Transitions in Latin America and in Poland and Syria: Volume 24

With a world balance of forces in tension, this volume slices the political map in two dimensions, the geographical dimension and the imperialism–socialism dimension (“socialism”, of course, having widely varying meanings). As a region, Latin America is in the forefront of resistance to imperial schemes, particularly those by the United States. Venezuela and Cuba represent leading edges of resistance, and Colombia, a leading edge of U.S. hegemony. Chapters addressing the political economies of these countries form the first part of the volume.

This paper explores the sociological, economic, and political reasons for the collapse of Venezuela's 40-year “pacted” democracy, the eight-year conflict between the country's new president and the opposition, where this conflict has led Venezuela, and what its prospects are for the near future. It proposes that the collapse of Venezuela's “ancien regime” can best be understood by an examination of the impact the rise and fall of oil prices had on its economy, society, and polity. A 20-year economic decline led to the election of Hugo Chavez, a radical outsider, who refused to play along with the country's old political class. This class, in turn, refused to accept Chavez as the legitimately elected president and launched the country on an eight-year roller-coaster ride of counter-revolution and radicalization, which recently ended with the reelection of Chavez and a massive popular endorsement for the establishment of “21st century socialism” in Venezuela. Exactly what such a project means is still unclear, but it so far involves state support for self-managed workplaces and an anti-capitalist and participatory democratic state in the midst of a still functioning capitalist economy. With the apparent defeat of obstacles that are external to the Bolivarian movement, as the pro-Chavez movement is called, such as the domestic opposition and U.S. intervention, the movement is now forced to confront its internal obstacles, such as clientelism, corruption, and personalism, if it is to succeed in the long run.

This article evaluates contemporary Cuban economic policy and development prospects after a decade of market experimentation in a socialist context. An introductory historical review assesses the successes and failures of Cuban development policy in the 1970s and 1980s and describes the staggering dimensions of the economic crisis triggered by the abrupt disruption of Cuba's relations with the Soviet bloc in 1989–1991. The next section, “To the market in the 1990s,” examines Cuban efforts to stabilize the economy in the early 1990s while maintaining a strong social safety net. The historic policy shift toward limited market liberalization within a state-dominated economy is analyzed and the key market concessions described. The economic turnaround of the late 1990s and Cuban macroeconomic and industrial performance over the past decade are then examined. The final part of the article evaluates the coherence and sustainability of Cuba's emerging economic model and assesses prospects for the survival of some form of Cuban socialism.

For Colombia, cocaine is a product that is sold for profit in the United States. Mainstream political economy, let alone the other social sciences, has little to say about the process of extraction of surplus value in the production and distribution of cocaine, in other words, how cocaine is exploited for profit. The paper argues that the conventional framework, which locates profits generated from the cocaine trade in an economic model of crime shields a much deeper reality than simply ‘money laundering’ as a ‘legal problem.’ The central argument is that the cocaine trade in general, and the cocaine economy in particular, are a vital aspect of U.S. imperialism in the Colombian economic system. The paper tackles a critical problem: the place of cocaine in the re-colonization of Colombia – defined as ‘narcocolonialism’ – and the implications of the cocaine trade generally for U.S. imperialism in this context. The paper evaluates selected literature on the Colombian cocaine trade and offers an alternative framework underpinned by a political economy analysis drawn from Marx and Lenin showing that cocaine functions as an ‘imperial commodity’ – a commodity for which there exists a lucrative market and profit-making opportunity. It is also a means of capital accumulation by what could be termed, Colombia's comprador ‘narcobourgeoisie;’ dependent on U.S. imperialism. It is hoped that by analyzing cocaine with a Marxist interpretation and political economy approach, then future developments in understanding drugs in Colombia's complex political economy may be anticipated.

This article argues that the transformation of the economies of Central and Eastern Europe (CEE) has to be understood in the context of the dynamics and development of the global economy. The analysis draws on the notion of combined and uneven development in which there has recently been renewed interest. Too often this notion has been a slogan that lacks substance, but the article elaborates how change is a dynamic process of interaction between economic change and political and social forces. The neoliberal analysis, as well as some Marxist accounts, are criticised for being deterministic, linear and prescriptive. This account emphasises the institutional dimension and role of the state as being critical to understanding the varied outcomes between and within economies in CEE in terms of the way that it has mediated the reinsertion of these countries into the global economy. The story focuses on agency, a neglected aspect of analysis, in emphasising the ideological and discursive aspects of transformation, which attempt to justify and reinforce economic and material changes and to close down debate about alternatives. Crucially, the form and content of development, in its widest sense, cannot be known or predicted because the process of transformation has been contested by different factions of the ruling class and by workers. Despite the marginalisation of organised labour in mainstream and many radical accounts, it is argued that trade unions and workers have been central to the process and outcomes of transformation.

