1974 Accumulation and Development_A Theoretical Model

7/28/2019 1974 Accumulation and Development_A Theoretical Model

http://slidepdf.com/reader/full/1974-accumulation-and-developmenta-theoretical-model 1/19

ROAPE Publications Ltd.

Accumulation and Development: A Theoretical ModelAuthor(s): Samir AminReviewed work(s):Source: Review of African Political Economy, No. 1 (Aug. - Nov., 1974), pp. 9-26Published by: Taylor & Francis, Ltd.

Stable URL: http://www.jstor.org/stable/3997857 .Accessed: 11/03/2013 16:26

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].

.

Taylor & Francis, Ltd. and ROAPE Publications Ltd. are collaborating with JSTOR to digitize, preserve and

extend access to Review of African Political Economy.

http://www.jstor.org

This content downloaded on Mon, 11 Mar 2013 16:26:26 PMAll use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions

http://www.jstor.org/action/showPublisher?publisherCode=taylorfrancis

http://www.jstor.org/stable/3997857?origin=JSTOR-pdf

http://www.jstor.org/page/info/about/policies/terms.jsp





http://www.jstor.org/stable/3997857?origin=JSTOR-pdf

http://www.jstor.org/action/showPublisher?publisherCode=taylorfrancis



9

Accumulation and Development:

a theoretical model

SamirAmin

In this articleSamirAminsets out the core of his modelof theglobalaccumulationf capital. nit he defines wo distinctpatterns:oneapplyingo development t the centre, he other o dependentdevelopmentn the periphery.Central evelopments characterisedby the dominance f economicactivity o satisfymassconsumer

needsand the consequentdemand orproduction oods.The powerof the masses s enlisted n a 'socialcontract'whichallows heestablishmentf a limitedeconomicviability,at a nationalevel.However, he internationalisationf productive apitalncreasinglythreatens hatstability.Theperipheralystemsare dominated yproduction f luxurygoodsand exportsand the consequentack ofimportance f internalmassmarkets.This eads o growingnequal-ity, technological ependence, oliticalweakness mong heoppressed in sum,marginalization.estructuringf these econo-miesrequires breakwiththeinternationalconomy,andself-centreddevelopmentwhichestablisheshe dominance f productionfor massneeds, hough hereare particular ifficulties or individual

countries ttemptingucha breakand ultimately solutioncan befoundonlyif suchchanges ake place nternationally. olicies orthe difficultperiodof transitionmustfirstandforemost ocus onthe need to buildthe politicalconsciousness ecessaryo completethisprocess.

The aimof thispapers to showthat there s a fundamental iffer-ence between the modelof capitalaccumulation' ndof economicandsocialdevelopmentharacteristicf a self-centredystemandthatof aperipheralystem.Inbringing ut thisdifference whichweregard sabsolutely undamental I shallattempt o situate,

within hisframeworkf generalheory,questionsof

socialstructure, nd other mportant roblems f thecontemporaryworld, ncludinghesocial amongothersunemployment, nder-developmentndmarginality),ndtheideological ndpolitical







10

(particularlythe problems of social consciousness, class conscious-

ness, planning,mobilisation of resourcesand men, education and

its social role).

The diagrambelow sums up the difference between a sell-centred

system and a peripheralone:

Centraldeterminingrelationship

2 4

'mass' consumption of capital

exports consumption luxury goods goods1 3

Mainperipheral-dependentrelationship

The economic system is dividedinto four sectors which may be

consideredboth from the point of view of production and from

the point of view of distributionof the active population engaged

in the above-mentioniedproductive activities.

Self-centredSystemThe determiningrelationshipin a self-centred system is that whicl

links sector 2 (the production of 'mass' consumption goods) with

sector 4 (the production of capital goods intended for the produc-

tion of sector 2).

This determiningrelationshiphas been the characteristicfeature of

the historical development of capitalismat the centre of the systeimi

(in Europe, North Americaand Japan). Thus it providesan abstract

definition of the 'pure'capitalist mode of production and has been

analyzed as such in Marx'sDas Kapital.It can be shown that the

development process of the USSR, like that of China, is equally

basedon this determiningrelationship,although in the case of

Chinathe sequences of this process are original.

Marx, n fact, shows that in the capitalist mode of production there

is an objective (i.e. necessary) relation between the rate of surplusvalueand the level of development of the productive forces. The

rate of surplusvalue is the main determinantof the pattern of

social distribution of the national income (its distributionbetween

wagesand surplusvalue which takes the form of profit), and hence

that of demand (wages being the source of demnandor mass con-

sumption goods and profits being wholly or partly 'saved'for

'investment' purposes). The level of development of the productive

forces is expressed through the social division of labour: the

division of the labour force, in suitable proportions, between

sectors 2 and 4 (sectors 2 and I in Marx's reproduction model).

This objective relation, though fundamentalto DasAapital, has

often been 'forgotten', for example in the debate on the tendenlcyfor the rate of profit to fall. The argumentvery often put forward

that the increase in the organiccomposition of capital may be

offset by increasesin the rate of surplusvalue, is no longer valid

once it becomes clear that the contradiction between the productive







11capacityof the systemand ts capacity orconsumption inherentin thecapitalistmode of production is constantlybeingovercome

and hatthis reflects he objectivenatureof the relationbetweenthe rateof surplus alueand thelevelof development f the pro-ductive orces.Aswe haveexplainedon a number f previousoccasions, his theoreticalmodelof capitalaccumulations infinite-ly more mformativehan allthe empiricalmodelssubsequentlyput forward:1) because t revealshe originof profit(whichcallsfora theoryof value)andremoves nyabsolutequality romeconomicrationality,hus oweringt to its proper tatusofrationalitywithina systemand not rationalityndependent f thesystem,asauthoritativelyhownby PieroSraffa;22) becausetshows, n thisway,that economicchoices n thissystemarenecessarilyub-optimal,evealingheideological andnon-scienti-

fic - natureof the marginalistonceptsof 'general quilibrium',and 3) because t shows hat 'realwage'cannotbe 'justanything',thusgivinganobjective tatus o relationsbetween ocial orces.

