Does China represent a non-capitalist alternative to neoliberal development models? Commentators ... more Does China represent a non-capitalist alternative to neoliberal development models? Commentators on the left have offered sharply divergent assessments over the last two decades. A few still cling the old dream of market socialism, twinning efficiency with social justice. For most, however, China is proof that market reforms invariably yield dispossession, inequality, and capitalist restoration.
Is the East Still Red? argues that both interpretations are wrong and exhibit a common failure to distinguish between market mechanisms and capitalist imperatives. Gary Blank situates the Chinese experience within broader Marxist debates on socio-historical transitions and primitive accumulation, highlighting the need to conceptualize capitalism as a unique system in which producers and appropriators depend on the market for their reproduction. Despite years of marketization, the mandarins in Beijing have not yet imposed full market dependence in industry and agriculture. He shows how the resistance of workers and peasants, the imperatives of party-state legitimacy, and the reproductive strategies of individual Communist officials and managers all act to perpetuate central aspects of a bureaucratic-collectivist system, in which direct producers and bureaucrats are effectively merged with the means of production. The People’s Republic may be a non-capitalist market alternative, albeit one that is hardly edifying for socialists.
Most ―mainstream accounts of the West-East divergence gain theoretical inspiration from Max Weber... more Most ―mainstream accounts of the West-East divergence gain theoretical inspiration from Max Weber and/or Karl Marx, and have therefore traced the ―rise of the West to the unique social processes that apparently fostered capitalism in Europe. Critics have labelled these accounts ―Eurocentric insofar as they imply the inherent superiority of the West over the East,1 and they have offered alternative ―anti-Eurocentric narratives which ostensibly avoid such analytical and normative pitfalls. These critics have succeeded in directing our attention to experiences in the non-European world. However, they have sought to validate these experiences by simply extending (in space and time), rather than transcending, the problematic concepts and assumptions that plagued the ―Eurocentric Weberian and Marxist accounts of the origins of capitalism. This paper argues that a truly non-Eurocentric approach requires a definitive break with these assumptions and the adoption of an alternative historical materialist understanding of the origins of capitalism pioneered by Robert Brenner. While not explicitly conceived as non-Eurocentric, Brenner‘s concept of social-property relations offers the surest foundation for understanding ―the great divergence‖ without doing violence to history or succumbing to European triumphalism.
After a long hiatus, Marxist historians are once again debating the “other transition”: from anci... more After a long hiatus, Marxist historians are once again debating the “other transition”: from ancient society to feudalism. Considerable improvements in empirical knowledge have not, however, been matched by bold advances in historical materialist theory. Prominent contributors now question whether any meaningful transition occurred at all, emphasizing the persistence of feudalism (Wickham) or the maturation of an incipient capitalism (Banaji). In this, they reproduce a central methodological shortcoming of Perry Anderson's pioneering work, which is a reluctance to think beyond the “mode of production” concept itself. The alternative concept of mode of exploitation focuses on the multiple “political” mechanisms by which surplus was extracted from direct producers. In Merovingian and Carolingian Gaul, the manorial exploitation of free and unfree tenants, as well as state (“public”) exploitation of the landowning, arms-bearing peasantry, generated a social logic distinct from both the late Roman Empire and early Frankish feudalism. There was not just one “transition,” but two.
When socialist feminists discussed the potential and pitfalls of Marxism in the “domestic labour ... more When socialist feminists discussed the potential and pitfalls of Marxism in the “domestic labour debate,” the specific relationship between patriarchy and capital emerged as a defining concern. While offering a trenchant critique of orthodox Marxism, the tenor of the debate was highly abstract and theoretical, and largely ignored the question of capitalism’s origins. Political Marxists, in contrast, have devoted fastidious attention to this question in their own attempt to renew historical materialism; but their dialogue has dedicated little attention to questions of gender, families, and social reproduction in the feminist sense. This paper makes an initial attempt at closing the analytical gap between these two historical materialist traditions. It departs from an unresolved theoretical impasse within the socialist feminist tradition: how to conceive of the imperatives of capital accumulation and class in a way that avoids both reductionism and dualism. I argue that this tension stems principally from an inadequate historicization of capitalism. A critical assessment of Wally Seccombe’s historical work illustrates how political Marxism can be deployed to correct this deficiency, while also revealing the extent to which these concepts must be rethought in light of materialist feminist concerns. A synthesis of the two traditions offers a more complete and effective account of the transition, while providing a basis for a unitary materialist theory.
