Response to A. Emmanuel's "The Socialist Project in a Disintegrated Capitalist World" Maoist Information We" Site This article addresses Arghiri Emmanuel's "The Socialist Project in a Disintegrated Capitalist World#" which appeared in the journal Socialist Thought and Practice: A Yugoslav Monthly in 1976.)%* M WS has edited and re-published Emmanuel's article. ),* n his article# Emmanuel presents ideas that he had presented else$here ("R-ponse . Eugenio Somaini#" in Un débat sur l'échange inégal: salaires, sous-développement, i périalis e# "M/ths of De0elopment 0ersus M/ths of 1nderde0elopment," and "1ne2ual E3change Re0isited"* and partly elaborated later )in Appropriate or Underdeveloped Technology? and Profit and #rises).)4* Emmanuel proposes that a majorit/ of Western wor5ers are labor aristocrats# and not only labor aristocrats# but also net-recipients of surplus 0alue# ma5ing them !ull-!ledged exploiters of non+ Western $or5ers. Emmanuel re-uses !amiliar natural-resource and ecological illustrations to sho$ that up$ard e2uali6ation to the le0el of a0erage 7irst World consumption is not possible and states that the contradiction between 7irst World countr/ $or5ers and Third World wor5ers is antagonistic. Emmanuel describes the contradiction between the labor aristocrats and the imperialists in the West as a contradiction between exploiters. Emmanuel points to trade and une2ual e3change# rather than the export of capital to the "underde0eloped" countries and profit repatriation# as the main site and !orm of imperialist parasitism. Emmanuel's o0erarching theme is that lo$ $ages contribute to underde0elopment, and socialist central planning is needed to o0ercome a problem of a lack of in0estment due to absent non-producti0e consumption and "rea5 !ree !rom d/namics (those of the international mar5et and capitalism) that result in underdevelopment. Third World nations that continue to participate in the capitalist world econom/ will experience perpetual underde0elopment# which Emmanuel relates to historical $age di!!erences# international exploitation# and a certain di0ision in the world. Socialism is inevitable as the de0elopment of producti0e !orces must proceed. n his article# Emmanuel also discusses the re-proletariani6ation idea that has cropped up relati0ely recently in Maoist circles apparently independently of Emmanuel's wor5# that is# the idea that the Western wor5ing class is presently a labor aristocracy but ma/ become proletarian in the !uture# with !uture strategic implications. What is most interesting about Emmanuel's article !or M WS at present# though# are the issues the article raises about producti0e !orces and the revisionist theor/ of the producti0e !orces# and the 5ind of presentation Emmanuel ma5es in his article and the apparent emphasis on strategy in comparison $ith some of Emmanuel's other $ritings. MIWS $ill discuss these things in two parts. While Emmanuel's article is not an example of the revisionist theor/ of the producti0e !orces# it is M WS's contention that simply holding the position that the Western wor5ing class is a labor aristocracy is not enough to prevent counterre0olution on the basis of the Theor/ of Producti0e 7orces. Secondly# while 8ugosla0ia $as neither imperialist nor socialist and communists ha0e !ound it necessar/ to dumb down theor/ !urther than what Arghiri Emmanuel did $ith his article in Socialist Thought and Practice# most attempts to populari6e theor/ in the 7irst World are misplaced. 7irst# M WS will discuss the issues Emmanuel's article raises about !orces of production. Producti0e !orces Emmanuel begins his article "/ de!ining his approach9 "The analysis that !ollo$s rests on the almost traditional premise of historical materialism that the ulti ate determinant of histor/ is the de0elopment of the producti0e !orces" )italics in original). Emmanuel anticipates the criticism that his analysis is "economist#" and explains that dialectical-materialist anal/sis of histor/ re2uires that one 0ie$ class struggle as based on the development of the producti0e !orces or another determinant; later in the article# Emmanuel argues that socialist relations of production are needed !or the de0elopment of the producti0e !orces to ad0ance. 7or Emmanuel, the de0elopment of the producti0e !orces is determinantal. ! there is no la$ that is determinantal, then one cannot predict the development of society# and one might as $ell just "recount the exploits of leaders and parties in chronological order." "A class struggle di0orced !rom the economic in!rastructure of society is just as indeterminate as the actions of 5ings and captains# and to re!er to the !ree will of the classes to explain histor/ is no less idealistic than to re!er to the !ree will of great men." (italics in original) M WS $ill not be reviewing debates on economism, producti0e !orces# relations of production# and class struggle# here# but the idea that some criticisms of "economism#" which here re!ers to a certain alleged underappreciation of the role of class struggle in histor/# $ere historical-idealist, $as not uni2ue to Arghiri Emmanuel. 