Scribd Logo
Hochladen

Willkommen bei Scribd!

  • Robert Brenner - The Social Basis of Economic Development

    Hochgeladen von

    thumbsuptom
    1K Ansichten16 Seiten
    Robert Brenner discusses the transition from medieval peasant societies to the capitalist mode of production.

    Originaltitel

    Robert Brenner--The Social Basis of Economic Development

    Copyright

    © © All Rights Reserved

    Verfügbare Formate

    PDF oder online auf Scribd lesen

    Stufen Sie dieses Dokument als nützlich ein?

    Sind diese Inhalte unangemessen?

    Dieses Dokument melden
    Robert Brenner discusses the transition from medieval peasant societies to the capitalist mode of production.

    Copyright:

    © All Rights Reserved
    Als PDF herunterladen oder online auf Scribd lesen
    Markieren Sie unangemessene Inhalte
    1K Ansichten16 Seiten

    Robert Brenner - The Social Basis of Economic Development

    Hochgeladen von

    thumbsuptom
    Robert Brenner discusses the transition from medieval peasant societies to the capitalist mode of production.

    Copyright:

    © All Rights Reserved
    Als PDF herunterladen oder online auf Scribd lesen
    Markieren Sie unangemessene Inhalte
    von 16
    eee 22 GAChn ‘be was not asking them to bring about what woul extn ther dog the ethaostion ofthe progres capacity ofthe capitalist cede, andthe availabilty of enough reductive power to Intl a socait one ‘admit on p. 17 that Ido not havea good answer tothe question how Productive forces let eoonomiesructaree which promote thee deveopmen To be sure, we can say thatthe adustient of relations to forces occurs hough cassstrugpe Bat thats nota full setisying answer tothe question ‘fp. 27 stuce it doesnot spety the filiation, or filations om coatredton ‘between forces and relations of production fo the elas sirulesappone to ‘eaolel, What activates the prospective new class? What ensues its itor? Those are the questons tha ned attention and not only forthe sake of good toon forgo etc mye a do wel nth he quis Et (980) 234 tw ke ht ns Se Rae et 2 The social basis of economic development Robert Brenner Adam Smith andthe explanation of modern economic growth 4 8 consideration of he explanation of eeonanic growth in the very long rn, the work of Adam Sith tradtonally has bee the place to start. vos ‘ody, the Smithian paradigm provides the foundations for mast theo of {conomie development, and for economic isoriogrsphy in general. Tt his ‘shouldbe the case, i, in my view. quite proper: for Sith T would ane, oth captured the essence of moder economic growth and dscovered het Imight be cle the key mechani esposible forsaking place ~ ra east ‘Provided the basso doing these things. Nevertheless, Smith led to expla {ie conditions under which his key mechanism docs and doesnot opertee Indocd he seme not to eae that there are contons under whit dose ‘ot operate, This essay seeks to provide the bass fora general theany of ‘sonomic developmen, fly, by extracting from Smith's argument whe T take to be the defining feature of modern economic grow andthe fundamental mechanism behind such growth, and, secondly, by spetying fe particule condtons under which ths mechentam can ind cennet fe expaced to operate 45's wellAnown, Smith thought thatthe pursult of rational sltntrest leads individual produces to try to make wse ofthe speciale’ prodactive apace of ther producer. They do this, Smith beloved by spealidng ‘hemscives and by efering thle output fr exchange t ther prose trading partners. who can then be expected t doth same Indiv ational setPiiorest thu leeds to generallnd petal podcton for exchange, Of arse, producers who speciale fer the market must ty ther meene of Production and means of subdsence of the market: speclation cata Aevendence onthe markt. But producers who mist buy what they need on ‘he markt inorder to continue in production must elo be able esl ther ‘rout onthe markt; and they must beable to do this competi. Tose ‘competitively. producers must beable o produce what s deen asd o> oso with a mininum of cost ~ Le. to price atthe socially necesary rate 23 234 | Robert Bremer to ‘maximize the price/cost ratio’ of thelr output. But in order to be able to produce atthe socially necasiry rate producers must sek contlaualy and systematicaly, to cut costs by farther specializing, sccumuleting thelr ‘surpluses, end adopting the best avalabe production technauesGisuorting), ‘Thus. for Smith, the pursut of indvidual rational seltintrest ads to ‘ongoing economwide development. What I tae tobe Smit's two indapensabe cacluions are captured in the foregoing sketch of the operation of the Invisible hand, ‘The fist ‘onclasion that what constitutes the diferent mein of moder econorie ‘srowth isnot this or that once andor impeovernnt ia th productive foxes thls or that specialization, this or that allocation of the sup, this ‘or that Innovation tis ot pers, the spread of international ted nor the "oe of cooperation, nor the growth of manulscture, nor the execs of ‘machinolocture ~ although all ofthese things do, of course, contibue £9 ‘economic growth What distinguishes modern economic growth is smething ‘ore general and abstract: it the presnce inthe economy of ysomate and continuous tendency o dive to tensor production Inthe direction of _reater efilony. This is expressed in the more ot les continuous growth of er cata output, Smith's second indispensable conclusion s thatthe reson ‘modem economic growth actualy takes place ts because the lndvidiat economic actors find it nthe selntrest to undertake pateres productive ‘activity which corepond, more or les systematically, to the requirements for economic growth ofthe economy a8 a whole jst so heppas that vat Individuals fod it rational to do isto carry out fll-cale proton for exchange by mesos of systematic cutting of ests through speciation ‘ccumlaion aad innovatlon, and these tun out to be the vey things the economy requires for ongoing growth. Whats goed for every tnidaat cooomic ato s good for garegate economic growth Paradoxical, despite bis invaluable tnsighis, Smiths theory as setually ‘resented tums oat tobe rather unhelfl,ndeed postive mislening, or ‘planing the appearance of modern economic growth: for be cade up assuming the extraordinary phenomenon that needs lo be explained nny ‘the correspondence between whats required forthe economie growth of the ‘tem as whole and the selfinterstd actions ofthe inva! econsme actors. This 16 beemuse, by