Development social formation and modes of production

touted hations

african institute

for economic

development and

planning

D AUR

.5"

IDEP/ET/CS/2544-1

seminar on

I"

the emergence of

agrarian capitalism in

africa south of the

sahara (Dakar, November-December 1973)

(Provisional date)

. >

■

J

Wj >•/•/

development. social

formation and modes

of production

»

By

s. A. SHAH

JULY 197:

<9

IDEP/EÏ/CS/2544^1

Page 1.

DEVELQPIIEET» SOCIAL FORMATION AND

MODES OF

PRODUCTION

INTRODUCTION:

The hopes of the immediate

decade of the post World War II

period and the euphoria

about growth in the early nineteen sixties

appear to havo

collapsed by the end of the sixties. In fact} a

widespread and growing concern

has emerged with respect to the in—

1

/

adequacies of

economic growth -in most parts of the world.—' The

apparently

remarkable feature of this expressed concern being that

it no longer is confined to

just socialist and radical critics but

comes from among the leading

representatives of monopoly capital

- perhaps the opening

statement of this "new" thrust was given by

Robert MacNamara

(then

U.S.

Secretary of Defense and now head of

the World

Bank)

in his

extensively reported speech in Montreal (Quebec, Canada) during the spring' of 19^7.

Repeatedly in the past few years

it has been acknowledged

that the conventional social

engineering of the growth process (even

when

accompanied by. high per-capita G.D.P. rates of growth)

"has only brought about a

limited set of improvements and within

this the bulk of the benefits have been

unequally shared. Thus

contributing to the growing

divergence between the "rich" and the

"poor"»—^

^{What is even more}

illuminating is that

a

more extensive

examination of the world-wide growth process

reveals large areas

of stagnation and

deterioration in terms of economic activity and

well-being^

Paced with the dismal record of

received doctrine and its applications there is

a

strong revival of the ghost of Malthus.

Contemporary neo—malthusians,

like the "Club of Rome" argue on the

A/

basis of so-called sophisticated

analysis for limits to growth.*^

IDEP/ET/CS/2544-1

Page 2.

Theorists

(committed to producing "ideology" in support of the es¬

tablished social

order)

like

-Phelps—Brown, Mishan, and Eaq attempt

to mask the fundamental

irrelevance of neo-Keynesian and post-

Keynosian

economics by pleading about the "underdevelopment" of

economics,

"costs" of growth and against the specter of.cogmuflist China.^

^Leading administrators,

like MacNamara, call for a "fron¬

tal" attack on poverty while

addressing the third UÏTCTAD Conference

in Santiago

(Chile) which ignored the appeals of the "group of 77"

to improve the

conditions of trade and aid between the industrial

capitalist countries

and the primary-producer nations of the world.--

The lesson seems clear, though not

often explicitly stated: develop

and deliver "sophisticated" rhetoric

regarding the stagnating and

deteriorating conditions of the

majority of the people of Africa,

Asia and Latin America in order to

fashion novel

means

and mecha-j

nisms which will serve to continue

(and

^even

enhance) the privileges

7/

of domination,

exploitation and appressxon.-Ly

The perspective hitherto

utilised has been derived from a

particular and dominant

outlook and experience of the monopoly ca¬

pitalist nations.

Alternative approaches while present in embryo¬

nic form have been largely neglected

if not altogether dismissed.

However, it is the

growing reality, itself

an

outcome of the widen¬

ing gap between

the "rich" and the "poor", of the inadequacies of

the traditional perspective that necessitates an

examination of the

issues and problems of development

(as distinct from growth) from

the vantage of the material and

ideological foundations of social

formations.^

^{In this sense the basic premise of this paper}

is

that accurate and scientific knowledge about

the

process

of develop¬

ment and unequal development

essentially arises from the activity

of,changing the

material foundations and ideological framework of

our contemporary world. *•

IDEP/ET/CS/2544-1

Page 3»

It is easy to say change

the world. What does this refer

to? In order to proceed further

with respect to such a perspectiv

it is imperative that the

principal features "be clearly outlined.

The central core of such an

approach combines an investigation of

the inter—relationship "between

(a) the social relations "between in¬

dividuals and groups forged

in the

course

of carrying on the acti¬

vity of production,

(h) the tools and techniques used in productic

and

(c) the.ownership and/or control of the means and objects of

production.

Such

an

inter—relationship must be investigated in.

terms of conditions representing a

period of history and one geo¬

graphical space as

well

as

those referring to successive periods c

history and between

geographical

space.

In the course of a discus

sion regarding the

a-historicity of the dominant segment of contem

porary social science,

Sklar

poses

the elements of an alternative

methodology as follows,

"....to conceptualize our epoch is to come

to grips broadly

with what

we

conceive our social existence to be,

what we conceive man,

historically, to be in

a

developmental way,

at the specific historical juncture

of

^our own

times, and what man

is about to become. It is the basis

of self critically appraising

our intentions, our

conception of the human, and it is the mark of

taking our intentions

seriously enough to hazard their affirmation

denial or modification in the

deliberate attempt at achieving thei

realisation.'1^

9/

In such..a process of ,change, based on

the combined interac¬

tion of the core elements, the

basic

source

for change is the con¬

tinuing tension and

conflict (at times

more

intense "and at others

somewhat

muted)

between the

"social relations of production.) and tho

available technology.

