Justice as Fetish Presented at the 2013 Marx and Philosophy Society Conference, Central London 15.06.

2013 Dan S ain,

Abstract:
In this paper I challenge those who have argued that Marx's critical project ought to be combined or supplemented with normative theories of distributive justice, particularly along the model of liberal theorists such as John Rawls. hese arguments tend to suggest that Marx was either incorrect or inconsistent in rejecting the language of rights, justice and distribution. he wea!ness of such accounts lies in their use of an ideal theory method for deriving principles of justice combined with a particular model of the individual subject. "rawing an analogy with the wor! of #vgeny $ashu!anis, I argue that the model of the liberal subject implied by such theories shares features with the commodity form in the same way as, according to $ashu!anis, the legal subject. he liberal subject can thus be understood as a !ind of fetish. %urthermore, the presumption in favour of ideal theory can tend to systematically mas! this fact, presenting the liberal subject as the product of distanced reflection, rather than a specific social form. hese features of liberal theories of justice suggest that such theories are going to be limited in their scope for radical criticism, and in particular that they do not fit easily into a Marxist criti&ue. Marx had good reason to be suspicious of such theories.

1. !he "#estion of Marx$s attit#de to ards "#estions of distri%#ti&e '#stice is a (#ch de%ated one. )n the one hand, Marx fre"#ently explicitly re'ects the lan*#a*e of ri*hts and '#stice, s#**estin* that it is either (eanin*less, or that it can only reflect the existin* str#ct#re of society. )n the other, (any interpreters of Marx ha&e s#**ested either that he relies on an i(plicit theory of '#stice, hich can occasionally %e seen to rise to the s#rface, or that he o#*ht to ha&e had s#ch an explicit theory, and that his pro'ect s#ffers as a res#lt. +n this paper + ant to s#**est so(e reasons to thin, that Marx had *ood reasons to re'ect certain aspects of li%eral theories of '#stice, and that it o#ld %e a (ista,e to thin, that his pro'ect o#ld %e co(ple(ented %y one. +n partic#lar, + ant to ar*#e that Marx had *ood reasons to re'ect any pro'ect that in&ol&es criticisin* a social syste( accordin* to its coherence to principles hich are deri&ed fro( a -(ore or less. co(plete &ision of an ideal society, so(ethin* + ta,e 1

to %e characteristic of conte(porary theories of '#stice. / paradi*(atic exa(ple of this approach can %e seen in the follo in* passa*e fro( 0ohn 1a ls$ ' heory of Justice2 / co(plete conception definin* principles for all the &irt#es of the %asic str#ct#re, to*ether ith their respecti&e ei*hts hen they conflict, is (ore than a conception of '#stice3 it is a social ideal. !he principles of '#stice are %#t a part, altho#*h perhaps the (ost i(portant part of s#ch a conception. / social ideal in t#rn is connected ith a conception of society, a &ision of the ay in hich the ai(s and p#rposes of social cooperation are to %e #nderstood... 4#lly to #nderstand a conception of '#stice e (#st (a,e explicit the conception of social cooperation fro( hich it deri&es.1 !here are t o ,ey feat#res of this (odel of criticis(, -1. the ideal &ision, and -2. the principles that are associated ith it. !he sorts of principles hich are deri&ed are *enerally distri%#ti&e ones, concerned ith the allocation of reso#rces and ri*hts -incl#din* ri*hts to those reso#rces.. !hese principles are (ore or less #ni&ersal, and are concei&ed of as *enerally orderin* society in a $'#st$ (anner. !hey are, in this sense, co(plete, ran*in* across all of society. +t is i(portant to e(phasise these (ethodolo*ical "#estions in order to (a,e clear that so(ethin* *en#inely si*nificant is at sta,e. 4r#stratin*ly, in de%ates a%o#t Marx$s attit#de to '#stice this is so(eti(es lost si*ht of. 4or exa(ple, 5ielsen s#**ests that this disa*ree(ent (i*ht (erely %e a 6tri&ial &er%al one7.2 /nyone ho conde(ns capitalis( as exploitati&e or #ne"#al, he ar*#es, 6(#st a*ree... that capitalis( is indeed, in the plain #ntechnical sense of the ter(, an #n'#st social syste(7.3 Perhaps it is a
1 1a ls, 1888, p. 8. +t is i(portant to note that + #se 1a ls here only as an exa(ple, al%eit a paradi*(atic one. / nota%le difference %et een 1a ls theory and so(e of those Marx re'ects is 1a ls$ restriction of -social. '#stice to %ein* a property of political instit#tions. !he sense of '#stice + ta,e Marx to %e re'ectin* is one %roader than this, that can apply to direct relationships %et een indi&id#als, e.*. in the a*e relation. 9o e&er, this, it see(s to (e, does not alter si*nificantly the (ethodolo*ical "#estions at sta,e. 2 5ielsen, 18:8, p. 1;3. 3 +%id, p. 1;0.

