Boris Kagarlitsky’s plagiarism
M.Doronenko | 15.10.2005 17:33 | Analysis
Some people speak that Boris Kagarlitsky with good reason can be named the unique serious left theorist in modern Russia. "Left" but not marxist, he does not name himself marxist.
Marxist forces in Russia are still too weak and small and while unfortunately yet have not put forward serious theorists.
Kagarlitsky is the follower " world system analysis " - theories developed by the American sociologist Immanuel Vallerstajn, and its last book " Periphery’s empire " is detailed research of history of Russia from the point of view of this theory.
Actually the basic kernel “ world system analysis " has been borrowed from marxism, is more exact from Trotsky's works. His theory of permanent revolution was based on understanding of capitalism of an epoch of imperialism as uniform economic organism based on a world division of labour where position and development of each national economy is defined first of all by logic of world system of imperialism. This theory completely contradicted dogmatic and opportunistic "marxism" II International, and later Stalinist Komintern according to which development of each country should repeat the same stages. On the contrary Trotsky approved, that the backward countries during an epoch of imperialism pass type of " the combined development " when precapitalistic ways do not collapse by revolutionary bourgeoisie, but submit to capitalism and even become a necessary basis of its development. By virtue of it the bourgeoisie of these countries is completely reactionary and unable to carry out bourgeois revolution. Problems of realization of this revolution lay down on proletariat which in turn having seized power to not stop at a bourgeois stage of revolution and will start socialist measures. But to construct socialism it is possible only under condition of a victory of revolution over the most developed countries. Actually from this approach which was guided Lenin and Rose Luxembourg follows a conclusion which Valerstain and Kagarlitsky in their terminology formulate as follows: " change of position the countries of peripheries in world system is impossible without change this world system ".
History of XX century has completely confirmed the Trotsky’s analysis of imperialism. National-liberation movements of second half of century, whose positive maintenance was expressed that they weakened political positions of imperialism and stimulated revolutionary movement in the imperialistic countries i.e. as a whole promoted development of world revolution, have not reached the purposes which they before themselves put - overcoming of backwardness and change of the position in world system of capitalism. Certainly modernization of economy lead to many countries of Asia and Africa in 50-80-е years is the important progressive step, but the fact remains as that break between the poor and rich countries for these years has increased. Ridiculously to speak about an opportunity of construction of socialism in the countries of the third world. Except for that many former "antiimperialistic" countries again sell themselves to imperialism now that is brightly visible on an example of Libya. It does not mean at all, that struggle was conducted in vain, but its positive maintenance consist not at all that was represented by the participant of this struggle.
The sight at world capitalism as on a uniform economic organism where position of its each part is dictated by logic of the whole according to laws of imperialism has laid down in a basis " world system the analysis " of Valerstain. But this only thing, that has been borrowed by him from marxism and the marxist analysis of imperialism in books of the American scientist, not having under itself of a marxist method, receives very much greater transformations on ways of bourgeois sociology. Laws characteristic for imperialism extend not only on a premonopolistic stage of capitalism, but also on all precapitalistic formations. Valerstain’s works that reminding a genre of " alternative history " are full personal eccentricity of the author’s. Kagarlitsky in his work rejects a significant part of these absurdity and tries to approach a little “ world system analysis " to marxism, but the basic approach of Valerstain, consisting that the history of all formations is investigated from the point of view of laws of imperialism, Kagarlitsky accepts without any criticism. Kagarlitsky Refuses from Marxist terminology. New terms of Vallerstain’s school as that " world system ", "center", "periphery" are called to grease specific laws of interaction of the various countries and territories within the limits of each socioeconomic structure. It is characteristic that in " Periphery’s empire " the word "imperialism" is not used at all.
In Kagarlitsky’s book actually all history of Russia since the Kiev Russia is considered exclusively from the point of view of international trade. The absurd of the similar approach it is obvious when it is a question of the Kiev Russia, Moskovian empire or Peter's empire. But for the same reason in chapters devoted prerevolutionary imperial Russia or Russia postSoviet, the famous petty-bourgeois radical is closest to the true. It is possible agree not with all, that is written in chapter XV " After 1991: Periphery’s capitalism of an epoch of restoration ", but certainly it represents the valuable contribution to the analysis of position of the Russian imperialism in the world capitalist system.
The book " Periphery’s empire " with critical attitude to it is a useful reading. Anyway in difference from previous Kagarlitsky’s book " Revolt of middle class ", representing an extract of the most "fashionable" ideas of the advanced kinds of an antiglobalist revisionism and opportunism, which is interesting from the point of view of " the enemy it is necessary to know by sight ", in " Periphery’s empire " there is also some positive maintenance.
