Reseña Martin Jay del libro de postone

8/13/2019 Reseña Martin Jay del libro de postone

http://slidepdf.com/reader/full/resena-martin-jay-del-libro-de-postone 1/12

Marx after Marxism

Time, Labor, and Social Domination: A Reinterpretation of Marx's Critical Theory by MoishePostoneReview by: Martin JayNew German Critique, No. 60, Special Issue on German Film History (Autumn, 1993), pp. 181-191Published by: New German CritiqueStable URL: http://www.jstor.org/stable/488672 .

Accessed: 14/10/2012 12:46

Your use of the JSTOR archive indicates your acceptance of the Terms & Conditions of Use, available at .http://www.jstor.org/page/info/about/policies/terms.jsp

.JSTOR is a not-for-profit service that helps scholars, researchers, and students discover, use, and build upon a wide range of

content in a trusted digital archive. We use information technology and tools to increase productivity and facilitate new forms

of scholarship. For more information about JSTOR, please contact [email protected].

.

New German Critique and Duke University Press are collaborating with JSTOR to digitize, preserve and

extend access to New German Critique.

http://www.jstor.org

http://www.jstor.org/action/showPublisher?publisherCode=ngc

http://www.jstor.org/stable/488672?origin=JSTOR-pdf

http://www.jstor.org/page/info/about/policies/terms.jsp

http://www.jstor.org/page/info/about/policies/terms.jsp

http://www.jstor.org/stable/488672?origin=JSTOR-pdf

http://www.jstor.org/action/showPublisher?publisherCode=ngc



MarxAfter arxism

Martin ay

Moishe ostone,ime, abl,andSocial omination:Reinterpe-tationfMarx'sriticalheoryCambridge:ambridgeP,1993).

ShouldMarx be givenyet nother hance? s there nythingeft o

gainbyreturningotexts hoseearnestxegesis asoccupied ountlessinterpreters,othfriendlyndhostile,or enerations?as Marx's re-

dibilityurvived heglobaldebacleofthoseregimes nd movementswho drew nspirationromhiswork, owever oorly hey nderstoodit? s itprematureo conclude hatwe have entered newera n which

post-Marxismas oined a hostofother post- phenomena s transi-tionalbridges o a future hoseoutlines re still nlydimly isible?

The answer o all of thesequestionsproposedbyMoishePostone'sremarkable ew bookis a resoundingnd unapologetic es.Without

worryingboutpatching p the llegedholes nMarxwith rgumentsfrom sychoanalysis,tructuralism,ational hoicetheory,econstruc-tionor otherpossible lternatives,e arguesthatvirtuallyll the re-sources re there nMarx'sownwritingsor viable ritiquefmodern

society.Without gonizing verthe unity nd coherenceofMarx'sthoughtrentertaininglvinGouldner'slaim hat herereat east woMarxisms,riticalndscientific,ith qualclaim o textualegitimation,he provides strong eading largely focusedn Capital nd the

Grundrisseofwhatheconsidersheessentialmessage f Marx'sworkas a whole. Not eventhe now familiar istinctionetween heyoungand matureMarx survives is desire to present Marx's critique f

181



182 MarxAfter arxism

politicalconomyn as logicallyoherent nd

systematicallyowerfula way spossible. 'Postone's ltimateoal snoless than he aying fa firm heoreticaloundation or detailed ccountofa global capi-talism hat s still ulnerable oMarxist ritique.

Yetfor llofPostone's napologetic idelityo the etter ndspiritfMarx'swork, here s nothing fthesectarian r thedogmaticnhis

reinterpretation.easonedargumentsather hanappeals to textual

authority,loseconsiderationfalternativeositions ather handis-missive olemics, ainstakingxpositionsather hanpromissoryotes

characterizeworkhatwill nlightennd stimulateven hosewhomayultimatelyemain nconvinced y ts onclusions. lthought sbynomeanseasyreadingbecauseof tsuncompromisinglyigh evelofar-

gumentationandtendencyorepeat tsmainpoints xcessively),ime,Labor, nd Social Dominations worththe effort oranyone stilluneasywith hethoughthat atecapitalismmustforever e thebest socio-economic olution o thedilemmas fhumanexistence.

