Adorno 1962 Seminar on Marx.

What follows is a rough translation a friend made for me of H.G. Backhaus’ notes from Adorno’s 1962 seminar on Marx. The notes are published as the appendix to Backhaus’s yet untranslated Dialektik der Wertform: Untersuchungen zur marxschen Ökonomiekritik A translation of this seminar was scheduled to appear in the Journal Common Sense in the issue after what became the last issue.  A translation of The Dialectics of the Value Form will hopefully appear before the Neu Engels Lekture tosses the Neu Marx Lekture in the dustbin of history.

Backhaus and Reichelt credit this seminar, and their acquisition of a first edition of Capital, with motivating them to look into Marx’s methodology and his theory of value.  Only a few of the essays that form Backhaus and Reichelt’s subsequent investigations have been translated. Most of them are in collections edited by Werner Bonefeld and are easily available online. (Hit me up if you want a list etc.)

Some will say that Backhaus and Reichelt would not have wasted their time if they knew that 32 years later the most important book of the 21st century would be published offering an entirely sui generis interpretation of Marx’s theory of value– Moishe Postone’s Time Labour and Social Domination. Others will say Adorno didn’t know dick about Marx, that his interpretation of Marx came from Lukacs or that he was an ideology critic. What follows will prove the latter wrong. The former clearly need to read Backahus and Reichelt.

(Since this two-year-old post suddenly seems to be getting a lot of new traffic, I thought I should mention that: (1) a translation of Backhaus is now in the works with the HM book series (2) A refined and properly edited translation of the following Adorno seminar is forthcoming in HM along with an introduction by me.)

Theodor W. Adorno on Marx and the basic concepts of sociological theory

From a seminar transcript in the summer semester 1962

On Popper’s “social nominalism:” In Popper, the concept of law is implicitly identified with the regularity of repeated occurrences. In truth, the concept of law is concerned with codifying a particular procedure in its structure. It is essential for positivism to hypostatize the division of labor in the sciences, thereby also rejecting this concept of law – when Popper argues, for instance, that historiography cannot verify the concept of law. Here, historiography is being isolated. Marx is accused of “economism.” Adorno: There are intellectual (geistige) relations that take on a life of their own such that, if they are offhandedly reduced to economic causes, one makes a mess of Marx. Instead, what matters – and this is our task – is to account for the conditions that result in the becoming independent of intellectual relations. The transition to independence itself is to be deduced from social dynamics.

Popper accuses Marx of “essentialism.” Marx would have sneered and commended himself as a nominalist (to turn Hegel from his head on his feet). Nevertheless I would say that Popper is right insofar as, in Marx, structural concepts are autonomous, without which social diversity cannot be thought, whereas Popper is essentially hostile to theory. Once the moment of the autonomy of the concept is given up, the possibility of theory is denied. Then theory is replaced with the demand that sociology, understood as a kind of agency (Agentur) of society, provide well ordered facts which are used in the respectively dominant praxis.

Wherefrom does Popper take his demand for an open society? After all, this is itself a general concept which appears like a shot. Here, a general concept is introduced rather naively and without thought (unreflektiert). “Humanity” already is a general concept with respect to individual human beings.

On the problem of social nominalism: Enlightenment recognizes more and more general concepts as fabricated by us. It wants to scrutinize/see through (durchschauen) the semblance of autonomy of what is made by us. It is man who produces everything that appears as autonomous in itself, it is thesei and not physei. Popper accuses Marx and Hegel of antiquated conceptual fetishism, but there is no consciousness (Bewusstsein) of any fact which is not mediated by consciousness (Bewusstsein).

It is prohibited to speak of general concepts in the belief that heteronomy (Fremdbestimmtheit) is thereby abolished (aufgehoben). The image of society is reduced to facts which are said to be products of individual human beings in order to be conceivable as facts, while human beings nevertheless form associations which transcend individual, concrete actions such that these facts, which supposedly are primary, are in truth themselves mediated. They should present themselves unmediated as if they were absolutely primary, even though they contain a whole/an entity which is not unmediated. Popper would not object to the empirical study of institutions. When I speak of being (Wesen), however, he would denounce this as conceptual mythology. When I speak of the structure of our society as comprehensive totality, then the positivists would say: capitalist society does not exist, our society is pluralist. So I ask: Is it really the case that the concept is only one thing the knowing subject does to the material one contribution, or is there something like a concept in the object with which we are dealing?

