on 2002.02.27 06:52 AM, [EMAIL PROTECTED] at [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: > In a message dated Tue, 26 Feb 2002 1:21:30 PM Eastern Standard Time, Carrol > Cox <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes: > >> >> >> [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: >>> >>>>> >>> We demand change in society along the direction of the productive forces, >> >> No. Not true. _Many_ Marxists but by no means all put central emphasis >> on the "productive forces." Others argue that this proposition about the >> necessary growth of productive forces applies not to all history (and >> certainly not to socialism or communism) but only to capitalism. It is >> this drive to unleash the productive forces that turns capitalism into a >> destructive force. See esp. the works of Ellen Meiksins Wood, Edward >> Thompson, Raymond Williams, and Robert Brenner. >> >> Carrol > > > > Acknowledged. > > I - me personally,(it is incorrect to state "we" as if I represented the > "marxist") desire change in society that conforms to and along the trajectory > of the technical development that reflect the new qualitative change in the > productive forces that makes an abundance of commodities availabe to all. I > acknowledge my arrogance and mistake in assuming a posture that articulates > anyones voice other than my own and those who I agree with. I will be more > careful not to make this mistake in the future. > > Everyone wants something different. > > What makes captialism capitalism - in my opinion, (that is to say to me as an > indivdual) is not the productive forces as an abstraction or merely a > technical state of development - as the fundamental distinction of social > production on the basis of the industrial infrastructure and all the > properties this entail, but the the character of appropriation. I am aware > that many do not agree with this focus on property relations. > > You are correct. In the final instance I speak for myself only. > > Melvin P. Hi Melvin MIYACHI TATSUO Psychiatric Department KOMAKI MUNICIPAL HOSPITAL JOHBUSHI,1-20 KOMAKI CITY AICHI Pre JAPAN 0568-76-4131 [EMAIL PROTECTED]
>productive force belongs to human being. Its force confirm his activity. See "Economic and Philosophical Manuscripts of 1844"of Marx <Man is directly a natural being. As a natural being and as a living natural being he is on the one hand endowed with natural powers, vital powers ‹ he is an active natural being. These forces exist in him as tendencies and abilities ‹ as instincts. On the other hand, as a natural, corporeal, sensuous objective being he is a suffering, conditioned and limited creature, like animals and plants. That is to say, the objects of his instincts exist outside him, as objects independent of him; yet these objects are objects that he needs ‹ essential objects, indispensable to the manifestation and confirmation of his essential powers. To say that man is a corporeal, living, real, sensuous, objective being full of natural vigour is to say that he has real, sensuous objects as the object of his being or of his life, or that he can only express his life in real, sensuous objects The outstanding achievement of Hegel¹s Phänomenologie and of its final outcome, the dialectic of negativity as the moving and generating principle, is thus first that Hegel conceives the self-creation of man as a process, conceives objectification as loss of the object, as alienation and as transcendence of this alienation; that he thus grasps the essence of labour and comprehends objective man ‹ true, because real man ‹ as the outcome of man¹s own labour. The real, active orientation of man to himself as a species-being, or his manifestation as a real species-being (i.e., as a human being), is only possible if he really brings out all his species-powers ‹ something which in turn is only possible through the cooperative action of all of mankind, only as the result of history ‹ and treats these, ‹ powers as objects: and this, to begin with, is again only possible in the form of estrangement. > <Man is directly a natural being. As a natural being and as a living natural > being he is on the one hand endowed with natural powers, vital powers ‹ he is > an active natural being. These forces exist in him as tendencies and abilities > ‹ as instincts. On the other hand, as a natural, corporeal, sensuous objective > being he is a suffering, conditioned and limited creature, like animals and > plants. That is to say, the objects of his instincts exist outside him, as > objects independent of him; yet these objects are objects that he needs ‹ > essential objects, indispensable to the manifestation and confirmation of his > essential powers. To say that man is a corporeal, living, real, sensuous, > objective being full of natural vigour is to say that he has real, sensuous > objects as the object of his being or of his life, or that he can only express > his life in real, sensuous objects and see " Capital" A