•

COMMUNICATIONS

Science & Society, Vol. 84, No. 2, April 2020, 261–275

WORK INTENSITY AND VALUE FORMATION:

A SUGGESTED INTERPRETATION*

Introduction

This paper proposes a simple formalization of Marx’s concept of labor-power

expenditure, considering the often-neglected concept of work intensity. It
follows Ioannides and Mavroudeas’ (2010; 2011) formal study of the role of
the intensity of labor in the formation of value and surplus value. The paper
seeks to reach two kinds of readers: 1) Marxist scholars already familiar with
the concepts, though not specialized in Marxist economic theory; and 2)
students and the general public, who are already familiar with Marxist eco-
nomic theory but look for clarification or simple explanations of concepts
such as labor time, work intensity, absolute surplus value and relative surplus
value. The crucial concept of labor-power expenditure is defined in Section
1; in sections 2 and 3, the Marxist theories of value and surplus value are
explained. Special attention will be given to the increase of surplus value in
relative terms due to a rise in the intensity of labor.

Labor-Power Expenditure

Marx begins chapter 1 of Capital by introducing the concept of the

commodity: the “wealth of those societies in which the capitalist mode of
* We thank the anonymous reviewers for their insightful comments and suggestions. Respon-
sibility for any mistakes remains ours.

261
262 SCIENCE & SOCIETY

production prevails” (2010, 45). After this introduction, Marx goes on to

analyze the interchangeability of commodities and reaches the conclusions
that: “first: the valid exchange values of a given commodity express something
equal; secondly, exchange value, generally, is only the mode of expression,
the phenomenal form, of something contained in it, yet distinguishable from
it” (2010, 47). According to Marx, the common property in all commodi-
ties is not found in their material elements or their possible uses, but what
underlies them is human labor in the abstract. If we

make abstraction at the same time from the material elements and shapes that make
the product a use value . . . [they can] no longer be regarded as the product of the
labour of the joiner, the mason, the spinner, or of any definite kind of productive
labour. Along with the useful qualities of the products themselves, we put out of sight
both the useful character of the various kinds of labour embodied in them, and the
concrete forms of that labour; there is nothing left but what is common to them all;
all are reduced to one and the same sort of labour, human labour in the abstract. (2010,
48, emphasis added.)

This common substance is not only a physical element that makes them equal
but, more importantly, is also a social element. This is so because human
labor in the abstract is different historically, and Marx is referring to human
labor performed in a capitalist society.
Despite the heterogeneity in the concrete types of labor, Marx states that
human labor in the abstract means the “mere congelation of homogeneous
human labor, of labor-power expended without regard to the mode of its
expenditure” (2010, 48). But here we must pause and ask ourselves what
are the various forms of labor-power expenditure. Marxist theorists quickly
jump to equate labor-power expenditure with labor time, and this is largely
due to Marx’s immediate treatment of socially necessary labor time as the
magnitude of value. Nevertheless, when he explains this concept, he insists
that labor-power expenditure must be uniform. For this uniformity to exist,
the labor-power exerted must be average labor-power or social labor-power
expenditure. This demands that labor-power expenditure be done “with the
average degree of skill and intensity prevalent at the time” (2010, 49, emphasis
added). Hence, labor-power expenditure has two more constitutive com-
ponents and, therefore, is a totality of three integrating elements: 1) labor
time, 2) work intensity, and 3) work skill.
Marx defines the magnitude of value as socially necessary labor time
and uses only labor time (e.g., hours of work) to measure it, but he does so
only because he considers that labor time is performed along with average/
social skill and intensity. Afterwards, Marx says that skilled labor counts as
“multiplied simple labor, a given quantity of skilled being considered equal
 WORK INTENSITY AND VALUE FORMATION 263

