from:"Waistline2"


Engels misunderstood Marx's value theory, especially Marx's explanation of
money-form of commodity as physically accountable entity,  but Marx
explains  social, homogenous labor firstly as imaginary or ideal product.
Below is borrowed from Capital

I do not disagee that there existed a difference in conception of value, its 
various forms, between Marx and Engels. Engels repeatedly acknowledge Marx as 
the greater man in the theoretical arena. Their ideas intersected on the 
historical trajectory of value as a force mediating human affairs and its 
final destination in the life of society. Karl Marx was of course - Marx. 

What Engels intuitively understood based on his independent study Marx 
unfolded for the world. It is of course Marx name that signifies a specific 
body of theory as opposed to Engel-ism. It was Marx that reshaped 
dialectics.

Melvin

Re: Re: Re: Re: value and price: a dissenting note

In a message dated 2/2/2002 11:19:00 PM Central Standard Time, [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:

on 2/3/02 10:39 AM, Michael Perelman at [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:

Miyachi's solution is not so simple. You have a new computer. Some of
the value will be transferred to the product today. You have no idea how
long the computer will last; when it will become obsolete. Unless you
have foreknowledge of the future, you cannot know how much value transfers
to the product.

I wrote about this in more detail a few years ago in the Cambridge Journal
of Economics.
--
Michael Perelman
Economics Department
California State University
Chico, CA 95929

Tel. 530-898-5321
E-Mail [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Sir Michael Perelman

I can't understand your account. My computer has price, and I consume it
some years. After some year, my computer's price down, because I consume by
using it. I can't transfer value to computer, on the contrary, by using it,
I destruct its exchange value. If I trade in my computer to shop, shopper
assess my computer's trading price usually due to using years.
It is well common knowledge even little kids knows. If I transfer value
while using computer, trading price is higher than when I bought it.
Ridiculous! Did you use trading shop? If you did not, try it. When you try,
you can understand common knowledge which California State University did
not teach.
MIYACHI TATSUO
PSYCHIATRIC DEPARTMENT
KOMAKI MUNICIPAL HOSPITAL
KOMAKI CITY
AICHI Pre.
JAPAN

I tend to agree with this accounting. Value is the product or rather expression of human acitivity in the process of production. One cannot "transfer" value through consumption of the finished product as an article of utility, even if one resales the article at the same price - after having used ("partial consumption") the product.

Re: Re: Engels, Marx, Value and Communism


It is not that Engels misunderstood Marx. Marx unfolded a new law system. 
Engels agreed to the best of his ability. To continue. 

MIYACHI TATSUO
PSYCHIATRIC DEPARTMENT
KOMAKI MUNICIPAL HOSPITAL
KOMAKI CITY
AICHI Pre.
JAPAN

[EMAIL PROTECTED]

 
Below is from Capital
The specific economic form, in which unpaid surplus-labour is pumped out 
of
direct producers, determines the relationship of rulers and ruled, as it
grows directly out of production itself and, in turn, reacts upon it as a
determining element. Upon this, however, is founded the entire formation of
the economic community which grows up out of the production relations
themselves, thereby simultaneously its specific political form. It is always
the direct relationship of the owners of the conditions of production to the
direct producers -- a relation always naturally corresponding to a definite
stage in the development of the methods of labour and thereby its social
productivity -- which reveals the innermost secret, the hidden basis of the
entire social structure and with it the political form of the relation of
sovereignty and dependence, in short, the corresponding specific form of the
state. This does not prevent the same economic basis

Brenner's reductionism is clear. He only analyze market, finance, or 
credit.
This tendency can ascend to Stalin's formula that economic process is
natural and to proceed without people's will. Certainly capitalist system is
reversed world in which Sachen (commodity, money and capital=== In any
English translation of  Capital there is no distinction between Sachen and
Ding, but the two are different category, Sachen means occupying property,
and Ding is mere physical matter, and identifying Sachen with Ding, we can
not distinguish Versacherling and Verdinging, which is important to
understand Marx's critique of fetishism) rule people, and people
unconsciously and collectively produce Sachen which produce self-destructive
power for people.

And finally Marx described

In capital -- profit, or still better capital -- interest, land -- rent,
abour -- wages, in this economic trinity represented as the connection
between the component parts of value and wealth in general and its sources,
we have the complete mystification of the capitalist mode of production, the
conversion of social relations into things, the direct coalescence of the
material production relations with their historical and social
determination. It is an enchanted, perverted, topsy-turvy world, in which
Monsieur le Capital and Madame la Terre do their ghost-walking as social
characters and at the same time directly as mere things. It is the great
merit of classical economy to have destroyed this false appearance and
illusion, this mutual independence and ossification of the various social
elements of wealth, this personification of things and conversion of
production relations into entities, this religion of everyday life. It did
so by reducing interest to a portion of profit, and rent to the surplus
above average profit, so that both of them converge in surplus-value; and by
representing the process of circulation as a mere metamorphosis of forms,
and finally reducing value and surplus-value of commodities to labour in the
direct production process

We works with will, although its result is self-alienated. It is clear. But
Stalin neglect this fundamental fact.
Crisis theory was produced from experience of Marx, and Lenin. Marx
firstly expected economic panic as condition of revolution, but in Capital,


As soon as this process of transformation has sufficiently decomposed the
old society from top to bottom, as soon as the laborers are turned into
proletarians, their means of labor into capital, as soon as the capitalist
mode of production stands on its own feet, then the further socialization of
labor and further transformation of the land and other means of production
into socially exploited and, therefore, common means of production, as well
as the further expropriation of private proprietors, takes a new form. That
which is now to be expropriated is no longer the laborer working for
himself, but the capitalist exploiting many laborers. This expropriation is
accomplished by the action of the immanent laws of capitalistic production
itself, by the centralization of capital. One capitalist always kills many.
Hand in hand with this centralization, or this expropriation of many
capitalists by few, develop, on an ever-extending scale, the co-operative
form of the labor-process, the conscious technical application of science,
the methodical cultivation of the soil, the transformation of the
Instruments of labor into instruments of labor only usable in common, the
economizing of all means of production by their use as means of production
of combined, socialized labor, the entanglement of all peoples in the net of
the world-market, and with this, the international character of the
capitalistic regime. Along with the constantly diminishing number

(no subject)



It is not that Engels misunderstood Marx. Marx unfolded a new law system. 
Marx ame first. Engels agreed to the best of his ability. To continue. 

MIYACHI TATSUO
PSYCHIATRIC DEPARTMENT
KOMAKI MUNICIPAL HOSPITAL
KOMAKI CITY
AICHI Pre.
JAPAN

[EMAIL PROTECTED]


Below is from Capital
The specific economic form, in which unpaid surplus-labour is pumped out 
of
direct producers, determines the relationship of rulers and ruled, as it
grows directly out of production itself and, in turn, reacts upon it as a
determining element. Upon this, however, is founded the entire formation of
the economic community which grows up out of the production relations
themselves, thereby simultaneously its specific political form. It is always
the direct relationship of the owners of the conditions of production to the
direct producers -- a relation always naturally corresponding to a definite
stage in the development of the methods of labour and thereby its social
productivity -- which reveals the innermost secret, the hidden basis of the
entire social structure and with it the political form of the relation of
sovereignty and dependence, in short, the corresponding specific form of the
state. This does not prevent the same economic basis

Brenner's reductionism is clear. He only analyze market, finance, or 
credit.
This tendency can ascend to Stalin's formula that economic process is
natural and to proceed without people's will. Certainly capitalist system is
reversed world in which Sachen (commodity, money and capital=== In any
English translation of  Capital there is no distinction between Sachen and
Ding, but the two are different category, Sachen means occupying property,
and Ding is mere physical matter, and identifying Sachen with Ding, we can
not distinguish Versacherling and Verdinging, which is important to
understand Marx's critique of fetishism) rule people, and people
unconsciously and collectively produce Sachen which produce self-destructive
power for people.

And finally Marx described

In capital -- profit, or still better capital -- interest, land -- rent,
abour -- wages, in this economic trinity represented as the connection
between the component parts of value and wealth in general and its sources,
we have the complete mystification of the capitalist mode of production, the
conversion of social relations into things, the direct coalescence of the
material production relations with their historical and social
determination. It is an enchanted, perverted, topsy-turvy world, in which
Monsieur le Capital and Madame la Terre do their ghost-walking as social
characters and at the same time directly as mere things. It is the great
merit of classical economy to have destroyed this false appearance and
illusion, this mutual independence and ossification of the various social
elements of wealth, this personification of things and conversion of
production relations into entities, this religion of everyday life. It did
so by reducing interest to a portion of profit, and rent to the surplus
above average profit, so that both of them converge in surplus-value; and by
representing the process of circulation as a mere metamorphosis of forms,
and finally reducing value and surplus-value of commodities to labour in the
direct production process

We works with will, although its result is self-alienated. It is clear. But
Stalin neglect this fundamental fact.
Crisis theory was produced from experience of Marx, and Lenin. Marx
firstly expected economic panic as condition of revolution, but in Capital,


As soon as this process of transformation has sufficiently decomposed the
old society from top to bottom, as soon as the laborers are turned into
proletarians, their means of labor into capital, as soon as the capitalist
mode of production stands on its own feet, then the further socialization of
labor and further transformation of the land and other means of production
into socially exploited and, therefore, common means of production, as well
as the further expropriation of private proprietors, takes a new form. That
which is now to be expropriated is no longer the laborer working for
himself, but the capitalist exploiting many laborers. This expropriation is
accomplished by the action of the immanent laws of capitalistic production
itself, by the centralization of capital. One capitalist always kills many.
Hand in hand with this centralization, or this expropriation of many
capitalists by few, develop, on an ever-extending scale, the co-operative
form of the labor-process, the conscious technical application of science,
the methodical cultivation of the soil, the transformation of the
Instruments of labor into instruments of labor only usable in common, the
economizing of all means of production by their use as means of production
of combined, socialized labor, the entanglement of all peoples in the net of
the world-market, and with this, the international character of the
capitalistic regime. Along with the constantly

Re: : value and auto:definitive

Re: Re: : value and price:definitive


Auto Figures and Value: What's in your wallet? 
The definitive Marxist Understanding of Value

Melvin P

Detroit: The figures - production units and profit estimates are slowly 
coming in and by the months end should tell the story of the USNA based auto 
industry. Cut-rate loans and discounts kept consumers in showrooms during the 
first month of the year, but auto sales still fell 5.2 percent compared to 
December. 

The current rate of sales based on the January figure is annualized to amount 
to 15.8 million units for 2002.  Altogether approximately 17.2 vehicles were 
sold in year 2001, the second biggest year in auto history. 

Combined, US automakers' sales fell 11.8 percent compared to last January, 
with General Motors Corp. and Ford Motor Co. each falling 12.7 percent and 
DaimlerChrysler AG's Chrysler Group falling 8.9 percent. All three said poor 
fleet sales to rental companies contributed to their January blahs. 
Foreign-based automakers raked in more market share as their sales grew 6.2 
percent, thanks largely to expanding lineups of popular products. Toyota 
Motor Corp. recorded a 7.1-percent sales jump, including an 11.7-percent gain 
in light truck sales. 

The various spokespersons and economist for the industry tend to be pretty 
straightforward in their assessment of market conditions. General Motors 
Keep America Rolling zero-percent war launched after September 11th, may be 
over, but cash-back offers continue to bring automakers more sales with 
smaller profits. Most if not all of it is illusory, George Pipas, Ford's 
sales chief, said of how robust sales are masking sickly profits. Less than a 
month ago Ford economist announced that we have entered an era of profitless 
prosperity. Profitless prosperity is the exact words stated during the 
world broadcast of the state of Ford, while those inclined towards the 
doctrine of Marx use the term increasingly valueless production. 

GM car sales fell 34.2 percent, including a 55-percent decline at the 
lame-duck Oldsmobile division. GM has announced that the brand will be 
discontinued. Trucks were GM's January saviors, up 10.4 percent, including a 
50-percent rise for its hot midsize sport-utilities. 

Ford sales also fell 12.7 percent, excluding import units Jaguar, Land Rover 
and Volvo. The world's No. 2 automaker unveiled a turnaround plan Jan. 11 
that will close up to seven North American plants and cut 35,000 jobs 
worldwide, about 10 percent of Ford's work force. 

Ford car sales were down 22.2 percent, trucks down 7.6 percent. The Lincoln 
Mercury division was off 25 percent. But Jaguar's new X-Type helped the 
luxury brand post an 87.5-percent sales gain, while Land Rover more than 
doubled its January sales thanks to the new Freelander sport-utility vehicle. 


Sales at the Chrysler Group were down 8.9 percent, with cars falling 8.1 
percent and trucks 9.3 percent. Jeep sales were down 10 percent despite its 
all-new Liberty. The Sebring sedan and convertible posted big gains, but the 
PT Cruiser suffered a 36-percent sales drop. 

Much of what made 2001 the second banner year for auto hides the internal 
dynamics of the wheeling and dealing of accountants Detroiter's are 
accustomed to: nowhere outside Detroit are there frank discussion of the rate 
of repossessed vehicles, say Ford faced last year - 18,000 per month. Folks, 
that's 18,000 per month. This expansion of credit to un-credit worthy folks, 
the lower sections of the working class resulted in the December 14 firing of 
Donald Winkler, head of Ford Credit and former scam artist from Capital One. 

The Chrysler Group - a polite way of forgetting its purchase by Daimler-Benz 
and isolating its singular performance, has the distinction of leading the 
crash in auto since it lost its number two spot to Ford back in the 1950s - 
and it was no different during our current contraction in the market. The 
collapse of stock market valuation in March 2000 signaled the coming of the 
consequence autoworkers have faced for four generations - layoffs, cutbacks, 
give backs and get the heck back. 

The Chrysler Groups third quarter losses for year 2000 were 512 million while 
running at a rate of annual production of 3.1 million vehicles. Fifteen 
months ago the Chrysler Group announced its intentions to shed - fire, 25,000 
workers world wide only to be followed by Ford and General Motors announcing 
a year later, roughly 30,000 folks to be fired respectively. The projections 
of the impact of the contraction in the free market - world wide, is 
whispered to be between 125,000 and 180,000, directing affecting as many as 
900,000 peoples immediate employment. The ratio is roughly four impacted for 
every one autoworker put in the streets. 

Within the US market foreign automakers continue to do well. South Korea's 
Hyundai Motor Co. Ltd. posted its 12th consecutive month of record U.S. sales 
with a 22-percent gain. Nissan Motor Co. Ltd. sales jumped 9.6 percent in 
January,

Re: RE: Re: value vs. price

In a message dated 2/5/2002 8:59:14 AM Central Standard Time, [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:

As Cornel West's analysis of Marx's take on morality suggests, Marx
applied the standards of "bourgeois right" (trading at price = value) to
show that capitalist violates _its own standards_. Marx clearly had his
own moral standards, but he never elaborated on them (he was never an
ethicist): living in an era (not that different from our own) when
people throw around moral slogans and then routinely turn around to
violate them, he focused instead on the contrast between moral theory
and practice. West argues that Marx gave up on the project of finding
the fundamental basis for all morality. [partly because he saw efforts such
as Kant's as so sterile.]

I have no comments on the substance of this discussion. Cornel West? It is true that he is an intelletcual giant by any standard. However, as a follower of his writing - of which he decidated Chapter 4 of his first book almost two decades ago to a blistering criticism of me, which I actually love to disagree with, he might not be the man for ascertain a materialist conception of morality and its conversion into ethics under the impact of the division of labor.

Mr. West viewpoint is crystallized through the lens of Jesus the Christ and redemption - which is an inseparable part of my heritage never denied, and this in my opinion prevents him from grasping the transition of morality into ethic and its future negation. This does not in any way diminish this theoretical contributions - which in my opinion are immense. In other word my own particular conception of morality and ethics is no different from the relationship of value to price; the polarization of the reflection or rather manifestation of value as price and their movement in antagonism based on class society.

Pardon my ramblings but life circumstances have tended to prevent me from engaging Marx conception of alienation, man as self, its polarizations and processes, all of which are lements of the theory of value - in as much as value is collective human activity, measurable on the basis of the socially necessary labor in the prodution of commodities.

Is there an emial list that Mr. West writes on. We haven't spent any time together since trhe 1980s and it was a blast. If so please forward.

Cornel West !!! - you guys going to make me go to Church - regularly.

JJJeeesszus.

Melvin P.

Re: value and price: a dissenting note

In a message dated 2/5/2002 11:57:50 AM Central Standard Time, [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:

Suppose that you are looking at the value circulating in the economy today.
How would you value the constant capital values found in the commodities
produced? That will depend on whether the constant capital will turnover in 1
year or 10 years.

In my opinion to calculate the total world social capital and that portion of it allocated to constant capital as opposed to living wages, one would have to use the data from the evolution of social production under capitalist relations. Specifically, points of demarcation would indicate each quantitative line of demarcation in the course of the completion of the unity of the world market.

This is to say that the ratio between what portion of capital is allocated to living labor and what portion to constant capital only exists as a qualitative definition after the completion of the unity of the world market and the emergence of a new qualitative feature that indicates that no qualitative growth can take place in the expansion of the market under capital. Generally speaking the ending of the era of colonialism and neocolonialism, as a principle force in capital accumulation indicates the qualitative unity of the world market. The was fundamentally completed by the 1980s, although the exceptions to the rule prove the rule.

Quantitative and qualitative measurements are given life based on a specific trajectory that outline the historical process. The starting point is the formation of scattered commodity production under feudalism in transition to capitalist commodity production and the determination of price as a manifestation of the laboring process.

I don't assert that price is a form of value but rather a manifestation of value as it assumed the manifestation of exchange under specific historical conditions. To determine the magnitude of value in the production of the total world of commodities one must incorporate the fact of the entire world population being converted into proletarians, with no property other than the sell of their labor power and the absolute impossibility of the world social total of labor power being deployed to expand capital.

This was not the case in the time of Marx. What potion of the world total labor power is deployed to produce what commodities? What potion of the total labor power is deployed in the actual production of commodities versus the cost of the administration of production compared to 10 years ago; 50 years ago; 100 years ago? What are the population figures of the world in which the capitalist market operated 50 years ago or 100 years ago?

In my opinion the framework is not hard to solve, but someone has to sit down and do the actual computations that incorporate the various stages in the qualitative and quantitative growth of capitalist production relations.

Within this framework value as socially necessary labor in the product of commodities come to life. Me? Such an undertaking is honrable, but outdside my inclination.

Hey, where is Cornel West email address - anyone?

Melvin

Re: Re: Argentina and money/reform

2002-02-06 Thread Waistline2


Dialectics of Reform and Revolution in Argentina

Melvin P



Marx standpoint, or rather vision has always been that of man in his actual 
or apparent circumstances of life, his pains, suffering, longings, material 
activity and spiritual dimensions. Man dominates Marx vision from beginning 
to end and Marx speaks of man in the material activity of reproducing himself 
and his conceptions of reproducing himself and the conceptions. Marx calls 
the methodology of Marx dialectics - in contradistinction to ontology and 
heuristic frameworks outside method, no matter how deep rooted, 
inspired or ideologically thick. The word dialectic is not the method 
but rather a sound construct used to describe a qualitatively distinct thing. 


Contrary to the historical assertions, Marx cast man center stage in the life 
of society and as the axis on which revolves activity riveted to the 
individual as man. Karl Marx material activity as individual furnishes 
authenticity to his conception of the authenticity of the individual. The 
power of the individual or one consists not in their connection with 
others, but in the impossibility of the existence of one outside others - 
even when others become fragmented and recreated as the philosophic 
other. 

Marx cast man center stage in man existence as material activity, distinct 
from his growing insight into the scope, depth and boundaries of material 
activity. The recognition of fundamentality - even when its disclosure has 
not met what every the standards of the day consist, predates Marx. Since 
Marx pioneering work all heuristic constructs generally concede that when 
something fundamental changes in an equation or process, (here the nature of 
society is isolated), everything dependent upon that which is fundamental for 
relative stability is altered, reformulated and or reconstituted. Marx 
individuality consists in his pioneering work on that which is fundamental to 
societal changes and redefining that, which constitutes fundamental change. 
Some who adopt the method of Marx calls his achievement the science of 
society. 

By science is meant the isolation of the general processes that constitutes 
fundamentality. Process is understood to mean a series of events that 
complete and repeat themselves and it is this repetition that allows 
disclosure. What constitutes the science of the science of society is 
isolation of that which constitutes fundamentality and compels change, 
reformation or reconstitution of material activity. What constitutes 
society is the existence of a discernible framework of material activity 
that distinguishes and shows men in the reproduction of themselves has passed 
to associations riveted to instruments and labor divisions establishing the 
meaning of the word society. The law system that governs society and 
societal change implies knowledge of that, which is fundamental and produces 
historical consequences or irreversible societal change when viewed from the 
historical totality of progression. 

From this standpoint reform - as in the social movement in Argentina, is 
examined.  A reform movement in any society at any historically specific 
stage of development is a movement by a portion of society to alter its 
relationship within the components of society. The quantitative and 
qualitative dimensions of portion of society are not yet isolated. However, 
one must concede that portion as a magnitude is the individual and it is 
individuality that gives voice and articulates what is to be altered. To 
realize that, which is to be altered may or may not require an alteration in 
fundamentality. Thus, the question posed for social revolutionaries aspiring 
to use the methodology of the individual Marx is not reform or revolution 
but first a description of the boundaries of a historically specific period 
and of its fundamentality. After the boundaries of fundamentality have been 
ascertained an assessment of the human material that creates fundamentality 
has to be made. In other words the individual human mind - the subjective 
factor. Contrary to the historic assertion that Marx method is deterministic 
(economic determinist) the human mind remains the most powerful force in 
society. This includes the individual human minds seeking alterations and 
those opposed to alterations. 

Not reform or revolution, but a specific description of the boundaries 
wherein reform movements become the historical consequence that alters 
fundamentality. If anything the direction is social revolution on the basis 
of a qualitative reformation of the articulating feature(s) fundamentality. 
Much of the following has been stated before but edited with new features at 
the endings.  
 
Society moves in class antagonism. At a certain stage of their development, 
the material forces of production in society come into conflict . . . with 
the property relations . . .  From forms of development of the forces of 
production, these (property)

Re: Re: Value talk/Engels Marx

2002-02-07 Thread Waistline2


Note: The human eye cannot see emergence, or rather the outbreak of crisis is 
witnessed at its second phase. Hence, prediction based on the law system 
discovered by Karl Marx 150 years ago. 




The capitalistic mode of production moves in these two forms of the 
antagonism immanent to it from its very origin. It is never able to get out 
of that vicious circle which Fourier had already discovered. What Fourier 
could not, indeed, see in his time is that this circle is gradually 
narrowing; that the movement becomes more and more a spiral, and must come to 
an end, like the movement of planets, by collision with the center. It is the 
compelling force of anarchy in the production of society at large that more 
and more completely turns the great majority of men into proletarians; and it 
is the masses of the proletariat again who will finally put an end to anarchy 
in production. It is the compelling force of anarchy in social production 
that turns the limitless perfectibility of machinery under modern industry 
into a compulsory law by which every individual industrial capitalist must 
perfect his machinery more and more, under penalty of ruin. 

But the perfecting of machinery is making human labor superfluous. If the 
introduction and increase of machinery means the displacement of millions of 
manual by a few machine-workers, improvement in machinery means the 
displacement of more and more of the machine-workers themselves. It means, in 
the last instance, the production of a number of available wage workers in 
excess of the average needs of capital, the formation of a complete 
industrial reserve army, as I called it in 1845, available at the times when 
industry is working at high pressure, to be cast out upon the street when the 
inevitable crash comes, a constant dead weight upon the limbs of the 
working-class in its struggle for existence with capital, a regulator for 
keeping of wages down to the low level that suits the interests of capital. 

Thus it comes about, to quote Marx, that machinery becomes the most powerful 
weapon in the war of capital against the working-class; that the instruments 
of labor constantly tear the means of subsistence out of the hands of the 
laborer; that they very product of the worker is turned into an instrument 
for his subjugation. 

Thus it comes about that the economizing of the instruments of labor becomes 
at the same time, from the outset, the most reckless waste of labor-power, 
and robbery based upon the normal conditions under which labor functions; 
that machinery, 
the most powerful instrument for shortening labor time, becomes the most 
unfailing means for placing every moment of the laborer's time and that of 
his family at the disposal of the capitalist for the purpose of expanding the 
value of his capital. (Capital, English edition, p. 406) 

Thus it comes about that the overwork of some becomes the preliminary 
condition for the idleness of others, and that modern industry, which hunts 
after new consumers over the whole world, forces the consumption of the 
masses at home down to a starvation minimum, and in doing thus destroys its 
own home market. 

The law that always equilibrates the relative surplus- population, or 
industrial reserve army, to the extent and energy of accumulation, this law 
rivets the laborer to capital more firmly than the wedges of Vulcan did 
Prometheus to the rock. It establishes an accumulation of misery, 
corresponding with the accumulation of capital. Accumulation of wealth at one 
pole is, therefore, at the same time accumulation of misery, agony of toil, 
slavery, ignorance, brutality, mental degradation, at the opposite pole, 
i.e., on the side of the class that produces its own product in the form of 
capital (Marx's Capital, p. 661) 

We have seen that the ever-increasing perfectibility of modern machinery is, 
by the anarchy of social production, turned into a compulsory law that forces 
the individual industrial capitalist always to improve his machinery, always 
to increase its productive force. The bare possibility of extending the field 
of production is transformed for him into a similarly compulsory law. The 
enormous expansive force of modern industry, compared with which that of 
gases is mere child's play, appears to us now as a necessity for expansion, 
both qualitative and quantitative, that laughs at all resistance. Such 
resistance is offered by consumption, by sales, by the markets for the 
products of modern industry. But the capacity for extension, extensive and 
intensive, of the markets is primarily governed by quite different laws that 
work much less energetically. The extension of the markets cannot keep pace 
with the extension of production. The collision becomes inevitable, and as 
this cannot produce any real solution so long as it does not break in pieces 
the capitalist mode of production, the collisions become periodic. Capitalist 
production has begotten another vicious

Re: African American History Month

2002-02-07 Thread Waistline2


4. AFRICAN AMERICAN HISTORY MONTH: NEW RACISM BASED ON CLASS, NOT 
COLOR

By Nelson Peery

African American History Month, 2002 is celebrated in the midst of 
economic, social and political changes that are reshaping our 
world. The African Americans, along with the rest of the American 
people, are facing new conditions and new problems as a result.

When fundamental things change, everything dependent upon them 
must also change. This does not imply that results of change are 
direct or immediate. However, scientific thinking demands that we 
find the motivation for change, place such changes in their proper 
context and make some estimate of their consequences.

The African American question has undergone great change since the 
end of World War II. Few people today even attempt to describe the 
question. Historically this description has been a question of 
caste, a special question of class because of the color question, 
a national question or a national-colonial question. Most 
political activists assume that there has been no change in the 
dynamics, and organizations continue to be formed around these 
various conceptions.

These descriptions were based on observation over a long period of 
time. What were some of these observations? The first was that 
since the color line was the dominant factor, all African 
Americans regardless of education or wealth were subjected to the 
same oppression, segregation and discrimination. Secondly, that 
segregation had produced the essential elements of a distinct 
culture expressing an African American people. The conclusion by 
the Left was that racial discrimination could not be overcome 
except by the destruction of the capitalist system and the 
reconstruction of society on a socialist basis.

Four elements have intervened to change this situation. First and 
foremost was the determined and militant struggle of the African 
Americans themselves. Seldom in history has such a small group -- 
around 12 percent of the population -- carried out such a heroic 
struggle against such a pervasive social ideology and against such 
a brutal state apparatus of oppression. Without this element, none 
of the other elements could have brought about change. The second 
element was the mechanization of southern agriculture. That was 
the basis of the freedom struggle. Third, the Cold War was the 
context for the totality of the final stage of that struggle. The 
struggle between the Soviet Union and the United States opened 
doors that would have remained shut. The Soviets constantly used 
African American oppression as one of their most effective 
propaganda weapons in the struggle for allies in the Third 
World. Truman, Eisenhower, Kennedy and Johnson -- all were forced 
by the State Department to take steps in dismantling legal 
segregation. The fourth element was the introduction of 
electronics in production and communications and the subsequent 
globalization of the commodity and labor market.

Today, we must describe the African American question within this 
context.

The end of one stage of the struggle came with the African 
Americans using their newly won political power -- often in 
alliance with progressive whites -- to elect their representatives 
into the various organs of government. An example of this was the 
situation around Carl Stokes who in 1967 had been elected the 
first African American mayor of Cleveland, Ohio. Black kids 
walking through their changing neighborhood were attacked by 
whites with baseball bats and one of the whites was stabbed to 
death. (The stabber was eventually acquitted on self defense.) A 
white mob prepared to storm the mayor's mansion. When white police 
said they could not stop the mob, the black police who had 
organized themselves to protect the mayor warned the white police 
that they would open up with automatic weapons if the mob crossed 
the last street between them and the mansion. Black police were 
defending the black representative of the black community. Or take 
the case of Harold Washington, former mayor of Chicago. With his 
election, all the white council members save one formed a solid 
bloc of opposition that practically stopped the city from carrying 
on its business. The African Americans who won or were appointed 
to important offices during this period were, essentially, 
representatives of the African American community. They 
represented Black power.

It is clear that such outstanding persons as Colin Powell or 
Condolezza Rice do not represent the African American community, 
nor do they symbolize Black power.

Profound economic and political changes consolidated America's 
economic, political and military position as the world's sole 
super power. For this superpower's government, racial 
discrimination became a profitless, politically embarrassing 
anachronism. Business organizations such as Denny's restaurants 
learned by paying out millions of dollars that the government 
would not defend nor

Re: New under the Son

2002-02-07 Thread Waistline2


Class-consciousness and the fundamentality of value

Class-consciousness means awareness of how classes fight for their material 
survival in society. Classes are delineated in their general features on the 
basis of one relation to property and property is ownership of things by 
which the wealth of society is created and reproduced. Ones active or 
inactive relationship within a system of social production clarifies specific 
class identification and the dimensions of ownership. 

Class-consciousness means awareness of how classes fight for their material 
survival in society. The quantitative and qualitative dimension of how people 
combine together to fight for material self-interest, serves as an indicators 
of depth of awareness. This articulation of class-consciousness was more than 
less impossible twenty years ago, because the specific material boundaries of 
the limit to value as a force mediating human relations had not been revealed 
or rather witnessed.  

