> Date sent: Wed, 25 Mar 1998 15:34:39 -0800
> Send reply to: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
> From: James Devine <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
> To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
> Subject: re:state-war
> The following is long and may safely be deleted by those uninterested. Most
> of the below is simply responding to Ricardo's misinterpretations.
Here you are once again with your self-serving prefaces: yes readers,
you not need read anything that follows except remember Ricardo
does know what he is talking about!
Since I want others to judge for themselves, my preface will be:
Please Read Me.
Devine:
The definition of state that Marxists use is actually much
> the same as Max Weber's (in "Politics as a Vocation"), which he borrowed
> and adapted from Leon Trotsky, who was of course a Marxist. The state has a
> monopoly of the use of force within a given geographical area. (Note that
> this definition avoids the ambiguity of Weber's use of the adjective
> "legitimate" before "force." Also, the state isn't the only organization
> that uses force; but the state sets the rules concerning its use.)
Herein lies your error. When Weber says that the state may be
defined, in general terms, as an institution which successfully
"claims the monopoly of the legitimate use of physical force within a
given territory" he means something quite different from the
classical marxist definition, including Trotsky's. First, the word
"legitimate" cannot be deleted since power, for Weber,
is never achieved through the mere use of physical coercion, but
requires as well some sort of consensus - legitimacy- from the
population. Second, when Trotsky claimed that the
Russian autocratic state had followed a path different from that
of Western Europe, in that its growth was determined by
the external military pressures of superior western powers, he was
consciously acknowledging that the history of the Russian state was
"peculiar" and could not be easily fitted within the standard marxist
account. Thirdly, the weberian explanation goes well beyond Trotsky's
revision, and argues that, although states have played many important
economic functions, they have been PRINCIPALLY CONCERNED THROUGHOUT
RECORDED HISTORY WITH WARFARE. This is NOT the marxian thesis,
relative autonomy or not. The concept relative autonomy is intended
precisely to argue that other factors are important but
PROTECTION OF CLASS INTERESTS IS THE CENTRAL ONE.
ricardo:
> >It was Poulantzas and Miliband, in their own ways, who first developed the
> concept of the relative autonomy of the state, so if you want to use this
> concept you should at least aknowledge its origins.<
Devine:
> Why? the idea is almost universally accepted by Marxists and can be found
> in Marx's own work even if the phrase "r. a." is not used explicitly. I
> like a lot of what P and M say, but pen-l is not the venue for
> scholasticism, where every idea is footnoted.
You are making the same mistake as Skillman did here a few weeks ago
when he argued that since Marx has said a few things about the
possibility of exploitation arising in several types of markets,
no priority should be given to his theory of exploitation at the
point of production. But as I pointed to Skillman, Marx only has one
fully developed THEORY of exploitation, which is through the
labor market. Similarly you are saying that, since Marx said a few
things about the relative autonomy of the state, he has another theory
of the state besides the standard one which prioritizes class
relations. The fact is Marx never developed a theory of the relative
autonomy of the state; it was future generations, like the
Althusserians, who picked up the isolated strands Marx left us with
and put together a coherent theory. That's why, Devine, we need to
know what Poulantzas and Miliband accomplished - although I know a
lot of scholars today prefer journalism.
> Marxian theory is -- and always has been -- a _debate_, where a lot of
> ideas are rejected and new ones brought in; it is always changing. (Is
> "weberian" theory any different, i.e., a dogma?) P & M's ideas have been
> added to the current version of the received theory, for example, at the
> same time that others (e.g., the simple instrumentalist or conspiracy
> theory) have been abandoned.
