1972 l&nin. London, Ncw Left Books Mamilieim, K. 19721c\E'ol(lgy :l~ London, Routledge & Kegan Paul AltJlUsser, L. 1969 For Marx, London, Penguin; 1974 Elements Marx, K. 1968 'Theses on Feuerbach' in Selected Works London, Lawrence d'autocritig~, Paris, HacheUe and Wishart; 1973 Grundrisse London, Pcnguin Arato, A. 1972a 'Lukacs' Theory of Reification', Telos 11, pp25-66; Merleau-Ponly, M. 1962 The Phenomenology of Perception, London, 1972b Notes on 'History and Class Consciousness', Philosophical Forum Routledge & Kegan Paul; 1974a Adyentures of thc Dialectic, London, Vol. JII, pp386-400 Heinemann; 1974b The PI"OSe of the World, London, Heinemann Colletti, L. 1973 Marxism and Hegel London, New Left Books Paci, E. 1972 The Function of the Sciences and the Meaning of Man, Fecnberg, A. 1971 'Heificationand the Antimonies of Socialist Thought' Evanston, Northwestern Univcrsity Press Telos Phillips, D. 1974 'Epistemology and the sociology of knowledge', Theory and l- ~Vol.l Glucksmann, A. 1972 'A Ventriloquist Structuralism', New Left Review Piccone, P. 1972 'Dialcctic and Materialism in Lukacs', ~ 11, ppl05-33 72, pp68-92 - Ranciere, J. 1972 'Althusser and Ideology', Radical Philosophy 7 Goldrnann, L. 1971 Reflections of 'History and Class Consciousness' in Revai, J. 1972 Review of Georg Lukacs' 'History and Class ConSCiousness', Mes7.'Uos (ed. ) AspE'cts of Histo!'y and Class Consciousness London, Merlin Theoretical Practice No. 1 Hindess, B. 1972 'The "Phenomenological" Sociology of AUred Schutz', Sartre, J":P. 1949 The Psychology of the Imagination London, Rider; E£Q.!]pmy and Society Vol.l ppl-27; 1973a 'Transcendentalism and History', 1957 Being and NOUJinilllg§ji, London, Methuen; 1960 Critique de la Raison E.£Quomy and SO("i('ty Vol. 2 pp309-42; 1973b The Use of Official Statistics dialedigue Paris, Gallimard; 1963a The Problem of Method, London, in SOciology, London, Macmillan Methuen; 1963b Sketch for a Theory of the Emotions, London, Methuen Hirst, P. 1972, 'Marx, Law and Crime', Economy and SocjPty Vol.l pp28-56. Stedman-Jones, G. 1971 'The Marxism of , the Early Lukacs, New Left Husserl, E. 1970 TIle Crisis of European Science and Transcendental Review 70 pp27-64 Plwn(lmenolor;y, EV;J.nston, Northwestern University Press Westergaard, J. 1970 'The Rediscovery oE the Cash Nexus, Socialist Lukacs, G. 1971 IIistory and Class Consciousness London, Merlin; Register 1970 :reviews- THE NEEDS OF MaRXISM Kate Soper Agnes Heller, The Theory of Need in Marx, explanation for their choice either within the text translated from the German, Introduction by Ken or in a glossary would have been welcome. So too Coates and Stephen Bodington, Alison & Busby, would have been more indications (if only in the London, 1976, 135pp, hardback £5.25, pb £2.95 form of section headings and bridge passages) of the overall direction and design of the wou. ,As it As Hemingway, I seem to remember, somewhere is, we are offered the pieces of a jigsaw - which is said of Pernod, so it is with this book: it takes you tantalizing because we are not sure if we have all up as much as it brings you down. The analogy, the pieces, and wearisome because so much of the however, is perhaps too frivolous for a work whose work of assembly is left to a reader who has little scholarly sobriety borders on dryness; moreover, idea of the final picture to be constructed. it suggests an ease of absorption that might mislead There are two further general features of this readers who are unaccustomed to that strange brew book which some may find disappointing. In the first of half-developed concepts, potent good sense and place, there is scarcely a reference to other work flights of fancy that can be concocted from Marx's bearing on the question of needs, by which I mean works and labelled (somewhat euphemistically) 'a either to work outside historical materialism in theory of needs'. For it does not seem to me that anthropology or psychology or biology, all of which Heller has managed to offer us anything much more are pertinent studies, or to attempts by other Marx­ readily digestible than Marx himself on this subject, ists to confront the vexed question of needs. Ad­ even though her project is largely one of exegesis mittedly in the latter case there are a few directly and synthesis - a~d I speak as one who has spent relevant works, and it may be that Heller has not some time in the attempt to ascertain the meaning had much opportunity to assess them 1 - here I have and coherence of Marx's various remarks on the in mind such writers as Seve and Timpanaro, and subject of needs. On the other hand, it may be true the debate on Marx and Fretld. Yet she also never that I have approached Heller's book with too many mentions- either Sartre or Marcuse nor any of the preconceptions and expectations about what a work economic studies that bear on the issues she on the theory of needs should achieve, and that raises (Mandel, Betteiheim, Rubin) and there is others less steeped in this aspect of Marxism will scarcely a reference to any work by Lenin or find a good deal to interest and inspire them in this Trotsky or Stalin. In other words, there is no book, if only because it sketches out an area for attempt to place her contribution in the context of consideration that is scarcely ever discussed in any developments in Marxist study either in the East or detailed way, and because it is the product of a good the West, though her debt to Lukacs is obvious. deal of reflection on that area. All the same, I sus­ There is an advantage to this in the sense that her pect that many readers will wish that Heller had book is refreshingly unparasitical; it also means provided more opportunity to share in this process that it avoids any facile classification in terms of of reflection. As it is, she tends merely to chart allegiances within current Marxology (it does not, its results, and these are often presented in an for example, adopt either a straightforward human­ over-condensed and disjointed form. ist or anti-humanist stance and cannot be located In all fairness, it should also be said that she has easily in terms of such disjunctures. ) Its dis­ not been well served either by her translator or by advantage is that it is restricted to Marx's work her editor in this English edition. There is a nerv­ alone, and thus to a large extent remains a piece ous recourse to literal rendering in the translation of academic Marxology - an exegesis of texts which which betrays a failure to have construed Heller's themselves are regarded as self-sufficient ends: precise meaning (and in several instances I have getting at Marx's meaning, rather than assessing still not managed to decipher this). Even where the its worth or relevance to contemporary events, meaning is clear, it is frequently couched in rather stin seems the dominating concern. Since it scarcely bizarre expressions, and the reader is confronted ever ventures beyond Marx's own dicta either for with an array of undefined concepts (eg 'community its substance or its exe~plification, the book re- structure', 'society of associated producers', the -1 Though her book was ori(tinally published in German, Heller is herseU 'antinomies' of capitalism, its 'formation', and so Hungarian and associated with a group of Hungarian philosophers of Lukacian inspiration 'Who have rel'ently been subject to a certain amount on). In the case of these and other terms, some of persecution in Hun~ary. 37 mains in a kind of double political abstraction - this distinction in terms of 'fulfilled' and 'unful­ from the internal politics of Marxist study and from filled' needs, since there would be considerable the politics of the concrete conjuncture. overlap between the two categories. Thus the con­ This point connects with the second line of criti­ sumption of certain goods would seem indispens­ cism the book might invite, namely to its unclassi­ able to any form of society (eg. food, clothing, fiable nature from the standpoint of the humanism energy, m~dicine, recreation etc). The distinction versus anti-humanism debate. I suggested that this is rather that of effective versus possible demand. was not in itself a bad thing, but the trouble is that Here again, our theory of needs can restrict HelIer is not a ware of its implications, either as itself to charting patterns of actual or possible these touch upon the debated issue of the continuity satisfaction. That is to say, it can concentrate on of Marx's problematic, or as they affect our inter­ needs as consumption. Alternatively, it can raise pretation of Marx's work in the light of the tradi­ the question of the production and determination tional fact/value antithesis. Or if she is aware of of needs. In this event, the theory will have to them~ she chooses not to spell them out. More exte'nd itself beyond economic determinants of precisely, in regard to the first issue, I am unsure supply and demand to consideration of the biologi­ what to make of her appeal in the last analysis to cal and psychological factors determining the kind the concepts of the Economic and Philosophical of goods and services that are produced and the :Manuscripts ('Species being', 'alienation') within role that such fact ors play in shaping reactions of the context of a study whose implications suggest in acceptance, rejection and indifference to such pro­ many respects enormous difficulties about the ex­ duction. This is need as the concept of interaction tent to which a Marxist theory of needs can be pre­ between production and consumption, r~ther than sented within the problematic of the early works. need as a concept used for differentiating between Thus there is an ~cknowledgement, if only tacit, goods at the level of consumption. of the different interpretations of the problem of Thus we can (i) specify different types of need; needs invited by Marx's early works as opposed to (ii) view their satisfaction from an effective Capital, but the contrasts between the earlier and demand v. possible consumption distinction; later works are merely stated rather than given (iii) recognize that the latter distinction points in a any critical assessment - there is no forthright critical, evaluative fashion at the consumption attempt to e~-pound what is entailed by the incon­ represented by effective demand (which is seen both sistencies to which she points. It is not even as if as a given set of needs and as exclusive of the satis­ HelIer had the consistency to come out strongly in faction of an alternative - reduced or expanded - set favour of a continuity in Marx's work; on the one of needs); (iv) allow that the further problem then is hand there are many indications that she regards it to determine what forces produce (a) the consump­ as forming a whole, and that its message on the tion such as it exists, (b) dissatisfaction with that question of needs undergoes only minor modifica­ consumption of a kind that finds expression in de­ tions from the time of the Economic and Philo­ mand that cannot be fulfilled. Any