When Marx and Engels spoke of the emancipation of the working class being an 
act of self-emancipation and self-consciousness (overcoming the alienated 
self), the students of Marx method could not - in the main, transcend the 
material limitations placed on their own consciousness and converted class 
concepts into materialist concepts of the abstract alienated self of man - as 
abstract labor. 

Every generation encounters ideological molds of thought held in place and 
reinforced by the sum total of conditions riveted to a specific development 
in commodity production and the existing quantitative boundary of capital. 
Under conditions of reform - under conditions where quantitative expansion of 
capital is occurs, labors act on behalf of the 'self' in demanding and 
securing a partial reformulation of its share of the social product. In as 
much as the most organized sector of labor can assert itself in a concerted 
effort - greater than labor without organization and a voice, self interest 
was perceived as selfishness by the unorganized mass, unable to secure the 
equitable share that its organized brothers received. 

Uuugggh - under conditions of quantitative expansion of capital, in the 
absence of a war time crisis or defeat the shatters social relations and 
destabilize sections of the population; when conditions exist for the 
expansion or alteration of the social contract that stabilize the operation 
of the productive forces, class consciousness is manifest as an external 
category of ideology expressed as love for ideological self - abstract labor 
and hatred for social capital as the expression of hegemonistic domination 
over things that dominate men. Hegemonistic domination superceded the 
domination of men through the ownership of things. 

The impact of exhausting the quantitative stages in the evolution of capital 
as a historically evolved form of social production reaped havoc on and 
within the movement seeking to weld the Marx dialectic. Within the imperial 
countries, the revolutionaries were often confined to condemning the 
exploitation of the colonies, admitting that super profits were being beaten 
out of the backs of the colonial workers and sought refuge in sectarian 
movements, whose sectarianism was enforced by the material limitation of 
class consciousness. 

To the degree that rent, price, interest and money appeared as externalized 
independently existing modes of capital, or rather surplus value, class 
interest and class self appeared externalized, alienated from the labor 
movement based on its various components. The articulated self-interest of 
human labor in the abstract - ideology, assumed what appeared to be a life of 
its own and ideology was defined on the basis of ideology - itself. Hence, 
love for ones class and hatred for the enemy. 

Argentina of course establishes the definitive end of an era of historically 
induced ideology.  Class-consciousness is the act of fighting for ones 
material survival on the basis of securing the needs for one continuous 
reproduction and expansion. There is no ideology here. Material survival and 
expansion means food, clothing, housing, fresh water, library's, theater, 
transportation, medical care, freedom from political harassment and 
arbitrariness of authority, artistic and intellectual pursuits. 

Marx method is found throughout all of his and Engels writings Marx gives a 
scholarly presentation of the dialect of form and content, externalization 
and the emergence of independent modes of existence - of interest, rent, 
price, surplus value, etc in Theories of Surplus Value Part 3, pages 507 last 
paragraph through 513, Progress Publisher Moscow 1971. 

How classes fight for their material existence presupposes their existence or 
position in a system of production founded on distinct property relations. 
The emerging communist class is that sector of the labor movement with the 
most unmet needs and was actually defined by Marx in 1843, prior to

Re: Historical Materialism

2002-02-08 Thread Waistline2

In a message dated 2/8/2002 10:01:20 AM Central Standard Time, [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:


The measurement of the capital stock is in impossibility. Franklin Fisher
once worked up the requirements for aggregation. Can't be done!

The inability to calculate real depreciation presents another barrier.

I mentioned this in passing before in questioning how seriously we should
take estimates of profit rates as anything more than a rough rule of
thumb.




I absolutely concur with the impossibility of measuring a mode of expression on its own basis, which is the epitome of commodity fetishism. Transformation problem? Indeed. According to whom . . . bourgeois political economy. The question is the velocity of polarization of price and cost from value and why both assume independent modes of expression and finally sperate themselves from value, which in the eyes of the bourgeois is a question of a magnitude of capital yielding a uniform profit. 

But, hey . . . this of course is based on Engels articulation of the nodal line - historical trajectory and conclusion, of value. It was Marx who unfolded the law of value and it remains the amount of socially necessary labor in the production of commodities. 

Melvin

Re: method of economy

2002-02-09 Thread Waistline2

In a message dated 2/8/2002 10:49:51 PM Central Standard Time, [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:

Alternatively Marx insisted that scientific method
to analyze concrete society must be began from abstract category, and
ascending to shape of concrete society (Engels modified title of Capital as
"process of capitalist production as a whole but in original version, Marx
wrote as "Shape of capitalist production." It is not available in any
English trasnlations)

Exceptionally interesting comment. Marx the German, Engels the English. Marx theoretically grasps what Engels power of observation revealed. Abstract catagories are the basis on which totality is grapsed in all fields. I agree. "Ones eyes lie."

The distinction between "process" and "shape" raises question for me, in as much as "Standard" English is my mode of dialogue in theoretical engagement but not real life. Much of what has been written about value in English on this "line" has to be repeated translation or converted into abstraction to understand what I "think" or rather imagine I think is being said.

Based on your bringing to the front the difference between "process" and "shape" is it correct if I say that the various "modes of expression of value - price, price-cost" manifest the process of capital. Or is such a distinction an incorrect limitation?

I literally "heard" the distinction between "process" and "shape." In dialgoue I say that process is the series of events that repeat and complete themself as self movement of a thing and this repetition allows revealing. However, the revealing occurs on the basis of abstraction because the eye cannot see "what the ear hears" or transition. Is shape the abstact movement of "process" when ones eyes are closed.

Help.

Melvin

Re: i forgot

2002-02-09 Thread Waistline2

In a message dated 2/9/2002 3:22:22 AM Central Standard Time, [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:

I forgot to clarify Adam smith, Ricardo's deficit .
They all can't understand value-form. Although they reached to source of
value, but they failed to prove How value appeared as value-form, in which
highest form is money-form. So, they can't prove how and why money related
commodity, and why commodity fetishism occurs. In addition, since they can't
understand value-form, they failed to grasp the relation between value and
price, and cost-price. They all confused value and price, so they frequently
price or cost-price as fundamental leading to capitalist production as price
production.

My minds eye agree. Is not value-form mode of expression (shape?) - e.g., price, and cost-price, the only historically available modes of expression capital as social power assumes and therefore:

1. the mode of expression takes on a life of its own. "The dream dreams itself or rather begins dreaming itself, unaware of the body that house the dream."

2. the so-called transformation problem is unaware of movement as antagonism that polarize the mode of expression, i.e., increasingly separates the mode of expression called price, and cost-price from value, which appears to the eye of the capitalist as a problem with a uniform profit yield based on investment of the highest mode of expression - money.

3. The presentation of profit return and its uniformity as a problem is really a riddle and not a theoretical problem. The riddle is the dream of the money form of capital.

4. The "real" problem is the distance and velocity in which the modes of expression (shape) of the value form separates from value. The velocity of separation is uniform with sector fluctuations and riveted to the relationship of constant to variable capital and furthers its distance and increase velocity with every increase in the magnitude of the constant capital portion of the world total social capital.

Is not the presentation of the question "the price of production and the transformation problem:" the fetish itself speaking?

Help.

Melvin

Re: TRIUMPH OF THE MARX METHOD PART 1


 2/Triumph of the method of Marx
General Overview part 1

Melvin P.

The triumph of what is fundamentally an intellectual movement proceeding from 
the assumptions and conclusions of Karl Marx and Frederick Engels is so 
absolute in its resounding victory that no one in modern society can approach 
an analysis of society without using the methodology pioneered by these men. 
Our free market economy is referred to as capitalism or the capitalist mode 
of production due to Karl Marx, who popularized and coined the terms. 

It was none other than Marx who coined the concept of relations of production 
and mode of production as fundamental categories of material relations in 
society. Relations of production embody property relations or the relations 
of segments of society to property; group relations in a specific system of 
production and the relations of people to one another, identified and 
clarified by the existing technological application. Marx gave the world this 
conception of society and the world accepts it as a given outside the man 
who gave.

The universal triumph of the method of Marx is so complete that the 
individual who comes of age and enters intellectual engagement encounters 
various modes of expressions coined by Marx. The gigantic hand of Marx has 
reshaped the form and structure of the world lexicon. As a method of approach 
one encounter the Marx dialectic - as distinct from the philosophic form 
articulated by Hegel, as Marxism due to the previously existing body of 
literature using axioms created or attributed to Marx. 

It was of course Marx who taught the workers - and his self professed purpose 
was education of the workers and his material activity towards this purpose 
was to join and form associations on behalf of laboring humanity, an approach 
that seeks not to explain society, but to unravel its constituent parts on 
the basis of the internally connected infinite interactive material relations 
of reality and discern fundamentality. From Marx earliest days of organizing 
what can be called an intellectual expression of his conception of the 
working class movement, or in the language of the Marxist movement an 
subjective expression of the objective process, scores of distinguished 
intellectual have rallied to his banner. From time to time with the method of 
Marx is confused with the ideological mode of expression that articulates the 
method. Fortunately, an intimate component of the methodology of Marx 
establishes a conceptual framework, which draws a sharp distinction between 
ideological forms and expressions, modes of expressions and the internally 
cohesive movement logic of that which is being expressed.

Ideological modes of conception are prehistoric by definition, predating the 
emergence of society defined as the unity of the productive forces and social 
relations of production, which together are referred to as the mode of 
production in man material life. Frederick Engels refers to this prehistoric 
mode of ideological expression as ancient bunk as much as its existence 
remains un-deciphered to a large extent. Nevertheless, one would not resist - 
as methodology, an attempt to separate an ideological mode of expression from 
the act or process of cognitive functioning. 

Sovietism as an ism is an ideological mode of expression as distinct from a 
specific method of inquiry into the law system that governs the self-movement 
of matter. Sovietism as an ism was an ideological current that more than 
less articulated or sought to articulate the development and evolution of the 
industrial production of commodities on a basis of public property relations, 
or the absence of private owners of the industrial infrastructure and all its 
diverse components.  The men and women who occupied important positions in 
the state system that sought to protect those property relations manifested a 
material commitment to teach its society and indeed a vast segment of the 
world's population the doctrine of Marx and through this doctrine the method 
of approach peculiar to Marx. 

What is exceptionally interesting as a special field of inquiry is the 
apparent connection of the material elements of life that tend to bound and 
bind ideological expressions to material factors in opposition to the 
ceaseless striving of the mind to overcome or unravel its own modes of 
expression. The contribution made by the educational apparatus of the Soviet 
State in penetrating major areas of the world market and literally publishing 
a diverse expression of the method of Marx remains difficult to estimate and 
historic in its outreach. 

For various reasons, which cannot be abstracted from the quantitative 
developments in the historic expansion of the system of capitalist commodity 
production, Marx doctrine or rather method of inquiry called materialist 
dialectics has remained the focus of sharp dispute as an analytical tool. For 
purposes of teaching their population the method

Re: Triumph of Marx method/2


2/Triumph of the method of Marx
General Overview part 2

Melvin P.

The place of antagonism in contradiction or rather the development of 
contradiction as movement in antagonism has been the cliff from which man 
Marxist theorist leaped to their theoretical death. Under our current 
conditions where there exist no more reforms left in capital, and new 
qualitative features have arisen in the production process, this movement in 
antagonism can be more easily witnessed and articulated. After all noting 
ventured, nothing gained.  

The contradiction of any process is resolved on the basis of the development 
of the contradiction itself, while its manifestation - form is conditioned by 
the environment surrounding its field of operation.  The development of the 
singularity (contradiction) identified as man and woman means generations 
development (babies) and inheritance. In respects to this singularity the 
external factors are all the things outside, but interactive with the life 
creation process. The successive generations progression is not an 
antagonistic development. The premise of development of the singularity 
identified as man and women can be isolated as - not simply a penis and 
vagina, but rather, a genetic disposition whose polarity - unity and 
opposition, is the basis for human life. Development takes place on the basis 
of the preservation of the genetic premise, its intermingling and synthesis. 

Antagonism as a theoretical construct means that in the development of a 
singularity - contradiction, at every stage of its evolution and partial 
resolution only the premises for its resolution are preserved, ripened and 
further developed. In a contradiction that is antagonistic, development can 
never past beyond the stages of its partial resolution. What is required and 
distinguish antagonism, as a form of development/self movement is the final 
abolition of a previous polarity by abolishing one of the poles or rather 
conditions of existence of a previously dominate pole.  

Periodic crisis of capitalist means of production are a violent form in which 
the contradictions of a given cycle of capitalist reproduction find 
resolution, but in relations to private property relations as a whole - 
totality, these crises emerge as landmarks of the further intensification of 
the contradiction whose general mode of expression is identified as labor and 
capital. 

Antagonistic contradictions are resolved by the kind of leap - transition, in 
which the internal opposites, - labor and capital, emerge as relatively 
independent opposites, external to each other, and begins a developmental 
process, wherein the abolition of the formerly dominant pole - capital, must 
take place in order for labor to further developed upon the basis of its own 
internal qualitatively acquired distinct features. In this development of 
labor, which was once dominated by the power of capital - its previous polar 
opposite, now becomes dominant and preserves a number of modes of expression 
from its previous developmental phase, but it now capable of developing 
further because its polar opposite has been shattered. 

In contradictions that are not antagonistic - or rather lack do not move in 
antagonistic as process development, the development or self movement of the 
contradiction signifies not only the growth of the forces making for its 
final resolution, but each new step in the development of the contradiction 
is at the same time also its partial resolution. Synthesis takes place not on 
the basis of the separation of poles -  externalization and the separations 
of the modes of expression from itself, but as a partial merging and break 
down of the mode of expression and the achievement of a new unity. 

The antagonistic character (short speak for movement as antagonism) of the 
contradiction between labor and capital is expressed in a numbers of 
contradictions within capitalist production relations. We are familiar with 
the contradiction expressed in the market, and called the crises of 
overproduction. Capitalist property relations create a market mechanism based 
not simple on exchange, but exchange on the basis of profitability for the 
ownership of means of production. Market exchange periodically collapses - 
enters a crisis and crisis is defined as the interruption of a process, 
because the means of production create more commodities than can be consumed 
by labor on the basis of the cost/price mode and production slows down and 
collapses until the mass of commodities can be sold, destroyed or dispensed 
with. This contradiction cannot pass beyond the stages of its partial 
resolution and its resolution exist in its polar opposite - labor, achieving 
dominance and abolishing the inherit limitations of modes of operation 
peculiar to capitalist production and capitalist market exchange. Thus, the 
contradiction within capitalist commodity production, continues to reemerge 
in cycles until the

Re:Confessions of a Bourgeois Politician/Banker


The New York Review of Books
February 28, 2002

Feature
The Betrayal of Capitalism
By Felix G. Rohatyn

During my nearly four years as ambassador to France I frequently gave a
speech I called Popular Capitalism in America to audiences throughout
France. This is a subject of intense interest to the French and to most
other Europeans, who envy us our high rates of growth and low unemployment
but who often believe that the price we pay for these benefits is an
inadequate social safety net, a tolerance for speculation, and unacceptable
inequality in wealth and income. They also see the American system as one
that inflicts high levels of poverty and unemployment on developing
countries by the harsh stabilization measures required by the IMF and other
Western-directed financial institutions. I made this speech to dispel some
of these notions and to encourage reforms in European countries in matters
such as taxes, investment, and employment. These, I argued, would, to our
mutual benefit, align our systems more closely.

In doing so, I defended our economic model as one that could deliver more
jobs, and more wealth, to a higher proportion of citizens than any other
system so far invented. A major component of this system is its ability to
include increasing numbers of working Americans in the ownership of US
companies through IRAs, pension funds, broad-based stock options, and other
vehicles for investment and savings. 

I agreed with, and cited, Federal Reserve chairman Alan Greenspan's
statement that modern market forces must be coupled with advanced
financial regulatory systems, a sophisticated legal architecture, and a
culture supportive of the rule of law. After forty years on Wall Street I
had no doubt that, despite occasional glitches, our economy met Greenspan's
requirements.

However, as I regularly traveled back to America between 1997 and 2001
there were developments in our financial system that deeply troubled me.
The increase in speculative behavior in the stock markets was astonishing.
In 1998, as a result of reckless speculation by its managers, the giant
hedge fund Long Term Capital Management went bankrupt and, in doing so,
threatened the financial system itself. The New York Federal Reserve
organized a group of banks and investment houses to rescue the company at a
cost of several billion dollars. The sharp rise in dot-com stocks came soon
after, together with relentless publicity campaigns to push the markets
higher and higher. TV ads of on-line brokers urged everybody to buy stocks
and trade them day by day. So-called independent analysts made fantastic
claims about their favorite stocks in hopes of generating
investment-banking business for their firms. These claims were often
supported by creative accounting concepts such as pro forma earnings—a
management-created fiction intended to show strong results by excluding a
variety of charges and losses and one that was implicitly approved by
supposedly independent auditors. A large part of the stock market was
becoming a branch of show business, and it was driving the economy instead
of the other way around.

Full: http://www.nybooks.com/articles/15140

Apparently, he see the incongruity - contradiction and intensifying 
polarization, within all modes of expression of capitalist commodity 
production, along with rest of the world. However, class have self interest 
and proclaiming that a current existing system of production is better than 
all previously existing systems regulated to antiquity is hardly being 
theoretically insightful.  Increasingly valueless production of profits. 
From boom to bust with ever growing layers of the world population pushed 
below the threshold of value. Never have so many suffer to enrich so few. 


Melvin P

Re: Re: RE: A Future for Marxism?



A Future for Marxism? (Was: Wishful thinking)
by Justin Schwartz
12 February 2002 04:30 UTC 


The argument is historical, and is available to anyone who has eyes in his 
head. In the era of 2nd International, Marxism was a powerful force among 
Western European workers. It bounced back, some, after WWII. Today in 
Western Europe, the PCI is gone, the PFC is a decaying rump, the KPD is many 

generations dead (and the PDS is a left- S-D formation largely confined to 
the East). Marxism never caught on in America or Canada, but it was a minor 
force to be reckoned with up through the start of the First Cold War. The 57 

varieties of Trotskyism and Maoism never went anywhere. In the ex-Bloc 
countries, the Russian Revolution is in ruins, the ex-CPs are at best 
centrist (and the CPRF is an ugly red-brown Stalinofascist deformity); in 
the third world, Marxism in is in full retreat. China is officially 
Marxist 
but in fact pragmatically procapitalist and ruled by an authoritarian elite 
committed only to power. Vietnam is following China. N. Korea is a weird 
backwater. Only Cuba retains a trace of traditional Marxist élan. 
Marxist-identified revolutionary movements are no longer vanguards by 
collections of narcothugs like the remnants of the Shining Path and FARC. 
There are no mass self-identified Marxist working class movements anywhere, 
nor do any show any signs of emerging.





What has been called Marxism, or rather the intellectual movement centered on 
Marx method of inquiry has significant roots in our history and is more than 
less an intellectual segment of every institute of higher learning in our 
country. The degree to which this intellectual movement has taken root 
amongst the various leaders of organized labor and leaders throughout the 
labor movement is conditioned by or rather viewed in the context of that, 
which is specific to the conditions of a particular country and era. 

What began as the work of two men pioneering a specific method of approach to 
the life of society has become a powerful world wide current of intellectual 
endeavor, the rise, peak and retreat and retrench based on the material power 
of classes, degree of development of modes of production in various 
countries, the law of the accidental, and an infinite amount of phenomena 
absolutely outside my field of vision of power to comprehend. 

The method of approach associated with the name of Karl Marx and Frederick 
Engels is of course quite different from its various ideological expressions 
and even the individuals who step forward as proponents of their method of 
inquiry. Just as no one would base an assessment of a person based on the 
persons ideological pronouncements about themselves, apparently many 
individuals within the social movement still remains unable to escape 
ideological categories parading as assessments of class factors, political 
groupings, conditions of various states of development of production and 
ideological pronouncements. Fortunately, the method of Marx penetrates 
beneath ideological modes of expression and seeks to examine the primary 
features of economic relations that various political phenomena operate 
within.

The conception of a Marxist working class movement is an ideological 
category lacking substance, as is the idea of a Marxist country. All 
countries on earth express a unity of definable relations of production and 
technologically distinct productive forces, which of course are not 
ideological categories. Without exception all countries are governed by a 
state authority whose primary function is to stabilize class relations and 
protect the existing property relations. Governments are constituted to carry 
out the administrative functions of the state authority, service the interest 
of the class whose property relations are being safeguarded as well as other 
important administrative function necessary for the running of society. 

The various ruling political parties that have come to power in country's 
such as China, Vietnam and N. Korea in particular did so under specific 
material conditions that more than less have nothing to do with ideological 
utterances. The path to power of these political parties had very little to 
do with the working class movement as such and emerged from the conditions of 
the economically backward colonial and semi-colonial world. The path to power 
was civil war, as witnessed in the long and complex civil was in China. One 
can of course argue over the set of military tactics and alliances of the 
Communist Party of China during it various phases of military contest, but 
this does not bring us one step closer to a qualitative description of these 
parties as political organizations and the configuration of the working class 
in each respective country. 

Without question these parties were not political parties in the meaning of 
constitutional bodies of political representatives of classes and the fight 
to impose the will

Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: the profit rate recession

In a message dated 2/12/2002 2:18:34 PM Central Standard Time, [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:


I had raised an objection to Fred's theory in 21987 and 99. I have 
found that Samuel Hollander makes a similar criticism of Marx in his 
classical Economics:

"The curve relating the profit rate and accumulation--whatever its 
slope--is continually shifting outward because of an increase in the 
purchasing power of profits, because the wants and greed for wealth 
increase, and because o f various institutional changes which ease 
the savings-investment process...With capital growing so rapidly, the 
notion of a supposedly falling growth rate of labour demand comes 
into question...But too rosy a picture of capitalistic development 
would not presumably have appealed to Marx." p. 397.


In Volume 3 of Capital there is a Chapter titled "The law of the tendency of the rate of profit to fall" as opposed to "a supposedly falling growth rate of labour demand," whatever that means. Marx of course spoke highly of the epoch of capitalist development. This is know to anyone that has actually read Marx. 

Marx will continued to be criticized for things he never said. 


Melvin P.

Re: Re: Re: Re: Marxism as Science and Religion

2002-02-14 Thread Waistline2


In a message dated Thu, 14 Feb 2002  7:39:21 AM Eastern Standard Time, Alan Cibils 
[EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:

 At  2/13/2002, you wrote:
 
 Alan,
 3) Verticalism
 
 Doyle
 This begs the question of how a mass organization can truly reflect the
 views of the masses.
 
 
 This is indeed a key question. In my view, a top-down organization is not 
 very likely to reflect the views of the masses. As I see it, these views 
 will get reflected only when the masses themselves  participate actively in 
 the discussion, distilling, and presentation of their views. You certainly 
 don't need a group of paternalistic iluminati to reflect the masses' views 
 for you.
 
 This is precicely the discussion taking place in many of the 55 plus 
 neighborhood assemblies in Buenos Aires today. There is a strong emphasis 
 on maintaining the horizontal organization. People have been screwed over 
 by representatives (of every political colour) and no longer want to 
 delegate the views of the masses to representatives.
 
 Left parties, of course, have so far been unable to grasp this (since 
 horizontalism is antithetical to their organization and thinking), and 
 their participation in assemblies trying to steer them this (predetermined) 
 direction and that is understandably causing quite a lot of resentment.
 
 Alan
 
 
In my estimate you capture the spirit and essence of the conflict with the left 
groups and socialist sectarianist in their misconceived conception of raising the 
consciousness of the masses. All sects, including the ideological Marxist of all 
stripes, pride themselves on the very thing that distinguishes them from the masses, 
who them insist they are to represent. 

Here is what generally happens: a movement for reform begin organizing itself - say 
for fresh drinking water, and the ideologist takes part in the movement on the basis 
of explaining the big picture to people who want fresh water. The ideologist begin 
to fight to pass resolutions about the artributes of capital at this phase of 
development and its impact on the worlds water supply. Then of course one must connect 
the question of speculative capital to the world water supply and how this express 
itself in the changing organic composition of capital. The ideologist - being 
ideologist, are compelled to connect this with the role of North American imperialism 
and the impact of Coca Cola on the fresh water supply. 

This process derails the movement from its original purpose. The masses call these 
kinds of actions the hidden agenda and the masses are correct. Or, the ideologist 
will claim to have the solution for the Argentina masses. What the masses need to do 
is . . . This leader or that leader is a petty bourgeoisie deviation because . . . 

Generally the ideologist are ideologist - specifically those professing adherence to 
the Marx method, because on the level of theory they lack a conception of science as 
dealing with the law system in a process. General principles of a law system cannot be 
applied to a specific field of conflict. 

The most revolutionary thing the ideologist could do is dissolve their sectarian 
formations, join existing movements as they are and fight like hell to achieve the 
goal of the movement. If in fact they are authentic leaders, in the course of their 
leadership role, they will from time to time interest the individuals in the method of 
Marx, which by definition is an intellectual movement. I can think of nothing more 
revolutionary than being an active part of a movement for health care. In fact this 
movement is too revolutionary for the ideologist who violate the principles of their 
science. The ideologist are social alchemist who have sworn off material luxury 
and in their wisdom declare to the masses that they do not seek to turn lead into 
gold, but rather to convert a movement for a defined goal into a movement for their 
gold, or rather goal. 

I committed this error of thinking well over 25 years ago. Leaders are people who 
articulate the goal of a specific movement. Period. All the ideologist have hidden 
agendas and are generally more democractic than the masses, want more than the masses 
want for themselves at a given moment, holier then the Pope and dress Lenin, Marx, 
Engels or Stalin or Trotsky or Gus Hall, et., etc., in the garb of Jesus Christ and 
declare that the savior has come. When their icon is nailed to the cross, the 
ideologist decalre that the masses are backwards. 

Who is actually backwards, the person who insist on joining a movement for a goal and 
keeping it on track or the hidden agenda social alchemist. 

Intellectual engagement is great and thinking people are in high demand. Marx Theories 
of Surplus Value were never meant to solve the goals of specific social movements or 
answer the question of the here and now. If such a thing was possible many of us 
would be very wealthy from investing in the market, after all money is not a bad word 
- except to

Re: left tactics strategy

2002-02-14 Thread Waistline2



 
 Melvin P writes:  
  In my estimate you capture the spirit and essence of the conflict with the
 left groups and socialist sectarianist in their misconceived conception of
 raising the consciousness of the masses. All sects, including the
 ideological Marxist of all stripes, pride themselves on the very thing that
 distinguishes them from the masses, who them insist they are to represent. 
 
  Here is what generally happens: a movement for reform begin organizing
 itself - say for fresh drinking water, and the ideologist takes part in the
 movement on the basis of explaining the big picture to people who want
 fresh water. The ideologist begin to fight to pass resolutions about the
 artributes of capital at this phase of development and its impact on the
 worlds water supply. Then of course one must connect the question of
 speculative capital to the world water supply and how this express itself in
 the changing organic composition of capital. The ideologist - being
 ideologist, are compelled to connect this with the role of North American
 imperialism and the impact of Coca Cola on the fresh water supply. 
 
  This process derails the movement from its original purpose. The masses
 call these kinds of actions the hidden agenda and the masses are correct.
 Or, the ideologist will claim to have the solution for the Argentina masses.
 What the masses need to do is . . . This leader or that leader is a petty
 bourgeoisie deviation because . . . 
 
 the problem of the hidden agenda only comes up if the ideologists go
 beyond merely explaining their views to actually trying to impose their
 positions on the movement -- or, worse, capturing the movement. This is an
 issue of democracy in the mass movement, not of putting forth one's opinion.
 
 
 In addition, what the ideologists need to do is go beyond the silly
 one-way street method of talking, i.e., putting forth the correct line or
 the correct program to the masses. It is important to learn from the
 people you talk to. 
 
 BTW, we should remember that there are all sorts of other groups besides
 leftists who get involved with such movements. Some of them try to impose
 their visions on the movement.
 
  Generally the ideologist are ideologist - specifically those professing
 adherence to the Marx method, because on the level of theory they lack a
 conception of science as dealing with the law system in a process. General
 principles of a law system cannot be applied to a specific field of
 conflict. 
 
 I don't understand what a law system is. Do you mean the Marxian view that
 capitalism has specific laws of motion that make it almost predictable?
 More importantly, I don't see why the big picture is irrelevant to the
 specific case. Surely, the fact that water is being privatized in lots of
 different places around the world is relevant to a specific struggle against
 the privatization process. That may not be relevant to all efforts to attain
 fresh water, but surely the failure of a government to provide basic
 infrastructure to the people is relevant?  Why should such big-picture stuff
 be left out? 
  
  The most revolutionary thing the ideologist could do is dissolve their
 sectarian formations, join existing movements as they are and fight like
 hell to achieve the goal of the movement. If in fact they are authentic
 leaders, in the course of their leadership role, they will from time to time
 interest the individuals in the method of Marx, which by definition is an
 intellectual movement...
 
 It's very true that we could do without sectarian formations, but does that
 mean narrowing one's goals? BTW, I think it would be a bad idea to hide
 one's political perspectives. That just encourages others to be paranoid
 about leftists who secretly enter movements to take them over. 
 
 gotta go...
 
 Jim Devine [EMAIL PROTECTED]


The reform movement is spontaneous and not created by any specific individual based on 
cognitive functioning, but generated as part of the movememt of capital. Seeking to 
reform property relationships by demanding a reform in how products and services are 
distributed based on property relations contains an anti-capitalist kernal. The 
bourgeoisie and bourgeois politicians seek to steer reforms movements away from 
realizing there proclaimed goal. I absolutely agree that the problem of the hidden 
agenda is by no means limited to the sectarianism of the left. When the sectarianism 
of the left is combined with the fundamental strategy of the bourgeois politician to 
steer a movement away from its goal, disorganization of the movement occurs. 

By law system is infered the a set of prinicples that describe the motion of capital 
and society. One such prinicple is the famous quote of Marx from the Preface to a 
Critique . . . . One of the things I never did as a union representative is try and 
explain the law system of capital in say - a union meeting. On the other hand from 
time to time I would sell a person the

Re: Web Services and Microsoft Development Plans

2002-02-16 Thread Waistline2

In a message dated 2/16/2002 11:36:02 AM Central Standard Time, [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:

Microsoft and its rivals, like I.B.M. (news/quote) and Sun Microsystems
(news/quote), are scrambling to supply businesses with these services, which
will allow computers to share data across the Internet and, when so
programmed, handle all kinds of tasks without human intervention.