to a greater quantity of simple labor” (2010, 54), but he does not explicitly
talk about work intensity in chapter 1 of Capital, I.
An explanation of labor-power expenditure can be constructed using
Marx’s statements elsewhere in Capital, particularly chapters 15, 16 and 17.
Labor-power expenditure is the total effort of a worker. Such total effort is
the result of the combination of labor time, work intensity and skill. Since
the main issue addressed in this paper is work intensity, we will focus on the
formation of labor-power expenditure as the quantitative relation between
labor time and work intensity; skill will be considered the same way Marx did,
i.e., as a given scalar that multiplies simple labor-power expenditure.
The quantitative formation of labor-power expenditure is given by labor
time, as regards its extensive aspect; and by work intensity, as regards its
degree aspect. In order to take skill into account, we would need to 1)
compute labor-power expenditure with working time and work intensity;
and 2) multiply this by 1 for simple labor and by x for skilled labor (where
x > 1, showing how many times more skilled is that kind of work compared
to simple labor). Nevertheless, with the previous simplification — taking
work skill as given — we reduce the analysis to one based on the other two
constituent variables.
Labor-power expenditure is thus defined as the combination of labor
time and work intensity. If work intensity is constant throughout the working
time, then labor-power expenditure is merely the product of the two. Figure
1 illustrates this geometrically with a rectangle, where labor time is the base,
work intensity is the height, and the area is labor-power expenditure. The
longer the working time (base) or the greater the intensity of labor (height),
the greater labor-power expenditure (area) will be. For example, if working
time is 10 hours and work intensity 1, then total labor-power expenditure
will be equal to 10.

Figure 1.  Labor-Power Expenditure

264 SCIENCE & SOCIETY

We can place labor-power expenditure in a Cartesian plane, where the

horizontal axis is working time and the vertical axis corresponds to work
intensity. One can then plot a figure according to the points given by the
combination of the two variables. This means that work intensity might not be
constant throughout the entire working time period and multiple rectangles
would be formed. In that case, labor-power expenditure becomes the sum
of all of the areas representing different work intensities throughout a given
period. Figure 2 illustrates a case where work intensity is 0.8 for 4 hours, then
increases to 1.2 for 5 hours and comes back to 0.8 for the last hour, i.e., a
labor-power expenditure of 10 in a working day of 10 hours.
The general definition of labor-power expenditure is the area beneath
the function defined between working time and work intensity, which is the
same as the definite integral of this function. But we will keep working with
simple geometric examples and stay with the simplest possible representa-
tions, for pedagogical purposes.
The explanation of labor-power expenditure when work intensity is
variable within a working day is not addressed in this paper and remains a
relevant research topic for the future. Nevertheless, we cite it in order to
show Marx’s simplification of work intensity in Capital. This simplification
is double. First, he considers work intensity to be constant, so labor-power
expenditure is the multiplication between working time and average work
intensity. Second, he takes average work intensity to be equal to unity, which
reduces a two-dimensional variable into one dimension, measured only by
its extension in time. For example, if the working time is 10 hours and work
intensity is 1, then labor-power expenditure is 10 and we don’t need to think
of it as the combination of working time and work intensity, but simply as
working time. Geometrically this means reducing labor-power expenditure
from a surface to a line.

Figure 2.  Variable Work Intensity

 WORK INTENSITY AND VALUE FORMATION 265

This simplification allowed Marx to proceed by working only with labor

time. Nevertheless, if work intensity is neglected it becomes impossible to
understand its impact on value formation.

Value

In the previous section we said that Marx’s way of passing from labor-
power expenditure to socially necessary labor time is one of the crucial causes
of Marxists’ “silent detachment of working time from the other dimension
of labor-power expenditure: the intensity of labor” (Ioannides and Mav-
roudeas, 2011, 112). Nevertheless, it is not the only cause. Marxist scholars
also often overlook the simplification explained previously and consequently
they overlook the logic of this issue for value theory. In Subsection C, “In-
tensification of Labor,” in chapter 15 of Capital, Marx states that a certain
amount of working time might count as a different amount due to greater
work intensity. For Marx, a higher intensity of labor

imposes on the workman increased expenditure of labour in a given time, height-

ened tension of labour power, and closer filling up of the pores of the working day,
or condensation of labour to a degree that is attainable only within the limits of the
shortened working day. This condensation of a greater mass of labour into a given
period thenceforward counts for what it really is, a greater quantity of labour. In ad-
dition to a measure of its extension, i.e., duration, labour now acquires a measure of
its intensity or of the degree of its condensation or density. The denser hour of the
ten hours’ working day contains more labour, i.e., expended labour power, than the
more porous hour of the twelve hours’ working day. (2010, 412.)

