GeorgLukacs

History&ClassConsciousness
Written:1923
Source:History&ClassConsciousness
Publisher:MerlinPress,1967
Transcribed:AndyBlunden
HTMLMarkup:AndyBlunden.

ReificationandtheConsciousnessofthe
Proletariat
Toberadicalistogototherootofthematter.Forman,however,therootismanhimself.
Marx:CritiqueofHegelsPhilosophyofRight.

ITisnoaccidentthatMarxshouldhavebegunwithananalysisofcommoditieswhen,inthe
twogreatworksofhismatureperiod,hesetouttoportraycapitalistsocietyinitstotalityand
to lay bare its fundamental nature. For at this stage in the history of mankind there is no
problemthatdoesnotultimatelyleadbacktothatquestionandthereisnosolutionthatcould
notbefoundinthesolutiontotheriddleofcommoditystructure.Ofcoursetheproblemcan
only be discussed with this degree of generality if it achieves the depth and breadth to be
found in Marxs own analyses. That is to say, the problem of commodities must not be
considered in isolation or even regarded as the central problem in economics, but as the
central, structural problem of capitalist society in all its aspects. Only in this case can the
structure of commodityrelations be made to yield a model of all the objective forms of
bourgeoissocietytogetherwithallthesubjectiveformscorrespondingtothem.

I:ThePhenomenonofReification
1
Theessenceofcommoditystructurehasoftenbeenpointedout.Itsbasisisthatarelation
betweenpeopletakesonthecharacterofathingandthusacquiresaphantomobjectivity,an
autonomy that seems so strictly rational and allembracing as to conceal every trace of its
fundamentalnature:therelationbetweenpeople.Itisbeyondthescopeofthisessaytodiscuss

the central importance of this problem for economics itself. Nor shall we consider its
implications for the economic doctrines of the vulgar Marxists which follow from their
abandonmentofthisstartingpoint.
OurintentionhereistobaseourselvesonMarxseconomicanalysesandtoproceedfrom
theretoadiscussionoftheproblemsgrowingoutofthefetishcharacterofcommodities,both
as an objective form and also as a subjective stance corresponding to it. Only by
understandingthiscanweobtainaclearinsightintotheideologicalproblemsofcapitalismand
itsdownfall.
Before tackling the problem itself we must be quite clear in our minds that commodity
fetishismisaspecificproblemofourage,theageofmoderncapitalism.Commodityexchange
anthecorrespondingsubjectiveandobjectivecommodityrelationsexisted,asweknow,when
society was still very primitive. What is at issue here, however, is the question: how far is
commodityexchangetogetherwithitsstructuralconsequencesabletoinfluencethetotalouter
and inner life of society? Thus the extent to which such exchange is the dominant form of
metabolic change in a society cannot simply be treated in quantitative terms as would
harmonise with the modern modes of thought already eroded by the reifying effects of the
dominant commodity form. The distinction between a society where this form is dominant,
permeatingeveryexpressionoflife,andasocietywhereitonlymakesanepisodicappearance
isessentiallyoneofquality.Fordependingonwhichisthecase,allthesubjectivephenomena
inthesocietiesconcernedareobjectifiedinqualitativelydifferentways.
Marx lays great stress on the essentially episodic appearance of the commodity form in
primitivesocieties:Directbarter,theoriginalnaturalformofexchange,representsratherthe
beginningofthetransformationofusevaluesintocommodities,thanthatofcommoditiesinto
money.Exchangevaluehasasyetnoformofitsown,butisstilldirectlyboundupwithuse
value. This is manifested in two ways. Production, in its entire organisation, aims at the
creationofusevaluesandnotofexchangevalues,anditisonlywhentheirsupplyexceeds
the measure of consumption that usevalues cease to be usevalues, and become means of
exchange,i.e.commodities.Atthesametime,theybecomecommoditiesonlywithinthelimits
of being direct usevalues distributed at opposite poles, so that the commodities to be
exchanged by their possessors must be usevalues to both each commodity to its non
possessor.Asamatteroffact,theexchangeofcommoditiesoriginatesnotwithintheprimitive
communities, but where they end, on their borders at the few points where they come in
contactwithothercommunities.Thatiswherebarterbegins,andfromhereitstrikesbackinto
the interior of the community, decomposing it. [1] We note that the observation about the
disintegrating effect of a commodity exchange directed in upon itself clearly shows the
qualitativechangeengenderedbythedominanceofcommodities.

However, even when commodities have this impact on the internal structure of a society,
this does not suffice to make them constitutive of that society. To achieve that it would be
necessaryasweemphasisedaboveforthecommoditystructuretopenetratesocietyinallits
aspectsandtoremoulditinitsownimage.Itisnotenoughmerelytoestablishanexternallink
with independent processes concerned with the production of exchange values. The
qualitative difference between the commodity as one form among many regulating the
metabolism of human society and the commodity as the universal structuring principle has
effectsoverandabovethefactthatthecommodityrelationasailisolatephenomenonexertsa
negativeinfluenceatbestonthestructureandorganisationofsociety.Thedistinctionalsohas
repercussions upon the nature and validity of the category itself. Where the commodity is
universal it manifests itself differently from the commodity as a particular, isolated, non
dominantphenomenon.
Thefactthattheboundarieslacksharpdefinitionmustnotbeallowedtoblurthequalitative
natureofthedecisivedistinction.Thesituationwherecommodityexchangeisnotdominant
hasbeendefinedbyMarxasfollows:Thequantitativeratioinwhichproductsareexchanged
is at first quite arbitrary. They assume the form of commodities inasmuch as they are
exchangeables, i.e. expressions of one and the same third. Continued exchange and more
regularreproductionforexchangereducesthisarbitrarinessmoreandmore.Butatfirstnotfor
the producer and consumer, but for their gobetween, the merchant, who compares money
prices and pockets the difference. It is through his own movements that he establishes
equivalence. Merchants capital is originally merely the intervening movement between
extremeswhichitdoesnotcontrolandbetweenpremiseswhichitdoesnotcreate.[2]
Andthisdevelopmentofthecommoditytothepointwhereitbecomesthedominantformin
society did not take place until the advent of modern capitalism. Hence it is not to be
wondered at that the personal nature of economic relations was still understood clearly on
occasion at the start of capitalist development, but that as the process advanced and forms
becamemorecomplexandlessdirect,itbecameincreasinglydifficultandraretofindanyone
penetrating the veil of reification. Marx sees the matter in this way: In preceding forms of
society this economic mystification arose principally with respect to money and interest
bearingcapital.Inthenatureofthingsitisexcluded,inthefirstplace,whereproductionfor
the usevalue, for immediate personal requirements, predominates and secondly, where
slaveryorserfdomformthebroadfoundationofsocialproduction,asinantiquityandduring
the Middle Ages. Here, the domination of the producers by the conditions of production is
concealed by the relations of dominion and servitude which appear and are evident as the
directmotivepoweroftheprocessofproduction.[3]

The commodity can only he understood in its undistorted essence when it becomes the
universalcategoryofsocietyasawhole.Onlyinthiscontextdoesthereificiationproducedby
commodity relations assume decisive importance both for the objective evolution of society
andforthestanceadoptedbymentowardsit.Onlythendoesthecommoditybecomecrucial
for the subjugation of mens consciousness to the forms in which this reification finds
expressionandfortheirattemptstocomprehendtheprocessortorebelagainstitsdisastrous
effectsandliberatethemselvesfromservitudetothesecondnaturesocreated.
Marxdescribesthebasicphenomenonofreificationasfollows:
"A commodity is therefore a mysterious thing, simply because in it the social character of
mens labour appears to them as an objective character stamped upon the product of that
labourbecausetherelationoftheproducerstothesumtotaloftheirownlabourispresentedto
themasasocialrelationexistingnotbetweenthemselves,butbetweentheproductsoftheir
labour. This is the reason the products of labour become commodities, social things whose
qualitiesareatthesametimeperceptibleandimperceptiblebythesenses...Itisonlyadefinite
socialrelationbetweenmenthatassumes,intheireyes,thefantasticformofarelationbetween
things.[4]

