On 3/19/10, waistli...@aol.com <waistli...@aol.com> wrote: > > Reply > > 1. The concept of antagonistic and non-antagonistic contradictions is not > put forth in the glossary, with no disrespect meant to the Soviet "Textbook > of Marist Philosophy" or Mao’s writings on "Contradiction." Antagonism is > not contradiction. Antagonism is a form of resolution of the contradiction > between more than less static relations of production and mobile productive > forces.
^^^^^^^ CB: I believe Engels and Lenin use "antagonism" in conjunction with " irreconcilable", "irreconcilable antagonism". I'm leaving , but I'll look it up next week. I'm pretty sure it's in _The State and Rev._ and _The Origin_. That might be a pertinent concern in a Marxist glossary Here it is: http://www.marxists.org/archive/lenin/works/1917/staterev/ Preface 6 Chapter I: Class Society and the State 39 k The State: A Product of the Irreconcilability of Class Antagonisms Special Bodies of Armed Men, Prisons, etc. The State: An Instrument for the Exploitation of the Oppressed Class The "Withering Away" of the State, and Violent Revolution Let us being with the most popular of Engels' works, The Origin of the Family, Private Property and the State, the sixth edition of which was published in Stuttgart as far back as 1894. We have to translate the quotations from the German originals, as the Russian translations, while very numerous, are for the most part either incomplete or very unsatisfactory. Summing up his historical analysis, Engels says: “The state is, therefore, by no means a power forced on society from without; just as little is it 'the reality of the ethical idea', 'the image and reality of reason', as Hegel maintains. Rather, it is a product of society at a certain stage of development; it is the admission that this society has become entangled in an insoluble contradiction with itself, that it has split into _irreconcilable antagonisms_ ( emphasis added -CB) which it is powerless to dispel. But in order that these antagonisms, these classes with conflicting economic interests, might not consume themselves and society in fruitless struggle, it became necessary to have a power, seemingly standing above society, that would alleviate the conflict and keep it within the bounds of 'order'; and this power, arisen out of society but placing itself above it, and alienating itself more and more from it, is the state." (Pp.177-78, sixth edition)[1] > > Here is how Marx writes this: > > 5). At a certain stage of their development, > 6). the material productive forces of society > 7). come into conflict with the existing relations of production or – > (this merely expresses the same thing in legal terms ) with the property > relations within the framework of which they have operated up until then. > 8). From forms of development of the productive forces > 9). these relations turn into their fetters. > 10). Then begins an epoch of social revolution.. > > (1859 Preface to A Contribution to the Critique of Political Economy) > _http://www.marxists.org/archive/marx/works/1859/critique-pol-economy/preface.htm_ > > (http://www.marxists.org/archive/marx/works/1859/critique-pol-economy/preface.htm) ^^^^^^^ CB: I don't see the word "antagonism" in what you quote. > ^^^^^ > > Antagonism is how a society rent with class contradiction, leaps to a > qualitative new mode of production. The form of resolution takes place as the > wiping out, destruction or liquidation of the old classes connected to the > old means of production. The serf form of servitude, as a property relations > - landed property, and founded on hand labor and early manufacturing, is > liquidated from history on the basis of a development of new productive > forces and new social relations that correspond to the new means of > production. ^^^^^ CB: I think the thought is thought provoking and gets at important ideas. But since Engels and Lenin use "antagonism" as they do above, it might be good to consider their usage in a _Marxist_ _glossary_. It's semantics, but a glossary is a text of semantics or word meanings ^^^^ > > 2). Agree with the second part of the issue. The problem of a glossary is > isolating what is fundamental. Thus, an index called "fundamentality" is > part of the glossary. Then there is an index titled "primitive accumulation." > > I swear I am going to send you the draft before it is completed and > professionally edited. If you know a professional editor, preferably a comrade > let me know and they can be paid a stipend. ^^^^^^^ CB Please do. ^^^^^ > > "Forces of destruction" is not an "index" although included in crisis of > capital as overproduction and the destruction of commodities and means of > production. ^^^^^ CB: My use of "Forces of destruction" originates with me , i.e. I didn't get it from Marx, Engels or Lenin, though it is a logical extension of their "forces of production". They just say "force". though it might be in something they wrote that I haven't read. I think it's a useful concept , though I don't know that I'd say put it in your glossary. > > Charles, swear to God gonna holla before the month is out but been on jam. ^^^^^ CB: Yeah. Do you have my number ? ^^^ > > Yet, no way we could leave out "primitive accumulation of capital." > > Again, this is written for folks with zero understanding of anything > remotely Marx. But they are flocking to any center of gravity with new > thinking > that express what they see and feel. > > > WL. ^^^^^^^^^ CB: Like Dave Moore always said, "Carry on !" _______________________________________________ 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