Ten hours can count as twelve hours because in the same temporal space
the worker expends the same amount of labor-power. How could 10 hours
count as 12 if the extensive measure of labor was the only one existing?
If we omit work intensity, this equation becomes impossible. It is because
the combination of labor time and work intensity gives as result something
different to both that x labor time can be equated to z labor time. The
logical implication is the following. The amount of labor time cannot be
equated to the amount of value, unless we consider that the working time
performed was done with the average/social/prevalent work ­intensity
— as Marx did. Either way, with or without simplification, the value is
not simply labor time; it is total labor-power expenditure (including the
intensity of labor).
If we consider social/average work intensity to be unity, then working
time is equal to the amount of value. If, in a branch of the economy, the
intensity of labor is higher than the social/average level, then it would count
as 1 + x. For example, if work intensity in the mining sector was 20% higher
266 SCIENCE & SOCIETY

than the social/average, then each hour of labor in that sector would count
as 1.2 social/average hours.
Using the previous geometric illustration, Figure 3 shows a rectangle of
area equal to 10 on account of a 10-hour working day and a work intensity
equal to 1. If work intensity increases to 1.2 and we keep labor time constant,
we get a bigger rectangle of area 12 (10 units of area from the original rect-
angle and 2 units of the new rectangle that is formed at the top).
Following Marx, if we were to transform the surface of 12 units of the
rectangle from the mining sector into a line, the only way to do it would be
treating the base of the rectangle as having grown from 10 to 12 (multiplica-
tion of the base and the new height, = 10 × 1.2), i.e., as if each hour of the
mining sector contains 1.2 social/average hours.
Regarding unit value, there is no trouble because Marx is crystal clear
in this regard:

. . . increased intensity of labour means increased expenditure of labour in a given

time. Hence a working day of more intense labour is embodied in more products
than is one of less intense labour, the length of each day being the same. Increased
productiveness of labour also, it is true, will supply more products in a given working
day. But in this latter case, the value of each single product falls, for it costs less labour
than before; in the former case, that value remains unchanged, for each article costs
the same labour as before. Here we have an increase in the number of products,
unaccompanied by a fall in their individual prices: as their number increases, so does
the sum of their prices. (2010, 524.)

Unit value is the ratio of total value (labor-power expenditure) to output.

An increase in work intensity causes two increments. First, it increases the
numerator by the amount of the rising labor-power expenditure. Second,
it raises the denominator by increasing the output. Since both increments
are equal, then the two growths offset each other, and the unit value of com-
modities remains unchanged.

Figure 3.  1 hour of Labor with Work Intensity Higher than Average Counts as 1 + x
Hours of Social Labor
 WORK INTENSITY AND VALUE FORMATION 267

Surplus Value

Marx’s explanation of the ways to increase surplus value is well known

and widely understood by Marxist scholars, particularly economists. Nonethe-
less, the previous explanation can facilitate this understanding. Additionally,
inclusion of work intensity in the explanation simplifies significantly the
understanding of how it is related to surplus value, and might contribute
to ending the debate on the way it produces surplus value (i.e., whether it
is absolute or relative).
One of the most important contributions of Marx to economic knowl-
edge is the discovery of surplus value. When capitalists use workers’ labor-
power in the production process, they require the latter to make a certain
labor-power expenditure and give them back the value of their labor-power.
If capitalists manage to extract more labor-power than what they give back to
the workers then they receive a surplus — the difference between workers’
labor-power expenditure and the value of their labor-power is surplus value.
The crucial thing here is the use of the labor-power; this determines how
much labor-power expenditure capitalists manage to extract from workers.
Marx says that the

use of that labouring power is only limited by the active energies and physical
strength of the labourer. The daily or weekly value of the labouring power is quite
distinct from the daily or weekly exercise of that power, the same as food a horse
wants and the time it can carry the horseman are quite distinct. The quantity of
labour by which the value of the workman’s labouring power is limited forms by
no means a limit to the quantity of labour which his labouring power is apt to
perform. (1969, 10.)