The"focus of-the- conflict and tension ulti¬

mately being around the

ownership and/or control of the means and

object of production.

Viewed historically the sequence of change

is characterised by both uneveness

and inequality with especial ^re¬

gard to the

quality and quantum of development and its incremental

rate. This change and the

accompanying pattern of development is

IDEP/ET/CS/2544-1

Page 4.

characterised by a

particular kind of interaction between, the coro

elements — where the conflict and

tension generated fashion lintcs

of interdependence

(in social formations based

on

class divisions

■they are

primarily

ones

of domination

-

subordination) and where

interaction leads to a mutual

transformation of both the, determin-

10/

• ing and determined

factors.— Finally the changing social pattern

exhibits a passage from less

complex to

ever

increasing degrees of

complexity in the forms and

content of social formations. While t:

^changes in the degree of complexity are in evidence everywhere the

particular sequence from a

level of complexity to another has not

been the same in different parts of the

world. In fact, during our

contemporary period there appears

to be

a

fairly good possibility

that, under

specific conditions, the sequential change can be teles

coped with respect to

time

Utilising the

perspective outlined above and examining the

fairly long history of

humanity (Marx and Engels descrioed it as

"pre-history", that is,

where humanity

was

net yet in full control

over the _process of

production and reproduction of its total life

conditions)

one can

discern three broadly conceived and distinct

levels in the activity of human

labour (the fundamentally decisive

differentiating factor

between social formations

^-

modes of pro¬

duction)

^{\W :}

(i) associated with direct labour for direct

individual needs

(ii) associated with indirect labour for indirect

individual and social needs

(iii) associated with direct labour for direct

social and individual needs.

ide?/et/cs/2544-í

Page 5.

• •

With the aid of the typology

suggested by Ste rrr^the ^first

level encompasses labour activity

associated with hunting.and food

gathering

("primitive" and classless social formation

-

modes af

production).

The

second level corresponds to labour activity as¬

sociated with pastoral,

agricultural and "industrial" work (class

divided social formation - modes

of production). And the third

level covers labour activity in the

context of agro-industrial co¬

operatives,

collectives and

communes

("mature" and classless socio

formation modes of

production). Illustrating the pattern and pro¬

cess of change as

being

one

where there is not only interdependenc

but also mutual transformation, the.

archaeologist Gordon-Cliilde he,

incisively shown the

transformation of humain labour into that of a

commodity in the course

of the transition from the first to the sc

•end level. And in constructing

this argument Childe also provide:

illuminating pointers

towards the conditions being, created which

will totally transform

the commodity form and content of human

labour • ~

Concluding this brief

section it is necessary to underscore

that, to

clearly

grasp

the problems

^-

of ana prospects for develop¬

ment, there

is the requirement to examine the process-in terms of

interacting,

interdependent and mutually transforming set of human

labour activities. Furthermore

this kind of

an

investigation is

only fully

possible when

one engages

in the act of transforming th

social,

political and economic conditions that prevail in the con¬

temporary world. \ •

• /. :• .y. ».

Social Formation - Modes of

Production:

For the past two decides a

lively debate has been underway

regarding questions

about social formations and modes of produc¬

tion.Discussions have

clustered around issues dealing with

the transition form"feudalism to

capitalism, pre-capitalist ocono

IDEP/ET/CS/2544-1

Page

6.

formations,

articulation of social formations and. modes of produc¬

tion,

colonial modes of production and the transition from socia¬

lism to communism. The

ensuing literature has certainly served to

both widen and deepen our

consciousness of the nature and pattern

of the process of

change and development.

This section only

attempts to present

a.

brief outline, of

what are considered to be

the major components of an approach, which

_can provide a

basis for developing an extensive and intensive grasp

with regard to the

conceptual and social reality referred.to by the

combined term social

formation

-

modes of production.-^/

The essential aspect

emerging out of the above debate has

been an underscoring and

clarifying extension of what began as the

key

suggestive conclusion of Marx, later emphasized by Lenin 'and

more recently

explicitly elaborated by Mao Tsetung

-

this being,

• .: • : _

J' I" ;•

that while the general

and suggestive sequence of social .evolution

oan be identified in terms

of the broad outlines of the five major

social formations - modes

of production originally formulated by

.Marx, its

concrete and specific manifestation is subject to sub¬

stantial variations.

Therefore, it is absolutely necessary to

carry out a

"concrete analysis of concrete conditions" in order to

clearly grasp the

complexities of the world-wide inequalities and

differences making up the process

of social evolution as sets of

. integrated

levels. In this sense there is no room for "recipes"

17/

or "formulae".—'

The beginning point

of this discussion is to explain the use

of the comined term social

formation

^-

modes of production. The

illustration presented

in Diagram I attempts to visually represent

the concept. A careful

and critical reading of Marx's theoretical

and historical works,

especially the Grundrisse

....

and Contribu¬

tion to the

Critique of Political Economy? shows that the usage in

%

IDEP/íT/CS/2544"1

Page 7.

Ql

I

ID£0L 06 'C* L

V

B * S£

i

N

tf.

s

tf

I

Sa

fí ip

*c

o

p0

⁴

i~f7 CA L.

£ C O /V 0 M / c

I

P)J

^.

