O umijeću čitanja Marxova Kapitala
On the Art of Reading Marx's Capital

Summary/Abstract: To what extent is Marx’s thought conceptually and analytically relevant for a systematic understanding of modern society – this was the subject of the theoretical dialogue which engaged many researchers, including some of the most prominent ones. This text focuses on the theoretical critical confrontation of Dag Strpić (in the article “Market or Commodity Formation/Production of Society?”, which is the third, partly reworked chapter of his book Karl Marx and the Political Economy of Modernity) with the philosophical project of reconstruction of Marx’s science of history in Jacques Bidet’s work What is To Be Done with “Capital”?. The discussion focused on two basic issues: the logical starting point and the character of exposition of Marx’s theory of capital. Bidet advocates the thesis that commodity as Marx’s starting point (Section I of Book I) is inadequate, and he demonstrates the non-dialectical (“genetic”) character of the categorial exposition of the capitalist-way- of-production theory as a whole. In contrast therewith, Strpić demonstrates that the logical starting point of Marx’s system is adequately apprehended as “commodity in general”, if one perceives it from the viewpoint of the logic of the entire system and of the subject of his analysis as “capital in general”. Bidet seeks to show that Marx, in defining the capital system logic, gradually abandoned, albeit inconsistently and only in part, the dialectical figures as epistemological obstacles. Strpić, on the other hand, shows what makes the Marxian modality of materialistic dialectics constitutive not only with regard to Marx’s “critique”, but also to the very reality of capitalist society and the possibility of surpassing it. Notwithstanding his agreement with Bidet and Strpić that a (truly indispensable) general theory of modernity can be constituted only through creative and interpretative relying on the great works of political thought of modernity, and his sincere commendation to both for their outstanding reading of Marx’s work in this context, the author concludes in his final remarks that both are open to the following objection: their projects of a contemporary general theory of modernity, regardless of all aspects in which they differ, rely too much on further development of Marx’s intention, and thereby lose from sight the fundamental “theological-political” problem, which Marx dissolves in the immanentism of the process of production/reproduction of the modern civil community.

• Details
• Contents