Methodological Holism in Marx’s Capital Volume 1: The Conceptualisation and Measurement of Individual Units

Adolphe Quetelet

Concerning the subject of measurement and averages, Marx’s engagement with the Belgian statistician Quetelet is relevant. Marx quotes him when he talks about averages in Capital (Marx & Engels, 2010, p. 328). Quetelet was recognised for his contribution to extending the usage of mathematics in social science. His work aimed to understand the general characteristics of a group through statistical tools.

The ontological grounding of averages in Quetelet’s understanding is not similar to the contemporary approach to averages. Quetelet fundamentally believed that there existed a ‘general’ state of conditions in a society at a particular point in time, and these conditions affected the individuals of that society. He was very explicit that he did not concern himself with understanding the ‘concrete causes of individual phenomena’ (Mosselmans, 2013, p. 29). Statistics did not help understand ‘concrete individuals’ but rather allowed for ‘probabilistic conclusions’ about them based on the general nature of society (Mosselmans, 2013, p. 33). To understand the ‘general’ is the way for Quetelet to measure and understand the particular.

Mosselmans notes that Quetelet’s main contribution was the conceptual category of the ‘average man’ ¹ from his work on the Treatise on Man where he said that

the average man of any one period represents the type of development of human nature for that period; I have also said that the average man was always such as was conformable to and necessitated by time and place; that his qualities were developed in due proportion, in perfect harmony, alike removed from excess or defect of every kind, so that, in the circumstances in which he is found, he should be considered as the type of all which is beautiful – of all which is good. (Mosselmans, 2013, p. 30)

The ‘average man’ as understood by Quetelet represents the ‘human nature’ among the extremities prevalent in society. It is important to understand that the ‘average’ nature of the society is distinct from that of the individuals in them. The existence of a distinct metaphysical average condition is what strengthens Quetelet’s position as a holist. But it should also not be understood that the ‘average’ is not created unidirectionally from the aggregate. While the ‘average conditions’ play an active role in determining the nature of the individuals, the category of ‘average’ is also produced at the aggregate because of the individuals within the group.

The Distinction between ‘Real’ and ‘Arithmetical’ Average

The fact that Quetelet did not have a unidirectional understanding of averages becomes much clearer with the distinction that he makes between ‘real average’ (moyenne) and ‘arithmetical average’ (moyenne arithmétique) (Mosselmans, 2013, p. 31). Quetelet argued that the real average had an ‘existence in reality’, while the arithmetical average was ‘a number that refers to something fictional, averaging quantities over a group of homogeneous but clearly different objects’ (Mosselmans, 2013, p. 31).

Though he termed arithmetic average as ‘fictitious’, Quetelet understood that one had to rely on them to understand the general characteristics of society. He recognised that, in reality, it is not possible to distinguish ‘a “real” from an “arithmetical average”’ (Mosselmans, 2013, p. 33). However, the understanding of the dependency of the ‘fictitious’ average on the ‘real average’ gives strength to its existence. Quetelet saw the way to approach the real average was to empirically observe a large number of parameters within groups and compare them across groups to understand differences. But he noted that these results only held with certain probabilities (Mosselmans, 2013, p. 33).

Alain Desrosières ² notes that the approach with the usage of statistics changed with time and leaned towards methodological individualism, which can be traced to the popularisation of Durkheim’s approach (Mosselmans, 2013, p. 33). Desrosières makes the distinction where the average arrived at in Quetelet’s method suggested a ‘collective type’, while Durkheim’s ‘average type’ meant the result derived from ‘egoistic individuals’ (Mosselmans, 2013, p. 33). In this manner, Desrosières distinguishes the implications of the methodological position in determining and interpreting the category of average.