Whatisofcentralimportancehereisthatbecauseofthissituationamansownactivity,his
own labour becomes something objective and independent of him. something that controls
himbyvirtueofanautonomyalientoman.Thereisbothanobjectiveandasubjectivesideto
this phenomenon. Objectively a world of objects and relations between things springs into
being (the world of commodities and their movements on the market). The laws governing
these objects are indeed gradually discovered by man, but even so they confront him as
invisibleforcesthatgeneratetheirownpower.Theindividualcanusehisknowledgeofthese
laws to his own advantage, but he is not able to modify the process by his own activity.
Subjectivelywherethemarketeconomyhasbeenfullydevelopedamansactivitybecomes
estrangedfromhimself,itturnsintoacommoditywhich,subjecttothenonhumanobjectivity
of the natural laws of society, must go its own way independently of man just like any
consumerarticle.Whatischaracteristicofthecapitalistage,saysMarx,isthatintheeyes
ofthelabourerhimselflabourpowerassumestheformofacommoditybelongingtohim.On
the other hand it is only at this moment that the commodity form of the products of labour
becomesgeneral.[5]
Thus the universality of the commodity form is responsible both objectively and
subjectively for the abstraction of the human labour incorporated in commodities. (On the
otherhand,thisuniversalitybecomeshistoricallypossiblebecausethisprocessofabstraction
has been completed.) Objectively, in so far as the commodity form facilitates the equal
exchange of qualitatively different objects, it can only exist if that formal equality is in fact

recognised at any rate in. this relation, which indeed confers upon them their commodity
nature. Subjectively, this formal equality of human labour in the abstract is not only the
common factor to which the various commodities are reduced it also becomes the real
principlegoverningtheactualproductionofcommodities.
Clearly, it cannot be our aim here to describe even in outline the growth of the modern
processoflabour,oftheisolated,freelabourerandofthedivisionoflabour.Hereweneed
only establish that labour, abstract, equal. comparable labour, measurable with increasing
precision according to the time socially necessary for its accomplishment, the labour of the
capitalist division of labour existing both as the presupposition and the product of capitalist
production,isbornonlyinthecourseofthedevelopmentofthecapitalistsystem.Onlythen
doesitbecomeacategoryofsocietyinfluencingdecisivelytheobjectiveformofthingsand
peopleinthesocietythusemerging,theirrelationtonatureandthepossiblerelationsofmento
eachother.[6]
If we follow the path taken by labour in its development from the handicrafts via
cooperation and manufacture to machine industry we can see a continuous trend towards
greater rationalisation, the progressive elimination of the qualitative, human and individual
attributesoftheworker.Ontheonehand,theprocessoflabourisprogressivelybrokendown
intoabstract,rational,specialisedoperationssothattheworkerlosescontactwiththefinished
productandhisworkisreducedtothemechanicalrepetitionofaspecialisedsetofactions.On
the other hand, the period of time necessary for work to be accomplished (which forms the
basisofrationalcalculation)isconverted,asmechanisationandrationalisationareintensified,
fromamerelyempiricalaveragefiguretoanobjectivelycalculableworkstintthatconfronts
theworkerasafixedandestablishedreality.Withthemodernpsychologicalanalysisofthe
workprocess(inTaylorism)thisrationalmechanisationextendsrightintotheworkerssoul:
even his psychological attributes are separated from his total personality and placed in
opposition to it so as to facilitate their integration into specialised rational systems and their
reductiontostatisticallyviableconcepts.[7]
Weareconcernedaboveallwiththeprincipleatworkhere:theprincipleofrationalisation
based on what is and can be calculated. The chief changes undergone by the subject and
objectoftheeconomicprocessareasfollows:(1)inthefirstplace,themathematicalanalysis
of workprocesses denotes a break with the organic, irrational and qualitatively determined
unity of the product. Rationalisation in the sense of being able to predict with ever greater
precisionalltheresultstobeachievedisonlytobeacquiredbytheexactbreakdownofevery
complex into its elements and by the study of the special laws governing production.
Accordinglyitmustdeclarewarontheorganicmanufactureofwholeproductsbasedonthe

traditionalamalgamofempiricalexperiencesofwork:rationalisation is unthinkable without

specialisation.[8]
The finished article ceases to be the object of the workprocess. The latter turns into the
objective synthesis of rationalised special systems whose unity is determined by pure
calculationandwhichmustthereforeseemtobearbitrarilyconnectedwitheachother.
Thisdestroystheorganicnecessitywithwhichinterrelatedspecialoperationsareunifiedin
theendproduct.Theunityofaproductasacommoditynolongercoincideswithitsunityasa
usevalue:associetybecomesmoreradicallycapitalistictheincreasingtechnicalautonomyof
thespecialoperationsinvolvedinproductionisexpressedalso,asaneconomicautonomy,as
the growing relativisation of the commodity character of a product at the various stages of
production.[9]Itisthuspossibletoseparateforciblytheproductionofausevalueintimeand
space.Thisgoeshandinhandwiththeunionintimeandspaceofspecialoperationsthatare
relatedtoasetofheterogeneoususevalues.
(2)Inthesecondplace,thisfragmentationoftheobjectofproductionnecessarilyentailsthe
fragmentation of its subject. In consequence of the rationalisation of the workprocess the
humanqualitiesandidiosyncrasiesoftheworkerappearincreasinglyasmeresourcesoferror
whencontrastedwiththeseabstractspeciallawsfunctioningaccordingtorationalpredictions.
Neitherobjectivelynorinhisrelationtohisworkdoesmanappearastheauthenticmasterof
theprocessonthecontrary,heisamechanicalpartincorporatedintoamechanicalsystem.He
findsitalreadypreexistingandselfsufficient,itfunctionsindependentlyofhimandhehasto
conformtoitslawswhetherhelikesitornot. [10]Aslabourisprogressivelyrationalisedand
mechanisedhislackofwillisreinforcedbythewayinwhichhisactivitybecomeslessand
lessactiveandmoreandmorecontemplative.[11]Thecontemplativestanceadoptedtowardsa
process mechanically conforming to fixed laws and enacted independently of mans
consciousness and impervious to human intervention, i.e. a perfectly closed system, must
likewise transform the basic categories of mans immediate attitude to the world: it reduces
spaceandtimetoacommondenominatoranddegradestimetothedimensionofspace.
Marxputsitthus:
"Through the subordination of man to the machine the situation arises in which men are
effacedbytheirlabourinwhichthependulumoftheclockhasbecomeasaccurateameasure
oftherelativeactivityoftwoworkersasitisofthespeedoftwolocomotives.Therefore,we
shouldnotsaythatonemanshourisworthanothermanshour,butratherthatonemanduring
an hour is worth just as much as another man during an hour. Time is everything, man is
nothingheisatthemosttheincarnationoftime.Qualitynolongermatters.Quantityalone
decideseverything:hourforhour,dayforday....[12]

Thus time sheds its qualitative, variable, flowing nature it freezes into an exactly delimited,
quantifiable continuum filled with quantifiable things (the reified, mechanically objectified
performance of the worker, wholly separated from his total human personality: in short, it
becomes space.[13] In this environment where time is transformed into abstract, exactly
measurable,physicalspace,anenvironmentatoncethecauseandeffectofthescientifically
andmechanicallyfragmentedandspecialisedproductionoftheobjectoflabour,thesubjects
oflabourmustlikewiseberationallyfragmented.Ontheonehand,theobjectificationoftheir
labourpower into something opposed to their total personality (a process already
accomplished with the sale of that labourpower as a commodity) is now made into the
permanentineluctablerealityoftheirdailylife.Here,too,thepersonalitycandonomorethan
look on helplessly while its own existence is reduced to an isolated particle and fed into an
alien system. On the other hand, the mechanical disintegration of the process of production
intoitscomponentsalsodestroysthosebondsthathadboundindividualstoacommunityin
the days when production was still organic. In this respect, too, mechanisation makes of
them isolated abstract atoms whose work no longer brings them together directly and
organicallyitbecomesmediatedtoanincreasingextentexclusivelybytheabstractlawsofthe
mechanismwhichimprisonsthem.
Theinternalorganisationofafactorycouldnotpossiblyhavesuchaneffectevenwithin
the factory itself were it not for the fact that it contained in concentrated form the whole
structure of capitalist society. Oppression and an exploitation that knows no bounds and
scorns every human dignity were known even to precapitalist ages. So too was mass
production with mechanical, standardised labour, as we can see, for instance, with canal
constructioninEgyptandAsiaMinorandtheminesinRome. [14]Butmassprojectsofthis
type could never be rationally mechanised they remained isolated phenomena within a
community that organised its production on a different (natural) basis and which therefore
lived a different life. The slaves subjected to this exploitation, therefore, stood outside what
wasthoughtofashumansocietyandeventhegreatestandnoblestthinkersofthetimewere
unabletoconsidertheirfateasthatofhumanbeings.
As the commodity becomes universally dominant, this situation changes radically and
qualitatively.Thefateoftheworkerbecomesthefateofsocietyasawholeindeed,thisfate
mustbecomeuniversalasotherwiseindustrialisationcouldnotdevelopinthisdirection.Forit
dependsontheemergenceofthefreeworkerwhoisfreelyabletotakehislabourpowerto
marketandofferitforsaleasacommoditybelongingtohim,athingthathepossesses.
While this process is still incomplete the methods used to extract surplus labour are, it is
true,moreobviouslybrutalthaninthelater,morehighlydevelopedphase,buttheprocessof

