Date: Thu, 28 Nov 1996 14:03:05 -0000
From: Adam Rose <Adam-AT-pmel.com>
Subject: M-I: Base and Superstructure, the London hanged chapter 6, Stalinism, the world economy today, the French Drivers Strike . . . 




----------


Gary writes:

> The disagreements with Adam really have to do with notions of 
determination and
> totality. He coming from a  semi-anarchistic tradition is rather weak 
on the
> notion of determination of the superstructure by the base. Adam I 
think
> seems to be working from a notion of power, where the ruling class 
will do
> anything and almost can do anything to maintain their class rule even 
if
> that means destroying the very basis of that rule.
> 
> This is  a big subject and it needs the kind of careful analysis that 
I
> cannot give it now. 
> 
> Overall on the question of determination I tend to a rather Raymond
> Williams' version where the base sets limits and creates tendencies 
rather
> than writes the superstructure. 

[ Well, I'd rather be a semi - anarchist than a vulgar materialist :-). 
]

i) My description of capitalism as an irrational system is a materialist
one. This applies to the basic dynamic of capitalism itself : it is
"rational"  for one capitalist to increase his profits, but this
"rational" act produces a fall in the overall rate of profit, including
his own. It also applies to any alliance between capitalists - two or more
capitalists may find that because they have complementary interests, that
they are able to agree with each other sufficiently to make political
alliances. But ANY such alliance is riven with contradiction - the closer
any two capitalists are in their position in the economy, the more cut
throat the competition between them will be.  Thus a materialist analysis
of capitalism must be dialectical, not just because we prefer it to be
dialectical, but because capitalism itself is riven with contradiction. 

To give an example, the French hate John Major for his Euro scepticism.
They want Britain in the Euro. Why ? Because they're sick of Britain
devaluing the pound and getting a competitive advantage. They've
endured years of an artificially high franc, and it's knackering them. 
They
want Britain in the Euro in order to PREVENT Britain gaining access to
European markets. Their Europeanism is also anti "Rostbif" ism. My 
( materialist, and dialectical ) point is that Australia's "Asianism" 
is seen
by Australian bosses as a means of wiping out their Asian competition,
not as some friendly cooperation treaty.

Hence your argument "Australian bosses interests are pan Asian,
therefore they are opposed to anti - Asian racism" is not materialist
and not dialectical. You have abstracted a theory from one aspect
( "moment" ) of material reality, not from the contradictory whole
of that reality. As I said before, this may or may not have
led you to correct conclusions - I'm not Australian, I can't judge this 
-
but your method is wrong.



ii) Hence my disagreement with the basic idea of "synchronous" and
"non synchronous" trends / parties / people.  If I am not charicaturing
too much, you seem to indentifty "synchronous" with Thatcherite free
market capitalism, and "non synchronous" with authoritarian "populist"
strong state racism and protectionism. Again, the grounding of my
critique of this idea is first of all a materialist one : it completely 

underestimates the role of the state in contemporary capitalism.
The state is still crucial to capital - not simply in its role as 
providing
"armed bodies of men" to crush workers when they rebel, but in
mobilising its economic and political resources to create the 
conditions
in which capital accumulation can take place. Unfortunately, I am not
in a position to give concrete examples of this from Australian 
economic life, so I shall give British ones. Japanese, and recently
Korean, chip fabrication plants have recently been built in Britain.
The Tories claim this as a success for free market Thatcherism. In
fact, the British state has provided an educated work force, clean(ish)
water, a transport infrastructure, millions of pounds of state aid and
POLITICAL PROTECTION in the trade negotiations in the EC.
As the sheer size and complexity of each individual investment made
by multi national capital increases, the necessity for state support 
has
increased over the last few years, not decreased.

The consequence of this is that free market Thatcherism is as "irrational" 
or "non synchronous" as undiluted authoritarianism. The real world is a
contradictory mass of complementary and competing tendencies :  both
towards and away from a welfare state, towards and away from
globalisation, regionalisation, and the protection of "national"
champions, towards and away from large scale class confrontation, towards
and away from war WITHIN each trade bloc. The descent into war is a
perfectly "rational" and "synchronous" aspect of today's capitalism, and
the Asia - Pacific region, Australia included, is leading the way in this
respect - look at the arms build up in the region, at least as "rational"
and "synchronous" as open trading across barrierless borders.  What, after
all, is more rational than using your political and/or military muscle to
increase market share ? 

iii) I have tried to outline my idea of the "base" as a set of
complementary and competing tendencies. What impact does this have on "the
superstructure" ? Gary commends "Raymond Williams' version where the base
sets limits and creates tendencies rather than writes the superstructure".
As this sentence stands, I think it allows too much self determination to
the superstructure. I hold this position at the same time as having a non
determinist view of history. [ Gary meanwhile manages to hold to a
determinist view of history while simultaneously allowing the
superstructure more freedom ! ] The reason I can hold both these views is
that I see the actual real live struggle between and within classes,
between real men and women, as what determines how things turn out.  It is
our everyday practice which creates and also resolves the apparent
contradiction between necessity and contigency.

A few historical examples :

i) 	From Peter Linebaugh's "The London Hanged" Chapter Six.