Postone'sbasic trategysreculerpourieuxauter.hat s,hewillinglyabandonsmuch

ofwhat

normally assesforMarxist

heorynorder o

salvage coreofdefensibledeas.Whathe terms traditional arxismnotonly ncompassestandard econd nternational,eninist,rotsky-ist, nd evenmostMarxist umanist ersions,ut lsoserves, eargues,as the strawman)argetfpessimisticriticsfMarx ikeFriedrichol-lock and moreoptimisticneslikeJirgenHabermas.He identifiestwith all theoretical pproaches thatanalyze capitalismfromthe

standpointf abor and characterizehat ocietyssentiallynterms fclassrelations,tructuredyprivate wnership fthe meansofpro-

ductionand a market-regulatedconomy 7). Following rom hispremise, eargues,s an imageof ocialism s the ollectivewnershipofmeansofproductionhat re no longernthe ervice fa domina-ting lass,butwhich re still ontinuouswith he ndustrialized odelthat haracterizesigh apitalism. otsurprisingly,he actuallyxist-

ingsocialism oftheformer ovietblocwas, n hiseyes, ar essofabreakwith apitalismhattpurportedo be. Intact,tsreliance n thecentralized lanningof a large-scalendustrialconomyshould be

1. Postone 19. (Hereafter,ll references ill be givenparenthetically ithin hetext.)fthere sanydistinction,eargues, t s notbetween youthfulumanist nd amature cientistic arx, butrather etween ne who thinksnmore universalisticcategoriesndone who smorerigorouslyistoricalnd self-reflexivebouthis ownhistoricalpecificity.



Martin ay 183

called themostrigid,

ulnerable,ndoppressive

orm fstate-inter-ventionistapitalism 14) instead fa true lternative.

The traditionaleadingof Marxism,Postonecontends, eriouslymisrepresents arx's ttitude owardsabor,value andhistory. atherthanholding hat abor s the transhistoricalourceofvalue,a sourcewhich smerelylienated nder apitalism,Marx dentifiedapitalismprecisely ith systemnwhich abor- alienated rnot, dead or

living s a subordinatessue- has becometheprimaryonstituterof the social world.Rather hanbelievinghat xchangevalue is the

capitalisturrogate orthe real value createdby abor,Marx under-stood thevery ategoryf value as an expression fcapitalistocialrelations.Rather hanseeinghistorys an inevitable nd automatic

unfolding f a universalaw ofdevelopment,Marx understood uchlaw-like egularitiess themselves function fthecapitalistorm fsocial organization,n whichall relations re yoked togethern a

totalizingystem.ndeed,anytranshistoricallaims wereforeignoMarx's ritiquefcapitalism, hich emained oggedlyocused n ustthathistorical

ormationnd no other.

Accordingly,totalityas not

a positive ermnhisvocabularyignifyingtheoreticalraspofall of

historyr a normative oal to be realized n the socialist uture, utrather negative erm xpressing hecapitalist rive o subordinateotherness othe rule of the same.

Genuinesocialism,PostoneunderstandsMarx to be saying, an

onlybe saidto have arrivedwhen abor no longer erves s thecentralsocialmotor fa totalized ystemhat osits omethingalled value

(use,exchange, r abor)as itsstandard fworth.Marx'scritiquewas

farmorefundamentalhanhad been magined yfriendlynterpreterslike MauriceDobb,JoanRobinsonor Paul Sweezy,who readhimaslittlemorethan leftRicardian. ostone'sMarx stheauthor f radi-cal critique fpolitical conomy,ncludingts abortheory f value,not a critical ersion fpolitical conomy.

Becauseof hisunderstandingfthe need to overcome hedomina-tionof abor,Marxalsoknew hat heproletariat,s the aboring lass

parexcellencefcapitalism,annotbe thegrave-diggerfcapitalism,n-

sotar s it s itseltffunctionfthevery ypertrophyf abor that ha-racterizeshe ystemtseeks oovercome.Howeverunderstandablet

mayhave beento enhance hedignityf aborat a timewhenworkerswerebeing ncreasinglyxploited nd their ctualimmiserationdefinedbyPostone as theirworkgrowing one-sided and empty 347)




- wasrising,

t s nonethelessrong

o transformhat lass ntothesaviors f mankind. o-calledpraxisphilosophers, hosought pointd'appui or heir ritiquen theactivityf a potentiallyniversal lass,werethusmisguided. reedom romabor as themediatingmotor fsociety,otthefreedomfJapecific ind fnon-alienated,ocial aborwillmark he ndofthe apitalistrder.Not theproletariats thenew

expressivemeta-subjectfhistory,s GeorgLukcs had thoughtn

Historynd ClassConsciousness,utrather he end ofall suchabstractlyuniversalmeta-subjectswill spell its transcendence.Overcoming

alienation,n this iew,nvolves he bolitionf heself-grounding,elf'mov-ing ubjectcapital) nd theform f aborthat onstitutesnd is consti-tutedbystructuresfalienation 224).

