File spoon-archives/marxism-international.archive/marxism-international_1997/marxism-international.9709, message 588


Date: Tue, 30 Sep 1997 10:40:54 +0100
From: James Heartfield <James-AT-heartfield.demon.co.uk>
Subject: Re: M-I: proletarians (from Jim B)


In message <v02130500b0562396ab69-AT-[128.112.70.29]>, Rakesh Bhandari
<bhandari-AT-yuma.Princeton.EDU> writes
>The following rich message is from Jim Blaut who, I am sure, meant to send
>it to the line;  I cannot reply at this time as it would require a thorough
>investigation of the debate about

I though Jim and Rakesh's points were very interesting indeed, a few
themes stand out:

1. Is capitalism from the outset endemically parasitic on the non-
capitalist world?

2. Is capitalism today parasitic on the less developed world?

3. Is Marx's theory Eurocentric for focussing on Capitalism's internal
dynamic to the exclusion of its relation to the non-capitalist world?

I don't think any of these questions deserves a black and white answer,
because they turn on complex issues. Provisionally I suggest:

1. Not endemically so. Various instances of plunder, such as the seizure
of Gold from the Americas, or slaves from Africa are historical factors
in the development of capitalism, but they are not intrinsic to
capitalist development. Caution is necessary here, because the whole
point about Marx's treatment of primitive accumulation (ie the origins
of capitalism) is that these origins themselves are quite different from
the spontaneous operation of market relations. In particular, direct
force is the origin of capital, where indirect force is normally
sufficient for its spontaneous accumulation. The weight of this is that
the original, primitive accumulation of capital, is itself not an
intrinsic characteristic of capital. But surely this is a paradox? How
could Capital's origins be anything but intrinsic to its operation?

At the core of this question is the difference between Marx's logico-
historical method and the teleological method of Hegel and romantic
historiography. In the latter the origins of a nation, city or people,
can tell you everything about its future development. This is the idea
of the 'genius' of a nation. But Marx's method is to look not at the
origins of a social formation, but to look at its own inner dynamic. His
point is that, whatever the origins of capital, it becomes its own
grounding, as capital realised lays the basis of new rounds of
accumulation, and on an expanded scale. (Implicit in this is the idea
that in truth, labour is the basis of capital, as capital is a relation
of value to value, and value is the source of labour). The use values
produced outside of the capitalist world continued to be a raw material
for capital, insofar as they could be made the repository of exchange
value. But while the relationship of the capitalist world to its
exterior was accidental and contingent (and perhaps all the more
barbaric for that), its internal relationship of capital to labour is
what is essential to its reproduction.

2. Yes. Clearly. That much can be divined empirically from the low
growth rates in the advanced world compared with the much higher growth
rates in some parts of the developing world. The various myths about the
information society and the redundancy of material production do reflect
a real characteristic of the advanced (decadent) nations to the rest of
the world. Through their monopoly over advanced technologies, and over
the main financial centres, it would seem that much of the value that is
realised in the West is produced elsewhere. That point should not be
overstated, in that much of the West is still heavily industrialised,
but a far greater proportion of the working class today is to be found
in the newly industrialising countries.

Riders on this point: It would not be possible for the advanced natioons
to systematically exploit the rest of the world if the market had not
been globalised. The Stalinist world (grotesque as its own development
was) placed a simple limitation upon the West's ability to appropriate
surplus value, by producing none. The relatively (relative to
population) low density of wage labourers in the underdeveloped world
places a limitation on the capacity of capital to exploit those people.
Where subsistence farming is the norm, surpluses can only be plundered
through trade, usury and so on. The disadvantage of such a system for
the capitalist is that without direct control over the production
process, there is no possibility of cranking up the rate of exploitation
by improving productivity. Put crudely, a Kenyan farm-labourer might
live in greater penury, but a South Korean factory worker is more
exploited - putting no moral interpretation on that purely scientific
term.

3. Marx's theory of capital was Eurocentric, to the extent that Capital
reached its highest point of development, in Marx's day, in Europe. The
question was not posed in those terms while he was working. Rather, he
was keen to ward off the accusation that he was 'Anglo-centric' (to use
modern terminology) in using the English factory system as a model of
social development. His rejoinder was simple: Don't be deceived, this is
your future I am showing you. He meant that what seemed to be a
Characteristically English (or Dutch) development, capitalism, would
become generalised throughout the world. On that score, he was right,
and provided us with the best defences against that system in his anti-
capitalist theory.

Marx's studies on non-capitalist modes of production were diligent and
interesting, but I don't think it is necessary to make a definitive case
for these. It is alleged, but less often demonstrated, that he and
Engels were dependent on sources that have since been overthrown (like
Morgan). His discussion of Asiatic modes of production, or even feudal
society are not presented as definitive investigations, but only
attempts to contrast the mode of production of capital, from that of
other societies: his object of enquiry was capital and only capital.
Wherever he seems to stray from that subject, his interest is, apart
from an admirable Victorian inquisitiveness, to illuminate the
capitalist mode of production. If Marx still has something to tell us
about world developments it is only because capital is the dominant
social relationship today.

Fraternally
-- 
James Heartfield


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

   

Driftline Main Page

 

Display software: ArchTracker © Malgosia Askanas, 2000-2005