Sunday, December 31, 2023
Engels : paraphrases Marx’s famous quote on Being determining Consciousness; Notice to determine something is to change it; Does it require deep intuition to comprehend that man’s (sic) ideas, views, and conception, in one word, man’s consciousness, _changes_ ( emphases added - CB)with every _change_ in the conditions of his material existence, in his social relations and in his social life? What else does the history of ideas prove, than that intellectual production _changes_ its character in proportion as material production is changed? The ruling ideas of each age have ever been the ideas of its ruling class. When people speak of the ideas that revolutionise society, they do but express that fact that within the old society the elements of a new one have been created, and that the dissolution (change) of the old ideas keeps even pace with the dissolution ( change) of the old conditions of existence."
Engels : "Does it require deep intuition to comprehend that man’s (sic) ideas, views, and conception, in one word, man’s consciousness, _changes_ ( emphases added - CB)with every _change_ in the conditions of his material existence, in his social relations and in his social life?
What else does the history of ideas prove, than that intellectual production _changes_ its character in proportion as material production is changed? The ruling ideas of each age have ever been the ideas of its ruling class.
When people speak of the ideas that revolutionise society, they do but express that fact that within the old society the elements of a new one have been created, and that the dissolution (change) of the old ideas keeps even pace with the dissolution ( change) of the old conditions of existence."
The racism at the heart of the Reagan presidency
How Ronald Reagan used coded racial appeals to galvanize white voters and gut the middle class
By IAN HANEY-LOPEZ PUBLISHED JANUARY 11, 2014 7:00PM (EST) Ronald Reagan (AP) Ronald Reagan (AP)
The rocket-quick rise of racial politics leveled off briefly in the 1970s, before shooting upward again. In good part because of racial appeals, the Republican Party had transformed the crushing defeat of Barry Goldwater into the overwhelming re-election of Richard Nixon. Then, in the 1976 presidential race, the defection toward the Republicans temporarily decelerated. Revulsion over corruption in the Nixon White House, revealed in the Watergate scandal, played a role. In addition, in an effort to distance himself from Nixon’s dirty tricks, the Republican candidate and former Nixon vice president, Gerald Ford, refused to exploit coded racial appeals in his campaign. Not that this marked the disappearance of race-baiting; instead, it merely shifted to Ford’s opponent, former Georgia governor Jimmy Carter. Carter was a racial moderate, and today he deservedly enjoys a reputation as a great humanitarian. Nevertheless, in the mid-1970s he knew that his political fortunes turned on his ability to attract Wallace voters in the South and the North as well. Campaigning in Indiana in April 1976, Carter forcefully opposed neighborhood integration:
I have nothing against a community that’s made up of people who are Polish or Czechoslovakian or French-Canadian, or who are blacks trying to maintain the ethnic purity of their neighborhoods. This is a natural inclination on the part of the people. I don’t think government ought to deliberately try to break down an ethnically oriented neighborhood by artificially injecting into it someone from another ethnic group just to create some form of integration.
Carter adopted an emerging technique in the 1970s, hiding references to whites behind talk of ethnic subpopulations, and he also presented blacks as trying to preserve their own segregated neighborhoods. Notwithstanding these dissimulations, few could fail to understand that Carter was defending white efforts to oppose racial integration, and many liberals criticized Carter for doing so. Nixon, who had been loudly berated by Democrats when he announced that neighborhood integration was not in the national interest, surely appreciated the spectacle. As Carter, too, came under attack, he apologized for using the term “ethnic purity,” but made a point of reiterating on national news that “the government shouldn’t actively try to force changes in neighborhoods with their own ethnic character.”
Carter won the presidency in 1976 with 48 percent of the white vote, sharply better than the Democratic presidential candidate four years earlier who had pulled support from only 30 percent of white voters. But even with widespread revulsion at Nixon as well as Carter’s own Southern strategy, Carter did not manage to carry the white vote nationally. It was his 90 percent support among African Americans, many still furious at Nixon’s dog whistling, that put Carter over the top. In the mid-1970s, racial realignment in party affiliation had been temporarily slowed, not knocked down. Moreover, Carter’s racial pandering— and Ford’s principled failure—seemed to cement the political logic of racebaiting. In the 1980 campaign, Ronald Reagan would come out firing on racial issues, and would blast past Carter. Just 36 percent of whites, only slightly better than one in three, voted for Carter in 1980.
