(Classical) Marxism and Eurocentrism

[islandmilitia]

I'm currently reading the book Eurocentrism by Samir Amin, which the author presents as a sustained critique of culturalism, i.e. the tendency to explain history and social organization in terms of permanent cultural differences between societies. However, the author also has a lot to say about Marxism, and they argue that because Marxism emerged in a definite ideological context, Marx's thought (and Marxism more generally) also exhibits some of the underlying features of Eurocentric discourse.

In particular, Amin points to two interrelated issues. Concerning Marx's theory of history, he argues that Marxism has tended to either universalize a European course of historical development by assuming that all societies must go through the same stages of progression in order to arrive at socialism (slavery - feudalism - capitalism - socialism) or alternatively that Marxists have uncritically taken up categories which absolutize the differences between European and non-European societies, i.e. the Asiatic mode of production, impeding the articulation of a genuinely universalist conception of history. Amin's own response is to say that the notion of a tributary mode of production can encompass the histories of all pre-capitalist societies, and that European feudalism was actually a peripheral variant of this mode, in the sense of being an incomplete form, it being this peripheral status which allowed capitalism to emerge in Europe.

Concerning Marx's understanding of capitalist development, Amin says that Marx too easily assumed that capitalism would have a homogenizing tendency in the sense of establishing the same economic and social conditions across the world, through the straightforward abolition of pre-capitalist social relations. Given that the tendency of capitalist development has actually been to polarize societies into periphery and centre, Amin says that the upshot of Marx's optimism is to imply that the failure of societies to "catch up" to the level of the West is due to the internal deficiencies of those societies, and their failure to sufficiently emulate the West. Hence, there is actually an overlap between the logic of Marx's formulations and more recent ideas in modernization theory, which also cites supposedly solely internal problems like corruption as the sources of a failure to catch up. This is opposed to Amin's own understanding, which sees polarization as an inherent tendency within capitalism, and calls for societies to be analyzed as part of a world-system, rather than as self-contained units. Amin also links his understanding to a political strategy which says that the reconfiguration of the world-system will be a long process and one that will extend to the West as well, and that the initial transformation of this system will take place through the mechanism of delinking, whereby peripheral countries will "de-link" themselves from international capitalism in order that their development be genuinely under their own internal sovereign control. Amin seems to imply that Maoism in China represented a radical form of delinking.

I think the second of these points is especially interesting because of how it points back to the anti-Bolshevik arguments of the Mensheviks and the Impossibilists, as well as the broader assumption that "catching-up" is a reasonable possibility for peripheral capitalist countries. However, I thought it might be worth opening up this discussion. To what extent is classical or contemporary Marxism endowed with the assumptions of Eurocentrism or Orientalism? How can these inflections be overcome? Where do insights like Maoism stand in this context? What is the broader relationship between Marxism and post colonialism?

[Clifford C Clavin]

Without going deep into it, because it's simply annoying, I would say that Amin is wildly mischaracterizing Marx's arguments. Namely, Marx never suggested that all societies would mechanically follow the same path and he never even suggested that capitalism would equally develop the entire world.

In fact, he spent many hours writing things that directly contradict all of this!

So why should any Marxist spend time refuting someone who is battling things Marx never promoted?

[Teacher]

This is a very common underlying argument of much historical writing of the past few decades in World History, particularly those who come from the tradition of Wallerstein's "world systems theory" and the "California School" of historians such as Kenneth Pomeranz. I think many of these "anti-Eurocentric" historians have made a few good points and have definitely given us a more complete understanding of non-European societies. Concepts like "Asiatic mode of production" have rightfully been dispensed with.

However, these historians are often fiercely anti-Marxist. I'm not sure that Amin is correctly identifying the ideas of Marx. Marx does talk about how the social relations of old societies are swept away by the onslaught of capitalism, but he does not say that capitalism will instantly transform every place from Calcutta to Buenos Aires into a mirror image of industrial England.

I became enamored a while back with much of the "anti-Eurocentric" historical writing that is out there, but I think Marx's overall analysis stands up much more strongly than theirs. I think the work of Marxist historians such as Robert Brenner, Perry Anderson, Joseph Needham, and others explain the "rise of the West" more effectively.

[Teacher]

The political/economic shift that has prompted all the "anti-Eurocentric" historical writing (it took off mostly in the 1980s and 1990s) is the rise of China as a world power and the whole "globalization" of the world economy. There is stuff to learn from it but it is fundamentally anti-Marxist and is all about celebrating the "rise of the Rest" and explaining away the "rise of the West."

[hatzel]

The political/economic shift that has prompted all the "anti-Eurocentric" historical writing (it took off mostly in the 1980s and 1990s) is the rise of China as a world power and the whole "globalization" of the world economy. There is stuff to learn from it but it is fundamentally anti-Marxist and is all about celebrating the "rise of the Rest" and explaining away the "rise of the West."

That's really not what it is at all. If you think those criticising Eurocentrism are just trying to demean the glorious achievements of Europe as a glowing beacon of humanity (I'm reading between the lines here, you see) then...well...I would criticise that position, but then you'd probably just accuse me of 'celebrating the "rise of the Rest" and explaining away the "rise of the West"' so I can't see how I could ever win in this situation actually so I won't even try...

[Teacher]

I think there are two strains of the anti-Eurocentric movement in history. The first comes from dependency theory and became popular in the 1970s and corresponded to the movements of decolonization and enthusiasm for Third World political movements. This is the Andre Gunder Frank/Immanuel Wallerstein school. You might be able to describe these people as "neo-Marxist" but the shift away from classical Marxism was evident... they were really heavily influenced by the Annales School which carried with it a kind of hostility to class-based analysis.