Georg Wilhelm Friedrich Hegel

We also discuss Hegel as part of Marx’s intellectual background as Marx’s method stems and shares many elements from Hegel’s method. Marx in his early years was part of the group called the Young Hegelians who discussed the philosophical works of Hegel. Later, Marx left this group because of his fundamental disagreement with Hegelian philosophy, primarily because it relied on the ‘realm of thought’ to bring about change in the ‘concrete’ world. Marx identified the source of suffering in society to be the material conditions, and attempting to change and reform the ‘thought realm’ does not affect the material reality. This fundamental shift that Marx had does not change the method of abstraction, as Marx’s method is still strongly underpinned by the dialectical nature of understanding things and his reliance on the change of social systems in a progressive manner with time.

Hegel’s philosophy revolved around the dialectical development of the mind of humans. He suggested that the human mind is fragmented by individuals who do not realise that they all share the same nature and conflicts. Once they arrive at a realisation of the manifestation of this universal nature, there will not be any more reason for conflicts between humans (Singer, 2018, pp. 17–18). From this perspective, one can argue that Hegel has a methodological holist stance, primarily due to his belief in the existence of a state of ‘Mind’ independent from the individuals. This ‘Mind’ is understood from smaller manifestations of ‘mind’, who themselves are products of the current state of ‘Mind’. ³ Here, we notice how the individual units in Hegel’s analysis are created and embody the whole; this approach to understanding the parts of a whole and the whole is what is termed the ‘philosophy of internal relations’ (Ollman, 2003, p. 69). This becomes central to understanding how Marx defines his classes and the individuals within them and how these two categories create the other.

Being a methodological holist, Hegel does not deny the existence of individuals. Rather, he makes a case for the pure social existence of individuals within the whole. The idea of ‘individuality’ itself has no meaning to Hegel if the individual is isolated from the ‘social whole’ (Hook, 1962, p. 42). This meant that individuals embody the nature of the ‘whole’ and participate in the creation of the whole and themselves dialectically. The existence of the metaphysical element ‘whole’ is what strengthens the methodological holist position in Hegel. Also, the view that individuals do not have an atomist existence further strengthens his position.

While Hegel did not approve of atomism in individuals, he understood that groups exist and are fundamental to understanding the whole. Hook argues that Hegel’s ‘opposition to social atomism lies in his demand that human activity be organised not in terms of personal motives or interests but in terms of an objective status in a differentiated social whole’ (Hook, 1962, p. 43). Hegel terms this ‘Schicksalsgemeinschaft’, which refers to a common burden shared within a group, which becomes easier to bear when people share it among their group. This group that Hegel defines is also called a ‘differentiated social whole’ and is used to indicate heterogeneous groups, which are different parts of the whole. The aim is to understand the interactions between these groups and their relationship with the whole. The trajectory of the individuals who belong to this group has a ‘common fate’, and the trajectory of the relationship of this ‘differentiated whole’ with the ‘social whole’ determines the individual’s fate. For Hegel, the individual’s purpose of action comes from the ideals set by the ‘differentiated whole’.

It is relevant to discuss Hegel here because of the strong parallel in how Marx and Hegel understand groups within a system and how these relations are a manifestation of historical progress. The existence of a distinct abstraction that defines a particular moment in history and plays a role in the progression of history is something that Marx borrows from Hegel. Though Marx still makes a distinction between his and Hegel’s method, in the sense that Marx relies on the material ‘concrete’ world to make abstractions and categories, unlike Hegel.

The Construction of the Commodity

Marx views the production process as an act, where the producer uses their labour power to produce a product. When a product is made solely for exchange, it becomes a commodity. This is where the distinction between use value and exchange value becomes central. Use values are primarily objects whose consumption provides ‘utility’ (Marx & Engels, 2010, p. 46). Marx makes it extremely clear that the ‘utility’ he refers to has a pure physical existence, distinguishing it from any metaphysical conceptions of utility. In contrast, exchange value refers to an intrinsic component that is common to two different products being exchanged, which Marx assumes to be ‘homogenous human labour’ (Marx & Engels, 2010, p. 48). What makes a product a commodity is ‘because they are something twofold, both being objects of utility, and at the same time depositories of value’ (Marx & Engels, 2010, p. 57). In the above quote, ‘value’ is determined by labour embodied in a product by the worker.

