Waistline2 ^^^^ CB: "Revolutionary" in the sense of one of the revolutions in the instruments of production that the bourgeoisie have been constantly making ever since they were bourgeoisie. Not "revolutionary" in the sense of a social revolution, because the steam engine did not result in the overthrow of capitalism by the proletariat.
Changes in infrastructure are not necessarily changes in property relations. Private property was not abolised as a result of the steam engine revolution in the instruments of production. WL: I am speechless. ^^^^^ CB; That' kind of disingenous, since we've been over the same thing several times before, and I said the same thing then. ^^^^ I read Marx and Engels very different. ^^^^^ CB: You don't read Marx and Engels as saying that the bourgeoisie are constantly reovolutionizing the instruments of production,and the steam engine was one of the revolutions in the instruments of production carried out under the bourgeoisie ? ^^^^ What was abolished was the landed property relations or what most people call feudalism. The steam engine is viewed by Marx and Engels as a point of delineation in what is called the industrial revolution. ^^^^ CB: Capitalism didn't start at the Industrial Revolution. It starts with Manufacture. ^^^^^^ What actual began the break up of feudalism was the change in the form of wealth. The change from landed property to movable property - gold, facilitates the development of exchange relations or what most people call commodity exchange. Changes in the infrastructure are never changes in the property relations by definition or they would not be infrastructure changes. First comes the revolution in the means of production then the social consequences. ^^^^ CB; However, every revolution in the means of production under capitalism is not followed by a social revolution ^^^^^ The social consequence of the steam engine was the revolution in production that faculties the rise of two basic classes connected to the system of production this energy sources services. These two classes are the bourgeoisie and proletariat. ^^^^^ CB: There had already been a facilitation of the rise of these two basic classes of capitalism before the steam engine. The rev which was the steam engine is after capitalism has already started. ^^^^^ The old form of property - landed property, is overthrown. Why is this "scattering" "an anti-revolutionary process" of the general revolutionary process underway in the form and content of the on going qualitative changes talking place in the productive forces. ^^^^^^ CB: Because it is a reversal of the "revolutionary combination" in factories that Marx refers to. ^^^^^ ^^^^ CB: Because it undoes the potentially "revolutionary combination" of workers that Marx refers to in what you quote. It is a reverse of the process Marx refers to here and describes in detail in the Chapter in Vol. I of Capital on "Modern Industry." The big Rouge plant ( and Detroit as surrounds as a workers' ghetto) was an ultimate example of "revolutionary combination". The geographical spread of what used to be done in a much smaller geographical area is anti-revolutionary decombination. "The advance of industry, whose involuntary promoter is the bourgeoisie, replaces the isolation of the labourers, due to competition, by the revolutionary combination, due to association. " ^^^^^^ We may continue to disagree and that is all right. On your other comment I can hardily believe what you write. Have you considered that perhaps Marx is writing about the isolation of the laborer as a personification of simply manufacture under feudalism . . . rather than what you call the anti-revolutionary thing? Waistline _______________________________________________ Marxism-Thaxis mailing list [email protected] To change your options or unsubscribe go to: http://lists.econ.utah.edu/mailman/listinfo/marxism-thaxis
