Digitized by the Internet Archive in 2011 with funding from Carleton University, Department of Sociology & Anthropology http://www.archive.org/details/alternateroutesj12alte Alternate Routes A Journal of Critical Social Research Presentation and Editorial Policy Alternate Routes is a refereed multi-disciplinary journal published annually by graduate students in the department of Sociology and Anthropology at Carleton University in Ottawa, Canada. Our mandate is to make Alternate Routes a forum for debate and exchange amonggraduate students throughout the country. We are therefore interested in receiving papers written by graduate students (or co-authored with faculty), regardless oftheir university affiliation. The editorial emphasis is on the publication of critical and provocative analyses of theoretical and substantive issues which clearly have relevance for progressive political intervention. Although we welcome papers on a broad range oftopics, members ofthe editorial board work within a feminist and marxist tradition. Therefore, we encourage submissions which advance or challenge questions and contemporary issues raised by these two broadly defined perspectives. We also welcome commentaries and reviews of recent publications. Editorial Board Nicole Bennett, Neil Gerlach, Valerie Howe, Dominique Masson, David Robinson, Alan Stanbridge, Daniel Warshaw. The editors gratefully acknowledge the financial assistance of the Carleton University community: the department of Sociology and Anthropology and its chairperson, Flo Andrews; the Dean of Social Sciences, T. P. Wilkinson; the Dean of Graduate Studies and Research, J.W. ApSimon. We also wish to thank all the anonymous reviewers. Alternate Routes: A Journal of Critical Social Research is indexed in: Sociological Abstracts; the Left Index. © 1995 Alternate Routes (date of Issue: July, 1995) Call For Student Papers Alternate Routes is seeking submissions for Volume 13, 1996. The editorial collective is interested in papers that address current theoretical and substan- tive issues within the social sciences. Manuscripts will be anonymously reviewed by faculty members from academic institutions across the country. Please use the American Psychological Association (APA) referencing system and keep endnotes to a minimum. Papers should be submitted double- spaced and in triplicate. Floppy disks formatted in WordPerfect or Microsoft Word are required for papers accepted for publication. We also welcome responses to recent publications, book reviews and discussions of work in progress. Responses to this invitation to contribute should be postmarked no later than October 1, 1995 Alternate Routes est a la recherche d'articles pour sa publication de 1996. Nous sommes interesses a recevoir des analyses interdisciplinaires portant sur un vaste eventail de questions theoriques et substantives propres aux sciences sociales. Les manuscrits seront critiques de facon anonyme par des professeurs dedi verses institutions academiques dupays. Nous vous invitons a suivre le systeme de reference de 1' American Psychological Association (APA) et a limiter la quantitedes notes definde document autant que possible. Les articles devraient etre presentes en format double interligne et en trois copies Une disquette devrait accompagner le document et contenir le texte sur logiciel Wordperfect ou MicroSoft Word. Nous apprecierions par ailleurs des critiques des recentes publications, comptes rendus et travaux en cours. Les reponses a cette invitation devraient etre postees au plus tard le 1 octobre 1 995 (le cachet de la poste en faisant foi). Address to/Envoyez a: Alternate Routes Department of Sociology and Anthropology Carleton University Colonel By Drive Ottawa, Ontario CANADA Alternate Routes A Journal of Critical Social Research Volume 12, 1995 Introduction 1 Papers Haniid Abdollahyan Capital Accumulation, Technology Transfer and the Peripherilization of Sharecropping Agriculture in Iran 3 Susan Dodd Restitching Reality: How TNCs Evade Accountability for Industrial Disasters 23 Todd Dufresne Anthropology and the Invention of Deconstruction: A Brief Survey 63 Commentary Wade Deisman Ontological Gerrymandering? Non-Identity vs . Differance, Adorno Contra Derrida 81 Feminist Workshop Catherine Browning Silence on Same-Sex Partner Abuse 95 Diane Enns The Body Deferred: Reconsidering Feminist Approaches to Embodiment 1 07 Dominique Masson Reintroducing Politics: Recent Developments in Feminist Theories of the State 1 15 Book Review Derek Blair Taking Our Informants Seriously Being Changed by Cross-Cultural Encounters: The Anthropology ofExtraordinary Experience. David Young and Jean-Guy Goulet 125 © A Marxist Triquarterly of Theory, Politics, and the Everyday RANGE We are accepting articles for the first volume of Red Orange that are of sustained length, as well as briefer writings to form a dossier which will deal with developments in popular consciousness and mass culture. Suggested topics include... The Fin-de-Siecle: Review of current discussions and critical contrasts with the turn of the 19th into the 20th century. Fin-de-Siecle Post-ality, especially F.-de-S. Postmodernism and F.-dc-S. Postcolonialism "Crime" / "Health Care" Late Capitalist Culture ^Cultural Critique Post-Marxism, The New Social Movements, Multiculturalism & Identity Politics Today "Ecopolitics" / " 'Free Trade' & The New World Order Cyncicism, Alienation, Rebellion, & the So- Called 'X' Generation Social Impact of New Computer, Electronic, & Information Technologies Labor Conditions, Divisions, Struggles Imperialism Today, especially Imperialist Exploitation, Conquest, Rivalry, and War Beginning May 1995 Volume 1, Numbers 1-3 ...will investigate "Late Capitalism at the Fin- de-Siecle" with a goal of contributing to the positive development of revolutionary Marxist knowledges of contemporary capitalist economics, politics, society and culture. Robert A. Nowlan R()bm (cbiefeditor) Cymh]h (managing editor) Sam Barry, Jennifer Cotter, Terri Ginsberg, Mark Wood, & Bob Young (associate editors) The triquarterly will seek to produce work that is engaged in systematic investigation and explanation, utilizing these concepts: class, class conflict & struggle, ( lass consciouness, history, materiality, mode of production, forces & relations of production, labor, proletariat, revolution, socialism, communism, dialectics, ideology, theory, critique. Write for subscription info, and send submissions & inquiriers to P.O. Box 1055, Tempe,AZ 85280-1055. L2l rcymbala @mailbox.syr.edu (e-mail, FTP). Editor's Introduction This issue of Alternate Routes appears at a time marked by a continuing rightward drift within North American politics. Backed by recent electoral successes, the self-proclaimed 'revolutionaries' ofthe Right are busily setting about to dismantle what little remains ofthe post-War consensus. They have zealously begun their project of "re-inventing" government by slashing welfare rates to pay for upper class tax breaks, repealingemployment and pay equity programs, attacking immigration and refugee policies, and abandon- ing the social programs and services that were designed, albeit imperfectly, to nevertheless increase the equality of opportunity amongst all citizens. The sheer scope of this