sy(pto( of too (#ch political philosophy, %#t it is entirely #nclear to (e hat the 6plain, #ntechnical sense7 of '#stice is. +f it is (eant that $#n'#st$ is a si(ple ter( of conde(nation, ith no attendant theoretical %a**a*e, then + can only a*ree. <et that is not hat Marx or (ost Marxists are orried a%o#t hen criticisin* the ter( $'#stice$. 1ather, hat is at sta,e is the philosophical (ethod %y hich s#ch '#d*e(ents are reached, and the res#ltant for( they ta,e. !here is a real distinction here, one hich, + ill ar*#e, Marx sa clearly eno#*h. 5e&ertheless, (y ar*#(ent (i*ht %e seen as rather esoteric, too closely connected to a partic#lar pict#re of '#stice. =hy sho#ld the ter( '#stice, ith all its rich history and e(oti&e force, %e annexed to this partic#lar (odel> !he (ost strai*htfor ard response to this "#estion is2 $?eca#se this has already happened$. !he (ethodolo*y that + s#**est Marx re'ects is one hich has %eco(e do(inant in /n*lo@ /(erican li%eral political philosophy, lar*ely thro#*h the or, of 1a ls. !here exists a certain (ethodolo*y ith hich the ter( $'#stice$ is stron*ly associated. +f the %a%y is thro n o#t ith the %ath ater, + a( te(pted to say that 1a lsians ha&e only the(sel&es to %la(e.

2. Marx$s re'ection of the lan*#a*e of '#stice *oes hand in hand ith a re'ection of hat in conte(porary philosophy is called ideal theory, %#t he tended to call #topian. +n 1:A;, ha&in* *ained an infl#ential position ithin the Lea*#e of the 0#st, one of Marx and Bn*els$ first acts as to effect a na(e chan*e. +t as henceforth to %e ,no n as the Co((#nist Lea*#e. !he reasons *i&en for this ere as follo s2 !his na(e is therefore no lon*er s#ited to the ti(e and does not in the least express hat e ant. 9o (any there are ho ant '#stice, that is, hat they call '#stice, itho#t necessarily %ein* Co((#nistsC =e are not

distin*#ished %y antin* '#stice in *eneral D anyone can clai( that for hi(self D %#t %y o#r attac, on the existin* social order and on pri&ate property, %y antin* co((#nity of property, %y %ein* Co((#nists.A !his is part of a syste(atic %rea, ith hat they considered to %e #topian (odes of tho#*ht, a ay of thin,in* that Bn*els o#ld later fa(o#sly characterise as follo s2 !he sol#tion of the social pro%le(s... the Etopians atte(pted to e&ol&e o#t of the h#(an %rain. Society presented nothin* %#t ron*s3 to re(o&e these as the tas, of reason. +t as necessary, then, to disco&er a ne and (ore perfect syste( of social order and to i(pose this #pon society fro( itho#t %y propa*anda, and, here&er possi%le, %y the exa(ple of (odel experi(ents.5 4or %oth Marx and Bn*els it as an essential political tas, to re'ect this (ode of tho#*ht, and to a&oid the sorts of &a*#e phrases and &isions on hich it relies. Part of the (oti&ation for this re'ection is a *ro in* #nderstandin* of socialis( as re"#irin* the self@e(ancipation of the proletariat. M#ch of Marx$s pole(ic ith others in this period in&ol&es a re'ection of &ario#s elitist (odels, in hich an alternati&e &ision of society is handed do n fro( on hi*h, either %y enli*htened despots or radical intellect#als. +f theory is to aid the ca#se of self@e(ancipation, it (#st %e capa%le of %ein* ta,en #p %y those ho (#st e(ancipate the(sel&es. !his (#st %e in a deeper sense than (erely inspirin* the( to action, rather they (#st %e capa%le of seein* it as their own, not as i(posed %y an o#tside a#thority. 9o e&er, if this is to %e the case then s#ch ideas sho#ld %e of the sort in hich they can acti&ely recognise the(sel&es. !his (eans they (#st %e ideas hich at %est emerge from the str#**les of the proletariat, or at least can
A Marx, 1:A;. 5 Bn*els, 1::0, p. 3:2.

