WL: Specifically, the concept of antagonism I deploy is different from that of the Marxists and communist of the period of the Third International or how antagonism was articulated in various philosophic schools of thought in the Soviet Union and even the era of the Sino-Soviet split.
^^^ CB: How was the concept of antagonism deployed by the Marxists and communists of the period of the Third International ? How was "antagonism" employed by the CPC during the period of the Sino-Soviet split ? ^^^^^ WL: So the answer is yes, - I think, maybe "No" because my use of antagonism as a concept is different from the literature of the period of the Third International in describing the "class struggle." But then there is also a difference with how antagonism was described by the CPC during the period of the Sino-Soviet split. I opposed the Khrushchev groups domination of the CPSU and its theory projections and politics. ^^^^^ WL:The way I write this mimics the English version of the Theories of Surplus Value and Engels English articulation of the movement of antagonism in the sections on the crisis of overproduction. So the answer is "NO" because there is a difference between Engels articulation of antagonism in his editing of Theories of Surplus Value and the "Textbook of Marxist Philosophy." ^^^^ CB: What is the difference between the way Engels' articulation of "antagonism" in his editing of Theories of Surplus Value and "Textbook of Marxist Philosophy" ? ^^^^^^ WL: To be more precise, the concept of "externalization" rather than and in contradistinction to simply "overcoming" and the "subordinate aspect of contradiction becoming the dominate aspect" is used. The reason for this emphasis is contained in the history of the polemics between the CPC and the CPSU and Chairman Mao's mimicking of the 1939 "Textbook of Marxist Philosophy." CB: Please elaborate on the distinction between "externalization" and "simply 'overcoming' and the 'subordinate aspect of contradiction becoming the dominate aspect" ^^^^^ WL:Although Chairman Mao the individual, was without question the greatest organizer of hundreds of millions of people in humanhistory and revolutionary to the core; a beacon of hope to the hundreds of millions of slaves of the bourgeois imperial world order, and in the context of China's history, the last human being to inherit the mandate of heaven, some of us understood Marx and Engels deployment of antagonism different. This difference did not mean we - I, stood outside of or apart from the polarity headed by the CPC during the time framework of that puny buffoon Khrushchev. ^^^^ CB: Please clarify. You stood "inside" the polarity, but where "inside" more specifically ? ^^^^^^ WL:What this communist sector of the working class or communist proletariat is external to is the direct connection with value production and through this connection the bourgeoisie as property and production relations. Hence: "This struggle is spontaneously by its very nature against the state." CB: This is the new communist class, correct ? Are these the descendants of the reserved army of the unemployed and relative surplus population ? How are they qualitatively distinct from them ? What is the form of this struggle against the state ? ^^^^^^ WL: This is the best I can answer the questions above because they lack a description of how Marx formulates antagonism or expresses the concept of society moving in antagonism. CB: What is a brief description of how Marx formulates antagonism or expresses the concept of society moving in antagonism ? ^^^^ WL: In my opinion, Engels English rendering of the movement of antagonism is sufficient to express the essence of "external collision" of opposites at a certain stage of development. CB: "External collision" of opposites is "external" because the communist class is "outside" the value producing process ? ^^^^^ WL: I wrote: 1. "This new class of poverty stricken proletarians, that is (a) crystallized and clarified in the context of our current leap to a new mode of production; (b) the most destitute of the working class or (c) the communist segment of our working class, or (d) the communist proletariat, (e) have no form of mediating structures between it and the state as state. None . . . Nada . . . Zero." CB: Does no form of mediating structures between refer to the state imprisoning the new class ? Police murders of them ? Sent to the military / Does it refer to the new class' being in the state welfare systems ? What is the form of the direct antagonism, if that's what it is, between the new class and the state ? ^^^^^ WL: Also stated was: 2. "The social struggle after Los Angeles 1992, - as it is emerging in front of us, between this destitute segment of the population, called "the new class" or the communist proletariat, is not a class conflict but a form of society moving in class antagonism." CB: What is the difference between "class conflict" and "society moving in class antagonism" ? ^^^^^ WL :3. "This struggle is spontaneously by its very nature against the state, and everyone senses and knows that it emerges outside the bond between labor and capital as value production." CB: Is this struggle against the state a struggle to take state power ? Is it a struggle for reforms of the state ? ^^^^^ WL: These statements are derived from looking at American society in the context of our living history. The Los Angels Rebellion in the wake of the Rodney King verdict, expressed something new - qualitatively different. The multinational character of this civic disorder was markedly different from say Watts 1965 or Detroit 1967 or even Birmingham 1963. Then of course this rebellion occurs in a specific time frame that is different from say 1930 and the upsurge of industrial unionism. In terms of living events of the moment and our place in history as Marxist communists, one need go no further than examine - in a Marxist sense, the impact of hurricane Katrina to get a view of this new polarity in our society. All classes in and around the areas hit, from Florida to Texas, were set in social and political motion. The social and political response immediately shifted to how to care for and meet the needs of the most poverty stricken sectors of the population who immediately needed food, clothing, shelter, schooling for children, transportation, etc. The most poverty stricken sector of the population urgently needed consumption rights outside the social contract of labor and capital or distribution of the social products without money. Distribution of the social products without money is economic communism to me. What is interesting is that the vast majority of the peoples of America were drawn into the political debate of how to care for and service this poverty stricken mass and supported government aid being immediately given, without a labor contribution precondition. The peoples of America were extremely angry at the bourgeois press and media calling this massive wave of poverty stricken proletarians refugees. In this poverty stricken mass, the working class of America saw itself and took a class stance in favor of providing health care for these victims of the hurricane - even if they had no money of health coverage. Taking a class stance is not the meaning of class consciousness but the only place we can start in teaching our class its immediate and long term interest as a class. ^^^^^^ CB: What is the relationship between the new class and those still involved in the labor /capital value producing relationship ? ^^^^ WL:This entire social and political stuggle and how to respond to the urgent needs of millions of people took place on the basis of ones attitude and response to the most poverty stricken sector of the working class or the communist proletariat or the underclass or any label one choose to describe this mass of people, other than simply "black people." This event and response and my understanding of it did not come from simply reading Marx, but paying attention to what was taking place and of course by being directly impacted by the events from living in Texas. This new proletariat is new in the sense of history and the qualitative changes in the produtive forces and relations of production now underway. This new proletariat is not the only sector attacking society by it existence. So, also is the financial bourgeoisie. When we talk about the destruction of American society as it had existed, what is being said is that it is coming about because of the spontaneous activity of practically every social grouping - every class in the sense that I am using the term. That is why it is difficult to simply express class in a rigid sense of the word. Society is made of and composed of a heck of a lot more than bourgeoisie and proletariat. These classes - social groupings, are responding to changes in the material power and the configuration of the productive forces in the last instance and we Marxist understand this. ^^^^ CB: What is your projection of the result of this new configuration of class struggle ? How is it different the the projections of Marx and classical marxists ? ^^^^^ All of our approaches as Marxists are derived from the writings of Marx on one level or another. The popular use of the word capitalism world wide is derived from Marx. Waistline _______________________________________________ Marxism-Thaxis mailing list [email protected] To change your options or unsubscribe go to: http://lists.econ.utah.edu/mailman/listinfo/marxism-thaxis
