Capital & Class 1995 Kiely 73 101

8/13/2019 Capital & Class 1995 Kiely 73 101

1/30

http://cnc.sagepub.com/ Cap ital & Class

http://cnc.sagepub.com/content/19/1/73

The online version of this article can be foun d at:

DOI: 10.1177/030981689505500104 1995 19: 73Capital & Class

Ray KielyMarxism, Post-Marxism and Development Fetishism

Published by:

http://www.sagepublications.com

On behalf of:

Conference of Socialist Economists

can be found at:Capital & Class Additional services and information for

http://cnc.sagepub.com/cgi/alertsEmail Alerts:

http://cnc.sagepub.com/subscriptionsSubscriptions:

http://www.sagepub.com/journalsReprints.navReprints:

http://www.sagepub.com/journalsPermissions.navPermissions:

http://cnc.sagepub.com/content/19/1/73.refs.htmlCitations:

What is This?

- Jan 1, 1995Version of Record>>

by Daniel Silva on November 1, 2013cnc.sagepub.comDownloaded from by Daniel Silva on November 1, 2013cnc.sagepub.comDownloaded from by Daniel Silva on November 1, 2013cnc.sagepub.comDownloaded from by Daniel Silva on November 1, 2013cnc.sagepub.comDownloaded from by Daniel Silva on November 1, 2013cnc.sagepub.comDownloaded from by Daniel Silva on November 1, 2013cnc.sagepub.comDownloaded from by Daniel Silva on November 1, 2013cnc.sagepub.comDownloaded from by Daniel Silva on November 1, 2013cnc.sagepub.comDownloaded from by Daniel Silva on November 1, 2013cnc.sagepub.comDownloaded from by Daniel Silva on November 1, 2013cnc.sagepub.comDownloaded from by Daniel Silva on November 1, 2013cnc.sagepub.comDownloaded from by Daniel Silva on November 1, 2013cnc.sagepub.comDownloaded from by Daniel Silva on November 1, 2013cnc.sagepub.comDownloaded from by Daniel Silva on November 1, 2013cnc.sagepub.comDownloaded from by Daniel Silva on November 1, 2013cnc.sagepub.comDownloaded from by Daniel Silva on November 1, 2013cnc.sagepub.comDownloaded from by Daniel Silva on November 1, 2013cnc.sagepub.comDownloaded from by Daniel Silva on November 1, 2013cnc.sagepub.comDownloaded from by Daniel Silva on November 1, 2013cnc.sagepub.comDownloaded from by Daniel Silva on November 1, 2013cnc.sagepub.comDownloaded from by Daniel Silva on November 1, 2013cnc.sagepub.comDownloaded from by Daniel Silva on November 1, 2013cnc.sagepub.comDownloaded from by Daniel Silva on November 1, 2013cnc.sagepub.comDownloaded from by Daniel Silva on November 1, 2013cnc.sagepub.comDownloaded from by Daniel Silva on November 1, 2013cnc.sagepub.comDownloaded from by Daniel Silva on November 1, 2013cnc.sagepub.comDownloaded from by Daniel Silva on November 1, 2013cnc.sagepub.comDownloaded from by Daniel Silva on November 1, 2013cnc.sagepub.comDownloaded from by Daniel Silva on November 1, 2013cnc.sagepub.comDownloaded from by Daniel Silva on November 1, 2013cnc.sagepub.comDownloaded from
http://cnc.sagepub.com/http://cnc.sagepub.com/http://cnc.sagepub.com/content/19/1/73http://cnc.sagepub.com/content/19/1/73http://cnc.sagepub.com/content/19/1/73http://www.sagepublications.com/http://www.cseweb.org.uk/http://cnc.sagepub.com/cgi/alertshttp://cnc.sagepub.com/cgi/alertshttp://cnc.sagepub.com/subscriptionshttp://www.sagepub.com/journalsReprints.navhttp://www.sagepub.com/journalsReprints.navhttp://www.sagepub.com/journalsPermissions.navhttp://cnc.sagepub.com/content/19/1/73.refs.htmlhttp://cnc.sagepub.com/content/19/1/73.refs.htmlhttp://online.sagepub.com/site/sphelp/vorhelp.xhtmlhttp://online.sagepub.com/site/sphelp/vorhelp.xhtmlhttp://cnc.sagepub.com/content/19/1/73.full.pdfhttp://cnc.sagepub.com/http://cnc.sagepub.com/http://cnc.sagepub.com/http://cnc.sagepub.com/http://cnc.sagepub.com/http://cnc.sagepub.com/http://cnc.sagepub.com/http://cnc.sagepub.com/http://cnc.sagepub.com/http://cnc.sagepub.com/http://cnc.sagepub.com/http://cnc.sagepub.com/http://cnc.sagepub.com/http://cnc.sagepub.com/http://cnc.sagepub.com/http://cnc.sagepub.com/http://cnc.sagepub.com/http://cnc.sagepub.com/http://cnc.sagepub.com/http://cnc.sagepub.com/http://cnc.sagepub.com/http://cnc.sagepub.com/http://cnc.sagepub.com/http://cnc.sagepub.com/http://cnc.sagepub.com/http://cnc.sagepub.com/http://cnc.sagepub.com/http://cnc.sagepub.com/http://cnc.sagepub.com/http://cnc.sagepub.com/http://cnc.sagepub.com/http://cnc.sagepub.com/http://cnc.sagepub.com/http://cnc.sagepub.com/http://cnc.sagepub.com/http://cnc.sagepub.com/http://cnc.sagepub.com/http://cnc.sagepub.com/http://cnc.sagepub.com/http://cnc.sagepub.com/http://cnc.sagepub.com/http://cnc.sagepub.com/http://cnc.sagepub.com/http://cnc.sagepub.com/http://cnc.sagepub.com/http://cnc.sagepub.com/http://cnc.sagepub.com/http://cnc.sagepub.com/http://cnc.sagepub.com/http://cnc.sagepub.com/http://cnc.sagepub.com/http://cnc.sagepub.com/http://cnc.sagepub.com/http://cnc.sagepub.com/http://cnc.sagepub.com/http://cnc.sagepub.com/http://cnc.sagepub.com/http://cnc.sagepub.com/http://cnc.sagepub.com/http://cnc.sagepub.com/http://cnc.sagepub.com/http://cnc.sagepub.com/http://cnc.sagepub.com/http://cnc.sagepub.com/http://cnc.sagepub.com/http://cnc.sagepub.com/http://cnc.sagepub.com/http://cnc.sagepub.com/http://cnc.sagepub.com/http://cnc.sagepub.com/http://cnc.sagepub.com/http://cnc.sagepub.com/http://cnc.sagepub.com/http://cnc.sagepub.com/http://cnc.sagepub.com/http://cnc.sagepub.com/http://cnc.sagepub.com/http://cnc.sagepub.com/http://cnc.sagepub.com/http://cnc.sagepub.com/http://cnc.sagepub.com/http://cnc.sagepub.com/http://cnc.sagepub.com/http://cnc.sagepub.com/http://cnc.sagepub.com/http://cnc.sagepub.com/http://cnc.sagepub.com/http://cnc.sagepub.com/http://cnc.sagepub.com/http://cnc.sagepub.com/http://online.sagepub.com/site/sphelp/vorhelp.xhtmlhttp://cnc.sagepub.com/content/19/1/73.full.pdfhttp://cnc.sagepub.com/content/19/1/73.refs.htmlhttp://www.sagepub.com/journalsPermissions.navhttp://www.sagepub.com/journalsReprints.navhttp://cnc.sagepub.com/subscriptionshttp://cnc.sagepub.com/cgi/alertshttp://www.cseweb.org.uk/http://www.sagepublications.com/http://cnc.sagepub.com/content/19/1/73http://cnc.sagepub.com/


2/30

This article examines the

impasse in developmentstudies and takes issue with the contention thatthe roots of this impasselie in the work of Marx.It does so by examining orthodox and structuralistversions of Marxism, andargues that these deter-minist approaches actually fetishise, in Marxs sense,social reality. This argu-

ment is outlined by anextended examination of the historical and socialsignificance of the transi-tion from feudalism tocapitalism in England. Itis also argued that postMarxism, in replacing a theoretical determinism

with an atheoreticalempiricism, has notnecessarily transcended

the impasse. Finally, somesuggestions are made fortranscending the impassein development studies.

