The Two Faces of Capitalism
Underdevelopment and
Overdevelopment
by
Eugene E. Ruyle
ABSTRACT: This essay provides an alternative to the unilineal view of capitalism shared by Marxist and mainstream economists. Capitalism is usually seen as an economic system that exists within nations at different levels of development. The alternative discussed in this essay views capitalism as an international system which manifests itself differently in different societies. In the Third World capitalism assumes an underdeveloping form, while in Europe and North America it takes an overdeveloping form.
*************************
The profound hypocrisy and inherent barbarism of bourgeois civilization lies unveiled before our eyes, turning from its home, where it assumes respectable forms, to the colonies, where it goes naked. (Marx, 1853, 137)
in fact the veiled slavery of the wage-workers in Europe needed, for its pedestal, slavery pure and simple in the new world. (Marx, 1867,759-60)
Marxists
and mainstream economists may disagree on the nature of capitalism, but they
share an essentially Eurocentric view of its development. Simply stated, this
view holds that capitalism first developed in Europe and then spread to other
continents. Accordingly, we read of the Òadvanced capitalist nationsÓ in Europe
and North America and the ÒtraditionalÓ or ÒbackwardÓ nations of Africa, Asia,
or Latin America. Or, if the writer is more charitable, we may read of the
ÒdevelopedÓ and ÒdevelopingÓ worlds.
Such
Eurocentrism obscures our understanding of the actual place of capitalism in
the development of our species. Capitalism is a world phenomenon. It has
transformed Asia, Africa, and Latin America no less than the West. But capitalism
takes different forms in different areas. In Third World nations, capitalism
assumes the form of underdeveloping capitalism, creating poverty, ignorance,
disease, and other features seen as characteristic of Òbackwardness.Ó In the
West, capitalism assumes the form of overdeveloping capitalism, creating
consumerism, pollution, alienation, and other features seen as ÒmodernÓ or even
Òpostmodern.Ó
Underdevelopment
and overdevelopment are thus the twin forms of capitalism in the modern
world. Both are equally far
removed from the traditional societies which preceded them and therefore
equally Òadvanced.Ó They are not stages in a unilineal sequence, but
interdependent trajectories of change within the world capitalist system. This view has profound implications for
our understanding of the modern world and our struggles for a better world.
This
essay will develop the concepts of underdevelopment and overdevelopment and
explore their implications. It is written from the perspective of scientific
socialism and assumes a Marxian understanding of capitalism. The underlying
argument, however, does not depend on Marxism. It is equally valid for
mainstream and Marxian views of the modern world.
Both
Marx and Engels were careful students of the anthropology of their time and
made copious notes on such anthropological works as Lewis Henry MorganÕs
Ancient Society (Morgan, 1877) . These formed the basis for the classic work by Engels, Origin of the
Family, Private Property, and the State (Engels, 1884) . Anthropology thus played an important role in the formation of
Marxist ideas on social development.
Anthropology
has made significant advances since Marx and Engels wrote in the nineteenth
century. There have been spectacular fossil discoveries. The remains of ancient
civilizations have been uncovered. The database of Anthropology has been
improved through more careful observation and analysis of non-Western peoples.
The
theoretical advances within Anthropology are equally important. The
establishment of a professional anthropology in the twentieth century was
marked by the development of cultural relativism. No longer were "primitive" cultures to be
understood as stages through which Europeans had already passed. Instead, every
culture came to be
seen as a separate and unique experiment in human possibilityÑas if each were a differently colored, separate piece in a mosaic of human diversity, to be studied, and valued, in its own right. (Keesing, 1981, 111-12)
This
amounted to a Copernican revolution in Anthropology (Clastres, 1977, 17) . Rather than seeing Europe as the sun around which all ÒprimitiveÓ
and ÒunderdevelopedÓ societies revolve, we now see the West as but one facet in
the mosaic of the human adventure on earth. This is not intended to denigrate
the contributions of Western civilization but rather to place them in a broader
perspective.
This
changed way of thinking has far-reaching implications in every field of study,
including Marxism.
