sins, but also to grapple with the arkhèof those sins, Satan himself. In Aristo-
telian terms, Satan is the pros henof infernal cosmology, that one toward
which everything else gestures. But when Virgil and Dante reach this arkhè,
they have also reached the ladder out of Hell, climbing “down” his flank to
the center of the world, where they turn and climb up to exit from his realm
(Inf. 34.70–93). Only then does Satan appear as he truly is, an upside-down
king of an upside-down realm. Only through grappling with this inverted
foundation of Hell can Dante and Virgil turn right-side up again, and escape
from the world of no hope.
Marx’s critique of political economy also contains this dynamic of radical
confrontation and reversal. As we’ve seen, Ricardo’s formulation of the labor
theory of value marks the limit of political economy as a science. But Ricardo’s
formulation marks the end of political economy precisely because it also sup-
plies political economy with its foundation. All of political economy is a pre-
monition of, or reference to, the labor theory of value in its purity.^17 But the
labor theory of value refers most directly to labor that has undergone a process
of social abstraction. Labor that is really subsumed under capital most truly
creates value (Murray 2000a). Therefore, it is a mistake to imagine that the
labor theory of value only matters for the opening section of Capital. The
development of capital from its simplest appearance to its constitution as
the self-reproducing form of society (Parts 1–7) is also the progression through
more and more adequate expressions of the labor theory of value. At the end
of this progression, we encounter the foundation of political economy in its
purest form; labor as it appears here can only produce capital.
And yet, there still remains an entire Part Eight ahead of us, which does
not seem to continue either the historical or logical progression established
by everything prior to it (see, e.g., Murray 2002:161). Instead, Marx presents
us with “the so-called primitive accumulation,” a historical tour stretching
back as far as the Fourteenth Century. There is no wonder that numerous
commentators have found Part Eight to be tacked on, an addition that in no
way furthers the argument (Arthur and White 2001:130). If Capitalended
here, however, Marx would have led us into the heart of capital only to leave
us there. Capital would be a self-creating, self-sustaining, self-reproducing
The Origin of Political Economy and the Descent of Marx • 49(^17) As Marx writes, “the historical course of all sciences leads first through a mass
of crusades and diversions to its actual point of departure. Science, unlike other archi-
tects, builds not only castles in the air, but may construct separate habitable stories
of the building before laying the foundation stone” (1970:57).