taking for granted the now famous “natural tendency of men to tuck and barter’, Smith takes for granted peecscly what ‘oods to be demonstrated: namely, that the prodacers wil commode all ‘or mas ofthetr output. It iste producer’ cmmoting of thelr output and thelr consguetdeenderce upon the market which sus a thes subjection tothe ereativepeesures of competion. Smith lo assumes without expan Sill bass of eonamiedevciopment 35, tion tht the producers are abl to allocate ther resources a they oe and ‘to appropite the fill tars on thee tvestments, fe rn the evartons or controls of politcal’ powers. Impit are a whole series of choles on the tof the conomlc actors which can by no means be taken for panded Sith thus assumes, is, tht the producers rational seltntcet wll rauire ‘them to maximize exchange values an to produce alo mas of thr ouipat forthe market rather dant produce the fl range of their susistence needs 50 as directly to insure thelr maintenance, wile marketing only shyscal surpluses beyond subsistence. He sssumes, stconily, that the dee roducors vil find it ln theic rational seftaarest to dct the resoureas toad Improving their capacties i produce competitively, rather then toward Improving thei capacities to transer the produc frm other by force. Sth ‘ssumes, thirdly, that tothe extent tha the dct producers do lad tin the rational efenterestto try to cut productive cos, they wl nd that he most fective way of doing soi by improving the process of predton geting ‘more output from th same inputs or the same ouput om fewer nputsy rather than by squesing the direct peodacers pas themselis) acting the level of subsstene, increasing the length of the working day, of ‘nteasfying lour. Smith assumes, aly, that whatever the tndiale mately decides themostretional way allocate their resources, they wll be fee to pursue their chew and, moraover, tht they will eee the fal frit ofthetr economic activity. But this io take for granted soit of five economic actor, rather than one of eccromle ators subj to now In sum, by astuming that, a8 al, che individual econom ators can and wil do what's ncessary for economic growth inthe aggrepate, South ‘eaged the fundamental question: wer what cmos wil oe wil oot the Patterns of economic action pursued by individuals correpond to the ‘equirements of conomic growh ofthe economy as «whole? The reminder ‘ofl essay wil be concerned with contonting this question by caning, laraung for, nd enlarging upoa the fllowing four fundamental these, The prevalence ofan que spe, history developed reper aos (o be andes, os we sal se, a late of mpohaion evan ae fant condo under which indrieal cena aces wl eh "atonal and posse low patra ef ona en supper noe "tha ey io Aim Sih nn Bk Tete Nase er ‘team oe are ane gts ome oe aa ‘rose ae igs th ast xh wif ma cee es reper nsi ten nt el SNES SRE corome Sons yma Aas 26° Robert Bremer, conmigo Adem Sith wilh rope elon, (n the ther ha. through mod of wor ry or the ppeares o tld acute til th ay san prod (ala most pcr el ad ‘hat tne, economies have bon chron! by fon of rope) testers wich pie on he adil esnomis str pts feces ston ‘hic. bough edly rational ae aceon steal subvones, Inthelongre.ofosionscevecpnens Ata there ft aon forthe eemomy asa wholshas reno rod th parte hase edt «whic sting mode sane growth (,Asarue, the rnston fom peceptalie cali pvp eatons cannot ‘onc asthe intended esl a the ronal stern eas fad ‘recapals econ str, ere gien the spearanc of oppor fer exchange or of now tchnalogier ¢ new demerele eee Ox the ontay, tha ratonal seiner seta wil as rule, hve mon 1s galt mang thse peecaptalit pope eaten, which css ‘ow-detelpmet (i) The rato selected acon fll ces n recep comics. cetyl the intaten of maliainng sod srenghenng recap Dropery relations and rarely. evr, fad the goa ef tanserng tse () The egal one of oder eonamle pumth depended par the reno, ‘omprecaptait toca rope retone Bat oukome scree In teu ofthe ronal santed acne of pecans! India! cconamic"acors or cases: mist be underied tan wien neque othe actons of nda eet eer end rps the Coates beens prec c, 2 Property rations, rules for repreduction, and economic development ‘By propery relations. mean the relationships among the dnt produces, among the cas of erplaters (if any exists) and beeen the eles and ‘producers, which speiy and determine the regula and systematic aces of ‘he inaividual economic actors (or fame) to the means of production an tothe economic product. In every socal economy, ach peoperty rations wll ‘exist and make it porsbe forthe direct producers and exploits if en to ‘onde fo maintain themselves as they were Le. Inthe class positon they ‘ready held, as produces or exploiters. ut more tothe point. these pope ‘elains, once etablshed, wil determine the economle course of ction Wilh srationa for the erect produces and the exploiters Since hs, ‘thepropery relations wil, to a large degree, determine the patter of ‘ezonomle development of any society for that pattern is, toa very great tent, merely the argo result of the camrying out of dhe rales for ‘eprodaction of the dct producers and expleters. So, the caunal sequence ‘uns roughly as flows: form of propery relations-rules for reproduction Sac bsis of eomomicderdopment 27 of the individual economic actors-long-temm pattem of economic developmeat/non-derelopment Using these bac propostons as a point of ‘keparture. we can move to consider th our fndamental hess ited above * 4. Why precaplast property relations prevent development and why ‘capitalist property relations condition modem economic growth, Procapt property relations ‘More or les frm the rg of seed sgreature unt the early modern ‘aio (nd in many places wel beyond that tine) apical setts, with few if any exceptions have been predominantly character by property ‘eltions ofa single broad type, imposing rules of eprodtion quite ical ‘othe requirements of moder economic row, In all ofthe societies, the property relations had to dfsing rls ort: the direct prodacers held direct (Le. non-macks) sec othe full ‘means ofsubsstence, thats the toolsandiand nooded tomaintain themselves. In some instances they poses this individually. In other cases they hel ‘as a asuruct fom the community of prodocee which was the formal ‘owner. There were, moreover many intermediate forms between thee ole. But the point ts that In every case dhe di posts The commits of produces organised themselvesina verity of ways nderdferentcondltons, ‘tw potet this possession