recent ideological and intellectual assault has successfully drowned out many progressive voices. And as the emerging regime of privatization and deregulation gains greater hold, the few public spaces currently available for those of us committed to an alternative social vision will continue to shrink. That is why it is important for us to maintainAltemate Routes as a forum in which critical scholars can present research and engage in debate that is both challenging and politically motivating. I think all the essays collected here fulfill that mandate. Hamid Abdollayan, a Ph.D. student in Sociology at Carleton Univer- sity, asks why underdevelopment remained a problem in Iran after the economy moved from pre-capitalist to capitalist production. He concludes that chronic underdevelopment persisted in Iran because of the new domi- nance of international capital and the subsequent penpheralization of the rural economy. Susan Dodd, a doctoral candidate at York University, details how transnational corporations have successfully evaded legal accountability for their negligent actions. Examining the cases of the Union Carbide gas leak in Bhopal, India and the sinking of the Ocean Ranger oil rig off the coast of Newfoundland, Dodd proposes a number of concrete actions states can take to better police corporate behaviour. Todd Dufresne, a graduate student at York University, surveys the appropriation (or lack thereof) of Jacques Dernda's deconstruction by anthropologists. Dufresne argues that a better appreciation ofDernda's work can help anthropologists overcome some of the persistent debates appearing within the "invention of culture" literature Alternate Routes, Volume12, 1995 In his commentary piece, however, Wade Deisman shows less enthusi- asm with Derrida's work. By comparing and contrasting Derrida's deconstruction with Theodor Adorno's concept of "negative dialectics," Deisman concludes that the latter's work is more valuable as he avoids the "abyss of endless analysis" associated with post-structuralism. Finally, three brief articles drawn together from a work-in-progress seminar held at Carleton University last year provide key insights into contemporary debates within critical feminist theory. Catherine Browning's article surveys the difficult issue of same-sex partner abuse and details the special problems confronted by abused lesbians. Diane Enns provides an insightful overview of recent feminist debates on the "body," and Dominique Masson challenges us to re-think traditional feminist conceptions of the "state." DC. Robinson June, 1995 Ottawa Capital Accumulation, Technology Transfer and the Peripherilization of Sharecropping Agriculture in Iran Hamid Abdollahyan Carleton University Changes in the chronic patterns ofcapital flow from the rural economy of Iran in the traditional (pre 1950s) and capitalist (post 1950s) eras is the central focus of this paper. 1 I will develop the argument that chronic underdevelopment in rural areas of Iran prior to the 1 950s can be attributed to the dominance of absentee landlords who transferred rural capital into the urban economy, rather than to the structural characteristics of rural econo- mies in general. 2 The structural incapacities of rural economies to engage in the development process was an assumption that was incorporated into the Iranian state's development planning by giving priority to land reform programs. As it was assumed that the rural economy was structurally incapable ofdevelopment due to the prevalence of low-productive practices, the only solution to low productivity, and consequentially, to underdevelop- ment, was seen to be an often radical transformation of the structure of agricultural production (e.g. Kazemian, 1968, Ajami, 1976: 131-7; Baldwin, 1967:70). This paper will argue that chronic underdevelopment persisted well into the late 1970s because the conditions of capital accumulation that existed prior to land reform remained intact: not still, however, in the form of traditional landlord-merchant relations, but rather as an extension ofmodem international capital. Two socio-economic p rocesses have cont r i buted to the 1 ow p roducti vity and underdevelopment of rural Iran: a) the dominance of merchant capital on the Iranian economy prior to the 1950s and its affect on the rural economy through landlord-merchant relations; and b) the dominance of international capital and the peripherilization of the rural economy in the post- 1 950s period. The first process that affected capital accumulation in the rural Alternate Routes, Volumne 12, 1995 o Alternate Routes, Volume12, 1995 economy prior to World War II can be identified within the social relations of agricultural production. The domination of absentee landlords and their close relations with the urban merchant class caused a shift of capital from the rural to the urban sphere. In the second process, it was the development of dependent capitalism in Iran and the priorities of international capital that affected capital accumulation in rural Iran (e.g. Foran, 1993 and Clawson, I980). 1 These two processes of loss of capital in rural Iran will be briefly discussed in this paper in order to: (i) examine the question oflow productivity in the pre-capitalist agriculture of Iran: this is a question that has been answered in the development literature by examining the inability of agricul- tural production for mass production (as described by Todaro, 1989); (ii) examinenew forms ofcapital loss in the post-land-reform period ofrural Iran; and (iii) finally, to indicate that the underdevelopment of agriculture in the pre-capitalist era should be assessed by a reference to rural-urban exploita- tive relations in the pre-land-reform period. Similarly, the continuity of agricultural underdevelopment in the post-land-reform era should be viewed via a reference to the process of dependent capitalism in the same period. Agricultural Production and the Problem of Capital Accumulation Prior to 1960 The 1950s mark a critical transitional period in the socio-economic forma- tions of Iran, because not only did it coincide with the changes ofthe post-war international division of labour that would redefine the position of Iran in the world economy, but also it was the period of a coup and the transformation of power The internal consolidation of the Shah's power and his new close relations with the U.S. affected the objectives and direction of post-war development processes (Katouzian, 1981) It was not until the beginning of the 1 960s however that these changes really began to redirect socio-economic formations in Iran. It is because ofthe significance of this time period that an analytical distinction is made between the post 1 950s in general, or the period after 1 960 in particular, and the period before the 1950s. Agricultural production in Iranpriorto I960 was dominated by the pre- capitalist mode of production known as'sharecropping. ' Under this system, absentee landlords contributed to the production process by leasing their land and, sometimes, other means ofproduction to peasants and then appropriated surplus product The surplus was appropriated either as rent or as a share of Abdollahayan/ Sharecropping in Iran the product (Amid, 1990:47; Hooglund, 1 982: 1 1 ; Vali, 