[Marxism-Thaxis] Antagonism between social production and private property
Waistline2 : CB: The antagonism between the social nature of production and the private nature of appropriation or property is what you are trying to get at. Technical production as it develops makes itself more and more social. Marx assumes that the overall division or socialisation of labor increases ; maybe on the common sense pricinciple that _social_ production - two heads and hands are better than one - is more efficient than private production. ** WL: No I am not. ^^^ CB: Then I can't find anything in what you are saying. ^^ WL: The social nature is birthed with birthed with species activity and becomes visible with the division of labor. Socialized production is a different concept that rises under feudal economic and social conditions with the revolution in the productive forces and the growth of bourgeoisie and proletariat. ^^ CB: Social labor or socialized production begins with the species, defines the species, including traditional labor or cultured labor, which is transgenerationally social. ^ WL: Marx speaks of the bourgeoisie entering into antagonism with other section of the bourgeoisie who interest has become in contradiction to the advance of industry. I directed quoted this passage. CB: I'm not sure that same are irreconcilable in principle the way the contradiction between bourgeosie and proletariat is. Marx may be equivocating on antagonism a bit. See _Alienation_, by Bertell Ollman, and the whole idea that Marx and Engels do treat words like bats . :0 *** CB: So Marx assumes, on the other hand, a tendency to centralization and monopolization at the bourgeois pole of the class antagonism, that is always tending to the ultimate private property, all owned by one. This is the opposite of socialization of ownership, dividing up the fruits of production based on all the hands and heads that are in production. * WL: Marx does not assume what you have written in any of his writings. CB: I'm thinking he does here: http://lists.econ.utah.edu/pipermail/marxism-thaxis/2005-October/019161.html As soon as this process of transformation has sufficiently decomposed the old society from top to bottom, as soon as the laborers are turned into proletarians, their means of labor into capital, as soon as the capitalist mode of production stands on its own feet, then the further socialization of labor and further transformation of the land and other means of production into socially exploited and, therefore, common means of production, as well as the further expropriation of private proprietors, takes a new form. That which is now to be expropriated is no longer the laborer working for himself, but the capitalist exploiting many laborers. This expropriation is accomplished by the action of the immanent laws of capitalistic production itself, by the centralization of capital. One capitalist always kills many. Hand in hand with this centralization, or this expropriation of many capitalists by few, develop, on an ever-extending scale, the co-operative form of the labor-process, the conscious technical application of science, the methodical cultivation of the soil, the transformation of the instruments of labor into instruments of labor only usable in common, the economizing of all means of production by their use as means of production of combined, socialized labor, the entanglement of all peoples in the net of the world-market, and with this, the international character of the capitalistic regime. Along with the constantly diminishing number of the magnates of capital, who usurp and monopolize all advantages of this process of transformation, grows the mass of misery, oppression, slavery, degradation, exploitation; but with this too grows the revolt of the working-class, a class always increasing in numbers, and disciplined, united, organized by the very mechanism of the process of capitalist production itself. The monopoly of capital becomes a fetter upon the mode of production, which has sprung up and flourished along with, and under it. Centralization of the means of production and socialization of labor at last reach a point where they become incompatible with their capitalist integument. Thus integument is burst asunder. The knell of capitalist private property sounds. The expropriators are expropriated. The capitalist mode of appropriation, the result of the capitalist mode of production, produces capitalist private property. This is the first negation of individual private property, as founded on the labor of the proprietor. But capitalist production begets, with the inexorability of a law of Nature, its own negation. It is the negation of negation. This does not re-establish private property for the producer, but gives him individual property based on the acquisition of the capitalist era: i.e., on co-operation and the possession in common of the land and of the means of production. The transformation of
[Marxism-Thaxis] Antagonism between social production and private property
