Re: Which Marxism? (fwd)

[from Mine Aysen Doyran]
> >> capitalism meant, for Marx, accumulation of wealth at the expense of
> >> others, whether in England or elsewhere.  capitalism bothered Marx in
> >> every context because it caused unequal distribution of wealth
> everywhere.
> >> he did NOT mean by development that the British model was ideal
> (without
> >> any problems) and that every country should imitate it to reach a
> certain
> >> level of prosperity. what you suggest above is a modernization
> perspective
> >> like Rostow's, which takes capitalism for granted, not Marx's views.
> marx
> >> was a critic of capitalism. he was not ALSO happy with the British
> model.
> >> he knew that the factory system in England was sucking. he knew that
> this
> >> developoment was a development benefitting the capitalists. he was
> QUITE
> >> awere that whoever goes under a same process will be subject to these
> >> unhuman conditions. capitalism is a universal problem for Marx
> regardless
>
> elson ,i do not find this discussion productive or going anywhere, because
> you have a tendecy to misread the posts. so, these are my last comments.
>> [elson] For goodness sakes, no one is suggesting that Marx was happy with
> >England.
> >This isn't the WW. Rostow Listserv.
> [Mine Aysen Doyran] i find this reply bizarre. it was you who suggested
that marx was wrong
> because he assumed that every country in the world would follow the
> british model of capitalism. i do not think that he was wrong, and i
> believe in the orthodox marxist argument whatever the quasi-marxists say.
> if you look at the world around yourself, you will see that capitalism is
> penerating everywhere adjusting different social, political and cultural
> structures into its logic. it is causing hysteria, tensions and conflicts
> everywhere. capitalism and its _logic of accumulation_, which marx
> predicted long ago, is happening in front of our eyes, historically and
> currently.

[elson]
You argued that "marx was a critic of capitalism. he was not ALSO happy with
the British  model."  I pointed out, which you find bizarre, that of course
Marx was unhappy with conditions in England, and that such a basic fact of
Marx's thought sounds like something that any Marxist might have to point
out to an ignorant anti-Marxist, like someone on a WW Rostow list.

As for the spread of capitalism (which is also very basic), I'm stressing
that there are two versions of this spread: (1) that which much of Marx's
work suggests and which orthodox Marxists (like Bill Warren) believe, which
is that all countries will eventually appear similar (and that some
countries today are not capitalist), and (2) the world-systems version in
which the gap between rich and poor states is part of the very definition of
modern capitalism (which it isn't in the former).

Your comments seem to muddle these major differences.

> >> [Mine Aysen Doyran] what the world system theory contributed was that
the
> >> conditions in the periphery were much worse than the conditions in the
> >> core (coerced labor, slavery). i agree with this, of course. but i do
> >>not
> >> think Marx was totally blind to this problem. he was the one who first
> >> pronounced slavery in native America, talking about the development of
> >> capitalism and colonialism there.
>
> >[elson] Nani kore?  Sociology 101 tells us that the core conditions are
better
> >(geez, I thought we were well past this).
>
> [Mine Aysen Doyran] am i saying _anywhere_ above that the core and
periphery conditions are
> equal? i was rather talking about the contribution of the world system
> theorists. what i do not agree with your interpretation of the wst
> is that(regardless of the theorists themselves), you are glorifying their
> differences with marx as if there is a radical breakthrough between the
> two. if there was no marx, there would not be any world system theory
> around. marx provided the inital inspiration, logic and sytemic thinking.
> do not tell me that wst has a core-periphery model whereas marx does not.
> even the elementary school children know that. this difference does not
> make marx's thesis irrelevant to what the world system theorists say.

[elson]
I didn't write anything to suggest that you think core and perihpery
conditions are similar.  I wrote that for you to point out this inequality,
is to point out a very basic aspect of the ws perspective.  In doing so, I'm
not sure what you were trying to suggest about my argument -- as if I didn't
know.  It just happens that I did study under IW, Arrighi, Petras, Selden,
Tomich, Muto, etc, at Binghamton, where I earned my doctorate, and did a
little research at the Fernand Braudel Center, and so on.  It's not as
though I'm unfamiliar with the ideas and debates there.

What?  Not a break within Marxism?  WS was quite a radical break.  This can
hardly be denied by anyone familiar with the substantial debates among the
critics of the ws perspective and its defenders.  This point, furthermore,
was also made by gernot kohler a few posts back.

> >The point here, as I mentioned in my response to Austin, is that Marx did
> >not have a theory of underdevelopment.   I'm sure Marx was not the first
> >to
> >pronounce (or even to  denounce) "slavery" in North America.  From my
> >reading of Marx, I agree he had many pregnant ideas on underdevelopment
> >and
> >imperialism, but no expectation of the persistant and growing gap between
> >what we now call the periphery and core.
>
> yes, so what? should we abondon marx? marx's contribution to the world
> system theory is that capitalism is an _impoverishing force_. world
> system theorists emphasize this hundred times. historically, many
> countries in the periphery experienced the same stages of primitive
> accumulation marx talks about in capital--exproptiation of peasent
> population from the land,forced immigration to cities, cheap labor,
> prolongation of working hours, coerced labor, night shifts, and
> incorporation of female and child labor into work force. two hundred years
> go, in Britain, women were giving opium to their children to make them
> sleep so that they could go to night shifts, NOW the countries in the
> periphery are experiencing the same sucking realities of life.

[from elson]  You write as if I'm a critic of Marx.  This is quite an
illogical assumption in view of the fact that I'm only pointing out the
differences between, on the one hand, the focus of most of Marx's work and
orthodox Marxists, and on the other, "world-systemists," and in particular,
IW's views.

Marx did not contribute to world-system theory.  How could he?  The latter
did not come into being until the 1960s (though some might say a bit earlier
with Baran's work).  But the converse is true: world-system's theory has
contributed to Marxism.

As for primitive accum., IW's world-system perspective rejects it after
1450-1550, in contrast to your suggestion that it has been an ongoing
phenomenon since.  Also, IW strongly refuted the bourgeois and orthodox
Marxist argument of "stages" of development, including of prim. acc.   The
refutation is a cornerstone of the ws perspective.

Further, Marx's view, as I interpret it according to the proper translation
of the German editions, is not "primative accumulation," but "original
accumulation" suggesting for Marx as well, that this was a one-time
pre-modern process  necessary for modern capital to emerge. It is to be
distinguished from imperialist looting which enters directly into (and is
thus part of) the circuits of modern capital.

>[Mine Aysen Doyran]  world system theorists applied marx's notion of
exploitation to > core-periphery relations. their contribution can not be
denied, and i am
> NOT denying. however, marx is still the primary birth giver, who laid down
> the major framework for them.

[from elson]  Mine, I never suggested that you deny the contribution of
world-systemists.  I state that you aren't clear on the differences and the
debates between the former and orthodox Marxists (and Marx himself).

Of course Marx was a super duper fellow.  By simply pointing out his
limitations, I did not suggest that he wasn't.   But seriously Mine, there
has been so much development of critical Marxist thought since Marx, that to
defend his every word or suggest that he did it all, would very
unconvincing, if this is what you are doing.