Desai's 'Marx's Revenge'

[trivas7]

According to Meghnad Desai's Marx's Revenge: The Resurgence of Capitalism and the Death of Statist Socialism Marx believed that no stage of history ever ends before the productive possibilities of which it is capable develop fully. Desai quotes a famous passage from the preface to the Contribution to the Critique of Political Economy: "No social order ever disappears before all the productive forces for which there is room in it have been developed; and new higher relations of production never appear before the material conditions of their existence have matured in the womb of the old society itself. Therefore, mankind only sets itself such tasks as it can solve" (p. 44, quoting Marx).

Given this doctrine, we can understand Desai's argument. In order to bring capitalism to an end, it must be developed as much as possible. Hence a socialist must be, for the indefinite future, a supporter of capitalism. Our author claims, "Practically all the commentary on Marx, particularly since 1917, has been an attempt to deny this" (p. 44).



What do you make of this theory? Is this revisionism or lunacy or what?

[BobKKKindle$]

Marx supported the introduction of capitalism in areas where it had not emerged, even through imposition by an external power, because he recognized that capitalism allows for the rapid development of the productive forces, which is a prerequisite for socialism, because socialism cannot exist in a society based on generalized want. Thus, capitalism has a historical role, and Marxist orthodoxy suggests that every country must suffer an extended period of capitalist development before socialism is possible. In this sense, Desai is correct.

Socialists need to consider whether there is still "room" for productive development under capitalism. This is where Desai's argument fails - he makes the assumption that capitalism is still progressive, from which he derives the "need" for Socialists to support capitalism. However, capitalism has ceased to be a progressive force, especially in the developing world, such that development of the productive forces can only occur with the abolition of capitalism, not its continuation.

Capitalism has now expanded so that every area of the world has been integrated into the capitalist system. However, capitalism is not a progressive force in the developing world, because the exploitation of the developing world through the export of capital and dependency on primary goods (a dependency which is maintained through the system of free trade which prevents the growth of an industrial base) has prevented the development of the productive forces. Developing countries are not able to follow the same course of development as the countries which comprise the Imperialist bloc (United Kingdom, France, etc.) because they have emerged from feudal production relations late, and so are faced with external obstacles to development imposed by the imperialist powers, which prevent development within the framework of capitalism.

Andre-Gunder Frank makes it clear that the status of underdevelopment (a lack of industrial development resulting from external obstacles) is closely linked to world capitalism:


Historical research demonstrates that contemporary underdevelopment is in large part the historical product of past and continuing economic and other relations between the satellite underdeveloped and the now developed metropolitan countries. Furthermore, these relations are an essential part of the capitalist system on a world scale as a whole.Gunder-Frank, The Development of Underdevelopment. Emphasis added.

For developing countries, development can only occur through socialism, by the nationalization of resources which are currently subject to the control of foreign firms.

Lenin recognized that the countries which are underdeveloped would be the "weakest links in the chain" because of the material hardship suffered by the working class in these countries and the regressive influence of the labour aristocracy in the oppressor nations. This is why Lenin called for revolution in Russia, despite the low level of economic development.

However, the outbreak of revolution in the developing world can only lead to the development of socialism if the revolution is able to spread to other countries, because the coordination of economic activity between countries and over vast differences means that one country cannot exist independently and maintain a high standard of living.

Therefore, socialists have no reason to support the continuation of capitalism, because the relations of production (the way society is organised under capitalism) are obstructing the development of the productive forces.

[trivas7]

I guess the larger issue being tackled is: is there a future for socialism? Which is another way of enquiring, could capitalism go on for ever? I just found this review of the book by a Mick Brooks from the marxist.com website (if anyone cares):

http://www.marxist.com/revenge-desai-part-one010805.htm

[Die Neue Zeit]

^^^ You need to differentiate between bourgeois capitalism and worker-controlled state-capitalist monopoly (methinks Desai still clings to the classical Social-Democratic definition of "socialism" :( ):

http://www.revleft.com/vb/social-proletocracy-marx-t80882/index.html

I have doubts about the potential of the former - inefficiencies in terms of allocations of surplus value (comfy lives for the bourgeoisie, as opposed to reinvestment) - but I am very much worried about the potential of the latter (which could make real socialism a pipe dream).

[Luís Henrique]

What do you make of this theory? Is this revisionism or lunacy or what?


It is what you get when instead of achieving a comprehension of the complete work of a thinker, you cling to a sentence taken out of context.
Luís Henrique

[trivas7]

It is what you get when instead of achieving a comprehension of the complete work of a thinker, you cling to a sentence taken out of context.
Luís Henrique
But it's the case that many bourgeois economists, Schumpeter, Keynes, e.g., admired Marx, no?