Evaluating Robert Brenners Thesis on the Origins of Capitalism (Marxist/Non-Marxist) - Report Example

The 'Brenner Debate Evaluating Robert Brenner's Thesis on the Origins of Capitalism (Marxist/Non-Marxist) I. INTRODUCTION Marxism as one of the dominant and prevalent ideologies in the contemporary society today traces its origins to numerous catalysts, stemming from the establishment of a feudal system among early societies, further intensified by the emergence of the Industrial Revolution and eventually, capitalism. Marxist ideology posits that existing social, specifically class, relations in the society that predominate capitalist societies today is determined by the relationship between the forces of production and the modes of production (i.e., technology) extant in the society. Karl Marx, the main proponent of the class conflict theoretical framework, gave birth to conflict theory, which highlights the emergence of a class struggle that resulted from the unequal distribution of power, primarily on the technology or mode of production in the society. Ultimately, Marx argued that what determines the unequal power distribution and struggle between the bourgeois (elite) and proletariat (working) classes is that the former wields greater control over the mode of production in the society. Because the elite class controls the technology that produces economic wealth for the society, the working class becomes susceptible to subordination and abuse by the elite class. As a solution to this class conflict, Marx proposed the emergence of a social revolution as the solution to create a 'new world order,' in which the working class would stage a revolution to abolish the class system, and in effect, class conflict. In this new world order identified as communism, an egalitarian society will be established, where economic property and modes of production are owned and controlled by the people. This background on the dynamics of class relations and historical materialism in Marx's thesis of class conflict became the focal point in Robert Brenner's analysis of the origins of capitalism in "The Brenner Debate." In his analysis, Brenner looked into the origins of capitalism, and introduced a new thesis that provided a new perspective into how class conflict as a resulting effect of capitalism is evaluated. Far from the Marxist assumption that class conflict is a result of an unequal distribution of power due to relations between the forces of production and mode of production, Brenner contends that class conflict, in fact, is already a pre-existing condition in society even before capitalism emerged. Moreover, he posited that what determined capitalism is class conflict or the political system itself, rather than capitalism determining class conflict. To prove his thesis, Brenner took as an example the case of the England feudal system, which demonstrated the exceptional case of class conflict determining the success of capitalism. II. "The Brenner Debate": A 'chicken-egg controversy' on the origins of capitalism In arguing his thesis, Brenner exemplified the case of the English feudal system, which demonstrated a unique scenario wherein apparently, a class-based political system determined the economic organization and structure of the society. England as exemplified by Brenner is characterized by its unique characteristic of being a society independent of the influence of the Church, which provided a perfect venue for intellectual development to flourish in the society. Apart from this characteristic, English society, which is politico-economically a feudal society, demonstrated a capitalist economy that arose out of their own political, class system. That is, Brenner argued that in the case of the English feudal system, capitalism was developed by the ruling class, which is also the politically dominant group in the said society. Thus, from his perspective, capitalism was only developed based on the prerogative of the ruling class, who decided whether to promote the system of capitalism. The progress of capitalism in English society and its fast transition from feudalist to capitalist societies are motivated from the fact that the development was promoted by the ruling, elite class. Brenner brought into fore a new perspective of looking at critical theory, by abolishing the deterministic quality of capitalism, which was analyzed through historical materialism and the relationship between forces of production and the prevalent mode of production in the society. Comparing the dynamics contained in the English feudal system against Marx's conception of capitalism and its roots, a reversal of order of its origins takes place. From Brenner's discussion, it surfaced that the class system is already a pre-existing condition prior to the development of the mode of production. Ultimately, his thesis incorporated the idea that the class system or the society's political system is already a state in the society that became the catalyst why agricultural and capitalist economies developed and flourished in the society (Chirot, 1991:4). The analysis reverses the order in which capitalism took place: there was no effect on the class system when the mode of production changed and a new one introduced. In effect, despite the change in the mode of production or technology, the class system remained a constant factor, the independent variable in Brenner's thesis. The difference between Marx's and Brenner's views of capitalism is that the former offered a dynamic approach to describe the origins and development of capitalism. Brenner, on the other hand, described capitalism as a result of the development of the mode of production, from agriculture to capitalism. What his analysis demonstrated is that the class system is a social order determined not by the mode of production, but simply as a unique characteristic of the society-the society's status quo. 