Marx
was heir to the Enlightenment, and shared its Eurocentric view of progress.
European capitalism, representing the highest phase of human development, was
laying the foundation for the next phase, socialism. The socialist future would
be built by the workers of the same nations that led the world into the
capitalist present.
In
the twentieth century, Marxism spread throughout the world and was no longer a
purely European movement. Nevertheless, it retained an essentially Eurocentric
view of capitalism, and therefore of socialism as well.
It
is here that modern anthropology may make a contribution.
If
we review the history of our species, we see that the period of Western
dominance has occupied but a fragment of humanityÕs existence on earth. The few
hundred years of European domination of the planet has been very brief
considering the five thousand years since civilization began in Asia and Africa
and the five million years since our species separated from our apelike ancestors
in Africa.
During
this time, different groups of humans have developed a wide variety of
life-styles, social structures, and belief systems. Modern anthropology
attempts to understand this variety, not as higher or lower stages in a
unilineal development, but rather as so many equally valid ways of being human.
From the standpoint of many indigenous peoples, Europe is not more Òadvanced.Ó
It has simply gone off in a direction that they donÕt want to follow.
The
option of not following the European path is simply not open, however. European
science and technology may not be ÒbetterÓ than that of non-European peoples,
but it is more powerful, in the sense that Europeans could use it to impose
their patterns on non-Europeans. This is the reality that underlies the
observation of Marx and Engels about capitalism:
It compels all nations, on pain of extinction, to adopt the bourgeois mode of production; it compels them to introduce what it calls civilization into their midst, i.e., to become bourgeois themselves. In one world, it creates a world after its own image. (Marx and Engels, 1848, 24)
It
creates a reversed image, however. What is imposed on the Third World is not
the ÒrespectableÓ form capitalism of the Euro-American nations but rather the
naked, underdeveloping form of capitalism.
Our
Eurocentrism should be further limited when we consider how it was that the
West rose to world domination.
The
conventional wisdom would have us believe that Europe advanced and became
ÒdevelopedÓ while Asia and the rest of the world stood still and became
ÒunderdevelopedÓ in relation to Europe. But as Marx clearly showed in his
chapters on the primitive accumulation of capital, Europe financed its industrial
revolution through the plunder of the non-Western world:
The discovery of gold and silver in America, the extirpation, enslavement and entombment in mines of the aboriginal population, the beginning of the conquest and looting of the East Indies, the turning of Africa into a warren for the commercial hunting of black-skins, signalised the rosy dawn of the era of capitalist production. (Marx, 1867, 751)
The
emergence of capitalism, the creation of a world market, the development of
modern science and technology, and the Industrial Revolution were not purely
European achievements. They were built upon the earlier achievements in
science, technology, and economics of the Afro-Asiatic civilizations. They were
paid for by the plunder of the non-Western world. Therefore, they were
achievements of our species, not of Europeans alone. Europe may have gained the
benefits, but the rest of the world paid the costs.
This
process transformed not only Europe, but also Asia, Africa, and Latin America.
As Europe advanced and industrialized, the rest of the world was
de-industrialized and pushed backwards in terms of social and economic
development. This is the process which Andrew Gunder Frank (1967) has called Òthe development
of underdevelopment.Ó
What
we see in the non-Western world, then, are not precapitalist social formations,
but social formations which have been transformed by capitalism. We can no
longer see the non-Western world as Òprimitive,Ó Òtraditional,Ó or
Òprecapitalist,Ó but rather as a particular form of capitalism: underdeveloping
capitalism.
Nor
can we view Third World nations as ÒdevelopingÓ nations, except in the sense
that human societies are always developing and always changing. The question
is, in what direction are they developing? The term ÒdevelopingÓ implies the
unilineal view that we criticized above, that given time the ÒdevelopingÓ will
become ÒdevelopedÓ like the West.
Where
the conventional wisdom sees as a ladder on which the West occupies the highest
rung, we see a teeter-totter on which the West has moved up by pushing the rest
of the world down.