Ray Kiely

Marxism, Post-Marxismand DevelopmentFetishism

I. INTRODUCTION

Over the last few years, there has been an intense debate aroundthe impasse in development studies (Booth 1985; Mouzelis1988a; Sklair 1988; van der Geest and Buttel 1988; Watts 1988;Peet 1989; Corbridge 1990; Kiely 1992). Some writers haveargued that the discipline has stagnated because it is dominatedby a Marxism which is too theoretical, too structuralist and toodeterminist, and have called for a post-Marxist approach (see forinstance Booth 1985: 776). This critique has in turn been metby defensive responses from orthodox and structuralist Marxists,

who criticise the pluralism of so-called post-Marxism (Watts1988; Peet 1989, 1991). The purpose of this article is to questionthe approaches of the orthodox Marxists, the structuralists andthe post-Marxists. I do so by returning to the work of Marx, andin particular his account of the transition from feudalism tocapitalism in England. The purpose of this discussion is not toestablish a new Marxist dogma, but to show that Marxs work ischaracterised by a methodology which is far more flexible andempirically open ended than either the structuralists or post-

Marxists appear to recognise. This in turn has importantimplications for transcending the impasse in developmentsociology, both at the level of theory and in the real world.

73


3/30

74 Capital & Class 55

In arguing my case, I divide the article into four main sections.In section one, the reasons for the impasse are briefly discussed.Section two, examines two schools of thought which havecontributed to the impasse orthodox and structuralist Marxism.

In discussing these views, I am not suggesting that they do notrepresent the interests of specific social groups, but for the purposesof this article, I will focus on theideas,and their common themes,

which can be found in the work of Marx. However in sectionthree, it is argued that these schools, in common with so muchdevelopment theory, actually fetishise key categories in Marxsthought. It is also argued in this section that post-Marxism alsofetishises Marxs concepts for similar reasons. Finally, in section fourI draw on my discussion to suggest some research agendas through

which the impasse in development studies may be transcended.

1. T HE IMPASSE IN DEVELOPMENT STUDIES

It is now widely recognised that there is a need for new methodological and theoretical initiatives in radical developmentgeography and sociology. David Booths important 1985 articleclearly spelt out that the discipline has reached a point of almostcomplete stagnation in theoretical development, which was seento be the result of a generalised theoretical disorientation affecting in different degrees all of the main positions in the radicaldevelopment debate (1985: 776). The last twenty-five yearshave seen the rise and fall of underdevelopment theory, worldsystems theory, orthodox Marxism, modes of production theory,and the theory of the new international division of labour(dependency theory, which differs from underdevelopmenttheory, is further discussed in section four below). All of these havebeen characterised by sweeping over-generalisations, circularreasoning, and a tendency most visible in world systems theory to read off development in the periphery from the actions of core countries. For example, underdevelopment has been regardedas both the cause and consequence of a lack of self-sustaining industrial growth, and this theory implicitly posits an ideal modelof capitalist development (ibid: 7623; see also Phillips 1977;Bernstein 1979; Barone 1984). On the other hand, the orthodox

Marxism of Bill Warren proposes a unilinear and similarly idealmodel of capitalist development, which ignores the great variety of forms that capitalism takes (Booth 1985: 7667). Lower level


4/30

Post-Marxism & Development Theory 75

theories such as modes of production theory have failed to resolvethese problems, because it is characterised by a functionalistmethodology, which explains the preservation of non-capitalistmodes of production in the periphery solely by the needs of the

dominant capitalist mode (ibid: 7746). Theories which focus onthe international economy, such as the new international divisionof labour (Frobel et al 1980), replicate these errors by explaining peripheral industrialisation largely by reference to the needs of transnational companies based in the core countries.

Booths identification of an impasse, reinforced by the work of other writers (Corbridge 1986; Mouzelis 1988) is undoubtedly correct. What is less clear however, are the explanations for

why the impasse has occurred, and the proposals that he and

others have made for transcending it. The blame appears to lieat the door of Marxist theory, which has a metatheoreticalcommitment to demonstrating that what happens in societies inthe era of capitalism is not only explicable, but in some strongersense necessary (Booth 1985: 773). The way out of the impasseis for development geography and sociology to be freedfromMarxisms ulterior interest in proving that within given limits the

world has to be the way it is (ibid: 777). These arguments arereinforced by the equally impressive work of Stuart Corbridge,

who argues that the impasse can best be transcended by a post-Marxism which rejects the functionalism and determinism of Marxist theory (1990: 628).

The rest of this paper will focus on the extent to whichBooth et als conception of Marxism is an accurate one, and therelated question of the utility of a post Marxist alternative indevelopment studies. The next section considers the question of determinism in Marxist theory, and focuses on two strands of Marxist thought which can accurately be described as determinist orthodox and structuralist Marxism. Section three, on theother hand, argues that these determinist versions of Marxisttheory, which have dominated development studies, are in factlargely incompatible with Marxs method.

2. O RTHODOX AND STRUCTURALIST M ARXISM

In this section, I examine two interpretations of Marxist theory,orthodox and structuralist Marxism. The focus is on these twoapproaches because the methods they adopt are indicative of a


5/30


great deal of radical development geography and sociology they are functionalist and/or determinist. I therefore agree withBooth, Corbridge and others that such approaches need to berejected in development studies and social science more generally.

However, it will become clear in section three that I believe thatthese schools of thought are largely caricatures of Marxs work, andindeed are guilty of the fetishism which Marx applied to othertheories. Moreover, it may be the case that post-Marxism willreplicate this very same fetishistic analysis.

The characteristics of orthodox Marxism are well-knownamong so-called Marxologists. This version of Marxism has a stagist view of history, based on the view that the productive forcesevolve, and new relations of production arise out of their func-

tionality to developing the forces of production (Cohen 1978).Orthodox Marxism encompasses a wide field of Marxist theories,and although they may be said to represent specific social interests,the different views are all united in their emphasis on finding anagency which can best develop the forces of production. SuchMarxists may disagree on who or what this agency is, but they allshare a methodology which is based on the search for such anagency. For the Second International, the agency was capitalism;for the Bolsheviks and the Comintern it was the state (in the SovietUnion) or the anti-imperialist national bourgeoisie (in the colonies);for Warren and like-minded thinkers, it is imperialism. What eachof these views share then, is an approach to history and develop-ment which seeks to replicate as closely as possible the Englishexperience of the transition from feudalism to capitalism, whichin turn will facilitate the development of the productive forces.

The implications of this approach for development studiesshould be clear. Backward societies are at a pre-capitalist stage of development. The task for Marxists is to support the developmentof the productive forces in the periphery. Therefore, some Marxists(Warren 1980; Sender and Smith 1986) support the promotion of capitalist relations of production in the periphery because thisfacilitates the expansion of the forces of production. Such supportis justified on the grounds that capitalism is far more progressive,and revolutionary, than any previous mode of production thathas existed in history. As Marx (1967: 37) argued:

Only the capitalist production of commodities revolutionisesthe entire economic structure of society in a manner eclipsing all previous epochs.


6/30


It is a short step from this notion that capitalism representsprogress in history to the view that capitalist penetration of pre-capitalist modes of production should be supported. It was onthis basis that Marx and Engels supported the colonisation and

annexation of the non-capitalist world by the capitalist powers.For example, Marx in his early writings (Marx and Engels1974: 40) supported British colonialism in India, arguing thatEnglish interferenceproduced the greatest, and to speak thetruth, the only social revolution ever heard of in Asia. Themodernising influence of western capitalism was contrasted withbackward India, which has no history at allWhat we call itshistory, is but the history of the successive intruders who foundedtheir empires on the passive basis of that unresisting and

unchanging society (ibid: 81). This led Marx to argue thatEngland has to fulfil a double mission in India: one destructive,the other regenerating the annihilation of old Asiatic society,and the laying of the material foundations of Western society in

Asia (ibid: 82). Engels similarly supported the United Statesannexation of parts of Mexico for similar reasons (see Larrain1986: 86), and argued that the failure of democratic revolutionsin Europe in 1848 could be attributed to the counter-revolutionary role of non-historic nations (see Lowy 1977: 13840).

