Was Karl Marx a “degrowth communist” as Kohei Saito claims in Marx within the Anthropocene? In a phrase, no. However the entire fact is even stranger and extra great than Kohei Saito’s oxymoron anachronism.
André Gorz is credited with the primary use of la décroissance (degrowth) within the context of contemporary criticism of the political crucial of financial progress. The event was a public discussion board held in Paris by Le Nouvel Observateur on June 13, 1972 to debate the Membership of Rome’s Limits to Progress report. Gorz’s remarks had been largely a reply to a speech and interview given by European Fee President, Sicco Mansholt.
Within the interview, Mansholt had known as for “progress beneath zero” and the tip of wasteful and environmentally harmful shopper society. Gorz acknowledged the compatibility of Mansholt’s imaginative and prescient with socialism and even, “higher, with communism because it was understood within the final century. … In brief, an financial system dominated not by the legislation of worth however by the slogan: to every based on his wants.” He objected, nevertheless to the absence of any dialogue of a way for reaching such a post-industrial civilization. “With few exceptions.” Gopz complained, “ecologists and ecological actions are silent with regards to means.”
Such silence was not harmless in Gorz’s view as a result of and not using a clearly outlined various, implementation would, by default, must “depend on the ethical conversion of the custodians of huge capital, and enlightened intervention by nationwide and worldwide state bureaucracies, to carry a few post-industrial and post-capitalist civilisation.”
Gorz’s personal technique, as much as that point, relied on the standard Marxist expectation of a revolutionary working class, albeit a working class weaned from the distractions of the prosperous society, deliberate obsolescence, and an enervating tradition business. His Strategie ouvriere et neocapitalisme (1964) had burdened anti-consumerist themes from Herbert Marcuse, John Kenneth Galbraith, and Vance Packard. It might be one other eight years earlier than he would bid Adieu au Proletariat and go in pursuit of a brand new topic of historical past, specifically a “non-class of non staff” whose aim is the abolition of labor and the enlargement of a “sphere of autonomy” outdoors the heteronomous exercise of waged work.
Saito quotes approvingly from the English translation of a republication of the postscript to Adieu, initially titled « Croissance harmful et décroissance productive »,
…the event of [the] productive forces throughout the framework of capitalism won’t ever result in the gate[s] of Communism, because the applied sciences, the relations of manufacturing and the character of the merchandise exclude not simply the sturdy, equitable satisfaction of wants but additionally the stabilization of social manufacturing at a degree generally accepted as enough.
Saito quoted Gorz in help of his thesis that Marx’s “productive forces” or “forces of manufacturing” belong to a Promethean, “productivist” perspective that Marx deserted after 1860 and that had tainted his evaluation within the Grundrisse. Nevertheless, in each Adieu au Proletariat and Strategie ouvriere et neocapitalisme, in addition to in a lot of his subsequent writing, Gorz relied closely on the Grundrisse in formulating his unconventional views.
Gorz shared with Saito – in addition to Lenin, G.A. Cohen, Eric Hobsbawn, and nearly each different Marxist — an interpretation of productive forces derived from Marx’s 1859 preface to A Contribution to the Critique of Political Financial system:
At a sure stage of growth, the fabric productive forces of society come into battle with the present relations of manufacturing or – this merely expresses the identical factor in authorized phrases – with the property relations throughout the framework of which they’ve operated hitherto. From types of growth of the productive forces these relations flip into their fetters. Then begins an period of social revolution.
In quoting this well-known passage, Saito neglected the introduction to it, which clearly acknowledged this was a “common conclusion at which I arrived [during his time in Paris and Brussels in the 1840s] and which, as soon as reached, turned the guideline of my research.” In different phrases, it was not meant to be a abstract of the outcomes of these research, which continued by the following decade and included the Grundrisse.