Theobjective elationn question s seenin the cyclical luctuationsof economicactivityandemployment.Anincreasen the rateofsurplus alueoverandabove ts objectivelynecessaryevel eads oadepression ue to insufficient ffectivedemand.A reduction nthis rateslows downeconomicgrowth huscreatingabourmarketconditionswhichfavour apital.As we haveshown,thepatternofthisadjustment which n factcorrespondsxactlywith thehistoryof capitalaccumulationromtheindustrialevolution f

the 1930depressiona periodcharacterisedy thetradecycle)-ismorecomplexas a resultof thesecondary ffect of wagevariations n thechoice of techniques, husreflecting he sub-optimalnatureof theeconomic ystem.A tendency owards ullemployment whichdoesnot excludeand n factimpliesa perma-nentnarrowmargin f unemployment)ndwidecyclicalvariationsinemployment recharacteristiceatures f thissystem.Theinternal hangeswhichhavetakenplace n present-day apitalismhaverenderedhisadjustmentmechanism seless.Themonopoli-sationof capitalon theone handancaheorganisation f workersatcountry evel on theothermakepossibleplanning' imedatreducingyclical luctuations. f theworking lass s preparedo

stay withinthisframework,.e. that of the system, n otherwords,if forallpractical urposes apitaland abouraccept,under heaegisof thestate, a 'socialcontract'whichrelatesncreasesn realwage o increasesn productivityin givenpercentages hichhavebeenworkedout by technocrats), state of permanent uasi ull-employment an be ascertained.Obviously-here s the exceptionthatcertain ectorsof societymaycausedisturbances y refusingto abideby the'contract': his couldbe thecase of smallandmediumirmswhichwouldbemostly nvolved n theamalga-mationprocessandwhichcould- particularlyn the relativelybackwardpheres holdsufficientpoliticalpower o blackmailsociety.There s also theexception hatexternal elationswill

escape histype of planning.However here s increasingontra-dictionbetween heworld-scale atureof productionwhich scharacterisedy theincreasingmportance t multinationalcompanies) andthe traditional ational haracter f both







12

capital and labour institutions. Social-democraticideology, which

is expressed in this type of 'social contract', thus does not extend

beyond the national boundaries.

Despite the schematic nature of this model, which is inevitable

since it is an abstractionfrom reality, it neverthelessdescribesthecore of this system. In this model, external relationsare left out,meaning not that the development of capitalism took place within

a frameworkof national autarkybut that the main relations

within the system can be understood without includingsuch

relations. In any case, the external relationsof the developedregionsas a whole with the periphery of the world system remain

quantitativelymarginal,compared to the internal exchange within

this region. In addition, these relations,as we have shown, spring

from primitivecapital accumulation and not from extendedreproduction;hence the model is able to leave them out. The

historically relativenature of the distinction between masscon-

sumption goods and luxury goods is also clearly brought out here.In the strictest sense of the term, luxury goods are those for

which the demand originatesfrom the part of profit which is

consumed. The demand which stems from wages increaseswitheconomic growth - the improvement of productive forces.

Although in the early history of capitalismthis demand was made

up almost exclusively of necessities - food, clothing and housing- nowadays, at a more advancedstage of development, it is

increasinglyaimed at the consumption of-consumer durables(cars,

kitchen electrical appliances,etc.). However this historicalsequence of mass-producedgoods is of decisive importance for an

understandingof the problemin hand. The structureof demnand

in the early history of the system speeded the agriculturalrevo-

lution by providinga market for food products intended for

internal consumption (historically, this transformationof agri-

culture took the form of agrariancapitalism). In addition, we

know the historical role of the textile industry and of urban

development (hence the saying 'when the buildingindustry is all

right,everything is all right') in the processof capital accuilmu-

lation. On the other hand, consumer durables - whose produc-

tion is highly capital-intensiveand requiresa lot of trainedlabour

- appearlate on the market when productivity in agricultureandin the industriesproducingnon-durablegoods has already passed

the crucialstages.

PeripheralModelThe model of capital accumulationand economic and socialdevelopment at the periphery of the world system is not in any

way related to the one we have examined above.

In the peripherythe process beganwhen underan impulse from

the centre, an export sector was created. This was to play a

determiningrole in the creation and shapingof the market. Weshallnot get very far by repeatingad nauseam the platitude that

the products exported by the peripheryare mineralor agricultu-ralprimaryproducts. These are obviously products in which a







given region of the peripheryhas a particularnaturaladvantage 13

(abundant supply of ore or tropical products). The underlying

reason which renderedpossible the creation of this export sectormust be sought in the conditions which make the establishment'profitable'. There is no pressurefor central national capital toemigrateas a result of insufficient possible outlets at the centre;it will however emigrate to the peripheryif it can obtain a betterreturn. The equalisation of the rate of profit will redistributethesurplusarising from the higher return and use the export ofcapital as a means to fight the trend of a falling profit rate. Thereason for creatingan export sector therefore lies in obtainingfrom the periphery products which are the basic elements ofconstant capital (raw material)or of variablecapital (food pro-ducts) at production costs lower than those at the centre for

similarproducts (or obviously of substitutes in the case ofspecific products such as coffee or tea).

This is therefore the frameworkfor the essential theory ofunequal exchange. The products exported by the peripheryareimportantto the extent that - ceteris paribus, meaning equalproductivity - the returnto labour will be less than what it isat the centre. And it can be less to the extent that society will,by every means -economic and non-economic, be made subjectto this new function, i.e. providing cheap labour to the exportsector.

This is not the place to go into the history of the shaping ofthe peripheryto the requirements of the centre. I have done soelsewhere, distinguishingbetween the variousstagesin thedevelopment of capitalism(stages of mercantilism,competitiveindustrialcapitalismwithout the export of capital and mono-polistic financialcapitalismwith capital exports) on the onehand, and on the other, distinguishinganalysis for the differentregionsof the 'Third World'as a whole (America, Black Africa,Asia and the East). Let me only add that once society is subjectedto this new function -becoming in this sense dependent - it losesits traditionalcharactersince it is not the function of real, tradi-tional societies (i.e. pre-capitalist)to supply cheap labour for

capitalism.All the problems related to changes in the so-calledtraditionalsocieties shotuldbe looked at afreshwithin this frame-work without reference to 'dualism',i.e. the so-calledjuxtapositionof an autononmous raditionalsociety with an expanding 'modern'society.