C-tQ I rtoJe. ôj ftoJucJ:,**

\

IDEP/ET/CS/2544-1

Page

8.

both cases involves an

abstract (general

^—

theoretical) and concrete

(specific

^—

applied) connotation. In the former sense the terms im¬

ply a

simplified yet concentrated set of subjective raid objective

factors, while

the latter (with the use of the method cf successive

approximation) corresponds closer to the complexity

_18/

and variation of

the spatial and

temporal historical process «—' Therefore, in this

particular manner

it is

necessary

to

use

the two terms in the combi¬

ned form — indicating their

inter—changeability.

Marx and Engels'

historical and theoretical investigations led

them to conclude that several modes

of production are present in any

particular space and

time. A careful examination of them showed that

their inter-relationship was

characterised by

a

dominant

—

subordin-.f:

juxtaposition.

Within the dominant mode of production as well as in

the subordinate

mode(s)

of

production there wfere principal and se con-- dary aspects of their structure and movement. While the dominant

mode and its principal aspects were

the fundamental determinants «f>

change, the

subordinate mode and the secondary aspects played the rol

of conditioning change. The

structural links and associated change

was either

antagonistic

or

non-antagonistic. The process of change

was

genorafeâ 'tteré^h tension, conflict and struggle between the re¬

lations of production

(social classes) and the forces of .production

(technology

^- raw

materials). It is these principal features that ar

the basis for identifying

social formation

^-

modes of production.

Social formation ^- modes pseduction are

therefere,

a

e©»por>

whole of a material base

(objective factors) and

a

superstructure (subjective factors). The process of social change is the consequenc

of the emergence,

development and resolution of contradictions (ten¬

sions and

conflicts')

^between

the material base and the superstructure

In class divided social

formation -modes of production the essence

of the contradiction manifests

itself in the increasingly social gene

ration and at the same time

intensifying private appropriation of sur¬

plus value

(value above the socially necessary and historically deri¬

ved

subsistence)

13£r/:r;/cs/2544-••

Pãge

9. ...

The contemporary

historical period (viewed as a product of

the past three to four

centuries) is "basically forged, out of the

operation of two key

sets of social forces. First, the emergence

of commodity production,

its subsequent development to a position

20

/

of dominance and its present

decline.—' Second, t.he social diffe¬

rentiation between labour and

labour

power

and the transformation

21

/

• •

of labour into a commodity.—'

It is only

on

the basis of a criti¬

cal examination of these

central social forces that will enable a

clarification and social grasp

of the extent, forms and mechanisms

of the generation,

appropriation and utilization of surplus product

and surplus value. This

in turn will assist in unravelling the

"laws-" of motion of social formation ^-

modes of production. The

extensive and «ritiaal discussion

of the capitalist social formation

modes of production has

essentially shown that it is the process of

capital accumulation

which gives rise to profit as the principal

and dominant form of

surplus value. Comparatively the somewhat

restricted discussion of feudal

social formation

-

modes of pro¬

duction

suggestively indicates that rent is the principal and do¬

minant form of the surplus

product. Much work remains to be car-

. .

22.1

ried out with respect to this

key issue"

Africa: A Glimpse of the

Reality:

It is commonplace,

nevertheless

necessary

to reiterate-'that

within the vast space of the

African continent there is a rich di¬

versity which must be

acknowledged

as a

point of departure for se¬

rious investigation. In

order to develop

a

practical unity for in¬

vestigation it

would be useful to demarcate three broad regions of

the continent:

(a)

north

Africa (made

up

mainly by the Arab coun¬

tries;) (b) ^Sudan and Tropical Africa;-(c) Southern Africa (made up

mainly by South

Africa, Rhodesia, Zambia, Botswana, Namibia, Malawi

and parts of Mozambique

and Angola). However, for the purpose of

IBEP/ST/CS/2544-1

Page 10.

these notes the above distinctions

will be ignored. What is more

important for

the immediate

purpose

is to insist that in Africa,

as elsewhere, it is

the rise and development of commodity produc¬

tion _and the

accompanying differentiation of the labour process

which can furnish the insights to

accurately

grasp

the contours of

changes brought

about in the social, political and economic condi¬

tions.

Throughout the African

continent

a

majority of the people

reside in the rural areas and are

primarily dependent on agricul¬

ture for their livelihood. A

brief examination of the conventional

indicators of contemporary

statistical accounts.shows that rural

occupations and products

(agricultural and non—agricultural) con¬

tribute a major share of

their totalIn this sense it would

appear that in

African countries "the social formation

-

modes of

production are

derived from the objective and subjective factors re¬

lating to

agricultural activities. To

a

considerable extent this

is valid. However, the

historical existence of colonialism injects

a crucial element that is, the

domination of the economic, political

and social life of the African

countries by European imperialism.

Therefore, the

African social formation

-

modes of production can

be described as derivable from ^an

imperialist modified sot of agri-

.

24/

cultural activities.—3'

What is the nature of agriculture in

Africa? In answering

this question two

preliminary issues usually attributed as key fea¬

tures of agricultural

activity need to be dealt with. First, that

2C'/

agriculture

is mainly

an

isolated and subsistence type activity.—^-

Second, that the

agriculturalist is primarily on independent pro¬

ducer best described as a

peasant.^/ ^\

IDEP/ÏÏT/CS/2544-'

Page 11 .

