Historical Materialism and Capital Daniel Little

ABSTRACT. It is commonly supposed that Marx's Capital is part and parcel of his theory of historical materialism. It is argued here, however, that this view is incorrect, and that Capital is distinguished from the more general theory of historical materialism in its standing as a work of social science. This conclusion rests on several grounds. First, Capital is substantially more specialized than the theory of historical materialism, since it is concerned only with one aspect of one mode of production. As a result, Capital provides a more rigorous treatment of its subject matter. Second, Capital is based on a fund of empirical evidence which is substantially more detailed than that offered in support of the theses of historical materialism. And third, given the preceding points, Capital is a developed empirical theory, whereas historical materialism is best construed as a general program of research. For these reasons Capital is epistemically distinct from historical materialism: unlike the latter, it is a substantive contribution to social science.

Marx's theory of historical materialism has received substantial attention in recent years.1 The question of the relation between historical materialism and Capi- tal, however, has not been sufficiently discussed. Most writers tend to presuppose what may be called the 'subsumption theory'. This view holds that historical materialism is a general theory of history, and that Capital is the specialized application of that theory to capitalist society. According to this position, Capital is entirely contained within the framework of histori- cal materialism, in that its concepts, methods, and research goals are defined by the earlier work. Capital is the application of these ideas to the particular fea- tures of capitalist society.

This 'subsumption theory' is shared by a wide range of commentators on Marx. Thus Nicos Poulantzas writes that

historical materialism maintains a general theory defining the concepts which command its whole field of investigation (the concepts of mode of production, of social formation, of real appropriation and property, of combination, ideology, politics, conjuncture and transition) . . . . Historical materialism also in- cludes particular theories (theories of the slave, feudal, capitalist and other modes of production). 2

And, according to Poulantzas, Capital is just such a

specialized theory. In a similar vein I. I. Rubin writes that

there is a tight conceptual relationship between Marx's economic theory and his ... theory of historical materialism . . . . Theoretical political economy deals with a definite social-economic forma- tion, specifically with commodity-capitalist economy . . . . Marx's theory of historical materialism and his economic theory revolve around one and the same basic problem: the relationship be- tween productive forces and production relations . . . . By applying this general methodological approach to commodity-capitalist society we obtain Marx's economic theory. 3

And Maurice Godelier describes Capital in similar terms:

The method of Capital is formed on the basis of the philosophi- cal assumption of materialism. This philosophy is enveloped in the heart of the theory which it has made it possible to develop. Capital therefore presupposes the critical movement that led Marx to dialectical idealism and then to materialism through the 1844 Manuscripts, The German Ideology, etc. 4

The subsumption theory has an equally strong hold on Anglo-American commentators on Marx. Thus John McMurtry assimilates historical materialism and Capital by suggesting that both investigations are con- cerned with uncovering the 'laws of motion' of various modes of production:

In the case of capitalism, these 'laws of motion" are identified in extended detail; ... unlike his analysis of the "motion' of other economic structures, [Marx] formalizes and schematizes this whole process . . . . With the particular economic structure of capi- talism, in short, the 'laws of motion' governing the ruling-class pattern of production relations constitute a massive theoretical system .5

Here the difference between historical material ism and Capital is a matter o f degree o f detail - not a dif- ference in method or scope. G. A. Cohen appears to presuppose the subsumpt ion v iew as well . He regards historical material ism as a general theory o f history: "We may attribute to Marx . . . not only a philosophy of history, but also what deserves to be called a theory of

Topoi 5 (1986), 187-196. �9 1986 by D. Reidel Publishing Company.

188 DANIEL LITTLE

history". 6 And his free use of Capital in developing his reading of Marx's theory of history implies that he regards Capital as part of that theory. 7 This reliance on Capital suggests that Cohen believes there is no sharp distinction between historical materialism and Marx's Economics; rather, Capital is one of the chief works in which Marx's theory of history is worked out and applied.

In spite of widespread agreement on the subsump- tion theory, this view misses the mark. In what fol- lows, I will hold that Capital is substantially distinct from historical materialism, and that the subsumption theory conceals important differences of scope and rigor between these areas of Marx's thought. This point depends upon several grounds. First, the scope of Capital is substantially narrower than that of his- torical materialism. Capital is a limited and special- ized study of the capitalist society. It is only concerned with the capitalist economic structure (not its political, cultural, or ideological aspects). As a result Capital is not committed to many of the most interesting but controversial claims of historical materialism - e.g. that the economic structure determines politics or ideology. Second, Marx uses empirical evidence in Capital much more extensively and rigorously than he does in his chief writings on historical materialism. And finally, the two areas of Marx's thought differ in their standing as works of science. Historical material- ism is a general set of ideas which make up at most a program of research, whereas Capital is a specific and developed empirical theory.

