens to to insinuate insinuate itself itself where where it it no no longer longer has has any any always place. The The slide slide takes takes place place in in two two stages: stages: establishment establishment of of a a place.

Jacques Jacques Ranciere Rancit're

365 365

11, and homology between relations of type I and relation of type II, reconstitution reconstitution thereby of theoretical space I in which an attempt is made to 11. Now in this attempt a t o insert theoretical space II. distortion is revealed which bears witness to t o the resistance of space II. 11. It I t is this distortion that produces for instance the inconsistency of the scheme we have just just studied. We find distortions of the same kind almost every time Marx uses schemata borrowed from the anthropological anthropological critique. critique. The texts which take up the old scheme of the critique of religious alienation are particularly significant here. Whenever Marx emphasizes an analogy between the process he is studying and that of religious alienation (e.g., in the first chapter of Capital), analysis shows that the analogy is not absolutely rigorous. Another notable distortion is presented by the formula often to characterize fetishism: fetishism: relations between men used by Marx to become relations between things, a formula in which the two subjects. complements surreptitiously take the place of subjects. The deeper reason for these slides remains to t o be seen. I have argued that Marx did not carry out a critique of his vocabulary. negligence. If Marx did not This absence of a critique is not simply negligence. deem it necessary to t o establish terminological differences it is because he never rigorously thought the difference between his discourse and the anthropological anthropological discourse of the Young Marx. We can determine in Marx's theoretical practice the break that affirmed, we can formulate the radical difference Marx only affirmed, himself never really between the two problematics, but Marx himself grasped and conceptualized conceptualized this difference.
c. C.
Displacemen t of the origin and an d transgression of the limit Displacement

An examination of what happens to t o the origin (Ursprung), the limit (Grenz) and the result of this process will show us the completion of its fetishized form. origin in question is not a temporal origin but the origin of The origin the capitalist process as such. As the process of capitalist production is the process of the self-expansion of the value of capital, the origin that concerns us is the origin of surplus value: surplus labour. labour. This origin is not revealed in the concrete forms of the capitalist process. What is given are the results of this process, that is the fractions into which the total surplus value is broken down: profit, interest and rent. A study of the grounds for compensating has shown us that these fractions expressing the distribution of surplus value present themselves as its constitutive elements. It is this appearance that constitutes the basis for vulgar

366 366

T h e concept concept of of 'critique' 'critique' The

economics, which finds its systematic origin in the theory of the three sources of the exoteric Adam Smith. Adam Smith 's project Smith's project is to make wages, profit and rent, elements resulting from the break-down of the value produced produced in a determinate period, the constitutive elements of this value.8 value.8 Adam Smith's operation can be divided into two stages. stages. First, wages, profit and rent are detached from their origin (total social labour time realised in the value whose break-down they represent). They are then autonomized and present thesmelves as forms origin indifferent to one another. It is therefore necessary to t o find an ori gin of its own for each one of these elements which which have lost the formal determination conferred on them by their place in the process. The theory of the three sources does this when it makes labour the origin of wages, land the origin of rent and capital the origin of profit. The three sources thus take the place of the misrecognized ori origin. gin. The opposition Ursprun Ursprung/Quelle glQuelle is not found in Marx by accident. It marks the transition from a process of socially determined production production to t o a sort of natural process. process. The displacement from the origin to Versachlichung, t o the t o the source is complementary to the Versachlichun g, to transformation of the social relations of production production into things defined by material properties. It completes the naturalization naturalization of the process. This disappearance of the origin is simultaneously a disappearance of the limit. We know that this limit is determined by the origin of value (labour time) and of surplus value (surplus labour). It is the total quantity of exploited surplus labour which determines the limits of surplus value. In this way the law of value acts as a regulatory law which specifies the limits within which the distribution of surplus value into profit, interest and rent can take place. All the illusions engendered by a theory of three sources, each place. naturally producing a revenue, are thus shattered. A qualitative conceptual limit determines the total quantity of value and surplus value produced. On the contrary, if capital naturally produces profit, if it functions as an automaton, every qualitative limit is suppressed and the production of profit appears to follow the pure laws of a geometric progression. progression. Hence the ingenious discovery by which Price thought he was able to resolve all the problems of state treasuries: treasuries: Money bearing com pound interest increases at first slowly. But compound the rate of increase being continually accelerated, it becomes in some time so rapid, as to t o mock all the powers of the imagination . . .. ..A shilling put out to t o 6% 6%compound interest at our Saviour's birth . . . would . . . .have increased to t o a greater sum than the whole solar system could hold, supposing it a sphere equal in