Let's see if I can get through this mumbo-jumbo. P and M's ideas on
relative autonomy are part of the "received theory", in which case
there is another more advanced marxist theory that goes beyond
relative autonomy, which would be Draper's, who takes it straight out
of Marx. But then, marxism is always undergoing revision, so
presumably one
may move beyond the relative autonomy concept, grant full parity of
effect to all sorts of factors (not just war, but ethnicity,
gender, great individuals, environmental pressures, and so on ad
infinitum) without ever leaving the marxian terrain. This is indeed a
wonderful world. The weberians, who are already quite
ecclectic, may also do the same, adding factor upon factor, always
hoping that at some point they may explain every empirical detail,
which must be done since all details - in this mumbo-jumbo world - are
indistinguishable. Kantians, hegelians, functionalists, you name it,
may also do the same...until finally we can all embrace realizing we
are all the same. "We are the world".
Of course marxism can undergo revisions, as it has. But at some
point one has to wonder whether what makes it what it is, is not
being called into question. Even Raymond Williams, who
sought to integrate the base and the superstructure, knew
this: "a marxism without some concept of determination is in effect
worthless. A Marxism with many of the concept of determination it now
has is quite radically disabled" (Marxism and Literature, 83).
ricardo:
> >Pointless? Again, for weberians you cannot identify warfare with class
> coercion, which is what you do above. <
Devine:
> "Identify"? Please read what I said again. I was talking about how they
> were unified in some ways but different in others, depending on the nature
> of class relations, etc.
That's right, "DEPENDING ON THE NATURE OF CLASS RELATIONS". Finally
you got the point! The revised, sophisticated marxism which you
defend can never go beyond an "expressive" understanding, for
each relatively autonomous factor will always be an expression of the
essential dynamic of class relations; classes
will always be the unyifying point of all other relatios (see
Althusser, For Marx, 103; Reading Capital, 17).
ricardo:
> >I know marxists have tried to convince us that because pre-capitaliat
> systems involved
> extra-economic coercion, war was somehow part of the whole process by which
> the producers were exploited. Yet, if you look at feudalism it is clear
> there were two key relations: between lord and peasant, and between lord
> and vassal. Only the latter may be defined as a strictly military relation,
> a relation between the ruling classes. Only the latter was formed for
> puposes of war and conquest. Although warfare involved surplus extraction,
> booty and so on, its ultimate aim was territorial expansion. <
Devine:
> By the way, who are these "marxists" you are talking about? If you expect
> worshipful academic references to P & M from me, I should expect you to
> cite the strawMarxists you refer to. Chapter & verse of course!
P.Anderson, Robert Brenner. Detailed academic references are not
necessary; I will not be grading you; I have enough students
already.
> In any event, I see nothing wrong with revision _per se_. There's nothing
> wrong with learning from experience, research, and analysis. Has the
> "weberian" theory become codified? did Max Weber do the codifying? or was
> it some latter-day "weberian" academic convention that set forth the ten
> "weberian" commandments and engraved them in tablets? so that revision of
> "weberian" theory is verboten? I doubt it. Only the ideological enemy --
> Marxism -- is guilty of such sins.
You may be everywhere if you want; just be aware of the theoretical
consequences of such an act.
> All users of theories have to be conscious of their theoretical boundaries
> (else it's a total tautology). We can't use Weber to understand biology,
> Freud to understand physics, or Marx to understand the weather.
Better to follow Lakatos's distinction between the core and the
auxiliary concepts of a theory. A theory may play around quite freely
with its auxiliary concepts, drop old ones and add new ones, but
not so with its core concepts. Marxism has certain core concepts
(LTV, MP, Class Struggle), which may be revised but only up to a
point. At some point you must acknowledge the *critical* contributions
of other theoretical approaches. Piling things up can be messy.
> Marxian theory aims to understand society, give us a coherent and
> non-moralistic critique of that society, and to act as a guide to political
> practice.
This brings me to an exchange I had with you earlier. How can marxism
act as a guide to political action if it has no normative-ethical
content whatsoever? Are the problems of capitalism purely numerical?
ricardo
> in pen-l solidarity,
>
> Jim Devine [EMAIL PROTECTED] &
> http://clawww.lmu.edu/1997F/ECON/jdevine.html
> "A society is rich when material goods, including capital, are cheap, and
> human beings dear." -- R.H. Tawney.
>
>
>
