Samir Amin Critique

8/10/2019 Samir Amin Critique

1/7

Capitalist Development and Underdevelopment: Towards a Marxist Critique of Samir AminAuthor(s): Rohini HensmanSource: Economic and Political Weekly, Vol. 11, No. 16 (Apr. 17, 1976), pp. 603-608Published by: Economic and Political WeeklyStable URL: http://www.jstor.org/stable/4364550.

Accessed: 15/11/2014 10:33

Your use of the JSTOR archive indicates your acceptance of the Terms & Conditions of Use, available at.http://www.jstor.org/page/info/about/policies/terms.jsp

.JSTOR is a not-for-profit service that helps scholars, researchers, and students discover, use, and build upon a wide range of

content in a trusted digital archive. We use information technology and tools to increase productivity and facilitate new forms

of scholarship. For more information about JSTOR, please contact [email protected].

.

Economic and Political Weeklyis collaborating with JSTOR to digitize, preserve and extend access to

Economic and Political Weekly.

http://www.jstor.org

This content downloaded from 5.151.3.33 on Sat, 15 Nov 201410:33:35 AM
http://www.jstor.org/action/showPublisher?publisherCode=epwhttp://www.jstor.org/stable/4364550?origin=JSTOR-pdfhttp://www.jstor.org/page/info/about/policies/terms.jsphttp://www.jstor.org/page/info/about/policies/terms.jsphttp://www.jstor.org/page/info/about/policies/terms.jsphttp://www.jstor.org/page/info/about/policies/terms.jsphttp://www.jstor.org/stable/4364550?origin=JSTOR-pdfhttp://www.jstor.org/action/showPublisher?publisherCode=epw


2/7

apitalist

evelopment

n d

nderdevelopme

Towards

a

Marxist

Critique

of

Samir

Amin

Rohini

Hensman

Rich

in

insights

and panoramic

in

scope

as it

is,

Amin's hook

under

review)

will

remain

a

last-

ing contribution to the theory of capitalist development. and the practice of the struggle for national

economic

liberation

in

the three

continzents

of Asia, Africa

and

Latin

America.

This is

the

opinion

of

a

previous

reviewer

of Samir

Amin's book,

Accumulation

on a

World

Scale.-

A

Critique

of

the

Theory

of Underdevelopment .

in

these

columns.

Such a

view

implies

a

belief

that

.4min's

book

constitutes

atn

advance

in

:ur

understanding

of

capifalism

as it has developed,

and

as it

exists,

in

the

world

today.

A

Marxist

reading

the

book,

however,

gets

a very

different

impression.

What

is

the

reason

for

t:he

difference?

This paper

tries

to

provide

an answer

to

this

question.

It

is not, therefore,

a finished

critique

of

Amin's

work, but

is

merely an

attempt

to point

out

its

basic

wveakness

and

suggest

the

lines

along

which

a

Marxist

critique

might

be

developed.

NO

Marxisttoday

would

deny

the

need

for a theory of world economy, or

imperialism,

or, in other words,

of

accumulation

on a

world scale.

To

the

extent

that Samir

Amin's

book,

both

from its

title

and from

the

references

to

Marx,

claims to contain

such a

theory

or to

contribute to its

elaboration,

it deserves

careful

attention.

The

first

question

that

comes to

mind is:

'Is

it

really

a

Marxist

analysis?'

For

a

Marxist,

the answer

to this

question

is

decisive

in judging

the

validity of

its central

argument,

since

no matter

how

valuable

the

empirical

material

contained

in

a

book, the understandingof that material

and the

conclusions

drawn

from it

will

be

very different

depending

on

whether

it is analysed

scientifically

(i

e, in

a

Marxist

manner)

or not.

This

follows

from

Marx's

theory

of fetishism,

which

explains

how

the

real relations

and

processes

underlying

capitalist

produc-

tion

become

transformed,

even inverted,

in

the

world

of appearances.

Any super-

ficial

examination

of

the

phenomena

of

capitalism

operates

therefore

at

the level

of

fetishised appearances,

and

the

failure

to

penetrate

and

grasp the

underlying

relations

which

are

not

directly

visible

results

in interpretations

and

conclu-

sions

which

may

be

the

direct

opposite

of those

which

would.

follow

from a

Marxist

analysis.

Since

the purpose

of

this

paper

is

to

answer such a question

with

respect

to

Amin's

book,

firstly,

it

does

not

deal

with the empirical

material

contained

in

the,

book at

all;

and

secondly,

instead

of

analysing

the whole

book

at a superficial

level it

concentrates

its

attention

on

the introduction,

which

summarises

the

basic argument

of the book,

and

sub-

jects

it to

detailed

analysis.

Thus

key

passages

are

selected

and quoted

in

full,

and the categories which appear in

them

as well

as

the method

of

analysis

vompared

with

the

categories

and

method

adopted

by

Marx.

It

is hoped

that

such

a

reading

of

the

introduction

will

be

helpful

in

the

reading

of

the

rest

of

the

book.

We

begin

with

the

following

passage:

Like

the

bourgeoisie

in

the

peri-

phery,

the

proletariat

in

the

periphery

takes

a variety

of forms.

It is

not

made

up

solely

or

even mainly

of the

wage-workers

in

large-scale

modern

enterprises.

Also

forming

part

of

it

are the masses of peasants who are

integrated

into

world

exchanges

and

who

on that

account

pay,

like

the

working

class

of

the towns,

the

price

of the

unequal

exchange

that

is

reflected

in

the

difference

between

rates

of

surplus

value

at the

centre

and in

the

periphery.

The

thesis

of

the

contrast

between

proletarian

nations

and

bourgeois

nations...

denies

the

worldwide

nature

of

the

system,

the

repercussions

that

the

revolt of

the

periphery

must have

on

conditions

at the

centre,

and

lets

it

be

assumed

that

the

bourgeoisie

of

the

periphery,

being

also

exploited

(the term is inaccurate,

since

this

bourgeoisie

is

merely

restricted

in its

development),

can

oppose

the

bour-

geoisie

of

the

centre.