%e related to those str#**les. !his is precisely hat the ar*#(ents of %oth the Etopians and the ideal theorists lac,. +n fact, they conscio#sly a&oid reference to these thin*s. /s s#ch they deny the possi%ility of their theories playin* this role in self@e(ancipation. =hilst this is, in part, a pra*(atic concern F if the self@e(ancipation of the proletariat is a prere"#isite for socialis( then th artin* it is #n ise F it is also an ethical one F th artin* self@e(ancipation is itself pro%le(atic. Enderlyin* this is an #nderstandin* of the relationship %et een political theory and practice. +n the second hesis on %euerbach Marx offers reflections on acco#nt of the li(its of p#rely theoretical ,no led*e2 !he "#estion hether o%'ecti&e tr#th can %e attri%#ted to h#(an thin,in* is not a "#estion of theory %#t is a practical "#estion. Man (#st pro&e the tr#th, i.e. the reality and po er, the this sidedness of his thin,in* in practice. !he disp#te o&er the reality or non@reality of thin,in* that is isolated fro( practice is a p#rely scholastic "#estion.6 <et ideal, #topian, theory does not (erely fail to esta%lish its $tr#th$ in practice, it esche s any atte(pt to do so. +t does not ant to %e esta%lished in practice. +t is therefore en*a*ed in as,in* the ron* sort of "#estions. $!r#th$, in these passa*es, is f#nda(entally connected to the existence of certain h#(an po ers, and of co(in* to reco*nise certain ideas in the exercise of those po ers. !his, + thin,, is #na&oida%ly connected to the "#estion of self@e(ancipation. !o reco*nise and endorse certain theoretical &al#es re"#ires their -at least possi%le. confir(ation in practice, and this is re"#ired to (a,e s#ch ideas $ones o n$ in the ay that self@e(ancipation de(ands. +t (i*ht %e s#**ested, ho e&er, that the "#estion of hether s#ch ideas can %e endorsed %y the proletariat in this ay (is#nderstands their role. !he intention of ideal (odels and &isions of society is to offer a tool, a techni"#e for clarifyin* and *#idin*
6 Marx, 1:A5, p. A22.

ideas. )f co#rse these cannot %e pro&ed in practice, %#t they ere ne&er intended to %e. !h#s Ste&en L#,es char*es Marx ith #nderesti(atin* the potential of s#ch thin,in*, ar*#in* that 6GMarxis(H has failed to exploit the practical stren*th of #topian thin,in*, %rin*in* li%eratin*, non@ro#tine perspecti&es to %ear #pon intracta%le pro%le(s in the here and no 7.; More recently, /lex Callinicos has ar*#ed that2 6+t is its &ery re(oteness fro( hat co#nts as feasi%le in the de%ased c#rrency of conte(porary li%eral@de(ocratic politics that (a,es G1a ls$H difference principle... a standin* reproach to a orld here ine"#alities are plainly arran*ed to %enefit the %est off.7: /ccordin* to this line of tho#*ht, #topian thin,in* can play so(e sort of practical role, hether or not its reco((endations are act#ally i(ple(ented, or e&en achie&a%le. 9o e&er, for Marx, s#ch thin,in* as (ore than #seless3 it as acti&ely pernicio#s. +n a letter of 1:;; Marx har,s %ac, to de%ates ith #topian socialis(, referrin* to it as 6silly, stale and basically reactionary 7.8 !hin,in* of this sort as not '#st silly, it in fact f#nctioned to reinforce the existin* state of thin*s. 4ar fro( offerin* a &ision free of the li(itations of (#ndane, e&eryday concerns, s#ch thin,in* is necessarily constrained %y those concerns, and often reprod#ces the( in #ncritical ays. +deal &isions of the f#t#re society are %#t a sanitised reflection of the existin* society. !hese ar*#(ents echo those of the (erman Ideology, incl#din* the fa(o#s assertion that 6Co((#nis( is for #s not a state of affairs hich is to %e esta%lished, an ideal to hich reality G illH ha&e to ad'#st itself. =e call co((#nis( the real (o&e(ent hich a%olishes the present state of thin*s.710 !he (erman Ideology contains an all o#t assa#lt on a certain ,ind of philosophical a%straction. Stirner, ?a#er, and (any others

