What struck me most immediately and powerfully in my reading
of CAPITAL is its extraordinary language. Marx wrote in a style that bears no relation
at all to any other works of economics,
sociology, political theory, or history that I have ever read. Since the matter of Mark's literary style came
to play a central role in my interpretation of his thought, it might be well to
give examples, so that those of you who are not readily conversant with CAPITAL
will have some sense of what I am referring to.
Here are two passages chosen from the first few chapters.
The first is taken from the opening paragraph of the famous
Section 4 of Chapter I: "The
Fetishism of Commodities and the Secret Thereof."
A commodity appears, at first sight, a
very trivial thing, and easily understood.
Its analysis shows that it is, in reality, a very queer thing, abounding
in metaphysical subtleties and theological niceties. So far as [a table] is a value in use [Adam
Smith's term], there is nothing mysterious about it. ... But, as soon as it
steps forth as a commodity, it is changed into something transcendent. It not only stands with its feet on the
ground, but, in relation to all other commodities, it stands on its head, and
evolves out of its wooden brain grotesque ideas, far more wonderful than
'table-turning' ever was."
The second is from Chapter III: "Money, or the Circulation of
Commodities."
Because money is the metamorphosed
shape of all other commodities, the result of their general alienation, for
this reason it is alienable itself without restriction or condition. It reads all commodities backwards, and thus,
so to say, depicts itself in the bodies of all other commodities, which offer
to it the material for the realisation of its own use-value. At the same time the prices, wooing glances
cast at money by commodities, define the limits of its convertibility, by
pointing to its quantity. Since every
commodity, on becoming money, disappears as a commodity, it is impossible to
tell from the money itself, how it got into the hands of its possessor, or what
article has been changed into it. Non
olet, from whatever source it may come.
Defining prices as "wooing glances cast at
commodities" is simply wonderful.
Marx loved the novels of Charles Dickens, and like Dickens, he achieves
some his most striking literary effects by describing people as things and
things as people. Prices "cast
wooing glances" at commodities, linen "officiates" as standard
of value in its exchange with coats. The
phrase "Non olet," by the way, is a passing reference to a well-known
story about the Emperor Vespasian. In
Vespasian's day [he was Emperor from 69 to 79 a.d.], Rome collected taxes from
the public urinals. One day, Vespasian
sent his son, Titus, to collect the money, a task that offended his son. When Titus returned, he flung the money at
his father's feet. "Non olet,"
Vespasian replied with equanimity.
"It stinketh not." Money
from whatever source does not bear the mark of its origin, the point Marx is
making in this paragraph.
CAPITAL is full of metaphors and literary allusions called
down by Marx from two thousand five hundred years of European literature. It also abounds in religious echoes. Commodity exchange is described by Marx at
one point as transubstantiation inverted, for whereas in the Roman Catholic
rite of the mass, the substance of the bread and wine is changed into the body
and blood of Christ while the accidents -- the taste and smell and look --
remain unaltered, in commodity exchange, the substance, which is value, remains
unaltered, while the accidents -- the properties of the corn and linen, coal,
and iron -- change.
Those of you whose light reading does not regularly include
the writings of Franҫois
Quesney, Anne-Robert-Jacques Turgot, Adam Smith, David Ricardo, or John Stuart
Mill will have to take my word for it that Marx's literary style bears no
resemblance to theirs, even though he conceives himself as writing in, and
bringing to its highest development, the Classical Political Economy that they
created. What on earth can he possibly
have thought himself to be doing?
5 comments:
Are you familiar with any of the novels that were written in the early to mid 19th century that were attempts to popularize and making easier to understand the writings of David Ricardo and Adam Smith. The one I remember was "Ella of Graveloch" by Harriet Martineau which was an attempt to literally embody the no-rent margin of Ricardo (Ella lived on the remote island of Graveloch)?
I am not, but that sounds fascinating. I couldn't persuade you to write a little something about it for this blog, could I?
I really do not know that much (and I am not a historian nor an expert on anything literary). Many years ago when I taught history of economic thought I included a chapter or two of "Ella of Graveloch" so that is why I remember it. I could try to dig up ELLA of Graveloch though and summarize it again.
Far be it from me to send you down the memory hole, but I would be delighted to post it here if you were to say something about the novel, and perhaps about Martineau herself.
Post a Comment