BALANCE GENERAL AL 30 DE JUNIO DE 2013

Interestingly, the cultural and economic extroversion of the dominant class in Mount Lebanon dates back to the seventeenth century. The dominance of the feudal and commercial sectors was reinforced by Fakhedinne II’s declaration of an autonomous emirate in Mount Lebanon. Fakhredinne eagerly integrated Mount Lebanon’s nascent sericulture into the economy of the Italian city-states, especially the Dutchy of Tuscany and, thus, invited Florentine artisans and architects and fostered a hybrid Arabo-Tuscan culture which manifests itself in the dress code and architecture characteristic of Mount Lebanon to date (Hourani, 1986).

It must be noted, however, that Lebanon’s integration into the politico-strategic sphere of influence of a modernising capitalist Europe did not correspond to a principled or fundamental change in the political economy in Lebanon. In other words, the challenge capitalism posed to the feudal relations and country-based economy in early-modern Europe was not matched by a similar process in the Lebanese case. Hence, the transition to modern capitalism in Lebanon failed to produce an urban, bourgeois revolution akin to the French Revolution. In fact, preferential access and selective exposure to modern Europe restricted the process of socioeconomic modernisation to the established, pre-capitalist elite.

Consequently, it was the upper classes which enjoyed exposure and access to the techniques and culture of the modern ‘other’ since the Egyptian invasion of Greater Syria. The lower classes, on the other hand, were only superficially exposed to global modernity and capitalism in the aftermath of World War II. Similarly, mandatory policies selectively integrated members of the established elite into the modern-capitalist world order and, in general, excluded the poor (Hudson, 1968; Fawaz, 1983; Gates, 1998).

In other words, peripheral capitalism in Lebanon did not produce a revolutionary bourgeoisie nor did it entail a principled rupture with pre-capitalist MoPs and social relations. Instead, peripheral capitalism marked the birth of a non-revolutionary, non-confrontational ‘comprador’ bourgeoisie which was, essentially, a hybrid class incorporating elements of the pre-capitalist elite alongside emerging capitalists. Lebanese peripheral capitalism, therefore, involved ‘surgical alterations’ in the ideologies and social relations of the dominant class rather than the overthrowing of an ancien regime (‘Āmil, 1974).

Lebanon’s integration in the global economy and the expansion of the capitalist MoP, therefore, coexisted with pre-capitalist MoPs manifested in primitive urban/artisan industries, subsistence agriculture and pre-capitalist mercantilism. In fact, it can be argued that peripheral capitalism and the modern political system were established ‘outside’ the existing order and

were, therefore, uninterested in disrupting pre-capitalist social relations and MoPs (Daher, 1981:27-37; Hamdan, 1991:97-98). In evidencing this, Hany (1983:112) notes that:

the transformation from the feudal system to capitalist formations in Lebanon is closer to a ‘reformist’ route: pliant with feudalism, reluctant and indecisive. This perhaps explains [...] why the process consumed more than a century [and yet, a] decisive break with feudal relations has not yet been achieved.

4.2.1.1 Peripheral Capitalism and the ‘Comprador’ Bourgeoisie in Lebanon

The coexistence of capitalist and pre-capitalist MoPs in peripheral economies, Daher (1981:12) explains, can be attributed to the fact that ‘a bare minimum’ of capitalism is sufficient to sustain the economy and guarantee the interests of established (feudal landowners, confessional-religious establishments) and emerging (petty and financial-commercial bourgeoisies) segments of the socioeconomic elite. In other words, capitalism in its peripheral form expands not by challenging or deconstructing pre-capitalist social relations, but by the increased exposure to and penetration by ‘centre’ capitalism (‘Āmil, 1974:92; Gates, 1998:9). This does not mean that pre-capitalist MoPs retain dominance but, rather, that they are allowed to exist within the capitalist economy. Saba (1976) and Gates (1998), for instance, note that regional specialisation in agriculture; the development of handicraft production for wider markets; the growth of coastal and inland towns into centres of trade and artisanship; and the expansion of monetary wealth independent of the traditional elite since the mid-nineteenth century are proof that capitalism dominated the Lebanese economy – although, without challenging pre-capitalism.

It must be noted, however, that the hegemonic segment of the dominant class – that is to say, the financial-commercial bourgeoisie – did not materialise through class struggle, but through the expansion of European capitalism and its infiltration of Lebanon. Paradoxically, its legitimacy depended on its role in the anti-colonial struggle much like ‘comprador’ dominant bourgeoisies elsewhere in the Middle East and Latin America (Ougaard, 1982).

