My take on Meszaros Beyond Capital was that it was a step backward from the heights of Power of Ideology, and of Alienation. The biggest flaw is that he objectifies capital to such an extent that it seems insurmountable.
This is particularly marked in the passages explaining the resurrection of the market in the Soviet Union. Troubled by the reversal, Meszaros tries to argue that the capitalist mode of production is salted away more deeply than had been thought, in the very character of the technical division of labour. Therefore, the Communists failed because having abolished the capitalist mode of appropriation they failed to expunge the capitalistically oriented technical division of labour which came back to haunt them (I'm vulgarising to save space).
Meszaros error is that he has invested too great a faith in the thorough-goingness of the socialist states of East Europe. Consequently he is disoriented by the rapidity of their collapse. Arguing that they had inaugurated a socialist division of labour is to give mroe credit than is due. Of course, assessments of the nature of the Soviet State are largely irrelevant. Except in this case, Meszaros' illusions in the depth of the transition rebound in a pessimistic conclusion that comes close to explaining away the subjective failings of the Soviet leaders as the consequence of a near-insurmountable barrier to socialism (the depth of the capitalist division of labour). Failure to assume subjective responsibility for what went wrong means that Meszaros ends up explaining that socialism was objectively impossible.
This is particularly tragic in a thinker of Meszaros' depth, especially because he explained so well:
1. That the defeat of the Soviet Union would disorient the left far beyond those who were formally committed to it, because they were, as he pointed out in Power of Ideology, intellectually dependent upon Stalinism, even if they were organisationally independent. Tragic that he himself should fall foul of the trend he anticipated.
2. That the theory that the USSR was in fact capitalist, or 'state- capitalist' was an absurdity, in an article that is printed as an addendum to Beyond Capital. It is a shame because he shows why the theory that the Soviet Union was capitalistic is false, but then, in effect, resurrects a modified version of it, namely that the Soviet Union had a capitalistic division of labour.
Evidence of Meszaros' undue objectification of capital can be seen in the passages where he attacks Lukacs for putting too great a stress upon the subjective factor. Now of course, many of Meszaros' criticisms of his old teacher have been on the ball (mostly in Critique). But on this score M. is simply giving ground to ideological defeat, in a peculiarly self-destructive way. He is taking on board the experience of the defeat of communist agency in such a way as adapt to that defeat and integrate it into his system, but unconsciously, as a theoretical objectification of the limits of the revolutionary potential.
Meszaros work has been a central contribution to the defense of revolutionary theory in the post-war period, but his latest work is, at the risk of being unkind, too monumental, as if trying to insist upon the objective process of change, independent of the subjective factor. The effect is one of great sagacity, but in fact it is mildly despairing. That said, it is pretty undeniable that the profundity of his reading of Marx and Hegel stands head and shoulders above most commentators. It would be helped though, if he had the stamina to engage more with more contemporary material. -- Jim heartfield