Sometimes we can arrive at a view of the development of market
relations as something which arrived as the natural consequence
of the laws of capital. While this is of course true, we must not
forget that real people really related to each other in different, 
older,
 ways, and that the capitalists fought bloody battles with proletarians
and plebians in order to inflict these new market relations upon them.

Linebaugh starts by the seemingly innocent observation that there
was a disproportionately high number of butchers amongst the
people hanged at Tyburn in the 1700's in England.

He then relates this to the changes going in the delivery of protein
to London, ie the meat trade. The old market, the covered market,
was designed precisely in order to bring producers into a direct
relationship with consumers, unmediated by hucksters ie people
who bought cheaply and early in the day in order to create a 
market shortage and sell later in the day at a high price. This
old system was swept away in the 1700's. The "free market" ie
markets that were "free" from the regulation of the city authorities,
and therefore "open" to the hucksters, ruined the small independent
plebian butchers by squeezing their margins. This led butchers to 
highway robbery. Highway robbery basically meant following the circuit
of the commodity, in this case animals, to the point at which money
changed hands, and liberating the money from its owner, at the 
appropriate time and place. This robbery was popularly sanctioned.
The hucksters had stolen from the producers and the consumers
what was rightly theirs, and the butchers were taking it back. The
butchers knew where the animals were fattened after the long 
journey from the country before they were brought to market - the
common lands around London. After their robberies, they hid in
these common lands ( one of which, the Harrow Weald, still 
survives as common land, and is near where I grew up ).
Dick Turpin "was the son of an Essex Farmer. He attended
a common school and completed an apprenticeship to a
Whitechapel BUTCHER". All the legends of Dick Turpin
are essentially  a record of this period of struggle between
plebians and capitalists over the introduction of the "free"
market.

The finance capitalists responded in two ways : firstly, to
cut down the trees near the roads, and enclose as much 
of the commons as possible; secondly, to change the means
of payment. The idea behind changing the means of payment
was to separate in time and space the transfer of the commodity
>from the transfer of the money. The producer came to the dealer
and handed over the cattle. The transaction was recorded in a book,
and a receipt issued. Later, perhaps days later, the receipt was
exchanged for cash. The dealer could keep these accounts - or,
the accounts could be held in one place, all together - ie A BANK.

In other words, the needs of the class struggle forced the capitalists
to improvise. This institutional improvisation forced on them as 
a result of the class struggle led to further commodification, and
enhanced the further separation of toilers from their produce.
Banks, accounts, and wide roads were the result of this struggle
between classes.

[ And this tendency is continuing today - nowadays, I hardly
ever use cash. I rarely even use a cheque - such primitive
instruments are reserved for the corrner shop, the newsagent,
weekend bread + breakfasts, and contributing to the Socialist
Worker appeal. ]

ii) The Birth of State Capitalism in Russia ( From Riemann's "The Birth of
Stalinism in Russia" ). [ I have thrown in this one just to annoy all the
out and out Stalinists, soft Stalinists, and people who make concessions
to Stalinists, just too make sure I am my in normal splendid minority of
one ! ) 

Sometimes when we look at Stalinism, even after its collapse, it strikes
us as some incredible monolith. Indeed, to the people in the slave camps.
It must have seemd that way. But the interesting thing about the birth of
Stalinism in Russia in 1928 was that it came out of particular
constellation of multiple crises. Stalin did not wake up and say "ah !
today I think I'll atomise the working class and destroy the peasantry in
order to build up Russian state capital". The rapid industrialisation, and
the consequent attack on the peasantry and the working class, was a
solution to the increasing resistance of the peasantry.  the increased
militancy of the working class, the continuous pressure from the
Imperialists, and the worrying rise of the opposition. But it was a
solution Stalin stumbled upon, not some planned thing. One particular
advantage was that it completely wrong footed the mainly Trotskyist
opposition ( which had about 10,000 supporters ) , preventing them from
tapping into the upturn in workers militancy at the time. 

iii) 	France Today and the Euro.

The plans for European Economic and Monetary union are in the balance with
the current lorry drivers strike, and the medium term battle between
French bosses and French workers, of which this strike is merely one
episode. There are splits in all the European ruling classes about the
wisdom of the strategy. At present in France and Germany the balance is in
favour of monetary union, but with some grave worries. IF the French
bosses win this medium term battle, then French capital will be able to
survive under the Euro. If they lose, it is by no means obvious that
monetary union is viable. A precondition to union is a successful assault
on precisely the issues they have already conceded on : working hours and
retirement age. The mass of contradictory pressures will be resolved in
one way if the French bosses win, and another if they lose. I do not
believe I am exaggerating to say that the culmination of 40 years of
European capital's strategy is at stake in last year's strikes, the lorry
drivers now, and the inevitable strikes in the near future ie this year,
next year and the year after. In other words, what is "rational" or
"synchronous" for the French ruling class in terms of its position in the
European order is being decided now on the streets of France. 

I shall now collapse in a heap, exhausted.

Adam.


Adam Rose
SWP
Manchester
Britain.




















     --- from list marxism-international-AT-lists.village.virginia.edu ---