[PEN-L:4170] Re: circularities

[Colin Danby <danbyc@xxxxxxx>]

Jim D writes:

> I think the only reason one can see capitalism as the "root cause" of
other
> oppressive institutions is dynamic. Like a virus, capitalism
continually
> spreads, attacking preexisting institutions like racism and patriarchy
and
> either destroying them or, perhaps more likely, transforming them in a
way
> that fits its functioning. These institutions are conservative, rather
than
> being aggressively dynamic like capitalism.

Why assume that patriarchal or race-
privileging structures and institutions
cannot be dynamic or unstable?  If we've
learned anything about cultures in
recent decades it is that they are
seldom static.  Patriarchs or racists
may present specific practices and
beliefs as hallowed by tradition, but
the tradition usually turns out to be a
recent invention.

As a general note (not aimed at Jim
in particular), I want to suggest that
getting the level of generality right
in this kind of discussion is crucial,
and the cause of a lot of missed
communication when this question comes
up on Pen-L.  For example when race
came up the other month some folks
pointed to the great antiquity of ideas
that distinguished one's "own people"
from others, and numerous occasions
when this statement of difference was
associated with enslavement and other
oppressions.  Oppressive gender
strucutures can be found in many if not
most places and times.  But we should
differentiate between using patriarchy
as a broad category, and assuming that
patriarchy is a continuous, singular,
transhistorical institution.

No Marxist would say that all systems
which produce income inequality, or
which take surplus from people who
produce it, are capitalist.  As we
saw the other week in discussing Andre
Gunder Frank, you can also generalize
capitalism excessively across time,
and thereby lose what is dynamic
about it.  If we are willing to give
that same level of analytical
attention to race and gender that we
give to class, we are more likely to
recognize dynamism, as well as internal
sources of contestation.

Best, Colin