Finally!
I was waiting for a response to that provocation. I'm writing so it'll take
a bit before I respond in full.
And thanks,
Victor
----- Original Message -----
From: <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
To: <[email protected]>
Sent: Friday, September 30, 2005 13:09
Subject: Re: [Marxism-Thaxis] Fettering - Restriction
V: "Marx most famous statement on the productive forces coming into conflict
with the existing relations of production" as Marx's great 'cop out' rather
than his greatest contribution to the history of the development of the
relation
between the forces of production and of the relations of production. It
represents Marx's almost desperate effort to find a way out of a serious
contradiction in his theory of development; the problem of accounting for
the impact of
material forces on a system (of the relations of production ) that is in
essence a closed, self-organizing, and self-developing organization in which
the
concepts that describe the organization are what facilitate its operation
and
growth, i.e. capital, profits, and all the rest of the nonsense of
capitalist
political economy.
WL: "Marx most famous statement on the productive forces coming into
conflict
with the existing relations of production" is no "cop out" but the
foundation
for what is the "science of society" and is better understood in connection
with his letter of December 28, 1846 to P.V. Annenkov.
http://www.marxists.org/archive/marx/works/1846/letters/46_12_28.htm
Let's look at Marx most famous quote in its entirety. I have numbered the
paragraphs for points of reference only. Marx writes:
Karl Marx: 1). 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.
2). 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.
3). At a certain stage of their development, the material productive forces
of society come in conflict with the existing relations of production, or —
what is but a legal expression for the same thing — with the property
relations
within which they have been at work hitherto. From forms of development of
the
productive forces these relations turn into their fetters.
4). 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 should always
be made
between the material transformation of the economic conditions of
production,
which can be determined with the precision of natural science, and the
legal,
political, religious, aesthetic or philosophic — in short, ideological forms
in which men become conscious of this conflict and fight it out. Just as our
opinion of an individual is not based on what he thinks of himself, so can
we
not judge of such a period of transformation by its own consciousness; on
the
contrary, this consciousness must be explained rather from the
contradictions of
material life, from the existing conflict between the social productive
forces and the relations of production.
4). No social order ever perishes before all the productive forces for which
there is room in it have developed; and new, higher relations of production
never appear before the material conditions of their existence have matured
in
the womb of the old society itself. Therefore mankind always sets itself
only
such tasks as it can solve; since, looking at the matter more closely, it
will
always be found that the tasks itself arises only when the material
conditions
of its solution already exist or are at least in the process of formation.
5). In broad outlines Asiatic[A], ancient, feudal, and modern bourgeois
modes
of production can be designated as progressive epochs in the economic
formation of society. The bourgeois relations of production are the last
antagonistic
form of the social process of production — antagonistic not in the sense of
individual antagonisms, but of one arising form the social conditions of
life
of the individuals; at the same time the productive forces developing in the
womb of bourgeois society create the material conditions for the solution of
that antagonism. This social formation brings, therefore, the prehistory of
society to a close.
http://www.marxists.org/archive/marx/works/1859/critique-pol-economy/preface-abs.htm
WL: Marx accounts for the historical progression from one mode of production
to another, by first redefining history on the basis of the progressive
accumulation of productive forces, rather than God's will, and locating the
change
factor or change wave as a movement of antagonism arising from the
development
of the material productive forces of society.
Marx alledged "problem of accounting for the impact of material forces on a
system (of the relations of production ) that is in essence a closed,
self-organizing, and self-developing organization" seems to misstate Marx
meaning
because he states that social revolution arises from the development of the
material power of production or the productive forces, rather than the form
of
accumulation, i.e., capitalist profits, in regard to the bourgeois mode of
production and this is the case with every other mode of production. It is
the
spontaneous development of the productive forces and the human ingenuity
behind such
development that is the material force that impacts a given state of
development of the relations of production. Please tolerate another return
to Marx and
his letter of Dec. 28, 1846.