The

violence

of

the

main

revolt,

which

is

taking

place

in the periphery,

means

pre-

cisely

the

opposite

of

this,

for

the

bourgeoisie

of

the

periphery

is

com-

pelled

to

take

out

of

its

own

proletariat,

so

far

as

possible,

the

pillage

from

which

it itself

is suffer-

ing.

Moreover,

the

idea

that

the

proletariat

at

the

centre

is

a

privi-

leged

group,

and

thus

necessarily

in

alliance

with its

own

bourgeoisie

in

exploiting

the

Third

World,

is

only

a

simplification

of

the

real

position.

True, with equal productivity, the

proletariat

at

the

centre

averages

higher

rewards

than

the

workers

in

the

periphery.

But

in order

to

fight

against

the

law

of

the

tendency

for

the rate of profit to fall at the centre,

capital

imports

labour

from

the

periphery,

which

it

pays

at

a

lower

rate

(and

assigns

the least

attractive

kinds

of

work)

and

which it

also

uses

to

bring;

down

wages

in

the

metropolitan

labour

market.'

Marx's

categories

are

inseparable

from

his

method

of deriving

them.

The

latter

has

not

yet

been

sufficiently

described,

either

by

himself

or

by

others,

but

in

order

to reach

a

first

approximation

we

can begin

by

examin-

ing

his

procedure

in

volume

I

of

Capital . He begins with a very

simple

category,

exchange-value,

which

he initially

presents

as

an immediate

or

empirical

abstraction,

i

e,

exchange-

value,

at

first

sight,

presents

itself

as

a

quantitative

relation,

as the

propor-

tion in

which

values

in

use

of one

sort

are

exchanged

for those

of

another

sort,

a

relation

constantly

changing

with

time

and place. 2

He goes

on to

show

how-

ever, that

exchange-value

is

only

the

form of

value,

that

things

which

have

exchange-value

now

tell

us that

human

labour

has

been

expended

in

their production, that human labour

is embodied

in them .3

So

far

Ricardo

also goes,

but

there

he stops.

Marx,

however,

goes

on

to

show that

the

value

of a

commodity

does

not

repre-

sent any

type

of

labour,

but

rather

represents

human

labour

in the

abs-

tract ,4

and that

abstract

labour

itself

arises

only in

a

society

of

private

individuals

or groups

of

individuals

who

carry

on

their

work

independently

of

each

other ,

where

the

specific

social

character

of

each producer's

labour

does not

show

itself

except

in the

act

of exchange .' When we return to

exchange-value,

then,

we

have

an

603

This content downloaded from 5.151.3.33 on Sat, 15 Nov 201410:33:35 AMAll use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions
http://www.jstor.org/page/info/about/policies/terms.jsphttp://www.jstor.org/page/info/about/policies/terms.jsphttp://www.jstor.org/page/info/about/policies/terms.jsp


3/7

April 17,

1976 ECONOMIC

AND POLITICAL

WEEKLY

entirely different

conception

of

it

-

not

as an

accidental

magnitude,

as

it

at first

sight

appeared to

be, but

as

a

magnitude

determined by the

specific

relations

between

producers

in

that

society.

It

is

not

now

an immediate

or

empirical abstraction

but a determi-

nate one.

The

next

category Marx

goes on to

is

mioney. Money as

an

immediate

abstraction is

the

measure of

the ex-

change-value of

commodities and

the

means

by

which

they

are circulated.

Hlowever,

having

already

established

exchange-value as

a

determinate

abs-

traction,

Marx

can

show

that money

is

in

fact

a

universal

measure

of

value ,

anid

that

money as a

measure

of value

is the

phenomenal

form

that

must of

necessity

be assumed

by

that measure

of value which is immanent in com-

modities,

labour-time. (6 The

detei-

minate

abstraction

of

money

is

thus

established

as the

incamation

cf abstract

human

labour.

From

money,

The

embodiment of

value ,7

Marx

proceeds to

capital, cr

self-expanding value.

Here

again the

starting-point

is

an

immediate abstrac-

tion,

but the

secret

of

its

self-expainsion

cannot be

explained

merely by recourse

to

the

relations

between

producers

which

have

already been

described. A

further relation is required: that between

the

owner

of

the

means

of

production

and

the

owner of

labour-power.

Having

exchanged his

money

for the

exchange-value

of the

labourer's

labour-

power, the

capitalist is

entitled

to e(n-

sume

its

use-value,

which

is

labour-i-

itself.

Unlike

any

other

commodity,

labour-power has

the

capacity

to be

a

source

not

only of

value,

but of

nmore

value

than

it has

itself .8

Hence the

consumption

of

labour-power is

simul-

taneously the

production of

s'1plus

value, the

means by

which

capital

augments itself. So capital as a deter-

minate

abstraction

presupposes

not

oirl)

a

society where

the

producers

carry

otut

production

independently of

each

other

and

relate to

each

other ornly

through the

process

of

exchange,

but

also

a

society where the

direct producers

are

no

longer

in

possession

of

the means

of production

or

subsistence, and

therefore

are

compelled

to

sell their

labour-power to

the

owners of

the

means

of

production, and

to yield

up

to

them a

certain

amount of

surplus-

labour

in

the form of

surplus-value.

This latter relation was again not

penetrated

by Ricardo,

who was

thus

unable

to

identify

the

means

by which

surplus

value

was

produced.

The

point

of

all this is

to

show

that

if we

use

categories

such

as

'valia',

'money',

'capital',

'wage-labour',

or

any of

the other

categories

whichl

derive

from them, as Marxist categories

and

not

as

empirical

abstractions, this

requires

on our

part a

precise under-

standing

of

the relations

underlying

them

-

that

is,

the

relations

between

different

capitalists

and

those

between

the

bourgeoisie and

the

proletarial.

