[PEN-L:11641] Re: Re: Re: Re: RE: binary passions

["Mathew Forstater" <forstate@xxxxxxxx>]

Hosea Jaffe's _A History of Africa_ offers a "communal-despotic mode of
production" to describe certain African social economies. Prior to European
contact the communal aspect was dominant; the result of pre-colonial contact
and colonialism was to cause a shift making the despotic aspect dominant, or
to cause a shift in the relative dominance from communal to despotic.
Jaffe's book is very very good, btw, especially in highlighting the
continuous resistance on the part of African peoples from the beginning of
the beginning.  On the topic of mode of production analysis and Africa,
Catherine Coquery-Vidrovitch offers an "African Mode of Production" as an
alternative to the "Asiatic," which she rejects as being found in Africa,
certainly in its extreme form.  A number of other French Marxists have
explored these different possiblities (African, Asiatic, etc., modes of
production and African social economies).  Most interesting to me has been
the theoretical development and application of the "Germanic" mode of
production found in the the "Formen" in the _Grundrisse_ (see Hobsbawm's
edited and introduced version of Marx's _Pre-Capitalist Economic Formations
_, the "classic" English version of the _Grundrisse_ (around 1973?), or the
not as good translation--it seems to me--in the Collected Works).  Again, a
number of the French Structuralist Marxists have developed the Germanic mode
and applied it to pastoral peoples (Pierre Bonte is one of the best, Claude
Lefebure, and others), but also the best, richest, development was that of
my former teacher the late Peter Rigby, author of _Persistent Pastoralists_
and _Cattle, Capitalism, and Class_ as well as _African Images_, the former
two being the applications of the Germanic mode to Ilparakuyo Maasai, the
latter being one of the best things on racism written lately--a truly must
read.  There are also some other modes in the _Formen_ that as far as I know
have not been as explored or applied, and I would be VERY interested in any
developments and applications that others do know of, for example, Slavonic,
Rumanian, et al.

One of the issues I am trying to get at is that there were egalitarian
societies, non-stratified societies, classless societies (the being
obviously some controversy here--for a change!), and it is important to have
a more subtle analysis I believe than the impression given by Wojtek below.
There are also all kinds of "mixed" systems, or systems with differing
levels and degrees of internal stratification or not, etc., and also just
different systems period.  To seriously address the issues that are implied
and suggested by Wojtek's post--whether he meant to or not--we need to--as
Carroll has remined--do some theory.  We need a general theoretical
framework--let's make the theoretical framework explicit, explore and
develop it (by the way, for anyone who cares, this was exactly [one of]
Darity's criticism[s] of O'Brien, but that got lost in the shuffle).

May I be so bold as to propose that we do a serious close group reading of
the _Formen_ and some related materials (some of the German Ideology is
important here, some of Marx's correspondence, etc.)???  It can be separate
from pen-l (it's up to Michael), we can either form our own group or just
set up a group mail list, whatever.

Things like articulation of modes of production, transformation from one
mode to another, conditions of existence, conditions of reproduction, and
many many other issues need to be explored, laid out, etc.

As Charles also suggests, Louis's reading list needs to be expanded as well.

"This mode of production must not be considered simply as being the
reproduction of the physical existence of the individuals.  Rather it is a
definite form of activity of these individuals, a definite form of
expressing their life, a definite *mode of life* on their part."  (Marx,
_The German Ideology_)

"The fact is that the so-called European civilization--"Western"
civilization--as it has been shaped by two centuries of bourgeois rule, is
incapable of solving the two major problems to which its existence has given
rise: the problem of the proletariat and the colonial problem; that Europe
is unable to justify itself either before the bar of "reason" or before the
bar of "conscience"; and that, increasingly, it takes refuge in a hypocrisy
which is all the more odious because it is less and less likely to deceive.
*Europe is indefensible*." (Aime Cesaire, _Discourse on Colonialism_)


-----Original Message-----
From: Wojtek Sokolowski <sokol@xxxxxxx>
To: pen-l@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx <pen-l@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>
Date: Friday, September 24, 1999 11:35 AM
>Subject: [PEN-L:11630] Re: Re: Re: RE: binary passions


>At 03:57 PM 9/23/99 -0500, Mathew Forstater wrote:
>>right, wojtek, your position of favoring internal factors is "scientific"
>>while one who through careful study reaches the tentative conclusion
(always
>>subject to possible revision) that "external" factors are of primary
>>importance must subscribe to some "irrational" worldview of some kind.
>>
>
>
>Exactly.  You see, brigands, plunderers, warlords etc.  existed for
>centuries almost since the beginning of history and on every continent -
>Asia, Europe, Africa and the Americas.  Although they all thrived on
>plundering other societies - not all of them could turn the plundered
>riches to a social-institutional system capable of sustaining and
>reproducing itself.  Moreover, even those who could e.g. the Incas or the
>Aztecs - built a very different social system form that of the European
>capitalism.
>
>It is, therefore clear that it is not the resource availability per se, or
>even how those resources were initially acquired, but the internal
>(institutional) features of societies that use them that needs to be
>examined to explain the differences between the societies in question.
>
>Now, you surely agree with me that if the issue at hand was just an
>empirical explanation of economic development in Western European - it
>would not generate passions it does.  I lived in the underdeveloped part of
>the world long enough to understand the role of ideology and religion to
>dupe people with a sense of national pride and cultural superiority.  That
>is hardly anything new - religion has always been the opium of the people.
>My main objection is that self-styled marxist use marxist rhetorics to that
>end.  There is a certain perverted irony in using marxism to create a
>religious cult, no?
>
>wojtek
>
>
>PS. What I really abhor about a great deal of the US leftism is its
>cultish, idealistic and moralistic bent.  Yuk!
>