As for arguments, given your past defense of Engel's nonsense about the
square root of minus one and the seed-plant-flower viz. negation of
negation, I am at a loss to carry the discussion further.
CB:
Yes, you certainly are at a loss. If you didn't get my discussions on this,
Writing in a philosophic sense is a challenge and art.
2. The conception of antagonism and its meaning has always been a point of
contention within Marxism and Chairman Mao did not help matters at all on this
specific subject. Actually the issue is much older within Marxism and Lenin
himself
One thing that I have noticed concerning people who lived in the former
Soviet Union or in eastern Europe is that many of
them are bore silly by any disucssion of Marxism.
That seems to me to be due to the way that Marxism
and diamat were taught in the schools and colleges
in the Soviet bloc. It
I have written on line for about five years and little by little have
discovered and evolved a form of presentation consistent with who I am, have
been and
hope to become. A current discussion on [EMAIL PROTECTED] The
Two Souls of Socialism confirms my belief that it is impossible for an
Modified Rewrite 8 - 20 - 2005
The dialectic of social revolution fifteen years after the Marxist
reformulation.
The speculation over whether or not the trade union federation - AFL-CIO,
would split has answered itself. The AFL-CIO is a federation rather than a
union
and the trade union
(Full Quote is at: autodidactproject)
Let’s go back a couple of months. To that day in December 1955 when Rosa
Parks had had enough.
She was 43 years old, and she worked as a seamstress. She took her seat on
the Cleveland bus. As always, the bus ride was humiliating. When whites
entered,
--
--
All oil producers need to keep information on oil reserves confidential for
obvious reasons. Not to hide there is no enough oil but to hide the fact that
there is too much. All recent talks about peak oil is part
But science cannot be determined by a particular prejudice, a particular
philosophy, but by science itself. Such a situation can distort the
scientific enterprise and even obstruct its progress.
The quest for knowledge is not the science but a striving and in this case
the subject is
The problem is that Marx never gave an explicit definition of class. It
must necessarily be reconstructed from his writings. A class definition is
arbitrary in the sense that depends on the questions one asks. The Marxist
definition of classes is in strictly economic terms; as 'agents' or
The failure of U.S. capitalism to prepare its productive forces, which are
the levies in New Orleans, to deal with the hurricane disaster was the
capitalist relations of production acting as fetters on the development of
those productive forces. :0 Contrast this with the ability of the relations
1. CB: What do you mean by infrastructure ?
Reply
Infrastructure: infra: below or within when used in referring to parts of a
text or in contradistinction to super - as in superstructure, existing below
or within as supporting framework of a structure, as in infrastructure.
Pardon, my misquoting your definition of an epoch.
An epoch in the Marxist standpoint is a historical period of time
distinguished in its geenral framework on the basis of the mode of production,
rather
than by more than one generation. In my estimate this more accurately pays
homage to the
Pardon, my misquoting your definition of an epoch.
An epoch in the Marxist standpoint is a historical period of time
distinguished in its geenral framework on the basis of the mode of production,
rather
than by more than one generation. In my estimate this more accurately pays
homage to the
CB: What do u mean by the Marxist standpoint ?
WL: The standpoint of the class struggle. The class struggle is shortspeak
for how society moves in class antagonism and on what basis this takes
place.
What do u mean by stating that viewing relations of production as more than
simply
CB: The Marx quote focused on here would seem to suggest that the social
revolution begins when the property relations or relations of production
prevent development of the productive forces,
WL: I believe you explain the exact nature of our discussion in the above.
Social Revolution begins as
CB: The high tech , chip and computer technological revolution has _not_ been
fettered or prevented from developing by the bourgeois property relations.
The success of the high tech rev within bourgeois property relations means that
it is not likely to cause a change in those property
CB: What is suggested by Marx is that the bourgeois property relations will
not be revolutionized and overthrown by the successful development of the
productive forces, but by the failure to develop the productive forces.