Jacques Jacques Ranciere Ranci6re

367 367

diameter to the diameter of Saturn's orbit . . . .A state need never therefore be under any difficulties; for with the smallest savings it may in as little time as its interest can require pay off the largest debts (cit. (cit. Vol.III, 86-7). Vol.111, pp.3 pp.386-7). Here we see the form (figure) of the capitalist automaton at its most extreme. The illusion of geometric increase is possible because the qualitative limits on the expansion of the value of capital have been misrecognized. The identity of surplus value and surplus labour imposes a qualitative limit upon the accumulation of capital. capital. This consists of the total working day, and the prevailing development of the productive forces and of the population, which limits the number of simultaneously exploitable working-days. But if one conceives of surplus value in the a-conceptual form of interest, the limit is (Vol.111, p.390). 01.111, p. 3 90). merely quantitative and defies all fantasy (V

of origin and limit thus put the cap on the The obliteration of fetishized form (figure) of the process, the form (figure) behind which the economic relations are given to t o the perception of the agents of production: production:
The concept of capital as a fetish reaches its height in to interest-bearing capital, being a conception which attributes to the accumulated product of labour, and at that in the fixed form of money, the inherent secret power (Kraft), as an automaton, of creating surplus value in geometrical progression (Vol.111, (Vol.III, p. 390). p.390).

Enchanted 4. The En chan ted World

I have described the constitution of one of the three couples of the trinity formula. I I can draw two important conclusions conclusions from this analysis: analysis : 1 ) The 1) The process process of of this this constitution constitution introduces introduces quite quite a a different different structure from the subject/predicate/object subject/predicate/object structure of the

Manuscripts. 2) 2) The The forms forms that that fetishism fetishism presents presents are are not not forms forms deformed deformed by by

speculation. They are the very forms in which the capitalist process exists for the agents of production. production. In the same measure as the form of profit hides its inner core, capital more and more acquires a material form, is transformed more and more from a relationship into a thing, but a thing which embodies, which has absorbed, the social relationship, a thing

368 368

The ique' The concept concept of of 'crit 'critique'

which has acquired a fictitious life and independent existence in relation to t o itself, a sensuous-supersensuous sensuous-supersensuous entity j;in this form of capital and profit profit it appears superficially as a ready-made form of form of precondition. It I t is the form of its reality, or rather its real form of existence. And it is the form in which it exists in the consciousness and is reflected in the conceptions of its supports, the capitalists 8 3 -my emphasis) p.483-my (TSV Pt.3 Pt . 3 , p.4
Here we return to t o our starting-point, starting-point, namely, the fact that the relations which determine the capitalist system can only exist in the form of their concealment. The form of their reality is the form in which their real motion disappears. The analysis of fetishism confirms that the mystification is a mystification mystification of the structure, structure, that it is its very existence. The 'enchanted world' of fetishism 'in which Monsieur Ie le Capital and Madame la Terre do their ghost-walking as social characters and at the same time directly as mere things' (Vol.111, (Vol.III, p. 809), is thus the p.809), perfect form of this connection of effects determined by the absence of the cause. This absence of the cause is reflected by Marx as a mere distance. It is linked to t o the disappearance of mediations, obliviousness to t o the inner determinations of the process. But this obliviousness is also constitutive since we are no longer concerned with the development of a consciousness endowed with the Hegelian faculty of Erinnerung. Therefore, beyond the inadequate images of distance and obliviousness, we are led back to the foundation, that is to t o the fact that the phenomenal forms of the process are determined by something which absolutely cannot be represented represented in the field of Wirklichkeit without being concealed there, namely the relations of production, relations which bear-that bear-that is, do not bear-witness bear-witness to to the process of formation, the Entstehungsprozess of a determinate mode of production: the capitalist mode of production. production. Fetishism Fetishism thus represents not an anthropological process but the t o which the structure of the capitalist specific dislocation according to mode of production production presents itself in the field of Wirklichkeit, of t o the consciousness Alltagsleben (everyday life), life), and offers itself to and action of the agents of production, the supports of capitalist relations of production. It is on this basis that the forms of fetishism are elaborated and systematized in a special discourse, that of vulgar economics. 'Vulgar economy actually does no more than interpret, systematize and defend in doctrinaire fashion the conceptions of the bourgeois production production who are entrapped in bourgeois agents of bourgeois (Vol.111, p.797). p.797). production relations' relations' (Vol.III, production Starting from the forms of Wirklichkeit, of Alltaglseben, vulgar