7or example# Claude ;arlet wrote two /ears later9 "According to <ettelheim, economism is the essential characteristic of 'congealed Marxism'. t is there!ore necessar/ to examine the criticism that <ettelheim ma5es of economism in order to sho$ that# under the pretext of critici6ing the theor/ of producti0e !orces# [Charles <ettelheim] has substituted historical idealism !or historical materialism.")?* Arguing that Stalin opposed the revisionist theor/ of the producti0e !orces and critici6ing <ettelheim !or upholding historical idealism and a notion of spontaneity# ;arlet states that the class struggle is "ased on a dialectical relationship between the producti0e !orces and the relations of production. Clearly# there ha0e been di!!erent approaches to critici6ing the theor/ of the producti0e !orces# and no simple conclusion ma/ be dra$n !rom Emmanuel's opening pro0ocati0e remar5s about economism and producti0e !orces. Though the actual ideas present in Emmanuel's writing are more ad0anced than those of the majority of his critics who ha0e raised or might raise 2uestions about the speci!ic importance he attaches to development and international economic relations# Emmanuel's writing in di!!erent places does raise 2uestions about the relationship between class analysis and views about producti0e !orces. Previously# M WS wrote9 "MIWS predicts that the theor/ of the producti0e !orces will arise# i! the humyn species survi0es long enough to establish another dictatorship of the proletariat# e0en among those who acknowledge that 7irst Worlders are exploiters and that up$ard e2uali6ation to 7irst World le0els of de0elopment and li0ing standards isn't possible. Some of Arghiri Emmanuel's writing occasionally points in this direction# and MIWS sees potential problems.")@* The goal of de0eloping producti0e !orces is compatible $ith the goal of ending oppression in the long run# but i! one's stated priority is de0eloping producti0e !orces# that can lead to emphases that di0ert the re0olutionar/ struggle. The de0elopment of producti0e !orces is a necessit/ throughout histor/# and it is a strategic necessity at some points# "ut these are di!!erent than ma5ing the de0elopment of the producti0e !orces of society a permanent, o0erriding goal. Revisionists in some countries toda/ alternate being sa/ing that capitalism is needed to de0elop producti0e !orces be!ore a society can be read/ !or socialism# while opposing politics in command and opposing proletarian leadership and proletarian dictatorship# and sa/ing that the goal of socialism itself is to de0elop producti0e !orces and increase living standards. ) ! one's credibility as a communist party rests solely on claiming to be wor5ing toward communism# then an/thing is possible# and an/thing can be called "socialism."* ! that is true# there are also contemporar/ re0isionists# including !rauds claiming to be Maoist# who sa/ that anti-imperialism and socialism ha0e nothing to do with e2uali6ing li0ing standards# which is also wrong. Supporters of Aiu Shao2i and Deng Biaoping are not in po$er in the 7irst World or numerous there. The "igger danger in the 7irst World are those who claim to see no connection between living standards and exploitation and chauvinistically provide !alse cost-of+ living justi!ications and cultural justi!ications !or 7irst Worlders' ownership of e0er/thing !rom personal cars to iPods. Conetheless# !or the sa5e of encouraging understanding and development of the theor/ underlying the scienti!ic position that a majorit/ of 7irst World wor5ers are labor aristocrats or exploiters# MIWS $ill mention# in the context of Arghiri Emmanuel's article# some $a/s in which views of the relationship between class structure# international exploitation# and producti0e !orces# ma/ di!!er. Cot all approaches that recogni6e that tens of millions of 7irst Worlders are labor aristocrats lead to correct ideas about international economic relations# producti0e !orces# and de0elopment. Separating correct !rom incorrect critical responses to Arghiri Emmanuel's $or5 is called !or. MIWS will touch on these brie!ly. M WS has some disagreement with some of the ideas in Emmanuel's article that MIWS has alread/ articulated elsewhere# speci!ically in regard to ho$ exploitation is concluded !rom the impossi"ility of up$ard e2uali6ation (upward to the a0erage 7irst World le0el or a0erage 7irst World wor5er level) of monetar/ income or resource consumption