====================================================================== Rule #1: YOU MUST clip all extraneous text when replying to a message. ======================================================================
Just one quick comment while I try to absorb all this, which is a truly rich text that needs close examination and not just because I can't figure it out. Yet. Anyway, comrade WL-- and let's be clear, as much as we disagree and fight, I consider WL to be a true comrade, a brother--- writes: "An existing state of development of production - quality, cannot become antagonistic to itself, based on an intensive and extensive quantitative increase of itself." And I think Marx shows-- "Oh yes it can." And that is exactly what happens with the advance of capitalism; and what becomes acute in the advance of capitalism from extensive appropriation of absolute surplus value to the intensive appropriation of relative surplus value. This is exactly what Marx shows with the changing composition of capital. This is exactly what Marx terms the tendency of the rate of profit to decline. This is exactly what Marx means when he says in Vol 3: overproduction is always the overproduction of capital, of the means of production as capital. AND, this is why Marx never would describe the Paris Commune as "pre-mature," as not supported by the development of technology, of the productive forces. This why Marx comprehended, and denounced, the flaws in the proletariat subordinating itself to the bourgeoisie in the 1848 revolutions. And this is why he worked to create the First International. What I think comrade WL is getting at, and this is Ihis unique and profound insight-- that the pursuit of profit requires the development of a technology so new, so advanced that it makes the previous social organization of labor obsolete. Well, I like that formulation. But I think there's a problem with it in that it condemns workers struggles and self-organization to passivity, subordination to the existing state of affairs-- to the next "stage" of development, and makes no allowance for the uneven and combined development on the one hand, and the obsolescence of the organizaton of capital based not upon technology, but upon its property. I don't think this is a waste on this list, comrade WL-- this is where I first met you. And a big part of me agrees with you about all that grief and its cause. ----- Original Message ----- From: <waistli...@aol.com> To: "David Schanoes" <sartes...@earthlink.net> Sent: Wednesday, November 18, 2009 5:41 PM Subject: Re: [Marxism] The Chinese Revolution (90 years ago) - theory > ====================================================================== > Rule #1: YOU MUST clip all extraneous text when replying to a message. > ====================================================================== > > > You need to be in a real communist collective because your talent is being > wasted on this list. > > The revolution from feudalism to capitalism was a real revolution in the > material power of production. The real revolution was from manufacture to > industrial production, with the property relations within. The Marxist > ideologues at the back of the curve of the industrial revolution have > dominated > the movement and defined the conceptual frameworks. Lenin, Trotsky and > Stalin > is the Russianization of Marxism. > > This has been our undoing and cause us much grief. ________________________________________________ Send list submissions to: Marxism@lists.econ.utah.edu Set your options at: http://lists.econ.utah.edu/mailman/options/marxism/archive%40mail-archive.com