Isolation and. subsistence as key

elements of African agri¬

culture have usually been based on

descriptions which underscore

the observation that all the consumption

needs

are

self and locally

produced.

Superficially this

appears

to be the case. But care full;

conducted historical and contemporary studies

of agricultural

popu-

27/

lations in Africa have forcefully

brought but that:—

(i)

in

pre-colonial times the village agriculturalist

exchanged several

articles with other nearby and

somewhat distant communities;

(ii)

within

the rural communities considerable speciali-

zation and differentiation had already occurred

in

pre-colonial times hence

consumption

was

not

en¬

tirely self-produced;

(iii)

during

the

course

of colonialization these tenden¬

cies were rapidly accentuated and

thus further

re¬

moving African agriculture

from conditions of iso¬

lation and subsistence.

Perhaps the only manner in

which the term subsistence has relevancy

is that it does correspond tó the rather low

level Of consumption

with respect to food and non-food,

items. In conclusion African

agriculture is an

integral part of the total economy engaged in a

lively interaction which in turn

is dominated by imperialist colc-

po/

niai ism and neo-imperialism.—'

The characterisation of the

agriculturalist

as a

peasant;

independent producer either ignores or

minimises the following im¬

portant facets of agricultural activities in a

colonialised

cn-

vironment

29/

"

IDEP/ET/CS/2544-1

Page 12.

(i) restriction of economic apportunities in farming

through market

restrictions, competition from

settlers, new land use

and ownership patterns

leading to a reduction in

the size of cultivation

units;

(ii) introduction of forced

wage

labour;

(iii) disruption of the balance and interchange between

agriculture and

handicrafts leading to severe occu¬

pational dislocation and

increased dependence

on

wago employment;

(iv) establishment of

^reserves

and plantations;

(v)

growing

requirement for

money

(cash)

^as

^the earlier

forms of barter economies are destroyed;

(■«£) state intervention against the Africans in terms of

the price of inputs and outputs.

The operational resultant of

the

above

social forces has been to sub-

joct the African

agriculturalist t.ow-~rds becoming semi—proletariani-

sed and exist in the form of a.part-time worker and

part-time cul¬

tivator. A far cry indeed, from the

mythical independent peasant pro¬

ducer.

The agrarian structure

in contemporary Africa can,in summary,

be described in terms of the foilowing types

1. The bulk of the agricultural population cultivates fairly

small holdings

(2—3 acres)

where the actual unit of

cultivation,

arising from subdivision and scattered plots, is

considerably smaller

than the unit of holding. While the de .jure property form continues

to be communal. The de-facto conditions are increasingly private and

individual. The growth of this kind of "private ownership" in Tropi¬

cal West Africa has come about through cash cropping, land pledges

idep/st/co/2544- 1

Paga 13.

to moot debts,

donation of land

as

gifts, leasing and selling of

land., in East and Central African

similar ownership trends have

arisen out of land reform - land

consolidation programmes, model

farmers ^— master farmers — land

settlement schemes. At an in¬

creasing pace over

the past

one

hundred and seventy-five years the

penetration of

commodity relations has shattered the characteristics

of "isolated,

subsistence" production activities, turning the bulk

of the cultivators into part-time migrant

workers and forcing other

into permanent low wage-earners,

nevertheless the development of

commodity production remains uneven

and unequal.

2. In a few areas

(parts of Arab North Africa, Northern Nigeria,

Ethiopia,

Euganda, Upper Volta and Northern Cameroun) land owner¬

ship and cultivation

units had emerged which can.be descirbed as

forms of African

"feudalism"."^/ ^{While the unit of ownership has}

usually been large.

The actual unit of cultivation often was con¬

siderably smaller and tilled by

forms of forced labour, sharecrop¬

pers and tenants.

In most of these

areas

considerable activity in¬

volving land reforms

has been attempted with the specific aim of

displacing the landed

non-cultivating

owners

and replacing them by

a" variety of "kulak farmers.

It is

among

the more affluent strata

form these "kulaks" that the recent programmes

of the intensive use

of inputs

(green revolution) have been initiated.

3. Plantations

(owned either by commercial companies or foreign

individuals)

^and settler farms

(mainly

european

owned in the past,

but lately

"africanised"

as

in Kenya, Nigeria, Ghana, Ivory Coast

and parts of North

Africa)

are

usually middle

... 5

and large units of

ownership and cultivation. Two

main types of labour are employed

on these farms,

(i) permanent agricultural workers, and (ii) migrant

agricultural wofkors.

Land

^use

is primarily devoted to commercial

cash crops destined for

export" markets beyond the national frontiers

IBEP/ET/CS/2544-1

Page 14.

More often, than

not, the work on these agricultural units is capital

intensive - technology per

unit of land and labour being high. These

.agricultural units constitute the principal example of the formation

of agrarian

capitalism.

4?: As a

consequence of the implementation of the variety of post -

independence land

reforms in African countries á segment of the agri¬

cultural land has been

organised

as

state farms and private and publl

■co-operatives. A

close examination of these recent experiments re¬

veals that the working

relationships

on

the land resemble more those

of private

commerical (various forms of agrarian

^{. \}

commodity

J "I*|/

production

relations)

farming

than that of types of "socialism".*"

The agrarian

structure of contemporary Africa is obviously a

complex of a

variety of economies (land use — cropping patterns)

which in turn provide

the contours of several modes of production

(commodity producing and pre-commodity producing).