Concomitantly,hemoreequitable edistributionf theoutcome fmodern ndustrialroductionannotbeenough osignal henew ge:modern ndustrialroductions notextrinsicocapitalism, utrather

partakes f ts ultimate roject fvalorization. or can thereappro-priation fsurplusalue bytheworking lass transformhesystem,sincevalue

itselfs the

problem.Forthe historical

ageto be

turned,Postone'sMarxclaims, hecapitalistmodeof ndustrialroductiont-selfmustbeundone. The fundamentalontradictionfthat ystemsnot betweenprivate ppropriation nd socialized production, utratherwithinhesphere fproductiontself, herebyhat phere n-cludesthe mmediate rocess fproductionndthe tructuref ocialrelations onstitutedy abor ncapitalism 35).Withinapitalistro-duction,aboracquires double character,t once concretend ab-stract,articularnd universal, hich hendetermines heantinomic

structuref the social totalitys a whole. t is apparentn the com-modity orm fthe market lace and thepolitical ormofbourgeoisdemocracy, othofwhich eveal splitbetweenoncrete-materialndabstract-socialimensions. o privilegeneortheothers tosuccumbtofetishism,hichmanifeststself,nterlia, in thereduction fab-stract abor to an instrumentalool fortheendlessmaximization f

profitthe ncrease fvalue), hereiticationfcommoditiess thingsdevoidofsocialmediation,nd the ubstitutionfabstractmarkersf

exchange money) or ealwealth. histetishisms evidentntheepi-stemologicalualisms,mostfamouslyhose fKant, hathaveplaguedbourgeois hought.

Perhaps the most fundamental expression - indeed source - ofthedouble-sided, fetishistic haracter f abor under capitalismoccurs



Martin ay 185

onthe basic evelof tstemporality,

theme owhichPostonedevotesan especiallycutechapter. he categoryfvalue,heargues,screatedwhenabstract,nvariable,mechanically omogenized ime s split fffromhe ived ime fconcrete roduction.helatter,ostonehastenstoadd, smerelyhereverse ftheformernd shouldnotbe fetishizedas a fully ealizedform ftemporal xperiencen itselfor,as withLukAcs,urned nto romanticizedersion f historical s opposedtomechanical ime). ucha differentiationannotbeunderstood,s ithas beenbycommentatorsikeDavidLandes,merelynterms fnew

technicalnventions,uch as theescapement lockofthe thirteenthcentury,utas a result fsocialchanges n theorganizationf workand urban ife n combinationwith hat echnology.he result s theuncoupling f measure fworthnterms fabstract nits fthe imespent n aboringvalue)from measurebasedon theuse oftheprod-uctsproduced materialwealth).Althoughmoney, hecirculationfcommodities,nd evencertain orms fcapital e.g.merchant)an befoundat an earlierperiod,truecapitalism eginsonlywith hefull-

fledged mergence f value based on the abstraction f labor as atotalizingorce.Yet withthat emergencealso comes the germ of its demise.

According o Postone'sMarx,althoughncreasedproductivityasedon technologicaldvancesdoes notmultiplyhevalueofthe abor ex-pended, t does increasematerialwealth.Capitalism's entral ontra-dictionsthus that alue remains hedeterminingorm fwealth ndof socialrelationsncapitalism,egardlessfdevelopmentsnproduc-tivity;owever,aluealso becomes ncreasinglynachronisticnterms

of thematerialwealth-producingotential f theproductive orces owhich tgivesrise 197).The proletariatlso becomesanachronistic;althoughts aborremains hesourceofvalue, t s no longer mpor-tant or he creation fmaterialwealth.

Becausethiscontradiction as notbeenresolved, ostoneconclu-des, thesystems stilldynamic nd proneto instability,rovidinggroundforresistinghepessimisticonclusion fthose ike theearlyFrankfurtchoolwhosawonly one-dimensional,dministered orld

replicatingtself d infinitum. n immanent ritique f capitalism'sdialecticalontradictions,nd not one thatmerely its deals againsttheirbetrayaln reality,s thus,despite everything,tillpossible.Whether r not t eads to classconflict, hetherrnot tproducesnew historical gent eager to overthrow he system, he contradictory




essenceofcapitalism

emainsneffect.

heremay

notbealogic

ohis-

toryngeneral indeed,Postone xplicitlylaimsMarxrejects hisidea - butthere s one in thespecificocial formationalledcapita-lism. tsoutcome s an ever-intensiftyingension etween he potentialof thespecies-generalapabilities hathave been accumulated, ndtheir xistent,lienatedforms constitutedythedialectic fthetwodi-mensions f abor and oftime 360).