Jacques Jacques Ranciere Rancihre

369 369

economics systematizes them in the three couples of the trinity formula, the alienated and irrational forms in which mere things (the material elements of capital, land) engender social relations (surplus value, rent). These incommensurable incommensurable relations represent represent the rational kernel of the system for vulgar economics. As soon as the vulgar economist arrives at this incommensurable relation, everything becomes clear to him, and he no longer feels the need for further thought. For he has arrived precisely at the (Vol.III, pp. 797 8). 'rational' in bourgeois conception (Vol.111, pp.797-8).
-

From the point we have now reached I can try to t o characterize all the types of discourse that we have have encountered. The starting-point which is given to t o perception is the 'fixed 'fixed forms of wealth', wealth', the forms of Wirklichkeit which are the business of the agents of production. The vulgar economist is content to t o systematize these forms, to to give their rational kernel, i.e., precisely the imaginary or irrational. negation of His discourse is a reflection of the apparent motion and a negation the inner essence and real motion of the process. to Classical economics proposes to dissolve these fixed forms, to restore them their essential inner unity. Thus for example, it reduces rent to t o surplus profit. But it cannot carry out its project because it does phenomenal forms does not understand these forms as phenomenal forms of the inner essence of the process. It thus affirms the inner essence by the dogmatic negation of appearances and can only exorcize the forms of fetishism without understanding them. Marx's theory, theory, on the contrary, understands these alienated and imaginary forms as the phenomenal forms of the inner essence of the process. It can constitute simultaneously the theory of the process and the theory of its misrecognition. misrecognition. Here we can return to 1844 t o a fourth discourse: that of the 1844 Manuscripts. This discourse also has as its starting-point the 'alienated and imaginary forms' that I have just just examined. The First Manuscript starts from the three sources; and the Young Marx breakdown as abstract. Thus, he writes in his rejects the Ricardian break-down notes on Ricardo: Ricardo: Political economy, in order to t o give its laws a greater consistency and determinacy, has to t o posit reality (Wirklichkeit) as accidental and abstraction as real. 9 real.9 The discourse of the Manuscripts is therefore a discourse which starts from the alienated and irrational forms and attempts to to confine Wirklichkeit. This means that for it these confine itself itself to t o the level of Wirklichkeit.

370 370

'critique' The concept of 'cr itique'

irrational forms will be forms of unreason, of reason estranged, t o himself. himself. forms of man become foreign to In other words, these alienated forms-and forms-and we have seen what here-are for this discourse forms meaning this term should be given here-are of alienation in the anthropological sense of the term. of wealth to t o the determination of Thus the reduction of the forms of wealth alienated labour does not constitute a true critique of the forms of economic Gegenstandlichkeit, but maintains the mere form of a reversal in which determinations of the human subject and of intersubjectivity are introduced everywhere in place of material intersubjectivity between things (the most remarkable determinations and relations between example of this occuring in the amphibologies of wealth and of commerce). This discourse thus still remains captive to t o the illustions commerce). Wirklichkeit, of Wirklichkeit.

