Re: Re: Re: Re: 3 There are not unequal exchange ;critique of F...

[Waistline2]

Pardon my insistenceon pursuing this discussion. My awareness of a syndicalism tread in discussingMarx conception of the associate society as it develops on the basis of the human material shaped and evolved by capital was that of my own or rather in my own head. I am at my theoretical limit and the discussion pushes me forward and created awareness of my own development. I looked at the "deviation" and its was me.

In reply to my opinion of the “On Association” article your wrote:

> Association principle usually is grasped as mutual aid and its altruist
consisted of filling up others lack<

I misunderstood the economic content of the above and used the wrong framework. Specifically, my activity had been in the trade union sphere or more than less the arena of the political superstructure – so to speak. In the context of the collapse of the city structure in which I live and increasing poverty of the workers “mutual aid” is an elementary fact I missed. I have been amongst the better-paid workers for a lifetime and must redouble my effort in studying Marx and Capital.

In the face of collapsing city structures “mutual aid” is common sense and a historic necessity, i.e., the formation of groupings of people who cooperate on the basis of local commerce – trade or barter, not the production of capital.  


You further state:

> 21. This time requires to break with political party and democracy which
assume
> nation state. And now we must reflect association principle.
>Finally how is your "communism" program? If it is vague, simply you argue
communism is good in abstract matter. Please tell me concrete program of
your "Communism."
Our side are leaded by people within which we create de-reifying movement
Below is my article on Fetishism. Because for de-reifying movement
, strict reading Marx's critique on fetishism is needed. IN this I touch with
>DE-Versachling Movement.


I am having a very difficult time unraveling what is meant by  “This time requires to break with political party and democracy which assume nation state.”

It is correct that my “communism” program is vague and “simply you argue
communism is good in abstract matter.” This is true and I do not deny.

The crisis in my thinking is having grasped a deeper theoretical conception of the emergence of a sector of the workers who are pushed outside the “credit capital” framework and are sinking lower and lower. In the past I have called the creation and emergence of a “new class.”  “New class”is an abstraction because this sector, which is different from say the industrial proletariat is not really a “new class” but a qualitatively new configuration in capital absolutely impoverished on a planetary scale. Some people once called this sector the “underclass,” which in America really meant black people of extreme poverty.

Your militant insistence on a “de-reifying movement” as a frontal assault on “Fetishism”compels me to reexamine capitalist development in America and our fundamental absence of any concrete feudal economic relations; and the framework in which generations of American communist have posed the standpoint of Marx.

Example: In referring to the transition from one mode of production to another, I basically state that such “historic movements of people cannot be fought out in the economy but the political sphere as a struggle for political power.”

I have become uncomfortable with this formulation – as such, because it devoid of the objective “associate” or cooperation movement – cooperative, that I referred to as the laborers who constitute what was called the “contingent economy.” You use words “alternate economy,” which I understand to mean the forms of economic intercourse that arose in Argentina as the result of the “banking crisis” – crisis in credit capital and point to the emergence of bartering. And also, the formation of human beings on the basis of advanced combinations within the productivity infrastructure. If I desire to continue use the words “contingent economy,” it must be expanded to include the objective associate movement that arise from within the collapse of credit capital's ability to maintain market exchange between all sectors of the working people on the one hand and the organization of labor in the productive process on the other.

From your vantage point is American communism as a whole unable to “de-reify” itself? This is an honest question. Consider this: it took an inordinate amount of energy on my part to unravel why you would state “socialism is not inevitable” only possible.  Then there was the theoretical presentation of Marx use of “shape of capitalist production” as opposed to “process of capitalist production.”

In an earlier article you refer to an even earlier writing of yours dealing with credit theory and capital as a money form of accumulation. It is stated:

“2. On the study of credit theory

The symbol theorists pull ahead to understand the movement of the
commoditifying capital through the appearances irrespective of the real
capital relation, to grasp it within the framework of the ordinary
commodity, and then to formulate it based on the law of movement as
commodity in general.
Against such prevailing thinking by Marxists of varying trends, although they only
acknowledge themselves to be so, have expressed their critical opinions.
But, in general, their contents are that the above thinking is just
modification of Marx's theory of commodity and money, and that it conceals
the exploitation of capital in the direct production process to distort the
law of the real capital movement. Thus they can't criticize it on the
clarification for commoditifying of capital, which has in original, produced
such thinking. All with this the thinking can't be fundamentally
criticized, and those opinions seems to be out of date, or, as a case may
be, tend to subordinate to the Stalinist propositions.
It is already clear that such theoretical delay in the defensive parties of
Marxism can just overcome through the radical solution of commoditifying
capital and its movement law.”

To avoid misunderstanding and misstatement, you point out that the words  “commoditifying
capital and its movement law,” is better understood as “credit capital's mode of accumulation.”
My question is: What is the “Stalinist propositions,” as articulation and practical application of Marx standpoint to the theory of value?

Finally, my tracing evolution of productive activity on the basis of instruments of production does not explain money-form or the mode of accumulation peculiar to this stage of capital. Such an undertaking, "explain money-form or the mode of accumulation peculiar to this stage of capital" is out of my particular depth. I will read and listen and learn.

I am currently up to my head in “American pragmatism.”  Too many questions in my head. Need to sit down and think for a moment and then get ready to go to work.

Melvin P.