The antagonism between the social nature of production and the private nature of appropriation or property is what you are trying to get at. Technical production as it develops makes itself more and more social. Marx assumes that the overall division or socialisation of labor increases ; maybe on the common sense pricinciple that _social_ production - two heads and hands are better than one - is more efficient than private production. So Marx assumes, on the other hand, a tendency to centralization and monopolization at the bourgeois pole of the class antagonism, that is always tending to the ultimate private property, all owned by one. This is the opposite of socialization of ownership, dividing up the fruits of production based on all the hands and heads that are in production. This is the antagonism by which the property relations fetter the productive forces in the fettering metaphor. In other words, the chaning of the productive forces by the property relations, is the private nature of appropriation or property ultimately always , under private property, cannot by definition take account of the social nature of production, because it specifically means that the few, divide things up among themselves, after the many have done the work. So, the private property relations of production chains the development of the _distributive_ aspect of the productive forces. Really, we are talking about productive forces as including exchange forces. That private appropriation chains fetters, estops, antagonistically ( and logically) contradicts social distribution and exchange and APPRORRIATION of the fruits of production. The tautology is private appropriation contradicts social appropriation. The productive forces are always developing to greater socialization, a greater division of labor, now with globalization there is once again this big realization that, the division of labor is always tending to include the entire human spcies. the whole human race, the whole world, and the like. This is in contradiction with property relations which are always tending toward one person, one member of the species, one glorious Individual, owning everything. The computer -chip revolution follows this tendency of increasing the division of labor world wide, as its impact in revolutionizing the means of communication and transportation allowing the scattering of the industrial points of production around the world, creates a more integrated worldwideweb of labor, whatever. Objectively, there is the basis for world communist revolution, as the process that Lenin identified as progressive within imperialism iits impact on the development of the socialization of labor and divsion of labor, etc. is even greater today. There is more objective basis for socialism and even communism today than in 1917, because communism is a world system , an organized and integrated and planned world system. Yet, ownership is not socialized but increasingly privatized, in transnational hedgefunders, etc. The chip and computer rev have at this stage allowed this increased privatization of ownership, control, dominance, appropriation, proprietorship, in two words, private property because there is not working class and socialist consciousness spreading like the objective socialization of labor is around the world ,and especially not in the USA. CB ___ Marxism-Thaxis mailing list Marxism-Thaxis@lists.econ.utah.edu To change your options or unsubscribe go to: http://lists.econ.utah.edu/mailman/listinfo/marxism-thaxis
Re: [Marxism-Thaxis] Antagonism between social production and private property
CB: The antagonism between the social nature of production and the private nature of appropriation or property is what you are trying to get at. Technical production as it develops makes itself more and more social. Marx assumes that the overall division or socialisation of labor increases ; maybe on the common sense pricinciple that _social_ production - two heads and hands are better than one - is more efficient than private production. ** WL: No I am not. The social nature is birthed with birthed with species activity and becomes visible with the division of labor. Socialized production is a different concept that rises under feudal economic and social conditions with the revolution in the productive forces and the growth of bourgeoisie and proletariat. Marx speaks of the bourgeoisie entering into antagonism with other section of the bourgeoisie who interest has become in contradiction to the advance of industry. I directed quoted this passage. *** CB: So Marx assumes, on the other hand, a tendency to centralization and monopolization at the bourgeois pole of the class antagonism, that is always tending to the ultimate private property, all owned by one. This is the opposite of socialization of ownership, dividing up the fruits of production based on all the hands and heads that are in production. * WL: Marx does not assume what you have written in any of his writings. Actually Marx writes the exact opposities of what you have written which is a feudal kind of communism. You write: CB: socialization of ownership, dividing up the fruits of production based on all the hands and heads that are in production. This is hard to believe and modern communism has nothing whatsoever to do with dividing the fruits of production based on all the and heads that are in production. Please reread the Critique of the Gotha Program. Enough of this for now. Waistline ___ Marxism-Thaxis mailing list Marxism-Thaxis@lists.econ.utah.edu To change your options or unsubscribe go to: http://lists.econ.utah.edu/mailman/listinfo/marxism-thaxis