III III Remarks Remarks by way of conclusion

I should like to t o close by raising a problem, the problem problem of the possibility of the discourse of classical economics. economics. There is in fact one discourse whose conditions of possibility are clearly defined: defined: that of vulgar economics. economics. The problem is different where classical economics is concerned. The latter is not basically dependent on the conceptions of the agents of production. production. It is only dependent on them in its weaknesses (e.g., in the exoteric Adam Smith). Smith). How are we to t o explain both the relative autonomy of the discourse of classical economics, economics, an autonomy that enables it to to dissipate the appearances of fetishism, and its essential limitedness, its inability to t o arrive at an understanding of the real motion of capitalist production? production? After praising the dissolution carried out by classical economics, Marx states: Even the best spokesmen of classical economy remain more or less in the grip of the world of illusion which their criticism had dissolved, as cannot be otherwise from a bourgeois standpoint (Vol.111, p.809). (Vol.III, How is this impossibility revealed? revealed? I can try to t o reflect on the existence of two privileged points at which the misrecog misrecognition of the structure contained in the discourse of classical affirmed. There are two things that classical economics is affirmed. economics does not see. We have examined at a t length the first point, which concerns the misrecognition of the value form. form. Here is how Marx poses the misrecognition

Jacques Jacaues Ranciere Rancihre

371 371

necessity of this misrecognition in classical economics: It is one of the chief failings of classical economy that it has never succeeded, by means of its analysis of commodities, commodities, and, in particular, of their value, in discovering that form under which value becomes exchange-value. excklange-value. Even Adam Smith and Ricardo, school, treat the form of value as a the best representatives of the school, thing of no importance, as having no connection with the inherent nature of commodities. commodities. The reason for this is not solely because their attention is entirely absorbed in the analysis of the value. It lies deeper. The value-form of the product magnitude of value. of labour is not only the most abstract, but is also the most universal form, taken by the product in bourgeois production, and stamps that production as a particular species of social production, and thereby gives it its special historical character. If then we treat this mode of production production as one eternally fixed by Nature for every state of society, we necessarily necessarily overlook that which is the differentia specifica of the value form, and consequently of the commodity-form, and of its further developments, money-form, capital-form, etc. (VoLl, (Vol.1, p80n; T.I, T.1, p.83). What classical economics misrecognizes by allowing the value-form to t o be classified as inessential is the special historical character of the capitalist mode of production. production. The same is true in the analysis of the second point, which origin of sur surplus value. Practically all the errors of concerns the ori plus value. gin of to Smith and Ricardo, all the false formulations that they give t o different problems have this same consequence: to t o obscure the formation of surplus value. value. There is a distinction absent from the whole discourse of classical economics, the distinction between variable capital and constant capital. Now positing this distinction dissipates the mystery of capital. surplus value. It reveals the motor of this process of capitalist production: the opposition between between capital and wage labour. labour. It reveals capitalist production as determined by determinate historical relations of production. production. Thus all the omissions and contradictions of the discourse of t o conceal classical economics which turn on these two points, tend to this fact: fact: the existence of a historically determinate mode of production. production. In classical political economy's economy's game of hunt-the-thimble, this is a warm. There is something that it point at which it must always get warm. cannot cannot see and this something something that it cannot see is also what it has

not to see.
The concept of this having not to see is not in fact formulated by

372 372

' The Theconcept conceptof of'critique 'critique'

