>>CB: Here's what you call "deleted" included. It doesn't differentiate between "class struggle" and "class antagonism", as you claim; or rather class struggle goes on because of class antagonism. Class antagonism means the interests of the antagonistic classes are irreconcilable. Class antagonism means that one class is exploiting the other.<<
WL: Very well put. Class antagonism means "society moving in class antagonism." Antagonism is a specific form of resolution of contradiction. I beg to differ. Antagonism does not mean "one class is exploiting the other." Antagonism means a specific form of resolution of contradiction. ^^^^^^ CB: Which is it ? Very well put or you beg to differ ? Marx and Engels in _The Manifesto of the Communist Party_ do not say "Class antagonism means "society moving in class antagonism." Where is that ? M an E do make an equivalence between eploitation and class antagonism when they say: "...based on class antagonisms, on the exploitation of the many by the few." in the fuller context. "The distinguishing feature of communism is not the abolition of property generally, but the abolition of bourgeois property. But modern bourgeois private property is the final and most complete expression of the system of producing and appropriating products that is based on class antagonisms, on the exploitation of the many by the few." So when you say " Antagonism does not mean "one class is exploiting the other, " that is not what Engels and Marx say in the Manifesto. Class antagonism means that the class contradiction is irreconcilable without a qualitative change of society, a revolutinoary change. ^^^^^^ WL: In contradictions that are not resolved on the basis of antagonism, each stage in the development of the contradiction - each quantitative stage of its growth, is also a partial resolution of the contradiction. This is not true in contradictions resolved as antagonism. ^^^^ CB: This sounds ok. However, the contradiction giving rise to the class struggle in capitalism is an antagonistic contradiction. So, discussion of non-antagonistic contradictions is not relevant here. Your distinguishing "class antagonism" from "class struggle" is not a distinction that is made in The Manifesto. ^^^^^^ WL: Class conflict means the conflict between classes. The conflict between primary class(es ? -CB) of a social system drives the system through its various quantitative boundaries and does not produce a qualitative change from one social system to the next. ^^^^^^^ CB: Marx and Engels seem to think that it does. Where is your basis in The Manifesto for claiming that Marx and Engels agree with you on this ? ^^^^^ WL: It is not like the serf overthrew feudalism or the nobility. The class conflict between serf and nobility cannot overthrow the qualitative definition that makes them who they are. ^^^^^ CB; Why not ? ^^^ WL: The same applies to workers and capitalist. Antagonism explains the abstract movement that leads to the downfall of the bourgeois mode of production. ^^^ CB: What is "abstract movement" ? ^^^^ Of course antagonism is differentiated in Theories of Surplus Value in the chapters dealing with the crisis of overproduction. The exposition describing the externalization of opposites could not be clearer. I reprinted the entire passages on Marxmail perhaps three years ago. Waistline ^^^^^ CB: Why not reprint them here again. _______________________________________________ Marxism-Thaxis mailing list [email protected] To change your options or unsubscribe go to: http://lists.econ.utah.edu/mailman/listinfo/marxism-thaxis