I here raise the central problem. Our answer on this issue distinguishes our Frankfurt School from all other traditions of sociology. Exchange itself is a process of abstraction. Whether human beings know or not, by entering into a relationship of exchange and reducing different use values to labor values they actualize a conceptual operation socially. This is the objectivity of the concept in practice. It shows that conceptuality lies not only in the minds of the philosophers but also in the reality of the object itself such that when we speak of being (Wesen), we refer to precisely that which society, without knowing it, already has in itself. If we stick to the facts, then we ourselves encounter the concept. We are forced to recur to the concept in the object itself instead of retroactively subsuming the object under ordering concepts. When Popper speaks about alienation, abstraction, he comes close to this moment: the relation between human beings were of an abstract kind. The concept is not to be fetishized but instead is embedded within a dialectic with facts. The conceptual structure is itself a fact.

Natural science has objects that do not have consciousness. If it was not subjects who realize abstraction, that is, if subjects were not also thinking subjects, objective conceptuality would not come into existence. Objects are not immediately subjects, but there is something subjective within objects in the sense of what is necessary for abstraction. The object is nothing self-sufficient (nichts Autarkes). However, one should not posit it as absolute because there is the moment of second nature which, towards us, tends to harden into something obscure. The superiority of the social is so strong that society appears as if it really was first nature. Positivism is so blinded by society that it regards second nature as first nature and identifies the data of society with the data of natural science. In these questions, our school is in opposition to all sociological traditions of the world.

When we say that a moment of conceptuality (Begrifflichkeit) lies in the object, this should not be taken to mean that society is based on something conceptual (auf etwas Begrifflichem). One cannot arrive at relationships of exchange without a moment of conceptuality. It is a process of abstraction which relates the same with the same to the same (der Gleiches mit Gleichem auf Gleiches bezieht). Otherwise irrationality would reign in society. It is the moment of calculatory equation which has founded the difference between civil society and feudalism. Even if a single human being had not had the idea of this absolute exchange, there would objectively still be a process of abstraction in the objective reduction to the same, a process of abstraction which amounts to the objectivity of the conceptual moment, no matter if human beings reflect on it or not. On the contrary, the power/violence (Gewalt) of this conceptual moment is the bigger the less it is something thought by human beings but something that lies in the object itself. Therefore, the concept is the object itself and not the subjective unit of property (Merkmalseinheit, maybe “category”) of the object subsumed under it.

This kind of objectivity of the concept is something else entirely than the kind of objectivity that is taught by mythological conceptual realism, instead containing nominalism as a whole. The conceptuality in the relationship of exchange is itself a kind of facticity.

Yet there is something like a primacy of the nominalist over the realist motive. When we say that concept and fact are both moments, then this does not mean that both have the same dignity. There is the prevalence of the impenetrable over the other (Es gibt das̈bergewicht des Undruchdringlichen gegenüber dem Anderen). This way we do not get into a kind of mythology.

Marx accuses Hegel of making the predicate, that is, the operations, functions, the subject. According to his own understanding, Marx was a pure, according to his objective structure, however, he was anything but a nominalist.

Hegel says, to be sure, that the concept of the state is historically prior to the concept of society. Human beings would have first encountered society as the state. Then again, the method (Weg) in the Philosophy of Right is to develop [the argument] that society necessarily strives towards the state by force of its own dialectic, that is, that the state is the product of society.

Marx was extremely anti-anthropological, anti-psychological. His real interest is in the institutions which human being dehumanize. He does not provide an analysis of man; this would be superficial with regard to historical being.

Marx’s understanding of Hegel is very problematic. The mature Marx, however, resumed the objectivity of the concept, in particular with regard to the Left Hegelians.

Man is the creature (Lebewesen) that reproduces itself. Man becomes man through himself, through social labor. Only through the phase of social labor man attains to the concept of man, that is, to real, free man.

Marx imputes a concept of spirit to Hegel which is separate from the material sphere of being. In Hegel, spirit is described as totality; the determinations of work are by no means of a separate mental/intellectual principle. Hegel thinks of a contestation of humanity with nature, but interprets the total movement as a spiritual one. However, the moments in work are equally material moments and not activities of an isolated spirit. The slave (Knecht) is not an intellectual. The spiritual lies only in the general relation which unfolds between master and slave. Objectivity (Gegenständlichkeit) has, in a certain sense, a more concluding meaning in Hegel than in Marx because an unresolved remnant of the institutional vis-à-vis a free society remains.

