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."

the difference between marx and W is that they have different
periodizations of capitalism. according to W, capitalism, as a social
system, emerged in the long 16th century with the emergence of Netharlands
as a first hegemonic capitalist power. he does not  _explicitly_ tell us
as a result of which evolutinary process the system came into being. marx,
on the contrary, traces the origins of capitalism  to _primitive
accumulation_ that took place in Britain in the 14th century. if you
disagree with this periodization, that is fine. i am directly quoting
from Capital. 

It is true marx did not have capitalism as a world economy in his mind.
but this does NOT mean that he did not consider capitalism as a social
system. a mode of production is _by definition_ a social system with
corresponding forms of social consciouness, political structures and
cultural norms, and with a determining form of wage system, material
relations and surplus expropriation. 

>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).

my suggestion is that, following marx, if capitalism was not historically
a different mode of production supressing all pre-existing
modes of structures, it would not be able to become a world
economy; world economy and mode of production go hand in hand, they can
not be seperated, and i do not think that IW _totally_ disagrees with this
fact. that is why we did not have capitalism as a world economy under
roman empire and middle ages. the feudal system never carried the
potential to resolve its own contradictions. around 1300, it faced a
serious agricultural contraction, slump in prices, and eventually 
withered away in western europe. according to W, however, the crisis of
16th century was not as serious as the crisis of feudalism becasue it was
followed by a period of _consolidation_ in the 17th century which
prevented the system from turning into a serious crisis. merchantalist
state policies, protectionism, and strengthening of state structures in
the core were suggestive of this development. 
 
>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 wonder how you get that impression. you tend to give a dualistic 
reading of my posts. on the contrary, I _implied_ that when the British
capitalism was developing, it was already integrating  a lot of countries
into its social system. Marx's explanation of the British imperialism in
India (cotton production), and cattle slavery in the US, suggests the
emergence of capitalist dynamics in these countries.  

>> 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.

i do not see what "classist" means in this context. regarding marx's
sexism, i would like  to see specific quotations from his original works,
not speculatory comments from secondary sources.


>> 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.

i totally _disagree_ with this statement. lenin wrote a book on
imperialism. he showed how the termination of capitalism in Europe was
postponed by the emergence of 20th century imperialism, headed by new 
imperialistic powers like Germany and Italy, who were struggling to
maximize their shares in the world markets. some Marxists, like Rudolf
Hilferding, calls this period _monopoly capitalism_. lenin argues that
through this agressive imperialism, capitalism found new ways to
solve its own contradictions. imperialism prevented capitalism from
collapse by exploiting the workers of the other countries to increase the
living standarts in the core countries. for example, social democracy in
Germany was the outcome this imperialistic expansion. sorry but their
views are as systemic as IW's views.

regarding transition from feudalism to capitalism in your statement, are
you serious elson? how can you argue that marx and lenin did not have
a theory of transition.  transition remains at the hard CORE  of marxist
theory. all Marx's writings deal with nothing but this process. lenin's
writings deal with the development of capitalism in russia, revolution
and so forth. to argue that they do not have a theory of capitalism in
IW's sense is to make injustice to these guys. let's discuss the
differences, but not underestimate the major theoretical works.

> >>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.

i defined it above. i also gave direct quotations from IW. what is your
definition then?


>> 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.


if you pay attention to my post, i am saying _guidelines_ (see below). if
Marx did not have a theory of exploitation and labor value, who in the
world would develop a core-periphery model based on  _similar_ if not
entirely the same kind of relation between laborer and capitalist?  
i hardly see that IW disagrees with this fact despite your claims to the
contrary. 

>> 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.

NO. Marx's article on Bristish imperialism EXPLICTLY shows that
exploitation of India's natural resources was necessary in the
development of British industry.. it shows not only the exploitation,
but also the commercializaiton of Indian economy.

>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.


yes, he does not explictly charecterize it as feudal. my problem is that
what is the analytical usefullness of feudalism then if everything is
defined as capitalist?  

>Second, Poland had certain "coerced forms of labor"  that are/were
>characteristic of the periphery.  This is not feudalism. 

what you say happened in the _early_ stages of capitalist development_ in
the  US (cattle slavery), not in Poland. in Poland, there was serfdom not
slavery.this is _empirically_ evident.

plus there are different forms of feudalisms: -- coerced labor, corvee,
dependent on the context and nature of socio-economic development. but
there is coerced labor under capitalism as well, yet it is different from
the coerced labor of feudalism because under capitalism labor becomes an
object of exchange for profit purposes. my simple suggestion
is that we should look at the socio-economic system as a whole trying to
figure out which features approximate capitalism which features remain
feudal when a country integrates into capitalist economy. we need this,
otherwise we end up blurring the distiction between different modes of
productions which does no good to marxist theory (feudalism, capitalism,
socialism). this is an _empirical_ as a well as a historical question. 

i suggest you to read Withold Kula who specifically writes about feudalism
in Poland. he is a Marxist Polish scholar, knowing the economic history of
Poland better than you and me. 


regards,

Mine Aysen Doyran
phd candidate
dept  of pol scie
SUNY/Albany