reificationofworkandhencealsooftheconsciousnessoftheworkerismuchlessadvanced.
Reificationrequiresthatasocietyshouldlearntosatisfyallitsneedsintermsofcommodity
exchange.Theseparationoftheproducerfromhismeansofproduction,thedissolutionand
destruction of all natural production units, etc., and all the social and economic conditions
necessary for the emergence of modern capitalism tend to replace natural relations which
exhibit human relations more plainly by rationally reified relations. The social relations
betweenindividualsintheperformanceoftheirlabour,Marxobserveswithreferencetopre
capitalistsocieties,appearatalleventsastheirownpersonalrelations,andarenotdisguised
undertheshapeofsocialrelationsbetweentheproductsoflabour.[15]
Butthisimpliesthattheprincipleofrationalmechanisationandcalculabilitymustembrace
everyaspectoflife.Consumerarticlesnolongerappearastheproductsofanorganicprocess
withinacommunity(asforexampleinavillagecommunity).Theynowappear,ontheone
hand,asabstractmembersofaspeciesidenticalbydefinitionwithitsothermembersand,on
the other hand, as isolated objects the possession or nonpossession of which depends on
rationalcalculations.Onlywhenthewholelifeofsocietyisthusfragmentedintotheisolated
actsofcommodityexchangecanthefreeworkercomeintobeingatthesametimehisfate
becomesthetypicalfateofthewholesociety.
Ofcourse,thisisolationandfragmentationisonlyapparent.Themovementofcommodities
on the market, the birth of their value, in a word, the real framework of every rational
calculationisnotmerelysubjecttostrictlawsbutalsopresupposesthestrictorderingofallthat
happens.Theatomisationoftheindividualis,then,onlythereflexinconsciousnessofthefact
thatthenaturallawsofcapitalistproductionhavebeenextendedtocovereverymanifestation
oflifeinsocietythatforthefirsttimeinhistorythewholeofsocietyissubjected,ortends
tobesubjected,toaunifiedeconomicprocess,andthatthefateofeverymemberofsocietyis
determined by unified laws. (By contrast, the organic unities of precapitalist societies
organisedtheirmetabolismlargelyinindependenceofeachother).
However, if this atomisation is only an illusion it is a necessary one. That is to say, the
immediate, practical as well as intellectual confrontation of the individual with society, the
immediate production and reproduction of life in which for the individual the commodity
structure of all things and their obedience to natural laws is found to exist already in a
finishedform,assomethingimmutablygivencouldonlytakeplaceintheformofrational
andisolatedactsofexchangebetweenisolatedcommodityowners.Asemphasisedabove,the
worker, too, must present himself as the owner of his labourpower, as if it were a
commodity. His specific situation is defined by the fact that his labourpower is his only
possession. His fate is typical of society as a whole in that this selfobjectification, this
transformation of a human function into a commodity reveals in all its starkness the

dehumanisedanddehumanisingfunctionofthecommodityrelation.

2
This rational objectification conceals above all the immediate qualitative and material
characterofthingsasthings.Whenusevaluesappearuniversallyascommoditiestheyacquire
a new objectivity, a new substantiality which they did not possess in an age of episodic
exchangeandwhichdestroystheiroriginalandauthenticsubstantiality.AsMarxobserves:
"Privatepropertyalienatesnotonlytheindividualityofmen,butalsoofthings.Theground
andtheearthhavenothingtodowithgroundrent,machineshavenothingtodowithprofit.
Forthelandownergroundandearthmeannothingbutgroundrentheletshislandtotenants
andreceivestherentaqualitywhichthegroundcanlosewithoutlosinganyofitsinherent
qualitiessuchasitsfertilityitisaqualitywhosemagnitudeandindeedexistencedependson
social relations that are created and abolished without any intervention by the landowner.
Likewisewiththemachine.[16]

Thuseventheindividualobjectwhichmanconfrontsdirectly,eitherasproducerorconsumer,
isdistortedinitsobjectivitybyitscommoditycharacter.Ifthatcanhappenthenitisevident
thatthisprocesswillbeintensifiedinproportionastherelationswhichmanestablisheswith
objects as objects of the life process are mediated in the course of his social activity. It is
obviouslynotpossibleheretogiveananalysisofthewholeeconomicstructureofcapitalism.
Itmustsufficetopointoutthatmoderncapitalismdoesnotcontentitselfwithtransformingthe
relationsofproductioninaccordancewithitsownneeds.Italsointegratesintoitsownsystem
those forms of primitive capitalism that led an isolated existence in precapitalist times,
divorcedfromproductionitconvertsthemintomembersofthehenceforthunifiedprocessof
radical capitalism. (Cf. merchant capital, the role of money as a hoard or as finance capital,
etc.)
These forms of capital are objectively subordinated, it is true, to the real lifeprocess of
capitalism, the extraction of surplus value in the course of production. They are, therefore,
onlytobeexplainedintermsofthenatureofindustrialcapitalismitself.Butinthemindsof
peopleinbourgeoissocietytheyconstitutethepure,authentic,unadulteratedformsofcapital.
Inthemtherelationsbetweenmenthatliehiddenintheimmediatecommodityrelation,aswell
astherelationsbetweenmenandtheobjectsthatshouldreallygratifytheirneeds,havefaded
tothepointwheretheycanbeneitherrecognisednorevenperceived.
Forthatveryreasonthereifiedmindhascometoregardthemasthetruerepresentativesof
his societal existence. The commodity character of the commodity, the abstract, quantitative
modeofcalculabilityshowsitselfhereinitspurestform:thereifiedmindnecessarilyseesitas

the form in which its own authentic immediacy becomes manifest and as reified
consciousnessdoesnotevenattempttotranscendit.Onthecontrary,itisconcernedtomake
it permanent by scientifically deepening the laws at work. Just as the capitalist system
continuously produces and reproduces itself economically on higher and higher levels, the
structureofreificationprogressivelysinksmoredeeply,morefatefullyandmoredefinitively
intotheconsciousnessofman.Marxoftendescribesthispotentiationofreificationinincisive
fashion.Oneexamplemustsufficehere:
"In interestbearing capital, therefore, this automatic fetish, selfexpanding value, money
generatingmoneyisbroughtoutinitspurestateandinthisformitnolongerbearsthebirth
marksofitsorigin.Thesocialrelationisconsummatedintherelationofathing,ofmoney,to
itself.Insteadoftheactualtransformationofmoneyintocapital,weseehereonlyformwithout
content....Itbecomesapropertyofmoneytogeneratevalueandyieldinterest,muchasitisan
attribute of pear trees to bear pears. And the moneylender sells his money as just such an
interestbearing thing. But that is not all. The actually functioning capital, as we have seen,
presentsitselfinsuchalightthatitseemstoyieldinterestnotasfunctioningcapital,butas
capitalinitself,asmoneycapital.This,too,becomesdistorted.Whileinterestisonlyaportion
of the profit, i.e. of the surplus value, which the functioning capitalist squeezes out of the
labourer,itappearsnow,onthecontrary,asthoughinterestwerethetypicalproductofcapital,
theprimarymatter,andprofit,intheshapeofprofitofenterprise,wereamereaccessoryandby
productoftheprocessofreproduction.Thuswegetafetishformofcapital,andtheconception
of fetish capital. In MM we have the meaningless form of capital, the perversion and
objectification of production relations in their highest degree, the interestbearing form, the
simpleformofcapital,inwhichitantecedesitsownprocessofreproduction.Itisthecapacity
ofmoney,orofacommodity,toexpanditsownvalueindependentlyofreproductionwhich
isamystificationofcapitalinitsmostflagrantform.Forvulgarpoliticaleconomy,whichseeks
torepresentcapitalasanindependentsourceofvalue,ofvaluecreation,thisformisnaturallya
veritablefind.aforminwhichthesourceofprofitisnolongerdiscernible,andinwhichthe
result of the capitalist process of production divorced from the process acquires an
independentexistence.[17]

