----- Original Message -----
From: "Charles Brown" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
To: "'Forum for the discussion of theoretical issues raised by Karl Marx
andthe thinkers he inspired'" <marxism-thaxis@lists.econ.utah.edu>
Sent: Wednesday, October 12, 2005 18:32
Subject: [Marxism-Thaxis] theory of the Communists
* V3: I regard the manifesto as a call to arms rather than a serious
effort at
analysis. It is if anything more dated by the conditions that engendered
its
production, than are Marx and Engel's theoretical productions. I know this
is not a direct or full answer, but it's the best I can give you for the
moment.
---------------
CB: Marx and Engels take the unity of theory and practice very seriously.
Theoretical productions must united in a call to arms. Quite a bit of most
fundamental analysis in the Manifesto. All the fundamentals of Merxist
analysis are there. Later stuff doesn't really change too much from the
fundamentals on historical materialism in the CM. One exception is first
sentence change, the _written_ history, not just "history" of society is a
history of class struggles. So, with respect to the following:
^^^^^^^^^
V4: Certainly Marx and Engels take the unity of theory and practice very
seriously, but no manifesto need represent the entire theoretical program to
be consistent with practice. In fact, the very reverse is true, the object
of social political work, like any other form of labour is designed for a
practical objective and that practical objective is always a synthetic
product of theory and the conditions of its realization. There notmuch point
in discussion on the material conditions of historical development when the
object of the writer is to mobilize the working classes to take control of
the means of production (such as in the interesting current situation in the
Argentine). In selecting the appropriate theoretical elements relative to a
particular situation, in this case the mobilization of a class (a function
of the relations of production or economics) to move to physically change
the current state of the relations of production and the legal system that
enables the mobilization of social force to perpetuate it (a function of the
legal/governmental superstructure engendered by the capitalist mode of
production) one does just what the workman does when he selects a pair of
adjustables to tighten a bolt rather than a hammer even though both are to
be found in his tool box.
-------------------------
"Prefaces to critiques of political economy are casual while political
manifestos are serious analytical statements?"
--------------------------
CB: Yes, definitely.
^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
V4: I see.
How does this view compare to Engel's review of the Critique?
Note Engels critical comparison of the purely political economic analyses of
the relations of production of bourgeois economists and the Marxian system.
Note particularly the last sentence of this selection.
"While in this way in Germany the bourgeoisie, the schoolmasters and the
bureaucrats were still making great exertions to learn by rote, and in some
measure to understand, the first elements of Anglo-French political economy,
which they regarded as incontestable dogmas, the German proletarian party
appeared on the scene. Its theoretical aspect was wholly based on a study of
political economy, and German political economy as an independent science
dates also from the emergence of this party. The essential foundation of
this German political economy is the materialist conception of history whose
principal features are briefly outlined in the "Preface" to the above-named
work. Since the "Preface" has in the main already been published in Das
Volk, we refer to it. The proposition that "the process of social, political
and intellectual life is altogether necessitated by the mode of production
of material life"; that all social and political relations, all religious
and legal systems, all theoretical conceptions which arise in the course of
history can only be understood if the material conditions of life obtaining
during the relevant epoch have been understood and the former are traced
back to these material conditions, was a revolutionary discovery not only
for economics but also for all historical sciences - and all branches of
science which are not natural sciences are historical. (Engels, F. 1859,
Review of "A Contribution to the Critique of Political economy" paragraph 2)
Anyway remember that the manifesto was written in 1848 while the Critique,
written in 1959, became a part of the Grundrisse which was in turn the raw
material of Capital.
------------------------
V2: In fact, both premedieval and medieval/feudal society was much more
active than high school history books would have us believe.
----------------------
CB: But not like capitalism.
^^^^^^^^^
V3: No, not like capitalism. Capitalism, beginning with Watt's steam
engine
and its accessories, unites the innovative effectiveness of natural
science
with production. The unity of science and production in Capitalist
production in the mid 19th century brought about the movement of creative
productive process from the slow, restricted development by creative
labour
to the hectic and universal development we witness today.
---------------------
CB: In capitalism, we have gone through technological revolutions that
would
have forced changes in the property relations in previous eras when the
pace
of technological development was, "on average" slower. Thus the role of
development of productive forces in changing the relations in the sense of
property relations ( not so much organization of the plant and equipment,
workplace, shop floor(s)) is watered down compared with in long term
history.
^^^^^^^^^^^
V4: Perhaps, but you must take into account the revolutionary capacity of
capitalism as a system. Capitalism is founded on competition technical and
social-economic and produces revolutions both technical and organizational
without seriously compromising the essence of the system.