Adorno: (This is about the theoretical keynote address (Kernreferat) of the seminar.) – What does critique of political economy mean in Marx? 1. Critique of the classical theory of liberalism. 2. Critique of the economy itself. That is, critique of the self-understanding of

liberalism (in particular in volume 4, the Theories of Surplus Value) and [critique] of liberalism itself. Marx is concerned with an immanent critique of liberalism. In the East, Marx serves the interests of power relations, this Marx belongs to the sphere of pulp literature. In the West, Marx is accused that his theory is premised on subjective-proletarian class consciousness. This is precisely what is not meant. Liberal theory is confronted with its own claim with regard to the act of exchange. “You say that equivalents are exchanged, that there is a free and just exchange, I take your word, now we shall see how this works.” This is immanent critique. That man becomes a commodity has been perceived by others. Marx: “These petrified conditions must be made to dance by singing to them their own melody.” (Contribution to the Critique of Hegel’s Philosophy of Right) Not: to confront capitalist society a different one, but: to ask if society conforms to its own rules, if society functions according to laws which it claims as its own. Now, Marx does not just say, no, this is wrong, but he takes dialectic seriously and coquets with its terminology. In an exchange, something is the same and simultaneously not the same, it is and at the same time is not above board. The theory of liberalism conforms to its own concept and by conforming it also contradicts its own concept. The relation of exchange is in reality pre-formed by class relations: the heart of the theory is the assumption that there is an unequal control of the means of production. This question is of almost no importance in today’s discussion of Marx. Critique tests claims by confronting them with the object and by deducing tendencies of development out of this contradiction. The late Marx would say that this method is still too abstract.

The stages of development are developed as qualitatively different from each other. This is like in Hegel. Nodal points of development. Rostow, by contrast, does not recognize qualitatively different basic structures. For him, two different stages are a more or less (ein Mehr oder Weniger), there are no qualitative differences. Marx is not simply an economic historian; for him, historical and systematic moment are mediated, the historical process itself is regarded as the logical, necessary transition from one structure to another. Marx differentiates himself from static doctrines as well as from the straightforward historian (vom blossen Historiker) who only describes different stages. The concept is entirely historicized. The Process is formally idealist, it is the self-actualization of the concept, in the case of Marx the modes of production. Double rejection: with regard to invariant idealism and descriptive positivism.

The commodity is characterized by its exchange value. It is precisely not need which constitutes the commodity. Commodity value is not derived from need but from objective conditions of production of which need is an element but only in the last instance, that is, mediated by the interest to get rid of the stuff. It is characteristic of objective theory that it starts from institutions rather than needs, from actual relations of power, relations of disposal/control (Verfügungsverhältnissen). “You always talk about explaining the economy out of needs, but the transmission/gearbox (Getriebe) does not primarily serve the needs; these are rather satisfied at great sacrifice and under the terrible grinding of the system.” Need is only dragged along and this is why the economy must not start from needs – because the world does not go according to our needs. The latter are only an epiphenomenon.

What is decisive is the superiority of the apparatus of production over needs. This must be maintained against the objection that the phenomena described by Marx could be represented subjectively.

Marx’s method consists of correcting abstractions later by way of very extensive differentiations. Here, I want to announce the problem if this is reconcilable with dialectic or if Marx might not have offended the principles of dialectic.

What makes commodities exchangeable is the unity of socially necessary abstract working time (Arbeitszeit). Abstract work, because through a reduction to unity one abstracts from use value, from needs.

When a business man calculates he can neither recur to conditions under which a commodity came about nor to whatever a commodity is good for, but he focuses on working time, profit, material. This is of what a commodity is composed, but this is what makes it a kind of sum of something solid, objective (Dinglichem). Through abstract working time one abstracts from living opponents. On the face of it, this abstractions makes what is exchanged a thing in itself. What is social relation appears as if it was the sum of objective qualities of an object. The concept of commodity fetishism is nothing but this necessary process of abstraction. By performing the operation of abstraction, commodity no longer appears as a social relation but it seems as if value was a thing in itself.

Exchange still is the key to society. It is characteristic of commodity economy (Warenwirtschaft) that what characterizes exchange – i.e. that it is a relation between human beings – disappears and presents itself as if it was a quality of the things themselves that are to be exchanged. It is not the exchange that is fetishized but the commodity. That which is a congealed social relation within commodities is regarded as if it was a natural quality, a being-in-itself of things. It is not exchange which is illusory, because exchange really takes place. The illusion (Schein) in the process of exchange lies in the concept of surplus value.

