Re: [Marxism-Thaxis] YouTube - Chaka Khan's Night in Tunisia

2011-01-20 Thread Waistline2
In a message dated 1/20/2011 2:12:30 P.M. Eastern Standard Time, 
_cb31450@gmail.com_ (mailto:cb31...@gmail.com)  writes: 
 
YouTube - Chaka Khan's Night in Tunisia 
 
_http://video.yahoo.com/watch/3818706/10453353_ 
(http://video.yahoo.com/watch/3818706/10453353)  
 
Reply 
 
Unbelievable. 
 
I wanted to marry Chaka but she did not know I existed. 
 
I love her man and her body  . . . of work with Rufus. 
 
I get sick to  the stomach thinking about Rufus featuring Chaka.  I can 
think of about 20 of her songs. After Steve Wonder got them on the  big  charts 
with Tell Me Something  Good I was all in. 
 
Then she got better. 
 
Her rendition of African rhythm and European harmonic structure  is 
American music, which fortunately is no longer just called black music. 
 
This is good stuff. 
 
WL. 
 

___
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] YouTube - Chaka Khan's Night in Tunisia

2011-01-20 Thread Waistline2


 
In a message dated 1/20/2011 2:45:58 P.M. Eastern Standard Time,  
waistli...@aol.com writes:

In a  message dated 1/20/2011 2:12:30 P.M. Eastern Standard Time,  
_cb31450@gmail.com_ (mailto:cb31...@gmail.com)  writes:  

YouTube - Chaka Khan's Night in Tunisia  

_http://video.yahoo.com/watch/3818706/10453353_  
(http://video.yahoo.com/watch/3818706/10453353)  

Reply  

Unbelievable. 

I wanted to marry Chaka but she did not know I  existed. 

I love her man and her body  . . . of work with Rufus.  

I get sick to  the stomach thinking about Rufus featuring  Chaka.  I can 
think of about 20 of her songs. After Steve Wonder got  them on the  big  
charts 
with Tell Me Something  Good I  was all in. 

Then she got better. 

Her rendition of African  rhythm and European harmonic structure  is 
American music, which  fortunately is no longer just called black music. 

This is good  stuff. 

WL.  


___
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

___
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] The end of the imperialist epoch

2011-01-18 Thread Waistline2
In a message dated 1/18/2011 10:04:36 A.M. Eastern Standard Time, 
_cb31450@gmail.com_ (mailto:cb31...@gmail.com)  writes: 
 

Hear , hear,  . . . . 
 
CB 
 

Thanks CB. The intent was a general summary agreeable of the  broadest 
Marxist framework and divergent views of Lenin's meaning of  imperialism. The 
past decade of discussion of neo-liberalism as a regime is akin  to saying 
neo-imperialism. 
 
Does today's Latin America represent colonies or neo-colonies of American  
imperialism? Or political states occupying a certain position within the 
new  financial and military architecture?  Colonialism was a specific  
economic-social-political relation rather than just big states, little  
states 
or no state, oppressing peoples and oppressed peoples, etc. 
 
A couple of days ago was the 50 anniversary of the assassination of Lumumba 
 and occasion to rethink the question of transition to the neo-colonial 
state and  its subsequent development. The legacy of colonialism is alive and 
well in the  Congo and throughout much of the former colonial world. 
 
Yet, this is not ones father's imperialism. 
 
II. 
 
The investment banker and scholar Henry C.K. Liu, who is more communist  
than 90% of American Marxists, called today's imperialism neo-imperialism in 
 the context of a decade of writings focused on the new form of finance 
capital.  Liu deploys concepts such as capital as a notional value meaning an 
imaginary  value or lacking the surplus value dimensions that characterized 
the  financial-industrial capital of which Lenin wrote. 
 
Liu calls speculative capital speculative finance, buttressed by a new  
non-banking financial architecture and operating as a notional value in a  
monetary system of fiat money or rather currency. His premise is that 
financial  architecture is by definition different from economy that is 
production 
of  products, although the interactive of both must be examined in the 
concrete.  Thus he speaks of monetary policy - not as a thing in itself, but as 
a 
distinct  political form of rule over the economy. 
 
I think. 
 
One would have to ask him exactly what he means but his meaning seems  
crystal clear to me - a decade later, thousands of hours of reading later and  
shifting through his all of his writings. 
 
Liu is a communist with money. I mean communist in the sense of the  
movement that erupted with the dissolution of primitive communism. 
 
Liu calls for a system of sovereign birth credits - entitlement or economic 
 communism in the here and now, allowing the individual a lifetime of 
socially  necessary means of life. Being born with an entitlement as the social 
contract,  means a mode of distribution not requiring a previous or prior 
contribution of  labor as the means for consumption. It is left to society to 
reorganize itself  to meet all it reproduction needs. A freaking banker is 
more progressive than  many of the communists and Marxists. 
 
All of this is part of describing the new world we face and practical  
solutions. Neo-imperialism or neo-finance capital, might be the term we are 
 
seeking. 
 
Sovereign birth credits or birth rights as the mode of production and  
specific architecture of economic communism is something to think about. 
 
Go figure. 
 
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


Re: [Marxism-Thaxis] The end of the imperialist epoch

2011-01-15 Thread Waistline2

 Historically, only capitalist countries which have intervened  
militarily to 
establish settler colonies or to set up puppet regimes to  facilitate the  
exploitation of these territories by their own  corporations and have been  
characterized as imperialist by Marxists  and others.  
 

In a message dated 1/14/2011 9:10:59 A.M. Eastern Standard Time, 
__shmage@pipeline.com_ (mailto:_shm...@pipeline.com) _  writes: 
 

Are you saying that China today is not capitalist? That Han  settlement  in 
Tibet is not massively sponsored by the Chinese  regime?  That the Tibet  
Autonomous Region does not have a  puppet government?  That Chinese  
corporations are not heavily  present in Tibet? (and were not even talking 
about  
Sinkiang!) 
 

Comment 
 
Obviously the modern Chinese state is not a SETTLER STATE or seeking  to  
secure or maintain a colony established by settlers. Treating  
imperialism in 
this era of political domination of speculative finance as  a general  
imperialism defeats the mean of this tread: the end of  the imperialist  
epoch. Qualifying and quantifying the meaning of  imperial-colonialism is 
part  
of asking the question end of the  imperialist epoch. 
 
Lenin's Hobson unraveling of modern imperialism of his era was  useful  
because a real imperialism was examined in its economic and  political 
features.  Lenin spoke of monopolies, finance capital  
(financial-industrial 
capital);  hundreds of millions of slaves of a  direct colonial system and 
the fight 
amongst  direct colonizers for a  re-division of an already divided world. 
This fight for  spheres of  influence was based in the national productive 
logic of huge   multinational state structures. 
 
The history of colonialism - at least in general Marxist terms, has  meant  
more than imperial outreach or a lack of rights of those  beings 
colonized. 
Imperialism of the epoch we are leaving has meant an end  to the direct 
colonial  system; the end of neo colonialism and the  imperial colonization 
based on  financial-industrial capital. 
 
The post WW II period and into the 1980's saw the rise and fall of  the  
colony and neo colonialism as these political forms of rule  expressed  
financial-industrial capital.  Vietnam Liberation and  unification in 1976  
is a 
world book mark on an epoch that began with  our revolution of 1776. This  
does 
not mean no one of earth is  oppressed and exploited through world 
bourgeois  
production relations.  Rather, a specific form of imperialism -colonialism, 
has  been  superseded. 
 
America inaugurated an epochal wave of colonial revolutions that would span 
 
two hundred years. We settled our national liberation struggle against the  
British Empire - with a Slave Oligarchy intact seeking its distinct   
anti-colonial interest imperialist interest, and then settled the war  
against  
the slave system. American finance capital emerged from the  Civil War 
facing 
a  world with colonial states as direct appendage of  imperialist state 
structures  preventing its free flow of finance  capital beyond Latin 
America. 
 
The First World Imperialist War shook imperialism - the direct  colonial  
system, to its foundations, with the Soviets breaching the  political and  
economic bourgeois imperialist chain. The political  basis for imperialist 
war in 
the past century, rather than the economic  impetus for war under 
capitalism,  (anarchy of production with war  production being a profit 
center) was 
the fight  for colonies or  spheres of influence based on colonial 
possessions. 
The fight  between  imperialist states was not over one huge state 
colonizing another but   over the colonies represented by these massive 
states. This 
form of  imperialism  is very much part of the question end of the 
imperialist  epoch. 
 
The Second World Imperialist War sounded the death knell of direct   
colonialism. The defeat of German fascism was the last gasp of a form of  
finance  
capital politically dominated by industrial capital seeking to  recreate 
the  
direct colonial system. For the German state direct  colonialism meant  
revitalization of economic and social life - the  thousand year rule, or 
in lay  
person terms French wine, Polish hams  and Slavic slave women. 
 
American finance capital - emerging 50 years before Lenin's  Imperialism, 
 
sought to recreate the political world leading the  charge to wipe direct  
colonialism from the face the earth. American  financial imperialism sought 
to 
defeat its enemies and identified them as  direct colonizers of the world. 
It's  slogan was national  independence and self determination of nations 
up to and  including  the formation of separate states.  This battering ram 
against the   direct colonial system explains why Uncle Ho armies entered 
Hanoi at the  close  of WW II with CIA in tow playing the Star Spangled 
Banner. 
Then  of course came  the policy change and the Cold War. 
 
This era of financial-industrial capital - 

[Marxism-Thaxis] Lougher: politics of insanity. if words have no meaning what is government?

2011-01-15 Thread Waistline2
There is a general rule about the way society treats criminals: place  
responsibility for antisocial acts on the individual, thus absolving society  
from blame. 
 
The mismatch between society's attitude toward heroes and criminals rests  
in society's claim of credit on heroes and rejection of responsibility for  
criminals. A criminal is one who has betrayed societal values by violating a 
 prescribed code of conduct, who is deranged but not legally insane, a 
deviant,  an anomaly, a manifestation of social disease, a virus against the 
system, a  unit malfunction and a personal malfeasance. 
 
Adolf Hitler was labeled a madman to protect German culture and fascism,  
notwithstanding the curious fact that Hitler rose to power in Germany in a  
discernible sociocultural context. Even organized warfare must be conducted  
within the limits of regulated behavior. War crimes and crimes against 
humanity  are not tolerated. 
 
Yet market fundamentalism argues for wholesale deregulation to allow  
economic crimes against humanity. Charles Ponzi was deemed an unprincipled  
conman to insulate unregulated capitalism itself from being revealed as a  
systemic Ponzi scheme. 
 
Capitalism's bad apples: It's the barrel that's rotten; By Henry C K Liu. 
 This article appeared in AToL on August 1, 2002. 
_http://www.atimes.com/atimes/Global_Economy/DH01Dj01.html_ 
(http://www.atimes.com/atimes/Global_Economy/DH01Dj01.html)  
 
Comment 
 
The politics of insanity: quickie notes. 
 
Twenty people were shot, and six of them died, in Tucson, Ariz., on Jan. 8, 
 during the attempted assassination of the Democratic Congresswoman. 
 
The shooter, 22-year-old Jared Lee Loughner, was captured on the spot and  
reported to be a psychiatrically disabled person with a recent history of  
fascination with right-wing rhetoric and abstract thinking posing such 
questions  as: if words have no meaning what is government? 
 
The answer is simple: an executive committee for the ruling class. This in  
turn raises the question of the role of the state as an organization of  
violence. 
 
In politics the answer to a political question is by definition partisan,  
involving class outlook and ideology. Lougher's question is political. He is 
no  lone gunman expressing an aberration in American society, but an 
individual  that choose a division of labor casting him as assassin of a 
political  representative rather than unarmed Mexican immigrants, seeking 
economic 
relief  in America. 
 
Lougher was very political with his ideas and ideology being shaped in a  
discernible sociocultural context. Whether Lougher is diagnosed as being a  
psychiatrically disabled person, - whatever that means according to whom, 
has  not prevented pundits and layperson from contextualizing his actions 
against a  backdrop of economic and political crisis. 
 
And political and ideological outlook. 
 
Everyone speaks of Lougher in the context of Arizona, meaning Arizona  
expresses and represents something discernable in the national body politic  
rather than geographic location. Arizona is Senator John McCain and his  
presidential bid under the banner of Country (White people) First, and focal  
point of the fascist anti-immigration movement. Every politically aware person 
 in America understands this. What is not understood is the class sociology 
of a  Lougher and the role he cast in political history. 
 
Arizona is in the forefront of the fascist anti-immigration movement. 
 
The anti-immigration movement is at the center stage of a political  
environment shaped by the impact of qualitatively new means of production; the  
transformation of the state; the militarization of the economy and society; 
the  rapid and accelerating implementation of the legal means to suppress 
individual  dissent and seize control of the government; and the changing 
character of the  social struggle. 
 
Where in the past the religious right sought to organize and propagandize  
in a period when globalization had still not widely affected American 
society,  the anti-immigration movement propagandizes an American people 
devastated by the  effects of advanced globalization, increasingly 
marginalized 
economically and  politically, and bewildered by the world in which they now 
live. The medium of  anti-immigration has become the means by which a 
section of the American people  is being organized and mobilized as a social 
base 
to support the further  transformation of the government and society 
necessary to facilitate the  penetration of today's form of global capital in 
the 
world's societies, and to  prepare for and contain its inevitable effects. 
 
Lougher was not immune to real time politics and ideological  assault by 
fascists upon the national body politic. 
 
If words have no meaning what is government? strikes me as a  
constitutionalist argument, harkening back to the passionate pleas of  the 
Slave 
Oligarchy demanding their constitutionally protect 

[Marxism-Thaxis] Bill Fletcher, Jr. Responding to the 'Letter to the Left Establishment'

2010-12-14 Thread Waistline2
Letter to the Left Establishment 
 
Bill Fletcher, Tom Hayden and The Letter 
 
===
1. 
 
Responding to the 'Letter to the Left Establishment' regarding Obama 
 
By Bill Fletcher, Jr. 
 
A so-called Letter to the Left Establishment critical of the Obama  
administration has been circulating for a few days.  The letter is a bit  odd 
because if you do not read it carefully, it appears that the people named in  
the 
first paragraph, including yours truly, are actually asking people to sign  
on.  In reality the Letter is a criticism of several individuals who  
offered varying degrees of support to the candidacy of President Obama in  
2008.  
On the grounds of confusion alone the Letter should be withdrawn and  the 
signatories should request that their names be removed. 
 
But what is odder to me is that the Letter has all sorts of  implications. 
 The Letter calls upon those named in the first paragraph to  criticize the 
policies of the Obama administration, as if we have not.  It  implies that 
we have been silent about major decisions of the Obama  administration that 
have been wrong.  It recites a list of decisions,  approaches, etc., by the 
Obama administration as if any of this is new to those  of us identified in 
the first paragraph. 
 
None of this is new.  And the authors of the Letter should know  that.  In 
fact, if they happened to have been in a cave for the last couple  of years 
and did not keep up with the news, they could have Googled the names of  
most of the people listed in the first paragraph and found that we have been  
generally outspoken in our criticisms as well as involved in organizing to 
put  pressure on the administration. 
 
For these reasons i have been trying to figure out what the intent of the  
Letter actually is. 
 
I am not going to speak for anyone else.  In 2008 i reluctantly came  to 
the conclusion that a position of critical support of Obama was the correct  
stand. Reluctantly because i had a number of concerns about Obama, most of 
 which have been realized.  Nevertheless i was impressed by the congealing  
of forces that i believed had the potential to do something progressive in 
the  political realm irrespective of the actions of Obama-the-individual.  I 
 actually still believe that this is possible and not too late. 
 
In 2008, i and several others mentioned in the Letter also suggested that  
if there was no pressure from the Left and progressives on Obama, assuming 
he  was elected, that we would find ourselves in deep trouble. In fact, 
people used  to joke with me immediately before and immediately after the 
November 2008  election because i would be asked how much of a honeymoon period 
Obama should  receive and my answer was always the same: 24 hours. I 
insisted, as did many  of my colleagues, that we could not, in effect, give 
Obama 
any honeymoon period  and that pressure had to start from the beginning.  We 
were correct. 
 
The Letter reads as if those named in the first paragraph have been  
sitting on their hands or standing at the gates refusing to permit the masses 
to  
pass through and challenge Obama.  I am not sure whether the authors are  
standing in some parallel universe, but in this one i see no evidence of that 
at  all.  There are differences, some over tactics while others over 
strategy,  among those named in the first paragraph, but precisely for that 
reason 
it is  odd that the names would all be thrown together as if someone were 
actually  trying to stir up confusion and promote disinformation.  I don't 
know, but  i have actually seen a film much like this before. 
 
So, assuming that there is loving intent from the authors--and i am  
certainly not critical of the signatories--then i would say, i agree with many  
of the criticisms they have offered of the Obama administration; i have 
offered  many of those criticisms already; i have been active, as have most of 
my 
 colleagues, in trying to engage liberal and progressive social forces in 
the  need to both combat the political Right as well as put the pressure on 
the  Democrats; and, guess what? I will continue to, and i am assuming that 
my  colleagues will as well. 
 
Oh, and while i am at it, one thing that the authors of the Letter did not 
 address was the question of the African American electorate.  I don't know 
 about you, but how we handle the question of this administration is 
particularly  dicey when the African American electorate feels, overwhelmingly, 
that Obama is  under an intense racist assault from the political Right 
(which is, as you  know, quite correct).  This basic question of the 
African American  electorate and huge portions of the Latino electorate means 
that 
our electoral  tactics in the coming two years will have to be handled very 
carefully, even  while we put the pressure on this administration and 
struggle against its  defense of warmed over neo-liberalism. 
 
It might have been a good idea, and this is only a 

Re: [Marxism-Thaxis] The Fate of a Cold War Vestige

2010-12-13 Thread Waistline2
On Dec 13, 2010, at 2:07 PM, c b wrote: 
 
...It is something of a law of history that sooner or later all empires  
must collapse. ^ CB: See _Dialectics of Nature_ by Frederick Engels.   
_Everything_ has a beginning , middle and end. A mobius strip has none of those 
 aspects. Nothing lasts forever. 
 
 
 
The universe lasts forever. 
 
Shane Mage 
 

Reply 
 
Nothing lasts forever by definition. 
 
Precisely because nothing is temporal to the human senses and exists  
outside a definite point in human understanding. That is why it is called  
nothing. 
 
Nothing is a concept of the unknown. 
 
No one knows and can know how long the universe, as we understand it   . . 
. lasts. Maybe the universe collapses upon itself and become a new  
manifestation of something. 
 
One thing is certain: nothing lasts forever, however one understand  
nothing. 
 
WL.
 

___
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] James Petras - The Democratic Party Debacle and the Dem...

2010-12-07 Thread Waistline2
In a message dated 12/6/2010 12:58:32 P.M. Eastern Standard Time, 
_cb31...@gmail.com_ (mailto:cb31...@gmail.com)  writes: 
 
Lack of a Soviet Union contributes to this.  The SU was more of the  
Center-Left's backbone than most of the left realized.
 
Reply
 
So very true. Petras time frame is 30 years and much has changed in 30  
years. 
 
WL. 

___
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] Stoop down, baby

2010-12-01 Thread Waistline2


In a message dated 12/1/2010 10:02:07 A.M. Eastern Standard Time,  
cb31...@gmail.com writes:

_http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=JuYdZMoqD7U_ 
(http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=JuYdZMoqD7U) 
 
 
Comment
 
This is my understanding of the proletarian REVOLUTION.
 
WL. 
 
Stoop down, baby Let your daddy see 
Stoop down, baby Let your daddy see 
You've got something down there, baby 
Worryin' the hell out of me
 

___
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] Stoop down, baby

2010-12-01 Thread Waistline2
In a message dated 12/1/2010 12:46:59 P.M. Eastern Standard Time, 
__rdum...@autodidactproject.org_ (mailto:_rdum...@autodidactproject.org) _  
(_mailto:rdum...@autodidactproject.org_ 
(mailto:rdum...@autodidactproject.org) )writes: 
 
This is the funniest thing I remember you writing. 
 
I'm trying to figure out though which one is the proletariat. I would  hate 
 
to associate the capitalist class with All That Ass. 
 

Comment 
 
Somewhere, I have a copy of Merry Christmas Baby by Ollie, former  lead  
singer of the Temptations. One of the greats is on the guitar  but I 
forget  
their name at the moment. 
 
The real proletariat is the one stooping down. OK. 
 
Me. . . . man, I have always enjoyed looking up to see bottom. I guess this 
 
is beneath the underclass. 
 
My cash flow was cool but my mind has always been in poverty and on  the  
bottom brother. 
 
Hey  . . . I hit 10.5 on the glossary and yes, it is a  propaganda  tract. 
I 
am not an original thinker or writer.  
 
Merry Christmas Baby. 
 
I always loved the way baby can be non gender and/or gender depending  on 
 
the specific context and tonal quality of the voice. 
 
Victory to the proletariat on the bottom, top, and beneath the  underclass. 
 
:-)
 
Wl.
 
PS. Ralph has his thang set when you respond to his writing it goes to  
him as an individual instead of the list. To me that is fucked up. Change 
your  thang brother. 
 
 

___
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] At The Christmas Ball - the classic

2010-12-01 Thread Waistline2
The classic 
 
_http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=YcuvlIgSj0Yfeature=related_ 
(http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=YcuvlIgSj0Yfeature=related) 


___
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] At The Christmas Ball - the classic

2010-12-01 Thread Waistline2
This is the real shit. 
 
_http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Stj-zPVW_Hk_ 
(http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Stj-zPVW_Hk) 
“Everything  for Christmas.” 
 
And “Love comes with Christmas” 
_http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=exmE_FyVFKAfeature=related_ 
(http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=exmE_FyVFKAfeature=related) 
 

Then there is the Whispers. 
 
Don't do this. 
 
WL. 
 


___
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] Charles Brown: Merry Christmas Baby Please Come Home F...

2010-12-01 Thread Waistline2
Lou Rawls Merry Christmas Baby with the historical big band sound is  
classic. 
 
_http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Gtw3lXjhujk_ 
(http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Gtw3lXjhujk) 

___
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] Did Vladimir Lenin Predict The Banking Disaster Of 2008?

2010-11-28 Thread Waistline2
In a message dated 11/28/2010 2:27:18 A.M. Eastern Standard Time, 
_jann...@gmail.com_ (mailto:jann...@gmail.com)  writes: 
 
 What you haven't done is make any coherent argument that would  convince 
me that the substance has changed that much during the past 130 years.  Of 
course there are those who have made the quantitative argument but you 
didn't  do that either here. 
 
CJ 
 
Reply 
 
Substance of what? Finance capital remains fianance capital but it is not 
 the financial industrial capital of the time of Lenin. 
 
Here's something from 2002. 
 
WL. 
 

The dangers of derivatives By Henry C K Liu 
 
Recession in advanced economies, induced by the oil shock of 1973, pushed  
transnational banks to find borrowers in developing economies to accommodate 
 petro-dollar recycling. That marked the beginning of finance globalization 
 which, among other trends, replaced foreign aid with foreign loans to  
developing  countries. In the beginning, the petro-dollar recycling was  merely 
to compensate  the developing nations for the sudden rise in oil  prices. 
 
Later, the surplus oil money not absorbed by Western markets was pushed on  
beguiled Third World governments as petro-dollar loans for development,  
leading  the developing world into a bottomless abyss of foreign debt. Not  
only was the  anticipated growth in the developing world not realized by  
foreign-debt-driven  exports, debt repayment became increasingly punitive  on 
the domestic economies  as lender nations adopted anti-inflationary  measures 
by the end of the 1970s. 
 
Negotiations between borrowing countries and major international bank  
creditors were intermediated by International Monetary Fund (IMF) endorsement 
of 
 structural adjustment (austerity) programs in borrowing countries that  
spelled  reduced government social spending, currency devaluation and  export 
promotion  policies that distorted and reversed domestic  development. 
Domestic austerity  became the ticket to new foreign loans for  servicing old 
foreign loans, and the  servicing of the new loans in turn  required more 
domestic austerity, driving  Third World economies toward a  downward spiral of 
accelerating contraction and  deeper foreign  indebtedness. But the 
oppressive pressure from the IMF in the  1980s was  not anywhere near as severe 
as 
that after the financial crises of the   1990s. 
 
The financial crises faced by newly industrialized economies (NIEs) in the  
1990s were significantly different from the foreign debt crises in the  
developing countries in the previous decade. Different forms of foreign funds  
flowed to different recipients in developing countries during the two  
periods.  More importantly, derivatives emerged as an integral part of  funds 
flow in the  1990s. 
 
Derivatives played an unprecedented key role in the Asian financial crisis  
of 1997, alongside the growth of fund flows to Asian NIEs, as part of  
financial  globalization in unregulated global foreign exchange, capital  and 
debt markets.  Derivatives facilitate the growth in private fund flows  by 
unbundling the risks  associated with financial vehicles, such as bank  loans, 
stocks, bonds and direct  physical investment, and reallocating the  risks 
more efficiently by expanding  the distribution and the level of  aggregate 
risk. They also facilitate efforts  by many financial entities to  raise 
their risk-to-capital ratios to dodge  regulatory safeguards,  manipulate 
accounting rules and evade taxation. Foreign  exchange forwards  and swaps are 
used to hedge against floating exchange rates as  well as to  speculate on 
fixed exchange rate vulnerability, while total return  swaps  (TRS) are used to 
capture carry trade profit from interest rate   differential between 
pegged currencies. 
 
Structured notes, also known as hybrid instruments, which are the  
combination of a credit market instrument, such as a bond or note, with a  
derivative such as an option or futures-like contract, are used to circumvent  
accounting rules and prudential regulations in order to offer investors higher, 
 
though riskier, returns. Viewed at the macroeconomic level, derivatives first 
 make the economy more susceptible to financial crisis and then quicken and 
 deepen the downturn once the crisis begins. Since investors can only be  
seduced  to higher risk by raising the return on higher risk, the quest for  
high return  raises the aggregate risk in the financial system. But  
investors always demand a  profit above their risk exposure which will  leave 
some 
residual risk unfunded in  the financial system. It is in fact a  
socialization of unfunded risk with a  privatization of the incremental  
commensurate 
returns. 
 

(_http://www.atimes.com/global-econ/DE23Dj01.html_ 
(http://www.atimes.com/global-econ/DE23Dj01.html) )
 
 

___
Marxism-Thaxis mailing list
Marxism-Thaxis@lists.econ.utah.edu
To change your options or 

Re: [Marxism-Thaxis] Did Vladimir Lenin Predict The Banking Disaster Of 2008?