The commodity hence is comprised of its physically useful nature and ‘value’, which is embodied in it and is central for the commodity to be exchanged. The substance ‘value’ as Marx defines it is a ‘mere congelation of homogenous human labour, of labour power that has been expended without regard to the mode of expenditure’ (Marx & Engels, 2010, p. 48). Marx arrives at this substance—‘value’ by abstracting away from all physical and qualitative heterogeneity of labour and conditions that go into the production of the commodity. This allows him to express value in terms of ‘homogenous human labour’.

The Average Commodity

Marx states at the very beginning of Capital that ‘The wealth of those societies in which the capitalist mode of production prevails, presents itself as “an immense accumulation of commodities” its unit being a single commodity’ (Marx & Engels, 2010, p. 45). ⁴ The position of being able to view the commodity as a single unit to understand aggregate production in the capitalist system is a product of Marx’s specific methodology and construction of the commodity. This section hence focuses on the nature of this abstraction through which we arrive at the category of the ‘average commodity’, which is representative of all commodities in Marx’s analysis. It is crucial to understand the category of ‘average’ within Marx’s analysis and how it captures the general and particular.

Because the unit to measure a commodity’s exchange value is embodied human labour, it raises measurement issues due to the differential labour productivities among the individual workers. Marx recognised that this meant that there was the possibility that the same commodity could contain different amounts of labour (Marx & Engels, 2010, p. 49). To get away with this heterogeneity, Marx assumes, ‘The labour, however, that forms the substance of value, is homogenous human labour, expenditure of one uniform labour power’ (Marx & Engels, 2010, p. 49). The term ‘homogenous human labour’ implies that all individual producers under the same conditions of production operate with the same labour power to produce a commodity. This henceforth means that for any commodity that is produced, all of them contain the same amount of labour. This labour time that goes into producing a commodity is termed by Marx as ‘socially necessary’ (Marx & Engels, 2010, p. 49). By the term ‘socially necessary average human labour’, Marx means that

Each of these units is the same as any other, so far as it has the character of the average labour power of society, and takes effect as such; that is, so far as it requires for producing a commodity, no more time than is needed on an average, no more than is socially necessary. (Marx & Engels, 2010, p. 49)

For a given production condition and labour capacity, which vary with time and place, there exists a ‘general’ volume of labour required to produce the commodity. Despite assuming ‘uniform labour power’ among producers, Marx accepts the fact that there can be ‘deviations’ of the value embodied in some commodities because of the heterogeneity in labour productivity, but all these differences do not matter in the realm of exchange because the value at which the commodity is sold is set at the ‘socially necessary’ level.

During the exchange, the value recognised and exchanged in the market socially is what matters and not the specific individual value of each commodity (Marx & Engels, 2010, p. 322). Hence, the ‘real value’ of an individual commodity is determined by the labour time that is deemed ‘socially necessary’. This bears a striking resemblance to Quetelet’s understanding that the ‘average condition’ that exists at a particular time is a product of the social conditions that actively affect the nature of the individuals.

The ‘individual value’ that Marx refers to is the exact amount of labour transferred by the producer to the commodity, which is dependent on their respective productive capacity. The need to have a uniform measurement of the value of a commodity of the same type comes from the fact that they have to be exchanged uniformly against other commodities that also embody the same amount of labour power. Marx calls this the ‘law of exchanges’ (Marx & Engels, 2010, p. 242).

By this specific construction of the category of commodity, for every specific commodity, all individual commodities are of the average nature in terms of the labour expended and value embodied in them. This is why Marx is able to write that ‘Each individual commodity, in this connection, is to be considered as an average sample of its class’ (Marx & Engels, 2010, p. 49) ‘Value’ in itself as a measurement unit is intangible and abstract, which enables him to sum all the commodities (heterogeneous or homogenous) produced and view them as one unit. Marx provides a particular example of this when he states that all the linen produced is summed up and viewed as one commodity (Marx & Engels, 2010, p. 101). Each material and tangible individual unit of commodity hence becomes an “aliquot part” of the aggregate commodity.

