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 ?
********************* WL: Let us consult what Marx states from the quote both of us reproduced. 1). "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, . . ." Marx speaks of the "conditions of bourgeois property" and it seems to me that one would seek an understanding of why the productive forces no longer further the CONDITIONS . . . OF . . . BOURGEOIS PROPERTY, - "by which they (the productive forces) are fettered." You speak of an event and not of a condition. The CONDITION of bourgeois property fetter the development of the productive forces. The "development of the material power of production" - science proper and its technological application, overlaps with and interpenetrate, as concepts, the meaning of the productive forces and then we have the conditions of bourgeois property and their "furthering." None of these are separate categories but process logic. However, we mentally abstract varies events in the process and its condition to make sense of its self movement. Marx states clearly that, "(T)he conditions of bourgeois society are too narrow to comprise the wealth created by them. And how does the bourgeoisie get over these crises?" 2). I describe the "conditions of bourgeois property" several ways and in the context of this discussion as "bourgeois need." "Bourgeois need" is what fetters the development of the productive forces. This need is immanent to bourgeois production. This need appears as a world of products whose reproduction takes place to realize profits. This is only one aspect. but within these commodities is the condition of bourgeois property. Marx is not speaking about plant closing or relocation of production facilities but the salient feature of the fettering of the productive forces in the manifestation of the crisis of overproduction. The bourgeoisie plays a progressive role in history in relationship to the transformation of agricultural society or feudalism. Yet, the fettering of the productive forces is immanent to bourgeois production and evolves from conflict - contradiction, to antagonism or rather the conflict is replaced by antagonism. It is only at a certain stage of development of the productive forces and their material power, that this contradiction, inherent to bourgeois production compels society to leap to a new political basis that remove this barrier. Marx observed this process in its early stages as industrial production was transforming the world from an agricultural society to industrial society. The condition of bourgeois property in its reproduction cycles and circuit logic is the money form of capital and money in the hands of the working class (the sell and purchase of labor power to private owners of means of production) as consumption. The circuit logic of reproduction on the basis of bourgeois property means the path that production follows all the way through sell (distribution) and consumption of products and their reproduction. This condition - bourgeois need, is the fetter on the development of the productive forces. "Bourgeois need" or the "conditions of bourgeois property" covers a vast territory of which the law of value is important. Moving plants overseas, industrial plant closings, and then measuring this against employment opportunity of American workers, and on this basis speaking of the fettering of productive forces - in the context of job opportunity for American workers, is risky business for communists. Our relative prosperity has been carved out of the back of the world proletariat. We forget we are imperial communists and imperial Marxists - the most imperialist on earth, and not simply bourgeois, and I will not speak about the fettering of productive forces in relationship to American workers. Fettering according to Marx is about a collision between the conditions of bourgeois property and the productive forces - not a segment of the world working class. You are an honorable man in my opinion but your words carry a meaning to others. It is valid to ask how plant relocation - in its impact on the imperial American workers, and the state of levies, are related to the crisis of overproduction, which Marx indicates is a cardinal signature of the CONDITION of bourgeois property fettering the productive forces. The productive forces is a broad concept of the specific combination of human labor + instruments and machinery + energy grid, that distinguishes one mode of production from another. 3). Bourgeois property means private ownership of the material factors of production and in its later stages, reproduction on the basis of the law system peculiar to individual ownership of production. The condition of bourgeois property is that labor appears on the market as a commodity; that humanity is separated from their means of production and that the form of wealth is in transition from landed property to movable property. Plant closing and reallocation from America, in relationship to American workers is not the meaning of Marx broad concept of the "condition of bourgeois property." The condition of bourgeois property is no longer "Furthered" by the advance of production because that period of history as the driving force of transition from agricultural society to industrial society is long past/passed. In fact bourgeois property and its condition, has long ago become a fetter on the development of the productive forces. Fetter does not mean to "halt." Fetter does not mean the scientific revolution is halted. Fetter does not mean that the productive forces stop being revolutionized. There is more to say about this issue and the current transition underway in our mode of production. Waistline _______________________________________________ Marxism-Thaxis mailing list [email protected] To change your options or unsubscribe go to: http://lists.econ.utah.edu/mailman/listinfo/marxism-thaxis