attempt to answer sophical Manuscripts to Theories of Surplus Value. this last question must refer both to economic Yet running parallel with this suggestion there is factors (the given mode of production) and'to bio­ another discourse which speaks in terms of Marx's logical and psychological factors, determining different orientation in Capital, which is suspicious 'production in general', (so that even 'unplanned' of any speculative anthropology, and which clearly modes of production cannot be wholly arbitrary in recognizes the extent to which any attempt to pro­ what they produce but are structured by forces vide Marx with a 'theory of needs' must both raise, deriving from the nature of human beings, raw and attempt to solve, the question of the relation­ materials, environmental conditions and so on). ship between the evaluative thrust of Marx's It must also consider the role played by these fac­ critique and its objective, factual content. tors and conditions in moulding reactions to a given set of 'products' - whether these be 'material' in Why a Marxist theory of needs? the strict sense or 'immaterial', and whether or not ":Nhat do we understand by a 'theory of needs', and they take the form of consumer goods (use-values why does it come up as an issue for Marxism? in the narrow sense) or represent conditions of HelIer does not raise either of these questions existence in the wide sense (working conditions, explicitly, but I think her work can only be levels of free time, availability of space, general assessed in terms of the framework defined by levels of health, sanitation, freedom from pollution, them. In the first place, we can approach the con­ provisions for education, for leisure, for sexuality, cept of needs in terms of types or sets of needs. child-rearing, old age, death - in fact within this From this standpoint we can distinguish, for wide sense of 'products' we can include even such example, certain categories of needs (economic, things as the cultural patterns and ideologies material, spiritual, cultural etc), and we can within which people live: the whole set of social attempt to specify what goods or services we would relations and material or immaterial institutions include in each category. But let us note that this that embody these. It might be added that in regard approach would basically consist in a description to the question of reactions we might want to speci­ of needs (rather than in any account of their pro­ fy another possible line of approach to be developed duction), that its categories can only be defined by a theory of needs: one relating to a distinction vaguely and that other approaches to the question of between 'need' and other concepts ('want', 'desire') needs will cut across the distinctions made in expressive of attitudes to production. terms of them. Thus a second approach might be in terms of actual versus possible consumption: Not there here we distinguish between the set of goods and In the above schema of possible approaches to the services consumed by the members of society at question of needs, no reference has been made to any given point and a set of needs which represent Marxism; this was quite deliberate because it goods and services which would be consumed given seems important to show the extent to which the altered conditions of production and distribution of issues raised in the provision of a 'theory of needs' social wealth. I think it would qe a mistake to chart have a range and depth that takes usf~r beyond any-' 38 thing to be found in the Marxist texts themselves: them as already given. Instead of charting human the_Marxist theory o~ needs is not there to be ex­ development on the basis of a given human nature tracted from a reading and exegesis of Marx's with its set of human-defining needs (which were at texts but something that is yet to be constituted. most seen as accreted to and developed in the form At the same time, the theory of needs only arises of satisfaction, rather than changed in their content), as an absent theory to be constituted because of the he historicizes needs - and thus to the extent that development of historical materialism. Marxism the concept of human nature plays a part in his invites questions about needs which are, so to analysis, it itself is conceived as historical devel­ speak, foreclosed both by pre-Marxist philosophies opment, not as eSsence but as the sum of social of man and by non-Marxist economy and sociology. relations at a given point. Thus, both positivism in In the first place, Marx makes a radical break with economic theory and essentialism in anthropology his contemporary political economists when he share a common conception which from the start insists upon the structural dominance of production precludes the posing of the question of human needs over consumption. Where the economists of the because it assumes those needs as their starting 17th and 18th centuries had made their starting point: a starti{lg point about which nothing can be point that of needs (rendering production necessary said because nothing is seen as needing to be said. to satisfy them), Marx made his starting point that Marx, by contrast, opens up a space for a theory of production. That is to say, classical economy of needs because (a) he relates economic needs to relates economic facts to their origin in needs, or a given structure of production which could be other in their utility to human subjects, thus tending to than it is in fact - thus his work takes the form of reduce exchange-value to use-value and the latter a critique - and (b) to the' extent that he raises the ('wealth') to human needs. The object of study of question of anthropological determination of needs this economics is 'homo oeconomicus' as posses­ he makes it a precondition of any study in this field sor of a given, definitively human and measurable that we recognize that needs are historically set of needs. Production, distribution, exchange developed both in form and content. and all the 'economic' acts that take place stem This is not to suggest that Marx never assumes from the satisfaction of these needs, which are anything about men's needs; it is clear that if one assumed as pre-given to, and thus the ultimate never allows oneself to make any claims or projec­ explanation of, those acts. We can see, therefore, tions in this respect, one abandons any interest in that such an approach must use its starting-point the fact that economic and social processes pertain to define its ends; hence its positivism: economics to human agents. To suggest, as does Althusser, 2 as a science which charts economic acts as satis­ that the only needs which play an economic role in fying the needs it posits as the origin of those acts. Marx's analysis are needs as effective demand is There can be no critique of these acts or their out­ to define the economic along the lines of classical come because by definition they are the only economy - as closed system, object of a pure possible acts within the space of this science. science, that can be studied in isolation from the In this respect we must note Marx's different totality of the conditions of social reproduction in analysis of consumption. Marx showed that econo­ which it functions as a system. Marx is not guilty mic needs cannot be defined by relating them to of this. Even if one regards the early theory of 'human nature': consumption is double - it includes alienation as not representative of his later posi­ both individual consumption and productive consump tion, it is nonetheless the case that the analysis in tion (the distinction between Department I and Capital is underpinned by a whole set of assump­ Department I I). A large part of consumption is tions about what would constitute appropriate therefore shown to be outside the direct individual forms of production for man conceived as rational consumption of economic subjects. However, it being. Thus he constantly speaks of the wasteful­ might be said that even if anthropological considera­ ness of capitalism, its failure to meet needs, the tions (the appeal to 'human nature') do not enter degrading effects of machinofacture and intense into determination of 'needs' of production, individ­ division of labour etc - aspects of capitalist produc - ual consumption does appear to refer us to subjects tion which place it in a context of anthropological satisfying needs. It is in regard to this point that needs, a context, however, which anyone simply Marx's break with classical economy connects with concerned with studying the 'logic Df capital' his break with classical philosophy. For (i) he de­ would have to relate to as an 'interference'. fines these needs as historical. i. e. not determined A strong point in HelIer's work is that she by unchanging human nature; and (ii) actual individ­ exposes, even if she fails to diSCUSS, the dimen­ ual consumption, the individual needs which are sions of Marx's analysis and its implications from satisfied through economic activity, are defined in this point of view. That is to say, she reveals the terms of effective demand and thus recognized as extent to which historical materialism as 'science' determined by the stru~ture of production - in the of history calls in question traditional notions of first place by the level of development of the pro­ sCientificity based on the disjuncture between 'fact' ductive forces (technical, capacities) and in the and 'value', and the assignation of all 'facts' to the second place by the relations of production (which realm of science and all "values' to the realm of fix the distribution of income). Thus even though morality. The anti-humanist/humanist framework anthropological considerations must retain a deter­ erected around contemporary Marxist studies is a minate role in the last analysis, since a given reflection of this disjuncture, ana its effect has structure of production must be related to the been to relegate all questions of needs to the dom­ nature of its human 'supports', we cannot move ain of a 'humanist ideology' that is seen as running directly to this anthropology but must first take parallel to Marx's 'scientific' work but incapable of account of the economic definition of needs. integration with it. Hence the concern with ex­ Moreover, even where Marx is directly con­ punging humanist 'residues', or with revealing them cerned with needs as an anthropological rather than as a 'contamination', or a 'conflation' of two dis­ economic concept, he breaks with the traditional tinct aspects of society. It is a pity that HelIer, approach: he opens up the area in which a theory of having exposed this tenSion, and shown us some of needs comes into play because he does not assume the ways in which it is reflected in Marx's work, __ 2- See L.Althusser, Reading Capital NLB, 1970, plG6 39 then stops short, being content to tell us simply provided in terms of 'alienation' and 'man rich in that Marx 'never separates value judgements from needs') of positions