>>CB: The Marxist idea is that the working class is the only class that can overthrow capitalism, and that in the process it abolishes itself as a class, and all classes.<< WL: OK . . . these Marxists should follow their heart and convert their belief into a strategy or strategic approach to the working class. I do recall the Marxists of the Third International speaking of not the working class in general but the industrial sector of the working class on the one hand and the most exploited and oppressed sector of the working class, rather than "the working class is the only class that can overthrow capitalism . . ." In Russia the social revolution was from agriculture to industry and no one disputes this. That was the change in the mode of production - with the property relations within. The communist crowned the social revolution with the dictatorship of the proletariat or carried out the insurrection. That is to say the communist proceeded to build an industrial mode of production without the bourgeois property relations in the 1930s. Hence . . ."The system they constitute has a mode of production - with the property relations within." Mode of production would appear to embody productive forces as fundamental and the property relations within. I really do not think that the working class can abolish itself in the process of overthrowing capitalism or after the bourgeois property relations has been overthrown in the abstract. That it to say a very lengthy transition period where the bourgeois property relations undergoes change and society systematically rebuild itself on the basis of communist principles or a new law system of production is need. Perhaps one to 200 years. I believe this is the context in which one can really speak of the abolition of the working class as a class of workers as opposed to laboring humanity. The abolition of the working class as a class, (and class is indissolubly fused with property, including public property and the "working" part of "working class" is the humans as the embodiment of the technological regime) - cannot be separated from the abolition of the state as state or the withering away of the state as a property relations or more accurately the state as the embodiment of property relations. Working class for me basically means the technological regime as the laboring process - working, with the property relations within - class. The working class is never going to overthrow capitalism as such, because it can't. The advance of industry - the revolution in the technological regime, is the grave digger of the bourgeoisie and this makes the victory of the proletariat inevitable. I recall nothing in Marx that leads one to view the working class act of abolition of itself outside the context of the withering away of the state as the embodiment of property. >>CB: The Marxist position is that the mode of production is a set of property relations.<< WL: 1) Productive forces or the technological regime driving the productive forces, is of course the alpha and omega of the mode of production. This essence of the mode of production is forever and never disappears once it comes into existence. Property embodied in the mode of production is historically limited - transitory, and disappears from history. The technological regime NEVER disappears in history and there will be a mode of production after the abolition of classes or the property relations or a set of property relations.
Pardon if I take license in advocating a specific character to mode of production. The intent is to popularize this particular point of view. WL: 2) I do not subscribe to the proposition that the "mode of production is a set of property relations," not do I recall Marx ever stating this or implying it. I consider the mode of production to refer primarily to the technological regime - productive forces, with the property relations within. I consider the technological regime to always be the more mobile aspect of the mode of production. Of course the technological regime is also the embodiment of brain power or human agency or we are not talking about anything. Hence my use of mode of production as fundamentally the technological regime - with the property relations within. Here is our difference that cannot be resolved because my understanding is that the mode of production IS NOT a set of property relations. The industrial system is a mode of production - with the property relations within, that is being overthrow on the basis of the advance of the technological regime. The question is ones standpoint and I guess this means disagreeing with "the Marxist." The mode of production is defined in its fundamentality based on the technological regime - with the property relations within. That is our difference. Your formulation is that the mode of production is a set of property relations. OK. Hope this does not get me kicked out of the Marxist movement, but if it does OK. One can be a communist and not a Marxist. WL: 3). For myself socialism IS NOT a mode of production - a set of property relations, with the technological regime within. Rather Soviet socialism was an industrial system - industrial mode of production, with the public property relations within. What is fundamental is the technological regime in defining mode of production - not the property relations, although they are interactive. Fundamental does not mean most important in the abstract but most mobile in the unity that is mode of production. Therefore, I feel absolutely free to use the concept industrial mode of production in a narrow and broad sense in describing post industrial society and the current circumstance we face. I say abandon the concept of a leading role of the industrial working class and the working class in general. In fact all the evident over the past fifty years is that the fight back against the state - not the employers, is driven by the most poverty stricken sector of the working class, which I call the real proletatiat so there is no confusion about the role of the industrial working class. WL: 4) The social revolution unfolds in the technological regime as fundamental and this compels society to leap forward to a new political basis or superstructure that conforms to the new technological regime. The social revolution does not unfold - as fundamental, in the set of property relations as the mobile aspect of society compulsion and this compels changes in the technological regime as the forward logic of the movement of society. No one denies interactivity but it is proper for us communists - perhaps not the Marxists, to speak of fundamentality. The revolutionary change in our society today is not driven by the property relations but the technological regime as the mobile aspect of the unity of productive forces and property, the traditional meaning of mode of production. Yes, . . . I use mode of production freely - perhaps to liberal for many taste, and always mean primarily the technological regime as the leading impulse for revolutionary change. This is because the working class is never going to overthrow anything as such. It can't. Rather the fight comes from the proletariat, which compels various levels and strata within the working class to take certain political position in favor or against this spontaneous assault on property. The serf did not overthrow the landlords or rather the landed property relations and did not even have such a vision. The bourgeoisie/proletariat had the revolutionary vision. That is the point. The serf and the landlord as the basic unity of the system of landed property were involved in an unending struggle to reform the system. The serf could not and did not overthrow the land lord as the landed property relations. This does not mean the serf stayed at home and there were no peasant revolts. Rather, what was required was the emergence of new technological regime as class and changes in the forms of wealth to make the overthrow of landed property historically necessary. These new classes arise - are formed exclusively as the result of changes in the mode of production or the technological regime - not the property relations, because the changes in the form of property are shaped not by themselves but by the technological regime. However, property is embodied in the mode of production. Difference in point of view. Here is what Marx states and this leaves enough room for the Marxist and communist workers. "In the social production of their life, men enter into definite relations that are indispensable and independent of their will, relations of production which correspond to a definite stage of development of their material productive forces. The sum total of these relations of production constitutes the economic structure of society, the real foundation, on which rises a legal and political superstructure and to which correspond definite forms of social consciousness. The mode of production of material life conditions the social, political and intellectual life process in general. It is not the consciousness of men that determines their being, but, on the contrary, their social being that determines their consciousness." I have admitted long ago that I prefer Engels descriptions of the mode of production in material life as articulated to the English speaking workers. "The mode of production of material life" is a set of property relations. Nope . . . I do not think so or see it that way and that is alright. "The mode of production of material life" is the technological regime with the property relations within. Productive forces as the essence of the mode of production is forever. Property embodied in the mode of production is historically limited - transitory, and disappears from history. The technological regime or the productive forces never disappears in history and there will be a mode of production in material life after the abolition of classes or a set of property relations. Waistline _______________________________________________ Marxism-Thaxis mailing list Marxism-Thaxis@lists.econ.utah.edu To change your options or unsubscribe go to: http://lists.econ.utah.edu/mailman/listinfo/marxism-thaxis
