1. A Critique of Mau:Mute Compulsion .

If a somewhat “long series of quotations the aim of which is to prove that the presented reading is correct” is admissible, a critical examination of the argument on Marxian determinism in Mau’sMute Compulsion is relevant. Firstly, because this book, which is a serious and otherwise valuable work in many ways, is so much at variance with the argument on this subject inStructure, Agency and Theory. Secondly, because it is likely to be widely read by people interested in historical materialism, and may well be referred to as an authoritative text by those critical towards such arguments on Marxian determinism1 as that inStructure, Agency and Theory. Thirdly, as an illustration of the extent to which the misreading of Marx and Engels to the effect that they didnot consider the transition from capitalism to socialism and eventually classless communist society inevitable has become a kind of orthodoxy the substantiation of which is partly “done” by reference to various authorities, partly by reference to textual evidence which does not, in fact, support it. And fourthly, because Mau is indeed fundamentally wrong about a crucial aspect of Marx’ (and Engels’) historical materialism, their conception of the dialectic of forces and relations of production as the motive power of historical development and transformations. Readers ofMute Compulsion should be made aware of this, even if they may find much of interest in the book too. The mute compulsion of capitalist economic relations2 has not, to be sure, actually been forgotten in the Marxist tradition,3 but it is still an important point which is worthy of the renewed attention drawn to it by Mau, whose book contains several interesting observations.

Readers may wonder about this positive evaluation ofMute Compulsion as a whole on the one hand and the perhaps rather harsh criticism in this essay on the other. The explanation is, however, quite simple. In his Introduction to the book, Mau writes:

This book is not a Marxological treatise; its ultimate aim is to understandcapitalism, not Marx. Sometimes, however, the former presupposes the latter. For this reason, I do occasionally engage in discussions of Marx’s intellectual development and other topics that might seem to be merely Marxological intricacies – but only when they ultimately help us understand capitalism.4

Mute Compulsion does contribute to the understanding of capitalism, especially the economic power of capitalism. Marx’ intellectual development is a secondary matter in it, but one on which the argument is so faulty that a warning against accepting it is called for – andthis is the subject of this essay.

Before entering into the main quarrel with Mau’s reading of Marx, it may, as more than just a kind of curiosity, be noted that his reading