.Waistline2 


WL: Yes they are. Of course they are not talking about the fettering of the 
productive forces in this passage from the Communist Manifesto. They of
course 
describes in detail how the bourgeoisie as a property relations fetter the 
development of the productive forces very clearly in the same Communist 
Manifesto. 

The issue of fettering does not mean that development of the material power 
of production no longer takes place. What is meant is what Marx states in
the 
Communist Manifesto five paragraphs after the material you quote. 

Here is what he states: 

KARL MARX: The productive forces at the disposal of society no longer tend
to 
further the development of the conditions of bourgeois property; on the 
contrary, they have become too powerful for these conditions, by which they
are 
fettered, and so soon as they overcome these fetters, they bring disorder
into 
the whole of bourgeois society, endanger the existence of bourgeois
property. 
The conditions of bourgeois society are too narrow to comprise the wealth 
created by them. And how does the bourgeoisie get over these crises? On the
one hand 
by enforced destruction of a mass of productive forces; on the other, by the

conquest of new markets, and by the more thorough exploitation of the old 
ones. That is to say, by paving the way for more extensive and more
destructive 
crises, and by diminishing the means whereby crises are prevented. 
http://www.marxists.org/archive/marx/works/1848/communist-manifesto/ch01.htm

WL: "The productive forces  . . . no longer tend to further the development 
of the conditions of bourgeois property; . . . they have become too powerful

for these conditions, by which they are fettered, and so soon as they
overcome 
these fetters, they bring disorder into the whole of bourgeois society, 
endanger the existence of bourgeois property." 

Marx concept of the fettering of the productive forces is not to be 
understood as the material power is no longer revolutionized or that
bourgeois society 
reaches a point where science and scientific development halts or there is
no 
basis for social revolution in human society. 

What would one call the "enforced destruction of a mass of productive 
forces;" of which Marx speaks and why is it a part of his statement on the
fettering 
of production under the sway of the bourgeois mode of production? 

Waistline 


^^^^^^^
CB: So, according to the above , everything I have said about the levees in
New Orleans , industrial plant closings in the U.S.and moving the plants
overseas from the U.S. as examples of bourgeois property relations fettering
the development of the material forces of production in relation to U.S.
workers fits in with what Marx said. So, why did you not agree with what I
said on all this ?

The "spontaneous" development of the material productive forces is the
activity of human beings - engineers, technicians, industrial workers,
physicists - the activity of discovery, experimentation, invention,
theorizing, sciencing, practice . The material forces do not develop
themselves. So, to give a prime role to the development of the material
forces of production is to make these categories of human actors a sort of
vanguard revolutionary role. Communists would be focussed primarily in these
areas of activity, natural science and engineering. Marx, Engels and Lenin
would have been directing people into these science and technology fields so
as to develop the forces of production. Instead, Marx , Engels and Lenin
focus communists on a _class_ group, a property relations social category of
people, the working class, and the activity is for the working class to
change the property relations directly. The reason the working class is
likely to be willing to change the property relations is that the
bourgeoisie use the developing productive powers in a way that is not
beneficial or is outright harmful to the working class. 

The fettering of the development of the forces of production is in relation
to the beneficial use of the working masses, whose property relation to
those forces of production is that of wage-laborer.


_______________________________________________
Marxism-Thaxis mailing list
[email protected]
To change your options or unsubscribe go to:
http://lists.econ.utah.edu/mailman/listinfo/marxism-thaxis

Reply via email to