Dependency Theory (Mine) - (Nestor) ( Karl Marx)
CharlesB at CNCL.ci.detroit.mi.us
Tue May 29 11:56:53 MDT 2001
>>> juliohuato at hotmail.com 05/29/01 12:01PM >>>
Charles Brown questions the need to differentiate between modes of
production as they articulate in the same market. He doesn't see the
practical relevance of these distinctions.
>CB: How does it matter ? What difference does it make ? Except in an
>abstract debate or a debate about the abstract ?
>Concretely, there has never been wage-labor/capital relations of production
>that were not part of a larger division of labor that included oppressed or
>less than fully waged forms of labor also in relation with capital. Never
>in history. The concrete actual existence of wage-labor/ capital relations
>of production has always been in connection to below- living
>wage-labor/capital relations of production in a world capitalist system.
>There is no such thing as pure wage-labor/capital relations of production
>in fact, in history , at all, from the primitive accumulation through
>transnational monopoly imperialism 2001. Capitalism produces both
>wage-labor and slavery as a historical tendency.
IMO, Charles' point of view is a rejection of theoretical thinking
CB: The theory is that capitalism requires less than waged-labor along with wage-labor, a division of the workers it exploits to persist; and that a necessary condition for the persistence of capitalist relations of production is that the capitalists dominate the state power. I think it is rather that you refuse to comprehend any theory but the one you have, rather than that I reject theoretical thinking wholesale.
The readers have read our respective arguments sufficiently to
make up their own minds. Which way of proceeding is more adequate when one
is trying to understand a concrete social formation (e.g., Latin American
societies in the 21st century) and set the tasks of communism in these
conditions? IMO, the failure of the hegemonic way of thinking about Latin
American capitalism (dependency theory) is evident and it results from the
inability to think clearly and congruently in accordance with the mode of
analysis Marx proposed. We need to move beyond historicism. The sooner,
CB: Clearly (and congruently) it is you who are unable to think clearly and congruently in accordance with the mode of analysis Marx proposed in this discussion. You have to dismiss large sections of things Marx wrote as irrelvant to his mode of analysis ( your interpretation of his term "illustrative"). If they are irrelevant to his mode of analysis , why did he put them in his masterpiece ? We need both historical and dialectical materialist approach.
More information about the Marxism