I was intrigued by Stavros M.'s contribution to the discussion on 
Aglietta.  As regards his fundamental critique of Regulation Theory, 
he will find much the same will apply to my own work and SSA theory 
in general.  (Plug: Social Structures of Accumulation: The Political 
Economy of Growth and Crisis, Ed. Kotz, McDonough, Reich esp. SSA's 
Contingent History, and Stages of Capitalism, by T. McDonough).  I 
tend to agree with him on some points and disagree on others.
     Agreement:  I have always been uncomfortable with this notion of 
"intermediate concepts".  It has always struck me that the existing 
levels are those of abstract theoretical conceptualization and the 
application of theory to concrete historical analysis.  I do think 
however that there are intermediate periods in capitalist history.  
There are tendencies in capitalism which operate over its entire 
history and then there are institutional structures which are 
peculiar to particular periods of capitalist history, finally there 
is the conjuncture which is  a particular point in history.  The 
institutional structures are produced as a result of historical class 
struggle and in turn condition that struggle.  The conflictual nature 
of capitalism and the need for security of return for longterm 
investment creates the need for relatively stable institutions of an 
economic, political and ideological/cultural nature.  Hence these are 
not intermediate concepts but are necessitated by  and hence part of the 
Marxian analysis of the historical dynamics of the capitalist mode of 
production.  This kind of approach is not peculiar to the post-60's 
crisis, but originates with the work of Hilferding, Bukharin and 
Lenin. (Another plug: see my Lenin, Imperialism, and the Stages of 
Capitalist Development, S&S Fall 95), and thus dates from the start 
of the Marxist tradition after Marx. (Interestingly Aglietta rejects 
continuity with Lenin's tradition arguing that it is not  Marxist 
enough.)  Thus while I agree that intermediate concepts have no
 theoretical status and may lead to the problems described by 
Stavros, the intermediate periodization of capitalism  is necessitated by the
 conjunction of the basic Marxian concepts and concrete history.
     Disagreement:  Contingency is not an intensification of the 
problem of intermediate concepts but the way out of the dilemma.  If 
the specifics of a particular period cannot be explained by the 
overarching laws of capitalist development, this implies that there 
are contingent factors at play.  Contingent factors are influences  outside 
of the fundamental factors which provide the overall motion of 
historical change.  This dichotomy between contingent and fundamental 
factors allows for concrete historical explanation without the 
introduction of a "multicausal framework" at the highest level of 
theory.  A similar view of Darwinian evolution is propounded by the 
paleontologist Stephen Jay Gould in 'Wonderful Life.'

Terry McDonough
     
     


Reply via email to