M.Doronenko
Kagarlitsky is the follower " world system analysis " - theories developed by the American sociologist Immanuel Vallerstajn, and its last book " Periphery’s empire " is detailed research of history of Russia from the point of view of this theory.
Actually the basic kernel “ world system analysis " has been borrowed from marxism, is more exact from Trotsky's works. His theory of permanent revolution was based on understanding of capitalism of an epoch of imperialism as uniform economic organism based on a world division of labour where position and development of each national economy is defined first of all by logic of world system of imperialism. This theory completely contradicted dogmatic and opportunistic "marxism" II International, and later Stalinist Komintern according to which development of each country should repeat the same stages. On the contrary Trotsky approved, that the backward countries during an epoch of imperialism pass type of " the combined development " when precapitalistic ways do not collapse by revolutionary bourgeoisie, but submit to capitalism and even become a necessary basis of its development. By virtue of it the bourgeoisie of these countries is completely reactionary and unable to carry out bourgeois revolution. Problems of realization of this revolution lay down on proletariat which in turn having seized power to not stop at a bourgeois stage of revolution and will start socialist measures. But to construct socialism it is possible only under condition of a victory of revolution over the most developed countries. Actually from this approach which was guided Lenin and Rose Luxembourg follows a conclusion which Valerstain and Kagarlitsky in their terminology formulate as follows: " change of position the countries of peripheries in world system is impossible without change this world system ".
History of XX century has completely confirmed the Trotsky’s analysis of imperialism. National-liberation movements of second half of century, whose positive maintenance was expressed that they weakened political positions of imperialism and stimulated revolutionary movement in the imperialistic countries i.e. as a whole promoted development of world revolution, have not reached the purposes which they before themselves put - overcoming of backwardness and change of the position in world system of capitalism. Certainly modernization of economy lead to many countries of Asia and Africa in 50-80-е years is the important progressive step, but the fact remains as that break between the poor and rich countries for these years has increased. Ridiculously to speak about an opportunity of construction of socialism in the countries of the third world. Except for that many former "antiimperialistic" countries again sell themselves to imperialism now that is brightly visible on an example of Libya. It does not mean at all, that struggle was conducted in vain, but its positive maintenance consist not at all that was represented by the participant of this struggle.
The sight at world capitalism as on a uniform economic organism where position of its each part is dictated by logic of the whole according to laws of imperialism has laid down in a basis " world system the analysis " of Valerstain. But this only thing, that has been borrowed by him from marxism and the marxist analysis of imperialism in books of the American scientist, not having under itself of a marxist method, receives very much greater transformations on ways of bourgeois sociology. Laws characteristic for imperialism extend not only on a premonopolistic stage of capitalism, but also on all precapitalistic formations. Valerstain’s works that reminding a genre of " alternative history " are full personal eccentricity of the author’s. Kagarlitsky in his work rejects a significant part of these absurdity and tries to approach a little “ world system analysis " to marxism, but the basic approach of Valerstain, consisting that the history of all formations is investigated from the point of view of laws of imperialism, Kagarlitsky accepts without any criticism. Kagarlitsky Refuses from Marxist terminology. New terms of Vallerstain’s school as that " world system ", "center", "periphery" are called to grease specific laws of interaction of the various countries and territories within the limits of each socioeconomic structure. It is characteristic that in " Periphery’s empire " the word "imperialism" is not used at all.
In Kagarlitsky’s book actually all history of Russia since the Kiev Russia is considered exclusively from the point of view of international trade. The absurd of the similar approach it is obvious when it is a question of the Kiev Russia, Moskovian empire or Peter's empire. But for the same reason in chapters devoted prerevolutionary imperial Russia or Russia postSoviet, the famous petty-bourgeois radical is closest to the true. It is possible agree not with all, that is written in chapter XV " After 1991: Periphery’s capitalism of an epoch of restoration ", but certainly it represents the valuable contribution to the analysis of position of the Russian imperialism in the world capitalist system.
The book " Periphery’s empire " with critical attitude to it is a useful reading. Anyway in difference from previous Kagarlitsky’s book " Revolt of middle class ", representing an extract of the most "fashionable" ideas of the advanced kinds of an antiglobalist revisionism and opportunism, which is interesting from the point of view of " the enemy it is necessary to know by sight ", in " Periphery’s empire " there is also some positive maintenance.
M.Doronenko
M.Doronenko
Homepage:
http://www.aurora1917.org/eng/main.php
