How Not to Evaluate

C Abstract: Critics frequently claim that important aspects of C

R R
I Marx’s Capital have been rendered irrelevant by changes in capitalism I
S that have subsequently taken place. The present essay argues that these S
I allegations of irrelevance are often based on misunderstandings or I

the Relevance of
S S
misrepresentations of the book’s genre. For example, it is evaluated as
& if it were a descriptive work rather than a theoretical one, or as if it were &

C
about capitalism as a whole rather than the capitalist mode of production. C
The essay then turns to specific arguments put forward by Silvia Federici,

Marx’s Capital
R R
I Jonathan Sperber, and Paul A. Baran and Paul Sweezy in their efforts I
T T
I to impugn the relevance of Marx’s theories of the reproduction of labor- I
Q power and the tendential fall in the rate of profit. It argues that these Q
U efforts fail, partly because the critics do not fully appreciate Capital’s U
E E
genre.
/ /

Volume 3 /
Keywords: Karl Marx, Capital, critique of political economy, Marx’s Volume 3 /

Andrew Kliman
Issue 3 method, relevance of Marx Issue 3

As Terry Eagleton (2011) has noted, Marx’s critics argue that the
capitalist system “has altered almost unrecognizably since the days of
Marx, and that this is why his ideas are no longer relevant.” It would be
hard to challenge the first half of this argument. In contrast to Marx’s
day, capitalism is a now a system that engulfs almost the entire globe.
Competitive capitalism has given way to monopoly- and state-capitalism.
The role of finance has greatly increased during the last few decades.
In technologically advanced countries, the workforce has become
increasingly female and “smokestack industries” are no longer pre-
eminent. And so on. The world, and so much that matters to us, seem to
bear little resemblance to the world discussed in Capital, especially the
stripped-down situation on which volume 1 dwells: the expansion of capital
by means of extraction of workers’ surplus labor in the direct process of
production.
I shall therefore not challenge the first half of the argument. Nor
shall I challenge the second half (the notion that Marx’s ideas are no
longer relevant) in the typical way—that is, by discussing particular ideas
of his that I think remain relevant.1 I shall instead challenge the argument
in a more fundamental way, by calling into question the link it presumes
between changes in capitalism and the irrelevance of Marx.2

1 I have done a bit of that in Kliman (2013), an essay on which the present one is partly based.

2 Eagleton (2011) adopts this strategy, too, but his argument is perplexing: “Marx himself
was perfectly aware of the ever-changing nature of the system he challenged. ... So why should the
fact that capitalism has changed its shape in recent decades discredit a theory that sees change as
being of its very essence?” Yet surely Marx’s recognition of the fact that capitalism changes does not
eliminate the possibility that certain changes to the system might indeed render his theory irrelevant.
Everything depends on whether the changes under consideration are of that type, not on whether

212 213 How Not to Evaluate the Relevance of Marx’s Capital

 In the simple form in which Eagleton expresses it, the argument C in conjunction with the general point that the irrelevance allegations are C
R R
passes immediately and facilely from the fact that capitalism has changed I often based on errors regarding Capital’s genre, will make a plausible I
to the conclusion that Marx’s ideas are therefore no longer relevant, as if S case that additional allegations of irrelevance can be refuted in a similar S
the validity of this transition were self-evident. It is not. Clearly, it isn’t true I manner, and that this is a fruitful line of inquiry for others to engage in. I
S S
that every change in capitalism renders every idea of Marx’s irrelevant. The Anyone can make an error, but when the same kind of error is
issue must therefore be addressed, not in this simple form, but on a case- & made again and again, there is reason to suspect that it has political and/ &
by-case basis. And some intermediate argument is needed, in every case, C
or material bases.3 Exploration of this possibility is beyond the scope of C
to link some specific change in capitalism to some specific idea that has R the present paper. I mention it simply in order to make clear that I am not R
supposedly become irrelevant. I suggesting that the errors in question are purely cognitive ones that will be I
T T
Because the simple form of the argument is hopeless, this essay I eliminated by cogent argumentation alone. I
will focus on a few prominent arguments of the latter form, those that Q Q
do attempt to link specific ideas of Marx’s to specific conditions that no U A Work of Theory, Not Description U
E E
longer exist. I shall take up Silvia Federici’s (2012) claims that Marx ignored The fact that the world now seems very different from the one we are
“women’s reproductive work,” and that he did so partly because he was / confronted with in Capital simply does not imply that the book has become /
concerned with the particular conditions of his own time, in which such Volume 3 /
irrelevant, or even less relevant, than when it was written. The world also Volume 3 /
work was not yet an integral part of capitalist production. I shall then Issue 3 seemed very different from the book back when Marx wrote it, and he was Issue 3
take up two arguments that the development of capitalism has made acutely aware of the differences. For example, he remarked in volume 2
Marx’s falling-rate-of-profit theory irrelevant. One argument, put forward that “[i]t is typical of the bourgeois horizon, … where business deals fill the
by Jonathan Sperber (2013b) in his recent biography of Marx, is that whole of people’s minds, to see the foundation of the mode of production
this theory pertains only to an outdated version of capitalism in which in the mode of commerce corresponding to it, rather than the other way
productivity did not increase rapidly. The other, pursued vigorously by the around.” He nonetheless insisted that the market relationship between
“Monthly Review school” (also known as the “monopoly capital” school) the buyer and seller of labor-power (the capitalist and the worker) “rests
throughout the last half-century, is that Marx’s theory presupposes fundamentally on the social character of production, not on the mode of
competitive capitalism, and has thus become irrelevant as a result of the commerce; the latter rather derives from the former” (Marx 1992, p. 196).
dominance of monopolies and oligopolies. The question is therefore not whether capitalism has changed
Before I undertake these case studies, I shall offer some more since Marx’s time, or even whether the changes are big and important.
general reflections on the kind of book Capital is and isn’t, because The question is: what is the significance of the fact that things look quite
claims that it has become irrelevant often seem to be based on a different from how Capital presents them? Does this fact count as a
misunderstanding or misrepresentation of its genre. I shall argue, first, legitimate criticism of the book, an indication of theoretical inadequacy?
that Capital is principally a work of theory rather than of description. Marx anticipated this kind of objection, and he repeatedly responded
Therefore, a mismatch between what it describes (or seems to describe) to it by distinguishing between “science” and description of phenomena. In
and what we observe in the real world is not necessarily evidence of volume 1 of Capital, he argued that
its irrelevance. Second, its subject matter is the capitalist mode of
production rather than the whole of capitalist society. Therefore, its a scientific analysis of competition is possible only if we
“failure” to explore some aspect of capitalist society that has become can grasp the inner nature of capital, just as the apparent motions
increasingly prominent or important is likewise not necessarily evidence of the heavenly bodies are intelligible only to someone who is
of its increasing irrelevance. It seems to me that the “Monthly Review acquainted with their real motions, which are not perceptible to
school” tends to make the first error, and that Federici’s argument the senses. [Marx 1990, p. 433]
is guilty especially of the second one. (Sperber’s error is much less
sophisticated.) In volume 3, he criticized “vulgar economics” —i.e., the school that
Because a case-by-case approach is needed here, as I discussed focused on description of phenomena, in contrast to the “scientific”
above, it is not possible to provide an exhaustive refutation of the political economy of theorists like Adam Smith and David Ricardo—by
irrelevance allegations. My hope is that the case studies I shall present,

3 See Kliman (2007, passim) and Kliman (2010) for discussions of the political and material
Marx recognized that capitalism changes. bases of the related allegations that Marx’s value theory is internally inconsistent.