Marx.l0 Marx.lo He He does doesnot not reflect reflect conceptually conceptually the the specific specific conditions conditions of of possibility possibility of of the thediscourse discourse of ofclassical classicaleconomics. economics.The Theway way he hethinks thinks the theintrinsic intrinsiclimitedness limitednessof of classical classicaleconomies economiesis isanalogical. analogical. This This will will emerge emerge from from a a study study of of a a text text in in Volume Volume Three Three commenting commenting on on Ricardo's Ricardo's position position on onthe the problem problem of of the thefalling fallingrate rate of profit. profit. of The Therate rateof of profit profit is isthe the motive motivepower power of of capitalist capitalistproduction. production. Things Thingsare areproduced produced only onlyso solong longas asthey they can can be be produced produced with with a a profit. profit. Hence Hence the theconcern concernof of the the English Englisheconomists economists over over the the decline declineof of the the rate rateof of profit. profit.The Thefact factthat that the thebare barepossibility possibility of of this thishappening happening should should worry worry Ricardo, Ricardo,shows showshis hisprofound profound understanding understandingof of the the conditions conditionsof of capitalist capitalistproduction. production. It It is isthat that which which is isheld held against against him, him,it it is ishis his unconcern unconcern about about 'human 'human beings', beings', and andhis his having havingan an eye eyesolely solelyfor for the the development development of of the the productive productive forces, forces,whatever whatever the the cost cost in in human human beings beings and and capital values it is capital-values-it isprecisely precisely that that which which is isthe the important important thing thing about abouthim. him. Development Development of of the the productive productive forces forces of of social sociallabour labour is isthe the historical historical task task and and justification of of capital. capital.This Thisis isjust just the the way way in in which which it it unconsciously unconsciously creates createsthe the material material requirements requirements of of a ahigher higher mode mode of of production. production. What What worries worries Ricardo Ricardo is is the the fact fact that that the the rate rate of of profit, profit, the the stimulating stimulatingprinciple principle of of capitalist capitalist production, production,the the fundamental fundamentalpremise premise and and driving drivingforce forceof of accumulation, accumulation,should should be be endangered endangered by by the thedevelopment development of of production production itself. itself. And And here here the the quantitive quantitiveproportion proportion means means everything. everything.There There is, is,indeed, indeed, something somethingdeeper deeperbehind behind it, it,of of which which he he is isonly only vaguely vaguely aware. aware. It It comes comes to to the the surface surface here here in in a a purely purely economic economicway-i.e., way-i.e., from from the the bourgeois bourgeois point point of of view, view, within within the the limitations limitationsof of capitalist capitalistunderstanding, understanding,from from the the standpoint standpointof of capitalist capitalistproduction production itself-that itself-that it it has has a a barrier, barrier, that that it it is isrelative, relative, that that it it is isnot not an an absolute, absolute,but but only only a ahistorical historical mode mode of of production production corresponding corresponding to t oa adefinite definite limited limited epoch epoch in in the the development development of of the 111,p.254). p.2 54). the material material requirements requirements of of production production (Vol. (Vol. III,
-

Let us us note note the the concepts concepts in in play play here. here. First First we we have have Ricardo's Ricardo's Let 'vague (Ahnung). The The presence presence of of this this concept concept is is not not 'vague awareness' awareness' (Ahnung). neutral. Marx Marx uses uses it it precisely precisely every every time time he he wishes wishes to to point point out out neutral. Ricardo's forebodings, forebodings, his his intuitions intuitions about about the the intrinsic intrinsic nature nature of of Ricardo's the capitalist capitalist mode mode of of production production which which go go beyond beyond his his limited limited the 'standpoint'. This This necessary necessary limitedness limitedness is is marked marked here here by by three three 'standpoint'. expressions: expressions: in in rein rein okonomischer okonomischer Weise, Weise, im im bourgeois bourgeois Standpunkt, Standpunkt, innerhalb der der Grenzen Grenzen des des kapitalistischen kapitalistischen Verstandes. Verstandes. innerhalb We can can compare compare these these expressions expressions with with a a text text from from Volume Volume One One We t o be be found found at at the the end end of of the the chapter chapter on on wages. wages. to 'Classical Political Political Economy Economy nearly nearly touches touches the the true true relation relation of of 'Classical things, things, without, without, however, however, consciously consciously formulating formulating it. it. This This it it cannot cannot

