Just by coincidence, I am in the next to final chapter of Frank's book,
which I strongly recommend to PEN-L'ers. Just a few tentative conclusions:
1. While repeatedly condemning Marx and Weber in the same breath, Frank
seems either unaware or willfully refuses to engage with the late Marx or
Marxism of a more recent vintage. For example, you can not find any
reference to Aijaz Ahmad's discussion of Marx and oriental despotism in his
fine "In Theory" which puts the whole question into some kind of historical
context. The 1853 Herald Tribune articles were based on information that
was clearly inadequate. When Marx learned more about India and British
colonialism, he altered his views. For a first-rank scholar like Frank to
ignore these matters is frankly unforgivable.
2. Frank advances two interrelated arguments that I have not seen before as
an attempt to explain the victory of the west. One, he says that the east
was a victory of its own success. The period from 1400-1800 which was
marked by dominance of India and Asia in world trade (4 out of 5
commodities in circulation originated in the east) led to a depletion of
resources. By the same token, the west took the lead from 1800 onwards
because of the capital that had been accumulated in the new world through
theft but--just as importantly--also because the high cost of labor,
particularly in the new world, forced it to introduce labor-saving
technology. So the explanation for new machinery is not in the
"restlessness" of the west, but sheer economic necessity.
3. Frank predicts that the west will fall and the east will rise again.
Although the details to support this argument are found in the final
chapter, I can surmise he is referring to the explosive growth of China and
the tigers. The implication, of course, is that this will eventually lead
to its fall once again and the rise of the west ad infinitum. This rise and
fall dynamic is closely related to Frank's use of Kondratieff long-wave
theory which I find inadequate, since it confuses cause with effect. More
importantly, this view of history seems to owe more to Vico than any which
would offer an opportunity for genuine human liberation. By casting off
Marx, Andre Gunder Frank has eliminated the one possibility for abolishing
the oppressive cyclical historical pattern which will leave one elite or
another in power.
I will have more to say.
Louis Proyect
(The Marxism mailing list: http://www.marxmail.org)
