Time, Labor, and Social Domination: A Reinterpretation of Marx's Critical Theory

by Moishe Postone

In this ambitious book, Moishe Postone undertakes a fundamental reinterpretation of Marx's mature critical theory. He calls into question many of the presuppositions of traditional Marxist analyses and offers new interpretations of Marx's central arguments. These interpretations lead him to a very different analysis of the nature and problems of capitalism and provide the basis for a critique of "actually existing socialism." According to this new interpretation, Marx identifies the central core of the capitalist system with an impersonal form of social domination generated by labor itself and not simply with market mechanisms and private property. Proletarian labor and the industrial production process are characterized as expressions of domination rather than as means of human emancipation. This reformulation relates the form of economic growth and the structure of social labor in modern society to the alienation and domination at the heart of capitalism. It provides the foundation for a critical social theory that is more adequate to late twentieth-century capitalism.

Genres: Philosophy, Politics, Economics, Theory, Sociology, History, Nonfiction

440 pages, Paperback

First published January 1, 1993

About the author

Moishe Postone was a Canadian Western Marxist historian, philosopher and political economist. He was Professor of History at the University of Chicago, where he was part of the Committee on Jewish Studies. Moishe Postone, son of a Canadian Rabbi, received his Ph.D. from University of Frankfurt in 1983. His research interests included modern European intellectual history; social theory, especially critical theories of modernity; twentieth-century Germany; anti-Semitism. Postone was the Thomas E. Donnelley Professor of Modern History and co-director of the Chicago Center for Contemporary Theory.

Reviews

[Tsalal · Rating 5 out of 5]

This took me ages to finish but it as all worth it, my brain tripled in size I can now levitate and shoot lasers out of my eyes, would recommend

[Griffin MB · Rating 4 out of 5]

Postone is one fuckin weird dude. This is the most naggingly repetitive book i think i've ever read which i still enjoyed. Still--a seminal piece of anglophone value-form theory that is notable for its emphasis on immanent critique--the idea that not only are Marx's categories ones that correspond to specific social formations only but ones that are meant as apprehensions of how perverse those categories are. the idea of value as a specific form of social wealth is very important and almost totally missing from other value-form theory in Englisch. as Luxemburg put it, Marx's analysis is only comprehensible if one realizes that he writes from the perspective that another society is possible. Postone centers this, noting that what people are really accumulating when they accumulate capital is claims on *labor*, not just on stuff. labor is what lies behind the enormous piles of money that the rich swim in--there really isn't very much that one can buy with money that requires no labor, at the present moment. but this isn't forever the case--Postone brings out nicely the utopian dimension of Marx's thought that seeks to abolish not only exploitation but labor itself.

other merits
- useful discussion of most of the Frankfurt School ppl and other western marxists, such as adorno and horkheimer, who aren't often read as value-theory people but should be.

the cons?
- as Bonefeld has said, Postone's approach, despite claiming to solve the structure-agency antinomy by relegating it to a specific historical period, basically comes out and says that agency is almost always subsumed by capital, something Postone has confirmed in interviews.
- not sure why Habermas is even worth critiquing
- Pollock is interesting but also not someone that anyone but Frankfurt School fanboys engage with (his theory of state capitalism which merits quite a bit of discussion here is relegated to a couple pages in most surveys of Marxist theories of the USSR).
- Postone's own theory of the USSR is basically a non-explanation that says that the USSR basically preserved the dynamic of value-production. this is an insight worth engaging with--it situates the core of Marx's theory of capitalism not on the level of property relations but on value itself and the dynamic it generates--but Postone basically fails to integrate that with any consideration of the fact that capital and money did not exist in the USSR.
- he's not really directly responsible for it but both the Antideutsch crypto-zionists and the trolls/harassers/abusers/crypto-zionists Platypus both cite him *a lot*, not to mention weird culty people like Principia Dialectica. worth noting.
- Marx's key point that value is a sort of terrifying automatic subject that subsumes even its nominal masters, capitalists, to it is preserved, but the way that value reproduces itself--through violence, states and property relations--is elided.

in the end, though, a really influential work that's worth reading, especially because it also represents a key link to the Frankfurt School's work on social theory that doesn't rely on bad translations (Postone studied with Iring Fetscher). it's okay to skim some sections, definitely. and he basically has rewritten this book and applied it to other people's work or shorter pieces ever since, so feel free to peep at those shorter things, too (his review of Harvey, Brenner and Arrighi is almost comical--it basically is an extended restatement of the book with nominal references to those three). his article on finance and antisemitism is what sparked some of these nutty crypto-zionist types, but in itself it's a useful elucidation of the need to transcend truncated critiques of finance that artificially separate it from capital, which even people like Kautsky fell into.