1980:23, 32-49). At the same time, the rural dominant classes (i.e the absentee landlords) were themselves subject to domination by merchant capital for two reasons. First, the merchants were becoming a new force in agricultural production and were gaining control over the land ( Lambton, 1 969 : 262-263 ; Hoogl und, 1982:12). Perhaps it was because ofthe effects of the changing structure of the landed property class that a great number of landowners lived in urban areas and were often involved in other economic activities there (Amid, 1990:9; Hooglund, 1982: 12). Second, the merchants were dominant over the market in which the agricultural product had to be marketed (Vali, 1980:36). The dominance of merchant capital, therefore, meant that the contributions of absentee landlords were directed more toward the urban economy than toward agriculture. This landlord-merchant dominance has had repercus- sions on the land concentration and exploitation of the peasant labourers in Iran. Kautsky (1980) argues that 'land,' one of the fixed means of produc- tion, can not be exploited for generating more than a specific amount of surplus product unless it is enlarged through land accumulation (see also Newby, 1978; Najmabadi, 1987:143). But this is not the case with 'labour' or other qualitative and variable means of production. Sodagar ( 1990: 1- 12) describes the process ofthe transformation of labour into value as a primary characteristic of the capitalist mode of production. If the creation of surplus in the production process happens as a result of the undervaluation or the exploitation of labour this could be true of a pre-capitalist mode (see Vali, 1980:13). For example, in the sharecropping system five factors of production, i.e., land, water, oxen, seed and labour are combined to organize production. At harvesting time, when the division of the product is carried out, each factor's contribution to the production process is evaluated evenly regardless ofthe fact that most ofthe time labour's actual contribution might vary (e.g. Najmabadi, 1987; Vali, 1980:32-38). Historically, the dominant classes of Iranian peasantry accumulated land and left the peasants dependent on land and land-use rights (Lambton, 1969:261-262; Hooglund, 1982:10-35). Hooglund (1982: 12) points out that in the twentieth century the large landowners who constituted only 2 per cent of all landowners controlled 55 per cent of all cultivated land. 1 As a result, the concentration of land and consequent competition (Hooglund, 1982: 1 1) overland-use rights (i.e. 'Nasaq') reinforced a particular type of communal Alternate Routes, Volume12, 1995 organization of production known as 'buneh' or sharecropping (Hooglund, 1 982:23). 5 In the sharecropping system of production, the need of the dominant classes for extraction oftheprofit from the production process was met through exploitation ofthe labourer (as opposed to land). In other words, in this system the varying labour input was evaluated the same as the fixed land and water input into the production process. But as Lambton( 1969:295- 296) indicates, without the labour input the land would not have been productive. Therefore, regardless of the amount of labour that the labourer embedded into the production process, the land, water and the labourer were allocated the same share from the product. There is also much evidence that indicates that the labourer could not even get the same share as the landowner received, because; Various subterfuges were devised which effectively permitted landlords to keep up to three-quarters of the entire harvest by the twentieth century (Hooglund, 1982: 1 1). Hooglund argues that these conditions worsened in the twentieth century as a result ofgreater concentration of landownership and an increase in the rural population He concludes that "[t]he peasants' economic dependence facili- tated their political acquiescence to a highly disadvantageous agricultural regime," (Hooglund, 1 982: 1 1 ). Thus, the peasant did not gain the full value of his or her labour because of the dominance of the landlord over the production process. Most of the time the Nasaq-holder's right (i.e. land-use right) to cultivation, which was attached to the landowner's land drove him to engage in a contract with the landowner, who controlled land and water. The labourer never calculated how much labour he or she had to invest in the production process. It is inferred that regardless of the extent of labour that the labourer (peasant) put into the pi oduction process it transpired that he or she won only a fifth or less share of the product. 6 The reason for this calculation and the undervaluation of labour power was that labour was contrasted with land In other words, while land was a fixed and objective factor which could be presented as the object of ownership, labour was a varying factor that could only be identified when it was attached to the labourer and to 'land ' Therefore, the labourer could not make a visible and measurable factor out of his or her labour in order to compete with the landlords who owned land and water The invisibility of labour in relation to land and water gave a secondary significance to the role of labour power in the production process Abdollahayan/ Sharecropping in Iran This secondary role of labour power was combined with its need (i.e., the labourer's need) for subsistence and put the labourer in the position where he or she was seen as an individual who was obliged by need to use the land even under these conditions (see also Vali, 1980:32-38). In Iran ideological rhetoric surrounding the peasant's participation in the production process suggested to the peasant that he or she was not being exploited, but rather was fortunate for being able to work on the land. Being able to participate in the production process was considered a privilege since the peasants did not own the land and not many peasants had the chance to work on the land. Hooglund (1982:22) indicates that about 60 percent ofthe rural population were the sharecroppers (i.e. nasaq-holders) in addition to another 40 per cent of the households which constituted the landless labour- ers: While peasants thus constituted an absolute majority of all villagers, it is reasonable to assume, given the size of the popula- tion without cultivation rights, that possession of 'nasaq' was a valuable asset. Thus, the ownership of land and water and the abundance of labour power (in relation to the available land) brought the landowners such power that they were ableto impose their terms on the labourers. Usually the process ended in the peasants receiving an unequal share that would keep them at the subsistence level (Hooglund, 1982:25-28). Their economic status placed them where they could not make ends meet and had to turn to the moneylend- ers or the landlords (Amid, 1990:42-47; Najmabadi, 1987:54-57; Vali, 1980:32-38). The landlords, however, received sometimes four-fifths of the product as their share and had the opportunity to accumulate wealth and power as the elites of the village (Hooglund, 1982:26). The position of landlords and peasants outlined above leads to the conclusion that the realization of surplus product became possible after the following relations were met: 1 ) the existence of power differentials over the production process that derived from the land-ownership status; and, 2) the reproduction of the sharecropping system of production and its relations of production that guaranteed the dependency ofthe peasants on production and the dominance ofthe landlords. The question that remains is what happens to the surplus product and how does it contribute to the reproduction of the system? Alternate Routes, Volume12, 1995 From the late nineteenth century to the beginning of the land reform programs in 1%2, the surplus product was marketed through landlord- merchant relations ' Tliis linkage between the pre-capitalist mode of produc- tion and merchant capital had two effects on the rural and urban economies. On the one hand, it further contributed to the concentration of land in the hands ofa few landlords (Amid, 1 990:28-33 ) because land accumulation was historically the only way by which the peasantry was dispossessed and became dependent on its labour power. Further, the exploitation of the agricultural labourer was facilitated by the dispossession of the peasants from the land. Once the collective labour power of the peasants was linked together and once the labour power was undervalued through factor-evalu- ation, 8 then the generation of surplus product became inevitable. Hence, the concentration of land and the exploitation of peasants' labour became the necessary condition for the realization of surplus product. In other words, in order for the surplus to be produced and appropriated by the landlords and be marketed by the merchants, more land had to be accumulated. On the other hand, landlord-merchant relations also facilitated the concentration ofmerchant capital in the urban areas, which contributed to the failure of the development of the means of production and the productive forces in the rural economy (Vali, 1980:32-49). Amid (1990:9) notes that absentee-landlordism and the fact that many landlords were involved in the economic activities of the cities (i.e., in cooperation with the merchants), resulted in a lack of capital and investment in the rural economy (see also Hooglund, 1982:12) Tliis had serious consequences for the rural economy. While more than 65 per cent ofthe population of Iran in the 1 960s lived in rural areas (Amid, 1990:4), the productivity of the rural economy was so low it caused severe poverty and undevelopment (Ibid:44-48). A number of theoretical approaches have sought to further understand thesituation. Marxists assumed that traditional agriculture failed to approach the qualities of the development of a higher stage of feudalism 9 (there is still controversy over the nature of pre-capitalist formations in many third World countries including Iran) '" This stage was considered to be a necessary stage for the total transformation of feudalism to capitalism in which the develop- ment ofproductive forces was crystallised in the conflict between new classes which were not historically present in the former modes of production (Nakhaie, 1986 78-84) Abdollahayan/ Sharecropping in Iran The developmental! st view, on the other hand, equated a development of social and economic structures and an upgrade in living standards with the level of production (see Todaro, 1989; Jenkins 1987). This development would occur primarily in industry and also in agriculture with the intensive application of modern technology (Jenkins, 1987; Kazemian, 1968:12-15; Najmabadi, 1976:105). Tofigh (1976:57-67), for example, compares eco- nomic growth to level of urbanization, the growth of the labour force, the growth of GNP and the growth of agricultural production which by any means can be put into one sentence, i.e., the growth of production in agriculture and in industry. These two different views (i.e., Marxist and developmentalist) never- theless share the assumption that the penetration of the pre-capitalist modes of production was an historical consideration that originated, in one way or another, from the differential levels of progress between the capitalist and pre-capitalist modes of production. In other words, there was a gap between two different modes of production whose conception was based on 1 ) a lack oftechnological advancement, and, 2) the presence oflow productivity on the part of pre-capitalist modes of production. In Free Trade theories of development, for example, it was a necessity for the pre-capitalist economies to be penetrated by the senders of high technology (e.g. see Jenkins," 1 987 and Todaro, 1989). These theorists even suggested that not only should the Third World states not resist the effects ofthis penetration, but rather should cooperate so that the proper transfer of technological progress might be facilitated (see Todaro, 1989; Jenkins, 1987). 12 Basing their critiques on the assumptions of the lack oftechnological capabilities and the existence of low productivity, the two approaches came to the same conclusion: the necessity of transformation by external forces. 13 In fact, it was not the existence of low productivity in agriculture that rationalized thepenetration oftheThird World economies. Marxists and non- marxist researchers neglected the fact that low productivity in pre-capitalist sharecropping in Iran was caused by the process of capital outflow from the rural economy and the accumulation of capital in the urban economy." Accordingly, it is wrong to assess the efficiency of Iranian sharecropping on the basis of low productivity, because this low productivity was not a consequence of the practice of sharecropping. In short, the low productivity of agriculture was not a structural problem embedded within the rural economy. As noted earlier, in the period before the 1 950s, the surplus product of agricultural production in Iran was extracted from the rural economy and Alternate Routes, Volume12, 1995 was transformed into mercliant capital ." Hence, this part ofthe surplus could not contribute to increased agricultural production. Thus, the low-productiv- ity assumption based on historical evidence is unsupported on the grounds that it was not a consequence of production process, but rather it was a result of outward capital flow. The outflow ofcapital took place where the agricultural commodity had to be marketed under landlord-merchant relations. As a result ofthe transfor- mation of agricultural products into merchant capital, investment in and the development of agricultural technology was limited (Amid, 1990; Vali, 1 980:32-49). It is for this reason that attributing the low-productivity to the embedded factors within the production process, without referring to the larger context of rural-urban relations, is flawed Disregarding these exploitative relations between the urban and rural economies of the p re-World-War II era, the development literature blamed the structure ofthe rural economy for the failure ofthe national economies of the Third world (see Todaro, 1989). The problem of low socio-economic standards that existed in the rural economy was well noted in this literature. They also identified the inability of the rural economy to improve the peasants' socio-economic standards. These facts, however, were theoreti- cally misunderstood. The exploitative relations between rural and