Jacques Jacques Ranciere Rancigre

373 373

so long as it sticks in its bourgeois skin' (Vol. I, T.II, p.21 3 ). I, p.542; p.542;T.II, p.213). t o bring out the A comparison of these two texts enables me to analogical model Marx uses to think the limitedness of classical economics. We have here the definition of a capitalist understanding understanding (kapitalistische Verstand) Verstand) which must not be confused with the (kapitalistiscbe (Vorstellungen) conceptions ( Vorstellungen) of a capitalist subject. Marx thought this capitalist understanding in terms of the model of the development of modes of production. We know that in a determinate mode of production, the productive forces develop up t o a certain point where their development is fettered by the to production. The latter constitute the peculiar limit or relations of production. barrier of a mode of production , a limit or barrier which production, which is manifest forces. Now, in the phenomenon of the restriction of the productive forces. the kapitalistiscbe kapitalistische Verstand is thought precisely as a tbeoretical theoretical of production within which the theoretical productive forces mode of t o the can develop only up to a certain point, remaining subject to absolute barrier peculiar to this mode of production. It is in this non-explicit analogical model that Marx thinks the intrinsic possibility and limitedness of the discourse of political economy, a prisoner of its 'bourgeois skin' as the productive forces are prisoners of bourgeois relations of production. production. If this is so we can indeed affirm that Marx does not give us the concept of the possibility of the discourse of classical economics. In order to t o be able to t o formulate this concept it is necessary to t o think the c o m m o n ground on which Marxist science parts with classical common political economy. That is to t o say, say, in order to t o understand the possibility of classical economics it is necessary to t o pose the problem t o its historical of the possibility of that science itself, of its relation to conditions of possibility. Marx by no means resolves this problem problem by resorting to t o a parallel between the development of the contradiction inherent to t o the capitalist mode of production and the development of its critique. critique. I t o those famous texts where Marx explains that the am referring to scientific critique of the capitalist mode of production is possible from the moment that that system is itself in crisis. It may be asked whether this link between crisis and critique is not a leftover from the historicist ideology characteristic of Tbe The German Ideology. Moreover this conception comes into contradiction with another conception in Marx-that Marx-that of the purity of science. The possibility of this science is then linked to t o a sort of breathing-space breathing-space possibility in history. history. Ricardo can conduct a scientific discourse because he is writing at a time of stability in which history is in some sense neutralized. neutralized. As soon as the crises of capitalism capitalism and class struggles worsen, this discourse ceases to Ricardo's successors t o be possible and Ricardo's collapse into apologetics and vulgar economics.

374 374

The T h econcept conceptof of'critique' 'critique'

Generally speaking, speaking, aa historicist historicist conception, conception, the the one one that that Generally accompanies the the concept concept of of critique, critique, is is opposed opposed in in Marx Marx by by aa accompames conception which which founds founds the the science science in in aaradical radical rupture rupture with with the the conception conditions of of existence existence of of historical historical agents. agents. The The problem problem is isthen then to to conditions think the the conditions conditions of of this this rupture. rupture. If If in in Capital CapitalM Marx determines arx determines think the site site of of the the science science and and the the forms forms of of its its scientificity, scientificity, it it can canbe be the asked if if he he answers answersthe the question: question: how howdoes doesone onereach reachthis thissite siteof ofthe the asked science? science? In vulgar vulgar economics economics we we see see that that the the question question is isresolved resolved by by the the In determination of of the the place place of of the thecapitalist capitalist subject subject in in Wirklichkeit Wirklichkeit: determination : one can can reach reach the the domain domain whence whence comes comes the the discourse discourse of of vulgar vulgar one economics economics because because one oneis isalready already there. there. On On the the other other hand hand there there is is no answer answer to t o the the question question of of the the access accessto t o the the scientific scientificdiscourse. discourse. no d o not not think think that that the the question question is is resolved resolved by by the the famous famous And II do And Introduction to t oA A Contribution Contributionto tothe the Critique Critique passagesin in the the 11857 85 7 Introduction passages
of of Political PoliticalEconomy. Economy.