The chief harm in the subsumption theory is that it tends to obscure the scientific merits of Marx's eco- nomic analysis by assimilating it to the less rigorous hypotheses of historical materialism. Capital goes significantly beyond Marx's earlier achievements in its standing as a work of social science. By insisting on the important distinctions which exist between these two areas of Marx's thought, it will be possible to evaluate each on its own merits. 8

Before turning to the arguments needed to establish these conclusions, it must be acknowledged that there is an important ancestral relation between historical materialism and Capital Historical materialism pro- vided the general problem of research for Marx's Economics (to work out the essential features of the economic structure of capitalism). Historical material- ism maintained that a rigorous analysis of the eco- nomic structure of society was needed in order to

explain other social phenomena, and Capital was intended to provide that analysis. 9 Further, historical materialism provided some of the general concepts in terms of which Marx defined his project (economic structure, production relations, mode of production, class, property, and the historicity of social relations). These concepts function as a general 'metaphysic' or background ontology in Capital, and they led Marx to define his investigation substantially differently from the classical political economists, l~ Finally, Marx took much of the content of historical materialism as fixed in Capital (e.g. that ideology and politics con- form to class interest), although nothing important turns on those beliefs. Historical materialism is there- fore important to understanding the research goals and presuppositions which Marx brings to his Economics. But once having established the importance of research into the economic structure, historical materialism is largely silent on the substantive and methodological problems of conducting that investi- gation.

A second qualification must be made as well. In rejecting the subsumption theory, I do not hold that Capital overturns the major findings of historical materialism, or that there are major inconsistencies between the two areas of Marx's thought. Rather, I hold only that Capital is a substantial advance beyond historical materialism: it uses different methods and concepts to investigate more specialized questions, and it is not committed to most of the substantial claims of historical materialism. It therefore cannot be subsumed under the theory contained in the chief writings of historical materialism.l i

Scope and limits of Capital

Let us first consider differences in the scope of the two investigations. Historical materialism is a general hypothesis about the dynamics of social change and organization in all societies. It maintains that facts about the economic structure and technology - the 'material foundation' - of any society are fundamental to explanations of non-economic institutions. The specific character of the forces and relations of produc- tion found within a given society, and the relations of contradiction which eventually develop between them, are said to impose a logic upon the non- economic institutions of the society. The result of this

HISTORICAL MATERIALISM AND 'CAPITAL' 189

postulated primacy for economic factors is that his- torical explanation must be founded on analysis of these forces and relations of production. Historical materialism is thus a theory which is general in two respects: it is a theory of many different modes of production, and for each mode of production, it is a theory of the full social system - not merely the eco- nomic structure of the system.12

By contrast, Marx's research in Capital is doubly restricted. Capital is only concerned with one mode of production, and within that mode it is only concerned with the logic of the economic structure, not the whole of capitalist society. His aim in Capital was to uncover the "economic law of motion of modern society") 3 These 'laws of motion' were the long-term tendencies of development observable within the capitalist economy. They included the falling tendency in the rate of profit, the recurring crises of capitalism, the creation of an industrial reserve army, concentration and centralization of production, continuing class separation within capitalist society, and so forth. Marx regarded these as empirically observable tendencies, and he sought to provide an abstract model of the economic structure of capitalism which would ac- count for them.

Thus Marx's research problem in Capital is quite narrow: to investigate the economic logic created by the economic structure of capitalism. Capitalist socie- ty has many different aspects: cultural, ideological, political, etc. Marx's purpose in Capital was a limited one: to discover the laws of the capitalist economy, and to provide an account of the logic of the economic institutions which underlay it. For in the same pas- sages in which Marx spoke of the 'laws of motion' of capitalist society, he emphasized that these were to be economic laws of motion. In posing this problem of research, Marx thus put aside the problem of capitalist society in general in order to focus on the economic system. Thus - unlike historical materialism - Capital is not intended to offer a complete theory of capitalist society as a whole.

The limits which Marx imposed on the scope of his account are apparent both in his express declarations about his purposes and in the content of Capital itself. Throughout his many plans of research from the 1850's onward Marx consistently described his Eco- nomics as merely the first installment of a more exten- sive analysis of capitalist society. The Economics was to focus on the economic institutions of capitalism,

while a later volume was to consider the political characteristics of capitalist society) 4 And whenever Marx described his purposes within Capital, he did so in a way which reflects this definition of subject matter: "What I have to examine in this work is the capitalist mode of production, and the relations of production and forms of intercourse that correspond to it". "It is the ultimate aim of this work to reveal the economic law of motion of modern society." "My standpoint [is one] from which the development of the economic formation of society is viewed as a process of natural history." 15

A survey of the main concerns of Capital confirms this view. Marx's research problems derive from clas- sical political economy, not primarily from the chief writings of historical materialism. What causes chron- ic unemployment? What leads capitalist industry to technological innovation? What factors influence the longterm behavior of the rate of profit? What is the source of profit, interest, and rent? These problems make use of the specialized conceptual scheme of poli- tical economy (value, price, profit, accumulation, etc.), rather than the more general concepts of histori- cal materialism (class, ideology, mode of production). These questions are comparatively narrow in scope, and specific enough to admit of scientific treatment.

