Re Paul C's [OPE-L:5108]: Previously I asked: > > <..., JL> you would agree that we > > should think of the European countries (with the > > possible exception of former "socialist" countries) > > as nations in which the capitalist mode of production > > is dominant and in which the remnants of prior > > modes of production have only a marginal influence, > > wouldn't you? Paul responded: > Prior mode of production yes, but the question is > more one of articulation between: > 1. Simple commodity production, one can not > understand the CAP without taking this into account. This suggests that you view simple commodity production as a distinct mode of production or period of capitalist history. How exactly do you view SCP? (I need to read an answer to that question before responding). > 2. Private capitalism. > 3. State capitalism. In what sense are you using this term? It is worth noting, of course, that "state capitalism" has meant various things to various authors. E.g. Lenin's perspective on what constiutes state capitalism is diferent than just about all contemporary authors who use that term. > 4. The socialist sector. Again, what are you referring to? If you mean some part of the state sector in a capitalist economy, then I think it is very misleading to call it the "socialist sector" (although going back to the New Deal in the US right-wingers referred to social reforms and welfare programs etc. as constituting "creeping socialism"). The idea that the state sector is a socialist sector under capitalism strikes me as very similar to a Social-Democratic perspective on that issue. Or do you mean "socialist sector" in another sense? E.g. one might claim that Utopian communities can represent a "socialist sector" within a capitalist social formation. Or, others (following Negri and Cleever) have asserted that "communism" emerges during working class struggles under capitalism. In either case, I think that it is in the nature of the *domination* of a particular mode of production that remnants of prior modes of production (to the extent that they persist in some form) or visions of future modes of production are (as a rule) *subsumed* by the dominant mode of production. The categorization that you use above, imo, suggests too rigid a separation between diferent aspects of contemporary capitalist societies. E.g. "state capitalism" is not counter-posed to "private capitalism". Rather, the two are bound to each other where the capitalist mode of production dominates. Similarly, the "socialist sector" (if it means social programs enacted by the state) is not counter-posed to the "private sector". It may seem that way (especially to conservatives) yet these are diferent forms in which social reproduction comes to take place *under*capitalism. What do others think? In solidarity, Jerry
This archive was generated by hypermail 2b30 : Mon Apr 02 2001 - 09:57:28 EDT