A Web service application, for example, might link a company's inventory
database with that of its suppliers, so parts would be automatically
reordered when supplies ran low. A car's navigation computer - an
increasingly common feature in new automobiles - could be linked to a
region's traffic-tracking database with a Web services application. That
would make constantly updated traffic reports available for helping the
driver find the least- congested route home.

To corporations, the promise of Web services is both in automation to cut
costs and in new offerings for consumers. Web services appear to be an
exception to the trend of an overall slump in technology spending.

"This is the year that a lot of investments are being made," said David M.
Smith, an analyst at Gartner Inc. (news/quote), which estimates that sales
of Web services software will increase fivefold, to $21 billion, by 2005.

Web services are at the center of Microsoft's plans, said Eric Rudder, a
senior vice president, "and the tools effort is the key to success or
failure."

The new programming platform cost $2 billion to develop, Mr. Rudder
observed, but that cost is "nothing compared to the opportunity."

Much of Microsoft's success over the years can be traced to its
understanding of and catering to rank-and- file developers. They are the
architects, designers and bricklayers of the information age, building the
software that animates everything from the world's financial markets to fuel
injectors in trucks.

Sounds like more layers of human labor are in the process of being rendered superfluous to the production and distribution of commodities and services. Profit without or rather with increasingly diminishing value (human labor). I smell incongruity or in the language of Marx a "big contradiction" in a system based on the buying and selling of labor-power.

But, hey, lets give it another twenty years or so and see what happens.

Re: Grassroots Democracy?

2002-02-19 Thread Waistline2

In a message dated 2/19/2002 1:45:46 AM Central Standard Time, [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:


February 14, 2002 by the Inter Press Service

Argentina's Rebellion in the Neighborhoods 

by Marcela Valente 

BUENOS AIRES, Feb 13 - Neighborhood assemblies are springing up in
cities
throughout Argentina, particularly in the capital and surrounding
areas, as
a groundswell of people seek to change the political landscape amidst
the
country's social and economic collapse. 



Sounds like a social revolution in progress to me. 
The "social" in social revolution apparently means all classes of society.
The Proletariat in proletarian social revolution apprently means all classes in motion with the demands of the proletariat at heart. 

Think I will go bang on some pans.

Melvin P.

Re: On the necessity of socialism

In a message dated 2/20/2002 2:37:31 PM Central Standard Time, [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:


On the necessity of socialism 

Author: Sam Webb, national chairman, Communist Party USA
People's Weekly World Newspaper, Feb 16, 2002 

 
During the CPUSA's pre-convention period about a year ago, we had a rather lively discussion of socialism in the party and in our publications, and there was a convention panel on socialism. But the discussion never reached beyond our circles, partly because of its nature.

It largely pivoted on whether Bill of Rights socialism was an appropriate concept and term. Most of us had opinions about this, but it wasn't a discussion that would interest wider circles of people, certainly not one that would attract them to socialism. Most would think that we were splitting hairs.

Since then we have not broached the subject in any meaningful way. Where it does appear in our discussion and literature, it is by and large an addendum, tacked on at the end in way that would not convince anybody of the wisdom of our socialist objective.

We are doing very little to make socialism compelling and intriguing to non-socialists. And we know there are plenty of people who fit into that category.

I don't know exactly how we can change that, but this perilous moment through which our nation and world are passing has forced me to think that we should take a fresh look at this question. What has occurred in the aftermath of Sept. 11 has brought home to me that capitalism at its present stage of development is capable of doing irreversible damage to life in all of its forms and to our planet.

Nuclear annihilation is one possibility that we mistakenly thought fell off the radar screen with the end of the Cold War. An ecological crisis of planetary dimensions lurks somewhere in this century unless something changes. Hunger, unemployment and pandemic diseases are now cutting wide swaths across the globe.

A century ago, even 50 years ago, the working class and its allies faced huge challenges. Capitalism at that time was brutal, raw and violent and as a consequence it gave rise to a powerful movement against its injustices.

And yet as brutal, raw and violent as it was, it didn't threaten the very future of humankind and the planet. Rosa Luxembourg said that the choices facing humanity at that time were either socialism or barbarism, but even the brilliant Rosa did not anticipate the new dangers that are in store for humankind as it begins the 21st century.

Some people think that capitalism's technological wizardry and adaptability will pull us back from the brink of social calamity. The captains of industry and finance and their lieutenants in the corridors of political power will see the destructiveness of their ways and do an about-face.

Don't count on it. There is plenty of evidence to suggest that the system of capitalism is rent with more powerful destructive tendencies than we appreciate, indeed so powerful and so structured into the system that they jeopardize the reproduction of people and nature.

If this is so, we have to make the case, not so much that socialism is inevitable, but rather that it is necessary, that it is a historical imperative in light of the destructive tendencies of the present system. We have to say not only that it offers a better future for humanity, but also that it is a necessary condition for humanity and nature to have a future at all.

This isn't the only way that we should popularize the idea of socialism. We also have to make a convincing case that socialism creates the objective and subjective conditions for an equitable, sustainable, and non-exploitative economy, full racial and gender equality, and a robust working class and people's democracy.

Nevertheless, it is a powerful and necessary argument at this juncture of history. Every species has an instinct to survive and humankind is no exception. We should find ways, beginning with our own publications and forums, to make socialism a household word in our country and invest it with a new urgency, a new necessity.

Clearly, socialism is not on labor's and the people's action agenda either now or in the near term. No one should think that at their next union meeting, they should offer a resolution to establish socialism by the end of the decade in order to insure the survival of humanity and nature!

Our main emphasis now and for the foreseeable future is on the immediate struggles of the working class and people against the right danger. That was the direction that we set at our convention last summer and it is all the more imperative now.



On and off I have followed the politics of the CPUSA a little over thirty years; met some wonderful members of their party and engaged in common work; used to live at their old bookstore off Wayne Campus and later relocated to Highland Park and had assembled 85% of their Theoretical Journal "Political Affairs" from the early or mid 1930s to 1963 or 64.

I am always amazed

Re: Re: On the necessity of socialism

And yet as brutal, raw and violent as it was, it didn't threaten the very future of humankind and the planet. Rosa Luxembourg said that the choices facing humanity at that time were either socialism or barbarism, but even the brilliant Rosa did not anticipate the new dangers that are in store for humankind as it begins the 21st century.

Sam Webb

Communism and history.

Everyone familiar with the methodology of Marx that allowed him to formulate the thesis concerning the science of society traveled an individual path to arrive at his or her particular point of view. Most people I have met in life interested in and supportive of the writing of Marx expressed a deep compassion for the plight of their fellow human being and utilize the method of Marx to make sense of what appeared to be a chaotic world - at least for me.

Our home was always agitated with lively debate about politics and race and much of this had to do with dad having hand built a stereo system - vacuum tubes and all, in the late 1950s and early 60s and had made a decision to get into the skilled trades as an electrician at the Ford Motor Company. Father had fought in the Philippines - one moment on the side of the "Huks" (the communist) and with a change in government policy, against the "Huks," and in the post Second Imperialist War atmosphere of America, grasped the logic of the reform movement opened on the basis of restructuring industrial relations and promoting Civil Rights. Our residency was the Jefferies Project in Detroit, one of the first major government sponsored housing projects in America, dedicated at its opening by Eleanor Roosevelt and a testimony to the efforts of the Roosevelt Coalition to stabilize class relations in America.

American capital was poised to dominate the world through the rebuilding of Europe, the reformulation of monetary policy by way of the Bretton Wood Agreement and the dismantling of the colonial world structure that inhibited the flow of capital. The need to reformulate the social contract between owners of property and broad section of the laboring class was the necessary ingredient to stabilize the productive forces and allow the US to assume world leadership in opposition to Soviet Power. It was if the workingman had found a friend in Roosevelt.

Well, much water has passed under the bridge and one can assess the waves of change in retrospect. Roosevelt and Hitler came to power at roughly the same time and it became apparent to "our" imperialism that Hitler's crusade against Bolshevism entailed colonialization of Eastern Europe. Wall Street had profound feeling about this matter, in as much as the areas coal fields, budding oil field and municipal bonds - and other investments, was owned by some of Wall Street and Roosevelt was the representative of financial capital - Wall Street.

Back then the Democrats were the reactionary party of the Solid South and had no mass base North or South. The A f of L was securely tied to the Republicans. The mass vote of Roosevelt in 1932 was a repudiation of the starvation policy of Hoover and the depression. Roosevelt had to construct a mass base for the Democratic Party, stop Hitler re- division of the world and Wall Streets money as a basis to pull the economy out of crisis or experience World War 1 on a higher level.

Without question the communist and revolutionary forces in America were desperately mobilizing the masses in the fight for food, shelter and clothing - and the communist fought extremely hard and were making headway and the masses were responding. The victories of social security, unemployment compensation, social welfare, the youth act, old age pensions, etc. were the compromise Wall Street Democrats were prepared to make to build a mass base, stave off the reemergence of crisis, defeat Hitler and push the quantitative boundary of the system. It appeared to the communist that the mass movement forced Roosevelt into its camp. The CIO (Committee of Industrial Organization) could not have been built the way it was unless a strong section of capital and the administration agreed with such building.

By the time Earl Browder - then head of the CPUSA, had his famous dinner with Roosevelt the communist felt they had a secret ally in Roosevelt or he had been won over to their position. Unfortunately, Roosevelt died and proved the Shakespeare wasn't totally correct. Here the good of the man lived after his death and the evil was interned with his bones. To this day a section of our comrades cling to the most subjective and personalized view of history, as if the death of Roosevelt meant the death of the Roosevelt Coalition and all that is need is another Roosevelt to overpower the "ultra-right." The Roosevelt Coalition served its purpose and politics transformed on the basis of the completion of the quantitative expansion of the industrial infrastructure.

This of course meant completing the mechanization of agriculture and consolidating

Re: Re: Re: On the necessity of socialism 2


A New Era - A New Doctrine II


   The teaching of Karl Marx and Frederick Engels is all-powerful because it 
is true. Marx was a genius because he was able before anyone else to abstract 
from all the writings of history the law system that governed changes in 
society. Using the law system he discovered, Marx shifted through a mass of 
data concerning the fact of economic and social development and elaborated 
the conclusion into the doctrine of the class struggle. 

   People always were and always will be the victims of deceit and 
self-deceit in politics, as long as they have not learned to discover the 
interests of one or another of the classes behind any moral, religious, 
political and social phrases, declarations and promises. 

Virtually every adult in America understands that we are living in an era 
of revolution and the revolution is in the economy as expressed in the 
technology and revolutionizing of all kinds of social products and services. 
What everyone in society recognizes as revolutionary is a qualitatively new 
technology that alters all social relationships. The way we communicate with 
one another is changed forever and continues to change; the way we pay our 
bills, shop, secure information, go to the movies and purchase tickets, drive 
our vehicles, cash weekly checks or deposit it into banking accounts, secure 
education, interact with television, play recording devices and listen to 
music - everything is being revolutionized and people already know this. 

The revolution has entered a stage where people begin to fight out the social 
question posed by the economy revolution. This developing fight to formulate 
what is wrong in society cannot mature without a cause, a morality and a 
vision. During the last reform movement within capital, the Civil Rights 
Movement, there was a cause, a morality and a vision. The vision of a genuine 
system of justice and equality for all was the cause that excited deep 
passion throughout every sector of society because it conformed to a general 
morality that say it is honorable to be fair. 

One hundred years before the Civil Rights movement the struggle to preserve 
the Union birthed the cause of ending human slavery. That cause became the 
foundation of a vision of a new world of human freedom. One Hundred years 
earlier the cause of national independence - self-determination, united the 
scattered and contradictory forces around a program of Independence and 
ushered in 1776. It is the striving of our diverse peoples for a higher 
vision that demands formulating the righteous cause that can inspire them to 
unbelievable heights. 

Lurking beneath the morality of fairness is always class interest, however 
the vision that inspired was the striving for a better and just world. The 
cause today is slowly emerging into view - the distribution of the wealth of 
society according to need. The vision is of a world without human suffering 
based on want, without race and national hatred, without sexual oppression 
and human exploitation, a world where an ever expanding technology delivers 
fuller lives for all, materially, culturally and spiritually in a safe and 
healthy environment. 

The historical record clearly proves that it was Marx to first formulate the 
vision of the new world and this was not a vision called socialism but from 
each according to his ability, to each according to their need. Trying to 
take socialism to the working class is useless for several reasons. One 
important reason is that the process of the decay of capital does not take 
place on the basis of a general collapse of the system where everything stops 
working at one time but rather on the basis of the polarization of society 
into two hostile camps; wealth and poverty. 

This polarization splits the working class into two hostile camps. One camp 
is absolutely dependent upon imperialism for its privilege position relative 
to the other sector of the class. The other sector of the working class faces 
the razor edge of capital with its standard of living slowly sinking lower 
and lower, while its rank slowly but consistently grows larger. This process 
is underway in all countries on earth and in this sense is historic and 
develops with its own uniqueness in every country. The more stable section of 
the working class has no interest in socialism, but rather the stability of 
employment and preservation of its relatively high wages - compared to the 
bottom. This desire does not prevent large sections of skilled and 
white-collar workers from being pushed into the lower sectors of the working 
class. 

The lower and most destitute sector of the working class has no interest in 
socialism because it is driven on the basis of its needs - I need this, that 
and the other. 

Then of course the banner of socialism was a banner in a historical period of 
time that no longer exists. Socialism has already defined itself on earth and 
before the collapse of Soviet

Re: Marx's Capital manuscript

In a message dated 2/21/2002 3:10:30 PM Central Standard Time, [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:

I present summary of article “Engels’ Edition of the Third Volume of
Capital and Marx's original Manuscript”by Michael Heinrich in
“ScienceSociety” Vol. 60 no.4(1996-1997;TheGuilford Press) In fear of
warping, I attach my original paper.
He point out that in 1993, Marx's manuscript of 1864-65, used by Engels as
the basis for Volume? of capital, became available as Part of New MEGA.
And he analyzes this manuscript compared with forth edition.
Although Engels wrote” I tried my best to preserve the character of the
first draft whenever it was sufficiently clear,” there are large number of
transpositions, additions, contractions, and alteration.
1. In overview of Engels’ Textual Modification, He summarize the
“modification” into 6 points.
a. Design of titles and headings
Engels turned the title From “ Gestaltungen des
Gesasamptproyesses (Formations of the Process as a Whole) into “Der
Gesamptprozess der Kapitalistischen Produktion (The Process of Capitalist
Production as a whole). I think probably that Marx wanted to describe from
essence of capital to appearance form of capital, but In Engels edition,
this point became obscure.

Engels also made a detailed segmentation of the text. The original
manuscript was divided into only seven chapters with few or no subdivisions.
Engels turned the seven chapters into seven parts with 52 chapters and a
number of subparagraphs. Marx's text consists of 34 headings (and five
construction points which are only numbered), while Engels’ edition contain
92 headings. By putting this material together into chapters and
inserting headings, this draft character is concealed.

The reader can no longer tell at what point in the manuscript” “presentation” turns into“ inquiry” The difference between presentation and inquiry is of central
importance for Marx's own methodological understanding. To Marx
“presentation” does not just mean the moire´ or less skillful assembly of
final results. The factual correlation of the conditions presented should
be expressed by the correct presentation of the categories, by” advancing
from the abstract to the concrete.” To Marx, the search for an adequate
presentation is an essential part of his process of inquiry. But this
difference is concealed by Engels. Additionally, Engels tried to strengthen
the coherence of the text, so readers do not learn that a large part of
Marx’ manuscript is open and undecided.

I find your comment on the translation of Capital By Engels excellent and remarkably good. I had difficulty understanding the initial presentation of the question and the emphasis on "shape of capitalist production." You have cleared up this distinction for me.

Reading Marx Capital as the shape of a system of production at a certain stage and within certain quantitative boundaries is different from accepting "shape" as the "final" totality of process. I have read your comment three times and in all honesty will have to reread them 10-15 times and then reread major portions of capital for my own clarity.

Before now I have never really grasped the logic of distinction concerning the crisis of overproduction, - raised by various members of this community, although I have a conception that the "crisis element does not originate" in the "Law of the Tendency of the rate of profit to fall," but rather the private ownership of the properties that constitute the infrastructure and its production process. My concept has been that of private individuals driven to revolutionize production, in competition with other manufacturing the same or similar products, without regard to the internal barrier of the market as expressed in the purchasing power of the mass at a given time.

I have no ego invested in this proposition, rather it is an understanding that may be more or less absurd than what Marx meant.

I have never advanced to a comprehensive study or understanding of credit and now have incentive to pursue this matter as a discipline. I simply must reread what you have wrote many times over and am grateful.

This shall keep me busy and excited for a while. Now I can't go to sleep. Great article.

Melvin P.

Re: Colombia

2002-02-23 Thread Waistline2

In a message dated 2/23/2002 10:25:27 AM Central Standard Time, [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:


BTW2, I see that Jonas Savimbi died. He will not be missed.

Jim Devine


 Couldn't happen to a better person. 


Melvin P.

Re: Re: PEN-L digest 71

2002-02-23 Thread Waistline2

In a message dated 2/23/2002 10:47:30 AM Central Standard Time, [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:


Comment:1) Perhaps I am not clear about whether you are really serious about this or not, but the implications of this are that anyone who is unemployed and or a part of the lumpen elements - is "objectively" more revolutionary than a person in a job in a car-plant;
2) This is an extrapolation of the infamous (as I would see it) Three Worlds theory of Mao (/or Deng- irrelevant in this context) - - from an international perspective to the question of revolution in a developed type country;
3) This type of theory - to my mind makes it virtually impossible to recruit the working class into a vision of their own destiny.
4) Again - I should like to ask - if there is any objective data to show that the Labour Aristocracy (Which is what you are really referring to) has actually gotten bigger - or was Lenin right when he said it was in fact shrinking in the West?
Thanks,
Hari




Actually by the lower or most destitute sector of the working class is meant primarily the lowest paid employed people and the unemployed, which are not static. It seems to me that part of the problem is that virtually all of us with a little gray in our heads developed a conception of Marxism based on boundaries within capital that no longer exist. 

In the period of history that no longer exist an exceptional role was given to the industrial proletariat based on the boundary of capital and its existence as an agent - material element, of the forward progression of industry. It is not some much that workers in the auto industry "work in car plants" but rather a question of the evolution of industrial union on the one hand and the role of the upper stratum of the organized workers. Let us examine the actual conditions of the upper stratum of the organized workers in auto. 

As a former Committeeperson at Local 51 and for a brief moment the Chairman of the Shop Committee my annual pay averaged $150,000 a year. Now a Committee person is the highest elected union representative in the plant and below him is the Chief Steward in DaimlerChrysler system. I was not the highest paid union rep in the plant with - 75% of the direct representatives made higher wages than I. I was able to buy all my books with money - all 5,000, and comic books in boxes in the basement. 

The average wage for the skilled workers per year - based on how we were working was $115,000 per year and their direct representatives generally made a minimum of $175,000 per year. 

The average worker in my district - the machining division, who did not come to work regularly was $70,000, maybe $60,000. My use of the term labor aristocracy has two sides: the upper stratum of the organized workers and the best paid workers in relationship to the lowest paid workers. This conception has nothing whatsoever to do with the lumpen-proletariat - "the refuge of society," which under our specific conditions would have as its axis the more than less people involved in criminal enterprise below the radar of the "legal" - tax paying, economy. 

There is another question involved in this picture with - in my opinion, profound theoretical implications. The best way to formulate the theoretical issue is as a question. Why could not the serf overthrow landed feudal property? The answer resides in the conception of antagonism as the movement of societal change. The boundary of the last period of history we left prevented a real grasp of antagonism as movement. 

Looking at the transition from feudalism to capitalism it becomes clear that an exploited class cannot overthrow an exploiting class since they together make up the system. Their struggle at all times is the unending struggle over the division of the social products and political liberties. 

Since the exploited class cannot overthrow the system, the organized sector of the working class led the struggle of the masses to re form or restructure the system in favor of the people. These reforms or restructuring is society's recognition of quantitative changes in the economic process that demand changes in the social process. Thus, all reforms are political and redefine the relations between classes.

Here's the clincher. Feudalism was overthrown. Why? What took place within the womb of feudal society was the development of a new qualitative feature in the productive forces that manifested itself as a new polarity - labor and capital. This new qualitative ingredient reached a quantitative stage of development where it could not evolve further within the confines of the feudal infrastructure and was compelled into combat with all the element of what we still call the "superstructure" - feudal politics, the state, ideology that justify the existence and rights of landed property. 

A new qualitative development must take place within the working class whose growth and development is prevented by the framework of capital. Electronic-digital production

Re: Reply To Melvin P

2002-02-24 Thread Waistline2


Comment: 1) Perhaps I am not clear about whether you are really serious 
about this or not, but the implications of this are that anyone who is 
unemployed and or a part of the lumpen elements - is objectively more 
revolutionary than a person in a job in a car-plant;
2) This is an extrapolation of the infamous (as I would see it) Three Worlds 
theory of Mao (/or Deng- irrelevant in this context) - - from an 
international perspective to the question of revolution in a developed type 
country;
3) This type of theory - to my mind makes it virtually impossible to recruit 
the working class into a vision of their own destiny.
4) Again - I should like to ask - if there is any objective data to show that 
the Labour Aristocracy (Which is what you are really referring to) has 
actually gotten bigger - or was Lenin right when he said it was in fact 
shrinking in the West?
Thanks,
Hari



Conclusion

Perhaps I should not use the words labor aristocracy in describing 
polarization in America and other imperial countries. In America it is 
considered improper to talk about money, which on the ideological plane 
denies the totality of the working class from grasping its destitution. 
Workers in the imperial country or rather America, who happens to be more 
stable in employment and make sizable income, become agitated when one speaks 
of the material conditions of the former colonized world, the super-profits 
carved out of their backs or the lowest strata of the working class in their 
own country. 

This question of polarization of the working class in America is the key to 
grasping the offense of capital. Ones personal income does not necessarily 
determine the content of ones character or politics. However, as class 
phenomenon income level and material conditions of  standards of living and 
rates of consumption are very important. Poverty is growing in America in a 
manner not experienced since the 1920s and 30s. Poverty is growing among the 
employed and is spreading to the more educated families once thought to be 
immune. These families have a household head with more than a high school 
degree. Between DaimlerChrysler and the Ford Motor Company approximately 8000 
white-collar workers have been permanently laid off in the Detroit area 
during the past 12 months. 

One can live high on the hog for years at a time only to be slammed into a 
lower segment of the working class for years, where making ends meet is 
difficult. There is a profound difference between wages of $60,000 - with 
medical benefits, school tuition refund, on-line access for $3 a month 
(through AOL), high unemployment pay and access to credit, and wages of 
$28,000 a year with virtually no medical benefits and other negotiated items 
by the unions. This profound difference becomes extraordinary when compared 
with the Argentina workers - organized and unorganized. 

New words have entered the lexicon of American society in the last decade to 
describe the lowest sector of the working class. The lower sector of the 
working class is connected to a new sector of part time and temporary workers 
known as throw away workers. This sector now comprises about 30 million or 
one-third of the workforce, the number having tripled in ten years. The 
process that is causing this growth of throw-away workers is the meaning of 
polarization of wealth and poverty. 

These throw-away workers are paid 70% of what people doing comparable 
permanent jobs earn. Not only do they not have benefits, they have no set 
work schedule. Their jobs include high tech software designers, office 
workers, janitors, taxicab drivers, adjunct college professors, home 
healthcare, food processing, substitute teachers, all the workers recently 
fired in Las Vegas in the service industry, etc. It is said that the US food 
industry would collapse without them. In rural factory towns, living 
conditions are deplorable and diseases of poverty like TB are spreading. In 
Iowa, workers from Laos live in railroad shacks that resemble scavenger's hut 
in Seoul, Korea. 

Beneath these workers are the destitute. They are homeless and live by 
picking up cans, sleeping in shelters or doorways, standing in the cold, 
competing for day labor made possible by the explosion of wealth and 
construction boom in the cities - a process that has slowed sine the market 
began crashing in March 2000. Day laborers are paid cash and often stiffed, 
and are harassed by the police or jailed for standing on street corners 
waiting for work. Their jobs range from painting, welding, gardening or 
hammering, cleaning homes and small businesses. Please go to the Coalition 
against Homelessness or any other hundreds of sites dealing with this issue 
and propagandizing against police harassment of these workers. 

Alongside these workers in the US and the world a new kind of slavery is 
developing. These slaves are different than in the past since the owners have 
no incentive to maintain them, once their

Re: Reply To Melvin P

2002-02-24 Thread Waistline2


In a message dated Sun, 24 Feb 2002 11:37:47 AM Eastern Standard Time, Hari Kumar 
[EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:

 
 
 Dear Cmde Melvin:
 
 First, my sincere apologies #8211; you are right that I do indeed have shame
 on me. Not however for asking the questions #8211; for I do NOT think it is
 so obvious what the reality is. But shamed for having been too lazy
 to explicate myself properly, so that you would not either think that I
 was shameless or that I trying to label you. E-Formats have the tendency
 to be terse. Notwithstanding Rakesh#8217;s views on #8216;politesse#8217;, I 
think that
 when one objects to views in person #8211; one can always ameliorate the potential
 angst by many ways eg. a hand-shake or a twinkle in the eye etc. These
 are far less easy to convey in this medium. Therefore I was lazy
 in not explicating myself to avert a potential mis-understanding; also
 I confess that do not feel quite comfortable on this list being a non-economist.
 You are also right in that I have a considerable amount of grey on my head
 #8211; regrettably it is mainly on my beard since my top-knot has been shedding
 aggressively! However, my comrades and I do try to keep up with changes
 #8211; #8220;all is change#8221; being fundamental to a Marxist view of the world.
 Let me try to explain my viewpoint more clearly.
 
 1) However I do not think I should have to explain myself any further,
 for asking a question - any further. After all Marx writes: #8220;If it is 
scientific
 task to resolve the outward  visible movement into the inward and
 actual movement#8230;.. the conceptions#8230;#8230; will differ widely from the 
real laws..#8221;
 He is talking here of #8220;the laws of production#8221; #8211; but I truncate the
 quote for convenience to utilise its thrust that it is in fact 
#8220;mandatory#8221;
 for Marxists of all stripes #8211; to ask questions. This is necessary in the
 question of the Labour Aristocracy. Since Engels first put his finger on
 the strategy of capital in bribing the highest echelons of labour lieutenants;
 and then Lenin took the analysis further #8211; there has been an interesting
 phenomenon. That is to say that there is a tendency amongst a certain section
 of the left to extrapolate Lenin and Engels to the entire #8216;working 
class#8217;.
 Indeed elements of the Maoist left deny there is an actual working class
 #8211; except that in the USA it be black and the most down-trodden. This why
 I used the term Maoists #8211; by the bye, I did not really accuse you of being
 one! However, it is indeed a relic from the Three Worlds Theory #8211; but this
 can be put aside for the time being. To return to the Labour Aristocracy.
 The problem is how can such a conception of the entire working class
 being bribed, aid us in the strategy of change? To my mind, there are relatively
 few studies on the ML-ist left (I am no economic academic #8211; as my pathetic
 forays will have by now made clear #8211; I am trying to glean some pearls here
 #8211; although the Eureka moments seem rather few to me thus far! But that
 is life I guess! So perhaps the analysis has in reality been made in some
 obscure  dusty tome that I am blithely unaware of#8230;#8230;?) that address
 the question. Here is one ML-ist study, that was written by W.B.Bland in
 the UK in the 60#8217;s, when indeed he was still a Maoist. It argues using
 official figures, that in the UK of that time, the amount of total
 #8220;bribe#8221; to the workers was very low; and that the number of actual 
aristocrats
 in the working class was also very low. See:
 
 http://www22.brinkster.com/harikumar/CommunistLeague/ALLIANCE46_3WORLDS_WBB.htm
 
 There is naturally an evolution from the times of any of our
 previous great leaders (I hope no one here can deny that there were such
 -  thus not object to the term? I myself do not genuflect to any -
 but due credit.). In the period of the last 50 odd years, there has
 become a huge problem in my view, with the #8216;sociological#8217; attempts to 
explain
 class. This has infected the left with #8211; in my view #8211; revisionist 
attempts
 to further narrow the class of workers by for instance, denying that 
#8216;intellectual
 workers#8217; are workers. [This is attempted to be dealt with in more detail
 at this web-address.
 
 http://www22.brinkster.com/harikumar/AllianceIssues/All24-CLASS97.htm
 ]
 
 Conclusion to this part of my reply: Deciding who are the class
 forces that will bring the revolution is a critical part of the strategy
 and tactics of moving from our current situation to the phase of re-invigorating
 the working class movement and creating the subjective force required for
 change. I cannot therefore apologise for asking the questions of: How big
 is the labour aristocracy, and of whom it is composed; of what does that
 mean in terms of strategy for revolution in the so-called developed world?.
 
 
 2) You say that #8220;virtually all of us with a little

Re: Suppression of Marx

2002-02-24 Thread Waistline2


In a message dated Sun, 24 Feb 2002  3:44:11 PM Eastern Standard Time, Drewk 
[EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:

 This is a reply to Charles Brown's pen-l 22901.  (I hope to
 respond to Tom Walker's question in pen-l 22893 soon.)
 
 Charles asked me
 
 Is it your position that the 'transformation problem' is a bit of
 a misnomer, because Marx's point was that prices deviating
 unsystematically from value is what capitalism must do because of
 exploitation ? So, that from the Marxist standpoint the failure to
 find a mathematical functional relationship between value and
 price is a confirmation of Marx, not a 'problem' for Marx's theory
 ?
 
 The law of value is like a 'state' law. It is the violation of it
 by prices that results in crisis as a 'punishment' for being out
 of line with value proportions, the law.
 
 
 I agree with a lot of what you say, Charles.  But, no, this isn't
 really my position.  My position is that
 
 (a) the transformation problem is a NON-EXISTENT problem,
 because
 
 (b) the allegation of internal inconsistency in Marx's account of
 the transformation (of commodity values into prices of production)
 has never been proven, and
 
 (c) indeed the alleged proof of internal inconsistency has been
 disproved.
 
 
 I'll substantiate this below.  But first, let me continue with
 your question.
 
