At 02:36 PM 3/20/98 -0800, Jim Devine wrote inter alia:
>I think the main simplication of CAPITAL is that there Marx assumes away
>the independent dynamics of working-class movements. The book is about
>capital's dynamics largely holding working class organization constant
>(holding the cultural-historical level of subsistence constant, for
>example), mostly dealing with workers' _reactions_ to the lengthening of
>the working day or the speed-up imposed by the capitalist use of machinery.
>The book doesn't talk about the development of working class organization
>toward (or away from) forming clear class consciousness, political parties,
>and the like (counter-hegemony). But Marx talks about this elsewhere, in
>other writings. See Mike Lebowitz' book, BEYOND CAPITAL. Bringing in the
>political economy of the working class -- to complement Marx's political
>economy of capital -- seems an absolutely necessary component of any effort
>to understand capitalist dynamics.
I would add to it another simplification, the "classical" concept of the
state as the executive committee and the policeman proptecting private
property. Marx did not anticipate the role of the state as the Keynesian
regulator (which might be interpreted as the expression of bourgeois
solidarity to save capitalism from its own excesses, something that Marx
did think would happen) or, for that matter, that the state would play an
indpendent role regardless of the class interests of the bourgeoisie. The
latter issue was emphasized by historians like Barrington Moore or more
recently Theda Skocpol who, although working within the framework of an
essentially Marxist class analysis, nonetheless argued that the structure
of the state, the level of integeration of different social classes or
strate, and th epower of the agents of the state played a crucial role in
economi cdevelopment. What i particularly like this kind of Marxism vis a
vis the world-sytems variety is that it focuses on real social actors
instead of Hegelian abstractions.
Regards,