urban economies existed where merchant capital was imposing its own terms on agricultural produc- tion. l6 It was an indication ofthe dominance of merchants who were thus able to determine the level of capital accumulation in the rural economy (see Najmabadi, 1987:44). This is a unique situation where merchant capital controlled accumulation in the rural economy without exerting actual politi- cal power, as opposed to the typical landlords elsewhere whose presence in the rural economy was known by their economic and political power (Hooglund, 1982). What has been the import ofthis misplacement of low productivity and low living standards on understanding of the post- 1950s socio-economic development of [ran? One concrete effect was that the government of Iran deemed necessary the transformation (i.e. capitalist penetration) of agricul- ture as a prerequisite for the elimination of low-productivity and low living standards (see Kazemian, 1968). The development literature of the 1950s which suggested that a penetration of Iranian pre-capitalist agriculture by the capitalist economies was a necessity (see Kazemian, 1 968) was based on a flawed understanding Abdollahayan/ Sharecropping in Iran of the situation. 17 It was this misinterpretation of the rural economy that led both state officials and scholars to conclude that capitalist penetration was a necessity. The historical consequence ofthis was the development of depend- ent capitalism and the emergence of a dependent bourgeoisie in Iran. Post-war development also highlighted the fact that only the patterns of capital loss from various sectors of the economy changed In other words, a new socio-economic underdevelopment took place that did not alter the conditions (i.e., loss of capital) under which the destruction of the former agricultural-based economy was considered a necessity The new patterns only differed in that the rural and the urban economic development processes were even more closely integrated. This was because the forms of capital appropriation from the rural economy had expanded to an appropriation of capital from the national economy in which a distinction between the rural and the urban economies hardly existed Capital Movement, Technological Change, and New Modes of Capital Outflow There is considerable evidence which documents the growth of manufactur- ing products and rise in GNP in Iran in the 1970s (see Najmabadi, l c)76) %J^ Compared to the previous periods, a different type of capital accumulation was occurring and the economy was functioning in an environment com- pletely different from the earlier one—i.e., under the direct domination of merchant capital. But, many of the same sources also indicate much higher inflation rates, unemployment, and unequal distribution of incomes in the post-penetration era (Looney, 1975:3 and 1 982:3-5). IK Wehave already seen that the assumption of agricultural inefficiency was put forward by the post World War II development literature, where it was assumed that the successor of the traditional agriculture would improve rural conditions (Todaro, 1989:62-78). But, as Looney (1982) indicates, it was not necessar- ily the case, at least not in Iran, and certainly not in the instances of income distribution and unemployment. The gap between rural and urban income groups widened (Mohtadi, 1986; Looney, 1982:247) and unemployment, especially in the modem sectors, increased (Looney, 1982:3-5). This is contradictory to the development objectives of the post-World War Two period and should be addressed. The inconsistency between the assumption of agricultural inefficiency and the historical evidence can be addressed as a reflection of inconsistency o Alternate Routes, Volume12, 1995 in the practices based on the flawed premises of post-war development literature The post-war development process in Iran indicates that the problem of agricultural inefficiency had not been conceptualized properly. That is, as the development plans, inspired by the assumption of the inefficiency of the pre-capitalist mode were implemented, the economy developed new problems which were not supposed to exist. There is, then, a link between improper conceptualization of inefficiency in the pre-capitalist modes, the qualities of the post-war development process (i.e. choosing import-substitution industrialization and land reform policies) and the emer- gence of these new problems. How can these new problems be conceptualized? One possible answer is that since the 1950s, the economy has been transformed into a dependent capitalist economy and centre-periphery relations have developed (or were reinforced) between Iran and the capitalist economies. I situate myself in this theoretical framework where the post-war inefficiencies in the economies of the Third World are addressed by a reference to the exploitative relations between these economies and the capitalist countries (e.g. described by Turner, 1984: 13-14; Foran, 1993). There are two points that should be made here in order to shed more light on the theoretical position of the debate as follows: 1 ) The post World War II development literature lacked original- ity in the sense that it was based on a flawed conception of the historical phase with which some of the LDCs were dealing. 2) They reflected the requirements of a new phase of capitalist development which was based on the extraction of profit from foreign countries by the capitalist countries. Having clarified the theoretical position of the debate, it is necessary to further explore the new forms of capital outflow from the unified national economy of the 1970s. 1 '' A review of how pre-capitalist agriculture was treated in the development literature (including Marxist and non-Marxist) reveals the shortcomings ofthe current studies. 2 'The majority ofthese studies deal with pre-capitalist agricultural production as a transitional stage in the history of socio-economic progress (described by Vali, 1980:37). Nakhaie ( 1 986:4), for example, tends to contribute to the orthodox Marxist discourse and attributes feudalism to thepre-capitalist relations ofagricultural produc- Abdollahayan/ Sharecropping in Iran tion in Iran. And he looks at the current changes (i.e. from 1960 on) as a transitory period that failed to replace feudalism. Consequently, from this point of view, the changes that occurred in the 1960s and 70s (i.e. land reform and the modernization of Iranian industry) were those historically lacking the typical characteristics of a post-feudal society because they deviated from the historical process of development. 21 This stream of thought assumed that this happened because the latest structures of agricultural production (prior to land reform) lacked the characteristics compatible with a feudal-based society. The Iranian agrarian case did not reach the mature level of feudalism and was, instead, penetrated by international capitalism. This meant that the external factors (as opposed to internal forces) contributed to change in the pre-capitalist mode of production. This approach identified a lack of the developed productive forces prior to the implementation of land reform in Iran. It was considered the missing factor that contributed to the establishment of dependent capital- ism in Iran. Because ofthis loss, the development ofcapitalism (similar to that which occurred in the European context) with an involvement of the Iranian national bourgeoisie was out ofthe question. 