One thing you have certainly mastered, never answer a concrete question. The emancipatory, "progressive," element in capitalism is not the "dual role" of the bourgeoisie as Marx imagined, and only imagined, it to be in 1848,[ as a careful examination of the struggle against the ancien regime and its remnants shows that the bourgeoisie itself hardly played a revolutionary role, but in fact the actions of the rural and urban poor, the petty bourgeoisie were the revolutionary drivers and the revolution itself only became bourgeois in its defeat], is not and does not exist in "things." It does not exist in the accumulation of the means of production as means of production because in fact no such accumulation exists. The accumulation of the means of production exists only as part of the process of the accumulation of values. The "progress" such as it is exists, and exists only, in the expropriation of the expropriators, in the social act of revolution.
It should be pointed out that as a corollary to the "bourgeoisie gaining the upper hand" there was not the simple ending of feudal, partriarchal, idyllic relations. That is to say that the bourgeoisie had to join hands, under the table and above the board, with feudal, partriarchal, idyllic relations. The bourgeoisie adapted itself to them, as in countries in Latin America, or adapted them to itself again countries in Latin America, as, for example, in the haciendas of Mexico between 1867 and 1910-- and even after the revolution. What J exhibits is formalism-- "on the one hand.... while on the other hand" ersatz-dialectics, as if history, and the struggle for emancipation, is some sort of big tally sheet, with positive on one side, and negative on the other, and the task is simply accumulating more pluses instead of minuses. I am hardly an anti-technology, primitivist or naturalist. I think my arguments against peak oil theory and its incipient Malthusianism are clear enough evidence of that. What is required is specific understanding of the conflict between means and relations of production, and how expropriation of the expropriators is achieved. That is done on a class basis, not an "anti-imperialist," diffuse, popular basis. As has been repeated ad nauseum, not subordinating Marxist analysis, class program to formal adherence of a Fatah or Hamas is not support for, nor failure to defend against, imperialism, just as defending Iran's Ayatollahs, or Iraq's Hussein from imperialist attack does not mean, require, muting criticism of those governments. J's doesn't just support Hamas 100%, he opposes any criticism of Hamas' program, at least that is what he has stated here. And I'm sure he must now oppose any criticism of the govt. of Iran since it so clearly is in the "front lines of the struggle against imperialism." J argues not for the defense of Hamas, but the subordination of all movements to Hamas' discipline. The issue is this notion of "separating" the "progressive" from the reactionary, that movements like Fatah, Sinn Fein, KMT, Hamas, even the ANC are "progressive" and do not contain, based on their inherent internal configuration, their precise lack of class differentiation, their own conversion into instruments of oppression and exploitation. These movements do contain that conversion based precisely on their "national" organization. I'm waiting for you to get all Hegelian on my ass, but I'm not holding my breath, as I'm sure it will take you some time to find your Cliff Notes on Hegel's Phenomenology. ----- Original Message ----- From: <[email protected]> To: <[email protected]> Sent: Monday, August 03, 2009 3:41 PM Subject: [Marxism] End of short unhappy life of "engagement"withIranRe:FredFeldman ________________________________________________ YOU MUST clip all extraneous text when replying to a message. Send list submissions to: [email protected] Set your options at: http://lists.econ.utah.edu/mailman/options/marxism/archive%40mail-archive.com