WL: The issue under discussion is not the bourgeois property relations
In a message dated 9/15/2005 1:57:04 PM Central Standard Time,
[EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
CB: How you gonna say with a straight face that the Industrial Revolution
was the Industrial Social Revolution, or that Marx treated it as a social
revolution ?
:)
Comment
Obviously you are joking. The
1. No capitalist can afford to fetter the development of the forces of
production without going down. Marx made the point that in order just to
maintain a stable rate of profit capitalist enterprises must at very least
conform to the general state of development of the means of production and
V: You are assuming of course that we know how or what kinds of productive
forces WILL prevail in communist society.
If you take your model of the communist mode of production from the late and
mostly unlamented People's Democratic Republics and Soviets as well as from
the various more
CB: The computer revolution might become a fettering of productive forces
that generates social revolution, if the runaway plants made possible by
computers fetters the development of productive on the U.S. territory to the
point that the U.S. labor aristocracy bolts its collaboration with the
CB: Relations of production or property relations are class relations. The
organization of material productive forces, including the organization of
people on the shop floor, the technical division of labor, is not class
relations. The capitalist owner is not even there overseeing the shopfloor
CB: In other words, the bourgeoisie doesn't fetter the development of the
material productive forces outside of the U.S.national territory where it
runs the plants away to. It buildsup the productive forces in Mexico, Korea,
and other places to which industrial production has been moved. It has
V: Restriction itself is either a function of recognized need
(self-restriction: what Hegel and Marx regard as the real nature of freedom)
or of coercion by others to realize their needs in contradistinction from
one's own. Of course the subject of restriction is here is that of human
History is the progressive accumulation of productive forces (Engels). What
this means is that history is the accumulation of productive forces and what
constitutes its progressiveness is its spontaneous qualitative development
and expansion. This qualitative development has at its center the
CB: If Marx had thought changing the technological regime were the focus for
revolutionary activity , _Capital_ would have been a book of
engineering-physics, not political economy.
The following demonstrates that followers of Marx and Engels would focus on
changing property relations,
Correction
The issue in discussing Marx meaning of the productive forces in conflict
with the relations of production, and what it means for us at our moment of
history, has never been the form, content, or substance of ones revolutionary
activity as communist or Marxists.
Should read
The
(From 1993) Nelson Peery Entering an Epoch of Social Revolution
Marx states, At a certain stage of their development, the material
productive forces of society come in conflict with the existing relations of
production.
The contradictory relationship between the material forces of
(From 1993) Nelson Peery Entering an Epoch of Social Revolution
Marx referred to the conflict of the productive forces with the relations of
production. He makes it clear that the spontaneous advance of the forces of
production which increasingly conflict with the static productive relations
The productive forces in their unending development are the basis of the
complex, extended and constantly changing economic relationships in society.
These
relationships are between classes, between groupings within classes, between
the sexes and age groups. They are the relationships between
4). Antagonism as a society movement means the destruction - liquidation, of
the primary social classes underlying a social system of production. Or better
yet, the destruction of the specific form of the primary social class
underlying a social system. What liquidates primary classes is not an
WL: It gets deeper. The actual workers engaging production are capital during
the epoch of the bourgeoisie . . not just capital, but capital in the hands
of . . or rather capital operating on the law system that corresponds to
individuals privately owning production.
V: First, the worker is
DV: re: the above, what if productive forces are destroyed by war or
natural disaster? is retrogression to something akin to earlier mode of
production possible? given, the development of social and political
consciousness is
related to the development of productive forces, but people tend to
V: Marx most famous statement on the productive forces coming into conflict
with the existing relations of production as Marx's great 'cop out' rather
than his greatest contribution to the history of the development of the
relation
between the forces of production and of the relations of
CB: The spontaneous development of the material productive forces is the
activity of human beings - engineers, technicians, industrial workers,
physicists - the activity of discovery, experimentation, invention, theorizing,
sciencing, practice . The material forces do not develop themselves.
