<!DOCTYPE HTML PUBLIC "-//W3C//DTD HTML 4.01 Transitional//EN">
<html>
<head>
<meta content="text/html; charset=ISO-8859-1"
http-equiv="Content-Type">
<title></title>
</head>
<body bgcolor="#ffffff" text="#000000">
A milking-stool, as it were - a useful place to sit while the
surplus is being pumped out of the direct producer.<br>
<br>
All modes of production in class societies prior to capitalism
extract surplus labor from the immediate producers by means of
extra-economic coercion. Capitalism is the first mode of production
in history in which the means whereby the surplus is pumped out of
the direct producer is 'purely' economic in form - the wage
contract: the equal exchange between free agents which reproduces,
hourly and daily, inequality and oppression.<br>
<br>
<br>
On 3/1/11 10:11 AM, David Green wrote:
<blockquote cite="mid:208601.49029.qm@web65411.mail.ac4.yahoo.com"
type="cite">
<style type="text/css"><!-- DIV {margin:0px;} --></style>
<div style="font-family: times new roman,new york,times,serif;
font-size: 12pt; color: rgb(0, 0, 0);">
<div>Last night at Levis Faculty Center, renowned
political/feminist philosopher Nancy Fraser offered an update
of Karl Polanyi's famous and important work, <em>The Great
Transformation</em>. Polanyi's book (1944)described the
relationship between marketization and social protections
(relationships, solidarity) subsequent to the advent of
capitalism, focusing on England before and during the
Industrial Revolution. To these two fundamental sociological
concepts, Fraser adds that of "emancipation."</div>
<div> </div>
<div>Fraser is of course concerned about neoliberalism, but also
studiously and pointedly avoids "economism," or economic
determinism (of course, identified with Marxism). She is also
concerned that the promotion and revitalization of "social
protections" will promote reaction--especially in relation to
the rights of women, and perhaps other newly-liberated groups.
She argues that by bringing the notion of "emancipation" into
this equation, we can better understand the ups and downs of
capitalism and the welfare state, while of course avoiding
things like fascism and, presumably, teapartyism.</div>
<div> </div>
<div>Fraser's argument is quite abstract, but to me clear. We
now have a three-legged stool of individual rights and
economic/social institutions, in which each leg is
conveniently and elegantly used to critique and modify the
excesses and potentials of the other two. It promotes a kind
of positive, progressive, controlled but dynamic equilibrium,
presumably with the help of philospher kings--and I don't say
that disparigingly, in and of itself.</div>
<div> </div>
<div>Nevertheless, my concerns have, as usual, to do with
Fraser's conventional rejection of "economism," which softens
and compromises her critique of neoliberalism; and her
implicit promotion of "identity politics" under the guise of
emancipation, which she does not assertively define in any
other context. I don't find any of this very satisfying as a
political program, even aside from its academic nature.</div>
<div> </div>
<div>Fraser began her talk with a veiled reference to current
events in the Middle East, saying that for the first time in
20 years, we can begin to think in global and fundamental
terms about political transformation. She claims that for the
past two decades (that is, since the fall of the Soviet
Union), various academic approaches have been fragmented and
limited in scope. Maybe that's true, especially in academia,
but why? For some, the answer obviously lies with the fashions
of postmodernism and identity politics.</div>
<div> </div>
<div>Fraser claims that she is at the forefront of a more
fundamental and thoroughgoing approach to social
transformation, now urgent because of neoliberalism and the
Middle East, and that her critique of Polanyi couldn't be more
timely. Perhaps so, but I'm not sure it's the right critique.
It's not fair to criticize academics for doing what they're
supposed to do, which is to conceputalize and theorize. But
ultimately, such work must be relevant and useful in relation
to political behavior. With all due respect to Fraser's
careful and serious work, for me it doesn't resonate as
revealing our predicament in necessarily dire and urgent
terms, or in providing a sound and inspiring basis for
political strategy.</div>
<div> </div>
<div>DG</div>
</div>
<br>
<pre wrap="">
<fieldset class="mimeAttachmentHeader"></fieldset>
_______________________________________________
Peace-discuss mailing list
<a class="moz-txt-link-abbreviated" href="mailto:Peace-discuss@lists.chambana.net">Peace-discuss@lists.chambana.net</a>
<a class="moz-txt-link-freetext" href="http://lists.chambana.net/mailman/listinfo/peace-discuss">http://lists.chambana.net/mailman/listinfo/peace-discuss</a>
</pre>
</blockquote>
</body>
</html>