school gives givesit it in in the thetheory theoryof ofthe theconcrete-abstract-concrete concrete-abstract-concretecircle, circle, school or the the theory theory of of the the transition transition from from historico-material historico-materialinstances instances to to or historico-rational instances, instances, tends tends to t o fall fall behind behind the the radical radical historico-rational distinctionestablished established by byMarx Marxbetween between the thethought thought process processand andthe the distinction real process. process. On On the theone onehand hand the thedeterminations determinationsof of the theabstract abstractand and real the concrete concrete are are confused confused with with those those of of thought thought and and reality reality the (empiricist subreption). subreption). On On the the other other hand, hand, the the epistemological epistemological (empiricist model proposed proposed here here is is wholly wholly permeated permeated by by the the ideological ideological model categories past, past, present present and and future, future, which which are are imposed imposed by by the the fact fact categories that the the given given object object (history) (history) has has been been accepted accepteduncritically uncritically in in its its that vulgar ideological ideological definition. definition. This This reflection reflection in in the the epistemological epistemological vulgar statement of of the the ideological ideologicalproperties properties of of the theideological ideologicalobject objectthat that statement Della Della Volpe Volpe has has adopted adopted is is manifested manifested on on the the one one hand hand in in the the conception of of concrete-abstract-concrete concrete-abstract-concrete movement movement and and on on the the conception other hand hand in in the the antecedents-consequents antecedents-consequents structure structure supposed supposed to to other define the the form form of of scientificity. scientificity. The The relations relations between between economic economic define categories are are thus thus thought thought on on the the model model of of a a succession succession of of categories antecedents and and consequents consequents situated situated in in a a linear linear continuum. continuum. We We antecedents have seen seen from from the the example example of of Pietranera Pietranera how how this this theory theory of of have rationality as as a a linear linear order order of of implications implications (a (a reflection reflection of of the the rationality properties of of the the ideological ideological concept concept of of history) history) misrecognized misrecognized the the properties dimension of of science science and and the the nature nature of of the the process process that that is isits itsobject. object. dimension Thus we we see see that that the the theoretical theoretical difficulties difficultiesraised raised by by the the answer answer Thus lie in in the the very very way way the the question question has has been been posed. posed. We We must must therefore therefore lie here carry carry to t oa a conclusion conclusion a a movement movement for for which which Marx Marx provides provides us us here with the the exemplary exemplary form form and and proceed proceed to t o examine examine the the very veryterms termsof of with the question, question,in in particular particular the the concept conceptof of history. history.If If we we are areincapable incapable the

We know know that that this this question question has has been been posed posed in in the the form form 'Theory 'Theory We Volpe's school. school. But But the the answer answer this this and History History', notably by by Della Della Volpe's and ', notably

Jacques Jacques Ranciere Rancihre

375 375

of resolving the problem we shall at least known on what terrain it can be resolved: that of a different concept of history.