Even thishurriedynopsis fPostone'smuchricherndmorecom-

plicated rgument illgive omesense of ts mbition ndscope. It sno easytask orespond o iton the eveloftheoreticalophisticationthat tdemands.One question hat anquickly eanswered, owever,concerns heaccuracy f hisreading f Marx. t can be answeredbysimply y-passingt.Unlessoneiscaught p inthe ncreasinglyedious

game fdiscerningntentionsndrelyingn theiruthorityn egitimat-

ingarguments,t s irrelevanthetherr notPostone'sMarx s thereal one.Doubtless extualvidence ouldbe producedo showthatMarx idcount n the roletariatochallengeapitalismrreallydidholdto a transhistoricalotion f abor, ut 'm not ure here-sultswould eparticularlyelptulndealing ithhe heoreticalssuesPostone aises. ertainly,he ntellectualistorian illwant o knowwhyMarxwas oeasilyndconsistentlyisunderstoody hemultita-rious iguresostoneumps ogethernder herubricf traditionalMarxism ;his s not trivialssue. hemore ressinguestion,ow-

ever,swhetherrnotPostone's ersionfMarx's deas an urviventheirwnmerit.

Anumberffundamentalssuesmust e addressed ere. he firstconcerns he theme fdominatingbstraction,hichs central oPostone's eadingfMarx.Capitalisms particularlyernicious,etells s,because f ts ual bstractionf emporalitynd abor,whichthen roducesn alienatedystemfsocial elationsontrollingu-manityromwithoutike metaphysicalubject.n addressinghe

claims fearlierheoristsikeAlfredohn-Rethel,honoted herela-tionshipetweenbstracthilosophynGreecendthe ise f oinageandcommodities,eargueshatnlywithmodernapitalismoesthedominationf bstractionecome enuinelyotal.npriorystems,eclaims, ocialrelations eremoreexplicitnd immediate. ccording



Martin ay 187

toMarx,capitalism's

ocial relations reunique

in thathey

o not

appeartobe social tall.The structurefrelationsonstitutedy om-modity-determinedaborundermines arlier ystems fovert ocialtieswithout, owever, eplacinghemwith similar ystem.nstead,what emerges s a social universe hat Marx describesas one of

personal ndependence n a context fobjective ependence 259).As Postoneputs telsewhere,capitalism iffersundamentallyromother ocietiesn that tscharacterizingocial relations re notovertbut re objectively'onstitutednd, hence,do not ppeartobesocial-

ly pecifict all (273).To give final xample: he risis fcapitalism,heclaims, egins whenthe lienated ocialtotalityhatsgreaterhanitsparts ouldno longerbe understoodolelyn terms fthe ndivid-uals immediatelynvolvedn itsconstitution336).

Is itthecase, however,hat arlier ocietieswerenot dominatedbyalienated bstraction,ut nsteadmoreovertlyevealed heirocialre-lations s constitutedy ndividuals,r at eastconcealed hem nless

problematic ays?Although ostone's laim bout therelativempor-

tanceofabstractionn the Greece xaminedbySohn-Rethelnd mo-dern apitalismshard ogainsay,he xistencefcommodities, oney,and abstracthilosophyntheearlierociety uggests nly differenceindegree, ot nkind. here re,moreover,ther ources f bstraction,whichmayalso dominate he humanssubjectto them, hatPostonenever dequately onsiders, erhapsbecausehedoes not see them s

producing enuinedomination. ertainlymonotheism, hose nven-tion straditionallyttributedo theJews, rovides salient nstance fabstractionith vengeance. Godwho s ndivisible,nvisible,nd

transcendents certainly powerful xampleofthehumantendencytoabstract,tendencyhich annot ederivedromapitalistela-tions fproduction.

Nor an hat o ess undamentalumannvention,anguage,hichnecessarilymploysbstractignifiersosignifyninfinityfdifferentphenomena.ostone'sritiquefHabermas'singuisticurncceptsperhaps ooeasily he notion hat anguage s primarily mediumof

intersubjectiveommunication,ndneglectsnsteadts nevitablyb-

stractingunction,ts xistence s an always lready xistingystem oone hasconsciouslyonstructed. is own stress n thereityingowerofabstractaborprevents imfrom onfrontingead-onthe mplica-tions of the linguistictheories that were so influential n the rise ofstructuralist nd poststructuralisthought.