However, fetishized perceptions are not illusions either because insofar as human beings in fact become dependent on those objectivities which are obscure to them, reification (Verdinglichung) is not only false consciousness but simultaneously also reality, insofar as commodities really are alienated from human beings. We really are dependent on the world of commodities (Warenwelt). On the one hand, commodity fetishism is an illusion; on the other hand, it is utmost/ultimate reality – and the superiority of reified commodity over humanity stands testament to this. That the categories of illusion are in truth also categories of reality, this is dialectic.

Concepts like the fetish character of commodities can only be understood when one does not just transform them into subjective categories. Here, I do not mean the appeal to today’s human beings which emanates from commodities in a store. It is not about the psychological fetishizing of individual commodities but about the objective structure of commodity economy. In a society in which exchange vale is the dominant principle, this fetishizing is realized necessarily. What is essential is that the commodity disappears as a social relation, all other reactions of reified consciousness are secondary things.

To be sure, the commodity is the archetype (Urform) of ideology, but commodity itself is not simply false consciousness but results from the structure of political economy. This is the actual reason why consciousness is determined by being. What is decisive is that the objective structure of economic form itself realizes from within itself fetishization. This is the objective process of ideology – independent of the consciousness of individuals and their will. The theory of ideology (Ideologielehre) has its gravity (Ernst) only in the fact that false consciousness itself appears as a necessary form of the objective process which holds together society. Socialization itself takes place through this ideology. Here, the issue of the problem of ideology becomes very serious. Even if we see through illusion, this does not change the fetish character of the commodity: every business man who calculates has to act according to this fetish. If he does not calculate in this way he goes broke.

Money is also only a symbol of congealed work and not a thing in itself such that the processes in finance are not primary; rather, financial relations have to be deduced from political economy.

When exchange value becomes independent, then I can strive for it as thing in itself. And this reification of exchange value is what is meant by the formula M-C-M’.

Crucial question: Where does surplus value come from? The sphere of circulation is secondary. Surplus value is already contained in it. In the sphere of circulation, entrepreneurs scramble for surplus value which is, however, already produced.

Labor power (Arbeitskraft) is the source of surplus value because is is at the same time use value and exchange value. This is the crux of the matter. The worker is free insofar as he can move from one sector (Branche) to another.

Value itself is defined as social labor. For this reason, machines cannot produce value. What they do refers back to labor because machines themselves are produced by human beings. Entrepreneurs strive for absolute surplus value – but not because they are bad people. Psychology is as alien to Marx as it is to Hegel.

Marx’s theory of “character mask” contains the concept of role. Only that it is here derived from objective conditions; the role is imposed on the subject by the structure. Today – as in Parsons – there is no reflection on, but instead an absolutization of the concept of role itself. The real reason why I am skeptical of the concept of role is that it is not understood as a necessary moment in a process, but that it is instead isolated and singled out.

Essence of dialectics: Capitalists are forced to try to accumulate surplus value. For this purpose, they are impelled to develop machines in order to replace living with dead labor. Here, a moment of the sphere of circulation impacts on the sphere of production. However, because they are forced, capitalists create the conditions of productive forces which do not need the chains of capitalist economy. Second, they thereby create a dynamic which turns against themselves; more and more labor is set free, thereby creating the conditions of crisis and the continuously increasing threat to the system itself. In order to maintain itself, the system must produce precisely such moments through which it increasingly undermines its own possibility. The purpose of spontaneity is to get this process under control, which is headed for the destruction of the whole, so as to sublate (aufheben) the whole to a higher mode of production. Whereas dialectic itself, insofar as it is blind, also creates the conditions for the other (für das Andere). If there is no moment of freedom, that is, if the whole is left to itself, then it decays.

Eternal uncertainty is one of the reasons for the backwards-oriented desire for agrarian and mechanic (handwerklichen) relations. This is the authentic moment in it. The other, the apotheosis, is false: these relations cannot be restored.

In order to understand the concept of surplus value, two time spans have to be compared: the time which is necessary for the production of labor power, and the time that the worker gives in labor. One must not start with the commodity produced by the worker, but there is a process of exchange: the worker sells his labor time (Arbeitszeit) for which he receives his equivalent.3 But the time which he gives and the time which is needed for the reproduction of his labor power, are different. On the one hand, exchange takes place in form of equivalents: the worker gives his labor time and receives what is required for the reproduction of his labor power in return. Here lies the source of surplus value without having to consider the produced commodity. One exchanges the same for the same (Gleiches mit Gleichem) and simultaneously the same for not the same (Gleiches mit Nicht-Gleichem). Behind this lies the entirety of class relations. Only because the worker has nothing else but his labor power, does he accept these conditions. Behind this strange exchange lies the question of class relations.