214 How Not to Evaluate the Relevance of Marx’s Capital 215 How Not to Evaluate the Relevance of Marx’s Capital
contrasting appearance and essence once again: C value. It is about how that self-expansion is produced, how it is reproduced C
R R
I (renewed and repeated), and how the whole process is reflected, I
Vulgar economics actually does nothing more than interpret, S imperfectly, in the conventional thinking and concepts of economists and S
systematize and turn into apologetics the notions of agents I business people. I
S S
trapped within bourgeois relations of production. … [But] all This does not mean that Capital is reductive. There is a crucial
science would be superfluous if the form of appearance of things & difference between having a specific focus and being reductive. I don’t &
directly coincided with their essence [Marx 1991, p. 956] C
think Marx wrote or suggested anywhere that the process of value’s C
R self-expansion is the only thing within capitalism that matters or that R
And a letter to a friend written several years later makes an almost I other processes can be reduced to it. It does affect a lot of other things, I
T T
identical argument: I sometimes in crucial ways––and this is perhaps the main reason that a I
Q book on Capital is mistaken for an Everything About Capitalism book––but Q
the vulgar economist thinks he has made a great discovery U to recognize the interrelationships is not to reduce these other things to U
E E
when, as against the revelation of the inner interconnection, he the self-expansion of value.
proudly claims that in appearance things look different. In fact, / Of course, there is some sense in which any book with a specific /
he boasts that he holds fast to appearance, and takes it for the Volume 3 /
focus “leaves out” or “overlooks” other things, but we don’t normally Volume 3 /
ultimate. Why, then, have any science at all? [Marx 1868]. Issue 3 complain that a cookbook leaves out or overlooks instructions for changing Issue 3
the oil in your car or any analysis of international politics. The charge that
Marx was therefore not trying to provide a commentary on capitalist Capital “fails” to discuss many aspects of capitalism and what takes place
society that “held fast to appearance[s]” by describing its components within it seems to me to be similarly inappropriate and unfair.
parts and relationships in the way that these “things look” of the surface
of society. He was instead engaged in “science”––“revelation of the inner Narrowing of Scope
interconnection[s]” among the parts and their apparent relationships. To appreciate how specific Capital’s subject matter is, it is helpful
In light of this aim, it seems wholly inappropriate to me to evaluate to consider the extent to which Marx narrowed it down. He originally
the book in terms of how closely it conforms to how things look––for intended to publish a very wide-ranging critique that would deal not only
instance, in terms of whether the business deals and financial markets with political economy, but also with philosophy, law, ethics, politics, civil
that dominate the economic news and the minds of the bourgeoisie also life, and perhaps other topics. But he soon concluded––in 1844, 23 years
dominate the book. It needs to be evaluated instead in terms of how before volume 1 of Capital was published––that it would not be fruitful
successfully it reveals the inner connections. to deal with all these matters in the same work (Marx 1975, pp. 280-82).
Therefore, his Economic and Philosophical Manuscripts of 1844 dealt with
The Specificity of Capital political economy alone, except that a final “chapter” was devoted to a
It is frequently asserted that Capital “leaves out” or “overlooks” critique of the Hegelian dialectic and Hegel’s philosophy in general (Marx
some important aspect of capitalism, or that its treatment of that aspect 1975, pp. 281–82).
is “underdeveloped.” For example, Monthly Review author Heather Brown When Marx returned to his critique of political economy in 1857-8,
(2014) recently complained that “Marx’s theory remains underdeveloped he envisioned a work consisting of six “books,” plus an introduction that
in terms of providing an account that includes gender as important would tie them together. The first book would be on capital; the second,
to understanding capitalism.” This presumes that “understanding on landed property; the third, on wage-labor; the fourth, on the state; the
capitalism” —as such or, perhaps, in its totality—was the aim of Capital. fifth, on foreign trade; and the final book would take up both the world
Since gender relations are important aspects of capitalism, it then market and economic crises. This outline also envisioned that the book on
follows that provision of a fuller account of gender relations would help to capital would consist of four sections: capital in general, competition, the
rescue Capital from the “underdeveloped” state in which its author left it. credit system, and share capital (stock ownership). Finally, the “capital in
I think this seriously misconstrues what Capital is about. It is general” section was to include three main topics: the production process
entitled Capital for a reason. It is not entitled Everything You Need to Know of capital; the circulation process of capital; and profit and interest (see
about What Takes Place within Capitalism, or even Everything You Need to Rosdolsky 1977, pp. 11-12).
Know about Capitalism. It focuses specifically on capital––the process in Thus, by 1857 or 1858, Marx had narrowed down the scope of his
and through which value “self-expands,” or becomes a bigger amount of intended work even further than he had in 1844. This outline includes only