Ronald Reagan
Why did Ronald Reagan do so well among white voters? Certainly elements beyond race contributed, including the faltering economy, foreign events (especially in Iran), the nation’s mood, and the candidates’ temperaments. But one indisputable factor was the return of aggressive race-baiting. A year after Reagan’s victory, a key operative gave what was then an anonymous interview, and perhaps lulled by the anonymity, he offered an unusually candid response to a question about Reagan, the Southern strategy, and the drive to attract the “Wallace voter”:
By IAN HANEY-LOPEZ PUBLISHED JANUARY 11, 2014 7:00PM (EST) Ronald Reagan (AP) Ronald Reagan (AP)
The rocket-quick rise of racial politics leveled off briefly in the 1970s, before shooting upward again. In good part because of racial appeals, the Republican Party had transformed the crushing defeat of Barry Goldwater into the overwhelming re-election of Richard Nixon. Then, in the 1976 presidential race, the defection toward the Republicans temporarily decelerated. Revulsion over corruption in the Nixon White House, revealed in the Watergate scandal, played a role. In addition, in an effort to distance himself from Nixon’s dirty tricks, the Republican candidate and former Nixon vice president, Gerald Ford, refused to exploit coded racial appeals in his campaign. Not that this marked the disappearance of race-baiting; instead, it merely shifted to Ford’s opponent, former Georgia governor Jimmy Carter. Carter was a racial moderate, and today he deservedly enjoys a reputation as a great humanitarian. Nevertheless, in the mid-1970s he knew that his political fortunes turned on his ability to attract Wallace voters in the South and the North as well. Campaigning in Indiana in April 1976, Carter forcefully opposed neighborhood integration:
I have nothing against a community that’s made up of people who are Polish or Czechoslovakian or French-Canadian, or who are blacks trying to maintain the ethnic purity of their neighborhoods. This is a natural inclination on the part of the people. I don’t think government ought to deliberately try to break down an ethnically oriented neighborhood by artificially injecting into it someone from another ethnic group just to create some form of integration.
Carter adopted an emerging technique in the 1970s, hiding references to whites behind talk of ethnic subpopulations, and he also presented blacks as trying to preserve their own segregated neighborhoods. Notwithstanding these dissimulations, few could fail to understand that Carter was defending white efforts to oppose racial integration, and many liberals criticized Carter for doing so. Nixon, who had been loudly berated by Democrats when he announced that neighborhood integration was not in the national interest, surely appreciated the spectacle. As Carter, too, came under attack, he apologized for using the term “ethnic purity,” but made a point of reiterating on national news that “the government shouldn’t actively try to force changes in neighborhoods with their own ethnic character.”
Carter won the presidency in 1976 with 48 percent of the white vote, sharply better than the Democratic presidential candidate four years earlier who had pulled support from only 30 percent of white voters. But even with widespread revulsion at Nixon as well as Carter’s own Southern strategy, Carter did not manage to carry the white vote nationally. It was his 90 percent support among African Americans, many still furious at Nixon’s dog whistling, that put Carter over the top. In the mid-1970s, racial realignment in party affiliation had been temporarily slowed, not knocked down. Moreover, Carter’s racial pandering— and Ford’s principled failure—seemed to cement the political logic of racebaiting. In the 1980 campaign, Ronald Reagan would come out firing on racial issues, and would blast past Carter. Just 36 percent of whites, only slightly better than one in three, voted for Carter in 1980.
Ronald Reagan
Why did Ronald Reagan do so well among white voters? Certainly elements beyond race contributed, including the faltering economy, foreign events (especially in Iran), the nation’s mood, and the candidates’ temperaments. But one indisputable factor was the return of aggressive race-baiting. A year after Reagan’s victory, a key operative gave what was then an anonymous interview, and perhaps lulled by the anonymity, he offered an unusually candid response to a question about Reagan, the Southern strategy, and the drive to attract the “Wallace voter”:
I'm pulling in the whole Communism is 20th Century Americanism thesis . Paul Robeson's Ballad for Americans. The Preamble to the Constitution is heavily Utopian Socialist influenced. Obama's ideology is based in the "More perfect Union " phrase. Establish justice, Domestic tranquility , general Welfare (!) are original American socialism.