Further, the scientific content of Capital is largely independent of the chief concerns of historical materi- alism - the theories of politics and ideology. Marx does not provide any extensive discussion of these areas in Capital, and his economic arguments rarely turn on substantive assumptions about ideology and politics. In 'The Working Day' Marx refers to the political power of the working class and discusses the Factory Acts, and in 'Primitive Accumulation' he dis- cusses the Enclosure Acts) 6 But neither context repre- sents a substantive contribution to political theory - nor was it Marx's intention to do so. Furthermore, though Marx no doubt believed that the capitalist economy required various forms of support and inter- vention by the state in order to function smoothly, he did not take it upon himself to offer a rigorous or extensive analysis of the ways in which state power might be marshalled by the possessing classes in defense of their interests.

Marx's discussion of ideology in Capital is equally unsystematic. In Chapter One he discusses the 'fetish- ism of commodities', and offers an account of the origins of certain pervasive misconceptions held by

190 D A N I E L L I T T L E

the participants in a capitalist economy. But these comments function as suggestive asides rather than sustained analysis; and they are theoretically super- fluous, in that they do not serve as the basis for other arguments elsewhere in Capital. Moreover, the view of social consciousness advanced here is to some degree inconsistent with the theory of ideology put forward in the German Ideology and the Communist Manifesto, since it does not emphasize the linkage between class power and consciousness which charac- terizes the latter works. Elsewhere in Capital Marx speaks of the ideology of exchange ("the very Eden of the innate rights of man"L7), and of the influence of ideology on scientific political economy; 18 but here again his remarks are unsystematic and familiar. There is little progress here over similar assertions in the German Ideology or the Communist Manifesto.

These points show that Marx did not devote signifi- cant attention to the problems of politics and ideology in his research in Capital Capital does not put for- ward developed theories of politics or ideology in any detail; and its central arguments do not depend upon assumptions about politics or ideology derived from the theory of historical materialism more generally. Moreover, it was reasonable for Marx to disregard these areas. This is not because an economic theory of capitalism suffices to replace all other investigations, but rather because scientific research depends upon limiting the scope of investigation. Thus it was open to Marx to hold that capitalist society depends upon ir- reducible elements of non-economic structure (e.g. political institutions), and even that the economic structure itself requires these institutions (e.g. in the form of legal guarantees of property rights), but still to confine his attention to the strictly economic process of the system. Marx properly chose to leave non- economic phenomena to other specialists working within the general framework of historical material- ism.

Thus the contents of Capital bear out the claim that the scope of that work is strictly limited. Marx was not considering capitalism as a whole, but rather its economic structure in isolation from non-economic institutions. Having identified the economic structure as being explanatorily primary, he turned away from the full generality of historical materialism to a more specialized discipline - political economy. In sum, Capital is a detailed analysis of the economic structure of capitalism and the dynamic of development which

that structure imposes on the economic system. It is strictly limited in scope and is largely independent of the more general claims of historical materialism. Capital therefore has at least this feature in common with paradigm works of science: it offers a specialized but limited analysis of a carefully bounded range of phenomena.

Evidence in Capital

Let us now consider a second important difference between historical materialism and Capital'. Marx's use of empirical evidence. Historical materialism postulates the need for empirical investigation -

the premises from which we begin are not arbitrary ones, not dogmas, but real premises from which abstraction can only be made in the imagination... These premises can thus be verified in a purely empirical way. 19

Paradoxically, however, the chief texts in which his- torical materialism is developed do not contain exten- sive empirical detail. 2~ Neither the German Ideology nor the Communist Manifesto provides an exemplary model Of empirical or historical investigation. These works touch lightly on the history of European socie- ty, bur what emerges is an interpretive overview rather than a careful historical analysis grounded on empiri- cal evidence. Consider, for example, Marx and Engels' survey of the series of property forms found in European history. This discussion outlines a model of analysis: that social formations may be distinguished on the basis of the form of ownership which they embody; and it illustrates that model with a sketchy discussion of ancient communal property, classical slavery, and feudal property. But Marx and Engels do not consider the historical evidence in the quantity and precision which would be necessary to give their account standing as a serious historical treatment. 2

By contrast, Marx's study of capitalism was based on a rigorous treatment of available empirical evidence. :~ Marx uses historical and empirical matter in a variety of ways in Capital: as examples of theoret- ical points, as documentation of notably egregious fea- tures of capitalism, as support for particular theoret- ical assertions, and as a means of evaluating the truth of an abstract theory. Thus Marx's empirical reason- ing is more complex than simple models of confirma- tion would suggest. But it is unmistakable that Marx was seriously committed to an empirical evaluation of

H I S T O R I C A L M A T E R I A L I S M A N D ' C A P I T A L ' 191

his theory of capitalism. Marx's theoretical research was constantly informed by wide reading in the eco- nomic history of capitalism, the contemporary behav- ior of English capitalism (e.g. fluctuations in prices, swings in the business cycle, and so forth), and the social conditions current within English capitalism (e.g. the Blue Books, newspaper accounts of condi- tions of life in the cities, etc.). 23 Marx's abstract analysis of the capitalist mode of production thus rested upon an integration of evidence drawn from the history of Europe, sociological descriptions of present social conditions, and accounts of its present organiza- tion drawn from political economy.