Naturally the capitalist system as a whole also channels (what you've been
calling fettering) technological development in accordance with the socially
produced objectives of its active agents (capitalists and proletariat
alike), and this tends to restrict developments that might endanger the life
of the system. On the other hand, even the controlled technological
development and organization of capitalist production has, often unforseen
or unavoidable consequences that threaten the extant constellation of
technological and organizational formations of capitalist productive modes
and that compel an adaptive response. Up to this point capitalism as a
political economic system has survived the self-engendered threats to its
survival (e.g. unionism, orthodox communist movements and organizations of
diverse kinds, and even fascism) by a combination of internal organizational
changes and influence on external world conditions. Whether it will
continue to do so in the future is perhaps the most interesting theoretical
issue today.
-------------------
V3: After all, the
so called middle ages witnessed repeated urban and peasant uprisings and
efforts to establish utopias e.g. the Hussites of Mt Tabor and the
Anabaptist regime of Munster and was a period of impressive advances in
manufacturing technology. Remember, that the flowering of the natural
sciences and technology of the 16 and 17th centuries preceded Capitalist
Industrial society by 300 to 200 years.
----------------------------
CB: Are you saying that there is not qualitative leap in development in
capitalism as compared with earlier modes ?
^^^^^^^
V3: This is in my view no longer a good question, because the answer must
be
ambiguous at best. New forms of production, of relations of production
and
so on emerge first as individual or singular events. Some of these
develop
into particularities, i.e. special developments within universal world
contexts and even fewer of these eventually replace the universal modes in
which they were special developments and become themselves the universal
mode. Certainly this is the case with capitalism which begins as
commodity
exchange, develops into a fairly complex array of interrelated
institutions
throughout the European middle ages and only becomes the universal mode of
production in England in the early 19th century and in Europe in the early
to mid 20th century.
Is there a qualitative leap here?
That depends what you call a qualitative leap. In a sense virtually any
creative development, e.g. the development of direct exchange
(i.e.barter)the introduction of money, and the replacement of material
tokens of value (e.g. cowrie shells, precious metals and what have you)
with
scrip are all evolutionary developments that are first, qualitative (as
singular innovations) and then quantitative (as they are adopted by more
individuals and communities) and finally once again qualititative (as they
become special and universal practices). Take, for example, the
representation of value by scrip. It's as ancient as the commercial
practices of Classical Greek and Chinese civilization, develops into the
regular practice of a considerable sector of European and Near Eastern
medieval society, i.e. urban commercial civilization, but only becomes the
universal mode of commercial relations between nation states in the mid
20th
century. Even today, scrip is yet to become the absolute universal mode
of
representing value for all commercial transactions, though thanks to
computer tech, we are eventually and probably will see that occur within
the
next 30 to 40 years.
--------------------
CB: Notice, the Preface to the Introduction to the Contribution to the
Critique
of Political Economy or whatever in which the quote occurs WAS NEVER
PUBLISHED. Marx didn't put out there for everybody his daydreaming about
this. So, don't hold him to it so tightly. It's just a metaphor to sum
up
what he was thinking. He didn't mean it to be the most important
statement
he made at all, or else he would have published it. The formulations in
_Capital_ are much more important , because they represent Marx's final
decision on how to present his thinking to the wide public.
^^^^^^^^
V2: Much of Marx's works were not published until long after his death,
including his key 1844 works on private property (published in the mid
1930s).
According to that formula the two last volumes of Capital, the Grundrisse
(all of it, including the Precapitalist Formations), Theories of Surplus
Value, and so on would have to considered casual flights of Karl's
imagination.
V4: Also see Engels review of the Contribution to theCritique of Political
Economy cited above.
---------------
CB; This is overstatement. The Preface , like most prefaces, _are_
"casual",
compared to the text. _Capital_ is on the same subject as The Preface to
the Contribution ,etc. Probably , it represents what Marx thought was a
better formulation of what he said in The Preface. Why didn't he use the
same wording in _Capital_. Why count on people digging into your notes to
find your key formulation of your ideas. That doesn't make sense. Even
the
form of the fettering thing is a _metaphor_. The "forces of production"
that are not human can't act as subjects. The non-human forces of
production
do not develop themselves. The instruments of production can't burst
asunder
the relations between people. It has to be people who invent new
instrument
of production doing the "bursting asunder".