Ballad for Americans uses the method of focusing on working class led progress toward genuine freedom in American history , working people's patriotism and cultural and political production !
Obama has the same approach: emphasizing and faith in the ability of the majority of the People to do the right thing. THIS IS THE SAME AS ENGELS AND MARX's FAITH IN THE WORKING CLASS AS HISTORICAL REVOLUTIONARY AGENT words of the Constitution are. "We the People. Popular sovereignty is a precursor Communist concept. Look at Bernie; very American socialist. So, neo-Browderism is of course an update and modification of the original.
( Should be timeline running bottom to top of Tree of Life) Phylogeny /taxonomy is very fundamental in biology. It also portrays Darwin's lesser known philosophical concept that _ all life is related through common ancestor species_ ; people have heard of natural selection , but fewer have heard of this full implication of descent with modification . The Tree of Life portrays both evolution and phylogeny ( relationships of species through closeness or distance from a common ancestor species); we think of a timeline running top to bottom of the Tree.
SHOULD BE TIMELINE RUNNING BOTTOM YO TOP OF TREE OF LIFE
T
----- Original Message ----- From: "Charles Brown"
To: ; "Pen-l Pen-L" ; ;
Sent: Wednesday, February 24, 2016 4:26 PM
Subject: [a-list] Tree of Life
The branching of trees is ontogeny reiterating phylogeny. A basic way to graphically portray evolution and phylogenic descent of life is as a _Tree_ of Life. ( ontogeny means the physical biography of an individual plant or animal ). Famous biologist , Haekel once said " ontogeny reiterates phylogeny . " referring to the development of some animals in the womb going through forms like ancestral species; but I think Haekel was shown to be wrong on that by Stephen Jay Gould. Of course , there is also branching in our circulatory system and nervous system. Them human culture is based in kinship or Family _Trees_.
Phylogeny /taxonomy is very fundamental in biology. It also portrays Darwin's lesser known philosophical concept that _ all life is related through common ancestor species_ ; people have heard of natural selection , but fewer have heard of this full implication of descent with modification . The Tree of Life portrays both evolution and phylogeny ( relationships of species through closeness or distance from a common ancestor species); we think of a timeline running top to bottom of the Tree.
In other words , trees almost talk to us, teach us Darwinism through their bodies . Tree body language is an abstract portrayal of natural history .
The original humans "listen ed" to the trees and organized human society phylogenetically , living people basing their relationships to each other based on relationships to common , _dead_ ancestors. "Ontogeny" or biographies of the living generations reiterating "phylogeny" of dead generations of our species.
This is natural, not religious, philosophy of Life, in several senses of Life. I ask my students the famous philo question "What is Life ? " with the suggestion that this is Life Science's answer.
From: Tony Black
Date: February 24, 2016 at 9:08:05 PM EST
To: a-list@lists.riseup.net
Subject: Re: [a-list] Tree of Life
Reply-To: a-list@lists.riseup.net
" but I think Haekel was shown to be wrong on that by Stephen Jay Gould."
He did..and others have....but their case was always overstated. In other words, given certain caveats ontogeny can, generally, be said to recapitulate phylogeny.
The branching of trees is ontogeny reiterating phylogeny. A basic way to graphically portray evolution and phylogenic descent of life is as a _Tree_ of Life. ( ontogeny means the physical biography of an individual plant or animal ). Famous biologist , Haekel once said " ontogeny reiterates phylogeny . " referring to the development of some animals in the womb going through forms like ancestral species; but I think Haekel was shown to be wrong on that by Stephen Jay Gould. Of course , there is also branching in our circulatory system and nervous system. Them human culture is based in kinship or Family _Trees_.
Phylogeny /taxonomy is very fundamental in biology. It also portrays Darwin's lesser known philosophical concept that _ all life is related through common ancestor species_ ; people have heard of natural selection , but fewer have heard of this full implication of descent with modification . The Tree of Life portrays both evolution and phylogeny ( relationships of species through closeness or distance from a common ancestor species); we think of a timeline running top to bottom of the Tree.