Here is what you state, which is simply syndicalism:
CB: The fettering of the development of the forces of production is in
relation to the beneficial use of the working masses, whose property relation
to
those forces of production is that of wage-laborer.
There is no Marxist logic in
My comments are below (labelled V2:)
Victor
- Original Message -
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
To: marxism-thaxis@lists.econ.utah.edu
Sent: Friday, September 30, 2005 13:09
Subject: Re: [Marxism-Thaxis] Fettering - Restriction
Comment
Actually, I just returned home from a poker game and read
Aspects of the decline of modern capitalism are all too evident today -
most notably the law of value, which is fundamental to the system. We see the
constant tendency to replace the law of value with administration, resulting in
increasing bureaucracy, both private and public, managerialism
Victor: He (Marx) did however, reason in a fashion similar to your argument
that invention is a phenomenon not given to analysis and as such
technological development should be regarded as a sort of un-analysable natural
force that
gathers steam and then blows off decadent social systems that
V. Any effort to develop theories of social change, cannot be based on
half (assed?) theories. To understand the likely trajectories of evolving
classes and of changing class relations we must understand how the material
conditions of production are impacted upon by social organization of
V2: Right, but he reiterated these very same ideas in the preface of
Contribution to Critique of Political Economy in 1859.
CB: Very same ? I'll have to read it again.
Do you agree they are contradicted by the formulaions in the Communist
Manifesto ?
WL: Marx is fairly clear
V: Marx's most negative discourse on private property are found in his
earlier
works (most unpublished until recent times). The Manifesto itself is hardly
an analysis but, rather, an emotional a call for action at the very heights
of the Europe-wide rebellions of 1848. Finally, the fact that
No society has been overthrown by the primary social or economic formation
within the system, that makes a given social system what it is. This is because
the unity of the primary class of a social system, cannot on the basis of
their unity and strife, detach from one another, or magically
From the desk of Tobin Smith
ChangeWave Investing
October 11, 2005
Dear Investor,
At ChangeWave Investing, we’re buying energy stocks until the price at the
pump hits $5.20 per gallon of gasoline.
Gas north of five bucks, Toby? Please tell me you’re kidding!
I kid you not.
As long as the
X-INFO: INVALID TO LINE
WL :The focus of revolutionary activity - politics, is a very different
subject
matter and doctrine than political economy, which arose during the
manufacturing period as a theoretical science.
CB: For Marx there is unity of theory and practice on this. _Capital_
CB: Even the form of the fettering thing is a _metaphor_. The forces of
production that are not human can't act as subjects. The non-human forces of
production do not develop themselves. The instruments of production can't burst
asunder the relations between people. It has to be people who
In manufacture, the revolution in the mode of production begins with the
labour-power, in modern industry it begins with the instruments of labour. Our
first inquiry then is, how the instruments of labour are converted from tools
into machines, or what is the difference between a machine and
CB: You apply _Capital_ in practice when you propagandize the industrial
workers that part of the loss of total number of jobs is due to greater
efficiency of instruments of production due to CAD/CAM, robotics,
computerization.
WL: Interesting concept. I of course am not a trade
CB: Marxist unity of theory and practice is intended to be the theory and
practice united in communist workers.
However, it doesn't seem too plausible that many U.S.workers have a whole
Marxist theory of capitalist production.
***
WL: Communist workers are a rare breed and Marxist
The degree of technological advancement in the middle ages is also
underestimated. These are the people who built those cathedrals, invented
three-field
crop rotation, and a good many technological advances. Years ago I read a
book by Lynn White on medieval technology. True, technological
CB: I guess the practical critical question is do you expect there to arise in
the near future a new class formation other than capitalist/bourgeoisie due
to developments in science and technology, or centralization and
monopolization of the instruments of production and other forces of
production
CB: CB: I have said that computerization does qualitatively alter the
industrial
process. It makes it super-industrial,not post-industrial. It also does not
automatically, or shall we say robotically, burst asunder the capitalist
relations of production. It is a qualitative change in the
The Prince Hall lodges include a number of distinguished gentlemen on their
rosters such as Supreme Court Justice Marshall, Mayor Tom Bradley of Los
Angeles, Dr. Benjamin Hooks of the NAACP, Mayor Andrew Young of Atlanta, and
Mayor
Coleman Young of Detroit. Of course, none of these black
Those recruited into the Prince Albert sector of the Mason - as best as I
could tell in Detroit, tend to be of the middle strata (class) and that strata
called the labor lieutenants of capital, and this for me includes
organizations like the NAACP, PUSH as well as the upper strata of the trade
Bunch of syndicalism.