Postone's nclinationosubordinate lltorms fprior

bstractionothoseofcapitalism or at east oconsider nly apitalistbstractionas trulyominating isperhaps owhere s evident s inhisbriefon-siderationfDurkheim's ualisticociology:[Durkheim's]ppositionsofsocietynd the ndividual,ouland body, heabstract,eneral ndtheconcrete articular wherebynly hefirst,bstracterm feachopposition s understood s social- can be grasped s hypostatiza-tions and projections f thecommodity orm 225).Although nemightplausibly rguethatDurkheim'spolarity etween ocial and

non-socialmayreflecthe dominantdeology f hisday, tselfome-how a reflectionfcommodification,iscentral istinctionetweenthesacred nd theprofane annot.Additionally,nsofars thesacredis a categoryfvirtuallyllreligions,t s hard oconclude hat lienat-ingdifferentiations a functionfcapitalismlone.

The sacred, o be sure,maynotbe preciselyquivalent o theab-stract indeed, in certainrespects t s theopposite - but tdoes sug-gest hatprecapitalistocial relationswere essovert,esstransparent,than

Postone vers.n

fact, hevery ategoryf the social was notavailablefor xplicithematizationntil he ndustrial evolution. ri-or to that ime, ocial relationsweregenerallyast nnatural rtheo-logicalterms;what, fterll,was thepowerfulmetaphor fthe GreatChainofBeing,whichwassofundamentaloteudal ociety?o contendthat nlyunder apitalism oesthe lienationfthe ocialfirstccur sthusproblematic,lthoughtmaywell be construed s occurringnnewand moresinister ays.

If Postone's onceptualizationfprecapitalistocieties an be ques-tionedforunderestimatingheir ources fabstraction,o too can hisimplied mageofan alternativefterapitalism. hat mage s impliedbecausehe tries ofollow hetraditional arxistnjunction gainst e-pictingherealm f freedomstherealm fnecessity.nstead, earguesthat hecontradictionsfcapitalism oint owards ossibilities hoserealization annot be foreseen, thepotentialf the species-generalcapabilities hathave been accumulated 360). Still, ostone hrowsoutsufficientints o allowthereader opiecetogethersenseofwhat

thepost-capitalistrdermight e. First, eexplicitlyschews norma-tive antage ointbased on a romantic otion f mmediate nityndplenitudinous e-difterentiation,societynwhich ll workwouldbe-comeplay.Although e wants he bolition fabstract ocialdomina-tion, he is also waryof its simple negation in the name of lite or



Martinay 189

the concrete thetype f program hat ften edromanticnti-capitalism ftheright).omehow t s theovercomingftheabstract/con-crete ichotomy,s well s other omparable ppositionsagency/struc-ture, ubject/object,anual/mentalabor, tc.), hat s histacit oal.

Second, lthough ewants otreeMarxfromhe mageof produc-tivist dvocate f ndustrialevelopment, e still ccepts he dea thatconsciouslynd deliberatelymaking the world s thedefinitionfsocialism. here s inhisthinkingoneofthatHeideggeriannflectedinvocation f unworked, inoperative r unavowed ommunities

thatnspirether riticsfproductivismikeJean-Lucancy rMauriceBlanchot, oneofthehostilityo thevalorizationfpoesisntherealmofaction s inthework f nArendt. Marx'sconception ftheover-

coming fcapitalism, ostone nsists,can be understoodnterms fpeople gainingcontrolover such quasi-objective evelopments, fprocessesofongoing nd acceleratingocial transformations,hichthey hemselves aveconstituted 384).

Such people arenot,however,o be understood s a meta-sub-

ject,norare

theydentified ith

nyspecificocial

groupsuch as the

proletariat; lthoughPostonemakes a fewhalf-heartedestures o-wardsnew socialmovements, e franklycknowledgeshat no exist-ing social formrepresentshedeterminate egationof capitalism(358).As a result, hepossibilities e detectsn the contradictionsf

capitalism emainthemselves roblematicallybstract,nd what he

says fHabermas- it snotevidentwhy he ppealtopracticaleas-on couldbemorethan n exhortation 241)- canbe turned gainsthis ownappeal to mmanent ontradictionshat ack nypracticalm-

bodiment. howing hat tructuralonditions or hange xist s a tarcry rom xplaining he motorofthechange tself.