The contents of Capital reflect this disciplined attention to empirical evidence. Chapter 25 of Capital ('The general law of capitalist accumulation') offers a fair example of Marx's use of empirical data. Here Marx works out some of the chief implications of the theory of capital for the observable behavior of the capitalist economy - particularly the tendency to- wards a permanent 'surplus population' within the work force (the industrial reserve army) and the ten- dencies towards concentration and centralization. He then uses the available economic statistics on the English economy to argue for the correctness of the theoretical analysis. 24 Later volumes of Capital show a similar practice; in Volume Two Marx discusses the logic of reproduction and then considers available statistical data in support of his analysis; and in Volume Three he offers a theoretical analysis of the dynamic tendencies of the rate of profit, and evaluates this analysis in terms of the actual behavior of the rate of profit. 25 In each case we find a disciplined effort to make use of available empirical and statistical evi- dence to evaluate the theoretical principles.

This impression is further confirmed by a survey of the forms of evidence which are marshalled in Capital. First, Marx made substantial use of historical informa- tion concerning the development of modern capital- ism: its emergence from feudalism, its tendencies towards mechanization and concentration, its tenden- cy to expansion, its consequences for the working class, and the like. Here evidence is available both concerning the historical development of capitalism and its modern characteristics of organization. Marx paid special attention to the transformation of agricul- ture from small holdings to more rational large scale holdings and its consequent effect of dispossessing the peasantry. 26 He also attended to the development of

capitalist production through its successive stages: handicraft industry transformed into manufacture, manufacture transformed into factory, and factory evolving into a mature industrial system. 27

Second, Marx relied on knowledge about capital- ism based on ordinary first-hand acquaintance. Capi- talism is plainly a system based on economic rationali- ty, production for profit, competitive markets, wage labor, and a division of classes over the ownership of private property. It is a system which must reproduce itself over time; it is a system of production for exchange; commodities exchange at publicly known and relatively stable ratios; it is a wage system; money is used to represent these exchange ratios; interest is paid on borrowed money at a publicly known rate; capital receives a publicly known rate of profit; rent, profit, and interest are related insofar as all represent the return on the investment of wealth; wages, prices, profit rates, and employment levels vary over time; and so on almost indefinitely. These claims all reflect beliefs we reasonably hold through our ordinary acquaintance with capitalism. 28

Third, Marx made use of specialized sources of in- formation concerning contemporary capitalism. Ex- tensive sources in political economy and social description provided Marx with a good deal of factual information concerning the current structure of the CMP. The classical political economists provided an analysis of the underlying structure of the capitalist mode of production - its reliance on wage labor, its economic rationality and orientation to profit, its in- dustrial organization, its basic process of clarification of classes into workers and owners, and so forth. The phenomena of capitalism are presented in great detail in the literature of classical political economy, and it was possible for Marx to use these materials in order to evaluate his analysis of the capitalist economic s t r u c t u r e . 29

Finally, Marx made extensive use of descriptive materials ranging from newspaper account to Factory Inspectors' Reports and official Blue Books describing conditions within English industry. These sources were important for filling in the contemporary condi- tion of the social system under capitalism. They al- lowed Marx to complement his historical perspective on the development of capitalism with a detailed view of its present condition. 3~

These historical and empirical sources of evidence gave Marx an empirical basis for evaluating his ac-

192 DANIEL LITTLE

count of the capitalist mode of production. Marx's intensive theoretical analysis was thus tempered by ongoing attention to empirical data, and by genuine commitment to empirical controls on the finished theory. He recognized that the ultimate criterion of success of his theory was the degree to which it was supported by the available empirical data concerning the capitalist economy, and he made rigorous use of a wide range of this empirical data. Marx's use of evi- dence in Capital thus stands in sharp contrast to that in The German Ideology." Capital represents the sort of detailed and rigorous consideration of empirical data which scientific inquiry demands, whereas the Ger- man Ideology does not.

These arguments establish that Marx makes sub- stantial and rigorous use of empirical data in Capital. I do not maintain, however, that Marx's use of evidence is identical with that used in the natural sciences to confirm abstract theories. In particular, I do not believe that Marx's system may be empirically evalu- ated through the longterm predictions to which it gives rise. Marx's system does indeed have implica- tions for the longterm development of capitalism - both the 'laws of motion' Marx himself emphasized and tendencies which others have derived using Marx's model. But these predictions do not function as the primary source of empirical evaluation for Marx's account. For Marx's predictions are deliberately loose in a way which makes them unsuited for justification. Marx speaks of 'laws of tendency' rather than strict regularities, with the result that his position is con- sistent both with the occurrence and the non- occurrence of the predicted outcome. Predictions of this sort take a conditional form: I f other factors do not intrude, then these tendencies will emerge. But of course other factors generally will intrude; so the truth or falsity of the predictions is of little value for testing the truth of the theory.