 Certainly, *one* point of Marx's was that prices deviating
 unsystematically from value is what capitalism must do -- because
 of exploitation, and because of other things.  One of these other
 things is that, owing to competition, businesses that exploit a
 lot of workers do not tend to rake in a higher profit per dollar
 invested than businesses that exploit few workers.  Marx's account
 of the transformation in Ch. 9 of Vol. III of _Capital_ deals
 specifically and only with this latter issue.
 
 Thus, I fully agree with your statement that, according to Marx's
 theory, the violation of [the law of value] by prices ... results
 in crisis as a 'punishment' for being out of line with value
 proportions   I also think this is a very important issue.
 However, this issue is not dealt with in Marx's account of the
 transformation in Ch. 9.   Ch. 9 doesn't deal with the
 relationship of prices to values *in general*, but only with the
 relationship of *prices of production* to values.  (Prices of
 production are hypothetical prices that would result in equal
 profit rates.)
 
 You suggest that there's been a failure to find a mathematical
 functional relationship between value and price.  I agree that a
 function relating values to prices *in general* is an
 impossibility -- prices can differ from values in all sorts of
 ways and for all sorts of reasons.  But, again, Ch. 9 deals only
 with the relationship of values to prices of production, and it
 isn't the case that no functional relationship between values and
 prices of production has been found.  In Ch. 9, Marx himself
 presented a precise functional relationship between them.
 
 He didn't regard deviations of prices of production from values as
 any confirmation of the law of value.  Indeed he recognized that
 the deviations *appear* to violate the law.  What he regarded as a
 confirming the law of value was precisely the functional
 relationship between prices of production and values that he
 presented in Ch. 9.
 
 Their functional relationship is such that, *notwithstanding* the
 fact that prices of production deviate from values in any
 particular industry, there is no deviation at the economy-wide
 level.  Total price equals total value; total profit equals total
 surplus-value; and the level of the general (economy-wide) rate of
 profit is not affected by the fact that commodities exchange at
 prices which differ from values.  Thus, it remains the case that,
 as he had said earlier in _Capital_, the level of the general rate
 of profit is determined in production, before exchange and
 independently of exchange.  It depends only on the amount of
 surplus-value that capital has succeeded in pumping out of the
 workers, as well as the amount of capital-value invested in
 production.
 
 These equalities between price and value magnitudes, not any
 deviations between prices of production and values, are what Marx
 regarded as confirming the law of value -- in the context of Ch.
 9.  (I agree that, in a different context, the punishment of
 backward producers for producing at higher-than-average value is
 another confirmation of the law of value.)
 
 
 Now the problem, of course, is that Marx's precise mathematical
 relationship between prices of production and values was declared
 invalid, owing to an alleged internal inconsistency.  His account
 of the transformation was thus deemed in need of correction, and
 the corrected procedures all imply, in one way or another, that
 the law of value does NOT hold true in reality; Marx's equalities
 cannot all be true, if one accepts the corrections.
 
 Now keep in mind that the *only* rationale for

Re: RE: Re: on the necessity of god, goddess, gods, god desses,or a combinati on of the above

2002-02-25 Thread Waistline2


In a message dated Mon, 25 Feb 2002 12:34:37 PM Eastern Standard Time, Devine, James 
[EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:

 I wrote:  As far as I can tell, there's no logical argument either for or
 against the existence of god.
 
 Carrol: 
  The presumption is always that X doesn't exist; hence the absence of
  convincing arguments against the existence of X is in no way evidence
  that X exists.
 
 that's why my working hypothesis -- the one I put into practice in my life
 -- is that there's no god (or goddess) even though I'm an agnostic.
 
 Of course, when I get up to heaven Shiva will send me back as a cockroach. 
 
 which of course means that I (and my fellow roaches) will inherit the earth.
 
 JD




Uuuu . . . . Roaches of the World Unite!?
Anyone familiar with the 9 or 10 books by Zecharia Sitchin, compiled under the title 
The Earth Chronciles? He has a new book out, which I will pick up this weekend on 
translations from Sumerian text.

Hari reply/bribery and labor aristoc.


Dear Comrade Melvin: 

Let me try to explain my viewpoint more clearly. 
1) However I do not think I should have to explain myself any further, for 
asking a question - any further. After all Marx writes: If it is scientific 
task to resolve the outward  visible movement into the inward and actual 
movement….. the conceptions…… will differ widely from the real laws.. He is 
talking here of  the laws of production - but I truncate the quote for 
convenience to utilize its thrust that it is in fact mandatory for Marxists 
of all stripes - to ask questions. This is necessary in the question of the 
Labour Aristocracy. Since Engels first put his finger on the strategy of 
capital in bribing the highest echelons of labour lieutenants; and then Lenin 
took the analysis further - there has been an interesting phenomenon. That is 
to say that there is a tendency amongst a certain section of the left to 
extrapolate Lenin and Engels to the entire 'working class'. Indeed elements 
of the Maoist left deny there is an actual working class - except that in the 
USA it be black and the most downtrodden. This why I used the term Maoists - 
by the bye, I did not really accuse you of being one! However, it is indeed a 
relic from the Three Worlds Theory - but this can be put aside for the time 
being. To return to the Labour Aristocracy. The problem is how cans such a 
conception of the entire working class being bribed; aid us in the strategy 
of change? To my mind, there are relatively few studies on the ML-ist left (I 
am no economic academic - as my pathetic forays will have by now made clear - 
I am trying to glean some pearls here - although the Eureka moments seem 
rather few to me thus far! But that is life I guess! So perhaps the analysis 
has in reality been made in some obscure  dusty tome that I am blithely 
unaware of……?), that address the question. Here is one ML-ist study, which 
was written by W.B.Bland in the UK in the 60's, when indeed he was still a 
Maoist. It argues using official figures, that in the UK of that time, the 
amount of total bribe to the workers was very low; and that the number of 
actual aristocrats in the working class was also very low. 

There is naturally an evolution from the times of any of our previous great 
leaders (I hope no one here can deny that there were such -  thus not object 
to the term? I myself do not genuflect to any - but due credit.). In the 
period of the last 50 odd years, there has become a huge problem in my view, 
with the 'sociological' attempts to explain class. This has infected the left 
with - in my view - revisionist attempts to further narrow the class of 
workers by for instance, denying that 'intellectual workers' are workers. 
[This is attempted to be dealt with in more detail at this web-address. 
http://www22.brinkster.com/harikumar/AllianceIssues/All24-CLASS97.htm ] 
Conclusion to this part of my reply: Deciding who are the class forces that 
will bring the revolution is a critical part of the strategy and tactics of 
moving from our current situation to the phase of re-invigorating the working 
class movement and creating the subjective force required for change. I 
cannot therefore apologize for asking the questions of: How big is the labour 
aristocracy, and of whom it is composed; of what does that mean in terms of 
strategy for revolution in the so-called developed world? 
2) You say, Virtually all of us with a little gray in our heads developed a 
conception of Marxism based on boundaries within capital that no longer 
exist. I think as a vestigial die-hard, that the fundamentals have NOT 
changed,  that all economic avenues for capital are ultimately doomed. 
Because capital is failing  has had some leeway from the benefits of 
Keynesian rescue therapies - but this is ultimately sterile for capital. I do 
not think in any way that this is controversial amongst the left [The view of 
our grouping is at: 
http://www22.brinkster.com/harikumar/AllianceIssues/ALLIANCE3ECONOMICS.html 
] 
And of course the car industrial workers are crunched and are (apparently) 
less important currently than other sectors of workers. I am not going to 
deny that the unemployment of car workers reflects massive changes in where 
profit is highest and into which sectors capital will shunt part of its booty 
in order to get more. But this is decidedly not the same as saying that the 
industrial proletariat is irrelevant in today's economy in the Western world. 
Setting workers apart on the basis of what transparently is petty differences 
between them in wage-remuneration - AS COMPARED to the amount of profit they 
create for the ruling class - seems to play into the hands of those that 
would divide  rule.  Indeed it seems to me that you well agree with that 
since you yourself write: 
Right now the auto industry is in the process of shedding between 150,000 
and 
200,000 autoworkers world-wide. Where will these workers go? Where every 
they go into society

reply-part 2




3) You wrote: A new qualitative development must take place within the 
working class whose growth and development is prevented by the framework of 
capital. Electronic-digital production is its trajectory of development is 
absolutely incompatible with a system based on the buying and selling of 
labor, further depresses wages driving greater sections of the class into 
destitution, polarized society into a camp of wealth and poverty and 
engenders a new class of proletariats who cannot live based on the 
purchase and sell of labor and consequently driven along a logic of fighting 
for their needs. 
Perhaps indeed 'objectively' the working class is hampered from developing - 
in the long run -  that is why objectively revolution is needed. But while 
indeed wages are depressed, etc.; it is manifestly not true that 
Electronic-digital production is its trajectory of development is 
absolutely incompatible with a system based on the buying and selling of 
labor.  I have not seen the revolution yet in North America. 

Sincere Fraternal Greetings,
 Hari 


The communist movement, or the Marxist movement, or the movement associated 
with the methodology of Marx and Engels is historically and currently, 
primarily an intellectual movement by definition. As an intellectual movement 
we are among the most conservative human beings on earth and cannot admit 
this. When the world changes we cannot change our thinking until the world 
changes again and we end up in the same position. 

We demand change in society along the direction of the productive forces, yet 
change comes hard to Marxist. In my opinion soul searching and a spiritual 
awakening is needed. In the language of our ideological doctrine we -  me, 
need an ideological drubbing. Marxism as a social movement is in denial and 
refuses to subject itself to its own method of inquiry. We need a world wide 
Marxist Anonymous with a 12 Step Program of recovery and resurrection. Allow 
me to talk about myself. 

Hello Comrades, my name is comrade Melvin P., former head of the propaganda 
division of the regional party committee and I am a grateful recovering 
Marxist, taking things one day at a time. Although I may never achieve 
sobriety I can state to all you good people, that I am clean today, no longer 
trying to build military bases in Detroit from which to wage the armed 
struggle; have cast off trade unionism, anarcho-syndicalist formulations, 
doctrines of worker control devoid of property relations, and calls for 
socialism without knowing what I was calling for.

With the help of you good people and the working masses who repeatedly 
kicked me hard between the two pockets on the back of my pants, pleading with 
me to stop building foxholes and military units, I have come to recognize 
that not only are there boundaries in all of life, but boundaries in capital, 
quantitative expansion of the productive forces and qualitative changes in 
technology that define boundaries in the economy. Then there are the limits 
of the boundary of my own thinking.

The root of my stinking thinking was I never did like the capitalist class 
or for that matter my brothers and sisters, the war danger, my first 4 wives 
- not including the second one, and could not escape the boundaries of the 
doctrine of the class struggle that arose in another period of history. Heck, 
I felt if it was good enough for Lenin I wanted some of that and if one drink 
of Lenin was good, then I wanted 100 drinks of Lenin. 

Now that I have admitted that I am powerless over my own thinking and 
submitted to a power higher than my self - the ceaseless self-movement of 
matter, did a fearless moral inventory and reread Marx, I feel pretty good 
about myself and grasping polarization, historical limitations and boundaries 
and finally movement as antagonism.

Thank You comrades for letting me express myself and I would like to offer a 
cup of coffee to all our new comers and welcome you to the group. You don't 
have to say anything but remember to take it one day at a time. If you don't 
believe in a higher power then rely upon the strength of the group and 
remember stinking thinking is the enemy.  Our thinking is what got us to 
the circumstances that lead us to these tables trying to catch up to the new 
boundaries. 

In closing I would like to give a shout out to brother Engels - the 
General, and Karl Marx who said - I don't remember the exact quote, but it 
went something like this, I'm glad than a Mut*, I ain't a gott-damn 
Marxist.


The dialectic of the development of the working class is interactive with the 
development of capital as a social power. The emergence of and ascendancy to 
the helm of the world total social capital - speculative capital, is a mode 
of investment and appropriation increasingly divorced from the material 
production of commodities. Speculative capital as a specific mode of capital 
at this phase in the development of the productive forces,

Re: Productive Forces, was Re: reply-part 2


In a message dated Tue, 26 Feb 2002  1:21:30 PM Eastern Standard Time, Carrol Cox 
[EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:

 
 
 [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
  
   
  We demand change in society along the direction of the productive forces,
 
 No. Not true. _Many_ Marxists but by no means all put central emphasis
 on the productive forces. Others argue that this proposition about the
 necessary growth of productive forces applies not to all history (and
 certainly not to socialism or communism) but only to capitalism. It is
 this drive to unleash the productive forces that turns capitalism into a
 destructive force. See esp. the works of Ellen Meiksins Wood, Edward
 Thompson, Raymond Williams, and Robert Brenner.
 
 Carrol



Acknowledged. 

I - me personally,(it is incorrect to state we as if I represented the marxist) 
desire change in society that conforms to and along the trajectory of the technical 
development that reflect the new qualitative change in the productive forces that 
makes an abundance of commodities availabe to all. I acknowledge my arrogance and 
mistake in assuming a posture that articulates anyones voice other than my own and 
those who I agree with. I will be more careful not to make this mistake in the future.

Everyone wants something different.  

What makes captialism capitalism - in my opinion, (that is to say to me as an 
indivdual) is not the productive forces as an abstraction or merely a technical state 
of development - as the fundamental distinction of social production on the basis of 
the industrial infrastructure and all the properties this entail, but the the 
character of appropriation. I am aware that many do not agree with this focus on 
property relations. 

You are correct. In the final instance I speak for myself only. 

Melvin P.

Re: On the necessity of socialism


In a message dated Tue, 26 Feb 2002 12:54:17 PM Eastern Standard Time, Charles Brown 
[EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:

 On the necessity of socialism
 by Waistline2
 22 February 2002 19:17 UTC  
   
 
 
 
 Melvin:
 
 On and off I have followed the politics of the CPUSA a little over thirty years; met 
some wonderful members of their party and engaged in common work; used to live at 
their old bookstore off Wayne Campus and later relocated to Highland Park and had 
assembled 85% of their Theoretical Journal Political Affairs from the early or mid 
1930s to 1963 or 64.
 
 I am always amazed at their lack of theortical depth.
 
 ^
 
 CB: Hey, comrade, good to see the criticism/self-criticism.
 
 Is there a specific theoretical shallowness that you note in this article ?
 
 ^^
 
 
 
 A century ago, even 50 years ago, the working class and its allies faced huge 
challenges. Capitalism at that time was brutal, raw and violent and as a consequence 
it gave rise to a powerful movement against its injustices.
 
 This is an astonishing statement and nothing more than glorification of the old 
Roosevelt Coalition. Fifty years ago the last quantitative expansion of capital was 
underway that completed - more than less, the mechanization of agriculture and 
realigned the social contract allowing a segment of industrial and state employee the 
legal right to unionize. This was the era of the anti-colonial revolts and within our 
country the emergence of the Civil Rights movement as political realignment to 
stabilize the working of the productive forces. 
 
 ^^^
 
 CB: What I noticed when I looked back at what you quote is that it says a century 
ago  too. So , the time frame is more 1902 to 1952 which is more than the era of the 
old (Franklin) Roosevelt Coalition.  
 
 However, myself I would take a neo -Roosevelt Coalition today if we could build one. 
I said so on this list.  
 
 What also strikes me is that your programatic discussion for meeting basic economic 
needs below seems very much to be a call for a Rooseveltian type Bill of Economic 
Rights , as he called for in his last State of the Union address. One of his Four 
Freedoms is Freedom from Want.  Can you imagine getting an American President to call 
for that today ! We would definitely be cooking with gas.
 
 The question I would raise is concerning the neo-Economist quality of confining 
yourself to economic demands and issues.  In other words, in _What is to be done_, 
Lenin critcized the Mensheviks for confining working class concerns to economic 
issues and demands alone, and not including political ( ideological ) issues for 
the working class to concern itself with. He dubbed it Economism or trade unionism 
pure and simple. In other words, when you say
 
 The battle is not for ideology but food supplies based on ones family size, shelter 
(rent subsidy), medical care, transportion, education for our diverse peoples based 
on needs as opposed to place of employment or employment
 
 this sounds Economistic. The battle IS for ideology and bread, both. Our job is to 
raise class consciousness, no ?
 
 On the direct issue, surely the Roosevelt Coaltion was not formed because of the 
influence of the bourgeois Roosevelt. On the contrary, it was precisely a social 
movement of the working class - Unemployed Councils, Ford Hunger March, returning 
evicted tenants to their housing, unionizing industrial plants,vast working class 
struggle in the 20's and 30'  - that forced Roosevelt to go as far as he did to head 
off more radical change. So, Webb is accurate that there was a social movement behind 
the changes 50 ( and 100) years ago.
 
 ^
 
 
 The social movement did not arise because of the brutal nature of capital. The 
African American people for instance, have a record of sustained and unbroken 
struggle against police violence, the hangman noose and horrible discrimination and 
this struggle intersected with the needs of a sector of capital that allowed the 
militant bravery and ingenuity of Montgomery Alabama to assume the proportions of a 
mass movement.  
 
 I cannot accuse Mr. Webb of lacking a Marxist approach to the working class since 
that is not his claim. What are the quntitative boundaries that define the framework 
of the various stages of the working class movement is an elementary question for 
communist. 
 
 I had an oppotunity to read and study the preconvention documents and one would 
think that the increased polarization of wealth and poverty did not exist in America, 
although millions have been added to the homeless, the list of those without medical 
care, the list of those unable to properly feed their family and unable to afford 
housing. 
 
 It is not merely a question of captialism being rent but defining the specific 
property of this phase of the decay of private property relations. One must always 
start with an anaylsis of the economy and its quantitative and qualitative 
dimensions. Electronic production

Re: reply-part 3-end


2) You say, Virtually all of us with a little gray in our heads developed a 
conception of Marxism based on boundaries within capital that no longer 
exist. I think as a vestigial die-hard, that the fundamentals have NOT 
changed,  that all economic avenues for capital are ultimately doomed. 
Because capital is failing  has had some leeway from the benefits of 
Keynesian rescue therapies - but this is ultimately sterile for capital. I do 
not think in any way that this is controversial amongst the left [The view of 
our grouping is at: 
http://www22.brinkster.com/harikumar/AllianceIssues/ALLIANCE3ECONOMICS.html 

Hari


Dear Comrade, I have used this opportunity to simply discuss some current 
issues and in no way mean any disrespect. I earnestly would not reply if I 
did not believe in my heart we are one. I have profound feelings - as do you, 
about the road to freedom. There is nothing left for me but the hard line. I 
swore to this long ago and cannot forsake everthing in my history. To 
genuflect is to be condemned to that endless eternity. Going out like a 
sucker is not option. 

What is new in the Marxist movement - in my opinion, is making concrete the 
conception and articulation of the concepts of boundary, polarization, 
antagonism as a specific movement applicable to today's reality, the question 
and issue of  the new class, defining speculative capital as a specific 
domination of an identifiable sector of the world total social capital, 
making concrete the conception mode of production in the public sphere, 
identifying the lower section of the working class as the arena of a 
strategic thrust, defining the boundary of value as a forces is human history 
mediating the social affairs of humans and articulating all of this on the 
basis of the lexicon of the historic doctrine of the class struggle. This 
contribution in the English-speaking sector of the world belongs to a segment 
of Marxist in North America.

This is stated because in North America, we have more than less been the 
personification of the historic distortion within Marxism and the authors of 
insanity parading as science and good old common sense. Who else but a North 
American could claim more than a half century ago modern communism was 
Americanism, when Negro's were still being hang from trees - strange 
fruit, glorify the Roosevelt Coalition as a historical archetype, while 
North American imperialism was tightening its murderous grip of the planet 
earth and murdering a million people a day?  Tragically - to me as an 
individual, communist in North American, cling to a boundary of capitalism 
dead and try to fight along a path to recreate a period in world history that 
led to my imperialist domination of the world.  

This does not make me proud but demands that the boundary in which this 
caricature of Marxism was born be repeatedly defined, so that we may pass to 
a higher state of righteousness.  Such is my history and I am aware that the 
son pays the wages of sin of the father. Restitution is valid and the world 
check book will be balanced after settling an outstanding debt with my own 
bourgeoisie. A period of history will unfold where all that has been stolen 
from the world peoples shall be returned with interest and then more. 

The various diverse peoples of America and our working class are decent 
people trying very hard to escape the boundaries of the ideology of an era 
that is dead. Only the degenerate among us derived satisfaction from bombing 
human beings no matter what the rationale. Two wrongs never make a right.  
Today our imperialist must convince the people of America they are trying to 
make the world better because very few people in North America - indeed any 
of the imperial countries, can spiritually and emotionally accept murder 
without an ideology of a greater good, sustained by continuous feeding, 
housing, water supplies and sustaining the current cultural level. Bribery 
unfolds itself for anyone with the courage to look him in the eye. 

Transforming the Marxist movement in North American where everyone must 
speak on the basis of polarization, movement as antagonism, creating a 
conceptual framework where the labor movement is understood as distinct from 
the trade union movement will constitute an era in our history. This battle 
will be won in the next decade, because no one can deny development of the 
productive forces - for long. 

Comrade Hari, we  - meaning me and the tiny group of indigenousness 
communist in North America, lost in the last period of the ideological 
struggle for class doctrine in North America and will probably lose in the 
one unfolding. To have never triumphed over the chauvinist gives one 
patience. The one after this one unfolding we cannot be denied. 

What we won in our defeat is the only coherent class policy for the workers 
in the face of identity movements. No one else knows the tactics of 
organizing industrial or non-industrial workers

Re: Re: RE: God


Beginning in 1978 Zecharia Sitchin - one of the world renown linguist, 
revolutionized this field of inquiry - including a substantial translation of 
Gilgsmesh, with his 12th Planet, The Stairway to Heaven. The Wars of 
Gods and Men, The Lost Realms, When Time Began, Devine Encounters, 
The Cosmic Code, and a new book whose title I forget and will purchase this 
weekend. All of this books I found to be substantial. 

Sitchin basically state that modern man is the result of genetic manipulation 
by the Gods whose inhabit a planet in the farthest reaches of our solar 
system, traveling opposite the motion of the solar system in a trajectory 
that circles the sun once every 3,600 years. 

For laughs the scientist at NASA followed his drawing predicting the probably 
location of this alleged 12th Planet and located it three years ago and 
gave Professor Sitchin the rights to name the planet. He choose to name it 
after the ancient Sumarians. 

Sitchin can be located through goggles. 


Actually, the first book published in 1978 - the 12th Planet is profound in 
its research and has an excellent bibliography. A companion addition to 
this series is his Genesis Revisited with an excellent analysis of the 
fundamental of DNA and specifically the mitrochronida of DNA in tracing 
species origin through the female. Chapter 9, The Mother Called Eve is 
extremely thought provoking.

M.P

Re: On the necessity/Sam Webb article


Here is a more complete reply to the article by Mr Webb



What is new in the realm of economics and the Marxist movement - in my 
opinion, is making concrete the conception and articulation of the concepts 
of boundary, polarization, antagonism as a specific movement applicable to 
today's reality, the question and issue of  the new class, defining 
speculative capital as a specific domination of an identifiable sector of the 
world total social capital, making concrete the conception mode of production 
in the public sphere, identifying the lower section of the working class as 
the arena of a strategic thrust, defining the boundary of value as a forces 
is human history mediating the social affairs of humans and articulating all 
of this on the basis of the lexicon of the historic doctrine of the class 
struggle This contribution in the English-speaking sector of the world 
belongs to a segment of Marxist in North America Mr Webb article is devoid 
of any logic that something new has taken place in the world of economics in 
my opinion - and elementary logic

On the direct issue, surely the Roosevelt Coalition was not formed because 
of the influence of the bourgeois Roosevelt On the contrary, it was 
precisely a social movement of the working class - Unemployed Councils, Ford 
Hunger March, returning evicted tenants to their housing, unionizing 
industrial plants, vast working class struggle in the 20's and 30'  - that 
forced Roosevelt to go as far as he did to head off more radical change So, 
Webb is accurate that there was a social movement behind the changes 50 (and 
100) years ago


Actually, the Roosevelt Coalition was in fact formed precisely because of the 
influence of the bourgeois Roosevelt, but these words have meaning Roosevelt 
was the political representative of a class, specifically the politically 
dominant sector of a class, somewhat different from Lenin's traditional 
description of finance-industrial capital In our history we refer to this 
distinctiveness as Wall Street It in fact was not (repeat: was not) the 
social movement of the working class that gave rise to the Roosevelt 
Coalition but a specific movement in capital and the International situation 
generated by European reaction - lead by German fascism, that created the 
conditions and environment in which the dominant sector of capital created 
the Roosevelt Coalition 

The problem is that the historic analysis of the Roosevelt coalition is 
devoid of a conception that places the intersection of the interest of a 
section of workers with a sector of capitalist in any boundaries, which leads 
to a strategy basically called the left-center coalition The Roosevelt 
Coalition arose in the context of completing the quantitative expansion of 
the industrial infrastructure; a movement to accelerate the mechanization of 
agriculture; the need to organize the population for the Second Imperialist 
war and as these currents completed themselves the basis of the Coalition 
dissolved The working class did not force the formation of the Roosevelt 
Coalition as you state or  

it was precisely a social movement of the working class - that forced 
Roosevelt to go as far as he did to head off more radical change 

Was it not the fact that before Roosevelt the Democratic Party was the 
reactionary party of the solid South and the need was to win a base of 
support to stabilize industry and international policy Approaching the 
matter from the other way leads to a conclusion that basically states the 
Roosevelt Coalition collapsed when Roosevelt died and not when international 
policy shifted to decolonized the earth It was not the subsequent lack of 
strength of the workers that cause a policy shift but international economic 
reality that demand new policy

In North America the laboring classes have achieved marginal and sectional 
interest when an intersect of interest with the dominant sector of capital 
has arisen and made this possible 

Society shifts and the ideological expression as politics on the basis of and 
in response to quiet changes in the mode of production, according to the 
doctrine I use as a framework for trying to understand what is taking place 
This is not to say that ideology is politics because ideology is ancient and 
predates society as such, but recast on the basis of societal change On what 
economic reality did the Roosevelt Coalition sit or rather, what economic 
boundaries? 

In my estimate that above lamenting over the Roosevelt Coalition is the 
equivalent of stating the African American people and their allies in the 
labor movement forced the Civil Rights Movement Such a proposition is 
devoid of the inner logic of the movement and needs of capital (economics) 
that define what is possible as politics in a specific period of history The 
reason the Voting Rights Act for instance was passed in the early 1960s 
instead of under Roosevelt is not simply because in the 1960s the class 
struggle made it

Re: Re: Re: Productive Forces, was Re: reply-part 2

In a message dated 2/27/2002 7:56:38 AM Central Standard Time, [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:


Hi Melvin
 
MIYACHI TATSUO
Psychiatric Department
KOMAKI MUNICIPAL HOSPITAL
JOHBUSHI,1-20
KOMAKI CITY
AICHI Pre
JAPAN
0568-76-4131
[EMAIL PROTECTED]

productive force belongs to human being. Its force confirm his activity.
See "Economic and Philosophical Manuscripts of 1844"of Marx
 
 Man is directly a natural being. As a natural being and as a living
natural being he is on the one hand endowed with natural powers, vital
powers ‹ he is an active natural being. These forces exist in him as
tendencies and abilities ‹ as instincts. On the other hand, as a natural,
corporeal, sensuous objective being he is a suffering, conditioned and
limited creature, like animals and plants. That is to say, the objects of
his instincts exist outside him, as objects independent of him; yet these
objects are objects that he needs ‹ essential objects, indispensable to the
manifestation and confirmation of his essential powers. To say that man is a
corporeal, living, real, sensuous, objective being full of natural vigour is
to say that he has real, sensuous objects as the object of his being or of
his life, or that he can only express his life in real, sensuous objects

 The outstanding achievement of Hegel¹s Phänomenologie and of its final
outcome, the dialectic of negativity as the moving and generating principle,
is thus first that Hegel conceives the self-creation of man as a process,
conceives objectification as loss of the object, as alienation and as
transcendence of this alienation; that he thus grasps the essence of labour
and comprehends objective man ‹ true, because real man ‹ as the outcome of
man¹s own labour. The real, active orientation of man to himself as a
species-being, or his manifestation as a real species-being (i.e., as a
human being), is only possible if he really brings out all his
species-powers ‹ something which in turn is only possible through the
cooperative action of all of mankind, only as the result of history ‹ and
treats these, ‹ powers as objects: and this, to begin with, is again only
possible in the form of estrangement.
 Man is directly a natural being. As a natural being and as a living natural
 being he is on the one hand endowed with natural powers, vital powers ‹ he is
 an active natural being. These forces exist in him as tendencies and abilities
 ‹ as instincts. On the other hand, as a natural, corporeal, sensuous objective
 being he is a suffering, conditioned and limited creature, like animals and
 plants. That is to say, the objects of his instincts exist outside him, as
 objects independent of him; yet these objects are objects that he needs ‹
 essential objects, indispensable to the manifestation and confirmation of his
 essential powers. To say that man is a corporeal, living, real, sensuous,
 objective being full of natural vigour is to say that he has real, sensuous
 objects as the object of his being or of his life, or that he can only express
 his life in real, sensuous objects

and see " Capital"
A definite quantity of surplus-labour is required as insurance against
accidents, and by the necessary and progressive expansion of the process of
reproduction in keeping with the development of the needs and the growth of
population, which is called accumulation from the viewpoint of the
capitalist. It is one of the civilising aspects of capital that it enforces
this surplus-labour in a manner and under conditions which are more
advantageous to the development of the productive forces, social relations,
and the creation of the elements for a new and higher form than under the
preceding forms of slavery, serfdom, etc. Thus it gives rise to a stage, on
the one hand, in which coercion and monopolisation of social development
(including its material and intellectual advantages) by one portion of
society at the expense of the other are eliminated; on the other hand, it
creates the material means and embryonic conditions, making it possible in a
higher form of society to combine this surplus-labour with a greater
reduction of time devoted to material labour in general. For, depending on
the development of labour productivity, surplus-labour may be large in a
small total working-day, and relatively small in a large total working-day.
If the necessary labour-time=3 and the surplus-labour=3, then the total
working-day=6 and the rate of surplus-labour=100%. If the necessary labour=9
and the surplus-labour=3, then the total working-day=12 and the rate of
surplus-labour only=33 1/3 %. In that case, it depends upon the labour
productivity how much use-value shall be produced in a definite time, hence
also in a definite surplus labour-time. The actual wealth of society, and
the possibility of constantly expanding its reproduction process, therefore,
do not depend upon the duration of surplus-labour, but upon its productivity
and the more or less copious conditions of production under which it is

Re: Re: Re: Re: Productive Forces, was Re: reply-part 2


acknowledged

Melvin P

Re: RE: Productive Forces, was Re: reply-part 2

In a message dated 2/27/2002 4:29:25 PM Central Standard Time, [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:

[EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:

We demand change in society along the direction of the
productive forces,

No. Not true. _Many_ Marxists but by no means all put central emphasis
on the "productive forces." Others argue that this
proposition about the
necessary growth of productive forces applies not to all history (and
certainly not to socialism or communism) but only to capitalism. It is
this drive to unleash the productive forces that turns
capitalism into a
destructive force. See esp. the works of Ellen Meiksins Wood, Edward
Thompson, Raymond Williams, and Robert Brenner.