Although at this stage this model does not show any actual linkagebetween the export sector and 'the rest of the country', it revealssociety as bound to supply cheap labour to the export sector. Themlainink which characterisesthe processof capital accumulationatthe centre ---expressedby the objective relation between the wagerate and the level of development of the productiveforces - disap-

pearscompletely. The wage rate in the export sector will, in thiscase, be as low as the economic, social andpolitical conditions allowit to be. As regardsthe level of development of the productiveforces,it will in thiiscase be heterogeneous (whereasin the self-centred







14model it was homogeneous), advanced(and sometimiies ery advanc-

ed) in the export sector and backward n 'the rest of the economy'.

This backwardness,which is maintainedby the system, is thecondition which allows the export sector to benefit from cheap

labour.

Underthese conditions the domestic market, born out of the

development of the export sector, will be limited and distorted.

The snmallnessf the internalmarket explains the fact that the peri-

phery attractsonly a limited amount of capital from the centre

although it offers a better return.The contradiction between the

consumption and production capacities is completely removedon

a world scale (centre and periphery) by a widening of the market at

the centre, the periphery- fully deserving ts name - merely ful-

filling a marginal,subservientand limited function. This dynamicprocessleads to an increasingpolarisationof wealth at the centre.

Howeveronce the export sector has expanded to a certain size, an

internalmarket makes its appearance.In comparison with the

imiarketmergingfrom the central process, this one is (relatively)

biasedagainstthe demnandor mass-consumptiongoods and (rela-

tively) in favourof the demand for 'luxury' goods. If all capital

invested in the export sector were foreign and if all the return on

tlhiscapital were re-exportedtowardsthe centre, the internalmarket

would in f'actbe confined to a demand for mass-consumptiongoods,

and the lower the wage rate, the smallerthe demand would be. But

a part of this capital is locally owned. In addit-ion, he methods usedto ensure a low returnto labour correspond with a strengthening

of the various parasiticinternal social classes which serveas

conveyor-belts:latifundists in some places, Kulaksin others, coni-

pradorcommtnercialourgeoisies,state bureaucracies,etc. The

internial miarkets thus mainly based on the demand for 'luxury

goods' froml hese social classes.

The peripheralnmodel f capital accumiiulationnd economiicsocial

development is thus characterisedby a specific interconnection

which is expressedby the link between the export sector and

luxury goods consumption. Industrialisation througlh mlportsub-

stitution will start fromnthe end, i.e. the manufactureof productscorrespondingto the more advancedstages of developmientof the

centre, in other words conisumiierurables.As we have already point-

ed out, such products are highly capital intensive and usersof

scarce resources(skilled labour, etc.). The result will necessarily

lead to a distortion in the allocation of resourcesin favourof these

products and to the disadvantageof sector 2. This sector will be

systematically handicapped: it will not give rise to any 'demand'

for its products and will not attract any capital or labour to ensure

its modernisation.This also explains the stagnationin subsistence

agriculture,whose potential products attract little denmandnd

which does not acquirea share in the allocation of scarce resources

to enable any seriouschanges to be imiade.Any development strat-egy basedon profitability (the structureof income distribution.the structureof relativepricesand demand being what they are)

necessarilyleads to this type of systemlaticdistortion. The few







15

industriesetupin thiswayandwithinthis frameworkrenotlikelyto turn ntogrowthpolesbut willon thecontraryncrease

the inequalitywithinthe systemand mpoverishhemajorpartofthepopulation found in sector2 in theircapacityasproducers),permittingt the same ime a furtherntegration f theminoritywithin heworldsystem.

From he'social'pointof view,thismodel eadsto aspecificphenomenon: hemarginalisationf the masses.By this wemeanaseriesof mechanismseterogeneousn naturewhich mpoverishthemasses:proletarianisationf smallagricultural roducers ndcottage ndustryworkers, ural emi-proletarianisationnd mpover-ishmentwithoutproletarianisationf peasants rganisednvillagecommunities, rbanisation nd massivencrease f urbanunemploy-

mentandunderemployment,tc. Unemploymentn thiscasediffers romunemployment nder he centralmodelof develop-ment.Underemployment,n general,willhave he tendency oincreasensteadof beingrelativelyimitedandstable,cyclicalvariationspart.Unemploymentndunderemploymenthus havea role different o that under he centralmodel:thehigh evel ofunemployment nsures minimumwageratewhich s relativelyrigidand frozenboth in sectors1 and3;wagedoes not emergebothasa cost andanincomewhichcreatesa demand, ital to themodel,but on thecontraryonly as a cost, demandtself originating lse-where: romabroad rout of the incomeof the privileged ocialclasses.

The'externallypropelled' atureof thistypeof development,whichperpetuatestselfin spiteof the increasing iversificationftheeconomy, ts industrialisation,tc., is not theoriginal in, adeusex machinaoreign o thedependentperipheralmodelofcapitalaccumulationince t is a modelof reproductionf itsfunctional ocialandeconomicconditions.Themarginalisationfthe masses s theveryconditionunderlyinghe integration f theminoritywithintheworldsystem, heguarantee f increasingn-comefor thisminoritywhichensures headoption,by thisminority,of 'European' atterns f consumption.Theextensionofthispatternof consumption nsures he'profitability' f sector3

andconfirms hesocial,cultural,deological nd political ntegrationof theprivileged lass.

At this levelof diversificationndreinforcement f underdevelop-ment,thereappearnewmechanismsf the domination/dependencetype;cultural ndpoliticalmechanismss wellaseconomicones:technological ependence ndthedomination y transnationalcompanies. ector3 in factcallsforcapital-intensivenvestmentswhichonly the bigtransnationalligopolies re n a position oembark pon andwhichconstitute hematerial asis or techno-logicaldependence.