2010-11-27 Thread Waistline2
In a message dated 11/26/2010 8:20:46 P.M. Eastern Standard Time, 
_pegdobb...@gmail.com_ (mailto:pegdobb...@gmail.com)  writes: 
 
So am I to hope my children are less bamboozled by SW than we by SV?   My 
son tells me Netflix is useful to him and has higher earnings(that's SV,  
right?) than USS 
 
 
 
Comrade 
 
My intent was not to ignore your question. 
 
I am a regular user of Netflix, with specific grips about which movies are  
regulated to mail and not available for instant play. Their mix of models 
 seems to run behind our technology capacity and the needs of consumers. 
 
My comments were meant to be on the level of changes - qualitative, in the  
meaning of system -  finance capital today, rather than during the time of  
Lenin. Posing this thread as Did Lenin predict implies no fundamental 
changes  in the actual functioning of finance capital. Finance capital once 
referred to  banking capital and earlier merchant capital, in my opinion. 
 
I offer as proof of qualitative changes in the functioning of finance  
capital the rise of a new post 1973 rise - to be exact, of NON  BANKING 
financial architecture. 
 
The quality that has changed is the substance of modern finance capital  
that is outside of and evolves based on detachment from production of surplus  
value. 
 
In my opinion a form of wealth can change qualitatively before the  
production relations of a society leap forward. The form of wealth of bourgeois 
 
society has changed. Wealth as a property of the ruling class has not 
changed.  This happened as the leap - transition, from feudalism to capitalism. 
The  primary form of private property as the feudal relation was land as 
opposed to  ownership of tools or means of production. What began the breakdown 
of feudalism  was the transition in the form of wealth from land - as 
primary, to gold or  movable property. 
 
Wealth today is a very super symbolic abstract thing not riveted to gold or 
 any tangible. 
 
This is the change. 
 

WL. 
 

___
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


[Marxism-Thaxis] Marx on the proletariat as ruling class

2010-11-27 Thread Waistline2
What did Marx write on the prospect of political and economic   transition 
between capitalist and communist society? 
 

Quote 
 

The question then arises: What transformation will the state undergo  in 
communist society? In other words, what social functions will remain in  
existence there that are analogous to present state functions? This question 
can 
 only be answered scientifically, and one does not get a flea-hop nearer to 
 the  problem by a thousand-fold combination of the word 'people' with the  
word  'state'. 
 
Between capitalist and communist society there lies the period of the  
revolutionary transformation of the one into the other. Corresponding to this 
is 
 also a political transition period in which the state can be nothing but  
the  revolutionary dictatorship of the proletariat.  (End quote) 
 
Taken from Section IV., Critique of the Gotha Program, here presented is  
Marx definitive statement on the revolutionary dictatorship of the  pro  
letariat. 
 
II. 
 
Marx does in fact investigate the economic content of transition Between  
capitalist and communist society  . . . a political transition period in  
which the state can be nothing but the revolutionary dictatorship of the  
proletariat. 
 
He does this is section 1,  subtitle: 3. 
 
The emancipation of labor demands the promotion of the instruments of  
labor to the common property of society and the co-operative regulation of the  
total labor, with a fair distribution of the proceeds of labor. 
 
In this section Marx unravels the meaning of economic - not political,  
transition to communist society based on the state of development of productive 
 forces and the value relations as both existed at the time of this 
writing.  One  should read this section for themselves. 
 
Critique was written April or early May, 1875 and has in mind the state  
of development of means of production at the front curve of industrial  
capital  development as opposed to the back of the curve in the colonies  and 
less developed countries, still struggle under political feudalism. 
 
III. 
 
If one agree with Marx formulation of the political content of the period  
of transition between capitalist and communist society, which in plain  
American  English is called the organization of the proletariat as ruling  
class, discourse  tend to fall on the issue of the economic content of this  
transition, which is  determined - in my opinion, by the degree of  development 
of means of production  and decay of the value relation. 
 
Revolution in the means of production and the rise of a technology regime  
evolving in antagonism with the OLD mode of exchange (DIVISION OF LABOR)  -  
based on commodity equivalents, define the economic content of our current  
period of transition. 
 
The political form of the state remains as Marx stated: a political  
transition period in which the state can be nothing but the revolutionary  
dictatorship of the proletariat. 
 
What has changed qualitatively, is the durability of the commodity form  
itself. 
 
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


Re: [Marxism-Thaxis] Did Vladimir Lenin Predict The Banking Disaster Of 2008?

2010-11-23 Thread Waistline2
In a message dated 11/22/2010 11:29:38 P.M. Eastern Standard Time, 
_jann...@gmail.com_ (mailto:jann...@gmail.com)  writes: 
 
However, I will point out that a lot of the same things were said about  
the main players in 1907-8--that they were mysterious, behind-the-scenes 
people  only acting out of self-interest, that what they did was out of 
control, 
that  because of technological innovation in finance and banking, too much 
was being  done in very little time and it was out of control. 
 

Reply 
 
Well, what we face as financial crisis is not a banking crisis but a crisis 
 of the new non-banking financial system. These are not the banks of the 
era of  Lenin. 
 
If, how and why the financial crisis of today - breaking out in 2007, is  
qualitatively different from the banking crisis of 1929 or crisis during the 
era  of Lenin's Imperialism seems to be a question. Since we are speaking 
of  finance capital, the issue to my mind is what within finance capital 
(a  quality within and unto itself) has changed? 
 
The answer for me is capital as a notional value or capital wealth  
detached from value; more specifically the production of surplus value. Or, 
what  
is the same, world wide capital wealth dominated by institutional 
architecture  outside of and existing in antagonism with the world wide 
production of 
value.  The new non-banking financial architecture is a new emergent 
quality within  finance capital. 
 
In Mr. Liu's writing this new phenomenon- quality, is called notional  
value meaning an imaginary value relation. 
 
Global Post-Crisis Economic Outlook by Henry C.K. Liu, appeared in Asian  
Times April 14, 2010. Part 2 is Two Different Banking Crises - 1929 and 
2007. 
 
The series is located here:  _http://www.henryckliu.com/page221.html_ 
(http://www.henryckliu.com/page221.html)  
 
Liu's Pathology of Debt, part one and two outlines what is specific and  
different in our era of finance capital from that of the era of Lenin. 
_http://www.henryckliu.com/page145.html_ 
(http://www.henryckliu.com/page145.html) 
 
 

II. 
 
The 1929 banking crisis that launched the Great Depression was caused by  
stressed banks whose highly leveraged retail borrowers were unable to meet  
margin calls on their stock market losses, resulting in bank runs from 
panicky  depositors who were not protected by government insurance on their 
deposits. 
 
In the 1920s, there were very few traders beside professional technical  
types. The typical retail investors were long-term investors, trading only  
infrequently, albeit buying on high margin. They bought mostly to hold based 
on  expectations that prices would rise endlessly. . . . . . 
 
By contrast, the two decades of the 1990s and 2000s were decades of the  
day trader and big time institutional traders. New powerful traders in major  
investment banking houses overwhelmed old-fashion investment bankers and 
gained  control of these institutions with their high profit performance. They 
turned  the financial industry from a funding service to the economy into a 
frenzy  independent trading machine. 
(End quote) Global Post-Crisis Economic  Outlook. 
 
III. 
 
The issue of quality can be confusing - in my mind, unless one describe  
their meaning. Finance capital is part of a totality - quality. The totality 
is  the social relations of bourgeois mode of commodity production or 
bourgeois  private property. Finance capital is a symbolic expression of the 
wealth created  by human labor based on bourgeois property or wage labor. 
 
Lenin's Imperialism the last stage of capitalism, was referenced as the  
benchmark. Marx historical tendency of capital accumulation became 
supporting  actor. Marx outlined cyclical crisis of capital and financial 
crisis, but 
 something has changed qualitatively  . . .  in my opinion, within the  
quality isolated by Lenin as finance-industrial capital. 
 
By finance capital Lenin referred to financial-industrial capital  
indicating the domination of banks as institutions over industrial capital.  
This is the specific make-up of finance capital for Lenin. In short speak 
this  process is referred to as banks transitioning from being middle men for 
 industrial production (investors), to owners and dominator-investors of  
industry.  The new quality of finance capital - not bourgeois social  
relations of production, is its detachment from production of surplus value. 
 
The banking system of the era of Lenin is qualitatively different from the  
new financial architecture of today. The new quality is called the system 
of  non-banking financial institutions. These institutions are not banks. 
That is  the different quality within finance capital. Banks of the era of 
Lenin embody  the value relation monetarized. The new non-banking financial 
institutions are  valueless. These financial products do not embody  value, 
only a notion  or value as wealth. 
 
IV. 
 
Later in the same article Mr. Liu writes: 
 
The 2007 

Re: [Marxism-Thaxis] Did Vladimir Lenin Predict The Banking Disaster Of 2008?

2010-11-22 Thread Waistline2


 
In a message dated 11/22/2010 9:10:31 A.M. Eastern Standard Time,  
cb31...@gmail.com writes:

Yes, the  word predict is a bit crude, but the direction of
capitalism as  imperialism = finance capitalism and more and more
concentration of wealth  (monopoly) fulfills the trends that Lenin made
famous. ( Lenin made  Hilferding's ideas famous).  And the
concentration of wealth is in the  finance capital sector.

On the other hand , Lenin's observation that  wealth is increasingly
concentrated or monopolization is in a sense a  deduction or echo of
Marx's observation here; centralization is  monopolization:


http://www.marxists.org/archive/marx/works/1867-c1/ch32.htm
s  well as the further expropriation of private proprietors, takes a
new form.  That which is now to be expropriated is no longer the
labourer working for  himself, but the capitalist exploiting many
labourers. 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  cooperative form of the
labour process, the conscious technical application  of science, the
methodical cultivation of the soil, the transformation of  the
instruments of labour into instruments of labour only usable  in
common, the economizing of all means of production by their use  as
means of production of combined, socialized labour, 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 labour at last reach a point where they  become incompatible with
their capitalist integument. This integument is  burst asunder. The
knell of capitalist private property sounds. The  expropriators are
expropriated.

On Sat, Nov 20, 2010 at 11:24 PM,  CeJ jann...@gmail.com wrote:
Certainly, the possibility  of reducing the
 cost of production and increasing profits by  introducing technical
 improvements operates in the direction of  change. But the tendency to
 stagnation and decay, which is  characteristic of monopoly, continues
 to operate, and in some branches  of industry, in some countries, for
 certain periods of time, it gains  the upper hand imperialism is an
 immense accumulation of money  capital in a few countries, amounting,
 as we have seen, to  100,000-50,000 million francs in securities. Hence
 the extraordinary  growth of a class, or rather, of a stratum of
 rentiers, i.e., people  who live by ?clipping coupons?, who take no
 part in any enterprise  whatever, whose profession is idleness. T

 And if you  read Dickens' last completed novel, Our Mutual Friend, you
 get a  narrative that depicts very much the same things. I know people
 are  going to disagree with you and me on this one, but I have to say,
 you  are right to re-iterate Lenin's points here, here and now. It's a
  tautological argument to say that this time it's different somehow
  deep down simply because things have changed, or the structures have
  changed, or the relations have changed. We of all people know history
  doesn't simply repeat itself. But what some wiseacres need to do is
  show how in essence, in substance the banking and financial disasters
  of the 19th and 20th centuries are categorically different not simply
  because it is this time around and things have changed.

  CJ

 ___
  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


___
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

___
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] Did Vladimir Lenin Predict The Banking Disaster Of 2008?

2010-11-22 Thread Waistline2
I agree that concentration and centralization of productive forces grow out 
 of the inherent logic of industrial - electro-mechanical, reproduction. In 
the  Soviet Union concentration and centralization of productive forces 
created  expanding public wealth without centralization and monopolization of a 
financial  regime - oligarchy. 
 
When this same internal dynamic of industrial reproduction is based on  
bourgeois property its shape is centralization and concentration of capital -  
banking, industrial and finally emergence of a financial oligarchy 
dominating  industry. What is also being reproduced, concentrated and 
centralized is 
at all  times social relations of production; bourgeois property casting 
increasing  masses proletariat on an expanding scale, as was the case during 
the time of  Marx and Lenin.  This historic process, which was not completed 
during the  time of Marx and Lenin is complete, with all areas of the world 
firmly within  the new financial architecture with few exceptions. 
 
Much literature is available on why and how the new financial regime is  
different from the financial regime of the era of Lenin.  This of course  does 
not imply the social relations casting the laborers as wage laborers have  
changed qualitatively. It has not. 
 
WL.
 
 

___
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] Did Vladimir Lenin Predict The Banking Disaster Of 2008?

2010-11-22 Thread Waistline2

Comment
 
The property aspect of production relations (social relations of production 
 with the property relations within) have NOT changed or what is the  same, 
the wage labor form remains the wage labor form. Bourgeois private  
property remains bourgeois although this form of wealth is increasingly 
detached  
from commodity production and distribution.  
 
Lenin's Imperialism is not a story about qualitatively changed property  
relations within the mode of production, in my opinion. As I understand the  
book, what is written about is the domination of banking capital over 
industrial  capital and the rise of a financial oligarchy. Lenin did not and 
could not  predict or foresee our state of development of productive forces. 
His 
vision was  limited to industrial machinery and configuration and a form of 
capital  characteristic of his era.  
 
Qualitative changes in the means of production exist, as compared with the  
era of Marx and Lenin. A mode of production does not change all at one 
time.  First comes a qualitatively different technology and its application to  
production and then society is compelled to reorganize itself around a new  
social organization of labor. This happens as change waves, deepening its 
social  consequences in society.  As these change waves deepen, society is 
thrown  into greater crisis and strains to leap to a new social organization of 
labor  and sublate the old social relations, including the old property  
signature.  
 
There is a wealth of material available on line outlining the technology  
advance of the last 60 years. Different opinion exists concerning the  
significance, degree and depth of our rising new technology regime, as it  
reproduces itself on an expanding scale.
 
WL 

___
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


[Marxism-Thaxis] shadow banking system

2010-11-22 Thread Waistline2
(The Federal Reserve chart is available at 
_www.ny.frb.org/research/staff_reports/sr458.pdf_ 
(http://www.ny.frb.org/research/staff_reports/sr458.pdf) ) 
 
Road map that opens up shadow banking By Gillian Tett Financial Times  
November 18 2010 
 
This week, a senior banker friend gave me a poster that had been created by 
 downloading a chart recently produced by economists at the New York 
Federal  Reserve. It was shocking stuff. Entitled The Shadow Banking System, 
the 
graphic  depicts how money goes round the modern world, particularly (but not 
 exclusively) in the US. 
 
At the top lies a smart section labelled the “Traditional Banking System”, 
 in which a simple flow of boxes explains how investors’ funds are 
deposited with  traditional commercial banks, which then transform this into 
long 
and short-term  loans, and equity. 
 
So far, so comprehensible. But most of the poster is dominated by two  
sections called the “cash” and “synthetic” shadow banking systems, or those  “
financial intermediaries that conduct maturity, credit and liquid  
transformation without access to central bank liquidity or public sector credit 
 
guarantees”, as the associated NY Fed working paper says. These flows are so  
extraordinarily complex that hundreds of boxes create a diagram comparable to  
the circuit board of a high-tech gadget. Even as poster size, it is 
difficult to  decode. 
 
But it should be mandatory reading for bankers, regulators, politicians and 
 investors today. Indeed, they might do well to hang similar posters next 
to  their desks, for at least three reasons. For one thing, this circuit 
board is a  reminder of how clueless most investors, regulators and rating 
agencies were  before 2007 about finance. After all, during the credit boom, 
there was plenty  of research being conducted into the financial world; but I 
never saw anything  remotely comparable to this road map. 
 
That was a striking, terrible omission. The Fed now estimates that in early 
 2008 shadow banking was $20,000bn in size, dwarfing the $11,000bn 
traditional  banking system. And though this shadow system has now shrunk to a 
“mere”
  $16,000bn, this remains bigger than traditional banking, at some 
$13,000bn.  Little wonder, then, that so few people immediately appreciated the 
significance  of the seizing up of shadow banking in 2007. 
 
But secondly, this poster is also a reminder that many things about the  
modern financial system remain mysterious – even today. On the edges of the  
circuit board, the NY Fed economists list all the government programmes that  
have supported the system since 2007 (and, in effect, replaced shadow banks 
when  they suffered runs). This “shadow, shadow bank system” – as it might 
be called –  looks complex and baffling too. And in practical terms, the 
sheer breadth and  complexity of that box makes it hard to know what will 
happen if – or when –  government aid disappears. 
 
Then, there is the current regulatory debate. So far this year, the  
Financial Stability Board and other international bodies have focused most of  
their reform attention on issues such as bank capital, and systems of oversight 
 for large, systemically important banks. Next year, though, Mario Draghi, 
head  of the FSB, wants to start discussing the shadow banking world. 
 
Many national regulators are keen to do this too as they recognise the  
danger of looking at regulation just in terms of institutions. After all, the  
crisis has shown how risky it is to have $16,000bn worth of maturity  
transformation without any backstop, or clear rules. This week, for example,  
Adair Turner, head of the Financial Services Authority, the UK regulator,  
promised more scrutiny. Earlier this year Paul Tucker, deputy UK central bank  
governor, suggested that it was time to see which parts of the system were  
benign – or not. The US government is now considering whether to extend the  
regulatory umbrella to large, non-bank institutions such as Citadel or GE  
Capital. 
 
But whether this desire for a debate turns into sensible reform remains  
unclear. For getting politicians to focus on the issue may not be easy in 
2011.  There is already considerable regulatory fatigue. There are also other, 
more  urgent distractions, such as the sovereign debt crises. And shadow 
banking  issues rarely seem “sexy” in political terms, unless they involve 
hedge funds  (which pose less systemic threat than, say, the vast $3,000bn-odd 
money market  fund sector.) 
 
So for my money, the best thing the NY Fed could do right now is print  
thousands of copies of that poster – and dispatch it across the world. I 
suspect  it would be far more persuasive about the need for debate than any 
number 
of  pious G20 speeches. After all, a key reason why that circuit board 
became so  complex was that bankers were trying to arbitrage the last two sets 
of Basel  rules. If shadow banking continues to be ignored (ie politicians 
focus just 

[Marxism-Thaxis] Homeless - 8,000 live in the Fl. woods

2010-11-22 Thread Waistline2
_http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=u0V2MdklcAEfeature=related_ 
(http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=u0V2MdklcAEfeature=related) 

___
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


[Marxism-Thaxis] Homeless in America: the real stuff

2010-11-22 Thread Waistline2
_http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=xZpRcbgMGEgfeature=related_ 
(http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=xZpRcbgMGEgfeature=related) 
___
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] Did Vladimir Lenin Predict The Banking Disaster Of 2008?

2010-11-22 Thread Waistline2
CB: I think Marx's position is that it is inherent to the logic of the  
capitalist mode of production, wage-labor/capital property relations, 
regardless  of the technological regime. The computerization of production 
doesn't 
change  this tendency to concentration of wealth. It accelerates it, with all 
the  computer trading. 
 
Comment 
 

I agree. 
 
I apparently missed an input. 
 
Whoever wrote that technology changes the tendency and fact of  
concentration of production, monopolization; concentration and monopolization 
of  
wealth has it all wrong. If anything technology advance accelerate 
concentration  
and monopoly within the capitalist mode of commodity production due to 
bourgeois  competition. This competition is also expressed as competition 
between workers  for wages. 
 
WL.
 
 

___
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] Did Vladimir Lenin Predict The Banking Disaster Of 2008?

2010-11-21 Thread Waistline2


Marx and Engels predicted cyclical crisis of capital, but never predicted  
when its outbreak would take place after their death. Neither did Lenin. 
 
 
Lenin's been dead for a while and did not predict the financial crisis - of 
 2008, as it jumped from big financial houses and accelerated crisis in 
the  economy. Nor did Lenin predict the scale and scope of the 2008 credit 
crisis.  Nor did Lenin predict the emergence of a new world wide non-banking 
financial  architecture. Nor did he predict the political domination of 
financial  speculation over the world total social capital or for that matter 
could see the  financial-industrial capital of his era, giving way to a new 
form of financial  domination, in a world no longer characterized as the direct 
colonial  relationship. 
 
Feudalism, the direct colonial relation and the ascendency of Fordism  
characterized the world Lenin lived in. This is not the world we live in today. 
 
The financial crisis of today plays itself out in a new environment. The  
financial houses of today are not the banks of the era of Lenin. On this 
issue I  trend to generally side with Michael Hudson and Henry C.K. Liu 
description of  the new non-banking financial regime. What I specifically agree 
with 
is their  description of the new post 1970's world wide financial 
architecture. 
 
The post industrial revolution in the means of production, is what is  
different today from the era of Lenin. What is qualitatively different is a 
new  revolution in means of production compelling society to leap to a new 
social  organization of human labor, based on post industrial means of 
production.  Computers and advanced robotics are to electro-mechanics means of 
production  what the steam engine was to horse power and the water wheel or 
manufacture.  Computerized automation of industrial production has 
fundamentally challenged  capitalism. The process of development has been 
uneven; cause 
and effect not  immediately revealed; and even now when the transformation 
of society is evident  everywhere, many serious observers of society dismiss 
the seminal importance of  computerized production and advanced robotics. 

The form of the working class changes with qualitative changes in the  
tools, instruments and energy source deployed in the process of production. 
What 
 is NOT new is the property form of the workers called proletariat. The  
working class, employed and unemployed retains its wage labor form of 
existence  as proletariat, with products retaining their commodity form, even 
as 
these  commodities are pushed towards zero labor. Zero labor implies below 
what is  required for the workers to reproduce themselves as a class and a 
world of  permanent intractable overcapacity, rather than just cyclical 
crisis. I  agree with Mr. Liu's unraveling of the impact of revolution in the 
means of  production and the emergence of permanent overcapacity as a new 
environment of  crisis of overproduction. 
 
What has changed is the underlying technology regime in society, as these  
mew means of production evolve in antagonism with the old technology regime 
and  the classes corresponding to it. .
 
WL. 

___
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] Moral dilemma

2010-11-19 Thread Waistline2
On Thu, Nov 18, 2010 at 11:27 AM,  _waistli...@aol.com_ 
(mailto:waistli...@aol.com)  wrote: 
 
If it was me making the million dollar shot, I would say, lets go to Vegas 
 and get married. 
 
Or Ohio. 
 
Without a prenuptual agreement ? 
 

Comment 
 
Yep. 
 
A million dollars not what it use to be. 
 
Fed taxes on lottery money is about 30%  so a million almost  instantly 
becomes $700,000. If there is a 3% state tax  . . . $670,000. The  various 
anti-taxes currents amongst a section of the proletariat have  a  point. 
 
A house, furniture, car and a couple of trips to the theater and then  the 
families  . . . and  hey. . .. $500,000, maybe $450,000. Both  of us 
probably have some kind of debt. If it is a student loan the feds are  hitting 
the 
money before you get it. 
 
It is best to do Vegas or the vacation of your choice real quick, because  
the money is going to go quicker. 
 
Once married divide the $450,000 between each other and try to stay  
together the first 90 days. At that point we both have say $250,000 or 
$225,000. 
 
If both of us have shitty jobs, we are subject to have no job 36 months  
from now. A million dollars today will not save one from the proletarian  
bounce between economic layers. Makes one want to stay on the farm. 
 
Wait, I forget. The farm was lost a long time ago. 
 
WL.
 
 

___
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] Moral dilemma

2010-11-19 Thread Waistline2
In a message dated 11/19/2010 9:23:39 A.M. Eastern Standard Time, 
_cb31...@gmail.com_ (mailto:cb31...@gmail.com)  writes: 
 

Truly ! It is the American working class that has had legitimate gripes  
about taxes for a long time. The tax revolt of the 70's , California Howard  
Whathisname and all, hijacked proletarian legitimate tax complaints. 
Reaganite  propaganda misdirected this sentiment among middle incomed workers 
against low  incomed workers, the poor, as anti-Welfare politics. 
 
Reply 
 
Got that right brother. One cannot find even Marxists talking about  
welfare, and the immediate need to defend and expand it, outside our geographic 
 
area. 
 
Really. 
 
If one looks through the various socialist, communists and Marxist online  
press and articles welfare is hardly mentioned and it should be up front 
along  with unlimited unemployment compensation - at least until the economy 
recovers,  which is not going to happen. The restoration of profitability for 
most  corporations will not translate into employment, and this is 
qualitatively  different. The social consequences of revolution in the means of 
production is  talking its toil in the context of a cyclical crisis of capital. 
Or rather, this  cyclical crisis of overproduction is talking its toil in the 
context of a  qualitatively new revolution in the means of production 
shoving ever widening  layers of wage labors out of the market . . . 
absolutely. 
Detroit was at the  front of the curve and now the social consequences are 
being felt in all areas  of the country. 
 
Reagan success was based in painting welfare as a black thing; the ole  
welfare queen. The unemployment today and housing crisis is so widespread it  
cannot be painted a black issue. This is favorable to us. The historic 
color  factor is unraveling as the social position of the white workers is  
destabilized  and unraveled in layers. At least we can begin the beginning  
fight for a class point of view. 
 
This narrative is left to you and I, as the enrichment of American history. 
 
Yea, you would probably handle a million bucks a lot better than I.  

I've been pretty stupid with money, women and drink. 
 

WL.
 
 

___
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


[Marxism-Thaxis] 2011 Contract talks

2010-11-19 Thread Waistline2
Link to article Bob King and 2011
 
 
 
_http://www.reuters.com/article/idUSTRE6AG5XO20101117_ 
(http://www.reuters.com/article/idUSTRE6AG5XO20101117)  
 
 
 



___
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


[Marxism-Thaxis] Bob King and 2011 contract talks

2010-11-19 Thread Waistline2
Link to article Bob King and 2011
 
 
 
_http://www.reuters.com/article/idUSTRE6AG5XO20101117_ 
(http://www.reuters.com/article/idUSTRE6AG5XO20101117)  
 



___
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] Moral dilemma

2010-11-18 Thread Waistline2
If it was me making the million dollar shot, I would say, lets go to Vegas 
 and get married. 
 
Or Ohio. 
 
After all, if she invited me on a date, it means their is an interest. 
 