Saber and Scroll, 1:3 (Fall 2012), 34-39, Nov 2012
Traditionally, scholarly discussion of Josef Stalin’s plans for post-war Eastern Europe has revol... more Traditionally, scholarly discussion of Josef Stalin’s plans for post-war Eastern Europe has revolved around a sharp dichotomy: Stalin was either an ideologically-motivated Marxist-Leninist bent on Communist revolution (the orthodox interpretation), or he was a security-starved pragmatist motivated by Realpolitik rather than revolutionary fervor (the revisionist claim).The “new Cold War historiography” has in many ways revived these sterile terms of debate. An examination of the Stalinist worldview, however, reveals that there is no necessary conflict between the imperatives of Stalin’s “ideology” and “national security.” The two antimonies were actually merged in the dictum of “socialism in one country,” which enabled the Soviet dictator to equate the narrow interests of the Soviet state with that of the Communist movement as a whole. An ideologically-motivated Stalin, therefore, was not necessarily a revolutionary Stalin. Indeed, Soviet war-time planning documents, the National Front strategy, and the actual course of sovietization demonstrate that Stalin placed the demands of Soviet security interests and the maintenance of cordial relations with the West ahead of any penchant for Communist revolution. In the mid-1940s, Stalin did not plan for Communist takeovers in Eastern Europe; such takeovers were instead the product of significant changes in the post-war security landscape.
Explaining the violence of civil war is never a simple task for the scholar. In the case of the S... more Explaining the violence of civil war is never a simple task for the scholar. In the case of the Sierra Leone, paradoxically, the task has in some ways been rendered more difficult by the sheer variety of compelling scholarship on the question. This paper seeks to identify the most useful of the explanations offered thus far, and to integrate their insights into a single account of the violence committed by the Revolutionary United Front. “Patrimonialist” approaches are valuable for their emphasis on the socioeconomic conditions that set the stage for war, particularly the impoverishment of youth in the countryside and the growth of a “lumpen” underclass. Both the “greed” and “grievance” versions of the “rationalist” approach identify possible motivations for RUF violence. They present a false dichotomy, however, and a focus on the social composition of the RUF at both the leadership and “foot soldier” levels illustrates this difficulty. Lacking a well-defined ideology and a principled leadership, the “lumpens” of the RUF sought to redress their genuine grievances through predatory, “greedy” behavior. The most convincing explanation, therefore, is one which highlights why Sierra Leone’s violence was fuelled by both greed and grievance.
Does China represent a non-capitalist alternative to neoliberal development models? Commentators ... more Does China represent a non-capitalist alternative to neoliberal development models? Commentators on the left have offered sharply divergent assessments over the last two decades. A few still cling the old dream of market socialism, twinning efficiency with social justice. For most, however, China is proof that market reforms invariably yield dispossession, inequality, and capitalist restoration.
Is the East Still Red? argues that both interpretations are wrong and exhibit a common failure to distinguish between market mechanisms and capitalist imperatives. Gary Blank situates the Chinese experience within broader Marxist debates on socio-historical transitions and primitive accumulation, highlighting the need to conceptualize capitalism as a unique system in which producers and appropriators depend on the market for their reproduction. Despite years of marketization, the mandarins in Beijing have not yet imposed full market dependence in industry and agriculture. He shows how the resistance of workers and peasants, the imperatives of party-state legitimacy, and the reproductive strategies of individual Communist officials and managers all act to perpetuate central aspects of a bureaucratic-collectivist system, in which direct producers and bureaucrats are effectively merged with the means of production. The People’s Republic may be a non-capitalist market alternative, albeit one that is hardly edifying for socialists.
