Hey Charles,No I'm not in Detroit but I spend a lot of time there. I grew up in Kalmazoo and lived in the post-fordist scattering of production. I'm currently in upstate New York.
You're point about the still relevant aspects of Leninism are well taken. The notion of finance capital being still truer today than in 1917 is quite interesting. I'm also wondering if some nuance can be added to it by incorporating Giovanni Arrighi's analysis of world-hegemons, where in hegemonic states, a shift is initiated from a primary emphasis on production capital to finance capital at a point where speculation becomes more profitable than production i.e. when US Steel bought up all those hotels in the early 80s. In this regard, not only can we see the finance capital is without question the most powerful sector of capitalism, but it is so because its the only strand of hegemony which the US still has to hold onto. The too big to fail thesis then may become a way to prevent pounding the last nail into the coffin of US hegemony. The dialectical nature of the geographic shift in production sites I think is most crucial to understanding capitalism in the 20th century and as you point out, the differences between it and the 19th century capitalism Marx was writing about. The most amazing thing for me is that the way in which decentralization combined with automation then allowed the size of the US industrial working to increase nationally while decrease in particular locales such as Detroit, Buffalo, and probably Cleavland and Pittsburgh. I also wonder how this will play out in cites/states where capital has fled from the US and its impact on Marxist economics and struggles there. AS you point out, industrial workers are still important, and I would argue most imporatnt in places like Brazil and other places where product cycles have been repeated after dealing with workers resistance in previous locales. The question, that strikes me about this particular development, and its obvious consequences for the Leninist mode of organizing workers is, given the increase in surplus value created by automation and decentralization and the contradictory process of industrial working class formation nationally yet decrease in major industrial cities, how do we understand Marx's general law of capital accumulation while taking into account the centrality of US geography which made expansion possible in ways that only could be dreamed of in the US? I think this aspect of 20th century capitalism forces us to rethink some of chapter 32 of Capital, "Historical Tendencies of Capitalist Accumulation," but I'm not sure what it mean for Marx's general law. Thanks for the engagement. Hope all is well. Peace, matt On Mon, Oct 12, 2009 at 10:37 AM, c b <cb31...@gmail.com> wrote: > Thanks for your note, Matt, > > It means the negation of some aspects of Leninism. Not to be cute, but > I'd say approach it dialectically as a supercession or sublation, > overcoming and preservation of the Leninist phase of Marxism. > > What is preserved ? first, I'd say the Leninist concept of finance > capitalism from the imperialist thesis is "truer" today than even in > Lenin's day. Look at how Wallstreet was able to just demand $11 > trillion plus from the US state to basically not go bankrupt. _All_ of > the finance sector was broke by its own admission that the several > individual bankruptcies posed a _systemic_ threat. "Too big to fail" > means the whole finance sector was broke. My point here is that as > they were able to avoid that by just getting an $11 trillion gift > proves that they are the ruling sector. Even GM had to go through > bankruptcy. The Detroit papers had headlines contrasting the treatment > of the Wallstreet firms and GM. So, the Leninist concept of finance > capital dominating industrial capital has reached an extreme that > wasn't even true in his day. > > The current situation is best understood as a dialectical > transformation of the imperialism outlined in Lenin's thesis, based on > the changes , in the first place, by the existence of the Soviet Union > for 75 years, and its struggle with imperialism. Inter-imperialist > rivalry was negated because imperialism had to unite against the SU > and socialist countries. Imperialist countries still export capital, > including to other imperialist countries. As I said finance capital > is still the dominant sector. It is no accident the central organs of > transnational capital are hedge funds, the US treasury, IMF and World > Bank etc. , in other words finance capital institutions. Colonialism > has been through an overthrow of the old system , especially bulwarked > by the existence of the SU, institution of a neo-colonialist system, > and now a "neo-liberal" colonialist system after the fall of the SU. > > Also, that industry is scattered and not concentrated > geographically/in space , does not mean that industry is not still an > important part of capitalism technologically, and that industrial > workers are not an important part of the working class. So, Marxists > should not fail to pay attention to industrial workers. Leninist's > thesis on opportunism based on imperialist booty corrupting the US and > other imperialist countries' working classes and trade union leaders > is pretty much the story " of our lives" , no ? So, that aspect of > Leninism is unfortunately quite valid today. > > The Leninist party model from _What is to be done ?_ was largely > specific to Russia with its lack of experience with democracy relative > to countries like the US even in 1905 -1917. Add to that the US > party going through McCarthyism, requiring strict participation in the > US traditions of electoral politics all along and certainly for 60 > years, not to mention the whole Cold War intense brainwashing of the > American population in anti-Communism, anti-Sovietism, and that's > substantially or completely negated. Having said all that, the US > Democratic and Republican parties, and unions operate on the principle > of democratic centralism, but just don't call it that. So, in a > certain sense, democratic centralism is as American as apple pie. It > 's basically the represtentative or republican principle. Also, the > two-party system is something of a fraud and a one-party system > operating as a phony two-party system. Effectively, on this issue the > main thing is not to be quoting Lenin, but a lot of his ideas are > still pertinent. > > The principles in _Materialism and Empirio-Criticism_, the critique of > Kantian dualism and subjective idealism is very fresh in critiquing > post-modernism. The heart of post-modernism is neo-Kantianism , I'd > say. > > There may be some other aspects that are preserved. > > I appreciate your pushing me to articulate this > > I see you quote James Boggs. Are you in the Detroit area ? > > What say you ? > > Charles > > On 10/11/09, Matthew Birkhold <birkh...