Indeed,there s a danger n assuming hat uch mmanent ontra-dictionsnecessarilyr eventendentiallyroducethemotivation

subjective robjective fbr heir vercoming.Marx'sopposition, sPostonepresentst,between bstractalueand materialwealth per-ates on thepremise hat he atters an absolute lternativefthefor-mer, hat ne is dominatingnd theother iberating.etmighttnot

bepossible o see them smutuallyntailed,heoneneeding heotheras its ntithesis?ostone ecognizeshis nhisdiscussionftherelation-

shipbetween he varieties fvalue, nwhichhe refuses o uxtaposeuse value or value based on labor as completely nnocent alternativesto exchange value, but when it comes to the couplet value/wealth, he




lesson is lost. Instead, wealth becomes a markerfora postalienatedstate nwhich abstractions nd differentiations ould still xist,butin

purelybenignwaysintended byconscious human action.In a recent ommentary n theutopianMarxismofFredric ameson,

StevenConnor has made a pointthatcould just as easilybe directed tPostone:

indefiningalue inPostone's ase,wealth]outterlyndabsolutelyinterms hich obeyond xchange-value,amesons nfact vacu-

ating t of all force r human relevance. ar from mbodyinghepossibilityfvalueas such, heuniverse fabsolutelyncompara-bility hich ameson ees as coming eforend,presumably,fterthe ra ofexchange-value,ould nfact llowfornopossibilityfvalueatall,since universe nwhichnothingould be comparedwith nythinglsebyany hared cale ofmeasurement ould be auniverse fabsolute nertness,rvaluelessness.2

Put in the termsof Postone's reading of Marx, some abstraction s

necessaryto provide the commensurabilityneeded to make wealth ameaningful ategory. n politicalterms, he same pointholds. Accord-

ing to Postone, postcapitalistdemocracywould require the abolitionof the abstract social compulsions rooted in the social formsgraspedbythe Marxian categories (41). Yet otherabstractionswould have to

fill hegap, forhow, after ll, can any democracyoperatewithout uch

categoriesas the people, popular sovereignty, citizenship, one

person, one vote, etc.,all of which require some sortof abstraction.Even the most doggedly anti-representative otion of direct demo-

cracymust depend on a radical egalitarianism hat evels differences.Althoughsuch political abstractionsmay not have thedominating ef-fectof thatof labor, theytoo may inadvertentlyxclude and margi-nalize some groups deemed outside theirreach.

In short,once the abstractionoflabor is overcome, assumingitcanbe, what is to preventother abstractions,perhaps equally totalizing,frommergingto take tsplace? Atone point in his argument,Postonechastises Habermas forfailing to allow for distinction mong forms

ofabstractions 257), a criticismwhich shows Postone recognizes thepossibilityhatnot all abstractions re to be subsumed under the domi-nationof labor. In general,however,the versionof Marx he presents

2. StevenConnor,TheoryndCultural alueOxford:Blackwell, 992) 153.



Martin ay 191

relies n a strong otionof a master bstraction,hat f abor,which

determinesr atleastoverwhelminglyediates ll the rest ncapital-ism.Although e successfullyndermines he nvertedmplicationfthis laim- thatn post-capitalistocieties, nalienated,oncretea-borwillprovide hebasisfor liberated umanity hisargumenttill

implies hat qualitativeranstormationilloccurwhencapitalism'smaster bstractions somehow undone. Yet no amountot redescri-

bingMarx'sprojectwillavoidraising hequestionof whether rnototherswill rise nitsplace.The dialectic fabstractndconcrete,ike

that ftheother ntinomiesfbourgeois houghtndlite,maywell beharder o master han Marximagined.Emancipation,whatever hatexaltedwordmaymean,maywell entail reedom rom he belief hatwe can evergathern all the alienated bstractionshathave definedhumanculturewell before he onset ofthattotalizingmeta-subjectcalledcapital.Postonehas dettlylerted s to the argerssuesraised

byMarx'sremarkable ork, ut he has openedmorequestions hanhe has answered.For Marxto remain reliableguide into the nextmillennium,t is thesequestionsthathis self-criticaletenderswillhave to address.Postonehas cleareda greatdeal ofground,but thetoundationsora newand strongerdifice restill o be constructed.

Reseña Martin Jay del libro de postone

Documents

Transcript of Reseña Martin Jay del libro de postone