What lies at the heart of this approach is that capitalistrelations of production can most effectively develop theproductive forces, and therefore Marxists must support thereplication of the English model, and its transition fromfeudalism to capitalism. According to orthodox Marxism, pre-capitalist relations of production may have functioned in history to develop the productive forces, but it is capitalist relations

which most effectively develop the productive forces. It is at thispoint that the technological determinism of orthodox Marxismmay actually break down, because there is a strong implicationthat it is capitalist relations of production which develop the forces of production,rather than vice versa. Nevertheless, orthodox Marxism interprets this development in a particular (andunilinear) way, so that capitalist relations are assessed on thecontinued orthodox basis of their functionality to developing theproductive forces.

Capitalism is therefore unique in that it leads to anunprecedented development of the forces of production. This isbecause the foundation of capitalism is the existence of specific


7/30


relations of production, whereby the exploited class (the proletariat)is deprived of direct access to the means of production, and so isforced to work for the owners of the means of production (thecapitalist class) in order to live. The details of this process are

examined in section three below. For the moment, it should bestressed that these relations of production in turn give rise to thegeneralisation of production for the market (commodity production). In other words, pre-capitalist societies were basedfirstly on production for use. Commodity production certainly existed, but it was secondary to production for direct use. Incapitalist society, this is no longer the case and so goods areproduced for a competitive market. This in turn has enormousimplications for the development of the productive forces, because

production is now geared to a market-place, and so this gives riseto competition between the owners of the means of production.Therefore, to stay ahead of competitors, each individual capitalistis compelled to invest in new technology, increase labourproductivity and to search for new markets, otherwise they risk being left behind and going out of business. Writing inThe Communist Manifesto,Marx and Engels (1977: 224) argued that:

The bourgeoisie cannot exist without constantly revolution-ising the instruments of production, and thereby the relationsof production, and with them the whole relations of society.Conservation of the old modes of production in unalteredform, was, on the contrary, the first condition of existence forall earlier industrial classes. Constant revolutionising of production, uninterrupted disturbance of all social conditions,everlasting uncertainty and agitation distinguish the bourgeoisepoch from all earlier ones.

It is for this reason that Marxists have often given theirsupport to colonialism and imperialism. As stated above, themodernising forces of capitalism, and its tendency to develop theproductive forces in an unprecedented way, was contrasted withthe stagnation of pre-capitalist, stagnant, non-historic societies.

According to this interpretation of Marxism, imperialism andcolonialism may be exploitative, but they are also necessary.This of course is the thinking behind Bill Warrens (1973; 1980)

defence of imperialism as the pioneer of capitalism. Imperialismis thus seen as the most effective mechanism for repeating thetransition from the non-capitalist to capitalist mode of production.


8/30


So, it should by now be clear that orthodox Marxism seescapitalism as a necessary stage of development in humanitys pathtowards a communist future. Capitalism develops the productiveforces but in the process also creates a class which will eventually

overthrow class society. For the first time in history (at least sinceprimitive communism), the material basis exists for a classlesssociety because capitalism eliminates scarcity, and thus the functionalneed for social classes. The class which fulfils this historic missionis the working class, which overthrows its exploiters, the bourgeoisie,and thus creates the subjective basis for communism.

The structuralist Marxism associated with the work of Louis Althusser distanced itself from the stagism and economism of orthodox Marxism. This school of thought distinguished between

social formation and mode of production the former referred toa combination of economic, political and ideological practices, orlevels, while the latter referred only to the economic level.Structuralists argued that the mode of production, or theeconomic level, determined which of the other levels would bedominant in the structural totality which constituted the socialformation. The economic level sets limits on the other levels, thelatter of which carry out functions which necessarily reproducethe former. Therefore, the non-economic levels only had a relative autonomy from the (economic) mode of production(see Althusser and Balibar 1979: 17880, 319).

According to structuralists, in the periphery, any socialformation in the periphery may be constituted by more than onemode of production, and so therefore the effects of capitalismdiffered in time and place. It was not necessarily the case thatcapitalism would lead to an unprecedented promotion of theproductive forces, because it may benefit from the preservation of non-capitalist modes of production (Laclau 1971; Bettelheim1972; Taylor 1979: 10542). Thus according to Bradby (1975: 129) (c)apitalism has different needs of pre-capitalisteconomies at different stages of development, which arise fromspecific historical circumstances, e.g. raw materials, land, labourpower, and at times of crisis, markets. So, to take two examples:peasant modes of production may be preserved because capitalbenefits from cheap produce from the peasant sector, or pays thepeasant low wages when the latter works in the cash economy

(Cliffe 1982); petty commodity modes of production serve therequirements of the capitalist mode by providing a reserve army of labour, and by providing cheap goods to workers in the


9/30


capitalist sector (Moser 1978). Similarly, the preservation of a domestic mode of production is regarded as a means to preservehigh imperialist profits, through the exploitation of female labour.Thus, according to Meillassoux (1981: 95):

It is by establishing organic relations between capitalist anddomestic economies that imperialism set up the mechanism of reproducing cheap labour power to its profit a reproductiveprocess which, at present, is the fundamental cause of under-development at one end and of the wealth of the capitalistsector at the other.

The great strength of this school of thought is its attempt to

overcome the evolutionism of orthodox Marxism, and its attemptto specify the mechanisms of underdevelopment, which are soobviously lacking in the underdevelopment and dependency schools. However, it will become clear below that modes of production theory fails to accomplish these tasks, and replicatesthe errors of orthodox Marxism.

3. A M ARXIST CRITIQUE OF ORTHODOX ANDSTRUCTURALIST M ARXISM

The orthodox approach to Marxism outlined above is now widely rejected in social science, although it still enjoys someinfluence in development studies (see for example Sender andSmith 1986). It has rightly been identified as an example of the

worst kind of modernist hubris, in which the superior West1

looks at the inferior Rest as a backward, stagnant andincomprehensible other (Said 1978: 1536; Hall 1992). Moregenerally, and not unrelated to this point, it has also been arguedthat Marxism rests on a narrow account of social change, which isrooted in a technological approach to the study of history (Laclauand Mouffe 1985: 778). It is therefore a short step fromarguing for the primacy of the productive forces to arguing that the

West, where these forces are most developed, is the model for theRest to follow. The structuralist account on the other handavoids the worst excesses of the stagist approach, but still shares

some of the key weaknesses of orthodox Marxism.In this section I want to reject the orthodox and structuralistMarxist accounts outlined in section two. However, rather than


10/30


propose a post-marxist alternative (Laclau and Mouffe 1985), I willargue that orthodox and structuralist Marxism are largely caricaturesof, and indeed they fetishise, Marxs method. Although notignoring Marxs critical views on colonialism, and his critique of a

stagist approach to history (for more details, see Shanin 1984;Larrain 1989), I will focus my attention on the significance of thetransition from feudalism to capitalism, and why this is so impor-tant, but also so misunderstood, in Marxs work. It will be arguedthat orthodox Marxism and structuralist Marxism both fetishiseMarxs account of the transition into a general law of history,through which all societies (including the contemporary Third

World) must pass. However, in rejecting such a grand theory of history, I also reject the post-Marxist alternative, which is to deny

the significance of the transition altogether. This will be done by dividing this section into two sub-sections. First, I will provide a critique of orthodox and structuralist Marxism, and second, I

will examine and question the utility of a post-Marxist alternative.

(i) Orthodox and structuralist Marxism: a critique In section two above I briefly outlined the reasons why capitalismhas a tendency to develop the productive forces in an unprece-dentedly rapid fashion. I now want to explain this tendency inmore detail, by examining the transition from feudalism tocapitalism in England. After outlining this process, I will assessboth the orthodox and structuralist accounts of the significanceof this process.

The key to understanding the decline of feudalism and the riseof capitalism is the class struggle between lord and peasant.This took the form of lords striving to increase the surplus frompeasants, so that they could improve their position as rulers. Onthe other hand, peasants resisted this process, either throughtrying to enforce a reduction in rent, increasing the productivity of the land, or by enlarging the land-holding without a corresponding increase in rent (Hilton 1976: 116). It was on thisbasis that surplus production under feudalism increased, whichin turn led to an increase in commodity production, and eveninternational trade. The result was an increase in the significanceof the market, which further hastened the differentiation of thepeasantry. This differentiation led to the slow development of a

small class of capitalist farmers, which employed a steadily growing class of wage labourers, who were displaced from the landby these same developments.