Since

the

analysis of

Marx

proceeds

in

a

strictly

logical fashion from

the

simple

category

of

exchange-value to

the

laws

of

motion of

capital,

the

simpler

categories

are

crucial

to an

understand-

ing of

the

later

stages of

the

analysis.

Let us

examine,

therefore,

how Samir

Amin understands the fundamental

relations of

capitalist

production.

He

states

that the

idea

that

the

prolelariat

at

the centre

is a

privileged

group,

and

thus

necessarily

in

alliance witit

its

own

bourgeoisie

in

exploiting

the

'ihird

World,

is

only a

simplification

of the

real

position.

It

is,

then,

according

to

him, a

simplification

rather

than

a

caricature

or

gross

distortion

of

the real

position.

In

other

words,

it

contains an

element

of

truth,

and

he

tells us what

this

is:

True,

with

equal

productivity,

the

proletariat at

the

centre

averages

higher rewards than the workers i. the

periphery .

The

only reason

why

it

is a

simplification

and

not

an

accurate

statement

of

the

real

position

is

that a

complicating factor

intervenes,

nartmely,

capital

imports

labour

from

the

periphery,

which

it

pays at

a

lower

rate... and

which

it also

uses to

bring down

wages

in the

metropolitan

labour

market .

What

are

the

economic

categories

used

in

this

analysis?

One

is the

con-

cept

of

rewards

-

a

category

which

adequately obliterates the class differ-

ence

between

proletariat

and

bour-

geoisie,

since,

after

all,

the

bourg,eoisie

of

the

centre

and

the

periphery

also

obtain

rewards ,

and

the

former

average

higher

rewards

thaii

the

latter.

Marx

nowhere

uses thi-

cate-

gory.

Lo

him

the

wages

received

Ev

the

worker

are

not a

reward

but

the

equivalent

of

the

value

of

his

labour-

power

or

the

value

produced

dudin.g he

necessary

labour-time

-

i e,

it is

a part,

and

only

a

part,

of the

value

whAi;

he

himself

creates in

the

process

of

production. Nor does the capitalist

obtain

rewards .

Rather,

he

appro-

priates

without

equivalent the

surplus

value, i

e, the

value created

by the

worker

during the

surplus

labou:-time.9

Now, it is

true that in

contradistinc-

tion... to

the case of

other commodi-

ties, there enters

into the

determiiraticn

of the value

of

labour-power

a bistori-

can and

moral

element ,'0

and that

therefore in

different

countries

wages

for

the same

work

may differ

consider-

ably.

But this

does not

change the

fact that

the

better-paid

woTrk s

are

still

exploited,

that

part of their

labour

is still

appropriated

from them

without

any

equivalent, that

they are still

forced to

sell their

labour-power in

order

to

live.

They do not

cease to

be

wage-slaves

merely because

a

larger

proportion

of the

value they have

themselves created

is returned

to thoen

in the form of wages (and this is wha~

their

'privilege' consists

in),

any

mriore

than

a slave

ceases

to be a

slave merely'

because he is

better fed

and

kpt. 'So

it is

not

necessary

to

bring

in

the

migration

of

labourers

from the

'peri-

phery to the centre in

order to counter

the assertion

that

the proletariat

in

the

centre

is

necessarily in

alliance with

its

own

bourgeoisie

in

exploiting the

Third World

(whatever the

expres-

sion

exploiting the Third

World

means). If

we

have

understowl the

relations, the

real

relations,

underlyingJ

the categories 'bourgeoisie' and 'prole-

tariat', it will be

quite obviois'

that

the

proletariat of

the'

centre

does

not

and cannot

exploit

the Third

World

or

anyone

in

it, since

it does

not at

any

time

consume or

gain

control of

the

surplus value

produced

in

it;

rather,

it

is

itself

exploited,

and

has

no

pro-

perty

rights

even

over the

products

of

its

own labour.

The

statement

which

is

suppossed

to be a

simplification of

the

real

position

thus tums

out

to

be

a

completely

false

proposition

based

on

a

misunderstanding

of

the most

basic

Marxist categories.

Let us continue. To

the

assertionl

that

the

bourgeoisie

of the

periphery

is

exploited,

Amin

objects

thlat

' the

tenn is

inaccurate,

since this

baargeo-

isie

is merely

restricted

in its

develop-

ment ; nevertheless

he

concedes

that

it

is

suffering

from

pillage . Here we

are

introduced

to the notion

that onie

set of

capitalists can

pillage

another

What

has

so

far

been

said should

make

it

clear that

even

if

such

pillage

were

to

take

place,

expropriation

suffered

by

the peripheral capitalists would be

not of the

products of

their own

labour'

604



4/7

ECONOMIC

AND

POLITICAL WEEKLY

April

17, 1976

but

of

the surplus

value

they have

appropriated

from

the

workers

of the

periphery.

But

let

us

examine

in

greater

detail

how

Marx treats

relations

internal

to

the capitalist

class.

Owing

to the

different

organic

compositions

of capitals

invested

in

different

lines

of

production,

and,

hence, owing to the circumstance

that

-

depending

on the

different

percentage

which the

variable

part

makes

up in

a total

capital

ot a

given

magnitude

-

capitals

of equal

magnitude

put

into

motion

very

difterent

quantities

of labour,

they also

appropriate

very

diffe-

rent

quantities

of surplus

la-

bolur

or produce

very

different

quantities

of

surplus value.

Accord-

ingly, the

rates

of

profit

prevailing

in the

various branches

of production

are

originally

very

different.

Ihese

different rates

of profit

are

equalise-d

by

competition

to

a single general

rate of profit, which is the average

of

all

these

different

rates of

pro-

fit....

The

price

of a

commodity,

which

is

equal

to

its

cost-price

plus

the

share

of the annual

average

profit

on the

total capital

invested

(not

merely

consumed)

in

its pro-

duction

that

falls

to

it in

accordance

with

the conditions

of turnover,

is

called

its

price

of

production....