At thislevel, morecomplex ormsot thestructure f ownershipandeconomicmanagementlsomaketheirappearance. xperienceshows hattheparticipationf locally ownedcapital howeversubservient in theprocessof industrializationhrough mport







16

substitution is quite common. It also-shows - at least in the big

countries - that a largeenough market createdby the development

of sectors 1 and 3 may make possible the creation ot a fourthsector. The latter is frequently brought into being by the state. But

the development of a basic industry and a public sector does not

in any way mean that the system evolves towardsa complete self-

centred type since this sector 4 is here used not for the development

of sector 2 but for that of sectors I and 3.

The analysis thus bringsus back to the fundamental question:

development for whom? To the extent that we regarddevelopment

as meaningful only in so far as it integrates the masses and serves

their interest, the model of dependent peripheralcapital accumu-

lation is a dead end. A strategy of development for the masses

should adopt as its initial basisa fundamentalreviewof prioritieswith regardto the allocation of resources, which presupposesa

rejection of the assumptionsof profitability within the system. The

meaningof a strategy for transition is to be found entirely in this.

Transitionis nothing more than the historical period of revision of

the model, of altering its priorities,of the gradualevolution from

a relationship of 1-3-4 to one of 2.4. It should be looked at from

this point of view and not simply from that of 'forms' of the eco-

nomy: industrialdiversificationversusa simple export; public

ownershipversus foreign capital, etc.

The changeoverfrom the peripheralmodel (based on sectors 1-3),

to the model of real, autonomous, self-centreddevelopment(based on sectors 2-4) constitutes the essential element of tran-

sition. The integration into the world system of countries that

have becomne nderdeveloped originatesfrom a specific contra-

diction of this system which tends to become the main one. On

the one hand it has created objective conditions of a need for

development, felt as such by the people of the periphery;on the

other it has barredthe way for these countries to attain capitalist

development which has been the historical answerto the problem

of accumulation of capital, the pre-requisitefor socialism. That is

why this specific contradiction has become the main contra-

diction. That is to say the one through which the need for a change

in direction to transcendthis system shows itself.

This is nothing more than an additional expression of the law ofunequaldevelopment accordingto which systems are destroyed

and transcendedfirst of all not at the centre but startingfrom the

peripherywhich constitutes the weak link in the chain - where the

most intense contradictions become evident. Strikingexamples of

this generallaw can be found in history, particularlythat of the

Mediterraneanand Europeanworld. The oldest Easternciviisation

(Egypt, Mesopotamia, etc.) were transcendedby forces which

started from their Greco-Roman periphery. Likewise in their turn,

the civilisationsof classicalantiquity were destroyed and transcend-

ed from their barbarianperipherywhere the civilisation of feudal







Christian uropewas to developmorefreelyandmorefully.3 To 17

bemoreprecise, he principaiontradictions not the fundamentai

contradiction f thesystem,whichstill remains hat of the level ofdevelopment f theproductiveorcesopposing herestrictive atureof the formsof socialorganisation. he principalontradictionwouldnot exist withoutthe fundamentalne. The formeronlyexplainswheredissolution ccurs, he latter, he essenceof thesystem n the last resort.

Thetranscendingf the system akesa considerable utvariableperiod,namely heperiodof transition.This s thelengthof timewhichseparatesapitalism romcomplete ocialism.To continuethe historicalparallel,he earlycenturies f theChristian racanbeconsidered s a periodof transition romthe socialpatterns f

Mediterraneanntiquity o thoseof feudalMediaeval urope

Criteria ndStrategies f TransitionI thereforedefinetransition y thegradual hangeof given,concrete,historical onditions thoseof the presentperiphery, lready nteg-rated nto the worldsystemandstructuredsa dependentperiphery- andof the capitalistdevelopmentmodel,depending n a national,self-centred evelopmentwhichmoves ntosocialism,ranscendingcapitalism.

The historical xperience f theUSSR,althought includesusefullessons ikeallexperiencesn history,caAnotbe transposedo the

present-day hirdWorld.Not simply orreasons f 'ideological'choice: orexamplebecause heresultsobtained,.e. thenationaleconomic, ocialandpolitical tructures f thepresent-dayovietUnion,wouldbe considered on-socialist ndthat one hopedtoavoid imilar distortions'n comparisonwith a socialistplandiffer-entlydefined.If in fact the building f a national,non-dependentsociety suchas the USSR s todaywaspossiblen the ThirdWorld,powerfulobjective orceswouldact in this direction o make tperhaps n'objectivehistorical ecessity'. thinkthat this is notthecase because ucha goalis objectivelympossibleor under-developed ountriesn the last thirdof the twentiethcentury.

At thebeginning f thiscentury,Russiawasnot aperipheralcountrybut a backward entral apitalist ne. Herstructuresweredifferento thoseof underdevelopment,.e. those of dependentcapitalism;marginalisation,orexample,wasunknown.So the 1917Revolutionmerelyenabled heprocessof accumulationf capitalto acceleratewithoutfundamentallyhanging he capitalist ccumu-lation-model.Thisaccelerationook placebecauseof the abolitionof privately wnedmeansof production n favourof state owner-ship.Historyhas shown hatit waspossible,given heconditionsnRussia,o accomplish he task of accumulation f capital n thesamewayascapitalismwouldhavedonebuton a differentpropertybasis.This s reflectedn the Soviettheoryof socialist evolutionwhich

reduces t to the overturningf property elationswhich- through







18

suppressionof privateproperty - allows their complete harmoni-

sation with the level of development of the forces of production -

i.e. the level implied by the industrialisationobjectives.This theoryleads to an economistic ideology of transition, formulatedin well-

known terms: the priority of heavy industryover light industry, of

industry over agriculture,the unrestrictedimitation of Western

technology, the definition of models of consumption with reference

to those of the Westitself, etc. The whole spectrum of dogma is

summarised n the ambiguous formula: 'catchingup in all fields

with the production of advanced countries'.

