SOME REMARKS ON AMIN'S FIRST PRINCIPLES
Amin take 'national policies' as if something miracle, as if a remedy
for all problems. And he reduces the 'economic' to 'politic'.
" Meanwhile the issue of the relation between the economic and
noneconomic
spheres,that is to say,of links between politics and culture....(p.138).
As you see here economic sphere corresponds the political sphere. As a
result of this approach he try to explain all economic events by
referring
to politics.
" We already know of a historical precedent that underpinned the
European
( and American ) miracle: namely, the national historic compromise
between
capital and labour,in which the state played an indispensable role as
site
of negotiation and instrument of implementation." ( p. 131)
" I am arguing that these successes should be credited as much to the
effective national policies of France, Italy and Spain in particular, as
to the opportunities offered by market expansion." ( p.115)
" The real engine of growth in postwar Europe was the social compromise
between capital and labour...." (p.113)
" I simply draw attention to the fact that all the countries in question
have,to one degree or another, adopted policies marked by strong
economic
nationalism, in the protectionist and statist sense noted above.They
have
not, like the countries of the EC, The United States,Latin America or
Africa,followed
the policy prescriptions of liberalism.They have,in fact,done the
opposite,whether
we look at Japan, an advanced capitalist country,Korea,in rapid
construction,
the market socialism of Deng Xiaoping's China, or the more intigrated
Third
World capitalist countries of South-East Asia and India." (p.99-100).
This is reductionism. Economic one to politic one, and politic one
to social contract ( compromise) and national policies.
Digression: I believe that social sciences, even political events
develops
under the influence of 'reaction chains'. Let me give an example: Many
decades almost everybody supposed that Marx explain everything by the
economic,
at least at the last instance. Then,almost everybody began to blame him
by economic reductionism. Now, almost everybody began to understand that
both comment were false. Marx had to put the emphasis on the economic,
becouse before him this dimension of the social life were
underestimated.
Like this, Amin try to emphasize the political nature of the so-called
' economic laws'. He is quite right. But this leads him to exaggerated
the political one.These are matters of degree. But,in general everything
is a matter of degree.
Let me continue.Amin take market as if just a device which everybody
can use. If you think that productivity depends on technological change
this is the naivity of economists.
And technological change ( innovations in this context) are not
independent
variables, they are dependent variables, dependent to political matters.
To reveal the politic nature of economic laws is correct,but to reject
the inner dynamics of technology and economic sphere is false. There is
a interdependence between the two. And I know that Samin agree with
this.
But he admit this in a few place and in theoretical context. In the
process of building his project he uses just the implications of his
reductionism.
I think it is basic to emphasize technological differences. According to
World System theorists, it is polarization the main target which must be
hit to abolish capitalism. Their emphasis is on polarization, not on
waged labour. I share the view that polarization rests on technological
superiority of core countries. Techno-economic paradigm concept of
Evolutionary school theorists and similar approaches of Regulation
school theorists is useful in this context. And I believe that special
historical conditions overlapped in the last quarter of 20. century.
Conditions that permits so-called developing countries to catch up. At
least conditions to reduce substantially the degree of polarization.
Amin take south east Asia countries as a whole. We must emphasize the
difference of south Korea . Its strategy was different. It rest on to
catch advanced technology.
I think he believe that: Create the conditions for national policies.
Thats enough. Enough for technological developpment. We can put regional
instead of national here. I am not oppose his regional integration
offer. But, first of all national campaigns of technological leap
forward and democratization under the governance of leftist parties.
Another import point here his delinking strategy. I think he believe
that technological leap forward befora regional integration leads to
technological dependence to core countries. In other words this leads to
integration with current globalisation process. I don't think so. This
technological leap forward, I think leads to redistribution of world
technological rent in favor of developing countries on the one hand, and
reduction of its total amount on the other.
A note : He believe that the historical mission of national bourguise
comes to an end, and he believes that socialism is not on the agenda.
So, what about the social forces struggle for regional integration ? In
my project, left directs the capital by regulation. This is the new
social contract between capital and people. A new set of parameters
which makes profiable to produce for world markets with advanced
technology.