Right here is the place the story of these productive forces begins to get unusual. Martin Nicolaus, a Simon Fraser College grad scholar and lecturer who had co-translated Gorz’s Strategie ouvriere et neocapitalisme in 1967, wrote a extremely acclaimed article the next 12 months, “The Unknown Marx,” during which he mentioned the far more detailed and, extra importantly, traditionally particular account of productive forces that appeared within the Grundrisse. The essay, printed within the New Left Assessment, gained the primary Deutscher memorial prize. Nicolaus subsequently translated the Grundrisse into English.
In his NLR essay, Nicolaus defined that the dichotomy between forces and relations of manufacturing within the preface was developed within the Grundrisse because the dichotomy between “two distinct processes which Marx identifies as primary to capitalist manufacturing.” It’s also the unity of these two distince processes of manufacturing and circulation that’s primary to capitalist manufacturing.
In a bit that started three-quarters of the way in which by his essay, “The Highway to Revolution,” Nicolaus revealed what are the well-known “fetters” on the event of the productive forces. Or somewhat he quoted Marx’s enumeration of these fetters. Capital, Marx argued, “seems because the situation of the event of the forces of manufacturing so long as they require an exterior spur, which seems concurrently their bridle.”
It’s a self-discipline over them, which turns into superfluous and burdensome at a sure degree of their growth, similar to the guilds and many others. These inherent limits must coincide with the character of capital, with the important character of its very idea. These essential limits are:
(1) Vital labour as restrict on the change worth of dwelling labour capability or of the wages of the commercial inhabitants;
(2) Surplus worth as restrict on surplus labour time; and, in regard to relative surplus labour time, as barrier to the event of the forces of manufacturing;
(3) What’s the identical, the transformation into cash, change worth as such, as restrict of manufacturing; or change based on worth, or worth based on change, as restrict of manufacturing.
That is: (4) once more the identical as restriction of the manufacturing of use values by change worth; or that actual wealth has to tackle a particular kind distinct from itself, a kind not completely equivalent with it, so as to turn out to be an object of manufacturing in any respect.
This quick excerpt hardly does justice to an argument that Marx developed over the course of 26 pages after which returned to within the (in)well-known “Fragment on Machines.” However the closing clause is essential to questions of ecology and social justice. Beneath capitalism, “actual wealth has to tackle a particular kind distinct from itself, a kind not completely equivalent with it order to turn out to be an object of manufacturing in any respect.” The commodity is that kind not equivalent with wealth. Marx had much more to say within the Grundrisse about productive forces that could be very completely different from the traditional studying based mostly on the 1859 preface. Relying completely on the latter is like writing a highschool guide report based mostly on the mud jacket blurbs.
Whereas Saito construes the productive forces as know-how, albeit in its broadest sense, Marx conceived the event of the productive forces as “the event of the social particular person which seems as the nice basis stone of manufacturing and of wealth.” Marx reiterates this level in a bit labelled “true conception of the method of social manufacturing”:
After we think about bourgeois society within the lengthy view and as an entire, then the ultimate results of the method of social manufacturing all the time seems because the society itself, i.e. the human being itself in its social relations. Every little thing that has a set kind, such because the product and many others., seems as merely a second, a vanishing second, on this motion. The direct manufacturing course of itself right here seems solely as a second. The circumstances and objectifications of the method are themselves equally moments of it, and its solely topics are the people, however people in mutual relationships, which they equally reproduce and produce anew. The fixed means of their very own motion, during which they renew themselves whilst they renew the world of wealth they create.
This essay started with a recap of the circumstances of André Gorz’s use of la décroissance and his objection to the absence of means or a “revolutionary topic” in eventualities for a “progress beneath zero” future. Saito’s rejection of productive forces implies that Marx deserted his idea of historic change and consequently turned his again on communism. If he did, Marx couldn’t have been a “degrowth communist.”
The query of what a Grundisse-based evaluation of productive forces would possibly contribute to human emancipation and ecological survival would take a guide. I’m engaged on it.