Waistline
^
CB: What's wrong with syndicalism?
WL: I don't understand the question as formulated.
Syndicalism and anarcho-syndicalist trends within Marxism are very old. Some
of Lenin's greatest polemics after the October Revolution, concerning
Socialist
http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2005/10/21/AR20051021023
20.html
Workplace Tremors
How Chapter 11 Is Demolishing Employee Expectations
By Mark Reutter
Sunday, October 23, 2005; B01
The scene in Lower Manhattan was reminiscent of teenagers rushing to
the front of a concert
CB: How was the concept of antagonism deployed by the Marxists and
communists of the period of the Third International ?
How was antagonism employed by the CPC during the period of the
Sino-Soviet split ?
WL: See Textbook of Marxist Philosophy 1939 for the theoretical exposition.
Perhaps a
I of course sided with and link my most personal and group history with the
Stalin polarity in the world communist movement. Many comrades wonder why and
this frightens them and conjures up visions of the gulag, Moscow Trials,
purges, assassinations and liquidation of generals in the military.
a. History progresses not as a result of conflicts (contradictions) of
ideas, but by class conflict: free man and slave, patrician and plebeian,
lord and serf, guild master and journeyman, bourgeoisie and proletariat
(870).
WL: Actually, history progressive as the result of the development
CB: Which is it ? Very well put or you beg to differ ?
WL: What you stated very clearer clarify the difference. I differ with your
explanation.
___
Marxism-Thaxis mailing list
Marxism-Thaxis@lists.econ.utah.edu
To change your options or unsubscribe
2
The presentation of the National and National Colonial Question within the
Stalin polarity of the American Communist Movement has evolved and is not
identical to the formulations forced on the CPUSA in 1928 and 1930.
A concise statement is necessary to clarify our specific body politic.
Part 3
Earlier today, a memorial was held for Rosa Parks, who passed October 24,
2005. Rosa Parks was crowned the Mother of the Civil Rights Movement for her
individual role and arrest December 1, 1955, in Montgomery Alabama. Parks story
is pretty well known. The period between the end of
THE COMMUNIST PARTY OF THE UNITED STATES OF AMERICA AND THE NEW
LEFT
History is stepping into the arena of revolution and the
revolutionaries have never known such confusion. Led by the
Communist Party of the United States of America (CPUSA) much of
the so-called left is entering its final
CB: Problem is using the same terms as classical Marxism and giving them a
different meaning. Don't use relatioins of production or forces of
production, antagonism, etc., if you are giving them a different meaning
than the classical meaning, because it is just confusing. Make up new terms.
WL:
CB: I've heard it said that Rosa Parks was in the CPUSA at the time she
satdown.
WL: What is the point? Rosa Parks as individual narrative of American history
exists on a continuum related to Plessy. The CPUSA's role in our history is
never disputed by me, nor am I a party hater. For valid
WL: I stated my source in Theories of Surplus Value for my use of
antagonism.
^^^
CB: Is that the same meaning as in _The Manifesto of the Communist Party_
Class antagonism, as in The Manifesto ? Antagonistic classes as oppressor
and oppressed classes ?
Answer: WL: Antagonism embody
WL:Classical Marxism? You mean classical American Marxism - as you
understand
it?