In other words , trees almost talk to us, teach us Darwinism through their bodies . Tree body language is an abstract portrayal of natural history .
The original humans "listen ed" to the trees and organized human society phylogenetically , living people basing their relationships to each other based on relationships to common , _dead_ ancestors. "Ontogeny" or biographies of the living generations reiterating "phylogeny" of dead generations of our species.
This is natural, not religious, philosophy of Life, in several senses of Life. I ask my students the famous philo question "What is Life ? " with the suggestion that this is Life Science's answer.
From: Tony Black
We're only talking about socialism for the first time in almost 70 years . It would be wishful thinking that the majority of voters were pro-socialism after 100 plus years of anti-socialist propaganda bigtime , overwhelming. We do have the advantage that Americans are taught to think ahistorically and only in the present . So, most of that anti -socialist propaganda from the past is lost on the Millenials and Gen X'ers . They are open minded. So, we should be seeking to win them to socialism. Bernie's campaign is doing that . Frankly , I believe Occupy Wall Street was the beginning of the socialist revolution in the US. In conclusion , we might be able to win socialism substantially by 2024 or 2028. It will be socialism with US characteristics.
Scattering of US points of Industrial production out of Midwest at the end of the 20th Century
https://www.mail-archive.com/marxism-thaxis%40lists.econ.utah.edu/msg07163.html
machinery and cooperation there
consists in the fact that _new_ machinery, (or the constant
revolutionizing of the instruments of production in capitalism
mentioned in the _Manifesto of the Communist Party_) in general in
introduced because it is "more efficient" in the sense that the same
amount of use-values can be produced with fewer hours of labor or
fewer workers.
So new machinery and technology, as Waistline always reminds us, steadily erodes the number of workers in a given industry. Cooperation, on the other hand, is the process from the capitalist period of manufacture as Marx discusses to modern industry that involves the introduction of more and more workers to a production line, their _concentration_ in one geographical and physical location (in space).
The relative geographical/in space scattering or dispersal of workers in post-Fordism made possible by the development of machinery with computers, micro-chips, and other hi-tech aspects of communication and transportation is , in a dialectical sense the negation or suppression of one opposite of the united opposites (machinery/cooperation) by the other opposite. Machinery develops to a point that it negates cooperation, in the senses Marx uses them in Part IV of _Capital_.
Originally, in Marx's period as he describes, the capitalist increased the production of _relative_ surplus value by the introduction of both cooperation and modern machinery in the industrial stage moving away from the manufacturing phase. As he describes there. I'll post some of Chapter 12.
All Power to the People !
Charles
> > On Thu, Oct 15, 2009 at 8:58 AM, c b wrote:
>
> > On 10/13/09, Matthew Birkhold > > > The question, that strikes me about this particular development, and its > > > obvious consequences for the Leninist mode of organizing workers is, > >
given the increase in surplus value created by automation and decentralization and the contradictory process of industrial working class formation nationally >
yet decrease in major industrial cities, how do we understand Marx's > > general >> law of capital accumulation while taking into account the centrality of > > US > > > geography which made expansion possible in ways that only could be > > dreamed >of in the US? I think this aspect of 20th century capitalism forces us > > to rethink some of chapter 32 of Capital, "Historical Tendencies of > > Capitalist > > > Accumulation," but I'm not sure what it mean for Marx's general law. > >
> > ^^^^^^^ >> CB: Matthew it would be interesting to hear more of your thinking on the relationship between Marx's general law of capital accumulation , the historical tendencies chapter and the dispersal of the points of >production in the current period. I gotta admit , that chapter 32 is > > always fun to read, so, I'll be glad to respond to your ideas.
Thanks for the engagement. Hope all is well. > > > Peace, matt > > > > > > > > > On Mon, Oct 12, 2009 at 10:37 AM, c b wrote:
> > >
> > > > Thanks for your note, Matt, > > > > It means the negation of some aspects of Leninism. Not to be cute, but >
I'd say approach it dialectically as a supercession or sublation, overcoming and preservation of the Leninist phase of Marxism. > >
What is preserved ? first, I'd say the Leninist concept of finance
capitalism from the imperialist thesis is "truer" today than even in
Lenin's day.
