Re: Which Marxism? (fwd)

> i do not see any problems in IW's explanation regarding the emergence of a
> world economy. i suggested, however, that Marx's emphasis on capitalism as
> a mode of production is suggestive of the dynamics that gave capitalism
> its historical charecter.

Well, but you did seem to have problems with IW and to point out
contradictions between him and Marx.  E.g. you previously wrote : "i
disagree with him about the starting point of capitalism" and "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 simultaneously."

I pointed out that, as you interpret Marx, their two views are incompatible.
That is, capitalism as a world-economy (IW) vs capitalism as a mode of
production (KM).  As you interpret Marx's "mode of production," one cannot
say that capitalism started in the 16th century (though Marx says that the
history of modern capital does have its roots there -- a different
argument).

This is about what capitalism is, and when it emerged.  So, you seem to go
with Marx and the capitalist mode of production in England.   Further, if
one takes England as a capitalist system by virtue of a capitalist mode of
production, then the periphery is not capitalist, and hence not part of the
capitalist system.  That is, in this view, states are taken as independent
societies.  This very different from IW.


> i think that it is misleading to criticize marx for not having a theory of
a world sytem...

I didn't criticize him for this, I pointed out that he never developed his
theory from the abstract to he concrete, and that his analysis has been
superseded by IW.  To be sure, however, Marx is not beyond criticism,
including sexist and classist comments.


> marx also wrote about periphery and imperialism.

Marx did not have a theory of imperialism worked out.  He was superseded by
Lenin and Rosa Luxembourg, among others.  And they never worked out a
history-theory of the transition from feudalism to capitalism, nor a theory
of unequal exchange.  (Which -- does it require saying ? -- is not to
criticize them, but to point out how they have been superseded by more
convincing arguments.


> >He merely mentions the emergence of a world market (which we know isn't
the same thing as a
> >world-economy) and early forms of merchant capital.  His immediate focus
was on the factory system, not >>capitalism as a social system.
>
> capitalism is by definition a social system, including the
> factory system, capital owner and labor relationship. capitalism as a
> social system can not be abstracted from a factory system where
> capitalism's source of profit originates from. "let's have capitalism
> without wage labor". this is historically and conceptually incorrect. no
> marxist would argue otherwise, even IW. there are different capitalisms
> with different wage systems dependent on context and level of
> development. we can discuss that. but, ideally speaking capitalism
> requires wage labor. that  is why it is from serfdom and other ancient
> class systems.

No, capitalism is most certainly not a social system by definition.  It has
to be defined.  You have used the term "mode of production" which no doubt
Marx believed affects all dimensions of society.   However, it is one thing
to argue that society is turned upside down by the CMP, it is another to
spell out precisely when and where capitalism emerged as social system.
Marx did not.  He was focused on the theoretical problem of factory
wage-labor and the declining rate of profit.  His comments on imperialism,
etc. have not been interpreted as a theory, but suggestive ideas.


> marxconstructed the british model of capitalist development, from where we
can
> draw generalizable economic principles and universal laws to understand
> particular development models.

I don't agree with this interpretation of Marx.  He started with the CMP in
the abstract and aimed to show the limits of theory by moving toward the
concrete analysis of historical capitalism.  This is why I referred to
Rosdolsky's work.


> his attempt offers a
> guideline for understanding what happens to mode of production when a
> country is integrated into world economy or what sort of structural
> transformation it undergoes as a result of peripherilization

I interpret Marx quite differently.
First, he tried to understand what happens to society (the time and space
boundaries of which he never spelled out, or hadn't a chance to) as a result
of the development of the CMP.   By contrast, you have it the opposite.
Second, Marx had no theory of the integration of countries into the
world-economy, or of peripheralization (its not clear he even had a concept
of peripheralization as such).  He did have pregnant suggestions about what
happens to places like India under imperialism and how it was integral to
British industrial growth.


> my concern is to understand _what happens to production_ in the periphery,
> its nature, dissolution, transformation, persistence or what ever..

Fine, but it wasn't Marx's.


> >On the contrary, I wrote that states do play a major role in IW's scheme,
> >and the citations from IW that you supplied substantiate the point.
>
> yes, they are the hegemons...

What?  I'm stating that states (the interstate system of sovereign states)
play a major role as IW argues.   His ideas on the three hegemonies appears
later and is secondary to his thesis of the structure of the MW-S.


> >Well, I'd word this a bit differently.  Capitalism is a division of labor
> >not commercial relations (I keep harping on this because it doesn't seem
> >to
> >be sinking in) that spans multiple states.  IW argues that other
> >world-economies turned into empires (that is an economy with one state,
> >like
> >Rome and I'd add Tokugawa Japan) wherein the states could control
> >capitalists preventing capitalISM as a social system from emerging.
> (>Others, including AG Frank, have a different view.)
>
> yes. to put it differently, social system was not yet capitalist in a
> system of world empires (because of slavery, from a production
> perspective. plus, the marine commerce in the roman empire was controlled
> by the aristocracy--the ruling class).

I don't think so.  IW's argument is why previous world-systems did not
transform into a capitalist world-system.  ( I assume it is understood that
"world" does not refer to the "globe" but to an independent society with
little relation to other world-systems).  When the MW-S did emerge, it
incorporated the other existing world-systems (the Rome and Persia systems
were no longer in existence) and turned them into its periphery.


> >For IW, Poland
> >was as much part of the capitalist world-economy as Britain.  Poland did
> >not
> >have a feudal mode of production and was a capitalist state in IW's view.
>
> elson. there is a miscommunication going on. Poland was definetly feudal
> from 16th to 18th century. ...

Maybe for you it is feudal, but not for IW, as I wrote previously.  I don't
think you quite get the point about what IW means by a single division of
labor in relation to his definition of capitalism.


> sure that Britian and Poland belonged to
> the same system but there were essential differences betweem the two in
> terms of socio-economic dynamics and mode of production.

IW doesn't argue about "modes of production" and while the local class
relations differed, the dynamics were the dynamics of the entire system, not
of one area.  To talk about different dynamics is to assume that areas are
not related.  If they are related, then there is a single set of dynamics
that explain the changes in all areas.  This is one of IW's key points.


> i agree with kula, and i do not think that IW disagrees with him on the
> main thrust of his argument. what i am showing is that peripherilization
> of Poland created a different form of development there, a different
> dynamic which we do not see in western europe. otherwise, it would not be
> periphery.

First, IW never characterizes Poland as feudal (or as having a feudal mode
of production).  To not recognize this is to not recognize the bare
essentials of IW's perspective.  There is only one mode of production in the
MW-S, that is capitalism.  There are a variety of forms of production that
make up the division of labor and which correspond to the tripartite
structure of stratification (C, SP, P).

Second, Poland had certain "coerced forms of labor"  that are/were
characteristic of the periphery.  This is not feudalism.  Indeed, the
project of IW's first volume is to explain the transition from feudalism to
capitalism as the emergence of the modern world-system (within which there
is no feudalism).  Feudalism was what characterized Europe prior to this
transition.


> yes, but it is a historically "distinct" form of slavery....

That's precisely why I used the adjective "modern" in front of "slavery."