Most ―mainstream accounts of the West-East divergence gain theoretical inspiration from Max Weber... more Most ―mainstream accounts of the West-East divergence gain theoretical inspiration from Max Weber and/or Karl Marx, and have therefore traced the ―rise of the West to the unique social processes that apparently fostered capitalism in Europe. Critics have labelled these accounts ―Eurocentric insofar as they imply the inherent superiority of the West over the East,1 and they have offered alternative ―anti-Eurocentric narratives which ostensibly avoid such analytical and normative pitfalls. These critics have succeeded in directing our attention to experiences in the non-European world. However, they have sought to validate these experiences by simply extending (in space and time), rather than transcending, the problematic concepts and assumptions that plagued the ―Eurocentric Weberian and Marxist accounts of the origins of capitalism. This paper argues that a truly non-Eurocentric approach requires a definitive break with these assumptions and the adoption of an alternative historical materialist understanding of the origins of capitalism pioneered by Robert Brenner. While not explicitly conceived as non-Eurocentric, Brenner‘s concept of social-property relations offers the surest foundation for understanding ―the great divergence‖ without doing violence to history or succumbing to European triumphalism.
After a long hiatus, Marxist historians are once again debating the “other transition”: from anci... more After a long hiatus, Marxist historians are once again debating the “other transition”: from ancient society to feudalism. Considerable improvements in empirical knowledge have not, however, been matched by bold advances in historical materialist theory. Prominent contributors now question whether any meaningful transition occurred at all, emphasizing the persistence of feudalism (Wickham) or the maturation of an incipient capitalism (Banaji). In this, they reproduce a central methodological shortcoming of Perry Anderson's pioneering work, which is a reluctance to think beyond the “mode of production” concept itself. The alternative concept of mode of exploitation focuses on the multiple “political” mechanisms by which surplus was extracted from direct producers. In Merovingian and Carolingian Gaul, the manorial exploitation of free and unfree tenants, as well as state (“public”) exploitation of the landowning, arms-bearing peasantry, generated a social logic distinct from both the late Roman Empire and early Frankish feudalism. There was not just one “transition,” but two.
When socialist feminists discussed the potential and pitfalls of Marxism in the “domestic labour ... more When socialist feminists discussed the potential and pitfalls of Marxism in the “domestic labour debate,” the specific relationship between patriarchy and capital emerged as a defining concern. While offering a trenchant critique of orthodox Marxism, the tenor of the debate was highly abstract and theoretical, and largely ignored the question of capitalism’s origins. Political Marxists, in contrast, have devoted fastidious attention to this question in their own attempt to renew historical materialism; but their dialogue has dedicated little attention to questions of gender, families, and social reproduction in the feminist sense. This paper makes an initial attempt at closing the analytical gap between these two historical materialist traditions. It departs from an unresolved theoretical impasse within the socialist feminist tradition: how to conceive of the imperatives of capital accumulation and class in a way that avoids both reductionism and dualism. I argue that this tension stems principally from an inadequate historicization of capitalism. A critical assessment of Wally Seccombe’s historical work illustrates how political Marxism can be deployed to correct this deficiency, while also revealing the extent to which these concepts must be rethought in light of materialist feminist concerns. A synthesis of the two traditions offers a more complete and effective account of the transition, while providing a basis for a unitary materialist theory.
