|
I have been spending some time reading Andre Gundar Frank's
book called Capitalism and Underdevelopment in Latin America. It makes
for interesting reading especially in the context of my interest in developments
in Colombia.
I am drawn to the way in which he conceives capitalism as a
global system and thereby as the valid unit of analysis.It is an indispensable
perspective for any serious attempt to comprehend developments within the
capitalist system. It is a view to which I have tended too eve if not in quite
the same way.
I like the way Andre subjects the dualistic conception of the
world to criticism. I too am of the view that one cannot dichotomise the social
relations of production of a South American country and even a sub-Saharan
African country. I am of the view that such economies exist within the world
capitalist system and form "a component" of such a system.
However where I principally differ from Andre is in his gross
omission of the principal categories of Marx's critique of political economy.
The concepts of value, capital, equalisation of the rate of profit and the
law of the tendency of the rate of profit to fall are conspicuously absent from
his critique. His relationship to Marx is an ambiguous one. It is never
clear where Andre stands in relation to Marx's critique of political economy.
Marxists but not Marx are explicitly subjected to criticism in his book.
I agree that there is some truth in the conception that the
capitalist system of production consists of centre and periphery. I
tend to agree that this centre, to exist, must have an underdeveloping
periphery. However the central problem, in my view, is not the identification of
this relationship. The central problem is the identification of the character of
that relationship. The central task is the identification of how this
relationship emerged and develops. In short it is critical that revolutionary
communists outline the specific forms by which the centre/periphery relationship
exists --the conditions for the existence and development of that
relationship.
In Marx's Capital the general rate of profit, the
equalisation of the rate of profit and the law of the tendency of the rate of
profit to fall are principal social forms by which capital accumulates and
expands. For Marx the law of the tendency of the rate of profit to fall is
the driving force behind the expanded reproduction of capital. It would seem to
me that if Andre rejects these central aspects of Marx's critique then he should
make it clear as to why he does. If he were to engage successfully in such a
critique of Marx's Capital then the form in which he endeavours to outline the
centre/periphery link or hierarchy present itself in a more plausible
light.
Now perhaps Andre has already completed such a critique. If
he has then someone this list might inform me of this.
Warm regards
George Pennefather Be free to check out our Communist Think-Tank web site
at
http://homepage.tinet.ie/~beprepared/ |