216 How Not to Evaluate the Relevance of Marx’s Capital 217 How Not to Evaluate the Relevance of Marx’s Capital
economic topics (with the possible partial exception of the book on the C extensively and systematically in volume 3 of Capital. Aspects of wage- C
R R
state) and, although these topics potentially cover quite a lot of ground, I labor are discussed at various points in volume 1: chapter 6 is on the I
they do not seem to cover the economic dimension of capitalist societies S sale and purchase of labor-power; the very brief Part 6 is on “Wages”; S
in its entirety. For example, the outline seems not to have a place into I and fluctuations in employment and wages are discussed within Part 7’s I
S S
which Marx might fit a systematic treatment of consumption, economic discussion of capital accumulation. On the other hand, Marx (1990, p. 683)
aspects of legal relations, or non-capitalist production within capitalist & intentionally omitted from Capital a comprehensive discussion of the &
society (e.g., production by self-employed artisans, non-capitalist C
various “forms” of wages, stating that this topic “belongs to the special C
businesses, and household production). R study of wage-labour, and not, therefore, to this work.” R
His only other extant outline, written about eight years later (in I Overall, it remains unclear whether, and to what extent, Marx I
T T
1865 or 1866), envisions a work consisting of four “books”: the production I originally intended to address other aspects of landed property and I
process of capital; the circulation process of capital; forms of the process Q wage-labor as well. In any case, the inclusion in Capital of topics that Q
as a whole; and the “history of theory” (i.e., political-economic theory) U had originally been assigned to Books II and III does not mitigate the U
E E
(see Rosdolsky 1977, p. 13). The first three of these books are more or less conclusion that the work intentionally omits systematic discussion of a
the same as what eventually became the three volumes of Capital, while / great many things that Marx had once regarded as part of his critique of /
the unedited manuscripts for the fourth were published posthumously as Volume 3 /
political economy. Much less does it mitigate the conclusion that what Volume 3 /
Theories of Surplus-Value. Issue 3 Capital deals with is only a tiny fraction of what Marx originally (prior to Issue 3
Note that the first three books are the same as or similar to what 1844) intended to deal with.
Marx had envisioned as the “capital in general” section of the book on
capital in his much more wide-ranging outline of 1857-8. Thus, in the Why Marx Narrowed the Scope
space of about eight years, Marx drastically narrowed down the scope Why was the scope of his critique of political economy reduced so
of the critique of political economy that he intended to publish. Most of drastically? I think there are at least two reasons. One is that the critique
the topics dealt with in the three volumes of Capital had originally been he originally envisioned was too ambitious. He had originally bitten off a
projected to be covered in just one section of one book—of a work that lot more than he could chew and, as he got older and his health problems
included three more sections of Book I and five additional books on top of mounted, his expectations of what he could plausibly accomplish became
that! more modest.
What happened to the remaining sections of Book I, and to the By itself, however, this answer is insufficient. After all, there
other five books? In the draft manuscript of what became volume 3 of are a fairly large number of authors who could complete a critique that
Capital, written in 1864-5, Marx (1991, p. 205) stated that “the credit ranges widely across political economy, philosophy, law, ethics, politics,
system and competition on the world market” were “outside the scope and civil life, and probably some who could polish off such a critique in
of this work” and instead “belong to a possible continuation.” Similarly, the space of a few years. This brings us to the other reason: Marx was
he indicated there that he was still considering writing a “special study not such an author. Capital is not an Everything About Capitalism book
of competition” (Marx 1991, p. 298; cf. p. 426) which suggests that he did because Marx was not an Everything About thinker. He was a thinker in the
not intend for Capital to include a comprehensive, systematic treatment dialectical, methodical, Hegelian tradition, and one who was especially
of competition. Capital also says little about, and certainly contains no careful, meticulous, and thorough. In particular, he was at pains to avoid
systematic treatment of, share capital, the state, or foreign trade. On the beginning with “the real and the concrete” in the forms in which they
other hand, it does discuss all of these topics, here and there, when and immediately appear to us, because this would be tantamount to beginning
insofar as Marx regarded them as directly relevant to the main topic under with a “chaotic conception of the whole” (Marx 1973, p. 100).
discussion. It is illuminating to consider his explanation for why he jettisoned
Thus, the reason why several whole “books” and “sections” in the his original plan to produce a work that would deal with philosophy, law,
1857-8 outline are not in Capital is that Marx intentionally restricted the ethics, politics, and civil life in addition to political economy. As he put
scope of the work. The omissions are not a result of his failure to produce it in the preface to his Economic and Philosophical Manuscripts, “the
a publishable draft of the whole of Capital. wealth and diversity of the subjects to be dealt with would have fitted
In contrast, it seems likely that Capital came to include at into a single work only if I had written in aphorisms, and an aphoristic
least some of what Marx had intended, in 1857-8, to say in Book II, on presentation, for its part, would have given the impression of arbitrary
landed property, and Book III, on wage-labor. Rent of land is discussed systematization” (Marx 1975, p. 281, emphases in original). Furthermore,

218 How Not to Evaluate the Relevance of Marx’s Capital 219 How Not to Evaluate the Relevance of Marx’s Capital
he concluded that his argument flowed better when he did not try to C are misconstrued. They are elements of his critique of political economy. C
R R
deal with philosophical and other aspects of his subject matter at the I Marx’s “choices” of what to take up, how to take it up, and at what point I
same time: “to combine criticism directed only against speculation with S and in what context, are largely dictated by the pre-existing political- S
criticism of the various subjects themselves was quite unsuitable; it I economic thought he is subjecting to criticism. I
S S
hampered the development of the argument and made it more difficult to Unfortunately, even though production of commentaries on Marx’s
follow” (Marx 1975, p. 281). & method in Capital has become something of a cottage industry, it remains &
This does not mean that Marx tried to keep the remaining topics C
poorly appreciated that there are important respects in which his method C
out of these Manuscripts; it rather means that he was not considering R is not really “his” and that it is sometimes not even a method in the proper R
them “in and for themselves.” They were not discussed in a systematic I sense of the term, but instead a response constrained by his subject I
T T
way, but only “touche[d] on” at particular points. Marx noted three criteria I matter. It would perhaps be better to refer, not to “Marx’s method,” but to I
that guided what additional topics he discussed and where he discussed Q his following-out the dialectic of the object of his criticism.4 Q
them. First, they had to “interconnect[ ]” with political economy. Second, U U
E E
he discussed them at the point of interconnection. Third, he discussed Federici
them “only … in so far as political economy itself particularly touches / Silvia Federici (2012, p. 91) puts forward “a feminist critique of Marx /
on these subjects” (Marx 1975, p. 281). “Political economy itself” Volume 3 /
that… has been developing since the 1970s.” Its central argument is that Volume 3 /
almost certainly refers here to the writings of the political economists Issue 3 Issue 3
themselves. Thus, when deciding whether and where a topic outside Marx’s analysis of capitalism has been hampered by his
political economy should be “touched on,” Marx followed the practices of inability to conceive of value-producing work other than in the
the political economists. form of commodity production and his consequent blindness to the
The apparent reason for this decision is that here, as in later works, significance of women’s unpaid reproductive work in the process
he was engaged in a critique of political economy––specifically, an of capitalist accumulation. … Had Marx recognized that capitalism
“immanent” or internal critique. Because this was his genre, his decisions must rely on both an immense amount of unpaid domestic labor
about what to discuss and where to discuss it were not free, creative for the reproduction of the workforce, and the devaluation of these
choices. Nor were they determined mostly by his own understanding of how reproductive activities in order to cut the cost of labor power, he
the world works or his own views as to what is important. His decisions may have been less inclined to consider capitalist development as
were constrained and largely determined by the preceding history of the inevitable and progressive. [Federici 2012, p. 92]
political economy he was criticizing.
As I read the textual evidence, Marx continued to adhere to these Federici (2012, p. 94) goes on to ask, “Why did Marx so persistently
practices in his subsequent development of his critique of political ignore women’s reproductive work?” Part of her answer is that “Marx
economy. That is especially true regarding the works he prepared for described the condition of the industrial proletariat of his time as he saw it,
publication—his 1859 Contribution to the Critique of Political Economy and women’s domestic labor was hardly part of it.”The focus on description
and volume 1 of Capital: A Critique of Political Economy, the first edition rather than theory and the words “of his time” suggest that Marx’s analysis
of which appeared in 1867. (As compared to his unpublished texts, of capitalism is less relevant, if not quite irrelevant, to our own time.
these works contain relatively few asides and digressions, less stream- What is wrong with this account? In the first place, Federici’s
of-consciousness writing, and much more attention to methodical claim that Marx regarded “capitalist development as inevitable and
structuring of the argument.) Once again, what he takes up, and where
and why he takes it up, is constrained and largely determined by the fact
that he is, engaged in an immanent critique of political-economic thought, 4 This is why I think attempts to squeeze Capital into one or another framework of
not putting forward a free-standing commentary on capitalist society or “systematic dialectics” are forced and will prove to be dead ends. They seem to me insufficiently
attentive to the ways in which polemical considerations influence the structure of Capital, because
even on the capitalist economy. they are insufficiently attentive to the fact that its subject matter isn’t just the capitalist mode of
Of course, Marx’s critique is not limited to criticism of economic production, but also the political economy it criticizes. I fully agree that Marx was a dialectical
thought in the narrow sense. He does discuss, at great length, the specific thinker and (within reason) a systematic one, but I don’t think he regarded it as either scientific or
dialectical to impose a priori schemata on one’s subject matter, as if one possessed a master key.
character of the capitalist mode of production and how it functions As he suggested in the postface to the second German edition of Capital (Marx 1990, p. 102), an
and malfunctions. But the point is that these discussions are not free- “appropriate[ ]” presentation of “the life of the subject-matter” differs from an “a priori construction”
standing. If they are construed as “the world according to Marx,” they in that it is based on and acquires its structure from a prior empirical and conceptual investigation of
the details of the specific subject matter.