Justastheeconomictheoryofcapitalismremainsstuckfastinitsselfcreatedimmediacy,the
same thing happens to bourgeois attempts to comprehend the ideological phenomenon of
reification. Even thinkers who have no desire to deny or obscure its existence and who are
moreorlessclearintheirownmindsaboutitshumanlydestructiveconsequencesremainon
thesurfaceandmakenoattempttoadvancebeyonditsobjectivelymostderivativeforms,the
forms furthest from the real lifeprocess of capitalism,, i.e. the most external and vacuous
forms,tothebasicphenomenonofreificationitself.
Indeed, they divorce these empty manifestations from their real capitalist foundation and
make them independent and permanent by regarding them as the timeless model of human
relations in general. (This can be seen most clearly in Simmels book The Philosophy of

Money,averyinterestingandperceptiveworkinmattersofdetail.)Theyoffernomorethana
description of this enchanted, perverted, topsyturvy world, in which Monsieur Le Capital
andMadameLaTerredotheirghostwalkingassocialcharactersandatthesametimeasmere
things.[18]Buttheydonotgofurtherthanadescriptionandtheirdeepeningoftheproblem
runsincirclesaroundtheeternalmanifestationsofreification.
The divorce of the phenomena of reification from their economic bases and from the
vantage point from which alone they can be understood, is facilitated by the fact that the
[capitalist]processoftransformationmustembraceeverymanifestationofthelifeofsocietyif
thepreconditionsforthecompleteselfrealisationofcapitalistproductionaretobefulfilled.
Thus capitalism has created a form for the state and a system of law corresponding to its
needsandharmonisingwithitsownstructure.Thestructuralsimilarityissogreatthatnotruly
perceptive historian of modern capitalism could fail to notice it. Max Weber, for instance,
givesthisdescriptionofthebasiclinesofthisdevelopment:Bothare,rather,quitesimilarin
theirfundamentalnature.Viewedsociologically,abusinessconcernisthemodernstatethe
same holds good for a factory: and this, precisely, is what is specific to it historically. And,
likewise, the power relations in a business are also of the same kind. The relative
independenceoftheartisan(orcottagecraftsman),ofthelandowningpeasant,theownerofa
benefice,theknightandvassalwasbasedonthefactthathehimselfownedthetools,supplies,
financial resources or weapons with the aid of which he fulfilled his economic, political or
militaryfunctionandfromwhichhelivedwhilethisdutywasbeingdischarged.Similarly,the
hierarchic dependence of the worker, the clerk, the technical assistant,, the assistant in an
academic institute and the civil servant and. soldier has a comparable basis: namely that the
tools, supplies and financial resources essential both for the businessconcern and for
economicsurvivalareinthehands.intheonecase,oftheentrepreneurand,intheothercase,
ofthepoliticalmaster.[19]
Heroundsoffthisaccountverypertinentlywithananalysisofthecauseandthesocial
implicationsofthisphenomenon:
"The modern capitalist concern is based inwardly above all on calculation. It system of
justice and an administration whose workings can be rationally calculated, at least in
principle,accordingtofixedgenerallaws,justastheprobableperformanceofamachinecan
be calculated. It is as little able to tolerate the dispensing of justice according to the judges
sense of fair play in individual cases or any other irrational means or principles of
administering the law ... as it is able to endure a patriarchal administration that obeys the
dictatesofitsowncaprice,orsenseofmercyand,fortherest,proceedsinaccordancewithan
inviolableandsacrosanct,butirrationaltradition....Whatisspecifictomoderncapitalismas

distinctfromtheageoldcapitalistformsofacquisitionisthatthestrictlyrationalorganisation
ofworkon the basis of rational technology did not come into being anywhere within such
irrationally constituted political systems nor could it have done so. For these modern
businesseswiththeirfixedcapitalandtheirexactcalculationsaremuchtoosensitivetolegal
and administrative irrationalities. They could only come into being in the bureaucratic state
with its rational laws where ... the judge is more or less an automatic statutedispensing
machine in which you insert the files together with the necessary costs and dues at the top,
whereuponhewillejectthejudgmenttogetherwiththemoreorlesscogentreasonsforitat
thebottom:thatistosay,wherethejudgesbehaviourisonthewholepredictable."
The process we see here is closely related both in its motivation and in its effects to the
economicprocessoutlinedabove.Here,too,thereisabreachwiththeempiricalandirrational
methodsofadministrationanddispensingjusticebasedontraditionstailored,subjectively,to
the requirements of men in action, and, objectively, to those of the concrete matter in hand.
There arises a rational systematisation of all statutes regulating life, which represents, or at
leasttendstowardsaclosedsystemapplicabletoallpossibleandimaginablecases.Whether
this system is arrived at in a purely logical manner, as an exercise in pure legal dogma or
interpretationofthelaw,orwhetherthejudgeisgiventhetaskoffillingthegapsleftinthe
laws,isimmaterialforourattempttounderstandthestructureofmodernlegalreality.Ineither
casethelegalsystemisformallycapableofbeinggeneralisedsoastorelatetoeverypossible
situation in life and it is susceptible to prediction and calculation. Even Roman Law, which
comesclosesttothesedevelopmentswhileremaining,inmodernterms,withintheframework
ofprecapitalistlegalpatterns,doesnotinthisrespectgobeyondtheempirical,theconcrete
and the traditional. The purely systematic categories which were necessary before a judicial
systemcouldbecomeuniversallyapplicablearoseonlyinmoderntimes.[20]
It requires no further explanation to realise that the need to systematise and to abandon
empiricism,traditionandmaterialdependencewastheneedforexactcalculationsHowever,
this same need requires that the legal system should confront the individual events of social
existenceassomethingpermanentlyestablishedandexactlydefined,i.e.asarigidsystem.Of
course, this produces an uninterrupted series of conflicts between the unceasingly
revolutionaryforcesofthecapitalisteconomyandtherigidlegalsystem.Butthisonlyresults
innewcodificationsanddespitethesethenewsystemisforcedtopreservethefixed,change
resistantstructureoftheoldsystem.
Thisisthesourceoftheapparentlyparadoxicalsituationwherebythelawofprimitive
societies,whichhasscarcelyalteredinhundredsorsometimeseventhousandsofyears,canbe
flexible and irrational in character, renewing itself with every new legal decision, while
modern law, caught up in the continuous turmoil of change, should appear rigid, static and