The next wave of "anti-Eurocentric" history (especially that associated with Kenneth Pomeranz and the California School) was most definitely associated with the rise of China and globalization. These guys are stridently anti-Marxist.

[Lucretia]

I'm currently reading the book Eurocentrism by Samir Amin, which the author presents as a sustained critique of culturalism, i.e. the tendency to explain history and social organization in terms of permanent cultural differences between societies. However, the author also has a lot to say about Marxism, and they argue that because Marxism emerged in a definite ideological context, Marx's thought (and Marxism more generally) also exhibits some of the underlying features of Eurocentric discourse.

In particular, Amin points to two interrelated issues. Concerning Marx's theory of history, he argues that Marxism has tended to either universalize a European course of historical development by assuming that all societies must go through the same stages of progression in order to arrive at socialism (slavery - feudalism - capitalism - socialism) or alternatively that Marxists have uncritically taken up categories which absolutize the differences between European and non-European societies, i.e. the Asiatic mode of production, impeding the articulation of a genuinely universalist conception of history. Amin's own response is to say that the notion of a tributary mode of production can encompass the histories of all pre-capitalist societies, and that European feudalism was actually a peripheral variant of this mode, in the sense of being an incomplete form, it being this peripheral status which allowed capitalism to emerge in Europe.

Concerning Marx's understanding of capitalist development, Amin says that Marx too easily assumed that capitalism would have a homogenizing tendency in the sense of establishing the same economic and social conditions across the world, through the straightforward abolition of pre-capitalist social relations. Given that the tendency of capitalist development has actually been to polarize societies into periphery and centre, Amin says that the upshot of Marx's optimism is to imply that the failure of societies to "catch up" to the level of the West is due to the internal deficiencies of those societies, and their failure to sufficiently emulate the West. Hence, there is actually an overlap between the logic of Marx's formulations and more recent ideas in modernization theory, which also cites supposedly solely internal problems like corruption as the sources of a failure to catch up. This is opposed to Amin's own understanding, which sees polarization as an inherent tendency within capitalism, and calls for societies to be analyzed as part of a world-system, rather than as self-contained units. Amin also links his understanding to a political strategy which says that the reconfiguration of the world-system will be a long process and one that will extend to the West as well, and that the initial transformation of this system will take place through the mechanism of delinking, whereby peripheral countries will "de-link" themselves from international capitalism in order that their development be genuinely under their own internal sovereign control. Amin seems to imply that Maoism in China represented a radical form of delinking.

I think the second of these points is especially interesting because of how it points back to the anti-Bolshevik arguments of the Mensheviks and the Impossibilists, as well as the broader assumption that "catching-up" is a reasonable possibility for peripheral capitalist countries. However, I thought it might be worth opening up this discussion. To what extent is classical or contemporary Marxism endowed with the assumptions of Eurocentrism or Orientalism? How can these inflections be overcome? Where do insights like Maoism stand in this context? What is the broader relationship between Marxism and post colonialism?

When Marx wrote on the question of colonialism and imperialism early in his career, he formulated his political views on the basis of an implicitly unilinear stageist understanding of historical development and transitions from one mode of production, such that he characterized the capitalist expansion and plundering of less developed societies as something of a necessary evil (but, Marx was adamant, an evil nonetheless). One reason for this was a general lack of awareness of the empirical evidence regarding the relationship between capitalist development, imperialism, and the fate of the less developed countries. So in a manner of speaking, yes, Marx was taking capitalist development as it had occurred in a particular European context, and extrapolating that inappropriately to non-European societies. It was Eurocentric.

As Marx progressed in his career, he became much more familiar with what was actually occurring as a result of imperialism and colonialism, and he corrected himself decisively by calling for the self-determination of less developed countries with the understand that they would have an instrumental role in the fate of revolutionary movements in the more advanced countries. In other words, he had begun to apply his historical-materialist and internationalist method to the question of imperialism. As a corollary to this line of thought, he had begun toward the end of his career to take up the study of Russia because he thought it was uniquely positioned to leap directly from pre-capitalist forms of production into socialized production on the basis of revolutionary upheavals in the more advanced capitalist countries (triggered, mind you, by revolutions in less developed countries). Far from being Eurocentric, he had actually begun to hinge the hopes of revolution in Europe on the agency of non-Europeans. All of this because he understood, in a way that people like Trotsky and Lenin would later build upon, the forms of capitalist exploitation and development shift and change historically.

As with most aspects (and criticisms) of Marx's thought, there's a significant body of literature that has developed regarding the question of Marxian Eurocentrism. If you would like pointers on which articles or books you might find useful should you want to investigate this question further, let me know.

[blake 3:17]

Thanks to the OP for the topic and summary. I've only read the occasional piece by Amin and would need to study a lot more to get his sustained arguments.

Marx changed his mind pretty late in life on the Irish question. His opinion on Russia is better known.

Engels put forward a theory of peoples without history, which in essence denies various peoples legitimacy. This perspective isn't far from the colonial projects in North America and Palestine, with the myth of a land without a people. A central legitimizing strategy for the Canadian and Israeli states has been one of bringing progress, development, and industry to places where the land wasn't being used to its full productive capacity. I don't think that legitimizes genocidal or ecocidal policy. Many Marxists have embraced this ideology of progress.

This is a link to an interesting piece by Ellen Meiksen Woods: http://www.solidarity-us.org/node/993 I tend to be sympathetic to some of the people she's most critical of, but I do have to admit getting lost in some of the debates on political economy and economic history.