point to ehich we shall retirn, Bat however ths ‘was, the peasants ~ the term we shall use fra dct produces who have fall ooess to their meas of subsistence, whether indiidually o© vie ‘membership n @ community ~ were nt exproprics, ‘Second: n consequence ofthe dret produces possesion, the member of the clas of exploiters if one exited) were chiged to repreduce themselves ‘hough appropriating a par ofthe product ofthe direct producers by men of extraccnomie cron nother words, because the det producers were ‘tonomically independent by vete of their possession of the means of subsistence, the explltes' ownership of other means of production, notably and, didnot in el allow them to tealze part ofthe product unless of ‘course they worked themselves). Inded, because there was no class of cconomic ators devi ofthe moans of reproduction eubistence) to take up the lord’ nd as exploited tenants oro work the lors ld sexed wae ‘workers, the india! lords it ot os wre, fnd in ther entre 10 ‘expoprite thr own peesons.? Bot. Sally, even if the lone dil desire to "mh eer ey dh oh is beady al ec ar HSK) Sout the’ eamtoonog ene a tanec hecho "Gee ead i cee hn pe mo st ee 28 Robert Brana a ‘expropiatethei peasants, they generally cou nt do so because they were prevented by the peasant communitycommuniies which sood as the ‘timate guardian ofthe peasant’ land. ‘Because of this merger of the direct producers with thelr means of reproduction the lads depended for ther maintenance upoa astttionalst relaonshie with thei peasants which enabled them to appropriate by force prt of the peasants’ product. [nome instances, the exploiters appbied force fo extract ther produet dety, that is as pov. tn this eas the Individualexplotersmight ether appropriate the product fromeacinividust direct producer. or they might appropriate it fom the community of producersasa whole (in which instance Une community would be response for collecting the rent am each of ie members). a othr instances, the clots applied fore altel, as a lass, and appropriated ther product indirectly: ths, they received thee income by vetue of holding a pstion or fe which was fo tare, supported by the colectiviy of exploit’ Teeying ‘taxon the direct producer. a this case, the collectivity of explo, aga, ‘ould ether evy this taxon each indidval producer ar. alternatively, they ‘nigh ley iton communities which vould have toc the ax or each ‘ofthe members), Bat whatever the speci form ofthe ee. all pre-cariait ‘exploiters whom we shall henceforth refer toa lords, ound the application of exre-economic czerion to be indispensable to their establishment end reproduction as an explain clas, and partipation in the institutional Structures through which free was appled and surplus extracted to be Inlpensabeto thelr membership, a ndviduals, win I. ‘re-eptalst property relations, in societies whic had achlevd sted grcultre imposed upon the economic ates prodacerand exploiters lk, ‘ules of eprodsedon which wer, nthe end, aniheical to the requirements forthe development of the economy asa whole. Under these relations both ret producers and exploiters fund ational to apt patterns of economic tection which in the log fun, prevented increases in aggregate per atr output Why was this 50? stand perhaps ultimately most critical, nsllowing bah explltes and produces direct aces fo thet means of reprodaction, recital property forms (a patriarchal’ frm) frond both exploiters and producers fom the est Wo buy on the market what they aceded to reproduce, thus of the ecesty to pede fr exchange, thus ofthe neces to sell competively ‘on the market dei outpt, and thus ofthe neces to produce atthe socially ‘necessary rate (or to maximize the piecostrto oftheir tpt ‘Bite cance of uch a sw wonld gral he source co tsa fo, a ‘Sle nn rst ote ae Socal basis of wom delopment 29 consequence both proces and exploiters were relive ofthe neces 12 lt con a0 sto muita themsaves, nd vo of the neces constantly t2 Improve production through specalaton and/or accumulation and/or fmoration, The property relations, in themselves, fale to impose that ‘leis pressure onthe lndiidval pradacers to improve which, a we shall frzu, i an indispensable condition for economic development ‘Wihout the ees to maximie exchange values, the dec producers as ndivduals end os members of communis of cultivators tended to nd ‘most sensible to deploy thee resources so as to ensure their maipomance by producing dey the ful ange of the neces (Le to proce for subuistence) Giver the low level of agricultural productivity which perforce proved, harvests an therefore food supplies were highly uncertain, Sinoe Food conntuted so large apart f ttl consumption, the uncertainty ofthe food market brought wit le ighly uncertain markets for other commercial ‘crop, wes therefore sensible fr the peasants to avold dependence upon the market above ll dependence upan purchases of subsistence goods, but tbo fo sveid dependence upon sales of commercial crops. To avoid this Alependence the peasants had to divers, s0 as to prodace dct al they ‘needed. end to market oniy physical surplues™. The reuling tendency to production fo subskstence naturally constituted a power barr to com rmetcal spectliraion and uttmately the transformation of production. This ‘arier was especialy dificult to surmount siace is transendence appeared to rule nothing less than the previous transformation ofthe reproductive patios (ecules or eprdton} ofthe indeual producer. Thus soon ete drat peoduers retained det acces other means of reproduction, they would not volntaily tur o speialzation, unless there previnly ad, nen massive improvements in the security of the food suply: yet. masive Improvements In the secusty of the food supply seemed to requlre the peasants’ specialization. "The eects ofthe tendency ofthe peatant producer to teat thelr means of peouction (and, tol, labour power) asthe means deci to manta {har aubsistence affected not only thee own oust bt that of others inthe ‘conomy. Thus, the peasnts’ refusal o prt with ther plots ~ which they ould not ald to gard 9s abstract commercial investments and bid > itty tt eee woulbateoep tal clon and een (5 eebine pneecong roe ene owe + Ente pee pene ee nels ie! wo dc SSSR he eh pacts ber and the ingore ‘sa nee scnnly Sear sd tars on ey cased SSCS ttn Eos cptlon bad ee one uy we cated ‘Geen Sate nu orale reacts ee ear ‘Stole sc a at hn: 30 Robert Breyer - regard asthe concrete and indispensable hates for tel existence — nied the extension of the market inland. Potential accumulators were thus hindered in aoguirng the land they needed to Bud up the unt of production equi o make improvements which depended upon sele and cooperation, Tn tum, because they possessed the meane to maintala themselves, the peasants were not compel to ell thir lbour power In consequence the Jahour market was restricted and thereby (again) the potential for cooperation and sale in predation, Moreover, in those (many) cass where the community as a whole either ousiuted the ultimate owner of the peasants’ land or in ether ways controled is allocation, it almost always wielded this ovmership or conta $0 ast restric the indvidaleulivatre’sbilty to aerate tek los, On the other hand, where the individual peasants lé directly contol the location ofthe and they ended to make ate that it was passed on ott children, oso provide the base forthe maintenance of future generation, Meanuile, they tended to ind it vatonal to have a large numberof len ‘0 aso casure themselves support in thet ld ge. The naturally tended 19 Intent the subivslonof plots resting (rom inheitance The eutome wes notmerely to limit the land market and the bulup of hangs. bt actly to increase the break-up and diperson ofthe land and ether productive ‘Not, gen the pevalonce of precepts property relations, were the ‘exploiting lords muck Beter-stuated to pare a patern of conomc actin supportive of development As noted, the lors’ petiechal positon as ossessors ofthe requlements for that reprodaction as lords fed them of ‘ny ned to increase ther Income forthe parpon of nceasag the pace ‘epics, since they were shied from the neces of sling compedtvey on the market. AI se being equal this same feedom would manifesta ‘ma tendency to allocate what resources were necesay to dey ware ‘maintenance (without recourse to market parchabs and to devote to market production only surplus resources beyond that tis tue, ef cour, that there were often or reasons (beside the desire to improve production 0 a8 'o compete) that the lor might wish to increase ther income, perhaps the ‘most common being to improve ther enpacty for polio-miary competion ‘with other lords, But nor as te lod ty to rise thi ncome fortis ‘or any other purpose they were dy andere prevented fom doting soby means ‘of improving the peeductivenss oftheir en and land. Thus tothe extent ‘that precaptalst property relations prevaled, i hey wished to organise ‘Production themselves, he lords had to depend oa labourers who possessed ‘heic mean of subsistence. Tis beng the ene, the exploiters could get them Sil bss of economic devdopment 34 to wok at ty ey coring te For the ame en ey col nt fa th a bcm ts er een ees the as recy eed ethan ee tne mewn et ‘Seowrd ono tour aise in ceed sce Roa pent tore dnc work lpn orient Sletetdietey og hem tune danced eas ttt an eve nou Ty sr ce hand tte cot of maj angrofuce eset inet hd ch Contos de se rth loo lect cae oad tein man ofpertn Tey ud ton ina det Snr us owed vaton ome oped eng peda tet cog nneeentemenmn Timhotel nt thls co cramer fein ther hfs tom ee wo wrt hare ne eel. ba Sissy oo mena iy tec She he paren poe te tna of bata ty ald be ese to are no coe oa rer or mre ica, whey wee ph fl oat of ‘tna nour Tr war Bc ty Md th rte precy of conn nee oreo on page let ‘ike pan conmqunce cy cold ote ed be exe though te eachang flor per or wape Tele ag olg tu oe cos ps ency whey pid 00 me ba Bros moder pring ce” Taw of ily the pref recap ope on, cian suns fn aves a ane ted nce tno eflseny helo bandh hey wae ons "hme tytn he td ny atin et co tay fom pension fom ct mente te plating ae The ‘ent ny de gy te rom oerd ing eat ‘crn y itn! nite en and epee Seating rey ywesedte! lente poco nll eperas Ti et Shy had odes ey enugh to compet hte ed ho ere * on tetera her cul i th ad en fin wih wee ‘hoo sano incenthe to mec te lon ecg eps > erat cy fib ented te ‘Rae pnt col gt ya ane or te ov nea ‘Sreaieavebatr iam hep Saarland any ofc soa Se et erin aha pe pe wa noe 32 Role Bren, - ot the same thing, they would have ad to maximize both hee rary lnvestmens and the eScincy ofthese investment. They would have had, Infect. toate, continually and systematic, to improve thee methods of war. deed we can say the drive to pli actmution to stats lng, ‘sthe precast analogue tothe capitalist dive to acca capt. [Now tothe extent thatthe lord flowed such a pattern of allocation, they ‘ould only diminish the resources potentially eailable for “pete” Production, and thats wht actually occured when they were succes They apoiled their increased income to invests in the mens of wat, specticaly to provisioning and supplying with tools drecty oie) the producers of arms aod Lurares, as well as to supporting the warriors ‘emselves. They thereby reduced the means of consumption sod peecton avallable to the peasant producers, an, in consequence, ndetined the ‘economy's fundamental prodactiveness, Jn sum, so long at non-capitalist poperty relations prev. we can expect. the flowing rales fr reproduction forthe individual economic ator to obtain: (©) gener the economic actors wil dnt thee resources twat making posse cra set fr omnes (0) the det produces, powmasing tee mena of misence, wil depiy ele estes ro produce hf componente ter testa atcaaten, ‘do mata the recive bass to continue 5 (6) the eters wil dec heir ence over stenhening the meen of coercion whey they cn redtbte te prof fom he ie rods sndothec explotersnoiertouqurethemitary salts ary pos deo rengten thar meen ofcorcea endo, More May they oat tate On the bas ofthe foregoing rules for individual reruducton, we can ‘xpet the folowing ecanomy-wide developmental tend (©) economic orth tm agate will by and te ake the fom of the ‘mulipisten of uns of production on een eng tne, (bind euction, tthe exe develope, wil ke ow rode bs (tary sod hay produc (© the lonetemn derma end wil be towatd stagnation not cls ‘peng on the aval nd rat of eroree sow als Recta the fxm af serena th amo cntie extract) and he es snd manner which the dct peducos cua b pyc be alae " Apatier of ongoing growth via the regular improvement ofthe productive forces is out ofthe question * * mite ug ht capa dave ani woelt a ich yet ‘Ss of seat td Svat fe fe daa ee sea? iw ‘Socal basis of economic development 33 opt propery relations ‘Under what condiions, then. wil the economic actors edopt pater of| ‘comomie action conte, in the aggregate, to madera ecopoic grown? In my view, they ean be expetd to do 