22 But, this premise of Orthodox Marxism (i.e. transitory character ofpeasant economies) has been challenged by Taylor (1979) who believed in the persistence of agricultural-based economies. It is worth mentioning that Marx's accounts of the historical transition of agricultural production leads to a logical consequence which is the disappearance of the peasantry as capitalist development affects the process of production (Newby, 1978). But the capitalist development at the world scale, as Taylor (1979) indicates, has reinforced many features of the agricultural production-based economies through the articulation of socio- economic structures in peripheral areas. This is in contrast to orthodox Marxism's account for a total transition to capitalism. Following this challenge, one can suggest that it was not even the lack of a national bourgeoisie that contributed to the socio-economic deficiencies. Rather, it was the formation and the existence of a dependent bourgeoisiethat played a determining role in these socio-economic changes (i.e., underdevel- opment or any other version ofbackwardness). The formation of a dependent bourgeoisie should, therefore, be given more theoretical credit than the lack ofa national bourgeoisie. By putting thispremise first, one will beabletopay attention to the external processes, i.e. capitalist development and the penetration of Less Developed Countries (LDCs)that resulted in the forma- © © Alternate Routes, Volume12, 1995 tion of a dependent bourgeoisie (e.g. described in Turner, 21 1984: 13; Foran, 1 993). This would also help one to base a theoretical debate on the existence of a dependent bourgeoisie and not on the lack of a national bourgeoisie. Moreover, as indicated above, looking for the formation of a national bourgeoisie may lead to a misinterpretation of the structure of the rural economy These debates are provoked by the assumption of a unilinear process of change and transitory character ofpeasant economies that orthodox Marxists support. It is thus possible to put aside the assumption oftransition and look for the processes that affected production and accumulation in rural Iran. One of these processes is the new form of capital extraction. Tliis is, then, a contribution to the dependency discourse that focuses on structural underde- velopment and examines the differential levels of capital accumulation in 'centre' and 'satellite' economies. 2 ' 1 The post-land reform agricultural formations can be excluded from the earlier formations on the grounds that they were constructed as a result ofthe import of foreign capital (Clawson, 1980:143-171). To the extent that these formations contribute to the outflow of capital (or redirection of capital accumulation), they will be appropriate tools for our understanding of the current socio-economic structures. In other words, there is no necessity to rely on the transitory assumption that necessitates historical analysis of the changes in different modes. As already noted, the transitory assumption has theoretical limitations. A reliance on the structural analysis of capital accumulation, however, would be more appropriate especially in the case of Iran because, it does not have to solve the theoretical dead-end that Orthodox Marxists encountered when they suggested that the pre-capitalist mode in Iran was a feudal mode. The transitory characteristic of agriculture in the historical progress of societies has been examined by Lahsaeizadeh ( 1 984) with a reference to the articulation ofthe different modes ofproduction. Lahsaeizadeh (1984) refers to the socio-economic structures of rural Iran as the pre-capitalist mode of production that is being articulated through the effects of capitalist penetra- tion In his work, the transition is not the major theme but the pre-capitalist mode is considered unable to remain stationary and eventually will change He allocated a chapter of his Ph.D dissertation to account for the effects of transitory agriculture (Lahsaeizadeh, 1984:3 14-346) Again, he has taken for granted that progressive capitalist enterprises would wipe out the remaining old forms of non-capitalist production Although he accounts for the persist- Abdollahayan/ Sharecropping in Iran ence of a pre-capitalist mode ofproduction, lie contributes to the idea that the persistence ofthe pre-capitalist structures only postpones the total transfor- mation of agrarian structures. In other words, the transition of these struc- tures will eventually happen. Despite this difference between his work and the work of orthodox Marxists (i.e. his emphasis on the reproduction of pre-capitalist structures after the penetration), he appears similar to the latter when he promotes his argument based on the assumption that the pre-capitalist agriculture in Iran will be replaced by capitalist enterprises (Lahsaeizadeh, 1 984: 5, 435-462). Turner ( 1 984) has also studied pre-capitalist agricultural production in Iran. His work remains in agreement with the theoretical position of Weber (Turner, 1984:153-186). Once again, the pre-capitalist agricultural produc- tion in Iran is identified in his work as the feudalist mode of production (Turner, 1 984: 172). Hedevelops his criticisms ofthe Orientalist approach of the development literature. In so doing, he situates himself among those who not only disagree with the stationary notion of the socio-economic structures ofthe East, but rather assume that the East has been as dynamic as the West Thus, his agenda for studying the East has been to identify the dynamics of change from agriculture to a more complicated socio-economic structure (Turner, 1984:1-15). Although he is unwilling to repeat the same unilinear assumption of historical processes of change, Turner attributes the feudalist mode of production to the Iranian peasantry when he examines them. Therefore, the notion of progress once again is encapsulated in the definition of agriculture as a system of retarded production which eventually evolves into a progressive one. The transitory premise in the developmentalist (described by Todaro, 1989) and in the Marxist discourses can be criticized here based on the question ofwhy agricultural production has to betaken as the transitory stage ofprogress. It is not a question ofthe validity ofthis consideration, but rather the methodological effects ofthis consideration I would consider the Iranian case of agrarian structure as one which could have developed the means of production but was interrupted by two different socio-economic processes in two different historical periods. While I categorize these two processes under 'pre-capitalist relations of production' and 'dependent capitalism ' I would argue that the latter need not necessarily have been a successor ofthe former International capital acted as a catalyst to facilitate the transformation of agricultural production. The credit should, therefore, be given to the require- © o Alternate Routes, Volume12, 1995 ments of international capital that reinforced the transformation of agricul- ture in Iran. A shift from reliance on agricultural production (until 1950s) to the industrial production (in 60s and early 70s) and from diversified production (from the I960 to 1973 oil boom) to the production of oil, provide us with some clues about: I ) the formation of counter-productive forces, i.e. depend- ent bourgeoisie, their function in the process of circulation of capital (i.e. import activities) that led to the outflow ofcapital from the national economy; 2) subjugation of national economic forces to the international capitalist enterp rises, and, 3) the course of change from production to consumption in the late 70s as the consequence of the two former processes. 