Re: Re: Re: Engels, Marx, Value and Communism
on 2/5/02 00:42 AM, [EMAIL PROTECTED] at [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: > It is not that Engels misunderstood Marx. Marx unfolded a new law system. > Engels agreed to the best of his ability. To continue. > >> MIYACHI TATSUO >> PSYCHIATRIC DEPARTMENT >> KOMAKI MUNICIPAL HOSPITAL >> KOMAKI CITY >> AICHI Pre. >> JAPAN > > [EMAIL PROTECTED] > > >>> Below is from "Capital" >>> "The specific economic form, in which unpaid surplus-labour is pumped out > of >> direct producers, determines the relationship of rulers and ruled, as it >> grows directly out of production itself and, in turn, reacts upon it as a >> determining element. Upon this, however, is founded the entire formation of >> the economic community which grows up out of the production relations >> themselves, thereby simultaneously its specific political form. It is always >> the direct relationship of the owners of the conditions of production to the >> direct producers -- a relation always naturally corresponding to a definite >> stage in the development of the methods of labour and thereby its social >> productivity -- which reveals the innermost secret, the hidden basis of the >> entire social structure and with it the political form of the relation of >> sovereignty and dependence, in short, the corresponding specific form of the >> state. This does not prevent the same economic basis" > >>> Brenner's reductionism is clear. He only analyze market, finance, or > credit. >> This tendency can ascend to Stalin's formula that economic process is >> natural and to proceed without people's will. Certainly capitalist system is >> reversed world in which Sachen (commodity, money and capital=== In any >> English translation of " Capital" there is no distinction between Sachen and >> Ding, but the two are different category, Sachen means occupying property, >> and Ding is mere physical matter, and identifying Sachen with Ding, we can >> not distinguish Versacherling and Verdinging, which is important to >> understand Marx's critique of fetishism) rule people, and people >> unconsciously and collectively produce Sachen which produce self-destructive >> power for people. > >>> And finally Marx described > >>> "In capital -- profit, or still better capital -- interest, land -- rent, >> abour -- wages, in this economic trinity represented as the connection >> between the component parts of value and wealth in general and its sources, >> we have the complete mystification of the capitalist mode of production, the >> conversion of social relations into things, the direct coalescence of the >> material production relations with their historical and social >> determination. It is an enchanted, perverted, topsy-turvy world, in which >> Monsieur le Capital and Madame la Terre do their ghost-walking as social >> characters and at the same time directly as mere things. It is the great >> merit of classical economy to have destroyed this false appearance and >> illusion, this mutual independence and ossification of the various social >> elements of wealth, this personification of things and conversion of >> production relations into entities, this religion of everyday life. It did >> so by reducing interest to a portion of profit, and rent to the surplus >> above average profit, so that both of them converge in surplus-value; and by >> representing the process of circulation as a mere metamorphosis of forms, >> and finally reducing value and surplus-value of commodities to labour in the >> direct production process" > >>> We works with will, although its result is self-alienated. It is clear. But >> Stalin neglect this fundamental fact. >> "Crisis theory" was produced from experience of Marx, and Lenin. Marx >> firstly expected economic panic as condition of revolution, but in Capital, > > >>> "As soon as this process of transformation has sufficiently decomposed the >> old society from top to bottom, as soon as the laborers are turned into >> proletarians, their means of labor into capital, as soon as the capitalist >> mode of production stands on its own feet, then the further socialization of >> labor and further transformation of the land and other means of production >> into socially exploited and, therefore, common means of production, as well >> as the further expropriation of private proprietors, takes a new form. That >> which is now to be expropriated is no longer the laborer working for >> himself, but the capitalist exploiting many laborers. This expropriation is >> accomplished by the action of the immanent laws of capitalistic production >> itself, by the centralization of capital. One capitalist always kills many. >> Hand in hand with this centralization, or this expropriation of many >> capitalists by few, develop, on an ever-extending scale, the co-operative >> form of the labor-process, the conscious technical application of science, >> the methodical cultivation of the soil, the transformation of the >> Instruments of labor into instruments of la
Re: Re: Engels, Marx, Value and Communism
