I wrote that >The basic idea [of SSAs or modes of regulation] makes sense, however. Given the underlying tendency toward instability and crisis of the laws of motion of capital, one can posit certain institutional forms that stabilize the system, explaining the so-called "Golden Age" of the advanced countries after WW II until the 1970s... My problem is that most of the theories of the laws of motion absent the stabilizing institutions are pretty weak. That's not just the regulationists' or the SSAers' ... fault. The Marxists outside of these schools haven't done well either...< Patrick Bond answers>> Hang on, comrade. << thanks, I needed that (no irony intended). I haven't been called "comrade" in quite a long time. It makes me feel at home in some way, nostalgic... >>Is it not appropriate at this juncture to distinguish what we want a poli-econ "theory" to do? Isn't theory about identifying the underlying laws of motion of a system, and not about telling descriptive stories regarding various contingent institutional forms (norms, processes, values, etc) that may result or correspond? (Not that such stories aren't immensely interesting and valuable.)<< I think we agree. A political economic theory (specifically one about the pure laws of motion of capital) is necessarily at a high level of abstraction. The "descriptive stories," to my mind, involve the intersection of the abstract theory and the contingencies not explained by the theory. With any luck, the stories aren't merely descriptive but instead describe how the abstract theory works out in practice given the unexplained contingencies. >>We're all trying to figure out the character of the nation-state under conditions of globalisation, for instance, and it's becoming clearer that the contingencies in the institutional form and the set of alliances that a state apparatus represents these days just don't lend themselves to theorising.<< not at all? I don't know much about South Africa, but it seems that pretty standard class analysis (including fractions of classes) helps. >Without a clear understanding of the unvarnished laws of motion of the system, it is very hard to generalize from the specifics of what stabilized during the "Golden Age" to what can do the job in general.< >>That seems a good line of argument. I recall an attempt by Lipietz (in RRPE, late 1980s?, on crisis theory?) to link falling rate of profit into reg theory. Have any SSA comrades attempted anything along these lines?<< i don't know. >...I simply look at how they affect the way in which the pure "laws of motion" affect our lives. It can be positive (protecting people and nature) or negative; they can promote the stability of capitalism but may not.< >>"Can", "may"? Are you then leaving much of the work in the realm of contingency then Jim?<< It would be nice if the laws of motion of actually-existing society were totally deterministic. But they're not. To my mind, even the abstract laws of capital (unmixed with the dynamics of wage labor, the process of working-class self-organization or disorganization, etc.) are not totally deterministic. Saying that there's an inherent tendency toward overaccumulation leaves a lot of questions unanswered, such as the form that the overaccumulation takes. Anyway, all I was saying was that I thought that it was necessary to break with the reg./SSA school focus on only stabilizing institutions. Some institutions that are not mere products of the dynamics of capital -- such as the division of the world's population between different ethnic groups (French, Germans, etc.) -- can be destabilizing. It's not just capitalism's development that encouraged the competitive nationalisms that laid the groundwork for World War I (though capitalism did play a role). (what a weird world. Here I am stuck at home with a six 6-year-old all day, but I can communicate with the computer at work to download Patrick's message, and then upload and send my reply.) in pen-l solidarity, Jim Devine [EMAIL PROTECTED] <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> Econ. Dept., Loyola Marymount Univ. 7900 Loyola Blvd., Los Angeles, CA 90045-8410 USA 310/338-2948 (daytime, during workweek); FAX: 310/338-1950 "It takes a busload of faith to get by." -- Lou Reed.
