Al Szymanski

Marxist Theory and International Capital Flows

contrary positions on the queston of whether the direction of capital flow under mature capitalism is from the developed to the underdeveloped capitalist countries or from the underdeveloped to the developed. After examining the theoretical arguments for these two positions within the Marxist tradition, the data on capital flows associated with U.S. direct investments overseas in the period 1952 to 1971 will be examined. In addition to observing the basic characteristics of U.S. overseas invest-

Marxism and Science

As functionalism of the Parsonian variety has become discredited, the mainstream of sociology has retreated from any attempt at building a general theory of social relations and even from concern with substantive issues of any kind. The earlier emphasis on technique at the expense of content has increasingly come to dominate the field. Even &dquo;theory&dquo; is becoming technique with the growing popularity of so-called &dquo;formal theory. &dquo; Systems theory, balance theory, measurement theory, etc. , are not substantive approaches to the analysis of data nor statements about social relations. Concern with mathematical

Capital Accumulation On a World Scale and the Necessity of Imperialism

occur separately, these two questions in fact address much the same issue. The controversy between Luxemburg (1913), Lenin (1917), and such social democrats as Hobson (1902) and Kautsky, which peaked around World War I, centered on the question of whether or not imperialism was a necessary condition of the capital accumulation process (and thus on whether or not capitalism could function without imperialism), or fundamentally a policy (which could be changed without abolishing capitalism altogether). At the heart of this early debate was the question of capital accumulation on a world scale and the role of imperialism in this process. In the last few years there has been a renewed

Marxism or Liberalism: A Response to Pozzuto

I am indebted to Pozzuto for sharpening the issues raised by my article &dquo;Marxism and Science&dquo; and for giving me the opportunity to expand my criticism of the position he very ably presents in his critique. The arguments put forth by critical idealists such as Pozzuto draw attention to many important points. Specifically, the critical idealists correctly emphasize 1) that man is a potentially free being, 2) that sociology has basic differences with the other sciences, differences which stem from man’s unique character as a historic-

Malinowski, Marx and Functionalism

Few ideas in sociology have caused more confusion than &dquo;functiona1isln. &dquo; I’his term has meant many different things for many different peuL~le. The discussion of t’unctionalisrnhas produced great confusion amongst sociologists, conservative and radical alike. It. is the thesis of this paper, that although prevailing functional theory in sociology is still generally inherently conservative, functional! sm. when interpreted dialectically. is a fundamental part ot War y_... w-,f~tim,dolugy . dnd a vcrv powerful tool for the advance of social science.

Reply to the Feminist Theory Collective

For the sake of clarity the differences between us should be outlined. It seems to me that the main theoretical positions of the Feminist Theory Collective (F.T.C.) can be summed up as follows: (1) The logic of the family in capitalist society is, and will continue for the foreseeable future to be, the primary cause of the oppression of all classes of women. (2) Even though an increasing number of women are working as wage laborers, women’s participation in the labor force remains essentially marginal. (3) Wage labor is, and will continue for the foreseeable future to be, a secondary aspect of most women’s lives. (4) Women’s position in the wage labor force is, and will continue to be, primarily a product of women’s position in the family. (5) It is what almost all women have in common, their oppression as houseworkers (which is the root cause of their all-around oppression), that dictates the strategies necessary to liberate women. The focus then must be

Bookreview: Politics and Class Analysis: Class Analysis: United States in the 1970's, by Judah Hill. (P.O. Box 8494, Emeryville, California, 94662), 1975, 104 p.,

ers can make of the data collected bv the Bureau’s of the Census and Labor Statistics. His study is amply documented from these sources. Because, as he points out, these data were collected to suit the purposes of business, the categories employed have had to be reconceptualized to suit the needs of class struggle. He succeeds admirably in this reconceptualization and in underscoring the fact that so much information collected by the U.S. Government sits in libraries waiting to be used by radical researchers. After defending his claim that class analysis is central, Hill discusses each of what he sees as the four major classes in the U.S. today: the bourgeoisie, the petty-bourgeoisie, the working class and the small farmers, as well as a number of other social groups such as the lumpen, the aged sector, women, housewives, students, the army, prisoners, etc. He breaks down each of the four classes into their component sectors and subsectors, in each case offering us a general description (with detailed statistics broken down by race and sex), discussions of the racial and sexual composition of each group, its income, its evolution and connection to other classes and strata, its degree and potential for organization, its social situation and its role in class struggle. Many of the sections are concluded with a review of the various competing alternative analyses of the class or strata discussed with the strengths and weaknesses of each outlined. Hill’s discussion of the bourgeoisie is the least controversial and also the briefest. He divides this class into monopoly and lieutenant sectors. The lieutenant sector, which includes corporate managers and state officials, is distinguished by the fact that its power is either delegated by the monopoly capitalists, temporary (as in the case of state officials) or simply less than that of the owners of the monopoly corporations.

1.75 (bulk rates available)

flect, and are structurally determined by, social and economic conflicts between classes and groups. According to 0’Connor the capitalist state has two basic functions: 1) the accumulation of capital, and 2) the legitimation of the class nature of society. Increasingly the state is being called on by the capitalist class to provide the expenditures necessary for the continuation of profitable private capital accumulation, both &dquo;social investment &dquo; projects and services that increase productivity, and &dquo;social consumption &dquo; projects and activities which reduce the reproductive costs of labor.