WL. 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
In a message dated 11/18/2010 9:29:38 A.M. Eastern Standard Time, 
_cb31...@gmail.com_ (mailto:cb31...@gmail.com)  writes: 
 
When a guy buys tickets for a basketball game and invites his girl to  
attend, isn't it fair that he gets at least 50% of a million dollar cash prize  
if his girl drains the free shot from half court? It was his dough that made 
 that shit happen, right? LikeUnlike · Comment 
 
* 
* 
* o Would you give the girl half the money if she bought you  the tickets, 
 you made the shot?
 
This email was cleaned by emailStripper, available for free from 
_http://www.papercut.biz/emailStripper.htm_ 
(http://www.papercut.biz/emailStripper.htm) 

___
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] critique of the ideology of the Tea Party needed

2010-11-09 Thread Waistline2

full: _http://www.lrna.org/2-pt/articles/v20ed5art5.html_ 
(http://www.lrna.org/2-pt/articles/v20ed5art5.html) 
 
Small Government, Big State: Southern Program Points the Way
 
 
 
 
It is conceivable that fascism could proceed as a movement to defend  
democracy and a return to the principles of the Constitution, a refrain that is 
 
being heard more and more stridently from the South, particularly in the 
calls  for secession and states’ rights, and from the organizers of the Tea 
Party  movement. The calls for small government, less taxation, deregulation, 
and an  anti-union environment characterize the form of rule of the Southern 
states even  as it is paired with accelerating the process of privatization 
and outright  corporate welfare. 
 
Like any movement, the Tea Party movement is a mixture of various forces  
still in motion, with myriad groupings and individuals contending for  
leadership.  There are the entrenched establishment who fund and play a  role 
in 
organizing, such as, Dick Armey (Freedom Works), Ralph Reed (formerly of  the 
Christian Coalition), Ron Paul and his son Rand (libertarians), Newt  
Gingrich, and Phil Gingrey, both from Georgia. There are the Glenn Becks and  
Rush Limbaughs, all of whom compose the ideological shock troops to advance  
their objectives. And there are a myriad of other organizations, such as, the  
The Oath Keepers with their roots in the military and prepared to take up 
arms,  the Fair Tax Nation that calls for replacing all taxes with a national 
sales  tax, and anti-immigration nativists who demand that the undocumented 
be hunted  down and deported in the name of national security. 
 
They elevate the Constitution to the level of a sacred religious text, with 
 particular emphasis upon the 10th amendment, which supposedly provides for 
the  supremacy of states rights. This was also the basis of the Southern 
defense of  slavery and the framework for the secession and formation of the 
Confederacy.  Today it is utilized to resist federal government stimulus 
funds, as well as to  oppose the establishment of national health insurance. 
 
The State is being reshaped to serve the interests of the ruling class in  
the defense of private property. This is not simply a set of policy choices. 
In  a time in which the mode of production itself is shifting to 
accommodate the  decline of value brought on by laborless production, the State 
is 
moving to  direct control by the corporations, and privatization and the 
shrinking of the  public sector is a necessary consequence of this process.  It 
is 
 experienced by the masses as the destruction of society itself as we know 
it. 
 
The focus of the American revolution now underway is centered squarely upon 
 the question of the role of government.
 
This email was cleaned by emailStripper, available for free from 
_http://www.papercut.biz/emailStripper.htm_ 
(http://www.papercut.biz/emailStripper.htm) 

___
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] We must dream!

2010-11-08 Thread Waistline2
In a message dated 11/8/2010 1:01:24 P.M. Eastern Standard Time, 
_rdum...@autodidactproject.org_ (mailto:rdum...@autodidactproject.org)   writes:
 
The other question in all this is, except for enhancing historical  
consciousness, what relevance any interpretation of Lenin has for today, and  
esp. 
in a radically different type of society such as the USA. I used to say  
something comparable to we must dream, but now I see only a pipe dream.
 
Comment
 
I second CB yep and the irony of JF forwarded article on the  Prince. 
 
Funny, I always read Lenin's What Is To Be Done as part of an  evolving 
scenario aimed at combining a political group and explaining how to  stay 
organized and take power under appropriate conditions. And why one cannot  
allow a political group, under conditions of active revolution to  reduce its 
activity to a support committee of popular demands. 
 
Seems to me that's just what happened. 
 
I did read the article. 
 
WL. 
 
 

___
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] Tea Party

2010-11-08 Thread Waistline2
In a message dated 11/8/2010 8:20:54 A.M. Eastern Standard Time, 
_cb31...@gmail.com_ (mailto:cb31...@gmail.com)  writes: Tea Party Election  
Results 
Diluted in Highly Populated States By Tom Moroney and  Terrence  Dopp - Nov 5, 
2010 
 
Tea Party supporters boasted of their 28 victories in U.S. House races.  
What  the election results also made clear was that their appeal stopped at  
the border  of the most densely-populated states and metropolitan areas.  
Republican _Carl Paladino_
 
Comment
 
As I understand the results, the blue dog democrats took the big hit  
losing 23 or their 54 official caucus members, or 48% of the Democrat party  
House loses. 
 
Michigan governor race was another Democratic Party loss. 
 
Rick Snyder (R-MI) 1,879,499 Votes 58%
Virg Bernero (D-MI) 1,278,566  Votes 40%
 
 
And the beat goes on. 
 
WL




___
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] Ron Glotta's commentaries

2010-08-10 Thread Waistline2
In a message dated 8/9/2010 2:03:33 P.M. Eastern Daylight Time, 
_cb31...@gmail.com_ (mailto:cb31...@gmail.com)  writes:
 
 In that way, they represent an alternative to my book, The Road to  Hell 
is Not Paved With Good Intentions. I invite the reader/listener to enter  the 
dialogue and join the struggle to change the world. 
 
Yours in Struggle, 
 
Ronald D. Glotta
 
Comment 
 
I have a copy of his book and read it a couple of times, as well as four  
CD's of commentaries. The first half of Ron's book read as a road map for 
those  interested primarily in electoral politics. The last section examine the 
  world of sports, the Piston's and the Williams sisters. Pretty good 
stuff. 
 
Ron is an expert - intellectually and practically on electoral politics  
being very much involved in the Vote Communist Campaign of 1974 and 1976, if 
 memory serves correct. He was also involved in the James Johnson case and  
intense legal struggles which cast the legal profession and lawyers in  
Detroit as somewhat unique and  on the  cutting edge of  the social movement 
for half a century. The history of  the battles  within the legal arena, 
lawyers in and around Detroit is yet to be written in a  concise manner. Would 
make a fascinating read. 
 
You know Crockett, Young, Cockrel, Milton Henry, Detroit 67, New Bethel,  
desegregating the bench and a host of things you are more familiar with. This 
 dimension of the proletarian movement remains neglected. 
 
WL. 

___
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] Ron Glotta's commentaries

2010-08-10 Thread Waistline2
In a message dated 8/10/2010 8:57:52 A.M. Eastern Daylight Time, 
_cb31...@gmail.com_ (mailto:cb31...@gmail.com)  writes:
 
 In 1946, Crockett along with partners Ernest Goodman, Morton Eden,  and 
Dean A. Robb, co-founded the corporation believed to be the first  
racially-integrated law firm in the U.S.,[citation needed] Goodman, Crockett,  
Eden, 
and Robb, in Detroit, Michigan. The firm, eventually called Goodman, Eden,  
Millender and Bedrosian, closed in 1998.
 
Reply
 
This is really good stuff.  Part of what I call a new narrative,  
recasting the story of the heartbeat of our proletarian movement of  the past 
century.  Much activity was riveted to the gravity well of  industrial unionism 
and located at Local 600. Describing how and why the African  American 
Freedom Movement of the past century could only be expressed on the  basis of 
the 
proletariat in places like Detroit would make interesting reading.  

For instance Rosa Parks first airplane ride was to Detroit to speak at  
Local 600 who paid for this trip in the late 1950s. If memory serves me 
correct.  Did not Crockett and the fellows form the Fair employment and  
Practice  
Committee at Local 600? 
 
The communists, socialists, revolutionaries of all kinds never surrendered  
and rolled over, even during the height of the Cold War anti-communist 
campaign.  The House Un American Acidity Committee met its grave diggers in  
Detroit. 
 
I guess your - pardon  our, work is cut out. 
 
WL. 

___
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] I. I. Rubin's Essays on Marx's Theory of Value

2010-08-10 Thread Waistline2
In a message dated 8/10/2010 10:34:53 A.M. Eastern Daylight Time, 
_cb31...@gmail.com_ (mailto:cb31...@gmail.com)  :
 
 The capitalist economy represents a union of the  material-technological 
process and its social forms, i.e. the totality of  production relations 
among people. The concrete activities of people in the  material-technical 
production process presuppose concrete production relations  among them, and 
vice versa. 
 
Comment
 
I would write this  different. Part of the new narrative. 
 
The capitalist - bourgeois, mode of commodity production represents a union 
 of material-technological building blocks and social forms. The unity of 
the  material-technological building block and the social form arising from 
this,  including the ownership rights or relationship of people to property 
in the  process of production = production relations. The concrete activities 
of  people using a given state of development of means of production and 
their  relationship to property - ownership  rights, is the production 
relations  amongst them. 
 
The reason is to tilt the equation back to what is fundamental - after  we 
presuppose human beings;  the material power of productive forces  and their 
continuous development and evolution.  
 
There is the  theoretical problem. Does the bourgeois mode of  commodity 
production  reach its historical limit based on  its  internal components, 
i.e., the wage labor form OR as the result of the emergence  of a qualitatively 
new technology regime?  The former states that bourgeois  production 
reaches its historical limited based in cyclical crisis of capital.  The latter 
states that bourgeois production reaches its historical limitation  based on 
entering antagonism with a qualitatively new technology. 
 
Or both . . . .:-) 
 
Is both movements taking place? 
 
WL 
 
 

___
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


[Marxism-Thaxis] Reform and social revolution: the new narrative - 1

2010-08-09 Thread Waistline2
Reform and social revolution: the new narrative 
 

Marxism contains a language, a set of words and terms accepted as short  
cuts. Problems arise with words and terms given different meaning. Reform,  
concession, social revolution, and reformism are such words.  When  
these terms are detached from the materiality of the object being examined,  
the shortcut becomes the long way around. 
 
The dictionary states that reform is an improvement or amendment of what  
is wrong. Reform means to restructure. Restructuring changes existing 
relations  between and within classes. These production relations express and 
correspond to  material relations of the economy and ultimately find its center 
of gravity in  the division of labor.  Reform is alteration of a material 
relation  within and between classes in connection with means of 
production. 
 
Reform and concession is not the same. Reforms are more durable and cannot  
be taken away based on political will alone. Something must change within 
the  object, structure of society for reform of the system to unravel. 
Reforms do  not change the property relations. Wrestling greater shares of the 
social  product and expanded political liberties from the state or employer 
is the  content of most social struggle. Concession is yielding to a demand 
based on  political will. Concessions do not alter the structural relations 
within and  between classes. Concessions can be taken away based on 
political will. The  Republic Window and Door workers in Chicago (Local 1110) 
won a 
concession  package compelling their employer to give them back pay. The 
settlement totals  $1.75 million. It provides the workers with: 
 
oEight weeks of pay they are owed under the federal WARN Act, oTwo months  
of continued health coverage and, oPay for all accrued and unused vacation. 
 
Reform as shortcut means change in relations between and within classes, 
 without changing the property relations. The impulse for reform of the 
system  arises from the spontaneous quantitative development of the building 
blocks of  economy: means of production. 
 
II. 
 
Society is the totality of the relations between classes and groups in a  
community. The creation and form of wealth depends on the state of 
development  of the productive forces. The means of production develop as 
incremental  
quantitative inputs until a qualitative leap is underway. The unity and 
strife  of primary classes defining (re)production is the flesh and blood 
compelling  society to advance through the progressive accumulation of 
productive 
forces. 
 
As involuntary promoter of industry, the bourgeoisie and privileged ruling  
classes, economic and political layers in society evolve a stake in keeping 
the  system the same because that is how their wealth, power, privilege and 
life  experiences are realized. As the means of production evolve, a 
corresponding  deepening change and contradictions widens with the static 
immobile 
property  relations expressed as corporations, political organizations, 
entrenched self  interest of groups of all kinds and their civic structures. As 
favorable  condition emerges the social struggle riveted to primary classes 
ends with a  quantitative leap in the social relations, which brings a 
reformed society more  into correspondence with improved means of production. 
 
III. 
 
The impulse for reform arises from the spontaneous quantitative development 
 of means of production. The impulse for social revolution arises from the  
spontaneous qualitative development of means of production. The former 
merges  with the latter only under conditions of leap to a new technology 
regime, as was  the case of the industrial revolution. 
 
Our generations have witnessed, lived and recorded the epochal movement of  
a mode of production and how it reformed itself until all the space -  
boundaries, in the industrial system was exhausted. At each juncture -  
(quantitative boundary of our developing industrial production relations), the  
subjective question of political revolution emerged as an issue for the most  
farsighted revolutionaries. 
 
Henry Ford and the system of Fordism expressed the continuation of the  
industrial revolution. Henry Ford's factory system accelerated restructuring 
of  production relations and changes the in the form of the working class 
destroying  the structural basis of craft/skilled labor of the historic 
artisan. Assembly  line production restructured the industrial work process 
driving transition from  craft to industrial trade unionism. This motion logic 
was 
genuine reform of the  system. America assembly line auto production nail 
the coffin shut on the  company town and laid the basis for suburbia; 
expanded the cement and housing  industry and fifty years later resulted in our 
nationwide Interstate system.  There are thousands of incremental changes to 
society brought about by the Henry  ford system. 
 
The growth of the industrial union 

[Marxism-Thaxis] Reform and social revolution: the new narrative 2

2010-08-09 Thread Waistline2
IV. 
 
No matter how heroic their struggle and sacrifice, blacks could not gain  
any freedom as a mass and defeat legal segregation so long as a certain part 
of  the economy was tied to the backwards means of production in labor 
intensive  Southern agriculture. Mechanization of Southern agriculture was the 
bed rock  foundation for corresponding change in the relations between and 
within classes,  short of changing the property relations. With this objective 
logic of change  underway, more was needed in the disposition of the 
subjective forces - people,  to drive and give shape to the reform of the 
system.  
Many factors  converged. Over a million Black soldiers served in the war for 
democracy and  against fascism. They came home imbued with military 
organizational principles  and determined not to be treated in the same old 
way.  
This subjective  disposition was also the case in post WW 1 America, but a 
different result  occurred known as the Red Summers of race bating and 
slaughter of the black.  The system was not yet undergoing sufficient 
quantitative change, although such  change was accelerating. Post WW II was 
different. 
 
The rebuilding of Europe drove production and finance during an era of  
destruction of the sharecropping system, whose necessity grew out of  
mechanization of agriculture. Cold War was also an environment interactive with 
 
upsurge of colonial revolutions world wide. These colonial revolutions were  
reform of the system and the fundamental destruction of the direct colony  
corresponding to an earlier mode of imperial enslavement. These major and many  
lesser events converged as the gigantic Freedom Movement that began  
restructuring of America.  Legal Jim Crow - constructed as a political form  of 
rule riveted to Southern agriculture, had to go. The quantitative development  
of the means of production was central and key to this quantitative 
development  - reform, of society. 
 
Some people and organizations take the position that reform comes when  
enough people demand it. They place the subjective factor of fight back first 
 and at the expense of accumulative change in the means of production and 
then  the social consequence of such change. Upon closer examination enough 
people  shaping reform of the system takes place as the social consequence 
of a leap  already underway. 
 
During an early phase of this quantitative leap reforming America the  
struggle of the black was most difficult.  Early in June 1943, 25,000  Packard 
plant workers, who produced engines for bombers and PT boats, stopped  work 
in protest of the promotion of three blacks. This was under conditions of  
war during a period of the no strike agreement and not one single worker was 
 disciplined.  Thousands upon thousands of proletarians protested in favor  
of segregation, lynch rope rule and continued exclusion of blacks. 
 
It would not be until the outbreak of Montgomery Alabama - December 4,  
1955, then the massive struggle struggles of the 1960's and 1970's that the  
relations within between classes were reformed sufficient to dismantle legal  
segregation. 
 
V. 
 
All quantitative boundaries of the industrial system as a system have been  
exhausted; brought to an end by emergence of a new technology regime and 
its  application to production. No field of endeavor is being reproduced and 
expanded  based on old industrial technology. Quantitative expansion of a 
system does not  ground to a halt based on the internal components of the 
system. Quantity does  not magically become quality. Rather a new quality 
emerges 
or is injected into a  living process or production relations and this new 
quality brings to an end  expansion of the system (production relations) on 
the old basis. Rather,  development now takes place based on the 
quantitative expansion of the new  quality. The industrial revolution, whose 
bookmark 
was the steam engine, was  such an instance. 
 
The industrial system was founded based on electro-mechanical production  
and automation, whose continuous growth and development was the basis of 
reform  of the system. Our modern means of production are in qualitative leap 
from  electro mechanical to electronics and advanced biogenetics.  Capitalism 
is  a mode of accumulation/reproduction of a property relations and 
historically  specific form of wealth based on surplus value extraction.  This 
mode 
of  accumulation stands in antagonism with a new economy - production and  
distribution increasingly driven based on a new technology regime. 
 
We are at the end of an epoch and any social reform to come will be based  
on the objective logic of the unfolding law of social revolution summarized 
by  Marx. The bourgeoisie understands this dynamic. 
 

VI. Marx summary 
 
At a certain stage of their development, the material productive forces of 
 society come in conflict with the existing relations of production, or - 
what is  but a legal expression 

[Marxism-Thaxis] Dialectic of Reform: reform defined under the industrial epoch

2010-08-06 Thread Waistline2
Marxism contains a language, a set of terms accepted as short cuts in  
describing society and movement. Problems arise with words and terms that mean  
different things to different folks and groups using this language. Reform 
and  concession is a case in point. When reform - as a logic or society 
motion,  is reduced to subjective dimensions detached from the object 
being reformed or  reform of society structures confusion ensue. Reform - 
rather than reformism,  is a material relation. Reformism is political and 
ideological. 
 
The dictionary states that reform is an improvement or amendment of what  
is wrong. Reform means to restructure. Restructuring changes something  
material; the social relations between and within in classes. Social relations  
express and correspond to material relations of the economy. 
 
Reform and concession is not the same. Wrestling greater shares of the  
social product and expanded political liberties from the state or employer is  
the content of most social struggle. Concessions do not change the material  
relations within and between classes. Concessions can be taken based on  
political will. Reforms are more than less permanent and cannot be taken away  
based on political will alone. Something must change within the structure 
of  society for a reform of the system to become unraveled. Reforms do not 
change  the property relations. 
 
Reform can be defined as change in relations between and within classes,  
without changing the property relations. 
 
The structure of society and the contradiction that is the unity of primary 
 classes as the process of production is the environment - context. Society 
is  the totality of the relations between classes and groups in a 
community. The  creation of wealth depends on the state of development of the 
productive forces.  The form of this wealth and mode of accumulation is the 
meaning 
of property  relations. The means of production are always developing as 
incremental  quantitative inputs until a qualitative leap is underway. 
 
As involuntary promoter of industry, the privileged ruling classes,  
economic and political layers in society have a stake in keeping the system the 
 
same because that is how their wealth, power, privilege and life experiences 
are  realized. As the means of production evolve, a corresponding deepening 
change  and contradictions widens with the static immobile property 
relations expressed  as corporations, organizations and civic structures. As 
favorable condition  emerges the social struggle ends with a quantitative leap 
in 
the social  relations, which brings a reformed society more into 
correspondence with  improved or new means of production. 
 
Our generations have witnessed, lived and recorded the epochal movement of  
a mode of production and how it reformed itself until all the space in the  
industrial system was exhausted. At each juncture - quantitative boundary 
of our  developing production relations, the subjective question of 
revolution emerged  as the cutting edge of reform. The impulse for reform 
arises from 
the  spontaneous development of means of production. Henry Ford's factory 
system  accelerated restructuring of production relations and changes the in 
the form of  the working class destroying the structural basis of 
craft/skilled labor of the  historic artisan. Assembly line production 
restructured 
the industrial work  process driving transition from craft to industrial trade 
unionism. This motion  logic was genuine reform of the system. Assembly 
line auto production nail the  coffin shut on the company town and laid the 
basis for suburbia; expanded the  cement and housing industry and fifty years 
later resulted in our nationwide  Interstate system. There are thousands of 
incremental changes to society brought  about by the Henry ford system. 
 
The growth of the industrial union movement was a subjective/political  
reform of the system, expressing a material reform as the system passed from 
one  quantitative boundary of growth to another. Reform of the system is a big 
thing  and in all cases gushes forth as based on continuous quantitative 
growth of a  distinct quality defined as state of development of the means 
of production. 
 
As the proletarian masses and labor movement in its totality spontaneously  
fought to reform the system in their favor, communists fought the 
revolutionary  struggle for reform during every leap between quantitative 
boundaries 
of the  industrial system. The most recent memory of the reform movement is 
that of the  African American freedom struggles. African Americans have 
always fought and  struggled for freedom and equality. This critical subjective 
factor of fighting  gives shape to the outcome of reform. Yet, we are 
confronted with a living  dynamic screaming for unraveling. 
 
No matter how heroic their struggle and sacrifice, they could not gain any  
freedom as a mass so long as a certain part of the 

Re: [Marxism-Thaxis] James Allen Papers

2010-08-02 Thread Waistline2
James Allen was one of the  better Marxist propagandist and top notch  
theoretical on the colonial and national question. 
 
To this day I enjoy his contributions. 
 
WL. 

___
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] Corporate media downplays Gulf oil spill

2010-07-30 Thread Waistline2
In a message dated 7/30/2010 3:29:53 P.M. Eastern Daylight Time,  
cb31...@gmail.com writes:

As the comments of Crozier show, commentaries  like those appearing in Time 
and the Washington Post drop any pretense of making  an objective 
investigation. They are following the lead of BP and the Obama  administration, 
which 
hope they can combine the capping of the well with the  capping of any 
serious examination of what devastation the oil spill has already  caused, and 
may still cause.

Comment

Great article. 
 
The hole in the earth and the oil coming out of it affected me deeply. My  
grand kids were affected and reacted in horror. I wanted and want people to 
go  to jail for this one, starting with the Board of Director at British  
Petroleum (BP).  Jail all of them and let the legal system work things out.  
The oil hole that could not be capped for a long time cost to much. 
 
The free market system cost to much and British Petroleum (BP) has proven  
it once again. 
 
The corporations failure to use unneeded double and triple safety systems  
is the real why the proletarian movement called such systems redundant 
safety.  The reason you do not need double lock out on all machinery and 
triple 
in some  cases is to prevent the accident from happening. The reasons 
accidents stop  happening is always the use of redundant safety systems. Many 
of 
us discovered  this truth on the job in accidents up to death. 
 
Behaving as does most capitalist corporations British Petroleum (BP) cut  
the corner on safety to save money by not installing the triple redundant 
safety  system with test for each system. Then matters get worse when the 
information  is owned by a corporation and released as they see fit, and then 
this  limited information is controlled by the White House. By the time you 
have  Senate hearing no one has information and everyone is looking stupid. 
 
This is why I want more than one person from British Petroleum in  jail.  
If the Obama administration cannot and will not bring  these people to 
justice, then he should be impeached and put in jail. 
 
The charge is environmental disaster, at the hands of a corporation  
administered by a Board of Directors.  

WL. 
 

___
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] (no subject)

2010-07-28 Thread Waistline2


In a message dated 7/27/2010 5:26:49 P.M. Eastern Daylight Time,  
erca...@yahoo.com writes:





___
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_ 
(http://lists.econ.utah.edu/mailman/listinfo/marxism-thaxis) 
 


Welcome

WL.
 

___
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] Labor aristocracy

2010-07-28 Thread Waistline2
In a message dated 7/22/2010 8:49:59 A.M. Eastern Daylight Time, 
_cb31...@gmail.com_ (mailto:cb31...@gmail.com) : 
 
 In Marxist theory, those workers (proletarians) in developed  countries
who benefit from the superprofits extracted from the  impoverished
workers of underdeveloped countries form an aristocracy of  labor. 

Comment

A careful reading of Lenin  reveals he makes distinction between the labor 
aristocracy and labor  lieutenants of the capitalist class. Lenin refers 
to the latter as the upper  strata of the labor aristocracy. 

There is the labor aristocracy  and also labor lieutenants of the 
capitalist class. 

The first  refers to a historically evolved privileged status of the 
peoples - all classes,  in the imperial centers in relationship to the 
colonials 
or rather former  colonial world. When these oppressed peoples venture into 
the imperial centers  they are confronted with a social system that trapped 
them into a political  status of second class citizens. The plight of the 
Korean in Japan, the Irish in  England, the Algerian in France, Eastern versus 
Western Europe and of course the  actual history of blacks, browns and 
Indians in America. There has always been a  persistent anti-Chinese political 
and social policy in America that expresses  the evolution of the color factor 
during the era of bourgeois rule.  

Two political categories describe the historical evolution of  imperial 
privilege as a lived experience of the colonials and former colonials.  Those 
colonials venturing to the imperial center that is their colonizer are  
dubbed national minorities. The Algerian in France is a national minority. In 
 
England he is a minority. The Irish in England is a national minority and in 
 America a minority.  The Korean in Japan is a national minority and in  
America a minority. It is the status of the majority of citizens of the earth 
in  the imperial centers that prove imperial bribery and privilege.  

II. 

The evolution of the old great industrial  middle class in America, 
formed on the basis of automotive production is a  thing of our past. This 
great 
industrial middle class was not formed on the  basis of colonial 
subjugation. This middle class was formed based on the advance  of the 
technological 
revolution in the imperial centers under the domination of  the capital 
relation. The imperial centers were historically formed based on  conquest, 
wars 
of genocide, colonial exploitation and slavery.  

Like most inquiry, the more one studies the issue the more complex  it 
becomes. What is incontestable is historic privilege and  the second  class 
citizenship status of the former colonials in the imperial centers.  

If one view capital as a world wide unified system of accumulation  it is 
fairly obvious that the proletarian masses in the former colonies and  
dependent countries receive a much smaller wage for similar and identical work  
as 
compared with the workers in the imperial centers. The issue is a systemic  
relations rather than isolating one part of the workers wage in the 
imperial  centers are a direct result of colonial plunder. 

II. Jesse Jackson Sr. is a labor lieutenants of the capitalist class. In  
Europe these labor lieutenants of the capitalist class arose and 
consolidated  based on the social democratic movement. In America there never 
was a 
movement  of social democracy whose origins are in the overthrow of the 
feudal order. 
 

