Re: [Marxism-Thaxis] U.S. relations of production acting as fetter on product
1. CB: What do you mean by infrastructure ? Reply Infrastructure: infra: below or within when used in referring to parts of a text or in contradistinction to super - as in superstructure, existing below or within as supporting framework of a structure, as in infrastructure. infrastructure: the basic underlying framework or feature of a system as the military installions, communications and transport facilities of a country. Primarily used amongst the military as a concept. Infrastructure, in the context of my reply to the concept of the productive forces, and in contradistinction to superstructure, serves as that upon with the complex of components that constitutes the productive forces - and its technological regime, are held together as a systematic relations defining a mode of production. The infrastructure of 19th century American capitalism is vastly different from the infrastructure of 21st century American capitalism, although the property relations has not changed. Levies are part of the infrastructure and as such, should not be confused with an industrial machine. Levies are important in all period of history. WL: What constitutes an epoch in the Marxist standpoint? ^ CB: period of time that is more than one generation. Reply I disagree that one generation defines an epoch in the Marxist standpoint. What is a generation? My son can be said to represent a different generation than I and he does not represent a different epoch from me. What then is the Marxist standpoint? The Marxist standpoint in contradistinction to the standpoint of the bourgeoisie, is an approach to history and epoch, as is the term era, a concept of history development. My son may represent a different era but not a different epoch. What is this Marxist standpoint if not the materialist conception of history or more accurately the materialist approach to history. This materialist approach distinguishes junctures of history as historical markers of qualitatively differentiation based on changes in the mode of production. An epoch is connected to distinct modes of production in the Marxist sense when speaking of history rather than political doctrine.There is the epoch of feudalism and the epoch of capitalism or bourgeois property. There is an epoch of primitive communism, which is the majority of human history. There is an era of socialism, rather than an epoch. All of us over 50 or 40 have been to many meetings where someone would jump up and declare it was an epoch making event or historical and nothing epoch making ever came out of such meetings. Assuming that this is wrong, defining an epoch as a generation has nothing to do with the Marxist standpoint because it incorporates nothing of Marx into the definition. ** WL: The social revolution is well underway already. ^^ CB: What is the evidence of this ? Reply This is self explanatory in as much as everyone on earth basically agrees society is undergoing a revolution in the mode of production - the industrial foundation of our society, and we are in fact, leaving industrial society - slowly, but in a way no one disputes. The question becomes what is your definition of social revolution if not a revolution that changes that way society is organized in the process of production? Marx was quoted as stating: At a certain stage of their development, the material productive forces of society come in conflict with the existing relations of production, . . .Then begins an epoch of social revolution Is it necessary to provide evidence of this at this late stage? In fact your premise is that the productive forces - levies, are in contradiction with the relations of production - the capitalist handling of the hurricane crisis, so why is it necessary to provide evidence of social revolution, according to what you wrote. WL: Marx quote, perhaps his most famous, is interesting and filled with conceptual gold nuggets. Actually, one can read relations of production to mean more than simply the property relations. ^ CB: But that would be at variance with what Marx says in the passage. He says they are the same thing. Reply Marx does not say that relations of production are simply property relations or he would have wrote property relations or form of property. I respect your personal interpretation of the words RELATIONS of (producing) - production, But disagree with your interpretation of Marx meaning. Actually, we have different concepts of what Marx means by relations of production. Here is my understanding and I await your understanding. The relations in relations of production cannot simply be property because this is not possible. The relations of course speak of people standing in relationship to something. Property in the Marxists standpoint means ownership rights of
Re: [Marxism-Thaxis] U.S. relations of production acting as fetter on product...
