Re: Dependency theory (Charles)

["Charles Brown" <CharlesB@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>]

>>> juliohuato@xxxxxxxxxxx 05/24/01 02:26PM >>>
Charles Brown:

>CB: These states and superstructures are not mainly sources of trouble for
>capitalist expansion. They are integral parts of Capitalism,  directly
>aiding capitalist accumulation, expansion and reproduction.  Exercise of
>state power on behalf of capitalist interests is a necessary condition for
>the existence and perpetuation of capitalism.
>

Indeed.  But integral parts of capitalism, i.e., integral parts of the
capitalist SOCIAL FORMATION, does NOT mean integral parts of the capitalist
MODE OF PRODUCTION.

((((((((((

CB: Yes they DO.   Socio-economic formation and mode of production are the same 
thing.
There is no theoretical or practical reason to distinguish between social 
formation
and mode of production as you do.

The subtitle of _Capital_ is  " a critique of POLITICAL economy ". Capitalism 
is a
POLITICAL economic formation.

(((((((

 If we you check what I've written, I've been making
THIS distinction as clearly as I could.  If we do not distinguish between a
mode of production and the social formation where this mode of production
predominates, then we cannot speak 'Marxism'.

((((((((

CB: False. My comment on your post was "speaking Marxism" to it.

((((


Have we ever considered why, in Marx's analysis of capitalism, the State was
not the subject of the first chapter or one of the first chapters of Marx's
magnus opus?  In fact, Marx's initial involvement with communism and
political economy (the 'anatomy' of capitalism) came as a result of his
indignation with STATE POWER being used blatantly to punish poor peasants.
So, Marx was fully aware of the importance of state power.  Why then spend
thousands of pages, rivers of ink, and the best part of his life dealing,
not directly with state power, but with the CAPITALIST MODE OF PRODUCTION?
I'm sure Marx didn't leave these 'lacunae' on purpose to allow for Nikos
Poulantzas or others to make a career trying filling them up (with all due
respect to Poulantzas and others).

(((((((((

CB: It was not because the dominance of state power by the capitalists is not a
necessary condition for all he discussed in _Capital_.   No state power held by 
the
capitalists, no capitalism following its laws of motion as explained in 
_Capital_.

The wage-labor/capital relationship was newer and more mystified than the 
nature of
the state, and needed more demystification.

Not Poulantzas, but Engels analyzed the nature of the state in _The Origin_; and
Lenin.  In a short form, Lenin said, politics is concentrated economics.

(((((((((((


When, trying to deny the validity of abstracting the policy of the Soviet
state from the laws of motion of a transitional economy, Bukharin threw at
Preobrazhensky Lenin's quote that the state was the 'synthesis' of the
interest of the ruling class, Preobrazhensky responded: "Shouldn't we,
comrade Bukharin, try to elucidate WHAT is synthesized in the power of the
state, the CONTENT of state power, the class interest itself, before we go
about dealing with the FORMS of state power as they express themselves
through policies and political practices?  If we don't do this, are we
really understanding what the policies and practices are about?"  (I'm
relying on my very bad memory.)

(((((((((

CB: Preobrazhensky's statement does not contradict the proposition that the 
dominance
of state power is a necessary condition for the capitalists to continue acting 
as
capitalists. The fact that for historical materialism, politics as 
superstructure is
determined  by the relations of production , as infrastructure, and that 
therefore
_analysis_ of productive relations may be prior to analysis of political 
relations
does not mean that in _synthesis_ or in concrete understanding , addressing the 
whole,
that capitalists holding state power is not necessary condition for the 
existence of
capitalism. In other words, even though the specific form of the state is 
determined
by the productive relations ,  the perpetuation of the specific form (mode) of
productive relations is dependent upon the ruling class of that formation 
holding
state power.  You are confusing analytical priority with necessary conditions 
of the
whole.

More specifically, if Preobrazhensky thought that the Soviet economy could go 
through
socialist laws of motion without state power dominated by the working class, 
then he
was wrong.