[Roberto Yoed · Rating 1 out of 5]

Revisionist jargon.

Avoid at all costs.

[atito]

:')

[Lukáš · Rating 3 out of 5]

What to say... One can hardly object to the detailed knowledge and comprehensibility of the interpretation of Marx that Moishe Postone presents here. And yet, I simply don't buy the argument about the historical specificity of Marx's critical categories in the way it's presented - in short, brings too much intellectual comfort, leaves a few ontological issues from Marx intact and in general, I consider it a neo-Kantian bias that brings all kinds of troubles in, and I think it's pretty visible in Postone's other texts on Lukacs and Derrida. But for a basic understanding of Marx, this is not a bad place to look at.

[Bill Bogert · Rating 4 out of 5]

Clarified my understanding of capitalism's being pinned to abstract time. Many people dislike this book. For me it clarified capital's distinctiveness as a system that produces abstract labor. Previous social systems tied work to social role. One needs to be comfortable with the notion of abstraction in order to read this book well.

[Mirza Sultan-Galiev · Rating 3 out of 5]

Makes some great points. Its a shame Postone has such obnoxious fans.

[Pierre-Olivier · Rating 5 out of 5]

Oeuvre maîtresse de la grille d’analyse marxienne du mouvement théorique de la critique de la valeur, liant anthropologie, sociologie, philosophie et histoire. Un résumé complet et parfaitement constitué de la critique de Postone est disponible dans la dernière section du livre consacré à la conclusion. La critique de la valeur est sans contredit la grille d’analyse marxienne du réel la plus étoffé et la plus pertinente du siècle dernier. À lire conjointement avec la substance du capital de Robert Kurz et du manifeste contre le travail du groupe Krisis. Un des meilleurs livres que j’ai lu de ma vie dans mon top 5.

[Mikael Hall · Rating 4 out of 5]

En mycket givande och spännande tolkning och intervention. Samtidigt kan hans ständiga påstående om nyskapandehet ifrågasättas, i synnerhet med utgångspunkt i den värdekritiska traditionen. Dock framstår i synnerhet fokuset på kapitalets förmåga att forma medvetande som mycket intressant och kritiken av Hegel, nationalekonomin, klassisk Marxism och Frankfurtskolan var mycket givande.

[Jorge Seijo · Rating 4 out of 5]

Pierde una estrella por que la caga completamente al desechar a la clase obrera como sujeto revolucionario.

[A. · Rating 3 out of 5]

The biggest flaw of Postone's book is its all-too-often failure to enact the immanent critique of opposing positions that Postone claims distinguishes his 'Marxian' method of critique. Postone often spends a great deal of time explaining the ways alternative views differ from his own, but devotes mere sentences to explaining the internal inconsistency of those views or how they can be explained as positions that reflect a one-sided view of reality. An otherwise masterful exposition is marred by its obscure manner of presentation. Remind you of anyone?

[Josh Gathany · Rating 5 out of 5]

The definitive book to understand capitalism irrespective of era or form. His insights are of the most utmost importance today as we transition out of the neo-liberalism capitalist moment to something new. Postone's historicism allows us to use erudite analytical tools to show how capital is a form of life that is primarily a domination of time over people. Moreover, his reading of Marx allows us a way out of an evolutionary theory of history with its concomitant racist implications.

[Karim · Rating 4 out of 5]

Excellent critique of the Frankfurt School and Western Marxism but a bad assessment of the Soviet Union. Lacks political strategy. Very good nonetheless.