Instead, Marx's analysis can be evaluated directly in its several parts, rather than through the implica- tions of his account as a whole. For Marx's analysis of capitalism is not similar to the theories of natural science in a crucial respect: its primary assumptions and hypotheses can be empirically investigated to a large degree independently from one another. On this ac- count (which cannot be developed in detail in this context) the scientific standing of Capital depends upon the empirical adequacy of the independent premises of Marx's abstract analysis of capitalism, and

the rigor of his reasoning from these features to their implications for the workings of capitalist society. This suggests an epistemology for social science which turns the naturalistic model of justification on its head. Rather than evaluating a theory on the basis of its predictions, we evaluate the cogency of the predictions of the theory on the basis of ( l ) the justifi- cation available for the initial hypotheses, and (2) the rigor of the argument establishing these tendencies.

Historical materialism as a program of research

A final important difference between historical mate- rialism and Capital has to do with the standing of each as a work of science. Marx describes Capital as a scientific investigation of the capitalist mode of pro- duction, and suitably qualified, this is a defensible claim. By contrast, his theory of history is not a rigorous scientific hypothesis. It is too unspecific and undeveloped to count as such. Instead, historical materialism is a general program of research for his- tory and social science. It provides a hypothesis about the process of historical change generally: that the eco- nomic structure 'determines' non-economic structure. And it embraces a variety of more specific hypotheses as well - theories of class, politics, ideology, religion, etc. But none of these is a theory in the full sense rele- vant to science, and consequently, Marx does not have a scientific theory of history at all. 31

Instead, historical materialism is a family of research hypotheses which may serve as the basis for more detailed empirical investigation. A research hypothesis is a notion which a scientist regards as being worth pursuing further without yet having been formulated fully enough to admit to empirical evalua- tion. Thomas Kuhn and Imre Lakatos have pointed out the centrality of such ideas in scientific research; 32 they include such examples as Benjamin Franklin's notion that 'electricity is a fluid', the eighteenth centu- ry physicist's notion that 'light is a wave', and Marx's notion that 'history is a history of class struggle'. Each of these notions represents a fruitful beginning for empirical and theoretical research; each provides an initial hypothesis in terms of which to organize and analyze empirical data. Ideas at this level are of un- deniable importance to the conduct of science, but they are not full-fledged theories. They are not elabo- rated in sufficient detail to constitute an explanation,

H I S T O R I C A L M A T E R I A L I S M A N D ' C A P I T A L ' 193

and they are not precise enough to have definite empirical consequences. They represent the begin- nings of scientific knowledge rather than its endpoint.

The theses of historical materialism are just such research hypotheses. Historical materialism offers a general hypothesis about the causes of large-scale social change, and it invites the social scientist to direct his research in lines suggested by that hypo- thesis. This function of historical materialism is scien- tifically important, but it is not the same as that which a fully developed scientific theory fulfills. In particu- lar, historical materialism cannot be said to have defi- nite empirical content until more specific research has been completed under its direction.

It may be noted that this interpretation of historical materialism disagrees with G. A. Cohen's treatment in Karl Marx's Theory of History, since Cohen maintains that Marx's theory of history is a scientific theory. Little turns on the terminological point; there is nothing wrong with continuing to refer to Marx's 'theory' of history if one chooses to. However, it is important to recognize clearly the wide scope and low precision which attach to these ideas, and the substan- tial distance which exists in these regards between his- torical materialism and Capital.

Let us first consider the general statement of histori- cal materialism contained in the Preface to A Con- tribution to A Critique of PoliticaI Economy:

The totality of these relations of production constitutes the eco- nomic structure of society, the real foundation, on which arises a legal and political superstructure and to which correspond defi- nite forms of social consciousness. 33

Here Marx expresses the view that the economic struc- ture 'determines' the superstructure. This thesis is a sparse assertion of explanatory priority for one level of social structure over another. But it is undeveloped; it does not represent the sort of detailed and fully articu- lated analysis which a scientific work must embody. It is too abstract to admit of direct empirical application, and too general and unspecific to be evaluated through its consequences. Rather, it represents a general back- ground view in the context of which the social scientist may formulate more specific hypotheses. This thesis thus functions as a highly general assumption defining a program of research rather than as a scientific asser- tion based on rigorous analysis and evidence. 34

Historical materialism also contains several more specific theoretical premises: in particular, theories of

ideology and politics. These theories are presented in The German Ideology, The Communist Manifesto, and other writings of this period. They amount to propositions of this sort: The modern state is the managing committee of the bourgeoisie. 3s The state serves the function of preserving the interests of the propertied class. 36 The state's form and policies are determined by the economic structure of society. 37 The system of ideology functions to preserve existing class and property institutions. 38 But these too are research hypotheses rather than specific empirical theories. They function as heuristic suggestions for further research by offering simple, suggestive hypo- theses about the nature of the state and the ideological system. But they do not have the precision or empiri- cal detail which is characteristic of full scientific theories.