@gmail.com> wrote: > > Charles said, > > "The end of Fordism is the end of the big plant. The > > capitalist can move parts etc around so fast that they do not need the > > efficiency of concentrating workers in big plants, in ghettoes in the > > city, the whole ball of wax that gave rise to Leninist tactics in the > > class struggle by which workers got a sense of their power by their > > great numbers etc." > > I agree with this analysis of this shift completely. Does it mean that > the > > end of Leninism has been reached in the US? > > > > Hope all is well. > > Peace, Matt > > > > On Sat, Oct 10, 2009 at 11:52 PM, c b <cb31...@gmail.com> wrote: > > > > > post-Fordism and geographical scattering of > > > Charles Brown charlesb at CNCL.ci.detroit.mi.us > > > Tue Apr 28 19:52:54 MDT 1998 > > > > > > Previous message: M-TH: Bouncing around socalled globalization > > > Next message: M-TH: Re: Australian working class and superimperialist > > > Messages sorted by: [ date ] [ thread ] [ subject ] [ author ] > > > > > > > > > > -------------------------------------------------------------------------------- > > > > > > To: Dave > > > From: Charles > > > > > > Here's some more on globalization as > > > a qualitative shift from what Lenin defined > > > as imperialism, monopoly capitalism; the > > > uniting of financial and industrial capital; > > > export of capital as a shift from export of > > > goods; the "advanced" European colonialist > > > countries dividing and redividing the world; > > > socalled world wars, meaning all European > > > wars.=20 > > > monopoly concentration; labour aristocracy > > > bought off with superprofits of booty from > > > colonialism; etc. etc.; electricity, trains, > > > assembly line as technological innovations > > > in the means of production. > > > =20 > > > Gramsciians would say the culture of this > > > was Fordism, as discussed below. > > > =20 > > > >>> "Charles Brown" <charlesb at CNCL.ci.detroit.mi.us> 03/29 4:16 > PM > > > = > > > >>> > > > > > > From ground zero of Fordism here in Detroit, we experienced the last > 45 = > > > years of change from the classic big industrial plant (such as Ford = > > > Dearborn with 100,000 workers)concentration to scattering of the points > of > > > = > > > production as plantclosings, runaway shops, and white flight to the = > > > suburbs. So the transition to socalled post-Fordism got our attention > real > > > = > > > good and we've been trying to figure it in Marxist political economic = > > > terms. > > > > > > It occurred to me that the "new global economy", > transnationalization= > > > of monopoly capital represents a dialectical qualitative change in the > = > > > following sense. =20 > > > Marx in Capital defines two factors in the > > > qualitiative emergence of industrial capitalism over manufacture = > > > capitalism. They are the use of machinery=20 > > > and the concentration of workers in one big factory. > > > Thus, the graphic locus of the classic Leninist agitation and = > > > propaganda the giant industrial plant. > > > The qualitative change of today is the the revolution in science and = > > > technology which has begotten a revolution=20 > > > in transportation and communication, creating such things as just in > time = > > > delivery, containerization . Thus a revolution in machinery, one of the > = > > > original two breakthroughs in Marx's analysis of industrialization, has > = > > > made it possible for the capitalists to decentralize and scatter the = > > > points of production. The end of Fordism is the end of the big plant. > The = > > > capitalist can move parts etc around so fast that they do not need > the = > > > efficiency of concentrating workers in big plants, in ghettoes in the = > > > city, the whole ball of wax that gave rise to Leninist tactics in the = > > > class struggle by which workers got a sense of their power by their > > > great numbers etc. > > > I suggest the above infrastructural sketch as=20 > > > corresponding to the cultural change now > > > named post-Fordism. > > > But don't count the proletariat out. The slogan=20 > > > workers of the world unite , is more true today > > > than when Marx and Engels coined it. And the > > > proletariat is fresher than post-Fordist theory might > > > know. In other words, the proletariat knows how to > > > go with the new. Detroiters probably could show > > > post-ologists a thing or two about what is new. > > > > > > from Proletarian Central, Detroit > > > Charles > > > =20 > > > > > > _______________________________________________ > > > Marxism-Thaxis mailing list > > > Marxism-Thaxis@lists.econ.utah.edu > > > To change your options or unsubscribe go to: > > > http://lists.econ.utah.edu/mailman/listinfo/marxism-thaxis > > > > > > > > > > > -- > > If one needs a community to resist interdependence must be seen as a > moral > > obligation. > > > > "Men don't need to show our manhood, we need to show our humanity" -- > James > > Boggs, 1990 > > _______________________________________________ > > Marxism-Thaxis mailing list > > Marxism-Thaxis@lists.econ.utah.edu > > To change your options or unsubscribe go to: > > http://lists.econ.utah.edu/mailman/listinfo/marxism-thaxis > > > > _______________________________________________ > Marxism-Thaxis mailing list > Marxism-Thaxis@lists.econ.utah.edu > To change your options or unsubscribe go to: > http://lists.econ.utah.edu/mailman/listinfo/marxism-thaxis > -- If one needs a community to resist interdependence must be seen as a moral obligation. "Men don't need to show our manhood, we need to show our humanity" -- James Boggs, 1990 _______________________________________________ Marxism-Thaxis mailing list Marxism-Thaxis@lists.econ.utah.edu To change your options or unsubscribe go to: http://lists.econ.utah.edu/mailman/listinfo/marxism-thaxis