This paper examines the transformation of Syrian political economy from 1970 until 2005. I argue that Syria has undergone two important phases of political and economic transformation, from building a centralized state and economy in the early 1970s to embarking on the path of market economy in the early 1990s. With the logic of competitiveness guiding the direction of economic development, the socio-economic changes of the mid-1980s and after have corresponded with an important process of class and state formation. After a brief discussion of the current transition in Syria, the following sections of the paper attempt to provide a critical study of the different strategies for economic development. Section two examines the process of state and economic centralization of the 1970s and 1980s and highlights the contradictions of this period. Section three assesses the impact of economic liberalization through a study of competitiveness in the economic policies of the 1990s and 2000. The final section examines the economic and political impasse that Syria has been faced with. In conclusion, I argue that the current path of market economy as the strategy for capital accumulation has not resolved the socio-economic problems that Syria has faced in the last two decades. This strategy will continue to face contestation by marginalized groups such as factions of the Baath Party, landless peasants, workers and small producers as Syria becomes even more integrated into the regional and global economy.

This paper examines how medical practice, like all other productive activities, has been subject to the transformative elements of the forces and the relations of production involving class struggle and intra-class conflict. It will explore changes in the relations of production of medical practice which have been catalyzed by powerful productive forces. The current period of medical production involves the transformation of simple commodity production into a transitional stage of capitalist production with the seemingly unbounded growth of the medical productive forces. This development was precipitated by the intervention of capital as a whole, to restrict the drain on their variable capital through the placement of units of financial capital into the management of medical production, using the leverage of access to patients. In response, physicians have consolidated and centralized their practices to create enterprises with market power to limit the extraction of surplus by financial capital, and by their own employment of productive labor to extract surplus from hired physician labor and other clinical workers. Rationalization of the production of medical service commodities, and the sharing of surplus generated from exploitation of an expanded labor force by managed care financial capital and their capitalist partners owning medical enterprises, constitutes the contemporary relations of production. The contradictions of this mode of medical production and the potential for its reproduction will be analyzed.

This article traces the history of a continuous tradition of Marxian stage theory from the beginning of the twentieth century until the present day. The resolution of the first crisis of Marxism was found in the work of Hilferding on finance capital, Bukharin on the world economy and Lenin on imperialism as a new stage of capitalism. Hilferding's, Bukarin's and Lenin's analysis was carried into the post–World War II era through the work of Sweezy and Mandel. A second wave of Marxian stage theorizing emerged with the end of the post–World War II expansion. Mandel's long wave theory (LWT), the Social Structure of Accumulation Framework (SSAF), and the Regulation Approach (RA) analyzed the stagflationary crises as the end of a long wave of growth. This long wave was underpinned by the emergence of a postwar stage of capitalism, which was analogous to the reorganization brought about by monopoly capital at the turn of the century. These new schools were reluctant to predict the non-resolution of the current crisis, thus opening up the possibility of further stages of capitalism in the future. This elevated Lenin's theory of the highest stage to a general theory of capitalist stages. The last decade has seen a substantial convergence in the three perspectives. In general, this convergence has reaffirmed the importance of Hilferding's, Bukarin's and Lenin's (HBL's) initial contributions to the stage theoretic tradition. The article concludes with some thoughts on the necessity of stage theory for understanding of the current period of globalization.

Samezō Kuruma's career as a Marxist economist spans a period of roughly six decades, stretching from the beginning of the 1920s, when Marxism was quickly taking root in Japan, up to the early 1980s, when the nearly hegemonic influence Marxist scholars had enjoyed in the postwar period was on the wane.¹ Kuruma was born in 1893 in Okayama prefecture, west of Osaka. As the eldest son of a prosperous paper merchant, Kuruma was expected to take over the business one day, which did not interest him. Although not eager to become a capitalist, the study of capitalism attracted Kuruma early on, spurred by reading The Wealth of Nations at the age of seventeen. In 1914, Kuruma entered prestigious Tokyo Imperial University (now Tokyo University), where he had intended to study economics but switched to political science after finding the economics courses uninteresting.² Graduating in the spring of 1918, he found a job working for Sumitomo Bank in Osaka. Kuruma had been assured that the job would afford him an opportunity to pursue economic research, perhaps related to China, but his duties turned out to be far more mundane. He soon realized that he was not at all suited to a career in banking.

This paper is a translation of the third and most important chapter of Keizaigaku shi (History of Political Economy) by the Japanese Marxist economist Samezō Kuruma (1893–1982), first published in 1948. Kuruma discusses in detail the achievements and limitations of the Classical school of political economy. He examines the fundamental ideas of Adam Smith and David Ricardo regarding the determination of commodity value and the source of surplus-value, and then looks at how these ideas are connected to production price and profit. Kuruma notes that Smith and Ricardo managed to arrive at the essential labor theory of value, but that neither could correctly apply this theory to adequately explain phenomena in the realm of competition – either abandoning the labor theory of value altogether to embrace a composition theory of value (Smith) or directly applying the theory to explain phenomena without grasping the intermediary processes of development (Ricardo). Kuruma's critique of Smith and Ricardo highlights the achievement of Marx in overcoming the limitations that ultimately led to the breakdown of the Classical school of political economy.