WL. 

___
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] responses to law of value and meaning of proletariat fro...

2010-07-14 Thread Waistline2
In a message dated 7/13/2010 9:23:23 A.M. Pacific Daylight Time, 
_cb31...@gmail.com_ (mailto:cb31...@gmail.com)  writes: 
 
CB: Ok  Isn't class antagonism you describe a conflict between the old  
division of labor and the new division of labor with the new division of labor  
arising based on development  of new organization of production and new  
means and instruments of production ?
 
Comment
 
The environment of one things always merge with and acts as the environment 
 of another thing. The conflict between old means of production and new 
means of  production is an issue of transition from old methods and means to 
new methods  and means. This conflict - contradiction between old means and 
new means, is  resolved quantitatively or by development of the new means in 
stages until the  new means of production gain dominance and primacy as the 
new division of labor.  Specifically, each quantitative advance of 
implementing new means of production  - a new quality, brings to an end 
expansion of 
production on the old basis and  further reconfigure means of production on 
the new basis. This contradiction  between old and new means of production is 
resolved in stages. 
 
Antagonism is not contradiction. 
 
Antagonism is a form of resolution of property rather than means of  
production development. Antagonism IS NOT a form of resolution of a conflict  
between the old division of labor and the new division of labor with the new  
division of labor arising based on development. 
 
Antagonism  or class antagonism arises from property forms NOT  instru
ments, tools, energy source or means of production. Bourgeoisie and  
proletariat 
are property categories that arise based on a division of  labor.  But the 
genesis of the antagonism is the long  history of private property. 
Bourgeoisie and proletariat arise in antagonism  with the serf form of labor - 
property, and the serf as a property category  evolved in unity and conflict - 
contradiction, with the nobility. Nobility is a  concept of a property 
relations rather than a description of a certain stage of  development of the 
division of labor. The serf is a concept of property and  political status 
rather 
than a category of means of production. Beneath the serf  form of property 
is a living human being utilizing a historically evolved  collection of means 
of production expressing a division of labor. Say a wooden  plow and then a 
steel tip plow. This serf is perhaps a plowman but his status  as serf 
means he is a subject as opposed to a citizen because his political  status 
makes him the property of another human being. 
 
On the other hand the law of value arises from and has its genesis in the  
division of labor rather than the form of property. The law of value speaks 
of  equal quantities - magnitudes, of labor being exchangeable with one 
another. 
 
The moment of means of production and social relations (political status)  
occur simultaneously but there is a difference. 
 
WL. 
 
 

___
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


[Marxism-Thaxis] THE CAPITALISTIC CHARACTER OF MANUFACTURE

2010-07-14 Thread Waistline2
In a message dated 7/13/2010 9:23:23 A.M. Pacific Daylight Time, 
_cb31...@gmail.com_ (mailto:cb31...@gmail.com)  writes: 
 
SECTION 5 THE CAPITALISTIC CHARACTER OF MANUFACTURE 
 


(Note:  The title is extremely revealing) 
 
 
 

An increased number of labourers under the control of one capitalist is  
the natural starting-point, as well of co-operation generally, as of 
manufacture  in particular. But the division of labour in manufacture makes 
this 
increase in  the number of workmen a technical necessity. 
 
(Note: what makes the increase in the number of workers necessary is not  
capital as a social power but the technical aspect of division of labor). 
 
 

1). The minimum number that any given capitalist is bound to employ is  
here prescribed by the previously established division of labour. On the other  
hand, the advantages of further division are obtainable only by adding to 
the  number of workmen, and this can be done only by adding multiples of the 
various  detail groups. But an increase in the variable component of the 
capital employed  necessitates an increase in its constant component, too, in 
the workshops,  implements, c., and, in particular, in the raw material, the 
call for which  grows quicker than the number of workmen. The quantity of 
it consumed in a given  time, by a given amount of labour, increases in the 
same ratio as does the  productive power of that labour in consequence of its 
division. Hence, it is a  law, based on the very nature of manufacture, 
that the minimum amount of  capital, which is bound to be in the hands of each 
capitalist, must keep  increasing; in other words, that the transformation 
into capital of the social  means of production and subsistence must keep 
extending. [39] 
 
(Note In the last sentence above Marx speaks of the very nature of  
manufacture and in the following sentence below he speaks of a form of  
existence or mode of existence of capital. Or what is the same capital as a  
mode 
of accumulation.) 
 
2). In manufacture, as well as in simple co-operation, the collective  
working organism is a form of existence of capital. The mechanism that is made  
up of numerous individual detail labourers belongs to the capitalist. Hence, 
the  productive power resulting from a combination of labours appears to be 
the  productive power of capital. Manufacture proper not only subjects the 
previously  independent workman to the discipline and command of capital, 
but, in addition,  creates a hierarchic gradation of the workmen themselves. 
While simple  co-operation leaves the mode of working by the individual for 
the most part  unchanged, manufacture thoroughly revolutionises it, and 
seizes labour-power by  its very roots. 
 
(Note: I read the above as follows: In manufacture, as well as in simple  
co-operation, the collective working organism is a form of existence of 
capital.  The mechanism that is made up of numerous individual detail labourers 
IS  OWNED BY the capitalist, BUT THE MECHANISM IS NOT CAPITAL.  Hence, the  
productive power resulting from a combination of labours ONLY appears to be 
the  productive power of capital. THE MECHANISM IS Manufacture proper . . . . 
WHICH,  not only subjects the previously independent workman to the 
discipline and  command of capital, but, in addition, creates a hierarchic 
gradation of the  workmen themselves. While simple co-operation leaves the mode 
of 
working by the  individual for the most part unchanged, manufacture 
thoroughly revolutionises  it, and seizes labour-power by its very roots.)  


3). It converts the labourer into a crippled monstrosity, by forcing his  
detail dexterity at the expense of a world of productive capabilities and  
instincts; just as in the States of La Plata they butcher a whole beast for 
the  sake of his hide or his tallow. Not only is the detail work distributed 
to the  different individuals, but the individual himself is made the 
automatic motor of  a fractional operation, [40] and the absurd fable of 
Menenius 
Agrippa, which  makes man a mere fragment of his own body, becomes realised. 
[41] If, at first,  the workman sells his labour-power to capital, because 
the material means of  producing a commodity fail him, now his very 
labour-power refuses its services  unless it has been sold to capital. Its 
functions 
can be exercised only in an  environment that exists in the workshop of the 
capitalist after the sale. By  nature unfitted to make anything 
independently, the manufacturing labourer  develops productive activity as a 
mere 
appendage of the capitalist’s workshop.  [42] As the chosen people bore in 
their 
features the sign manual of Jehovah, so  division of labour brands the 
manufacturing workman as the property of  capital.
 
(Note: If, at first, the workman sells his labour-power to capital,  
because the material means of producing a commodity fail 

[Marxism-Thaxis] Antagonism: a better definition (not edited)

2010-07-14 Thread Waistline2


Antagonism: 
 
Antagonism means the mutual resistance or active opposition of two  
opposing forces, physical or mental; active opposition to a force. 
 
Antagonism is a form of change resolution by annihilation and  
nullification, rather than harmonious stage by stage sublation. Antagonism as  
destruction, and nullification is a form of transition to a new mode of  
production 
when society is governed based on private property. In an environment  of 
private property, qualitatively new productive forces creates new form of  
classes as property relations and these new classes come into external conflict 
 
with the old social organization of labor based and old classes based in 
old  means of production. 
 
In class society, the collision between qualitatively new productive forces 
 and old social relation of production - (the old classes connected to 
these  relations), cannot be resolved based on the struggle of the old classes  
constituting the old relations of production. 
 
Resolution takes place outside - external, the old bond - contradiction,  
that is the two classes constituting the old system of production. The 
struggle  between serf and nobility cannot be resolved by the serf overthrowing 
the  nobility and establishing a new society of serfs. Resolution takes place 
by  destruction of both serf and nobility as property categories at the 
hands of new  classes:  bourgeoisie and proletariat. 
 
Antagonism, resolution by nullification or destruction of a previously  
existing unity of classes, (in this case serf and nobility) requires the  
emergence and development of a new unity of classes external to the old unity  
that was serf and nobility. The new classes, (bourgeoisie and proletariat)  
connected to the new means of production, appear as the external agent of  
destruction and nullification.  Resolution is negation by destruction of  the 
two old classes and their property form. 
 
Antagonism is not contradiction or a form of contradiction, but rather a  
form of resolution. Contradiction -(the struggle of old classes against  
themselves) is replaced (superseded) by antagonism. 
 
The bourgeois mode of production is the last antagonistic form of the  
social process of production – antagonistic not in the sense of individual  
antagonism but of an antagonism that emanates from the individuals' social  
conditions of existence – but the productive forces developing within bourgeois 
 society create also the material conditions for a solution of this 
antagonism  (Marx). 

___
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] responses to law of value and meaning of proletariat fro...

2010-07-13 Thread Waistline2


In a message dated 7/12/2010 10:53:56  A.M. Pacific Daylight Time, 
cb31...@gmail.com writes:  


 CB: Is the BP oil catastrophe the beginning of the conflict and  
then antagonism you refer to ? 
 
Reply 
 
No. 
 
The material quoted states: 
 
At a certain stage in their development means of production - instruments, 
 machinery and energy sources, come into conflict and then antagonism with 
the  existing social relations and their political expression as political 
laws of  society. 
 
Although its roots are remote, capitalism emerged as a system based on the  
industrial revolution. Capitalism is not the economy but a political regime 
or  mode of accumulation. The economy is made up of two aspects: production 
and  distribution. Upon this base of society arises a political 
superstructure  expressing the nature of the base, and in turn acts back upon 
that 
base. 
 
The displacement of the universality of the manual labor process by the  
industrial revolution, as the qualifying character of productive forces, took  
place though the life activity of new classes, bourgeoisie and proletariat. 
 Industrial implements evolve in conflict and then enter antagonism with 
the  manual labor process, due to private property. 
 
It is property or classes as conveyor of property that is the source and  
genesis of antagonism. Antagonism is not rooted in means of production  
development. That is, qualitative changes in means of production express the  
conflict in developing from one kind of social organization of labor to 
another. 
 
At a certain stage in the growing universality of a qualitatively new  
social organization of labor, antagonism appears as a form of resolution 
between 
 old classes and new classes. Serf evolves for thousands of years in 
conflict -  (not antagonism) with the nobility as both are riveted to the 
manual 
labor  process. The appearance of new classes - (bourgeois and proletariat), 
emerge and  evolve in antagonism with serf and nobility. The former express 
new productive  forces and vanquish the latter (expressing old means of 
production), from  history. 
 
Society evolves in class antagonism. 
 
WL.
 
This email was cleaned by emailStripper, available for free from 
_http://www.papercut.biz/emailStripper.htm_ 
(http://www.papercut.biz/emailStripper.htm) 

___
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] responses to law of value and meaning of proletariat fro...

2010-07-13 Thread Waistline2


In a message dated 7/13/2010 9:23:23 A.M. Pacific Daylight Time,  
cb31...@gmail.com writes:

CB; Doesn't Marx consider that capitalism _emerges_ in the
manufacturing  system  ?

_http://www.marxists.org/archive/marx/works/1867-c1/ch14.htm#S5_ 
(http://www.marxists.org/archive/marx/works/1867-c1/ch14.htm#S5) 
 
 
Reply
 
What is Man-U-Facture? It is not handicraft. 
 
By stating that capitalism roots are remotes is to say it is a form of  
private property. Capitalism emerges as part of a long line of private 
property.  All property forms emerged in some kind of system of production and  
distribution. Capitalism as a property relations or as a mode of accumulation  
stands and gains universality - as a system, on the basis of the industrial  
revolution.  

___
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] Scope and Limits of Theory: Provisional Draft

2010-07-08 Thread Waistline2
Test 

___
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


[Marxism-Thaxis] responses to law of value and meaning of proletariat from Marxism list

2010-07-07 Thread Waistline2
You are missing the point. Marx never wrote about the future communist  
society. He wrote about the Paris Commune because it was the inevitable  
first step in creating such a society. 
 
People who are accustomed to thinking in terms of the Civil War in France 
 and 
State and Revolution spend little time thinking about the future  
communist society, the abolition of commodity production, etc. 
 

Comment 
 
Critique of the Gotha Program. Marx. 
 
You know, the whole bit about the workers not exchanging their products  
(labor) and riveting a higher stage of communism to the development of the  
division of labor in society. Marx spells this out clearer to us today, than 
our  past generations of communists. Part of the task of each generation of 
Marxists  is to try and chart - describe, their specific state of development 
of the  division of labor against what existed when Marx wrote his Gotha 
Program. 
 
The chance of abolishing not merely bourgeois private property but an  
economic law exists today, that was not technically possible 50 years ago. This 
 
is the law of value. Abolishing the law of value was not possible in the 
past  century even under the most optimum theoretical model, including a 
scenario of  world victorious Socialist revolution (although such was not 
possible, due to  objective rather than subjective limitations of class 
consciousness). 
 
Marx formulates historical necessity as the general law of the relationship 
 between a). state of development of means of production + people = 
productive  forces, in unity and strife with b). the social relations of 
production 
or the  life active of peoples as classes engaging means of production and 
their  relationship to property in the process of production. At a certain 
stage in  their development means of production - instruments, machinery and 
energy  sources, come into conflict and then antagonism with the existing 
social  relations and their political expression as political laws of society. 
Then a  new period of social revolution opens. 
 
In the past century agriculture and/as the small producers made abolition  
of the value relation impossible no matter what theoretical model is 
presented.  This small producer as a class (historically evolved social 
relation), 
not  individuals, cannot alienate their products - release them, except on 
the basis  of exchange. This impulse does not generate capitalism but rather 
reproduces the  law of value, which in turn continuously reproduces the soil 
and condition for  capitalism. 
 
Agriculture was in fact revolutionized world wide beginning at the front  
curve of industrial revolution during the past century, including in the 
Soviet  Union. Large scale agriculture based on industrial implements was the 
revolution  in agriculture, or roughly the second or maybe the third phase 
of the  industrial revolution depending on ones bookmark of 
industrialization. 
 
Abolishing the law of value during the era of the Paris Commune was out of  
the question. 
 
On another note, workers power is a totally syndicalist conception, in as 
 much as the word proletariat is a property category within Marxism fused 
with  a clear concepts of political power. The proletariat in power begins 
abolition  of their previous property signature based on an existing 
division of labor  and its degree of development; the general economic and 
political environment  domestically and internationally and the cultural 
development 
of the proletarian  regime. 
 
II. 
 
 I would guess probably by the political power of the  proletariat, but 
what good is that if capitalists are still able to maintain  their economic 
power?
 
For my taste the issue can be formulated more sharply. 
 
Under what conditions does the law of value - rather than bourgeois  
property, begins to lose its force? The law of value manifest an economic law 
of  
the exchange of labor equivalents. 
 
The law of value in its objective logic and its expression in the minds of  
ordinary folks can not be abolished by political fiat. Yes, economic laws 
can  act independently of a property form, even when this property form is 
the only  persistent way the economic law can be expressed society wide. The 
economic law  of value and its existence in human society is not depended 
upon or have its  genesis in property but the division of labor in society. 
 
The law of capitalist production or more accurately the general law of  
capital accumulation is set into play based on politics or what is the same,  
property in its political form. Capital accumulation is a mode of 
accumulation  or reproduction of the property relations defining capital as a 
social 
power.  Bourgeois property is not an economic law, although it is an 
environment -  property relations, in which economic laws operate. 
 
Bourgeois property arises on the basis of and out of private property  
itself. In the past century it was possible to abolish bourgeois private  

Re: [Marxism-Thaxis] Party of a New New Type

2010-07-05 Thread Waistline2


In a message dated 7/5/2010 7:21:31 A.M. Pacific Daylight Time,  
cb31...@gmail.com writes:

It even included the Leftist Lounge  the biggest People's Party of  a
new type ever, at Bert's Marketplace (my yard).

_http://www.brownpapertickets.com/event/111370_ 
(http://www.brownpapertickets.com/event/111370) 
 
 
Comment
 
It was beautiful. I forget how beautiful young people are. I was at Bert's  
Friday evening and my estimate of the crowd was maybe 3 - 4 thousand. 
 
Without incident, except for the young women who apparently drank a tad bit 
 to much. We are going to see and feel the social consequences of the 
Social  Forum starting now but certainly over the course of the next few years. 
 
Twenty, thirty years down the road, many activists will pin point the  
Detroit Social Forum as a turning point in their political development. 
 
This was a really big thing. 
 
 
WL. 

___
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] Why a Social Forum? Why Detroit?

2010-07-05 Thread Waistline2
This is a really good interview that ought to become part of a package of  
literature that is a post summary of the Social Forum - Detroit. The scale 
of  this event was massive. each might of the event a couple of comrades and 
new  people we met would gather at my home and go over all the literature 
passed out  at the convention (not each work shop which would have been 
impossible). The  common thread of all the literature was a plea for a new 
political/organizing  center or focal point. 
 
The Social Forum Detroit was something new and different. I want to try and 
 describe the Social Forum as a process, while stating the right to revise 
and  clarify my estimate later. This was an anti-capitalist social trend 
under  conditions where the advancing revolution in the means of production has 
brought  the system to crisis on the basis of irreparably breaching the 
unity of  productive forces and the old industrial-capitalist relations of  
production. Consequently, all classes and segments of classes are involved in  
attacking the system from different directions with a different vision of 
how to  shape the society of the future. We are part of this living process 
and have to  learn how to fight for our collective vision as socialist, 
communists and  revolutionaries manning the barricades against the increasing 
fascist political  currents seeking consolidation.  
 
Under conditions of irreparable breach the struggle for reform is not  
reformism but the only game in town. Under conditions where the system is  
passing from one quantitative boundary to the next, the struggle for reform  
leads to reform of the system and adjustment of relations within and between  
classes. The last great reform of the system was the Civil Rights Movement and 
 before that the victory of the industrial union form. 
 
Concretely this means the form of organizations of the proletariat, that  
grew up and matured based on reform of the system are in decay and collapse. 
The  Social Forum as a process emerged outside of these old forms of 
struggle. 
 
One of the things some of us are working on in the aftermath of this event  
is the presentation of our specific vision of the future society and how 
things  work and get paid for. In this sense the Boggs Center represents and 
presented a  plausible vision of cooperation and the collectivist society. We 
desire to go  much further and pinpoint how the new technology regime can 
be utilized to  redeploy labor and reorganize society based on our existing 
state of development  of means of production. 
 
Detroit is in fact ground zero and a new narrative on the rise and fall of  
the industrial working class and the industrial form of social organization 
 would naturally be birthed in Detroit. 
 
Obviously, I have personally autographed copies of the pamphlet Detroit for 
 you. The material from Political Affairs with Dave Moore are a part of the 
 booklet. The Marxist Glossary is one years away from production and ultra  
advanced from the first impressions sent to the list. 
 
Rally Comrades for the last fight we face. 
The Internationale shall be the human race. 
 
WL. 
 
 


In a message dated 7/5/2010 8:01:51 A.M. Pacific Daylight Time,  
cb31...@gmail.com  writes:
Politics

http://www.metrotimes.com/news/story.asp?id=15162

Radical  listening
Why a Social Forum? Why Detroit?
MT Photo: Travis R. Wright The  opening march makes its way downtown
Tuesday afternoon.  MT Photo: Tera  Holcomb Clockwise from top left:
Adrienne Maree Borwn, Lydia  #Wylie-Kellermann, Elena Herrada, Marian
Baker, Rich Feldman and Oyatunde  Amakisi
AUDIO
 

___
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] The US Social Forum: The Anti-Tea Party Experience

2010-07-04 Thread Waistline2
Fletchers summation of the USSF - Detroit, seemed pretty accurate in my  
experience as a participant, panelist, distributor of People’s Tribune and  
author of a small booklet: Detroit. The hard numbers on participants range 
 from 15,000 to 20,000 as the result of the computers crashing after 16,000 
had  registered. This event was a massive undertaking involving hundreds of 
dedicated  people. 
 
What struck me most profoundly was the age and gender composition of this  
gathering. The majority seemed to be under the age of 30 and female. The 
labor  movement in America is female, multi-lingual with its cutting edge 
merging into  brown. 
 
The Social Forum - Detroit, expressed the face of the New American  
Revolution: proletarian revolution. The essence of a new form of the 
proletariat  
is its growth in unison with the growth of a new technology regime tossing 
our  existing system into crisis and antagonism. Society cannot go back to the 
old  industrial era where the working class movement was riveted to smoke 
stack  industry and the industrial union form. Nor, can society stand still. 
 
The system of capitalism has entered antagonism based on revolution -  
qualitative changes, in the means of production rather than simply the conflict 
 
inherent in consumption capacity of the workers, due to their status as 
wage  laborers. Under conditions of revolutionary change all sections of 
society began  the attack upon the system from different direction in an effort 
to 
impose a new  vision and purpose on society. The Social Forum embodied all 
these various  tendencies generally from the old historic left wing of the 
political  equation.  At least it would seem as such at first glance. 
 
I would say that the Social Forum - Detroit, expressed a broad cross  
section of an anti-fascist ideological and political current. And that the  
traditional dichotomy of left and right is not useful. 
 
WL.
 


In a message dated 7/2/2010 9:27:51 A.M. Pacific Daylight Time,  
cb31...@gmail.com writes:

The US Social Forum: The Anti-Tea Party Experience

The African  World

The US Social Forum: The Anti-Tea Party Experience

By Bill  Fletcher, Jr. - BlackCommentator.com Editorial
Board Black  Commentator
July 1,  2010

http://www.blackcommentator.com/382/382_aw_anti_tea_party.php
 

___
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] Back to Marx - part 1

2010-05-25 Thread Waistline2
 I think that, today, we've come to a turning point in history.  People 
are re-discovering Marx because he provides reserves of critical thought  
that are still pertinent to the problems of our times, but, of course, that is  
not enough. The Marxist tradition has not said much on the problems of 
nations,  of the State, of ideology, of the function of symbols in social 
relations. To  that has to be added the problem of ethnic fragmentation the 
problem of the  unheard-of violence that develops within societies. And it is 
also necessary to  develop a response to the challenge constituted by all these 
anthropological  transformations, which tend to turn the popular masses 
into disconnected  consumerist masses, subject to victimization by every 
demagogy imaginable. Marx  could not think of everything or foresee everything! 
 
 
Comment 
 
All kinds of doctrines of thought are associated with the Marxist  
tradition, and this tradition is defined differently, ranging from Gramsci  to 
Mao; 
from the doctrine of people’s war to Lenin’s conception of a party of  a 
new type,  to the latest declaration by the Dali Lama declaring himself  
favorable to Marxism. What is the revolutionary essence or heart of Karl Marx 
 approach, method and what some refer to as the science of society? Old 
schools  Leninist will swear that the heart of Marxism is the recognition of 
the  dictatorship of the proletariat as the transition from industrial 
capitalism to  new economic and political system post bourgeois property. 
Political 
and  ideological Trotskyism will declare than a concept of permanent 
revolution is  fundamental to understanding Marx. Interestingly, Marx never 
wrote 
anything to  suggest his approach, method and teachings could be reduced to 
or measured based  on adherence to a political form of the state called the 
dictatorship of the  proletariat.  The Trotskyite proposition is unworthy of 
serious  consideration as fundamental to anything Marx wrote. 
 
Marx and Engels wrote voluminously outlining their new approach, method and 
 summations. Nowhere in the writings of Marx and Engles will one find 
anything  suggesting they considered the dictatorship of the proletariat a 
litmus 
test, or  point of departure for their approach, method and historical 
summation. Although  I personally accept as a given the period of transition 
between industrial  capitalism and economic communism to presuppose a 
revolutionary dictatorship of  the proletariat, 
 
On the contrary Marx actually writes about his approach, method and  
summation as a revolutionary way of summarizing the economic and political  
foundation of society as it passes from one mode of production to the next. 
Marx  
and Engles in fact coined new conceptual frameworks to understand the 
society  progression: mode of production, productive forces, means of 
production,  social relations of production, political superstructure, 
this 
political  doctrine of action is not the essence and heart of the approach, 
method and  summation bearing Marx name. There is no need to guess and 
postulate concerning  the essence of Marx theory.  Marx summarizes his new 
thinking 
in the 1859  Preface to A Contribution to the Critique of Political 
Economy. 
 
At a certain stage of development, the material productive forces of  
society come into conflict with the existing relations of production or – (this 
 
merely expresses the same thing in legal terms ) with the property 
relations  within the framework of which they have operated up until then. From 
forms of  development of the productive forces these relations turn into their 
fetters.  Then begins an era of social revolution. 
(1859 Preface to A Contribution to  the Critique of Political Economy) 
_http://www.marxists.org/archive/marx/works/1859/critique-pol-economy/preface.htm
_ 
(http://www.marxists.org/archive/marx/works/1859/critique-pol-economy/preface.htm)
  
 

In standard American English the above is understood to mean: 
 
Social revolution comes about as a result of qualitative development of the 
 means of production. An antagonism develops between the new emerging 
material  relations connected to and interactive with the qualitatively new 
means 
of  production and the old static social organization of labor and property 
forms  expressed as the political relations within the superstructure. 
 
Below is presented the entirety of the heart and soul of Marx approach,  
method and summation by which he created the first general laws establishing a 
 new science: the science of society. Numbering has been added for easy of  
reading. 
 
(Quote) 
 
1). In the social production of their existence, men inevitably enter into 
 definite relations, which are independent of their will, namely relations 
of  production appropriate to a given stage in the development of their 
material  forces of production. 
2). The totality of these relations of production  constitutes the economic 
structure of 

Re: [Marxism-Thaxis] End game: Part 4 on the Communist Internationals

2010-04-18 Thread Waistline2


In a message dated 4/18/2010 12:56:29 A.M. Pacific Daylight Time,  
jann...@gmail.com writes:

Actually, completely wrong. It came into widespread use after  newly
opened farmlands were quickly depleted by monocropping and lack  of
crop rotation. For cotton farming it became absolutely essential  and
even then didn't prevent the lands from being completely depleted  for
future cotton crops. After the self-propelled tractor did  become
popular on small family farms, we actually see a drop in  commercial
fertilizer use, most likely because of reduced acres in farming as  a
result of federal programs in the 1930s. Which is not to say  that
fertilizer use doesn't then skyrocket in the 1950s and after --  it
does, because of even more farming.
 