0, nly where ll he dct port face separated from thelr mene of subsistence, cow ll he an, aad where ‘no exploiters are able to maintain themseles through surpas extraction by ‘extra-economic coercion. tis only where the organizes of production aad {he cret producers (sometimes the same person) have been eperted fem Aect access to the means of subsslence, that they must buy onthe market the tools and meens of subsistence they need to reproduce themselves is ‘only where the producers must buy on themmarkettheirmeansofeprodten, hat they must be able to sll competitively on the market. Le, atthe socally ‘eoesaryraie Tks only ia the presence ofthe neces of competing production ~ and the correlative absence ofthe possibility of cutting cot, ot ‘there ralsing income, by forcefully squeeing the dee producers that \wecan expect the systematic and continual presi oinereae the eliieaey of production which isthe sine qua non of modern economic growth Naturally, nen economy where the drt producers have ben separted from their means of subsistence, it willbe somewhat dificult develop Productive eficieney through the familar methods reqtring etperate Jatour wlesitspossbe to parchase onthe market oot only tools and means ofsubsstence, but also labour power Iisa good question, moreover whether ‘ar not the avalisblity of labour power depends upon the separating a some ‘canomic sors not only trom thi fll means of subsistence, but lo fren {hie meens of production -Le. leaving sme economic sctors with only het labour power to sein order to reproduce themselves. But however this ray tt lr hr re ef ey te pe ‘re Mabey sed slopes stan ser foveal ea ese ee my eager te ear (Ghat ace tra mae reads sone kee ese est Thertutema a myn ote tae ede mento ess ee eet ea Se a ‘Sour wea ed cuniculi ea eee a ‘Sei and sn wee enh Se tee ee nea dee Sr aed tga eye ‘pre tht th comms ers ih sre tay era ee lo fr peta ral racemes eon ee $y wot ion eta Pope nt ci ee 34, Robert Bre ; ‘ein an economy of producers deprived ofthat full means of subence, ‘ve can expect chat the ental processes of competitive accumulation and Innovation wilthemsees lead tothe diferentation ofthe economy into those th means of reduction (aswell a Inboor power aed thoveposesig ony Inbour power. This is becuse these proses pve competitive advantage ‘to those who can deploy relatively large and ever larger maser of means of ‘production. To putt succinctly neat economy, the process ofc sccumulaton creates sown labour force of proearans J sum, tis only where capitals property relation preva that ll he economic actors have no choice but to adopt a thei rule for reeouction ‘he putting on the markt of thee product (whatever ts) st the competitive, lowest price Lion n such an economy thet ll economic actors are ‘erptually mona to cut costs tis only in sch an economy thet there ‘exists a mechanom of natal selection (Le, competition on the market) to eliminate those producers who are not eflocelycting costs ti fo these reasons that only under captalst property relations can we expect a patter of moder econemi growth. Procoptalst economies, etal economies nd Adam Smith ‘We may briefly conclude this ection by placing is results nthe conte of ‘Adam Smith's theory, where we began. To the extent that Smith was right ‘that men ar systematically truckers and barter, systematic proces for exchange, he was right to expect @ patter of economic growth. An economy of producers forexthange secesany ls a competitive economy andcan beexpecte, in tur, tobe a developing economy, allele beng equal, Nevertheless, Smith was quite wrong to beeve that systematic pction forexcangowasitselfthe simple and dretexpresion of rational eltinterest. spectcally the producers’ rational slinteretin the gins which mht be olten from pertpation ina nexus of complementary speciler Smith ‘thought people spcialnd for exchange base tis was the way thy could {induce and take advantage ofthe specialization for exchange of other. He ‘may have derived this conclusion from hs quite coret understanding that, ven the existence of such a nexus specislne producers for exchange, those who parcpate in tare bette of than tay would have bean had hey not ‘rticipate in it and produced all thelr requirement by themselves (all le, 8. rk, being equa), But we have ted to show that (attrecty correc snalyses of the gains rom tade' notwithstanding), so long es precaptalt ‘property relations preva the economic actor cannot be expec fo id it tn thelr rationalsetnterest systematically to specie, fo make themes dependent on the market, s they will not produce for exchange On the Socal bssof conan deveopment 35 ‘contrary, proucer wil ad itin ther rational selFinteres to pecalite only ‘under capitalist property relations and then only busause they heve no ace ‘but to prodacecompetvely forthe market. To put ies simpy a possible: 1s not that people exchange sos to speciale, or speilne so ab to ‘xchange they speciale because they mus exchange.” Since this occurs only ‘nthe presence of capitals property telatons, to derstand the onset of ‘moder economic growth is to understand bow capa property relations come to prev. 1h growth of trade, he development ofthe productive forces, and economic development: critique of modified Smitianism Tis posble that most of today’s development economists and economic historians are no longer pure snd imple Stithians, Dut even this were ras (end it s By no means obrlous) the fact remalns tet the overwhelming ‘majority temin Smitha at heart. They would not perhape contend that the mere epplication of inlvdvel economic rationality wil, directly and ‘utomatally, bring about sggrepae economic development. But they would argue, that, give the appearance of cetsin specie, que esoable--epet ‘exogenoes economic simul, ratonalsefinterested individual ceonemis activity can inded be expected to detonate patter of growth ts thie Faypothess that in responding to these exteraal sul an the opportunites "hey create atonal slPintarestedtndldaals wil in fact come to adopt capitals rues for reproduction — act ike eaptliats and in o ding, wil ‘ring about the trnstemation ofprecaptlato capa property lations ‘The outcome wil be the inauguration ofa pater of mndern economie ‘srowth,Depenng onthe theo, one ofthoe external tml wil be chowea asthe key determinant of development the ise of trade the appearance of new productive frees, the growth of populatin.