In order to continue with the explanation, we must first recall Marx’s divi-
sion of the working day, which is in fact the division of the daily labor-power
expenditure. Marx calls necessary labor the length of the working day that
workers use to replace the value of their labor-power, and surplus labor the
remaining length of the working-day that they perform toll-free for capital-
ists (unpaid labor). With the understanding of the previous sections, we can
immediately see that necessary labor and surplus labor refer in fact to the
portion of their labor-power expenditure workers use to replace what they
require to keep working, and to the excess of labor-power expenditure over
that portion, which they do not receive back and is appropriated by capital-
ists, respectively. This way, necessary labor and surplus labor are not a line,
but a surface that may change if either the working time or the intensity of
labor varies.
Figure 4 illustrates how daily labor-power expenditure is divided into
necessary labor and surplus labor.
268 SCIENCE & SOCIETY

Figure 4.  Division of Daily Labor-Power Expenditure

In Figure 4 daily labor-power expenditure is divided equally into two

parts. For example, if work intensity is equal to 1 and working time is 10
hours, then total labor-power expenditure is equal to 10 and necessary labor
and surplus labor are equal to 5.
We can now present Marx’s explanation of how to increase surplus value
in absolute and relative terms. The comprehension of both ways to augment
surplus value follows easily from the previous understanding of labor-power
expenditure in terms of its extension (labor time) and its degree of applica-
tion (work intensity).
While it is undisputed that increases in working time produce absolute
surplus value, it is still subject to debate whether increases in work intensity
produce surplus value in absolute terms (e.g., Catephores, 1989; Foley, 1986;
Hudson, 2001; Joosung, 1999) or in relative terms (e.g., Itoh, 1988; Philp
et al., 2005; Mavroudeas and Ioannides, 2011). After absolute surplus value
is briefly explained, we will proceed to a more detailed explanation of the
production of relative surplus value, as well as a simplified general proof that
labor intensification produces surplus value in relative terms.

Absolute Surplus Value

Increasing surplus value in absolute terms means increasing labor-power

expenditure by its extensive element. Figure 5 illustrates how surplus value
grows in absolute terms due to an increase in working time.
Marx, following his assumption of work intensity equal to 1 and conse-
quently using only a line (the base of the rectangle), explains how surplus
value grows by prolonging the working-day from b to c. Hence, surplus labor
increases by the line segment bc. If we take work intensity into account, the
reasoning remains the same, with the difference that surplus labor grows by
 WORK INTENSITY AND VALUE FORMATION 269

Figure 5.  Absolute surplus value

the new surface formed by the multiplication between the new line segment
bc and the unchanged work intensity (height).
For example, if work intensity is equal to 1 and working time grows
from 10 to 12, and the previous division of labor-power expenditure was
5 necessary labor and 5 surplus labor, then the new division is 5 necessary
labor and 7 surplus labor.

