Marx and Engels were of the opinion that this point had already been
arrived at in their day I think. ... Andy
At 02:17 PM 6/01/2004 +0200, you wrote:
>Andy,
>The classification of "control of production" as "part of production" is the
>ususal practice, but it does not obviate the fact that as each gollop of
>control of production becomes production, the role of the capitalist in
>production is reduced. At this time it appears to me that there will come a
>point at which the only justification of capitalist dominance will be a
>legal one, at which point he and his class, like that of the Mandarin's of
>the last years of the Chinese empire will be irrelevant to the productive
>process and too weak to maintain their role as the ruling class. This
>certainly will not happen tomorrow or even the day after - it is more like a
>general historical process that probably will take generations to complete.
>
>Enough said.
>Regards,
>Victor
>
>----- Original Message -----
>From: "Andy Blunden" <ablunden@mira.net>
>To: <xmca@weber.ucsd.edu>
>Sent: Monday, January 05, 2004 12:46 AM
>Subject: Re: real and virtual worlds
>
>
> > I agree Victor that the relations between classes have been "complicated"
> > and that it is necessary to trace how this process of concretisation has
> > taken place. I don't agree that if can be characterised in terms of
> > increasing proletarian control of production. Rather, that what was
> > formerly seen under the category of "control of production" has become
> > merged under the heading of "production itself".
> >
> > In the 1844s, Marx talks of the practical and theoretical attitudes of
> > those who work and those who control work, but I think that theoretical
> > work, after Taylor, became "real work", exploitable just like "practical
> > activity". The labour process is still directed by capital, IMO.
> >
> > Andy
> >
> > At 01:36 PM 4/01/2004 +0200, you wrote:
> > >Andy,
> > >One way to read that long exegesis I just sent was to see it as an effort
>to
> > >make more concrete (concretize?) the abstracted analysis of class
>struggle
> > >presented in Capital. Current historical conditions are very different
>from
> > >those of the 19th century which inspired the original theory.
> > >
> > >It's very tempting to maintain the analytical elegance of the original
> > >theory and continue to discuss capitalist and proletarian class
> > >consciousness as if these both remain undifferentiated social entities
> > >within their range of geographic and historical distribution. This,
> > >however, would be tantamount to elevating what was a scientific analysis
>to
> > >the level of dogma and to a recapitulation, , of all the methological
>errors
> > >that eventually led to the bent scientologies of orthodox theory and the
> > >diamat.
> > >
> > >What I was trying to put accross was a collection of observations
>concerning
> > >the evolution of the proletariat and of the state of class conflict in
>the
> > >the metropolis. Here both the properties of capital and the proletariat
> > >and the relations between them have changed drastically to the point that
>we
> > >can already see significant signs of developed proletarian control of
> > >production and of enterprise. The advanced stage of the proletarian
> > >revolution in the metropolis allows us to project the kind of society the
> > >proletarian revolution will bring (not socialism in my current view) far
> > >more effectively than did KM (who witnessed and helped to facilitate the
> > >very beginnings of organized proletarian class struggle).
> > >
> > >You wrote:
> > > >While it would be tempting to deny the possibility of a single "agent
>of
> > >history" to overthrow capital, it is capital, a single agency, which is
> > > currently running the world. "Not capital" does not constitute a clear
> > >ideal, so a movement "against capital" cannot itself form the basis for
> > >the emergence of a new class consciousness.
> > >We do not really disagree on this point. At least not in principle. At
>its
> > >most abstract level all proletarian consciousness; of the high, middle,
>and
> > >low proletariat, oppose the principle that "ownership of means of
>production
> > >is the basis for control of the enterprise and of its surplus," but since
> > >each group's relations to production are different, the concrete
>expression
> > >of this opposition varies considerably between them and they are often as
> > >not at ideological and political cross-purposes. This was very true of
>every
> > >bourgeois-capitalist revolution (See Tawney, 1922, Religion and the Rise
>of
> > >Capitalism and Norman Cohen, 1961, The Pursuit of the Millenium on the
> > >capitalist struggle for dominance throughout the European Middle-ages and
> > >into the Renaissance, and Barrington Moore, 1967, Social Origins of
> > >Dicatorship and Democracy and Charles Tilly, 1964, The Vendee, on the
>French
> > >Revolution and the conditions that engendered it) and it is and will be
>true
> > >of the proletarian revolution.
> > >
> > > >I think class consciousness will be more of an outcome than a starting
> > >point.
> > >Here I don't agree with you. Class consciousness has and will appear,
> > >disappear and reappear throughout the class struggle; and it will, of
> > >course, change as the composition and the long-term and more immediate
>aims
> > >of the proletarians change. It's not likely to be monolithic and will
> > >include internal conflicts between different sectors of the proletariat.
> > >Also we should expect that in the course of their struggle sectors of the
> > >proletariat may engage in temporary alliances with other classes, or
>sectors
> > >of other classes. The high bourgeoisie of France, for example, allied
> > >itself with the Feudal Kings of 16th and 17th century France when the
>latter
> > >were engaged in "pacification" of the landed, military nobility (see
>Lionel
> > >Rothkrug, 1965, The Opposition to Louis XIV), while middle and lower
> > >bourgeois-capitalists had no qualms about making an alliance with the
>urban
> > >proletariat during the militant phase of the French revolution (as they
>had
> > >no qualms about betraying this alliance once their goals had been met).
> > >These alliances will have echos in the ideologies of the allied classes -
> > >read the early French proletarian ideologue, Prodhoun 1840, What is
> > >Property, 1840 Letter to Blanqui, and Marx's critique on Prodhoun, 1847,
>The
> > >Poverty of Philosophy - further complicating the expression of class
> > >consciousness.
> > >Regards,
> > >Victor
> > >
> > >
> > >.
> > >----- Original Message -----
> > >From: "Andy Blunden" <ablunden@mira.net>
> > >To: <xmca@weber.ucsd.edu>
> > >Sent: Saturday, January 03, 2004 1:11 PM
> > >Subject: Re: real and virtual worlds
> > >
> > >
> > > > Victor, when I said that "I cannot but see a future in which class
> > > > consciousness makes a comeback in some form, changed by the long
>period of
> > > > identity and representation politics" then such a "class
>consciousness"
> > > > would have to be something very different from what Lukacs my have
>been
> > > > talking about in 1923; I am talking about a kind of "negation of
> > >negation".
> > > >
> > > > I did not mention "class consciousness" in "For Ethical Politics"
>because
> > >I
> > > > thought it would only confuse matters, but that is not to say it does
>not
> > > > exist, but it is facing such dramatic transformation!
> > > >
> > > > While it would be tempting to deny the possibility of a single "agent
>of
> > > > history" to overthrow capital, it is capital, a single agency, which
>is
> > > > currently running the world. "Not capital" does not constitute a clear
> > > > ideal, so a movement "against capital" cannot itself form the basis
>for
> > >the
> > > > emergence of a new class consciousness. I think class consciousness
>will
> > >be
> > > > more of an outcome than a starting point.
> > > >
> > > > Andy
This archive was generated by hypermail 2b29 : Sun Feb 01 2004 - 01:00:09 PST