* But what marks ofeach ‘ofthese approaches as Smithien are thre defining charecteists common ‘© them all st. gen the appearance of the specie key factor, each 7 Toft the pt in il anaber way wher cand etn ede te {fim ty tae nd es od pans on ten a {Ete me wei rte. cr sod ane Br ts Se es ‘yest al enn eg a ac mci expan of en ose Serine huh nce guae cette eee ‘sh lay wes ey wr te aera pred a Se anes feng cn fe chan fe eed ts ee pag iia cnr cn ee te a wl eee ef eso tte lca pw ures orn esses ee inter of wage! Pane evped Ste es Bes 9: Rte 10 36. Role’ Beyer - approach scribes tothe pre-cast exnomic actors aptalst motivations fa capitalist rule for repodicton.Socond each teats property elaions fas if they were, in essence, techniques or organizations of production, outed within thelial productive uns which are adopted o discarded ty individual economic actors sccording to thelr eectiveness in developing ‘production In those individ units. aly. each ends up, imply and Hgitimaty, taking for granted the prevalene ofcapiaiseproperty relations, toch within the individual unit and beyend, so as to atv the appearance of ‘atinalty tothe economic strategy which is (misatribted to the economic ‘sctrs. The result, im each ease, i thet capa is ssumod in order to ‘explain the onse of modern economic growth while pre-captalt property relations somehow magically iseppear. istrkiad Sms: the of re ‘eginning with Adam Smith insel, many histoeally-sensitive theorists of ‘economic development have undertod to depend on the growth of te, Speaically the se of exchange betwee two previously separate and sl Subsiting economies. Although begining thete analyse ftom dierent Fstoricel starting pont and thus rom somewhat diffrent inal systems of property relations Smith and his very many flowers all make arguments wb follow the seme fandamental progression. Ps, merchants with die merchant capital ofr previously unoeainale products to hitheto se subttent economic ators This i understood asa epoch-making historical ‘event, an orginal se of rede. Next, the opportunity to purchase these commodities induces the individu economic actors to relinquish production fer subsistence and to adopt the economic strategy of cpitaisn-embryo ~ ie production for exchange ao as to maximize return (the pice/cot eta) by way of cost cutting. Third sine peeaptalst property relations marked by the diect produces’ posesion of the means of subsistence and the exploiters’ extraction of a suplas by means of extra-economic coercion prevent the individual productive unite frm most eflectvely deploying ther ‘esourees, the individual economic actors within each unit, both producersand exploiters, move to transform these property relations inthe direction of ‘ial property relations, On ths ransomed baa, they er ableto parse ‘more efloctvely their rivet et cont va specication, aocumslation. and Innovation The causal sequence can thus be summartol as flows: ric of| teade > adoption of capitals rules (or sategies)ofrepedction by individual economic actors, specially production for exchange ~ installation of apts property ratons within each unt of production ~+tendency to Sat ass of econo delopment 37 seciliztion, accumulation, and Sanovation within each unit onset of ‘oder economic growth Lt us flow this argument, step-by-step. ‘As for matehant capital, it does indeed appear asthe eriginal form of absract wealth” and, a uch, tna sense, a precondition for economic development Moreover merchant do tend to be sytemetie pot maximiaes, (othe exten they are abl. They are, asa rule, cut off from direct aoe to thelr means of reproduction. ‘Tere, in so far a they wish to matatan ‘hemselves ue merchant, they have il choicebutto ettmpe to employ thie merchant capital to buy cheap and sel dear on the market so 38 to make 4 pro. Neverteless. che question rmins:Can merchant capital by tse bring about the adoption of capitals rls for reproduction on the part of| ‘he pr-caplalist economic scors and. fa ture, dhe se of eaptat property relations leading fo econome development? In theft place, despite is possesion of money andor commodities, the merchant can in no way ensure by his own sling and buying efforts that the precaptalis economic actore wil even pu the prodts they produce on the market, The merchant may corr comme fom one prt of te globe to another, om one region to another but the mere offer of these ‘commode dos not at ell utomatcally call frth the appearance on the tare of peolucte for exchange. For the exploiters and direct producors slkeady have whats necessiry to reproduce themselves. The apearance of new goods leds to the pottial for nereatedconsompton and therefore dhe Potential for exchange, but it may nonetheless call forth no response ‘Secondly, evento the estent tht the appearance of new goods brought by merchants does lead the suplas extracting or exploiting cass and direct produces to try torent her production toward exchang. this proces may betel limited oun stp Inother word (unt eason to expect the contrary are provided) one may reasonably assume thatthe surps tractors and dst produces will make sue thatthe can cary out the Aver preston needed to assure the ullnent of thar basic economle ‘sede plor to llacting resources to commerilied, pectalzd production, mother words, only what might be called surplus resources wil be devoted to commerclalnd, specialized production. To the depres ths sso, masses. of labour power and land, devoted to prodactin for immoiste repoucton. remaln sky separated fFom the sphere of comme production. Despite trade, these ecto of production aze entirely immune to tendencies toward secllemton,aocumslaton, end ienovaion-Insoch a station, ther is of ‘ours, "surplus" commerla specialised sector (alongside the subsistence sector) sd thus @ rudimentary dision of labour ~ erent producers or 38 Robert Brenner regions suing spelled products to one another Silt should aot be forgotten that neler the individual exlotersnor produces ate esonomically dependent on this speciaie, commercialized production ~ so thatnelther the exploiters nor producers must tet the resources ofthis eto ia accord with capital rues foe repeoducton (maiming the prie/cst ratio et) In consequence, the degree to which the productive sytem nea whol partes ‘ofthe distinctively modern developmental tendencles tower systematic and Increesing speciation, accumulation, and innovation is at best sharply rested Thin, evento the degree that, in response to market opportunities, the Individual exploterso ter prodcers or the merchants themesves