subcp
25th January 2013, 23:32
Yet_Another_Boring_Marxis posted an extract in the 'Is Maoism Contradictory?' thread that has peaked my interest. It appears that the same concept is being articulated by Maoists as has been developed by parts of the communist left over the years (and lately, especially, by parts of the communisation milieu).
First of all, we have to begin by recognizing that capitalism has two aspects––both of which were recognized by Marx, but only one that he was able to fully interrogate in a scientific sense: capitalism as a mode of production, and capitalism as a world system. The former is described in Capital, the latter is discussed here and there (in parts of Capital, in the CM, etc.) but not fully worked out by Marx or Engels. It does begin to be worked out by Lenin in his theory of imperialism, and from there you have attempts (and debates) on the part of multiple political economists to explain how the world market functions, what its precise connection is with capitalist modes of production who are clearly the captains of such a mode of production, and on and on.
(I'm going over a lot here, but I'm trying to give this the answer it deserves. Sorry if I'm being onerous.)
Point being, you have a world where there are capitalist nations and nations where there is no capitalism, but everywhere the capitalist market reigns supreme and the capitalist nations make sure it reigns supreme. So here is where maoist theories originally part ways from the Permanent Revolution. Trotsky thought the entire world system was the mode of production, one of "combined and uneven development", and this is essential to his theory of Permanent Revolution and his solution for those areas of this global mode of production (i.e. peripheral nations, third world, global south) that were lagging behind. (Won't get into too much detail on how this determines the theory of PR since I want to concentrate on the ND.) The argument that those come out of the maoist tradition make, here, is that only the centres of world imperialism are capitalist modes of production the peripheries during the imperialist stage of capitalism, however, are capitalist formations in that they are incorporated in the capitalist system through imperialism, some disarticulated form of capitalism has already been fostered in these spaces, so while previous modes of production remain, by virtue of being incorporated in the world system, they are still capitalist formations... Comprador classes, however, prevent the development of national capitalism, the countryside remains underdeveloped... hence "semi-colonial and semi-feudal."Originally, briefly, touched on by Marx, and later elaborated by Bordigists and post-Bordigists like Camatte, the concept of the formal to the real domination of capital (or, for the communisation milieu, the formal to real subsumption of labor) has been taken up seriously by the group Internationalist Perspectives:
The theoretical glue that links together the various positions that we are in the course of elaborating, and that gives it its coherence, is provided by the vision of capital as undergoing a transition from the formal to the real domination over society. What that means, is that the operation of the capitalist law of value penetrates society as a totality; that every pore of society is invaded and transformed by the operation of the law of value; that all the domains of social existence are tendentially reshaped by the law of value. What prevents such a totality shaped by the law of value being a totalization from which there is no escape is that the law of value has its own internal contradictions; contradictions that provide the bases for its own overcoming. Politically, that means that concomitant with its domination of society, the law of value also generates the possibility of resistance and struggle against it; the prospect of revolution, then, is no less real than the social retrogression wrought by capital, which is why the theoretical project that we are engaged in is also a political project. However, it is the elucidation of the transition from the formal to the real domination of capital over society, and its significance, which we want to undertake in this text.
The concepts of the formal and real domination of capital, of the formal and the real submission of labor to capital, were first formulated by Marx in “The Results of the Immediate Process of Production,” the sixth, unpublished (until the 1960’s), chapter of Capital, and it was then elaborated upon by a number of militants linked to Bordigism. Marx himself had linked the formal submission of labor to capital to the extraction of absolute surplus-value, and the real submission of labor to capital to the extraction of relative surplus-value, confining the concepts of formal and real domination to the immediate process of production; at any rate to the economic domain. A number of thinkers who originally encountered the concepts of formal and real domination on the fringes of the Bordigist movement, have contended that the transition from formal to real domination was completed by the 1850’s (Robin Goodfellow), a view echoed by the ICC in its critique of IP’s use of the concept. Others coming from Bordigism who have utilized the concepts of formal and real domination (Communisme ou Civilisation), while insisting on its significance for an understanding of the trajectory of capital in the twentieth century, have nonetheless continued to limit it to the economic domain in the narrow sense of the term. Still others, like Jacques Camatte (also coming from Bordigism) have expanded the scope of the real domination of capital beyond the economic domain, but have insisted that: “When capital achieves real domination over society, it becomes a material community, overcoming value and the law of value, which survive only as something ‘overcome.’” Camatte thereby extends the real domination of capital to society as a whole, as do we, but completely detaches it from the law of value, whose expression we believe the real domination of capital to be.-Internationalist Perspective #42, From the Formal to the Real Domination of Capital Over Society
http://internationalist-perspective.org/IP/ip-archive/ip_42_capital.html
On the theoretical side, this phenomenon was tangentially described by Situationists like Guy Debord (in the Society of the Spectacle) as the creation of a 'spectacle-commodity society' where the commodity form had penetrated all aspects of human life (and later mentioned briefly in Monsieur Dupont's Nihilist Communism as the means that the social struggles of the 1960's were kept within the boundaries of capitalism- by creating new markets and means for the commodity form, the law of value, to penetrate into everything from sexual identity, gender, race, etc.).
