Mine wrote:
However,as you
know, there are some Marxists in the Marxist tradition who uncritically
subcribe to the notions of "orthodox" economics and free market
capitalism. This, I would charecterize as economic determinism, has
interesting commonalities with liberal economics since it treats
capitalism somewhat theologically and mechanistically. The typical "theory
of stages" argument says that we should let the market forces operate
untill capitalism unleashes itself. Any intervention in markets is seen as
postponing the collapse of capitalism. so as the argument goes, this
tradition still emphasizes the primacy of economic laws rather than
revolutionary unity of theory and practice, which is so central to Marx's
thinking. is such a distortion of Marx unique to economics dicipline in
general? I have not seen, for example, such a religious reliance on
markets in other diciplinary discussions on political economy of
capitalism
The problem is that 'markets' are just one institution in the political
economic organization of society. Markets existed in pre-capitalist
societies, organized exchange occurred amoung aboriginal tribes
in North America long before contact with Europeans and the
expansion of merchant capitalism, markets existed in the USSR
and eastern Europe under central planning, markets were a
characteristic of medieval Europe, etc. etc. Polanyi makes this the
central thesis of _The Great Transformation_. Prior to industrial
capitalism, he argues, markets were imbedded in society, meaning
in part that markets were controlled by society to reflect social
institutions and values and maintain the social status quo. (hence,
for instance, the laws on usury, on engrossing, on fair price, etc.)
In other societies, ultimate control on the distributive inbalances of
markets were repealed by Jubilees, potlaches, etc.
The great transformation -- the triumph of capitalism -- comes with
the subjugation of society to "free markets", that is that instead of
markets being embedded in society and used as an institution to
facilitate production that reflects prevailing social values, society
becomes an institution that reflects the values determined by
markets. In the ultimate, the market replaces society as in
Maggie's infamous dictate, "there is no such thing as society, only
individuals."
The Canadian political economy basically takes of from this point.
The 'father' of the tradition, Harold Innis, was highly influenced by
Veblen. In one of his most interesting articles, he makes the
statement (this is by memory so is not exact) that, in new
countries like Canada (he is writing in the 20s), we must discard
the economic theory of the old countries and develop new
economic theory appropriate to conditions in Canada. The theory
of the old countries (i.e. Britain) are exploitative of the new.
His 'new' theory has become known as the 'staple theory' such that
he argues that society is shaped by the institutions and economic
aspects of development of the leading, natural resource, export-
based economic sector. Markets are one aspect of this, but more
important, particularly for some of the other major staple 'theorists',
like Fowke (Rod take note), Creighton, Buckley, and including
Naylor, was the balance of class power which determined the
distribution of income and wealth and of the 'spread' and 'backwash'
effects of economic expansion.
I think the most important aspect of understanding this approach to
political economy is understanding the nature and location of power
in society and how this was manifest in the material (economic)
development of Canada. In the early part of Canadian history, the
staple industries that shaped the political and social institutions
were TRADES (Cod, fur, timber, wheat) which were heavy users of
_commercial capital_ and hence, power was dominated by
commercial capital who used this dominance to control political
institutions and the distribution of political power. It also
determined ultimately the political, religious elite. (See for
example, Creighton's _The Commercial Empire of the St.
Lawrence, or Tom Naylor's _History of Canadian Business_. When
economic development turned to railroads and the grainhandling
system and settlement, power gravitated to the hands of financial
capital (not industrial capital as many Marxists assume) which
lead to the control of the elite by the bankers, insurance and
mortgage companies, etc.
Now, the Canadian political economy tradition gradually split into
two camps, the liberal camp that followed from the economist
Mackintosh and, as Mine suggests, reflected a very mechanistic,
non-class based, non-power based analysis -- markets for staples
as conditioned by policies and institutions reflecting existing
political alliances and interests (and those inherited from Britain
and shaped by American influences) determined the course of, and
distribution
