Since I, unlike Lou, am not able to consult Marx upon what he 'had in
mind.', lacking as I do the power to make the dead speak, I will confine
my comments to what Marx actually wrote.
The quote that Lou provides, and others similar to it, is a useful
summary of how Marx saw historical change occurring.
"At a certain stage of their development, the material productive forces
of society come into conflict with the existing relations of production,
or what is but a legal expression for the same thing -- with the
property relations within which they have been at work hitherto."
An analysis of current capitalism would look closely at the relation
between technology and property rights. To take just one example, that
we have discussed recently, -- the relationship between intellectual
property rights and information transition technology. Something has to
give and the big intellectual property corporations are running scared.
Existing property rights can not be enforced. The results are unclear,
because not only no I not have the power to channel the dead, I am not
clairvoyant. But the existing relations of production with change.
And despite Lou's claim to know what Marx 'had in mind,' much of what
Lou says contradicts what Marx wrote. Lou's theory of the end of
capitalism is a Ricardian one -- that nature provides limits to the
growth of capitalism (also put forward by in Marxist language by Rosa
Luxembourg, but she knew that she was contradicting Marx).
Marx explicitly argued against that idea. For him, the limits to
capitalism were internal to capitalism. Capital by its actions creates
its own opposition. Now he may have been wrong, but that is what he
said.
There is no reason to believe that engagement of Marx's more abstract
writings will promote political quietism. It is not the esoteric
exercises of the academics that has led to the profound weakening of the
socialist movement. But rather the lack of a socialist movement that has
led to increasingly abstract and alienated intellectual work. When there
is no socialist movement, socialist intellectuals will talk to each
other and to other colleagues. And they will talk in current
intellectual language. That will continue despite the moral outrage
expressed by the true 'Marxist Revolutionaries.' A moral outrage that
would be more productively spent, if it were directed, in the public
forum, against a system which promotes a set of values that is
destructive to humanity.
My local paper today carried an article from the Associated Press on
rising levels of global poverty. According to that article the UN
estimates that the number of people living in absolute poverty (defined
as living on less that $1 US per day) has grown by 200 million in the
last five years. This in a world that has enormous excess capacity in
agriculture -- where in the rich industrial countries farmers are paid
to limit output. Here is a prime example of a contradiction between
technology and property relations. We have the technical capacity to
feed everyone but existing property relations prevent that from
happening. Will the conflict lead to positive change? I don't know, but
surely this is a situation that allows socialists to promote alternative
property arrangements.
Although I share Lou's opinion of Cohen's work, (I much prefer Shaw's
treatment of Marx's theory of history) Gerry Cohen is not the enemy. He
is simply a very bright ex-CP philosopher trained in analytic
philosophic techniques, that wants to talk to his fellow intellectual
workers.
Rod
--
Rod Hay
[EMAIL PROTECTED]
The History of Economic Thought Archive
http://socserv2.mcmaster.ca/~econ/ugcm/3ll3/index.html
Batoche Books
http://Batoche.co-ltd.net/
52 Eby Street South
Kitchener, Ontario
N2G 3L1
Canada