Carrol

How do we measure the "productive forces," anyway? It seems that capitalism
would measure their development differently from other modes of production.
(Capitalism might measure them in terms of labor productivity, which is
marketable output per worker, corrected for inflation. There are all sorts
of index-number problems with that measure, BTW.)

Jim Devine

My measure of the productive forces would be based on the application of advancing technology that complete the quantitative stages in the development of the infrastructure.

Such a measurement was not possible for me, as a specific quantitative measurement of the industrial infrastructure, with revolutionary significance, until a new qualitative development in technology occurred.

That is to say the advance of technology to electronic-digital from electro-mechanico gives definition to a measurement called "boundary." Manufacture (hand) was a specific boundary. The application of steam (steam engine) a boundary; the development of robotics another boundary to measure the quantitative development of the productive forces. I understood this constituted a quantitative and even qualitative growth - from hand to energy sustained infrastructure outside human energy, but things remained more fuzzy than my current fuzziness.

Most of my life I lack a concept of quantitative boundaries as antagonism and only development this concept over the last three years in a debate over the concept mode of production. Marx speaks of a "certain statge in the development of the forces of production" and I used to fill in the concept "certain stage" with the "crisis of overproduction" as the measurement of society moving in antagonism. Actually, I believe that many of the students of Marx used this incorrect concept of "a certain stage" because the boundary of transition to a new technology was not clear in perception.

Perhaps, in a few years the concept of boundary will turn out to be historically limited or simply incorrect. Something new in production is taking place and in the world of money and pushing the envelope will help to clarify what is new. Man of course is the most revolutionary agent "of" the productive forces.

Nothing ventured nothing gained.

Melvin P.

Re: RE: RE: Productive Forces

In a message dated 2/28/2002 10:06:01 AM Central Standard Time, [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:

I wrote: How do we measure the "productive forces," anyway?

Miyachi writes: We measure productive force by quantity and value of commodities produced. It all. you forget always object people act on. labor productivity itself can't be measured without commodity workers product. An price of commodity is money-form of commodity value, it often hide real value of commodity.

I don't quite get this. Are you saying that productive forces can only be measured in commodity-producing society? If so, I'd agree. This suggests that folks such as G.A. Cohen who see history as a long process of the increase in the "forces of production" (pushed by an assumed human drive to increase such forces) is limited to only those modes of production that produce commodities - mostly, capitalism. Of course, that goes against Cohen's pretensions, which is to present a "theory of history" (which he presents as belonging to Marx) !
which applies to all modes of production.

It also means that "productive forces" aren't always a good thing (a sign of "progress"), since producing more commodities (exchange-value) isn't the same thing as producing more use-value.

Eric N. writes: I would go further. It could be argued that no "objective" measure of the level of productive forces can exist. Presumably a productive force is considered productive because it leads to some good or service that people want and/or need. But, as Smith and Marx recognized, wants and needs are (partly) socially/historically determined

I agree.

Melvin P. writes: My measure of the productive forces would be based on the application of advancing technology that complete the quantitative stages in the development of the infrastructure.

I don't understand this. Are you saying that nowadays that use-values can be quantified, so that use-value productivity (use-value per unit of labor input) can be compared over time and between goods or services produced?

Jim Devine

Yes, use value can be quantified or counted in detail or measured.

I took - perhaps unjustly and incorrectly, liberty with the question "How do we measure the productive forces, anyway?" and reinterpreted it to mean "who do we measure the growth of the productive forces in society, because as historical assertion productive forces evolve?" If this is not the meaning of the question then there is no measurement other than society at a certain period of history produced "X" amount of material services - use-values, for itself, without a previously existing amount of "material services."

I don't suggest that weight has weight or one can ascertain the heaviness of heavy. Therefore the measurement of productive forces is capacity.

I understand the word "productive forces" to mean and embrace man - human beings and instruments and nature or those things man finds in his environment, used in the production of material values or as you state use-values. From this standpoint point a measurement can be made of an existing magnitude of material services - use values, compared with a preexisting magnitude of services or use values.

What I isolated for examination and quantified that reveals a qualitative enhancement of the tools and instruments man use in his environment to produce material services - use value, is not the magnitude of commodities but the specific technology being used today as distinct from 100 years ago, that creates the greater magnitude of use values. The production of a greater magnitude of material services - use values, than previous contain certain features that reveals a "logic" or path of development in the tools as distinct from the environment. In as much as use-values and then commodity production arose before the advent of commodity production on the basis of capitalist appropriation, my specific measurement of the productive forces is a combination of tools and energy that express itself in an increased magnitude.

At each stage of human society energy and tools and their usage delineates why a previously existing magnitude of use-values has been enlarged. The sum totally of all of these tools - instruments of production and man is inseparable from his tools, constitutes the infrastructure of a given society.

Tools and man is the critical ingredient in the productive forces undergoing quantitative and qualitative changes thousands of years before the advent of commodity production on the basis of capitalist appropriation. The plow as opposed to fire or the transition from the hoe to the plow - in my estimate, was a technological revolution that created the productive forces as an infrastructure transforming a collective of humans into

Re: RE: Productive Forces

In a message dated 2/28/2002 8:56:25 AM Central Standard Time, [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:

Jim wrote,

I would go further. It could be argued that no "objective" measure of the level of productive forces can exist.

Presumably a productive force is considered productive because it leads to some good or service that people want and/or need. But, as Smith and Marx recognized, wants and needs are (partly) socially/historically determined.

The ability to produce cell phones at lower cost (and the same quality) would be considered an advance in the productive forces if people wanted cheaper cell phones. But if people, for some reason, decided they no longer wanted cell phones the ability to produce cheaper cell phones would not be considered an advance in productive forces.

The level, and rate of growth, of the productive forces is subjectively determined. Further, if people can be convinced that they no longer want what the machines and tools and technology of their society produces they might come to see the productive forces within their society as regressing.

The implication of the above for a theory that sees the development of the productive forces as the motor of historical development is not good.

Eric

Is not human beings the decisive element in the production forces?

Melvin P.

Re: On the necessity/Sam Webb article

2002-03-03 Thread Waistline2

In a message dated 2/28/2002 4:20:02 PM Central Standard Time, [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:

Here is a more complete reply to the article by Mr. Webb.

-clip-. Mr. Webb article is devoid
of any logic that something new has taken place in the world of economics in
my opinion - and elementary logic.

CB: This article is pretty limited in scope. There are discussions of the scientific and technological revolution of the last 40 years or so is elsewhere, in spades.

I, of course deeply respect your point of view and value all your comments.

To the question of my use of the term boundary in describing certain changes in the economy, what is meant is "something or a complex of things that establish the limits or extent to a configuration." In the most general sense a boundary is the points of delineation that denotes a move or transition from one specific framework of operation to another. Applied to the productive process boundary denotes changes in how production takes place.

For instance the development from manufacture (the predominance of human energy - hand, and tools, as distinct from machinery) to the growing predominance of machine production driven by an external energy source (external to human biology organized in the individual) and with it the aggregation of working people under "one roof" is a transition or the crossing of a specific boundary in the production process.

There are times when we use the same word and me something very different. For instance the words "class struggle" for me means more than the "struggle of classes." Below is an article dug up from seven years ago that might throw some light on the subject.

[Editor's note: The following is an excerpted version of remarks made by Nelson Peery, a member of the Political Committee of the National Organizing Committee, to the Midwest Conference on Technology, Employment and Community held in Chicago March 2-4, 1995.]

Thank you very much for the opportunity to speak to this conference on high technology and society. This is no small accomplishment for a person who, in his youth, had worked with a plow and a horse.

Perhaps only a person who has done such work has seen enough changes in the economy and consequently in society to visualize what the current on-going historic changes in the economy mean for our social future. I would like to skip a description of the millions of homeless, the tens of millions of jobless, the acres of burned-out neighborhoods, the slaughter of our youth, the "in your face" looting of the public treasury, the decline of education and the threatening complete elimination of social services.

The important thing is to understand why this is happening and what the political results are bound to be. When and why did government grow big with the alphabet programs and when and why did it suddenly need to shed itself of these programs?

The major task of government is to create the structural programs and policies that allow the economy to function. For example, when the government was the instrument of the farmers, that government did the things necessary to protect and expand the farm. The Indians were cleared from the fertile lands, slavery was protected and extended, shipping lanes for exports were cleared and frontiers expanded. As the farm gave way to industry, the government transformed itself into a committee to take care of the new needs of industry.

At that point, government began to grow. Industry needed literate workers, so the school system expanded under a Secretary of Education. The army needed healthy young men to fight the wars brought on by industrial expansion, so a school lunch program was started. As industry got big, a Department of Housing and Urban Development provided order to the chaotic, burgeoning cities it created. In other words, government became big government in order to serve the needs of industry, as it became big industry.

The workers were kept relatively healthy and the unemployed were warehoused in such a manner as to keep them available for work with every industrial expansion.

Now the rub. New means of production changed the game. Not only were expanding sections of the working class superfluous to production, but also the new mode of high-tech production no longer needed a reserve army of the unemployed. Nor did it need healthy young men for infantry war. As industry gave way to the new electronic means of production, it downsized. The government necessarily had to follow suit.

As the application of these new scientific marvels to the workplace expanded, a new economic category, the structurally unemployed, was created. Some 150 years ago, Marx and Engels coined the term "the reserve army of the unemployed." This was the industrial reserve to be thrown into the battle for production as the need arose. The structurally unemployed were something different. They were a new, growing, permanently unemployed sector created by the new, emerging economic

Free trade and auto industry

2002-03-04 Thread Waistline2



  How the hell can W pretend to be in favor of the wonders of
 free trade
  and want to put the imports on steel, just to get Ohio, PA and
 WV votes?

Because it's about --and has been since at least as far back as Bush
I--managed trade, not free trade and not fair trade That is, managed trade
to benefit the vested interests able to buy access to the two political
parties

If you have lived in Japan as I have and have followed US-Japan trade
relations over the past 12 years, you would have no illusions about what
'globalization' actually means to the US of Carlyle Group

Next, do you think that the US gov't is going to embrace free trade and let
Toyota, Honda, and Nissan wipe out Ford and GM? Sure, credit deals are
pumping up the GM bottom line, but let's face it, if given a free trade
choice most Americans would choose Japanese cars This has been true since
the quota era of the 1980s (in which there were quotas on Japanese cars and
Japanese memory chips, and a constant barrage of 'dumping charges' against
everything else)

If the US loses another WTO case, so what? It can just say liberalization of
'networked, integrated' services (telecommunications, financials, and I
guess Enron-markets) is the priority here

Charles Jannuzi


Would most people in America choose a vehicle made in Japan or by Japanese 
producers? I believe so because vehicles produced in America by American 
based producer are inferior from every point of view The Toyota production 
or operating system remains the general benchmark in the industry We chased 
this system of production for twenty years, to no avail By the word we is 
meant the workers and management in the Chrysler Group and most certainly the 
union leadership at the highest level Here is the intersection of interest 
and conflict 

On a level playing field - meaning excluding monetary policy, the Japanese 
producers are a generation ahead of the US based manufacture and in all 
probability will never be caught The reason for this is superior products, 
which expresses a different conception of totality in the production process 
Not simply that US automakers are more profit driven, short sighted and have 
what manifest itself as a hatred for the workforce, but a fundamentally 
different conception of totality

You can open the door of a Toyota and shut it and literally hear and feel the 
difference The attention to detail and precision is outstanding and the 
seasoned workers in the industry have nothing but admiration for the 
excellence of these products Yet, the worker in the states demand for 
continued employment is inherently tied to his employer's survival in the 
market Hence, the demand protection against workers producing a superior 
product that consumers want to purchase Such is the logic of the economic 
basis of the trade union movement, from which there is no escape 

Workers lobbying Congress for protection is not false consciousness but a 
fundamental boundary of this particular segment of the trade union movement 
The living connection of worker and capitalist congealed in the social 
product is a boundary misunderstood - in my opinion, by much of the movement 
associated with the name of Marx and socialism in general The industrial 
proletariat is tied to the industrial capitalist and breaking the 
connection is impossible within the boundary of our current property 
relations

It has not been that long ago that the huckster Lee Iacocca waged the 
campaign to demonize Japan and convince our citizens that buying the best 
product undermined the US economy  Behind The Wheel At Chrysler: The 
Iacocca Legacy by Doron P Levin is excellent in describing the inner life 
of the Chrysler Group and the organic interactive relationship of employed 
and employer 

Perhaps ten years ago my older brother was sent to Japan as part of the union 
delegation to study their production system Besides falling in love with the 
Japanese autoworkers he fell in love with the country and was invited into 
their homes and back alleys of life the rest of his delegation was excluded 
from  Contrary to his esteemed delegation, he preferred riding the subways 
and traveling the back alleys and after several days some of the children 
would wing on his massive arms - which he insisted upon, while on the subway 
His anaylsis of the Toyota and Honda production system was radically 
different than the report of the management delegation and most of his union 
brothers, who insist that the Japanese workers are treated like a slave 

He basically reported to Bob Eaton - at the time Chairman of the Corporation, 
that in the US we are treated like slaves and management lacks any conception 
of the totality of the production process and will never catch up to the 
superior quality of the Japanese producers He began with the conception of 
the facility itself; the conception of machinery and defining precision; the 
conception of the relationship of human being to space - ergonomics; the

Re: Re: Suppression of Marx

2002-03-04 Thread Waistline2

In a message dated 3/4/2002 7:17:33 AM Central Standard Time, [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:


MARX AND HIS POSTERITY

Admittedly the founder of what has been the working-class movement shares
some responsibility in the confusion of the thought that is meant to be
Marxist or Marxism-related. But he did not deserve to get zealots completely
lacking of critical judgment as heirs. Marx experienced as a genuine
intellectual the throes of the contradiction that let its work unfinished
fourteen years before his death. As soon as he came up against it, far from
denying it as his epigones today do, and despite a lot of other sufferings,
he looked for resolving it, while refusing to publish anything as long as it
would not be overcome, going as far as hiding his manuscripts from his close
relatives and friends. Engels's and Lafargue's accounts are in this respect
quite definite.

Only Rosa Luxemburg, another great intellectual, was not afraid of
confronting this contradiction, while opening moreover a track to its
solution. Then, Marxism was made up of two intellectual streams, each of
them issuing from one term of the contradiction. One of them was based on
the metaphysic of absolute "surplus value". The other one, without formally
rejecting that metaphysic, took root in the scientific part of Marx's work,
the "trending profit rate to fall", which the so-called absolute
surplus-value plays no part in.

The so-called "absolute surplus value", issuing mysteriously from the work
of each wage-earning, suggests a mechanism of endogenous accumulation that a
priori excludes any limit to the process. In other words, "capitalism" could
be considered as being enabled to regenerate by itself indefinitely. What
lead, within the surplus-value stream, to a break between a reformist
secondary stream and a revolutionary one, the one concluding that socialism
had to fit into the scheme of an almost eternal capitalism, the other that
it had to put an end to capitalism, and that the only way of doing it was
the subversion of the bourgeois political power. The first ones have kept,
until today, the appellation of "social democrats", the second ones the
appellation of "Marxists-Leninists".

As for her, Rosa Luxemburg, although she hoped and prayed for the
"proletarian revolution", had understood that the accumulation could not be
endogenous and on the contrary needed an expansion within space, what was
attested by colonialism. She logically concluded that this expansionism was
necessarily to come up against a deadline, should it be in last resort the
planetary one. In other words, "capitalism" was necessarily to one day enter
a crisis of which it could not getting out. This thesis had to experience a
censorship and a purgatory that are continuing.

First, social democrats pilloried it after its printing. After what the
Leninists took over them. Today again, the ones and the others maintain Rosa
Luxemburg's main work (Die Akkumulation des Kapitals, 1913) under a burden
of ignorance, of silence and of contempt. This attitude is quite coherent
with the vocabulary that gathers now the enemy brothers: development,
progress, democracy, fight against inequalities, citizenship. A vocabulary
which is quite out of step with reality, but which can be understood as
being an exorcism against the fear of future. And this infantilization of
thought does not allow neither social democrats, nor residual Leninists to
admit that history has agreed with Rosa Luxemburg, against them.

Social democrats saw a stable world in which democracy and progress should
settle all conflicts. As for him, Lenin saw a world forever divided by the
conflicts of interests between the various empires, continuing at the
planetary scale the class conflicts of within each of them, and that only
the dictatorship of the proletariat was able to unite and pacify. For her
part, Rosa Luxemburg saw an indistinct imperialism relentlessly continuing
the colonizing process, out of necessity. A necessity from accumulation.

Between this two conceptions, history has decided. The dictatorship of
proletariat is a failure and a persistent after-tragedy, and the USA have
put an end to the conflicts between imperialists, by exerting a leadership
with which all of them have agreed totally (except general de Gaulle's
interlude) and have even demanded. Finally, under IMF's management, the
"globalization" is restoring the colonialist subjection and even extending
it, as a trend, to all countries.

But of the two original Marxist streams, it is the weakest, the most
disconnected from reality, which today continues Marxism. Really, the author
of Capital deserved another posterity.

Romain Kroës



Karl Marx "Preface to a Contribution to a Critique of Political Economy," states the following: 

"Then begins an epoch of social revolution. With the change of the economic foundation the entire immense superstructure is more or less rapidly transformed. In considering such transformations a distinction

Re: Question to Various comments in In Digest 77

In a message dated 3/4/2002 11:57:49 AM Central Standard Time, [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:

Question to Various comments in In Digest 77
by Davies, Daniel

-clip-
And whatever else
one thinks about Cohen's work, I think he has to be right that Marx had a
theory of history, and that this theory of history was materialsit and based
on the productive forces.

'course, I never understood dialectics, so I may be talking out of my hole.

CB: Doesn't _The Manifesto of the Communist Party_ make it pretty clear that Marx's theory of history is rooted in the relations of production aspect of the forces of production, the division of labor, and the class struggle? History is a history of class struggles, not technological innovations. Since producers are part of the forces of production, it is their development that is in the forces of production that makes history, and historical revolutions.

What compels classes to struggle or what defines the context in which classes struggle throughout history? Many things is a good answer. How does one delineate one period of history from another or rather I fall on the side of the equation that gives predominance to "man" as he is materially active identified on the basis of a specific technology. Perhaps I have been in the factory to long.

Marx Capital states:

"It is one of the civilizing aspects of capital that it enforces this surplus-labour in a manner and under conditions which are more advantageous to the development of the productive forces, social relations, and the creation of the elements for a new and higher form than under the precedingforms of slavery, serfdom, etc. Thus it gives rise to a stage, on the one hand, in which coercion and monopolization of social development (including its material and intellectual advantages) by one portion of society at the expense of the other are eliminated; on the other hand, it creates the
material means and embryonic conditions, making it possible in a higher form
of society to combine this surplus-labour with a greater reduction of time
devoted to material labor in general. For, depending on the development of
labor productivity, surplus-labour may be large in a small total
working-day, and relatively small in a large total working-day. If the
necessary labour-time = 3 and the surplus-labour = 3, then the total
working-day = 6 and the rate of surplus-labour = 100%. If the necessary labour = 9
and the surplus-labor = 3, then the total working-day = 12 and the rate of
surplus-labour only = 33 1/3 %. In that case, it depends upon the labor
productivity how much use-value shall be produced in a definite time, hence
also in a definite surplus labor-time. The actual wealth of society, and
the possibility of constantly expanding its reproduction process, therefore,
do not depend upon the duration of surplus-labour, but upon its productivity
and the more or less copious conditions of production under which it is
performed. In fact, the realm of freedom actually begins only where labor
which is determined by necessity and mundane considerations ceases; thus in
the very nature of things it lies beyond the sphere of actual material
production. Just as the savage must wrestle with Nature to satisfy his
wants, to maintain and reproduce life, so must civilized man, and he must do
so in all social formations and under all possible modes of production. With
his development this realm of physical necessity expands as a result of his
wants; but, at the same time, the forces of production which satisfy these
wants also increase. Freedom in this field can only consist in socialized
man, the associated producers, rationally regulating their interchange with
Nature, bringing it under their common control, instead of being ruled by it
as by the blind forces of Nature; and achieving this with the least
expenditure of energy and under conditions most favorable to, and worthy
of, their human nature. But it nonetheless still remains a realm of
necessity. Beyond it begins that development of human energy which is an end
in itself, the true realm of freedom, which, however, can blossom forth only
with this realm of necessity as its basis. The shortening of the working-day
is its basic prerequisite."

I read the statement

"The actual wealth of society, and the possibility of constantly expanding its reproduction process, therefore, do not depend upon the duration of surplus-labour, but upon its productivity and the more or less copious conditions of production under which it is performed,"

with emphasis on productivity as in instruments i.e. technology, as distinct from duration or intensifying the biological human energy or lengthening the work day. Or "expanding . . . reproduction process" revolves on the axis of technological innovation that comes from the mind of humanity.

I understand the statement

"Freedom in this field can only consist in socialized man, the associated producers, rationally regulating their interchange with

Re: Re: Re: Re: Suppression of Marx

In a message dated 3/5/2002 6:14:29 AM Central Standard Time, [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:


Dear Melvin, before becoming a researcher, I was a worker and an Union
leader, like you. And I believed in "historical materialism", too. I
believed in it, because having not yet visited history by myself, I trusted
Marx and Engels about the progressive evolution of society, the consciences,
productive forces and superstructures altogether. But after more than 25
years of research, I know, now, that Marx and Engels had been mistaken. Like
anybody in their century, they were impressed by the exploding "productive
forces" of Industrial Revolution. And they concluded that if the development
of productive forces was a cumulative process, so was the social development
too. But it was a pure metaphysical reasoning, out of any historical
material. Nevertheless, they got an important intuition: the intuition of
something irreversible in human economy, the intuition of entropy. Rosa
Luxemburg has begun to give this intuition an explicit expression, by
showing the strictly exogenous origin of accumulation.

The expansion within space (the geographical one and the sociological one)
is concretely attested by historians from the very beginning of the known
history, whatever be the "mode of production". The motor of this expansion
is always the asymmetry of exchanges between the places of accumulation and
the periphery of raw-material extraction and working-force exploitation (see
Immanuel Wallerstein: "The modern World system", and Guillermo Algaze: "The
Uruk World System"). That explains expansionism, imperialism,
inter-imperialist competition, first and second world wars, then today's
emergence of a single occidental imperialism and of its "globalization".

The asymmetry of exchanges are reflected by a systematically negative
balance of trade of the pole of accumulation. That is attested for Athens,
Rome, 16th century Europe, England, France, Germany, then today's USA, that
is for all imperialist poles of accumulation. Such is reality, and not a
"class struggle" that has never been so deliquescent than now.

Soviet Union has imploded. New Russia has become a source of raw material
for the occidental empire. China, a source of cheap working force. All
communist parties have been recuperated by social-democrat ones, or
atomized. Marxism-Leninism is an historical defeat, because its theoretical
base was wrong. We have to admit that, in order to "understand the world".

Is accumulation endogenous or exogenous? That is the question. Marx's
surplus value (the "absolute" one) postulates an endogenous accumulation. As
it is included in the revenue per capita, it enables capital to endlessly
make profit without any crisis other than wage earners going on strike. But
that does not explain overproduction crises, expansionism, colonialism,
imperialism. Actually, this so called "surplus-value" is not a
surplus-value. It is indeed a tribute paid by labour force, but it is
already included in the investment, as Keynes demonstrated it. It enriches
the capitalists, but does not take any part in global accumulation of
capital. That is to say globally cumulative profit comes from the
multiplication of labour force, not from the individual exploitation. And
then can be explained expansionism, etc.

Marx and Engels have come up against a contradiction between their intuition
of the "limit" and their theory of accumulation that is nothing but the
classical-economy one which depends on the good will of the "saver". Rosa
Luxemburg surpassed this contradiction, but Lenin did not.
Don't trust people who continue talking about "class struggle" that they
never experienced and that they only met in the books.

Salute and brotherhood,

Romain Kroës



"Is accumulation endogenous or exogenous? That is the question."

For me personally this is a difficult question, whish I cannot grasp as stated, although I understand or rather imagine I understand the inner logic of what is being asked. The question is reformulated in my mind, perhaps incorrectly, because my political posture is dogmatic or rather rigid, or cloaked in the mythology of the "philosophic" method of how I understand Marx approach. 

"Don't trust people who continue talking about "class struggle" that they never experienced and that they only met in the books" is my rule of thumb in discussions about the perception of the various currents in modern society. Every cry or conflict over injustice, violence or abuse is not necessarily the "class struggle" in my opinion. Actually, I have never experienced what I understand to be the meaning of class struggle in my life, but rather various currents in society struggle against their perception of injustice and this struggle unfolding within the "space" of the political environment, conditioned by "endogenous or exogenous" forces of accumulation. 

I do agreed the Leninism is primarily a political doctrine of insurgency born under conditions of a war

Re: Question to Various comments in In Digest 77


In a message dated Tue, 5 Mar 2002 11:51:56 AM Eastern Standard Time, Charles Brown 
[EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:

 Question to Various comments in In Digest 77
 by Waistline2
 05 March 2002 12:09 UTC  
 
 
 CB: Doesn't _The Manifesto of the Communist Party_ make it pretty clear that Marx's 
theory of history is rooted in the relations of production aspect of the forces of 
production, the division of labor, and the class struggle?  History is a history of 
class struggles, not technological innovations. Since producers are part of the 
forces of production, it is their development that is in the forces of production 
that makes history, and historical revolutions.
 
 
 
 
 Melvin:
 What compels classes to struggle or what defines the context in which classes 
struggle throughout history? Many things is a good answer. How does one delineate one 
period of history from another or rather I fall on the side of the equation that 
gives predominance to man as he is materially active identified on the basis of a 
specific technology. Perhaps I have been in the factory to long. 
 
 Marx Capital states:
 
 It is one of the civilizing aspects of capital that it enforces this surplus-labour 
in a manner and under conditions which are more advantageous to the development of 
the productive forces, social relations,
 
 ^
 
 CB: Here's a reference to relations of production.  Like any opposition, at some 
point, forces and relations of production interpenetrate.
 
 ^
 
  and the creation of the elements for a new and higher form than under the 
precedingforms of slavery, serfdom, etc. Thus it gives rise to a stage, on the one 
hand, in which coercion and monopolization of social development (including its 
material and intellectual advantages) by one portion of society at the expense of the 
other are eliminated; on the other hand, it creates the
 material means and embryonic conditions, making it possible in a higher form
 of society to combine this surplus-labour with a greater reduction of time
 devoted to material labor in general. For, depending on the development of
 labor productivity, surplus-labour may be large in a small total
 working-day, and relatively small in a large total working-day. If the
 necessary labour-time = 3 and the surplus-labour = 3, then the total
 working-day = 6 and the rate of surplus-labour = 100%. If the necessary labour = 9
 and the surplus-labor = 3, then the total working-day = 12 and the rate of
 surplus-labour only = 33 1/3 %. In that case, it depends upon the labor
 productivity how much use-value shall be produced in a definite time, hence
 also in a definite surplus labor-time. The actual wealth of society, and
 the possibility of constantly expanding its reproduction process, therefore,
 do not depend upon the duration of surplus-labour, but upon its productivity
 and the more or less copious conditions of production under which it is
 performed. In fact, the realm of freedom actually begins only where labor
 which is determined by necessity and mundane considerations ceases; thus in
 the very nature of things it lies beyond the sphere of actual material
 production. Just as the savage must wrestle with Nature to satisfy his
 wants, to maintain and reproduce life, so must civilized man, and he must do
 so in all social formations and under all possible modes of production. With
 his development this realm of physical necessity expands as a result of his
 wants; but, at the same time, the forces of production which satisfy these
 wants also increase. Freedom in this field can only consist in socialized
 man, the associated producers, rationally regulating their interchange with
 Nature, bringing it under their common control, instead of being ruled by it
 as by the blind forces of Nature; and achieving this with the least
 expenditure of energy and under conditions most favorable to, and worthy
 of, their human nature. But it nonetheless still remains a realm of
 necessity. Beyond it begins that development of human energy which is an end
 in itself, the true realm of freedom, which, however, can blossom forth only
 with this realm of necessity as its basis. The shortening of the working-day
 is its basic prerequisite.
 
 
 
 I read the statement 
 
 The actual wealth of society, and the possibility of constantly expanding its 
reproduction process, therefore, do not depend upon the duration of surplus-labour, 
but upon its productivity and the more or less copious conditions of production under 
which it is performed, 
 
 with emphasis on productivity as in instruments i.e. technology, as distinct from 
duration or intensifying the biological human energy or lengthening the work day. Or 
expanding . . . reproduction process revolves on the axis of technological 
innovation that comes from the mind of humanity. 
 
 
 I understand the statement 
 
 Freedom in this field can only consist in socialized man, the associated producers, 
rationally regulating their interchange

Re: Re: Question Romain K.


Question: Why is historical materialism in quotes? And is this different from what 
Engels call the materialist conception of history in Anti-Durhing? 


Melvin P.

Re: Re: Peter

2002-03-06 Thread Waistline2


In a message dated Tue, 5 Mar 2002  5:33:55 PM Eastern Standard Time, Peter Dorman 
[EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:

 Right.  I argued in Actually Existing Globalization (published in a collection a
 few years ago) that industrial policy is ultimately understandable only as
 technology policy, but that the era of national technology (or innovation) systems
 is largely over.  At the time I reviewed some of the literature pro and con; I
 think there are some references in my article.  I'll be glad to send an electronic
 copy to anyone interested.
 
 Peter
 
 Bill Rosenberg wrote:
 
  Is anyone familiar with the National Systems of Innovation approach to
  economic development?  The Labour/Alliance government has announced an economic
  strategy which is said to owe much to this. I understand that Chris Freeman
  (UK), Bengt-Åke Lundvall (Denmark), Charles Edquist (Sweden) and Richard Nelson
  (New York) are leaders in the field. Any views would be welcome.
 