Karl Marx: Needless to say, man is not free to choose his productive forces—
upon which his whole history is based—for every productive force is an
acquired
force, the product of previous activity. Thus the productive forces are the
result of man's practical energy, but that energy is in turn circumscribed
by
the conditions in which man is placed by the productive forces already
acquired, by the form of society which exists before him, which he does not
create,
which is the product of the preceding generation. The simple fact that every
succeeding generation finds productive forces acquired by the preceding
generation and which serve it as the raw material of further production,
engenders a
relatedness in the history of man, engenders a history of mankind, which is
all
the more a history of mankind as man's productive forces, and hence his
social
relations, have expanded. From this it can only be concluded that the social
history of man is never anything else than the history of his individual
development, whether he is conscious of this or not. His material relations
form
the basis of all his relations. These material relations are but the
necessary
forms in which his material and individual activity is realised.
WL: Marx does in fact indicate and accounts for the dynamic factor that
compels the bourgeois mode of production to undergo its evolutionary leap
and he
does not imply that it is capitalist profits. Nor is the issue of social
revolution during our present life cycle located in the mode of accumulation
or
capitalist profits but rather in the development of the productive forces.
Marx
states clearly, "at the same time the productive forces developing in the
womb of
bourgeois society create the material conditions for the solution of that
antagonism."
Earlier you stated:
V): The problem with Marx's argument that at some point the development of
the forces of production somehow create conditions that so contradict the
extant mode of production that a revolution occurs and a new mode emerges
out of the old. Logically, dialectically this is tantamount to ditching the
dialectical argument in favour of an override that breaks the otherwise
unassailable system of relations of production (the dialectical properties
of which are self-organization and self-growth). Marx specifies how this
occurs only by example without providing a theoretical explanation how
developing forces of production overcomes the closed system of relations of
production. Engels, apparently aware of the logical-theoretical problems of
this hypothesis, twists and turns and finally mobilizes the dialectical
relation between quantity and quality to explain this jump. The problem
with the quantity to quality relation is that is impossible to determine
what 'temperature' must be reached before accumulated forces of production
overcome the relations of production.
WL: First, the issue of social revolution for today is not posed as whether
or not the bourgeois mode of production and accumulation facilitates the
bourgeois mode of production and accumulation. Social revolution comes about
as the
result of changes in the productive forces or today the revolution in the
technological under pin of our existing system of production. The evolving
social
revolution or evolutionary leap - transition, from electromechanical
production relations of production to electro-computer (advanced robotics
and
digitalized processes) production is the content of today's world.
Marx provides the precise tools to unravel this process for all time. A new
technology emerges within the existing relations of production. This
qualitative new ingredient is first grafted onto existing processes within
productivity
infrastructure, and begins alteration of the pathways of the infrastructure.
This is the material impact of the new qualitative ingredient. The pathways
of
the old infrastructure cannot contain the new qualitative addition to
production and in turn gives way to restructuring. The restructuring of the
productivity infrastructure - relations of production as a totality, passes
from
conflict to antagonism or rather the contradiction is replaced by antagonism
because
the old relations of production and their corresponding property forms block
the universal emergence of the new law system of production contained within
the new qualitative ingredients that have emerged in the womb of the old
society. For instance, the new productive forces in our society could be
run - worked
day and night, but this would quickly fill up the national markets and
immediately collide with the barrier - social contract, that requires labor
exchange
AND the sell of labor power as a basis for consumption. This is the fetter
or
the contradiction of the bourgeois mode of production. However this
contradiction is not sufficient for social revolution as described by Marx
above. This
contradiction has to be replaced by the antagonism that arises from the
revolution in the productive forces.
This does not mean that the communists should wait or not attempted to take
power when social upheaval and discontent boils over. We fight for our ideas
even when they are not popular or can be realized because of our
understanding
of the direction of society and our ideological belief system.
In a sense Marx and Engels constructed the infrastructure of our
understanding of history as the progressive accumulation of productive
forces and why
society has moved in class antagonism.
Waistline
_______________________________________________
Marxism-Thaxis mailing list
[email protected]
To change your options or unsubscribe go to:
http://lists.econ.utah.edu/mailman/listinfo/marxism-thaxis
_______________________________________________
Marxism-Thaxis mailing list
[email protected]
To change your options or unsubscribe go to:
http://lists.econ.utah.edu/mailman/listinfo/marxism-thaxis
