Again why fight a straw man and not speak to the issue and material presented?
Melvin P. ^^^^^ CB: I'm not the CPUSA, so why should I address your criticisms of the CPUSA. Send it to the CPUSA if you want a response. I did address part of the material you presented. What is the evidence of the new class you speak of ? Your response did not present evidence of said class, though you labelled what you said "empirical evidence". MP: Sorry if I gave you the impression that I thought your were the Communist Party USA. I do recognize that you are an individual rather than a political formation. Actually I presented the empirical evidence. You simply disagree. That is OK. Qualitative changes in the mode of production means new class by definition and/or new forms of the laboring class. Manufacture means a manufacturing class, industrial means industrial class and post industrial means post industrial classes or new class or new forms of class. Like slavery means a slave class or the slave form of a class and feudalism means serf or a new class in relations to the previously existing mode of production and so on. The material presented goes back to the previous discussion of the meaning of class antagonism and why the wage struggle is not the meaning of class struggle. It is the proletariat - rather than simply the concept of the working class, that is truly revolutionary. The autoworkers as an industrial form of the class are not revolutionary at all as a part of the working class in their identity as a decaying class fragment. This dialectic - of decay of class fragments, is nothing new and Marx of course speaks to it clearly in the Communist Manifesto. Fragments of Capital - (as a historically evolved social power), enter into antagonism with itself on the basis of the advance of the productive forces and this social power called capital is a class thing or assume a material form and expresses called class. The working class as the new class of the industrial revolution is only revolutionary as a working class until a certain change takes place that begins to drive sections of the working class and the capitalist into antagonism with the advance of industry. It is the proletariat - not the working class, that is truly revolutionary. Further it is the most poverty stricken sector of the proletariat that is truly communistic in its spontaneous class striving. The autoworkers fight and must fight, to exist and continue existing as auto workers, as an aspect of their self identity as a class sector. Consciousness cannot change the boundary of this material relations. It is only to the degree that a section of this sector - class fragment, of workers, can step outside the logic of what makes them auto workers that they can enter into the fight generated on the basis of the spontaneous logic of the communist proletariat that is already demanding socially necessary means of life outside the value relations or even if they have no money. He is the new dynamic that most communists are having trouble grasping and disagree with. Some believe the working class is truly revolutionary, although their is no evidence - as you like to state, to prove this historically. 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