In other words, the Lebanese bourgeoisie achieved socioeconomic dominance by ‘adjoining’ the bourgeoisie in the ‘centre’ without constructing its own auto-centred, inward-oriented MoP. It was, therefore, articulated and imposed ‘from outside’ and, thus, lacked the impetus or interest to challenge pre-capitalist relations. In fact, the legitimacy of the capitalist dominant class rested on a myriad of ‘traditional’, pre-capitalist and ‘patriotic’ legitimations and extra- economic coercive powers in contradiction to capitalism itself. Consequently, alliance and coexistence rather than confrontation and conflict characterises the relationship between capitalist and pre-capitalist elites in peripheral economies (Traboulsi, 1977; ‘Āmil, 1974; 1978; 1990a; 1990b; Ougaard, 1982).

146 

4.2.1.2 Reproduction Structures, the State and Peripheral Capitalism

Before engaging any further with the political economy of Lebanese modernity and the historical evolution of peripheral capitalism in Lebanon, however, a few remarks regarding the nature of dependent capitalism and the peripheral state must be made.

In this vein, it must be noted that varying degrees of peripheral capitalism can be distinguished by the level of reproduction structures (Ougaard, 1982). Marx’s analysis of reproduction structures distinguishes between three levels of production: (i) the production of consumer goods; (ii) the production of means of production (such as machinery, instruments of labour and raw materials) for consumer goods; and (iii) the production of means of production for the production of means of production.

Given that economic auto-centeredness presupposes relative independence, ‘centre’ capitalism can be distinguished by (i) significant production at all three levels; (ii) the prevalence of organic inter-sectoral linkages determining the dynamics of production; and (iii) a high degree of integration within each branch of production. Of course, achieving absolute auto- centeredness would amount to autarky and complete isolation and is, at best, utopian. Nonetheless, economies are considered auto-centred if production takes place on all three levels and inter-sectoral links are stronger than links with sectors outside the economy. In other words, ‘centre’ capitalisms are characterised by the prevalence of inward-oriented inter- sectoral linkages over outward-oriented production dynamics.

Peripheral capitalisms, on the other hand, involve greater linkages between production structures and supply-and-demand dynamics in ‘centre’ economies vis-à-vis inward-oriented inter-sectoral linkages. Peripheral-capitalist economies can be divided into three subcategories discernable according to the extent to which they depend on ‘centre’ economies.

The first category (denoted p-1) represents the prototypical postcolonial economy where little/no introvert accumulation occurs. Instead, society is connected to and dominated by the economies of the ‘centre’ through circulation. P-1 economies are, therefore, integrated with the ‘centre’ as importers of consumer goods and exporters of raw materials. P-2 economies engage in a limited process of introvert capital accumulation through the production of consumer goods but remain dependent on the import of means of production. P-3 economies, on the other hand, produce the means of production for the production of consumer goods and, thus, possess a more compound process of introvert accumulation but remain dependent on the import of means of production for the production of means of production (Ougaard, 1982). According to this classification, Lebanon falls in the first category as it lacks introvert capital

accumulation; is integrated in the global ‘centre’ through circulation; and is dominated by the outward-oriented sector. In evidencing this, Gates (1998:8) notes that Lebanese capitalism is:

A disarticulated and dominated economy [which] features (i) external orientation promoted by European capital in alliance with the Lebanese bourgeoisie through trade and investment; (ii) overdevelopment of the foreign and tertiary sectors of the economy; [and] (iii) weak productive sectors. [...] Consequently, the share in national income shifted among the sectors, favouring externally-oriented production and services over internally-oriented agricultural and industrial production.

It must be noted, however, that the extent to which an economy is ‘peripheral’ is not a static or ascriptive ‘reality’. In fact, India, for instance, provides a demonstrative example of the shift from prototypical postcolonial peripheral capitalism to the highest stages of capitalist development. Similar transformations towards enhanced introvert capital accumulation and higher reproductive structures took place in much of the developing world in the postcolonial era – Egypt, Pakistan and Latin America are often cited as examples.

The tendency to shift from p-1 towards to p-3, however, is contingent on the extent to which the state is ‘developmental’ to use Shil’s (1975) expression. In this vein, such dependency theorists as Samir Amin (1976) argue that dependency will reproduce itself impeding movement towards higher reproduction structures or, even, expansion on the same level if the accumulation process is determined solely by capitalist competition. State interventionism, however, is a reflection of the interests of the hegemonic power bloc or the dominant class. Comprehending the dynamics of peripheral capitalism in Lebanon and explaining why it has not shifted towards less-dependent reproduction structures, therefore, requires an investigation of the historical evolution of Lebanese capitalism, the role ascribed to the modern state in Lebanon and the nature of the Lebanese power bloc. This is discussed in the remainder of this chapter.