Relative Surplus Value

Increasing surplus value in relative terms is slightly more complex to

explain but thanks to the previous conceptualization of labor-power expen-
diture it is still simple.
There are two possible abstract ways to produce relative surplus value.
The first corresponds to an increase in the productivity of labor in the sector
producing means of consumption. The second corresponds to an increase
in work intensity. The first case is widely known and is undisputed, while the
second is still debated. We will briefly explain the first, and then elaborate
on the second.
1. Relative surplus value production through increases of labor productivity in
the sector producing means of consumption (working time and work intensity remain-
ing constant). Marx explains transparently the case where working time and
work intensity remain constant while the productivity of labor is variable.
The increase in the productivity of the sector producing means of consump-
tion reduces necessary labor, because now less labor-power expenditure is
required to reproduce the value of the worker’s consumption basket. Con-
sequently, the newly released portion of the given labor-power expenditure
is added to surplus labor.
270 SCIENCE & SOCIETY

In Figure 6 we see that the area over the segment ab was the necessary
labor before the increase in labor productivity. Nevertheless, the increase in
the productive forces of labor in the sector that produces means of consump-
tion reduces necessary labor to the area formed by segment ab´; therefore
the area given by segment b´b becomes an additional sum of surplus labor.
We must also notice that this case, different from absolute surplus value
production, keeps labor-power expenditure constant. The previous amount
of labor-power expenditure is divided differently, more for surplus labor and
less for necessary labor.
Marx’s almost full attention to this case may lead readers to think that
increasing productivity is the only possible way to produce relative surplus
value. We believe that Marx’s excessive attention to this case is explained by
his simplification of work intensity throughout Capital, which limits his abil-
ity to explain fully the work intensity case. This is also why he refers to work
intensity not in a general presentation but merely in scattered examples.
Nevertheless, in order to prove that rises in work intensity produce relative
surplus value, we must give more than examples and construct a general
interpretation. To do so, we will pay close attention to the general definition
of relative surplus value.
In Chapter 16 (“Absolute and Relative Surplus Value”) Marx reviews
what absolute and relative surplus value are, and also mentions the differ-
ence between the two. He explains:

Assuming that labour power is paid for at its value, we are confronted by this alterna-
tive: given the productiveness of labour and its normal intensity, the rate of surplus
value can be raised only by the actual prolongation of the working day; on the other
hand, given the length of the working day, that rise can be effected only by a change
in the relative magnitudes of the components of the working day, viz., necessary

Figure 6.  Relative Surplus Value Due to an Increase in Labor Productivity

 WORK INTENSITY AND VALUE FORMATION 271

labour and surplus labour; a change which, if the wages are not to fall below the
value of labour power, presupposes a change either in the productiveness or in the
intensity of the labour. (2010, 512.)

While absolute surplus value production is defined as the result of lengthen-

ing the extensive element (working time) of labor-power expenditure, relative
surplus value production is defined as the alteration of its two components
— necessary labor and surplus labor — in such a way that surplus labor be-
comes greater relative to necessary labor, whereas the extensive element of
labor-power expenditure (total length of the working day) remains constant.
Again, relative surplus value production is the result of a relative short-
ening of the necessary fraction of labor-power expenditure. In other words,
the necessary part of labor-power expenditure shrinks compared to the total,
which is the same as saying that it becomes smaller compared to the surplus
part of labor-power expenditure.
Hence, the only way to fully grasp the effect of work intensity on surplus
value is to remove Marx’s simplification for work intensity. The question
is how an increase in work intensity shrinks necessary labor compared to
surplus labor.
2. Relative surplus value production through increases of work intensity (work-
ing time and productivity of labor in consumer goods remaining constant). The
first thing that must be noticed is that, unlike the previous case, increases
in work intensity increase labor-power expenditure. This is also the case
with absolute surplus value formation, although we must not conflate the
two on the basis of this similarity. Absolute surplus value is defined by an
increase in the extensive element (working time) while the degree element
(work intensity) remains constant. Here we are explaining the converse case
of absolute surplus value, where the extensive element (working time) of
labor-power expenditure remains constant while the degree element (work
intensity) increases.
In Figure 7 we see an increase of work intensity from b to c and the
consequent increase in total labor-power expenditure.
Rising work intensity from b to c increases the area of the rectangle that
represents labor-power expenditure. For example, if work intensity rises from
1.0 to 1.2 and working time remains 10 hours (as in the previous examples),
then labor-power expenditure grows from 10 to 12 (as in the example of
absolute surplus value).
The relevant question remains the same: how does an increase in
work intensity shrink necessary labor compared to surplus labor? If neces-
sary labor remains constant the answer is almost obvious. The upper area
added (bc = 2 = 0.2 × 10) becomes surplus labor. Necessary labor remains
equal to 5 and surplus labor grows to 7. Hence necessary labor previously
represented 5/10 of labor-power expenditure and now represents 5/12,
272 SCIENCE & SOCIETY