Repluy
 
I stand corrected. Thanks.
 
WL. 

___
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] End game: Part 4 on the Communist Internationals

2010-04-17 Thread Waistline2
In a message dated 4/16/2010 6:38:05 P.M. Pacific Daylight Time, 
_jann...@gmail.com_ (mailto:jann...@gmail.com)  writes: 
 
CIs and the UAW. Careful guys, this thread has a huge potential for  
self-humiliation built into it. 
 
Horses enabled the first stages of mechanization of agriculture. Have you  
ever seen how they still do all those procedures on an Amish farm? To quite 
an  extent mechanized, much of it horse-powered (which reminds me to add 
horses to  that list of animals the human animal has co-evolved with -- 
wolf-dogs, granary  cats and horses).
 
Reply
 
Then how come horses did not change the social organization of labor in  
agriculture in the time frame indicated? It was the tractor that was the 
impetus  behind the destruction of the sharecropping system in America rather 
than the  horse. 
 
Wide spread chemical fertilizers came after the tractor. 
 

WL.  
 
 

___
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] End game: Part 4 on the Communist Internationals

2010-04-17 Thread Waistline2



Social relations are closely bound up with productive forces. In acquiring 
 new productive forces men change their mode of production; and in changing 
their  mode of production, in changing their way of earning a living, they 
change all  their social relations. The hand mill gives you society with the 
feudal lord;  the steam engine, society with the industrial capitalists 
 
There are different ways to understand Marx meaning. One such way is that  
the steam engine represents and expresses a pivotal moment - new qualitative 
 configuration of applied technology, on whose basis a class of industrial  
capitalist arises, rather than a concept of the industrial capitalist 
creating  industry. Or the steam engine expresses a decisive juncture in a 
qualitative  development of means of production distinguishing the society of 
the 
hand mill  and feudal lord from that of the steam engine and industrial 
capitalist. 
 
The steam engine is a moment in an interactive reality, where the  
environment of one things is simultaneously woven into and provides the  
environment 
for other things. Everything is important in reality but some things  are 
more important - fundamental, in the evolution of a new mode of production  
or the opening of a new quantitative boundary of development. 
 
The tractor, its mass production and application to agriculture is symbolic 
 of that which ushered in a quantitative phase in the development of the 
social  organization of agricultural labor. The application of ammonia based 
fertilizers  to agriculture does not best describe the quantitative 
reconfiguration of  agricultural labor world wide. The tractor does because in 
America its  application and deployment caused the destruction of a distinct 
class 
form and  class relationship driving  a definable boundary of development 
in the  organization of agricultural labor. Chemical fertilizers before the 
tractor and  after the tractor embraces different boundaries of development 
of applied  scientific knowledge. 
 
The issue being spoken of is how and why things change in the social  
organization of labor and what is fundamental to such change. Absolutely more  
things in the totality of the development of means of production than the 
steam  engine gives one a society of industrial capitalists. Electricity and  
development of this infrastructure is fundamental to the electro mechanical  
process - an industrial society. Railroads, which caused the decay of the  
Cowboys and Cowboy herding was part of reconfiguring the actual labor process 
of  bringing this commodity to market. The cowboys and their driving of 
cattle  across America lost their jobs - social function, due to revolution in 
the means  of production. I most certainly agree that land speculation and  
homesteading  opened up huge areas of America but produced no revolution in  
the social organization of agricultural labor. Speculation in land and  
homesteading were actual preconditions of the revolution to come, but what was  
the pivotal moment was revolution in the instruments of production. 
 
What broke up the share cropping system in America was the tractor as that, 
 which was fundamental. Not by itself. Nor is this to say the sharecropping 
 system was preordained. The property form could have attained another 
shape as a  land of independent farmers in the South. 
 
Here is the bottom line. The Three Communist Internationals arose and  
decayed in distinct historical period. These period can be distinguished on the 
 
basis of the historically specific character of means of production. 
Further,  the industrial form of the union is spent. This means this form of 
unionism is  not only no longer on the upswing but decaying before our very 
eyes. 
There are  many reasons for this. I choose to locate that which is 
fundamental to this  decay as reorganization of the labor process around a 
growing 
new technology  regime. 
 
A new Communist International cannot be built upon the same basis as that  
of Marx's First International or the Third International because these 
worlds  and their historically specific configuration of labor - class forms 
and  
alignments, no longer exists. No one disputes this but it is devoid of most 
 writings on Chavez call for a new International. 
 
WL.
 

___
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


[Marxism-Thaxis] End game: Part 4 on the Communist Internationals (UAW unions in real time)

2010-04-15 Thread Waistline2
End game 
 
The political battles waged by Marx and Engels to give the First  
International an outlook and program independent of all ideology of the  
propertied 
classes has been outlined and preserved as part of the Soviet  Legacy in 
Marx and the Trade Unions.  Marx and the Trade Unions, by A.  Lozovsky 
(pseudo, Dridzo, Solomon Abranovich) issued by International Publishers  dated 
March 14, 1933 Moscow, captures every fundamental political struggle Marx  
conducted in the First International. 
 
It has been more than twenty years since I have had the occasion and need  
to restudy this wonderful text. Issued under the rising curve of Soviet 
power,  this text contains all the historical and theoretical errors of the 
period in  which it was issued. This period can be called the era of 
Marxism-Leninism. 
 
A historical era is historical precisely because no one in the era can  
discern their error. This is so because the social process has not attained a  
degree of development to bring froth the new distinct features of the entire 
 process. Specifically, the means of production does not move in 
contradiction  with the relations of production but rather antagonism. The 
contradiction that  is means of production and relations of production is the 
internal 
drive and  impulse establishing the self movement of society as development 
of the mode of  production. The mode of production is driven through 
successive quantitative  boundaries of development. The quality that is being 
developed quantitatively  was industrialism. Today, the industrial revolution 
has 
given way to the post  industrial revolution and a new quality of means of 
production. The appearance  of this new quality of productive forces brings 
to antagonism - not  contradiction, the society founded on industrialism. 
 
The historical error is the conception of the class struggle of the  
proletariat as contradiction. The bourgeoisie and proletariat are birthed in  
contradiction as the unity of a production relations or social relations of  
production. These new classes - bourgeoisie and proletariat, are 
simultaneously  birthed in antagonism with feudalism and all the old classes 
(old 
production  relations) marking feudalism as distinct property relation or the 
landed  property relations, or a specific social system (mode of production). 
Under the  feudal system the serf could not overthrow the nobility because 
together them  constituted the building blocks of the mode of production. What 
was and is  required to displace a mode of production, is a qualitative 
development of means  of production, creating new classes and new relations of 
production.   Capitalist/industrial society, as a mode of production is no 
different in its  historical evolution as a mode of production. 
 
During the various boundaries of development of the industrial system and  
capitalism the proletariat at the front of the curve of development did not 
and  could not overthrow capital in the advanced countries until the means 
of  production began evolution in antagonism with the relations of 
production. At  the back of the curve of industrial development it was possible 
to 
impose a  communist regime on society during the leap from agriculture to 
industry. Such  was the case with the Russian October Revolution. 
 
This distinct law was not formulated and articulated until the mid and late 
 1980’s by a small section of the American communist movement. 
 
Reality Check 
 
The decay of industrial unionism is no where more striking than in the  
state of Michigan and the historic Detroit nexus of automotive production. The  
practical activity of the proletarian movement in America demanded a 
revisiting  of this text. The post industrial revolution is the environment and 
context for  the decay of industrial trade unionism in the same way that the 
rising  industrial revolution was the context for the decay of craft unionism 
as the  cutting edge of the early trade union movement. What is different 
today is that  the struggle of the workers is spontaneously leaping outside 
the boundary of the  trade union movement.  A glance at the membership 
numbers of the auto  workers union is instructive. 
 
(Note: These figures are for total membership rather than auto workers  
only. Air plane workers and agricultural implement workers are included in the  
early years. After the 1980 service workers are included. A real break   
down of all the numbers and category of workers would be revealing. At  this  
point I do not have such information. There are roughly 90 - 100, 000  
active UAW  auto workers. And falling.) 
 
UAW Average Annual Dues Paying Membership 1936 through  2008 
 

1936 27,058   1976   1,358,364 
1937 231,8941977   1,440,988 
1938   144,097   1978   1,499,425 
1939   155,845   1979   1,527,858 
1940   246,038   1980   

Re: [Marxism-Thaxis] Part 1 on the Communist Internationals

2010-04-15 Thread Waistline2


In a message dated 4/12/2010 5:53:09 A.M. Pacific Daylight Time,  
_editor_revdem@ indiatimes. com_ (_mailto:editor_ (mailto:editor) _ 
_rev...@indiatime_ (mailto:rev...@indiatime)  s.com) writes: 
 
Speech by Mátyás Rákosi, General Secretary of the Hungarian Communist Party 
 at the Meeting of the Central Committee, 17 May 1946 Date: 05/17/1946 
Source:  Archives of the Institute for Political History (AIPH), Budapest, 274. 
f. 2/34  Description: Speech by Mátyás Rákosi, General Secretary of the 
Hungarian  Communist Party at the Meeting of the Central Committee, 17 May 
 
1946. 
 
 
 
“When we arranged the third International, I remember the trouble we went  
to show that we wanted a centralized, strong International with executive  
powers, similar to how Marx imagined the International in 1864, and not just 
the  sorting office and so on that the second International became before 
the First  World War. And this was the catastrophe of the third International. 
Because  instead of every country looking separately for the conditions for 
revolution,  and not trying the impossible task of centralizing and 
directing the whole  movement, it directed it from the center. The result was 
that 
the parties gave  up independent politics, continually looked in the 
direction of the center, and  waited for its instructions. This view led the 
comrades to announce the  discontinuation of the third International. And 
afterwards, now that the  International has been discontinued, the parties are 
coming forth one after the  other to say how the existence of the International 
limited their progress, e.g.  most recently we heard from our Yugoslav 
comrades how much such a central  institution held them back, which, unaware of 
local conditions, sometimes  demanded quite the opposite of what they needed. 
So such an International can no  longer be established. On the contrary, the 
International should be such that it  does not hinder the progress of 
individual parties, that it provides a means for  individual parties to execute 
the tasks leading to the liberation of the  proletariat, bearing local 
circumstances in mind. I should immediately say that  as far as this is 
concerned, 
the new International cannot be compared to the  previous ones. This will 
not be an organizing body; its task will be to compose,  to help in making 
objections, to communicate the good or bad experiences of one  country's 
communist party to that of another country, that they should learn  from their 
neighbors' experiences and losses. This will undoubtedly be very  useful, as 
not just us, but communist parties the world over are beginning to  feel that 
without the exchange of experiences and objections they cannot produce  
adequate plans on international questions.” 
 
Comment 
 
64 years after Rakosi speech for the formation of a new Communist  
International, one “unrepentant Marxist” and moderator of Marxism List echo’s  
the 
same sentiment in a lengthy six part series on the Four Communists  
Internationals. 
 
(quote) 
 
“In this, the third installment of a series of articles on attempts to  
build workers or socialist internationals, I am going to discuss the Comintern  
but within a narrow historical and geographical framework, namely the 
German  revolution of the early 1920s. It will be my goal, as it was in an 
article  written about 10 years ago titled The Comintern and German Communism, 
to 
debunk  the notion of a wise and efficacious Comintern. As opposed to 
mainstream  Trotskyist opinion, I do not view the Comintern prior to Stalin’s 
rise 
to power  as a model to emulate. Looking back in particular at the role of 
Lenin and  Trotsky, not to speak of outright rascals like Karl Radek and 
Bela Kun, the only  conclusion that sensible people can be left with is that 
the German Communist  Party would have been much better off if the Comintern 
had simply left it  alone. 
 
(end quote) 
 
A Marxist unraveling of any social process involves a couple of things,  
namely approach and method. Although approach and method of inquiry becomes a  
uniform outlook for Marxists, the young comrades familiarizing themselves 
with  Marx method are to understand that it is obligatory to always place 
things in  their environment and context. Before attempting to capture the 
dialectic of the  self movement of a thing, anything, the environment which is 
acting upon the  context of class struggle, organization and the individual 
has to be described  because it is the environment and its intimate 
interactive connection with  living processes that sets the condition for 
development, change and the leap  from one qualitative stage to the next. What 
is 
fundamental in the environment  that everyone loves to call “the class 
struggle” 
is the material power of  productive forces and their ceaseless changes. By 
productive forces is meant  “means of production” + human beings. “Means 
of production” are in turn  “productive forces 

Re: [Marxism-Thaxis] The Riddle of Antagonism: (still at work)

2010-04-06 Thread Waistline2
I 
 
CB: The new _quality_ in the productive forces is their greater and greater 
 socialization of the laborers. Notice Marx refers to The shifts from steam 
to  oil as a main fuel, or the shift to electricity, or the shift to 
computers and  new forms of communication and transportation all allow greater 
numbers of  workers working in cooperation, over larger areas. 
 
Reply 
 
WL: The new quality in means of production are exclusively their  
technological component. This new quality in turn is expressed as the growth of 
 the 
division of labor in society, which in turn reorders the social organization 
 of labor. 
 
The new quality in means of production manifesting the industrial  
revolution begins with the steam engine and passes to the electro-mechanical  
process, as this process negates manufacture. That is the new quality. 
 
Computers and advanced robotics are not quantitative develops of the steam  
engine or the internal combustion engine. Computers and advanced robotics 
evolve  as the negation of industrial implements, which had previously 
negated the  manufacturing process. This negation does not take place all at 
one 
time, but at  a much rapid rate than the previous qualitative change in the 
means of  production, ie, the industrial revolution. 
 
** II. 
 
CB: It is the _centralization_ or monopoly ownership of means of production 
 and the increasing socialization of the organization of labor that is the 
key  antagonism. The question might be asked how more specifically is 
centralized  ownership in antagonism with socialized labor.   Part is the 
answer 
is  :come to Detroit and see (smile) 
 
^ 
 
Reply 
 
WL: Centralization or monopoly ownership of means of production combines  
two separate movements to = socialization of the organization of labor. 
 
Monopoly ownership of means of production is the same old bourgeois  
property relations. Monopoly capitalism is not qualitatively different from  
non-monopoly capitalism from the standpoint of the property relations. The  
difference is on the quantitative side of the quantity/quality scale. 
 
Antagonism arises EXCLUSVIELY from private property, not means of  
production or their socialization. What arises from means of production or 
their  
socialization is contradiction. Centralized ownership IS NOT in antagonism 
with  socialized labor. Centralized ownership under the bourgeois mode of 
production  means further concentration of capital as a social power. 
 
Bourgeois private property contains the germ of antagonism because it is  
private property, not because of a monopoly stage. Bourgeois private property 
is  birthed in antagonism with feudal property. Bourgeois private property 
evolves  in contradiction with the socializations of labor, as this 
socialization express  the further development of the means of production.  At 
a 
certain stage in  the development of the material power of productive forces, 
the bourgeois  private property relations enter into antagonism with the new 
productive forces. 
 
With the post industrial revolution well underway the qualitatively new  
productive forces evolve in antagonism with bourgeois private property. 
 
III. 
 
Negation as a model describing process development is not the same as  
antagonism. Yet, a movement of antagonism presupposes that something has been 
 
or is being negated. I understand Marx historical tendency of capitalist  
accumulation to be a model of negation and the negation of the negation. The  
germ of antagonism is present due to private property, rather than the 
evolution  of centralization of production. That is centralization of 
productive 
forces  expresses the ever developing division of labor in society, which 
during the  epoch of the bourgeoisie takes place on the basis of bourgeois 
private property. 
 
Development - change, is driven by contradiction internal to that which is  
the focus of investigation. In this example centralization of production, 
called  centralization of ownership is the object of investigation. Monopoly 
ownership  does not exist in antagonism with socialized labor.  In fact we 
communist  demand monopoly ownership of means of production by the working 
class. 
 

IV. 
 
CB: How about it is the antagonism between the increasingly privatized (to  
the point of monopoly) mode of _appropriation_ , that is form of ownership 
or  property, and the socialized mode of production ( the organization of 
production  , not new technologies or machines) that generates the change to 
socialism from  capitalism ? ( See penultimate chapter of _Capital_ you 
quoted earlier). Here is  part of it: 
 
Reply 
 
WL. I subscribe to a different point of view. Bourgeois private property,  
as a historically evolved social relations of production, enters into 
antagonism  with qualitatively new means of production, rather than technology. 
 
WL.
 

___
Marxism-Thaxis mailing list

[Marxism-Thaxis] test

2010-04-01 Thread Waistline2
test  


___
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] WL's glossary--a suggestion

2010-03-24 Thread Waistline2


In a message dated 3/23/2010 7:36:28 P.M. Pacific Daylight Time,  
jann...@gmail.com writes:

Why don't we put up the latest version of this at googledocs  and
collaborate, 'wiki-style', on it? Then it could be published as a  blog
or wiki.

Might prove after all that has been said that this  list's regulars can
work together on something?

Discussing it over an  old-fashioned list like this probably won't get very 
far.

CJ
 
 
Reply
 
I can agree with this but on March 31. I jumped the gun badly.. 
 
WL. 

___
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] glossary--a suggestion

2010-03-24 Thread Waistline2


In a message dated 3/24/2010 7:58:16 A.M. Pacific Daylight Time,  
cb31...@gmail.com writes:

Saw Marsha at Bert's and said  I bet you know Waistline. She said  
definitely.
 
Comment
 
Check this out: _http://marshamusic.wordpress.com/_ 
(http://marshamusic.wordpress.com/) 
 
Marsha is extremely articulate and a genuine autodidactic. She was the  
first women President of the Bakers Union a proletarian to the core.. Her 
family  history is profound. She was also a founding member of the old League 
of  
Revolutionary Black Workers and my first girl friend in life. We joined the 
 movement together, with her being all of 14 and I had just turned 16, 
meeting  her in High School. This was like, 42 years ago. At age 15 she was 
garmented a  full ride at several universities including one in England. 
Instead 
she joined  the movement. 
 
Check out her page. And yes, she writes about 4000% better than I. 
 
Literally, together we know everyone in Detroit, given the actual history 
 and logic of the working class movement there. Together, if circumstances 
allow  it, we could write or outline a living history of an important sector 
of  the  communist movement since 1919.  No one else in basically America,  
can write about the core of the history of the American industrial 
proletariat -  at least from say 1950, with much living history outside the 
crew in 
Detroit.  Such a history is urgently needed. The problem is that we are 
being over run by  real events and real activity. 
 
 
 
WL.  
 

___
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] Objective Subjective reform to revolution

2010-03-24 Thread Waistline2


In a message dated 3/24/2010 8:53:21 A.M. Pacific Daylight Time,  
cb31...@gmail.com writes:

Tell 'em Dave Moore was a Marxist-Leninist.

CB
 
 
Reply
 
The Dave Moore interviews in Political Affairs are magnificent. No one has  
really told the real story of the organization of Ford. Moore was a 
communist of  a different mode. He is the man Reuther could not defeat. A new 
generation will  want to hear and gladly listen to our version of history. 
Basically, there is no  one else left. The old ideological groups have faded 
with 
not even a remote  connection to anything living within the proletariat. The 
dogmatic M-L's of the  60's, 70's and 80's, have been run over and passed 
by history. The various  Trotskyist ideological groups and thinker long ago 
went through their evolution  and are revealed for what they always was: a 
grouping of white middle class  intellectuals, content to spew hate upon the 
world. This is not to condemn any  individual. 
 
It is what the fuck it is. 
 
As long as we do what is in front of us, we are going to make out very well 
 and achieve a principled unity concerning every important action of the  
proletariat. Movements are never driven by theory, but rather by ideas and  
ideology. These old groups of the past possess ideology absolutely hostile to 
 the proletariat and they cannot merge with any sector of the class. 
Honestly. 
 
On another list one of the M-L's wrote an article about health care and  
posed the issue fight for universal health care or against capitalism. Reform 
 or revolution. 
 
How in God's name can one fight against capitalism or the capitalist  
system? 
 
On that note the next installment is called Reform to Revolution. 
 
WL.  

___
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] 7.0 - correction

2010-03-24 Thread Waistline2


Antagonism as a form of resolution means it is not a  form of  resolution 
of contradiction. 
 
It is a form of resolution of property as  this property form enters  into 
contradiction with qualitatively changing productive forces. That is to say  
the contradiction is between productive forces and relations of production, 
in a  class society. Resolution of this contradiction is negation by 
destruction of  the previous existing relations of production and property 
forms. 
This form of  resolution is not simply sublating.
 


correction 
 
Antagonism as a form of resolution means it is not a  form of   resolution 
of contradiction, as the basic classes underlying a mode of   production. 
 
 
It is a form of resolution of property as  this property form   enters into 
contradiction with qualitatively changing productive forces. That  is  to 
say the contradiction is between productive forces and relations  of  
production, in a class society. Resolution of this contradiction is  negation 
by 
destruction of the previous existing relations of production and  property 
forms.  This form of resolution is not simply sublating.
 

___
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] an·tag·o·nist

2010-03-24 Thread Waistline2


In a message dated 3/24/2010 9:34:31 A.M. Pacific Daylight Time,  
cb31...@gmail.com writes:


CB: Well, a contradiction is sort of ripe to be superceded (sorry  
Althusser) when it is an antagonism. So, in this sense it is more _ready_ for  
resolution than a non-antagonistic contradiction. But in its state of 
antagonism  
it is not resolved, it is still in contradiction, sharp contradiction. 
 
Another problem with this is that it is using antagonism in contradiction 
 (ha) with the its standard, let alone Marxist, dictionary definition.
 
Comment
 
The presumption is that non-antagonistic and antagonistic contradiction is  
a misunderstanding of society transition form one mode of production to 
another;  a historical error. Sorry Soviet Textbook. Sorry Chairman Mao. Sorry 
old school  Marxists. Contradiction or rather contradiction in internal to a 
process -  quality, is just that, no more no less. Each stage in the 
development of  contradiction, prepares the basis for its further development 
and 
resolution.  The problem is that the bourgeoisie evolve as a contradiction 
and are birthed in  antagonism with the feudal order and its underlying 
contradictions. 
 
Fpr CB
 
Antagonism: 7.0 
 
Antagonism is the basis of destruction and a form of transition to a new  
mode of production. It is a form of resolution of relations of production  
property as these relations enters into collision with qualitatively  changing 
productive forces. That is to say the conflict between  qualitatively new 
productive forces and old relations of  production in a  class society, 
cannot be resolved based on the struggle between the two  classes constituting 
the old relations of production. Resolution takes place  outside - external, 
the contradiction of the two classes constituting old  relations of 
production. Resolution is negation by destruction of the two old  classes and 
their 
property form.. 
 
The bourgeois mode of production is the last antagonistic form of the  
social process of production – antagonistic not in the sense of individual  
antagonism but of an antagonism that emanates from the individuals' social  
conditions of existence – but the productive forces developing within bourgeois 
 society create also the material conditions for a solution of this  
antagonism.(Marx).  (see Dialectics: quantity, quality, the antagonistic  
element.)
 
This email was cleaned by emailStripper. 
 
 
I believe the above is much more accurate, but who can understand it except 
 those studied in Marxism. Which defeats the purpose of a glossary and 
converts  it into a dictionary of Marxist Thought. 
 
 
 

___
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] an·tag·o·nist Sorry Charlie , Just nailed it down

2010-03-24 Thread Waistline2
7.5
 
 
Antagonism: 
 
Antagonism is the basis of destruction and a form of transition to a new  
mode of production. It is a form of resolution of relations of production 
that  have entered into collision with qualitatively changing productive 
forces. (see  productive forces) 
 
In class society, the collision between qualitatively new productive forces 
 and old relations of production, cannot be resolved based on the struggle  
between the two classes constituting the old relations of production.   
Resolution takes place outside - external, the contradiction that is  the two 
classes constituting old relations of production. The external  agent is the 
new classes connected to the new means of production. Resolution is  
negation  by destruction of the two old classes and their property  form.. 
 
The bourgeois mode of production is the last antagonistic form of the  
social process of production – antagonistic not in the sense of individual  
antagonism but of an antagonism that emanates from the individuals' social  
conditions of existence – but the productive forces developing within bourgeois 
 society create also the material conditions for a solution of this  
antagonism.(Marx).  (see Dialectics: quantity, quality, the antagonistic  
element.)
 
 

___
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] To Socialism! How?

2010-03-23 Thread Waistline2


In a message dated 3/23/2010 11:03:24  A.M. Pacific Daylight Time, 
cb31...@gmail.com writes:
CB; Strategy deals with  the wide, the biggest context, the  general.

Strategy
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Strategy

Comment

I  prefer Stalin's definition and both articles on Strategy and hold he 
defines its  field of operations.  
Really. Probably will use his definition with some tweeks if there is an  
index called strategy and tactics. 
 
WL. 

___
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] Negation of the negation: let try this out

2010-03-23 Thread Waistline2


In a message dated 3/23/2010 11:30:53 A.M. Pacific Daylight Time,  
rdum...@autodidactproject.org writes:

I'll have to see what else has been written on 
negation of negation  that is usable. Engels' use 
of concept in dialectics of nature is total  confusion and nonsense.

I believe that Stalin omitted negation of  
negation and others approved of this.
 
 
Reply
 
The Soviet Textbook of Marxist Philosophy  devotes an entire chapter  to 
this called : The Law of the Negation of the Negation. In this is quoted  
almost all of the Historical Tendency of Capitalist Accumulation. 
 
negation emerges as a moment in the conflict of oppositions . . . blah  
blah
 
Don't get me wrong I think the text is alright for 1937 and as what happens 
 to most writings on dialectics, beam outdated the moment it was read. 
 
Negation of negation was included for to reasons: Marx and Engels presents  
this proposition and there is going to be a dozen source notes to their  
writings. Two, I got scared it would become a source of a needless ass  
kicking.  No matter how good or bad the end product, no one that has  matured 
in 
the Marxist movement is going to like it. 
 
5,000 proletarians, predominately white, who are going to be introduced to  
Marxism are going to be fucking blown away. Why else would a Marxist 
glossary  begin with abolition and then precede to the American Revolution? 
 
If it was easy there would be scores of Marxist glossaries in America. 
 
WL. 

___
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] To Socialism! How?

2010-03-23 Thread Waistline2


In a message dated 3/23/2010 11:36:40 A.M. Pacific Daylight Time,  
cb31...@gmail.com writes:

CB; What are more of the specifics of Stalin's approach ?
 