Thus,

although

in

selling

their

com-

modities the

capitalists

of the

various

spheres

of

production

recover

the

value

of

the

capital

consumed

in

their

production,

they

do not

secure

the

surplus

value,

and consequently

the

profit

created

in their

own

sphere by the production of these

commodities.1'

Marx argues,

in other words,

that

even

within

a

country,

under

normal

conditions

of

production

and

circulation,

surplus

value

is

constantly

transferied

from

one sphere

of production

to

ani-

other,

from

one

group

of

capitalists

to

another.

Does

he regard

this

as

exploitation?

Pillage?

Or perhaps

re-

striction

of

the

development

.

of

the

unfortunate capitalists

who

are

deprived

of part

of

the surplus

value they

have.

worked

so hard to

appropriate?

Nothing

of

the

sort.

So

far as

profits

are

concerned,

the

various

capitalists

are

just so

many stockholders

in a

stock

coin-

pany

in which

the

shares

of

profit

are uniformly

divided per

100, so

that

profits differ

in the

case

of the

individual capitalists

only

in

accord-

ance with

the

amount

of capital

invested

by each

in

the aggregate

enterprise,

i e,

according

to his

investment in

social

production

as a

whole,

according to

the

number

of

his

shares.12

The

redistribution of

surplus

value

is thus seen to be inevitable; to Marx

it is presupposed

in the

concept

of

capital

itself.

An even clearer

example

is

that

of

merchant's

capital,

which

produces

no

surplus

value

whatsoever,

yet

demands

profit at

the

average

rate.

Again,

Marx does

not

regard

this

as

exploitation

or

pillage

of

the

industrial

capitalist by

the

commercial

capitalist.

He merely states that merchant's

capital,

therefore,

participates in

level-

ling

surplus value to

average

profit,

although it

does not take

part

in

its

production.

Thus, the

general

rate

of

profit

contains

a

deduction

fromn

surplus-value

due

to

merchant's

capital,

hence a

deduction

from the

profit

of

industrial

capital. 13

He does

recog-

nise

the

importance

of

determining

how the

surplus

value,

already

produced

by

the

labourers

and

appropriated from

them,

is

redistributed; but

it

is

clear

from his

account

that

the

relations

established between capitalists in this

process are

qualitatively different

from

the relations

between

wage-labour

and

capital.

Finally,

in

the

passage

quoted

above, Amin

demonstrates his

disregard

of

Marxist

categories

by

stating

that

part

of

the

proletariat

of

the

periphery

consists

of

masses

of

peasants

who

are

integrated into

world

exchanges

and who

on

that

account pay,

like

the

working

class of

the

towns,

the

price

of

the

unequal

exchange

that is

reflect-

ed

in the

difference

between

rates

of

surplus

value

at

the

centre and

in the

periphery .

To

begin

with,

it is

not

clear

what

this means.

If

by

unequal

exchange

is

meant

exchange of

non-

equivalent

values,

then

this is

what

generally

takes

place

when

products

exchange

at

their

prices

of

production.

But

there

is no

necessary

connectioni

between

this

phenomenon

and the

rale

of

surplus

value;

it

is

entirely possible

that it can

take

place

with

uniform

rates

of

surplus

value

(which are

in

fact

the

conditions

that

Marx

assumes

in Volume IHl of Capital ). If the

argument is

the

converse,

namely

that

differences

between

rates

of

surplus

value

at

the

centre

and

the

periphery

lead

to

unequal

exchange

between

them,

again

the

connection has

to

be

establish-

ed,

since

according to

Marx

only the

organic

composition

is

involv-

ed;

however

different

the

rates

of

sur-

plus

value,

so

long as

products

are pro-

duced

by

capital

whose

organic

composi-

tion

is

identical,

and are

sold at

prices of

productioni,

there

will be

exchange

of

equivalent

values.

To

refer

to Em-

manuel at this point is not good

enough,

since

what

Amin

has

not

established

is

whether Emmanuel's

analysis is

a

Marxist

one

or

whether

it contradicts

the

fundamental

proposi-

tions of

Marx's

analysis.

Attempting

to

reconcile

Marx

and

Emmanuel

without

making

such

an

evaluation

amounts

to

eclecticism

and

only further

confuses an argument which is already

somewhat

obscure.

However,

let us

assume for the

moment

that by

some

unspecified

mechanism

unequal

exchange

takes

place

between

the

centre

and

the

periphery

even

when

sectors

of

equal

organic

composition

are

involved,

and

that

in

order

to

achieve an

average

rate

of

profit

the

capitalists

of

the

periphery

have

to

maintain

a

higher

rate

of

surplus

value.

So

the

price

of

this

unequal

exchange is

paid

by

the

workers

of

the,

periphery. How

does it

affect the peasants? On account of the

fact

that

they are

integrated

into

world

exchanges,

we

are

told.

Implicit

is

the

assumption

that

integration

into

world

exchanges

by

itself

results

in

these

peasants

being

exploited in

the

same

way

as the

proletariat.

But

let

us refer

to

Marx

again:

Within

its

process of

circulation,

in

which

industrial

capital

functions

either

as

money

or

as

commodities,

the

circuit of

industrial

capital,

whether

as

money

capital

or as com-

modity

capital, crosses

the com-

modity circulation of the most

diverse

modes

of social

production.

so far

as

they

produce

commodities.

No

matter

whether

commodities

are

the

output

of

production

based

on

slavery,

of

peasants

(Chinese, Indian

ryots),

of

communes

(Dutch East

Indies),

of

state

enterprise'

(such

as

existed

in

former

epochs of

Russian

history

on

the

basis

of

serfdom) or

of

half-savage

hunting

tribes,

etc

-

as

commodities and

money

they

come

face

to

face

with

the

money and

commodities in

which

the

industrial

capital

presents itself

and

enter

as

much

into its

circuit

as

into

that

of

the

surplus

value borne in

the

com-

modity capital, provided the surplus

value

is

spent

as

revenue;

hence

they

enter

into

both

branches

of

circula-

tion

of

commodity

capital.14

That

is all.

There is

no

suggestion

that

entry

of these

non-capitalist

producers

into

the

circulation

process

of

capital

in

itself

constitutes

their

exploitation

by

capital.