[An · Rating 5 out of 5]

Postone desenvolupa una extensa crítica al marxisme tradicional a través d'una original lectura de l'obra madura de Marx. Si el marxisme tradicional representa una crítica al capitalisme des del punt de vista del treball, Postone articula una crítica al treball en el capitalisme. Es tracta d'una comprensió històricament específica del treball i una substitució de la seva centralitat per la categoria que capta l'essència del capitalisme: el valor. El valor expressa una determinada forma de les relacions socials i una particular forma de riquesa. El capital, com a valor que s'autovaloritza, origina una "estructura particular del treball, transformant contínuament la vida social mentre reconstrueix el seu caràcter capitalista subjacent" (p.316). Queda clar, doncs, que per a Postone, cap afirmació del treball pot portar a la superació del capitalisme.
La contradicció fonamental del capitalisme, que el marxisme tradicional situa entre forces productives i relacions de producció, seria, per a Postone, una entre riquesa material i valor. Trobem aquesta contradicció en el caràcter dual de la mercaderia (establert per Marx al primer capítol del Capital): valor d'ús i valor. Aquest s'expressa en un caràcter dual del treball: concret i abstracte i amb una temporalitat específica: concreta i abstracta.

Podem resumir les dues postures criticades en el llibre i la proposta de l'autor així:
1. Marxisme tradicional: visió positiva i transhistòrica del treball. Realització del treball en el comunisme. Capten la contradicció del capitalisme, però postulen la seva resolució afirmant un dels seus pols (el treball).
2. (alguns de l') Escola de Frankfurt (Pollock, Horkheimer, Habermas...): visió negativa però transhistòrica del treball pel seu caràcter instrumental. No capten la contradicció, entenen el capitalisme com a Unidimensional.
3. Postone: visió dual i històricament específica del treball. Ressitua la contradicció i postula la seva superació a través de l'abolició d'ambdós pols (negació determinada).

Si la realització del treball no porta a la superació del capitalisme ni l'afirmació de les forces productives permet construir el socialisme, si l'afirmació del treball és l'afirmació del capital, arribem a l'afirmació de Postone que el proletariat no és el subjecte històric capaç de superar el capitalisme. Això porta a una enorme problemàtica vers la pràctica política. També implica, però, un marc teòric crític molt més adequat en un capitalisme actual on la producció de valor està cada cop més deslligada de la producció de riquesa material i mésvinculada a una expulsió creixent de la classe treballadora dels processos productius.

Sigui com sigui, el llibre m'ha encantat justament perquè m'ha obligat a repensar molts dels supòsits que jo considerava fonamentals del marxisme. En la mesura que ha suposat una confrontació de les meves pròpies idees, m'ha resultat una lectura essencial en la meva formació.

Un petonet abolicionista del valor i un desig de negació determinada, muac<3

[André · Rating 5 out of 5]

KRITIK DER ZENTRALITÄT DER ARBEIT IN DER MODERNEN GESELLSCHAFT

Kritik der Distributionsweise (Markt & Privateigentum) vom Standpunkt der Arbeit, der Quelle allen Reichtums? Oder Kritik der Produktionsweise, der Arbeit selbst, in ihrer historischen Form? Nicht das Arbeit in Produkten steckt, sondern welche.

Postone rekonstruiert in seinem Buch die grundlegenden Kategorien der marxschen Kritik und präsentiert eine konsequente Neuinterpretation der dynamischen Wechselwirkung der beiden Dimensionen der Warenform, also Tausch- und Gebrauchswert. Seine Studie wirft dabei das Hauptaugenmerk auf die Strukturierung des Produktionsprozesses und zeigt Arbeit im Kapitalismus nicht als Objekt von Herrschaft sondern als konstituierende Quelle von Herrschaft im Kapitalismus. Wurde in anderen Gesellschaften die Ökonomie noch in die sozialen Verhältnisse eingebettet (Bräuche, trad. Bindungen, transparente Machtverhältnisse usw), verhält es sich in der warenproduzierenden Gesellschaft umgekehrt. Kapitalismus ist die Beherrschung der Menschen durch ihre Arbeit (Marx), bis in ihre subjektive Weltsicht hinein.

