Julio offered some thoughtful comments about my essay on 'Marxism for
the 21st Century', an essay which in some respects takes up themes I've
been writing about in a number of places and in others is an advance
look at the book on socialism that I'm working on whenever I can get a
chance.
I appreciate much Julio's remarks but I have some quick responses.
I think Julio's comments and the marx epigrams that he closed with (eg.,
from the Preface of '59) reflect a nuanced version of the kind of
Marxism that Schumpeter
embraced as a work for conservatives ('hey, I can live with this!'); in
this respect, it is akin to David Laibman's subtle version of the
primacy of productive
forces. Starting from this perspective, it's not too surprising that I
come off as a bit of a voluntarist--- except Julio is really distorting
my argument. Note the quotes
[hopefully not too much out of context] below:
I
disagree, however, strongly with his advice for us to treat Marx's
1959 "Preface" as a "book of proverbs."...
Generally speaking, I think
that Michael bends the stick so much in his direction, that by
implication he seems to subscribe to the view that the existing
productive force of labor doesn't matter. As long as masses of people
with the "right" intentions are in motion, Michael seems to imply,
socialism can be built. Certainly, there is a lot that large masses
of people with the "right" intentions can do. But they cannot do
anything they intend. At least, that is not what a materialist
interpretation of known history would lead us to conclude...
Implicitly, Michael accepts uncontested an implicit premise of the
technological determinists (i.e. that wealth is other than what
contributes to the overall development of human beings as such) when
he views the development of the productive forces as antithetical to
the development of the new society.
It's not what I've said. Note a key passage in the piece he is
commenting on:
Is there a relationship between the Marxism of the 20th Century and
the errors in the attempts to build socialism in the 20th Century? I
think there are many. For one, Marxists need to assign the 1859
'Preface' (with its formulaic economic determinism) to a book of
proverbs and study instead the /Grundrisse/'s insights into the
'becoming' and 'being' of an organic system, insights that will permit
a better understanding of process. Further, grasping /Capital/'s focus
on how relations of production precede and shape the character of new
productive forces would help to reduce the worship of technology and
the development of productive forces.
In other words, if you want to understand Marx's position in 1859, don't
pull out isolated aphorisms--- read the extended Grundrisse discussion
which immediately preceded it. And, look closely at the story that Marx
subsequently tells in Capital. The capitalist relation of production [as
in the mere formal subsumption of labour] precedes the specific forces
of production developed within that relation [and reflecting the
character, contradictions and class struggle within that relation]. In
other words, those productive forces cannot be neutral, they are
'shaped'-- there is a reason why Marx can talk about how the specific
productive forces developed within capitalism produce misery. Grasp this
and you understand immediately the problem in embracing 'one-man
management', taylorism, the 'highest achievements of capitalism'.
Further, my argument is certainly not a suggestion that the development
of productive forces is a Bad Thing as such for the development of the
new society. Rather, it is saying that you must develop those new
socialist relations FIRST [ie., that cooperative society based upon the
common ownership of the means of production] and then within THAT
framework, the new productive forces are created which are consistent
with those relations and develop all their latent potential; so, a
process of becoming in which there is the development of a specifically
socialist mode of production [which is necessary for building
socialism]. In contrast, a different set of relations leads you in a
different direction. All of this is something I'm developing in the book
I've promised to get to MR by November, 'The Socialist Alternative: Real
Human Development'. You can see a bit of this from this opening of the
chapter, 'The Becoming [and Unbecoming] of Real Socialism' [although the
template is developed further in an article a few years back in
Herramienta]:
"Our method" Marx (1973:460) declared, "indicates the points where
historical investigation must enter in." When we have correctly
grasped the nature of an economy, it "always leads to primary
equations... which point towards a past lying behind the system." And,
so it is with the development of an understanding of vanguard
relations of production as an organic system. Knowing that this system
is characterized by the specific vanguard party, on the one hand, and
a quiescent working class with specific benefits, on the other hand,
reveals not only how the system is itself reproduced (via that social
contract) but also the elements whose historical development must be
traced. Where did those elements come from? Thus, one question to
which we are directed is the 'becoming' of the system--- i.e., the
original formation of vanguard relations of production.
But, Marx noted, there is /more/. When we understand the conditions of
existence of the system, we also can identify the way in which the
system breaks down (e.g., what /threatens/ that social contract). The
correct understanding, he commented, 'leads at the same time to the
points at which the suspension of the present form of production
relations gives signs of its becoming--- foreshadowings of the
future.' We can see how the "contemporary conditions of production
likewise appear as engaged in /suspending themselves /and hence in
positing the /historic presuppositions /for a new state of society"
(Marx, 1973: 461). In short, we can identify the disintegration (the
'unbecoming') of vanguard relations and the becoming of a new set of
productive relations.
Overview
Think about the template we set out in considering the becoming of
capitalism. Beginning with (a) the development of a particular social
relation, we then introduced (b) the rupture in property rights, (c)
the emergence of a particular relation of production, and, finally,
(d) the development of a specific mode of production. Does the
becoming of RS fit in this structure? Begin with the vanguard party as
the particular social relation; nationalization of the means of
production is the rupture in property rights, but that pattern of
property rights is itself insufficient to determine a new set of
productive relations. This critical step occurs when the vanguard
itself seizes possession of production and, thus, we see the
introduction of vanguard relations of production. For the completion
of the system, though, a specifically vanguard mode of production is
necessary; until then, the vanguard requires a particular mode of
regulation to ensure the reproduction of those relations of
production. Once that mode of production is created, the system
produces its own premises--- i.e., its presuppositions are the result
of the system itself.
And now back to work! Heading back to Vancouver next week for a
month [a talk and then hanging in for the greatest jazz festival
imaginable], so an incredible amount of stuff to finish up here before
leaving.
in solidarity,
michael
PS. as for 'voluntarism', if struggling for the revolution rather than
waiting for the productive forces to have reached their appropriate
threshold is voluntarism, really I can live with that. But, if you don't
call me a voluntarist, I won't call you a Menshivik/Stalinist stagist. :-)
--
Michael A. Lebowitz
Professor Emeritus
Economics Department
Simon Fraser University
Burnaby, B.C., Canada V5A 1S6
Director, Programme in 'Transformative Practice and Human Development'
Centro Internacional Miranda, P.H.
Residencias Anauco Suites, Parque Central, final Av. Bolivar
Caracas, Venezuela
fax: 0212 5768274/0212 5777231
http//:centrointernacionalmiranda.gob.ve
[EMAIL PROTECTED]
_______________________________________________
pen-l mailing list
[email protected]
https://lists.csuchico.edu/mailman/listinfo/pen-l
