Waistline2 ________________________________ Again why fight a straw man and not speak to the issue and material presented?
Melvin P. ^^^^^^ CB: What straw man ? ^^^^^ 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. ^^^ CB: Point out the empirical evidence you presented ? ^^^^^^ You simply disagree. That is OK. ^^^^ CB: I disagree that you presented empirical evidence of the new class you speak of. ^^^^^ Qualitative changes in the mode of production means new class by definition and/or new forms of the laboring class. ^^^^ CB: To me this is circular or begging the question ( in the technical sense; "begging the question" doesn't mean saying something that just "begs" that a certain question be asked, but rather affirming by assertion rather than with supportive evidence). Why , because what we, you and I are disputing, is whether or not this particular revolution in the instruments of production, the CAD/CAM , cyber, robot, computer, etc. revolution _is_ a revolution in the instruments that triggers a rev. in the property relations. For Marx, not every rev in the instruments of production _in capitalism_ results in a socialist rev. The radical rearrangement of production from the Fordist assembly line revolution in the instruments of production, did not result in a successful rev in property relations ( though the Russian Rev and progeny may be attributed to that). This current qualitative change in the instruments and organization of technological production _may_ result in another run at revolutionizing property relations, but it has not yet. ^^^^ Manufacture means a manufacturing class, industrial means industrial class and post industrial means post industrial classes or new class or new forms of class. ^^^^^ CB: These are technical classes. Class is defined based on ownership. Manufacturing working class, industrial working class, were both wage laborers. The capitalist manufacturing class, and capitalist industrial class were capitalists. The wage-labor/capital remains the same throughout capitalism, the relationship as analyzed by Marx in _Capital_. Technical revs don't all result in new classes. Also, to have a new working class would imply a new capitalist 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. ^^^^ CB: Correct. And all through the different technical developments of capitalism there remains a capitalist class and a working class, in a capitalist/wagelabor relation. ^^^^^^^ 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. ^^^^ CB: Struggle over the size of the wage is a reform struggle. It is not the "meaning" of the class struggle in the sense that the ultimate end of Marxist conscious working class struggle is to overthrow capitalist/wagelabor _relalations_ , not just maximize wages. ^^^^^^ 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. ^^^^^^^ CB: You'll have to argue this more. The other segments of the working class which I believe you are designating as the proletariat , are not so evidently not decaying, or decaying less than the autoworkers. ^^^^^^ This dialectic - of decay of class fragments, is nothing new and Marx of course speaks to it clearly in the Communist Manifesto. ^^^^ CB: Where specifically ? ^^^^^ 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. ^^^^^ CB: Is this you or Marx ? ^^^^^^^ Further it is the most poverty stricken sector of the proletariat that is truly communistic in its spontaneous class striving. ^^^^ CB: They are more fed up with the system, for obvious reasons, but I don't know that they are more communistic. ^^^^^^^^^ 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. ^^^^^ CB; Yea, but they are only getting pittance, plus a lot of them are getting thrown into prison and jail, where they are fed "for free". Plus, they do not have some communist theory or consciousness behind their "demands". They are not organizing themselves consciously ( or at all), they don't have new class consciousness. Spontaneity won't get it. Lenin's ideas on this are still valid for any new communist class, they must be class conscious to carry out revolutionary tasks. ^^^^^^^ 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. ^^^^ CB: In the capitalist mode of production , Marx's position that the working class is the only potentially revolutionary class is still valid. That the working class is the only potentially revolutionary class does not mean at all that a working class at any given time or place is _actually_ revolutionary. Marx's position is not that the working class is automatically actually revolutionary, but that it is the "job" of Marxist partisans of the working class to bring working class and socialist and revolutionary conscious to actuate that revolutionary potential. Right now we partisans are not having much success in the U.S. _______________________________________________ Marxism-Thaxis mailing list [email protected] To change your options or unsubscribe go to: http://lists.econ.utah.edu/mailman/listinfo/marxism-thaxis