implying the existence of some economic analysis; if he had done so he would be an objective criteria for the evaluation of needs. anti-capitalist romantic'. She seems unconcerned There is a similar inconclusiveness in another with the epistemological questions this raises. interesting part of her discussion where she com­ Nor is she much concerned with questions regard­ pares the concept of 'interest' with that of need. ing the determination of needs, so that in terms of The overcoming of alienation consists in the dis­ the schema of approaches to the theory of needs appearance of 'interest' (as the concept of bourge­ outlined above, her emphasis is on needs as a con­ ois greed). Wherever Marx uses this term, Heller cept of consumption. This means that she scarcely argues, whether of individual or general interest, comments at all on Marx's ~admittedly difficult and it is pejor3:tive, ie a reference to the narrow egoist enigmatic) passages in the 1857 Introduction and in demands of bourgeois society, and the term is quite Pre-capitalist Economic Formations on the rela- opposed both to that of 'social needs' and to that of . tionship between production and consumption, but 'Radical needs'. The former, so far from being the prefers to concentrate on his various uses of the concept of a 'general interest' - of a system of term 'needs' to designate types of need ('material', needs suspended above the 'whole or average of 'spiritual' etc), or to designate more and less personal needs' - always in fact refers to individual 'basic' sets of need (eg his use of the terms needs. The idea of a set of 'social needs' over and 'natural' and 'necessary' as opposed to 'social' and above individual needs suggests firstly that personal 'historical' in categorising needs), or on the way needs should be sacrificed to social needs (which the concept functions in his economic analysis tend to be identified in fact with those of the ruling (eg to distinguish between effective demand and class or elite - who then claim to be representing possible consumption; to specify 'necessary' as what are the 'unrecognised' needs of the misguided opposed to 'luxury' consumption). It is an interest­ masses), and secondly that social needs are 'real', ing and commendable piece of exegesis in which she actual per sonal needs 'false'. On the contrary, a ttempts to determine the extent to which any use of argues HelIer, though Marx uses the concept of the concept has what she calls 'valorising emphasis' 'social need' in various senses, it always refers to and whether it is functioning as a philosophical or personal needs either in their capacity as socially economic category. This leads her onto a discus­ produced, or as the set of goods purchasable by the sion of the concept of need as a 'pure value' cate­ individual (effective demand) or in the sense of gory. In this connection, she argues that in reject­ individual needs - that depend for satisfaction on ing capitalism, Marx takes as his point of departure the cooperation of others. She also stresses that 'man rich in needs', and that though this idea is when used as an economic category of effective elaborated in the early works and not further demand, Marx frequently puts the term in inverted analysed later on, it reappears in the mature works commas, thus expressing the difference between a in references to the workers' 'needs of develop­ structure of needs that are felt and potentially ment' and primarily in the concept of 'Radical realisable at a given stage of social development, needs' - a concept which she claims plays a key and the actual consumption of a given class. This, role in Marx's theory. she insists, is not a difference between conscious As a preliminary to a fuller discussion of effective demand and unconscious needs, but a 'Radical needs', she has a fairly lengthy chapter on difference between being and not being, between the 'general philosophic concepts of needs and the realising and not realising, between what is and alienation of needs'. It is a chapter bedevilled by what is not satisfiable. inadequate explication of concepts (beginning with Now while these distinctions are inEleed to be that of 'philosophic' itself), and in many places I found in Marx's work and HelIer does a reasonable found it extremely difficult to follow. Its main job of expounding them, it might still be thought an message is that the problem of the alienation of evasion of the main problems to be confronted by a needs constitutes 'the centre of Marx's philosophi­ theory of need simply to insist on the individual cal analysis of need'. Alienation of needs is equiv­ character of needs. For in regard to 'social needs' alent to the alienation of wealth represented in the of the socialised man, one of the major practical concept of 'man rich in needs'. Heller analyses, problems seems to relate to the manner of reconcil­ though with no great originality, the mechanisms iation of anyone individual's needs with the satis­ whereby capitalist production issues in this faction of those of any other, and thus with the sum alienation as a result of its one-sided development of individual needs. Unless we assume unanimity of man. There are some interesting remarks on the of needs we cannot simply assert theoretically and extent to which Marx fore sa w the possibilities of abstractly the harmonisation of all individual needs. capitalism's manipulation of needs and some tant­ It does not prima facie appear at all obvious that the alizingly brief comments on what might be termed overthrow of the fetishised private / general interest the 'ideology' of needs. For example, referring opposition of bourgeOis society means that all to Marx's remarks on the capitalist mode of produc· problems about the relation of individual to society ,tion's development of 'imaginary cravings' she will be overcome. Will there not be necessary writes: "'imaginary needs" do not exist. Whether some 'sacrifice' of individual needs in favour of needs are "normal" or whether they are "artificial" the maximum satisfaction possible of social needs . .. depends completely upon the value judgements (taken as the sum of individual needs)? In regard with which we define "normality". ' The problem to questions such as these HelIer is too ready to here, however, which is not discussed, is what rely on formulaic solutions. determines the value jUdgements. In statements such as these HelIer seems to be optin~ for a Radical needs wholly relative account of the philosophical concept A similar evasion of crucial issues recurs in her of need, but this position is difficult to relate to reliance on the conc'ept of 'Radical needs' (I wish, her apparent adoption elsewhere (marked, for ex­ incidentally, that she had given references to ample, by her appeal to a concept of 'Radical needs" Marx's alleged use of the concept). She wants to and her preparedness to make use of the framework use the concept to effect the reconciliation between 40 the objectlve and evaluative aspects of Marx's no rel~tion to socialist society'S system of needs, work: 'Radical needs', she argues, are the expres­ which seems odd; also odd is the complementary sion of the fact that communis'in should be realised: notion that though 'Radical needs' belong only to they embody. the Ought behind the critique of capital­ capitalism, they are also those responsible for ism. But hOW, she queries, does this Ought become breaking down its reproduction. HelIer's answer transposed from subjective to objective existence - to these perplexities is that capitalism, by devel­ which I take to be a Hegelianised way of asking oping the productive forces sufficiently to over­ about its concretisation in capitalist society, about come the division of labour, can and does create its non-quixotic or non-voluntaristic status. Her needs that belong to its Being but do not belong to solution is to refer us to the Totality (elsewhere its system of needs. Thus only the 'Radical needs' deSignated confusingly as 'formation') of capitalism, enable man, in the interests of satisfying them, to which she argues needs 'Radical needs' in order to bring about a social formation that is radically, function: the transition to communism follows from 'from the root' different from the previous one. a double necessity - from the natural laws of development of the capitalist mode of production New senses and from the necessary emergence of the collective This seems to suggest that while 'Radical needs', subject (the bearers of 'Radical needs') as a result gua unfulfilled needs, belong only to capitalism, of the first development. These two necessities, gua fulfilled needs they belong only to the system of she further argues, are the expression in Marx of socialist or communist needs. Even if we can make a double theory of contradiction, the one Hegelian sense of this idea, it is scarcely obvious why it is in form, the other Fichtean - though both 'inverted' so absurd, as Heller claims, to attempt to use the by Marx. The theory of double contradiction is system of capitalist society as a standpoint from HelIer's solution to the tension between objective, which to judge what socialism needs to provide. natur(lI economic laws (which find expression in the What other basis initially can there be for such 'contradiction between forces and relations of pro­ judgement save that provided by the emergence of duction') and the 'consciousness of this conflict and unsatisfied needs? In effect, HelIer simply opts the need to fight it out'. 