It seems to me that much of the discussion has been about the status of
marxian laws of tendency, in particular that of a rising organic
composition of capital and the falling profit rate.(Provocative
philosophical work on marxian laws has been done by DH Ruben in G
Parkinson, ed; Kevin Brien; and Daniel Little)
As we seek to determine that which modifies Marxian "laws of tendency"--a
peculiar expression, which captures (according the the above philosophers)
Marx's own demarcation of the epistemological limits to his putative iron
laws of necessity--we must be clear as to what in fact corresponds to the
capitalist system as whole for which the laws of tendency are formulated. A
temporary modification here can be an exacerbation there. This question is
as important as whether marxian laws should be construed in a
predictive-naturalist framework. (In fact I believe a global answer to the
question of scope will prevent such qualifications of Marxian laws that we
end up with laws of the tendency and not tendency of x).
Clarity as to what constitutes the capitalist system has been provided, I
believe, by Tilla Siegel in "Politics and Economics in the Capitalist World
Market", International Journal of Sociology, Summer 1984 (this is a
translation from German of her 1980 book).
This relatively ignored work is very carefully and precisely argued. It is
also a very rich work. In terms of foreign trade, it critiques unequal
exchange theories and brilliantly brings out the importance of "the
use-value aspect of international specialization as a Political Problem."
In terms of the basic concepts of marx, it is very strong. It includes an
effective critique of underconsumption theory from a revolutionary
INTERNATIONALIST pt of view (!!!!)and a re-specification of the law of the
tendency of falling profit rate as an explanation of why capital
accumulation must take the form of crisis cycles (not of when capitalism
must breakdown).
Siegel also indirectly provides answers to some of the critiques of
Howard and King against Grossmann's theory of accumulation and crisis--that
the OCC doesn't grow with the TCC, extra surplus value can be generalized,
the rate of surplus value can always keep pace with the value composition
of capital. Seeing more in Mattick than a rhetorical denunciation of
Keynes (as argued by Simon Clarke), she makes good use of him, especially
in the clarification of why crisis takes the form of overproduced capital
in the commodity form and a shortage of surplus value relative to the
minimum capital necessary for further accumulation.
I am not saying however that I am convinced by Siegel's theory of
imperialism. I am still working on it. Despite her own arguments, I still
think that it may locate imperialism too much in the realm of the
redistribution of value, not so much in its production (can Levi's intl div
of labor be fully explained by the theory--it's not clear to me that
imperialism is more about the passing out of stagnant sectors, than the
production of surplus value enabled by the global separation of owner from
subcontracted worker in places where a much larger reserve army rivets the
worker to boundless exploitation); and that the theory may leave out other
facets of imperialism in terms of control of raw materials, brain drain,
immigration restrictions, and the burden of history.
Well, maybe this will help to open up a discussion of the capitalist world
market and imperialism
d jones