CB: I mean do you or do you not consider that your theory is the same as the
classical theory of Marx , Engels and Lenin , or do you consider that you
have a different theory than they ?
***
CB: I'm using relations of production as Marx uses it in the passage
below, which we had been discussing at length. Since he says the relations
of production and property relations are the same thing, I am saying
relations of production and property relations are the same thing.
WL: I am aware
but revolutions are not voluntary acts. there are objective and subjective
preconditions need to be ripe historically and to be met on the subjective
level.
DG
**
WL: Agreed. We Marxists have been fighting as a coherent group in society
every since we distinguished ourselves within the
CB: Yea, property is the laws ( literally , laws in the sense of rules backed
by the state power) that define the relationships between people with respect
to things. Property defines ownership. It defines the different
relationships to the means of production. Different relationships to the
CB: Good to hear from you , Ian .
I'm pretty much in agreement with the above.
I'd say relations of control over production and relations of obedience in
production. One side of the relation controls ( the capitalists) and the
other side obeys ( the working class). These are the class or
CB: Repeat: THE COMPUTER REV IS NOT BEING DEVELOPED IN A WAY THAT COMES INTO
CONFLICT WITH THE EXISTING BOURGEOIS CONTROL IN RELATIONS OF PRODUCTION. IT IS
BEING DEVELOPED IN A WAY THAT IS IN HARMONY WITH AND ENHANCES BOURGEOIS
CONTROL IN RELATIONS OF PRODUCTION IN THE USA.
WL: In America -
CB: The computer development of the material productive forces has _not_ yet
come into conflict with the existing relations of production so as to cause
a revolution in the legal expression of the relations of production. It has
not changed the laws controlling relations of production, which is
The old society in which I was born and grew into manhood, is being destroyed
by an objective process and nothing can stop it. Old formula is useless. We
have inherited a treasure house of Marxist literature covering virtually every
conceivable subject. We have also been wounded in the past my
Thursday, November 03, 2005
The world is watching North Carolina
Today in Raleigh, North Carolina, state workers will be holding a historic
public hearing.
Jurists from around the world will hear testimony from employees about racist
incidents, forced overtime, and most critically a Jim
CB: Then WL proceeds to give _WL'S_ conception of CB's conception of the
relations of production, in which WL at will and at his leisure sticks in
all kinds of distortions and misrepresentations of what CB says, just as CB
told WL a few days ago. Let me go back and find where told him that and he
WL: Revolution comes about as a result of
the development of the means of production.
CB: However in the current computer rev in the means of production , a
revolution has not come about.
WL: That is your opinion. I defined what I mean by revolution as a process
that is taking place in
CB: Basically, two phrases with the words relations of production in them.
I'll take
social relations of production = organization of the shopfloor
relations of producttion in their totality = property relations
**
WL: Well Marx states in the quote you presented from the
CB: I have already dealt with the issue several times. The curent or
latest leaps in the development of the instruments of production have not
led to a rev over throwing bourgeois private property.
WL: Revolutions do not overthrow a civic power. That is called the act of
insurrection. What the
CB: I act no more like the self appointed designator of what is classical
Marxism than you do. You constantly assert authority as a to Marxism. There
is nothing wrong with me doing the same thing right back at you.
No I don't demand a thousand definitions to everything. This is a
WL: -clip-
I defined what I mean by revolution as a process
that is taking place in front of us.
WL: Revolutions do not overthrow a civic power. That is called the act of
insurrection. What the revolution in the means of production do is sublate
one
form and quality of the organization of
^^^
CB; That's because you are the self-appointed arbiter of understanding
dialectic and antagonism.
WL: Actually I stated my source. Please state yours and prove me a liar.