fixed.Buttheparadoxdissolveswhenwerealisethatitarisesonlybecausethesamesituation
has been regarded from two different points of view: on the one hand, from that of the
historian (who stands outside the actual process) and, on the other, from that of someone
whoexperiencestheeffectsofthesocialorderinquestionuponhisconsciousness.
Withtheaidofthisinsightwecanseeclearlyhowtheantagonismbetweenthetraditional
andempiricalcraftsmanshipandthescientificandrationalfactoryisrepeatedinanothersphere
ofactivity.Ateverysinglestageofitsdevelopment,theceaselesslyrevolutionarytechniques
of modern production turn a rigid and immobile face towards the individual producer.
Whereastheobjectivelyrelativelystable,traditionalcraftproductionpreservesinthemindsof
its individual practitioners the appearance of something flexible, something constantly
renewingitself,somethingproducedbytheproducers.
Intheprocesswewitness,illuminatingly,howhere,too,thecontemplativenature of man
under capitalism makes its appearance. For the essence of rational calculation is based
ultimatelyupontherecognitionandtheinclusioninonescalculationsoftheinevitablechain
ofcauseandeffectincertaineventsindependentlyofindividualcaprice.Inconsequence,
mans activity does not go beyond the correct calculation of the possible outcome of the
sequenceofevents(thelawsofwhichhefindsreadymade),andbeyondtheadroitevasion
ofdisruptiveaccidentsbymeansofprotectivedevicesandpreventivemeasures(whichare
based in their turn on the recognition and application of similar laws). Very often it will
confineitselftoworkingouttheprobableeffectsofsuchlawswithoutmakingtheattemptto
interveneintheprocessbybringingotherlawstobear.(Asininsuranceschemes,etc.)
Themorecloselywescrutinisethissituationandthebetterweareabletocloseourmindsto
the bourgeois legends of the creativity of the exponents of the capitalist age, the more
obviousitbecomesthatwearewitnessinginallbehaviourofthissortthestructuralanalogue
to the behaviour of the worker visvis the machine he serves and observes, and whose
functionshecontrolswhilehecontemplatesit.Thecreativeelementcanbeseentodependat
best on whether these laws are applied in a relatively independent way or in a wholly
subservientone.Thatistosay,itdependsonthedegreetowhichthecontemplativestanceis
repudiated. The distinction between a worker faced with a particular machine, the
entrepreneurfacedwithagiventypeofmechanicaldevelopment,thetechnologistfacedwith
thestateofscienceandtheprofitabilityofitsapplicationtotechnology,ispurelyquantitative
itdoesnotdirectlyentailanyqualitativedifferenceinthestructureofconsciousness.
Only in this context can the problem of modern bureaucracy be properly understood.
Bureaucracy implies the adjustment of ones way of life, mode of work and hence of
consciousnesstothegeneralsocioeconomicpremisesofthecapitalisteconomy,similartothat

whichwehaveobservedinthecaseoftheworkerinparticularbusinessconcerns.Theformal
standardisationofjustice,thestate,thecivilservice,etc.,signifiesobjectivelyandfactuallya
comparable reduction of all social functions to their elements, a comparable search for the
rational formal laws of these carefully segregated partial systems. Subjectively, the divorce
between work and the individual capacities and needs of the worker produces comparable
effects upon consciousness. This results in an inhuman, standardised division of labour
analogoustothatwhichwehavefoundinindustryonthetechnologicalandmechanicalplane.
[22]

It is not only a question of the completely mechanical, mindless work of the lower
echelons of the bureaucracy which bears such an extraordinarily close resemblance to
operatingamachineandwhichindeedoftensurpassesitinsterilityanduniformity.Itisalsoa
question, on the one hand, of the way in which objectively all issues are subjected to an
increasingly formal and standardised treatment and in which there is an everincreasing
remoteness from the qualitative and material essence of the things to which bureaucratic
activity pertains. On the other hand, there is an even more monstrous intensification of the
onesided specialisation which represents such a violation of mans humanity. Marxs
comment on factory work that the individual, himself divided, is transformed into the
automaticmechanismofapartiallabourandisthuscrippledtothepointofabnormalityis
relevant here too. And it becomes all the more clear, the more elevated, advanced and
intellectualistheattainmentexactedbythedivisionoflabour.
Thesplitbetweentheworkerslabourpowerandhispersonality,itsmetamorphosisintoa
thing,anobjectthathesellsonthemarketisrepeatedheretoo.Butwiththedifferencethatnot
every mental faculty is suppressed by mechanisation only one faculty (or complex of
faculties) is detached from the whole personality and placed in opposition to it, becoming a
thing, a commodity. But the basic phenomenon remains the same even though both the
meansbywhichsocietyinstillssuchabilitiesandtheirmaterialandmoralexchangevalueare
fundamentally different from labourpower (not forgetting, of course, the many connecting
linksandnuances).
The specific type of bureaucratic conscientiousness and impartiality, the individual
bureaucratsinevitabletotalsubjectiontoasystemofrelationsbetweenthethingstowhichhe
isexposed,theideathatitispreciselyhishonourandhissenseofresponsibilitythatexact
thistotalsubmission[23]allthispointstothefactthatthedivisionoflabourwhichinthecase
of Taylorism invaded the psyche, here invades the realm of ethics. Far from weakening the
reified structure of consciousness, this actually strengthens it. For as long as the fate of the
workerstillappearstobeanindividualfate(asinthecaseoftheslaveinantiquity),thelifeof
therulingclassesisstillfreetoassumequitedifferentforms.Notuntiltheriseofcapitalism

wasaunifiedeconomichenceaformallyunifiedstructureofconsciousnessthatembraced
thewholesociety,broughtintobeing.Thisunityexpresseditselfinthefactthattheproblems
ofconsciousnessarisingfromwagelabourwererepeatedintherulingclassinarefinedand
spiritualised, but, for that very reason, more intensified form. The specialised virtuoso, the
vendorofhisobjectifiedandreifiedfacultiesdoesnotjustbecomethe[passive]observerof
society he also lapses into a contemplative attitude visvis the workings of his own
objectified and reified faculties. (It is not possible here even to outline the way in which
modern administration and law assume the characteristics of the factory as we noted above
rather than those of the handicrafts.) This phenomenon can be seen at its most grotesque in
journalism. Here it is precisely subjectivity itself, knowledge, temperament and powers of
expressionthatarereducedtoanabstractmechanismfunctioningautonomouslyanddivorced
both from the personality of their owner and from the material and concrete nature of the
subject matter in hand. The journalists lack of convictions, the prostitution of his
experiencesandbeliefsiscomprehensibleonlyastheofcapitalistreification.[24]
The transformation of the commodity relation into a thing of ghostly objectivity cannot
thereforecontentitselfwiththereductionofallobjectsforthegratificationofhumanneedsto
commodities. It stamps its imprint upon the whole consciousness of man his qualities and
abilitiesarenolongeranorganicpartofhispersonality,theyarethingswhichhecanownor
dispose of like the various objects of the external world. And there is no natural form in
whichhumanrelationscanbecast,nowayinwhichmancanbringhisphysicalandpsychic
qualities into play without their being subjected increasingly to this reifying process. We
need only think of marriage, and without troubling to point to the developments of the
nineteenthcenturywecanremindourselvesofthewayinwhichKant,forexample,described
thesituationwiththenaivelycynicalfranknesspeculiartogreatthinkers.
"Sexualcommunity,"hesays,isthereciprocalusemadebyonepersonofthesexualorgans
andfacultiesofanother...marriage...istheunionoftwopeopleofdifferentsexeswithaview
tothemutualpossessionofeachotherssexualattributesforthedurationoftheirlives.[25]

Thisrationalisationoftheworldappearstobecomplete,itseemstopenetratetheverydepths
ofmansphysicalandpsychicnature.Itislimited,however,byitsownformalism.Thatisto
say,therationalisationofisolatedaspectsofliferesultsinthecreationofformallaws.Allthese
things do join together into what seems to the superficial observer to constitute a unified
system of general laws. But the disregard of the concrete aspects of the subject matter of
these laws, upon which disregard their authority as laws is based, makes itself felt in the
incoherenceofthesysteminfact.Thisincoherencebecomesparticularlyegregiousinperiods
ofcrisis.Atsuchtimeswecanseehowtheimmediatecontinuitybetweentwopartialsystems
is disrupted and their independence from and adventitious connection with each other is