The individual part among the aggregate commodity is then of the ‘socially average’ nature and is homogenous to all the other individual units within the aggregate. Because the substance of measurement of commodities is ‘value’, aggregation of all commodities despite their heterogeneity is possible. This is why Marx is able to view the aggregate production system through the commodity as a single unit (Marx & Engels, 2010, p. 45).

Appearance of the Commodity

From the earlier sections, it becomes clear that the commodity observed and measured is of an ‘average’ nature, as the parameter to measure commodities is ‘value’. This might give off the understanding that within the Marxian system, commodities appear as ‘value’, but Marx makes it clear in many instances that this is but an illusion. The nature of exchange within the capitalist commodity production system and the existing social division of labour appears as if individual producers exchange the commodities that they produce. Marx states that the action that takes place during exchange is actually the exchange of ‘social relations’. In his own words, Marx understands these ‘social relations’ as ‘the mutual relations of the producers, within which the social character of their labour affirms itself, take the form of a social relation between the products’ (Marx & Engels, 2010, p. 82). But during the process of exchange what we observe are the commodities that are being exchanged alone. This is what Marx calls the fetishism of commodities.

While the ‘essence’ of the commodity is the social relations through which it is created, producers view the relationship of their labour and their product through the material exchange of commodities between producers. The material appearance of the process of exchange is what clouds the producer from viewing the ‘essence’ of exchange (this is similar to the distinction that Hegel makes in terms of appearances). What causes this distorted appearance of the action of exchange is the social relations that constitute the system of capital:

the social characters assumed by objects, or the material forms assumed by the social qualities of labour under the régime of a definite mode of production, are mere symbols, it is in the same breath also declared that these characteristics are arbitrary fictions sanctioned by the so-called universal consent of mankind. (Marx & Engels, 2010, p. 102)

Hence, we see that the commodity appears within the Marxian system during exchange and circulation as the production relations, which are the relationships between producers.

Measuring Labour Power

The productive ability of workers is measured through ‘labour power’; Marx defines labour power as the ‘aggregate of those mental and physical capabilities existing in a human being, which he exercises whenever he produces a use value of any description’ (Marx & Engels, 2010, p. 177). It is the capacity of labourers to create something useful. Marx acknowledges the heterogeneity in the way labour is performed across different types of production. To be able to measure these different labour activities, Marx expresses relatively tougher labour processes as a multiple of ‘simple labour power’. By ‘simple labour power’, Marx refers to ‘the labour power which, on an average, apart from any special development exists in the organism of every ordinary individual’ (Marx & Engels, 2010, p. 54).

While the above abstraction accounts for the heterogeneity of labour power expended for different kinds of production, the labour power expended to produce the same kind of commodity is equal among workers. This homogeneity is not a product of Marx’s construction alone; with the progression of capital accumulation, the capitalist class is able to create ‘average’ conditions of production bringing about uniformity in the performance of labour. It is in the interest of Capital to do large-scale production, because of the increased individual productivity of an individual labourer in the presence of a large number of other labourers.

The outcome of this centralisation and concentration of capital for mass production leads to the creation of the ‘collective power of masses’ (Marx & Engels, 2010, p. 331). This means that due to the collective nature of production, there is extra productivity that is observed at the level of the individual. This aggregation of labour power in the manufacturing or factory system creates a synergetic system that is formed by the division of labour and hence involves the production of a commodity by labourers performing different actions with certain proportions to ensure a certain pace of production (Marx & Engels, 2010, p. 349). Marx terms this system the ‘collective labourer’:

The collective labourer, with one set of his many hands armed with one kind of tools, draws the wire, with another set, armed with different tools, he, at the same time, straightens it, with another, he cuts it, with another, points it, and so on. The different detail processes, which were successive in time, have become simultaneous, go on side by side in space. Hence, production of greater quantum of finished commodities in a given time. (Marx & Engels, 2010, p. 349)

The abstract entity—the ‘collective labourer’—is then understood by Marx as a product of highly specialised individual labourers performing the production of a commodity together. This entity also captures the synergy of centralisation of production and harmony of the division of the production process. This ‘collective unit’ that Marx defines shows his holist stance on understanding microsystems within a whole. This creation of the ‘collective labourer’ contributes to uniform labour productivity (Marx & Engels, 2010, p. 349).