11/30


However, despite peasant resistance, in England the landlordsmaintained control of the land. This victory for the landlord classparadoxically led to an intensification of the processes describedabove. From as early as the sixteenth century, small landowners

began to gradually disappear, as landlords, using their politicalpower, enclosed demesnes and vacant peasant plots (Hobsbawm1968: 80). This process was intensified from the eighteenthcentury, when the law itself now becomes the instrument by

which the peoples land is stolen (Marx 1976: 885; see alsoThompson 1963: 23743).This development had the effect of increasing the number of landless labourers, and thereforeincreasing the labour supply available to capitalist tenant farmers.In the long run, this meant that peasants were proletarianised, and,

by one and the same act, commodity production was generalised, which gave rise to the competitive accumulation of capital.

So, for Marx (1976: 874), the transition from feudalism tocapitalism, the so-called primitive accumulation of capital, isnothing else than the historical process of divorcing the producerfrom the means of production. This does not preclude colonialplunder as a factor which contributes to capital accumulation, asMarx made clear (see 1976: 925; Marx and Engels 1974: 340;Larrain 1989: 49), but this process of surplus extraction on itsown cannot facilitate a transformation to capitalism (see Brennersstill unsurpassed 1977). It is the emergence of the capital-labourrelation which is the key to the emergence of capitalism, and it isultimately this relation which leads to important changes in thedevelopment of the productive forces. As Brenner (1986: 42)argues, it is the capitalist property relations per se which accountfor the distinctive productiveness of modern economies not any particular advance in the productive forces and this is becausecapitalist property relations impose the requirement to specialise,accumulate, and innovate or go out of business.

This contrasts with non-capitalist modes where theremay be some development of the productive forces, but there is not thesame tendency to continuous revolutionising of the means of production. Again Brenner (1986: 28) makes this clear:

in allowing both exploiters and producers direct access to theirmeans of reproduction, pre-capitalist property forms (as

patriarchal forms) freed both exploiters and producers from thenecessity to buy on the market what they needed to reproduce,thus of the necessity to produce for exchange, thus of the


12/30


necessity to sell competitively on the market their output, andthus of the necessity to produce at the socially necessary rate...

It should already be clear that, contrary to the claims of

orthodox Marxism, the relations of production cannot be analysedsolely on the basis of their functionality to the development of theforces of production. I return to the implications of this pointin a moment, but first I should comment again on how orthodox Marxism relates to this transition process. Whilst orthodox Marxists may accept the account of the transition outlined above(even though it undermines the thesis of the primacy of theproductive forces), the implications of this process in England aremapped on to an analysis of the transition elsewhere. Because

capitalist relations in agriculture promoted the development of the productive forces in England, Marxists should support thepromotion of capitalist relations in agriculture elsewhere. Marxsaccount of the genesis of capitalism (1976: chs.2432) in Englishagriculture is therefore imposed on other countries. In other

words, in this case orthodox Marxism asserts the primacy of the productive forces through the back door. This in turnleads to a stagist theory of history (because all countries must passthrough the capitalist stage) and an apology for colonialism andimperialism (because they break up pre-capitalist modes of production). For contemporary accounts along these lines, see

Warren 1980, and Sender and Smith 1986.There is considerable support for these views in Marxs writings,

as well as in the writings of classical Marxists. In the Preface tothe first edition of Capital,Marx (1976: 91) clearly spelt out a stagist view of history when he wrote that (t)he country that ismore developed industrially only shows, to the less developed, theimage of its own future. However, Marx was also extremely critical of a unilinear account of the historical process. Indeed, inhis statements on the transition from feudalism to capitalism he

was most explicit on this point. In his famous (but still neglected)letters to the Russian Marxist, Vera Zasulich, Marx stated that hisaccount of the evolution of capitalism was expressly restricted tothe countries of Western Europe ( Marx 1984: 124). Marx alsocriticised those Marxists who insist on transforming my historicalsketch of the genesis of capitalism in western Europe into a

historico-philosophic theory (Marx 1982: 109110).Textual evidence therefore suggests that Marx was clear thathis account of the transition from feudalism to capitalism was not


13/30


intended as a general theory of development, but as a theoretically informed historical analysis of the process in England. Analysisof the transition process in England is of such great significancebecause it demonstrates that capitalism, rather than being the

natural state of things, is actually a product of social strugglesrooted in English history. As Marx (1976: 273, my emphasis)argues:

nature does not produce on the one hand owners of money orcommodities, and on the other hand men possessing nothing but their own labour-power. This relation has no basis innatural history, nor does it have a social basis common to all periods of human history.It is clearly the result of a pasthistorical development, the product of many economicrevolutions, of the extinction of a whole series of olderformations of social production.

Two comments can be made about Marxs argument here.The first point is that there is no good reason to expect anything else other than variety. The quotation above makes it clear thatMarx was arguing that transitions are not products of a uniformprocess, but are bound up with certainhistorically specific patternsof the development of the contending agrarian classes and theirrelative strength in the different European societies: their relativelevels of internal solidarity, their self-consciousness andorganisation, and their general political resources (Brenner 1986:36). This means that no particular transition can be taken as a model for another, because each transition has its own particularhistory of struggle. Orthodox Marxism, on the other hand,abstracts from these historically specific social struggles, and sopresents a fixed model for all societies, irrespective of time andplace. In the process, transitions are no longer seen as social forms,but instead become natural models. Thus Cohen (1978) arguesthat new relations of production will emerge on the basis of their functionality to the productive forces. But this againfetishises the transition, conflating its historical emergence as a social form with its necessity to develop the forces of production.

As Meiksins Wood (1984: 104) argues, (w)hen Marx speaks of the historical task of capitalism, he is not identifying the causes

or explaining the processes that gave rise to capitalism; he ismaking a statement about the effects of capitalist developmentThe emergence of capitalism rested on the emergence of a specific


14/30


class relation, which may, or may not, emerge elsewhere. This willdepend on the particular balance of class forces, and this cannotbe determined a priori, but can only be examined on an empiricalbasis.

Hence my second, closely related point concerning Marxsstatement above: since Marxs day, he has been proved right, andthe transition to capitalist relations in agriculture has takendifferent forms in different places. Indeed, in some advancedcapitalist countries such as the USA and France (until 1945, oreven later), the capital-labour relation is the exception rather thanthe norm in agriculture. This observation is even more true inthe so-called Third World, including in the most successfulnewly industrialising countries in east Asia (for a very useful

survey of agrarian transitions, see Byres 1991). Orthodox Marxism, on the other hand, transforms Marxs account of thetransition from a historical process into an ahistoricalmodel,andso cannot account for the great variety of social relations inagriculture.

It is at this point that one can begin to understand thecommonalities between orthodox and structuralist Marxism.The latter rejects the formers evolutionary approach, but it canonly offer in its place a theoretical analysis divorced from realhistory. Althusser (with Balibar 1979: 105) made this clear

when he wrote that we must once again purify our concept of thetheory of history, and purify it radically, of any contamination by the obviousness of empirical history, since we know that thisempirical history is merely the bare face of the empiricistideology of history. Althussers former British followers similarly argued that (c)oncepts are formed and have their existence

within knowledge (Hindess and Hirst 1975: 1). Forstructuralist Marxism, the concept which is given determining status is the mode of production, which is defined as anarticulated combination of relations and forces of productionstructured by the dominance of the relations of production(ibid: 7). Theories and concepts therefore become a prioriconstructs, which are derived from theoretical practice, andare completely divorced from the empirical (and especially historical) world (Althusser and Balibar 1979: 316).