Look at how Wallstreet was able to just demand $11 > > > > trillion plus from the US state to basically not go bankrupt. _All_ of > > > > the finance sector was broke by its own admission that the several > > > > individual bankruptcies posed a _systemic_ threat. "Too big to fail" > > > > means the whole finance sector was broke. My point here is that as > > > > they were able to avoid that by just getting an $11 trillion gift > > > > proves that they are the ruling sector. Even GM had to go through > > > > bankruptcy. The Detroit papers had headlines contrasting the treatment > > > > of the Wallstreet firms and GM. So, the Leninist concept of finance > > > > capital dominating industrial capital has reached an extreme that > > > > wasn't even true in his day. > > > > > > > > The current situation is best understood as a dialectical > > > > transformation of the imperialism outlined in Lenin's thesis, based on > > > > the changes , in the first place, by the existence of the Soviet Union > > > > for 75 years, and its struggle with imperialism. Inter-imperialist > > > > rivalry was negated because imperialism had to unite against the SU > > > > and socialist countries. Imperialist countries still export capital, > > > > including to other imperialist countries. As I said finance capital > > > > is still the dominant sector. It is no accident the central organs of > > > > transnational capital are hedge funds, the US treasury, IMF and World > > > > Bank etc. , in other words finance capital institutions. Colonialism > > > > has been through an overthrow of the old system , especially bulwarked > > > > by the existence of the SU, institution of a neo-colonialist system, > > > > and now a "neo-liberal" colonialist system after the fall of the SU. > > > > > > > > Also, that industry is scattered and not concentrated > > > > geographically/in space , does not mean that industry is not still an > > > > important part of capitalism technologically, and that industrial > > > > workers are not an important part of the working class. So, Marxists > > > > should not fail to pay attention to industrial workers. Leninist's > > > > thesis on opportunism based on imperialist booty corrupting the US and > > > > other imperialist countries' working classes and trade union leaders > > > > is pretty much the story " of our lives" , no ? So, that aspect of > > > > Leninism is unfortunately quite valid today. > > > > > > > > The Leninist party model from _What is to be done ?_ was largely > > > > specific to Russia with its lack of experience with democracy relative > > > > to countries like the US even in 1905 -1917. Add to that the US > > > > party going through McCarthyism, requiring strict participation in the > > > > US traditions of electoral politics all along and certainly for 60 > > > > years, not to mention the whole Cold War intense brainwashing of the > > > > American population in anti-Communism, anti-Sovietism, and that's > > > > substantially or completely negated. Having said all that, the US > > > > Democratic and Republican parties, and unions operate on the principle > > > > of democratic centralism, but just don't call it that. So, in a > > > > certain sense, democratic centralism is as American as apple pie. It > > > > 's basically the represtentative or republican principle. Also, the > > > > two-party system is something of a fraud and a one-party system > > > > operating as a phony two-party system. Effectively, on this issue the > > > > main thing is not to be quoting Lenin, but a lot of his ideas are > > > > still pertinent. > > > > > > > > The principles in _Materialism and Empirio-Criticism_, the critique of > > > > Kantian dualism and subjective idealism is very fresh in critiquing > > > > post-modernism. The heart of post-modernism is neo-Kantianism , I'd > > > > say. > > > > > > > > There may be some other aspects that are preserved. > > > > > > > > I appreciate your pushing me to articulate this > > > > > > > > I see you quote James Boggs. Are you in the Detroit area ? > > > > > > > > What say you ? > > > > > > > > Charles > > > > > > > > On 10/11/09, Matthew Birkhold wrote:
> > > > > Charles said,
> > > > > "The end of Fordism is the end of the big plant. The
> > > > > capitalist can move parts etc around so fast that they do not need
> > the
> > > > > efficiency of concentrating workers in big plants, in ghettoes in the
> > > > > city, the whole ball of wax that gave rise to Leninist tactics in the
> > > > > class struggle by which workers got a sense of their power by their
> > > > > great numbers etc."