Reply
 
Check out his articles in the 1920's on strategy and tactic of Russian  
communist and Concerning the question of strategy and tactics. 
 
I think strategy and tactics will be left alone and opt out for the concept 
 of line of march. The fear is that in 3 to five years we will be beyond 
this  is the real life process. 
 
WL. 
 

___
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


[Marxism-Thaxis] Objective Subjective (object and subject)::

2010-03-23 Thread Waistline2
Objective  Subjective (object and subject):: 
 
object refers to everything outside the human mind or the subject as human. 
 Reality, say a tree, an automobile or the sun has an objective existence 
outside  the human mind or the life of the human mind, not requiring or 
owning its  existence to the mind. Marxism contends that social system - 
capitalism, and  things existing outside the mind have an objective existence 
and 
contains  objective laws of operations. 
 
Things exist in reality as objects unto themselves, interwoven into the  
fabric of reality, but independent of the ‘observer’ or subject and their  
subjective understanding at a given moment. In recognition of the inherent  
subjective limitations of the individual human mind, we say keep an open 
mind.  None of this is meant to imply we do not react upon things in our 
environment as  they in turn react upon us.
 
This email was cleaned by emailStripper, available for free from 
_http://www.papercut.biz/emailStripper.htm_ 
(http://www.papercut.biz/emailStripper.htm) 

___
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] Objective Subjective (object and subject)::

2010-03-23 Thread Waistline2


In a message dated 3/23/2010 1:01:54 P.M. Pacific Daylight Time,  
cb31...@gmail.com writes:

CB: Lenin defines materialism as the belief in  the existence of
objective reality, objective reality being defined as you do  above.

Reply

This mans go. 
 
This glossary is being produced under the name Retried Workers Educational  
Forum, but this could change based solely on what is marketable.  
Everyone's contribution is going to be noted without question. 
 
Have not touched base with you since coming back in October because I have  
been on jam. Looks like Mack I and Mack Ii engine plant will be closed. 
:Less  than 200 workers in both plants. Expansion at Jefferson planned. 
Sterling  Assembly got a new lease on life. Ford is of course making money. The 
Ford  workers rejected their contract and things are to come. UAW 
Constitutional  Convention in June. New President to be elected. CBTU 
Convention coming 
up. Not  for me but my brother will attend. Maybe some new life can be 
breathed into  TULC; they just remodeled the joint. Lots of thangs happening 
including closing  44 schools in Detroit! 
 
27,000 energy cut off. New deaths every week. A new section of workers  
entering the struggle. We have to tell the truth and something more than black  
and white unite and fight. We are class brothers ands sisters. 
 
I love this shit. 
 
WL. 
 

___
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] Objective Subjective (object and subject)::

2010-03-23 Thread Waistline2


In a message dated 3/23/2010 1:28:37 P.M. Pacific Daylight Time,  
cb31...@gmail.com writes:

CB: My buddy, Bob King.
 
Comment
 
 
Bob's cool and at this point see himself as a one time president. He has  
invited all and anyone to come forth with new proposition on what to do in 
the  fight for the life of the trade union movement. This includes the Reds 
and  especially the Reds because no one else is in motion. 
 
Life is funny. Life is funny and the connections are historical for the  
working class. Bob King did his apprenticeship under my dad. Yep. We have  
watched his career from day one. Brother retired with 40 years seniority and 15 
 as an International Representative of the UAW, so as a collective you and 
I know  everyone.
 
The inexorable loop of life asserts itself. it is our time, right now. And  
our fight for the unity of a real class in real time is going to rewrite 
our  history. 
 
This shits more exiting than a one man band.  
 
The fear of Bob King is this: Will he be to intellectual to lead the union 
 along another path. 
 
This is a real fear not to be belittled. The only reason the historically  
reactionary mutherfuckers - I don't reason  books but know everyone in my  
district and what they want and need can be defeated is the depths of the  
economic crisis at this defining moment - as Obama puts things. 
 
We are roughly at 1920 at a higher lever. What is different is that the  
communists forces are not predominately foreign born as was the case in  1919. 
 This is in the context of 343,000 auto workers of whom 70 - 75% were  
native born. Yet, by 1923 the first auto workers union had been formed. 
 
What did they do and how did they do this? This was under conditions of the 
 Palmer Raids ad witch hunts. 
 
I reject the specific Leninist form and not political Leninism. 
 
Now is the time to be bold. 
 
Let us march on til victory is won
 
 
Proletarians Unite. 
 
WL

___
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] Objective Subjective (object and subject):: correction

2010-03-23 Thread Waistline2


In a message dated 3/23/2010 1:44:07 P.M. Pacific Daylight Time,  
waistli...@aol.com writes:

Let us march on til victory is won


Proletarians Unite. 
 
Correction 
 
Let us march on til victory is one!
 

Proletarians Unite. 



___
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


[Marxism-Thaxis] Role of the individual in history:

2010-03-23 Thread Waistline2
Role of the individual in history: 
 
Individuals have roles in life big and small. The concept of the “role of  
the individual” defines the place of the individual within the objective,  
material processes going on in the world, a country, their community and  
identifies his or her active role in the change process. The individuals whose  
particular character offers what is required of a given stage or moment of  
history, or in a particular situation, moves the situation and history 
forward,  influences the form it takes, and offers the context for the masses 
to 
play  their part more fully in making history. 

___
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] Objective Subjective (object and subject)::

2010-03-23 Thread Waistline2


In a message dated 3/23/2010 2:11:41  P.M. Pacific Daylight Time, 
cb31...@gmail.com writes:

CB: Dave Moore:  Carry on  


Reply
 
Yep, that the flavor. You know more than you think. We simply have a  
different place in a division of labor. The things I cannot do I go on line and 
 
ask for help. 
 
What is needed is a federation of revolutionaries. No one has to surrender  
their particular ideological and theory bent. Fuck calling things a 
Popular  Front or a united Front. 
 
If you do not do work in the electoral arena, then shut the fuck up. Accept 
 the reports of comrade who are involved in this work and then form an 
opinion.  In Detroit we have always discovered the means and ways to flow 
together and  this includes the Trotskyist crew. 
 
I never hated on Debs Hall or the SWP work. 
 
I do have a very strong opinion, but it is not relevant  in real work.  
Adhere to your group.  So what! That is the point of a federation. 
 
We take Lenin the wrong way, although he has been dead for a very long  
time. 
 
And yes, Dave Moore is part of a production line of literature in progress. 
 
WL. 

___
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] To Socialism! How?

2010-03-22 Thread Waistline2
In a message dated 3/22/2010 8:13:42 A.M. Pacific Daylight Time, 
_cb31...@gmail.com_ (mailto:cb31...@gmail.com)  writes: 
 
Strategy deals with the qualitative turns in the balance of forces that it  
is necessary to seek and the class and social forces and political trends 
and  social movements that can be won for that qualitative turn, and the main 
 opponent in relation to that turn. Tactics deals with the most useful 
issues,  demands, forms of struggle and forms of organization to achieve the 
alignment of  class and social forces, in the first place, necessary to win the 
strategic  objective or qualitative turn in the balance of forces.
 
 
Comment
 
Here a definition of strategy I will not be using. 
 
WL. 
 
 

___
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] Class antagonism as class struggle: the dialectic (OK Ra...

2010-03-21 Thread Waistline2


In a message dated 3/19/2010 1:00:03  P.M. Pacific Daylight Time, 
cb31...@gmail.com writes:
5). At a certain stage  of their development,
 6). the material  productive forces of  society
 7). come into conflict with the existing  relations of  production or –
 (this merely expresses the same thing in legal   terms ) with the property
 relations within the framework of which they  have  operated up until 
then.
 8). From forms of development of the  productive  forces
 9). these relations turn into their  fetters.
 10). Then begins an  epoch of social  revolution..

 (1859 Preface to A Contribution to the Critique of  Political Economy)
  
_http://www.marxists.org/archive/marx/works/1859/critique-pol-economy/preface.htm_

  
(http://www.marxists.org/archive/marx/works/1859/critique-pol-economy/preface.htm)

^^^
CB:  I don't see the word antagonism in what you quote.
  

Reply
 
Nor is the word contradiction present in the above. At its root the  
presentation in the glossary under construction, pivots on a  different 
articulation of quaintly, quality  and the emergence of a  new quality. I did 
send you 
rough draft 6.0. 
 
I most certainly expect and accept the huge ass kicking I am going to get  
from taking the lead on this project. It is better to present something that 
is  30% right and 70% wrong than to surrender the emerging leaders to the  
bourgeoisie and do nothing. Another comrade is working on Marx and Engles 
on  The Trade Unions with all the essential  quotes already complied. The 
need  grew out of the work, with retired workers being set into motion and 
embarking  on a path of struggle that confronts the government as the employer.
 
To the point.  
 
The question of antagonism required detective work and tracking down the  
clues. I do absolutely agree antagonism is bound up with irreconcilable. Not 
so  with contradiction, whose resolution is understood as a synthesis .  
Irreconcilable demotes destruction rather than synthesis. Lenin left a huge 
clue  in his critique of Bukharin, that puzzled me for 20 years. 
 
Here is what Lenin wrote concerning B's presentation of resolution of  
contractions and somehow their dying out under socialism. 
 
Quite wrong. Antagonism and contradiction are by no means the same. Under  
socialism the first will vanish, the second will remain. 
 
In exactly what does the antagonism consist and why does it disappear?  .
 
Marx provides another clue in the CM. 
 
“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, on 
the  exploitation of the many by the few. 
 
The antagonism is bound up with private property or the property form  of 
class. I am aware a section of Marxism defines class as property. I do  not. 
Class is most certainly a conduit of a property relations but I am clearly  
not a craft workers of the period of manufacture, before capitalism formed  
itself as a society mode of production. The material productive forces come 
into  conflict with the existing relations of production. The antagonism is 
expressed  as the new classes created by the qualitative development of the 
productive  forces under the impact of property. Bourgeoisie and proletariat 
are birthed in  irresistibility - antagonism with the system of feudalism 
and its underlying  means of production.
 
With the advance of socialism antagonism disappears in the meaning of  
hostile classes being generated by qualitative changes in the means of  
production. The material productive forces will still develop in contradiction  
with 
the more than less static relations of production.  
 
I forget the exact quote but Marx said it is only in the logic of things  
that society would seize to develop as political revolution. 


For me the issue became understanding why it was impossible for the  serf 
to overthrow feudalism.  A mode of production cannot be overthrow by  the 
classes that constitute it. Cannot happen. Something else must happen -  change 
in society. In the case of feudalism it was the emergence of new classes  
existing and evolving as the development of the means of production. The serf 
 existed in contradiction with the nobility. Not antagonism. The bourgeois 
as a  new class existed in antagonism with the nobility. 
 
The problem is that anyone can make anything a contradiction, which is some 
 of Rosa L. criticism, but she has lived in her own head to much and not  
consulted and studied with enough comrades. 
 
This of course is a contested issue but no one can prove to me the  
bourgeois and proletariat existed in contradiction with the nobility and serf.  
To 
present the picture as such is to take a mesh of classes with no connection  
as the actual process of production and make them a unity. 
 
At any 

Re: [Marxism-Thaxis] Ralph: Class antagonism ... the dialectic (OK Ralph) .

2010-03-20 Thread Waistline2



I have not looked at Bottomore's dictionary since giving it away in 2004. I 
 will run to the bookstore and locate a copy and look at it. Anyone that  
publishes a Marxist glossary enters into extreme controversy with every 
single  segment of the Marxist current. The most difficult aspect of the 
project 
is  staying on focus. The focus is a real audience and creating an 
organizing tool  that is educational. There are comrades better equipped for 
many 
reasons to take  the lead on this project and all have refused. The reason is a 
desire to produce  a glossary that sounds like how the American proletariat 
think things out in  real time. For instance the American proletariat does 
not react to the word  “mediate” or “interpenetration.”  Trade Unions 
mediate relations between  their members and their employers. Trade Unions were 
initially organized to  protect the wages and conditions of labor from 
pressure of their members  employers for profits. Because of the lost ground of 
union over the past 30  years “mediate” becomes a concept meaning union 
enhance wages and this  experience has not been true for almost twenty years.  
 
The need for the glossary arose in the course of holding classes -  
educationals, with first a group of young people and recruiting a few older -  
retired workers, pushed into action over health care. Let me give a real time  
example of the conceptual problem of the American mind. Here is the agreed 
upon  basic description of dialectical materialism: 
 

Dialectal materialism: 
 
Dialectal materialism is an approach and method to the study of a real  
world in constant change. A materialist approach begin with the real material  
world. The world is knowable and our knowledge of its laws develops - 
evolves,  from a lower to a higher level. Society contains laws of development 
moving  society from a lower to a higher level. Change in society is based on  
development of the productive forces and social relations of production. The 
 constant changes and interaction between productive forces and social 
relations  prevents us from knowing everything at any particular moment. But 
that is no  excuse for not accepting and learning about what is real. On the 
contrary, it  inspires a serious Marxist to constantly study. The materialist 
approach is  combined with the dialectical method, treating all phenomena in 
nature and  society as dialectical. The basic laws of materialist 
dialectics are: 
 
This had to be rewritten The reaction to the term dialectical materialism  
was fascinating and mind boggling. Everyone would demand to know its meaning 
and  treated the term with hostility. We reversed the words and all the 
hostile  reactions disappeared. The second line was changed and the terms “real 
material  world” was reduced to “material world.” The reason is that 
people reacted to  real material world with the ideology “what is real to you 
might not be real to  me,” meaning experience. Ralph, I was fucked up because “
real world” was meant  to deliver a concept of a world existing outside the 
individual human body, mind  and sense perception. People already 
understand the world is real, but  experienced individually. Soon as the 
formulation 
was changed a different the  concept of dialectical materialism was better 
understood. 
 
Here is the rewrite: 
 
Dialectal materialism: (materialist dialectics) 
 
Materialist dialectics is an approach and method to the study of a real  
world in constant change. A materialist approach begin with the material 
world.  The world is knowable and our knowledge of its laws grows from a lower 
to 
a  higher level. Society is knowable, containing economic laws moving 
society from  a lower to a higher level. Change in society is based on 
development of the  productive forces. Its constant change prevents us from 
knowing 
everything at  any particular moment. But that is no excuse for not accepting 
and learning  about what is real. On the contrary, it inspires a serious 
Marxist to constantly  study. The materialist approach is combined with the 
dialectical method,  treating all things in nature and society as dialectical. 
The basic laws of  materialist dialectics are: 
 
OK
 
Every understood materialist dialectics in a common way. No one understood  
what it meant but there was a common reaction seeking clarification. Then 
we had  to create a clear picture of the difference between democracy and 
political  liberty. You say “political liberty” and the white proletarians 
react positively  but not the blacks and browns. Blacks and browns react to the 
word democracy  with the identical emotional intensity as the white 
proletarians. 
 
It was like shit. A Marxist glossary cannot be a small Marxist dictionary  
of terms but must be a historical narrative of the American ideology and  
experience viewed through a Marxist lens. “Marxist lens” produced a different 
 reaction from “Marxist standpoint” of “Marxist point of 

[Marxism-Thaxis] Contradiction, Antagonism, Dialectal materialism: (materialist dialectics)

2010-03-20 Thread Waistline2
Antagonism: 
 
Antagonism is the basis of destruction and transformation to a new quality. 
 (see Dialectics: quantity, quality, the antagonistic element.) 
 
Contradiction: 
 
a conception of development and motion  as internally necessary self  
movement of conflicting opposites. The unity and struggle of opposites means  
contradiction internal to a quality or internal contradiction. Internal  
contradiction rather than clash between things. (see dialectical materialism) 
 
Dialectics, quantity, quality, the antagonistic element. 
 

Quality (in the sense we are using it) is a process. The sum total of  the 
stages of development (quantity) of the process is the process. Thus, there  
cannot be a separation between quantity and quality. Every quantity is  
qualitative. Since life is specific, every quality is expressed quantitatively. 
 
Growth, or motion, takes place in definite and indispensable stages. A  
change of environment exacerbates internal contradictions. Each stage grows out 
 of the preceding one and connects to it. Each stage has its set of 
internal  contradictions that describe its motion inside the general 
qualitative  
contradiction that covers the process. Therefore, each stage of growth is 
both  inner connected and interconnected. 
 
In Dialectics of Nature, Engels gives examples of the transformation from 
 one quality to another. All qualitative differences in nature rest on  
differences of chemical composition or on different quantities or forms of  
motion (energy) or, as is almost always the case, on both. Hence it is  
impossible to alter the quality of a body without addition or subtraction of  
matter or motion, i.e. without quantitative alternation of the body  concerned. 
 
[emphasis added]. 
 
An increase of intensity and change in the form of contradiction marks each 
 stage of quantitative development. The final stages of contradiction 
create the  conditions for the introduction of antagonism. 
 
Contradiction is the action of speaking against or in opposition to an  
action, proposal; gainsaying; opposition.  (see contradiction). 
 
Antagonism, on the other hand, is the mutual resistance or active  
opposition of two opposing forces, physical or mental; active opposition to a  
force.  Contradiction does not grow into antagonism. Antagonism replaces  
contradiction. Internal contradiction is the basis of development and growth.  
Antagonism is the basis of destruction and transformation to a new quality. 
_http://www.speakersforanewamerica.com/EnteringAnEpochOfSocialRevolution2.pdf_
 
(http://www.speakersforanewamerica.com/EnteringAnEpochOfSocialRevolution2.pdf)  
 

Dialectal materialism: (materialist dialectics) 
 
Materialist dialectics is an approach and method to the study of a real  
world in constant change. A materialist approach begin with the material 
world.  The world is knowable and our knowledge of its laws grows from a lower 
to 
a  higher level. Society is knowable, containing economic laws moving 
society from  a lower to a higher level. Change in society is based on 
development of the  productive forces. Its constant change prevents us from 
knowing 
everything at  any particular moment. But that is no excuse for not accepting 
and learning  about what is real. On the contrary, it inspires a serious 
Marxist to constantly  study. The materialist approach is combined with the 
dialectical method,  treating all things in nature and society as dialectical. 
The basic laws of  materialist dialectics are: 
 
1) Nature is an integrated whole, connected and interactive. 
2) Nature  is in a state of constant change: development, disintegration, 
dying away and  rebirth. 
3) Internal contradiction, the basis of development, is inherent in  all 
things. 
4) Changes are from lower to higher order and occur as negations  or 
annulment. 
5) Qualitative changes begin with the quantitative  introduction of a new 
quality into the quantitative development of the old.  Qualitative changes 
occur as leaps. 
6) Quantitative changes are definite and  indispensable. 
 
Dialectics begins with clearly delineated concepts and asks the question.  
what is society and of what does it consist. Society has so many parts,  
individuals and interactions that one can get lost in trying to understand  
everything at the same time. Thus, the question is posed; what is 
fundamental  in society? 
 
The way we produce, the way production is distributed (relations of  
production) and the state of development of productive forces in society are  
fundamental to any society. From looking at what is fundamental a thesis and  
antithesis is formed. The thesis, in this instance would be the productive  
forces because it is the most stable and indispensable part holding society  
together. The antithesis would be the relations of production or the way 
people  are organized to work and distribute what is produced. 
 
When looking at the thesis and antithesis together we discover that 

Re: [Marxism-Thaxis] Ralph: Class antagonism ... the dialectic (OK Ralph) .

2010-03-20 Thread Waistline2
According to Marx, the social contradiction which can only be resolved by  
revolution is that between the forces of production and the relations of  
production. The most common Marxist interpretation of this assertion is that  
forces of production means capital (sometimes our latter day Marxists 
implicitly  limit this to technology, so that the full development of the 
forces 
of  production is interpreted solely as the presence of advanced, highly 
productive  machinery) while relations of production means the system of 
production,  appropriation, and exchange. 
 
In reality, Marx meant something quite different. Forces of production  
includes both capital and labor, while relations of production includes  
capitalists and workers. Thus the proletariat is an essential of both sides of  
the antagonism—on one side as the creator of use value, on the other as wage  
laborer. The contradiction is therefore internal and essential to the 
working  class itself, and cannot be resolved externally. STO's political 
line—in  
particular our understanding of the role of white skin privilege—is based 
on  this recognition of the conflict internal to the proletariat. 
_http://www.autodidactproject.org/other/howtothink.html_ 
(http://www.autodidactproject.org/other/howtothink.html)  
 
Comment 
 
I do not means to be overly harsh but I find the above just plain old silly 
 and nonsense. By antagonism is apparently meant a bad contradiction which  
requires fighting or someone getting hurt to overthrow a class. Locating 
capital  and labor within productive forces, denies they are historical, 
predating  capitalist and proletariat. 
 
Thus the proletariat is an essential of both sides of the antagonism—on  
one side as the creator of use value, on the other as wage laborer. The  
contradiction is therefore internal and essential to the working class itself,  
and cannot be resolved externally. 
 
What in God’s name does this mesh of nonsense mean? The capitalist as  
personification of capital and the proletariat as personification of the  
commodity form of labor power in the market are not products of the productive  
forces but rather, a creation of a long history of the evolution of private  
property. I do recognize the above material is dated. 
 
I do not do white skin privilege stuff in articulating degrees of bribery  
of the Anglo American people relative to blacks, browns, Asians in our 
history. 
 
The intent of the glossary is not to write in dialectics or dialectically  
but to present basic Marxist concepts as we understand how the American mind 
 thinks things out. The narratives strive to induce a desire in the 
individual to  do their own study of Marx. 
 
Here are a couple more terms. 
 
Relations of production: (social relations of production, production  
relations) : 
 
Marx's use of the concept of relations of production: 
 
In the social production of their existence, men inevitably enter into  
definite relations, which are independent of their will, namely relations of  
production appropriate to a given stage in the development of their material 
 forces of production. (1859 Preface to A Contribution to the Critique of  
Political Economy) 
 
Relations of production refer to the connection, interactivity within and  
between classes at a given stage of development of productive forces. In 
real  life relations of production are interactive with productive forces, one  
becoming the environment of operations for the other.  Capitalist relations 
 of production consist of a labor force with no means of support other than 
their  ability to work, and capitalists who own land, raw materials, tools, 
or the  condition of labor as their private property. The capitalist class 
buys labor  power and owns what is produced for sale. Relations of 
production are the  operating economic laws defining the relationship of people 
to 
property in the  process of production. 
 
A modern use of relations of production and productive forces in a writing: 
 
Society is formed on the basis of the unity of productive forces and  
production relations. Productive relations are the laws defining property and  
the relationship of people to property in the process of production. The  
constant, spontaneous development of the productive forces eventually disrupts  
this unity An epoch of social revolution begins to creates new relations of 
 production that reflect the level of, and are compatible with, the newly  
developed productive forces. 
 
Means of production: 
 
Means of production are the non-human resources required for the production 
 of goods. These means include land, raw materials, tools, machinery,  
energy  source, money/capital and embody the technology shape and character  of 
these productive forces. Means of production is a concept of the non-human  
physical  things outside of the human. 
 
Productive forces are means of production plus the human.(see productive  
forces) 
 
Productive 

Re: [Marxism-Thaxis] [marxistphilosophy] Historical-Critical Dictionary of Ma...

2010-03-20 Thread Waistline2
Quality and Quantity and Contradiction. 
 
Stalin argues that qualitative changes occur not accidentally but as the  
natural result of an accumulation of imperceptible and gradual quantitative  
changes.11 We should note that this is only one aspect of this category of 
 dialectical logic. It is the more commonsensical side of the problem. 
The more  difficult question is how, concretely, do different quantities of 
the same thing  change the quality of it, or why is it that a phenomenon is 
something other than  its constituent parts taken separately. For instance, a 
thousand soldiers  fighting together on a battlefield constitute 
qualitatively something different  from a thousand fighting separately. Common 
sense 
tells us it is concentration  that makes the difference. Yet a thousand 
soldiers fighting separately,  scattered throughout the countryside, can 
sometimes 
be more effective than a  thousand in concentration. As we can see, it is 
an aspect of dialectics that is  not only complex, but forces us to recognize 
the unity of the two sides. Yet in  Stalin the quality quantity process 
becomes more one of causality. Small  incremental changes in abstract quantity 
create large qualitative leaps. There  is no room for how these new 
qualities affect the quantity. There is no  appreciation of the reciprocal 
relation 
of the philosophy of praxis 
(Marxism  — ed.) quality is also connected to quantity and this connection 
is perhaps its  most fertile contribution. 
 
Comment 
 
I am in overdrive conditioned to do 12 hours work with a couple of break  
and a lunch period. 
 
The above is why I hate and remain anti-philosophy. We are not going  to 
hide behind philosophic concepts and mumbo jumbo.. Allow me to get the heart  
of the issue of Quality and Quantity and Contradiction. 
 
Here is the question posed by the author: The more difficult question is  
how, concretely, do different quantities of the same thing change the 
quality of  it, or why is it that a phenomenon is something other than its 
constituent parts  taken separately. 
 
In this authors critique of Stalin’s Dialectical and Historical  
Materialism he adopts the exact same underlying thinking of Stalin and 
presents  the 
same conclusion in  different words. The question how concretely do  
different quantities of the same thing change the quality of it, means you 
have  
not solved the equation.  This is the wrong question. 
 
Here is the equation: the introduction of a new quality, - incrementally or 
 quantitatively, into an existing process (quality/quantity), begins the  
quantitatively change - alteration, of the old quality. At a certain stage in 
 the accumulation of the new quality, the old process or old quality begins 
the  process of breaking down, and is forces to leap to a new qualitative 
definition.  How this takes place is pretty easy for the workers to grasp. 
 
Once you introduce a new quality into a process and it begins quantitative  
expansion or receives more inputs or additions of the new quality, the 
process  halts development and expansion on the old basis. This is so because 
the process  now evolves and develops with the new quality within it. 
 
In society, specifically a historically distinct social system (mode of  
production), more of the same or a quantitative increase of the same thing  
cannot produce a qualitative leap or compel society to change qualitatively. 
The  industrial revolution, inaugurated by the steam engine, was a new 
quality that  brought the expansion of manufacturing to an end as it grew 
quantitatively on  the old basis of the old technology. Not all at what time, 
but 
all the related  clusters of technology associated with the underlying 
principles of the steam  engine came into play quantitatively.. 
 
