Re: [Marxism-Thaxis] Fettering - Restriction
V: Marx most famous statement on the productive forces coming into conflict with the existing relations of production as Marx's great 'cop out' rather than his greatest contribution to the history of the development of the relation between the forces of production and of the relations of production. It represents Marx's almost desperate effort to find a way out of a serious contradiction in his theory of development; the problem of accounting for the impact of material forces on a system (of the relations of production ) that is in essence a closed, self-organizing, and self-developing organization in which the concepts that describe the organization are what facilitate its operation and growth, i.e. capital, profits, and all the rest of the nonsense of capitalist political economy. WL: Marx most famous statement on the productive forces coming into conflict with the existing relations of production is no cop out but the foundation for what is the science of society and is better understood in connection with his letter of December 28, 1846 to P.V. Annenkov. http://www.marxists.org/archive/marx/works/1846/letters/46_12_28.htm Let's look at Marx most famous quote in its entirety. I have numbered the paragraphs for points of reference only. Marx writes: Karl Marx: 1). In the social production of their life, men enter into definite relations that are indispensable and independent of their will, relations of production which correspond to a definite stage of development of their material productive forces. The sum total of these relations of production constitutes the economic structure of society, the real foundation, on which rises a legal and political superstructure and to which correspond definite forms of social consciousness. 2). The mode of production of material life conditions the social, political and intellectual life process in general. It is not the consciousness of men that determines their being, but, on the contrary, their social being that determines their consciousness. 3). At a certain stage of their development, the material productive forces of society come in conflict with the existing relations of production, or — what is but a legal expression for the same thing — with the property relations within which they have been at work hitherto. From forms of development of the productive forces these relations turn into their fetters. 4). Then begins an epoch of social revolution. With the change of the economic foundation the entire immense superstructure is more or less rapidly transformed. In considering such transformations a distinction should always be made between the material transformation of the economic conditions of production, which can be determined with the precision of natural science, and the legal, political, religious, aesthetic or philosophic — in short, ideological forms in which men become conscious of this conflict and fight it out. Just as our opinion of an individual is not based on what he thinks of himself, so can we not judge of such a period of transformation by its own consciousness; on the contrary, this consciousness must be explained rather from the contradictions of material life, from the existing conflict between the social productive forces and the relations of production. 4). No social order ever perishes before all the productive forces for which there is room in it have developed; and new, higher relations of production never appear before the material conditions of their existence have matured in the womb of the old society itself. Therefore mankind always sets itself only such tasks as it can solve; since, looking at the matter more closely, it will always be found that the tasks itself arises only when the material conditions of its solution already exist or are at least in the process of formation. 5). In broad outlines Asiatic[A], ancient, feudal, and modern bourgeois modes of production can be designated as progressive epochs in the economic formation of society. The bourgeois relations of production are the last antagonistic form of the social process of production — antagonistic not in the sense of individual antagonisms, but of one arising form the social conditions of life of the individuals; at the same time the productive forces developing in the womb of bourgeois society create the material conditions for the solution of that antagonism. This social formation brings, therefore, the prehistory of society to a close. http://www.marxists.org/archive/marx/works/1859/critique-pol-economy/preface-abs.htm WL: Marx accounts for the historical progression from one mode of production to another, by first redefining history on the basis of the progressive accumulation of productive forces, rather than God's will, and locating the change factor or change wave as a movement of antagonism arising from the development of the material productive forces of society. Marx
Re: [Marxism-Thaxis] Fettering - Restriction
Finally! I was waiting for a response to that provocation. I'm writing so it'll take a bit before I respond in full. And thanks, Victor - Original Message - From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] To: marxism-thaxis@lists.econ.utah.edu Sent: Friday, September 30, 2005 13:09 Subject: Re: [Marxism-Thaxis] Fettering - Restriction V: Marx most famous statement on the productive forces coming into conflict with the existing relations of production as Marx's great 'cop out' rather than his greatest contribution to the history of the development of the relation between the forces of production and of the relations of production. It represents Marx's almost desperate effort to find a way out of a serious contradiction in his theory of development; the problem of accounting for the impact of material forces on a system (of the relations of production ) that is in essence a closed, self-organizing, and self-developing organization in which the concepts that describe the organization are what facilitate its operation and growth, i.e. capital, profits, and all the rest of the nonsense of capitalist political economy. WL: Marx most famous statement on the productive forces coming into conflict with the existing relations of production is no cop out but the foundation for what is the science of society and is better understood in connection with his letter of December 28, 1846 to P.V. Annenkov. http://www.marxists.org/archive/marx/works/1846/letters/46_12_28.htm Let's look at Marx most famous quote in its entirety. I have numbered the paragraphs for points of reference only. Marx writes: Karl Marx: 1). In the social production of their life, men enter into definite relations that are indispensable and independent of their will, relations of production which correspond to a definite stage of development of their material productive forces. The sum total of these relations of production constitutes the economic structure of society, the real foundation, on which rises a legal and political superstructure and to which correspond definite forms of social consciousness. 