The result of such a methodology one that is so common

in theories of development and underdevelopment is thathuman beings are reduced to being the passive bearers of structures, and the empirical world is reduced to a theoretical


15/30


model. This in turn leads to the assumption that capitalism canautomatically secure its own reproductive requirements. Theresult is that, insofar as there is variety within global capitalism,this is assumed to be the exclusive product of an all-pervasive

capitalist mode. Structuralist Marxism correctly points out thatcapitalism takes a great many different forms in different parts of the world, and that it draws on unfree forms of labour controlsuch as peasant production and slavery, as well as free wagelabour, but it assumes (rather than explains) that this is the casebecause capitalism needs these non-capitalist forms. Moreover,such circular reasoning begs the question of why non-capitalistmodes broke down in any society Corbridge (1986: 63) haspointed out this basic problem:

If the PCMP (pre-capitalist mode of production) survives (asin the Bantustans) then that is evidence of its functionality forcapitalism; and if it does notthen that too is evidence of capitalisms functional requirements. (see also Booth 1985:7746)

The unilinear account of history propounded by orthodox Marxism is thereby replaced by a unilinear account of capitalismby structuralist Marxism. Human beings are the passive bearersof structures in both accounts either to the historicaldevelopment of the productive forces (orthodox Marxism), or tothe omnipotent logic of capitalism (structuralist Marxism).Both accounts therefore conflate real history with grand theoreticalmodels. As Corbridge (ibid: 67) argues:

there is nothing in the concept of capitalism itself whichshould lead us to expect that it must have X, Y or Zdevelopment (or underdevelopment) effects. Suchcontingencies are not forged at this macro-theoretical scale.The reproduction of capitalist relations of production clearly presupposes the existence of definite conditions of existence(private property relations, for example, and free wage labour),but it tells us nothing about whether they will be secured, orabout the all-important forms in which they are made flesh.

However, contrary to the implications of both the structuralistsand post Marxists, Marx (1989: 48, second emphasis is mine) washimself equally clear on this point:


16/30


To present the laws of the bourgeois economy, it is notnecessary to write thereal history of the production relations.But the correct analysis and deduction of these relations asrelations which have themselves arisen historically, always

leads to primary equationswhich point to a past lying behind this system. These indications, together with thecorrect grasp of the present, then also offer the key to theunderstanding of the past a work in its own right

It is at this point that we can begin to see how both orthodox and structuralist Marxism actually fetishise key categories of Marxs thought. According to Marx (1976: 165), in capitalistsociety the relationship between human beings assumesthe fan-

tastic form of a relation between things. This is the basis for hisanalysis of commodity fetishism, in which the products of social activity take the form of appearance of being natural phe-nomena. Therefore, fetishism can be defined as the conflationof the material and formal or natural and social (Sayer 1987: 40).This can be seen most clearly in the case of money, which playsa key social role in any economy where exchange exists, butactually appears as anatural phenomenon. As Marx argues(cited in Sayer 1987: 41), fetishism is a process whereby a socialrelation, a definite relation between individuals, appears as a metal, a stone, as a purely physical, external thing.

This naturalisation of the social also entails a second fetishism, which is the universalisation of the historical. If one naturalisessocial phenomena then one automatically strips them of any meaningful historical content. The consequence of such fetishismis that capitalist relations of production are both naturalised anddehistoricised. So, to return to the example above, the transitionfrom feudalism to capitalism loses itshistorical and social significance, and is therefore seen as anahistorical and asocial model. This in turn leads to a peculiarly narrow definition of class,

which is reduced to a purely economic and technical concept,confined to the immediate process of production, and, as a consequence, to the assumption that capitalist rationality is eternal(Colletti 1972: 65). The result is that capitalism is assumed inorder to explain the onset of modern economic growth, whileprecapitalist property relations somehow magically disappear.

(Brenner 1986: 36; see also Clarke 1980; Duquette 1992). Thisfetishises the capitalist mode of production because it becomes a natural, universal phenomenon, rather than a historical and social


17/30


one. The alternative scenario within orthodox Marxist thought,discussed above, is to accept the importance of capitalist relationsof production for the development of the productive forces, but tothen posit the English case as a model for the developing world. But

this account also fetishises the capitalist mode of production,because relations of production are measured solely on the basisof their utility in developing the forces of production, and inisolation from the real, concrete social struggles to be found indifferent places at different times (Larrain 1986: 81). StructuralistMarxism, by assuming the omnipotence of capitalism and thepassivity of human beings in the face of this power, similarly denies the historical and social significance of the transition process.

Thus, in rejecting these Marxisms and focusing on economic

development as the outcome ofhistorically specific class struggles,one is simultaneously rejecting the idea that these outcomes cansimply be mapped on to other societies. Therefore, there must bea considerable amount ofindeterminacy (Brenner 1986: 36), oruncertainty, in any convincing marxist account. Marx himself made this clear in his late writings, as I have already showed.Historical materialism is therefore best characterised as a middlerange theory, and not as a theory of history in general (orthodox Marxism), or a theory of capitalism in general (structuralistMarxism). What this means, contrary to the interpretation of Marxs leading critics (see Popper 1986; Foucault 1980), is thatmarxism does not propose a philosophy or transcendentalaccount of the necessary course of history but is concerned withhistory in the sense that it constructs the concepts necessary torender historical processes intelligible (Larrain 1986: 98).

Capital should not therefore be seen as an a priori theoretical work, based on a general theory of transition, but as an account of capitalism as a social phenomenon, and how certain forms inparticular, the commodity appear as natural, but are in fact theproduct of historically constructed social relations (see Williams 1978).One must therefore distinguish between the historical and socialmethodology used inCapital (which may be useful in understand-ing other societies), and the assumption that Marxs work is anaccount of how every society develops, irrespective of time and place.

(ii) Back to the impasse: a post-Marxist alternative? 2

My discussion so far suggests that Marxism is in fact far moreflexible and open ended than critics such as Booth and Corbridgesuggest. While they rightly condemn the structuralism of radical


18/30


development studies, the danger is that their proposed alternativemay lead to the replacement of an abstract theoreticism with a simple empiricism. This is most apparent in Corbridges recom-mendation (1986: 66-7; 1990: 6289) that development studies

begin to utilise the post-Marxist work of Hindess and Hirst andtheir collaborators (Hindess and Hirst 1977; Cutler et al 1977,1978). The problem with the work of Hindess and Hirst is thatsocial scientists are only presented with two choices either general determinism,or absolute autonomy from this determinism.Such an either/or, black and white approach pervades their work;for instance, Hindess (1978: 96-7) has argued that (t)he choice forMarxism is clear. Either we effectively reduce political and ideolog-ical phenomena to class interests determined elsewhere (basically in

the economy)Or we must face up to the real autonomy of political and ideological phenomena. Similarly, in more recent work,Hindess (1987: 101) has argued that (w)hen we examine the forcesengaged in particular struggles, we do not find classes in the literalsense, lined up against each other. Instead we find political partiesand fractions within them. (see also Cutler et al 1977: 226)

This approach throws out the baby with the bathwater incorrectly moving away from atheoreticism divorced from theempirical and historical world, we are left with anempiricism

which takes for granted, and therefore equally fetishises anddehistoricises, historically constructedsocial forms.In the abovequotations, Hindess proposes that there is a separate, autonomouspolitical sphere divorced from economic or ideological levels, butfails to see that these levels are forms of appearance of capitalistsocial relations. So, to return to the example I have used in thisarticle because the transition from feudalism to capitalism inEngland is not a model for other societies to follow, it follows (forthe post Marxists) that the historical significance of this transitionmust be denied. In other words, the fetishism of theory divorcedfrom history (structuralism) is replaced by the fetishism of factsdivorced from historically informed theory (post-Marxism).Larrain (1989: 199) makes this point in his discussion of DavidBooths work:

He (Booth) seems to be unaware of the existence of any Marxism other than the orthodoxy defended in different but

convergent ways by Warren, Althusser and Cohen. He firstreduces Marxism to a deterministic economism and then,having constructed the straw man, he proceeds to destroy it.


19/30


Structuralist Marxism, and the post-Marxist alternative,therefore repeat each others errors, and this is because of theircommon starting-point. Both approaches segment society intodiscrete, separate levels: structuralism argues that one level the

economic determines the others, the political or ideological, whilst post Marxism argues that one level has absolute autonomy from another. Separate economic and political levels, orinstances, are in fact forms of appearance of capitalist socialrelations, which did not exist in feudal society. By separating socialphenomena into compartmentalised units, both approachesautomatically take things as they are, and so reproduce thephenomenal forms of capitalist social relations. This is hardly surprising given that both approaches misinterpret the significance

of the transition process, and therefore the uniqueness of capitalism.

Such a methodology is radically different from that of Marx and Engels (1982: 42), who argued that:

The premises from which we begin are not arbitrary ones, notdogmas, but real premises from which abstraction can only bemade in the imagination. They are the real individuals, theiractivity and the material conditions under which they live,both those which they find already existing and those producedby their activity. These premises can be verified in a purely empirical way.

