The first Australian Political Economy Conference was held in Sydney, June 18-20. With the capitalist world in the mess its in at the moment, in the economy, in environmental issues, in sexism, in racism.... There was considerable interest.,

Considerable interest. The organisers expected 600 to attend. 1500 turned up. Predominently students, but many teachers and trade unionists of varying shades of political opinion (unless you believe Truth).

Unlike most academic conferences, there was a strong realisation of the need to relate theory to political practice. Not just to understand the world but to change it, as the sage said.

Most of the experience spoken of was Australia, but there are strong links to New Zealand. Both of our countries are outposts of the capitalist system, and are seeing concern over similar problems. The analysis suggested are of much help to the understanding of New Zealand society.

What is Political Economy?

But what is Political Economy? Good question, and one not easily answered. Many of those at the Conference see it as a critique of present economics. A critique incorporating the things that orthodoxy does not consider: war, pollution, oppression.

Others see it more in the mainstream of Marxist theory. They see the trend toward Political Economy as a sure sign of disillusionment with the bourgeois explanations and pose the working class alternatives.

Within this two-line development there can be much sharing of ideas and of experiences. The two ideas are not contradictory, and can be complementary. Luckily the Conference avoided many of the problems that could have arisen from this conflict, or that between many strange left-wing groups.

Our of the Conference came the Australian Political Economy Movement. A movement dedicated to three goals: more P.E. courses in educational institutions, a greater development of P.E., and a strong relation to practice with the groups struggling for justice. With a recognition of the need for cooperation and sharing of ideas.

The Conference itself was organised into major lectures and seminar sessions. Because of the number of people, the seminar sessions looked much more like lectures! There were four speakers flown in from overseas, and they gave the major lectures: Ian Grough on the state, Edward Nell on what is Political Economy, Sam Bowles on Education and Social Inequality; and Herb Gintis on work and alienation.

Beyone this, the seminars covered a wide variety of topics. From sexism and racism to the environment and the theory of labour value. From the state of student movements and trade unions to theories of imperialism and South Africa.

Issues Discussed

Rather than give an outline of what particular speakers said at the particular sessions I attended, I thought it would be more interesting to briefly outline the basic ideas being discussed in various areas. There are two major problems: the treatment is very general and abstract - for more details please check the references. Second the topics covered are necessarily limited because of space and time. Marxist economics, imperialism and the environment need study.

Introduction to Structural Marxism

This part is, I'm afraid, much more complicated than the others. The topic is however basic to much of the material presented at the Conference, and much of the Marxist theoretical work being done at the moment.

The Structural Marxists stem from a group in France led by Althusser and Balibar. They also include Poulantzas and Godelier. The main impetus of the school is to reformulate Marsism in a rigorous and scientific manner. Only in this way, they argue, can left or right deviations be avoided. Left deviations place too much emphasis on the economic, thus having a rather dogmatic approach to society that can develop into spontanaeity. Right deviations on the other hand place too little emphasis on the economic and tend to ignore the class struggle, leading to reformism.

Althusser argues that these faults stem from two directions: an in sufficient theoretical understanding of Marxism as a science; and the strong influence of bourgeois ideas (hence his statement that "philosophy is the class struggle in the field of theory")

A return to the basics of dialectical materialism is urged, with the addition of insights from the structuralists in Anthropology.

Dialectical materialism, the science of society, comes from two bases. Firstly, it is materialist - it poses the supremacy of the real over the ideal, of reality over our perceptions of reality.

Secondly, it employs dialectics. This approach involves studying the sources of contradiction in things. All things are composed of the interaction of opposites. This interaction determines their development.

Further, things or events are not independent of each other - they are linked in various relationships. Thus you have an internal contradiction within a thing (eg between the 'left' and 'right' in the Labour Party )as well as external contradiction (eg between the Labour and National Parties).

The analysis of contradiction depends greatly on the framework one is using. A contradiction useful in investigating one aspect may not be useful in investigating another. Althusser and Poulantzas lay great stress on the need for a correct problematic in which to interpret events.

Identifying Structures

Structuralism essentially holds that reality is structured. Although these structures are invisible, they are the underlying framework of society. The stages, if you like, on which events occur. However, the question arises of how one identifies these structures.

The combination of Marxism and structuralism answers this question - it comes from practice. From political and economic struggle we come up against the basic structures of society, and consequently your experiences of them. The problem arises - how do we transform this experience into knowledge of the structures? Althusser argues, rightly, that this transformation is a very important process and we have too little understanding of how it takes place.

