<waistli...@aol.com> wrote: > > > ^^^^^^^^ CB: Is the BP oil catastrophe the beginning of the conflict and > then antagonism you refer to ? > > Reply > > No. > > The material quoted states: > > "At a certain stage in their development means of production - instruments, > machinery and energy sources, come into conflict and then antagonism with > the existing social relations and their political expression as political > laws of society." > > Although its roots are remote, capitalism emerged as a system based on the > industrial revolution.
^^^^^^^ CB; Doesn't Marx consider that capitalism _emerges_ in the manufacturing system ? http://www.marxists.org/archive/marx/works/1867-c1/ch14.htm#S5 SECTION 5 THE CAPITALISTIC CHARACTER OF MANUFACTURE -------------------------------------------------------------------------------- An increased number of labourers under the control of one capitalist is the natural starting-point, as well of co-operation generally, as of manufacture in particular. But the division of labour in manufacture makes this increase in the number of workmen a technical necessity. The minimum number that any given capitalist is bound to employ is here prescribed by the previously established division of labour. On the other hand, the advantages of further division are obtainable only by adding to the number of workmen, and this can be done only by adding multiples of the various detail groups. But an increase in the variable component of the capital employed necessitates an increase in its constant component, too, in the workshops, implements, &c., and, in particular, in the raw material, the call for which grows quicker than the number of workmen. The quantity of it consumed in a given time, by a given amount of labour, increases in the same ratio as does the productive power of that labour in consequence of its division. Hence, it is a law, based on the very nature of manufacture, that the minimum amount of capital, which is bound to be in the hands of each capitalist, must keep increasing; in other words, that the transformation into capital of the social means of production and subsistence must keep extending. [39] In manufacture, as well as in simple co-operation, the collective working organism is a form of existence of capital. The mechanism that is made up of numerous individual detail labourers belongs to the capitalist. Hence, the productive power resulting from a combination of labours appears to be the productive power of capital. Manufacture proper not only subjects the previously independent workman to the discipline and command of capital, but, in addition, creates a hierarchic gradation of the workmen themselves. While simple co-operation leaves the mode of working by the individual for the most part unchanged, manufacture thoroughly revolutionises it, and seizes labour-power by its very roots. It converts the labourer into a crippled monstrosity, by forcing his detail dexterity at the expense of a world of productive capabilities and instincts; just as in the States of La Plata they butcher a whole beast for the sake of his hide or his tallow. Not only is the detail work distributed to the different individuals, but the individual himself is made the automatic motor of a fractional operation, [40] and the absurd fable of Menenius Agrippa, which makes man a mere fragment of his own body, becomes realised. [41] If, at first, the workman sells his labour-power to capital, because the material means of producing a commodity fail him, now his very labour-power refuses its services unless it has been sold to capital. Its functions can be exercised only in an environment that exists in the workshop of the capitalist after the sale. By nature unfitted to make anything independently, the manufacturing labourer develops productive activity as a mere appendage of the capitalist’s workshop. [42] As the chosen people bore in their features the sign manual of Jehovah, so division of labour brands the manufacturing workman as the property of capital. Capitalism is not the economy but a political regime > or mode of accumulation. The economy is made up of two aspects: production > and distribution. Upon this base of society arises a political > superstructure expressing the nature of the base, and in turn acts back upon > that > base. > > The displacement of the universality of the manual labor process by the > industrial revolution, as the qualifying character of productive forces, took > place though the life activity of new classes, bourgeoisie and proletariat. > Industrial implements evolve in conflict and then enter antagonism with > the manual labor process, due to private property. > > It is property or classes as conveyor of property that is the source and > genesis of antagonism. Antagonism is not rooted in means of production > development. That is, qualitative changes in means of production express the > conflict in developing from one kind of social organization of labor to > another. ^^^^^ CB: When you say "Antagonism is not rooted in means of production development" how does that square with "At a certain stage in their development means of production - instruments, machinery and energy sources, come into conflict and then antagonism with the existing social relations " ? ^^^^^^^^ > > At a certain stage in the growing universality of a qualitatively new > social organization of labor, antagonism appears as a form of resolution > between > old classes and new classes. Serf evolves for thousands of years in > conflict - (not antagonism) with the nobility as both are riveted to the > manual > labor process. The appearance of new classes - (bourgeois and proletariat), > emerge and evolve in antagonism with serf and nobility. The former express > new productive forces and vanquish the latter (expressing old means of > production), from history. > > Society evolves in class antagonism. > > WL. CB: Ok Isn't class antagonism you describe a conflict between the old division of labor and the new division of labor with the new division of labor arising based on development of new organization of production and new means and instruments of production ? _______________________________________________ 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
