Congresos y reuniones científicas
How did we get to a neo-developmentalist neoextractivism? A historical materialist reading of class fractions and their political dynamics in 21st century Argentina.
Congreso; Marx 200: Politik - Theorie - Sozialismus; 2018
Institución organizadora:
Fundación Rosa Luxemburgo
There is currently an important literature dedicated to the analysis of how, from the end of the 1980s, relations of production began a process of transnationalization that led to a restructuration of the capitalist system (e.g. Robinson, 2013, Panitch and Gindin, 2012, van Apeldoorn, 2002). From an economic perspective, the emerging order has usually been identified as "global capitalism", while its political correlate has often been described as the neoliberal project. The increasing transnationalization of production has brought with it a reordering of power relations between class fractions - the decline of national industrial capitals and the rise of transnationalized financial and industrial fractions, which has contributed to the re-scaling of productive networks at a global level and a series of policies that promote the conditions for transnational financial accumulation (cf Chesnais, 2003). Thus, the neoliberal project has led to the reduction of state intervention in the economy, the privatization of previously non-commodified services and spheres of life and the promotion of flows of investments and goods across borders. Latin America was not the exception to this trend, as it has already been well-argued (e.g. Robinson, 2008). However, since the turn of the century, the subcontinent has experienced a cycle of political and economic processes that evidences some important differences with neoliberal orthodoxy. In general terms, the mode of development (Boyer, 2004) defended by Latin American progressive governments can be characterized as neo-developmentalist neo-extractivism (Féliz, 2012). Its neo-extractivist character is given by a commodification and financialization of natural resources that have led to a reprimarization of the productive matrix. But unlike the classical model, its neo-developmentalist ingredient accounts for the fact of the states appropriation of part of the extractivist rents, which are redistributed among subaltern groups with the goal of building legitimacy. Thus, neo-developmentalism can be interpreted as a project of the dominant classes that seeks to promote public policies that channel the tensions of extractive accumulation (Féliz, 2011).The question that this article tries to answer is: what made it possible for a neo-developmentist neo-extractivist model to emerge in Latin America? The main assumption guiding our work is that in order to explain the process through which a mode of development is articulated, it is fundamental to understand which the main class fractions involved in its genesis are and the power relations that are established between them and vis-à-vis subaltern groups. Consequently, the rise and fall of historical regimes of accumulation and modes of regulation shall be understood as a consequence of the power dynamics that are established between different capitalist fractions and the relationships they establish with subaltern groups. Our proposed paper will seek to explain the emergence of a neo-extractivist neo-developmentist model through the analysis of these processes. Conceptually, we will draw on the notions of ?capital fractions? and ?class fractions? as developed by Marx in the Volume II of Das Kapital and their subsequent appropriation by the neo-Gramscian perspective of Transnational Historical Materialism ? also known as the Amsterdam Project (cf. van Apeldoorn, 2004; van der Pijl, 2012). This will allow us, on the one hand, to show that the capitalist class it not one and homogeneous, but is the results of the articulation of a number of fractions who find their origins in the position occupied in the circuit of capital - i.e. industrial, financial or commercial fractions or base their accumulation on different scales national or transnational. On the other hand, the relational dimension inherent to the concept of class (fractions) makes explicit the importance of complementing the analysis of capitalist fractions with an examination of the different ways in which they interact with subaltern groups in the pursuit of achieving hegemony over social formations at large. Although we consider that the phenomenon we will examine is common to a large part of Latin America, our interest in making a richer and more detailed empirical analysis avoiding the risks of simplifying generalizations has led us to the choice of Argentina as a case study.