220 How Not to Evaluate the Relevance of Marx’s Capital 221 How Not to Evaluate the Relevance of Marx’s Capital
progressive” is, at the very minimum, extremely misleading because it is C rejecting the conceptual structure of Marx’s value theory in general. That C
R R
overly broad and unqualified. Far from arguing that capitalist development I structure collapses, totally and immediately, the moment any kind of I
is “progressive” in all important respects, Marx actually argued, in a well- S non-commodity production is said to be value-creating. And since the S
known passage in Capital, that it leads to worsening conditions in the I conceptual structure of Capital as a whole rests on its value theory, it too I
S S
labor process, the transformation of the workers’ lifetime into working collapses.
time, and increased exploitation by capital of the labor of women and & It is true that a theory’s general conceptual structure might be &
children. Thus, “in proportion as capital accumulates, the situation of the C
traceable to the theorist’s inability to conceive something particular. But C
worker, be his payment high or low, must grow worse” (Marx 1990, p. 799). R that is extremely implausible in this case, since (as I discussed above), R
As for the claim that Marx regarded capitalist development I Capital is a critique of political economy, and its conceptual structure is I
T T
as inevitable, he never held that every country must pass through a I largely determined by the object of its critique. In particular, elemental I
capitalist phase. And he eventually concluded that, if revolutionary in Q categories in the book like commodity and value derive from the classical Q
technologically advanced countries accompany revolutions in less- U political economy that it criticizes. Marx used these terms in accepted or U
E E
developed countries, the latter can indeed avoid having to go through a minimally-modified ways. He could not have done otherwise while still
capitalist phase (see Shanin (ed.), 1983). / providing an immanent critique of political economy. /
But let us turn to the main issue with which Federici is concerned Volume 3 /
Federici’s comment that Marx ignored women’s reproductive work Volume 3 /
here—the labor, mainly of women, that is devoted to the reproduction Issue 3 is an instance of the tendency to misconstrue Capital as an Everything Issue 3
of workers’ labor-power (ability to work). She suggests, correctly, that About Capitalism book. In order to understand why it is a misconstrual, we
capitalist accumulation is significantly affected by such labor. She also first have to understand what she means by “ignored.” On the preceding
claims that Marx suffered from “blindness” to its significance, and claims page, Federici (2012, p. 93) writes,
further that this hampered his “analysis of capitalism.”
Yet it just isn’t plausible that Marx failed to recognize that the Marx ignored the existence of women’s reproductive work. ...
reproduction of workers’ labor-power involves “an immense amount of [W]hile he meticulously explored the dynamics of yarn production
unpaid domestic labor.” This is an obvious fact; it’s hard to believe that and capitalist valorization, he was succinct when tackling
anyone has failed to recognize it, especially anyone writing 150 years ago, the question of reproductive work, reducing it to the workers’
before the commodification of a large share of food services, laundry consumption of the commodities their wages can buy and the work
services, childcare, and so on. the production of these commodities requires. In other words, as
Furthermore, Federici’s comment about Marx’s “inability to in the neoliberal scheme, in Marx’s account too, all that is needed
conceive of value-producing work other than in the form of commodity to (re)produce labor power is commodity production and the
production” is misleading at best. The fact is rather that, in his value market. No other work intervenes to prepare the goods the workers
theory, commodity production and value-producing work are synonymous. consume or to restore physically and emotionally their capacity to
Among all products of labor, only commodities have value, not only use- work. No difference is made between commodity production and
value. Consequently, among all kinds of labor, only commodity-producing the production of the workforce. One assembly line produces both.
labor creates value, not only useful objects and effects.5 Hence, Federici’s
argument reduces to the tautology that Marx was unable to conceive of Thus, “ignored” doesn’t simply mean that women’s reproductive
commodity production other than in the form of commodity production! work is not among the topics that Marx discussed in Capital. It means that
She is, of course, entitled to disagree with Marx, but the point is he should have discussed it. It is directly relevant to what he did discuss,
that she is not disagreeing with a particular “inability to conceive” that and his discussion is distorted and incorrect because it wrongly treats
stems from his supposed focus on describing conditions “of his time.” reproductive work as unimportant, even unnecessary, for the reproduction
Instead of rejecting something particular, Federici is instead implicitly of workers’ labor-power.
However, everything from “reducing it to the workers’ consumption”
to the end of the passage is simply incorrect. Marx did not “reduce” the
5 Because the term value is being used here in a technical sense in which it is distinct from work that reproduces labor-power to the work of consuming commodities
use-value (or usefulness), the issue under discussion has nothing to do with whether women’s
reproductive work is “valuable” in the sense of being useful or esteemed. Nor does the issue under (see note 7, below).6 He did not state or suggest that the production and
discussion have anything to do with whether people who perform reproductive functions are directly
remunerated. In Marx’s theory, the labor of many kinds of workers who are directly remunerated does
not create value. 6 I shall leave aside the point about work that produces commodities that workers consume.