It probably was flawed to say that subjective theory is unable to explain the entire mechanism of the economy in terms of needs. It can certainly also be done in terms of subjective categories – if one settles for outlining a formalistic scheme for economic processes. However, in doing so one abstracts from the moment of social power and impotence (Macht und Ohnmacht). It is not as if only today consumption is controlled. Today there is only a new quality which prevailed in the regulation of consumption. But in this society the consumption of subjects is not the key for the economy because the subjects’ own possibilities of consumption depend on 1. the overall economic system as a whole; one can consume as much as social status permits; 2. consumption depends on the respective overall economic situation.

The actual controversy is not about in which of the two directions economic processes can be represented more smoothly, but what theory more adequately portrays reality, in which economic relationship of human beings take place. An approach which does not account for the consumer’s dependence on the overall system is inadequate for reality. One can demonstrate that the change of the customs of consumption (Konsumsitten) do not spring from the subject but that they are objective processes which have their roots in the structure of society. This is why Marx does not start with consumption but with production – production understood as: dominance (Vorherrschaft) of the proprietors (der Verfügenden). This approach is more just to reality.

The choice of the coordinate system is not neutral with regard to the issue. That system is better in which more of real relations appears. If relations are antagonistic (class system), then antagonisms must also be expressed in theory.

Subjective economy is essentially an analysis of market processes in which established market relations are already presupposed. Engels rightly invokes the heritage of German philosophy: the question was concerned with constitutive moments through which surplus value comes about, with immanent conditions through which the system comes about, while subjective doctrine attempts to elegantly formalize already established processes.

By contrast, Marx is not concerned with the description of market society but instead inquires about the constituents of experience and provides a critique of these categories of economic activity. This approach is deeper, the approach which enables that more of reality is expressed proceeds from the problem of constitution (vom Konstitutionsproblem). The point is whether constituents of totality can be seized. The question of constitution is already present in the ostensible discretion concerning where to cut through reality for the purpose of abstraction. Subjective doctrine is essentially apology. The analysis of the question of price is an epiphenomenon with regard to the questions of constitution.

On critique: One cannot stop at the phenomena of alienation; in principle, alienation is an idealist category. However, alienation results from the commodity character of the economy (der Ökonomie, possibly economics?). Neither can one speak in abstractions about the question of power but the question of power asserts itself by virtue of the reproduction of the material life of man. If it was only about questions of alienation and power, Marx would not have anything to tell us; then all that would remain of Marx were Left Hegelianism. But Marx wanted to criticize how power and alienation play out in concrete society.

The concept of relative pauperization (Verelendung) is proto-comical (urkomisch). When no worker knows anymore that he is [pauperized] – as Schelsky claims – where, then, is a possibility to draw on the concept of class?

The concept of technology (Technik) is not clear in Marx. This concept is inherited from Saint-Simon without the latter having thought through his position concerning relationships of production. These are, on the one hand, shackling; on the other, they are constantly changing and become productive forces. This is the problematic nature of this concept.

We can see that the utmost difficulties are inherent in the system. Marx is burdened with a whole string of questions. The bleakness of our situation consists in the fact that these aspects are not developed further but instead criticized from outside without confronting the theory with its own immanent difficulties. On the one hand, the theory is defamed – in the West – on the other hand, it is fetishized – in the East. In the East, the theory is placed under a taboo, in the West it is considered a cardinal sin to concern oneself with it. The future of thinking about society depends on whether we can solve these problems. The genius of Marx consisted precisely in the fact that, filled with disgust, he tackled exactly that which he found disgusting: economy/economics (Ökonomie).

To the objection that socialism leads to massification one must reply that the latter will disappear only when individuals are no longer determined by relations of exchange.

Advertisements

About HR

Deep in the adjunct crackhole.
This entry was posted in Adorno, Backhaus, Bonefeld, Commodity fetishism, fetish character of money, Marx, monetarytheoryofvalue, Value, valueformtheory. Bookmark the permalink.

2 Responses to Adorno 1962 Seminar on Marx.

  1. Pingback: Sein und Schein | communists in situ

  2. cominsitu says:

    who translated it?

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out / Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out / Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out / Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out / Change )

Connecting to %s