* V3: I regard the manifesto as a call to arms rather than a serious effort at analysis. It is if anything more dated by the conditions that engendered its
production, than are Marx and Engel's theoretical productions. I know this is not a direct or full answer, but it's the best I can give you for the moment. ^^^^ CB: Marx and Engels take the unity of theory and practice very seriously. Theoretical productions must united in a call to arms. Quite a bit of most fundamental analysis in the Manifesto. All the fundamentals of Merxist analysis are there. Later stuff doesn't really change too much from the fundamentals on historical materialism in the CM. One exception is first sentence change, the _written_ history, not just "history" of society is a history of class struggles. So, with respect to the following: "Prefaces to critiques of political economy are casual while political manifestos are serious analytical statements?" CB: Yes, definitely. ^^^^^^ > V2: In fact, both premedieval and medieval/feudal society was much more active than high school history books would have us believe. > > > ^^^^ > CB: But not like capitalism. V3: No, not like capitalism. Capitalism, beginning with Watt's steam engine and its accessories, unites the innovative effectiveness of natural science with production. The unity of science and production in Capitalist production in the mid 19th century brought about the movement of creative productive process from the slow, restricted development by creative labour to the hectic and universal development we witness today. ^^^^ CB: In capitalism, we have gone through technological revolutions that would have forced changes in the property relations in previous eras when the pace of technological development was, "on average" slower. Thus the role of development of productive forces in changing the relations in the sense of property relations ( not so much organization of the plant and equipment, workplace, shop floor(s)) is watered down compared with in long term history. ^^^^^^ > After all, the > so called middle ages witnessed repeated urban and peasant uprisings and efforts to establish utopias e.g. the Hussites of Mt Tabor and the Anabaptist regime of Munster and was a period of impressive advances in manufacturing technology. Remember, that the flowering of the natural sciences and technology of the 16 and 17th centuries preceded Capitalist > Industrial society by 300 to 200 years. > > ^^^^^^ > CB: Are you saying that there is not qualitative leap in development in > capitalism as compared with earlier modes ? > V3: This is in my view no longer a good question, because the answer must be ambiguous at best. New forms of production, of relations of production and so on emerge first as individual or singular events. Some of these develop into particularities, i.e. special developments within universal world contexts and even fewer of these eventually replace the universal modes in which they were special developments and become themselves the universal mode. Certainly this is the case with capitalism which begins as commodity exchange, develops into a fairly complex array of interrelated institutions throughout the European middle ages and only becomes the universal mode of production in England in the early 19th century and in Europe in the early to mid 20th century. Is there a qualitative leap here? That depends what you call a qualitative leap. In a sense virtually any creative development, e.g. the development of direct exchange (i.e.barter)the introduction of money, and the replacement of material tokens of value (e.g. cowrie shells, precious metals and what have you) with scrip are all evolutionary developments that are first, qualitative (as singular innovations) and then quantitative (as they are adopted by more individuals and communities) and finally once again qualititative (as they become special and universal practices). Take, for example, the representation of value by scrip. It's as ancient as the commercial practices of Classical Greek and Chinese civilization, develops into the regular practice of a considerable sector of European and Near Eastern medieval society, i.e. urban commercial civilization, but only becomes the universal mode of commercial relations between nation states in the mid 20th century. Even today, scrip is yet to become the absolute universal mode of representing value for all commercial transactions, though thanks to computer tech, we are eventually and probably will see that occur within the next 30 to 40 years. >> Notice, the Preface to the Introduction to the Contribution to the >> Critique >> of Political Economy or whatever in which the quote occurs WAS NEVER >> PUBLISHED. Marx didn't put out there for everybody his daydreaming about >> this. So, don't hold him to it so tightly. It's just a metaphor to sum up >> what he was thinking. He didn't mean it to be the most important >> statement >> he made at all, or else he would have published it. The formulations in >> _Capital_ are much more important , because they represent Marx's final >> decision on how to present his thinking to the wide public. > > V2: Much of Marx's works were not published until long after his death, > including his key 1844 works on private property (published in the mid > 1930s). > > According to that formula the two last volumes of Capital, the Grundrisse > (all of it, including the Precapitalist Formations), Theories of Surplus > Value, and so on would have to considered casual flights of Karl's > imagination. > > ^^^^ > CB; This is overstatement. The Preface , like most prefaces, _are_ > "casual", > compared to the text. _Capital_ is on the same subject as The Preface to > the Contribution ,etc. Probably , it represents what Marx thought was a > better formulation of what he said in The Preface. Why didn't he use the > same wording in _Capital_. Why count on people digging into your notes to > find your key formulation of your ideas. That doesn't make sense. Even the > form of the fettering thing is a _metaphor_. The "forces of production" > that are not human can't act as subjects. The non-human forces of > production > do not develop themselves. The instruments of production can't burst > asunder > the relations between people. It has to be people who invent new > instrument > of production doing the "bursting asunder". Prefaces to critiques of political economy are casual while political manifestos are serious analytical statements? ^^^ CB: Yes. Manifestos are for action, a very important aim of Marx and Engels. So, we expect the very best of analysis and theoretical statement _in the Manifesto_. ^^^^^^^^^^^ No, Capital does not treat the issue of the relation between the relations of production, i.e. capitalism, and the material conditions that engender the development of capitalist relations of production. ^^^^^^^ CB: See what I posted on "The Historical Tendency of the Capitalist Mode of Accumulation". It is a statement in _Capital_ of this relation. Also, consider the section no the machines and modern industry as extensive discussion of some material conditions, forces of production. ^^^^^ It is rather a thorough scientific analysis of capitalism as it existed in early to mid 19th century Britain. ^^^^^^ CB: It does discuss some other periods, and places. ^^^^^^ In Capital the material conditions of production are dealt with in the most abstract manner (only insofar as they are involved in the relations of production) and there is no effort made to show the concrete relations between the development of technical means, of natural resources and so on and the development of British capitalism. ^^^^^ CB: See chapters on Machinery and Modern Industry, ( Handicraft and Manufacture, ) More later _______________________________________________ Marxism-Thaxis mailing list [email protected] To change your options or unsubscribe go to: http://lists.econ.utah.edu/mailman/listinfo/marxism-thaxis