definite quantity of surplus-labour is required as insurance against accidents, and by the necessary and progressive expansion of the process of reproduction in keeping with the development of the needs and the growth of population, which is called accumulation from the viewpoint of the capitalist. It is one of the civilising aspects of capital that it enforces this surplus-labour in a manner and under conditions which are more advantageous to the development of the productive forces, social relations, and the creation of the elements for a new and higher form than under the preceding forms of slavery, serfdom, etc. Thus it gives rise to a stage, on the one hand, in which coercion and monopolisation of social development (including its material and intellectual advantages) by one portion of society at the expense of the other are eliminated; on the other hand, it creates the material means and embryonic conditions, making it possible in a higher form of society to combine this surplus-labour with a greater reduction of time devoted to material labour in general. For, depending on the development of labour productivity, surplus-labour may be large in a small total working-day, and relatively small in a large total working-day. If the necessary labour-time=3 and the surplus-labour=3, then the total working-day=6 and the rate of surplus-labour=100%. If the necessary labour=9 and the surplus-labour=3, then the total working-day=12 and the rate of surplus-labour only=33 1/3 %. In that case, it depends upon the labour productivity how much use-value shall be produced in a definite time, hence also in a definite surplus labour-time. The actual wealth of society, and the possibility of constantly expanding its reproduction process, therefore, do not depend upon the duration of surplus-labour, but upon its productivity and the more or less copious conditions of production under which it is performed. In fact, the realm of freedom actually begins only where labour which is determined by necessity and mundane considerations ceases; thus in the very nature of things it lies beyond the sphere of actual material production. Just as the savage must wrestle with Nature to satisfy his wants, to maintain and reproduce life, so must civilised man, and he must do so in all social formations and under all possible modes of production. With his development this realm of physical necessity expands as a result of his wants; but, at the same time, the forces of production which satisfy these wants also increase. Freedom in this field can only consist in socialised man, the associated producers, rationally regulating their interchange with Nature, bringing it under their common control, instead of being ruled by it as by the blind forces of Nature; and achieving this with the least expenditure of energy and under conditions most favourable to, and worthy of, their human nature. But it nonetheless still remains a realm of necessity. Beyond it begins that development of human energy which is an end in itself, the true realm of freedom, which, however, can blossom forth only with this realm of necessity as its basis. The shortening of the working-day is its basic prerequisite. Thus For Marx productive forces belong to human being. productive means is meaningful when people act on this. technology belongs to productive means which human activity produce more, qualitative and quantitative. And essence of Capital is follows. "It is otherwise in the circulation M-C-M, which at first sight appears purposeless, because tautological. Both extremes have the same economic form. They are both money, and therefore are not qualitatively different use-values; for money is but the converted form of commodities, in which their particular use-values vanish. To exchange £100 for cotton, and then this same cotton again for £100, is merely a roundabout way of exchanging money for money, the same for the same, and appears to be an operation just as purposeless as it is absurd. [4] One sum of money is distinguishable from another only by its amount. The character and tendency of the process M-C-M, is therefore not due to any qualitative difference between its extremes, both being money, but solely to their quantitative difference. More money is withdrawn from circulation at the finish than was thrown into it at the start. The cotton that was bought for £100 is perhaps resold for £100 + £10 or £110. The exact form of this process is therefore M-C-M', where M' = M + D M = the original sum advanced, plus an increment. This increment or excess over the original value I call "surplus-value". The value originally advanced, therefore, not only remains intact while in circulation, but adds to itself a surplus-value or expands itself. It is this movement that converts it into capital. " Thus " character of appropriation" is not "capital" s essence. There were " appropriation" in any age. Important is the special aim of capitalist "appropriation". That is money.
