WL: I am actually smiling because you basically state that defining the mode of production as a set of property relations is AN INFERENCE. However, he who does not accept your particular understanding of this INFERENCE is outside '"THE MARXIST" definition as you understand it.
^^^^ CB: I'm smiling too. Makes sense to me. Not just anything is Marxist. :>) ^^^^ WL: Well, some things in life are self evident and man today lives as the result of a shape of re/production, with the property relations within. ^^^^ CB: Now that's my kind of critique of Marx. ^^^^^^ ML:Thanks for the material from the Communist Manifesto, which I read and have read perhaps 300 times and make it a point to read as a way of life. This of course does not prove your Marxist definition of the mode of production as a set of property relations, which you state is only an inference. Nor are you required to prove an inference . . . by definition. ^^^^^ CB: I'm not sure what you mean "only" an inference. Much of what Marx did that is important to us was to make inferences. Inferences are not some inferior form of establishing a proposition. They are the form thatarguments take. The thing you have to do is critique the inferences. Not act like you have something in the fact that my arguments consist in inferences. Or explain why your inferences are better than mine are. As a matter of fact, one _is_ required to _prove_ an inference. ^^^^^^ ML: I agree . . . I am definitely outside "the Marxists" and have no desire to join this particular interpretation of an inference. Hey . . . just having a little fun. ^^^^^ CB: Hey , I'm for lots of fun. Eat, drink and be merry ! I even eat cheese. ^^^^ ML:You ask for evidence of my thesis which I will present. You ask for answers to 13 other question which I presented. ^^^^ CB: I wasn't asking those questions of you in particular. It was just an old study guide I had which treated in an elementary manner some issues that crop up on these Marxism lists often. Note the last question is in recognition of the issue we are debating here,usage of "mode of production". And , yes, I know that Marx is ambiguous in that usage. However, he does use it to refer to especially property relations in one of those double usages, and that is the usage connected to feudalism ==> capitalism ==>socialism. The division of labor/ organization of technology/technological regime goes through revolutions "all the time", or at least the bourgeoisie are constantly revolutionizing the instruments of production. The revolution in the instruments of production which is cybernization , robotics,CAD-CAM may replace mental labor in a qualitatively new way as some of your discussion argues, but, it's still one of those revolutions in the instruments, not an overthrow of private property which is the rev Marxist communists are about. And that all the above is full of inferences as to what Marx and Marxist communists are about does not lessen its force of argument one wit. ^^^^^^^ ML:You ask for evidence of the Malthusian essence of many questions concerning population growth and the carrying capacity of the earth and I presented why I believe these presentations fail to understand the property relations and the origin of need as a condition, precondition and result of the bourgeois mode of production. ^^^^^ CB: And now I ask you are you interested in these property relations because they are not part of the mode of production ? ^^^^ ML:You ask for proof - validation, of my concept of blood and anemia and I gave the phone number and product information to solve - cure, the anemia associated with sickle cell anemia. I can prove to any sickle cell sufferer that the shape of the cell does not cause the anemia by purifying the blood rather than seeking to change the shape of the cell. The point is approach and the concept of fundamentality. What is fundamental in a distinct process, since all of reality is a complex web of interactions? ^^^^^ CB: Is fundamentality a Marxist concept ? Anyway, here's a fundamentality of Marxism. The primary goal of Communists is to abolish private property in the basic means of production. Communists are very interested in every new phase in the revolutions in science and technology and their impact on class struggle. But there is no automatic Communist revolution, in the sense that the technological changes won't automatically abolish private property. Private property is accomodating fine to the cybernetic revolution, with intellectual property growing like cancer. Bourgeois private property has accomodated itself to all the prior revolutions in science and technology that the bourgeoisie were constantly carrying out. We have to directly abolish the private property relations through politics. That's the change in the mode of production that is of primary focus for communists in the Marxist tradition. ML:I have a question for you? Please answers the 13 