3 The latter, incorporated out of any discussion of the transition from capital­ in 'Radical needs', emerges as the result of the ism to the society of 'associated producers' when contradiction capitalism develops between the indi­ she insists that the creatures existing under the vidual's need to develop his personality and the latter will have such different 'senses' that'no 'accidental' character of his subordination to the comparison of their needs with earlier needs is division of labour. possible. To my mind, however, a theory of needs What are these 'Radical needs' which are both which is content to refer us to the alienation of generated within capitalism and yet external to it, needs under capitalism, on the 'one hand, and to the unsatisfiable under it, and the grounds of its trans­ 'radically re-structured human being with his cendence? In the first place, argues HelIer, the radically new set of needs', on the other, has need for free time. Such a need 'transcends parti­ evaded a crucial part of its task. At this point, cular interests and contains in principle that which it seems to me, HelIer presents us witll 'Marxist conforms to the human species'. At the same time, philosophy' at its most retrograde, that is to say, capitalism cannot satisfy it because beyond a cert­ she offers us the most blatant substitution of ain point valorisation is incompatible with a further philosophy for political theory. At the very least, shortening of the working day. Secondly, the 'need one must raise the question of how much point there for universality': the other side of the extreme is in presenting a Marxist theory of needs which by­ division of labour is the emergence of a need for passes the issue of its strategic import within the 'fully developed individuals fit for a variety of current climate of Marxist thought, and which fails labours, ready to face any change in production•.. ' to acknowledge the extent to which the provision of But there are two problems here. Firstly, what a Marxist theory of needs is put on the agenda if these 'Radical needs' and their expression in the precisely because of contemporary political events. form of revolutionary action, fail to surface? What I have in mind here the dissatisfaction felt by radi­ then becomes of Heller's attempt to give concrete cals with the traditional Marxist. faith in the ability legitimisation to the concept, ie to deal with the of capitalism's 'contradictions' and its development charge that these needs have only a utopian or sub­ of the productive forces to generate socialist soci­ jective-voluntaristic status, rather than reflecting ety, and the failure hitherto of the so-called social­ any 'necessity' attaching to capitalist development? ist economies to plan in any adequate way to meet Here Heiler can only say that history has yet to needs. let alone to remove the evils associated show us whether capitalist society produces the with capitalist 'alienation' (extensive division of consciousness of alienation ('Radical needs') which labour, repetitive work routines, long hours of in Marx's day did not exist, and whose existence work, class divisions and bureaucratic structures Marx had therefore to project. Can we be happy, etc). In this sense, the theory of needs becomes an however, with what then remains the abstract important issue because of the failure of Marx's imposition of a structure of needs which bears no 'projections' of socialist and communist systems of necessary relationship to the concrete actualities needs to attain any concrete form; it cannot there­ of. existing society? fore rely simply on reiteration of such projections. A second problem relates to the fact that Heller HelIer is not wholly unaware of the abstract level tells us that 'Radical needs' are inherent aspects of her study in this respect, but she justifies it of the capitalist structure of needs. These needs along the following lines: are not the embryos of a future formation but Marx and Enge.ls rarely deal with the 'how' of 'members of the capitalist formation'. Later she the transition; they limit themselves to the tells us that the 'structure of needs in capitalist comparison of 'ideal types'. Since we are society belongs ..• exclusively to capitalist society' analysing Marx's theory of needs we too can - it cannot be used to judge any other society in work only with these 'ideal types'. We are general, and least of all that of 'the associated 3 K. Marx. Preface to 'A Contribution to the Critique of Political Economy'. producers'. This suggests that 'Radical needs' bear Selected Works p182 41 therefore forced to exclude a problem which is limitness of our actions; it expresses the most crucial to us today, namely the problem of beautiil!.l ~spiration of mature humanity, an aspira­ transition••• (P100) tion that belongs to our Being'. The trouble is that Even as the exposition of the 'ideal type' the so far as the theory of needs is concerned this only account she gives is riddled with unanswered ques­ seems to bring us back to where we started. Even tions about its 'how'. We are simply told that the if it can be argued that the concrete problems of base for the future development of production will transition are the object of a study other than the be. the extraordinary growth in the proportion of one that HelIer sets herself, one might still wan t to fixed capital, yet that living labour will still prevail insist that part of the task of a theory of needs was over dead; that there will be 'unlimited' progress to discover what is 'in conformity with our Being', in material production, but that the development of and that it cannot present this as an unexamined new material needs is inconceivable; that the divi­ presupposition. It seems a pity that despite all the sion of labour and the mental/manual distinction early promise of this work, and the excellence of will disappear; that labour itself will become a need much of its analYSiS, its final offering is this lofty, instead of a social duty; that it will be inconceivable but possibly rather vacuous, concept of our Being. that there will be any abyss between labour -and free time - and so on. In her final pages, HelIer has no qualms about expressing Marx's 'vision' in the The open philosophy ..• most mystico-Hegelian terms - eg, what rema~ns of the 'objective spirit' of class society is elevated "The students will be afforded ample opportunities to the sphere of the· 'absolute spirit'; the 'world to observe the genteel way philosophers have of spirit' is not only recognized in art and philosophy, contradicting one another. .• What, however, we but in every human relationship; every individual should like to avoid is criticism of the courses as is representative of a conformity to the species that . such, as opposed to criticism of their philosophical has become real and actual, and 'he recognizes his content • •. the aim is to involve the student, even representativeness in every other person and pre­ if only on a small scale, in the evolution of philo­ sents himself as such in relation to them'. sophy; only by inviting your participation in this wa To be fair, HelIer admits that such a vision may can we demonstrate that it is not a static discipline be utopian, but she would argue that it is still but a dynamic process. "- Editorial, Open Mind fertile. Marx, she claims, 'establishes a norm (Open University philosophy Journal) No. 1, against which· we can m~asure th~ reality and value January 1976 of our ideas, and with which one can determine the

Revolutionary Communist No 5

'Women's Oppression under Capitalism'. 'South Africa: The Cris;~ in Britain and the Apartheid Economy'. ~ ~\og~ ;'!i1~~~~~ZO//J>zv£\ 'South Africa: International Solidarity and the British Working Class:' ~ rOIl(rdt ,"",~pt.'S if (/lITellt prtl(tirLJ V This issue contains a major analysis of women's oppression, showing how the struggle illterDieZQ,,~\~ dth,'tcj~ pO/OJlir IIJ/d (OITl'JjJoJ/dl'J/(l' for social equalit~i is integral to the 'truule of the working class against capitalism. The articles on South Africa are essential trilIlJ/{/tiOllj~ ('xpOJitiOIlJ il1ld rt.7;ie'(C; ifkiT ftxlr reading for all th~se who support the call for a total blockade of the apartheid regime, and who wish to aid the black liberation struggle. Price: SOp. From RCG Publications Ltd., three times a year - first issue Easter 77 49 Railton Road, London SE240LN. contents: discussion - Psychology, ideology and the human subject Revolutionary Communist analysis - Class, language and education Papers polemic - Feminism and the language of psychoanalysis Number One contains a full critique of the politics of review- Volo~inov on marxism and linguistics the Revolutionary Communist Group - from which the comrades who formed the RCT were expelled in November 1976 - and outlines the central tasks facing in future issues: the revolutionary movement today. Published by the Theories of discourse - Foucault and Pecheux Revolutionary Communist Tendency New translation -Vygotsky's Higher Psychological Functions Althusser, Hirst and ideology Articles on internationalism & party-building; Freud, Lacan and the theory of the unconscious Stalinism & the British Communist Party G.H. Mead's concept of the Self Review articles- Seve; Chomsky; Kristeva Subscription for four issues UK £2.00 UK Library £3.75 Overseas £3.00 Overseas Library £6.00 available from bookshops price: 90p 9~ subscription: personal-£2.70 for one year including postage . ,~~ Issue Number One institutional- £4.00 .~~~ UK £0.50 (plus 13p postage) %. Overseas £0.75 (plus lOp postage) ~ payable to: Ideology & Consciousness, "~,,. ~~ I Woburn Mansions, . ~\~~" Make cheques, postal orders and international money ~. Torrington Place, . (jv.\~ orders payable to RCT Association, and send to: QzA London W.C.l. . ~ ... \\1\~ ~chnl,,_ dAlr(lttO'~ BM RCT, London, WC1V 6XX (R P) -"W... psychoanalysiS- e .~ 42 much alive in horticulture in the Mao was a 'social and ethical philo­ RacIicaI Confasioa 1930s, the authors argue that the sopher, not a military man'! (RS Hilary Rose and Steven Rose (eds. ) Lysenkoist movement was not p190) The Political Economy of Science; simply an 'affair' but a genuine Turning now to the incorporation of The Radicalisation of Science, attempt at a scientific and cultural science and technology into the Macmillan, i 976, each about 30Opp, revolution. It was a revolution in structure of advanced capitalist £ 1 0 hardback, £ 3. 95 paper which an exuberant and enthusiastic society, there is firstly Mike communistic youth confronted elit­ Cooley's SOlid, unpretentious and These immensely expensive books ist academicians who rationalised informative account of the role of together contain sixteen articles their privileged position by appeal­ science in the labour process. Here divided more or less arbitrarily ing to the value of 'detached' , at least we have the beginning of an into nine dealing with the political 'pure' science. We know that the analysis of the social relations of economy of science (PES) and seven revolution failed, and that the imp­ production in contemporary capital­ with its radicalisation (RS). No less ortance of Lys,enkoism has de cl ined ism. His piece is complemented by than six of the articles are written .in Russia. Yet, contrary to common Gorz's (in PES) in which it is argued by one or both 6f the Roses (five in opinion, Lewontin and Levins argue that capital exercises control over PES), and five of these are modified that Russian agriculture did not 'young scientists' not only ideologic­ versions of articles already pub­ suffer apprecia"l>le damage due to ally, but also by encouraging the lished elsewhere. Of the remainder, the application of Lysenkoist prac­ specialisation of scientific tasks and only two - by Mike Cooley of tices between 1948 and 1962. In by the production of an 'over-abund­ AUEW-TASS (in PES), and by fact, they show tha:t wheat crop ance of scientific talent' which con­ Joseph Needham (in RS) - are by yields in both Russia and the USA stitutes a kind of industrial reserve British authors. With the exception increased at roughly the same rate army. Gorz's arguments are not of Enzenberger's critique of politi­ from 1950 onwards, although of particularly convincing; the Roses' cal ecology (in PES) the other course the absolute yields in the study of the incorporation of science articles, most of which are of latter were more than double those (in PES), on the other hand, is'down­ Continental origin, are relatively in the Soviet