From
this perspective, the so-called ÒadvancedÓ capitalist nations of Europe and
North America take on a different appearance, for the opposite of
ÒunderdevelopedÓ is not Òadvanced,Ó but Òoverdeveloped.Ó
Rather
than a world divided into ÒadvancedÓ and ÒbackwardÓ nations, we see what Bodner has called
a worldwide combination of overdevelopment and underdevelopment that can be called "mal-development." The symptoms of overdevelopmentÑdependence of complex bureaucratic technologies and institutions, overconsumption, industrial pollution, and interpersonal alienationÑare most apparent in countries like our own. The outward signs of underdevelopment are most apparent in poor countries. However, both aspects of mal-development can be found in most nations of the world. (1984, 4-6)
There
is more here than simply a shift in terminology. As Lenin (1916) , Wallerstein (1974) , and others have stressed, capitalism is a world system within which
there are different kinds of nations. Leninists speak of the imperialist
nations and the oppressed nations, while Wallerstein refers to the core and
periphery. Both of these sets of terms are correct and useful, but they do not
exclude the misleading idea that the imperialist nations or the core are
somehow more ÒadvancedÓ than the oppressed nations on the periphery, which
somehow remain Òbackward.Ó
Rather
than seeing the imperialist and oppressed nations as ÒadvancedÓ and Òbackward,Ó
we may more properly say that capitalism takes its overdeveloping form in the
imperialist nations and its underdeveloping form in the oppressed nations.
This shift in terminology has profound
implications for our understanding of socialism. The term "advanced
capitalist nation" implies that the Western nations, especially the United
States, represent the norm towards which all other societies are tending or
should be striving to achieve. This not only distorts our understanding of the
past and present, it distorts our vision of the future. We can no longer view
socialism simply as European capitalism minus poverty, war, and alienation. We
must re-think our concept of socialism in light of this changed understanding
of capitalism and of the actual struggles of oppressed peoples over the past
century.
Just
as capitalism takes different forms in different parts of the world, so the
struggle for socialism has taken different forms in different times and places.
The
vision of socialism developed in Europe in the nineteenth century as a solution
to the evils of capitalism. Marx and Engels transformed the utopian vision of
socialism by linking it to a scientific analysis of capitalism and human
development. Basing his views in large part on the anthropology of his time,
Marx and Engels saw humanity progressing through class struggles and the
progressive development of the forces of production through primitive
communism, slavery, feudalism, and capitalism. European capitalism thus
represented the highest phase of human developmentÑbut not the final phase.
Socialism would emerge from the struggles of the working class. After the
workers had overthrown the capitalists, they would build a new society,
socialism, on the industrial foundation laid by capitalism. The socialist
future would thus be built by the workers of the same nations that led the
world into the capitalist present.
In
the nineteenth century, this view seemed reasonable enough in light of the
Paris Commune and the growing strength of the socialist movement in Western
Europe.
In
the twentieth century however, the vanguard of world revolution moved out of
the imperialist nations and into the oppressed nations of Asia, Africa, and
Latin AmericaÑto Cuba and the Philippines in 1898, China in 1900, Russia in 1905, Persia in 1906, Mexico in 1910, China again in
1911, and, once again, Russia in 1917, China in 1949, and Cuba in 1959.
These
revolutions ushered in a new phase in the history of class struggle.
Scores and indeed hundreds of times in the course of the centuries the labouring people have striven to throw off the oppressors from their backs and to become the masters of their own destiny. But each time, defeated and disgraced, they have been forced to retreat, harbouring in their breasts resentment and humiliation, anger and despair, and lifting up their eyes to an inscrutable heaven where they hoped to find deliverance. The chains of slavery remained intact, or the old chains were replaced by new ones, equally burdensome and degrading. Ours is the only country where the oppressed and downtrodden labouring masses have succeeded in throwing off the rule of the landlords and capitalists and replacing it by the rule of the workers and peasants. You know, comrades, and the whole world now admits it, that this gigantic struggle was led by Comrade Lenin and his Party. The greatness of Lenin lies above all in this, that by creating the Republic of Soviets he gave a practical demonstration to the oppressed masses of the whole world that hope of deliverance is not lost, that the rule of the landlords and capitalists is shortlived, that the kingdom of labour can be created by the efforts of the labouring people themselves, and that the kingdom of labour must be created not in heaven, but on earth. [as quoted by Cameron 1987:25]
Lenin
not only provided the leadership for the October Revolution, he developed the
organizational formÑthe vanguard partyÑwhich dominated revolutionary activity
for much of the twentieth century. Lenin also made important changes in the
theory of capitalism to account for the actual changes from the 19th to the
20th centuries.