Figure 7.  Relative Surplus Value Due to an Increase in Work Intensity (Necessary
Labor Constant)

which is the same as saying that the rate of exploitation grows from 100%
(= 5/5) to 140% (= 7/5).
Again, the increase in labor-power expenditure must not lead us to the
idea that this means an absolute increase of surplus labor. It might not be
easy to grasp this idea with the previous example because we left necessary
labor constant, but if we remove this assumption, then it becomes crystal clear
that an increase in work intensity means relative surplus value formation.
In the previous illustration we kept necessary labor constant (possibly
because worker’s rest would be enough for her to continue working in the
same conditions), but in general this is not the case. A higher work intensity
implies greater labor-power expenditure and the worker might require more
rest to keep the new working pace, i.e., it is highly likely that her necessary
labor would also increase. In that case surplus value would only grow if the
magnitude of the increase in necessary labor is less than half of the increase
of labor-power expenditure.
As in the previous example, work intensity grows from 1.0 to 1.2 and
consequently labor-power expenditure grows from 10 to 12. Now the differ-
ence is that we do not keep necessary labor constant. Let’s say for example
that necessary labor increases from 5 to 5.5, which means that surplus labor
increases from 5 to 6.5 (= 12 – 5.5). This implies that necessary labor shrinks
compared to total labor-power expenditure from 5/10 to 5.5/12 and conse-
quently the rate of exploitation grows from 100% to 130%. Although neces-
sary labor grows, the increase in surplus labor is greater; hence surplus value
is produced in relative terms.
In the previous example necessary labor increase captures 25% of the
total increase in labor-power expenditure. Nevertheless, this increase might
 WORK INTENSITY AND VALUE FORMATION 273

Figure 8.  Relative Surplus Value Due to an Increase in Work Intensity (Necessary
Labor Variable)

capture a bigger fraction of the total increase in labor-power expenditure.

This clarifies the proposition that surplus value will only grow if the mag-
nitude of the increase of necessary labor is less than half of the increase of
labor-power expenditure. Let’s say, for example, that necessary labor grows
from 5 to 6, then the surplus labor increase is also 1, which means that the
ratio of necessary labor to total labor-power expenditure remains constant
(first 5/5 and then 6/6), and consequently the rate of exploitation remains
100%. If the total growth of labor-power expenditure is divided only into two
parts, the only way in which necessary labor can become smaller compared to
surplus labor is if the increase of necessary labor is less than half of the total
growth of labor-power expenditure.
If the increase in work intensity causes necessary labor to grow by more
than half of the magnitude of the total increase of labor-power expenditure,
then it would even be harmful for capitalists to do this, because surplus value
would decrease instead of growing. For this reason, increases in work inten-
sity are usually accompanied by reductions in working time, so that worker’s
attrition does not cause a significant increment in necessary labor, allowing
surplus labor to increase more in relative terms. For example, if necessary
labor and surplus labor were equal to 5 and capitalists, after a combination
of factors consistent with reduction of the working day from 10 to 9 hours
and an increase work intensity from 1 to 1.2, managed to keep necessary
labor constant, then labor-power expenditure would grow from 10 to 10.8
(= 9 × 1.2) and surplus labor would grow from 5 to 5.8. Therefore, necessary
labor would move from representing 50% of total labor-power expenditure
to representing 46.29%, and the rate of exploitation would grow from 100%
to 116%.
274 SCIENCE & SOCIETY

Both cases explained in this subsection comply with the general defini-
tion of relative surplus value. When consumer-good productivity rises and
reduces necessary labor, both components of labor-power expenditure are
altered in such a way that surplus value becomes a greater fraction of total
labor-power expenditure. In the second case, the increase of work intensity
causes (in general) a positive alteration of the two components of labor-power
expenditure but surplus labor grows more compared/relative to necessary labor
and consequently surplus value grows.

