On 3/23/10, waistli...@aol.com <waistli...@aol.com> wrote: > In a message dated 3/23/2010 10:40:21 A.M. Pacific Daylight Time, > _cb31...@gmail.com_ (mailto:cb31...@gmail.com) writes: > > CB: He says "capitalist production... begets its own negation. > > WL: Correct. What is capitalist production if not bourgeois private > property?
^^^^ CB: Good question. Have to think about that. Yes, I'd say bourgeois private property = wagelabor/capital relations of production. Property is a form of relations of production. So, anyway , if bourgeois private property is capitalist production, then Marx's statement above is synomymous with " bourgeois private property ...begets its own negation." ^^^^^ I am aware of the sharp differences within Marxism on this issue. > Marxism of all stripes contend that the negation capitalist production begets > is > the proletariat. What is the proletariat? A property relation expressed as > the workers owning their labor ability in a world of private ownership of > means of production. ^^^^^ CB: In the passage you quote, the first negation is of individual private property, i.e. of the peasant, as in the socalled primitive accumulation. "This is the first negation of individual private property, as founded on the labor of the proprietor." It results in capitalist production or bourgeois private property. The "second" negation, or negation of negation , is a negation of bourgeois private property. But that "results" in the proletariat , wagelaborers as wagelabor in relations to capital. So, I'd say the proletariat results from the first negation, not the negation of negation, not the negation of capitalist production. ^^^^^ > > On this basis I contend that Marx is speaking fundamentally of a property > form being negated. Her is also speaking of a quantitative aspect of > property development wherein one capitalist negates - kills many. Monopoly > negates > - kills, “less many.” ^^^^^^^^ CB: Agree. Interesting your pointing to the "many and the few" as quantity. Yes, nice idea. Lenin notes in _Imperialism_ that monopoly is a preparation for socialism ^^^^^^^ > > >>>>> > > > CB: What is the qualitative change in means of production that Marx > mentions in the quote ? > > WL: You got me there my friend. None. However you have quoted this passage > enough to know its this segment of Marx is 1294 words including footnotes. > Marx is speaking of a new mode of production taking root based on a > qualitative change in the means of production and corresponding change in > property. A new reader will not know this from this passage but there is an > index > called “industrial revolution.” My fear is writing something that only “us > ” old heads will make sense or nonsense out of. ^^^^^^^^^ CB: How about a qualitative change in the relations of production, the property relation, a negation of the wagelabor/capital relationship. > > > Xxxxxxxxxxxxx > > Negation of the > > negation signifies the preservation of the specific quality of the > > contradiction pinpointed as the point of departure - the starting point > of a > > motion. > > CB: Elaborate this thought. > > > WL. This is fully elaborated in the example of advanced communist society > based on a post industrial development and “withering away of the state” > will express a negation of the negation as a return to the quality called > primitive communism - non property in means of production. ^^^^^^^^^ CB: Well, an old head might get this, but elaborate it for a new head. Make it plain ! By the way, Marx, in your quote refers to "socialized property" not "non-property". "The transformation of scattered private property, arising from individual labor, into capitalist private property is, naturally, a process, incomparably more protracted, violent, and difficult, than the transformation of capitalistic private property, already practically resting on socialized production, into _socialized property_ (emphasis added -CB). In the former case, we had the expropriation of the mass of the people by a few usurpers; in the latter, we have the expropriation of a few usurpers by the mass of the people. [2]" _Production_ is already extremely socialized by capitalism as compared with all previous modes of production. Ownership is private (private property). The main contradiction of capitalism is that production is social but ownership is private. This is the contradiction that moves , causes the change to socialism or socialized property. It is the motive for the negation of the negation. It is the dialectic of the change to socialism MAYBE (smile) ^^^^^ > > This is not to say the draft is internally cohesion enough with the proper > flow. The problem is that form is not separated from quality in reality. > > ************* > > Negation of the negation is > > not a universal law of dialectics but rather an expression of the > > dialectic of change. (see Dialectics, quantity, quality, the > antagonistic element.) > > ^^^^^^^ > CB: What dialectic is not a "dialectic of change" ? > > WL: I am still fighting with Gould’s Marxist Glossary which list “negation > of the negation” as one of the “laws” of dialectics. When I put down my > boxing gloves the above sentence is not needed at all. > > > > > _______________________________________________ > 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