Kapital ist nicht Privateigentum, sondern eine Organisationsform der Arbeit zum Zwecke der Steigerung ihrer Produktivkraft. Bei einer einfachen Kooperation wär der kapitalistische Charakter dem Produktionsprozess äußerlich und die Abschaffung des Kapitalismus könnte noch als Aufhebung des Privateigentums gedacht werden. Mit der Manufaktur (16-18 Jh.) wurde das Gebot, unter gesell. Durchschnitts-Arbeitszeiten zu produzieren, nicht mehr nur durch die Konkurrenz aufgezwungen, es wurde zum technischen Gesetz des Produktionsprozesses selbst: Kleinteilige Zergliederung handwerklicher Arbeit, Fesselung an vereinfachte, einzelne, repetitive, geringer entlohnbare Aufgaben, eng verzahnt und koordiniert zu einem produktiveren "Gesamtarbeiter", der mehr ist als die Summe der (weiterhin einzeln bezahlten) Teile. Despotie, Hierarchie, Effizienz. Die Vereinseitigung der Fähigkeiten erzwingt den Verkauf der Arbeitskraft auch nicht mehr nur aus Mangel an Produktionsmitteln.

Die auf Planung beruhende Werkstatt ist kein nicht-kapitalistischer Aspekt der modernen Gesellschaft, den man positiv der "Anarchie der Märkte" entgegensetzen müsste. Marx kritisierte Adam Smith, nicht zw. Arbeitsteilung innerhalb von Gesellschaften & innerhalb von Werkstätten unterschieden zu haben, da letztere spezifisch für den Kapitalismus ist. Die "Anarchie der Gesellschaft und die Despotie der manufakturmäßigen Arbeitsteilung" bedingen einander im Kapitalismus. Marx kritisiert Distribution und geplante Produktionsstruktur: Eine Ausweitung der Planung auf die Gesellschaft entspräche der vollständigen Unterordnung des Arbeiters unters Kapital.

Industrieproduktion kann nicht unverändert als Grundlage des Sozialismus dienen, da sie materialisierte Form der kapitalist. Produktivkräfte & Verhältnisse ist. Kapital beruht letztlich auf proletarischer Arbeit, daher kann die Aufhebung des Kapitals nicht auf der Selbstbehauptung des Proletariats basieren. Die Abschaffung der Kapitalistenklasse (Realsozialismus) ist keine Aufhebung des Kapitals; diese würde eine Aufhebung der Wertform des Mehrprodukts und des Arbeitsprozesses, wie er durch das Kapital geformt wurde, erfordern.

Industrieproduktion, als modernster Ausdruck des spezifischen Drangs des Kapitals zu ständig steigenden Produtionsniveaus, fragmentiert, spezialisiert und verblödet noch stärker als die Manufaktur. Menschen werden zu Anhängseln von Maschinensystemen & Prozessen, die auf externem bzw. gesellschaftlich weiterentwickeltem wissenschaftlichen, technischen und organisatorischen Wissen basieren.. Die Rücksicht auf frühere arbeiterzentrierte Prinzipien entfällt, Maschinen ersetzen erfahrungsmäßige Routine und das Detailgeschick des Arbeiters, sie sind im Gegensatz zu Tieren voll kontrollierbar und haben keine biologischen Grenzen, Maschinen erzeugen statt Arbeits- nur Einsatzkosten.

D.h., unter den Bedingungen der großen Industrie sind die gesellschaftlichen Produktivkräfte der konkreten Arbeit, die durch das Kapital angeeignet werden, nicht mehr länger die Produktivkräfte der unmittelbaren Produzenten. Es handelt sich nicht um Potenzen, die den Arbeitern gehören und ihnen einfach mit Gewalt und Privateigentum genommen würden (auch wenn das ursprünglich mal bedeutsam war).

Marxens Hoffnung n. Postone: Als Prozess der Schaffung stofflichen Reichtums hört Industrieproduktion auf, notwendigerweise von unmittelbarer menschlicher Arbeit abhängig zu sein, d.h., hier öffnen sich Spielräume für "wahren" Reichtum: den Konsum von Gebrauchswerten, befriedigendere Tätigkeiten und überhaupt "disposable time".
Doch als Verwertungsprozess beruht Industrieproduktion weiterhin darauf, dass hier menschliche Arbeit verausgabt wird. Das Verhältnis zw. hohen Produktivitätsniveaus und fragmentierter, sinnentleerter Arbeit beruht im sich weiterentwickelnden Kapitalismus weniger auf technischer als auf einer spezifischen Form gesellschaftlicher Notwendigkeit. Postone bzw. Marx gibt Antwort auf diesen anachronistischen Charakter der Struktur der Arbeit und ihre fortdauernde Zentralität in der modernen Gesellschaft.