; : 8 10

L#,es, 18:;, p. A6. Callinicos, 2006, p. 222. Marx, 1::;. Marx and Bn*els, 1:A5, p. 5;.

are pilloried in the (ost sa&a*e ter(s for their atte(pt to red#ce the (o&e(ent of history to a%stract philosophical cate*ories. +n place of these a%stractions Marx and Bn*els assert the necessary connection %et een ideas and the li&ed (aterial reality of people. !his is intended as a re'ection of the idea that it is possi%le to si(ply thin, in a ay that is #nconstrained %y the (aterial conditions of o#r o n existence. 1ather, 6the phanto(s for(ed in the %rains of (en are also, necessarily, s#%li(ates of their (aterial life@process, hich is e(pirically &erifia%le and %o#nd to (aterial pre(ises7.11 !he ar*#(ent a*ainst this ,ind of ideal theorisin* therefore *oes li,e this2 S#ch thin,in* is only e&er the phanto(@li,e, s#%li(ated, reflection of o#r life@processes. !herefore it is of li(ited #se in any critical pro'ect hich see,s to radically transfor( those processes. +n partic#lar it is a pro%le( if this fact is ignored, if it is pres#(ed that s#ch thin,in* can e&er %e (ore than this. !his thin,in* p#rports to %e li%eratin*, %#t is in fact profo#ndly li(itin*. /t the core of this is not so (#ch the (a,in* of a%stractions, so(ethin* hich is an #na&oida%le feat#re of h#(an tho#*ht, %#t the privileging of those a%stractions o&er the (aterial thin*s they are a%stracted fro(.

3. Marx offers a paradi*(atic exa(ple of this ,ind of pri&ile*in* of a%stractions o&er (aterial reality in his disc#ssion of co((odity fetishis(. 4etishis( is the process %y hich feat#res hich are a conse"#ence of social arran*e(ents %et een people ta,e on the appearance of o%'ecti&e reality. 4etishis( arises fro( the nat#re of co((odity prod#ction and exchan*e, and si(#ltaneo#sly conceals the tr#e nat#re of that prod#ction. Cr#cially, fetishis( itself ta,es on a sort of o%'ecti&e reality. +t is not (ere ill#sion. Marx corrects the +talian econo(ist Ialiani %y pointin* o#t that hen he said 6$Jal#e is a relation %et een persons$ he o#*ht to ha&e added2 a relation concealed

11 +%id, p. A2.

