Original Message ----- From: "Charles Brown" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> To: "'Forum for the discussion of theoretical issues raised by Karl Marx and thinkers he inspired'" <marxism-thaxis@lists.econ.utah.edu> Sent: Sunday, September 18, 2005 17:03 Subject: Spam: [Marxism-Thaxis] the theory of the Communists may be summed up in the single sentence: Abolition of private property. the single sentence: Abolition of private property.
V: response to "the theory of the Communists may be summed up in the single sentence: Abolition of private property"> > > If Marx had thought changing the technological regime were the focus for > revolutionary activity , _Capital_ would have been a book of > engineering-physics, not political economy. Actually Marx did regard changing forces of production, labour and the means of production, instruments and subjects of production, as the "motor" of social change. (See the recent exchange of messages between V, V2 and WL.) V: The role of the material forces of production as the conditions of social practice are not direct causes of the relations of production, hence Capital could be written strictly on the relations of production. As in economics in general, in Capital the presence grise of the forces of production is in the form of abstractions that concern only its role as the condition for the social interactions it engenders. > > The following demonstrates that followers of Marx and Engels would focus > on > changing property relations, ownership relations, not on impacting the > human > productive forces who invent, inventors,scientists and engineers who make > the scientific and technological revolutions. _Discovery_ of the use of > things, technological invention is not the process that Marx claimed to > have > mastered such that Marxists would lead technological innovation, and > somehow > shape technological discovery and invention to cause a revolution in > property relations. "Discovery" , by definition is unforeseeable. > V: While it is true that Marx did not focus on the role of material conditions for social practice, he also did not denigrate their importance. He did however, reason in a fashion similar to your argument that invention is a phenomenon not given to analysis and as such technological development should be regarded as a sort of un-analyzable natural force that gathers steam and then blows off decadent social systems that can no longer cope with its accumulated changes. As I wrote to WL this premise ignores the potential of Marxian dialectics to develop a rational theory of changes of the forces of production no less precise than the theory of the relations of production. Such a theory would necessarily concern also the social relations of production that are the conditions of technological development, but in sublated form, as abstractions describing only the relevance of social organization of production to the development of labour and of the means of production. Any effort to develop theories of social change, cannot be based on half (assed?) theories. To understand the likely trajectories of evolving classes and of changing class relations we must understand how the material conditions of production are impacted upon by social organization of production as well as how the forces of production impact upon the relations of production. From both first-hand experience with socialist experiments and from research I suggest that one of the critical failures of the practical program of social change, of social revolution if you will, arises out of the failure of Marxist theory to consider the impact of social change on productive practice. > "In this sense, the theory of the Communists may be summed up in the > single > sentence: Abolition of private property. " V: The abolition of private property is largely a legal issue, i.e. that element of the relations of production that are interpreted as rights in the system of governance characteristically conditioned by feudal and capitalist modes of production. In fact, the abolition of private property can only occur when the material conditions and the modes of production are such that new kinds of rights and new forms of governance become viable alternatives to the present one. > > > Charles > > > The theoretical conclusions of the Communists are in no way based on ideas > or principles that have been invented, or discovered, by this or that > would-be universal reformer. > > They merely express, in general terms, actual relations springing from an > existing class struggle, from a historical movement going on under our > very > eyes. The abolition of existing property relations is not at all a > distinctive feature of communism. > > All property relations in the past have continually been subject to > historical change consequent upon the change in historical conditions. > > The French Revolution, for example, abolished feudal property in favour of > bourgeois property. > > The distinguishing feature of Communism is not the abolition of property > generally, but the abolition of bourgeois property. But modern bourgeois > private property is the final and most complete expression of the system > of > producing and appropriating products, that is based on class antagonisms, > on > the exploitation of the many by the few. > > In this sense, the theory of the Communists may be summed up in the single > sentence: Abolition of private property. > > We Communists have been reproached with the desire of abolishing the right > of personally acquiring property as the fruit of a man's own labour, which > property is alleged to be the groundwork of all personal freedom, activity > and independence. > > Hard-won, self-acquired, self-earned property! Do you mean the property of > petty artisan and of the small peasant, a form of property that preceded > the > bourgeois form? There is no need to abolish that; the development of > industry has to a great extent already destroyed it, and is still > destroying > it daily. > > Or do you mean the modern bourgeois private property? > > But does wage-labour create any property for the labourer? Not a bit. It > creates capital, i.e., that kind of property which exploits wage-labour, > and > which cannot increase except upon condition of begetting a new supply of > wage-labour for fresh exploitation. Property, in its present form, is > based > on the antagonism of capital and wage labour. Let us examine both sides of > this antagonism. > > To be a capitalist, is to have not only a purely personal, but a social > status in production. Capital is a collective product, and only by the > united action of many members, nay, in the last resort, only by the united > action of all members of society, can it be set in motion. > > Capital is therefore not only personal; it is a social power. > > When, therefore, capital is converted into common property, into the > property of all members of society, personal property is not thereby > transformed into social property. It is only the social character of the > property that is changed. It loses its class character. > > http://www.marxists.org/archive/marx/works/1848/communist-manifesto/ch02.htm > > > > > > _______________________________________________ > 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 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