Since Englandwas the birthplaceof industrialcapitalism,all other

developedcountries have at some stage been 'backward' n compari-

son with it. But none of these countrieshad ever been peripheral n

the sense that we have defined it. Graduallythe Continent and NorthAmericacaught up, and in the case of the USA and Germany, over-

took Englandin ways largelyanalogousto those of the English

model. Japaneventually arrivedat the same model of fully develop-

ed capitalism, but alreadythe conditions of the transitionexhibited

severalinterestingcharacteristics,notably the centralrole of the

State. Russia providesthe latest example of a similarcapitalaccu-

mulation model, originalonly in the sense that state property was

not only a transitoryform but its definitive form, i.e. probably

irreversible.In this lies the basic ambiguity of its genesis(the

socialist revolution) and the special characterof its present system

of national state capitalism.

In any case, in all these models the transitionperiod has been

characterisedby the submission of the masses.They arereduced to

the passiverole of reservelabour, progressivelytransferred o the

growing'modern' sector being establishedand then expanded until

it has absorbed the whole society. The kolkhoz and administrative

oppressionhave fulfilled this function just as the EnclosureActs and

the Poor Law did in England.

Now, this road is barredto the countries of the present periphery

preciselybecause of the advanceddevelopment of marginalisation,

the considerableand increasinggap between the modern technology

set up by rulingcapital and the necessity for an immediate improve-ment in the conditions of the masses,etc. These are the alternatives:

either dependent development accordingto the model above, or

self-centreddevelopment, necessarilyoriginalin comparisonto those

countriesalreadydeveloped. It is in this direction that we discover

the law of unequal development of civilisations. The peripheryis

forced to transcendthe capitalist model (even if it is state capitalism).

It cannot catch up with it.

In fact as a result of specific imbalances(which result in marginali-

sation) and which derivefrom the periphery'sintegrationas a peri-

phery into the world system, it is forced radicallyto revise the

capitalistmodel of resource allocation.It is forced to reject the rules

of profitability. lndeed, decisions based on profitability and based

on the relative price structurenecessitated by integration into the

world system, maintainand reproducethe model of increasingly







19

unequal income distribution(hence marginalisation)and therefore,in turn, enclose it within the peripheralresource allocation model.

The task of restructuring he system of resource allocation musttherefore be broadly considered outside the rules of the market, bya close understandingof the expression of needs in nutrition, housing,education and culture, etc. In doing this, the peripheryis forced toovertake capitalism and breakthrough to the invention of a socialistcivilisation, to end the alienation of humanity.4

All the technical problems in the strategy of transition must bere-examined from this fundamental angle. In particularthe linksbetween agricultureand industry, light industry and basic industry,labour intensive methods and capital intensivemethods, must beincludedwithin this framework.The problemhence is to combine

the most modern installations with immediate improvementsin the'poor' sector (sector 2 of the model) where the major partof thepopulation is concentrated. That means to use modern techniquesfor the immediate improvement of productivity and of the con-ditions of the masses. It is only this immediate improvementandthis alone which will enable the release of productiveforces, enter-prise and initiative and the mobilisation of the massesin the usualsense of the word. Mobilisation here obviously demands the spreadof specific forms of real democracy at every stage: in the village, theregionand the state.5

The particular combination of modern techniques and immediate

improvements in the conditions of the massesdemandswithout anydoubt a radicalreappraisalof the direction of scientific and tech-nologicalresearch.Imitatingthe technology of developed countriesis not an answer to this particularproblem in the present day under-developed world. This is the main reason for autonomous scientificand technological research n the ThirdWorld.6

Seen in this light, the concrete strategiesof transitionappearaboveall as those of self-reliance.Self-reliance,which must be understoodon different levels, and which must democratically respect the truepopularsocial groupswhich constitute the nation: the village, theregion(and especially in Africa, regions which truly correspond to

cultural and ethnic homogeneity), the state and, eventually, groupsof states. The level of development attained may force one countryfor a time to consider only the most elementary levels of concrete,transitionstrategies so that transition must be seen in very longperspective.It is within this framework that we place the questionof 'small countries'.

Vietnam is an example of how even in a small country - and at thatunder the most difficult objective conditions imposed by war - astrategy of self-reliance can be the first effective stage in the tran-sition. This long term perspective of transitiondoes not, however,merely signify the 'failure'of the rapiddevelopment that one

clearlydesires.It bears out the fact that the problem of under-development can only be definitely overcome within a radicallychangedworld system, a global socialist society. It is quite appro-priate to describethe task of transitionthus: transitionfrom the







20)capitalistworld system, based on hierarchiesof nations, to a world

socialist system, which cannot be made up of relatively isolated and

autarkic 'socialist' nations. Here the true solidarity of the peoplesinvolved in the struggleof reshapingthe world comes to the fore,

due to the limited immediate prospects for progress n the Third

Worldwhere the conditions for transcendingadvancedcapitalism

expressnothing more than the presentweaknessof the forces of

socialismat the centre of the system.

This formulation of the problematics of transitionallows us to

understandthe restrictedframeworkof the debate before the

sixties. Transitiondemandsmuch more than the extension of public

ownershipat the expense of all privateproperty, or that of heavy

industry,etc. If such an extension of the public sector and of heavy

industry is not accompanied by a radicalchange in economicdecision-making,possibly involvinga partialsacrifice of the objec-

tive of maximum growth, it risksperpetuatingthe model of

dependent development at the periphery, albeit in new forms. As

we shall see, this is the spontaneous tendency of the present system.

The problematics of the evolving relationshipbetween tradingand

non-tradingelements within the transitionalstructureconstitute an

essential frameworkfor effective debate, as do also the problematics

of the evolving relationshipbetween centralisationand decentrali-

sation, between power and democracy, etc.

Transitionunder presentconditions of inequality between nations

remindsus that development which is not merely the developmentof underdevelopmentin its 'classical'form, or in some 'new' form,

is at one and the same time national, socialist and populardemo-

cratic,accordingto the plan throughwhich it finds expression.

Thereforea strategy can be considered one of transitfononly to

the extent that the objective of the 'maturation'and development

of socialist consciousness is not sacrificedfor that of rapidecono-

mic progressat any stage.