  Bill




Please Send copy of paper.



Melvin P

Re: Against existing socialist contry

2002-03-07 Thread Waistline2


MIYACHI TATSUO, is this an accurate translation of pen-l: 23629? Reply to 
follow in separate comment.


I think that Roemer's limit is about money. He doesn't refer to abolish
money.

In  Critique of the Gotha programme Marx point out that in socialist
society exchange through (using?) money does not exist.

MIYACHI TATSUO
9-10.OHTAI, MORIYAMA-KU
NAGOYA CITY
463-0044

JAPAN
[EMAIL PROTECTED]
Comrade
There are many debate about market socialism, economic character of
Cuba, evaluation of Roemer, etc.

We (BUND a faction of new left) have already defined the present world as 
Transitional world, which includes defining existing socialist, or 
communist
country as transitional country toward socialism, and capitalist countries as
credit capital countries, which begins contradictory evolution towards
association society. Therefore, our definition does not recognize any 
socialist
countries existed. 

Below is published in 1978 in order to summarize critique of USSR China
party. It can go under current situation.

MIYACHI TATSUO
Psychiatric Department
KOMAKI MUNICIPAL HOSPITAL
JOHBUSHI, 1-20
KOMAKI CITY
AICHI Pre
JAPAN
0568-76-4131
[EMAIL PROTECTED]


study of the criticism against the  gang of the Four by the Chinese
Communist Party

A. Criticism by Wu Lien

The china-Soviet dispute can be traced back to the 20th convention pf the
CPSU in 1956, but it did not become public until 1963. The CCP formed a
different view on distribution according to labor from that of the CPSU in 
the
process of faction struggle with the CPSU about their termination of
socialistic reform by enlargement of people's communes.
This unique view has much to do with the problem whether there are classes
and class struggle, whether there is a need for proletarian dictatorship in a
socialist society, and particularly in China and also whether socialism is a 
reality
in present Soviet or Chinese society.

Wu Lien's article which was published in 1960 in  the study of
economics; no. 5 defines socialist society as a transitional society from
the view-point that in a socialist society there are classes, two roads,
and a need for the power of the proletarian dictatorship.

 Wu Lien argue that the whole process of transformation from a capitalist
society to a higher stage of communist society is the transitional period
and, therefore, so is the socialist society which is the first stage of
communism. 

(Wu Lien does not emphasize the necessity of the proletariat
dictatorship. The CCP came to emphasize its necessity after the CPSU declared
the dissolution of the proletarian dictatorship and the establishment of
 the whole people's state at the 22nd Congress of the CPSU in October,
961).

Wu Lien's argument confronted the revisionist nature of Khrushchev's
policy in the 20th Congress of the CPSU where the general move from a
socialist society to a higher state of communism was discussed, and it
became a weapon of criticism against the dissolution of the proletarian
dictatorship at the 22nd Congress.

Wu Lien's understanding on distribution according to labor is, however,
based on a subjective interpretation of the birth-marks of the old society
and bourgeois right described in  Critique of the Gotha Programme.
The criticism by the CCP in the China-Soviet is politically correct, but
some subjective interpretation in it should be corrected.

In Critique of the Gotha Programme, Marx's description of socialist
society states that it is ...still stamped with the birthmarks of the
old society from whose womb it emerges 
 Wu Lien in turn, depicts the birth-marks of the old society as
follows.

  This remnant of the old society appears in every aspect of the
socialist production relationship. First, in the field of possession of
production means, although economic ownership by all the people has done
away with bourgeois right in relation to production means, due to the
influence of the socialist material interest principle, there is an
incentive wage system in national corporations, in which a small portion of
the profits is used fro the welfare of a group of employee to individuals,
and here a bourgeois right is retained. At the same time, at a certain stage
of socialism i.e. at an undeveloped stage, there are two types of joint
ownership-economic ownership by all the people and socialist collective
ownership. Socialist collective ownership is what negates private ownership,
and there production means are basically public-owned and no exploitation is
allowed... Collective ownership is, however, a transitional forms of
economy from private possession to economic ownership by all the people, and
when compared to economic ownership by all the people, it has quite a few
remnants and traces of private ownership. This is because members of a
commune still have their own holdings of land and their tools-avocations.
Collective economy itself still has traces of private ownership. That is,
in collective ownership common property is still low and its

Re: Against existing socialist contry

2002-03-07 Thread Waistline2



MIYACHI TATSUO, your quote is too long to reproduce. 




The only booklet I keep at reaching distance from the period of the 
Sino-Soviet debate is On Khrushchev's Phony Communism and its historical 
lessons for the World, Comment on the open letter of the Central Committee 
of the CPSU, Foreign Languages Press Peking 1964. The price on the inside 
page is .25 cent - this was a long time ago. 

I believe you state the heart of the factional fight in China, in the context 
of the spilt in the socialist community as follows:  


 If the reviewer states that distribution according to labor has been
realized in China and deducts  materialistic interest from this
distribution principle, it is the same as Khrushchev's revisionism. In
present China, it is necessary to organize materialistic interest and to
maintain certain wage differences. But this necessity does not come from
distribution according to labor. It is necessary to realize, in the
transitional period, that modernization of industry and agriculture is
needed for the development toward a socialist society. The necessity to
organize materialistic interest is determined by economic need for
modernization and for the increase of labor productivity. It depend on the
CCP's policy whether this modernization and the increase of labor
productivity will be utilized for the development of socialistic elements. 
If
it deduces this economic need from the principle of distribution according
to labor and claims it to be a socialistic element, the CCP like the
CPSU cannot develop socialistic elements through modernization and
increase of labor activity.

As I understand the totality of the presentation, the conclusion is:

In order to reform this ownership in the direction of common ownership of
policies of the party.

   After the downfall of the Gang of the Four, the economic development
stage of China made it necessary for the CCP to adopt material interest
In order to realize the Four Modernization.  But it is revisionism to
derive this material interest from the socialist principle of
distribution according to labor and to define it as a socialist element.
This revisionism must be severely criticized.

Whether the Four Modernization leads to the development of socialistic
element or to the resurrection of capitalist element the CCP, to take the
first step must criticize Stalin's doctrine of socialism, recover that of
Marxism and conquer the Stalinist limitation of Maoism.


Further, it is my understanding that the criticism of Soviet socialism is 

 Nationalization and collective ownership does not mean the completion of
socialistic reform of ownership. Socialistic ownership is nothing else than
common ownership of producers, and state and collective ownership is what
must be further reformed toward this.

From this I read that the criticism of Stalin's theory is misunderstanding 
the law of value. 

Stalin looked on nationalization of production means in industry and
the formation of collective ownership in agriculture as completion of
socialist reformation in ownership, and prescribed that the USSR had reached
the first stage of communism. Due to this definition, he was forced to come
up with a new theory that allowed commodity production and value law in a
socialist society, and thus he revised the Marx's view of communist society.


By Stalin creating a new theory of value I understand this as a critique of 
sections 1 -  7 of Economic Problems of Socialism in the USSR.  I believe 
that Stalin's description of the law of value as a law of commodity 
production (distinct from simply being a law of capitalist commodity 
production) is correct. This statement is conditioned on using existing 
conditions and concepts at the time they were made. After the communist won 
the political and military contest and began implementing public property 
relations in industry, the task was building the material basis of/for 
socialism. I understand the words material basis of/for socialism to mean 
the development of the industrial infrastructure, specifically what has been 
called heavy industry as the fundamentality for the creation of a light 
industry or what is called in America the consumer industry and economy or 
personal items of consumption. 

Half a century after the descriptions in Economic Problems of Socialism in 
the USSR were made, the further progressive accumulation of the productive 
forces allows further assessment and creates new possibilities. 

The theoretical problem as I understand your presentation, rivets on the use 
of money as a mediator and expression of congealed labor in the exchange, and 
for circulation and individual possession of products. 

Right can never be higher than the economic structure of society and its 
cultural development conditioned thereby  (Section 1 Critique) and in the 
next paragraph Marx point out the higher phase (as opposed to my use of the 
word stage they are not the same) he speaks of human development

Re: Re: Re: Re: Question Romain K.

2002-03-07 Thread Waistline2


In a message dated Thu, 7 Mar 2002  6:45:01 PM Eastern Standard Time, Carrol Cox 
[EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:

 
 
 Romain Kroes wrote:
  
  Because historical materialism has become a label.
 
 I don't get it. Literary Criticism has become a label. Frying Bacon
 has become a label. We still don't usually put them in scare quotes.
 
 And if your point is that it names lots of contradictory things -- is
 ambiguous: so is every other word and phrase in the language, all of
 which need to be defined in context. So what are you getting at?
 
 Consider a book title: Democracy Against Capitalism: Renewing Historical
 Materialism. Would you argue that Meiksins Wood should have entitled her
 book, _Democracy Against Capitalism_ Renewing Historical Materialism_?
 But that wouldn't do, There are other labels in that title. Perhaps she
 should have entitled it _Democracy Against Capitalism: Renewing
 Historical Materialism_. Would that satisfy you? Or should the last
 two words have been 'Historical' 'Materialism'?
 
 Carrol




If Pen-L does not offer any annual awards may I suggest a semi-annual award for best 
reply? I submit the above as the best laugh I had had in days. 

The above reply deserves one of Stan Lee's authentic poka-dot giant size no-prize, 
gift wrapped to boot. It doesn't get any better than this.


I am going to try and be really, really careful and start putting footnotes in 
everything. 

Melvin P.

Re: Enough already: Marx vs. Roemer

2002-03-12 Thread Waistline2


In a message dated Mon, 11 Mar 2002  5:10:05 PM Eastern Standard Time, Justin 
Schwartz [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:

 Keep saying, it Charles, and maybe people will believe it. However, you've 
 worn me out, so you must be right, Marx solved all our problems, and I 
 embrace the true faith and swear on the hammer and sickle never to doubt the 
 LTV or write any more recipes for future cookshops. Just kidding. But I am 
 worn out on these topics. The LTV doesn't even interest me that much, and I 
 have set market socialism on a back burner for a bit. Call me what you like, 
 I don't see these discussions going anywhere. We don't convince each othe, 
 and I don't even think we much illuminate each other, except for the stray 
 post, like your nice last on SV. So let it go, let it go. So, denounce and 
 expose me as fraud, a faker, a cowardly bourgeouis sell-out, I don't care, 
 I'm tired, I was up all night, I quit. If you have questions about issues 
 raised in my papers other than these, which were not central to those 
 papersa nd were not discussed in them except incidentally, I'll address them 
 if I have anything to say. I won't ride your hobbyhorses any more.
 
 jks
 
 From: Charles Brown [EMAIL PROTECTED]
 Reply-To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
 To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
 Subject: [PEN-L:23841] Marx vs. Roemer
 Date: Mon, 11 Mar 2002 16:36:46 -0500
 
   Marx vs. Roemer
 by Justin Schwartz
 08 March 2002 17:08 UTC
 
 
 
 Marx was wrong not to
  want to write recipes for the cookshops of the future and
  
  ^^^
  
  CB: I take it you mean that a coherent and defensible notion of
  exploitation AS SOMETHING THAT IS WRONG WITH CAPITALISM must be opposed 
 by
  Marx with a superior socialist alternative. So, you this is a sort of
  philosophical version of Thatcherite TINA.
 
 Justin : No, it;s the obverse of TINA. TINA is ana rgument for capitalism. 
 To refute
 it, you have to show TIAA.
 
 ^^^
 
 CB: Yes, the obverse.  Marx does show a TIAA as much as you do. You don't 
 demonstrate the viability of market socialism any better than Marx 
 demonstrates the viability of non-market socialism, planned socialism.
 
 ^^^
 
 
 
Seems something of an overstatement to say that Marx didn't give us very
 important elements of communism: no state, no war, no poverty. That's an
 enormously superior alternative to capitalism as it has actually existed.
  
  
 
 Justin: No, anyone can list a pie in the sky story about hwo wonderful 
 things will
 be if only. What is need to show TIAA is to specidy the institiuonal
 structure in outlinew ithout enough detail to answer plausible objections.
 If it won't work in theory,w hy think it will work in practice?
 
 
 ^^^
 
 CB: But your version is as much pie in the sky and wonderful things. Marx's 
 version does work in theory. Your objections to his theory fail.
 
 ^
 
 
 
(b) that the labor
  theory of value, in the form Marx uses it, is indefensible
  
  
  ^
  CB: Indefensible from what ?  Everytime you raise some attack , it has
  been very readily refuted. The whole discussion of doubly free labor,
  labor as a commodity, labor as the source of all new value  stands up in
  the face of what you say. You haven't raised any successful arguments
  against Marx's law of value, and whole theory of value.
  
 
 Justin: I don't awntto get into this. Obviously I don;t agree, and you 
 won't agree,
 so let's leave it, eh? I see no point in spinning our wheels on this one.
 
 
 ^^^
 
 CB: You do get into it all the time. You keep claiming that Marx's theory 
 doesn't work out in theory, but it does. If you don't demonstrate it, then 
 I might as well keep pointing out that you haven't demonstrated it. You 
 keep asserting that Marx's theory doesn't work out ,but you don't support 
 your assertion. You must be constantly called on that.
 
 ^
 
 
 
 
 
  
 Charles: When I started that with your paper in front of me, you ended the 
 thread.
 What's up on that ? I mean you can summarily assert said validity, but it 
 is
 a fake move not to discuss the specifics of your paper. Now a few of the
 concepts have come out here and there over many discussions, so some of 
 what
 you have said has been responded to here. I have not yet seen a point where
 Marx did not seem to have the better of the disagreement with you. I will
 address the specifics of your paper, but it is shell game to refuse to
 discuss it.
 
 
 
 
 Justin: Pose me a specific question, and if I ahve the energy and 
 inclination, i
 will try to answer it.
 
 I alsoo lookeda t those exchanges, and I don't read them as evasive or
 refusing to answer any concrete question.
 ^^^
 
 CB: I have posed a number of specific questions in the past, and then you  
 don't want to get into it . If I take the time to look into your paper, I 
 don't see why you won't get into it. As I say, I understand the asymetry 
 that you are being subjected to critical examination, and I am not. But 
 this a

Re: Re: Marx's Proof

2002-03-13 Thread Waistline2


In a message dated Wed, 13 Mar 2002  1:49:24 PM Eastern Standard Time, John Ernst 
[EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:

 Doug,  I think everything is a bit off the cuff here and
 perhaps misses what might be important.
 
 Among other things you wrote:
 
 Not getting value theory right has inhibited just what 
 political or intellectual progress exactly? 
 
 Yet this is a good question.  Let me suggest some possible 
 answers:
 
 
 1. We, radicals, have little sense of how technical change 
takes place in capitalist society.  That is, the common 
interpretation of Marx is that technical change is 
labor displacing at all costs.  Laibman goes as far as
to say that capitalists innovate in a Rube Goldberg
fashion.  That is, labor replacing technical change 
takes place at all costs.  That is what ortho Marxism
has held for over a century.  I doubt this is true
and do not impute that view to anyone, save David, in 
particular.  
 
   So what?  Seems to me that anyone with this view could
   easily grab hold of the idea that an alternative to 
   capitalism could exist side by side with a society 
   growing in such  Rube Goldberg fashion.
 
 
 2. Within traditional approaches to Marx as well as in standard
eco thought, little if any attention is paid to moral
depreciation.  Indeed, the qualitative and quantitative 
aspects of this type of depreciation disappear as one
simultaneously values inputs and outputs.  Thus, in theory,
we can create situations in which a capitalist invests $100,
ends up with $20 and have a rising rate of profit. The usual 
understanding of Marx's concept of valuation incorporate 
this absurd possibility. 
 
 Put simply, using Marx's concept of value, we should be able
 to grasp how technical changes take place in capitalism and 
 what are the consequent changes in valuation.  
 
 If we can't, we should move on to something else.  I do not
 feel that seeking answers to this problem is a sub for 
 activism nor do I find the concepts alienated.  
   
 
 
 John



In my opinion Marx repeatedly states that value is the amount of socially necessary 
labor in the production of commodites. Many understand this formula different. I 
accept it at face value because it makes sense to me. By technical changes in 
capital I understand this to mean technical changes in the forces of production.  Marx 
gives a fairly good view of this process in Volume I of Capital, The General Law of 
capitalist accumulation, section 3 page 628. 

Technology changes on a continium from the dawn of the capitalist mode of production, 
up until this minute, reduce the amount of human labor needed in the production of the 
expanding world of commodities. That is to say a smaller magnitude of labor is needed 
to produce the same amount of commodites a previously existing magnitude of labor 
yielded. 

This affects how the total social capital is apportioned in the production process, 
with less of the total going to living labor in relationship to a larger magnitude 
being apportioned for machinery - dead labor. 

This impact the over all valuation of the living working class, which appears as 
increasingly larger sections of the population unable to sell their labor-power for 
enough wages to make ends meet. 


Melvin P

Re: On Roemer/Value/Technical/Capital

2002-03-13 Thread Waistline2


In this, Roemer remains in the sphere of ownership, and forgets the sphere 
of production. For producing profits material production must be presumed. 
And for production, many firms must interact with each other and exchange 
material, means of production, or intermediate commodities. Can coupon work 
in these areas?

Roemer considers only relation between citizen and firms on the sphere of 
ownership and forget the presumption of ownership, in other words, 
production.

In capitalist society, wages are determined by the socially necessary amount 
labor required for the worker to reproduce himself. But Roemer does not 
determine the quantity of coupon citizen receives, nor what is required to 
receive such coupons - that is to say, what is the tradeoff.

In addition, he does not clarify the relation between coupon and regular 
money. Roemer conception assumes the wage system. However, in the wage 
system workers receive part of the social product in the form of money, not 
coupons. So if he wants shares of the social product he must use money, not 
coupons. Because coupons do not have imminent value.

One does not exchange his Sachen (commodity, money, and capital---In any 
English translation of Capital, Marx original words Sachen and Ding are both 
translated into thing but the two are different. Sachen means property 
occupied by people and Ding means merely physical matter. This confusion 
makes it difficult to understand the fetishism attached to commodity 
production under capitalist property relations) with things such as coupons 
which have no value.

 In sum, Roemer's market-socialism only may work on the sphere of ownership, 
and other area remains same as capitalist society.

The starting point of modern socialism or communism presupposes collective 
revolutionary action aimed at abolishing Sachen and attaining liberty. Roemer 
forgets this revolutionary action and confine himself to considering 
phantom economic system.

In reality, the communist movement is a process embracing various stages 
(boundaries)? And under which various economic system may coexist as the 
living expression of transition. Marx referred to the unfolding of this 
process as a revolutionary transitional period. 

Current world can be totally defined transitional period. So as alternative 
to money, LET, barter, or other exchange means already are used. Perhaps 
this is a sign of radical destruction of civil society.

MIYACHI TATSUO

(Unauthorized editing and translation by Melvin P.)

  

The radical destruction of civil society is understood to mean the 
processes wherein society is increasingly severed from its foundation in the 
buying and selling of labor power. An increasing segment of the world working 
cannot sell their labor-power for enough wages to secure adequate supplies of 
food, clothing, water, shelter and other means of family reproduction. 

The source of value is human beings labor - sweat, blood, fiber, energy and 
daydreams.  The nexus of commodity exchange is the amount of socially 
necessary labor that goes into their production. Profits come from surplus 
value - unpaid human labor. This value is bound up in and borne by 
commodities. The commodities must circulate, that is, they must be sold. If 
not the value in them cannot be realized and the capitalist will not profit 
from their production. 

Yet, a vast magnitude of profits is realized (materialized) from activity 
increasingly separate from the production of commodities and consequently 
surplus value. This is one side of society being torn from its foundation in 
the buying and selling of labor and provides the substance of a new 
qualitative configuration of capital and the working class as a component of 
capital. Herein resides the antagonism. Herein resides the boundary. 

An increasing magnitude of the world total social capital cannot be 
profitably deployed in the production of commodities on a world scale. That 
is the contradiction or fuller scope of crisis theory (quote, unquote, 
which has only unfolded with the advent of qualitatively new technologies. 
Human labor is rendered increasingly superfluous to the production of 
commodities as a fundamental feature of the transition period. At the center 
of the transition from one mold of production to another is the technological 
revolution. 

A measurable qualitative reconfiguration in the organic composition of 
capital has taken place. The massive growth of capital investing in values 
mode of expression, distinct from the production process is one such 
measurement. The transition and growth from the industrial reserve army of 
unemployed to a more than less mass of proletarians possessing labor-power 
than cannot be sold to secure necessary means of subsistence is another 
measurement.  

The basis for the determination of a new qualitative development in capital 
and the working class is outline by Marx in Volume 1 of capital. The 
distinctions on the basis of quantitative

Re: Class relation buying and selling

2002-03-17 Thread Waistline2

In a message dated 3/15/2002 4:00:04 AM Central Standard Time, [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:

Comrade melvin
Thank you your reply
I propose some question on your argument.
1. I suggest that you grasp capitalist society as firstly relation between
buying and selling labor power and secondly surplus value becomes separated
from production.
2. About first argument; You argue that capitalist production is based upon
buying and selling of labor power. But its relation is semblance. In my
argument on Roemer, Marx distinguish relation of buying and selling labor
power with class relation. Again I cite Marx's description

(Quote deleted for space)

Thus Marx again and again emphasizes that class relation is presupposed
from the moment the two face each other as buyer and seller. Marx said that
one who see capitalist characteristic within buying and selling is caught
in "semblance of circulation"

2. About second question; Is surplus value separated from production? If you
are caught in buying and selling relation as basis of capitalist society,
surplus value can't produce. But you claim correctly that surplus value is
produced from unpaid human labor. According to latter line you can connect
surplus value and production. Certainly in developed world, 3rd department of
production exceed 2nd department of production, and it result in seeing
commodity as valueless, or unnecessary, and it may lead you to commodity as
valueless.

But it is also semblance. In even simple service labor, consumer buy service
and servicer works beyond necessary labor time. Merely international capital
transfer fund from developed world to developing world, so in developed
world, jobless or homeless problem emerges. Recently England decides new
approach to homeless as defined social exclusion.

But it is the result of the monopolize means of labor by capitalist. Below
is a piece of The International Workingmen's Association General Rules

"That the economical subjection of the man of labor to the monopolizer of
the means of labor? that is, the source of life? lies at the bottom of
servitude in all its forms, of all social misery, mental degradation, and
political dependence;"

MIYACHI TATSUO
9-10, OHATI, MORIYAMA-KU
NAGOYA CITY
463-0044
JAPAN
[EMAIL PROTECTED]

Your response was read over the course of several days. I agree with its principles. Specifically, you state:

"Thus Marx again and again emphasizes that class relation is presupposed
from the moment the two face each other as buyer and seller. Marx said that
one who see capitalist characteristic within buying and selling is caught
in "semblance of circulation."

Property relations are fundamental in formation of capital.

My statement is confusing and thus incorrect.

This is one side of society being torn from its foundation in
the buying and selling of labor and provides the substance of a new
qualitative configuration of capital and the working class as a component of
capital. Herein resides the antagonism. Herein resides the boundary.

Buying and selling of labor is a property relationship. "Foundation" should read, "foundation in historically evolved property relations."

I stated:

Yet, a vast magnitude of profits is realized (materialized) from activity
increasingly separate from the production of commodities and consequently
surplus value.

The words "increasingly separated" and the word "increasingly" is an attempt to show a new dimension in the movement and circulation of money seeking profitable fields of investment based on the law system unique to money trading and loaning. It is agreed that no "increasingly separated" movement of money can transcend property relations. In trying to grab hold of what is taking place today I have generally used some writings of Engels that outline the process.

I have a different point of view of the growth of homelessness and poverty (perhaps, no really sure?). You state:

In even simple service labor, consumer buys service
and service works beyond necessary labor time. Merely international capital
transfer fund from developed world to developing world, so in developed
world, jobless or homeless problem emerges. Recently England decides new
approach to homeless as defined social exclusion.

I do not say you are wrong. I do not say I am right. Marx was quoted as:

With the magnitude of social capital already
functioning, and the degree of its increase, with the extension of the scale
of production, and the mass of the laborers set in motion, with the
development of the productiveness of their labor, with the greater breadth
and fullness of all sources of wealth, there is also an extension of the
scale on which greater attraction of laborers by capital is accompanied by
their greater repulsion; the rapidity of the change in the organic
composition of capital, and in its technical form increases, and an
increasing number of spheres of production becomes involved in this change,
now simultaneously, now alternately.

Re: Re: New Book on Marx's Capital-Marx words

2002-03-20 Thread Waistline2


Marx to L. Kugelmann in Hanover
London, July 11, 1868 


. . . . As for the Centralblatt, the man is making the greatest possible 
concession in admitting that, if one means anything at all by value, the 
conclusion I draw must be accepted. The unfortunate fellow does not see that, 
even if there were no chapter on value in my book, the analysis of the real 
relations which I give would contain the proof and demonstrations of the real 
value relations. All that palaver about the necessity of proving the concept 
of value comes from complete ignorance both of the subject dealt with and of 
the scientific method.

Every child knows a nation which ceased to work, I will not say for a year, 
but even for a few weeks, would perish. Every child knows, too, that the 
masses of products corresponding to the different needs required different 
and quantitatively determined masses of the total labor of society. That this 
necessity of the distribution of social labor in definite proportions cannot 
possibly be done away with by a particular form of social production but can 
only change the mode of its appearance, is self-evident. No natural laws can 
be done away with. What can change in historically different circumstances is 
only the form in which these laws assert themselves. And the form in which 
this proportional distribution of labor asserts itself, in the state of 
society where the interconnection of social labor is manifested in the 
private exchange of the individual products of labor, is precisely the 
exchange value of these products. 

Science consists precisely in demonstrating how the law of value asserts 
itself. So that if one wanted at the very beginning to explain all the 
phenomenon which seemingly contradict that law, one would have to present 
science before science. It is precisely Ricardo's mistake that in his first 
chapter on value [On the Principles of Political Economy, and Taxation, Page 
479] he takes as given all possible and still to be developed categories in 
order to prove their conformity with the law of value. 

On the other hand, as you correctly assumed, the history of the theory 
certainly shows that the concept of the value relation has always been the 
same — more or less clear, hedged more or less with illusions or 
scientifically more or less definite. Since the thought process itself grows 
out of conditions, is itself a natural process, thinking that really 
comprehends must always be the same, and can vary only gradually, according 
to maturity of development, including the development of the organ by which 
the thinking is done. Everything else is drivel. 

The vulgar economist has not the faintest idea that the actual everyday 
exchange relations cannot be directly identical with the magnitudes of value. 
The essence of bourgeois society consists precisely in this, that a priori 
there is no conscious social regulation of production. The rational and 
naturally necessary asserts itself only as a blindly working average. And 
then the vulgar economist thinks he has made a great discovery when, as 
against the revelation of the inner interconnection, he proudly claims that 
in appearance things look different. In fact, he boasts that he holds fast to 
appearance, and takes it for the ultimate. Why, then, have any science at 
all? 

But the matter has also another background. Once the interconnection is 
grasped, all theoretical belief in the permanent necessity of existing 
conditions collapses before their collapse in practice. Here, therefore, it 
is absolutely in the interest of the ruling classes to perpetuate a senseless 
confusion. And for what other purpose are the sycophantic babblers paid, who 
have no other scientific trump to play save that in political economy one 
should not think at all? 

But satis superque [enough and to spare]. In any case it shows what these 
priests of the bourgeoisie have come down to, when workers and even 
manufacturers and merchants understand my book [Capital] and find their way 
about in it, while these learned scribes (!) complain that I make excessive 
demands on their understanding 

(end of quote)


Melvin P

Re: RE: New Book on Marx's Capital-Marx words

2002-03-21 Thread Waistline2

In a message dated 3/21/2002 6:42:04 AM Central Standard Time, [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:

I've always liked this letter to Kugelmann. Very Hegelian. Very important stress on the importance of theory for revolutionary transformation.

Whose translation is this?

Andrew Kliman

Progress Publisher, Moscow 1969, Karl Marx and Frederick Engels Selected Works in three Volumes, Volume Two page 418. First Printing.

I had looked up the letter on one of the Marx Archive (for easy copying) and it lacked the first three sentences. The above is not the entire letter, which I do not have a copy of.

I read in the letter a definitive statement on value (magnitude) and exchange value (prices or exchange relations) and the approach to examining "the essence" of phenomena. Thus Marx states:

"The vulgar economist has not the faintest idea that the actual everyday exchange relations cannot be directly identical with the magnitudes of value."

The letter is reproduced below.

Marx to L. Kugelmann in Hanover
London, July 11, 1868

. . . . As for the Centralblatt, the man is making the greatest possible
concession in admitting that, if one means anything at all by value, the
conclusion I draw must be accepted. The unfortunate fellow does not see that,
even if there were no chapter on "value" in my book, the analysis of the real
relations which I give would contain the proof and demonstrations of the real
value relations. All that palaver about the necessity of proving the concept
of value comes from complete ignorance both of the subject dealt with and of
the scientific method.

Every child knows a nation which ceased to work, I will not say for a year,
but even for a few weeks, would perish. Every child knows, too, that the
masses of products corresponding to the different needs required different
and quantitatively determined masses of the total labor of society. That this
necessity of the distribution of social labor in definite proportions cannot
possibly be done away with by a particular form of social production but can
only change the mode of its appearance, is self-evident. No natural laws can
be done away with. What can change in historically different circumstances is
only the form in which these laws assert themselves. And the form in which
this proportional distribution of labor asserts itself, in the state of
society where the interconnection of social labor is manifested in the
private exchange of the individual products of labor, is precisely the
exchange value of these products.

Science consists precisely in demonstrating how the law of value asserts
itself. So that if one wanted at the very beginning to "explain" all the
phenomenon which seemingly contradict that law, one would have to present
science before science. It is precisely Ricardo's mistake that in his first
chapter on value [On the Principles of Political Economy, and Taxation, Page
479] he takes as given all possible and still to be developed categories in
order to prove their conformity with the law of value.

On the other hand, as you correctly assumed, the history of the theory
certainly shows that the concept of the value relation has always been the
same — more or less clear, hedged more or less with illusions or
scientifically more or less definite. Since the thought process itself grows
out of conditions, is itself a natural process, thinking that really
comprehends must always be the same, and can vary only gradually, according
to maturity of development, including the development of the organ by which
the thinking is done. Everything else is drivel.