Das Buch ist etwa 600 Seiten stark und eigentlich gut lesbar, man muss es aber studieren. Auch wenn Postone meistens aufs Schwurbeln verzichtet, bleibt es doch ein wissenschaftlich-trockenes Buch, das man allerdings geduldig weiterliest, weil es viele der polit-ökonomischen und erkenntnistheoretischen Zusammenhänge in der marxschen Theorie und Debatte (für mich) erhellen und vereindeutigen konnte. Zugegeben: Die Ausführungen zur historischen Zeit als Form konkreter Zeit, die mit der abstrakten Zeit als konstante Form der Gegenwartszeit verschränkt sei, waren eher anstrengend, aber in dieser Hermetik auch die Ausnahme. Die Begründung, warum Maschinen keinen Wert erzeugen sondern nur weitergeben können, empfand ich auch bei Postone etwas apodiktisch: Die ganze Theorie würde sonst nicht stimmen. Ansonsten wird mit Postone auf gutem Niveau deutlich, was Ware, Wert, Arbeit, Reichtum, Zeit, Klasse, Kapital und Kapitalismus ist, was diese Kategorien gesell. voraussetzen, was Marxens Ziele und Überlegungen zur kapitalistischen Subjektivität und zur Möglichkeit von Kritik waren, welche Fehler im Traditionsmarxismus vorherrschen usw. Er zeigt, warum im Kapitalismus auf tiefer systemischer Ebene nicht für den Konsum produziert wird, sondern irrerweise Produktion um der Produktion willen herrscht. Auch Hegel wird nicht vergessen.

Zwei, meine Rezension ergänzende Texte aus einem Lektürekurs für dieses Buch:
- http://theoriepraxislokal.org/kdpoe/postone-plan.php
- http://theoriepraxislokal.org/kdpoe/postonebericht.php
außerdem:
- Critical Theory, Philosophy, and History.doc (Grundideen)

[Harry · Rating 4 out of 5]

For all the rigour of Postone's interrogation of the value form, labour in capitalism, and how they might relate to the wider Marxist political project - it's striking that the 'traditional Marxism' which he so stridently takes on simply does not exist.

This is not to suggest there isn't a real misreading that Postone is angry at - there is. However, there is nothing very 'traditional' about it - his main targets in discussing what counts as 'traditional' are Dobb and Sweezy, there is very little done to establish how the 'standpoint of labour' approach became the tradition (nor the question, of which one?). It all reads quite odd thirty years down the line.

Hamstrung between the, now certainly unnecessary, critique of Habermas and a mythological creature, Postone then overstretches, in pointing to his 'reinterpretation' as more expansive than it is - rather than an important restatement and exploration of Marx's work and value theory (this is particularly striking in the slippages of how 'labor' increasingly is used when 'abstract labor' would be far more appropriate). I suspect the more value theory I will read, the worse this book will fare. (This is before we begin to pull at the link to the brainworms of his other theories and their merry German followers)

[Tyler Munn]

Time, Labor, and Social Domination is simultaneously the most freeing and frightening book I've ever read. While I am deeply suspect of Postone's methodology with Grundrisse being the key to Marx’s mature critique, he presents a convincing argument for abstract social domination as the fundamental contradiction of capitalism.

I'm not sure if I can fully recommend this book. It is still very unique in the anglosphere for its engagement with value-form theory. However, it is both extremely dense and repetitive. It is also has made a huge impact on most of the debates around vft, so if you want to follow those, it's worth a read.

Ultimately, this book felt a lot like how reading existentialism leaves me. I feel empty. I don't know how to move forward, but I know I want to keep moving towards the beautiful horizon of freedom Postone outlines.

[Sam Whitehill · Rating 4 out of 5]

Postone’s fundamental reformulation of Marx argues that capitalism is a form of impersonal domination reproduced by- as well as over- labor. Simply overthrowing the owning class and abolishing the market won’t undo the most fundamental processes of capital domination, such as the rule of value based on the commodity form. The proletariat is not a revolutionary agent and industrialism is at the core of capitalist production: both must be transcended.

At times it felt like this book was rehashing old Marxist tenets ad nauseum, but at others it reminded me of wildly unorthodox theorists like Jacques Camatte (especially the focus on impersonal domination) and Andre Gorz (the rejection of proletarian revolutionary agency). I’m not sure where it takes us, but this was a very interesting read.

