Waistline2 at aol.com Waistline2 at aol.com <mailto:marxism-thaxis%40lists.econ.utah.edu?Subject=%5BMarxism-Thaxis%5D%20 Opposite%20of%20what%20I%20say&In-Reply-To=> Thu Oct 20 18:41:07 MDT 2005
* Previous message: [Marxism-Thaxis] Masons connections to the working class ? <http://lists.econ.utah.edu/pipermail/marxism-thaxis/2005-October/019212.htm l> * Messages sorted by: [ date ] <http://lists.econ.utah.edu/pipermail/marxism-thaxis/2005-October/date.html# 19213> [ thread ] <http://lists.econ.utah.edu/pipermail/marxism-thaxis/2005-October/thread.htm l#19213> [ subject ] <http://lists.econ.utah.edu/pipermail/marxism-thaxis/2005-October/subject.ht ml#19213> [ author ] <http://lists.econ.utah.edu/pipermail/marxism-thaxis/2005-October/author.htm l#19213> ________________________________ CB: CB: I have said that computerization does qualitatively alter the industrial process. It makes it super-industrial,not post-industrial. It also does not automatically, or shall we say robotically, burst asunder the capitalist relations of production. It is a qualitative change in the technological regime that has not as yet caused a qualitative change in the property regime. You misrepresent what I say very often. That significantly undermines principled discussion and analysis with you. *************** WL: I do not misrepresent what you write. There has been occasional mistakes by me over the past 4 or 5 years and when brought to my attention I correct them. I disagree and cannot understand your words from your conceptual framework. Example: "It makes it super-industrial, not postindustrial." Well, the word "super" contradicts a qualitative transformation of a thing, as I understand it. Not as you understand it. ^^^^ CB: When something is "OVERcome", the "over" is equivalent to "super" . "Super" means "above" or "over". A qualitiative change is an overcoming and preservation, a sublation. It is entirely appropriate to label a qualitative change in the "industrial" , "super-industrial", "over-industrial". It purposeful misrepresentation of what I am saying to pretend that you think that when I say "superindustrial" that I am arguing that there is not a qualitative change in the industrial process, especially when I say that explicitly also, often, have layed a theory on the scattering of the points of production as defining the qualitative change in industry, layed that out in response to you about two or three times. All the while saying this is _why_ its' a qualitative change in industry. Told you why I don't think "post" is appropriate and "super" is appropriate the characterize this qualitative change in industry. Computerization, advanced robotics and digitalized processes qualitatively alter the industrial process. In my opinion this is indisputable and I know of no author that has written to the contrary other than CB. You state we are not passing to postindustrial society but super industrial society. I therefore state you deny the injection of a new qualitative configuration into the production process that sublates the electro mechanical process. ^^^^ CB: It's post-manufactural. Super-industrial. I think those are better uses of the semantic content or meaning of "super" and "post" , and using Marx's chapters on modern industry and machines as the starting point for defining basic factors. I have several times on Thaxis spelled out the elements in this change that make it a qualitative change in the tech regime, based on Marx's concepts in _Capital_ I Part IV: Production of Relative Surplus Value Ch. 12: The Concept of Relative Surplus-Value Ch. 13: Co-operation Ch. 14: Division of Labour and Manufacture Ch. 15: Machinery and Modern Industr ^^^^^ Super indeed. ^^^^^ CB: That's correct. Indeed. ^^^^^ You state: "It also does not automatically, or shall we say robotically, burst asunder the capitalist relations of production." "Automatically"? Give me a break. ^^^^^ CB: Put it on automatic. ^^^^^ What is burst asunder is the electro mechanical process. Society is compelled to leap to a new political basis and politics means the superstructure or the superstructure relations or the arena where property rights are institutionalized. I do not misrepresent, I disagree. ^^^^^ CB: You disagree and misrepresent. Don't you mean the post-structure ? The electromechanical process is part of the forces of production. In the formulation in question , the forces of production socalled burst asunder the chains or fetters placed on the forces of production by the relations of production, impliedly leading to the expropriation of the expropriators, the proprietors, the private property owners. How , oh give me a break, does this happen just automatically, without class consciousness in humans, not in forces of production ? The development of the forces of production and organzation of production is to increase the division of labor, to become more and more socialized. In the penultimate chapter of _Capital_I , Marx mentions increasing monopolization and centralization production ,and socialization of labor ( socalled increase in the division of labor; worldwide , globalization of labor, worldcars and such) as processes that seemingly he means will "automatically" lead to the expropriation of the expropriators. "..Along with the constantly diminishing number of the magnates of capital, who usurp and monopolize all advantages of this process of transformation, grows the mass of misery, oppression, slavery, degradation, exploitation; but with this too grows the revolt of the working-class, a class always increasing in numbers, and disciplined, united, organized by the very mechanism of the process of capitalist production itself. The monopoly of capital becomes a fetter upon the mode of production, which has sprung up and flourished along with, and under it. Centralization of the means of production and socialization of labor at last reach a point where they become incompatible with their capitalist integument. Thus integument is burst asunder. The knell of capitalist private property sounds. The expropriators are expropriated. " ^^^^^ This is normal between individuals. Look, brother . . . I accept matters when you state that my formulation are in variation with Marx. I explain myself. Take it easy. ^^^^^ CB: Stop misrepresenting and mischaracterizing what I say, it drastically reduces communication. _______________________________________________ Marxism-Thaxis mailing list [email protected] To change your options or unsubscribe go to: http://lists.econ.utah.edu/mailman/listinfo/marxism-thaxis