Union, as they had been right evasive and misleading. For inaccessible. since before 1930. This is a remark· example, they propose that an ana­ At the outset the Roses insist that able conclusion which cannot but lysis of science policy over the past to develop beyond its 'early prag­ force a reappraisal of the Lysenko few decades will throw light on the matic phase' to a genuine revolution­ debate as it is conventionally relations of state and science in the ary conSCiousness, it is imperative conducted in the West. context of the present crisis. A para­ that the radical science movement It is here surely that the import­ graph which summarises Bernal' s formulate a theoretical perspective. ance of this article lies for us. position then fOllows, in which it is They have no illusions about the Without it, I might add, one would asserted that capitalist science is difficulties which this involves: be led to believe that developments used to maintain state power and to 'The magnitude of the theoretical in Russia were hardly worthy of generate profit. Of course, no Marx­ tasks confronting the movement - close analysis by a radical science ist analysis should state baldly that the need for a political economy movement. For insofar as the Roses science generates profit; nor, for of science in contemporary capi­ treat of science in socialist socie­ that matter, should it assert that talism, its changing mode .of ties, they conSistently adopt the line 'natural science generates ideology', production, the proletarial!lsation that it is to China that we must turn as the Roses did in their quoted state­ of scientific workers, the question if we wish to learn what a liberated ment of aims. It is the capitalist of natural science as a generator socialist science would look like. class which appropriates scientific of ideology, and of the ideology of Science for the people in China, knowledge and embodies it in differ­ science with its devaluation of all science for oppression in both the ent ways at different periods in the non- 'scientific' knowledge, its Soviet Union and the capitalist West; productive process so as to facilitate elitism and the subtleties of its this is the now pOlitically safe the extraction of surplus value from particular form of sexism and stance which the editors adopt on the working population. Similarly, it racism - all these needed defini­ the basis of the most cursory dis­ is the capitalist class which articul­ tion and welding together theoret­ cussion of the relationship between ates and disseminates ideology, not ically. We had to achieve these science and society in the countries some disembodied abstraction tasks in the knowledge of the past involved. labelled 'natural science'. Changing history of theory and practice on Needham's article (in RS) shows material conditions demand changing the question of science in the just how congenial this sinophilia responses from this class, and any revolutionary Marxist movement can be to people the Marxist historical analysis of the - and, in particular, the experi­ science movement can do without. relationship between the state and ence of the Soviet Union and China' The inclusion of this essay I regard science would have to take this into (PES, RS, p. xv) to be an act of political irresponsi­ account. Such an approach is not As a statement of aims this has bility. According to :N eedham it is possible though, given the Roses' much to recommend it; the question the adoption of Chinese values that conceptual apparatus. Since both is whether these books provide us will save the West from the mechan­ science and capitalism are still with at least some of the equipment ical materialism which the counter­ around, they are able glibly, to which we need to achieve those aims. culture, spear-headed by Roszak, assert in the very next paragraph By and large, as far as I am has reacted against. The Chinese that the reasons for state invol ve­ concerned, they do not. On the are levelheaded, they have a co­ ment in science in the late 1950s contrary, as we shall see, the operative mentality, they espouse and the 1960s 'are clear'. What is sloppiness, the superficiality and an organic humanism. This domin­ not clear, and what needs analysing the empty rhetoric of much of the ance of morality in contemporary are the specific forms which the Roses' work in particular can only Chinese society, he says, is specif­ extraction of surplus value and the serve to deflect and to confuse sub­ ically represented by the slogan entrenchment of class power took at sequent attempts at a radical 'Put politics in command'! Needham, this time. It is obvious from the critique of science which takes I have been told, believes, that these Roses' haphazard selection from their pOSition for granted. values can only blossom under Marx's writings in their 'theoreti­ The topic of science in the Soviet socialism, but this article certainly cal' chapter (in PES), that they are Union is handled in one of the best does not make that clear. An ethical in no position to even pose such articles in the collection: Lewontin' s revolution, not a socio-political one, questions, let alone set about trying and Levin's 'The Problem of is the programme he seems to ad­ to answer them. Their ahistorical, Lysenkoism' (in RS). Emphasising vocate, a view which is buttressed abstract approach is more conveni­ that Lamarckism was still very by his grossly misleading claim that ent anyway - it can dissolve every 43 potential embarrassment in a line. control' by means of the pill, for is intended to go beyond this. Yet HOW, for example, do we account for example, and an 'ideological debate one of the two articles on women in the fact that even now, in times of over its employment' (PES, p150) science in RS, that by Couture­ economic stress, funding for ie for liberation or for domination. Cherki, is limited in just this way. 'particular areas' of 'pure' science This seems to suggest that the scien­ The other article by Stehelin is more continues? Well, science generates tific knowledge embodied in the pill, enterpriSing, yet again covers a profit and maintains state power, say, is value-free and neutral. It is wide spectrum of issues without doesn't it? So these areas have only in the question of its techno­ investigating any particular one in obviously 'been seen both by govern­ logical employment that values come depth. . ments and industry as integral to to the fore, shaping the ends to Both of these books are to be their political or economic purpose' which that knowledge is applied. The translated into several languages. (PES, pI8). Q. E. D. choice between such ends is an The Roses' views are thus likely to Both of these books are subtitled 'ideological' one, and cannot be be widely disseminated and dis­ 'Ideology of/in the natural sciences' settled rationally. Edgley (in RP 15) cussed, discussed I may add without One would have expected that some has criticised this conception of the. benefit of direct access to attempt would have been made to science as itself ideological, and has Werskey's important criticism of confront the problem of ideology persuasively argued that it is non­ their position in Radical Science head-on, involving minimally a des­ dialectical and non-Marxist. The idea Journal, No.2/3. The editors dedi­ cription and clarification of the that certain conceptions of SCience, cate the books to the 'heroic people different senses in which the term and perhaps some 'scientific' theories of Indochina', who have already is used, their strengths and their constructed in the light of them, can crossed the first hurdle in their weaknesses. What one finds is that themselves be ideological, is also struggle to develop a socialist the concept is used with reckless sometimes suggested by the Roses. science. Given the absence of abandon. Granted one gains the At one point they speak of dialectical Werskey's critique, and in the light impression that ideology is inextric­ theories as 'truly scientific rather of the misgivings I have aired, it is ably linked with domination. But how than ideological' (PES pl02) which debatable whether these books will specifically ideological domination suggests that a non-dialectical pro­ advance the struggle of the heroic operates, and thus how it is to be gramme, which they take the reduc­ people of this country, and other .counteracted, of this we find little tionist paradigm in biology to be, is SOCieties, whose daily lives are trace. For example, Levy-Leblond, ideological per se. But the Roses' crippled and stunted by capitalist whose article (in RS) contains an acritical and unselfconscious use of science and technology. interesting if not particularly novel the concept leads them astray. They John Krige account of the way in which power is also speak of the reductionist para­ distributed in contemporary phYSics, digm as 'bad science because it is ends his contribution with the ideological' (PES pll 0). But if it is Mal'x a Speacel'? stirring claim that the 'long-term non-dialectical t~en, on their earlier abolition of the distinction between view, it is not bad science; it is not Joseph Needham, Moulds of the scientific knowledge of an elite science at all. It is ideology or Understanding: A Pattern of and the empirical knowledge of the pseudo-science. PseudO-SCiences, Natural Philosophy, edited and mass, maintained in existence today they also tell us, are used ideo­ introduced by Gary Wersky, by the dominant ideology, will de­ logically for human oppression, a Allen and Unwin, £7.75- mand a radical modification of different claim again which signals science' (RS, pI75). This view does a relapse into the value-free concep­ Joseph Needham is a remarkable not exactly square with his claim tion of science discussed earlier. person: eminent embryologist; made earlier in the paper that, It is surely impossible to make any leading authority on the history of because of the esoteric and specta­ progress under these circumstances. Chinese science and technology; cular character of fundamental I do not wish to suggest that the dis­ he regards himself as a marxist, physics its popularisation might tinction between science and ideology an 'honorary Taoist', and a follower exacerbate mystification rather than is easily drawn. But it is a problem, of the mystical Christian theology of destroy it. This is surely a cardinal and what is so frustrating about Rudolf Otto. A seemingly incongru­ point. For what it suggests is that these books is that no one seems to ous combination, yet one which must the hierarchical organisation and appreciate this. The net result is make him an appealing figure to any­ the division of labour within some confusion and shoddiness. one who feels textural echoes of the kinds of scientific practice might be To be fair to the Roses, if we treat I Ching in On Contradiction, or is an unavoidable consequence of the their articles Simply as schematic struck by the similarities between sheer complexity of the discipline overviews of