As a direct and indirect

consequence of colonialism the domi¬

nant mode of production

is that made up by cash crop commodity pro¬

duction.and

consumption goods

^-

mining commodity production. However,

the labour employed and the

emergent labour process is not in the main

constituted by "free wage

earners". Pre-comnodity and commodity pro¬

ducing labour

intermingle and even structurally balance the use of

one another. This particular

kind of the appearance and growth of

commodity production

under colonialism results in the existence of

an uneasy, ehiftirg

alliance between comraodity and pre-commodity mode,

of production.

In this context it is not surprising to find forms

of the following mechanisms

of exploitations

(i) extraction of rent-surplus from primary producers

through

different types of overt and covert tenancy,

sharecropping and

compulsive forms of employed labour;

IDBP

/ST /C3 /25 44-1

Page 15•

(ii) extraction of prof it-on-alienat.icn "based upon

the domination of money

capital

over

the "base

of petty

production through the means of cre¬

dit and marketing;

(iii) demination of merchant capital over the economy

operating

through the price mechanism, through

speculation in

commodities, shares, instruments

of commercial and

financial transaction, etc.;

(iv) unequal exchange through the means of external

trade ;

(v) extraction of profit on the "basis of the ex¬

ploitation of

"free"

wage

labour.

Development in the

context of

a

colonial legacy and neoj-

imperialism,

envisaged

^{as a}

social, political and economic revolu¬

tion, therefore can

only "be understood and realised on the premise

of thoroughly

transforming

^"

"both the objective and

.•

subjective 32/ fac—

tors making up

social formation

-

modes of production."*-^

IDEP/ET/CS/2544-1

Page

16.

NOTES

u Knapp, J. "Economies or Political Economy?" Llyods Bank

Review. January, 1973.

» —

2/

*

New York city was host tõ "a gathering of "experts" on

problems of

economic growth, in 1970 which attempted to

bring together a

relévàiit" sample of documentation and to

try to sum up

the experience of the failures of the 1960's.

Ward, B.

(ed.). The Widening Gap: Development in the

Seventies. N.Y.,

4971

^•

J Myrdal, G. and associates, • The'Asian Brama, 3 Vols.

Harmondsworth,

19685 Rhodes, R.I. (ed.) Imperialism and

Underdevelopment, N,Y.,

1970.

As examples see:

Forrester, J.N. World Dynamics, London,

19715 Meadows,

D. Dynamics of Growth in a-Finite World,

London,1973, and for

a

critique see: Kay, J. "Limits to

Growth?" Cambridge

Review, February, 1973»

^-

1/ Phelps-Brown, É.H. "The Underdevelopment of Economics",

The Economie Journal,

March, 1972, Mishan, E.J. "Economic

Grewth: The Need for

Scepticism", Llyods Bank Review,

October, 1972,

Haq, M. "Employment in the 1970's". Inter¬

national Development Review,

April, 1f^1 and for

a

critique

see: Hunt, E.K.

and Jesse, G. Schwartz, (eds.) A Critique

of Economic Theory, London,

1972; Kurien, C.J. "What is

Growth?",

Economic and Political Weekly, December 23 1972.

6/ Greenway, J., Chris Pipe and Chris Stockwell. End of an

Illusion: Verdict on

UNCTAB., London, 1972, "The Future

of UNCTAD". Bulletin - The

Institute of Development Studios,

January,

1973.

1/ Africa Research Group. International Dependency in 1970's

Boston,

1971»

8/ Here it is important to recall the following statements

in order to underscore

the thrust of the argument. First,

Marx in his well known

statement regarding the method of

political economy

stated: "Hitherto philosophers have on.,,'

interpreted the

'world. The point is to change it." Second,

Mao Tsetung in his

discussion regarding the source of know¬

ledge noted:

"Where do correct ideas come from? Do they

drop from the

sddLos? No. Are they innate in the mind? No.

They come from

social practice".

IDEP/JST/CS/2544-1

Page 17.

Sklar,

M.J. "On the Proletarian Revolution and the End of

Political — Economic

Society."

Radical America,

May

-

JUNE

1969.

For a closely argued elaboration

of this

process

of change,

see: Venable,'V. Human

Nature.:. The Marxian View, New York,

1966.

In relation to

contemporary evidence drawn mainly

from the biological sciences Harry

Crunfest developed

a ver;

similar theory which he named as "The

Theory of Integrative

Levels".

■ ■" . ■. .P.- •

For a theoretical outline of this thesis see :

Thompson,

G. From Marx to Mat'Tsetung, London, 197"l s P°r seme.

illusra-

tive historical evidence, see: Rodney, W,

How Europe Under-

•developed' A'frica, London,- 1972.

The basic ideas for this, can be found in, Marx,

K. Grundris

de Kritik der politischen Olconomie. Berlin,

1953, for

a re¬

cent interpretive summary see: Nicolaus,

M. "The Unknown

Marx." New Left Review, March - April,

1968.

Stern, B. J,

"Some Aspects of Historical Materialism",

Science and Society, Winter, 1957•

Gordon-Ghilde, V-. .Social.