2). The mode of production of material life conditions the social, political and intellectual life process in general. It is not the consciousness of men that determines their being, but, on the contrary, their social being that determines their consciousness. 3). At a certain stage of their development, the material productive forces of society come in conflict with the existing relations of production, or — what is but a legal expression for the same thing — with the property relations within which they have been at work hitherto. From forms of development of the productive forces these relations turn into their fetters. 4). Then begins an epoch of social revolution. With the change of the economic foundation the entire immense superstructure is more or less rapidly transformed. In considering such transformations a distinction should always be made between the material transformation of the economic conditions of production, which can be determined with the precision of natural science, and the legal, political, religious, aesthetic or philosophic — in short, ideological forms in which men become conscious of this conflict and fight it out. Just as our opinion of an individual is not based on what he thinks of himself, so can we not judge of such a period of transformation by its own consciousness; on the contrary, this consciousness must be explained rather from the contradictions of material life, from the existing conflict between the social productive forces and the relations of production. 4). No social order ever perishes before all the productive forces for which there is room in it have developed; and new, higher relations of production never appear before the material conditions of their existence have matured in the womb of the old society itself. Therefore mankind always sets itself only such tasks as it can solve; since, looking at the matter more closely, it will always be found that the tasks itself arises only when the material conditions of its solution already exist or are at least in the process of formation. 5). In broad outlines Asiatic[A], ancient, feudal, and modern bourgeois modes of production can be designated as progressive epochs in the economic formation of society. The bourgeois relations of production are the last antagonistic form of the social process of production — antagonistic not in the sense of individual antagonisms, but of one arising form the social conditions of life of the individuals; at the same time the productive forces developing in the womb of bourgeois society create the material conditions for the solution of that antagonism. This social formation brings, therefore, the prehistory of society to a close. http://www.marxists.org/archive/marx/works/1859/critique-pol-economy/preface-abs.htm WL: Marx accounts for the historical progression from one mode of
[Marxism-Thaxis] The bourgeoisie, by the rapid _improvement_ of all instr..
.Waistline2 WL: Yes they are. Of course they are not talking about the fettering of the productive forces in this passage from the Communist Manifesto. They of course describes in detail how the bourgeoisie as a property relations fetter the development of the productive forces very clearly in the same Communist Manifesto. The issue of fettering does not mean that development of the material power of production no longer takes place. What is meant is what Marx states in the Communist Manifesto five paragraphs after the material you quote. Here is what he states: KARL MARX: The productive forces at the disposal of society no longer tend to further the development of the conditions of bourgeois property; on the contrary, they have become too powerful for these conditions, by which they are fettered, and so soon as they overcome these fetters, they bring disorder into the whole of bourgeois society, endanger the existence of bourgeois property. The conditions of bourgeois society are too narrow to comprise the wealth created by them. And how does the bourgeoisie get over these crises? On the one hand by enforced destruction of a mass of productive forces; on the other, by the conquest of new markets, and by the more thorough exploitation of the old ones. That is to say, by paving the way for more extensive and more destructive crises, and by diminishing the means whereby crises are prevented. http://www.marxists.org/archive/marx/works/1848/communist-manifesto/ch01.htm WL: The productive forces . . . no longer tend to further the development of the conditions of bourgeois property; . . . they have become too powerful for these conditions, by which they are fettered, and so soon as they overcome these fetters, they bring disorder into the whole of bourgeois society, endanger the existence of bourgeois property. Marx concept of the fettering of the productive forces is not to be understood as the material power is no longer revolutionized or that bourgeois society reaches a point where science and scientific development halts or there is no basis for social revolution in human society. What would one call the enforced destruction of a mass of productive forces; of which Marx speaks and why is it a part of his statement on the fettering of production under the sway of the bourgeois mode of production? Waistline ^^^ CB: So, according to the above , everything I have said about the levees in New Orleans , industrial plant closings in the U.S.and moving the plants overseas from the U.S. as examples of bourgeois property relations fettering the development of the material forces of production in relation to U.S. workers fits in with what Marx said. So, why did you not agree with what I said on all this ? The spontaneous development of the material productive forces is the activity of human beings - engineers, technicians, industrial workers, physicists - the activity of discovery, experimentation, invention, theorizing, sciencing, practice . The material forces do not develop themselves. So, to give a prime role to the development of the material forces of production is to make these categories of human actors a sort of vanguard revolutionary role. Communists would be focussed primarily in these areas of activity, natural science and engineering. Marx, Engels and Lenin would have been directing people into these science and technology fields so as to develop the forces of production. Instead, Marx , Engels and Lenin focus communists on a _class_ group, a property relations social category of people, the working class, and the activity is for the working class to change the property relations directly. The reason the working class is likely to be willing to change the property relations is that the bourgeoisie use the developing productive powers in a way that is not beneficial or is outright harmful to the working class. The fettering of the development of the forces of production is in relation to the beneficial use of the working masses, whose property relation to those forces of production is that of wage-laborer. ___ 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