It occurred to me when reading the other thread that this description of New Democracy is starting from a similar observation- that for a time at least, capitalism operated as a force that touched production and social relations, but over time penetrated all aspect of society. From this similar starting point, this observation which was originally discussed by Marx, come very different political responses.
Mao describes his stageism in works like On Contradiction; and the theory of New Democracy takes this vision of 2 faces of phases of capitalism to mean that societies (nation-states, geographical/geopolitical regions) in the 'formal domination of capital' to be independent of the forces that shape social relations under capitalism- that the areas which were later in developing the productive forces (and thus at the mercy of the advanced capitalist nations) were somehow outside of these influences or forces, and thus able to resist 'capitalism' in a revolutionary bulwark while simultaneously being subject to capitalist laws of the economy. From there the starting point is the Lenin/Bukharin theory of Imperialism; parts of which I agree with (I think Bukharin's writings on Imperialist in 1915 and 1917 lay the groundwork for a comprehensive theory of state capitalism), but the most applicable parts are about imperialist nations taking over via colonialism and semi-colonialism, keeping underdeveloped areas in that underdeveloped state and 'super-exploiting' them, distributing super-profits to the 'labor aristocracy' etc. It's not much of a leap if you believe in the full theory of Imperialism that the national bourgeoisie, who has not been able to play a dominant role in national development due to the presence of imperialist envoy's (the 'comprador class') is thus a potential ally in the overthrow of the foreign imperialists and foreign bourgeoisie/comprador's. However, in practice the immediate movement to abolish the 'present state of things' did not carry out its tasks in China, in 1927 or 1949; while the foreign imperialists were expelled, the productive relations developed since then the way they had elsewhere- there was not a movement to abolish the law of value and commodity form (and classes), but instead, a new domestic ruling class interested in industrial development and favorable foreign trade.
My question to Maoists is- if the vision of the underlying views which lead to New Democracy and Mao's stageism is similar to the work by communists on the Formal/Real Domination - Formal/Real Subsumption theory, why stick with the aspects of Maoist theory that in practice did not work (in allowing China or anywhere else to bypass real domination of capital/real subsumption of labor), especially since the period we are in now (post-1968) is one of obvious globalization, financialization and internationalization of capital? The conditions which existed during the time when the theory of Imperialism and later Maoist developments (like New Democracy) were articulated are no longer extant for the most part (such as the population of the peasantry vs proletariat, remnants of feudalism, colonialism, etc.)? Does it make sense to stick with theories which were specifically developed to avoid a reality that has already transpired in the past 60 years, or have contemporary Maoists already discarded such theories?
First of all, we have to begin by recognizing that capitalism has two aspects––both of which were recognized by Marx, but only one that he was able to fully interrogate in a scientific sense: capitalism as a mode of production, and capitalism as a world system. The former is described in Capital, the latter is discussed here and there (in parts of Capital, in the CM, etc.) but not fully worked out by Marx or Engels. It does begin to be worked out by Lenin in his theory of imperialism, and from there you have attempts (and debates) on the part of multiple political economists to explain how the world market functions, what its precise connection is with capitalist modes of production who are clearly the captains of such a mode of production, and on and on.
(I'm going over a lot here, but I'm trying to give this the answer it deserves. Sorry if I'm being onerous.)
Point being, you have a world where there are capitalist nations and nations where there is no capitalism, but everywhere the capitalist market reigns supreme and the capitalist nations make sure it reigns supreme. So here is where maoist theories originally part ways from the Permanent Revolution. Trotsky thought the entire world system was the mode of production, one of "combined and uneven development", and this is essential to his theory of Permanent Revolution and his solution for those areas of this global mode of production (i.e. peripheral nations, third world, global south) that were lagging behind. (Won't get into too much detail on how this determines the theory of PR since I want to concentrate on the ND.) The argument that those come out of the maoist tradition make, here, is that only the centres of world imperialism are capitalist modes of production the peripheries during the imperialist stage of capitalism, however, are capitalist formations in that they are incorporated in the capitalist system through imperialism, some disarticulated form of capitalism has already been fostered in these spaces, so while previous modes of production remain, by virtue of being incorporated in the world system, they are still capitalist formations... Comprador classes, however, prevent the development of national capitalism, the countryside remains underdeveloped... hence "semi-colonial and semi-feudal."Originally, briefly, touched on by Marx, and later elaborated by Bordigists and post-Bordigists like Camatte, the concept of the formal to the real domination of capital (or, for the communisation milieu, the formal to real subsumption of labor) has been taken up seriously by the group Internationalist Perspectives:
The theoretical glue that links together the various positions that we are in the course of elaborating, and that gives it its coherence, is provided by the vision of capital as undergoing a transition from the formal to the real domination over society. What that means, is that the operation of the capitalist law of value penetrates society as a totality; that every pore of society is invaded and transformed by the operation of the law of value; that all the domains of social existence are tendentially reshaped by the law of value. What prevents such a totality shaped by the law of value being a totalization from which there is no escape is that the law of value has its own internal contradictions; contradictions that provide the bases for its own overcoming. Politically, that means that concomitant with its domination of society, the law of value also generates the possibility of resistance and struggle against it; the prospect of revolution, then, is no less real than the social retrogression wrought by capital, which is why the theoretical project that we are engaged in is also a political project. However, it is the elucidation of the transition from the formal to the real domination of capital over society, and its significance, which we want to undertake in this text.