Evolution, New York, 195*1»

The intellectual initation of this debate came

with the

publication of Maurice

RobbUs..perceptive

essays

entitled

Studies in the Developmentof Capitalism. The

debate

was ex

tended by the appearance^.

shortly thereafter, of the German

- and French -editions of Marx's Grundrisse ^...

And it is

moving into a more intense stage

by the compelling and pro¬

pelling need to transform

the stagnant deteriorating condi¬

tions bf-life faced.-day the

majority of the working people

of- thé- world**.* -—•

TjiA Trader is cautioned that what

follows is not

a summer^o

the various views hitherto expressed. Rather it

is

a pre¬

sentation of a particular point of view, that

is,

as pre¬

sently formulated by this writer.

For a refreshing scathing critique of

crude and mechanistic

interpretations of the

"stages" theory

see:

Kosambi, D.D.

The Culture and Civilisation- of Ancient

India, London, 19^5

IDEP/ET/CS/2544-1

Page

18.

18/ Venable, V. op. cit. presents a clear synthesis of this ar¬

gument. The

subjective factors are labour and. its social

:

- 'organisation

while the objective factors are the tools -

techniques and.

the objects of nature.

t - t

21/ It is necessary to make a distinction between surplus value

and surplus product in

the

sense

that value theory is the

spiècific form

of analysing exploitation-in the context of

the historical fact where

labour itself has become a comme—

dity., while

surplus "product "refers' to historical situations

where labour has not yet

fully been transformed into a com¬

modity.

"""""

. •

20/ Robertson, A. Hõw to Re ad ' His tory, New York, 1952.

21J Meek, R.L. Studies in the Labour Theory-of Value, London,

1956. _

22/ Hilton, R. "Capitalism,-what's in-a Name?" Past and Pre sen,,

February, 1952.

21/ Seidman, A. An Economics Textbook for Africa, London, 1972.

24/

Weddis,

J. Africa: The Roots óf Revolt, New, York, 1962.

%

T7/\ Robson, P. and D.A. Lury, The Economies of Africa, London

£J> 1969.

21/ Thomas, M.F. and G.W. Whittington, (eds.) Environment and

Land Use in Africa,

London, 1972, Biebucyk, D. (ed.)

African Agrarian..Sys.terns..

.London, 19635 in terms of data

derived from

micro—studies

see:

Bernard, F.E. East of Mount

Kenya: Meru

Agriculture ,in- Transition, Munchen, 1972, and

the summary given by

Klein, M.A. "African Social History".

African Studies Review,

April 1972, Atieno-Odhiambo, E.S.

"The Rise and Decline of the

Kenya Peasant", East Africa,

Vol.93,

1972.

28/ It is useful to indicate here that the concept of dualism

also has little, if any,

relevance to African economies,

sees Mafege, A.

"The Fallacy of Dual Economies", East

Africa, February,

1972.

IDEP/jJT/CS/254'-

^-1

Page 19^«

Arrighi, G.

"Labour Supplies in Historical Perspective",

Î-DEP/Re

product

ion/208, December 1970? Saul, J,S. and Roger

Woods, "African

Peasantries.''..,. (Unpublished MS) IDEP/Repro¬

duction/252,

Juno,

1971

^.

Post, K. ."On ' Pe as antiz ation' and

Rural Glass Differentiation in Western

Africa". IDEP/Repro¬

duction 254*

(Unpublished),

For a discussion of the use of the category

"feudal" in the

African context sees Goody, J,.

"Feudalism in Africa" Jour-

nal of African History, Vol.4j

1963, Chodak, S. "Social

Classes in Sub-Saharan Africa". Africana

Bulletin, Ho. 4>

1966,

Afana,

0. L'Economie de l'Ouest -Africain, Paris,

1966,

Benneh,

G.

"Systems

of Agriculture in Tropical Africa",

Economic Geography, Vol.40, H*.3, July,

1972.

Podeworny, H. "Customary

Land Tenure: Selected Problems of

Agriarian Reforms and

Agricultural Developmenti-. "

Africana Bulletin, Ho.15, 1971^-9 Cloggj

I. Workers Self-

Management in Algeria, Hew York

1972, Saul, JvS. "Africa

Socialism in One Country: Tanzania"

(unpublished ms), IDEP/

ET/cs/2347-34, September, 1972. A groat deal of careful

investigations of these

experiments needs to~tra carried out

in order to distill both positive and

negative lessons from

them. '

* V

There is nó attempt-made-in this paipe«?

to spell out the

question

of how and through what

means

the envisaged changes

are" to be accomplished.

Historically and comparatively the

evidence is clear as regards an imperative

requirement for

such changes in order

that development

can

begin to occur.

For some indicative. and illustrative discussion see:

Davidsoi

B. In the Eye of the Storm, London,

1972, Jîhah, S.A.

"Imperialism rand

Hatiohal "Liberations. Some Introductory Com¬

ments"_j

(unpublished IS3T IDSP/E-t/CS/2347-42

^.

IDEP/ET/CS/2544-1

Page 20.

Afana, 0.

-Afriea Research.

Group

Allan, ¥.

Althusser, L &

E. Balïbar

Amin, S.

Arrighi,

G.

Atieno-Gdhiamb o, E.S.

Bagchi,

A.K.

Balibar, B..

