Re: Simon and Garfunkel

[Waistline2]

In a message dated 7/2/2004 12:40:40 PM Central Standard Time, [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes: We were just discussing that capitalism is theft, appropriation of value, etc.  Now, how did this play out at the concert?  There were about 18,000 tickets sold.  Let's conservatively say at an average price of $150, so there was a gross of $2,700,000 for one night's work.  The Hollywood Bowl got a leasing fee.  The crew was paid.  Simon and Garfunkel either received a very hefty fee or a piece of the gate shared with the promoter.  Now, from a Marxist perspective, what were the class relations at play?  Whose labor created what value?  Who exploited who?  How would it work in PEN-Ltopia?   Comment   Capitalism in its evolution from the prrevious economic and social order is birthed drench in blood, murder and theft. Capitalism means the private ownership of capital as means of production. Means of production are not never abstract and what is being referenced is the growth and expansion of the industrial system with the bourgeois property relations within.   The industrial system with the bourgeois property relations within or in short speak, capitalism evolved on the basis of the slave trade and the expansion of heavy manufacture which made "modern" ship construction possible and the "mass production" of fire arms, steel and all the ingredients of sea travel and conquest. The development of navigation and science in general is given an impetus. The transition in the primary form of wealth from land to gold gave further impetus to the conquest of the Americas and theft of gold from the native populations.   The industrial revolution basically began with the landing of Europeans in the Americas and its infrastructure basis took shape on the basis of the slave trade, as opposed to an abstract trafficking in black skin.     War generally involves theft, plunder, rape and conquest.   After the bourgeois property relations has stood on its feet and transformed the old world to that of the new . . . industrial society . . . huge segments of the population have been converted into proletarians. The exploitation of the workers refers to the expropriation of the products of the workers and paying them as an aggregate a sum that is less than the prodeucts will fetch in the market. This surplus product or rather this surplus value is appropraited by the individual owners of productive forces and he may dispose of this surplus anyway he chooses.    A portion of this surplus value will find its way back into production as each individual owners fights to expand his share of what is in fact, an expanding societal value. This competition between individual owners of capital produces a series of economic and social consequences.     The form of individual property ownership does not stand still. Today in the American union we have an economic and social system that allows individuals in possession of capital -- money, to be regarded as capitalist or treated as capitalist on the basis of wealth. One does not have to individually own a factory or the local pizza joint to be treated and regarded as a capitalists. Inherited wealth works just fine.   However, the reality of private ownership is expressed as a bourgeois property relation on the basis by which products are created, bought and sold, the basis of their distribution and the circuit logic of reproduction as it is driven by competition between capital.   Soviet industrial socialism most certainly did not pay the workers the full value of their labor, or rather an amount in wages that was the equivalent of the products produces or there would be nothing left over for expansion of productive forces. Capitalism or the bourgeois property relations does not pay the workers the equivalent of the products produces or there would be nothing left over for expansion of productive forces.   The fundamental economic and social logic difference between Soviet industrial socialism and capitalist America is that in the former, no amount of money possession count allow one to convert their money into ownership of means of production with the power to privately expropriate the products of workers and reinvest the surplus into privately own enterprises. The element of competition between capitals in the market was absent and this produces a different curve and character of production and reproduction.   There was most certainly theft, bribery, swindling and cheating under industrial socialism. Nevertheless, the state was the property holder and enacted laws that prevented the individual from converting money possession into ownership of means of production.   The issue becomes a little complicated because all value producing systems - industrial systems, have certain features in common no matter what the property relations. This is true as development took place on earth.   There were concerts under Soviet socialism and probably an enormous amount of "graft" as well as whatever was politically correct that determined who got to play in large arenas. No matter who played or organized the events, their money possession could not be converted into ownership of means of production because the form of property rights had been changed.   A distinction of the bourgeois property relations is that it creates a series of needs that emerge as "societal needs" on the basis of profitability. A bottle of Coke is not a human need nor is mass individual transportation as the fundamental mode of transportation . . . and I am not anti-automobiles and against the SUV, as such.   The SUV and Conversion Van - and I really enjoy my 2000 Dodge conversion van, are big vehicles designed for big people in the main. Those who can afford these vehicles is another question of class and money. There is a deeper question involved.   In Americas the mass production of automobiles occurred not to answer transportation needs but because this form of answering transportation needs was extremely profitable to individual owners of capital in the steel, plastic, rubber, fabric, cement, glass and other industries.   I tend to shy away from the term "capitalism" and use the concept industrial production on the basis of the bourgeois property relations or industrial production with the property relations within. This is so because the bourgeois property relations inherits a certain set of human needs and then produces needs unique to seeking profitability.   China's coming entry into the world auto market, with a set of vehicles priced between $9,000 and $15,000 is not to met a need but to realize a profit, by answering a unique mass need created under the impact of the bourgeois property relations. America could have a wonderful system of mass transportation as opposed to individual transportation as mass movement of people.   The question is: "where are you going" or what is the primarily deployment purpose of automobiles and if it comes down to "going to work" - then you are working to reproduce a set of needs created as the bourgeois property relations. We do not have a modern mass transportation system in America - and individual transportation is not mass transportation but rather the transporting of masses as individuals, because individual transportation was more profitable to individual owners of capital.   Here is why China is entering this market.   Is Michael Jackson exploited? As an artist he is part of a group of workers that are exploited through the bourgeois property relations organized as various institutions of production and distribution. As an individual he is to be regarded as a capitalist. The same applies to Frank Sinartra . . . although I enjoy his music and cool appeal with its disdain for the "official cultural norms. "   I believe the question is not the Marxists approach to concerts but a Marxist approach to property as the framework for events. Class is also a property relation or rather class is related to how people are organized to deploy a given technological regime and the resulting division of labor with the property relations within. An autoworker in the old Soviet Union had everything in common with an autoworker in America deploying a similar technological regime. Class also embody property rights.   I do not subscribe to a Marxist approach to baseball . . . or ice cream . . . or wine tasting or music - although there is a material approach to these things.     Melvin P.