Thus judgment rests upon several grounds. First, these hypotheses are not formulated precisely enough to permit rigorous application to social phenomena. The distinctions and qualifications which characterize a full scientific analysis of a range of phenomena are altogether lacking here. What phenomena are to count as political? What aspects of the state are thought to be determined by the economic structure? Through what mechanisms is the economy thought to exert primacy over the state or ideology? What particular features of the class structure are relevant to the explanation of non-economic phenomena? In what ways might ideology affect the economic structure - e.g. religion in Weber's treatment of capitalism? It is left to the inves- tigator to answer these questions; the theory of histori- cal materialism itself is compatible with a wide variety of alternative formulations. This lack of precision is no great defect for the initial statements of a program of research, which is indeed the function they serve for Marx; but it is a disqualifying defect for a full scientific theory.

Second, these propositions do not have determinate empirical consequences as they stand. Fuller interpre- tations must be provided before these propositions give rise to empirical consequences. What are we to make of the obvious exceptions and anomalies which confront these hypotheses? This is the kernel of truth in Popper's accusation of unfalsifiability: 39 the Marx- ian theory of the state is either false if interpreted literally and crudely, since states do not always act in the interest of the economic elite; or else it is com- patible with every possible social state of affairs, since

194 DANIEL LITTLE

different interpretations of the principle will be com- patible with any imaginable outcome. When Popper charges that Marx's system is unfalsifiable, he general- ly refers to the theories of history, ideology, and politics. These portions of Marx's thought are more akin to interpretive schemes which may be applied to all social phenomena. Popper's error is in not recog- nizing that other aspects of Marx's program do not have this feature. 4~

Finally, precisely because of the previous facts, these propositions are not explanatory. Genuine scientific explanation requires both a hypothesis pro- posing a possible mechanism and adherence to rigor- ous standards of empirical evidence and technical detail. One cannot explain the French Revolution by merely asserting that the rising bourgeoisie needed a state form more sympathetic to its interests; a fuller articulation of the explanatory model and its relation to the given historical record is needed.

Thus it appears that the primary hypotheses which make up historical materialism are not empirical theories at all, but rather portions of a program of his- torical research. They require substantially greater articulation before they may count as scientific. 41 By contrast, the previous two sections provide grounds for concluding that Capital is a scientific work. It offers a theory which is addressed to a narrowly de- fined body of phenomena (the economic characteris- tics of capitalism); that theory is formulated in detail; the theory has definite consequences for the organiza- tion and development of the capitalist economy; and Marx makes concerted efforts to evaluate that theory in terms of available empirical evidence. Thus Capital possesses the limits on scope, the rigor, and the detail which we demand of scientific theories.

Limits of historical materialism as a methodology

This view of historical materialism treats it as a por- tion of a research program - part of a method of inves- tigation. But even this conclusion requires qualifica- tion. For even as a methodology, historical material- ism is only of limited use to Marx's research in Capi- tal. This limitation is inherent in the definition of historical materialism, since its chief methodological import amounts to the dictum, 'seek out the economic structure'. But precisely because this injunction takes the economic structure as being explanatorily funda-

mental, historical materialism does not offer the basis for an analysis of the constituent parts of the econom- ic structure itself. Historical materialism is concerned with the relations between the economic structure and the superstructure, whereas Capital is concerned with the internal logic of the economic structure. In order to provide such an analysis, it is necessary to formu- late a more fine-grained method and theory than his- torical materialism can provide.

Significantly enough, Marx's methodological development did not stop with his writings of the late 1840 (the peak of his thinking on historical material- ism). The Introduction to the Grundrisse, Theories of Surplus Value, and portions of Capital further develop Marx's conception of scientific method. The method which emerges from these works is firmly within the general perspective of historical material- ism, but it offers more specific direction in providing an explanation of the organization and development of the economic structure of society. This theory of science consists of a conception of the nature of sci- entific explanation, a developed view of the form of abstraction appropriate to social science, and a developed appreciation of the role of evidence in evaluating scientific claims. 42 Thus Marx went signifi- cantly beyond historical materialism by constructing a methodology for social science which guided his eco- nomic research.

Conclusion

Both historical materialism and Capital are major contributions, and there are plain connections be- tween them. However, it must be emphasized that they are distinct systems of thought. Historical materialism is not a full-fledged work of science. It is a fruitful program of research which suggests a model of explanation applicable to a wide variety of different historical phenomena, but it is not a developed empir- ical hypothesis. By contrast, Capital is specific and detailed in ways in which historical materialism is not; it limits its claims much more narrowly than does his- torical materialism; and it makes use of evidence in a more extensive and disciplined way, Capital thus goes beyond historical materialism by providing an empiri- cally specific account of the capitalist economic struc- ture which is a clear contribution to social science.