NewFormsof DependenceAn analysiswhich is based on the conditions of transition, defined

from this model of the growth of inequality between nations,enablesus to identify the reasons for the failureof the development

policies carriedout in the ThirdWoridand to clarify the direction

of the spontaneous tendencies of the system.

Is a different road to development possible? A superficialexamina-

tion of the results of the last twenty-five years might suggestso.

Some Third Worldcountrieshave in fact, duringvarying periods,

enjoyed high growth rates within the presentworld system. Based

on externally-orienteddevelopment, itself conditioned by the

external demand for one raw materialor another (sector 1) and the

investmentof foreign capital (sectors 1 and 3 of our model), these

'miracles'have had the adverseeffect of causingstagnationin otherThirdWorld countries, and these are the great majority. Moreoverin all these apparentlyfortunate experiences the specific characteri-

stics of underdevelopment (growing internalinequality and the







consequent distortion of resourceallocation, marginalisationanddependence, etc.) have not been reduced but become more and

more pronounced.7

Economic 'planning'thus emptied of its content appearsas an

empty shell; a technique which reveals itself to be ineffective. Onecan in fact plan only self-centred development. Discussion of themodel of accumulation at the centre has indicated the basisonwhich national economic policy can be founded, and which isessential for 'indicative economic planning',for the 'managedeconomy' of advancedcapitalist countries. Wemust rememberthatthis basis is on the one hand an advancedstage of monopolisationand on the other the social-democratic consciousness of a highlyorganised working class. Neverthelessthe 'managed economy'

approachesits limit in the growingcontradiction between the globalnature of production and the national nature of the 'social contract'.8

The Soviet Union's model of acceleratedcapital accumulation hasdevelopedeconomic planning techniques in the specific conditionsdescribed.Here we have described the essential characteristicsof strategiesof transition which must be self-centredand whichcan form the basis of a third type of economic plan.

On the other hand, the attempt to 'plan' a dependent and externallyoriented development strategy is absolutely meaningless.For it isuseless if the conditions are 'favourable' and powerless if they are

not. Such attempts are probably a result - a minor result, ofcourse - of technocratic alienation and the slavishimitation of themethods of developed countries in a way which is most often acaricatureof these methods. The hopelessness of such planningfinds complete expression in the finding - valid for Africa, Asiaand Latin America - that results (in terms of growth) have beenalmost totally independent of 'forecasts' and 'plans'.The insuffi-ciencies of such methods and techniques and those of administration(more often called upon to explain the inability of departmentsresponsiblefor the plan to effectively direct the economic life ofthe country) are all only superficialaspects of a basic impotence.The problems originate elsewhere. The action of dominant multi-

national firms whose decision-makingcentres are outside the under-developed countries where they operate, reduceseconomic planningto the forecast of the probable behaviourof these firms and of theresponseof the 'traditional'economy and of the small and medium-sized enterprises to this. At best the plan is thus reduced to a forecastof inconsistent behaviour and of possible bottlenecks which mayresult, and is without power to act effectively. Or it is limited tobuilding traditional public sector programmes n conjunction with arate of growth which it cannot control.

The critique of the ineffectiveness of economic planning under theseconditions is common today. So much so that its abandonment has

been openly recommended in favour of the simple reintroductionof calculating profitability 'per project'. This policy, systematicallyadvocated particularly by the 1BRD does not solve the problem, itimierely oinfirms he hopelessness of the expectation.







Canspontaneous development of this type at least create the con-

ditions of its own transcendencewithin the system? If so, it would

definitely appear to be the first and historically necessary stage. Butthereare serious grounds for doubting this since-the model onwhich it is based is a model of the reproduction of these self-same

conditions. This intensification of dependent peripheraldevelop-mnents moving in a direction alreadyapparent today, which willtomorrow undoubtedly determine the principalcharacterisiticsof

'advanced'underdevelopment. Technological domination neces-sarily results from the priority of development in sectors 1 and 3

because these sectors must be competitive on an internationallevel

no matter whether they are export or 'luxury' goods, the preferencefor which indicates the adoption of Westernforms of consumption.Such indirect domination may take the place of direct control of

industry by foreign capital.

Indeed, in the first stages of the formation of peripheraleconomies,since the techinologicalgap at that stage is still small, dominant

central capital, in order to guaranteethe efficient runningof the

systeiimor its benefit, must directly control the modern sectorswhose advanceit ensures. Meansof direct political control are

equally necessaryat this stage as under colonialism properor aswith the direct interventionsin the 'semi-colonies' of South

Americaand certain Asian countries. At an advanced stage of peri-pheral development the reproduction of the system can beguaranteedwithout directly controlled investment or direct political

interventionmerely through technological domination based on anlin-creasing echlnologicalgap and combined with the existence oflocal social classes and strata, integratedthrough their consumptionpatterinstherefore their real interests) and throughthe ideologywhiclhusually accompanies it (renunciation of patriotic nationalismll,thereduction of all ideology to consuimerismo, etc.). This is pre-

cisely the major significance of neo-colonialismand neo-imperialism.9Under these conditions the burden of investment can be borne bylocal 'savings'- private and above all public. Thus the developmentof a public sector, which may become very important and evendominant locally, is quite compatible with the continued depenidenceof the system as a whole with respect to the developed world. This

dependence is guaranteed by the interplay of local social forces,even if this occurs in a state-capitalist system claiming to be 'socialist'.

Evenat a very advanced stage, one can imagine the developmientofa sector 4, i.e. heavy industry, which acts merely as a local prop fordependent development in general. In such a case. this sectorgenerallytakesthe form of a public sector, as in Brazil for

example.