%eneath a (aterial shell7.12 Since fetishis( ta,es on this o%'ecti&e reality, it cannot %e dispelled (erely thro#*h demonstrating the social nat#re of &al#e. Marx insists that the analysis of &al#e #nderta,en %y hi(self and other political econo(ists 6(ar,s an epoch in the history of (an,ind$s de&elop(ent, %#t %y no (eans %anishes the se(%lance of o%'ecti&ity possessed %y the social characteristics of la%o#r7.13 +n this respect, at least, this represents a stron* contin#ity ith the ar*#(ents in the (erman Ideology. Marx is ar*#in* 1. !hat certain ideas are for(ed as reflections of the (aterial conditions of h#(an life. 2. !hat treatin* these ideas as if they ere not s#ch reflections leads to (ystification and #ncritical reprod#ction of those conditions of life. 3. !hat (erely explaining this is ins#fficient to re(o&e these ideas. +t follo s fro( this that ideas o#*ht to %e exa(ined in their connection to (aterial life and ne&er ass#(ed to ha&e o%'ecti&ity independent of it. ?#t it also follo s that s#ch ideas ill persist #ntil there is a chan*e in the (aterial conditions of h#(an life. Marx tal,s a%o#t the relationship %et een '#stice and social life often in exactly these ter(s. )n al(ost all of the occasions here he re'ects the lan*#a*e of '#stice it is %eca#se they are seen as (erely reflectin* the existin* str#ct#re of society, So fa(o#sly he ar*#es that 6ri*ht can ne&er %e hi*her than the econo(ic str#ct#re of society and its c#lt#ral de&elop(ent hich this deter(ines.7 +n the Preface to the )ontribution to the )riti&ue of $olitical #conomy he rites 6that neither le*al relations nor political for(s co#ld %e co(prehended hether %y the(sel&es or on the %asis of a so@called *eneral de&elop(ent of the h#(an (ind, %#t on the contrary they ori*inate in the (aterial conditions of life7.1A +n the $overty of $hilosophy2 6Le*islation, hether political or

12 Marx, 1:6;, p. 16;n. 13 +%id, p. 16;. 1A Marx, 1:58, p. 1;3.

ci&il, ne&er does (ore than proclai(, express in ords, the ill of econo(ic relations.715 Marx rites in )apital Jol#(e 3 that2 !o spea, here of nat#ral '#stice... is nonsense. !he '#stice of transactions hich *o on %et een a*ents of prod#ction rests on the fact that these transactions arise as nat#ral conse"#ences fro( the relations of prod#ction. !he '#ristic for(s in hich these econo(ic transactions appear as &ol#ntary actions of the participants, as expressions of their co((on ill and as contracts that (ay %e enforced %y the state a*ainst a sin*le party cannot, %ein* (ere for(s, deter(ine this content. !hey (erely express it. !his content is '#st hene&er it corresponds to the (ode of prod#ction, is ade"#ate to it. +t is #n'#st hene&er it contradicts that (ode.16 +t$s orth notin* fro( this that it is possi%le to declare that so(e thin*s in capitalis( are #n'#st. 5ot payin* a*es at the a*reed rate, ithholdin* holiday ti(e, enforcin* #npaid o&erti(e, these are all #n'#st in this sense. )n this %asis capitalist society is -de facto. riddled ith in'#stices, %#t it is not #n'#st si(ply %y &irt#e of %ein* capitalist. +t is th#s i(possi%le to assert that capitalis( is #n'#st, %eca#se the &ery (eanin* of $'#stice$ is deter(ined %y the capitalist econo(ic str#ct#re. !o clai( that the a*e relation is #n'#st is to (a,e a radical error. 9o e&er, the o%&io#s response to this ar*#(ent is to point o#t that (ost of those ho e(ploy theories of '#stice do not e(ploy the do(inant notion of '#stice #nder capitalis(. 1ather, they are ar*#in* for different principles of '#stice to the ones instantiated %y capitalist relations of prod#ction. 5or(an Ieras, for exa(ple, endorses a theory of '#stice hich expands its scope to 6co&er the *enerality of social ad&anta*es, especially the relati&e a&aila%ility of
15 Marx, 1:A;, p. ;6. 16 Marx, 1:8A, p. 33;@:.