The vulgar economist has not the faintest idea that the actual everyday
exchange relations cannot be directly identical with the magnitudes of value.
The essence of bourgeois society consists precisely in this, that a priori
there is no conscious social regulation of production. The rational and
naturally necessary asserts itself only as a blindly working average. And
then the vulgar economist thinks he has made a great discovery when, as
against the revelation of the inner interconnection, he proudly claims that
in appearance things look different. In fact, he boasts that he holds fast to
appearance, and takes it for the ultimate. Why, then, have any science at
all?

But the matter has also another background. Once the interconnection is
grasped, all theoretical belief in the permanent necessity of existing
conditions collapses before their collapse in practice. Here, therefore, it
is absolutely in the interest of the ruling classes to perpetuate a senseless
confusion. And for what other purpose are the sycophantic babblers paid, who
have no other scientific trump to play save that in political economy one
should not think at all?

But satis superque [enough and to spare]. In any case it shows what these
priests of the bourgeoisie have come down to, when workers and even
manufacturers and merchants understand my book [Capital]

Re: Re: Re: Alzheimer's disease

2002-03-21 Thread Waistline2

In a message dated 3/21/2002 3:23:50 PM Central Standard Time, [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:


 I hope any relatives of sufferers will take cheer
 rather than offence in my passing on that the motto
 of the Irish Alzheimer's Disease Society is:
 
 "Remember those who can't".
 
 dd
 
 Thanks for this. I was feeling bad for starting the topic after
 Jim's response.
 
 Best,
 Sabri
 
Comrade Sabri

Are you Alzhiemer's?
If it is so, very sad. But As psychiatrist, I recommend you to participate
in social activity, and take anti-inflammatory drug such as ibprofen.It
delays progress Alzhiemer'.
Yours sincerely
MIYACHI TATSUO
Psychiatric Department
Komaki municipal hosipital
1-20.JOHBUHSHI
KOMAKI CITY
AICHI PREF.
486-0044
TEL:0568-76-4131
FAX 0568-76-4145
[EMAIL PROTECTED]
 

Is Alzheimer's "Metal poisoning disease," in terms of its impact upon the brain? Not a joke. My mother in law suffers from it but I was involved in the health care movement outside of bourgeois frameworks. It's theoretical. 


Melvin P.

Re: Difference on evidence of deheimnisvolle der Warenform in f...

2002-03-21 Thread Waistline2

In a message dated 3/21/2002 4:34:46 PM Central Standard Time, [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:

In a message dated 3/21/2002 6:42:04 AM Central Standard Time, [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:

I've always liked this letter to Kugelmann. Very Hegelian. Very important stress on the importance of theory for revolutionary transformation.

Whose translation is this?

Andrew Kliman

Progress Publisher, Moscow 1969, Karl Marx and Frederick Engels Selected Works in three Volumes, Volume Two page 418. First Printing.

I had looked up the letter on one of the Marx Archive (for easy copying) and it lacked the first three sentences. The above is not the entire letter, which I do not have a copy of.

I read in the letter a definitive statement on value (magnitude) and exchange value (prices or exchange relations) and the approach to examining "the essence" of phenomena. Thus Marx states:

"The vulgar economist has not the faintest idea that the actual everyday exchange relations cannot be directly identical with the magnitudes of value."

The letter is reproduced below.

Marx to L. Kugelmann in Hanover
London, July 11, 1868

But satis superque [enough and to spare]. In any case it shows what these
priests of the bourgeoisie have

Re: Re: Poultry Ban in Russia

2002-03-22 Thread Waistline2


In a message dated Fri, 22 Mar 2002  4:26:34 AM Eastern Standard Time, Charles 
Jannuzi [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:

 
  But Russians appear split on the reason for the ban: 35 percent said it
 was
  to help the domestic chicken industry, 34 percent said it was to keep
  inferior U.S. chicken off the Russian market and 12 percent said it was
  retaliation for new U.S. steel tariffs. One percent said the ban was
 revenge
  for Russia's treatment at the Salt Lake City Winter Olympics.
 
 If I were Russian and I were asked to give a reason (what makes me think the
 people were fed leading answers, instead of chicken of course), I would
 reply:
 
 Because US chicken is so full of anti-biotics one drumstick cures the clap!
 
 Charles Jannuzi




Uugh . . .  I believe the above is another contender for the semi-annual best 
reply no prize award. I mean look at the legs on that one!  

Melvin P.

Re: Re: Re: Le Pen triumph thanks to ultra-leftists

2002-04-24 Thread Waistline2


CB: On this issue, what about the fact that fascism _was_ defeated by the
Popular Front.

Do you mean the Allies? I wouldn't exactly call the military alliance
between Stalin and Churchill and Roosevelt a Popular Front. It was a
military alliance between sovereign nations. For that matter, I saw it as
eminently principled for Stalin to have signed a non-aggression pact with
Hitler (despite the costly illusions that arose out of this.)

Louis Proyect
Marxism mailing list: http://www.marxmail.org



I believe that yours is a correct and very principle position. 

Melvin P.

Re: Re: Le Pen triumph thanks to ultra-leftists

2002-04-24 Thread Waistline2


CB: On this issue, what about the fact that fascism _was_ defeated by the
Popular Front.

Do you mean the Allies? I wouldn't exactly call the military alliance
between Stalin and Churchill and Roosevelt a Popular Front. It was a
military alliance between sovereign nations. For that matter, I saw it as
eminently principled for Stalin to have signed a non-aggression pact with
Hitler (despite the costly illusions that arose out of this.)

Louis Proyect
Marxism mailing list: http://www.marxmail.org


I agree. The difference between the response of the communist in the 
imperialist countries and the communist in the countries under attack by 
aggressive fascism demands somewhat different strategy and tactics.  Mr. 
Stalin was faced with a specific world alignment and basically made the right 
calls. If one understood the Popular Front to mean surrender to the 
bourgeoisie, then that is on you. Why surrender anything to the bourgeoisie? 

Melvin P.

Re: Le Pen triumph thanks to ultra-leftists

2002-04-24 Thread Waistline2

In a message dated 4/24/2002 1:31:01 PM Central Daylight Time, [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:


Greg Schofield:
The Popular Front was one of the great modern innovations in effective
political struggle of the working class, at the plain of how communists
should work it relates directly to the Communist Manifesto applying the
same principles to the specific question of anti-fascist struggle.

Lou: -clip-. In a struggle against fascism, you have to have clearly defined class
politics. Watering down social and economic demands leads to the triumph of
fascism.

^^

CB: On this issue, what about the fact that fascism _was_ defeated by the Popular Front.




Fascism was defeated by the world proletariat brigade - a class. This class was under the leadership of Stalin and that is a historically recorded fact. The subsequent defeat and collapse of fascism throughout the world was connected to the turning point in World World II or as it is called by Marxist, the Second Imperialist World War and the battle for Stalingrad.


Melvin P.

Re: Re: Re: socialism is necessary

test. system been down.

Re: Charles and Ract Theory

Sorry to push this discussion to pen. Problems with my system and posting to Marxline. System was down but I most certainly relied to all our comments. Here is one of 5 articles written i refutation of the race theory as applied to African Americans and the history of the national colonial question as understood by "my brand" of Marxism.

CB: What type of thing does Marx mean when he refers to a "Negro"CB: What type
of thing does Marx mean when he refers to a "Negro" ? A national colonial group
? Or does he mean a group whose skin is "branded" or whose skin is a brand ? A
group defined by its land, language, history ? Or a physical characteristic, a
phenotype ?

Is not Marx using the concept of race when he refers to Negroes ?

^^^

Further Marx says, "Where the capitalist outlook prevails, as on American
plantations, this entire surplus value is regarded as profit . . ." Capital
Volume 3 page 804.

CB: Here's what occurs to me when I consider: What type of group is Marx
referring to when he refers to a "Negro" ? Obviously, he _is_ referring to a
race, contra your comment here.

Lets stop here. Lets dwell on this some.

Please focus your discussion on this point for a while, then lets move on to
your other discussion. Right now I am focusing on your answer to this
question.

Charles Brown

Reply.

I cannot believe you asked what you ask:

“CB: What type of thing does Marx mean when he refers to a "Negro" ? A
national colonial group ? Or does he mean a group whose skin is "branded" or
whose skin is a brand ? A group defined by its land, language, history ? Or a
physical characteristic, a phenotype?

The folly of racial theory has not bounds. You seek to prove the impossible and
miss the elementary. The presentation of the national question and its evolution is peculiar in America. The disjoint of the communist movement and the ideological pressure of our imperialist bourgeoisie has prevented the proletariat from being exposed to the communist presentation of this question. Thus, I could not confine myself to discourse over “race” but present concise synopsizes from the standpoint of the science of society in which the so-called Negro Question has played itself out.

Marx is referring to a class of slaves whose origins are traceable to continental Africa when he says “Negro race.” Specifically, he is referring to the black slaves on the plantations of the American south.

A misunderstanding exists concerning what is meant by the words national-colonial question, which as such did not emerge as such until during and after the first Imperialist War. Marx could not have meant a “national-colonial group” because this configuration in history occurs
after his death.

Communist speak of the Leninist conception of the national colonial question
because Lenin’s name is associated with the evolution of a different presentation of the question in opposition to the leaders of the Second International. This is one of the reasons the Third Communist International was formed. Joseph V. Stain’s “Marxism and the National Question” was read and edited by Lenin and he considered it a great Marxist presentation.

Marx is quoted extensively to present the economic analysis of why slavery in the South was a unique system of capitalist production. Any group of human beings drawn into the vortex of capitalist production will evolve within a specific framework referred to as national development. Development as fusion of various distinct peoples is markedly different under the estates within feudal social and economic relations.

National development is placed within the epoch of rising capitalism and took place in the slaveholding areas of the South. The Negro People evolved as a people prior to the emergence of the national formation in the South and its attempt to win political authority and complete its political and economic development. The Civil War settled this issue in favor of the Yankee.

The logic of American history has to be disclosed to grasp the essence of the Negro National
Colonial Question. The Negro National Colonial question did not exist at the time of Marx. What existed was a class of black slaves Marx called the Negro race of slaves.

The social motion of the African American people of the United States has always reflected the level of development of the productive forces, the productive relations and the political maneuvering of the ruling class to keep the two (productive forces, the productive relations) united. The political maneuvering and the social response of the African American people to the material conditions of their status and location within the societal infrastructure has kept them at the center

Re:Charles and Race Theory 2

 
 
CB: Yes, your specific interpretation of Marxism may prohibit you, but not all interpretations of Marxism, including Marx's own interpretation of Marxism do not prohibit Marxists from speaking of race as an authentic concept of a Bolshevik strategist and tactician. As I have pointed out to you several times, in _Capital_ he gives a specific strategic and tactical pronouncement using race as an authentic concept; Labor in white skin will not be free while labor in Black skin in branded. 

You have not responded to this. It is a devastating critique of your claim that race is not an authentic concept for Marxism. 

Respond to this: MARX HIMSELF USES RACE AS AN AUTHENTIC CONCEPT CRITICAL TO THE AMERICAN WORKNG CLASS STRUGGLE AND STRATEGY.


Reply

Marx uses the word “nigger” and this does not make him a racialist or chauvinist. Marx use of the words “Negro race” does not create a theory of race. In fact, Marx use of the words Negro race is equivalent to the words African American people as a historically evolved people and is not an “authentic concept” of race. 
 
The issue before us is the framing of the “Negro Question” as a modern national colonial question not simply “Labor in white skin will not be free while labor in Black skin in branded,” – as was the case prior to 1865. “MARX HIMSELF USES (The words Negro) RACE AS AN AUTHENTIC CONCEPT CRITICAL TO THE AMERICAN WORKNG CLASS STRUGGLE AND STRATEGY before the rise of modern imperialism and in the context of latifundia slavery. Nowhere does Marx use race as an authentic concept. Repeat: No where does Marx use race as an authentic concept.
 
Where Marx uses the words “Negro race” and Eric Foner uses the words “racial harmony” radically different conceptions of reality are being expressed. Marx us of the words “Negro Race” means the class of citizens that were slaves in the Southern portion of America. Eric Foner’s use of the words “racial harmony” means all people who are not white, and is devoid of class as is his “Executive summary,” which you choose to publish because that is your particular view. 
 
“Negro race” in the hands of Marx means the class of slaves. Eric Foner and the Marxist of the concept of race mean all people on earth who are not white. That is the difference. In Marx hand we have a word imbued with class content; in Foner’s petty bourgeois hands, we have a word devoid of class and history. Foner specifically means all people who are not white or what he calls a racial minority. 
 
I am attacking your class less presentation called “racial harmony,” which you claim is Marxism and an authentic concept of race. Here is what you sent to Marxline for consideration:
 
In the 19th century, the abolitionist movement argued for a purely civic understanding of American identity, insisting that genuine freedom meant civic equality. In the era of Reconstruction, American society formally embraced these principles. But this experiment in interracial democracy lasted only a little more than a decade. By the early 20th century, a new system of racial subordination had been established in the South, effectively nullifying the Fourteenth and Fifteenth Amendments, while in the North blacks were denied access to industrial employment. 


This is the intellectual posture of the petty bourgeois intellectual. Let us examine your authentic concept of race, based on the material you provided Marxline. Foner states: 
 
“In the era of Reconstruction, American society formally embraced these principles. . . this experiment in interracial democracy lasted only a little more than a decade.” 
 
The above statement is political fakery and an affront to the thousands of solider who died on the battlefield overthrowing the slave power. Marxist hold such classless formulation in contempt and label them for what they are – the striving of the petty bourgeoisie as an expression of material conditions of existence outside the proletariat’s motion as a class and “below” the bourgeoisie as a class. 
 
The abolition of slavery was a social revolution without a corresponding or preceding economic revolution in the South’s means of production. That is, the instruments of production of the agricultural South did not advance; but the North imposed a revolution in social relations upon the South with the freeing of the slaves. In other words the revolution imposed on the South changed class relationships not so-called “racial relationship.” 
 
The emancipation was revolutionary and destroyed property worth some four billion dollars in the form of the slaves – proletarians in chains. The next stage of the social revolution would have to break up the plantations and parcel them out to the freemen and the landless poor whites. This would have finished the planters as a class, and such wide spread ownership of productive property would have democratized the South. 
 
The second stage of the social revolution is called Reconstruction and was not an experiment in “racial democracy.”

Re: Race Theory 3

Clearly, those of us providing material excavated from the historical
record about what actually happened are at a disadvantage in this
discussion. The fact is that Foner's dead right in noting that the
record includes multiracial organizations. 

When Cde. Melvin says this is "insane," it is clear that one approach or
another could well be.

Having posed once more the uncomfortable realities of the historical
record, I'm quite confident that Cde. Melvin...drawing upon the Marxist
technique of John Edwards...will channel an understanding of Mississippi
in 1875 by turning to p. 715, Vol. 29 of the Collected Works of Lenin.

Religious people do have interesting minds.

Best,
Mark L.


Reply 

Comrade what I stated that to present period of Reconstruction as a period of interracial unity is insane. Reconstruction was the continuation of the war to overthrow the slave oligarchy. At every turn in this discuss I have riveted the color factor to class phenomenon. The historical record is the class struggle of the freedmen and small farmers – black and white and you speck of multiracial organizations in contradistinction to the class factor. 

You pretend that I have implied that no organization of black and white farmers and freedmen existed during Reconstruction when I have written nothing to justify your implication. 

You speck of “multiracial organizations” and I ask again for any one to give the definitive presentation on exactly that of which a race of people consist. The fact of the matter is that black people and white people have commingled in various organizations throughout the history of America – to one degree or another, but this is not the meaning of your assertion. 

The question is not the existence of “multiracial organizations” but rather of class organizations during the Reconstruction period, that of necessity embraced the toilers of every hue. Rather that suggest I study Lenin to understand Mississippi, state your point. 

I did however check out volume 29 of Lenin’s Collected works at your suggestion. Unfortunately, my edition, Progress Publishers, Moscow 1974, Second Printing only goes to page 599. I did search page 517 and then 175 in case you reversed the page numbers. I did take the opportunity to reread Lenin’s “The Third International and It’s Place in History,” “A Great Beginning,” and “The Tasks of the Third International.” In the latter article Lenin writes, “The dictatorship of the proletariat would be impossible if the majority of the population did not consist of proletarians and semi-proletarians,” which is basically the conditions that existed during Reconstruction. The semi-proletarians speak to those small farmers who work. 

The content of my writings are never devoid of Marxist frameworks and class content. What is the class content of the concept “multi-racial organizations?” 
Here is the rub. The discussion is over the concept of race and an alleged Marxist conception of race that defines the African American people as a race. I have no desire to intermingle with the Anglo-American bourgeoisie. 

On the other hand, you draw upon nothing from Marx as exhibited in what you have written. Why do you argue against an understanding that places the motion of the African American people within the framework of the productive forces and relations of production? Eric Foner’s Executive summary – presented by Comrade Charles, is devoid of this framework. Where am I wrong or deviate from the generally recognized Marxist standpoint? Foner’s Executive Summary is an affront to Marxist because its substitutes a bourgeois conception of race for the color factor in our history and the very real and intense class struggle Reconstruction was and the subsequent counterrevolution. 

The fact of the matter is that even during Reconstruction segregation remained a way of life in the South and the rest of America. The changes in the social position of the African American in respects to segregation and isolation is not a question of multiracial organizations but the real changes in the productive forces, specifically the mechanization of agriculture which fueled the mass migration fro the South and allowed millions of black to enter the lowest section of the industrial infrastructure of the North. This very real quantitative expansion of the industrial infrastructure demanded the ending of the form of segregation the emerged from slavery and the defeat of Reconstruction. 

The mechanization of agriculture provided the economic revolution to implement the political result of the Civil War. The logic of petty bourgeois production – the life “essence” of the semi-proletarians, is transformed o the basis of the productive forces. 

Once the bourgeois concept of race is defeated in the ideological realm in respect to the Marxist movement, the class content of our history will usher forth clearly for everyone to see and understand. Out task is to disclose ideological forms and reveal the principle

Re: Re: American history and Race Theory 4

The presentation of the national colonial question in respect to the direct descendants of the slaves that Marx refer to as the Negro race, has been observed over a long period of time by generations of communist. The presentation of this question is much broader than simply the use of the word race in the ideological sphere. Race as a coherent theory by the section of Marxists, who Comrade Charles claims have a conception of race and a "race and gender" approach to American history, have battled over this question for eighty years.

Society is formed on the basis of the unity of the productive forces and the production relations. From this materialist approach - not race or gender, it is easier to understand the national colonial question in respect to the African American people.

The African American people are not a nation. The African American people, as a distinct historically evolved people have referred to themselves as Colored in one period of history; Negro in another, Black and Afro’s in still another and today refer to themselves as black, black Americans or simply African Americans. Thus my use of the terms Colored, Negro and African American indicates a quantitative reconfiguration in the production forces or the relations of production during the last two hundred years. Language and word sublates – are transformed to expressed a higher development or understanding that is riveted to the advance of science and production or quantitative and qualitative changes in relations of production.

The African American people are not a nation. This must be repeated over and over because the color psychosis grips the Marxist movement - or rather the "Marxist with an authentic concept of race," and the people of our country. Bourgeois theories of race abound in the ideological realm, although no serious Marxist can lay claim to a division of homo-sapien-sapien into distinct biological-genetic qualitative differences.

Further, the Marxist movement in our country was compelled under the tremendous prestige of Lenin and then Stalin to adopt the outer trappings of Marxism as a revolutionary science in the hands of the proletariat. The Negro National Colonial Question was forced down the resisting throat of the Communist Party USA by way of the 1928 and 1930 Comintern documents on this important question.

The nation or national formation that evolved in the South of the United States of North America, is a historically evolved stable community of Colored people, along with the historically developed Anglo-American people, who lived in the old slave holding area of the South –the Black Belt, and the economically dependent area of the Southern USNA.

This nation, which evolved from the specifics of slavery, is a historically evolved stable community of people formed on the basis of a common language, territory, economic life and psychological makeup manifested in a common culture. This is the classical Marxist definition of a nation written by Stalin, edited by Lenin and propagated by the Third Communist International.

In our country there is also the Anglo American nation proper. The general frontiers of the Anglo-American nation are the Canadian frontier to the north to the Atlantic sea coast o the east; proceeding from the Canadian frontier south to the beginnings of the areas associated with the plantation belt in Delaware. The border region then proceeds west along the northern edge of the area associated with the plantation system. This line proceeds generally west and south in an inverted arc into Texas and south into the Gulf of Mexico. The western frontier proceeds south from the Canadian border along the Pacific Coast to the area generally associated with the struggles of the Mexican national minority. The border then proceeds in a northeasterly direction to the north of Denver, connecting to the Gulf of Mexico to the east of San Antonio, Texas. Within this national territory, there are numerous autonomous areas that belong to the Native Bands of peoples, whose economic, territorial and political rights have yet to be restored.

The exact delineation of the frontier must be set by economic and population factors, which cannot be known today. The proletariat in power will address this issue.

The military defeat of the various Native People in the USNA and the Western hemisphere creates a situation where the Americas can be divided into the general categories of Anglo and Hispanic America. These general areas represent a base of Anglo or Hispanic culture for the emergence of national culture that was conditioned by the evolution of history in each specific country.

What complicated a mature Marxist understanding of the national colonial question are the incredible strength, overwhelming presence and determining power of USNA imperialism. The pressure of our imperialist bourgeoisie in the ideological sphere is unprecedented in human history. It is our attempt to unravel the

Re: Re: Race Theory 5

I might be biting off more than I can chew here:

In relation to the post someone made about Negroes in the USA being a 'nation'
and using the old 4 part definition of Stalin’s (common language, territory,
economic life and psychological make-up ). I have never seen this applied to
Black Americans in that way before. What "common economic life" do they have
that's different from other citizens? (I mean that would justify a claim to a
separate state). A separate language? territory? even the cultural
differences I would have read as those of an ethnic minority which would give
rise to claims to equality but not to a separate nation. Not that equality
would occur without a revolution but that's the point isn't it that Blacks
need to fight to overthrow the US ruling class alongside white workers not for
a separate state.

Is this a common understanding in the US left (this is a post from Australia)
or am I missing something?

Shane

The Marxist presentation of the National-Colonial Question requires the most militant defense of the standpoint of Marx in examining social phenomenon. The Leninist presentation of the question acknowledges not simply exploitation and exploited classes, but exploiting imperial peoples and exploited and oppressed peoples and nations.

The African American people are not a nation.

There are various nations and advanced national groups in America. In my opinion you pose the presentation of the national colonial question incorrectly and confuse the attributes of a national formation with the formation of the state as the historical product of the irreconcilability of class antagonism. The state as such emerged thousands of years before the emergence of nations.

The exact delineation of the frontier must be set by economic and population factors, which cannot be known today. The proletariat in power will address this issue.

Comrade in place of a common language you inject the concept of “A separate language?” What may I ask is the “separate” languages that distinguish the English from the Americans?

In place of a historically evolved people that first evolved based on the specifics of slavery, you inject the concept of “an ethnic minority.” In posing the question incorrectly you are prevented from grasping the nation in the South, which is composed of the “historically evolved stable community of Colored people– black people, along with the historically developed Anglo-American people, who lived in the old slave holding area of the South – the Black Belt.

The question of a common economic life is a conception of development from feudal economic and social relations to capitalist economic and social relation and must be posed free of a “Marxist concept of race.”

. . What "common economic life" do they have
that's different from other citizens?

The common economic life that distinguishes the nation in the South from that, which arose, based the transition from manufacture to industry in the North was the system of slavery. The system of slavery was not feudal economic relations but production for the world market and consequently capital conversion with all its social consequences. This capitalist slavery constituted

Re: Racism and race are Marxist concepts

CB: This list has not been a part of this discussion, so you might want to give more background.

The main point of contention between us is that you maintain that there is no category of " race" compatible with Marxism or historical materialism, and I say that there is.

For a thread, (long thread !) related to your topic here, check out the Pen-L discussion of the "Brenner thesis" , "Wood thesis "and the history of capitalism, slavery, the primiitive accumulation of capital, etc. I would argue that slavery was integral to the primitive accumulation of capitalism, and that throughout capitalism:

Capitalism = wage-labor x oppressed labor

Within the category "oppressed labor" racially oppressed labor is a major component throughout the history of capitalism including up through today

There is no such thing as "racially oppressed labor," as a material category. What you express is a bourgeois ideological category and rationale to explain colonial entrapment and the consequent brutal political oppression of non-sovereign peoples and their exploitation through imperial capitalist relations.

The point of contention is the Marxist presentation of the National Colonial Question as it applies to the African American people. One can always reduce discourse to "he say - she say" but I have presented rather lengthy and detail explaining to at least describe the basis of my assertion while you present Eric Foner and nothing whatsoever to justify or explain the so-called Marxist conception of race.

The reason for this is that you were born into a mess of crap, that actually took shape before both of us were born. Talk about the sins of the father and reparations. Every generation must pay reparations from the past.

I do recognized that you and I represent a historic pole within the specific framework of the communist/Marxist movement, while many revolutionaries lack any conception of the complexity of the national-question in respects to our people.

You state that you "would argue that slavery was integral to the primitive accumulation of capitalism," and this is the historic position of the right-wing of the CPUSA. The material quoted by Marx makes clear the character of slavery in the South. "That is the secret."

The primitive accumulation of capital has nothing to do with the character of slavery in the South. The historic position of the CPUSA - and I am by no means a "hater" or baiter of the Party whose glories struggles I embrace as a part of my own, is that feudal economic relations existed in the South. Consequently, slavery was a form of primitive accumulation of capital. This makes no sense to anyone that examines what Marx means by the primitive accumulation of capital.

An aspect of the historic contention that split the party on the "Negro Question" is the position later adopted by the party that the movement in the South is a continuation of the bourgeois democratic revolution and democracy as an abstraction and their program called for the complete elimination of the remnants of feudal economic relations. Not feudal-like social relations, but feudal economic relations.

This is the theoretical underpinning of James Allen's 1936 book "Reconstruction." (I hope I am not challenged on this because I have not seen the book in twenty-five years but know I have it in the basement of my second wife home. Communist will given away any and everything except their good books and ink pens. )

Once the position is taken that feudal economic relations existed in the South the only way to explain slavery is as a form of primitive accumulation of capital. This of course is incorrect. Slavery as an economic institution was a form of capitalist production relations. There was no feudalism in the American south.

"I would argue that slavery was integral to the primitive accumulation of capitalism,"
is the historic position of the CPUSA and has no meaning without being specific. Marx describes the primitive accumulation of capital in precise terms.

I would argue that the primary form of primitive accumulation of capital on this land mass was the wholesale murder of the Native peoples and the taking of there land. I would argue this as a primary thesis because slavery itself underwent transitions and Marx speaks of American slavery after it enters the vortex of capitalist relations.

"The so-called primitive accumulation of capital," according to Marx "therefore, is nothing else then the historical process of divorcing the producer fro the means of production. It appears as primitive, because it forms the pre-historic stage of capital and of the mode of production corresponding with it."

"the pre-historic stage of capital" is what compels me to place primary emphasis on the expropriation of the Native peoples. Further, there were no concrete feudal economic relations in America. I concede that the slave trade played a role in the primitive accumulation of capital but slavery in the American

Re: On perspective

Part 3 of 3
DRAFT OF PROGRAM, Anarcho-Syndicalism 
Reply to Comrade MIYACHI TATSUO

Capital has both internal limits -- surplus value and profits come from unpaid living labor; and labor-replacing technology drives the amount of living labor towards zero; and external limits -- we live on a planet with finite resources and a geographically finite market. The general crisis of capital -- capital colliding with its internal and external limits -- has been and will continue to be the inescapable theme of the world economy today. 

A crisis is an interruption. The interruption taking place in the heads of the world workers is rooted in the economy and the need for a cooperative society. If we cannot figure out the way to explain to the workers and a new generation of communist the framework in which we formulate strategy and tactics then all is lost. “All” of course is never lost and Bolshevikism is alive. 

With a world economy on the verge of crisis, the American people and indeed the world proletariat, are unprepared ideologically. There is awareness that something is wrong and a compassion for the poor but very little sense of class identity. People are increasingly anti-government but not anti-capitalist. Any large-scale economic disruption that happens before the development of class identity on a broad and organized basis would give the Jesse Venturas and Pat Buchanan’s in our country free rein to capture the economic discontent with their dangerous ideologies.

History proves that, when things get objectively worse and worse, people don't automatically get more and more ideologically revolutionary. Sharp economic crisis and social disruptions haven't yet hit in the US. But when they do, they will throw more people into motion and most of these people will follow the path of habit and take up the solutions offered by the forces of reaction. People will respond to these economic and social convulsions with their political backwardness and the ideological rot the ruling class hands them to fight out the questions of the day and petty bourgeois theories of race -- unless they have taken up the ideological and political weapons of class to fight for their actual interests.

Consciousness lags behind the economic reality, but it catches up in leaps. Things will move faster in both directions, that is, towards both class identity and unity and towards fascism and reaction. Therefore, now is the time to prepare for the convulsions that will rock society and draw more people into struggle and debate. 

This moment holds both great danger and great opportunity. Objective conditions are bringing our country to a fork in the road. People will determine which route our country takes.

24. Tactics, which argue that social revolution, begins after taking over
 political power, is from lasting revolution theory that bourgeois revolution
 beginning in feudal system makes to last to proletariat revolution.
 The tactics succeeded in Russia revolution 1917, after that USSR
 established, and it formed 3rd international, thus encourage worldwide
 communist movement. In response that bourgeois class maintain its system by
 socialization of integument of valorization.


Actually, the Leninist were able to seize political power – the authority of the state, as the culmination of 25 years battling opportunism in the labor movement in Russia and defeating the various petty bourgeois trends in the working class movement. Lenin's July 4, 1920, Theses On the Fundamental Tasks of the Second Congress of the Communist International summarize the demands place on the communist as leaders of the working class movement. 

The social revolution begins in the economy as the result of the injection of a new qualitative “substance” and the resultant reconfiguration of the productive forces constitutes an era or leap to established the predominance of the new quality over the old, and this entail the battle between classes and the struggle for power. At each quantitative stage of this process – in the past, a cyclical crisis has emerged as capital fought to reorganize itself and the communist fought to win over the workers to their class interest. The communist could not and cannot exceed the limitations of the class consciousness of the workers, who they are charged with educating in the art of the class struggle. 