The concepts of the formal and real domination of capital, of the formal and the real submission of labor to capital, were first formulated by Marx in “The Results of the Immediate Process of Production,” the sixth, unpublished (until the 1960’s), chapter of Capital, and it was then elaborated upon by a number of militants linked to Bordigism. Marx himself had linked the formal submission of labor to capital to the extraction of absolute surplus-value, and the real submission of labor to capital to the extraction of relative surplus-value, confining the concepts of formal and real domination to the immediate process of production; at any rate to the economic domain. A number of thinkers who originally encountered the concepts of formal and real domination on the fringes of the Bordigist movement, have contended that the transition from formal to real domination was completed by the 1850’s (Robin Goodfellow), a view echoed by the ICC in its critique of IP’s use of the concept. Others coming from Bordigism who have utilized the concepts of formal and real domination (Communisme ou Civilisation), while insisting on its significance for an understanding of the trajectory of capital in the twentieth century, have nonetheless continued to limit it to the economic domain in the narrow sense of the term. Still others, like Jacques Camatte (also coming from Bordigism) have expanded the scope of the real domination of capital beyond the economic domain, but have insisted that: “When capital achieves real domination over society, it becomes a material community, overcoming value and the law of value, which survive only as something ‘overcome.’” Camatte thereby extends the real domination of capital to society as a whole, as do we, but completely detaches it from the law of value, whose expression we believe the real domination of capital to be.-Internationalist Perspective #42, From the Formal to the Real Domination of Capital Over Society
http://internationalist-perspective.org/IP/ip-archive/ip_42_capital.html
On the theoretical side, this phenomenon was tangentially described by Situationists like Guy Debord (in the Society of the Spectacle) as the creation of a 'spectacle-commodity society' where the commodity form had penetrated all aspects of human life (and later mentioned briefly in Monsieur Dupont's Nihilist Communism as the means that the social struggles of the 1960's were kept within the boundaries of capitalism- by creating new markets and means for the commodity form, the law of value, to penetrate into everything from sexual identity, gender, race, etc.).
It occurred to me when reading the other thread that this description of New Democracy is starting from a similar observation- that for a time at least, capitalism operated as a force that touched production and social relations, but over time penetrated all aspect of society. From this similar starting point, this observation which was originally discussed by Marx, come very different political responses.
Mao describes his stageism in works like On Contradiction; and the theory of New Democracy takes this vision of 2 faces of phases of capitalism to mean that societies (nation-states, geographical/geopolitical regions) in the 'formal domination of capital' to be independent of the forces that shape social relations under capitalism- that the areas which were later in developing the productive forces (and thus at the mercy of the advanced capitalist nations) were somehow outside of these influences or forces, and thus able to resist 'capitalism' in a revolutionary bulwark while simultaneously being subject to capitalist laws of the economy. From there the starting point is the Lenin/Bukharin theory of Imperialism; parts of which I agree with (I think Bukharin's writings on Imperialist in 1915 and 1917 lay the groundwork for a comprehensive theory of state capitalism), but the most applicable parts are about imperialist nations taking over via colonialism and semi-colonialism, keeping underdeveloped areas in that underdeveloped state and 'super-exploiting' them, distributing super-profits to the 'labor aristocracy' etc. It's not much of a leap if you believe in the full theory of Imperialism that the national bourgeoisie, who has not been able to play a dominant role in national development due to the presence of imperialist envoy's (the 'comprador class') is thus a potential ally in the overthrow of the foreign imperialists and foreign bourgeoisie/comprador's. However, in practice the immediate movement to abolish the 'present state of things' did not carry out its tasks in China, in 1927 or 1949; while the foreign imperialists were expelled, the productive relations developed since then the way they had elsewhere- there was not a movement to abolish the law of value and commodity form (and classes), but instead, a new domestic ruling class interested in industrial development and favorable foreign trade.
My question to Maoists is- if the vision of the underlying views which lead to New Democracy and Mao's stageism is similar to the work by communists on the Formal/Real Domination - Formal/Real Subsumption theory, why stick with the aspects of Maoist theory that in practice did not work (in allowing China or anywhere else to bypass real domination of capital/real subsumption of labor), especially since the period we are in now (post-1968) is one of obvious globalization, financialization and internationalization of capital? The conditions which existed during the time when the theory of Imperialism and later Maoist developments (like New Democracy) were articulated are no longer extant for the most part (such as the population of the peasantry vs proletariat, remnants of feudalism, colonialism, etc.)? Does it make sense to stick with theories which were specifically developed to avoid a reality that has already transpired in the past 60 years, or have contemporary Maoists already discarded such theories?