A short overview of Kojin Karatani’s Marxist influenced focus on modes of exchange as revealing the Borromean ring of Capital-Nation-State, and the import of this ring for religion.
Kojin Karatani is one of the most interesting Marxist theorists of the last century. I put his work, as a form of “non-traditional” Marxism, in the same category as Marxist projects like those pursued by, for example, the Frankfurt School or Black Marxism. And like them—and indeed Marx himself—he has much to say to anyone interested in political theology or the study of religion more broadly.
Although Karatani has made interesting contributions to our understanding as a critic, a philosopher, a theorist, and beyond, my focus in what follows will be chiefly on his Marxist prioritization of “modes of exchange.” While this approach makes him a controversial figure as a commentator on Marx, this focus on modes of exchange is central to understanding the significance of his thought for political theology and religion.
According to Karatani, Marxism has generally oriented itself around modes of production, focusing on the means and ownership of production. Karatani’s unorthodox claim is that we should—if we want to address questions of “capitalism, state, and nation in a fundamental way”—consider modes of exchange.
Before turning to what that means, let me consider briefly one reason that Karatani pursues this route. According to him, without such a turn, “traditional” Marxism is confronted with certain problems (and, at a high level of altitude, this is a basic premise he shares as much with aforementioned non-traditional Marxists like Theodor W. Adorno or Cedric J. Robinson). First, for example, if modes of production are reified as the “economic base,” then culture, politics, art, and so forth are potentially viewed “merely” as an ideological superstructure. It becomes difficult to situate the importance of some of these elements for our lives. Second, such a prioritization also fails as a historical orientation, since it (1) becomes difficult to understand both earlier phases of history where there was no neat split between economics and politics (as there is in capitalist society), and it (2) fails to account for the ways in which “ideological” structures like state, nation, and religion continue to exert a strong influence separate from—or at times even counter to—the interests or movements of capital.
Of course, Karatani is aware that there are traditions within Marxism that take a more nuanced view of things and address the ideological superstructure in autonomous terms. According to him, however, such perspectives lead to increasingly fragmented approaches that have trouble recovering the sort of systematic perspective that was central to Marx’s impulses. Enter Karatani’s turn to modes of exchange as a means for orienting the Marxist story.
According to Karatani, an interest in exchange (conceived in broad terms) occupies Marx from his earliest work. Such an interest continues until the late 1840s, when Marx turns his attentions exclusively to commodity exchange, or an exchange governed by money and commodity. On Karatani’s view, Marx’s investigations in Capital are meant to understand the various elements of commodity exchange. There are other forms of exchange besides commodity exchange.
Before turning to some of these other modes of exchange, which are, in fact, central for understanding Karatani’s views on religion, nation, and other phenomena, let me say a bit more about how Karatani conceptualizes commodity exchange in this context. According to Karatani, commodity exchange arises with exchange between two communities, not amidst individuals. A quick way to understand this point is to note that even within systems of commodity exchange there are pockets where other forms of exchange are the norm (e.g., the family structure).
Commodity exchange originates from mutual consent and mutual recognition between two communities. Such recognitive relations do not, however, lead to equality under the sign of commodity exchange; in fact, quite the opposite: because money is what allows individuals to exchange commodities, through its valorization, there emerge possibilities for association that exhibit vastly differing power relations. Money in fact allows someone the ability to purchase commodities, most notably—in this context—the commodity of labor, which, in turn, can produce surplus value.
It is worth pausing here to understand exactly how Karatani’s story very much engages with the core element of Marx’s story…
https://politicaltheology.com/kojin-karatani/
********************************************************
Karl Marx in the Anthropocene: the post-capitalist, green manifesto captivating Japan
Militant capitalism, bad infinity, and the longing for total revolution
Walter Benjamin: Capitalism as Religion (1921)
Kojin Karatani Wins Berggruen Prize (2022)
Eric Toussaint: Concerning the founding of the Bretton Woods’ Institutions
After the truth-shower 