I wrote: >>The choice of definitions is pretty arbitrary. ... However, I think what >>makes one definition better than another is not the definition itself, but >>how it fits into a broader theory. In physics, for example, the "mass" of a >>particle is defined by its "force" and "acceleration" (and each of the >>terms is defined by the other two) as part of the equation f = m.a. For >>Marx (and in his somewhat abstract way, Brenner), "capitalism" is defined >>by the specific theory of capitalism presented in CAPITAL. Louis writes: >Yes, but in his correspondence with the editorial board of a Russian >populist magazine in the late 1870s, Marx specifically explained that the >model in CAPITAL was not a definition of capitalism, but only of the way >England specifically evolved. There's a difference between a _definition_ of capitalism and a universal description of how capitalism develops or a universal (stagist) prescription. (If Marx thought that it was a prescription, he was wrong.) I would guess Marx defined capitalism with the book CAPITAL, but he didn't provide us with either of the latter. I would guess that's what he said to the ed. board. Louis, do you have the direct quote somewhere? BTW, I think Marx's description of the impact of the spread of industrial capitalism to other countries from England is pretty accurate. It seems to fit East Asia pretty well these days. >The one thing I notice about "stagists" is >that they seem to have an aversion to the late Marx, which is essential to >understanding the sort of dynamic that Sweezy revealed and which was >anticipated by Lenin. What "late Marx" are you talking about? the one who thought that maybe Russia could skip the "stage" of industrial capitalism? BTW, didn't Lenin oppose the Narodniks, who thought that the village commune (Mir) could be the basis for socialism? > In general I see Brenner's approach to this as >consistent with the sort of thing I've seen in other AM'ers, where >civilization is divided into clean cut stages. I don't think Brenner is a stagist like G.A. Cohen (or a moralizer like Roemer). Unlike Cohen, he seems to know something about history. In addition, I'd say that he probably sees "clean-cut theories of the kind of laws of motion that different modes of productions have" as replacing "clean-cut stages." Further, I'd say he sees such theories as merely aiding an empirical understanding of history rather than replacing it. What unites Brenner with the AMists is his liking for abstract models. At one point in his article in Roemer's ANALYTICAL MARXISM, Brenner lumps slavery and serfdom (and any kind of non-proletarian labor) into a single category of forced labor so that he can construct a model of how capitalism/wage labor works differently from forced-labor systems. (This lumping doesn't seem necessary at all, BTW.) However, to repeat myself, it's clear in his research that he doesn't replace an empirical study of the world with his abstract theories. >It simply does not take >"combined and uneven" development into account, where, for example, Quechua >Indians in Bolivia live in traditional communal villages, mine tin for >wages and work as share-croppers all in the same instance. I think "combined and uneven development" is an even better concept than the related idea of "articulated modes of production" that I used before. However, I don't see how this case is especially relevant to a discussion of Brenner. Whether or not he's Eurocentric in theory or practice, he's _definitely_ Eurocentric in terms of his subject matter. Even so, where in heck did this "development" come from? Didn't capitalist development come to Bolivia from Europe, as part of the European invasion of the "new" world? Maybe Bolivia was about to develop its own version of capitalism before 1492 (though I doubt it), but its possibility of doing so were blocked when the Spaniards took over. The capitalism that developed in Bolivia was uneven (helping the metropole more than the periphery in terms of developing the "wealth of nations" and tranforming social relations of production more in the core than in the periphery) and ended up being combined (or "articulated") with noncapitalist modes of production. But the capitalism that came to Bolivia started in Europe, so the home-base of the origins of world-wide capitalism seems worth studying. >As far as >Brenner is concerned as an individual, and whether he is being "dissed" >here, I find his description of Paul Sweezy as a "neo-Smithian" to be >highly obnoxious. If you are going to issue this kind of challenge, you are >inviting a polemical response. Maybe Brenner was being an academic sectarian. But that hardly seems to be a justification for continuing that kind of attitude, which makes any kind of productive debate difficult. Actually, considering how great Smith was compared to his neoclassical epigones, being called a neo-Smithian isn't that bad. (You'll notice also that Brenner didn't simply dismiss Sweezy. He argued agaist him using facts and theory, while agreeing with Sweezy on some things.) And it's pretty typical of academics to think up obnoxious terms as a way of lumping the opponents together, alas. For example, people label Anwar Shaikh "fundamentalist," which by implication puts him in the same category as Jerry Falwell. Again and again, I've noticed the similarities between academics and sectarians. (I am currently an academic and though I never have belonged to a sectarian group, I've been a sectarian.) Jim Devine [EMAIL PROTECTED] & http://clawww.lmu.edu/Faculty/JDevine/JDevine.html
