Thanks for the sketch. I understand it as an explanation for the variant "gloomy non-future". - I do not share all your implicit theoretical assumptions, but that discourse is a different story.
At 23:42 14.07.2011, Jim Devine wrote: >Hinrich Kuhls wrote: > > Only your pessimistic view? Or in fact a gloomy non-future for the > > free association of labor? > > > > No thoughts on the fact, "that the credit system will serve as a > > powerful lever during the transition from the capitalist mode of > > production to the mode of production of associated labour; but only > > as one element in connection with other great organic revolutions of > > the mode of production itself..." ? > > (http://www.marxists.org/archive/marx/works/1894-c3/ch36.htm) > > > > I am aware of the low grade of unionization in the US and problems of > > the organization of labor. But what knocks me off my feet is the > > dicrepancy of writing off unions by large parts of the US left and > > not reflecting this fact politically in terms for the transition of > > the US society. > >Broadly speaking, there are two dimensions to the transition from >capitalism to socialism. First, there is the concentration and >centralization of capital, in effect moving capitalism toward being a >planned society. This process is encouraged by the role of the credit >system (the quote from Marx). The second is the growth of the working >class as an organized and class-conscious political and economic >force. The first seems to be happening, but the second one seems to be >working in reverse (except in Wisconsin, so things may change). This >is the material origin of the "discrepancy." > >Without the growth of the working class, the concentration and >centralization of capitalism might mean the transition to capitalism >with a corporatist state (e.g., Japan or something worse), which is >not something to cheer. Further, remember that the defunct USSR was >characterized by complete concentration and centralization of capital, >the comprehensive socialization of production, complete with a planned >economy. Since the working class wasn't strong enough to control the >state, the state could in effect set up a whole new exploitative >ruling class (or stratum, if you wish). This suggests that it's the >second movement -- the rise of the working class as a potential new >ruling class -- that's crucial, much more than the first movement -- >the centralization of capital. > >I don't _want to_ write off the US working class, but unfortunately >capitalism has in effect written it off for us. To some extent, the >labor union bureaucracy has allowed this to happen. >-- >Jim Devine / "Segui il tuo corso, e lascia dir le genti." (Go your own >way and let people talk.) -- Karl, paraphrasing Dante. _______________________________________________ pen-l mailing list [email protected] https://lists.csuchico.edu/mailman/listinfo/pen-l