Lenin
saw that the capitalist system had become a global system of imperialism in
which capitalists exploit not only their own workers in Europe and North
America, but also the peasants and workers of the oppressed nations of Asia,
Africa, and Latin America. Accordingly, the socialist revolution needed to be
international in scope.
Lenin
changed the slogan of revolution from ÒWorkers of the World, Unite!Ó to
ÒWorkers and Oppressed Peoples of the World, Unite.Ó Under LeninÕs leadership,
an alliance was formed between workers and peasants, symbolized by the hammer
and sickle. This alliance led to the historic socialist revolutions of the
twentieth century in Russia, China, Cuba, Vietnam, and Eastern Europe.
These
revolutions occurred in the so-called ÒbackwardÓ areas of the globe, what Lenin
called the oppressed nations and what we have called the underdeveloping
capitalist world. As a result of these revolutions, Marxism-Leninism became a
world movement and put down deep roots in cultures throughout the world.
However, it remained essentially European in its view of the past, present, and
future.
While
Marxism-Leninism of the Third International was becoming the dominant form of
socialism throughout the underdeveloping world, Social Democracy became the
dominant form in the overdeveloping world.
Thus,
in the twentieth century the struggle for socialism took two major forms
corresponding to the two forms of capitalism. Both of these forms represent
significant modifications of the ideas of the founders of scientific socialism
in the 19th century.
The
Marxist-Leninists of the Communist International were successful in overthrowing the rule of the landlords and
capitalists and in beginning the long process of building socialism. These
successes occurred in the underdeveloping capitalist world where the material
foundation of industrialism was lacking. Out of necessity, socialism could not
be seen as simply a consequence of industrialization. It had to become a method
of industrialization. Further, these nations came under vicious attacks from the
imperialists. As a result of these material conditions, what developed was not
socialism as it was understood in the nineteenth century. Many would not call
the result socialism at all and prefer terms such as degenerated workers state
or state capitalism to refer to these post-revolutionary societies. I have
suggested the term protosocialism (Ruyle, 1988). It is beyond the scope of this
paper to consider the nature of these societies in any detail, but it is
essential to understand the world historical conditions of their existence.
In
the overdeveloping capitalist worldÑmost notably the Scandinavian nations but
also elsewhere in Western Europe and even the United StatesÑSocial Democracy
attempted to build socialism in an evolutionary rather than a revolutionary
manner. The industrial foundation for socialism may have been present, but it
was still controlled by the capitalist class. This may have been a more humane,
ÒrespectableÓ form of socialism, more compatible with the ÒrespectableÓ form of
capitalism in the overdeveloping nations. From the standpoint of scientific
socialism, however, it lacked an essential precondition for the emergence of
socialism: the working class was not the ruling class.
Neither
of these attempts was able to sustain itself under the Thatcher/Reagan assault.
Although both have been discredited in the eyes of many, both made notable
accomplishments and both exhibited significant shortcomings.
Communism
in the Soviet Union was able to build an industrial system more rapidly than any
other nation in history. This system provided full employment, health and
educational benefits, and social security to the people of the Soviet Union.
These achievements were made while the Soviet Union was fighting back some of
the most vicious attacks in the history of our species: the Civil War, the Nazi
invasion, the Cold War. The costs were great, but it is not clear that they
were greater than those associated with the industrialization of Western
nations or Japan.