suddenlyforcedintotheconsciousnessofeveryone.ItisforthisreasonthatEngelsisableto
definethenaturallawsofcapitalistsocietyasthelawsofchance.[26]
Oncloserexaminationthestructureofacrisisisseentobenomorethanaheighteningof
the degree and intensity of the daily life of bourgeois society. In its unthinking, mundane
realitythat life seems firmly held together by natural laws yet it can experience a sudden
dislocation because the bonds uniting its various elements and partial systems are a chance
affairevenattheirmostnormal.Sothatthepretencethatsocietyisregulatedbyeternal,iron
laws which branch off into the different special laws applying to particular areas is finally
revealed for what it is: a pretence. The true structure of society appears rather in the
independent,rationalisedandformalpartiallawswhoselinkswitheachotherareofnecessity
purelyformal(i.e.theirformalinterdependencecanbeformallysystematised),whileasfaras
concreterealitiesareconcernedtheycanonlyestablishfortuitousconnections.
On closer inspection this kind of connection can be discovered even in purely economic
phenomena. Thus Marx points out and the cases referred to here are intended only as an
indication of the methodological factors involved, not as a substantive treatment of the
problemsthemselvesthattheconditionsofdirectexploitation[ofthelabourer],andthoseof
realising surplusvalue, are not identical. They diverge not only in place and time, but also
logically.[27]Thusthereexistsanaccidentalratherthananecessaryconnectionbetweenthe
total amount of social labour applied to a social article and the volume whereby society
seekstosatisfythewantgratifiedbythearticleinquestion.[28]
Thesearenomorethanrandominstances.Itisevidentthatthewholestructureofcapitalist
production rests on the interaction between a necessity subject to strict laws in all isolated
phenomena and the relative irrationality of the total process. Division of labour within the
workshopimpliestheundisputedauthorityofthecapitalistovermen,whoarebutpartsofa
mechanism that belongs to him. The division of labour within society brings into contact
independent commodityproducers who acknowledge no other authority than that of
competition,ofthecoercionexertedpressureoftheirmutualinterests.[29]
Thecapitalistprocessofrationalisationbasedonprivateeconomiccalculationrequiresthat
everymanifestationoflifeshallexhibitthisveryinteractionbetweendetailswhicharesubject
tolawsandatotalityruledbychance.Itpresupposesasocietysostructured.Itproducesand
reproduces this structure in so far as it takes possession of society. This has its foundation
already in the nature of speculative calculation, i.e. the economic practice of commodity
ownersatthestagewheretheexchangeofcommoditieshasbecomeuniversal.Competition
between the different owners of commodities would not be feasible if there were an exact,

rational, systematic mode of functioning for the whole of society to correspond to the
rationality of isolated phenomena. If a rational calculation is to be possible the commodity
ownermustbeinpossessionofthelawsregulatingeverydetailofhisproduction.Thechances
ofexploitation,thelawsofthemarketmustlikewiseberationalinthesensethattheymust
becalculableaccordingtothelawsofprobability.Buttheymustnotbegovernedbyalawin
the sense in which laws govern individual phenomena they must not under any
circumstances be rationally organised through and through. This does not mean, of course,
that there can be no law governing the whole. But such a law would have to be the
unconsciousproductoftheactivityofthedifferentcommodityownersactingindependently
of one another, i.e. a law of mutually interacting coincidences rather than one of truly
rationalorganisation.Furthermore,suchalawmustnotmerelyimposeitselfdespitethewishes
ofindividuals,itmaynotevenbefullyandadequatelyknowable.Forthecompleteknowledge
of the whole would vouchsafe the knower a monopoly that would amount to the virtual
abolitionofthecapitalisteconomy.
Thisirrationalitythishighlyproblematicsystematisation,ofthewholewhichdiverges,
qualitativelyandinprinciplefromthelawsregulatingtheparts,ismorethanjustapostulate,a
presupposition essential to the workings of a capitalist economy. It is at the same time the
productofthecapitalistdivisionoflabour.Ithasalreadybeenpointedoutthatthedivisionof
labourdisruptseveryorganicallyunifiedprocessofworkandlifeandbreaksitdownintoits
components.Thisenablestheartificiallyisolatedpartialfunctionstobeperformedinthemost
rational manner by specialists who are specially adapted mentally and physically for the
purpose.Thishastheeffectofmakingthesepartialfunctionsautonomousandsotheytendto
develop through their own momentum and in accordance with their own special laws
independentlyoftheotherpartialfunctionsofsociety(orthatpartofthesocietytowhichthey
belong.
As the division of labour becomes more pronounced and more rational, this tendency
naturally increases in proportion. For the more highly developed it is, the more powerful
becometheclaimstostatusandtheprofessionalinterestsofthespecialistswhoaretheliving
embodimentsofsuchtendencies.Andthiscentrifugalmovementisnotconfinedtoaspectsof
aparticularsector.Itisevenmoreinevidencewhenweconsiderthegreatspheresofactivity
created by the division of labour. Engels describes this process with regard to the relation
between economics and laws: Similarly with law. As soon as the new division of labour
whichcreatesprofessionallawyersbecomesnecessary,anothernewandindependentsphere
isopenedupwhich,forallitsessentialdependenceonproductionandtrade,stillhasalsoa
special capacity for reacting upon these spheres. In a modern state, law must not only
correspond to the general economic condition and be its expression, but must also be an

internallycoherentexpressionwhichdoesnot,owingtoinnercontradictions,reduceitselfto
nought. And in order to achieve this, the faithful reflection of economic conditions suffers
increasingly.... [30]Itishardlynecessarytosupplementthiswithexamplesoftheinbreeding
and the interdepartmental conflicts of the civil service (consider the independence of the
militaryapparatusfromtheciviladministration),oroftheacademicfaculties,etc.

3
The specialisation of skills leads to the destruction of every image of the whole. And as,
despite this, the need to grasp the wholeat least cognitivelycannot die out, we find that
science,whichislikewisebasedonspecialisationandthuscaughtupinthesameimmediacy,
iscriticisedforhavingtorntherealworldintoshredsandhavinglostitsvisionofthewhole.In
replytoallegationsthatthevariousfactorsarenottreatedasawholeMarxretortsthatthis
criticismislevelledasthoughitwerethetextbooksthatimpressthisseparationuponlifeand
not life upon the textbooks. [31] Even though this criticism deserves refutation in its naive
form it becomes comprehensible when we look for a moment from the outside, i.e. from a
vantage point other than that of a reified consciousness, at the activity of modern science
which is both sociologically and methodologically necessary and for that reason
comprehensible. Such a look will reveal (without constituting a criticism) that the more
intricateamodernsciencebecomesandthebetteritunderstandsitselfmethodologically,the
moreresolutelyitwillturnitsbackontheontologicalproblemsofitsownsphereofinfluence
and eliminate them from the realm, where it has achieved some insight. The more highly
developed it becomes and the more scientific, the more it will become a formally closed
system of partial laws. It will then find that the world lying beyond its confines, and in
particular the material base which it is its task to understand, its own concrete underlying
realitylies,methodologicallyandinprinciple,beyonditsgrasp.
Marxacutelysummedupthissituationwithreferencetoeconomicswhenhedeclaredthat
usevalueassuchliesoutsidethesphereofinvestigationofpoliticaleconomy. [32]Itwould
be a mistake to suppose that certain analytical devices such as find in the Theory of
MarginalUtilitymightshowthewayoutofthisimpasse.Itispossibletosetasideobjective
lawsgoverningtheproductionandmovementofcommoditieswhichregulatethemarketand
subjective modes of behaviour on it and to make the attempt to start from subjective
behaviouronthemarket.Butthissimplyshiftsthequestionfromthemainissuetomoreand
more derivative and reified stages without ,,negating the formalism of the method and the
eliminationfromtheoutsetoftheconcretematerialunderlyingit.Theformalactofexchange
whichconstitutesthebasicfactforthetheoryofmarginalutilitylikewisesuppressesusevalue

as usevalue and establishes a relation of concrete equality between concretely unequal and
indeedincomparableobjects.Itisthisthatcreatesimpasse.
Thus the subject of the exchange is just as abstract, formal and reified as its object. The
limits of this abstract and formal method are revealed in the fact that its chosen goal is an
abstractsystemoflawsthatfocusesonthetheoryofmarginalutilityjustasmuchasclassical
economicshaddone.Buttheformalabstractionoftheselawstransformseconomicsintoa
closedpartialsystem.Andthisinturnisunabletopenetrateitsownmaterialsubstratum,nor
canitadvancefromtheretoanunderstandingofsocietyinitsentiretyandsoitiscompelledto
view that substratum as an immutable, eternal datum. Science is thereby debarred from
comprehendingthedevelopmentandthedemise,thesocialcharacterofitsownmaterialbase,
nolessthantherangeofpossibleattitudestowardsitandthenatureofitsownformalsystem.
Here, once again, we can clearly observe. the close interaction between a class and the
scientificmethodthatarisesfromtheattempttoconceptualisethesocialcharacterofthatclass
togetherwithitslawsandneeds.Ithasoftenbeenpointedoutinthesepagesandelsewhere
thattheproblemthatformstheultimatebarriertotheeconomicthoughtofthebourgeoisieis
thecrisis.Ifnowinthefullawarenessofourownonesidednessconsiderthisquestionfroma
purely methodological point of view, we see that it is the very success with which the
economyistotallyrationalisedandtransformedintoanabstractandmathematicallyorientated
system of formal laws that creates the methodological barrier to understanding the
phenomenonofcrisis.Inmomentsofcrisisthequalitativeexistenceofthethingsthatlead
their lives beyond the purview of economics as misunderstood and neglected thingsin
themselves,asusevalues,suddenlybecomesthedecisivefactor.(Suddenly,thatis,forreified,
rational thought.) Or rather: these laws fail to function and the reified mind is unable to
perceiveapatterninthischaos.
This failure is characteristic not merely of classical economics (which regarded crises as
passing, accidental disturbances), but of bourgeois economics in toto. The
incomprehensibility and irrationality of crises is indeed a consequence of the class situation
and interests of the bourgeoisie but it follows equally from their approach to economics.
(There is no need to spell out the fact that for us these are both merely aspects of the same
dialectical unity). This consequence follows with such inevitability that TuganBaranovsky,
forexample,attemptsinhistheorytodraw
the necessary conclusions from a century of crises by excluding consumption from
economicsentirelyandfoundingapureeconomicsbasedonlyonproduction.Thesourceof
crises (whose existence cannot be denied) is then found to lie in incongruities between the
variouselementsofproduction,i.e.inpurelyquantitativefactors.Hilferdingputshisfingeron

