ON THE ART OF READING MARX’S CAPITAL

U kojoj je mjeri Marxovo mišljenje pojmovno i analitički relevantno za sustavno razumijevanje modernog društva predmet je teorijskog dijaloga u kojemu su sudjelovali mnogi, među njima i vrhunski istraživači. U ovom se prilogu prikazuje teorijsko kritičko sučeljavanje Daga Strpića, u članku “Tržišna ili robna formacija/proizvodnja društva?” (treće djelomično preoblikovano poglavlje njegove knjige Karl Marx i politička ekonomija Moderne), s filozofijskim projektom rekonstrukcije Marxove znanosti povijesti u djelu Jacquesa Bideta Što da se radi s “Kapitalom”?. Diskusija se fokusirala na dva osnovna pitanja: logičko polazište i karakter izlaganja Marxove teorije kapitala. Bidet zastupa tezu o neprimjerenosti Marxova polazišta kao robe (odjeljak I Knjige I) i dokazuje ne-dijalektički (“genetski”) karakter kategorijalnog izlaganja cjeline teorije kapitalističkog načina proizvodnje. Nasuprot tome, Strpić dokazuje da logičko ishodište Marxova sustava valja primjereno pojmiti kao “robu općenito”, ako se ona razumije iz perspektive logike cijelog sustava i predmeta njegove analize kao “kapitala općenito”. Dok Bidet nastoji pokazati kako Marx postupno, premda nedosljedno i samo djelomično, u definiranju logike kapitalskog sustava napušta dijalektičke figure kao epistemologijske zapreke, dotle Strpić uzvraća pokazujući u čemu se očituje marksovski modalitet materijalističke dijalektike kao konstitutivan ne samo za Marxovu “kritiku” nego i za samu zbiljnost kapitalističkog društva i mogućnosti njegova nadmašivanja. Uz svu suglasnost s Bidetom i Strpićem da se toliko nužna opća teorija moderne može konstituirati samo uz stvaralački interpretativni oslonac na velika djela političkog mišljenja moderne, kao i uz sva priznanja njihovim iznimnim čitanjima Marxova djela u tom kontekstu, autor zaključno napominje kako se obojici može prigovoriti da se njihovi projekti suvremene opće teorije moderne, uz sve razlike među njima, odveć oslanjaju na daljnje razvijanje Marxove intencije, pri čemu se ispušta iz vida temeljni “teologij- sko-politički” problem, koji Marx rastvara u imanentizmu procesa proizvodnje/ reprodukcije moderne građanske zajednice.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