ongoing debates on the Engels' introduction to Dialectics of involved. For some this is an un­ left, they contain much valuable in­ Nature and a pop mysticism such as palatable conclUSion, but slogans formation which any theory of the Watts' The Joyous Cosmology. won't demolish it. What is needed, relationship between science, tech­ This work is intended to introduce minimally, is an understanding of nology and the structure of advanced his thinking both to readers of his the precise way in which the organ­ capitalism would have to take cog­ Science and Civilisation in China, isation of fundamental research is nisance of. Their piece on Race and and to all those who are critically ideological, and why. IQ (in PES) is particularly helpful in concerned with technological ration­ One sense in which Levy-Leblond this regard. Articles like that on the ality in bourgeois society. It com­ uses the term ideology is that which Radicalisation of science (in RS) and prises a critical and biographical identifies it with the values or goals Women's Liberation and Human introduction; essays selected from which scientific research is directed Reproduction (in PES), while un­ four books that appeared between towards. From this perspective, as doubtedly helpful, do tend to present 1927 and 1941; and the texts of two he recognises, the advent of social­ competing views and tendencies in lectures delivered in the early 1970s. ism does not mean the end of ideo­ such synoptic terms that it i& often Considering this time span, there is logy; it means the substitution of a difficult to identify key areas in the less inconsistency than might be ex­ different science with its own ideo­ debate in question. In this regard the pected; and as the selection has been logy (ie values or goals). In work on the women's movement is approved by the author, it is justified similar vein, Rose and Hanmer particularly puzzling. In their to regard them as a whole. speak of 'conflicting ideologies of article Rose and Hanmer suggest, I Needham derives his world-vision birth control' in their article on think correctly, that there are from many sources, which he human reproduction. Here the definite limits to 'descriptive work regards as complementary and concept of ideology is taken to mean showing how women are hindered mutually illuminating. These are: the goals for which birth control is from entering the institutions of - The study of the principles and used; we now have 'scientific birth science' (PES pI43). Their analysis mechanisms of biological organisa- 44 tion, and the categories needed to of the long tradition which regards nothing to prevent a given line of overcome the sterile debate between the practices of mathematics and of evolution sticking at a low level. mechanists and neo-vitallsts. my sticism as somehow deeply In their perspective it is as un­ - Herbert Spencer's generalisation related. This is an acute weakness important that a given planet re­ of the idea of evolution into a theory in N eedham because he often approv­ mains at the protozoan level of explaining all change, and the meta­ ingly quotes Sir Thomas Browne' s organisation as that it festers in a physical elaborations of this by 16th-century writings on the numeri­ slave economy. In the words of Whitehead and de Chardin. cal patterns of ancient 'gardens of N eedham' s revered Lao Tsu: - Marx and Engels' extension of symmetrical vegetables' as reveal­ 'Heaven and earth are ruthless and evolution beyond Spencer's limiting ing 'the mysticall mathematicks of treat the myriad creatures as class horizons, so as to comprehend the City of Heaven'. straw dogs' (Tao Te Ching, ch.5, contradictio.n and its overcoming as Needham's overall view is that the Lau trans.) constitutive of the historical process. actual resolution of antagonisms In the tradition of Engels, Needham - Traditional Chinese culture, with between modes is through the incor­ happily takes the notion of contradic­ its integration of immanentist poration of oppositions into the syn­ tion as boundlessly accommodating: religion, technological progress and thetic unity which is their object. Instances of dialectical develop­ social responsibility. This is evolution, in its most exten­ ment in scientific knowledge are so Und.erlying all Needham's concerns ded sense: a universal process numerous that a few moments is the belief that organisation is generating greater differentiation thought provides an embarrassing­ intrinsic to matter, life and society; of parts, together with more ly large selection (p220) and that these are hierarchically complex integrations between them. For example, until the 19th century related, irreducible levels, whose We cannot consider Nature other­ there was a dispute between 'The structures 3.4e analogous. This wise than as a series of levels of Ovists (who) believed that mammals premise clashes with the apparent organisation, a series of dialect­ developed from the egg alone', and conflict between science and reli­ ical syntheses. From ultimate 'The Animalculists (who) believed gion; he deals with this by the doct­ physical particle to atom, from that the animal originated from the rine that experience is differentiated atom to molecule, from molecule spermatozoon only'; this antithesis into forms which are incommensur­ to colloidal aggregate, from was overcome when 'the functions able but complementary. He asserts aggregate to living cell, from cell of egg and spermatozoon were under­ that there are five such modes: to organ, from organ to body, stood, and the contradiction was SCience, religion, art, history, from animal body to social resolved' (P221). Applying this philosophy. No justification is given organisation. (p219) notion to the English bourgeois for this segmentation of the under­ Organisational levels (or 'envel­ revolution tells us that: standing, nor why it should have just opes') are functionally related in Feudal royalism found its anti- these five modes. complex systems; and complexity of thesis in the radical puritan But to accept the untranslatability order is the category.which models republicanism of the Common­ of forms of experience is to deny that all novelty in history: wealth period. But the time was they can be critically analysed; each that . .. long procession of not ripe for the ideas of the must be accepted in its own terms. morphological forms and Levellers and Independents, and For Needham, as for others, the physiological achievements ... the Restoration was a dialectical major role of this doctrine is to the first coelomic organisation, synthesis. (p223) defend religion. To the theists who the first endocrine mechanism, Thus, whatever was, was right, hold that religion can be rationally the first osmo-regulatory its !"ationality guaranteed by the validated, Needham must reply that success, the first vertebral triadic movement of emergence. they are wrong, that his category of column, the first appearance of Needham's belief that order and religion logically excludes some of consciousness, the first making progress are immanent in the world what has been called 'religion'; that of a tool. (p153) is the link between his earlier. work religion is qualitative and particular­ This pan-evolutionism gives him a on the chemical mechanisms of ist, against science which is quanti­ perspective of gran~ optimism, embryogeny and his still continuing tative and abstract. Following OUo, within which the emergence of project on the science, technology he takes the core of religion to be communism is as inevitable as was and culture of China. On his View, the experience of the 'numinous'; the formation of primitive cells classical China avoided the traps Otto insists that this notion is utterly from giant protein molecules. One with which the Judaeo-Christian inexplicable to one without experi­ version of Hegel's lectures has tradition dichotomised the world ence of it, and he attempts to explain him claiming that 'the state is the into creator and created, sacred it by analogising from feelings of march of God through the world'. and profane, mental and manual. abasement, awe and love. Needham's For N eedham, communism is the Thus, the philosophy which in use of this notion is loose and its goal of God after his march through Europe emerged as historical mat­ function is largely laudatory; it the molecules erialism into a hostile and distorting allows him to regard social relations A frequent criticism of this view milieu, has always been present as in the Soviet Union and China as is that it entails political apathy, as a living current in China; that whilst expressions of religiosity. SCience, all that can be accomplished is the Western socialism must struggle he views through the paradigm acceleration or retardation of a not only against the bourgeoisie but offered by physics. His attitude necessary process. In fact, this against a rooted assumption of the towards its epistemological status pan-evolutionism is irrelevant to sinfulness of man, for China its changes from naive realist, th:rough the attainment of communism. It cultural assumption is that man is relativist-constructivist to 'dialect­ may be that the constitution of naturally social and the world a ical' realist. matter necessitates the formation harmonious process. The doctrine that modes of under­ of life-bearing planets, but this At a time when many are lOOking standing are discrete islands makes implies nothing about the emergence Eastwards in a search for 'alter­ it impossible to theorise cultural of life in a given planetary system. natives' to SCience, it is valuable to history; it can only be pictured as Similarly, the claim that a bio­ have the reflections of a brilliant, oscillations between poles - the flux sphere tends to generate sO,cial warm and sincere man, who is between the Yin and the Yang. A being, consciousness, class-war uniquely situated in relation to the perspective which insists that and communism says nothing about concerns of 'today's pOlitical and 'religion ... is concrete and indi- the completion of this process on a religious activists' (edJs intro. p14). vidual ... qualitative in feeling, given planet. There is nothing in Needham gladly accepts Thomas opposed to measurement and Needham (or in Engels) to show that Browne's words on man as a self analysis, "cornucopial" instead of each stage of organisation every­ characterisation: 'that great and orderly' (P213) can make no sense where generates a higher stage; true amphibium, whose nature is 45 djsposed to live not only like other rescuing Marx and Engels from totality, with which such concepts creatures in diverse elements but economistic and 'metaphysical­ are frequently linked, seems to be in divided and distinguished worlds' materialist' interpretations. Almost misconceived from the start in that (quoted p169). For those of us who everyone other than Lukacs and it fails to locate contradiction and regard mysticism as a self­ Korsch is found guilty of distorting conflict. lobotomy, it is a healthy relief