According to Marx’s unfinished critique of political economy, capitalist relations of production rely on what Marx refers to in Capital as ‘the mute compulsion of economic relations’. The aim of this article is to demonstrate that this constitutes a distinct form of economic power which cannot be reduced to either ideology or violence, and to provide the conceptual groundwork for a systematic theory of capital’s mute compulsion.

The introduction of the concept of capital inCapital– with the words ‘we find’ – has provoked a great deal of discussion about the precise relation between the categories of simple circulation and the concept of capital. In this article, I argue that Marx derives the concept of capital by way of an analysis of the immanent contradictions of money, and that this dialectical derivation can be understood as a conceptual movement in which the concepts of money and capital progressively change (...) their modal status. Furthermore, I examine the development of this transition to capital throughout Marx’s writings from the period 1857 to 1872, arguing that the same arguments can be found in all the relevant writings. Finally, the article provides a critical review of the literature on the transition to capital. (shrink)

THE DOUBLE INVERSION - THE CONCEPT OF FETISHISM IN THE CRITIQUE OF POLITICAL ECONOMYKarl Marx’s critical analysis of ‘the secret of the fetishism of commodities’ – according to which the universal domination of the commodity form makes social relations appear in the form of relations between things – is today widely regarded as a central element of the critique of political economy. The concept of fetishism was generally neglected until in the 1920’s, and the debates around this concept did not (...) really take off until the 1960’s. Since then, there have essentially been two predominant interpretations of Marx’s concept of fetishism: on the one hand those who regards fetishism as an ideological phenomenon, as something that has to do with the way in which social reality is represented for and in the social agents. On the other hand there are those who insists that fetishism refers to a certain displacement or inversion at the level of social practice itself, and not its ideological representation. In this article, I review these conflicting readings in the light of a close reading of Marx’s use of the term fetish in all of his writings from the Grundrisse onwards. I argue that Marx used this term to refer to an ideological phenomenon, and that he was right in doing so. I also point out that this does not entail subscribing to a naïve view of ideology as false consciousness or class manipulation that can be abolished by enlightenment and criticism. (shrink)

FROM ESSENCE TO METABOLISM - MARX'S CONCEPTS OF WORKThe Marxist tradition is marked by a persistent conflict about the analytical as well as tactical use of the concept of labour: Is labour a trans-historical necessity, or is it rather a specific capitalist phenomenon that should be abolished along with capital and the state? The article shows how these theoretical and tactical conflicts can be traced back to certain ambiguities in the writings of Marx, taken as a whole. Furthermore, the article (...) argues that Marx’s use of the concept can be divided into three periods: In 1844, the concept of labour was a anthropological notion designating the trans-historical essence of the human being and occupying an explanatory and critical function in the critique of bourgeois society. In 1845-48, the trans-historical use of the concept disappears and gives way to a distinction between activity and labour. The latter is now conceptualised as something specific to capitalism. From 1857 onwards, Marx develops a new trans-historical concept of labour, inspired by the concept of metabolism. However, this concept does not have the explanatory and critical function that the early concept of labour had. (shrink)