It is not that Engels misunderstood Marx. Marx unfolded a new law system. Engels agreed to the best of his ability. To continue. >MIYACHI TATSUO >PSYCHIATRIC DEPARTMENT >KOMAKI MUNICIPAL HOSPITAL >KOMAKI CITY >AICHI Pre. >JAPAN [EMAIL PROTECTED] >>Below is from "Capital" >>"The specific economic form, in which unpaid surplus-labour is pumped out of >direct producers, determines the relationship of rulers and ruled, as it >grows directly out of production itself and, in turn, reacts upon it as a >determining element. Upon this, however, is founded the entire formation of >the economic community which grows up out of the production relations >themselves, thereby simultaneously its specific political form. It is always >the direct relationship of the owners of the conditions of production to the >direct producers -- a relation always naturally corresponding to a definite >stage in the development of the methods of labour and thereby its social >productivity -- which reveals the innermost secret, the hidden basis of the >entire social structure and with it the political form of the relation of >sovereignty and dependence, in short, the corresponding specific form of the >state. This does not prevent the same economic basis" >>Brenner's reductionism is clear. He only analyze market, finance, or credit. >This tendency can ascend to Stalin's formula that economic process is >natural and to proceed without people's will. Certainly capitalist system is >reversed world in which Sachen (commodity, money and capital=== In any >English translation of " Capital" there is no distinction between Sachen and >Ding, but the two are different category, Sachen means occupying property, >and Ding is mere physical matter, and identifying Sachen with Ding, we can >not distinguish Versacherling and Verdinging, which is important to >understand Marx's critique of fetishism) rule people, and people >unconsciously and collectively produce Sachen which produce self-destructive >power for people. >>And finally Marx described >>"In capital -- profit, or still better capital -- interest, land -- rent, >abour -- wages, in this economic trinity represented as the connection >between the component parts of value and wealth in general and its sources, >we have the complete mystification of the capitalist mode of production, the >conversion of social relations into things, the direct coalescence of the >material production relations with their historical and social >determination. It is an enchanted, perverted, topsy-turvy world, in which >Monsieur le Capital and Madame la Terre do their ghost-walking as social >characters and at the same time directly as mere things. It is the great >merit of classical economy to have destroyed this false appearance and >illusion, this mutual independence and ossification of the various social >elements of wealth, this personification of things and conversion of >production relations into entities, this religion of everyday life. It did >so by reducing interest to a portion of profit, and rent to the surplus >above average profit, so that both of them converge in surplus-value; and by >representing the process of circulation as a mere metamorphosis of forms, >and finally reducing value and surplus-value of commodities to labour in the >direct production process" >>We works with will, although its result is self-alienated. It is clear. But >Stalin neglect this fundamental fact. >"Crisis theory" was produced from experience of Marx, and Lenin. Marx >firstly expected economic panic as condition of revolution, but in Capital, >>"As soon as this process of transformation has sufficiently decomposed the >old society from top to bottom, as soon as the laborers are turned into >proletarians, their means of labor into capital, as soon as the capitalist >mode of production stands on its own feet, then the further socialization of >labor and further transformation of the land and other means of production >into socially exploited and, therefore, common means of production, as well >as the further expropriation of private proprietors, takes a new form. That >which is now to be expropriated is no longer the laborer working for >himself, but the capitalist exploiting many laborers. This expropriation is >accomplished by the action of the immanent laws of capitalistic production >itself, by the centralization of capital. One capitalist always kills many. >Hand in hand with this centralization, or this expropriation of many >capitalists by few, develop, on an ever-extending scale, the co-operative >form of the labor-process, the conscious technical application of science, >the methodical cultivation of the soil, the transformation of the >Instruments of labor into instruments of labor only usable in common, the >economizing of all means of production by their use as means of production >of combined, socialized labor, the entanglement of all peoples in the net of >the world-market, and with this, the internat
Re: Re: Engels, Marx, Value and Communism
>Engels misunderstood Marx's value theory, especially Marx's explanation of >money-form of commodity as" physically accountable entity, but Marx >explains " social, homogenous labor" firstly as imaginary or ideal product. >Below is borrowed from "Capital I do not disagee that there existed a difference in conception of value, its various forms, between Marx and Engels. Engels repeatedly acknowledge Marx as the greater man in the theoretical arena. Their ideas intersected on the historical trajectory of value as a force mediating human affairs and its final destination in the life of society. Karl Marx was of course - Marx. What Engels intuitively understood based on his independent study Marx unfolded for the world. It is of course Marx name that signifies a specific body of theory as opposed to "Engel-ism." It was Marx that reshaped dialectics. Melvin