> > > > > I agree with this analysis of this shift completely. Does it mean
> > that
> > > > the
> > > > > end of Leninism has been reached in the US?
> > > > >
> > > > > Hope all is well.
> > > > > Peace, Matt
> > > > >
> > > > > On Sat, Oct 10, 2009 at 11:52 PM, c b wrote:
> > > > >
> > > > > > post-Fordism and geographical scattering of
> > > > > > Charles Brown charlesb at CNCL.ci.detroit.mi.us
> > > > > > Tue Apr 28 19:52:54 MDT 1998
> > > > > >
> > > > > > Previous message: M-TH: Bouncing around socalled globalization
> > > > > > Next message: M-TH: Re: Australian working class and
> > superimperialist
> > > > > > Messages sorted by: [ date ] [ thread ] [ subject ] [ author ]
> > > > > >
> > > > > >
> > > > > >
> > > >
> > --------------------------------------------------------------------------------
> > > > > >
> > > > > > To: Dave
> > > > > > From: Charles
> > > > > >
> > > > > > Here's some more on globalization as
> > > > > > a qualitative shift from what Lenin defined
> > > > > > as imperialism, monopoly capitalism; the
> > > > > > uniting of financial and industrial capital;
> > > > > > export of capital as a shift from export of
> > > > > > goods; the "advanced" European colonialist
> > > > > > countries dividing and redividing the world;
> > > > > > socalled world wars, meaning all European
> > > > > > wars.=20
> > > > > > monopoly concentration; labour aristocracy
> > > > > > bought off with superprofits of booty from
> > > > > > colonialism; etc. etc.; electricity, trains,
> > > > > > assembly line as technological innovations
> > > > > > in the means of production.
> > > > > > =20
> > > > > > Gramsciians would say the culture of this
> > > > > > was Fordism, as discussed below.
> > > > > > =20
> > > > > > >>> "Charles Brown" 03/29
> > 4:16
> > > > PM
> > > > > > =
> > > > > > >>>
> > > > > >
> > > > > > From ground zero of Fordism here in Detroit, we experienced the
> > last
> > > > 45 =
> > > > > > years of change from the classic big industrial plant (such as Ford
> > =
> > > > > > Dearborn with 100,000 workers)concentration to scattering of the
> > points
> > > > of
> > > > > > =
> > > > > > production as plantclosings, runaway shops, and white flight to the
> > =
> > > > > > suburbs. So the transition to socalled post-Fordism got our
> > attention
> > > > real
> > > > > > =
> > > > > > good and we've been trying to figure it in Marxist political
> > economic =
> > > > > > terms.
> > > > > >
> > > > > > It occurred to me that the "new global economy",
> > > > transnationalization=
> > > > > > of monopoly capital represents a dialectical qualitative change in
> > the
> > > > =
> > > > > > following sense. =20
> > > > > > Marx in Capital defines two factors in the
> > > > > > qualitiative emergence of industrial capitalism over manufacture =
> > > > > > capitalism. They are the use of machinery=20
> > > > > > and the concentration of workers in one big factory.
> > > > > > Thus, the graphic locus of the classic Leninist agitation and
> > =
> > > > > > propaganda the giant industrial plant.
> > > > > > The qualitative change of today is the the revolution in science
> > and =
> > > > > > technology which has begotten a revolution=20
> > > > > > in transportation and communication, creating such things as just
> > in
> > > > time =
> > > > > > delivery, containerization . Thus a revolution in machinery, one of
> > the
> > > > =
> > > > > > original two breakthroughs in Marx's analysis of industrialization,
> > has
> > > > =
> > > > > > made it possible for the capitalists to decentralize and scatter
> > the =
> > > > > > points of production. The end of Fordism is the end of the big
> > plant.
> > > > The =
> > > > > > capitalist can move parts etc around so fast that they do not need
> > > > the =
> > > > > > efficiency of concentrating workers in big plants, in ghettoes in
> > the =
> > > > > > city, the whole ball of wax that gave rise to Leninist tactics in
> > the =
> > > > > > class struggle by which workers got a sense of their power by their
> > > > > > great numbers etc.
> > > > > > I suggest the above infrastructural sketch as=20
> > > > > > corresponding to the cultural change now
> > > > > > named post-Fordism.