[Leah Montange · Rating 4 out of 5]

read sections two and three. lots to think about.

[Andrew Liu · Rating 5 out of 5]

I bet I will read it many times.

[Neal Spadafora · Rating 5 out of 5]

This book solidified Postone's status as one the 21st century's preeminent critical theorist of capitalism. I'll post a longer review at another time.

[Max LoMonaco · Rating 5 out of 5]

incredibly illuminating and insightful

[aerialxav · Rating 5 out of 5]

Essential for anyone interested in Marx!!!! This is so good.

[Tannishka Singh · Rating 4 out of 5]

While the book is worth reading, Postone has nothing to offer regarding praxis or what Althusser calls political practice since for Postone all subjectivity is subsumed by the single subject capital, which replaces the Hegelian absolute idea, and thus Postone ends up doing away with class struggle, the single greatest theoretical achievement of Marx. This is surprising since Postone claims to have read the Grundrisse closely in numerous interviews and in this book as well, and surprising because his thesis about capital being the subject of history à la the Hegelian selfsame substance become subject would have been refuted in the introduction to Grundrisse itself in the paragraph which Althusser has referred to in his For Marx collection of essays, in which Marx criticises Hegel and Say's law:

" Thereupon, nothing simpler for a Hegelian than to posit production and consumption as identical. And this has been done not only by socialist belletrists but by prosaic economists themselves, e.g. Say; [16] in the form that when one looks at an entire people, its production is its consumption. Or, indeed, at humanity in the abstract. Storch [17] demonstrated Say’s error, namely that e.g. a people does not consume its entire product, but also creates means of production, etc., fixed capital, etc. To regard society as one single subject is, in addition, to look at it wrongly; speculatively. With a single subject, production and consumption appear as moments of a single act. The important thing to emphasize here is only that, whether production and consumption are viewed as the activity of one or of many individuals, they appear in any case as moments of one process, in which production is the real point of departure and hence also the predominant moment. Consumption as urgency, as need, is itself an intrinsic moment of productive activity. But the latter is the point of departure for realization and hence also its predominant moment; it is the act through which the whole process again runs its course. The individual produces an object and, by consuming it, returns to himself, but returns as a productive and self-reproducing individual. Consumption thus appears as a moment of production.

In society, however, the producer’s relation to the product, once the latter is finished, is an external one, and its return to the subject depends on his relations to other individuals. He does not come into possession of it directly. Nor is its immediate appropriation his purpose when he produces in society. Distribution steps between the producers and the products, hence between production and consumption, to determine in accordance with social laws what the producer’s share will be in the world of products."

https://www.marxists.org/archive/marx...

Postone as a result is lost in the dualism of abstract and concrete time and is unable to understand the monism of matter which is dialectical materialism since he fails to understand what Lucretius following Epicurus called the clinamen which is integral to the materialist dialectic.

On a side note Postone also goes wrong about how value is produced in Marxian theory since he fails to understand the distinction between raising productivity of labour to extract relative surplus value and raising intensity of labour to extract absolute surplus value.

[Jack · Rating 5 out of 5]

D&G's Anti-Oedipus, this book, and Nitzan/Bichler's Capital as Power are the holy trinity when it comes to critiques of Marxian political economy written since the emergence of our new, post-Fordist world-system.

Unspeakably good (though Postone really knows how to beat around the bush). Read it now.

Will update review after my second read.

[Chris · Rating 5 out of 5]

One of the essential works on Marx and an essential effort toward reclaiming a humanist Marxism. Reading TLSD is an exhilarating intellectual experience that nonetheless cannot capture the endlessly rewarding experience of Moishe Postone's teaching.

[Jeri McIntosh]

Head exploded

[Jeremy Hurdis · Rating 5 out of 5]

An invaluable addendum to Marxism emphasizing the historical specificity of capitalism and its peculiar mode of production.A very abstract interpretation of Marx's analysis of capital.

[Joshua · Rating 5 out of 5]

Absolutely amazing, groundbreaking, earth-shattering update of critical theory.

[Frank · Rating 4 out of 5]

Auf Deutsch natürlich! ;-) Postone ist ein kluger Mann. Viele Einsichten zum Zeitproblem im Kapitalismus.