It does not necessarily follow that the post-Marxists indevelopment studies will automatically follow an empiricist route indeed, it is doubtful that we can yet talk of a post-Marxisttheory of development. Nevertheless, there are strong grounds forsuggesting that they have not proposed a convincing account of the relationship between theory/practice and structure/agency. Forexample, Booth has rightly criticised grand theories of development and underdevelopment, but also has a ratheridiosyncratic view of the alternatives. In his critique of Brenners

justly famous essay The Origins of Capitalist Development: A Critique of Neo Smithian Marxism, Booth (1985: 770) complainsthat it does not give us what many people have looked for in themode of production literature, namely, a genuine third position

in the debate over colonial and contemporary development in theThird World. But this is precisely one of the greatstrengths of Brenners work it is not a search for a new position, forged at


20/30


the level of a grand theory, because such a theory willautomatically subsume practice to theory and agency to structure.Booth (ibid: 770) again displays his ambiguity over theory whenhe assumes that Brenner shares Warrens optimism concerning the

prospects of capitalist development in the periphery. However,the whole thrust of Brenners article is to challenge thedevelopmental logic which assumes that the effects of capitalismcan be considered purely at the level of theory, and independently of the action of human beings. In other words, Brenners articlereconstitutes the unity of structure and agency whichstructuralism and post-Marxism continue to separate (see alsoGulalp 1986).

The work of Laclau and Mouffe (1985: 1689) also suffers

from similar weaknesses. At the heart of their work is a rejectionof Marxism or a crude caricature which more or lesscorresponds to the orthodoxy outlined and criticised above as an essentialist doctrine which gives a privileged position to the

working class as the agent of social change (ibid: 845). They argue that Marxism is an essentialist doctrine because it attemptsto determine a priori agents of change, levels of effectiveness inthe field of the social and privileged points and moments of rupture (ibid: 1789).

However, without wishing to argue that all forms of oppression are reducible to class, it is the case that class and classstruggle remain indispensable categories for an understanding of the modern world. In their headlong rush to reject all forms of essentialism, Laclau and Mouffe on the other hand are in dangerof rejecting the utility of class analysis altogether, and of thereforeproviding us with pure description, rather than explanation.

As Mouzelis (1988b: 115) argues, what they (Laclau and Mouffe)do not seriously consider, is the possibility of assessing thecentrality of certain positions within a social formation withoutresorting to essentialism and without ascribing ontological andepistemological privileges to certain subjects.

In their rejection of essentialism, Laclau and Mouffe can only offer us analysis based on the belief that everything is contingent,

with the result that description substitutes for explanation andtherefore social reality becomes fetishised. For example, while they correctly point to the fragmentation and the transience of the

modern world (Laclau and Mouffe 1985: 153), what is not clearin their work is how this state of affairs has come about. A non-dogmatic Marxist approach on the other hand, shows how the


21/30


uncertainty and transience of modernity is rooted in capitalssearch for profit, which in turn is closely linked to the classstruggle between capital and labour (Harvey 1989: 102-4).Therefore, in emphasising plurality and heterogeneity, exploitation

tends to be neglected (Chilcote 1990: 6-7; Meiksins and Meiksins Wood 1985: 154). An over-emphasis on the politics of difference, without an analysis of class based exploitation and struggle againstthis form of power in other words, a recapturing of the politics of similarity (Harvey 1993: 114; see also Kiely 1995) leads toa fetishised analysis which takes things as they are. Once again,given that there is little emphasis on the historical development of social forms, such neglect is hardly surprising. Meiksins Woods(1990: 789) critique of post-Marxism is especially eloquent:

The final irony is that this latest denial of capitalisms systemicand totalizing logic is in some respects a reflection of the very thing which it seeks to deny. The current preoccupation withpostmodern diversity and fragmentation undoubtedly expressesa reality in contemporary capitalism, but it is a reality seenthrough the distorting lens of ideology. It represents theultimate commodity fetishism, the triumph of consumersociety, in which the diversity of life-styles, measured in thesheer quantity of commodities and varied patterns of consumption, disguises the underlying systemic unity, theimperatives which create that diversity itself while at the sametime imposing a deeper and more global uniformity.

None of these negative comments are intended to protectMarxism from important challenges to its central concerns. A renewed focus on democracy, civil society, new social movements,discourse analysis and ethics are all important, as I have arguedelsewhere (Kiely, forthcoming). However, what is disturbing about current post-Marxist approaches is their tendency toexamine these factors in an uncritical and ahistorical way, and tofail to go beyond the fragments of alienated forms of socialpower. While it may be the case that the variety of forms of oppression in society are not reducible to social class, it is also thecase that class and class struggle remain indispensable categoriesfor understanding the historical development of different societies.

Such neglect remains the central weakness of most post-Marxistapproaches (a significant exception is the work of Nicos Mouzelis,see his 1986; 1990).


22/30


So, to return to the main focus of this article: in divorcing thetheoretical and empirical world, post-Marxism repeats the errorsof structuralist and orthodox Marxism, and so similarly naturalisessocial forms. The result is that the capitalist mode of production

is eternalised, and the historical significance of the transition fromfeudalism to capitalism is denied.

4. Transcending the Impasse: Class Struggles and SuggestiveContrasts

It should by now be clear from my discussion that the impasse canbe transcended by the use of a Marxist methodology which

stresses the open-ended nature of development (Cammack 1988).Development must be seen as an uncertain process, precisely because the actions of human beings are so uncertain. However,this does not mean that we simply celebrate contingency, and losesight of the long term processes that have created a highly unequal

world. On the other hand, neither should we return to theimpasse and simply assume that the interests of the powerfulare all-pervasive and automatically secured.

Instead, development studies can best transcend its impasseby closer attention to history, a comparative analysis and thevariety of development processes in the global order. This is notto lose sight of the structures of global inequalities and powerrelations, but neither is it to reify these (the mistake of structural-ism) as somehow beyond the control of human agency. Inparticular, development studies needs more comparative analysesof class formation within specific localities the differenttransitions alluded to above and to examine how theseprocesses impact on, and are themselves influenced by globalcapital. This should be contrasted with the errors of worldsystems and underdevelopment theory, which have adopted a kind of global functionalism just as structuralist Marxismutilised a form of local functionalism whereby western-dominated capital was assumed to automatically secure itsinterests in the global order, and so reduced exploited classes tothe status of passive victims. Such an analysis confuses unequalpower relations in the global order an irrefutable fact

with the belief that imperialism always wins the day. The latterview is far too pessimistic, as it neglects the struggles that havegone on throughout the periphery, and it is Eurocentric because


23/30


it homogenises a very diverse set of countries that are still ratherclumsily described as the Third World.

This is not to deny that there are tendencies operating in theglobal order which lead to competitive disadvantage for some

countries. As well as obvious factors such as military power anddominance of international institutions, the West enjoys thecompetitive advantages of early capitalist development, whichitself is a product of the class struggles that have taken place inthose countries. These advantages include the utilisation of mass production techniques (labour specialisation, machinery,knowledge), substantial infrastructural facilities, and theorganisation of Research and Development facilities (Kiely 1994).These factors ensure that the rate of extraction of relative surplus

value in the First World is more than enough to counteract therate of extraction of absolute surplus value in the Third World.Therefore, it is not surprising that most capital tends to beattracted to existing areas of capital accumulation in other

words, it tends to concentrate in existing localities. It is in thissense that the Third World can be said to be in a subordinate,or dependent, position in the global order. However, these global tendencies are not absolute, as underdevelopment theory would have it, and they impinge on particular localities in very different ways. Hence the need for an analysis which accounts fordifferentiation (the post-Marxist strength but underdevelopmenttheorys weakness), but that does not lose sight of global powerrelations (underdevelopment theorys strength but post-Marxisms

weakness). How particular countries deal with the problem of competitive disadvantage will vary in time and space, and willultimately be determined by the class struggles and state forms thatexist in particular countries.

Such a methodology can for example be used to explain therise of the newly industrialising countries in east Asia, wheredevelopmental states protected domestic industry from unequalcompetition in the national market and agriculture providedindustry with a surplus for industrial capitalism. These factors

were however only made viable because of the class struggles of the late 1940s and early 1950s which paved the way for landreform and a peculiarly developmental state, and favourableconditions in the world economy for industrial exporters (Kiely

1994). These observations do not however mean that east Asia is a model for others to follow precisely because the outcome of class struggles varies in time and place, and the conditions in the


24/30


world economy for industrial exporters are now far less favourablethan they were in the 1950s and 60s (Hamilton 1987).