The poJiticaltheory of sub-imperialism 0 addresses a very realproblemraisedhere; that of inequality in peripheraldevelopment.For it is conceivable that in the globalhierarchycertain peripheralregionsmay 'benefit' through geographicalconcentration in their

territoriesof industriesof sectors 3 and 4, producingnot only fortheir 'national' market but also for those of neighbouring areas,sustainedprincipallyfor the purpose of providingcheap labour







23

reserves.Such perspectivesare not only evident in some large'birdWorld stages (Brazil is the prime example, but one should examine in

this light the role that Indiamight be called upon to play) but evenon a more modern scale in the Arab world and in Black Africa. InAfrica, perhapsmore than elsewhere, direct and brutal colonizationhas broken down the whole of the pre-colonialstructures and parti-cularly the networks of African continental inland trade and hencethe complementary relationshipsbetween different regionsof thisvast continent. One can see how the re-shapingof Africa into anexternally oriented, dependent economy was carved into the verygeographyof the continent by coastal concentration and develop-ment and by the simultaneousimpoverishment of the interior. Thieresulting massivemigrationhas in its turn furtheraccentuatedregional disparities.Furthermore,political balkanisaton,rooted in

the process of unequal dependent peripheraldevelopment, hascreated the conditions for smaller'sub-imperialistunits' within asystem which, as a whole, is dependent.

Even in its embryonic 'future' forms dependent peripheraldevelop-ment, whether more or less regulatedor unregulatedby pseudo-planning, is necessarily characterisedby increasing marginalization.The population problem of the contemporary Third Worldoriginatesfrom this growingmarginalization.The population explosion, anundeniable fact, is not in any way the cause of the increasingmiseryof the masses in the Third World as is claimed in the simplisticreasoningused by the currentneo-malthusianworld campaign.The

self-centreddevelopment of the countries presently developed haslikewise been accompanied by an extraordinarypopulation explo-sion. In spite of the very real 'costs' of rapidpopulation increase,which are so much emphasized, the centre has neverthelesssolvedthis problem by a no less prodigious increase in wealth. The benefitsof such population growth. both in the strictly economic terms ofhigher population density (external economies of infrastructure, etc.)and, undoubtedly also in terms of the social psychological effectsof the energiesreleasedby the conflict between generations, hasbeen decisive. There is incidentally no example in human history ofa radical transformation in social structureswhich has not beenaccompanied by powerful demographic fluctuations. The populatior

explosion in the ThirdWorldis an expression of its maturity, that isof its need for furtherdevelopment, just as it reveals the contra-diction between this need and the strangulatingeffects of thepresentworld system. Marginalizations a manifestation of thiscontradiction, which must be ascribed to the model of externallyoriented dependent development and not to the populationexplosion. Here one finds one aspect of the problem of theinequality of development on a world scale, i.e. one of the factorswhich reveals the necessity for transcendingcapitalismand which isexperienced more strongly in the periphery than at the centre.

This objective need for transcendingthe system can obviously

become a reality only if it is accompanied by a change in socialconsciousness. Thus the problematicof transitionnecessarilyleadsto that of the developnment f social consciousness.







24Social Consciousnessat Centreand Periphery

The problems relatingto political and social consciousness cannot be

approachedcorrectly without referenceto the generalmodel ofdevelopment proposed, which distinguishesthe centralmodel from

the peripheralmodel and allows the correct definition of the pro-

blematics of the social forces concerned.

This frameworkin fact remindsus that unemployment and under-

employment in the peripheralsystem do not take the same form and

do not fulfill the same functions as at the centre. Whileunemploy-

ment at the centre has well-defined contours and is easily

quantifiable, the same cannot be said for the periphery.Here margin-

alization manifests itself not only by identifiable urban unemploy-

ment but also by underemployment, job mobility, and self-

employment in very low productivity activities, these being the onlymeansof survivalfor many sectors of the population. The divisions

between different kinds of employment and underemployment are

blurred and changeable. Quantitativedelineation therefore implies

special definitions, different from those currentlyused in developed

countries. Variousimportant social phenomena, such as the organi-

zation of redistributiveinterdependence, cannot be analyzed in

termsof the 'relics' of traditional society (ethnic and village inter-

dependence, etc) but must on the contrarybe re-interpretedas the

means of resistance and survival n the conditions of peripheralcapi-

talism, even if they are organizedin 'traditional'ways. The same

goes for many other 'poor' economic activities, particularlycrafts,

services and small businesses.

Social, political and especially class consciousnesscannot be located

or understood in the abstractwithout any reference to the objective

social system in which the social groups in question are found. Cons-

ciousness can only be that of becoming aware of reality. Such new

awarenessenables social groups to conceive of effective action, be

it by accepting the roles allotted to them within the system, be it by

changingits structure.

In the central system, it is true that the consciousness of belonging

to a social group(the proletariat,for example) does not by itself'

define class consciousness. It can lead to a 'reformist consciousness'- social-democraticclass consciousness - which constitutes as we

have seen an objective condition for the functioning of the central

system at this time. At the periphery, on the other hand, social cons-

ciousness of this type is not possible since the objective functioning

of the system does not integrate the massesbut on the contrary

forces them out and marginalizesthem. Consequently an awareness

of the process of marginalizationmust lead to a rejection of the

system. The question posed here is thus whether in fact, in any one

country at any one time, marginalizedgroups or sub-groupsattribute

their plight to the objective functioning of the system, or on the

contraryto strangesocial or even supernatural orces. The latter

would obviously limit their capacity to act in order to changethe

system and would restrict their political action to the level of

unplannedrevolts. The answerto this, the only valid question in our

opinion, will obviously differ accordingto the group, the place and

the time.







25It is in this theoretical ontextthat one mustplaceall the social,ideological, ultural ndpoliticalproblems f thecontemporary

ThirdWorld.