The
Social Democracy of the overdeveloping nations was able to win significant
gains and provide a high degree of affluence and personal freedom for the
working classes of these nations. However, this humane, ÒrespectableÓ socialism
could be enjoyed only by a small minority of our species. It was simply not an
option for those living under the naked, underdeveloping form of capitalism.
Any
serious evaluation of the attempts to build socialism in the twentieth century
must include an understanding of the limitations under which they were undertaken.
Marxism-Leninism attempted to build socialism in nations that lacked the
industrial foundation for socialism. Social democracy attempted to build
socialism without first conquering state power. Neither occurred within the
material conditions that the founders of scientific socialism regarded as
essential.
Further,
and most importantly in the context of the present discussion, both were guided
by a vision of socialism which was fundamentally flawed in that it was linked
into the unilineal, Eurocentric
views of the 19th century. Socialism continued to be viewed, by
Marxist-Leninists and Social Democrats alike, as an affluent, industrial social
order within which the predominant life style would not be that different from
that of the upper middle classes of Europe and North America. People would live
in single family homes with appropriate kitchen appliances, electronic
gadgetry, and one or more family cars. What would be new is that this life
style would be accessible to everyone. Poverty and alienation would be
eliminated, and everyone would enjoy a comfortable, affluent, bourgeois life
style.
We
may question whether this is desirable. We must question whether it is
possible. The alienating culture of overconsumption pursued by perhaps one
fifth of our species consumes probably
four fifths of the earthÕs resources. As this culture spreads, it simply
hastens our rush toward ecological catastrophe.
We
do not necessarily need to totally abandon the concept of progress, but it is
essential that we abandon Eurocentric views of progress. Western industrial
capitalism is not the norm toward which all societies tend, and it cannot be
the model for the socialist future.
Clearly,
we need to re-think our concept of socialism, and take some lessons from surviving
indigenous peoples and the small scale societies of the Third World. The
socialism of the twenty-first century will probably not be centralized and
bureaucratic, but more community oriented, people centered, democratic,
environmentally sensitive, and ecologically sustainable. In a word, it may not
have much resemblance to what we have in the West.
The
socialism of the twenty-first century may not even be called socialism, but
that is not important. As Walden Bello has observed,
Whether one calls the alternative socialism, social democracy, democratic capitalism, or people-centered development is less important than its essence: the subordination of the market, or the institutions of production and distribution to community (Bello, 1994, 113) .
As
Marxists, of course, we have a good deal to say about the market and other
institutions of production and distribution. But we are not the only ones to
have something worthwhile to say on these topics, and we cannot expect to have
the last words in the discussion. We must take seriously the admonition of Marx
and Engels that we have Òno
interests separate and apartÓ from those of the workers and peasants whose
labor powers the engines of production and distribution in the world economy:
The theoretical conclusions of the Communists are in no way based on ideas or principles that have been invented, or discovered, by this or that would-be universal reformer. They merely express, in general terms, actual relations springing from an existing class struggle, from a historical movement going on under our very eyes (Marx and Engels, 1848) .
This
Òhistorical movementÓ has both broadened and deepened since 1848. It is no
longer limited to Europe, nor to the industrial proletariat. As Joshua Karliner
has observed,
a process of grassroots globalization is taking shape. It is an increasingly vibrant web of communities, social movements, labor unions, indigenous peoples, environmental groups, consumer activists, lawyers, artists, elected representatives, and many more who are working not only to demand, but to begin to define and build movements for social and environmental justice across borders and across what often have been divisions amongst us (Karliner, 1998, 8) .
Clearly,
this Òvibrant webÓ of peopleÕs struggles is the arena within which Marxism must
re-locate itself. To do so, we Marxists must adapt to this actual Òhistorical
movement going on under our very eyes.Ó
Marxism
began in Europe in the 19th century. As it became a world movement in the 20th
century, Marxism continued to be Eurocentric in important respects, most
notably in its unilineal view of capitalism and in its vision of the socialist
future.
