I certainly don't buy China or any other particular state as "paradigmatic", in fact don't buy the concept itself. By that same token also don't buy the PRC as a "successor state" to U.S. imperialist hegemony.
But given capitalism as a historical mode of production, with epochs of rise (17th-18th-early 19th centuries), zenith (latter 19th-WWI), and decline (WWI-present), the relation of the capitalist mode of production to various arrangements of the state institutions, both internal to the nation-state and in international relations, is hardly as random as suggested. Capitalism is not indifferent to those arrangements. The history of capitalism shows that certain configurations work out better than others in a certain epoch, until they don't in another period. -Matt ------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- It's historical, isn't it? Sometimes the more authoritarian, sometimes the less. Sometimes the carrot, sometimes the stick. Sometimes small property feels safe and secure, other times it feels itself being upended, expelled, crushed, and the small property-holders rush out into the streets only too eager to complete the job big capitalism has initiated-- driving down wages below subsistence, marching off to war-- another way of driving wages below subsistence and incinerating the overproduced means of production at the same time. But I don't buy is that China represents a new paradigm for capitalism, which I think means for those who suggest it is so, that somehow the CCP, the State Council actually control the economy, and the market forces, rather than being controlled by them. ________________________________________________ YOU MUST clip all extraneous text when replying to a message. Send list submissions to: [email protected] Set your options at: http://lists.econ.utah.edu/mailman/options/marxism/archive%40mail-archive.com