In the measurement of the parameter of ‘labour power’, we observe many parallels between Quetelet and Marx, mainly in their understanding of how societal conditions determine averages and how averages manifest at the individual levels. The central part of Quetelet’s average man is the fact that there exists an ‘average’ nature of society at a particular time and place. Marx notes that to be able to produce at the ‘socially necessary’ level, the labour employed must be of ‘average efficacy’ and the ‘labour should be carried on under normal conditions’ (Marx & Engels, 2010, p. 206). This means that both the labourer and the capitalist play their role in creating the average conditions. What counts as the basic power of a labourer is also a given: ‘Simple average labour, it is true, varies in character in different countries and at different times, but in a particular society is given’ (Marx & Engels, 2010, p. 54). But to compensate for the ‘deviations’ the capitalists enable cooperation so that ‘When the labourer co-operates systematically with others, he strips off the fetters of his individuality, and develops the capabilities of his species’ (Marx & Engels, 2010, p. 334). By ‘species’, Marx refers to fellow workers who already embody the ‘average’ nature.

Measuring Labour as a Commodity

In the previous section, we have seen how the productivity of the worker is measured, while this section focuses on how the compensation to labour for their work is measured. This distinction is crucial to Marx as he notes that the production of value by the labourer and compensation are determined differently. In the capitalistic production system, labour is sold as a commodity in the market, and the compensation is measured by the subsistence required to reproduce their labour power. The commodification of labour and its treatment as any other non-living means of production has moral consequences (Marx & Engels, 2010, p. 181). This section views how the worker as a commodity is valued through their subsistence and how this is measured in Marx’s analysis.

Marx recognises that subsistence is given in a particular society at a specific time as quoted here:

the value of labour power, and therefore the part of the working day necessary for the reproduction or maintenance of that labour power, are supposed to be given, constant magnitudes. (Marx & Engels, 2010, p. 307)

What Marx means by ‘value of labour power’ is the wage paid as compensation for labour. Marx realises that commodities alone are not sufficient for the worker to reproduce themselves, and they also require time for leisure during the working day to rejuvenate (Marx & Engels, 2010, p. 240). Hence, we observe that subsistence comprises both tangible commodities and time and other intangible social requirements. By ‘given’ Marx means that what is conventionally understood as ‘subsistence’ for a place is socially determined for a particular place and time. This suggests that the parameter of ‘subsistence’ emerges and manifests at an aggregate level, affecting the decisions of individual capitalists and workers. The phrase ‘constant magnitudes’ does not suggest that they remain unchanged and unaffected; rather, in the discussion regarding the working day, Marx mentions explicitly that these ‘magnitudes’ are a product of constant negotiation and conflict between the working and capitalist classes. Marx leaves this outcome ‘open’ because of the political nature of the battle of the classes and hence concludes that ‘The working day is, therefore, determinable, but is, per se, indeterminate’ (Marx & Engels, 2010, p. 240). We can again here draw a parallel to how averages at the aggregate are dialectically determined and that the idea of ‘subsistence’ comes very close to Quetelet’s idea of ‘average conditions’.

Appearance of the Worker

In the previous sections, we have seen that labour measured in the productive space through embodying labour and the measurement of labour as subsistence are measured in abstract intangible units. When Marx speaks of a labourer within the working class with respect to the production of a specific commodity, he assumes that the labourer expends ‘uniform human labour’. Marx is able to make this assumption as the productivity and nature of production become uniform creating ‘average’ conditions with the progression of capitalist accumulation. Hence, the labourer referred to in the class is of a ‘uniform’ nature and the same holds for everyone else in the class.

