Which Marxism?

>On Tue, 1 Jun 1999, Ahmet Cakmak wrote:

>>sorry andy..you play with words..

>have found, are precious commodities these days. Remember, one of the
>criticisms of world-system theory is that everything is explained in
>terms
>of itself. I am not agreeing with the criticism, but it follows when one
>adopts a certain perspective (a Humean as opposed to a Hegelian logic of
>explanation).

i may buy this argument, although i quite agree with the world systems
theory.  

World system theorists have been criticized by some  _Marxists_
belonging to the historical materialist tradition for being:

1. hegelian.
2. neo-smithian (for example, some call Wallerstein  a neo-smithian
marxist)

it is hegelian because "everthing is explained it terms of itself"

it is neo-smithian, if implicitly, not explicitly, because it emphasizes
"trade" ,not necessarily "class" , as a dynamic force in the expansion
and consolidation of the capitalist world economy. note that Wallerstein 
puts the emphasis on capitaism as a "world economy" not  necessarily a
"mode of production". although they go hand in hand, it is a question if
they occured simultaneoulsy.

my impression is that trade alone does not guarantee capitalism before
capitalism emerges as a mode of production or a country reaches to a
certain level of capitalist development first. for a better discussion of
this argument, see Withold Kula, _An Economic Theory of the Feudal System_
(Verso, 1976).as a Marxist, Kula tries to eloborate a theory of feudalism,
explaining why Poland remained in the periphery of the Eurpoean economy,
by looking at the local class structures, predominance of agricultural
economy,operation of _demesne_ production and exploitation of peasents by 
landlords (restrictions put on the mobility of peasents). he persuasively
narrates the internal contradictions of feudalism, by showing that the
socio-economic system of Poland showed very litte signs for throwing the
system, which would bring about its dissolution. his explanation of the
economic realities of Poland in a non-market economy is illustrative of
this development. 

on the other hand,wallerstein suggests that  capitalism would be
impossible in a closed economy. it needed commercial relations among
states in order to survive. according to his argument, the capitalist
world economy came into being in the 17th century, in a fully developed
form, when the United Provinces emerged as a first hegemonic capitalist
state in pursuit of expansion and colonial domination. 

in the introduction chapter of his book, wallerstein criticizes the
Marxist tradition represented by Balibar that locates the "fundemental
breakthrough with feudalism" in the industrial revolution, in Britain. he
argues that capitalism was in existence much before the 18th century.
then, he goes on portraying Netherlands as a first capitalist country in
Europe. his examples are quite suggestive of this development--Netherlands
had a  well developed technology in ship-buiding, manufacturing industy,
and agriculture (extensive fertelization). it also established the first
modern banking system.

arrighi even goes much further in his book _The Long 20th century_ ,
tracing the origns of capitalism to italian city states (genoa and venice
merchant classes) in the 13th century.

my problem with the above narratives is that (except Kula), they take
_countries_ as units of analysis, despite their claims to the contrary. it
does not tell us anything about how capitalism _came into being_ as a 
historically unique mode of production. there is too much stress on
external dynamics of capitalism(trade) but very little emphasis on
internal dynamics such as urban-rural relations, local class structures,
peasent economy,etc.. i still buy the classical marxist argument defended,
actually, by Marx himself.

marx suggests in the final chapter of _Capital_ that capitalism _first_
reguired transformation of property relations in the country side,
a processs he designates as " primitive accumulation" . primitive
accumulation is "prior" to capitalist accumulation. it is the starting
point of capitalist development. this process took place in the 14th
century, Britain (not in Italian city states nor in Netherlands)
with the enclosure movement, expropriation of peasent population from the
land and their forceful immigration to cities as wage laborers.
penetration of manufacture into country side brought about the
commercialization of rural areas while landowners turned into _capitalist
farmers_ in the mean time. the chapters on the genesis of _industrial
capitalist_ and _capitalist farmer_  give a deeep analysis of the
dissolution of the feudal system in Britain. the bottom line of marx's
argument is that you can not have capitalism in the cities before having
capitalism in the country side. surplus  needs to come from somewhere, and
this is the country side first. so, what logically follows from this
narrative is that capitalism first internally peripherilizes
(commercializes) before peripherilizing other countries 
externally.

actually, the english liberals like Petty and Smith who writing about the
commercialization of the Scottish agriculture at that time give a very
romantic reading of the _landed gentry_ oppressed by the merchantile class
in the cities. Mcnally's book _Political Economy and the Rise of
Capitalism_ investigates their ideological concerns in a very intelligeble
manner.

as i said, marxist debate over the periodization of capitalism is fairly
inconclusive. Wallerstein's analysis of capitalism deals with this
problem too. i hesitate to make any further arguments without his personal
comments.

regards,

Mine Aysen Doyran
phd candidate
dept of pol scie
SUNY/Albany
Graduate School-Nelson A. Rockefeller College
md7148@cnsvax.albany.edu
518-453-0655