It is

only when

the

situa-

tion

is

viewed

dynamically

that

it is

seen

to

contain

the

possibility of

deve

loping

in

such a

direction.

It

is

the

tendency

of the

capitalist

mode of

production to

transform

all

production as much as possible into

commodity

production.

The

mai-

spring

by

which

this

is

accomplished

605



5/7

April

17, 1976

ECONOMIC

AND

POLITICAL

WEEKLY

is

precisely the

involvement of

all

production into the

capitalist

circula-

tion

process. And

developed

com-

modity production itself is

capitalist

commodity production.

The

inter-

vention of

industrial

capital

promotes

this

transformation

everywhere,

but

with

it also

the

transformation

of

all direct producers into wage-

labourers.15

It is

important to note that

involve-

ment in

exchanges with

capital

is

at

most, the

beginning

of

a process

of

proletarianisation and

nothing

more.

Even

if

we

use

the

term

proletariat

in the

widest

possible

sense,

the

term

in

this

case

does not

apply

to

producers

who

are

not

in

possession

of

the

means

of

production,

who are

forced to

sell

their

labour-power

and

produce

surplus

value.

To

call these

peasants,

whose

relation

to

capital

is still a

transi-

tional or semi-capitalist one, part

of

the

proletariat ,

is

to misuse

Marxist

categories.

Worse: it

abolishes

one

of

the three

differences

Amin

tries to

establish

between

the

centre

and

the

periphery. For

he

has

already

told us

that

In

the

advanced

countries...

the

unevenness

shown

in

the

distribution

of

production

per

head is

always

comparatively

slight:

ratios

of 1

to 2,

or

of

1

to

3, between

the

sectors

most

widely

separated,

are the

most

extreme

observed,

and

the

mass of

the

working

population is

concentrat-

ed in the sectors grouped around the

average, between

index 80

and

index

120.

In

the

underdeveloped

coun-

tries,

however,

ratios

of

1

to

4,

or

even

of

1

to

10 or

more,

are

very

commonly

observed.

The

distribu-

tion,

as

between

sectors,

of the

working

population and

of produc-

tion, instead

of

being

more or

less

parallel, is

extremely

divergent.

Thus,

in

most of

the

Third

World, the

rural

population

makes

up

between

two-thirds and

four-fifths

of

the

total,

depending

on

the region

or

country,

whereas

agricultural

production

rarely

exceeds

two-fifths of

the

gross

intemal product .16

If

we

assume,

for

the

moment,

that

this

distinction

is

empirically

valid, it

still

remains

to

be

explained

why

a

sector

of

production

in

an

economy

integrated

into

the

capitalist

world

system

is

not

subject

to the

tendency

for

the

productivity

of

labour

to rise,

which

is

characteristic of

capitalism.

Showing that

the

sectors

of

stagnant

productivity

are in

almost

every

case

those

in

which

fully

capitalist

relations

of

production

have

not

yet

been esta-

blished

would

at

least

be an

approach

towards

answering

this

question.

But

if

all

the direct

commodity

producers

in

these economies are

subsumed

under

the category

'proletariat', implying

thereby

that

their

relations

to

capital

are

identical,

then the initial

empirical

observation

becomes

an

insoluble

mystery.

However,

all this

does

not

appear

as a

problem

to

Amin, and the

reason

is

simple. Having described

the

superficial

characteristics

of the

centre

and the

periphery

he

is satisfied that

he established

these terms as

scientific

categories.

It is as

though

Marx

were

to be

satisfied

with having described

exchange-value

as the

proportion in

which

different commodities

exchange

for

one

another,

or

capital as

self-

expanding

value, money which

begets

money.

Unlike

classical political

economy, which despite

its inability to

achieve a sufficient level of abstraction

nevertheless

penetrated

below the

sur-

face of things with

regard to

these

categories,

Amin remains at the

level

of

the

most

superficial appearances

-

in

other

words, at

the

level

of

vulgar

economy. Now, this may seem

unfair

in

view of the

fact

that

he

explicitly

declares

We have

to

go beyond

appearances, to analyse

the origin, the

generation of

the surplus from

which

profit is

derived. We then

need a

theory of value .17

Nevertheless

it is

true

that

some of the

most

important

categories he

uses, like

development ,

underdevelopment ,

centre , peri-

phery

are taken

straight from the

realm of

appearances, and allowed to

remain

there. They

are, it is true,

described more fully, defined more

exactly. We

are told

that

underdeve-

lopment cannot

be assimilated

to

poverty

in

general ,

that

it is

defined

rather, by the

three features

of

(1)

unevenness

of

productivity

as

between

sectors,

(2) disarticulation

of

the

economic

system,

and

(3)

domination

from outside.18 But these are, as Amin

himself calls

them, 'the

immediate

appearances

of

things'; they do not

constitute a

Marxist

characterisation

of

underdevelopment , and we

do not

even

know whether

a Marxist

character-

isation is

possible since

the attempt

to construct it is

not even

made.

Thus

the

declaration

about the

need

for

a

theory of value

remains a rhetori-

cal flourish,

because Amin does

not

even

attempt

to

deduce some of his

central

concepts from

Marxist catego-

ries.

If he had

tried to

relate his

theory of accumulation on

a

world

scale

to Marx's analysis

of

Capital,

he

would

not, for a

start,

have intro-

duced such

concepts as

centre

and

periphery

right at the

beginning

of

his

book, since

such a

procedure would

have made

it difficult

to give

scientific

content

to these

concepts

even if we

assume

it is

possible to

do so.

Marx

criticised such a procedure ini Ricardo

because

it led

to forced

abstractions,

missing

links in the

chain of

reasoning:

Thus

one can see

that in this

first

chapter

not only

are

commodities

assumed

to exist

-

and

when con-

sidering value

as

such,

nothing

further

is

requi-red but

also wages,

capital,

profit the

general

rate of

profit and

even, as

we shall

see, the

various forms of

capital as

they arise

from the

process

of

circulation,

and

also

the

difference

between

natural

and

market-price ....