thefallacyunderlyingallsuchexplanations:
"They operate only with economic concepts such as capital, profit, accumulation, etc., and
believe that they possess the solution to the problem when they have discovered the
quantitative relations on the basis of which either simple and expanded reproduction is
possible, or else there are disturbances. They overlook the fact that there are qualitative
conditionsattachedtothesequantitativerelations,thatitisnotmerelyaquestionofunitsof
value which can easily be compared with each other but also usevalues of a definite kind
which must fulfil a definite function in production and consumption. Further, they are
obliviousofthefactthatintheanalysisoftheprocessofreproductionmoreisinvolvedthan
justaspectsofcapitalingeneral,sothatitisnotenoughtosaythatanexcessoradeficitof
industrial capital can be balanced by an appropriate amount of moneycapital. Nor is it a
matteroffixedorcirculatingcapital,butratherofmachines,rawmaterials,labourpowerofa
quitedefinite(technicallydefined)sort,ifdisruptionsaretobeavoided.[33]

Marxhasoftendemonstratedconvincinglyhowinadequatetheclawsofbourgeoiseconomics
aretothetaskofexplainingthetruemovementofeconomicactivityintoto.He has made it
clear that this limitation lies in themethodologically inevitablefailure to comprehend use
valueandrealconsumption.
"Within certain limits, the process of reproduction may take place on the same or on an
increasedscaleevenwhenthecommoditiesexpelledfromithavenotreallyenteredindividual
orproductiveconsumption.Theconsumptionofcommoditiesisnotincludedinthecycleof
thecapitalfromwhichtheyoriginated.Forinstance,assoonastheyarnissoldthecycleofthe
capitalvaluerepresentedbytheyarnmaybeginanew,regardlessofwhatmaynextbecomeof
thesoldyarn.Solongastheproductissold,everythingistakingitsregularcoursefromthe
standpointofthecapitalistproducer.Thecycleofthecapitalvalueheisidentifiedwithisnot
interrupted.Andifthisprocessisexpandedwhichincludesincreasedproductiveconsumption
of the means of productionthis reproduction of capital may be accompanied by increased
individual consumption (hence demand) on the part of the labourers, since this process is
initiatedandeffectedbyproductiveconsumption.Thustheproductionofsurplusvalue,and
with it the individual consumption of the capitalist, may increase, the entire process of
reproductionmaybeinaflourishingcondition,andyetalargepartofthecommoditiesmay
have entered into consumption only in appearance, while in reality they may still remain
unsoldinthehandsofdealers,mayinfactstillbelyinginthemarket.[34]

Itmustbeemphasisedthatthisinabilitytopenetratetotherealmaterialsubstratumofscience
is not the fault of individuals. It is rather something that becomes all the more apparent the
moresciencehasadvancedandthemoreconsistentlyitfunctionsfromthepointofviewofits
ownpremises.Itisthereforenoaccident,asRosaLuxemburghasconvincinglyshown, [35]
thatthegreat,ifalsooftenprimitive,faultyandinexactsynopticviewofeconomiclifetobe
foundinQuesnaysTableauEconomique",disappearsprogressivelyastheformalprocess
ofconceptualisationbecomesincreasinglyexactinthecourseofitsdevelopmentfromAdam

Smith to Ricardo. For Ricardo the process of the total reproduction of capital (where this
problemcannotbeavoided)isnolongeracentralissue.
In jurisprudence this situation emerges with even greater clarity and simplicity because
there is a more conscious reification at work. If only because the question of whether the
qualitativecontentcanbeunderstoodbymeansofarational,calculatingapproachisnolonger
seenintermsofarivalrybetweentwoprincipleswithinthesamesphere(aswasthecasewith
usevalueandexchangevalueineconomics),butrather,rightfromthestart,asaquestionof
formversuscontent.Theconflictrevolvingaroundnaturallaw,andthewholerevolutionary
period of the bourgeoisie was based on the assumption that the formal equality and
universality of the law (and hence its rationality) was able at the same time to determine its
content.Thiswasexpressedintheassaultonthevariedandpicturesquemedleyofprivileges
dating back to the Middle Ages and also in the attack on the Divine Right of Kings. The
revolutionarybourgeoisclassrefusedtoadmitthatalegalrelationshiphadavalidfoundation
merelybecauseitexistedinfact."Burnyourlawsandmakenewones!Voltairecounselled
Whencecannewlawsbeobtained?FromReason![36]
The war waged against the revolutionary bourgeoisie, say, at the time of the French
Revolution,wasdominatedtosuchanextentbythisideathatitwasinevitablethatthenatural
lawofthebourgeoisiecouldonlybeopposedbyyetanothernaturallaw(seeBurkeandalso
Stahl). Only after the bourgeoisie had gained at least a partial victory did a critical and a
historicalviewbegintoemergeinbothcamps.Itsessencecanbesummarisedasthebelief
thatthecontentoflawissomethingpurelyfactualandhencenottobecomprehendedbythe
formalcategoriesofjurisprudence.Ofthetenetsofnaturallawtheonlyonetosurvivewasthe
ideaoftheunbrokencontinuityoftheformalsystemoflawsignificantly,Bergbohmusesan
image borrowed from physics, that of a juridical vacuum, to describe everything not
regulatedbylaw.[37]
Nevertheless,thecohesionoftheselawsispurelyformal:whattheyexpress,thecontentof
legal institutions is never of a legal character, but always political and economic. [38] With
thistheprimitive,cynicallyscepticalcampaignagainstnaturallawthatwaslaunchedbythe
Kantian Hugo at the end of the eighteenth century, acquired scientific status. Hugo
establishedthejuridicalbasisofslavery,amongotherthings,byarguingthatithadbeenthe
law of the land for thousands of years and was acknowledged by millions of cultivated
people. [39] In this naively cynical frankness the pattern which is to become increasingly
characteristicoflawinbourgeoissocietystandsclearlyrevealed.WhenJellinekdescribesthe
contentsoflawasmetajuristic,whencriticaljuristslocatethestudyofthecontentsoflawin
history,sociologyandpoliticswhattheyaredoingis,inthelastanalysis,justwhatHugohad