free ti(e, ti(e, that is, for a#tono(o#s indi&id#al de&elop(ent7.1; !his is #ndo#%tedly so(ethin* (ore radical than the do(inant ideas of '#stice #nder capitalis(. 9o e&er, it is i(portant that Marx refers to the form of '#stice hich expresses the content deter(ined %y the (ode of prod#ction. !his s#**ests a si*nificantly (ore radical clai(2 +t is not '#st a (atter of partic#lar principles of '#stice %ein* li(ited to capitalis(, %#t of the partic#lar for( that those principles ta,e. !here are a n#(%er of for(al feat#res hich it is possi%le to dra o#t of theories of '#stice. !hey are concerned ith distri%#tion -of *oods, entitle(ents, etc... !hey rely on a notion of the recipients of that distri%#tion2 the s#%'ect. Conse"#ently, they rely on a notion of the relation %et een the s#%'ect and that hich is %ein* distri%#ted -a notion of $ri*ht$.. 4inally, they rely -so(eti(es explicitly, #s#ally i(plicitly., on something to do the distributing2 the state. =hat o#ld it (ean to say that this for( is inti(ately connected to the capitalist (ode of prod#ction> =e can find a de*ree of analo*y ith the insi*hts of the So&iet '#rist B&*eny Pash#,anis. Pash#,anis$ ai( as to do for le*al theory hat Marx does for econo(ics, 6to analyse the %asic definitions of the le*al for( in the ay that political econo(y analyses the %asic and (ost *eneral definitions of the for( of a co((odity or of &al#e7.1: !his analo*y ith the le*al str#ct#re and the co((odity for( is ,ey. 0#st as Marx sa the co((odity for( as ha&in* a fetish character, of ta,in* on a life of its o n in the (inds of people #nder capitalis(, Pash#,anis sa the le*al for( as de&elopin* in exactly the sa(e ay. Central to Pash#,anis$ ar*#(ent is that there is a homology %et een the co((odity for( and the le*al for( of capitalist society, i.e. they share a str#ct#re deter(ined %y the (aterial relations fro( hich they e(er*e.
1; Ieras, 18:5, p. ;A. 1: Pash#,anis, 18:0, p. A1.

10

=hat are the characteristic for(s of la #nder capitalis(> !he (ost %asic #nit of la #nder capitalis( is the le*al s#%'ect.18 !he le*al syste( pres#pposes a 6person endo ed ith a ri*ht and acti&ely assertin* it7.20 !o (aintain a syste( %ased on co((odity prod#ction and exchan*e, it is necessary to de&elop an #nderstandin* of people as indi&id#als ith the entitle(ent to possess and dispose of property. !he s#%'ect as the %earer and addressee of all possi%le de(ands, and the chain of s#%'ects %o#nd %y de(ands addressed to one another, is the %asic '#ridic fa%ric correspondin* to the econo(ic fa%ric, i.e. to the social relations of prod#ction hich depend on the di&ision of la%o#r and exchan*e.21 4#rther(ore, '#st as capitalis( re"#ires a ay of #nderstandin* all la%o#r as a%stract, i(personal, non@specific la%o#r, it has to #nderstand the la%o#rers the(sel&es as a%stracted, #ndifferentiated %earers of properties and ri*hts2 6+n the sa(e ay that the nat#ral (#ltiplicity of the #sef#l "#alities of a prod#ct is in a co((odity a si(ple (as, of its &al#e, hile the concrete species of h#(an la%o#r are dissol&ed into a%stract h#(an la%o#r as the creator of &al#e so the concrete (#ltiplicity of (an$s relationship to an o%'ect appears as the a%stract ill of the o ner, hile all the concrete pec#liarities, hich distin*#ish one representati&e of the species *omo sapiens fro( another, are dissol&ed into the a%straction of (an in *eneral as a le*al s#%'ect.722 +f Pash#,anis is correct then the le*al s#%'ect is inextrica%ly lin,ed to capitalist social relations. + thin, this criti"#e of the le*al s#%'ect can %e extended, at least partially, to the (oral s#%'ect, #nderstood as an independent, a#tono(o#s possessor and disposer of ri*hts, hich is characteristic of theories of '#stice. =hilst this s#%'ect is,
18 6B&ery le*al relation is a relationship %et een s#%'ects. / s#%'ect is the ato( of le*al theory, the si(plest and irred#ci%le ele(ent. /nd ith +t e %e*in o#r analysis.7 +%id, p. ;A. 20 +%id, p. ;2. 21 +%id, p. ;1. 22 +%id, p. ;6.

