Moneybags Must Be So Lucky: On the Literary Structure of Capital

by Robert Paul Wolff

In this book Robert Paul Wolff dispels much of the mystery surrounding Karl Marx's "Capital" by providing literary-philosophica analysis of the text and of Marx's intentions. The book solves lasting puzzles about "Capital, such as why it lacks proper scientific sobriety and why it speaks on many levels.

Genres: Politics, Philosophy, Economics, Nonfiction, Theory, Literary Criticism

96 pages, Hardcover

First published March 1, 1988

About the author

Robert Paul Wolff was an American political philosopher and professor emeritus at the University of Massachusetts Amherst.
Wolff has written widely on topics in political philosophy, including Marxism, tolerance (against liberalism and in favor of anarchism), political justification, and democracy.

Reviews

[Sara-Maria · Rating 3 out of 5]

better to read nicole pepperell's work on marx's methodology. http://rtheory.files.wordpress.com/20...

[Jim · Rating 3 out of 5]

Interesting take on the use of language in Das Kapital. In a nutshell, he says the obscurity of style is intentional and due to the fact that Marx had to use Socratic irony to get his point across because we are all chained in the Cave of Capitalist mystification.

[GMO Burt · Rating 5 out of 5]

Recently, I've had some breakthroughs reading Marx, an author I've always struggled with. First, I decided to read 'The Economic and Philosophical Manuscripts of 1844,' which gave me a foundational insight into the seed which grew into Capital. But, perhaps just as important, I started to realize how Marx engages with the reader of his text. I can't describe this realization very well but I hope it's enough to say that I suddenly got the gestalt of his writing style. After this, I immediately started back into Capital Vol. 1. However, I took a little break to read this short work by Robert Paul Wolff and I'm very glad I did.

Wolff, a World Famous Philosopher by training, shows at once that he is able to engage with texts on the level of literary criticism. As a philosopher, he makes the argument in clear, logical fashion. It's a delight to watch it unfold. Marx is drawn out to be revealed as an ironist and one engaging in style of irony that Wolff argues goes back to Plato. Marx is, Wolff claims, speaking to multiple audiences in Capital. This is a challenging thing to do as he hoped to address 1) contemporary political economists of his time 2) any other readers who might be receptive to Marx's description & critique of capitalism. Without putting too fine a point on it, Wolff claims that Marx speaks in the laguage of group 1) in order to show group 2) how strange and verruckt (literally 'insane' in Marx's own words) the mystified thinking of group 1) truly is. Thus, to audience 1) the text is essentially literal while for audience 2) it is receieved as ironic, at least that was the hope.

The way Wolff goes about making his case is at once amusing and enlightening. In addition, he provides several textual examples directly from Marx's writings- Capital and elsewhere- as evidence that his (Wolff's) argument is worth taking seriously. Marx had to guide the reader through the ordinary economic thought of his time, which looks so elegant and beautiful on the surface, all the way through the horror of its actual inner-workings.

I can't guarantee this outcome for every reader but as a result of reading this and 'The Economic...Manuscripts of 1844' the first chapter of Capital came alive for me in a way that it never has before. Thanks for Professor Wolff, I can finally finish volume 1 while feeling the ground is firm under my feet. I think anyone interested in Marx should read this text, especially since it can be had for free on Wolff's blog.

[Elliot · Rating 4 out of 5]

Clarifying -- and fun!

[Isaiah · Rating 4 out of 5]

The Marx quotes were the best part.

[Mattschratz · Rating 5 out of 5]

I found this to be very helpful in thinking about the weird, inside-out style of writing in Capital and how important that literary technique is (and, it's funny).

[c h r i s · Rating 3 out of 5]

Conspectus on the ‘Literary Structure of Capital’ in relation to the Science of History

Part 3
The following is incorrect:

“we must reject […] Marx’s oft-repeated claim that his political economy […] was scientific.” (R. P. Wolff, Moneybags Must Be So Lucky On the Literary Structure of Capital, p.81, University of Massachusetts Press, Amherst, 1988)
“in another, more modern, sense of the term ‘scientific’ Marx is wrong about his own enterprise […] Precisely because Marx’s vision of capitalist society requires for its expression an ironic authorial voice, Capital is not, in the modern acceptation, a scientific work.” (R. P. Wolff, p.82)

On the contrary, it is well known in the history of philosophy, science descends from philosophy, from the general to specific, the general philosophy (in which literature and religion was a part) to the specific science… and so, there is no total negation but rather a carrying forward or preservation of the past philosophy into science, the decisive break or leap being the change in defining characteristics, such as direction of investigation:

“The unique character of the development of philosophy resides in the fact that from it, as the scientific knowledge of nature and society developed, the positive sciences branched off one after another. Consequently, the domain of philosophy was continually reduced on account of the development of the positive sciences. (I might add that this process has not ended even up to the present time.) This emancipation of the natural and social sciences from the aegis of philosophy constitutes a progressive process, for the natural and social sciences as well as for philosophy itself.” (A. A. Zhdanov, On Literature Music and Philosophy 1950, p.78, N8PH, Toronto, 2022)

In this sense we can say the Marxist-Leninist science of history is a philosophical science. Beginning first in philosophy with a philosophical materialism (which is dialectical) and then descending into history, its specificity, the laws of history, in recurrences and developments (the economic logic of change) for which our understanding can prevent or facilitate events from taking place, in understanding their provocation:

“In experimental science, to say that one understands a process, or can explain it, means that one can control it.” (J. Fyfe, Lysenko is Right, p.15, L&W, London, 1950)

As follows, in scientific planning of the economy, if the state is a state of private interests, contradictory and antagonistic, reflecting the classes of society, the collective capitalists, only those minority private capitalist interests can be planned, not the economy as a whole, hence the science of history cannot be put fully into operation when the state is not reflective of the whole. Planning for only a private interest would be antagonistic to those against which the plan is set in motion. As opposed to the capitalist anarchy of production, the Soviet 5-year plans follow Marx’s Capital down to the letter:

“A spider conducts operations that resemble those of a weaver, and a bee puts to shame many an architect in the construction of her cells. But what distinguishes the worst architect from the best of bees is this, that the architect raises his structure in imagination before he erects it in reality. At the end of every labour process, we get a result that already existed in the imagination of the labourer at its commencement.” (K. Marx, Capital Vol. 1 1867, p.188, MECW 35, L&W, 2010)

And Engels:

“The anarchy within social production is replaced by consciously planned organization. The struggle for individual existence comes to an end. It is only at this point that man finally separates in a certain sense from the animal kingdom and that he passes from animal conditions of existence to really human ones.” (F. Engels, Socialism: Utopian and Scientific 1880, p.97, FLP, Peking, 1975)

That is, the distinguishing feature between man and animal, is between reactive basic biological instinct versus planning (plus labour with tools etc.).

[T · Rating 1 out of 5]

Dull as dishwater

[Tom L · Rating 5 out of 5]

Finally got around to this classic. Highly recommend for anyone interested in the significance of Marx's literary style to the argument he is making in Capital, Volume 1.

[A L]

Very tight argument.