Thetraditional ersusmoderndebate, ngeneraluxtaposesn anabsolutemanner hesetwo termswhich t defines;he secondbyreducingt to its historically pecific orm(capitalistandWestern)thus ncidentally enying hepossibility f the furtherdevelopmentof a globalcapitalism,which s trulyuniversalbutnot tendingtowards omogeneity);he first,withoutreference o particularperipheralocieties, ituatinghe 'traditional'n a pre-capitalism(non-Western)hichno longerexists. For wherearethe 'traditional'societies oday?Reduced o the roleof supplying heap abour othemodern ector sectors1 and3 linked n thewaythattheyare),

the so-calledtraditionalociety,whichcomprises inajority fpeople,no longerexists n its traditionalorm.Whatdoes exist ispseudo-traditional,hat is to say,a transformedradition,deformedandoppressed.Moreover,asedon African xperience,t is clearthatsocialreformmovementswitha 'traditional'ppearance,uchas thereligious rotestmovementswith a prophetic haracter;hetheocraticmovementsorthe reorganisationf local power ikethose of the WestAfricanMuslim rotherhoodsthe MouridesnSenegal); he establishment f 'sultanates'n Nigeria, r SudaneseMahdism;he evolutionof certain entralisedmonarchiesn animi-sticAfrica uchasthe WoloforDahomean ingdoms, re all aresponseo the problems f integrationnto theexpanding lobal

system.Theyareallmovementsorreformwithintheperipheralsystem.Phenomena hichsociologistsoo oftenanalyze n termsof'relicsof the past'suchas 'tribalism'r thecloseinterdependencefthe village, amily,clan orethnicgroupsamongurbanmmigrants,aretoo rigidly lassified nddemand critiqueof thisdualisticandmechanicalpproach.Theirrigidity s understoodwhenone realisesthat thesepseudo-traditionalormsmerelyobscurea substance hatis 'modern',houghpoor,and thatthey merelyrepresentwaysofsurvivingn the dramaticonditionsof marginality.1

Theconceptof marginalizationosesvery seriousproblems: oncernover he forms t assumesand theireffect on socialconsciousness)

andconcernwith its boundariesalwaysblurred nd ll-defined).Empiricistbservationf socialphenomenan theseareashasoftenled to hurried onclusionsn ouropinion.Theconceptof the'cultureof poverty'12 andtheanalogies etween hisconceptandthatof lumpen-proletarianizationreanexampleof oversimplifi-cationwhichrequires critique.At the otherextreme, heconceptof a 'labour-aristocracy'n underdevelopedountries nvolvesanequallydebatable nalogy.

Ofcourseatelementary tagesof industrializations is widelyknowninAfrica, he 'working lass', trictlyspeaking,an appearprivileged'andcloseto the pettybourgeoisien socialstatusandawareness. he

policyof internationalorporationsccentuates hischaracteristic.3

Notably n certain ropicalAfrican egions, heretardedmpactofcolonialismthe latedevelopment f sector1)andthe persistence fcertainpre-capitalisttructures otpenetrated y the processes







26generating peripheralociety(these structures ence continuing obe concentratedn sector2) limit the impact hat the growingmodern

sector 1 and3) can haveon sucha society n transformation.nsimpleeconomic erms, his means hat the supplyof cheap abourfor the growingmodern ector s limitedso that in the latterremu-nerationbe less badthanwouldotherwisebe thecase.But theaccelerationf theprocessof peripheralizationndicates hatatmoreadvanced tages he conditionsof this proletarianore of the'modern'ectordeterioraten relative ndoften absolute erms.Newpotentialalliances hen appearbetween his core and the marginaliz-ed mass,henceforth emi-proletarianizedn the full senseof theword,whicharebasedon an objective ommunity f interests,deeply nfluencedby the directeffectof open unemploymentn thesalaries f those withrelatively ermanent mployment. rom hat

momentobjective onditionsareripefor a realstrategyof transition,opening hewayfor a transcendencef capitalism.

FOOTNOTES

1. This model is a brief summaryof my work publishedunder the titleAccumulation on a WorldScale, (Forthcoming,Monthly Review Press).

2. In Production of Commoditiesby Meansof Commodities,Cambridge1960.3. I do not claim that this outline includesevery aspect of the problemof

'civilisations'- the theory of which remainsto be done. The work ofPelletierand Groblot(Materialismehistoriqueet histoiredes civilisations,Paris1969) is the first stimulatingopeningin this field. Likewise,tor theArabworld, see Ahmadel Kodsy, 'Nationalismand Class Struggles n theArabworld',MonthlyReview, July-August1970.

4. The universal nfluence of the Chinese culturalrevolution obviously applieshere.See PierreAmon, 'La R6volution culturelleet ie- marxisme',QueFaire, No 5, 1970.

5. All the problemsconcerningpseudo-tribalismn Africamust be revisedfrom this point of view. Necessaryauthentic democracy demandstheintegralrespectof social reality. It is only by respecting t that it can bepositively integrated nto a process which enablestranscendence.Thebureaucraticdenialof realityblocks evolution and enablesa treacherousand negativereappearanceof this reality which is officially denied.

6. See articleby UrsM.uller-PlantenbergTechnologieet dependance',Critiquesde l'economie politique, No 3, 1971, which defines precisely thekind of technology which can solve the problemsof the present-dayunder-

developedworld.7. As acknowledgedby the United NationsConferencefor Tradeand

Development(UNCTAD)at a meeting in Limaof 77 countries,October

1971.8. This is why the crisisin the system is revealed n the field of internationalmonetary relations(the current dollarcrisis,etc.). Triffin,Le systememonltaire intlrnational, Paris 1969, expressesthis awareness arguing nfavourof a utopia - that of a supranationalmonetary authority, whichassumesthe contradictionis resolved.

9. This stagehas not been reached n contemporaryAfrica where direct foreigisinvestmentremainsthe primemover.That is why the expression of neo-colonialismhas neverseemed to us a scientific one. We preferneo-imperialism for lack of a better word) which only applies to very advancedunderdevelopedcountrieslike Brazil.

10.See Ruy MauroMarini, Subdesarrolloy revolucion',Siglo XI, Mexico1969.

11.The excellent Senegalesefilm by OusmaneSemb'eneLe Mandat, is a livelyscientific demonstrationof this theory, better than many Pretentioussociologicalanalyses.

12. Oscar Lewis, The Childrenof Sanchez, startedthis school of thought.13.G. Arrighi, InternationalCorporations,LabourAristocraciesand Eco-

nomic Development in TropicalAfrica', R. I. Rhodesed. ImperialismanidUnderdevelopment,London 1970, has expandedthis theme in the mostcoherent mannerto our knowledge,with referenceto the case of Tanzaniia.

1974 Accumulation and Development_A Theoretical Model

Documents

Transcript of 1974 Accumulation and Development_A Theoretical Model