6 Mar 98 12:04:49 -600 6 Mar 98 12:04:33 -600 Date: Fri, 6 Mar 98 12:06:31 From: "Manjur Karim" Reply-To: To: psn-seminars@Csf.colorado.edu Subject: Charles Ostenle and the Manifesto Charles A. Ostenle's article "Manifesto for Praxis Societies and for a Global Democratic and Socialist Political Economy" is really extraordianry. It's a must read for any of us who particpate in the political project of historical transformation in the late twentieth century. In Ostenle's own words "Programs for the 21st century must be grounded upon an empirically valid and theoretically informed analysis of the effects of transnational capital. Marx and Engels, in the Manifesto of 1848, gave the world an analysis most helpful to workers movements in the 19th and 20th century. Now a new Manifesto, one oriented to the vast changes in economics, politics, and culture wrought by the globalization of he economy must brought to bear on the globalized problems workers and citizens of the world now face." I hope Ostenle makes this manifesto available to a larger audience. I just have a few questions for Ostenle which may not be part of the central focus of his paper but have important implications for the way we try to grapple with the meaning of the Manifesto within the larger context of a marxist theory. Let me also take the opportunity to make a comment about Carl's observation about the relevance of my earlier post on Frank and Eurocentrism for the present seminar. I really believe that the reading of Manifesto, if limited to the analysis of the text itself in a strict sense, ultimately remains a scholastic practice without any concrete connection with the practical project of politics. Manifesto is not a text in a self-encapsulated manner, but a document that makes sense only in the context of a historically embedded inetertexuality. It also represents a particularly significant moment in the development of marxist discourse of history, teleology, and contemporary reality. So, I think questions raised for Frank or Ostnle are important. Now that I justified my interventions :), let me focus on Ostenle's paper. First, His comment "while primitive communism imprisoned peoples in the daily search for food and lodging...." I wonder what does he think about the concept of "original affluent society" put forward by Marshall Sahlin and others. Actually, the primitive societies' forces and relations of production, their ways of organizing themselves to acquire food and other resources avilable in their environments seemed served them well until they were forced to compete with other forms of social organizations. Ethnographic work carried out since the 1960s among the few remaining hunter-gatherers indicates that their lives are easier than the modern tempo/ethnocentric views recognize. For instance, many hunter-gatherers may have worked for a shorter average number of hours per day to meet their basic human needs ( I recognize the structurally constructed nature of "need") than the modern factory worker or office employee. Second, Ostenle states "the need for a docile labor force has driven transnational capital away from countries have gained some rights and benifits towards countries still controlled by feudal, religious, or military elites." Now, whether a feudal elite stil exists in any part of the world today is a major point of controversy, with important implications for the late twentieth century application for Marx's understanding of capitalism, in which the Manifesto played such an important part. I am not going to touch that issue right now although I think other fellow subscribers may have something to contribute in that regard. My own understanding is that transnational capital is more attracted to countries which are characterized by different configurations of, to use Peter Evan's phrase, a "tripartite alliance" among transnational capital, the state, and the local bourgeoisie. The specific equation may vary from one nation state to another; for instance in Taiwan the state and local capital have relatively more bargaining power vis a vis international capital than they do in Bangladesh. But I think it is still a lot more useful framework than the one used by Ostenle. Third, Ostenle wrote "Economics is the solid base upon which all else grows or is stunted." I don't think reproducing the base-superstructure metaphor, one of the weeknesses of classical marxist discourse, is very helpful. Of course, economy is important, but I think economy needs to be located within the matrix of a larger historical totality. I also recognize the possibility for different readings of Marx (and Engels) on that issue, and the subsequent debates within marxist theories, but I am more inclined to accept what Stuart Hall called "Economy in the first instance" (in contradistiction with Althusser's "economy in the last instance"). Economy has the most concrete, immediate presence for our experience of social totality and our political praxis, but in the end we need to grasp the political, cultural, sexual and other spheres of experience that continuously constitute the realm of economy. Ostenle himself recognizes that sense of totality in his emphasis on a large range of political and cultural phenomena. May be his use of the metaphor is a raher casual oversight, a habit of mind? I am also curious to hear Louis Proyects' view on this issue. Louis defended the base-superstructure metaphor in the CM150-l list a few weeks ago. Manjur Karim