222 How Not to Evaluate the Relevance of Marx’s Capital 223 How Not to Evaluate the Relevance of Marx’s Capital
sale of commodities are “all that is needed to (re)produce labor power,” C manner in which Federici tries to turn Capital into an Everything About C
R R
or that “no other work”—i.e., work that directly reproduces labor-power— I Capitalism book. She not only suggests, in the usual manner, that an I
is needed. And he certainly did distinguish between the work processes S issue of concern to her is properly part of the subject matter of Capital. S
that reproduce labor-power and those that produce (other) commodities. I She also argues that Marx himself made the reproduction of labor-power I
S S
The easiest way to see that Federici has constructed a straw man part of the subject matter of Capital, but in an improper manner. That
is to take note of a passage in Capital that she herself quotes on the next & is, he conflated the two distinct processes of production into one in &
page: C
a way that wrongly occluded household production and made it seem C
R unnecessary: “No difference is made between commodity production and R
Not surprisingly, while acknowledging that “the maintenance I the production of the workforce. One assembly line produces both.” I
T T
and reproduction of the working class remains a necessary I I think the preceding discussion has made clear that this I
condition for the reproduction of capital,” Marx could immediately Q argument is incorrect. Capital does not “ignore” the existence of Q
add: “But the capitalist may safely leave this to the worker’s drives U women’s reproductive work by pretending that capitalist production U
E E
for self-preservation and propagation. All the capitalist cares for itself supposedly reproduces labor-power and that reproductive work is
is to reduce the worker’s individual consumption to the necessary / therefore unnecessary. /
minimum.” [Federici 2012, pp. 94-95] 7 Volume 3 /
Yet might the charge that Capital “ignores” the existence of Volume 3 /
Issue 3 reproductive work be correct for a different reason? The book certainly Issue 3
Marx therefore did not say that “one assembly line produces both” says very little about such work. The question is whether it needs to
commodities and workers’ labor-power. On the contrary, he said that the (or at least should) say more than it does. I do not think so, because it
reproduction of labor-power is a process in which “the capitalist” has is not an Everything About Capitalism book. It isn’t even an Everything
no direct involvement. It follows from this, first, that the reproduction About Production Within Capitalism book. It is a book about capital, and
of labor-power is distinct from capitalist commodity production. And, its discussion of production (apart from side comments and historical
second, it follows that something more than the production and sale of contrasts) is solely a discussion of the first of the two processes
commodities is needed in order to reproduce labor-power—something distinguished above, capitalist production—or, even more clearly, “the
more that “the capitalist may safely leave ... to the worker’s drives for process of production of capital.”
self-preservation and propagation.” Of course, capitalist production cannot continue without the
In other words, there are distinct processes of production within continual reproduction of labor-power. The workers must be able to return
capitalist society. In one process, capitalist production, the labor of to work week after week, year after year, and new generations of workers
wage-workers, in combination with means of production, produces who will replace them must be given birth to and raised. The reproduction
commodities. In another process, which takes place “in the home,” of labor-power is absolutely a necessary condition for the reproduction of
outside the sphere of capitalist production, the labor of household capital, i.e., the continuity of the capitalist production process.
residents, in combination with means of production (consumer goods and The question is whether this is sufficient justification for the claim
equipment), reproduces the household residents’ labor-power. that Capital needed to, or should have, discussed household production.
In light of this distinction, we can identify a novel twist in the I do not think it is. There are many, many necessary conditions for the
reproduction of capital. For instance, the existence of the state is one
Pace Federici, it clearly is not work that reproduces labor-power, for the same reason that auto
of them. So is the existence of a contractual legal system. So is the
production is not taxi driving. The fact that a product (commodities for workers’ consumption, autos) existence of oxygen, and thus the existence of plants. Why should a work
of one work process becomes an input into a different work process (reproduction of labor-power, about capitalist production have to talk about everything under the sun ...
taxi-driving) does not prevent us from identifying two distinct work processes.
and talk about the sun as well, since its existence is another necessary
7 The quotes from Marx are on p. 718 of Marx (1990). That passage seems to be the source condition? The result would be a pedantic, unwieldly, unfocused, and
of Federici’s charge that Marx reduced reproductive work to “the workers’ consumption of the
commodities their wages can buy and the work the production of these commodities requires.”
mostly unnecessary mess—a “chaotic conception of the whole” of the
Consumption of commodities is the only aspect of the reproduction of labor-power discussed in the sort that Marx (1973, p. 100) was at pains to avoid. There may perhaps
passage. However, the passage is not intended as a description or explanation of how labor-power be legitimate arguments that he ignored something he should not have
is reproduced. Its purpose is to argue that “[t]he individual consumption of the worker ... [is] an
aspect of the production and reproduction of capital” (Marx 1990, p. 718). In other words, Marx singled ignored, but appeals to necessary conditions are not among those
out one aspect of the reproduction of labor-power, consumption, in order to make a point about arguments.
consumption. That is different from reducing the whole process of reproduction of labor-power to A similar response may be given to the idea (which Federici does
consumption.