It is of course debatable whether this is actually a new methodology for development studies at all. What is interesting

in the work of those writers that have identified an impasse is how little attention they have paid to the historical writing of many Marxists one thinks of Marx and Engels on Germany, Lenin andTrotsky on Russia and Gramsci on Italy (see Cammack 1988).

What is particularly impressive about these works is their attemptto concretiseuneven development,not on the basis of an a priori logicof capital, but on the basis of the actions of human beings.

Perhaps an even more serious omission (with the exception of Corbridge 1986), is the almost complete neglect by Booth and

others of the work of Latin American dependency writers, whohave all too often been lumped together with the crude under-development theories of Andre Gunder Frank (a notable exceptionis Slater 1990). The work of Fernando Henrique Cardoso (1979;1987; see also Kay 1990) constitutes the most impressive attemptto formulate the specific forms of capitalist development invarious Latin American countries. For Cardoso, the key factor inexplaining uneven development in the region is not the needs of global capitalism, but the conflicts between different classes andsocial movements within particular nation-states (Cardoso andFaletto 1979: xvii). In particular, the slow penetration of capital-ism into the countryside was a result of the continued strength of non-capitalist landowners who were largely successful in main-taining the hacienda system. Therefore, absolute surplus valuetended to be extracted and so development of the productive forces

was slow (ibid.). Although there are problems with the specificitiesof Cardosos arguments, and in particular his excessive focus ondominant rather than exploited classes (Roxborough 1987;OBrien 1987), his basic methodology is sound. Post-impassedevelopment studies therefore must recognise that (i)nstead of accepting the existence of a determined course in history, there(should be) a return to conceiving it as an open-ended process.Thus, if structures delimit the range of oscillation, the actions of humans, as well as their imagination, revive and transfigure thesestructures and may even replace them with others that are not pre-determined (Cardoso 1987: 13).

These examples show that attention to specific historicalprocesses, and how these are linked to developments within theinternational political economy, is the most effective way for


25/30


development studies to transcend its impasse. In doing so,attention to class and class struggle remains vital to an under-standing of capitalism and the specific forms that it takes indifferent places. It is in this respect that an examination of the

transitions (rather than singular transition) to capitalism remainsa very fruitful methodology for the concrete analysis of differentforms of capitalism in the world today. Writing the real history of the production relations does not entail, as structuralist andpost-Marxists claim, reducing history to class or to economics.Such an approach conflates Marxs method of abstraction withconcrete, divergent historical processes (Sayer 1987). In writing such real histories, attention must be paid to how concrete socialactors both interpret the world, and so thereby actively construct

class, gender, ethnicity, nation, caste, and so on, but also to how these actions are themselves a product of historically constructedsocial inequalities (Harriss 1994: 192). Such an approach explainsthe diversity of differing experiences of concrete development, butdoes not lose sight of the relations of power which exist within theglobal system (and localities within that system). As Butteland McMichael (1994: 56) contend, there is ample evidence thatthe divergent paths taken by various Third World formations havetheir origins in recursive interactions of both national phenomena and dynamics (class and state structures, resource endowments,and so on) and global dynamics (world economy, geopolitics,international regimes), in which national responses are shapedby, and reshape, the global whole.3

CONCLUSION : M ARXISM AND THE IMPASSE INDEVELOPMENT STUDIES

There is undoubtedly an impasse in development studies. At itsroot is the persistence of theories which are based on a prioriconceptualisations which are too easily divorced from the empirical

world. Post-Marxists have laid the blame for these problemsfirmly at the door of Marxism, and called for a new, post Marxistalternative. In this paper, I have accepted the contention thatradical development studies is too often dominated by a Marxism

which is theoreticist, structuralist and too dogmatic. However,

I have argued that these versions of Marxism, in emphasising structure over struggle, and theoretical models over historicalpractice, actually fetishise in Marxs sense social reality. This


26/30


Notes

in turn leads to the danger that post-Marxism will repeat thisdualism between theoretical and empirical practice, and willemphasise the latter at the expense of the former.

The impasse is therefore best transcended by a non-

structuralist, historical sociology which is informed by some of the key insights of Marxs materialist andhistorical method, but which is also sensitive to the open-ended, and therefore nevercompletely determined, process that we describe as history.Engels (cited in Thompson 1965: 275) once complained that thematerialist conception of historyhas a lot of friends nowadaysto whom it serves as an excuse fornot studying historyOurconception of history is above all a guide to study, not a lever forconstruction after the manner of the Hegelians. If the word

history is replaced by the word development, then we have nobetter description of the reasons for the impasse, and the mosteffective way of transcending it.

______________________________

1. The terms West and Eurocentric are of course problematic ones, which need to be deconstructed as much as the term the Rest. Itshould be clear from the arguments of this paper, that the terms arenot used in a sense that homogenises particular regions in the world

today. The terms are used in a descriptive rather than conceptualsense, to refer to the view common, both in the social sciences andmore generally, that the advanced capitalist societies constitute a model for the rest of the world.

2. The term post-Marxist is a problematic one, especially as there isnot yet a recognisable post-Marxist theory, or theories, of development.Nevertheless, I use the term in the text to refer to those writers(Booth, Corbridge et al) that have identified an impasse in develop-ment studies, and have called for a break from at least some parts of Marxs methodology. I do not wish to become bogged down in a

debate about semantics, and the utility or otherwise of the termpost. I largely share the view that development studies hasreached an impasse, and remain impressed with the work of these

writers. My specific disagreements with post-Marxists are discussedin the text. My broad disagreements are over their presentation of Marxist methodology, and their related approval of other post-Marxists, discussed in the text.

3. Such a position constitutes a challenge to Third Worldistconceptions of politics. Such notions, revitalised by some versionsof post-modernism, rest on the idea of a homogenous Northexploiting a homogenous South. These (Eurocentric) fallacies andtheir political implications are challenged by Corbridge (1994)and Kiely (1995).


27/30


Althusser, L., and E. Balibar (1979)Reading Capital . Verso, London. Archetti, E., P. Cammack and B. Roberts [eds.] (1987)Latin America.

Macmillan, London.Barone, C. (1984) Reply to Hart-Landsberg, inReview of Radical

Political Economics 16(2/3): 1947.Bernstein, H. (1979) Sociology of Development versus Sociology of

Underdevelopment?, in D. Lehmann [ed.] (1979) Development Theory: Four Critical Essays.Frank Cass, London.

Bettelheim, C. (1972) Appendix, in A. Emmanuel (1972)Unequal Exchange.New Left Books, London.

Booth, D. (1985) Marxism and Development Sociology: Interpreting the Impasse, inWorld Development 13(7): 76187.

Bradby, B. (1975) The Destruction of Natural Economy, inEconomy and Society 4(2): 1261.

Brenner, R. (1977) The Origins of Capitalist Development: A Critiqueof Neo-Smithian Marxism, inNew Left Review 104: 2592.

__________ (1986) The social basis of economic development, in J.Roemer [ed.] (1986) Analytical Marxism.Cambridge University Press, Cambridge.

Buttel, F. and P. McMichael (1994) Reconsidering the Explanandumand scope of development studies: toward a comparative sociology of state economy relations, in D. Booth [ed.] (1994)Rethinking Social Development.Longman, London: 42-61.

Byres, T.J. (1991) The agrarian question and differing forms of capitalist

agrarian transition: an essay with reference to Asia, in J. Breman andS. Mundle [eds.] (1982) Rural transformation in Asia.OxfordUniversity Press, Oxford.

Cammack, P. (1988) Dependency and the politics of development, inP. Leeson and M. Minogue [eds.] (1988) Perspectives on Development.Manchester University Press, Manchester.

Cardoso, F.H. (1987) The Dependency Perspective, in Archetti, E., P.Cammack and B. Roberts [eds.] (1987)Latin America.Macmillan,London.

Cardoso, F.H. and E. Faletto (1979) Dependency and Development in

Latin America.Cambridge University Press, Cambridge.Chilcote, R. (1990) Post-Marxism: The Retreat from Class in Latin America, inLatin American Perspectives 17(2): 324.