Bairaji, Jai»*»-

Benneh, G.

Betielheim, C,

Bernard,

F.E,

A SELECT BIBLIOGRAPHY

L'Economie de l'Ouest Africain,

Paris, 1966.

International. Dependency in

the 1970's Boston,

1971. • '

The African Husbandman, London,

1963.

Lire le Capital,.- 2. Tome, Paris,

1966.

L'Accumulation à l'Echelo

Mondiale, Paris, 1970.

The

Political

Economy of

Rhodesia, Nov/ York,

1967. -n-nda..

■"Labour Eup.plios in

Historical Perspective"

IDEP/Reproduction/208, December, 1970.

"The Rise and Decline of the

Kenya Peasant",

East Africa, Vol.9,

No.3, 1972.

"Notes Towards a Theory.of

Underdevelopment",

Economic and Political Weekly,

Vol.6, Nos. 3,

4, 5,

1971.

"Some International Foundations

of Capitalist

Gr0wth.nnd.Underdeve10pment",

Economic and

Political Weekly,

(special No.) August, 1972.

"Letters on Historical

Materialism", Theore¬

tical Practice. January,-1978-.

"For a thoojrçr nf 0ni ortip1 Mnrl.m s

.of Produoii orc"

, -Economic _and

Political-Weekly, December 23, 1972.

"Systems of

Agriculture in Tropioa}. Africa",

Economic..Geography9

Vol.40, No.3 July, 1972.

Calcul. Economique et Formos

de Propriété,

Paris,

197O.

East, of..Mount Kenya: -Meru

Agriculture in Transi-

tion Munchen, 1972.

IDEP/ET/C S/2 5 44-

Page 21 ^.

Biebucyk, D.

(ed.)

Brock, B. :....

Bundy, C.

Chattopadhyay,P

Chodak, S.

Clegg, I.

Cohen, Robin.

Cutler, A.

, " African A- rir-ian

Systems, London, 1963.

—» and

John Taylor

Davidson, B.

•'.."Customary Lhnd Tenure,

•Individualization' and

agricultural development in Uganda", East

African Journal of Rural

Development, Vol.2, Do.2

1969.

^.

"Emergence.

and Decline of a South African Peasan¬

try",

African' Affairs, October, 1972.

"On the- ^ueefion of the

Mode of Production in

Indian Agriculture",

Economic and Political Ueekl;,

..March, 29

1972.

"Social Classes in Sub-Sahara

Africa", Africana

Bulletin,

'Do74, 1966.

Workers.Self-Management in

Algeria, Dew York,

1972. ry:;:,,;

"Classes in Africa",

Socialist Register

-

1972.

Lond.cn,

1972.

"Letters on 'Historical Materialism",

Theoretical

Practice, January, 1973.

"Theoretical Remarks on the Theory

of the Transi¬

tion from Feudalism to Capitalism",

Theoretical

Practice, September,

1972.

The Africans, London,

1969*

"The African Prospect",

Socialist Register

-

1970

London,

1970.

-•

m the Eye Of the Storm, London, 1972.

Doctor, K. and

H. Gallis

Dobb, M.ÏÏ. ^..

...' 1

"Size Characteristics,

of Wage Employment in Afric.

.International Labour

Review, February, 1966.

Studies in the Development of

Capitalism, Dew Tor."

•1947. < •

Forrester,J.W. ^..

World Dynamics, London, 1.97-1

IDEP/ET/CS/2544-1

Page 22.

Prank,

André

Gunder

Geras,

N.

G«ody,

Jack

Glucksmann,A.

Capitalism and

Underdevelopment in Latin

America.

"AlthuSsaxs Marxism:

An Account and Assessment

New Left Review,

January-February, 1972.

"Feudalism..in

Africa", Journal of African His-

tory,

Vol.4, 1963.

•"Tie Althusserian

Theatre", New Loft Review,

March-April, 1972.

Gordon-Childe,V,

Social Evolution, New York, 1951»

Greenway, J.

Chris Pipe &

Chris Stockwell Guha, M.

Haq., M.

Hill, P.

Hilton, R.

Hindess, B.

Hunt, E.K.

& -.-.t-

Jesse G.Schwartz

(eds.)

Kay, J.

Kiernan, V.G.

Klein, M.A.

End of"'èui Illusions

Verdict on UNCTAD 3

London,

1972.

"Character of the

Soviet Economy

-

II",

Frontier, February,

17s 1973.

"Employment

in the 1970's" International

Development

Review, April 1971•

Studies in Rural

Capitalism in tost Africa,

London: 1970»

"Capitalism,

What's in

a

Name?" Past and

Present, No,1 February,

1952.

"Lenin and the

Agrarian Question in the Firsl

Russian

Revolution", Theoretical Practice,

January 1973.

A Critique of

Economic Theory, London, 1972.

"Limits to

Growth", Cambridge Review, Feb.,

1973.

"The Peasant

Revolution". Socialist

Register -

London, 1970»

"African Social

History", African Studies

Review,

April, 1972.

IDEP

/eJï/Co /25 4

A' 23^•

Knapp, J.

Kosambi, D.D.

Kurien,

C.T.

Laclau, E.

Lawson, R.M.

Lecourt, D.

Lenin,

V.I.

Mafeje, A.

Majumdar,

A.