Thus the

entire

Ricardian

contrnbution s con-

tained

in the first

two

chapters of

his work.19

This

inadequacy

(of

Ricardo's

method)

not only

shows

itself in the

method

of

presentation

(in a

fonnal

sense)

but leads to

erroneous results

because it

omits

some

essential links

and

directly

seeks

to

prove

the

cong-

ruity of the

economic

categories with

one

another.20

Marx's own

method

contrasts

sharply,

in

that he

arrives at

such

concepts as

profit and

rate

of profit

only in

volume

III of

Capital,

after he has

constructed

all the

mediating

links from

his

simplest categories to

them.

If

instead of rushing into the defini-

tion

centre

and

periphery ,

Amin

had tried

to

show, by

constructing

all

the

mediating

links, how

the

accumu-

lation

of

capital

on

a world

scale

leads

to

the

development of

unevenness,

he

would have

avoided

many erroneous

results.

The

most erroneous

is the

amazing

conclusion,

arrived at

without

even

a

pretence at

argument,

that The

trouble

is that a

break

with the

world

market is

the primary

condition

for

development .2'

Let

us examine

this

conclusion

more

carefully.

The

complete

statement of

Amin's

schema

runs as

follows:

Saying

that

development

of

the

periphery requires

the

setting up

of

autocent.ic national

structures

which

break

with

the

world

market

means

expressing

an

undeniable contradic-

tion.

Capitalism

has

unified

the

world,

in

its

own

way,

by imposing

upon

it the

hierarchy

of centre

and

periphery.

Socialism,

which

cannot

exist

unless

it

is

superior

to

capitalism

in

every way,

cannot be

a

juxtaposition

of

national

socialisms.

it

must

orga-

nise the

world

into a

unified

whole

without inequality, and cannot; be

complete

until

it

has

attained

this

objective.

However, the'

road

that

606



6/7

ECONOMIC

AND POLITICAL

WEEKLY

April

17,

1976

leads to

this end

passes

by

way of

the

self-assertion

of those

nations

that are victims

of the

present

set-up,

and

which

cannot

assemble the

con-

ditions for

their

prosperity

and

full

participation in

the inodern

world

iuinless

they

first of

all assert

them-

selves as

complete

nations.22

The

programme

is

therefore:

(1)

world

capitalism;

(2)

national

capi-

talisn;

(3)

a

series of

revolutions

within the

capitalist

nation-states,

now no

longer

linked by

the

world

market;

(4)

world socialism.

What

wouild

Marx

have said

to

that?

Now, it is

true that Marx

did not

foresee, and

could

not have

foreseen,

the

exaict manner

in

which

the

transi-

tion

to

socialism

would take

place.

Nevertheless, the

general outline

of the

process by

which the

transition

would

become

possible

and

inevitable was

deduced by him (not simply asserted)

from his

analysis

of

capital

and

its

tendencies of

development.

It

is

neither

necessary

nor

possible

to

summarise

that process of

deduction

here; it

is

best

understood at

first hand

from

Capital .

WVe

will,

however,

quote

from

his

conclusion

about the

historical

tendency of

capitalist

accumulation.

What

does the

primitive

accumu-

lation

of

capital,

i

e,

its

historical

genesis, resolve

itself

into?

In so far

as

it

is

not

immediate

transformation

of

slaves and

serfs

into

wage-labou-

rers, and therefore a mere change

of form,

it only

means the

expropria-

tion

of

the

immediate

producers,

i

e,

the

dissolution

of

private

property

based

on the

labour of

its

owner....

Self-earned

private

property,

that is

based,

so

to

say,

on

the

fusing

to-

gether

of the

isolated,

independent

labourinig-individual

with the

condi-

tions

of

his

labour,

is

supplanted

by

capitalistic

private

property, which

rests

on

exploitation of

the

nominally

free

labour of

others, i

e, on

wage-

labouir.

As

soon

as this

process

of

transformation

has

sufficiently

de-

composed

the

old

society from

top

to

bottom,

as soon

as the

labourers

are turned into proletarians, their

means

of

labour

into

capital,

as soon

as

the

capitalist

mode of

production

stands on its

own

feet,

then the

further

socialisation

of

labour

and

fur-ther tr

ansformation

of the

land

and

other means

of

production into

sociallv

exploited and,

therefore,

common

means of

production,

as

well

as the

further

expropriation

of

private

proprietors,

takes a

new

form.

That

which is

now to be

expropriated

s

no

longer

the

labourer

working

for

lilliself, but the

capitalist

exploiting

nany

labourers.

This

expropriation

i,

accomplished by

the

action of

the

inmanent

labotirs

of

capitalistic

pro-

diction itself, by the centralisation

ol

capital.

Onle

capitalist

always

kills

many. Hand

in

hand

with this

decentralisation, or

this

expropriation

of

many

capitalists

by

few,

develop,

on

an

ever-extendingo

scale, the

co-

operative

form

of

the

labour-process,

the

conscious

technical

application

of

science, the methodical

cultivation

of

the

soil, the

transformation

of

the

instruments

of

labour

into

instruments

of labour only u.sable in common,

the

economising of

all means

of

pro-

duction

by

their

use

as

the means

of

production of

combined,

socialised

labour,

the

entanglement

of

all peo-

ples

in

the

net

of

the

world

market,

and

with

this, the

international

cha-

racter

of the

capitalistic

regime.

Along

with

the

constantly

diminishingr

num-

ber of

the magnates of

capital,

who

uisurp

and

monopolise

all

advantages

of

tbhis

process

of

transformation,

grows

th(

mass of

miserY,

opuression,

slavery,

degradalion,

exploitation;

but

with this

too

grows

the

revolt

of

the

workin-class, a

class

always

increas-

ing

in

nuimbers.

and

disciplined,

united

organised by the very mechanism of

the

process

of

capitalist

production

itself.

