In a message dated Tue, 5 Mar 2002 11:51:56 AM Eastern Standard Time, "Charles Brown" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> Question to Various comments in In Digest 77 > by Waistline2 > 05 March 2002 12:09 UTC > > > CB: Doesn't _The Manifesto of the Communist Party_ make it pretty clear that Marx's >theory of history is rooted in the relations of production aspect of the forces of >production, the division of labor, and the class struggle? History is a history of >class struggles, not technological innovations. Since producers are part of the >forces of production, it is their development that is in the forces of production >that makes history, and historical revolutions. > > > > > Melvin: > What compels classes to struggle or what defines the context in which classes >struggle throughout history? Many things is a good answer. How does one delineate one >period of history from another or rather I fall on the side of the equation that >gives predominance to "man" as he is materially active identified on the basis of a >specific technology. Perhaps I have been in the factory to long. > > Marx Capital states: > > "It is one of the civilizing aspects of capital that it enforces this surplus-labour >in a manner and under conditions which are more advantageous to the development of >the productive forces, social relations, > > ^^^^^ > > CB: Here's a reference to relations of production. Like any opposition, at some >point, forces and relations of production interpenetrate. > > ^^^^^ > > and the creation of the elements for a new and higher form than under the >precedingforms of slavery, serfdom, etc. Thus it gives rise to a stage, on the one >hand, in which coercion and monopolization of social development (including its >material and intellectual advantages) by one portion of society at the expense of the >other are eliminated; on the other hand, it creates the > material means and embryonic conditions, making it possible in a higher form > of society to combine this surplus-labour with a greater reduction of time > devoted to material labor in general. For, depending on the development of > labor productivity, surplus-labour may be large in a small total > working-day, and relatively small in a large total working-day. If the > necessary labour-time = 3 and the surplus-labour = 3, then the total > working-day = 6 and the rate of surplus-labour = 100%. If the necessary labour = 9 > and the surplus-labor = 3, then the total working-day = 12 and the rate of > surplus-labour only = 33 1/3 %. In that case, it depends upon the labor > productivity how much use-value shall be produced in a definite time, hence > also in a definite surplus labor-time. The actual wealth of society, and > the possibility of constantly expanding its reproduction process, therefore, > do not depend upon the duration of surplus-labour, but upon its productivity > and the more or less copious conditions of production under which it is > performed. In fact, the realm of freedom actually begins only where labor > which is determined by necessity and mundane considerations ceases; thus in > the very nature of things it lies beyond the sphere of actual material > production. Just as the savage must wrestle with Nature to satisfy his > wants, to maintain and reproduce life, so must civilized man, and he must do > so in all social formations and under all possible modes of production. With > his development this realm of physical necessity expands as a result of his > wants; but, at the same time, the forces of production which satisfy these > wants also increase. Freedom in this field can only consist in socialized > man, the associated producers, rationally regulating their interchange with > Nature, bringing it under their common control, instead of being ruled by it > as by the blind forces of Nature; and achieving this with the least > expenditure of energy and under conditions most favorable to, and worthy > of, their human nature. But it nonetheless still remains a realm of > necessity. Beyond it begins that development of human energy which is an end > in itself, the true realm of freedom, which, however, can blossom forth only > with this realm of necessity as its basis. The shortening of the working-day > is its basic prerequisite." > > > > I read the statement > > "The actual wealth of society, and the possibility of constantly expanding its >reproduction process, therefore, do not depend upon the duration of surplus-labour, >but upon its productivity and the more or less copious conditions of production under >which it is performed," > > with emphasis on productivity as in instruments i.e. technology, as distinct from >duration or intensifying the biological human energy or lengthening the work day. Or >"expanding . . . reproduction process" revolves on the axis of technological >innovation that comes from the mind of humanity. > > > I understand the statement > > "Freedom in this field can only consist in socialized man, the associated producers, >rationally regulating their interchange with nature, bringing it under their common >control, instead of being ruled by it as by the blind forces of Nature; and achieving >this with the least expenditure of energy and under conditions most favorable to, and >worthy of, their human nature," > > to mean socialized man, (that is to say me as an individual) the associated >producers (in harmony with other "me's using) the least expenditure of energy to not >simply infer but directly speak to a certain more than less continuous technology >development that gives meaning to the definition of socialized at various stages of >history. > > Although the human mind in the most revolutionary ingredient on earth a better >society is inconceivable without all round technological development. I would venture >to say that more than less all round techological development is a condition for >betterment. By "better society" is meant "least expenditure of human energy of the >individual," which of course means I do not have to work today as hard as yesterday. > > History is of course the history of human beings and technology as the interactive >material activity of survival and reproduction. All of history is the story of >humanity and technology from my standpoint point because their is no separation >between man and his instruments of survival. > > History is not simply the "class struggle" but specifically, according to the >Communist Manifesto, all "written history" is viewed (my interpretation of the >Communist manifesto) as society moving in class antagonism, or delineated by the >struggle of classes to control the productive capability of a given society. > > > ^^^^^^^ > > CB: I didn't say "history is simply the 'class struggle' " . I said " Doesn't _The >Manifesto of the Communist Party_ make it pretty clear that Marx's theory of history >is rooted in the relations of production aspect of the forces of production, the >division of labor, and the class struggle ?" In the antagonism between relations and >instruments of production , the relations are absolute and the instruments are >relative, (as Engels puts in another context discussing Hegel's dialectic , the >revolutionary side is absolute , the conservative side is relative). Note in the >quote you give that Marx puts a lot of emphasis on "social relations", the division >of labor into exploiting and exploited classes ( that is part of the division of >labor), "socialized labor", _associated_ producers. These are all references to the >_relations_ of production, not to the instruments of production. The development of >hardware technology is most dependent upon science which is another highly soci! al! > activity, including transgenerationally social. Most prior scientists are dead. >Scientific texts are the product of regiments of associated producers. Tools are dead >labor. They can't initiate anything. Living _social_labor is the source of all new >and development. > > With the fetishism of commodities, there is the widespread illusion that dead labor >in the form of things, including machines or computers, are alive. > > The main contradiction of capitalism is that production is more socialized than ever >in history, but appropriation is private. Thus, we are prevented from entering the >realm of freedom that the current technology makes possible by the form of the >relations of production , private property. This is the classic Marxist revolutionary >situation in which a fundamental aspect of the relations of production is a fetter on >the forces of production and must be burst asunder. The technology we have is ready >for socialism, communism and the realm of freedom. It is the relations of production >that bar our making history in the historical materlist sense of moving to a new mode >of production. > > > You give above a very important quote from Marx expressing the Marxist view on the >realms of necessity and freedom. Often only Engels use of this concept is noted. >Where is this is in _Capital_ ? > > There is no fundamental disagreement in our views. What was aimed at is in part wasn trying to describe the new technological development impacting our society and the creation of what is termed the "new class" or the transformation of what had been termed the industrial reserved army of the unemployed into a growing mass of proletarians in the imperial countries who cannot sell their labor-power for an amount of wages to sustain their families during times of "boom." It is as if "everything went to hell" during a period of boom in the economy - the growth of poverty, homelessness, lack of medical coverage, etc. Trying to grasp the technological development was my particular slant on the whole "productive forces" debate. I believe this is my point of departure. The conception of a qualitatively new development expressing itself in a new - upon till now not witnessed, qualitative development in the working class that is the direct result of the application of new fields of technology. Ten years ago this emerging mass was called an underclass and was written about as a predominately "black" mass of people devoid of class concepts. Pardon my hair splitting to try a make a point about the difference between this new era and the old era in which we have left. This is the basis of my assertion that Leninism as a specific doctrine, minimally needs overhauling if it is not historically obsolete. Not Lenin's approach but the doctrine of an era that no longer exist. Many see no signficant difference. I do not attribute this to you, but used the point about technology and the productivity of labor. The wonderful quote from Capital was taken from one of Miyacht Tatsuo's famous quoting of Marx. Every since his pen letter (Pen-L 23041 On Marx Manuscript) I have been paranoid to use my editions of Capital and getting ready to put the three volumes of Theories of Surplus Value in the Basesment, once someone states there is a new translation available. I will keep my Anti-Durhing and Engels conception of the trajectory of value. Sorry for the hair splitting. Melvin P.