25 These observations seem to support world system theories that interpret the social formations of the LDCs as those manipulated by the international forces. But, I would also suggest that these theories too (e.g. as described in Todaro, 1989; Turner, 1984; Taylor, 1979), put much emphasis on the importance of external forces. In order to contribute to these discussions, an application of the internationalization of capital approach would be more appropriate. Such a position would not only consider the external forces that are involved in the internal formations of the LDCs, but also the movement of capital Conclusion Historical specificities ofpre-capitalist Iranian agricultural production make it difficult to theorize in accord with the existing traditional Marxist and non- marxist perspectives The significant patterns of the outflow of capital that were hidden within the complexity of different modes of production have not been dealt with by these theories. Within these modes of production exist the dominance of merchant capital that contributed to the peripherilization ofthe pre-capitalist mode of production. The emphasis rather has been put on outlining the obstacles that agricultural production has encountered histori- cally in the process of transformation into a more socio-economically developed formation The post-transformation agricultural production ofthe 1960s and the 70s, however, indicated that the new patterns were not necessarily compatible with those which the traditional Marxists or non- Marxist state planners expected to happen The development of dependent capitalism and the peripherilization of agricultural production continued to Abdollahayan/ Sharecropping in Iran be the major pattern of the development process under the dominance of international capital. The most significant conclusion to the above is that two types of structural underdevelopment have occurred in Iran in two entirely different historical contexts. The outflow of surplus product under merchant-landlord relations was the major tendency in the pre-capitalist structural underdevelopment of the rural economy, then the dominance of international capital and various forms of capital loss contributed to a new type of the structural underdevel- opment of rural Iran. In other words, the traditional mode of rural peripherilization was changed as a result of the development plans of the 1960s and developed into a new type of peripherilization and underdevelop- ment of agricultural production. Notes 1. I would like to thank Bruce McFarlane, Jacques Chevalier and Allen Steeves who gave me helpful criticism on au earlier version of the paper. 2. This assumption of the causal nature of structural characteristics can be observed in examples of both marxist and non-marxist theories -e.g. as described by Todaro, 1989. 3. Clawson explains the general laws of motion of capital winch does not necessarily study %]J rural economy separately. Nevertheless, his ideas support the point about the effects of international capital on internal, including rural, formation. 4. More details on the concentration of land is presented by Halliday (1979) and Amid (1990). 5. Communal, as opposed to individual and household independent producers, implied a situation in which the peasant did not own the land but his previous land-use practices gave him the right to work on the land with others with the same status. Each of these working groups were called 'bun eh' or 'sahra' and these peasants were called nasaq-holders' (Hooglund, 1981). Working in these groups did not guarantee the use of land for the next year; it depended on the landlord's decision (Lambton, 1969:295-305). Most of the time the decisions concerning production were also made by the landlords. The important fact is that the peasants were bound to the production process through their dependence on land- use rights. 6. For more information about the arrangement on the distribution of produce see Hooglund, 1982, Nakhaie, 1986, Lahsaeizadeh, 1984, Lambton 1955. 7. Vali (1980:36, 43) describes the situation of the market but very loosely as he argues that the merchants were functioning as a middleman or agent of the landlords. Nevertheless, he indicates that the relations between the two linked the production to the market. o Alternate Routes, Volume12, 1995 8. In the sharecropping system, five factors were combined in order to get production under way. These factors were as follows: land, labour, water, seed and oxen. 9. Nakhaie (1986:78) maintains that one of the obstacles to the development of a capitalist mode in Iran (in earlier periods) has been the incomplete private ownership of land. 10. It may be said that they assumed that the existence of a conflict between classes in the feudalist mode was a prerequisite for the transformation from a feudalist mode to a capitalist mode. Or, some even deny that there has been a feudalist mode, for example, in Iran (Ashraf, 1978). This is the reason Marxists can not envisage the transformation of agricultural production without it having passed through that level. 11. See descriptions of Jenkins (1987) about pro-Transnational Corporations (TNC) approaches. 12. Jenkins (1987:22) explains how Pro-TNC theorists developed the idea that state intervention with TNC operations in the host countries can be a detriment to the development process. 13. In the Iranian case, the Marxist approach did not take the penetration as a necessity, but rather, they suggested the idea of a spontaneous transformation of agriculture that was facilitated by the penetration of the Iranian economy (See Nakhaie, 1986 and Ashraf, 1978 for more details). Ashraf ( 1978: 31 1) appears more firm than others on the issue of forceful transformation as he quotes Marx, although he (Ibid) later indicates that the penetration did not create a Western typical bourgeoisie in Iran. 14. The free trade theorists for example, took for granted the backwardness of agriculture in relation to the urban economy. They did not consider that, in Iran for instance, the surplus product was appropriated by the absentee landlords and was transferred to cities (see Todaro, 1989 for more details on the assumptions of development literature about agricultural production in the Third World). This was a fact that contributed to backwardness in agriculture. 15. I have already argued that the surplus product was transferred by the landlords to the urban economy Since many of the large landowners were absentee (Hooglund, 1982:14), they tended to invest their capital in economic activities other than agriculture, i.e. mostly trade activities (e.g. Amid, 1990). 