demanded:theyaresystematicallyabandoningtheattempttogroundlawinreasonandtogive
it a rational content law is henceforth to be regarded as a formal calculus with the aid of
whichthelegalconsequencesofparticularactions(rebussicstantibus)canbedeterminedas
exactlyaspossible.
However,thisviewtransformstheprocessbywhichlawcomesintobeingandpassesaway
intosomethingasincomprehensibletothejuristascriseshadbeentothepoliticaleconomist.
WithregardtotheoriginsoflawtheperceptivecriticaljuristKelsenobserves:Itisthegreat
mysteryoflawandofthestatethatisconsummatedwiththeenactmentoflawsandforthis
reasonitmaybepermissibletoemployinadequateimagesinelucidatingitsnature.[40]Orin
otherwords:Itissymptomaticofthenatureoflawthatanormmaybelegitimateevenifits
originsareiniquitous.Thatisanotherwayofsayingthatthelegitimateoriginofalawcannot
be written into the concept of law as one of its conditions. [41] This epistemological
clarificationcouldalsobeafactualoneandcouldtherebyleadtoanadvanceinknowledge.
Toachievethis,however,theotherdisciplinesintowhichtheproblemoftheoriginsoflaw
hadbeendivertedwouldreallyhavetoproposeagenuinesolutiontoit.Butalsoitwouldbe
essential really to penetrate the nature of a legal system which serves purely as a means of
calculating the effects of actions and of rationally imposing modes of action relevant to a
particular class. In that event the real, material substratum of the law would at one stroke
becomevisibleandcomprehensible.Butneitherconditioncanbefulfilled.Thelawmaintains
itscloserelationshipwiththeeternalvalues.Thisgivesbirth,intheshapeofaphilosophyof
lawtoanimpoverishedandformalisticreeditionofnaturallaw(Stammler).Meanwhile,the
real basis for the development of law, a change in the power relations between the classes,
becomeshazyandvanishesintothesciencesthatstudyit,scienceswhichinconformitywith
the modes of thought current in bourgeois society generate the same problems of
transcendingtheirmaterialsubstratumaswehaveseeninjurisprudenceandeconomics.
Themannerinwhichthistranscendenceisconceivedshowshowvainwasthehopethata
comprehensive discipline, like philosophy, might yet achieve that overall knowledge which
the particular sciences have so conspicuously renounced by turning away from the material
substratum of their conceptual apparatus. Such a synthesis would only be possible if
philosophywereabletochangeitsapproachradicallyandconcentrateontheconcretematerial
totalityofwhatcanandshouldbeknown.Onlythenwoulditbeabletobreakthroughthe
barriers erected by a formalism that has degenerated into a state of complete fragmentation.
Butthiswouldpresupposeanawarenessofthecauses,thegenesisandthenecessityofthis
formalismmoreover,itwouldnotbeenoughtounitethespecialsciencesmechanically:they
wouldhavetobetransformedinwardlybyaninwardlysynthesisingphilosophicalmethod.It
isevidentthatthephilosophyofbourgeoissocietyisincapableofthis.Notthatthedesirefor

synthesis is absent nor can it be maintained that the best people have welcomed with open
armsamechanicalexistencehostiletolifeandascientificformalismalientoit.Butaradical
changeinoutlookisnotfeasibleonthesoilofbourgeoissociety.Philosophy can attempt to
assemblethewholeofknowledgeencyclopaedically(seeWundt).Oritmayradicallyquestion
thevalueofformalknowledgeforalivinglife(seeirrationalistphilosophiesfromHamannto
Bergson). But these episodic trends lie to one side of the main philosophical tradition. The
latter acknowledges as given and necessary the results and achievements of the special
sciences and assigns to philosophy the task of exhibiting and justifying the grounds for
regardingasvalidtheconceptssoconstructed.
Thusphilosophystandsinthesamerelationtothespecialsciencesastheydowithrespect
to empirical reality. The formalistic conceptualisation of the special sciences become for
philosophy an immutably given substratum and this signals the final and despairing
renunciation of every attempt to cast light on the reification that lies at the root of this
formalism. The reified world appears henceforth quite definitivelyand in philosophy, under
the spotlight of criticism it is potentiated still furtheras the only possible world, the only
conceptuallyaccessible,comprehensibleworldvouchsafedtoushumans.Whetherthisgives
rise to ecstasy, resignation or despair, whether we search for a path leading to life via
irrationalmysticalexperience,thiswilldoabsolutelynothingtomodifythesituationasitisin
fact.
Byconfiningitselftothestudyofthepossibleconditionsofthevalidityoftheformsin
whichitsunderlyingexistenceismanifested,modernbourgeoisthoughtbarsitsownwaytoa
clear view of the problems bearing on the birth and death of these forms, and on their real
essence and substratum. Its perspicacity finds itself increasingly in the situation of that
legendarycriticinIndiawhowasconfrontedwiththeancientstoryaccordingtowhichthe
world rests upon an elephant. He unleashed the critical question: upon what does the
elephant rest? On receiving the answer that the elephant stands on a tortoise criticism
declareditselfsatisfied.Itisobviousthatevenifhehadcontinuedtopressapparently(critical
questions,hecouldonlyhaveelicitedathirdmiraculousanimal.Hewouldnothavebeenable
todiscoverthesolutiontotherealquestion.

NOTESONSECTIONI
1AContributiontotheCritiqueofPoliticalEconomy,p.53.
2CapitalIII,p.324.

3CapitalIII,p.810.
4CapitalI,p.72.Onthisantagonismcf.thepurelyeconomicdistinctionbetweenthe
exchangeofgoodsintermsoftheirvalueandtheexchangeintermsoftheircostof
production.CapitalIII,p.174.
5CapitalI,p.170.
6Cf.Capital1,pp.322,345.
7ThiswholeprocessisdescribedsystematicallyandhistoricallyinCapitalI.Thefacts
themselvescanalsobefoundinthewritingsofbourgeoiseconomistslikeBcher,
Sombart,A.WeberandGottlamongothersalthoughforthemostparttheyarenotseen
inconnectionwiththeproblemofreification.
8CapitalI,p.384.
9CapitalI,p.355(note).
10Thatthisshouldappearsoisfullyjustifiedfromthepointofviewoftheindividual
consciousness.Asfarasclassisconcernedwewouldpointoutthatthissubjugationisthe
productofalengthystrugglewhichentersuponanewstagewiththeorganisationofthe
proletariatintoaclass.butonahigherplaneandwithdifferentweapons.
11Capital1,pp.3746,4234,460,etc.Itgoeswithoutsayingthatthiscontemplation
canbemoredemandinganddemoralisingthanactivelabour.Butwecannotdiscussthis
furtherhere.
12ThePovertyofPhilosophy,pp.589.
13CapitalI,p.344.
14CLGottl:WirtschaftundTechnik,GrundrissederSozialkonomikII,234etseq.
15CapitalI,p.77.
16Thisrefersabovealltocapitalistprivateproperty.DerheiligeMax.Dokumentedes
Sozialismus1II,363.Marxgoesontomakeanumberofveryfineobservationsaboutthe
effectsofreificationuponlanguage.Aphilologicalstudyfromthestandpointofhistorical
materialismcouldprofitablybeginhere.
17CapitalIII,pp.3845.
18Ibid.,p.809.
19GesammeltepolitischeSchriften,Munich,1921,pp.1402.Webersreferencetothe
developmentofEnglishlawhasnobearingonourproblem.Onthegradualascendancy
oftheprincipleofeconomiccalculation,seealsoA.Weber,StandortderIndustrien,
especiallyp.216.

20MaxWeber,WirtschaftundGesellschaft,p.491.
21Ibid.,p.129.
22Ifwedonotemphasisetheclasscharacterofthestateinthiscontext,thisisbecause
ouraimistounderstandreificationasageneralphenomenonconstitutiveofthewholeof
bourgeoissociety.Butforthisthequestionofclasswouldhavetobeginwiththe
machine.OnthispointseeSectionIll.
23Cf.MaxWeber,PolitischeSchriften,p.154.
24Cf.theessaybyA.FogarasiinKommunismus,jg.II,No.25126.
25DieMetaphysikderSitten,Pt.I,24.
26TheOriginoftheFamily,inS.W.II,p.293.
27CapitalIII,p.239.
28Ibid.,p.183.
29CapitalI,p.356.
30LettertoConradSchmidtinS.W.II,pp.4478.
31AContributiontotheCritiqueofPoliticalEconomy,p.276.
32Ibid.,p.21.
33Finanzkapital,2ndedition,pp.3789.
34CapitalII,pp.756.
35DieAkkumulationdesKapitals,Istedition,pp.789.Itwouldbeafascinatingtaskto
workoutthelinksbetweenthisprocessandthedevelopmentofthegreatrationalist
systems.
36QuotedbyBergbohm,JurisprudenzundRechtsphilosphie,p.170.
37Ibid.,p.375.
38Preuss,ZurMethodederjuristischenBegriffsbildung.InSchmollersjahrbuch,1900,p.
370.
39LehrbuchdesNaturrechts,Berlin,1799,141.MarxspolemicagainstHugo
(Nachlass1,pp.268etseq.)isstillonHegelianlines.
40HauptproblemederStaatsrechtslehre,p.411(myitalics).
41F.Somlo,juristicheGrundlehre,p.117.


TableofContents|LukacsArchive