M-TH: Re: Commodity fetishism and reification

[George Pennefather]

Hi Philip   Philip: In fact, concentration on the surface appearances can even lead to demanding 'progressive' reforms which end up strengthening, rather than weakening, the hold of capital over society.  This was the case with much of the radicalism of the 1960s.  Essentially the social conventions against which many young people rebelled were a hangover from a previous period of problem-ridden capital accumulation and had been rendered obsolete by the post-WW2 boom.  What much of the rebellion of the 1960s did was get rid of the by-then obsolete aspects of bourgeois society and modernise the social structure, bringing it in line with the more dynamic process of accumulation which continued until the new slump set in in the 1970s. Understanding the 1960s in this light helps explain why so many youthful radicals of that period went on to become ardent supporters of the (reworked) status quo in the 1980s and 1990s. George: Despite its interesting nature the above analysis is misleading.   Even if you are correct in your claim that what "much of the rebellion of the 1960s did was to get rid of the by-then obsolete aspects of bourgeois society and modernise the social structure, bringing it in line with the more dynamic process of accumulation" this does not mean that the issues over which "the rebellion of the 1960s" proceeded were invalid. The problem was not with the issues themselves but with the basis and form by which popular mobilisation proceeded. The basis and methods employed, in large part, determined the outcome --an outcome according to you that suited the class interests of the bourgeoisie even enhancing the further development of capitalism. The problem, generically speaking, was not with the issues but with the political form within which the issues were fought. That has been the perennial problem both then and now. Philip: For 60s radicals, bourgeois society was also a set of distinct spheres. They would fight in one sphere, rather than challenging social relations as a whole.    George: Again the problem is not that of fighting in "distinct spheres". This may not be avoidable. The problem concerns, as I have already said, the political form within which these fights take place. To bear a revolutionary communist character they must be fought in such a way as to entail an inseparable link into the challenge to social relations as a whole. In this way as the struggle unfolds on a principled revolutionary basis the link between the particular issue and its necessary connection with the character of capitalism as a whole. Consequently the need to abolish capitalism is increasingly revealed as the struggle assumes  deeper and wider properties.     Warm regards George Pennefather   Be free to check out our Communist Think-Tank Website: http://homepage.tinet.ie/~beprepared