The

monopoly

of

capital

be-

comnes

a

fetter

inon

the

mode

of

nroduietion, which has

sprung

in

and

flourished

along

with,

and

ntnder

it.

Centralisation

of the

means

of

pro-

dtuction

andl

sacialisation of

labour

at last

reach

a

roint

where

they

become

incompatible

with

their Ca-

pitalist

integument.

This

integument

is

burst

as

ninder.

The knell

of

cani-

talist

private

propertv

soulnds. The

exnpropriators

are

expropriated.23

The

theme

of this

passage

is

the

same

as

that

of

the

Communist

Manifesto:

the

way

in

which

capital establishes

and

reproduces

itself on

a

larger and

larger

scale

in the

world, and

through

the

process

of

its own

development

creates

the

possibility and

finally

the

inevitability of

communism.

Two

con-

trary

processes are

at

work, the

centra-

lisation

of

capital

in

fewer

and

fewer

hands,

and the

socialisation,

of

labour on

a

larger and

larger

scale. It

is

this

deve-

lopment,

inseparable

from

capitalist

accumulation

itself,

as

Marx

shows,

which

first

creates the

material

precon-

ditions of a socialist societv and then

brings

about

the

actual

transition

from

capitalism to

socialism.

What is

Amin's

alternative to

this?

To the

increasing

centralisation

of ca-

pital

on a

world

scale

he

counterposes

a

decenitralisation,

nationalisation of

capital

as

opposed to its

internationali-

sation.

The

first

point

to

note about

this

perspective is

that it

is

utopian.

It

contradicts

the laws of

motion

of

capital derived

by

Marx,

and we

would

therefore

predict

from

our

knowledge

of

theory

that it

cannot

take

place to

any significant extent. Such a predic-

tion is

amply

borne out

by the

expe-

riience

of

n-ations

whiclh

have

attempted

to

disengage themselves

from

world

economy

and yet

have

succumbed,

sooner or

later,

to the world

market.

Secondly,

it

is also

reactionary.

It

is

precisely

the

centralisation

of

capital

on a

world

scale and the

socialisation

of labour on a world scale that create

the

preconditions

for the

socialist

world

economy

by

causing

an

expansion

of

the productive forces sufficient to

allow

the

satisfaction

of

basic human

needs.

To confine

social

relations

of

product-

ion within

national

boundaries

once

again is

to take a

step back,

to

go

back to

an earlier

period

of

capitalism,

to

hold

back the overall

development

of

the

productive

forces

on a

world

scale,

and hence

to

postpone

the

socia-

list revolution. The

drawing

of

back-

ward nations and

commuinities into

the

capitalist world market is a progressive

step,

even

if

it

results in

a

stagnation

of the productive

forces

in

those

areas,

because it

draws

them into

the

arena

where

the socialist

revolution

will

take

place.

The

possibility

of

a

revolution

then

depends not

so

much

on

the

ex-

tent

of

the

development

of

capitalism

within those

countries as on

develop-

ments

in

the

capitalist

world

as

a

whole.

The

revolutions

in Russia

and

China

illustrate this

very well:

Russia,

back-

ward

relative to

the advanced

capitalist

countries, China, absolutely backward

both

heavily

dominated

by foreign

ca-

pital,

and

both

undergoing revolutions

in

conjunctures

where

imperialist war

was a

significant factor.

We

have

to

conclude

that even

to

the

limited

extent that

disengagement

from

world

economy is

possible

for a

backward

nation,

it

is

not

in the

long-

term

interests of

the

proletariat and

the

exploited

masses that

it should take

place.

Their

interests

lie in

the maxi-

nmlm

development

of

the

productive

forces

on

a

world

scale,

since

the world

economy

will one

day be

the

common

possession of

all.

Disengagement

is,

however, in

the

interests of

the local

bourgeoisie

in

some

backward

coun-

tries,

since

they need

protection

from

the

world

market in

order to

accumu-

late.

A

geographical

redistribution

of

the

productive

forces in favour

of

those

regrions of

the

wor-ld

which are

now

at a

disadvanitage is

certainly

necessary;

but

it

will be

undertaken by

the

inter-

national

proletariat

after its

self-eman-

cipation,

and not

by

capitalist

nation-

states before the revolution.

An

understanding

of

the

phenome-

607



7/7

April 17,

1976

ECONOMIC

AND POLITICAL

WEEKLY

non

of

underdevelopment

or backward-

ness and the

solution of

the problem

cannot result

from an

analysis

which

disregards

the whole of Marx's

scientific

achievement,

and

proposes

solutions

which

run

counter to

the

laws

of

deve-

lopment of human

society.

Rather,

it

is

necessary to

extend and

concretise

Marx's analysis

using

his owvnscientific

method;

to

analyse

the relations of

production and

laws of motion in

socie-

ties

which are

either

making the

transi-

tion

to

capitalism

or

have

stagnated

in

transition;

to examine

the

precise

way

in

which

they are

related

to

capital

though the circulation

process; to de-

termine

how

the

reproduction

of capital

on-

a

world scale

reproduces,

creates,

exaggerates

or diminishes

unevenness

in

the

geographical

distribution

of the

productive forces through such mecha-

nisms as,

for

example, the effect

of

national

boundaries on the

equalisation

of the

rate of

profit; and so on.

It is

only

by extending

Marx's

analysis

of

capital

in

this

way

that we

can

arrive

at an

understanding

of

accumulation on

a world

scale wvhich

s

not

pure

fantasy,

in the sense

that it is confined to

the

sphere of

superficial appearances

which

Marx

referred

to as

fantastic .24

Between

Amin's

conception

of

accu-

mulation on

a world

scale

and a

Marxist

conception based

on

an

analysis

which touches the true relation of

things, the same difference

holds that

holds in

respect to all

phenomena and

their

hidden

substratum.