224 How Not to Evaluate the Relevance of Marx’s Capital 225 How Not to Evaluate the Relevance of Marx’s Capital
not put forward in her essay) that labor which reproduces workers’ labor- C up a third criticism of Marx’s law that is more pertinent to this paper, the C
R R
power—and, indeed, other kinds of labor performed outside of capitalist I claim that changes in capitalism have made the law irrelevant. I
production—should be regarded as “productive labor” for capital, since S S
they contribute indirectly to the creation of value and surplus-value. This I Sperber I
S S
idea was, for example, the basis on which Pellegrino Rossi objected to One recent example of this criticism appears in the recent
Adam Smith’s classification of magistrates’ labor as unproductive. & celebrated biography, Karl Marx: A Nineteenth-Century Life, written by &
Because other acts of production are almost impossible without C
Jonathan Sperber (2013b), a professor of history at the University of C
the labor of magistrates, Rossi argued that their labor “contributes to R Missouri. In keeping with his overarching thesis that Marx was a man R
[other acts of production], if not by direct and material co-operation, at I mired in his own time—and a man whose thought looked backward, not I
T T
least by an indirect action which cannot be left out of account” (quoted in I forward—Sperber (2013b, pp. 443-44) suggests that Marx’s law is no longer I
Marx 1989, p. 190). Marx did not dispute the indirect contribution made by Q relevant, since it belongs to an era prior to rapid technological advance:9 Q
magistrates’ labor, but he nonetheless rejected Rossi’s attempt to efface U U
E E
the distinction between productive and unproductive labour: In postulating a falling rate of profit, Marx was not developing
/ a new idea, but repeating what had been a truism of political /
It is precisely this labour which participates indirectly in Volume 3 /
economy since the publication of Smith’s Wealth of Nations .... Volume 3 /
production … that we call unproductive labour. Otherwise we Issue 3 This idea had emerged and gained widespread assent in the Issue 3
would have to say that since the magistrate is absolutely unable late eighteenth- and early nineteenth-century British scene of
to live without the peasant, therefore the peasant is an indirect rapid population growth pressing on limited resources, of halting
producer of justice. And so on. Utter nonsense! [Marx 1989, p. 190] and limited increases in labor productivity, and of a disruptive
introduction of early industrial technology .... Marx’s vision of
The point, once again, is that even though everything might be capitalism’s future was this transcribed version of capitalism’s
related to everything, it is generally a good idea to refrain from discussing past, a backward look shared by many political economists of his
everything at once. day.

Marx’s Falling-Rate-of-Profit Theory In a Guardian essay that appeared around the same time, Sperber
Marx’s “law of the tendential fall in the rate of profit” is one of the (2013a) made the point even more clearly:
most, if not the most, controversial aspects of his critique of political
economy. The law directly runs counter to the very common intuition A consideration of the relevance of Marx’s ideas in the early
that a more productive capitalism is a more profitable capitalism. It 21st century might start with separating their outdated elements
also has revolutionary political implications that many, even on the left, from those capable of development in the present.
recoil from. While other theories trace capitalism’s economic crises to
particular, correctable problems (low productivity, sluggish demand, the Among the former are concepts such as ... the tendency of the
anarchy of the market, state intervention, high wages, low wages, etc.), rate of profit to fall, ... deriving from the economic theories of Adam
Marx’s law suggests that recurrent economic crises are due to capitalism Smith and David Ricardo, and pertaining to a now very outdated
itself and are unavoidable under it. Only a different economic system in version of capitalism, characterised by low rates of productivity
which value and surplus-value no longer exist, not reform of the existing increase and a large agricultural sector, under pressure from
system, can abolish its tendency to succumb to economic crises. population growth.
It is therefore not surprising that critics have attempted to prove,
against Marx, that technological advances cannot cause the rate of profit
to fall, and that the law is invalid because he failed to prove that labor- line of attack. Kliman, Freeman, Potts, Gusev, and Cooney (2013) respond to it. It should be noted that
this response does not defend the claim that labor-saving technical change must cause the rate of
saving technical change must cause the rate of profit to fall in the long profit to fall in the long run. It argues that Marx’s law does not make that claim but, instead, explains
run. I have dealt with these criticisms elsewhere.8 Here, I wish to take why the rate of profit does tend to fall.

9 Sperber also repeats the claim that Marx’s law fails because Marx did not prove that labor-
8 Okishio’s (1961) alleged theorem is the classic statement of the first line of attack. A saving technical change must cause the rate of profit to fall in the long run, which I have addressed
response appears in Kliman (2007, chap. 7). Heinrich (2013) contains a recent example of the second elsewhere (see note 8, above).

226 How Not to Evaluate the Relevance of Marx’s Capital 227 How Not to Evaluate the Relevance of Marx’s Capital
 There is merit to Sperber’s criticism of David Ricardo’s explanation C the dominant types of capitalist firms. This argument has been a crucial C
R R
of the tendency of the rate of profit to fall, which was rooted in his I component of the influential “monopoly capital” theory of the “Monthly I
assumption that the average productivity of the agricultural sector S Review school.” S
declines as more land is brought under cultivation to feed a growing I A half-century ago, Paul A. Baran and Paul Marlor Sweezy, leading I
S S
population. Ricardo obviously failed to foresee the substantial members of this school, put forward their “law of monopoly capitalism
technological progress that would take place in agriculture. & that the surplus tends to rise” (Baran and Sweezy 1966, p. 72) in their book &
Yet Sperber errs when he claims that Marx’s explanation of why the C
Monopoly Capital. They argued that the various versions of “the classical- C
rate of profit tends to fall is “deriv[ed] from” and a “transcribed version” R Marxian law of the falling tendency of the rate of profit ... all presuppose R
of Ricardo’s. To the contrary, Marx (1973, p. 754) quipped that Ricardo’s I a competitive system” instead of a system dominated by monopoles and I
T T
explanation “flees from economics to seek refuge in organic chemistry,” I oligopolies, and that Marx’s law needs to be replaced by their own law I
and his own explanation is the diametrical opposite. It identifies Q because the system has changed: Q
increasing, not decreasing, productivity as the root cause of the fall in the U U
E E
rate of profit: By substituting the law of rising surplus for the law of falling
/ profit, we are therefore not rejecting or revising a time-honored /
The progressive tendency for the rate of profit to fall is thus Volume 3 /
theorem of political economy: we are simply taking account of Volume 3 /
simply the expression, peculiar to the capitalist mode of production, Issue 3 the undoubted fact that the structure of the capitalist economy Issue 3
of the progressive development of the social productivity of labour. has undergone a fundamental change since that theorem was
formulated. [Baran and Sweezy 1966, p. 72]
The profit rate does not fall because labour becomes less
productive but rather because it becomes more productive. [Marx Although Baran and Sweezy asserted that Marx’s law
1991, p. 319, emphasis in original; p. 347] “presuppose[s] a competitive system,” they made no real effort to
substantiate this claim. Implicitly if not explicitly, they treated Capital
The peculiar aspect of Sperber’s discussion of the law of the as a work of description rather than of theory. That is, their claim that
tendential rate of profit is that his summary conclusion—that the law Marx’s law is no longer relevant was based on the simple fact that the
fits neatly into his narrative of Marx as a backward-looking, nineteenth- capitalist system has changed, not on any real effort to demonstrate that
century figure of spotty relevance to today—contradicts his detailed it is impossible to apply Marx’s arguments to this changed system. As we
account of Marx’s law. In his detailed account, Sperber (2013b, p. 438) shall see, they failed to take note of Marx’s theorization of monopoly. In
quotes the former of the two passages I have just cited. He also writes particular, they failed to deal with his argument that monopoly does not
that, for Marx, “[c]apitalism was all about producing more and producing produce a tendency for “the surplus” to rise.
more productively,” and that “increasing productivity of labor across Inasmuch as Marx’s law is of central importance to his theory of
the entire capitalist economy was a central feature of Marx’s analysis” capitalist economic crisis, the Monthly Review school substitutes its own
(Sperber 2013b, p. 432, p. 440). theory for the latter as well. Its theory is underconsumptionist. That is,
Because of this apparent self-contradiction, as well as a certain it holds that insufficient consumer demand is a chronic tendency; that
vagueness to the way that Sperber links Marx to Ricardo, I am less than productive investment demand (for machines, construction of buildings,
fully certain that he actually intended to claim that Marx’s law rests on etc.) cannot grow more rapidly than consumer demand in the long run;
an outdated assumption that agricultural productivity will decline or and, therefore, that there is a chronic tendency for total demand for goods
stagnate. Yet whatever his intentions may have been, Sperber’s argument and services to fall short of supply. The inevitable result is either that
that the law is no longer relevant absolutely depends on the claim that the economy stagnates as the growth of supply (production) slows down
Marx did, in fact, assume declining or stagnating agricultural productivity. to the pace set by demand, or that there are recurrent downturns that
Since Marx actually assumed the opposite, Sperber is wrong to conclude temporarily re-equilibrate supply with demand.10
that continuing growth of productivity has rendered the law irrelevant. The fundamental building blocks of this theory have nothing to
do with the rise of monopolies and oligopolies. As two Monthly Review
The “Monopoly Capital” School
Another argument that changes in capitalism have rendered Marx’s
law irrelevant concerns the emergence of monopolies and oligopolies as 10 Chapter 8 of Kliman (2012) criticizes this theory on empirical as well as theoretical
grounds.