16. Najmabadi (1987:44) explains that from the early 19th century, the merchants got involved in agricultural production through buying land. She agrees with Gilbar (1987:312- 365) that the merchants' interests contributed to a shift in cultivation patterns which encouraged the production of certain crops such as opium, tobacco, cotton, dried fruits and spices The influence of the merchants in agriculture has remained throughout the twentieth century in Iran 17. See Ka/omian, 1908 for the details on the necessity of transforming Iranian agrarian structures considered by the state. This was an idea that was sponsored by the local and Abdollahayan/ Sharecropping in Iran international developuientalists at that time and was supported by the American agencies for the development of the Middle Eastern countries. 18. See also Looney (1977a and 1977b) for more information about the Post- 1950s economic conditions of Iran. 19. 'Unified economy' refers to a situation where the process of capitalist penetration integrates the rural and urban economies. In this situation, rural and urban economies would be identified with the national economy that dominates both and determines the direction of capital accumulation at local levels. 20. In the following argument, we will see that these studies discarded the notion of structural underdevelopment of the 1970s economy. Because they were more concerned with the transition of pre-capitalist mode to a capitalist mode than they were about the structural underdevelopment. It was because of this that they only critically examined the failure of capitalism in Iran, and the development of dependent capitalism and the outflow of capital were given secondary consideration. 21. Nakhaie (1986) bases his theoretical debate on the logical appearance of capitalism that should have happened right after the disappearance of feudalism in ban. Modernization of Iran, however, did not reflect the characteristics of typical capitalism. Therefore, he concludes, the historical socio-economic development in ban deviated from its line and fell into a new phase i.e. dependent capitalism. 22. Ashraf (1978) explains tins in terms of the obstacles that prevented the growth of a wtl national bourgeoisie. 23. Turner (1984:13) presents a combination of both the external and internal factors involved in the socio-economic formations. 24. This is a combination of what Frank (1975 and 1981) and Foran (1993) present in dealing with, especially, the problems of underdevelopment and the post-World-War-Two crisis of the Third World. 25. The role of oil in this change is of some importance, but we will not discuss it in detail here. References Ajami, Ismail 1976 Agricultural and rural Development in Iran, in Jane W. Jacqz, Iran: Past. Present and Future, New York: Aspen Institute for Humanistic Studies. Amid, Mohammad J. 1990 Agriculture, Poverty and Reform In Iran, London: Routledge. Alternate Routes, Volumel2, 1995 Ashraf, Ahmad 1978 Historical Obstacles to the Development of a Bourgeoisie in Iran, in M. A. Cook (ed). Studies in the Economic History ofthe Middle Hast; From the Rise of Islam to the Present Day, Oxford: Oxford University Press. Baldwin, George B 1 967 Planning and Development in Iran, Baltimore: The Johns Hopkins Press. Clawson, Patrick 1980 "Capital Accumulation and in Iran," in Peter Nore and Terisa Turner (ed), OH and Class Struggle, London: Zed Press. Foran, John 1993 Fragile Resistance: Social 'transformation in Iran from 1500 to the Revolution, Boulder: Westview Press. Frank, Andre guilder 1981 Crisis: In The Third World, New York: Holmes and Meier Publishers. 1975 On Capitalist Underdevelopment, Bombay: Oxford University Press. Gilbar, G 1978 "Persian Agriculture in the Late Qajar Period, 1860-1906: Some Economic and Social Aspects/' Asian and African Studies, 12, no. 3:312-365. Halliday, Fred, 1979 Iran: Dictatorship and Development, Harmondwirth: Penguin Books. Hayami, Yujiro 1981 I Understanding Village ( 'ommunity and the Direction ojAgrarian Change in Asia, Delhi: Hindustan Publishing Corporation. Hooglund, E 1982 Land and Revolution in Iran, 1 960- 1 9X0, Austin: University of Texas Press, pp. 3-35. Hooglund, Eric J. 1 98 1 "Rural Socio-Economic Organization in Transition: The Case of'Boneus'" in B'onine, Michael E., and Nikki Keddie, Modern Iran: the Dialectics oft 'ommunity and ( 'hange. Albany: State University of New York Press. Jenkins, Rhys 1987 Transnational ( 'orporalionsand I neven Development London: Methuen Katouzian, M H 1981 The Political Economy of Modern Iran: Despotism and Pseudo- Modernism, 1926-1979, London: The MacMillan Press Ltd Abdollahayan/ Sharecropping in Iran Kautsky, Karl 1980 'The Agrarian Question," Translated by Jams Banaji, in Frederick H. Buttal and Howard Newby (ed), The Rural Sociology of Advanced Societies, London: Croon Helm. Kazemian, Gholam H. 1968 Impact ofU.S. TechnicalAid on the Rural Development ofIran, Brooklyn NY.: Theo. Gaiis' Sons Inc. Lahsaeizadeh, Abdolali 1984 The Effect of 1962 Iranian Land Reform on Rural Class Structure, Unpublished Ph.D. Dissertation, Michigan: Michigan State University Press. Lambton, Ann K.S. 1969 The Persian Land Reform 1962-1966, Oxford: Claredon Press. Looney, Robert E. 1 982 Economic Origins ofthe Iranian Revolution, New York: Pergamon Press. Looney, Robert E. 1977(a) A Development Strategyfor Iran Through the 1980s, New York: Praeger Publishers. Looney, Robert E. ^^ 1977(b) Iran at the End ofthe Century, Toronto: Lexington Books. QP Looney, Robert E. 1975 Income Distribution Policies and Economic Growth in Semi-industrialized Countries: A Comparative Study of Iran, Mexico. Brazil, and South Korea, New York: Praeger Publishers. Mohtadi, Hamid 1986 Rural Stratification, Rural to Urban Migration, and Urban Inequality: Evidence From Iran, World Development Journal, Vol. 14, No. 6, pp.713-725. Najmabadi, Afsaneh 1987 Land Reform and Social Change in Iran, Salt Lake City: University of Utah Press. Najmabadi, F. 1976 "Strategies of Industrial Development in Iran," in Jane W. Jacqz Iran: Past, Present and Future, New York: Aspen Institute for Humanistic Studies. Alternate Routes, Volume12, 1995 Nakhaie, Mohammad Reza 1986 Development of Capitalism In Ivan, Unpublished Ph.D. Dissertation, Waterloo: University of Waterloo. Newby, Howard (ed.) 1 978 International Perspectives in Rural Sociology, hichester: John wiley and Sons. Sodagar, M. 1990 )'he Development of( 'apita/ist Relations in Iran (the period of Expansion; 1963-/979), (Roshd-e Ravabet-e Sarmayeh-dari dar Iran (marhale-e Gostaresh) 1342-57, Tehran: Sho-leh Andisheh Publishers. Taylor, John G 1 979 From Modernization to Modes of Production:/] ( 'riticpie ofthe Sociology ofDevelopment and Underdevelopment, Atlantic Highlands. Humanities Press Todaro, Michael P. 1989 Economic Development in the 'third World, Fourth edition, New York: Longman Turner, B 07h 1 984 ( apitalism and ( 'lass in the ,\ fiddle East; Theories ofSocial ( 'hange and Economic Development, London: Heinmann Educational Books. Vali, Abbas 1 980 'The Character of the Organization of Production in Iranian Agriculture, 1891-1925", in Bielefelder Studien (et al), Georg Stauth (ed), Iran: Precapitalist)!, Capitalism and Revolution, Saardrucken: Verlag breitenbach Publishers.