Political-economic marginalia on the reception of Marx in the 21th century

Političkoekonomskom analizom recepcije Marxa u Strpićevoj knjizi o Marxovoj kritici političke ekonomije autor želi pokazati kakav je suvremeni položaj i koja je moguća aktualnost Marxove analize. Do aktualizacije i povratka Marxu uvijek dolazi u vrijeme kriza, njegova intelektualna sudbina ovisi o preobrazbi sadašnjeg kapitalizma i njegovoj alternativi. Paradoks teorijske nedovršenosti u Marxovoj analizi zbog njegove spoznajne težnje za savršenstvom epistemologije kapitalizma postaje sudbina svih marksističkih interpretacija, pa tako i Strpićeve. Problem Marxa danas je upravo u metafizici teorije vrijednosti i cijeloga robnog sustava koji ne omogućuje ontologijske preobrazbe vrijednosti, kapitala i kapitalizma. Njegov teorijski pristup je više fiziokratski nego novčani, više ekonomski nego politički. Zato Bidetova rekonstrukcija Marxa u okvirima moderne polazi od “metastrukture” općega političkopravnog momenta, koji u marksovskoj kritici nedostaje. Primjeren pristup podrazumijeva poimanje kapitalizma kao eminentno političkoga: politički kapitalizam, kako pokazuje autor, nije poseban oblik kapitalizma, nije historijski vezan uz suvremeni oblik kapitalizma XXI. stoljeća (Kina...), nego je njegova univerzalna povijesna forma. Marxova je kritika političke ekonomije moderna upravo na tom nedovoljno određenom putu njegove analize. Politički kapitalizam kao “kapitalizam općenito” pokazuje svoju relevantnost u analizi suvremenih kriza, koje nisu više samo ekonomske nego ekologijske, pa i pandemijske. U nizu recentnih kriza političkog kapitalizma pokazuje se kako smo suočeni s izborom između realnog autokratskog “barbarskog kapitalizma” i više utopijskog “kozmopolitskog ekosocijalizma”.In Strpić’s book on Marx’s critique of political economy, the analysis of political and economic reception of Marx serves as starting point for the author’s assignment of contemporary position and relevance of Marx’s analysis. Both actualization and return to Marx always occur in the times of crisis, therefore his intellectual fate depends on changes within contemporary capitalism and its alternatives. In Marx’s analysis, the paradox of theoretical incompleteness stems from his aim for ideal epistemology of capitalism, which is also present in later Marxist interpretations, even Strpić’s. The contemporary problem of Marx lies in the metaphysics of theory of value and in the whole structure of commodity production, which prevents ontological transition of value, capital and capitalism. His approach is physiocratic more than it is pecuniary, and more economic than it is political. This is why Jacques Bidet’s reconstruction of Marx in the terms of modernity is based on “metastructure”, which is a universal politically legal point that is not present within Marx’s critique of political economy. Such a different approach presupposes understanding capitalism as inherently a political project. As it is proven by the author, political capitalism is not a special form of capitalism, nor it is historically connected with contemporary capitalism of the 21st century (in China and elsewhere), but is moreover its universal historical form. Marx’s critique of political economy turns out to be contemporary precisely at this overlooked point of his analysis. Political capitalism as “capitalism in general” demonstrates its relevance in the analysis of contemporary crises, which are not just politicaleconomic, but also ecological and even pandemic. In a series of crises of political capitalism we are faced with a choice between real autocratic “barbaric capitalism” and more utopic “cosmopolitan” eco-socialism