do vk tospcialzearmuch asi pssibletn te aforementioned surplus commercat ‘seta, and, beyond that, fo accumulate and innovate, there areas alredy mphasi, barr to ther doing so bul Into the environment structed by precapialst property relations. Pedsely because af the prevlence of property relations characterized bythe merger ofthe economle etos with thelr means of reproduction It wil be difleut or imposible for potential ‘sccumulatorstoaoquirethe greater amounts ofland and labour power node to facttate cooperative and seal production and ether impeovements, end in that way to Increase outpat fr the marks, Tis is bucuse the other ‘exploiters and diet producers cannot be counted on to pare with the lind and labour power which constitute the immediate bas of tht reproduction, Moreover evento the extent that any given expr already disposes over Jus wn erect producers an feudalism or patriarchal slavey), he wil id Ut iia to use this labour eflectively to improve production by means of the adoption of new, more elective tool and techniques, for reasons eleady stated. So long as precepts property relations pers, theo, trade appeats oweres to st off proces of development. Recognising ti, histrned Smithlons~including Adam Smith (1776), H.Pienne (1937), P.Sweeay (1950)~bave seen the growth of exchange a leading the individual re-caplalst actors to find tin thet rational slelnterest to dismantle, losemeal fashion the exiting pre-capitalist property relations and 0 con state capitals property relations so a to achleve greater productive eficeney. Thus, they eavison e process whetehy the indvieal pre-capitalist ‘exploiters respond tothe new opportunities originating with the growth of ‘exchange by seling to intreduce more effective productive techniques. In ‘order to accomplish ths they dispense with thelr (anproductve} mitary Solowers and itary luxury expenditure: they free thel hitherto dominated rasantproduces they exproprite thes peasantsfomthelandthen, ally, Socal basts of conomi developent 39 ‘they enterinto contracual relations with these peasans Thisivetie, within ‘ash unt to the installation of tee necessity commerciale (market ‘ependent) tenant on an economic lease who (ulimately) hires wage labourers, The end result ste extablabment of capitalist propery relations In the econamy as « whole and the onset of economic development. Unorunately. this analysts takes inp account precast property relations only to end up by ignoring ther sgnicanc. Under pre-capitalist propety lations, ue the historicaed Sithlans, the individual expe ean hardy find en his rational selFnteest to tee his peasants, for he woukd lose thereby his ability to exlat them. Once feed from the ler’ extra economic domination, is posesing peesants woul! have no ned fo Pay ar levy to im lt lone increase the quay and quantity of her work for Bi, Moreover. erea ifthe ford could st the same time free and exprpriat his peasants, be would sill ose by the resulting transformation of his unfree Deatantpossesors Ino fe ladles tenants and wage lhourers for the newiy cesta lands tenants or wage labourers would have no reason to stay and woek for thee former lord or take up lease from him. The error, therefore, istwo-od: edhe stintivnypre-capiai ationalty and rales for reproduction imposed by pre-capitalist property elation are ignored second, the property elationscharacteriing the il-dened) productive unt are viewed as, in axence,tchnlal relations, tobe altered by the exploiters asconitions change ~ spetaly, when th appeeance of rade transforms ‘their selfinerest.To make the same pont rom aslghty diferent angle: the histor Smihians take for granted the existence of capitalist property relations in oder to account fer tht appearance: in the presence of trade, they Se the productive units at subject to capitalist oles for reproduction whe (njasiatiy) assuming thatthe economy, bth interna and exaraal tothe units. is already) campesed ofthe capa actors necessary to folly reconsitute these units ~peically tenants (and workers) separated fom theie mean of subsistence (and producti) In fact, reiely because pre-capitalist exploiters find tificul to adopt, more efiient productive techniques and tration Install nw property ‘elation: within thelr unis, i they with to respond to new opportunites created by trad, they have ite alterative but to try todo so within the ‘consrsnts imposed by pre-capitalist property rations ~byinreasng the levies.on thedret producers a money, kind, olabor. To make this possible, they have no cholce bu tory to bu up that relations of domination over ‘hem They cannot, of course, be sure they wil sucetd forthe peasants ‘might ress Dut thes thir most promising rout, ‘inal. what & mast Wkly to simalnt the exploiters actually o try to 40° Robert Brenper increase ther return isthe appearance on the market of goods which “Bt {het spectcreproductive needs. Asemplasiond these ee nol proces pod but on the contrary, means of consumption ~ specially mata elf ‘othe exploiters pola and military swength, These arecertally not axury soods inthe ordtnary sense of upeeBuities for they reine way, ecenitice forthe exploters, Bat they are lnsuries in that the production involves subrection fom themeansavallabetotheecanomy toexpandis fundamental productive base Paradoxically, then, to the extent that thers of tad can be expected to lect pre-capitalist economies, ts key to bring about ot de loosening. but the tightening of pre-capitalist property forms, and the quikeeing aot of economic growth, bat of stagetion snd dene ‘The probes withthe historic version of Smihanisn thus tars out ‘o be prety much the same as with Smithianism pure and syle. ta pare ‘and simple Smithianism, exchange is seen es natal ia hstorceed ‘Smithiaism. thas anhistoeal eign. Btn both case, he process freon ‘s exsentialy the same: ratonally selfinterested indlidualy with the ‘opportunity to exchange cannot btexpatexthange, and they wil neviaby doo by acting lke capitalists ~ whatever the exiting eoperty rations und ‘ules for reproduction apparently entail Capitalists pena! ee aout tocast; and tisa foregone conclusion that they wil promote row pve ‘the chance to do so, i ecesary by transforming piecemeal the telat of property. _Maratst Smiths: the development ofthe proactive frees ‘Tho theory thatthe growth ofthe productive forces isthe Ley to economic development over the ong runs today associated with Mais, But my ‘ew ts original enoceptal source i, ooce agai, Adam