The

former

appear

directly

and

spontaneously as

cu1rrent

modes

of thought; the

latter

must

first be

discovered by

science. 25

And

discovery by

science

presupposes

a

patient

and

thorough

study of

Marx's

work,

a

firm

grasp of

Marxist

categories,

an

understanding of

the

method by

which

he

arrived

at those

categories,

and

an

application of the

same method

to derive

the new

categories

which are

requiired

for an

analysis of

social

reality

today.

Notes

1

Samir

Amin,

Accumulation

on

a

World

Scale:

A

Critique

of the

Theory

of

Underdevelopment ,

Monthly

Review

Press,

1964,

pp

25-6.

2

K

Marx:

Capital ,

Volume

I,

Moscow,

p

36.

3

Ibid,

p

38.

4

Ibid,

p 44.

5 Ibid, pp 72-3.

6

Ibid,

p

94.

7

Ibid, p 104.

8 Ibid,

p 193.

9

Ibid, p 217.

10

Ibid,

p

171.

11

Ibid,

Volumie

III, p

156.

12 Ibid,

p

106.

13 Ibid,

p

281.

14

Ibid,

Volume II, p

113.

15

Ibid,

pp 113-4.

16

S

Amin, op

cit, p

15.

17

Ibid,

p

7.

18

Ibid,

pp

7,

15.

19

K

Marx,

Theories

of

Surplus

Va-

lue ,

Part

II,

pp

168,

169.

20

Ibid,

pp

164-5.

21

S

Amin, (op

cit.

p

32.

72

Ibid,

p

&3.

23

K

Marx, Caapital ,

Volume

I,

pp

761-3.

24

Ibid,

p 72.

25

Ibid,

p

542.

Money

Supply

Analysis:

Shadow

Boxing?

Deena

Khatkhate

ONE

would

have

thought

that

the

article

by

Sturaj

B

Gupta'

on

money

supply

analysis

and

the

comments

thereon

by

N A

Majumdar2

would

advance

our

knowledge

of

the

money

supply process

beyond

the

original

RBI

sttudy,

of

which

I was

one

of

the

co-

authors.3 Instead,

only

false

issues

have

been

raised;

no wonder

then

that

equally

false

answers

have

been given

by

both

Gupta

and

MIajumdar.

Gupta

began

in a way vhich

suggest-

ed

that

he was

going

to

come

up

with

an analytically

more

useful

alternative

to the

RBI,

presentation

of

monetary

analysis.

After

having

announced

that

the

RBI

analysis

is

not at

all

empirically

meaningful',

that

it

leads

to faulty analytical

and

policy

conclusions and that it

is

an ex post

accounting

analysis ,

he

has

recommend-

ed a

format

which

in

no

way

differs

from

an

accounting

identity.

Instead

of following

the

RBI

accounting

pre-

sentation,

he

breaks

it

down

between

the accounting

of the

RBI and

partial

accounting

of

the

commercial

banks.

How

can

he

then

argue

that

his

is

an

alternative

to

the

RBI

analysis?

Any-

one with

any

acquaintance

with

monetary

analysis

can

derive Gupta's

format

from

the

RBI

one.

Incidentally,

Part

II

of the

original

RB;I

study

of

1961

did elaborate on Gupta's alternative at

great

length.

Cupta,

however,

had

something

mean-

ingful

to

say

but

he

did

not

say

it

well.

What

is more,

he

allowed

his

central

points

to

be

lost

in the

sands

of

his

rhetoric

and

polemics.

Somewhere

in

the

middle of

his

article,

he

placed

his

finger

on

what

I

would

regard

to

be

the important

argument

that

H

(high-

powered

money)

and

changes

in

H

are

largely

policy-controlled,

whereas

the

factors governing

m

(money

multiplier)

are

largely

endogenous,

i e, are

such

as

depend

on the

behaviour

choices

of the

public

and

banks .

Then

he

goes

on

to

single

out

two functional

relations,

viz,

excess

reserve

to

deposit

ratio

and

currency

to

deposit

ratio,

over

which

the

authoorities

have

no

control.

Perhaps

what

he

wanted

to

say

was

that

the

RBI

should

develop

a

model

of

the

money

supply

process

in

which these

two

behavioural

relations

are

given

due

importance.

Gupta

is quite

right

in

suggesting

this

line,

but

the

difficulty

is

that

it

has

no

connection

with

the

RBI

presentation

of monetary

data.

And

what

is

even

worse

is

that

Gupta

does

no

better

than

the

RBI'

in

proposing

his

alternative.

Majumdar

should

have

fastened

on

to

what

he

thought

was

a

minor

point

-

that

if RBI analysis

is

ex

post

account-

ing,

so

is

Gupta's

alternative

formulation.

The table which presents

factors

affect-

ing

money

supply

is

a

balance

sheet

identity

and

as

such

does

not

explain

anything.

If

one

item

of

a

balance

sheet

is defined

as money,

then

any

change

in

it

must

be

due

to

a

change

in

other

items

on

the

assets

or

liabilities

side,

with

appropriate

signs;

otherwise

the

balance

sheet

will

simply

not

balance.

Therefore,

any

change

in

a

particular

item

of

assets

or

liabilities

which

is

identified

with

factors

affect-

ing

money

supply

cannot

be

considered

to

be

an

explanatory

variable.

Tie

RBI uses a balance sheet for the entire

banking

system,

while

Gupta

disaggpe-

gates

it,

in

or(ler

to focus

on the

deter-

minants

of

high-powered

money

or

reserve

money

and

the

money

multipler.

This

does

not

mean

that

the

RBI

cbes

not

recognise

the

existence

of

the

mmey

muiltiplier.

The

very

fact

that

mcney

supply

is

larger

than

high-powered

money

means

the

money

rnulti-

plier

is

present.

This

point

sbould

be

obvious

to anyone

who

knows

that

banks

operate

on

a fractional

r6erve

system.

This should

convince

Mnjum-

dar

that

money

multiplier-Ised

analysis

is

not

only

not

a

substittte

for

608

This content downloaded from 5.151.3.33 on Sat, 15 Nov 201410:33:35 AMAll bj t t JSTOR T d C diti

Documents

Samir Amin Critique