^^^^^^^^^^
V4: You're right.The "forces of production" that are not human can't act as
subjects. The non-human forces of production do not develop themselves. The
instruments of production can't burst asunder the relations between people.
It has to be people who invent new
instrument of production doing the "bursting asunder. Neither the
relations of production nor the forces of production are people, subjects,
but systems of human social activity, It is as complexes of interaction
that enable and mobilize people to do things that these systems have any
value in the analysis of the activity of subjects. The relations of
production describe the social interactions governing production that move
people, but the forces of production also describe men's interaction, only
in this case it's men's interaction with the material conditions of
production (through labour). True, Western Marxist idealists such as
Lukac's and Adorno and Post-Modernist diadochi such as, Habermas, C. Smith,
and Derrida would dispense entirely with significance of the material
conditions for men's activity, but these gentlemen represent a school of
thought in opposition to that of Historical Materialism.
-----------------------
V3: Prefaces to critiques of political economy are casual while political
manifestos are serious analytical statements?
----------------------------
CB: Yes. Manifestos are for action, a very important aim of Marx and
Engels.
So, we expect the very best of analysis and theoretical statement _in the
Manifesto_.
^^^^^^^^^^^
V4: see above
-----------------
No, Capital does not treat the issue of the relation between the relations
of production, i.e. capitalism, and the material conditions that engender
the development of capitalist relations of production.
---------------
> CB: See what I posted on "The Historical Tendency of the
Capitalist Mode of Accumulation". It is a statement in _Capital_ of this
relation.
Also, consider the section no the machines and modern industry as
extensive
discussion of some material conditions, forces of production.
^^^^^
V4: I'll check out the above, meanwhile take a look at my response to your
interpretation of Capital Vol. I Part IV, Chapter 15) below
-----------------------
It is rather a thorough scientific analysis of capitalism as it existed in
early to mid
19th century Britain.
-----------------------
CB: It does discuss some other periods, and places.
^^^^^^^^
V4: somewhat, but most of the ethnography concerns British capitalism, and
for the best of reasons. British capitalism was at that time if not the
most advanced form of capitalist production (Marx regarded Yankee capitalism
as the most developed form of the capitalist paradigm) it was the most
dominant and influential, and the most familiar to the Europeans who were
his main audience.
--------------
V3: In Capital the material conditions of production are
dealt with in the most abstract manner (only insofar as they are involved
in
the relations of production) and there is no effort made to show the
concrete relations between the development of technical means, of natural
resources and so on and the development of British capitalism.
-----------------
CB: See chapters on Machinery and Modern Industry, ( Handicraft and
Manufacture, )
^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
V4: I certainly have
Marx's discussion in Capital is exactly the treatment of the material
conditions of production in the abstract, i.e. mostly and in most cases only
as they concern the relations of production. Check out (Capital Vol. 1,
part IV Chapter 15 all):
Section 1 - The Development of Machinery Only here does he treat somewhat
with the actual technical side of machinery.
All the following deals with the impact of machine production on the
relations of production, FROM THE PARADIGMS OF THE RELATIONS OF PRODUCTION.
In other words, with the exception of a brief introduction to the historical
role of machine production in section 1, The object of Marx's discourse on
machine production is the explication of the relations of production and not
the material, conditions of the relations of production as transformed by
machinery. Just look at the subjects discussed!
Section 2 - The Value Transferred by Machinery to the Product
Section 3 - The Proximate Effects of Machinery on the Workman
A. Appropriation of Supplementary Labour-Power by Capital.The Employment of
Women and Children
B. Prolongation of the Working-Day
C. Intensification of Labour
Section 4 - The Factory
Section 5 - The Strife Between Workman and Machine
Section 6 - The Theory of Compensation as Regards the Workpeople Displaced
by Machinery
Section 7 - Repulsion and Attraction of Workpeople by the Factory System.
Crises in the Cotton Trade
Section 8 - Revolution Effected in Manufacture, Handicrafts, and Domestic
Industry by Modern Industry
A. Overthrow of Co-operation Based on Handicraft and on the Division of
Labour
B. Reaction of the Factory System on Manufacture and Domestic Industries
C. Modern Manufacture
D. Modern Domestic Industry
E. Passage of Modern Manufacture, and Domestic Industry into Modern
Mechanical Industry. The Hastening of this Revolution by the Application of
the Factory Acts to those Industries
Section 9 - The Factory Acts. Sanitary and Educational Clauses of the same.
Their General Extension in England
Section 10 - Modern Industry and Agriculture
------------------------------------------------
More later
Have a good weekend.
_______________________________________________
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
