On Materiality and Social Form: A Political Critique of Rubin's Value-Form Theory

Abstract

Th is paper critically examines I.I. Rubin's Essays on Marx's Th eory of Value and argues that two different approaches to value theory can be found in that book: a more 'production-centred' value-form theory uneasily co-exists with a 'circulationist' perspective. Th is unresolved tension, the authors claim, reflects a more general theoretical shortcoming in Rubin's work, namely, a problematic conceptualisation of the inner connection between materiality and social form that eventually leads to a formalist perspective on the value-form. Furthermore, the paper argues that all those antinomies are an expression of the historical and political context underlying Rubin's work, in which Marxism was being codified as state ideology. Th e political implications of Rubin's formalism are explored through the critical examination of its consequences for the comprehension of the social determinations of the revolutionary subjectivity of the working class. . In addition to their circulationism, these contributions also share a methodological preoccupation with the reconstruction of Marx's critique of political economy along 'systematic-dialectical' lines. However, the central substantive aspects of the approach can be found in a broader number of authors writing from rather diverse methodological traditions and which include, among others:

Capital Par Excellence: On Money as an obscure thing

“…In distinction to the concrete labour, it is an undifferentiated, homogenous labour that is characterised by the simple fact that it is expended. The proponents of a labour theory of value hold that abstract labour is the expenditure of human energy regardless of the concrete task to which it is put (Haug, 2005;Kicillof & Starosta, 2007). Those arguing for a monetary theory of value reject the physiological explanation of abstract labour as expenditure of "nerves, muscles and brain" (Marx, 1990, p. 134; for an exposition, see Bonefeld, 2010).…”

Isaak Rubin: Historian of Economic Thought During the Stalinization of Social Sciences in Soviet Russia

“…Rubin also retorted to criticism from S. Shabs, whose book Problems of Social Labor in Marx's Economic System (1928) 16 Rubin's rather lengthy chapter also contained a large discussion on abstract labor, framed as a response to criticism from Alexander Kon. In summarizing the arguments put forward in these debates, one may identify various types of criticism. Rubin was accused of deviating from historical materialism, neglecting the role of technique and material productive forces in political economy and instead emphasizing the role of social form that, for him, should be the primary object of study (see also a similar critique in Starosta and Kicillof 2007 ). This allowed his critics to stigmatize him as an idealist and anti-Marxist who praised the market and not planning; ideal abstract forms and not concrete problems of the Soviet economy; Marxist exegesis and not the "true" Leninist materialism.…”

Capital y renta diferencial de tipo II: una revisión crítica de la historia de las interpretaciones marxistas

“…Para una síntesis de las distintas posiciones existentes en la teoría marxista contemporánea respecto de la explicación marxiana de la determinación de los precios véase Moseley (2016, p. 221 y ss.). Respecto a los debates actuales en torno a la teoría marxiana del valor véase Kicillof y Starosta (2007a;2007b). trabajo. Sin embargo, en determinadas ramas de la producción, este mecanismo simple choca con la existencia de condiciones naturales específicas que afectan dicha productividad.…”