228 How Not to Evaluate the Relevance of Marx’s Capital 229 How Not to Evaluate the Relevance of Marx’s Capital
authors (Foster and McChesney 2012, pp. 33–4, emphasis added) have C This latter possibility is the one that Marx subscribed to, and the C
R R
recently written, I one on which his law of the tendential fall in the rate of profit is based. I
S In his theory, the extraction of surplus labor from workers in capitalist S
Capitalism, throughout its history, is characterized by I production is the sole source of surplus-value, and the surplus-value is I
S S
an incessant drive to accumulate …. But this inevitably runs up the sole source of the various kinds of incomes that accrue to property
against the relative deprivation of the underlying population & owners. “The capitalist who produces surplus-value, i.e. who extracts &
…. Hence, the system is confronted with insufficient effective C
unpaid labour directly from the workers ... has to share it afterwards with C
demand––with barriers to consumption leading eventually to R capitalists who fulfill other functions in social production taken as a R
barriers to investment. I whole, with the owner of the land, and with yet other people” (Marx 1990, I
T T
I p. 709). Because the total amount of surplus-value is determined by what I
However, the allegedly chronic tendency for demand to fall short Q occurs in capitalist production, it is not affected by changes in the way in Q
of supply is said to be exacerbated by the tendency for “the surplus” to U which it is divided among property owners. Thus, if some of them manage U
E E
rise under monopoly capitalism. As the relative size of the surplus grows, to get hold of a larger portion of the total surplus-value, the portion that
the alleged underconsumption problem worsens—the share of output / the others receive is reduced to the same extent. /
that consumers do not buy grows as well—and it supposedly becomes Volume 3 /
Furthermore, although Baran and Sweezy, and other members of Volume 3 /
increasing difficult for other sources of demand to “absorb” the surplus. Issue 3 their school, portray the growth of monopolies and oligopolies as a recent Issue 3
But why should the growth of monopolies and oligopolies cause the phenomenon that Marx’s theory failed to come to grips with, he discussed
surplus to rise? This is the key question that must be answered when the centralization of capital and theorized why it would continue (Marx
assessing whether the law of the tendential fall in the rate of profit has vol. 1, pp. 777-81). He discussed the emergence of joint-stock companies,
been made irrelevant by the emergence of “monopoly capitalism.” which he noted “gives rise to monopolies in certain spheres” (Marx 1991,
Baran and Sweezy were remarkably terse about this critical p. 569). And he discussed monopoly pricing and its effects in detail. Two
question. They noted that, in oligopolistic industries (those in which hundred pages of Capital are devoted to a particular instance of monopoly
a few large firms are dominant), reduced costs of production are not pricing: land rent and agricultural prices that include rent as a component.
accompanied by reduced prices for the firms’ products. Thus, “under This is not what we usually think of when we hear the word monopoly,
monopoly capitalism, declining costs imply continuously widening but since arable land is scarce and not easily reproducible, “agricultural
profit margins. And continuously widening profit margins in turn imply products are always sold at a monopoly price” (Marx 1991, p. 897).
aggregate profits which rise not only absolutely but as a share of national In this case and in general, Marx explicitly denied that monopoly
product.” Thus, “the surplus tends to rise both absolutely and relatively pricing has any bearing on the magnitude of total surplus-value. His
as the system develops” (Baran and Sweezy 1966, pp. 71-72). This is the argument employs the same “zero-sum game” reasoning that I sketched
entirely of their answer. above:
Unfortunately, it contains a glaring fallacy of composition—the
fallacy of incorrectly assuming that what is true in individual cases must [If] the equalization of surplus-value to average profit
be true for the whole. It is called a fallacy because it is a logical error that ... comes upon obstacles in the form of artificial or natural
makes the argument that contains it invalid. Baran and Sweezy start with monopolies, and particularly the monopoly of landed property,
the idea that profits rise as a share of the value of the product of individual so that a monopoly price becomes possible, ... this does not
oligopolistic firms and industries. They then pass blithely—by means of mean that the limits fixed by commodity value are abolished. A
a fallacy of composition—to the conclusion that aggregate profits have to monopoly price for certain products simply transfers a portion of
rise as a share of the value of the aggregate, national product. the profit made by other commodity producers to the commodities
This conclusion is false. Even if all oligopolistic firms enjoy above- with the monopoly price. Indirectly, there is a local disturbance
average profit margins and the oligopolistic sectors grow in relation in the distribution of surplus-value among the various spheres
to the total economy, aggregate profit does not have to rise as a share of production, but this leaves unaffected the limit of the surplus-
of the value of the aggregate product. Instead, it is possible that the value itself. [Marx 1991, p. 1001, emphasis added]
excess profits of the oligopolists come at the expense of—and are fully
offset by—lower profits for firms in the non-oligopolistic sectors of the Thus, according to his theory, the ability of monopolies and
economy.

