Marx and Whitehead: Process, Dialectics, and the Critique of Capitalism

Chapter 1. Introduction: Marx and Whitehead

C H A P T E R 1 INTRODUCTION: MARX AND WHITEHEAD A clash of doctrines is not a disaster—it is an opportunity. —Alfred North Whitehead, Science and the Modern World T here is no doubt that, at the outset, this appears a most curious undertaking. What would motivate anyone to venture a union as unlikely as that between Marx and Whitehead? What can possibly be gained by linking a process metaphysics to a critique of capitalism? Providing at least some preliminary answers to these questions will be the task of this chapter. It will be the case, of course, that only the completed project can serve as a final answer, that the developed union of these positions will stand as its own reason. And so, if the answers given here in this preliminary justification do not wholly satisfy, I beg indulgence and patience. I see what follows as a pathway. Only one completing the journey can judge whether it was worthwhile. These appear to be unsettled times indeed. The globalization of capitalism is well underway. International trade agreements and loans to developing nations have opened the doors of the global economy and yet protests have raged in Prague, Seattle, Quebec, and Genoa. New York’s World Trade Towers were reduced to rubble and the security of this nation’s capital has been breached, thousands have lost their lives. A new war has been declared on the United States; a new war has been declared on terrorism. We must wonder, we must ask—where do we stand? Recently some intellectuals have declared the end of history while others decry the injustice of the New World Order. It should not seem strange to find that, the recent expansion and development of capitalism and its concurrent public scrutiny, have led to some considerable discourse regarding the theories of Karl Marx. Word seems to have emerged from conservative, liberal, and radical camps alike: Marx is more relevant than ever.1 But who is this Marx who is so relevant? Often we find that it is not the critical or revolutionary Marx. In this regard, a 1997 3 article by John Cassidy in The New Yorker magazine entitled, “The Return of Karl Marx,” is most enlightening.2 Cassidy, himself a Wall Street broker, praised Marx for his analysis of the functioning, operation, and trajectory of capitalism and for his recognition of the importance of economics as a social force. The irony is obvious—somehow I doubt that Mr. Cassidy’s appreciation for the accuracy of Marx’s analysis has led him to quit his lucrative job in order to join the worker’s struggle. In fact, in the final analysis, his article rejected Marx’s analysis of the source of surplus value in capitalism. So, how is it possible for someone who is and remains thoroughly ensconced in the world of financial capital to simultaneously discuss the relevance of Karl Marx? Ironically enough, this same tendency to separate the theoretical from the revolutionary Marx is seen in Jacques Derrida’s Spectres of Marx. Derrida, however, wants to keep the radical spirit of Marx alive while jettisoning the theoretical analysis of the economics. But, how can anyone seriously treating Marx’s works separate the economic analysis and the revolutionary critique? Yet, as these examples show, it is done and that it is done signals that something may be very wrong in our understanding of Marx. Oddly enough, I believe that Marxists themselves are at least partly and perhaps mostly responsible for the division between the theoretical and revolutionary Marx in public discourse. My direct and indirect engagements with various Marxist writers and thinkers over years past have been highly fruitful and yet I have, all too often, left these encounters with a rather subtle sense of emptiness. I have repeatedly had the feeling that something was missing, that an aspect of vital import was, for the most part, being omitted. I have heard a great deal of complex, nuanced, precise analyses of the structure and content of the political-economic critique, which has seemed partially or wholly accurate enough, yet strangely lifeless in a way that Marx’s work never was. I could find in these analyses none of the fire, little of the sheer amazement and anger at the irrationality and inhumanity of the capitalist system, practically none of the disgust and fury that resonates throughout Marx’s writings. Had we grown complacent? Where, I wondered, was the outrage expressed in statements like...