>>The intellectual victory of capitalism - a battle advanced and won  by 
political ideologists - has deprived the political elite's of independent  
power 
and placed them in the service of financial markets. 

In the  process, the only elite's left standing are the financial ones, which 
also  exercise predominance over the business elite's as Britain's 
manufacturing  economy produces less and less. . . . 

It is the prestige of Wall  Street in America that comes closest to the 
British respect for the square mile.  But even in New York, the power of 
finance 
has  to exist within a milieu  shaped by left-wing politics and by an 
intellectual  tradition with deep  central European roots." <<

Comment 

A so-called  superstruggle is evolving in all the most advanced bourgeois 
countries -  imperial centers, on earth. Entrenched bureaucracies are 
undergoing 
crisis and  collapse, as they had existed. The industrial bureaucracy decays 
and this is  becoming increasing obvious to everyone. Imagine the deepening 
crisis of the  trade union bureaucracies, with their various representatives as 
the old  political elite. 


>>>The writer is a historian, journalist and broadcaster, and was  a special 
adviser in John Major's Conservative government. This article is based  on a 
chapter  in his latest book, Britain's Power Elites: The Rebirth of a  Ruling 
Class  (Constable), published on April 6 <<<  


Here is basically what I drably write as classes rise and fall based on  
changes in the means of production. The Rebirth of a Ruling Class is acceptable 
 
terminology for me. Along with this rebirth of a ruling class is a rebirth of  
the working class, meaning a change in its form that identifies it in its  
connection with production. Hence, the decay of the industrial working class.  

Fairly simple. 

In another 15 years no one will argue  this. 

The industrial bureaucracy is what the communist and  everyone else in the 
former Soviet Union faced rather than simply its  ideological and political 
dimensions understood as Stalinism. This fight could  not be won in front of 
changes in the technological regime no matter how noble  the combatants. The 
most 
that could and did happen was internal blood letting.  Political Trotskyism 
never understood this in its call for regime change. The  Stalin sector could 
not 
commit suicide, nor was such desirable . . . at least in  my estimate. 

The bureaucracy is not a subjective thing although  its subjective features 
are very real. Nor is the bureaucracy simply "The  bureaucracy" . . . it is 
always a historically evolved form and specific kind of  bureaucracy that 
evolves 
and takes shape in conformity with development of the  means of production 
and forms of wealth. Forms of wealth - the primary forms of  wealth of a 
society, exists in correspondence with stages of development of the  means of 
production. 

A ruling class and ruling elite detached from  value production has already 
arisen. Its primary form of wealth is symbolic and  stored in machines as data. 

This is different. 

Its  polar opposite existing in external collision with these form of wealth 
(class)  is a communist sector of the world proletariat, increasing shut out 
of and  detached from production to the same degree that the new ruling class 
is  detached from production. Here is the antagonism of present day society or 
the  movement of antagonism and its expression as an external collision of 
classes.  

We are in for an extremely complex struggle involving class  sectors rather 
than the old romantic notion of workers against capitalist as  such or the 
dying cry of the industrial worker as the vanguard of the social  revolution. 
Today's social struggle takes place in a radically new environment  involving 
the 
dismantling and overthrow of the last artifacts of the industrial  
bureaucracy. 

We are at the beginning of a new historical process.  An era of communist 
revolution. 

Sure, one can call this "the class  struggle" but that does not tell one very 
much. Actually, it is not in fact the  class struggle, in the sense of the 
romantic notion of struggle between the two  basic social classes of the 
industrial system proper. Nor does this new  environment and struggle conform 
to the 
old notions of the "classical Marxists."  Rather, we have entered an era of 
struggle where the forms of struggle we are to  experience, must be understood 
as the movement of antagonism, caused and incited  as one stage of development 
of the new mode of production gives way to another.  

Antagonism replaces contradiction. 
 
The antagonism does not grow out of the unity and strife of the social  
process of production that is the bond of worker and capitalist. The antagonism 
 
emerges as an expression of external collision between a new rising mode of  
production - with its corresponding new forms of classes, transforming the old  
infrastructure basis of a given society, with its old corresponding forms of  
classes. 

Society move in class antagonism ... Not simply class  contradiction. 

Contradiction does not magically become  antagonistic or magically intensify 
- increase in quantitative density or  boundary, but rather antagonism 
replaces contradiction as a form of development  of the productive forces and 
this 
antagonism does not magically spring from the  internal relations of the two 
basic classes of a social system. The antagonism -  the antagonistic element 
(aspect), all ways emerges on the basis of a  qualitative addition to an 
existing 
system of production. The process logic of  things - production and society, 
are as Marx stated: the quantitative addition  of a new quality to an existing 
process, rather than a magical passing of  quantity into quality. 

This qualitative addition or the  quantitative introduction of a new quality 
to an existing process, in this case  industrial production, halts development 
of production on the old basis, and  throws the system into a new kind of 
crisis.  Here is the meaning of using  up all the room - space, or development 
in 
a mode of production and here is the  meaning of society moving in class 
antagonism. 

At any rate this is  how things appear to me in March 2006. Without question 
more will be revealed.  


Melvin P.

_______________________________________________
Marxism-Thaxis mailing list
[email protected]
To change your options or unsubscribe go to:
http://lists.econ.utah.edu/mailman/listinfo/marxism-thaxis

Reply via email to