Wojtek wrote:
>>It is one thing to say that Marxist theory explains some important aspects
>>of capitalist relations of production (which I think it does), quite a
>>differnt thing to determine to what degree those capitalist relations of
>>production ar implemented in actual societies and to what extent they are
>>mitigated by historical contingencies,
Rakesh replied:
>Yes,it is one thing to study motion in a vacuum and then to determine the
>modification of motion by air pressure or viscosity. So Marx may have
>initially assumed a closed capitalist society, without foreign trade or
>vestigal or intermediate classes.
It's interesting how different Marx's perspective is on foreign trade
compared to the mainstream view, even if the theoretical impact is similar.
Instead of simplifying matters by assuming a closed economy (as US
economists are wont to do, or were wont to do until recent decades), Marx
treats "the whole world as one nation" in which "capitalist production is
everywhere established... in every branch of industry" [CAPITAL, vol. I,
Int'l Publ. paperback, 581n]. This assumption is weakened a bit in vol. III.
On the other hand, he argues that "vestigial" classes would be swept away
by capitalism, by absorbing them into capitalism. Though he seems to have
seen them coming, he didn't analyze the intermediate classes generated by
capitalism's own development very much -- hardly enough to be satisfying.
The new middle classes might be treated as sharing characteristics with
both the capitalists and the workers, at least on a very abstract level.
I think the main simplication of CAPITAL is that there Marx assumes away
the independent dynamics of working-class movements. The book is about
capital's dynamics largely holding working class organization constant
(holding the cultural-historical level of subsistence constant, for
example), mostly dealing with workers' _reactions_ to the lengthening of
the working day or the speed-up imposed by the capitalist use of machinery.
The book doesn't talk about the development of working class organization
toward (or away from) forming clear class consciousness, political parties,
and the like (counter-hegemony). But Marx talks about this elsewhere, in
other writings. See Mike Lebowitz' book, BEYOND CAPITAL. Bringing in the
political economy of the working class -- to complement Marx's political
economy of capital -- seems an absolutely necessary component of any effort
to understand capitalist dynamics.
For example, the relatively high standard of living of US (white male)
workers in the 1950s and 1960s resulted from the victories in struggles of
the 1930s and 1940s, combined with a relatively good situation for
deepening or defending those victories during the 1950s and 1960s
(relatively strong labor-power demand, limited capital mobility). This high
living standard was fought all the way by capital, but it's only in the
1980s and 1990s that capital is winning full-scale (with obvious exceptions
like the UPS strike). To try to understand all of this simply by looking at
the dynamics of capital is to miss a lot.
in pen-l solidarity,
Jim Devine [EMAIL PROTECTED] &
http://clawww.lmu.edu/1997F/ECON/jdevine.html
"Segui il tuo corso, e lascia dir le genti." (Go your own way and let
people talk.) -- K. Marx, paraphrasing Dante A.