On to Althusser's concept of the structure then. He argues from Marx's identification of an economic infrastructure and various elements forming a superstructure. The structure comprises various levels which are dialectically related. These briefly are outline in the diagram below.

Superstructure

• Theoretical
• Ideological
• Politico-juridical

Infrastructure Economic

These levels are related to each other through external contradictions. Thus something may be happening in the economic level, but our understanding of it will be affected by our ideology. Our actions to alter the economic will depend on this ideological understanding.

While the levels are thus dialectically related, the economic level is determined in the last instance. This means, not that everything in the superstructure is dependent on the economic, but that changes in the economic will affect the other levels. The distinction is primarily one of how the dialectic is used. In the simple mechanistic model, there is no room for dialectical relationships - there is a one-way effect. In the non-Marxist structuralist concept however there is no material base for the structures.

The Althusserian approach thus avoids both of these problems - by having a dialectical framework determined, in the last instance by the economic level.

Beyond the external contradiction outlined here, within each level there are internal contradictions. The dialectic work within the levels through contradiction between instances in each level. Thus in the economic level the contradiction between the forces of production and the relations of production (in capitalism, industry is increasingly social, but ownership is increasingly in one or two hands) will lead to developments independent of the influence of other levels.

Relative Autonomy

This argument has a very important implication in the other levels.

This is that developments in the superstructural levels can be independent of developments in the economic - the levels have relative autonomy from the economic. Thus in the political level the contradiction between two forces (eg two political parties) has its own dynamic, beyond that given from the economic base. For another example, in the realm of ideas (the ideological level) ideas from a previous historical period can still be important despite the fact that their economic base has disappeare (eg the campaign in China to criticise Confucius).

The concept of relative autonomy is a very important one for much of the discussion that follows.

In concluding, two points need to be emphasised. The first is that Althusser's page 11 [unclear: he] Conference had its hassles as any [unclear: ch] a size must. Yet the ideas thrown [unclear: nd] and the general spirit of people [unclear: ding] made the experience a most [unclear: erating] one. There was a trend to [unclear: actness], but I suppose that's a problem [unclear: ademic] approaches face! Overall, [unclear: y] successful start to the Political [unclear: omy] Movement.

[unclear: ne] topics covered in the following [unclear: outlines] are: a brief guide to Althusser [unclear: ench] Marxist who had considerable [unclear: ence] over many of the speakers); [unclear: cr] of the state; the role of education [unclear: pitalist] society; women's position in [unclear: ty], and the present situation at Sydney [unclear: ersity].

[unclear: ere's] a lot of Political Economy [unclear: around]. Hope you catch it soon.

[unclear: ments] are normally very complicated [unclear: hard] to understand. This had led many [unclear: te] to dismiss them. The point on the [unclear: to] clarly understand concepts and [unclear: relations] through study is however a [unclear: important] one.

[unclear: he] second - the valid criticism of [unclear: usser] - is the need to relate these [unclear: ries] to concrete practice. Marx wrote [unclear: to] now philosophers have tried to [unclear: rstand] the world - the point is to [unclear: ge] it". Unless these theories can be [unclear: lid] to practice, and are somehow [unclear: r] in helping that practice, the [unclear: cise] has not been a useful one.

[unclear: the] rest of this summary of the [unclear: cal] economy conference, I have [unclear: to] outline how I feel these ideas of [unclear: usser] are useful and helpful.

[unclear: id] finally, because of the complexity [unclear: ny] of the arguments, I have [unclear: undoub-misread] Althusser on many points. There substitute for the real thing.

[unclear: setung] "On Contradiction"

The State

A major difference between orthodox and political economists is their analysis of the state - the government and the multitude of bodies that surround it.

Orthodox economists are split into two camps. The neoclassical tradition, stressing the beauty of the "free market" sees the state's intervention as a necessary evil to sort out imperfections. Keynesians stress the role of the state in regulating the economy - producing full employment, balanced overseas payments and stable prices.

The problems facing present capitalist economists suggest that these ideas are not enough. Leading academics admit that economics has little to suggest beyond "hold on and hope"

There is another similarity, in that both sides treat the state as neutral, as not favouring particular groups. Orthodox political science has developed this into a fine art. Government power is fought over by various groups. This is the pluralist approach. There is no inherent bias.

Political economy does not treat the state as neutral. As we noted in the general overview of political economy, this treatment varies. On the one hand we have Miliband pointing out the inconsistencies and errors in the pluralist approach. On the other, writers such as Polantzas and O'Connor approach the subject in a more rigorous Marxist fashion.