Marx acknowledges the heterogeneity of how labour is performed across different productive activities, but he makes the assumption of ‘simple labour power’. By this, Marx is able to measure many strenuous productive activities as employing a multiple of simple labour power. What follows this assumption is that all workers within a class now appear as individuals possessing the same skill and power to create and produce, thereby creating homogenous individuals within the working class. Also, the uniform appearance within the class is abstract in nature.

Personification of ‘Capital’ as the Capitalist

Marx defines the capitalist as someone for whom ‘the appropriation of ever more and more wealth in the abstract becomes the sole motive of his operations, that he functions as a capitalist, that is, as capital personified and endowed with consciousness and a will’ (Marx & Engels, 2010, pp. 163–164). When Marx uses the word ‘capital’ to personify the larger goal, he is referring to the whole class of capitalists but does not call this their ‘collective motive’ as a class. Therefore, when he uses the word ‘capital’ to personify the individual capitalist, Marx understands that they are a product of the collective motive of the capitalist class. However, the word ‘capital’ does refer to not only the capitalist class alone but also something distinct from it. By placing the collective and individual motives within the class, a distinct identity is created that drives the personal and collective action of the class as a whole. This is the meaning of the word ‘capital’.

What drives the actions of the individual self of the capitalist is guided by the larger motives of the class, and this might suggest the redundancy of understanding the capitalist. Their specific actions and motives might differ at individual levels, but on the whole, they are in alignment with that of ‘capital’. To quote Marx in this context:

As capitalist, he is only capital personified. His soul is the soul of capital. But capital has one single life impulse, the tendency to create value and surplus value, to make its constant factor, the means of production, absorb the greatest possible amount of surplus labour. (Marx & Engels, 2010, p. 241)

By personifying the abstraction of ‘capital’ as the capitalist within the system, Marx paints a picture where capitalists are fully devoid of any personality beyond their class existence. Their expression within the system is only through accumulation and consumption as a capitalist to maintain the needs of the capitalist class. Hence, we see that the personal consumption of a capitalist is also seen as serving the capitalist production system or seen as a constraint to the accumulation of capital (Marx & Engels, 2010, p. 589).

Role of Creating ‘Average’ Production Conditions

In the first part of this section, we observed the emergence of the ‘collective labourer’ in a large manufacturing unit and the increased productivity as a consequence. To be able to reap these benefits of production, capital must be able to employ them in the first place. Marx writes that there exists a minimum amount of capital that needs to be invested by an individual capitalist ‘in order to metamorphose himself into a capitalist’ (Marx & Engels, 2010, p. 313). This ‘minimum’ is decided at a societal level, particular to the time and place and the progression of capitalist production broadly. This parameter that measures the power of the capitalist, Marx understands, is a product of competition between individual capitalists and already existing production conditions. According to Marx, in the progression of capitalist production, individual capitalists must be able to compete and continuously accumulate and innovate to have productive gains (Marx & Engels, 2010, p. 310). Individual capitalists can achieve productive gains when they are able to set out capital to pay for the subsistence of labourers involved in production (Marx & Engels, 2010, p. 335). It hence becomes necessary for individual capitalists to hold more capital progressively, to be able to adapt and participate in production among competition, leading to the centralisation of capital.

This sort of centralisation of capital by capitalists is what enables cooperation between individual labourers, creating ‘average’ productivity conditions within the working class. We should here again note the parallel to Quetelet that we see in Marx, in understanding individual unit’s averages as socially distinct and as dialectically created in the system through the interaction of the aggregate and the individuals. The course of action that the individual capitalist takes is changing the organic composition of capital and the method of production that will yield temporary productivity gains, but Marx clearly states that this push that the capitalist’s experience and the need to continue to accumulate are the product of the manifestation of ‘Capital’ within the capitalist.