Now the process of quantitative injection of a new quality - the steam  
engine and related cluster of technology ( the mechanical flywheel, and  
electro-mechanical transfer bars and levers that Marx spends an inordinate  
amount 
of time writing about in Capital 1 dealing with machinery) contains its  
own law of development or dialectic. That is to say, the quantitative growth 
and  expansion of the new quality - that has been injected into the old 
process -  quality, meets resistance in the old means of production. This is so 
because the  ld process - quality, is in fact a different quality and 
configured based on  different principles of operation. The path of the 
quantitative growth and  evolution of the new quality is a distinct process 
within 
itself that is  interesting and exciting but carries us away from the main 
point.  We have  discussed this on this list as the law of emergence. 
 
A quantitative increase does not lead to qualitative change as such. This  
is how it is explained to the workers. To change something you make take  
something away or add something new to a process or situation. The reason why 
is  because a process is really a coherent 

[Marxism-Thaxis] Class antagonism as class struggle: the dialectic (OK Ralph)

2010-03-19 Thread Waistline2
Class antagonism as class struggle: the dialectic : (exposition) 
 
The decay of feudalism and transition to capitalism shows two distinct form 
 of change: class struggle as contradiction and class struggle as 
antagonism. 
 
I. Localized manual labor with the serf working the land for the nobility  
provided the economic based for feudalism. The primary form of wealth is 
landed  property. The political and social structures were based on monarchy or 
the King  and Queen as ruler with their courts of civil servants and in 
Europe the Church  as a powerful land owner. 
 
II. The serf struggled in contradiction - not antagonism, with the  
landowner and nobility. The slow introduction of manufacturing meant the  
introduction of new tools and a new division of labor in society. These new  
productive forces created the growth of towns of people separating them from  
thousands of years living off the land, previously trapped in the ritual 
culture  
and custom of feudal society. Trade created and enlarged the towns. 
 
The struggle of the towns and towns people for cheap food from the  
countryside, against privately own trade routed cutting across land controlled  
by 
lords, for a market for their goods was a sharp clash of classes or   the 
struggle of the towns and  countryside. The rising bourgeoisie  
represented the town and the feudalist the countryside. This kind of class  
struggle expressed the antagonism between new classes and old classes. 
 
III. Feudal relations, contradictory to the manual labor of the serf  
striving to better his family life, faced a new danger - antagonism, in the  
towns and the process of large scale mechanization possible with the steam  
engine. Feudal society was founded on manual labor and was overthrown by new  
social forces - classes,  created by mechanical labor. The way this  overthrow 
took place was a sharp struggle involving all the classes of the old  and 
new society with the new classes of modern worker and capitalist fighting  
for revolutionary change or a qualitatively different kind of society. 
 
In dialectics connections - interactivity, are a special kind of  
relations between and within things. Marxists search out and unravel these  
connections to describe and understand the self movement of what is being  
examined. 
 
Through the landed property relations the serf and his labor was connected  
with nobility as land owners. This interactive relationship as the point of 
 production defines feudalism. Not so with the rising merchant capitalist 
and  proletariat. 
 
The merchant capitalist and rising capitalists, as a class, shares no  
connection or interactive relations with the nobility or serf as the unity of  
capitalist commodity production. The proletariat as a class, shares no  
connection or interactive relations with the nobility or serf as the unity of  
commodity production. Rather, capitalists and proletarians constituted a new  
unity of production; a new production relation operating within feudal 
society  but outside the property relations of feudalism 
 
There is a connection between all the old and new classes but not  
interactivity as the production process. This connection as the evolving market 
 
where things are brought and sold. The nobility purchases and consumes products 
 created outside the landed property relations or that the serf does not 
create.  Thus, these class exist and intermingle external to one another. 
 
The struggle of the new classes against the old was that of external  
collision within a dying social order. This form of class collision - struggle, 
 
express class antagonism. 
 
IV. Contradictions of the old society - the struggle between serf and  
nobility, were superseded by antagonism, or superseded by the external 
collision 
 of new classes unable to fit into the old system, and the social 
revolution way  underway. The struggle of the serf against the nobility did not 
disappear but  found a new channel of support and assistance from the new 
classes 
in antagonism  with the nobility and the landed property relations. 
 
Society moves in class antagonism. 
 
Marx sums up this entire historical process as : 
 
We see then: the means of production and of exchange, on whose foundation  
the bourgeoisie built itself up, were generated in feudal society. At a 
certain  stage in the development of these means of production and of exchange, 
the  conditions under which feudal society produced and exchanged, the 
feudal  organization of agriculture and manufacturing industry, in one word, 
the 
feudal  relations of property became no longer compatible with the already 
developed  productive forces; they became so many fetters. They had to be 
burst asunder;  they were burst asunder.
 
 

___
Marxism-Thaxis mailing list
Marxism-Thaxis@lists.econ.utah.edu
To change your options or unsubscribe go to:

[Marxism-Thaxis] Ralph: Class antagonism ... the dialectic (OK Ralph) .

2010-03-19 Thread Waistline2
Comrade Ralph:
 
A new Marxist glossary is being prepared. The last Marxist Glossary  
receiving large distribution in America was L. Harry Gould’s 1943 Glossary of  
Marxist Terms. A larger second edition was published in 1946 called Marxist  
Glossary and reprinted in the 1970’s by Proletarian Publishers. Us. 
 
Things are heating up and small circles are forming everywhere. Most of the 
 younger people and older workers are 100% unfamiliar with Marxism or any 
Marxist  concepts. A new glossary is needed. I vowed to do such a glossary 
ten years ago  in a discussion on Marxism list. The problem was being unable 
to find an  audience. Since Obama's election things have heated up 
dramatically and the  material from ten years ago, and most certainly that of 
the old 
Soviet era is  totally inadequate. 
 
I have taken the lead on writing a Marxist glossary but it is part of a  
collective effort amongst a core of comrades. However an outside  view is  
needed. By this I mean outside our meetings in Detroit. 
 
A fundamental draft will be prepared by the March 30, 2010 deadline. I  
would love to send you the entire glossary no later than March 30, and or  
discuss terms on line in the open. I do wish to send you the entire glossary 
off 
 line through. Why? Because of your uncompromising critical and informed 
point of  view. 
 
Ralph we might not find this in our lifetime but I assure you no one  is 
rolling over or going out like a bunch of mutherfucking  suckers.  

Right or wrong (and we already know what are going to be historically in  
error) we are dedicated to opening the new era of proletarian onslaught in 
the  flesh. The bourgeoisie is not going to take everything away from us and 
we stand  around like simpletons talking about where are the people. The 
people been in  motion and this is the kind of shit we live for. 
 
Victory of death. 
 
Proletarian Unite. 
 
WL. 
 
 
This email was cleaned by emailStripper, available for free from 
_http://www.papercut.biz/emailStripper.htm_ 
(http://www.papercut.biz/emailStripper.htm) 
___
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] Class antagonism as class struggle: the dialectic (OK Ra...

2010-03-19 Thread Waistline2


In a message dated 3/19/2010 9:16:57 A.M. Pacific Daylight Time,  
cb31...@gmail.com writes:

I. Localized manual labor with the serf working the land for the  nobility
provided the economic based for feudalism. The primary form of  wealth is
landed  property. The political and social structures were  based on 
monarchy or
the King  and Queen as ruler with their courts of  civil servants and in
Europe the Church  as a powerful land  owner.

^
CB: The institution of the monarchy marks the transition  from
feudalism to capitalism.  During feudalism proper the secular  section
of the ruling class is feudal lords ruling feudal manors  ,
self-contained local economic units  The nation , with  national
monarchs, is a bourgeois formation, rooted in a national ,  capitalist
economy.
 
 
Reply
 
 
Thanks, but I am not sure what this means for a description of class  
antagonism and its emergence within the feudal system. More over for two groups 
 
of people who have zero understanding of the Marxist approach. Will gladly 
send  you the entire draft by the end of the month. Actually, the draft can 
be sent  today, but the problem is that all the words and terms have not been 
completed.  Further, work takes place on this project everyday with 
meetings three times a  week, squeezed between classes. A draft sent today 
would be 
different from the  draft being prepared for Monday. 
 
Then there is a total of four sections to the glossary. Section one is word 
 and term definitions with narrative. In section one for instance there are 
four  different indexes for the word class. Class, class strata, class as 
the shape of  property and class as a concrete form of labor in different 
historical eras.  Interestingly, the words Trotskyism and Stalinism are not in 
the text.  Nor  is there a critique or criticism of the CPUSA or any other 
group for that  matter. 
 
More interesting is Section one beings with the American Revolutionary War. 
 Yep. 
 
Section Two summarizes all the communist international organizations from  
the First to th Fourth. 
 
Section 3 is Expositions deploying many of the terms in section one
 
Section 4 is literally Marxist catch phrases. Sutff like the philosophers  
have only interpreted the world in so many ways, the point if to change it.  

At this writing there is 40 individual pages 4 and 1/4 by 5 and 1/2 or  an 
6 by eleven sheet folded. We top out at 50. 
 
The problem is the rapid transitions in the writings and construction. 
 
WL. 
 
 
 
 
 

___
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] Class antagonism as class struggle: the dialectic (OK Ra...

2010-03-19 Thread Waistline2


In a message dated 3/19/2010 10:20:08  A.M. Pacific Daylight Time, 
cb31...@gmail.com writes:  

Is the difference between antagonism and  contradiction that antagonism 
 is irreconcilable, but contradiction is reconcilable ? 
 
There were some other new classes in the new bourgeois system besides the  
bourgeoisie and the proletariat - slaves and colonial subjects. The new 
forces  and relations of production  in antagonism with the feudal order 
included  colonialism and slavery as well as wage-labor/capital. Marx says that 
 
colonialism  and slavery were  the chief momenta of primitive  accumulation. 
 
Reply 
 
1. The concept of antagonistic and non-antagonistic contradictions is not  
put forth in the glossary, with no disrespect meant to the Soviet Textbook 
of  Marist Philosophy or Mao’s writings on Contradiction.  Antagonism is 
not  contradiction. Antagonism is a form of resolution of the contradiction 
between  more than less static relations of production and mobile productive 
forces. 
 
Here is how Marx writes this: 
 
5). At a certain stage of their development, 
6). the material  productive forces of society 
7). come into conflict with the existing  relations of production or – 
(this merely expresses the same thing in legal  terms ) with the property 
relations within the framework of which they have  operated up until then. 
8). From forms of development of the productive  forces 
9). these relations turn into their fetters. 
10). Then begins an  epoch of social revolution.. 
 
(1859 Preface to A Contribution to the Critique of Political Economy) 
_http://www.marxists.org/archive/marx/works/1859/critique-pol-economy/preface.htm_
 
(http://www.marxists.org/archive/marx/works/1859/critique-pol-economy/preface.htm)
  
 

Antagonism is how a society rent with class contradiction, leaps to a  
qualitative new mode of production. The form of resolution takes place as the  
wiping out, destruction or liquidation of the old classes connected to the 
old  means of production. The serf form of servitude, as a property relations 
-  landed property, and founded on hand labor and early manufacturing,  is  
liquidated from history on the basis of a development of new productive 
forces  and new social relations that correspond to the new means of 
production. 
 
2). Agree with the second part of the issue. The problem of a glossary  is 
isolating what is fundamental. Thus, an index called fundamentality is 
part  of the glossary. Then there is an index titled primitive accumulation. 
 
I swear I am going to send you the draft before it is completed and  
professionally edited. If you know a professional editor, preferably a comrade  
let me know and they can be paid a stipend. 
 
Forces of destruction is not an index although included in crisis of  
capital as overproduction and the destruction of commodities and means of  
production. 
 
Charles, swear to God gonna holla before the month is out but been on jam. 
 
Yet, no way we could leave out primitive accumulation of capital. 
 
Again, this is written for folks with zero understanding of anything  
remotely Marx. But they are flocking to any center of gravity with new thinking 
 
that express what they see and feel. 
 

WL.
 

___
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] Speaking of the disaffected...

2010-03-01 Thread Waistline2


In a message dated 3/1/2010 8:20:44 A.M. Pacific Standard Time,  
cb31...@gmail.com writes:

CB: This doesn't seem to me to be hating on the CP.  You are  just
saying some that is a fact.   1949-1955 is a period of most  intense
McCarthyism and criminalization of the CP
 
 
Reply
 
CB I try not to be a hater. There is another aspect of the CPUSA equation  
which I have spoken about in the past. That is the location of their cadre 
in  heavy industry and the inability of any group to shift their forces to a 
new  front of struggle. 
 
Let me be clear. When the Negro peoples movement of that period broke out,  
the bulk of the militants were located in heavy industry and specifically 
the  trade union movement. This is no crime. No organization could demand its 
members  quite their jobs and go to the new front of social struggle. 
Especially, when  the members were under attack by the government. 
 
Today is different. There is a core of retired workers who can shift to any 
 front of struggle because they are not tied to an employer. 
 
You are perhaps the youngest amongst us and you are not young. :-) 
 
WL. 

___
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] Speaking of the disaffected...

2010-02-28 Thread Waistline2
In a message dated 2/28/2010 2:36:15 P.M. Pacific Standard Time, 
_farmela...@juno.com_ (mailto:farmela...@juno.com)  writes: 
 
He wasn't really even a little capitalist, he was a wananbe at most.   In 
reality, he was just another contract programmer, and as such, lacked the  
security and benefits that unionized blue collar workers used to enjoy. 
 
I agree that it is fucked up to see exploited workers cling so relentlessly 
 to a petit bourgeois consciousness.
 
Reply
 
Perhaps, I was to harsh on this fellow. 
 
I did read his letter of protest and it was fairly obvious be was being  
crushed by big capital. Before returning to Detroit I did live in Texas for a  
while between Austin and Houston. It was Austin this fellow relocated to  
discover rates for his business 1/3 of that in California.  It is true that  
for all of my life - up until now, I have had security and benefits of the  
better paid union workers. 
 
My fear is that the Marxist of our generation - no matter what our  
differences in perspective and ideology, will miss this juncture of history as  
the 
CPUSA missed the period of roughly 1949 - 1955 and leadership of the  
impending social activism will pass into the anti-communist so-called left.  
Here, I do not speak as a knee jerk hater of the CPUSA. I am not. 
 
If there are say 10,000 Marxist in America and we commit to wining over and 
 teaching on a regular basis just 10 people for this year's goal that is 
100,000  people who can make an impact. My personal goal is 36 or three a 
month. At this  point it matters little what organization people are involved 
with. If we get  two people who get two more people and open our homes to many 
of the youth, we  win. All of us were won over to the idea of fighting 
injustice and then Marxism  by someone else who spoke up. 
 
Yes? 
 
 
WL. 
 
WL. 

___
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


[Marxism-Thaxis] demonstration at UAW headquarters Detroit

2010-02-26 Thread Waistline2
Monday 03/01/10 9 am - CAR CARAVAN TO SOLIDARITY HOUSE from UAW  Local  22 
has been cancelled. Please go directly to Solidarity House, 8000 E.  
Jefferson, Detroit, MI 48214 for 10 am Demonstration for Single Payer Health  
Care.
 
 
 
Monday 03/01/10 9 am – MEETING WITH REPRESENTATIVE OF UAW PRESIDENT  
GETTELFINGER.  A committee of the Retirees For Single Payer Health Care  will 
be 
meeting with UAW Administrative Assistant  Gary Mason at Solidarity  House, 
8000 E Jefferson, Detroit, MI 48214. 
 
 
 
Monday 03/01/10 10 am -  DEMONSTRATION FOR SINGLE PAYER HEALTH CARE at  
Solidarity House, 8000 E. Jefferson, Detroit, MI 48214.  LEAFLET  ATTACHED.
 
 
 
Monday 03/01/10 1 pm -  RETIREES FOR SINGLE PAYER HEALTH CARE meeting  at 
UAW Local 22, 4300 Michigan Ave, Detroit, MI 48210.  National Health  Care 
Speakers Program – Al Benchich, past President of UAW Local 909.   Coffee and 
donuts served.  LEAFLET ATTACHED.
 
 
 
Friday-Sunday 03/05/10 - 03/07/10 – LABOR CAMPAIGN FOR SINGLE-PAYER  
HEALTHCARE National Conference at the National Labor College in the Washington, 
 
D.C. area.  LEAFLET ATTACHED.
 
 
 
Monday 03/08/10 1 pm -  RETIREES FOR SINGLE PAYER HEALTH CARE meeting  at 
UAW Local 22, 4300 Michigan Ave, Detroit, MI 48210.  National Health  Care 
Speakers Program – Maureen Taylor, State Chairperson for the Michigan  Welfare 
Rights Organization.  Coffee and donuts served.  LEAFLET  ATTACHED.
 
 
 
Monday 03/15/10 1 pm -  RETIREES FOR SINGLE PAYER HEALTH CARE meeting  at 
UAW Local 22, 4300 Michigan Ave, Detroit, MI 48210.  National Health  Care 
Speakers Program – Olivia Boykins, Congressman Conyers subject matter  expert 
in Michigan for the United States National Health Care Act HR 676.   Coffee 
and donuts served.  LEAFLET ATTACHED.
 
 
 
Monday 03/22/10 1 pm -  RETIREES FOR SINGLE PAYER HEALTH CARE meeting  at 
UAW Local 22, 4300 Michigan Ave, Detroit, MI 48210.  National Health  Care 
Speakers Program – Marjorie Mitchell, Executive Director of Michigan  
Universal Health Care Network (MichUHCAN).  Coffee and donuts served.   LEAFLET 
ATTACHED.
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
Please  attend any or all of these National Health Care 
activities and bring a  friend.
 
 
 


___
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] Not everybody is on the same page

2010-02-24 Thread Waistline2
In a message dated 2/23/2010 10:12:22 P.M. Pacific Standard Time, 
_jann...@gmail.com_ (mailto:jann...@gmail.com)  writes: 
 
Until health care is seen as a basic right of citizenship (or residence),  
the government can always deny it to this or that part of the population. 
These  workers will go down fighting for something they think they deserve, 
not what  they think Americans or human beings deserve. Even if they win in 
their  struggle, 40-80 million Americans have already lost. 
 
CJ 
 
Comment 
 
I have not been detained enough in describing the actual struggle and  
process as it took place. RETIREES FOR SINGLE PAYER HEALTH CARE has as its core 
 
Conyers health care bill 676, which proposes to provide health care for 
everyone  in the United States of North America. Our union - UAW, has passively 
stated in  its documents at every Constitutional Convention, its desire for 
such a system  of national health care in America. This call for a system 
of national health  care is perhaps twenty years old. The problem arises 
because there is never any  union activity to realize this goal. 
 
I do not want to get lost in all the details but the system of health care  
for auto workers, was owned and controlled by the auto companies as profits 
 centers. For instance the largest system of hospitals in Detroit remains 
the  Henry Ford hospital to this very day. Thus, there has not been a 
historic  impulse arising from within the organized autoworkers for a all 
inclusive 
health  care system as an answer to autoworkers health care concerns. 
 
When retirees lost our company sponsored eye and dental coverage and as the 
 company pushed to detach retirees from company sponsored health care, 
retired  workers sought to combine together to retain their traditional heath 
care  coverage. This process of combining together is in its first phase and 
began  with four, maybe six people. These older workers retain a sense of 
organization,  militancy and connections with the historic communist current as 
a part of their  age and generations inheritance. What was a hand full of 
people in six months  became meetings of 30 - 40 people, with presidents of 
Local Union retirees  groups meeting. 
 
Ten months ago resistance to passing out our literature was faced at  
various local union meeting in around the city. Some union leaders sought to  
shout us down in union meetings or prohibit us from disturbing literature in 
the  meetings, although we were polite and respectful and always asked. Then 
the  threat came, which we face and replied we are fuckng armed and can 
start dying  right fucking now. As the crisis deepened and an interest in the 
new VEBA plans  rose we became popular and all was forgiven about our 
anti-union attitude. The  word slowly spread that some of us were meeting on 
Monday’s at Local 22. People  started showing up. We started taking part in all 
meeting and protest for  national health care and began a running 
education on the health care crisis. 
 
The point trying to be made in the same page article by Sam Webb is how  
to fight things out in real time and why it is impossible to fight on the 
level  of fighting a system. Condemning Obama and the Obama administration is 
an act of  futility and nothing more than sectarianism in the context of 
actually trying to  organize small groups of people to express their struggle 
for survival. 
 
The struggle of the workers - proletarian, always passes through phases  
embodying how individuals and the collective mind perceives its rights. This  
perception of rights is shaped by and a product of the era of the  
bourgeoisie.  The struggle of the proletariat in all countries is in fact a  
struggle over shares of the social products, services and for greater political 
 
liberty. As a general rule most strike struggle - not all, go down in defeat 
but  one must fight or die. What is different about this new emerging fight 
is the  perception by these older workers that their struggle is that of a 
class. Yes,  this perception is still fuzzy, but the retired workers 
combining under the  banner of a single payer system means transcending the 
narrow 
bound of my  individual needs. 
 
We are in for exciting and glorious times. 
 
Lt us march on til victory is one/won. 
 
WL
 

___
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] Not everybody is on same page

2010-02-23 Thread Waistline2


In a message dated 2/22/2010 12:48:30  P.M. Pacific Standard Time, 
cb31...@gmail.com writes:  

Not everybody is on same page by: Sam Webb February 18 2010 tags:  
communists, strategy and tactics 

Let me begin with the obvious:  the left (organized and unorganized) has 
seldom been of one mind. Differences  over aims, strategy, tactics, 
programmatic demands, forms of struggle, etc. have  been commonplace. 

This moment is no different. In fact, I would  argue that two distinct and 
competing trends have taken shape in the course of  the first year of the 
Obama presidency. 

Comment

Same  page? Actually, a tiny segment of sectarian Marxist writers -  
perhaps  numbering two - three hundred virtual personalities, are not only on a 
different  page but in an entirely different book.

The issue is not so much  ones attitude towards the Obama administration, 
but ones conception of reality.  Where one might charge Webb with “to much 
reality” and/or an incorrect view of  actual political relations between 
Democrats and Republicans and their  relationship with the voters, the 
sectarian 
Marxists are well, sectarian and  trapped in the reproduction of their own 
sectarianism. Since the founding of the  American communist movement, it has 
been proven to be impossible to fight the  quality called the bourgeois mode 
of commodity production or capitalism, or “the  two party system,” or the 
administration. It doesn't mater what the  administration. 

The communist movement grew during periods of  social upheaval, fighting on 
the basis of real issues dear to the hearts and  minds of the proletarian 
masses. This was most certainly true during the period  of the fight for 
unions; then industrial trade unions and the great struggles  for Civil Rights, 
defining the last period of social upheaval. One cannot fight  within a 
social system on the level of the system’s existence. The social system  is a 
quality. The quality is capitalism. The political quality is the government  
and its ruling party's. Opposing Obama as a bourgeois representative means 
next  to nothing. 

If one cannot fight the quality defined as capitalism,  then common sense 
demands that one must fight and deal on the quantitative  level, with 
specific stages of development and locating what is unique and  important to 
the 
actual phase of the social process one is living. It is useless  to charge 
anyone associated with Marxism for failing to recognize that the  American 
state and government is an instrument of the capitalist class, serves  
bourgeois 
property, and Obama is simultaneously the head of state and government  as 
president. 

One has to fight on a quantitative level. Not  because I say so, but 
because there is no “other game in town,” except the  various fronts of 
struggle 
for survival taking place. The unique skills of  communists as organizers 
are need at every front of struggle. For instance, in  Detroit a struggle is 
brewing involving auto workers and retired autoworkers  with the state and 
government, because General Motors and Chrysler are more than  less owned by 
the government. This quantitative level means a struggle over full  
nationalization of auto is on the agenda. Not as a cure all but as a form of  
immediate combat where a section of proletarians can discover how to fight for  
their interest as a class. We can introduce this issue not because it sound  
clever, but because two of the companies are partially nationalized already.  
This means new ideas can be injected into society attached to a living 
social  process. 

Not because I say so but because the government owns  Chrysler and General 
Motors rather than individual employers. Ford is not on the  governments 
dime so a somewhat different form of struggle is unfolding there,  with a 
massive rejection of the contract last year. The Chrysler and General  Motors 
workers have no contract fight they can reject as such. That is to say,  the 
fight is with the government. 

This is an entirely new and  different game.  

Another such struggle is brewing over  national health care. On the 
quantitative level this means these same workers in  Detroit, retired workers 
at 
General Motors and Chrysler, recently had their  health care package 
restructured and detached from the company. A VEBA has been  established that 
as it 
exist is set to run out of money in as little as 36  months. VEBA went into 
effect January 1, 2010 and out of pocket payments has  risen at a monthly 
rate of roughly 30% for the past two months. When VEBA was  sold to the 
autoworkers its was stated the fund would last roughly 80 years with  an annual 
rate increase of no more than 3%. Health care arises as a material  issue in a 
context where the government owns Chrysler and General Motors. The  struggle 
of these workers for health care is with the government rather than an  
employer such as is the case with Ford. Unable to get anything from their  
previous 

Re: [Marxism-Thaxis] Speaking of the disaffected...

2010-02-19 Thread Waistline2
I read this guys suicide letter and here is what he wrote in part.  

 Instead I got busy working 100-hour workweeks. Then came  the L.A. 
depression of the early 1990s. Our leaders decided that they didn't  need the 
all 
of those extra Air Force bases they had in Southern California, so  they 
were closed; just like that. The result was economic devastation in the  
region that rivaled the widely publicized Texas SL fiasco. However, because  
the 
government caused it, no one gave a shit about all of the young families 
who  lost their homes or street after street of boarded up houses abandoned to 
the  wealthy loan companies who received government funds to shore up 
their  windfall. Again, I lost my retirement. 

Years later, after  weathering a divorce and the constant struggle trying 
to build some momentum  with my business, I find myself once again beginning 
to finally pick up some  speed. Then came the .COM bust and the 911 
nightmare. 

So I moved,  only to find out that this is a place with a highly inflated 
sense of  self-importance and where damn little real engineering work is 
done. I've never  experienced such a hard time finding work. The rates are 1/3 
of what I was  earning before the crash, because pay rates here are fixed by 
the three or four  large companies in the area who are in collusion to drive 
down prices and  wages... and this happens because the justice department 
is all on the take and  doesn't give a fuck about serving anyone or anything 
but themselves and their  rich buddies.  


Comment

I asked  myself, why would a human being work a 100 hour week voluntarily? 
Seven days 12  hours a day is only 72 hours. Add another 28 hours and one 
has no family life  and ultimately no wife or children one can maintain a 
relationship with. Here is  a man that earnestly believed that capitalism could 
work for him and it did work  pretty good in the post WW II period. Things 
stated going to hell a very long  time ago for the proletariat majority. New 
layers of American society is being  ruined. 