H I S T O R I C A L M A T E R I A L I S M A N D ' C A P I T A L ' 195

Notes

i Noteworthy recent contributions include G.A. Cohen's Karl Marx's Theory of History: A Defence (Princeton, 1978), William Shaw's Marx's Theory of History (Stanford, 1978), John McMurtry's The Structure of Marx's WorM- View (Princeton, 1978), and Terrell Carver's Marx'~ Social Theory (Oxford, 1982). An extensive journal literature has developed on historical materialism as well; useful collections include Marshall Cohen (ed.), Marx, Justice, and History (Princeton, 1980) and John Mepham and D. H. Ruben (eds.), Issues in Marxist Philosophy (Humanities, 1979) (four volumes). 2 Nicos Poulantzas, Political Power and Social Classes (Humani- ties, 1975), p. 12. 3 1. I. Rubin, Essays on Marx's Theory of Value (Black and Red, 1972), pp. 1,2. 4 Maurice Godelier, Rationality and Irrationality in Economics (Monthly Review, 1972), p. 198. 5 John McMurtry, The Structure of Marx'~ World- View, p. 91. 6 KarlMarx's TheoryofHistory, p. 27. 7 For example, Chapter VII of Karl Marx's Theory is an extensive account of the capitalist mode of production within Marx's theory of history which draws very heavily upon citations from Capital and Theories of Surplus Value. 8 E.P. Thompson espouses a position in The Poverty of Theory (Monthly Review, 1978) which is diametrically opposed both to the position argued here and to the subsumption theory as well. This may be called the 'deviation theory': Marx's economic research was an untoward distraction from his more fruitful work within histori- cal materialism. ( The Poverty of Theory, pp. 59, 65, 164.) 9 "My inquiry led me to the conclusion that neither legal relations nor political forms could be comprehended ... by themselves . . . . but that on the contrary they originate in the material conditions of life; ... that the anatomy of this civil society, however, has to be sought in political economy." Preface to A Contribution to A Cri- tique o]Political Economy in Karl Marx, Early' Writings (Penguin, 1974), p. 425. ~0 I am grateful to Perry Anderson for emphasizing this point to me. ii The chief writings of historical materialism include at least the German Ideology, the Communist Manijbsto, and the Preface to the Contribution to A Critique of Political Economy. 12 This formulation depends chiefly on the Preface to the Contribu- tion to A Critique of Political Economy. 13 Karl Marx, Capitall(Penguin Books, 1976), p. 90. 14 Roman Rosdolsky's The Making of Marx's Capital (Pluto Press, 1977) offers a detailed discussion of the evolution of Marx's plans of research (pp. 10-62). One such plan is found in the Preface to the Grundrisse (Penguin Books, 1973), p. 108. 15 Capital I, pp. 91,92, 93 (emphasis added). 16 Capitall, pp. 375-411,876-904. 17 Capital I, p. 280. 18 Capital l, pp. 96-98.

19 Karl Marx and Frederick Engels, The German Ideology (Interna- tional, 1970), p. 42. 2o An important exception to this remark is Marx's historical analy- sis of the political conflicts in France; these writings are detailed works of historical investigation.

21 The German Ideology, pp. 43ff. Perry Anderson's Passages from Antiquity to Feudalism (New Left Books, 1974) addresses much the same terrain, but in substantially greater detail. 22 E.J. Hobsbawm arrives at a rather similar assessment of Marx and Engels' use of evidence in his introduction to Pre-Capitalist Economic Formations (International, 1965, p. 20): "It is generally agreed that Marx and Engels' observations on pre-capitalist epochs rest on far less thorough study than Marx's description and analysis of capitalism. Marx concentrated his energies on the study of capitalism, and he dealt with the rest of history in varying degrees of detail, but mainly in so far as it bore on the origins and develop- ment of capitalism?' 23 The importance of these materials to Marx is apparent from his correspondence: "One Blue Book after another arrived while 1 was in the midst of the final elaboration, and I was delighted to find my theoretical results fully confirmed by the facts". Karl Marx and Frederick Engels, Selected Correspondence (Progress Publishers, 1975), pp. 180-81. 24 See, for example, Capitall, p. 802. 25 See Capital H (Vintage, 1981), pp. 109-229, and Capital HI (Vintage, 1981), pp. 200-234,273-30 l, 317-375. 26 Capitall, pp. 873-940. 27 Capitall, Chapters 14 and 15. 28 Two examples illustrate this point. First, Marx's discussion of the commodity in Chapter One of Capital depends heavily on ordinary knowledge about capitalism: a commodity is a thing which satisfies needs (p. 125); commodities exchange at publicly known exchange ratios (pp. 126-27); nothing has value unless it is useful (p. 129); money is the instrument in terms of which exchange value is ex- pressed (p. 139); and so on. And similarly with his discussion of pro- fit: the entrepreneur advances a sum of money with the expectation of earning a profit (p. 248); the exchange of commodities is an exchange of equivalents (p. 261); the entrepreneur purchases labor- power as a commodity (p. 272); men and women are available within capitalism who are under an incentive to sell their labor- power (p. 275); and so on. In both cases, Marx's reasoning begins with facts about the capitalist economy which are known by every participant. 29 To take only one important example, Adam Smith provides a wealth of empirical matter establishing some of the chief characteris- tics of the modern capitalist economy in A Wealth of Nations. 3o Descriptive sources which Marx uses in Capital include Frederick Eden's The State of the Poor, Frederick Engels's Condi- tions of the Working Class in England, Edouard Ducpetiaux's Bud- gets economiques des classes ouvrieres in Belgique, and Charles Babbage's On the Economy of Machinery and Manufactures. He also refers frequently to the daily press, and makes copious use of governmental reports on social and economic conditions in England. 31 Terrell Carver offers a similar interpretation of the scientific significance of historical materialism. Discussing Marx's description of historical materialism in the Preface to the Contribution to the Critique of Political Economy, he writes: "I take it that by general result and guiding thread what Marx had in mind was more like a hypothesis for research than a law on the model of the physical sciences or the social sciences". Marx's Social Theory, pp. 22-23. 32 Thomas Kuhn, The Structure of Scientific Revolutions 2nd ed.

