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 ---
Display software: ArchTracker © Malgosia Askanas, 2000-2005