Where have you ever stated your source on antagonism in the history of the
International Communist movement. I began with
DG: I wish it was like this and we could pass to a higher civilisation than
capitalism without any reorganisation of production, distribution etc. But
transitions in history do not work like that. I do not deny the fact that the
more
a society is advanced the shorter may be the transition. I
The distinguishing feature of communism is not the abolition of property
generally, but the abolition of bourgeois property. But modern bourgeois
private property is the final and most complete expression of the system of
producing and appropriating products that is based on _class antagonisms_
CB: I cited the passage from _The Manifesto of the Communist Party_. Therein
Marx and Engels discuss class antagonism in terms of the irreconcilable
conflicts of interest between the oppressing and exploiting class and the
oppressed and exploited class. I'll send it to you again tomorrow. But you
WL: OK . . . your feeling are hurt. Sorry. Lets make up and go to the motel.
^
CB: I'm agitating you. Agitation and propaganda.
I think you got me mixed up with somebody else.
WL: Not in the least bit. This is old hat and a set up.
Apparently I have the wrong relations of production. :-)
As the theory of the national question and the African American people, I've
heard your discussion of it a number of times, and your criticism of the
CPUSA positions. What you say is ... I don't know what to call it...It's
doesn't seem out and out wrong, but it's not particularly persuasive. I
This says Toffler talks about a super-industrial society.
CB
^^
WL: Have you read the books? I have - many times, back when they were first
published. Here is the curve of Tofflers writings, which provide an outline and
back drop: 1970 - Future Shock - read; 1980 - The Third Wave - read,
This article was rejected by Asia Times without explanation.
Superpower Vulnerability
By
Henry C.K. Liu
That the US is now the world’s sole remaining superpower is above
challenged. This unchallenged status has affected US approach to
formulating foreign and domestic policies in the
Here is the stirring of the new proletariat following the same social logic
as the 1992 Los Angeles rebellion. Sorry if this does not look like the
workers revolts.
^^
CB: Yea, LA pretty much looks like revolt, not revolution.
What is this a Stalinist theory of permanent revolution?
CB: Yes, you have stated this many times. Marx and Aptheker discuss that the
South dominated the U.S. ( and colonies before) before the Civil War. So, on
that part I don't have much of a problem. I don't know if I would use the
formulation , America was a Southern country . The slavocracy was
The distinguishing feature of communism is not the abolition of property
generally, but the abolition of bourgeois property. But modern bourgeois
private
property is the final and most complete expression of the system of producing
and appropriating products that is based on _class
CB: Yea, LA pretty much looks like revolt, not revolution.
What is this a Stalinist theory of permanent revolution?
**
WL: I of course have absolutely no idea what you are talking about.
^^^
CB: Liar
**
WL:
Ving
Question: What do you mean by Stalinists?
^^^
CB: Same thing you mean.
***
WL: I will return to this question of the Stalin polarity within the American
Communist movement and why it was compelled to delineate itself on the basis
of the National Factor and the movement of the African
--
FI-press-l Fourth International Press List
--
This article will be posted on the IVP site.internationalviewpoint.org
FRANCE
It is easy enough to see that wreaking havoc in their own neighbourhoods
causes damage to their neighbours and families. This can and is being exploited
by the government to divide their communities between generations and between
French and immigrants. But when the despair of those to whom
WL: The antagonism being lived out during the time of Marx was between the
evolution and rise of the industrial system and its bourgeois mode of
production
versus the landed property relations and its political superstructure called
feudalism.
^^^ CB: But this is not the way in which Marx
CB: Commodithy production does not arise, as you say, on the basis of a
certain stage in the development of the productive forces.
WL: Really.
This is what I wrote and you quote:
bourgeois property does not arise on the basis of private property but
rather on the basis of a certain stage in
CB: But this is not the way in which Marx and Engels use antagonism to
describe the antagonism being lived out during the time of Marx and Engels.
They use antagonism to refer to the irreconcilable conflict or
contradiction between antagonistic classes, not, as you say, between the
evolution and
J.H. Greetings!
read your handling of scientific communist concepts and thought about how you
will reconciled them with today's division of both the working class movement
and the communist movement in order to solve those contradictions you are
talking about.
WL: Today's division of ...
101 - 200 of 858 matches
Mail list logo