230 How Not to Evaluate the Relevance of Marx’s Capital 231 How Not to Evaluate the Relevance of Marx’s Capital
oligopolies to obtain higher profit margins does not cause “the surplus” C REFERENCES C
R Baran, Paul A. and Paul M. Sweezy 1966, Monopoly Capital: An Essay on the American R
to rise as “monopoly capitalism” advances. It leaves total surplus-value I Economic and Social Order, New York: Monthly Review. I
unaffected. Hence, Marx’s law of the tendential fall in the rate of profit— S Brown, Heather 2014, ‘Marx on Gender and the Family: A Summary’, Monthly Review, March. S
which is a law concerning the relation of total surplus-value to the total I Available at http://monthlyreview.org/2014/06/01/marx-on-gender-and-the-family-a-summary/. I
S Eagleton, Terry 2011, ‘Was Marx Right?: It’s Not Too Late to Ask’, Commonweal magazine, S
capital-value invested—does not “presuppose a competitive system.” If March 28. Available at https://www.commonwealmagazine.org/was-marx-right.
this law was relevant to the more competitive capitalism of Marx’s time, it & Federici, Silvia 2012, ‘The Reproduction of Labor Power in the Global Economy and &
the Unfinished Feminist Revolution’, in Silvia Federici, Revolution at Point Zero: Housework,
remains relevant to the more monopolistic capitalism of our own time. C Reproduction, and Feminist Struggle, Brooklyn, NY: PM Press. C
In Monopoly Capital, Baran and Sweezy (1966, pp. 73-78) responded R Foster, John Bellamy and Robert W. McChesney 2012, The Endless Crisis: How Monopoly- R
to objections to their “law of monopoly capitalism that the surplus tends I Finance Capital Produces Stagnation and Upheaval from the USA to China, New York: Monthly Review. I
T Heinrich, Michael 2013, ‘Crisis Theory, the Law of the Tendency of the Profit Rate to Fall, and T
to rise.” Yet Marx’s objection was not among those they responded to. I Marx’s Studies in the 1870s’, Monthly Review 64, 11 (April). Available at monthlyreview.org/2013/04/01/ I
They did not mention it. Q crisis-theory-the-law-of-the-tendency-of-the-profit-rate-to-fall-and-marxs-studies-in-the-1870s. Q
U Kliman, Andrew 2007, Reclaiming Marx’s ‘Capital’: A refutation of the myth of inconsistency, U
E Lanham, MD: Lexington Books. E
Conclusion —— 2010, ‘The Disintegration of the Marxian School’, Capital & Class 34, 1: 61-68.
/ —— 2015, The Failure of Capitalist Production: Underlying Causes of the Great Recession, /
It is frequently claimed that developments in capitalism London: Pluto Books.
since Marx’s time have made important aspects of Marx’s Capital Volume 3 / —— 2015, ‘On the Relevance of Marx’s Capital for Today’, With Sober Senses, April 17. Volume 3 /
irrelevant. This essay has argued that such claims are often based on Issue 3 Available at http://www.marxisthumanistinitiative.org/alternatives-to-capital/on-the-relevance-of- Issue 3
marxs-capital-for-today.html.
misunderstandings or misrepresentations of the book’s genre. It has also Kliman, Andrew, Alan Freeman, Nick Potts, Alexey Gusev, and Brendan Cooney 2013, ‘The
criticized in detail some specific arguments that prominent thinkers— Unmaking of Marx’s Capital: Heinrich’s Attempt to Eliminate Marx’s Crisis Theory, July22 Available at
http://papers.ssrn.com/sol3/papers.cfm?abstract_id=2294134.
Silvia Federici, Jonathan Sperber, and Paul A. Baran and Paul Sweezy— Marx, Karl 1868, [Letter to Ludwig Kugelmann], July 11. Available at https://www.marxists.org/
have employed in their attempts to impugn the relevance of Marx’s archive/marx/works/1868/letters/68_07_11-abs.htm.
theories of the reproduction of labor-power and the tendential fall in the —— 1973, Grundrisse: Foundations of the critique of political economy, London: Penguin.
—— 1975, Karl Marx: Early Writings, London: Penguin.
rate of profit. —— 1989, Karl Marx, Frederick Engels: Collected Works, Vol. 31, New York: International
My purpose here has not been to convince these (or other) critics Publishers.
that Marx was right. They are entitled to their own theories. But in the —— 1990, Capital: A critique of political economy, Vol. I, London: Penguin.
—— 1991, Capital: A critique of political economy, Vol. III, London: Penguin.
absence of airtight arguments, I don’t think they are entitled to claim that —— 1992, Capital: A critique of political economy, Vol. II, London: Penguin.
key aspects of Capital have become irrelevant; and the arguments put Okishio, Nobuo 1961, ‘Technical Changes and the Rate of Profit’, Kobe University Economic
Review 7, 85–99.
forward by Federici, Sperber, and Baran & Sweezy seem to me to be the Rosdolsky, Roman 1977, The Making of Marx’s ‘Capital’, London: Pluto Press.
very opposite of airtight. Shanin, Teodor (ed.) 1983, Late Marx and the Russian Road: Marx and the ‘peripheries of
There are undoubtedly many readers who would like it to be shown capitalism’, New York: Monthly Review.
Sim, Stuart 2000, Post-Marxism: An Intellectual History, London and New York: Routledge.
that “capitalism has changed and no longer conforms to Marx’s analysis Sperber, Jonathan 2013a, ‘Is Marx still relevant?’, The Guardian, May 16. Available at https://
of it,” since that would provide them with a justification for treating www.theguardian.com/books/2013/may/16/karl-marx-ideas-resonate-today.
Capital as “a discourse which can be raided for insights as to how we —— 2013b, Karl Marx: A Nineteenth-Century Life, New York: Liveright Publishing.

should confront capitalism now,” rather than as “a rational totality”

(Sim 2000, p. 56, emphasis in original). However, some of us prefer to
treat the work in the latter manner, and it is important for us to resist the
raiders’ incursions—unless, again, they come up with airtight arguments
that key aspects of Capital have become irrelevant. In the absence of
such arguments, we must insist that, while they are entitled to their own
theories, Marx is equally entitled to his.

232 How Not to Evaluate the Relevance of Marx’s Capital 233 How Not to Evaluate the Relevance of Marx’s Capital