Date post: | 02-Jun-2018 |
Category: |
Documents |
Upload: | alaa-el-mahrakawy |
View: | 229 times |
Download: | 2 times |
of 7
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=epw8/10/2019 Samir Amin Critique
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.jsp8/10/2019 Samir Amin Critique
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
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.jsp8/10/2019 Samir Amin Critique
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
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.jsp8/10/2019 Samir Amin Critique
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
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.jsp8/10/2019 Samir Amin Critique
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
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.jsp8/10/2019 Samir Amin Critique
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
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