196 D A N I E L L I T T L E

(University of Chicago, 1970); Imre Lakatos, 'The methodology of scientific research programmes', in Imre Lakatos and Alan Musgrave (eds.), Criticism and the Growth of Knowledge (Cambridge University, 1970). Larry Laudan's Progress and Its Problems (Uni- versity of California, 1977) and Harold Brown's Perception, Com- mitment, and Theory (University of Chicago, 1979) provide useful summaries of recent treatments of the framework of assumptions which guide scientific research. 33 Preface to A Contribution to A Critique of Political Economy, p. 425. 34 It should be noted that this statement of historical materialism is notoriously ambiguous. Some commentators (notably G. A. Cohen) read these passages as entailing that the forces of production are explanatorily prior to the relations of production (technological determinism); whereas others hold that the relations of production determine the rate of development of the forces of production (eco- nomic determinism). John McMurtry gives a clear presentation of the issue between these two interpretations in The Structure of Karl Marx's World-View, Chapters 7 and 8. For extensive arguments against technological determinism see Allen Wood's Karl Marx (Routledge & Kegan Paul, 1981), pp. 70if; Josh Cohen's review of Karl Marx's Theory of History (Journal of Philosophy, 1982); and Richard Miller's 'Productive forces and the forces of change' (Philosophical Review, v. xc, January 1981 ). This controversy is not centrally important for our purposes, but it might be noted that Capital seems to support economic determinism against technologi- cal determinism. It is the capitalist relations of production which lead to its explosive expansion in technology and productivity, rather than expansion in technology leading to alteration in the social relations. Gary Young argues this position effectively in 'The fundamental contradictions of capitalist production' (Philosophy and Public Affairs 5, 1976). 35 "The executive of the modern state is but a committee for managing the common affairs of the whole bourgeoisie." Karl Marx and Frederick Engels, Communist Manifesto in Karl Marx, The Revolutions of 1848: Political Writings Volume I (Penguin, 1973), p. 69. 36 "Since the State is the form in which the individuals of a ruling class assert their common interests, and in which the whole civil society of an epoch is epitomised, it follows that the State mediates in the formation of all common institutions and that the institutions receive a political form.'" The German Ideology, p. 80. 37 "The changes in the economic foundation lead sooner or later to the transformation of the whole immense [legal, political, and ideological] superstructure." Preface to A Contribution to A Critique of Political Economy, p. 426. 38 "The ideas of the ruling class are in every epoch the ruling ideas, i.e. the class which is the ruling material force of society, is at the same time its ruling intellectual force . . . . The ruling ideas are nothing more than the ideal expression of the dominant material re- lationships." The German Ideology, p. 64. 39 Karl Popper charges that many of Marx's 'theories' are unfalsifi- able: they cannot be refuted by any imaginable circumstances. These theories are therefore unscientific. Conjectures and Refutations (Harper, 1968), pp. 36ff. 4o For a treatment of Popper's charge of unfalsifiability against Capital, see D. Little, 'Countervailing tendencies and falsifiability in

Capital', in Philosophy and Phenomenological Research (Decem- ber, 1981). 41 This conclusion should not be regarded as unsympathetic to Marx's method of historical materialism. In fact, it stands in close company with the practice of distinguished Marxist historians. Albert Soboul on the French Revolution, Eugene Genovese on American slavery, and E. P. Thompson on the English working class all take the view that the work of historical explanation cannot be reduced to the articulation of a theory. Historical materialism does not function as a precise theory in their hands, but rather a source of hypotheses and a general approach to historical problems. 42 Maurice Godelier provides an extensive discussion ofCapitalas a work of social science in Rationality and Irrationality in Economics, pp. 130-161. See also D. Little, 'Abstraction and theory: Marx's method for social science' (The Southern Journal of Philosophy, Winter, 1982).

Depar tmen t o f Philosophy and Religion,

Colgate University,

Hamil ton, N Y 13346, USA.