Re: World Systems

George,

The law of value is a specific historical law. It is in operation under
capitalism. My argument is drawn from Marx, especially the latter third of
Capital.

Andy

On Wed, 3 Nov 1999, George Pennefather wrote:

>Andy: There was a world, an "external arena," that existed prior to the
>emergence of capitalism and was incorporated into the world-economy over
>time. Regions of this external arena were peripheralized through their
>incorporation into the system. However, because of the uneven or variable
>development of the world-system over time, its character at different
>stages of development, and the character of the regions being
>incorporated, peripheralized regions can develop quite different
>characters.
>
>George: So now what is being, in effect, said in the above piece is that 
>both the variable
>development of the capitalist world-system and the variable character of 
>the different
>regions to be peripheralised are the two deteminants of the economic 
>character of a
>specific peripheral region.
>
>This is to effectively say that capital is not the determinant of the 
>character of
>economic development in a given peripheral area. This is to suggest that 
>surface
>accidental factors constitute the dynamic of the character of economic 
>development in a
>given region.
>
>In short this is to effectively abandon Marx's Capital --the law of value.
>
>My problem is one of trying to  offer a theoretical explanation of the 
>underdevelopment
>that has occured within the world capitalist system within the context of 
>Capital. To
>essentially, as you do, offer an acceptable explanation from outside that 
>theoretical
>context you must first provide a theoretical explanation as to why and how 
>the law of
>value must be abandoned as a principle underpinning economic development 
>within the
>capitalist system of production.
>
>
>Warm regards
>George Pennefather
>
>Be free to check out our Communist Think-Tank web site at
>http://homepage.tinet.ie/~beprepared/
>
>
>
>The periphery is not a monolithic entity (really, it is an
>analytical unit). Those that develop a strong indigenous bourgeoisie and
>adopt a program of national development, and who enter the system under
>conditions favorable to indigenous capitalist growth (since a will does
>not guarantee a way), may pursue development in such a way that raises
>their country above peripheral status. We might emphasize here the
>observation that not all countries and regions are exploited equally by
>the core.
>
>>This being so it must follow that if the rate of profit is lower at the
>>centre than at the periphery then the structures will have been created
>>to facilitate the maximum expansion of the capital from the centre. This
>>means that those structures will essentially facilitate the export of
>>capital from the centre so that the centre can maximise profit and the
>>corresponding accumulation of capital. Surely then this will lead to a
>>corresponding accumulation of capital in, say, sub-Saharan Africa. The
>>consequence would then be a more economically developed Africa.  As
>>a more economically developed Africa it may still follow that is still a
>>restricted development --a form of underdevelopment. But as is clear
>>that has not happened.
>
>First, even if one agrees with the theory as stated, the fact of
>underdevelopment in these regions refutes the theory, as you have noted,
>George. But, second, the theory as stated abstracts colonialism from its
>historical situation. Put a bare minimum of historical specificity back in
>the equation and we come up with the argument that we should expect that
>those countries which limit direct foreign capital investment should be
>the most underdeveloped while those that do not should be the most
>developed. In fact, the opposite is true.
>
>Incidentally, there is a group in Britain going under the name of LM (used
>to stand for Living Marxism) who contends that what needs to happen, if we
>really care to help impoverished people, is for capitalist firms to inject
>even more foreign investment into the periphery to raise their level of
>industrialization and thus their level of development. This group rails
>against those (including me) who worry about environmental destruction,
>characterizing us as eco-nazis designing to deprive "Third World" people
>of the wonders of civilization. Their argument is based on the premise
>that was attributed to other authors in an earlier post, namely that the
>problem is not too much capitalism but not enough capitalism.
>
>Andy Austin
>
>
>
>