Clarke, S. [ed.] (1980) One Dimensional Marxism. Allison & Busby,London.

Cliffe, L. (1982) Class Formation as an Articulation Process: East African Cases, in H. Alavi and T. Shanin [eds.] (1982) An Introduction to the Sociology of Developing Societies.Macmillan,London.

Cohen, G. (1978) Karl Marxs Theory of History: A Defence.CambridgeUniversity Press, Cambridge.

Colletti, L. (1972) From Rousseau to Lenin.New Left Books, London.Corbridge, S. (1986) Capitalist World Development.Macmillan, London.

References


28/30


Corbridge, S. (1989) Marxism, post-Marxism, and the geography of development, in R. Peet and N. Thrift [eds.] (1989)New Models in Geography,Vol.1. Hyman, London.

__________ (1990) Post-Marxism and Development Studies: Beyondthe Impasse, inWorld Development 18(5): 62339.

__________(1994) Post-Marxism and Post-Colonialism: The Needs andRights of Distant Strangers, in D. Booth [ed.] (1994)Rethinking Social Development.Longman, London: 90117.

Cutler, A., B. Hindess, P. Hirst and A. Hussain (1977 & 1978) Marxs Capital and Capitalism Today,2 vols. Routledge, London.

Duquette, D. (1992) A Critique of the Technological Interpretation of Historical Materialism, in Philosophy of the Social Sciences 22(2): 15786.

Foucault, M. (1980) Power/Knowledge.Harvester, Brighton.Frobel, F., J. Heinrichs and O. Kreye (1980) The New International

Division of Labour.Cambridge University Press, Cambridge.Gulalp, H. (1986) Debate on capitalism and development: the theories

of Samir Amin and Bill Warren, inCapital&Class 28: 12949.Hall, S. (1992) The West and the Rest: Discourse and Power, in

S.Hall and B. Gieben [eds.] (1992)Formations of Modernity . Polity,Cambridge.

Hamilton, C. (1987) Can the rest of Asia emulate theNICs?,Third World Quarterly 87(4): 122556.

Harriss, J. (1994) Between Economism and Post-Modernism:

Reflections on Agrarian Change in India, in D. Booth [ed.] (1994)Rethinking Social Development.Longman, London: 172-96.Harvey, D. (1989) The Condition of Postmodernity.Blackwell, Oxford.__________ (1993) Class Relations, Social Justice and the Politics of

Difference, in J. Squires [ed.] (1993)Principled Positions.Lawrence& Wishart, London: 85120.

Hilton, R. [ed.] (1976) A Comment, in R. Hilton [ed.] (1976) The Transition from Feudalism to Capitalism.Verso, London.

Hindess, B. (1978) Classes and politics in Marxist theory, in Littlejohn[ed.] (1978) Power and the State . Croom Helm, London.

__________ (1987) Marxism and Class Analysis.Blackwell, Oxford.Hindess, B. and P. Hirst (1977) Mode of Production and Social Transformation.Macmillan, London.

Hobsbawm, E. (1968) Industry and Empire. Weidenfeld & Nicholson,London.

Kay, C. (1990) Latin American Theories of Development and Underdevelopment.Routledge, London.

Kiely, R. (1992) Marxism and the Sociology of Development: Explana-tions for the Impasse, inWarwick Working Papers in Sociology 18.

__________ (1994) Development Theory and Industrialisation: Beyond

the Impasse, in Journal of Contemporary Asia 24(2): 13360.__________ (1995) Third Worldist Relativism: A New Form of

Imperialism, in Journal of Contemporary Asia 25, forthcoming.


29/30


Kiely, R. (forthcoming) Sociology and Development: the impasse and beyond.University College London Press, London.

Laclau, E (1971) Feudalism and Capitalism in Latin America, inNew Left Review 67: 1938.

Laclau, E. and C. Mouffe (1985)Hegemony and Socialist Strategy.Verso,London.

Larrain, J. (1986) A Reconstruction of Historical Materialism. Allen andUnwin, London.

__________ (1989) Theories of Development.Polity, Cambridge.Lowy, M. (1977) Marxism and the National Question, in R. Blackburn

[ed.] (1977) Revolution and Class Struggle.Fontana, London.Marx, K. (1976) Capital,Vol.1. Penguin, Harmondsworth.__________ (1977) Selected Writings.Oxford University Press, Oxford.__________ (1982) Pathways of Social Development: A Brief Against

Suprahistorical Theory, in H. Alavi and T. Shanin [eds.] (1982)Introduction to the Sociology of Developing Societies.Macmillan,London.

__________ (1984) The Reply to Zasulich, in T. Shanin [ed.] (1984)Late Marx and the Russian Road.Routledge, London.

__________ (1989) Readings.(ed. D. Sayer). Routledge, London.Marx, K. and F. Engels (1974)On Colonialism.Progress, Moscow.__________ (1982) The German Ideology.Lawrence & Wishart, London.Meiksins, P. and E. Meiksins Wood (1985) Beyond Class? A Reply to

Chantal Mouffe, in Studies in Political Economy 17: 14164.

Meiksins Wood, E. ( 1984) Marxism and the Course of History, inNew Left Review 147: 95107.__________ (1990) The Uses and Abuses of Civil Society , inThe

Socialist Register 1990. Merlin, London: 6084.Meillassoux, C. (1981)Maidens, Meals and Money.Cambridge University

Press, Cambridge.Moser, C. (1978) Informal Sector or Petty Commodity Production:

Dualism or Dependency in Urban Development, in World Development 6(9/10): 104164.

Mouzelis, N. (1986) Politics in the Semi-Periphery.Macmillan, London.

__________ (1988a) Sociology of Development: Reflections on thePresent Crisis, inSociology 22(1): 2344.__________ (1988b) Marxism or Post-Marxism?, inNew Left Review

167: 10723.__________ (1990) Post-Marxist Alternatives.Macmillan, London.OBrien, P. (1987) Dependency Revisited, in E. Archetti, P. Cammack

and B. Roberts [eds.] (1987)Latin America.Macmillan, London.Peet, R. (1989) Conceptual Problems in Neo-Marxist Industrial

Geography: A Critique of Themes from Scott and StorpersProduction, Work and Territory, in Antipode 21(1): 3550.

__________ (1991) Global Capitalism.Routledge, London.Phillips, A. (1977) The Concept of Development, inReview of African

Political Economy 8: 720.


30/30


Popper, K. (1986) The Poverty of Historicism. Ark, London.Roxborough, I. (1987) Cardoso and Faletto: Multiple Paths, in E.

Archetti, P. Cammack and B. Roberts [eds.] (1987)Latin America.Macmillan, London.

Said, E. (1978) Orientalism.Penguin, London.Sayer, D. (1987) The Violence of Abstraction . Blackwell, Oxford.Sender, J. and S. Smith (1986) The Development of Capitalism in

Africa.Methuen, London.Shanin, T. [ed.] (1984) Late Marx and the Russian Road.Routledge,

London.Sklair, L. (1988) Transcending the Impasse: Metatheory, Theory and

Empirical Research in the Sociology of Development andUnderdevelopment, in World Development 16(6): 697709.

Slater, D. (1990) Development Theory at the Crossroads, inEuropean Review of Latin American and Caribbean Studies 48: 11626.

Taylor, J. ( 1979) From Modernisation to Modes of Production.Macmillan,London.

Thompson, E.P. (1963) The Making of the English Working Class.Gollancz, London.

__________(1965) The Peculiarities of the English, in E.P. Thompson(1978) The Poverty of Theory.Merlin, London.

van der Geest, P. and F.Buttel ( 1988) Marx, Weber and DevelopmentSociology: Beyond the Impasse, inWorld Development 16(6):68395

Warren, B. (1973) Imperialism and Capitalist Industrialisation, inNew Left Review 81: 944__________ (1980) Imperialism: Pioneer of Capitalism.Verso, London.

Watts, M. (1988) Deconstructing Determinism: Marxisms, Develop-ment Theory and a Comradely Critique of Capitalist WorldDevelopment, in Antipode 20(2): 14268.

Williams, G. (1978) In Defence of History, inHistory Workshop Journal 7: 11624.

______________________________

Documents

Capital & Class 1995 Kiely 73 101