question you asked others or make comment. ^^^^^ CB: 1. Is the working class declining ? No 2. What defines membership in the working class ? Owning only labor-power to sell to make a living 3. Does the working class include others besides wagelaborers in material production ? Yes 4. Do wagelaborers outside the sphere of material production create value ? Yes 5. What are service workers ? I thought of a good answer for this one once, but I've forgotten it. Let me see. Oh, I know, they are a type of caring laborers. People whose labor is direct care for other people in the broadest sense. In a way, household labor is the service labor par excellence. Also, "service" derives from "servants". ^^^^^ WL:I have a particular interest in how you understand the working class and the meaning of the concept proletariat. ^^^^^^ CB: 11. Does the "proletariat" mean the same thing as the "working class" ? Yes ^^^^^^ WL:There is another issue involved concerning the language of Marx and its English rendering. What is the full name of Marx Capital Volume 1? Is the concept "the process of capitalist production" or "the shape of production on the basis of bourgeois property relations?" This is just an inference. ^^^^^ CB: What is your inference ? ^^^^^ >>>Over the weekend, I ran into a running buddy of yours at the Workers World forum. His name is Abdul. Also, Nelson Peery spoke at the reopening of the Midwest Labor Library and forum on the National Negro Labor Council. Peery said that it was Paul Robeson, not Stokeley Carmicheal who coined "Black Power" << WL: Yea . . . Abdul has some extraordinary experience from the prison sense and is perhaps the most authoritative person I personally know to describe the internal evolution of prison relations and the various social groups and their role. I was either 15 or 16 when I first met Abdul and will be 53 this year. I missed him much when he went to prison. He is extraordinary healthy or was such when I last saw him. He has a vision about how we can live under extreme conditions and a working knowledge of properties and the metabolic process of man - eating. Nelson is the man and his book "The Future Is Up To Us" is extraordinary. His ability to speak directly to the workers in a coherent communist fashion is extraordinary. Yea . . . Nelson was our direct link with the history of the CPUSA as flesh, although many of us grew up in the old CPUSA's bookstore and frequenting Debs Hall and hanging out or in contact with old anarchist like Freddie Perlman. I even hung out will some of the more active folks in IS - International Socialists, who were active combatants in our Local Union. What unites us is activty not the idea in ones head. This is not to imply you stated otherwise or behave otherwise. I trust Nelson's vision and articulation of our history. Not on face value but after about 30 years of validating things for myself. I did not understand the concept of the "new proletatiat" when it was first advanced - almost 15 years ago, but was very clear that I was second generation auto worker and most certainly not of the lowest strat of the working class called the poverty stricken proletatiat. By 2030 no one will debate the character and shape of the proletariat or the impact of a qualitatively different technological regime. The projections are frightening. Image China with as many cars on the road as in the American Union. Today I do not live from sell my labor power and there are many millions of people like me who are not members of the capitalist class or regarded as bourgeoisie in our material relations. Really. My basic pension and medical is more than what 70% of the people make in Texas working 60 hours a week. My brother's pension will be twice the size of mine, but then again he is at the apex of the industrial union structure. None of this includes the 401(K). I believe that the "Marxist" in our history have basically been political syndicalist and fundamentally wrong in their strategic vision of the social revolution of the proletariat - not an abstract working class. ^^^^^ CB: How have they been fundementally wrong ? I suppose you might say they have missed the fundamentality(ies) . What are the fundamentalities that they missed ? I'm not sure that it is the failures of the American Marxists that are the main cause of the failures of the United States of America's proletariat and working class, underdogs "little guys and gals " , wagelaborers. ML: There is a material difference between the working class in general and the proletariat, although we use these concepts in a flexible manner. Depends on the context of the sentence and what one is actually talking about. Peace. Waistline Power to the People ! _______________________________________________ Marxism-Thaxis mailing list Marxism-Thaxis@lists.econ.utah.edu To change your options or unsubscribe go to: http://lists.econ.utah.edu/mailman/listinfo/marxism-thaxis