'The Brenner debate' illustrated the persistence and influence of status quo despite the introduction of a new mode of production or technology. The assumption, of course, is that the society has existing conditions that make it conducive for the class system to persist and develop independent of other factors. Brenner's critique takes the class system-capitalism relationship as an isolated kind of relationship, not taking into account other factors that might have affected or explained the unique case of the English feudal system. III. Why is Brenner's analysis non-Marxist Brenner's arguments are considered non-Marxist by sociologist Guy Bois because his analysis deviates from the assumption of Marxist ideology, which relates the forces of production (users and owners of mode of production) and the mode of production. His thesis does not support Marx's deterministic analysis of these two important variables (i.e., mode of production and forces of production), which is primarily economic in character. Brenner's thesis is politics-based, wherein an already established class system becomes the independent variable and focus of his analysis. In fact, because of the politics-based approach that Brenner used, he was often tagged as subsisting to "politicism," primarily because he looked into the influence of class system in isolation, and not with its relation with other factors that may have affected the persistence of a class system and the continued dependency of the mode of production in the society that Brenner cited (Resch, 1992:373). In fact, the main difference between Marx's and Brenner's analyses is the class system itself: in Marxian analysis, class system is the dependent variable, the factor that resulted because of the change in the mode of production. In Brenner's analysis, the class system is the independent variable, unaffected by the social changes occurring within the society. Another difference that emerged between the two sociologists is that Brenner assumed a politics-based approach, while Marx subsisted to an economics-based approach of capitalism. However, looking into both sociologist's analyses, it can be said that the most appropriate analysis is that of Marx, since he was able to contextualize his analysis in the economic conditions of his time. But another contention that can be said is that both economics and politics are intertwined and interdependent with each other; however, as what history has determined for human society, economics became a primary factor that mobilized social changes, which included a change in the class system of the society. Thus, because of these differences between Marx's and Brenner's analyses, many sociologists consider Brenner's discussion as non-Marxist in general. IV. Why is Brenner's analysis Marxist Despite his being a Marxist scholar, Brenner's 'debate' about the origins of capitalism is considered non-Marxist because it reverses Marx's thesis, wherein the class system is the dependent variable instead of being an independent variable. However, when analyzed carefully, one facet of Brenner's analysis is considered Marxist, in that he remained faithful to the assumption that what further developed capitalism is the subsistence and patronage of the class system, wherein there is a division between the elite and the working classes. The Marxian component in Brenner's analysis, apart from the existence of a class system, is the "politics" component, wherein the sociologist brought into fore a different kind of analysis-that is, politics-based rather than economics-based origins of capitalism-without abolishing the notion of class systems conflict that emerged from capitalism. As other academicians pointed out, Brenner's arguments remained true to the Marxist tradition because class system remained a focal point of his analysis; however, what differed his analysis from Marx's is that Brenner chose to look into other factors that could have had influenced the development of capitalism, especially in the case of the English feudal societies. Indeed, his analysis led to the finding that indeed, capitalism is still deterministic, only this time, politics rather than economics became the primary factor that contributed to the persistence of a capitalist economic system in the society. Moreover, Brenner's analysis mirrored the 'experimentation' of Marxian ideology into other areas, such as speculating on the possible outcome of a society's economic system if class system became the independent variable. As in the words of academician Sitton (1996), "the relative strengths of the contending classes decided what the impact of commercialization or demographic changes would be; i.e., these forces were refracted through the existing class relationsit is political relations and class struggle that actually determined feudal relations" (8). In effect, because Brenner remained true to Marx's focus on the class system, it is still considered a Marxist form of analysis. A Marxian point of view is still a suitable kind of explanation to discuss and analyze the rise of capitalism because it takes into account the different areas (i.e., economic or political) in which capitalism could have possibly emerged, and the ability of Marxian point of view to contextualize analysis based on the historical development of the society. Thus, because of the causal relationship and historical materialism included in Brenner's analysis, it is still considered Marxist in form and content. Bibliography Chirot, D. (1991). The origins of backwardness in Eastern Europe. Berkeley: University of California Press. Resch, R. (1992). Althusser and the renewal of Marxist social theory. Berkeley: University of California Press. Sitton, J. (1996). Recent Marxian theory: Class formation and social conflict in contemporary capitalism. NY: State University of New York Press. Read More