It
is time to rid ourselves of unilineal and Eurocentric views of capitalism and
socialism. It is time to understand that capitalism comes in two forms: an
overdeveloping form in the imperialist nations and an underdeveloping form in
the oppressed nations. Neither of these forms provides a model for the
socialist future. It is time also to recognize that the socialism of the
twenty-first century will probably not look much like the socialisms of the
twentieth century.
It
is time for the Marxism which grew out of the class struggles of 19th century
Europe to re-locate itself in the complex and diverse global class struggles at
the beginning of the 21st century. This necessarily involves encounters with
areas in which Marxists have not always operated comfortably in the
pastÑfeminism, ecology, spirituality.
Many
of the lessons of Marxism have already been learned by participants in these
struggles, but much of what we hold dear is not accepted. Perhaps it is time to
re-examine our assumptions and methods.
Consider,
for example, the following response of a Brazilian Bishop to a questions about
the proper role of Christians in the United States:
The only legitimate response for a conscientious and Christian First World is to commit suicide. Let me explain. To commit suicide as the First World. The reason is very simple. The only reason there is a First World is that there is a Third World. With that I have said everything. Everything about dependence, cultural domination and economic exploitation. So only to the extent that the First World stops being first will we be able to stop being third. In the United States and in Europe, I think the church should be a kind of Òfifth columnÓ dedicated to undermining the present undemocratic capitalist system, to end imperialism and all forms of domination and cultural colonization. (Casald‡liga, 1987, 15)
Perhaps
it is time for First World Marxists to commit suicide, to abandon Eurocentrism
and chauvinism, and to learn anew how to serve the global struggles of the
coming century.
Bello, Walden. 1994. Dark
Victory: The United States, Structural Adjustment, and Global Poverty.
London: Pluto Press.
Bodner, Joan. 1984. Taking
Charge of Our Lives: Living Responsibly in a Troubled World. San Francisco:
Harper & Row.
Cameron, Kenneth Neill. 1987.
Stalin: Man of Contradiction.
Toronto: NC Press Limited.
Casald‡liga, Pedro. 1987.
ÒDemocracy is participation.Ó Maryknoll July 1987
Clastres, P. 1977. Society Against the State: The Leader As Servant and the Humane Uses of Power Among the Indians of the Americas. Oxford: Blackwell
Engels, Frederick. 1884. The
Origin of the Family, Private Property and the State. (Reprinted, New York:
International Publishers, 1972.)
Frank, Andrew Gunder. 1967.
Latin America: Underdevelopment or Revolution? New York: Monthly Review
Press. .
Karliner, Joshua. 1998.
ÒEarth Matters.Ó Dollars and Sense (July/August):7. (July/August 1998)
Keesing, Roger M. 1981. Cultural
Anthropology: A Contemporary Perspective. 2nd ed. New York: Holt, Rinehart
and Winston.
Lenin, V.I. 1916. Imperialism: The Highest Stage of Capitalism. A Popular Outline. (Reprint, New York: International Publishers, 1939.)
Marx, Karl. 1853. ÒThe
British Rule in India.Ó New York Daily Tribune, June 25, 1853,
(Reprinted in Karl Marx on Colonialism and Modernization. Shlomo
Avineri, ed. New York: Doubleday Anchor Books, 1969. Pp. 88-95.)
Marx, Karl. 1867. Capital:
A Critique of Political Economy. Volume 1: A Critical Analysis of Capitalist
Production. (Reprinted, Moscow: Progress Publishers, 1965.)
Marx, Karl, and Friedrich
Engels. 1848. The Communist Manifesto. (Reprinted, New York: Monthly
Review Press, 1964.)
Morgan, Lewis H. 1877. Ancient
Society, or, Researches in the Lines of Human Progress from Savagery through
Barbarism to Civilization.(Reprinted, Cleveland and New York: World
Publishing Company, 1963.)
Ruyle, Eugene E. 1988. ÒOn
Protosocialist Nations.Ó University of Dayton Review 19(2):109-125.
(Summer 1988-1989)
Wallerstein, Immanuel.
1974. The Modern World System. New York: Academic Press.