that historical materialism, either by There are many reflections of this he flounders. Kantianizing Marx (Max Adler and failure in Jakubowski' s work. There David Murray his followers) or by equating mater­ is a problem, for example, right at ialism with naturalistic matter the start about how to get classes rather than with social being, and into the picture - thus we are told by separating the scientific aspect that it is the mode of production in Waitl.. thewol'ken of Marxism from its status as ex­ which appropriation takes place by pression of the proletarian move­ means of exchanges between indi­ Franz Jakubowski, Ideology and ment (Hilferding, Plekhanov, Lenin). viduals that 'causes society to split Superstructure in Historical So strongly anti-economistic and into classes'. We find another Materialism, trans. Anne Booth, anti-naturalistic is Jakubowski's instance in the fact that the revolu­ London, Allison and Busby, 1976, conception that he practically aban­ tionary character of the proletariat 132pp, £5.25 hardback £2.95 paper dons historical materialism al­ can only be accommodated by allow­ together in favour of a theory in ing that 'in a sense the proletariat Ideology and Superstructure was which subjective consciousness already stands outside bourgeois first published in Danzig in 1936 as plays the determining role in histor­ SOCiety' - revolution, in fact, is the outcome of a doctoral thesis. ical development. In his concern to seen as relatively unconnected with Its author, of Trotskyite and stress that consciousness is a part any accumulation of contradictions Frankfurt school formation (he of social being, social being is all within the capitalist mode of produc­ studied at Basle university under but dissolved into human conscious­ tion; it is simply that at a given Fritz Belleville, a friend and dis­ ness, and we are offered, for moment the proletariat realises its ciple of Korsch), had but a brief example, a somewhat Sartrean con­ own self-alienation, thereby trans­ pOlitical career as spokesman in the ception of the economy: 'economic cending it in thought and from that early Thirties of the Spartacus relations are the original unforesee­ standpoint initiating the revolution League in Danzig. In the same year able product of an aggregation of which installs its de-alienation in as his book was published he was voluntaristic impulses from individ­ practice. arrested by the Nazis and condemned ual consciousnesses... ' And when The uncritical glOSSing over of the to three years' imprisonment at the it comes to the determination in the problems which attach to the 1859 Danzig trials. His family secured last instance by the economic it is Preface account of the relationship him an early release from jail, suggested that this 'monist' concep­ between the forces of production and however, and he· thereafter lived in tion is appropriate only from a relations of production (with its exile in America under the name of methodological point of view. For notion of their 'correspondence' at Frank Fisher until his death in 1970. Jakubowski, not only does the last one stage of development, and their How are we to relate today to this instance never in fact arrive, it was 'conflict' at another) is also respon­ youthful and isolated example of never ever really there. All the sible for inadequacies and inconsist­ Jakubowski's thoughts on historical aspects of the social totality inter­ encies in Jakubowski' s account of materialism? It must be admitted, penetrate dialectically in a kind of ideology - on which he particularly I think, that despite its English pub­ equilibrium offorces, and it is only concentrates. At one point it is lishers' claim that 'it stands out from a conceptual point of view that suggested that ideology is a kind of uniquely from the period of virtual it is important to distinguish them. residue of certain material relations coma into which Marxist thought But what is the conceptual distinc­ 'which have lost their material seemed to have fallen between the tion reflecting in the first place if reality but have not yet quite discar­ early 1920s and recent years', it it is not something pertaining to the ded their "conscious" expression'; scarcely comes as a dose of adren­ concrete? And why is it important? elsewhere the ideological super­ alin. It has, not surprisingly, a Of course, one is sympathetic to structure is described as the 'form' distinctly dated air about it, and its Jakubowski's rejection of crudely in which men become conscious of interest must surely be mainly hist­ fundamentalist accounts of the rela­ class struggles (as opposed to the orical - and even in that respect tions between infrastructure and political and legal superstructure limited. For Jakubowski is uncon­ superstructure. But the paradox is where these struggles actually cerned with the historical events of that he himself remains too domin­ occur); at other times ideology is the Thirties (to which his book ated by the topological model to presented as the expression of the scarcely refers) but with the escape the mechanistic account that social totality to which it corres­ 'correct' exposition of the texts of it invites. Thus, though he is criti­ ponds; and then again, we are Marx and Engels. Specifically, then, cal of the 'schematic finality' of offered an account in terms of its historical interest lies in its theories such as Plekhanov's, he 'partial' or false consciousness (the interest as an intervention in the himself presents an even more ideology of the bourgeois classes, climate of Marxist theory thrown up schematic three-tier model (econ­ which is only capable of a one-sided by the 2nd and 3rd International. omic base, legal and political order, understanding of the total reality) Having said that, it should also be ideological superstructure) based on from which the proletariat escapes acknowledged that it offers a .wholesale adoption of the 1859 by virtue of its negative relation to succinct and lucid introduction to Preface formulation, which is then bourgeois SOCiety: the Lukacian interpretation of welded together into a dialectical 'Historical materialism ... historical materialism, and could totality with the aid of countless recognizes that the proletariat well serve as a text-book in this 'connecting links', 'interactions', is fundamentally distinct from respect. 'retroactions' and 'mediations'. all other classes in bourgeois For Jakubowski, 'correct' Marx­ Now two things seem to be wrong society since it is, from the ism means a Marxism (based al­ with this approach. One is that con­ beginning a (negative) totality, most exclusively on the 1844 cepts such as 'mediation', 'inter­ a kind of society outside bourge­ Manuscripts and the 1859 Preface) action' etc remain descriptive and ois society. Hence its standpoint whose fundamental concept is that of abstract - one wants to see them at cannot be described as partial, 'humanism' and whose central philo­ work in concrete analysis: what nor is its consciousness ideo­ sophical contribution lies in its ex­ exactly is a mediation? How does it logical' (Pl00) pression of the unity of thought and operate in practice? But more What is common to all these con­ being, theory and practice. importantly, perhaps, the account ceptions is the identification of ideo­ Jakubowski is concerned with in terms of a unified expressive logy with consciousness, which pre- 1·6 'cludes from the start an approach Davidson' is no doubt one and the before us comprise the original first which regards consciousness as same person as Albert Dragstedt. chapter plus the appendix on the form part of the problem of ideology, 2 I have a copy of a translation in of value. For the second edition of rather than vice-versa, and ana­ typescript by W. Suchting and M. Capital M~rx reworked the whole lyses the latter as a function in the Roth. first chapter as he explains in a production of (rather than simply as 3 The 'Results' is in an appendix to Postface: expression of) the ways in which the the recent Penguin edition of 'In Chapter 1, Section 1, the deri­ thinking subject relates to the world. Capital volume One. vation of value by analysis of the I have already given some indica­ 4 (a) Karl Marx Texts on Method. equations in which every exchange­ tion of the pOlitical implications of ed. T. Carver, 1975 (see my value is expressed has been carried Jakubowski's interpretation of Marx­ review in Radical Philosophy 13) out With greater scientific strict­ ism - the main one being that revo­ (b) Issued by British and Irish ness; similarly, the connection lutionary change is made dependent Communist Organisation. between the substance of value and primarily on revolutionary con.. (c) Theoretical Practice No. 5. the determination of the magnitude sciousness and only secondarily on The book before us brings together of value by the labour-time socially revolutionary practice. Since, in texts on value which have been necessary, which was only alluded fact, of course, Jakubowski must rather inaccessible until recently to in the first edition, is now confront the problem of which comes and which throw additional light on expressly emphasized. Chapter 1, first, or whether one does not pre­ Marx's struggle to perfect his crit­ Section 3 (on the form of value), suppose the other, he is led to posit ique of Political Economy. The has been completely revised, a a more 'progressive' or more translator 'makes no apology for task which was made necessary by 'class conscious' sector of the pro­ declining to liquidate the granular, the two-fold presentation of it in letariat whose role is to explain the craggy, dialectical diction of Marx'; the first edition. .. The last sec­ actions of the working class to it­ and he says that he has 'generally tion of the first chapter, "The self and thereby orient it to its goaL chosen to err on the side of pedantic Fetishism of Commodities, etc. If, The final pages of his book, in exactitude, especially since the has been altered considerably. ' which this position is elaborated, English-speaking world has had such If Marx thought that he had solved represent an exercise in political difficulty in adjusting itself to the his problems by reworking the first theorising deSigned to avoid the twin fact that the first chapter of Das chapter and incorporating the appen­ evils, as Jakubowski sees them, of Kapital is the most decisive philo­ dix on value-form, what worth is spontaneism on the one hand and s9phical achievement since Hegel'. there in publishing the original Leninism on the other. It leads to The editorial matter varies in tone: materials (other than that of biblio­ what I find a strangely fatalistic pp4-6, 73-76, 197-199 are scholarly graphical completeness)? One rea­ account of the relations between and useful; whereas pp. xi-xv, 43-48 son is already given us by Marx - theory and practice in which it is are sectarian WRP attacks on 'revi­ 'the matter is too decisive for the suggested that the working-class sionists' - notably the