Miliband in pointing out the shortcomings of pluralism is a vital introduction to the debate on the state. It is an introduction that needs to be stressed more. In convincing people of the superiority of a different theory, it is surely necessary to start from where they are at the moment.

However, many Marxists, including those at the Conference, took this sort of basis as understood The arguments of Poulantzas etc have thus an assumed framework ('problematic'). This problematic involves a break from previous ways of thinking and acting.

Because of this emphasis on rigour and on a radically new approach, the arguments often tend to be very technical, abstract and difficult to follow. The reader must decide for him/herself if the effort is worth it.

In my view it is. It is important to have a clear analysis of the role of the state to assist in political struggles against it. From this point we get into it.

Function of the State

There are various views on the functions of the capitalist state. All agree on the importance of the state as reinforcing bourgeois rule and mystifying class conflict. Thus the state is a class state, an instrument for enforcing the rule of one class over another. At the same time, it has important political and ideological tasks in persuading people that exploitation is not going on.

So the roles of the capitalist state break down into two levels: in production and in social control.

In production the state faces a contradiction. It must both ensure production and ensure the accumulation of capital. It must be involved in production of goods and services because even the capitalist class sees the need for social production of defence, some levels of education, welfare benefits etc.

This task is confronted with the need to ensure the private accumulation of capital - to ensure profits are maintained. In the capitalist mode of production, new investment (which is vital to the continuation of production) comes largely from profits. In providing social goods however, the state tends to threaten this process, as these goods are not produced in the profit nexus.

The way out of this contradiction, as O'Connor argues, is through state purchases for private firms. What this essentially means is that taxes are redistributed to bolster firms profits. But, both in the theory and in practice, the state runs a larger and larger deficit in doing this. This O'Connor calls the "fiscal crisis of the state".

Social Cohesian

Much recent work has concentrated on the social cohesian aspect. One of the most notable is Nicos Poulantzas. He argues, in part, that the inner tendencies of capitalism organise the working class and divide the capitalist class (into class 'fractions'). To ensure social cohesian then, the capitalist state must both divide the working class and unite the capitalist class fractions.

Division of the working class is achieved primarily through ideology. There are the overt methods of control - the police, the army, repressive legislation; but the covert methods are more important in advanced capitalist societies. Such as the stress on "individualism" (eg in individual houses, in competitive assessment systems). Such as the emphasis on working through "proper" channels.

Organising the capitalist class fractions is achieved essentially through regulation. By ensuring fair practices the state can unite different groups. Antagonisms between class fractions (e.g. between industrial capital and financial capital) can be lessened if the state can ensure that each group is behaving 'properly'.

A criticism of both these approaches, which have been very baldly put here, is that they are too mechanistic. They suggest that the state is purely an agent of capitalism - or at worse that a conspiracy is going on.

Poulantzas argues forcifully that the conspiracy theory is wrong - the state is what it is because of the objective structure of the capitalist system, not because of the wills of individuals.

Relative Autonomy

But the state does have relative autonomy. It is affected by its own contradictions (eg the tendency for bureaucracies to perpetuate themselves), and by two other very important factors. The first is that the state is the object of class struggle. The organised working class struggles to ensure that unemployment is reduced, that we get decent wages, that social welfare is available.

The fact that these reforms do not challenge the system that gives rise to the problems is not the point. 'Reforms' they are, but this doesn't mean they can be dismissed arbitrarily. Having decent hospital care is important, no matter what the social system.

The other non-economic factor influencing the state is war, and preparations for war. Historically, wars have had an immense effect in increasing state power over the community. Wars do often arise because of economic factors but they affect the state in different ways to normal economic developments.

So from these three factors, and others, the state is not determined mechanistically by the economic level. And there is considerable interactions the other way (after all, this is dialectics). State adventures, or failures (eg Russia and Germany in 1917-18) have profound effects on the resulting economic patterns - even threatening the capitalist system itself.

Marxist theories of the modern welfare state started only recently. The field is and exciting and continually expanding one. The need for a developed and integrated theory would be a considerable help in combating both the state and the capitalist system beyond it.

In this task, however, the theory has its own contradiction. To gain greater understanding, there's strong tendency to be more abstract and technical. This very process "turns off" the people we are trying to assist. Its a contradiction that must be worked on.

References

R. Miliband: The State in Capitalist Society.

N. Poulantzas: Political Power and Social Classes

E. Laclau in Economy and Society Vol 4 No. 1 1975

N. Poulantzas in New Left Review 95 1976