Translated by Ben Brewster

N otes Notes

This is a translation of the concluding part of acques Ranciere's of J Jacques Rancikre's t o Lire Ie le Capital (ed. L. Althusser and E. Balibar, Paris: Maspero, contribution to 1 965) that R eading Capital. London: 1965) that-was (Reading . was not included in the English edition ( 1970). published in the magazine New Left Books, 1 970). The first three sections were published Theoretical Practice, numbers one, one, two and six. 1 1 The money-value M permits the purchase of of a commodity-value commodity-value C of of of production). These are then commodities L (labour power) and MP (means of engaged in the productive circuit circuit, P which results in an increased commodity value C' which is convened converted into M'. M. 2 Vol. I , Vol. I I and Vol. III I, I1 111 refer to t o Capital in the English translation 9 6 1 -2 ; T.!. published by b y The Foreign Languages Publishing House, Moscow 1 1961-2; T.I. and T.I I , to T.11, t o Volume One of of the French translation by Joseph Roy, published by Editions Sociales, Paris ; TSV Pt. 3 to Paris; Pt.3 t o Theories of of Surplus Value Part 3 in the English translation published 972. published by Lawrence and Wishart, London 1 1972. act M-C. 3 The Theact 9 7 1 , p.49, n.7. See Theoretical Practice Number Two, April 1 1971, 4 See shall see the theoretical calamity that befell Price in taking 5 Further on o n we shall 5 this reason for a geometrical reason. ageometrical t o express the mechanism of of 6 The precise inadequacy of this scheme to fetishization becomes readily apparent if if we note that the 'subjectification' 'subjectification' of of things (autonomization of material supports) by no means corresponds to to a materialization of persons. On the contrary, it is the form (figure) of of the contract between two free persons, two constitutive subjectivities that, in the form of interest-bearing capital, corresponds to (fiRure) of of the t o the form (figure) t h e relation of a subject automaton-thing. Evidently fetishism does not concern the to t o an object but the t h e relation of each of of these supports to t o the relations of of production that determine them. 7 Cf. Jacques Lacan: 'Remarque sur Ie le rapport de Daniel Lagache,' Ecrits Editions du Seuil, Paris 1 966, p.649 1966, p.649:: 'If 'If so, when Daniel Lagache sets out from a choice he offers me m e between a structure in some sense apparent (which would imply the t h e critique of what the descriptive character contains that is natural), and a structure that he can call at a distance from experience (since it is a matter of the "theoretical model" he recognizes in analytical metapsychology), "theoretical model" metapsychology), this antinomy neglects a mode of structure which, although a third, should not be excluded, i.e., the effects that the combinatory pure and simple of of the signifier signifier determines in the reality in which that combinatory is produced. For is structuralism what enables us to (ca) t o pose our experience as the field in which It (a) speaks or o r is it not? If yes, "the "the distance from experience" experience" of of the structure disappears, since it acts there not as theoretical model but as the original disappears, machine which stages (met en scene) sckne) the subject there. there.'' 8 s recall that iin n order t o pose t h e theory o f the three sources, Adam 8 Let u us the of Smith had to t o misrecognize that value produced breaks down in reality on the rent).. The one hand into capital and on the other into revenue (wages, profit and rent) part destined to t o be reconverted into capital disappears in his analysis. In other b y saying that wages, profit (profit of of words, the same thing is expressed by + interest) and rent constitute value or that profit and rent rent constitute enterprise + surplus value.

376 376

Theconcept conceptof of'crit 'critique' The ique'

9 Marx-Engels, , Berlin Marx-Engels, Historisch-kritische Historisch-kritische Gesamtausgabe, Gesamtausgabe, Abt. Abt.1l,, Bd. Bd.33, Berlin 9 p.501. 11932, 932, p .501. 10 10 T To o say say that that classical classical economics economics cannot cannot see see these these points points because because they they contain contain inscribed inscribed in in them them the the historical historical character character of of the the capitalist capitalist mode mode of of production production and and therefore therefore its its inevitable inevitable end, end, and and to t o say say that that capitalism capitalism cannot cannot bear bear to t o look look its its own own death death in in the the face, face, is is obviously obviously no no substitute substitute for for the the formulation of of the the concept concept of of this thisblindness. blindness. formulation

Noteson on Authors Authors Notes

Ira Gerstein, Gerstein, born born 11937, USA; studied studied at at MIT, MIT, B.Sc., B.Sc., Ph.D. Ph.D. Ira 937, USA;

(physics). Currently Currently studying studying sociology sociology at a t Brandeis Brandeis University. University. (physics).
M. L. L. Morris Morris is isa a Ph.D. Ph.D. student student working working on on the thepolitical political economy economyof of M.

SouthAfrica Africa at at the theInstitute Institute of of Development Development Studies, Studies,Sussex. Sussex. South

Ben Brewster, Brewster, editor editor of of Screen Screen; formerly on on the the Editorial Editorial Boards Boards of of Ben ; formerly Theoretical Practice Practice and and New New Left Left Review. Review. Translator Translator of of L. L. Theoretical Althusserand and E. E. Balibar BalibarReading Reading Capital, Capital, L. L. Althusser Althusser For ForMarx Marx and and Althusser Lenin and and Philsophy. Philsophy. Lenin