leaders of the whole book'. Any scrap of evidence movement can only adopt Marxist Fourth International - and of interest as to Marx's intentions in Chapter theory when that theory corres­ to psychopathology only. Still, it is One is therefore valuable. This is ponds to the movement's practice - good to record that the WRP's made more important by the diffi­ and we have no alternative but to 'struggle for dialectical material­ culty of the argument, admitted by wait for the moments in history at ism' has turned up this gem amongst Marx himself in the Preface, and which the proletariat is in fact 'in a some points in the appendix seem revolutionary mood' because until the garbage - to them goes the hon­ clearer than in the second edition. theri any attempt to 'harness' the our of first publication in England Additional importance is given to the theory to it (whether made from of two of the texts here. material by its clearly dialectical within or from without the working These texts are taken from the nature. In the Postface to the second class) will be voluntaristic. But First Edition of Capital. When the edition Marx makes reference to his such a conception surely relies on a first proofs reached Marx he was debt to Hegel in this connection; he quite static notion of theory (ie one staying with Kugelmann in Hanover recalls that he even 'here and there which does not think in terms of its and the latter convinced him that in the chapter on value, coquetted development at all), and is, in fact, readers needed a supplementary, with the mode of expression pecul­ quit.e at odds with Jakubowski' s more didactic, exposition of the iar' to Hegel. professions as to the unity of theory form of value. Engels wrote to This brings us to one of the pOints and practice. Marx that he did not think it was of comparison between the two edi­ worth doing this. addendum, but did Kate Soper tions: the second edition shows less agree that the dialectic of the value­ evidence of any flirtation with Hegel. form was unclear and should have Following the strictures of Kugel­ Ma .. x on Value been laid out in the manner of mann and Engels, Marx no doubt Hegel's Encyclopedia. On 22 June wanted to give the philistine the yalue: studies by Marx. translated 1867 Marx replied to Engels: least possible excuse for complain­ and edited by Albert Dragstedt, 'As to the development of the form ing of dialectical paradoxes. The London, New Park Publications, of value I have and have not -­ substance of the matter is unaffected 1976, £1.75 followed your advice, in order to but for students of the relation bet­ This book contains new translations behave dialectically in this respect ween Hegel and Marx the first edi­ of four texts of Marx' s: as well. That is to say I have tion chapter one is more relevant. 1 The Commodity - Chapter One of 1) written an appendix in which I It is also interesting to note that in the First Edition of Capital describe the same thing as simply the second edition Marx gives extra 2 The Form of Value - Appendix to and pedagogically as possible, and emphasis to the question of commod­ the First Edition of Capital yol­ 2) followed your advice and divided ity fetishism. A paragraph of the ume One each step in the development into appendix (which includes the famous 3 Results of the Immediate Process §§, etc., with separate headings. sentence 'this I call the fetishism ....'); of Production In the preface I then tell the 'non­ together with new material, is 4 Marginal Notes on Wagner. dialectical' reader that he should worked in, and the whole given its skip pages x-y and read the appen­ own section heading. Previous translations: dix instead. Here not merely This may be counted an advance, 1 Capital Chapter One - the philistines are concerned but youth as may the reworkings of the value­ Commodity published by Labor eager for knowledge, etc. Besides form, which is one of Marx's most Publications, NY, 1972, is the matter is too decisive for the brilliant innovations and sets him identical with its equivalent here: whole book. ' decisively in advance of Ricardo. the American translator 'Axel The two first parts of the book (Amongst other things it demon- 47 Ir------

strates how the money-form is of commodities.' present in germ in the simplest This definition gives rise to a mis­ News expression of value, where one placed 'materialism' in the treat­ commodity expresses the value­ ment of the substance of value by For various reasons, the news sec­ equivalent of another. ) friends and enemies alike. I. I. Rubin tion in this issue is unusually short. However, it is not the case that all has shown in his Essays on Marx's We will publish more extended news an author's innovations in his own Theory of Value (reviewed by me in reports in RP18, including a full text are helpful. It is curious that Radical Philosophy 11) the necessity account of the 1977 RP Festival. at the same time as the development of avoiding a physiological under­ Please send material to the news of the last two sections of chapter standing of abstract labour. See editor at our London address. HP one, which bring out more clearly also my article 'Marx's concept of Newsletter number 4 was produced that value (stripped of its fetish abstract labour' (which makes use of in March by the Bristol group; the character) is a social relation, the first edition) in Bulletin of the newsletter published reports on Marx introduces in the second sec­ Conference of Socialist Economists local RP groups, other local and tion a rather unfortunate formula­ October 1976. international news, and discussions tion .in the definition of abstract Rubin points out (p147n) that in the of RP's problems and activities. labour. In the first edition Marx French edition of Volume One of To contribute, or to receive copies summarises the difference between Capital (1875), Marx gives both of the newsletter, please write with concrete and abstract labour as' definitions; first of all he repeats s. a. e. to the news editor. follows: the above-quoted definition from the 'It follows . .. not that there are first edition after which follows the two differing kinds of labour lurk­ definition of the second edition. Oxford ing in the commodity, but rather 'It must not be forgotten, ' says that the same labour is specified Rubin, 'that as a general rule, in Oxford RP held a well-attended in differing and even contradictory the French edition of Capital, Marx series of counter-course seminars manner - in accordance with whe­ simplified and in places shortened last term on the 'history of philo­ ther it is related to the use-value his exposition. However, on this sophy' from Descartes to Kant. of the commodity as labour's m:Q,­ given point he felt it necessary to Beginning on 27 April they are duct or related to the commodity­ supplement and complicate the running an 8-week univerSity lecture value as its merely objective characterization of abstract labour, series called 'History and under­ expression. ' thus recognising, it would seem, standing - an introduction to hermen, (p16 of the present translation) the inadequacy of the definition of eutics', organised by Joanna Hodge, In the second edition he replaces abstract labour given in the second covering Dilthey, Husserl, this summary by the well-known edition. ' Heidegger, Gadamer, Habermas, concluding sentence of section two: This collection of Marx texts is Apel and Ricoeur (Wednesdays, 'all labour is an expenditure of essential for institutional collections 2. 30pm, Balliol lecture room 23: human labour-power, in the physio­ while serious students of Marx's all are welcome). For other Oxford logical sence, and it is in this theory of value, and dialectical news, plans and projects see RP method, will find it a useful addition quality of being equal, or abstract, Newsletter 5. human labour that it forms the value to their own libraries. Chris Arthur Communist University of London 9 Books received Gleeson, D. ed. Identity and Structure: issues in the sociology CUL9 takes place between 9 and 17 HOdge, J. L. et aI, Cultural Bases of education, Yorkshire, afferton, July. Through a variety of courses of Racism and Grou p Oppression 1977, £2.95 it offers a Marxist critique of sub­ I Berkeley, Cal, Two Riders Press, Machlud, F. ed. Essays on Hayek, jects as they are taught in the I 1975, $3.85 London, RKP, 1977, £4.25 colleges and seeks to present and Ryle, G. ed. Contemporary Ragg, N. M. People not Cases: a develop the ongoing debate within Aspects of Philosophy, Stocksfield, philosophical approach to social Marxism itself. There are 25 Northumberland, Oriel Press work, London, RKP, 1977, £4.25 specialist courses, 17 general (Routledge & Kegan Paul) 1977, Waddington, C. H. Tools for Thought courses, 14 courses on problems of £8.00 London, Cape, 1977, £5.95 Marxist theory and politics, and a later, P. Origin and Significance Toploski, J. Methodology of History, wide variety of evening events - of the Frankfurt School: A Marxist trans. O. Wojtasiewicz, Dodrecht films, mUSic, debates etc. perspective, London and Henley, Holland, D. Reidel, 1976, £15.00 Registration costs £ 8, advance Routledge & Kegan Paul, 1977, Fraser, J. An Introduction to the deposit £ 2. There are free creche £5.95 Thought of Galvano Della Volpe, facilities. To register or obtain a agleton, T. Ideology & Criticism, London, Lawrence & Wishart, free prospectus write to Sally London, NLB, 1976, £4.95 1977, £3.00 Hibbin, CUL9, c / 0 16 King Street, lover, J. ed. The Philosophy of Thompson, E. P. William Morris: London WC2E 8HY .M.illi1. London, OUP, 1977, £1.50 romantic to revolutionary, London, ells, D. Meaning, Understanding, Merlin Press, 1977 Notes on contributors Interpretation, Bristol, David Groddeck, G. The Meaning of Wells, 1976, 50p (pamphlet) Illness: selected psychoanalytical Michele le Doeuff teaches philO­ oucault, M. Histoire de la writings, London, Hogarth and sophy at the Ecole Normale sexualite - 1· La volonte de savoir, Institute of Psychoanalysis, 1977, Superieure de Fontenay, France; Par!s, Gallimard, 1976, n. p. £7.50 she is a member of Grephon the 'Neill, J. ed. On Critical Theory, Cousin, Victor, Defense de group whose study of school London, Heinemann, 1977, £5.50 I 'Universite et de la Philosophie, philosophy essays was described in cBride, W. L. The Philosophy of presente par Danielle Ranciere, RP16. Ian Craib teaches sociology ~ London, Hutchinson, 1977, Paris. Solin at Essex University. Kate Soper £5.50, pb £2.75 teaches philosophy at North London hanan, M. ed. Chilean Cinema, Dialectic Project Polytechnic. John Krige is teaching London, BFI, 1977, £0.75 A conference is to be held in London and researching in philosophy of oule, L., Owens, G. The Module: in September; for information science at Sussex University a democratic alternative in contact Sean Sayers, Philosophy Martine Meskel and Michael Ryan education, Hudd~rsfield, SLD Dept, University of Kent at are students at the Ecole Normale Publications, 1977, £1. 80 Canterbury Superieure, Paris 48