11

typically, renched fro( its le*al context, it retains exactly this for(. +t re(ains a '#ridical (odel of the s#%'ect, and one hich %ears all the scars of the social relations hich *a&e rise to it.

A. +t is possi%le to dra o#t so(e concl#sions fro( the ar*#(ents offered a%o&e concernin* theories of '#stice2 1. !heories of '#stice hich are dependent on ideal (odels of society are inade"#ate %eca#se they fail to connect ith the li&ed experience of those ho (#st act#ally transfor( society. !hey cannot therefore %e ade"#ately incorporated into a pro'ect of self@e(ancipation 2. !heories of '#stice are inade"#ate %eca#se they ta,e a for( hich is necessarily conditioned %y the capitalist (ode of prod#ction, and therefore inade"#ate to a re&ol#tionary criti"#e of it. 3. !he ideal theory characteristic of -1. reinforces and contri%#tes to the for(al li(itations descri%ed in -2.. !he (ethodolo*y in&ol&ed in ideal theories dis*#ises the extent to hich principles of '#stice are (erely ideolo*ical reflections of the existin* state of affairs. +n this sense theories of '#stice are %oth too close and too far fro( the (aterial %ase of society. !hey are too far, %eca#se they fail to en*a*e ith people$s li&ed experience3 they are too close, %eca#se they reprod#ce #nconscio#sly and #ncritically capitalist prod#cti&e relations. +n closin*, it is orth notin* that if it is correct to #nderstand aspects of the li%eral s#%'ect as fetishes, then this has so(e conse"#ences. 1ecall that Marx does not say that reco*nisin* so(ethin* as a fetish is s#fficient to free #s fro( its *rip. Doin* that re"#ires transfor(in* the social relations on hich the fetish relies. !he pro%le( in

12

that sense is not so (#ch the fact that the s#%'ect is a fetish, %#t that the fetish character is (as,ed %y a #ni&ersalisin* tendency. /c,no led*in* that theories of '#stice are a for( partic#lar to o#r present society does not necessarily (ean e sho#ld ne&er en*a*e ith the(, (erely that e sho#ldn$t ele&ate the( to a #ni&ersal stat#s they do not deser&e. +n fact, s#ch an ac,no led*e(ent (i*ht help #s ,no ho and hen to #se the( as part of a str#**le for a %etter orld.

Bibliography Callinicos, /lex, 2006, Resources of )riti&ue, Polity. Bn*els, 4riedrich 1::0, $Socialis(2 Etopian and Scientific$, in Marx, K., and Bn*els, 4., +elected ,or!s in -ne .olume, La rence and =ishart, 186:, pp. 358@A10. Ieras, 5or(an, 18:5, $!he Contro&ersy /%o#t Marx and 0#stice$, /ew 0eft Review 1L150, pp. A;@:5. L#,es, Ste&en, 18:;, Marxism and Morality, )xford. Marx, Karl and 4riedrich Bn*els, 1:A5, he (erman Ideology, Pro(ethe#s ?oo,s, 188:. Marx, Karl, 1:A;a, $Circ#lar to Me(%ers of the 4irst Con*ress of the Co((#nist Lea*#e$. Marx, Karl, 1:A;%, he $overty of $hilosophy, 4orei*n Lan*#a*es Press, Pe,in*, 18;:. Marx, Karl, 1:58, $Preface to a )ontribution to the )riti&ue of $olitical #conomy$, in Marx and Bn*els, +elected ,or!s in -ne .olume, La rence and =ishart, 186:, pp. 1;2@1;6. Marx, Karl, 1:6;, )apital .olume 1, Pen*#in, 18;6. Marx, Karl, 1:;;, $Letter to 4riedrich /dolfe Sor*e$. Marx, Karl, 1:8A, )apital .olume 2, in Marx and Bn*els, )ollected ,or!s 3;, La rence and =ishart, 188:. 5ielsen, Kai, 18:8, Marxism and the Moral $oint of .iew, =est&ie Press. Pash#,anis, B&*eny, 18:0, +elected ,ritings on Marxism and 0aw, ?ierne and Sharlett eds., /cade(ic Press. 1a ls, 0ohn, 1888, heory of Justice, )xford.

13