The failure of U.S. capitalism to prepare its productive forces, which are the levies in New Orleans, to deal with the hurricane disaster was the capitalist relations of production acting as fetters on the development of those productive forces. :0 Contrast this with the ability of the relations of production in Cuba to prepare its productive forces to defend substantially against a hurricane hitting Cuba. Will this disaser lead the U.S. population to burst asunder its relations of production ? :) CB Comment No . . . not in my opinion, although this disaster is driving an ideological shift in our country as all classes seek an approach to aid and remedy the incredible miser and hardship faced by close to one million people in motion, seeking resettlement. To the point. Levies are not productive forces and at best a specific stage of development of levies will indicate a certain stage of development of the technological regime and how the human components of the productive forces uses its material power. Actually, levies are a component of the infrastructure. It is true that a combination of the actual social organization of the people of Cuba, in their economic/social and cultural life, and the form of property relations as ownership rights of their means of production; along with the practical activity of the Cuban Party, creates a lived circumstance where the human components of the productive forces - people, and their well being is priority number one, in contradistinction to the dictates and demands of bourgeois property as the private sector of economy and political guardian of the social life in our country. Marx is quoted as stating: 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. Then begins an epoch of social revolution I have often wondered and worked out for myself the meaning of an epoch. What constitutes an epoch in the Marxist standpoint? The events in New Orleans or rather the hurricane devastating Florida, Mississippi, Alabama and Louisiana cannot begin the social revolution as an epochal event because social revolution for Marx grows out of the conflict between the material productive forces and the existing relations of production, . . . with the property relations. The social revolution is well underway already. Society is in fact leaping - in transition, to a qualitatively higher mode of production as it leaves industrial society. This process is taking place unevenly across the face of the earth as it must and always does. Marx quote, perhaps his most famous, is interesting and filled with conceptual gold nuggets. Actually, one can read relations of production to mean more than simply the property relations. At any rate levies are not the meaning of the productive forces. ___ 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
[Marxism-Thaxis] U.S. relations of production acting as fetter on product
...Waistline2 at aol.com Comment To the point. Levies are not productive forces ^ Louie Nye from the Steve Allen show : Why not ? ^ and at best a specific stage of development of levies will indicate a certain stage of development of the technological regime and how the human components of the productive forces uses its material power. Actually, levies are a component of the infrastructure. ^ CB: What do you mean by infrastructure ? It is true that a combination of the actual social organization of the people of Cuba, in their economic/social and cultural life, and the form of property relations as ownership rights of their means of production; along with the practical activity of the Cuban Party, creates a lived circumstance where the human components of the productive forces - people, and their well being is priority number one, in contradistinction to the dictates and demands of bourgeois property as the private sector of economy and political guardian of the social life in our country. Marx is quoted as stating: 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. Then begins an epoch of social revolution I have often wondered and worked out for myself the meaning of an epoch. What constitutes an epoch in the Marxist standpoint? ^ CB: period of time that is more than one generation. ^^ The events in New Orleans or rather the hurricane devastating Florida, Mississippi, Alabama and Louisiana cannot begin the social revolution as an epochal event because social revolution for Marx grows out of the conflict between the material productive forces and the existing relations of production, . . . with the property relations. ^^ CB: However, I am saying levies are productive forces, and, a conflict between relations of production and productive forces is when a lot of people get fucked over because the relations of production/property relations cause the productive forces to be fettered ,i.e. prevented from being used to their full potential so as to prevent people from getting fucked over; and to the extent that people get fed up and change the relations of production as a result of some crisis resulting from this conflict. ^^ The social revolution is well underway already. ^^ CB: What is the evidence of this ? ^ Society is in fact leaping - in transition, to a qualitatively higher mode of production as it leaves industrial society. This process is taking place unevenly across the face of the earth as it must and always does. Marx quote, perhaps his most famous, is interesting and filled with conceptual gold nuggets. Actually, one can read relations of production to mean more than simply the property relations. ^ CB: But that would be at variance with what Marx says in the passage. He says they are the same thing. At any rate levies are not the meaning of the productive forces. ^ CB: No, I think the levies are part of the productive forces in Marx's sense. That's pretty certain. They are only a small part , but they _are_ productive forces. They produce dry land where otherwise there would be a lake. One of the most famous ancient forms of productive forces is similar , but opposite: irrigation systems. See Wittfogel's theory. ___ 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