The real proletariat in America thinks out things very different, and their 
 spontaneous drift to the right barely leads to terrorist acts on this 
level.  Massive economic ruin does generate an initial response of increased 
family  abuse, bouts of rage and individual suicide. Then depending on the 
ability of  communist to impact the movement with a sense of purpose, the 
implosive subsides  and becomes an outer explosion of activity.

I  feel no sympathy for this man who drives an airplane into a building 
because he  is angry with the system. Did he own the plane? This angry man 
thought thinks  out as a little capitalist, rather than proletarians still 
clinging to bourgeois  views. 
 
No human in their right mind, voluntarily works 100 hours a week, unless  
they earnestly believe that at some point they they can make it and 
retired  in peace and wealth. This pursuit of wealth and making it was once 
called the  American dream. Our bomber terrorist woke up to the American 
nightmare, millions  having been living for a couple of decades.  

Real time  America on February 19, 2010 is in a profound crisis. 150 
million Americans feel  stress over layoffs and paying their bills on a 
consistent 
basis. Over 60  percent of Americans now live paycheck to paycheck. A 
record 20 million  Americans qualified for unemployment insurance benefits last 
year, causing 27  states to run out of funds, with seven more also expected 
to go into the red  within the next few months. In total, 40 state programs 
are expected to go  broke. When you factor in all these uncounted workers -- 
involuntary part-time  and discouraged workers -- the unemployment rate 
rises from 9.7 percent to  over 20 percent. In total, we now have over 30 
million U.S. citizens who are  unemployed or underemployed. With a prison 
population of 2.3 million people, we  now have more people incarcerated than 
any 
other nation in the world -- the per  capita statistics are 700 per 100,000 
citizens. In comparison, China has 110 per  100,000, France has 80 per 
100,000, Saudi Arabia has 45 per 100,000. The prison  industry is thriving and 
expecting major growth over the next few years. A  recent report from the 
Hartford Advocate titled Incarceration Nation revealed  that a new prison 
opens every week somewhere in America. 

Over  five million U.S. families have already lost their homes, in total 13 
million  U.S. families are expected to lose their home by 2014, with 25 
percent of  current mortgages underwater. 1.4 million Americans filed for 
bankruptcy in  2009, a 32 percent increase from 2008. As bankruptcies continue 
to 
skyrocket,  medical bankruptcies are responsible for over 60 percent of 
them, and over 75  percent of the medical bankruptcies filed are from people 
who have health care  insurance. 

Over 50 million people who need to use food stamps to  eat, and a stunning 
50 percent of U.S. children will 

Re: [Marxism-Thaxis] Speaking of the disaffected...

2010-02-19 Thread Waistline2


In a message dated 2/19/2010 1:57:51 P.M. Pacific Standard Time,  
rdum...@autodidactproject.org writes:

While other people are just as  fucked up in their own ways, white people 
of this type have a peculiarly  apolitical view of their own victimization. 
They can't see their situation as  anything more than an individual problem, 
as lone individuals being abused by  the system, as individuals who can only 
act alone, and who are victimized by bad  people running a system that is 
supposed to work but who have betrayed something  they thought they were part 
of and was supposed to be functioning  properly.

Comment
 
I think you hit the nail on the head with a carpenter's skill. The  
unionized workers, white in particular, facing impending ruin have a somewhat  
different instinct and orientation. These workers who I interact with are very  
angry and gave Obama his edge in the election. They are also universally 
scared  of the system but distrustful and harbor very different illusions. 
They  generally have not lived under generations of reactionary bourgeois 
democracy  with its extreme police violence and in areas like the deep South 
have been on  the non-receiving end of generations of historic fascist terror. 
In places where  the black areas of town merge into the white proletarian 
neighborhoods their is  a profound impulse for unity. 
 
The specific problem is that these workers have a way of thinking things  
out. We - meaning the generation of communists who are basically seniors, 
need a  way to speak with these workers on the basis of how they think things 
out in  real time as the velocity of crisis increase and as they awareness is 
in flux.  These workers who constituted the margin of victory for Obama can 
swing either  way in the actual social struggle. 
 
I am not seriously concerned about the so-called Tea bagger and fanatics,  
who are divorced from the masses of proletarians without regard to color. I 
am  concerned about establishing a polarity that serves as a gravity well 
for the  so-called political middle, as it exists in flux. The crisis has 
kicked the  economic legs from up under the political middle as this section 
of the working  class is hurled forcefully into the lowest section of the 
proletariat.  

The fragments of the remaining left are incapable of any dialogue with the  
proletarian masses. We are making headway, really, but the resistance and 
fear  is incredible. 
 
Ralph, we have arrived in the undiscovered country. Strategy and ideology  
of the past is useless. We need to make perhaps 10,000 new mistakes. The 
pace  and consolidation of Fascism in America is going to depend upon our 
ability to  really influence and win people over to thinking different. The 
edifice of race  has been cracked forever. Even the bourgeoisie is caught 
flatfooted. We might  get really lucky. 
 
Hopefully we will not have to experience what the former Soviet proletariat 
 had to endure.Our analysis is that there will be no recovery only 
restoration of  profitability on the governments dime. 
 
Things are getting interesting. 
 
WL.  
 
 

This email was cleaned by emailStripper, available for free from  
http://www.papercut.biz/emailStripper.htm
 

___
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] Tea Party Lights Fuse for Rebellion on Right

2010-02-18 Thread Waistline2


In a message dated 2/18/2010 12:20:49 P.M. Pacific Standard Time,  
cb31...@gmail.com writes:

As the meeting ended, Carolyn L. Whaley, 76, held up her copy of  the
Constitution. She carries it everywhere, she explained, and she  was
prepared to lay down her life to protect it from the likes of  Mr.
Obama.

“I would not hesitate,” she said, perfectly  calm.

more at _http://www.nytimes.com/2010/02/16/us/politics/16teaparty.html_ 
(http://www.nytimes.com/2010/02/16/us/politics/16teaparty.html) 
 
Comment
 
Very reactionary political current reminiscent of the ideological bent of  
the pro slavery forces during the lead up to the Civil War in America. The 
slave  oligarchy and the Southern elite claimed to stand on the side of the  
Constitution, and they did. That the Constitution legalized and protected  
slavery meant its defense supported slavery. No real difference today. These  
people are very angry and believe they can recast bourgeois private 
property in  their favor. They are horribly mistaken. Perhaps, Texas needs to 
be 
given back  to Mexico. 
 
WL.  
 

___
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


[Marxism-Thaxis] The new narrative: History recast and the rise of a new proletarian movement

2010-02-18 Thread Waistline2
(speaking of trade unions as a percentage of the employed workers) As Mark  
Rickling replied on the LBO list: You'd call 36% 'very small' and  
'trivial'?
 
To which I added:
 
Right - and it was as much a qualitative as a quantitative issue for the  
socialist movement. Marx and Engels and their revolutionary and reformist  
followers correctly adjudged the unionized workers, strategically 
concentrated  in the key sectors of the economy, as the only social force 
capable of 
leading a  struggle against capitalism and reorganizing production on the 
basis of need  rather than profit. The centrality of the organized working 
class 
was integral  to Marxism in both theory and practice.
 
When the anticipated proletarian revolution did not materialize in the  
most developed capitalist countries, Western new leftists like Carrol sought 
to  substitute students, blacks, women, and other insurgent groups as agents 
of  change. But none of these diffuse and transient constituencies, which 
were  generally allied to labour, had anything remotely resembling the 
concentrated  numbers, financial resources, economic power, political influence 
and 
more  generalized social objectives of the trade union movement during the 
long period  of it's rise. They still don't, even thought the unions are but 
a shadow of what  they once were.
___
 
 
 
Comment
 
The above was taken from Pen-L. 
 
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 increasingly comes into conflict with the more than less 
static  production relations as the basis of the revolutionary process. Marx 
and 
Engels  believed that the concentration of the proletariat brought about by 
giant  industry would set the stage for the socialist revolution. Where 
does Marx  assign the workers in trade unions the change agent of bourgeois 
private  property? 
 
(quote) “the unionized workers, strategically concentrated in the key  
sectors of the economy, as the only social force capable of leading a struggle  
against capitalism and reorganizing production on the basis of need rather 
than  profit.” (end quote) 
 
The proposition above is plain old fashion syndicalism attributed to Marx.  
The industrial form of trade unions had not yet arisen and consolidated at 
the  time of the Communist Manifesto (1848). In fact the decisive battles 
for the  industrial union form would not be fought out for another 70 years. I 
am not  aware where Marx or Engels declared the craft form of unionism as 
the vehicle  through which the definitive battles of the proletariat against 
bourgeoisie  would evolve. 
 
The second paragraph contradicts the American experience. The idea that  
blacks were allied to labor begs the question, “what is labor” and “what are 
the  blacks” existing external to this labor requiring an alliance? Blacks 
have  always been an intimate part of the labor movement no different than 
Italians,  Irish or Slavic laborers. Labor movement means a group of people or 
class that  sells its labor ability for wages. All those individuals in our 
society that  must sell their labor ability for wages constitute the 
totality of the labor  movement. The concept of organized labor and then labor 
existing external to  blacks and women means that in America the labor movement 
was basically white.  This is not true, although the CIO did in fact emerge 
as the fighter for  organizing the unskilled white workers under the 
industrial union form. 
 
The Civil Rights Movement was a form of struggle of the blacks embracing  
all classes amongst blacks against segregation. Within the organized labor  
movement or current, blacks fought for equality as a mass of unskilled 
laborers  - in the main, and this fight was not very different, in its essence 
than that  of other laborers. The form of the fight was the color question 
because that was  the index for segregation. The alliances between civil rights 
organizations and  unions, say Walter Reuther marching with Dr. King, is not 
a black/labor  alliance, but a manifestation of blacks within the UAW 
fighting for equality  across the board including within the UAW. Actually, 
Reuther had stated at an  early UAW Constitutional Convention that of the tens 
of 
thousands of blacks in  the union not one was qualified to be on the 
Executive Board of the Union. What  changed the direction of the UAW was the 
1967 
Rebellion in Detroit. The union  was compelled to open up for blacks who had 
majorities in various departments  and even entire plants. Homer Jolly Sr. 
led the wave of newly elected black  local union presidents in 1968 at Local 
51. Local 51 is my home local of which I  have been  member in good 
standing for 40 years. 
 
I m not aware of any significant Northern union activity supporting efforts 
 in the South to desegregate and most certainly 

Re: [Marxism-Thaxis] Wiki Lenin

2010-02-17 Thread Waistline2
In a message dated 2/16/2010 12:12:08 P.M. Pacific Standard Time, 
_rdum...@autodidactproject.org_ (mailto:rdum...@autodidactproject.org)   
writes: 
 
There is remarkable objectivity about the Red Terror, an object of  
controversy in the discussion of this entry.  Oddly, though, there is less  
controversy over the article than I would have expected, from either those who  
hate Lenin or those whol still feel the need to lie on behalf of the USSR. 
 
Comment 
 
It is still  pretty hard to discuss anything Soviet. Mention health  care 
or education and one is charged with denying Soviet reality. Mention  
developing an industrial infrastructure without a stock market or class of  
capitalist owning the material factors of production and one is charged with  
denying the existence of the gulag. Mention the gulag and one is charged with  
minimizing the stranglehold of the party on social life. Mention anything 
Soviet  and one is charged with all kinds of crimes and sins against humanity. 
 
Ralph, you fit somewhat into this mix. When I mention the Soviet Textbook  
of Marxist Philosophy as a bench mark you see red and go ballistic. 
 
Why, I am not sure. I do not crap - shit, on history. Nor do I ever feel a  
compulsion to justify what happened as history. Take away slavery and many 
of us  cease to exist. One can criticize their judges 24/7. I answer 
history's  questions and event with a how and then a why based on the how. 
Some 
 approach the issue with why and then how.
 
Some on the left and right, bourgeois and communist, deny the evolution of  
the terrorist legal and extra legal aspects of the state power took place  
directly under Lenin's command. On one list Soviet Legacy I basically  
mentioned all the key points in the Lenin entry - (although I had gotten the  
source material decades ago), and was charged with relying upon material from 
 Robert Conquest. Really, and interestingly this charged was leveled by a 
Marxist  of a Trotskyist heritage. The Stalin regime evolved and expanded 
this  terroristic organization of state power.
 
Nothing scares me Ralph, other than my own weaknesses and inability to  
prepare the next generation at the velocity they are demanding new information. 
 
WL. 

___
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] African-American History Month Program (2)

2010-02-17 Thread Waistline2


II. 


The first American Revolution of 1776 inaugurated the epoch of wars for  
national liberation as a form of history. Following on its heels was the 
Haitian  Revolution and Bolivar. The wars of national liberation predate the 
doctrine of  proletarian revolution and as a form of history transformation 
would run another  two hundred years closing out - as a history changing 
current, with the victory  of the Vietnamese Revolution and unification in 
1976. 
Slavery in America  distorted everything the war of national liberation 
claimed as its  goal.   

The historic polarity between national  liberation movements and 
imperialism was the basis for groups - nations,  oppressed peoples, the 
oppressed 
gender, becoming aware of themselves, their  conditions and fighting it out. 
This historic polarity as a form of history, was  a driver of the transition 
from society anchored in the agrarian revolution to a  new kind of society 
anchored in the industrial revolution.   

The color factor was an insurmountable obstacle to the unity of  the 
fighting section of our working class. This is no longer the case. In the  
formation of capital the form of history was driven by New World conquest and  
enslaving the African. New World colonization and African slavery gave impetus  
to navigation, science and industry. An enormous world wide ideological  
superstructure arose to justify and protect colonization of the world’s colored 
 peoples. In America this ideology of destruction and enslavement arose on 
the  basis of genocide of the American Indian and later the plantation 
system of  slavery. Not all at one time but white supremacy arose and acquired 
a 
seemingly  life of it‘s own. 

African Americans tended to be looked upon and  treated at best as if they 
were on the periphery of our country’s history. Their  being marginalized 
throughout most of our history reinforces this view.  Nevertheless, any 
serious inquiry into our history will show that the control,  manipulation and 
exploitation of the African American was at the heart of every  major and most 
minor decisions of the state prior to the Civil War, and a good  many of 
them after. The control of the African American has been the political  means 
by which the entire working class has been controlled and prevented from  
reforming the system, more in their favor.  Each reform of the system  
strengthened the hand of capital. 

Fortunately, history - as  evolution and development of the productive 
forces of a society, steps into the  social process in such a way as to unravel 
and shatter previously existing forms  of the social contract and a given 
historic form of control of the working  class. 

It is always appropriative to mention the catalyst for  change in society. 
In the past century the invention and deployment of the  tractor and 
mechanization of agriculture, had far reaching social consequences  for 
America. 
Not all at one time but inexorably. Mechanization freed eleven  million 
sharecroppers from the land and cast them as a mobile labor forces  seeking 
employment wherever it could be found. 

Society change has  a logic. 
 
When something fundamental to an existing economic relations and specific  
way labor is organized changes, everything dependent upon that, which was  
fundamental must in turn change. Not all at one time but a change wave is  
unleashed that must run its course. In the process of the change wave  
revolutionaries fight for change to benefit the proletarian  masses the  most. 
The 
tractor changed the organization of agricultural production and  brought 
down the sharecropper system as one of the primary mode of the social  
organization of labor in the South. Millions of people were “kicked out of” a  
social position called sharecropping.  

Of these eleven  million sharecroppers - a distinct class formation in 
America, the majority were  white, with five million being black. The lesson 
for 
revolutionaries is the  dynamics of the destruction of a class and/or form 
of class. The form of a class  changes under the impact of the technological 
advance. Qualitative changes in  the productive forces creates qualitative 
changes in the form of class and  property. The industrial revolution is a 
case in point. The serfs became  manufacturing workers and with the advance 
of the industrial revolution  industrial workers on the scale of history. 
Bourgeois property cast this  industrial workers as a wage worker or 
proletariat. Technology creates the  content versus the “property form” of 
class 
called industrial, as surely as the  advance of technology created a class of 
software workers. The content of a  class can undergo change, in front of and 
without changing the property form  that cast a particular form of worker 
proletariat. 

Freeing five  million black people from the land, in the context of an 
economic upswing,  called into question segregation. Were two factories to be 
built one 

Re: [Marxism-Thaxis] African-American History Month Program (4 5)

2010-02-17 Thread Waistline2
V. 

I want to try to be clear to avoid misunderstanding about  what legal 
segregation actually meant. 

For 50 years - between 1920  and 1970, Detroit had an extra legal curfew 
imposed on the black where they had  to be off the streets at sun down or risk 
being jailed and shot. It was extra  legal because no laws existed on the 
books but the “curfew law existed in fact”  and was enforced by the police 
and understood by every level of local  government. Exceptions were made for 
workers on the night shift and weekends  when traveling to entertainment 
events. 

Literally, if you stood on  the corner talking, the police would drive up, 
roll down the window and say,  “give me that corner.” This was a warning to 
disperse or be “beat  down.”   An elaborate system of communications 
developed where you  were informed the police were 2 blocks away and closing in 
fast, allowing one to  take to the alley ways. 

Black power is what it was, as the demand  for entry into the political 
system. In this sense the struggle of the blacks  was no different than the 
struggle of the Irish, Italian or any other “national  group“ that becomes 
large enough in a jurisdiction to take control of the  “machine.” The color 
factor complicated the struggle of the blacks, meaning all  the various 
groupings dominating the “city machine” had to be fought because  their unity 
was 
based on the isolation and exclusion of the blacks. Black Power  meant 
black political power or the politics of combating, inheriting and taking  over 
the “city machine” in the North and the local political jurisdictions in  
the South enforcing fascist segregation. Thus, the path of the fight could 
only  take place on the basis of the post legal Jim Crow segregated voting 
market,  because white voters as a general rule could not and would not elect a 
black.  

The refusal of whites to elect blacks during this period cannot be  
causally spoken of as “just” racism without qualification. Beneath the color  
factor is “the city  machine factor,“ or the system of spoils and payoffs  in 
every American city. Jobs in the police force and all levels of governments  
and city services are at stake. Awarding contracts for city services 
involves  more than the actual workers hired and require the system of lawyers, 
 
accountants and land speculators every time a new road is built or a new 
housing  development is proposed. This system evolved before blacks entered the 
 
industrial class and is based on nationality or the immigrant status of 
waves of  European immigrants. The Irish had to built up their mass in a 
jurisdiction as  did the Italian and Polish to grab hold of the city machine. 
Pretty much the  same with the blacks + the color factor. 

The demand for black  police officers was an exceptionally brutal and 
violent struggle in Detroit and  Cleveland. This was a period of desegregation 
that birthed the “Black Guardians”  within police departments in the major 
cities. The Black Guardian were black  police officers literally forced to 
fight the semi-fascist polices of their  local police departments. More often 
than not, the Black Guardians played an  exemplar role in protecting the 
social movement from fascist attacks by segments  of the police department. 
This 
was certainly the case in Detroit. The point is  that at a certain stage in 
the change process the structures of control become  paralyzed and at odds 
with itself. An example of this I experienced was the case  of protesting at 
Cooly High school in Detroit and not the one in Chicago named  after the 
movie. In the process of the demonstration a police care literally ran  into a 
mass of people injuring many. The police pull out their guns to shoot us.  
The Black Guardian on the scene pulled out their gun and aimed them at the 
heads  of the other officers and told them if they fired one shot they would 
shoot  them. This happened because our struggle was just. Then there was the 
tip off to  many of us that the police were in the process of preparing to 
raid the Black  Panther office and kill them. This tip off allowed people to 
go to the Panthers  office along with the press to halt the attack. 

We are poised to  experience a new form of the social movement and need to 
be mindful of how  things happen. At the end of the day the majority of the 
people of our country  are going to line up with the proletarian revolution 
because it is just.  

Control of the police force also involves management of crime and  drugs 
and who gets paid. The city machine and police get paid through various  
sources, including crime. In Detroit the struggle within the union and on the  
factory floor was electoral and extra legal, frequently erupting in gun play.  
This struggle is often misunderstood. The struggle of the lowest paid 
unskilled  is always sharp and violent as these workers press to control the 
internal union  organization in opposition to the skilled trades. The 

Re: [Marxism-Thaxis] African-American History Month Program (4 5)

2010-02-17 Thread Waistline2
In a message dated 2/17/2010 11:15:47 A.M. Pacific Standard Time, 
_rdum...@autodidactproject.org_ (mailto:rdum...@autodidactproject.org)   
writes: 
 
Like your presentation, but as usual, I wonder about your projections for  
the future: 
 
The  destitute proletariat will tackle questions for itself when it  
learns it has no other recourse. 
 
Where are the signs that this is happening? I see fascist mass movements as 
 a likelier outcome. 
 
Reply 
 
Brother, we have been in a bad way for a very long time. The trade union  
movement is about 7.3% of the working class and this means their historical  
control over the labor movement can be broken. This control derives from the 
 fact of the union movement being organized. An organized force will always 
 dominate an unorganized mass.
 
We - I mean we and if the shoe does not apply let it fly, have been under 
 fascist and semi fascist conditions forever. One prison a week gets built 
in  America and as the end game these prisons are meant to house white 
Americans  that are proletariat. 
 
I am to old to speak in niceties.  The fastest growing prison  population - 
still under the radar, is white women. I know this from living in  Florida 
and my wife working in the penal system. Is fascism inevitable as a  social 
consequence? Yes. How long and the velocity of change is in question.  
America is a huge country and it is going to be very difficult to clamp down on 
 
the proletariat masses as in Germany. Germany can fit into Texas. 
 
We have a host of material and historical factors in our favor. 
 
We can make a difference in real time. 
 
The new proletarian movement has not yet expressed its voice and features.  
On the sale of American history we are at where the CPUSA was in say 1949. 
 
No group of individual have every completed the leap from one boundary to  
the next and maintained their revolutionary outlook. 
 
 
We will complete the leap or die. 
 
Period. 
 
Let us march on,
Til victory is won/one. 
 
WL. 
 
 
This email was cleaned by emailStripper, available for free from 
_http://www.papercut.biz/emailStripper.htm_ 
(http://www.papercut.biz/emailStripper.htm) 

___
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] African-American History Month Program (3)

2010-02-17 Thread Waistline2
III. The Obama Presidency 

Real time America on February 16,  2010 is in a profound crisis. 150 
million Americans feel stress over layoffs and  paying their bills on time. 
Over 
60 percent of Americans now live paycheck to  paycheck. A record 20 million 
Americans qualified for unemployment insurance  benefits last year, causing 
27 states to run out of funds, with seven more also  expected to go into the 
red within the next few months. In total, 40 state  programs are expected to 
go broke. When you factor in all these uncounted  workers -- involuntary 
part-time and discouraged workers -- the unemployment  rate rises from 9.7 
percent to over 20 percent. In total, we now have over 30  million U.S. 
citizens who are unemployed or underemployed. 

With a  prison population of 2.3 million people, we now have more people 
incarcerated  than any other nation in the world -- the per capita statistics 
are 700 per  100,000 citizens. In comparison, China has 110 per 100,000, 
France has 80 per  100,000, Saudi Arabia has 45 per 100,000. The prison 
industry is thriving and  expecting major growth over the next few years. A 
recent 
report from the  Hartford Advocate titled Incarceration Nation revealed 
that a new prison  opens every week somewhere in America. 

Over five million U.S.  families have already lost their homes, in total 13 
million U.S. families are  expected to lose their home by 2014, with 25 
percent of current mortgages  underwater. 1.4 million Americans filed for 
bankruptcy in 2009, a 32 percent  increase from 2008. As bankruptcies continue 
to 
skyrocket, medical bankruptcies  are responsible for over 60 percent of 
them, and over 75 percent of the medical  bankruptcies filed are from people 
who have health care  insurance.

Over 50 million people who need to use food stamps to  eat, and a stunning 
50 percent of U.S. children will use food stamps to eat at  some point in 
their childhoods. Approximately 20,000 people are added to this  total every 
day. In 2009, one out of five U.S. households didn't have enough  money to 
buy food. In households with children, this number rose to 24 percent,  as the 
hunger rate among U.S. citizens has now reached an all-time high.  

A foreign audience need a context to understand these figures. The  
American government defines poverty for a family of four at $32,000 a year. 60% 
 of 
the American working class makes $14 an hour which equals $29,120.00 based 
on  working 52 weeks a year. Government statistics place 60% of Americans 
below the  poverty level before the outbreak of the 2008 crisis. 

The rate and  velocity of the crisis means the spontaneous tendency of the 
workers to swing to  the right, expressed in the demand for restoration of 
the social contract, must  be tackled by American communist with propaganda 
that fits who these workers, at  this moment, think things out. 

The working class and proletariat  always has to show itself that it knows 
what it knows and then express this  knowing by voting with their feet. 
,Obama’s election is a game changer, far more  important than the scores of 
black appointees under Bush W. administration.  Obama was not appointed, but 
anointed and elected by an important voting section  of the working class. 
Obama completes a task Colin Powell was poised to tackle,  but blocked by the 
historically fascist Southern political establishment. The  Southern base of 
the Republican Party favored Bush the second as “hit man” to  realign America
’s domestic and international politics.  

Obama  has something in common with Colin Powell. Nether arose out of the 
Civil Rights  organizations, as did Jesse Jackson Sr. What all have in common 
is that they  were made possible by desegregation and the Black Power 
Movement that emerged  from the Civil Rights Movement.  

The election of Obama  further fixes what everyone understood was the 
supreme irony of our history: the  color factor. The election of a black as 
president is a big thing, important as  a benchmark of how far we have traveled 
in the post Jim Crow era. Defeating John  McCain’s “America First Campaign” 
momentarily fractured the Southern political  establishment, as it is 
expressed in the Republican party. The ideology of  Southern reaction is 
outright 
fascism. The breach by a section of the voting  Northern workers with the 
Southern political establishment propelled Obama into  office. Workers in the 
heart of the industrial centers of the Midwest or the  “Rust bowl“ were an 
important gravity well in effecting the breach and electing  Obama. Their 
movement rippled throughout the country, giving Obama the decisive  edge. 

These workers have been and are being economically ruined.  The Obama 
campaign momentarily captured the sentiment of this section of workers  cast 
adrift from  the Reagan Revolution and its legacy. The tendency of  these 
workers is to spontaneously drift to the right as the first impulse to  
achieving 
a mass 

  1   2   3   4   5   6   7   8   9   >