Sith, The tery an be tated bil, but not without constderableambigaty. It ay, Think, that (1 the productive forces (body conesived as including no ort tol, but the organization of production) potentially adoptable bythe econonie ‘actors ~namely the level of avalable technique — wl inreae: (2) opto 9 ‘tain point the existing property reations wl allow forthe eon of the valle productive forces, and thus for increases in productive ficiency (3) but ltr certan ott in erder to allow forthe urter adoption ofthe avaleble productive forces (which are assumed to continue to develop), and ‘hus increases in productive eficiancy, ts necesary to have ew property Felations: (g) new propety elation wil emerge and faltate the fnthy ‘option ofthe productive fares, ad thus the growth of prodctvenese Nov, what one rgards as the actual content ofthis theory depends upon Sects female development 4 how one interprets property relations, of what Marx called the relations of production." In my vie. the theory can be made to work only of the basis of «certain construal of property Flats, Indeed distinctively Smibian ‘mis-constrosl But if the theory It formalated in such Smithian temas, it bocomes useless for explaining economic development. As we sell so, this is forthe same reasons that Smihlan approaches are gensally useless for ‘opaiing economie development. ‘Thus. if we sat from the account I have presented here of property ‘elations as relations of ropedaction whch dctate the eGopion of cata ‘pectic rules for reproduction, It hard to see how the theory of the deveopment ofthe productive forces could function at al. We begin where wwe must begin, namely with the prevalence of pre-coptlin: property ‘eltions. We can agre that it it easonable to expect. even in pre-eapialt cconomies. significant, though varying. ameunts of techalal progres: thus, ‘he productive forces potently useable, ie, avaiable, will increase. The ‘uestion, however is whether of not such increses wil et off proces seonomic development. Fin, and once again, given the presence of the patlarchal poverty ‘eletioes which structure precapltlit economies, none of the individual ‘conomic actors is compeled to adopt the new tchniguesin ores to inerease thelr fikency in production, for they donot have to proce or exchange sand compete on the market. Secondly. those economle actors who may wish to adopt ew techniques ill encounter the already specified barriers to thet doing o, which ere bul Into the pre-capitalist property relations The dec producers (pesens) wil bereluctntio adopt new techniques which equie mach specialization (Yet it should perhaps be mentioned in passing thal, historically, powefal, productviy-rasing edvance in mgrcultare almost sways hee been bound ‘up with increased specaizatin,) The exploiters wil id Ida to adoot ‘evr techniques which gute the appbeation of carefl highly moseated Inbour. Those ecanonic actors who doc dispose directly Le by ownership or domination ~of large masses of land and labour power, wil fend to ad (53a ne opr, Com tn daa area acs eee {4 Cen fe C176 Cae ste how tl oe apy Erni spt 8 ph res Wek teas ar eee ISanaans he desc ce ras 42 Robert Bremge, - He act to adopt technical advances requling seal and/or coopertive labour, due to limitation of land and labour markets ‘Thirdly those with resources to Invest most often the expliters are likely to find that they wil et the best return by taventing in the mons of toercon, rather than the mesos of production, Indeed, in pre-capitase ‘economies, we are ly to finda general tendency tothe development ofthe ‘means of eoerion at the expanse of developing the means cf prediction. Fourthly, even some economic actors do adont anew techni, we hese ‘no reason to expect chat that techngue wil be generally alopted as we would in an economy sructured by captalt propery restions Fits let wsconsder the case where some technical avance is somehow, widely adopted in a pre-copaist setng. ven this wil nts ule, bring about economic deveiopment propesiyundersood. Fo the pose eft on ‘he growth of pructiveness Which may be achieved through even ‘univers adoptedonce-and or allndvance generally snot atallomperable ‘to that which isnormalyachleved es consequence of the conta] presse 'o cut cast and improve which can be expected in economies structured by ‘apts propery relations. tn other words, its the capkalist property relations per se which account forthe aeinctveproctveness of meer economies~ not any particular advance in the preducive foros and tis 's because capitalist propery elation impose the requirement to specialize sccumulate, and innovate o go out of business, Finally for reasons stated above, given the presence of pre-capitalist ‘ropety relations, the individual economle actors both exleters and ‘roducers~ ill nd it irational to attempt to install capitalist property relations within the individual productive unit! yaar apace aa ‘Sis sam camp econ locopec Nees hee eek ‘instal cy tomlencigettoenictrsroaahepars wena eaeise ‘Steatham a ee abe Se ‘Eto reset ect twa pa man of ncn et ‘Sete ee oot crane ls ‘malate jones uch govt col ley aout cece See ‘cit bis be papa amon esl ssp oaeeeS ‘Socal bss of covomic deaonent 4 In sum, if we take the prevalence of pe-optalit property relations as our Point of deparre—and accept the secount here presented of property Felons as relations of reproduction -t diel to see how the gmt ofthe productive forces could be seen to bring abot economic development, 'm particular by means of bringing about the transformation of property ‘elaons ina capitalist ietion, As It happens, the theory that the growth ofthe productive forces wl bring about econome development by means of bringing about changes ln the property relations has, cassia, depended ‘pod a consrual of property relations very diferent trom the one fred here ~n particular, reading of propery relations’ elations of rection ‘nd a reduction of relations of production to soc techie! relations within {he unt of production. In this rendering ofthe theory, so-called relations of production are constted by the dlvston of labour within the unit of Production (the labour proces). The division of labor within the unit of production directly expresses the functional requirements ofthe parteular "echnigues therein use. The arrangement of manageil/spervisry labour, slilled Isbour. and unskilled labour of specie sorts is thus techakally determined, Ase result the s-

    Das könnte Ihnen auch gefallen