Association principle usually is grasped as mutual aid and its altruist
 consisted of filling up other’s lack. Instead of political will unity as
 priority, front line of association movement which fills up other’s lack
 de-reify capitalist system globally, thus ring the funeral of capitalism.

“Political will unity” is understood to mean the organization of the communist into a compact mass, pursuing a common strategic line of approach in the various social movements. The “political will unity” of the communist is always the priority because it is the communist that are the advanced detachment of the working class; its leader

Re: Charles and Race Theory 2

On Marxline you wrote"

Melvin,

The shortest answer to all you say in these many, many posts is that "race" is a historical category. Basically, my answers will focus on that. You are wrong when you assert, argue, assume, insist, write at length, that race is only a biological and not a historical category. It is a historical category masquerading as a biological category.

You are absolutely wrong. I assert that race is an ideological category existing in the superstructure without a material reality.

Comrade, what I write at length about is a summation of the development of the African American people on the one hand and the political reality that shape the current history of America.

In everything I write the approach is the changes in the means of production - quantitative expansions, what creates the framework for the assertions of the African American people. You speak of race but cannot define race because it is not a historical category. The words "historical category" means a material relationship that developed over along period of time, i.e., historically.

It is true that ideological forms developed from the prehistoric but these forms at best express and "relect" - in quotes material relations.

The question is not "right or wrong" unless you are talking about the standpoint of the Marxist methodology.

Present the exhaustive exposition on race and prove me wrong.

I examined and present every fundamental juncture in the evolution of the African American peoples, the nature of Reconstruction; the mechanization of agriculture, their further proletarianization in the heart of Anglo-American and you present some nonsense about a theory of race.

Expound the race theory and prove your Marxist mantle.

Comrade there is no short answer to the national-colonial question in American and I write as a voice of the Anglo-American proletariat. There is no such thing as race in material reality. Race is a category of the ideological superstructure.

I should tell you what my mother told me as a child: a shortcut ("The shortest answer to all you say") is the long way around and not worth the trouble.

Race is not a historical category. Race is an ideological category historically evolved by the bourgeoisie.

Melvin P

Re: Re: Clueless 2

Clueless 2

CB: Briefly, the CPUSA from the 1920's to about 1950 orso held that Black people in the US had the right to self-determination in theLeninist sense. They had the right to secede from the U.S. if they sochose. If you are familiar with the Leninistapproach to this, it implies not that the people in question are a nation, but that they have the right to choose to be one. Black people in the U.S. neverdecided to exercise that right to a separate nation. Then in the 50's the CPUSAchanged its assessment, because a large part of the Black population hadmigrated out of the South, and there was no longer the territorial/populationcompactness for a quot;landquot;.

Here Melvin P. criticizes the CPUSA for the changedassessment. I don't know whether thatmeans he thinks that Black Americans still constitute a nation for purposes ofthe self-determination question.

Most Marxists in the U.S. today do not hold that Blackpeople constitute a separate nation today, in direct answer to your question.
CB

Any Marxist in history who has held that “Black people constitute a separate nation,” misunderstands what a nation is. What Comrade Charles alludes to is a bourgeois separatist conception of the Negro National Colonial Question, that is alive and well within the tiny radical black intelligencia.

He states the position of the CPUSA as “a large part of the Black population had migrated out of the South, and there was no longer the territorial/population compactness for a "land.”

In other words: 1. The Black population migrated from the South; and 2. Because the black skin people are the nation, 3. Their dispersal dissolved the nation. As a result, “Most Marxists in the US today do not hold that Black people constitute a separate nation today, in direct answer to your question.”

In other words the Black people once constituted a separate nation but migration destroyed the nation, which was colonized as the result of its defeat during the Civil War in America. The other meaning of what Comrade Charles state is: the black people of the slaveholding area developed as a nation separate from the white people who lived across the tracks, and the black people once had the right to self determination but not the white people who live adjacent to them.

It is not correct to call this proposition a bourgeois separatist tendency or theory. What is the nation that developed in the south and was colonized by Wall Street imperialism as the result of its defeat during the Civil War in America?

The nation or national formation that evolved in the South of the United States of North America, is a historically evolved stable community of Colored people – black slaves, along with the historically developed Anglo-American people, who lived in the old slave holding area of the South – the Black Belt, and the economically dependent area of the Southern USNA – border regions.

This nation, which evolved from the specifics of slavery, is a historically evolved stable community of black skin and white skin people formed on the basis of a common language, territory, economic life and psychological makeup manifested in a common culture. This is the classical Marxist definition of a nation written by Stalin, edited by Lenin and propagated by the Third Communist International.

In place of a Marxist disclose of the meaning of a “common land” Comrade Charles smuggle I the historical CPUSA conception called “theterritorial/population compactness for a quot;landquot;. Our Comrade faces an impossible situation and places land in quotes (“land”), because of the absurdity of the proposition. He has no way of this absurd situation without resorting to the Marxist presentation of the national colonial question and this means consulting the classic, “Marxism and the National Question” and reading the section on the meaning of a “common land” as the basis for a development from pre-capitalist to capitalist production relations.

Let us return to the Comintern document again.

“Is the Southern region, thickly populated by Negroes to be looked upon as a colony, or as an “integral part of the national economy of the United States,” where presumably a revolutionary situation cannot arise independent of the general revolutionary development in the United States?

“In the interest of the utmost clarity of ideas on this question, the Negro question in the United States must be viewed from the standpoint of its peculiarity, namely as the question of an oppressed nation, which is in a peculiar and extraordinary distressing situation of national oppression not only in view of the prominent racial distinction (marked difference in the color of skin, etc.) but above all, because of considerable social antagonism (remnants of slavery). This introduces in the American Negro Question an important, peculiar trait, which is absent from the national question of other oppressed people. Furthermore, it is necessary to face clearly the

Re: Re: Text file Clueless on national question

Brother U clueless . . . concerning the presentation of the national colonial question as it applies to the African American people.

Below is your exchange:

In relation to the post someone made about Negroes in the USA being a 'nation'
and using the old 4 part definition of Stalin's (common language, territory,
economic life and psychological make-up ). I have never seen this applied to
Black Americans in that way before. What "common economic life" do they have
that's different from other citizens? (I mean that would justify a claim to a
separate state). A separate language? territory? even the cultural
differences I would have read as those of an ethnic minority which would give
rise to claims to equality but not to a separate nation. Not that equality
would occur without a revolution but that's the point isn't it that Blacks
need to fight to overthrow the US ruling class alongside white workers not for
a separate state.

Is this a common understanding in the US left (this is a post from Australia)
or am I missing something?

CB: Briefly, the CPUSA from the 1920's to about 1950 or so held that Black people in the US had the right to self-determination in the Leninist sense. They had the right to secede from the U.S. if they so chose. If you are familiar with the Leninist approach to this, it implies not that the people in question are a nation , but that they have the right to chose to be one. Black people in the U.S. never decided to exercise that right to a separate nation. Then in the 50's the CPUSA changed its assessment , because a large part of the Black population had migrated out of the South , and there was no longer the territorial/population compactness for a "land".

Here Melvin P. criticizes the CPUSA for the changed assessment. I don't know whether that means he thinks that Black Americans still constitute a nation for purposes of the self-determination question.

Most Marxists in the U.S. today do not hold that Black people constitute a separate nation today, in direct answer to your question.

My criticism of the position of the CPUSA is not that they simply changed their position. My criticism is that their position on the so-called Negro Question was always wrong and their assessment of American history and the working class movement is wrong.

You speak as if I have asserted that black people constitute a nation when repeatedly I have stated the very opposite.

The African American people are not a nation.

The theoretical problem involves overcoming racial concepts, which exist in the ideological sphere and unraveling material categories. Class for instance is a historically evolved material category, that arise on the basis of the division of labor in human society and is "evolved" as an expression of the development of the productive forces. The African American people are not a race, but a historically evolved people. The African American people are not a nation but a historically evolved people.

As I explore the response to this question I become convinced we are dealing with imperial bribery and a profound fetish, wherein the historical social intercourse between the peoples and classes of the imperial centers of capital and their material relationship with the colonial masses and class structures, appear as a category called race.

The historical position of the CPUSA was forced on them by the prestige of Lenin and the Third International. It is necessary to examine a passage from the 1930 document of the Comintern on the Negro Question to unravel the fetish. The document states:

"Is the Southern region, thickly populated by Negroes to be looked upon as a colony, or as an "integral part of the national economy of the United States," where presumably a revolutionary situation cannot arise independent of the general revolutionary development in the United States?

"In the interest of the utmost clarity of ideas on this question, the Negro question in the United States must be viewed from the standpoint of its peculiarity, namely as the question of an oppressed nation, which is in a peculiar and extraordinary distressing situation of national oppression not only in view of the prominent racial distinction (marked difference in the color of skin, etc.) but above all, because of considerable social antagonism (remnants of slavery). This introduces in the American Negro Question an important, peculiar trait, which is absent from the national question of other oppressed people. Furthermore, it is necessary to face clearly the inevitable distinction between the position of the Negro in the South and in the North, owing to the fact that at least three-fourths of the entire Negro population in the United States (12,000,000) live in the compact masses in the South, most of them being peasants and agricultural laborers in a state of s!
emi-serfdom, settled in the "Black Belt" and constituting the majority of the population, whereas the Negroes in the northern

Re: Re: Text File Re: Clueless 2

Clueless 2

CB: Briefly, the CPUSA from the 1920's to about 1950 or so held that Black people in the US had the right to self-determination in the Leninist sense. They had the right to secede from the U.S. if they so chose. If you are familiar with the Leninist approach to this, it implies not that the people in question are a nation, but that they have the right to choose to be one. Black people in the U.S. never decided to exercise that right to a separate nation. Then in the 50's the CPUSA changed its assessment, because a large part of the Black population had migrated out of the South, and there was no longer the territorial/population compactness for a "land".

Most Marxists in the U.S. today do not hold that Black people constitute a separate nation today, in direct answer to your question.
CB

Any Marxist in history who has held that "Black people constitute a separate nation," misunderstands what a nation is. What Comrade Charles alludes to is a bourgeois separatist conception of the Negro National Colonial Question, that is alive and well within the tiny radical black intelligencia.

He states the position of the CPUSA as "a large part of the Black population had migrated out of the South, and there was no longer the territorial/population compactness for a "land"."

In other words: 1. The Black population migrated from the South; and 2. Because the black skin people are the nation, 3. Their dispersal dissolved the nation. As a result, "Most Marxists in the U.S. today do not hold that Black people constitute a separate nation today, in direct answer to your question."

Is it not correct to call this proposition a bourgeois separatist tendency or theory. What is the nation that developed in the south and was colonized by Wall Street imperialism as the result of its defeat during the Civil War in America?

The nation or national formation that evolved in the South of the United States of North America, is a historically evolved stable community of Colored people - black slaves, along with the historically developed Anglo-American people, who lived in the old slave holding area of the South - the Black Belt, and the economically dependent area of the Southern USNA - border regions.

In place of a Marxist disclose of the meaning of a "common land" Comrade Charles smuggles in the historical CPUSA conception called "the territorial/population compactness for a "land". Our Comrade faces an impossible situation and places land in quotes ("land"), because of the absurdity of the proposition. He has no way out of this absurd situation without resorting to the Marxist presentation of the national colonial question and this means consulting the classic, "Marxism and the National Question" and reading the section on the meaning of a "common land" as the basis for a development from pre-capitalist to capitalist production relations.

Let us return to the Comintern document again.

Re: Re:Text File Race

Is not Marx using the concept of race when he refers to Negroes ?

^^^

Further Marx says, "Where the capitalist outlook prevails, as on American
plantations, this entire surplus value is regarded as profit . . ." Capital
Volume 3 page 804.

CB: Here's what occurs to me when I consider: What type of group is Marx
referring to when he refers to a "Negro" ? Obviously, he _is_ referring to a
race, contra your comment here.

Lets stop here. Lets dwell on this some.

Please focus your discussion on this point for a while, then lets move on to
your other discussion. Right now I am focusing on your answer to this
question.

Charles Brown

Reply.

I cannot believe you asked what you ask:

The folly of racial theory has not bounds. You seek to prove the impossible and
miss the elementary. Marx is referring to a class of slaves whose origins are
traceable to continental Africa. Specifically, he is referring to the black slaves on the plantations of the American south.

You must study Lenin and Stalin writings. One of your misunderstanding is what
is meant by the words national-colonial question, which as such did not emerge
as such until during and after the first Imperialist War. Marx could not have
meant a “national-colonial group” because this configuration in history occurs
after his death.

Communist speak of the Leninist conception of the national colonial question
because Lenin’s name is associated with the evolution of a new theory markedly
different than the presentation popularized by the bankrupt leaders of the
Second International. This is one of the reasons the Third Communist
International was formed.

The reason Marx words are quoted is to present the analysis of what made slavery
in the South a unique system of capitalist production. The reason understanding
a form of capitalist production is important is because any group of human
beings drawn into the vortex of capitalist production will evolve with a
specific framework referred to as national development. National development is
markedly different than that of the estates under feudal social and economic
relations. National development took place in the slaveholding areas of the
South, but the Negro People evolved as a unique people prior to the emergence of
the national formation and its attempt to win political authority and complete
its development.

Your obsession with race blinds you and most of our comrades to the logic of
American history and prevents disclosing the essence of the Negro National
Colonial Question. The Negro National Colonial question did not exist at the
time of Marx. The social motion of the African American people of the United
States has always reflected the level of development of the productive forces,
the productive relations and the political maneuvering of the ruling class to
keep the two united. The political maneuvering and the social response of the
African American people to the material conditions of society has kept them at
the center of the country’s history.

The formation of the African American people is unique to history. Racial theory
prevents the disclosure of this unique development and has prevented at every
important juncture of history, the independent political assertion of the most
proletarian sector of the Negro people.

The word Negro is Spanish for black. The black people who constituted the human
chattel driving slave production of commodities for the world market began to
coalesce into a people as the result of the harshness of slavery. What began as
various pre-capitalist groups of black people from continental Africa was weld
together into a people with a common language – English, and psychological
make-up. The internal unity that held the African American people together as a
people was not a common land in the sense of the historical evolution of a
people and their transformation on the basis of passing from feudal social and
economic relations to capitalist social and economic relations.

That is to say the historic evolution of the towns as centers of commerce and
their interactive

Re:Text File Capitalist Slavery/Race

CB: You have not been persuasive.

Obviously you jest.

Comrade, you first asked me to define the content of the Marxist analysis of the African American national colonial question concerning Booker T. Washington and Dr. Dubois and I answered this question concretely and destroyed your racial analysis with a very clear dichotomy of these two men as representative of the bourgeoisie or capital. I am prepared to answer every single question you posed concerning the Marxist proletariat approach to the African American National Colonial Question.

Search the web for a level of Marxism such as I inherited. I state for the record that prior to the early 1970s and the formation of the Communist League and our publication of the first edition of the Negro National Colonial Question that no segment of the Marxist movement in the history of America formulated the amalgamation of the various people of African, European and "Native" heritage into a new people - the African American people, as the result of the passing from patriarchal forms of economic to the capitalist mode of production, as the genesis of the "African American National Colonial Question."

Here is the presentation of the African American National Colonial Question - again, from the standpoint of its development in the Marxist movement reconsolidated by the Third Communist International, after the mechanization of and in this new period. Let us begin at the beginning with Marx.

"In the second type of colonies - plantations- where commercial speculation figure from the start and production is intended for the world market, the capitalist mode of production exist, although only in a formal sense, since the slavery of Negroes precludes free wage laborers, which is the basis of capitalist production. But the business in which slaves are used is conducted by capitalist (italicized capitalist in original)." Theory of Surplus Value Volume 2.

Further Marx says, "Where the capitalist outlook prevails, as on American plantations, this entire surplus value is regarded as profit . . ." Capital Volume 3 page 804.

Marx has a way with words. Comrade Charles please try and follow the logic or rather dialectic of the economic development that produced on the one hand a historically evolved people, not a race - (stop pause and consider), and then - (the historically evolved people is now in back of us), a historically evolved economic unit that cannot be classified as feudal economic organization of production.

What is peculiar in "American" development is our specific capitalist development, not racial development. This peculiar development calls for - nay demands, an indigenousness and militant Marxism, although the various Marxist amongst the Native Bands would approach this matter from a different vantage point. Indeed, the intellectual sectors of the various Native Bands - who are Marxist or simply rigorous intellectuals, would approach the matter from the actual development of the process called by Marx, the primitive accumulation of capital or the historic process that separated the producer from the land as the fundamental attribute of an emerging mode of production. For the Native bands primitive accumulation of capital meant annihilation. The survived never forgets "his" annihilation even when he or she survives as part of the peoples who did the annihilation. For the black, primitive accumulation of capital meant slavery as it was transformed from a system riveted to!
the production of use-values to a unity of the labor process called the production of exchange values. For the Irish the potato famine and the people removal from the land in favor of wool or rather sheep describes the primitive accumulation of capital.

Here at one blow, Marx clearly sets forth the character of capitalist slavery in North America in distinction to the slavery in some other areas in the Americas. Marx says:

"It is however, clear that in any given economic formation of society, where not the exchange value but the use value of the product predominated, the surplus labor will be limited by a given set of wants, which may be greater or less, and that here no boundless thirst for surplus labor arises from the nature of production itself. Hence in antiquity, overwork become horrible only when the object is to obtain exchange value in its specific independent money-form; in the production of gold and silver. Compulsory working to death is here the recognized form of over-work." (Capital Volume 1).

Marx further explain slavery under capitalism:

"But as soon as people, whose production still moves within the lower form of slave labor, corvee labor. Etc. arte dawn into the whirlpool of an international market dominated by the capitalist mode of production, the sale of their products for export becoming the principle interest, the civilized horrors of overwork are grafted on the barbaric horrors of slaver, serfdom, etc. hence the Negro labor is the Southern states of

Re: The Death of Reconstruction [H-South]

Heather Cox Richardson. The Death of Reconstruction: Race, Labor, and 
Politics in the Post-Civil War North, 1865-1901. Cambridge and 
London: Harvard University Press, 2001. xvi + 312 pp. Notes index. 
$39.95 (cloth), ISBN 0-674-00637-2.

It is really exciting and wonderful to read in your review an attempt to unravel the class factors of Reconstruction, outside the ideological stink of race. I am an African American and most certainly live the reality of the color factor in our collective history. More than that I am also a Yankee and industrial worker, who has labored amongst the highest paid workers ad the thin labor aristocracy - which is not a bad word in my opinion, but a material reality that cannot be wished away. 

I am also an old school communist at age 49 and recently retired from DaimlerChrysler after 30 years. I wanted to do something else in life - like work in a Casino or something - and read books. 

Race and concepts of race obscure the obvious and magnify the absurd. You point out how under Reconstruction the various bourgeois democratic governments enacted class policy directed against the former slave holding class and favorable to the freed peoples - a term I really like, and small farmers. 

Others tend to paint Reconstruction as a fantasy in harmonious racial relations devoid of class content. This is my objection. People of various hue can and will sooner or later live in peace as far as that goes, but class factors tend to divide more fundamentally than the assertions by the theorist of "an authentic Marxist conception of race." 

Great review. 

Eric Foner - indeed. The "unfinished revolution" concept is very old indeed and I first encountered it perhaps 30 years ago in James Allen 1936 Reconstruction, a book somewhere in the mountain of books in the basement of my second wife home. If memory serves me correct, this generation of authors - who did the best they could, proceeded from a standpoint of concrete feudal economic relations in the South, rather than feudal-like social relations housing the economic logic of a form of capitalist slavery - latifundia. 

On another note, I do have a somewhat different point of view concerning the role of Booker T. Washington and his Up From Slavery. Part of my attitude and outlook probably has much to do with being a Yankee, and never having lived behind the Cotton Curtain of the period of the 1890s. 

Nevertheless, I view Washington as an intellectual extension of Sambo, from the novel "Uncle Toms Cabin." 

Ouch. 

Melvin P.

Re: Charles and Race Theory 2

“Black and white, unite and fight!” is extremely disheartening to a man that believes in “Proletarians of the World Unite!, and “Workers and Oppressed People of the World Unite!,” which appears to perhaps be historically obsolete, given our current stage in the development of capital world wide. Nevertheless, you and I capture the historical polarity within American communism on the Negro National Colonial Question.

Ideological categories by definition exist in history but are not material relations. Ideological categories are historically evolved but not material categories and I cannot prove this to a person that believes that what is being described, is inherently material by virtue of it being described. The color factor is a material category because people one earth have variations in hue.

Everything in your analysis of the Negro National Colonial Question leads to the conclusion “Black and white, unite and fight!” and everything in my analysis leads to “Proletarians of the World Unite! And Workers and Oppressed People of the World Unite!

I do not question your ability to read or your rather large intellectual capacity. What is question is the Marxist standpoint and presentation of the Negro National Colonial Question as it evolved historically using the Comintern documents as the base of discussion. Without question you are a very intelligent man, whose sum total of analysis - on this particular issue, leads to the most classless formulation possible in American society: “Black and white, unite and fight!”

The reason is the ideological categories in your head.

I speak of colonies of imperialism and the color factor in history. You repudiate the colonial question as applied to the South and substitute a theory of race, which can only lead to “Black and white, unite and fight!”

CB: A summation of the development of the African American people without acknowledging that there is a historical materialist reality to race is like being up the creek without a paddle. Why Coleman Young said just a few years ago Racism do exist. There is a large amount of empirical data demonstrating the social and historical material reality ofrace. For example, the recent census showed significant segregation inresidence based on race, in general, and in the Southeast Michigan area.”

You of course know personally that we – in the old League of Revolutionary Black Workers, interacted with Coleman Young. You know that he would come to all our fundraisers and we supported his successful bid for Mayor. Ours was a principled political agreement with Coleman. He was understood correctly as the person to dismantle the “Red Squad” that kept us under surveillance and halt the increasingly terrorist feature of the police force; a process accelerated after the 1967 rebellion. In history brother Coleman Young – a genuine champion of the people and a fine son of the African American people, evolved as a courageous and militant representative of the Negro National bourgeoisie, with an impressive labor and trade union history. Coleman Young was articulate, highly educated and understood communist politics, having cut his teeth during the era of the Negro Labor League. His militant defiance before the House Un-AmericanActivity Committee and refusal to “turn-over” its membership list, combined with his stunning presentation before these thugs represents the turning point in what is called the battle against McCarthyism. Coleman was comfortable in meetings with the financier Max Fisher, the auto baron Henry Ford Jr., at the crap table in the basement of a home in the lower section of the workers neighborhood.

We – “our brand” of Marxism, never confused the complexity of the class struggle, the color factor in American history with concepts of race or abandon our proletarian heritage and mantle. Presenting Coleman Young as expressing a Marxist concept of race is horrendous and brother Coleman was a political genius.

Detroit of course is one of the most segregated large cities in the country. By definition segregation in our country operates on the basis of the color factor and is driven by class reality – economic status. Generally speaking, the color factor and class factor is referred to in the lexicon of our specific development of Marxism in America – beginning with the 1928 and 1930 documents of the Third Communist International, as the “ever intertwining of the national-colonial question with the question of proletarian revolution.”

What you call race in respects to the African American people is called the color factor, because race is an ideological category preventing the unraveling of the national colonial question. Are the Puerto-Rican masses another race because of their color? Are the Mexican nationals still yet another race, which of course exposes the utter bankruptcy of the slogan, “Black and white, unite and fight!” in our present era.

I am of course familiar with the writings of “Aptheker, Dubois,

Re: Text file reply Charles and Race Theory 2

"Black and white, unite and fight!" is extremely disheartening to a man that believes in "Proletarians of the World Unite!, and "Workers and Oppressed People of the World Unite!," which appears to perhaps be historically obsolete, given our current stage in the development of capital world wide.

Nevertheless, you and I capture the historical polarity within American communism on the Negro National Colonial Question.

Everything in your analysis of the Negro National Colonial Question leads to the conclusion "Black and white, unite and fight!" and everything in my analysis leads to "Proletarians of the World Unite! And Workers and Oppressed People of the World Unite!

I do not question your ability to read or your rather large intellectual capacity. What is question is the Marxist standpoint and presentation of the Negro National Colonial Question as it evolved historically using the Comintern documents as the base of discussion. Without question you are a very intelligent man, whose sum total of analysis leads to the most classless formulation possible in American society: "Black and white, unite and fight!"

The reason is the ideological categories in your head.

CB: A summation of the development of the African American people without acknowledging that there is a historical materialist reality to race is like being up the creek without a paddle. Why Coleman Young said just a few years ago "Racism do exist ". There is a large amount of empirical data demonstrating the social and historical material reality of race. For example, the recent census showed significant segregation in residence based on race, in general, and in the Southeast Michigan area."

You of course know personally that we - in the old League of Revolutionary Black Workers, interacted with Coleman Young. You know that he would come to all our fundraisers and we supported his successful bid for Mayor. Ours was a principled political agreement with Coleman. He was understood correctly as the person to dismantle the "Red Squad" that kept us under surveillance and halt the increasingly terrorist feature of the police force; a process accelerated after the 1967 rebellion. In history brother Coleman Young - a genuine champion of the people and a fine son of the African American people, evolved as a courageous and militant representative of the Negro National bourgeoisie, with an impressive labor and trade union history. Coleman Young was articulate, highly educated and understood communist politics, having cut his teeth during the era of the Negro Labor League. His militant defiance before the House Un-American Activity Committee and refusal to "!
turn-over" its membership list, combined with his stunning presentation before these thugs represents the turning point in what is called the battle against McCarthyism.

Coleman was comfortable in meetings with the financier Max Fisher, the auto baron Henry Ford Jr. and at the crap table in the basement of a home in the lower section of the workers neighborhood.

We - "our brand" of Marxism, never confused the complexity of the class struggle, the color factor in American history with concepts of race or abandon our proletarian heritage. Presenting Coleman Young as expressing a Marxist concept of race is horrendous and brother Coleman was a political genius.

Detroit of course is one of the most segregated large cities in the country. By definition segregation in our country operates on the basis of the color factor and is driven by class reality - economic status. Generally speaking, the color factor and class factor is referred to in the lexicon of our specific development of Marxism in America - beginning with the 1928 and 1930 documents of the Third Communist International, as the "ever intertwining of the national-colonial question with the question of proletarian revolution."

What you call race in respects to the African American people is called the color factor, because race is an ideological category preventing the unraveling of the national colonial question. Are the Puerto-Rican masses another race because of their color? Are the Mexican nationals still yet another race, which of course exposes the utter bankruptcy of the slogan, "Black and white, unite and fight!" in our present era.

I am of course familiar with the writings of "Aptheker, Dubois, Marable, Foner" and consider

re: prim-accum/capital and race theory-the real story

CB: No. I get he idea that slavery was integral to the primitive accumulation of capitalism from Marx (Steal this idea!). It is not my idea or the CPUSA's right wing’s. It is Marx's idea. Quote:

The discovery of gold and silver in America, the extirpation, enslavement and entombment in mines of the aboriginal population, the beginning of the conquest and looting of the East Indies, the turning of Africa into a warren for the commercial hunting of black-skins, signalized the rosy dawn of the era of capitalist production. These idyllic proceedings are the chief momenta of primitive accumulation. On their heels treads the commercial war of the European nations, with the globe for a theater. It begins with the revolt of the Netherlands from Spain, assumes giant dimensions in England's Anti-JacobinWar, and is still going on in the opium wars against China, c.

The different momenta of primitive accumulation distribute themselves now, more or less in chronological order, particularly over Spain, Portugal, Holland, France, and England. In England at the end of the 17th century, they arrive at a systematical combination, embracing the colonies, the national debt, the modern mode of taxation, and the protectionist system. These methods depend in part on brute force, e.g., the colonial system. But, they all employ the power of the State, the concentrated and organized force of society, to hasten, hothouse fashion, the process of transformation of the feudal mode of production into the capitalist mode, and to shorten the transition. Force is the midwife of every old society pregnant with a new one. It is itself an economic power. et al.
http://www.marxists.org/archive/marx/works/1867-c1/ch31.htm

CB
^

Perhaps my distinction between the slave trade on the one hand as a force of primitive accumulation of capital, and the transition to capitalist slavery was not clear enough. Several distinct historical periods are being talked about. My specific point is that on this land mass the capitalist slave Marx speaks of is not a category of primitive accumulation of capital but rather capital conversion and reproduction. “That is the secret.”

After the discovery of the Americas in the 14th century, the Portuguese and Spanish, probing down the coast of Africa, became involved in the already developed slave trade. In history, capitalism roughly experienced 700 years of evolution and development and there have been leaps, transitions in its quantitative and qualitative configuration. The slave trade of the 14th, 15th, 16, 17th and 18th century cannot be confused with the system of slavery peculiar to America in the 19th century, which roughly coincide with the transformation from manufacture to industry.

I humbly decline to “steal the idea” that equates capital conversion and reproduction – creation of surplus value, with the historical process called the primitive accumulation of capital. This is not to say that I do not steal ideas but have grown old enough to steer clear of “fools gold” and wooden nickels. Ours is a historical dispute, which has been running since the 1928 and 1930 documents on the Negro Question created by the Third International. I stole the ideas from the previous generation.

There were no concrete feudal economic relations in America. Trading companies colonized America. I stated that, “The material quoted by Marx makes clear the character of slavery in the South. "That is the secret.” Perhaps I should have simply stated – in retrospect, that slavery in the American South of the 19th century drove the transition from manufacture to industry, and this is a different historical period than the “dawn of the era of capitalist production,” although your quote from Marx is wonderful.

Apparently, I should have outlined the slaughter and murder of the Native Bands of people as the primary form of primitive accumulation on this landmass and its peculiarity as primitive accumulation. That is to say the process of separating the producer from the means of production, of which Marx speaks is called primitive because this process forms the “pre-historic stage of capital and of the mode of production corresponding with it.” Marx states rather clearly, “In the history of primitive accumulation, all revolutions are epoch-making that acts as levers for the capitalist class in the course of formation;”

What is peculiar to our history is that “separating the producer from the means of production, ”meant wholesale murder on the scale of genocide. The voice of the Anglo-American proletariat, who I seek to represent, has been weak on this matter, and this has perhaps kept the Native Bands away from Marxism.

I decline to steal your conception of slavery in the American South of the 19th century as a lever of the primitive accumulation of capital, because the capitalist class was well formed and evolved. “The secret” is that the Negro People evolved and developed as a people prior to the

Re text file the real story;prim-accum-capital.