Conclusion

The reasoning constructed throughout this paper allows us to under-

stand the fundamental concept of labor-power expenditure for value and
surplus value formation. Additionally, it allows us to prove that increases in
work intensity produce relative surplus value.

A. Sebastián Hernández and Alan A. Deytha

Hernández:
Jojutla 65, Col. Condesa
Del. Cuauhtémoc, C.P.
06140, México
a.sebastian.hdz.s@gmail.com

Deytha:
Citilcun 132, Col. Jardines del Ajusco
Del. Tlalpan, C.P.
14200, México
demoal5@hotmail.com

REFERENCES

Catephores, George. 1989. An Introduction to Marxist Economics. New York: New York
University Press.
Ioannides, Alexis, and Stavros Mavroudeas. 2010. “Work More or Work Harder? The
Duration and Intensity of Work in Marx's Capital.” Science & Society, 74:1, 85–102.
———. 2011. “A Model for the Relationship Between Working Time and the Intensity
of Labour.” Bulletin of Political Economy, 5:2, 111–127.
Itoh, Makoto. 1988. The Basic Theory of Capitalism. London: Macmillan.
Joosung, Rhie. 1999. “Labour Intensity and Surplus Value in Karl Marx: A Note.”
History of Economic Ideas, 7:3, 181–191.
Marx, Karl. 1969. Value, Price and Profit. New York: International Publishers.
———. 2010. Capital. Volume I. Collected Works, Volume 35. London: Lawrence &
Wishart.
 MARCUSE AND DIALECTICS 275

Mavroudeas, Stavros, and Alexis Ioannides. 2011. “Duration, Intensity and Productivity
of Labour and the Distinction Between Absolute and Relative Surplus Value.”
Review of Political Economy, 23:3, 421–437.
Philp, Bruce, Gary Slater, and David Harvie. 2005. “Preferences, Power, and the De-
termination of Working Hours.” Journal of Economic Issues, 39:1, 75–90.

Science & Society, Vol. 84, No. 2, April 2020, 275–281

A NOTE ON MARCIAL GONZÁLEZ’

“HERBERT MARCUSE’S REPUDIATION OF DIALECTICS”

Marcial González recognizes much that is worthwhile in the philosophy of

Herbert Marcuse and also much that is worthy of criticism from the point
of view of a classical dialectical and historical materialism. However, his con-
tention that Marcuse has flatly repudiated dialectics is untenable. I want to
support a key point González makes even though his article undercuts his
own statement:

. . . if Marcuse’s reasons for defending the dialectic [in Reason and Revolution] were
valid 75 years ago during a time of heightened global antagonisms brought about in
conjunction with world war and fascism, they are just as valid today in an era marked
by the absence of large-scale revolutionary movements, the constant threat of impe-
rialist war, the ever-looming peril of economic crisis, the rampant spread of racist,
sexist, anti-immigrant, Islamophobic, and neo-fascist ideologies, the fossil-fuel–driven
devastation of the environment, and the arrogant claims of liberals and conservatives
alike that Marxism and history itself have come to an end.

González challenges his own assertion, arguing that Marcuse’s work

must be divided into two opposing phases: It “offers examples of both a rig-
orous dialectical Marxism in his earlier years and a revised political theory
that refutes Marxism in his later years.” He finds further that Marcuse’s
purported turn away from Marxism is in large measure responsible for “the
abandonment of dialectics . . . [that] . . . has carried over into a good deal
of the post-Marxism and cultural studies of our own time.” In his estimation,
“this shift becomes evident in One-Dimensional Man (1964) and other works
from that period.”
It is true that One-Dimensional Man (ODM) has been often misunderstood
as an anti-manifesto of the paralysis of the critical mind, oppositional politics,