very well put indeed, I read his book last november in greece, Michel
On Thu, Aug 6, 2015 at 1:13 AM, <[email protected]> wrote: > Peter, > thank you so much for posting this article. I really resonate with what > Michael Lebowitz is saying here. > > He says: > *Why is it that after so many defeats so many still cannot see what Marx > grasped in the nineteenth century – that capital has the tendency to > produce a working class which views the existence of capital as necessary? > ‘The advance of capitalist production,’ he stressed, ‘develops a working > class which by education, tradition and habit looks upon the requirements > of this mode of production as self-evident natural laws.’* > > This is so true. Many radicals get frustrated that others can't see what > they see. I have been there myself. Why do working class vote for Tories? > Incomprehensible I thought. But according to Lebowitz (and Marx) it makes > sense. And by mode of production lets understand hierarchical > relationships, so that it includes ICT, and all patriarchal relationships > based on power and money. > > Lebowitz again: > *It begins, in short, by grasping the ‘key link’ of human development and > practice that Marx consistently stressed. Revolutionary democracy > recognizes that **every activity in which people engage forms them.** (*My > emphasis*) Thus, there are two products of every activity – the changing > of circumstance or things and the human product.* > > *What's the significance of recognizing this process of producing people > explicitly? First, it helps us to understand why changes must occur in all > spheres – every moment that people act within old relations is a process of > reproducing old ideas and attitudes. Working under hierarchical relations, > functioning without the ability to make decisions in the workplace and > society, focusing upon self-interest rather than upon solidarity within > society – these activities produce people on a daily basis; it is the > reproduction of the conservatism of everyday life.* > > This is what I was trying to say in the discussion with you and Michel, we > have to take into account where these forces converge in the individual > because that is where the 'alternative logic' that Michel talks about, > arises. But what I didn't see is that what gives rise to this 'alternative > logic', is the possibility of different practice, different activity, what > Leibowitz calls below 'new spaces in which people can develop their > powers...' > > *“Recognizing this second side also directs us to focus upon the > introduction of concrete measures which explicitly take into account the > effect of those measures upon human development. Thus, for every step two > questions must be asked: (1) how does this change circumstances and (2) how > does this help to produce revolutionary subjects and increase their > capacities?”[5]* > > *Of course, it must struggle to capture the existing state from capital so > that state can serve the needs of the working-class rather than capital. > However, it also must “promote by all means possible new democratic > institutions, new spaces in which people can develop their powers through > their protagonism.” * > > You questioned Lebowitz use of term working class. To me the 'working > class', is all those who never actually have a chance to think outside the > box, who are captured by the logic of capitalism to sell their labour in > whatever form, or who accept inequality as a natural state of affairs. I > know these terms are very imprecise but I find the hair splitting arguments > between old timers a real waste. Lebowitz is really addressing the question > you raised about the 'socio-cultural processes' needed to accomplish a > politico-economic transition. > > I will write more when I have finished Lebowitz article which I am in > process of reading and would heartily recommend > > http://monthlyreview.org/2014/03/01/proposing-path-socialism-two-papers-hugo-chavez/ > > Excerpt: *This is a society centred on a conscious exchange of activity > for communal needs and communal purposes. It is a society of new, rich > human beings who develop in the course of producing with others > and for others; these are people for whom the desire to possess and the > associated need for money (the real need that capitalism produces, Marx > noted) wither away. We are describing a new world in which we have our > individual needs, needs for our own “all-round development,” but where we > are not driven by material incentives to act. It is a world in which our > activity is its own reward (and is, indeed, “life’s prime want”) because we > affirm ourselves as conscious social beings through that activity, a world > in which we produce use-values for others and produce ourselves as part of > the human family.* > > How is this accomplished? > > Anna > > > > > On 2 Aug 2015, at 09:45, Peter Waterman <[email protected]> > wrote: > > http://www.socialistproject.ca/bullet/1149.php#continue > _______________________________________________ > NetworkedLabour mailing list > [email protected] > http://lists.contrast.org/mailman/listinfo/networkedlabour > > > _______________________________________________ > NetworkedLabour mailing list > [email protected] > http://lists.contrast.org/mailman/listinfo/networkedlabour > > -- Check out the Commons Transition Plan here at: http://commonstransition.org P2P Foundation: http://p2pfoundation.net - http://blog.p2pfoundation.net <http://lists.ourproject.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/p2p-foundation>Updates: http://twitter.com/mbauwens; http://www.facebook.com/mbauwens #82 on the (En)Rich list: http://enrichlist.org/the-complete-list/
_______________________________________________ P2P Foundation - Mailing list Blog - http://www.blog.p2pfoundation.net Wiki - http://www.p2pfoundation.net Show some love and help us maintain and update our knowledge commons by making a donation. Thank you for your support. https://blog.p2pfoundation.net/donation https://lists.ourproject.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/p2p-foundation
