Levels of Analysis in Marxian Political Economy: An Unoist Approach Robert Albritton Nearly every major thinker and school of thought within contem­ levels of analysis is the one founded in Japan by Kozo Uno. 6 porary Marxian political economy has made some reference to Indeed, it seems safe to say that Uno and his followers have levels of analysis or levels of abstraction, and has shown some focused more systematically on 'levels of analysis' than any other sensitivity to the difficulties in mediating more abstract levels of school of Marxian political economy. But even so, the result is not analysis with more concrete. According to E.P. Thompson, 'The so much a fully developed theory as an analytic framework problem .. .is to move from the circuits of capital to capitalism; suggestive of the first conceptual steps required to sort out this from a highly conceptualized and abstracted mode of production, problem. And even within the Uno school the difficulties and within which determinism appears as absolute, to historical complexities surrounding the idea oflevels of analysis have given determinations as the exerting of pressures, as a logic of process rise to various sub-schools. In this paper, I shall both briefly within a larger process' . I Within the Althusserian framework, it introduce Uno's perspective, and my further elaboration of it. was particularly Poulantzas who translated Althusser's move­ ment from 'abstract-in-thought' to 'concrete-in-thought' to a movement from 'mode of production' to 'social formation' .2 The 1. Uno's Levels of Analysis. Regulation School could not avoid concern with levels of analysis since much of its theorizing has been mid-range theory that links According to Uno, Marxian political economy is the scientific more abstract theory to more concrete analysis. 3 Finally, in Late study of capitalism, and the most important founding work of this Marxism, Jameson argues for three levels of analysis, which, in science is Marx's Capital. Although Marx's 'laws of motion of moving from the more abstract to the more concrete are: the mode capital' generally assume a purely capitalist society, because of production, class and class consciousness, and immediate Marx was not clear and explicit about this, he at times mixed more historical events.4 concrete and contingent concepts with his theory of the inner logic Despite frequent mention of levels of analysis in contempo­ of capital. Uno claims that Capital is at times weakened by eliding rary Marxian political economy and even more frequent writing concepts from three different levels of analysis: the analysis of where some kind of sensitivity to levels of analysis is implied capital's basic principles or inner logic, the analysis of the liberal without being made explicit, there has been precious little ex­ stage of capitalist development which reached its apex in England tended and systematic theorizing of this exceedingly important in the 1850s and 60s, and the analysis of history. Uno's greatest idea. Just how are we to conceptualize these different levels of contribution was to reformulate the inner logic of capital based abstraction? How autonomous are they and how do they interre­ upon an explicit understanding that its rigorous formulation rests late? What sort of epistemology or logic is appropriate to each upon the idea that it is a logic operative in a purely capitalist level? It is my aim in this paper to move 'levels of analysis' from society. At the same time, this reformulation was made possible the wings to centre stage-to treat it as a theoretical object in its by sharply separating the 'inner' logic from more concrete and own right, a theoretical object which I believe to be of absolutely contingent 'external' considerations. Thus capital's basic princi­ crucial importance to strengthening Marxian political economy ples were distinct from the more concrete levels of analysis that as a social science. Uno referred to as stage theory and historical analysis. It is clear Perhaps the most extended and self-conscious treatment of that Uno believed that at these more concrete levels of analysis the 'levels of analysis' within Western Marxism has been by the degree of necessity at work was considerably modified by contin­ Althusserians, particularly in their efforts to theorize the interre­ gency, but just how stage theory and historical analysis were to be lations between modes of production and social formations. formulated and interrelated to each other and to the basic princi­ Because the Althusserians were relatively unsuccessful in theo­ pIes remained rather sketchy and vague. rizing modes of production, social formations, and their interre­ Where the theory of a purely capitalist society analyzes capital lations, there are probably those who feel that the discussion of accumulation in the abstract and in general, stage theory ana]yzes levels of analysis has already been exhausted or that the discus­ types of capital accumulation characteristic of different world­ sion has proved to be futile. 5 In my view, such an attitude is historic stages of capitalist development. According to Uno there mistaken. While it is quite true that the discussion is fraught with are three stages of capitalist development: mercantilism, liberal­ extreme difficulty, this should challenge rather than discourage ism, and imperialism.7 And these stages are analyzed according us. Even small steps forward in this area might contribute im­ to: (1) different modes of accumulation, (2) different forms of mensely to the clarity and precision of Marxian social science. capital, and (3) different types of economic policy. The aim of The only non-Western school of Marxian political economy, stage theory is to delineate the abstract types or the dominant that I am aware of, which has given any systematic attention to forms that characterize accumulation at its most successful and 16 Radical Philosophy 60, Spring 1992 most capitalist during different historical epochs. Historical analy­ beyond the theory of its inner logic. Thus, for example, capital in sis was less fully specified by Uno, but it is clear that its aim is the its inner logic is totally indifferent to biological reproduction, analysis of historical change with a view, ultimately, to clarifying which is simply left to our instincts of self-preservation. strategic considerations involved in the transition from capitalism Sekine has shown that the theory of a purely capitalist society to socialism. has a dialectical logic embedded in it, and that such a logic of Uno's layered approach to Marxian political economy is necessary inner connections becomes possible once we assume highly suggestive, but only the most abstract layer is developed by total commodification and reification. According to Sekine, the Uno. Exactly how are we to formulate the other two levels, and doctrines of circulation, production, and distribution in the dialec­ how are the three levels interrelated? Are stage theory and tic of capital parallel the doctrines of being, essence and notion in historical analysis to be deduced from the inner logic? Or is the Hegel's Logic. In the first doctrine of the dialectic of capital the inner logic ultimately induced from historical analysis and stage contradiction between value and use-value generates the com­ theory? Neither deduction nor induction seem appropriate be­ modity-form, money-form, and capital-form as circulation forms. cause the levels as conceived by Uno are relatively autonomous. In the second doctrine, the motion of value subsumes the use­ There are a significant number of followers of Uno in Japan, value obstacles generated by the labour and production process, but only two of them have written a great deal in English: Makoto and in doing so generates specifically capitalist production rela­ Itoh and Thomas Sekine. Itoh has made important contributions tions. In the third doctrine, the motion of valuedea Is with the use­ to the theory of capital's basic principles and to the analysis of value heterogeneity within itself and the use-value obstacles contemporary capitalism and Japan's place in the world economy. 8 In my own work, I have been most influenced by Sekine's reflections on epistemology which have been a rich source of hints for the further elaboration of levels of analysis. 9 In particu­ lar, Sekine has explored the sense in which the theory of capital's inner logic has a dialectical structure parallel in many respects with Hegel's Logic. Thus, for example, according to Sekine, the contradiction between value and use-value plays a similar role in the dialectic of capital to that played by the contradiction between being and nothing in Hegel' s dialectical logic. 10 2. The Theory of Capital's Inner Logic. Deconstructionist critics of Western metaphysics have been criti­ cal of its binary oppositions such as that between interiority and exteriority. But in the case of the 'inner' logic of capital, the distinction is not something posited by the metaphysician Marx, but is something that arises out of the object of knowledge itself. Thus, for example, the reason that Marx and not Aristotle could arrive at a conception of abstract homogeneous labour power is that with the increasing commodification of labour power accom­ panying the development of capitalism in history, labour power in reality became more homogeneous and 'abstract'. In other words, as societies become more capitalist, to a certain extent, posed by land. The motion of value does this by generating an their social relations become more reified, more objectified, and average rate of profit which finally subsumes use-value heteroge­ more abstract in the sense that they become more governed by the neity to the self-expanding motion of value and in the process self-expansion of value. generates a set of capitalist distribution relations.