Saber and Scroll, 1:3 (Fall 2012), 34-39, Nov 2012
Traditionally, scholarly discussion of Josef Stalin’s plans for post-war Eastern Europe has revol... more Traditionally, scholarly discussion of Josef Stalin’s plans for post-war Eastern Europe has revolved around a sharp dichotomy: Stalin was either an ideologically-motivated Marxist-Leninist bent on Communist revolution (the orthodox interpretation), or he was a security-starved pragmatist motivated by Realpolitik rather than revolutionary fervor (the revisionist claim).The “new Cold War historiography” has in many ways revived these sterile terms of debate. An examination of the Stalinist worldview, however, reveals that there is no necessary conflict between the imperatives of Stalin’s “ideology” and “national security.” The two antimonies were actually merged in the dictum of “socialism in one country,” which enabled the Soviet dictator to equate the narrow interests of the Soviet state with that of the Communist movement as a whole. An ideologically-motivated Stalin, therefore, was not necessarily a revolutionary Stalin. Indeed, Soviet war-time planning documents, the National Front strategy, and the actual course of sovietization demonstrate that Stalin placed the demands of Soviet security interests and the maintenance of cordial relations with the West ahead of any penchant for Communist revolution. In the mid-1940s, Stalin did not plan for Communist takeovers in Eastern Europe; such takeovers were instead the product of significant changes in the post-war security landscape.
Explaining the violence of civil war is never a simple task for the scholar. In the case of the S... more Explaining the violence of civil war is never a simple task for the scholar. In the case of the Sierra Leone, paradoxically, the task has in some ways been rendered more difficult by the sheer variety of compelling scholarship on the question. This paper seeks to identify the most useful of the explanations offered thus far, and to integrate their insights into a single account of the violence committed by the Revolutionary United Front. “Patrimonialist” approaches are valuable for their emphasis on the socioeconomic conditions that set the stage for war, particularly the impoverishment of youth in the countryside and the growth of a “lumpen” underclass. Both the “greed” and “grievance” versions of the “rationalist” approach identify possible motivations for RUF violence. They present a false dichotomy, however, and a focus on the social composition of the RUF at both the leadership and “foot soldier” levels illustrates this difficulty. Lacking a well-defined ideology and a principled leadership, the “lumpens” of the RUF sought to redress their genuine grievances through predatory, “greedy” behavior. The most convincing explanation, therefore, is one which highlights why Sierra Leone’s violence was fuelled by both greed and grievance.
Uploads
Is the East Still Red? argues that both interpretations are wrong and exhibit a common failure to distinguish between market mechanisms and capitalist imperatives. Gary Blank situates the Chinese experience within broader Marxist debates on socio-historical transitions and primitive accumulation, highlighting the need to conceptualize capitalism as a unique system in which producers and appropriators depend on the market for their reproduction. Despite years of marketization, the mandarins in Beijing have not yet imposed full market dependence in industry and agriculture. He shows how the resistance of workers and peasants, the imperatives of party-state legitimacy, and the reproductive strategies of individual Communist officials and managers all act to perpetuate central aspects of a bureaucratic-collectivist system, in which direct producers and bureaucrats are effectively merged with the means of production. The People’s Republic may be a non-capitalist market alternative, albeit one that is hardly edifying for socialists.
Read More: http://guilfordjournals.com/doi/abs/10.1521/siso.2013.77.2.153
Is the East Still Red? argues that both interpretations are wrong and exhibit a common failure to distinguish between market mechanisms and capitalist imperatives. Gary Blank situates the Chinese experience within broader Marxist debates on socio-historical transitions and primitive accumulation, highlighting the need to conceptualize capitalism as a unique system in which producers and appropriators depend on the market for their reproduction. Despite years of marketization, the mandarins in Beijing have not yet imposed full market dependence in industry and agriculture. He shows how the resistance of workers and peasants, the imperatives of party-state legitimacy, and the reproductive strategies of individual Communist officials and managers all act to perpetuate central aspects of a bureaucratic-collectivist system, in which direct producers and bureaucrats are effectively merged with the means of production. The People’s Republic may be a non-capitalist market alternative, albeit one that is hardly edifying for socialists.
Read More: http://guilfordjournals.com/doi/abs/10.1521/siso.2013.77.2.153