Mao Tsetung

Martinez—Alier,J.

Marx, K.

"Economics or

Political Economy?" LIoyds

Bank; Reyiew. January,

1973

^•

Tho Culture and

Civilization of Ancient

India, London,

1965»

"'"What is Growth?"

Economic and Political

Weekly, December

23, 1972.

•

"Feudalism and

Capitalism in Latin America",

Hew Left Review,

May-June, 1971•

The Changing Economy

of the Lower Volta,

1954-67, London, 1972.

Pour une Critique de

1'Epistemologie, Paris,

.1972•

The Development of

Capitalism in Agriculture,

Moscow,

1.967

^•

"The Fallacy of

Dual Economies", East Africa,

February, 1972.

"Mode of -Production

in the U.S.S.R.

-

I and

II",

Frontier, December 16 and 23 1972.

"On Contradiction",

Selected Readings,

Peking,

1967.

"On the-Correct

Handling of Contradictions

Among the

People", Selected Readings, Peking,

1967.

"El latifúndio en

Andalucia

y

en America

Latina", Cuaderno

de Ruedo Ibérico, October-

Kovejsber,

1967.

A Contribution to the

Critique of Political

Economy., Chicago,

1904»

V•• '*

Grundrisse der

Kritik dor politischen Okonomio

Berlin, 1953.

Pre-capitalist

Economic Formations, London,

196.4.

•

The Grundrisse,

(partial translation), London,

1971.

IDEP/ET/CS/2544-1

Page 24.

Meadows, D.

Meek,

R.L.

Meillasseux, C,

Mishan,

E.J.

Myrdal,

G,. and

Associates Nicolaus, M.

Patnaik, U.

Pellissier,

P.

Phelps-Brown,

E.H.

Phillipe-Rey,P,

Podeworny, H.

Post, K.

Rhodes,

R.I.(ed.)

Robertson, A.

Dynamics of

Growth in

a

Finite World,

London,

1973.

Studios in the Labour

Theory of 'Value,

London,

1956.

"Production and

Reproduction", Economy and

- Society, Vol.1 9

No.1, 1972.

"Economic Growth;

The Need for Scepticism"

Llyods Bank Review,

OctoD'er, 1972.

The Asian Drama,

3 Volumes, Harmondsworth,

1968.

"The Unknown Marx",

Mew Left 'Review, March-

April,

1968.

"Development of

Capitalism in Agriculture",

Social Scientist,

September, 1972.

Le Paysans du

Sénégal, Saint Yrieix, 1967»

"The

Underdevelopment of Eóonomics", The

Economic Journal,

March, 1972.

"Sur l'articulation

des modes de 'production",

Problèmes de

Planification, Mos,. 13 and 14?

1966.

"Customary Land

Tenure; Selected Problems of

Agrarian

Reforms and Agricultural Development"

Afrxcana■ ■Bui1etin,

Mo.15? 1971»

"On 'Peasantization1

and Rural Class Differen¬

tiation Western

Africa", IDEP/Reproduction/25

November,

1971.

Imperialism and

Underdevelopment, Mew York,

1970.

How to Read History,

Mow York, 1952.

IDEP/ET/CS/2544-1

Page 25. *

Robson, P. and

D,A. Lury Rochester, A.

Rodney, ¥.

Saith, A, and

A. Tankha

Saul, J.S. and Roger Woods

Seidman, A.

Shah S•A»

Sklar,

m.J,

Stavenhagen,R,

Stern, B.J.

The Economies of Africa, London,

1969»

Why Fr-rmers are Poor, New York,

1940»

How Europe Underdeveloped Africa, London, 1972.

"Agrarian Transition

and the Differentia¬

tion Of the Peasantry", Economic

and

Political Weekly, April, 1 1972.

"African Peasantries",

IDEP/Reproduction/

252, June, 1971.

"African Socialism in One Country: Tanzani

IHEP/ET/CS/2347-34, September, 1972.

Ah Economics Textbook for Africa, London, 1972.

"Socio-economic Structure and Economic Development" Enquiry, Winter,-

1964.

"Imperialism and National

Liberation:

Some Introductory

Comments", IDEP/ET/cs/

2347-42V

"On the Proletarian Revolution and the

End of. Politico—Economic Society", Radie

al

America. May-June,

19^9»

Les Classes Sociales dans les Sociétés

Agraires., Paris,

1969»

"Some Aspects of Historical

Materialism",

Science and Society, Winter, 1957»

Swe^zy, P.M.

M.H.Dobb, H.K.

Takahashi,R.Hilton

and C. Hill

Suret—Canale,J.

Transition from Feudalism to Capitalism, ..New-York,..;

Afrique Noire, Occidentale et

Centrale,

Paris,

1968.

IDEP/ET/CS/2544-1

Page

26.

Thomas, M.P.

&

Environment and. Land. Use in Africa,

London,

GWhittington

(eds.) 1972*

Thompson, G. ^{Prom Marx to Mao Tsetuns;,} London,

1971»

Venable, V. ^{Human Nature: The} Marxian View,

New York,

1966.

West, H.W. ^{The Mailo System in} Buganda,

Entebbe, 1964

Woddis, J, ^{Africa: The Roots of} Revolt,

New York,1962

Wolf, E. ^{Peasants, Englewood} Cliffs

(N.J.), 1966.