> > > > > > But don't count the proletariat out. The slogan=20
> > > > > > workers of the world unite , is more true today
> > > > > > than when Marx and Engels coined it. And the
> > > > > > proletariat is fresher than post-Fordist theory might
> > > > > > know. In other words, the proletariat knows how to
> > > > > > go with the new. Detroiters probably could show
> > > > > > post-ologists a thing or two about what is new.
> > > > > >
> > > > > > from Proletarian Central, Detroit
> > > > > > Charles
> > > > > > =20
> > > > > >
> > > > > > _______________________________________________
> > > > > > 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
> > > > > >
> > > > >
> > > > >
> > > > >
> > > > > --
> > > > > If one needs a community to resist interdependence must be seen as a
> > > > moral
> > > > > obligation.
> > > > >
> > > > > "Men don't need to show our manhood, we need to show our humanity" --
> > > > James
> > > > > Boggs, 1990
> > > > > _______________________________________________
> > > > > 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:
> > > >
So new machinery and technology, as Waistline always reminds us, steadily erodes the number of workers in a given industry. Cooperation, on the other hand, is the process from the capitalist period of manufacture as Marx discusses to modern industry that involves the introduction of more and more workers to a production line, their _concentration_ in one geographical and physical location (in space).
The relative geographical/in space scattering or dispersal of workers in post-Fordism made possible by the development of machinery with computers, micro-chips, and other hi-tech aspects of communication and transportation is , in a dialectical sense the negation or suppression of one opposite of the united opposites (machinery/cooperation) by the other opposite. Machinery develops to a point that it negates cooperation, in the senses Marx uses them in Part IV of _Capital_.
Originally, in Marx's period as he describes, the capitalist increased the production of _relative_ surplus value by the introduction of both cooperation and modern machinery in the industrial stage moving away from the manufacturing phase. As he describes there. I'll post some of Chapter 12.
All Power to the People !
Charles
> > On Thu, Oct 15, 2009 at 8:58 AM, c b
> > On 10/13/09, Matthew Birkhold > > > The question, that strikes me about this particular development, and its > > > obvious consequences for the Leninist mode of organizing workers is, > >
given the increase in surplus value created by automation and decentralization and the contradictory process of industrial working class formation nationally >
yet decrease in major industrial cities, how do we understand Marx's > > general >> law of capital accumulation while taking into account the centrality of > > US > > > geography which made expansion possible in ways that only could be > > dreamed >of in the US? I think this aspect of 20th century capitalism forces us > > to rethink some of chapter 32 of Capital, "Historical Tendencies of > > Capitalist > > > Accumulation," but I'm not sure what it mean for Marx's general law. > >
> > ^^^^^^^ >> CB: Matthew it would be interesting to hear more of your thinking on the relationship between Marx's general law of capital accumulation , the historical tendencies chapter and the dispersal of the points of >production in the current period. I gotta admit , that chapter 32 is > > always fun to read, so, I'll be glad to respond to your ideas.
Thanks for the engagement. Hope all is well. > > > Peace, matt > > > > > > > > > On Mon, Oct 12, 2009 at 10:37 AM, c b
> > > > Thanks for your note, Matt, > > > > It means the negation of some aspects of Leninism. Not to be cute, but >
I'd say approach it dialectically as a supercession or sublation, overcoming and preservation of the Leninist phase of Marxism. > >
Look at how Wallstreet was able to just demand $11 > > > > trillion plus from the US state to basically not go bankrupt. _All_ of > > > > the finance sector was broke by its own admission that the several > > > > individual bankruptcies posed a _systemic_ threat. "Too big to fail" > > > > means the whole finance sector was broke. My point here is that as > > > > they were able to avoid that by just getting an $11 trillion gift > > > > proves that they are the ruling sector. Even GM had to go through > > > > bankruptcy. The Detroit papers had headlines contrasting the treatment > > > > of the Wallstreet firms and GM. So, the Leninist concept of finance > > > > capital dominating industrial capital has reached an extreme that > > > > wasn't even true in his day. > > > > > > > > The current situation is best understood as a dialectical > > > > transformation of the imperialism outlined in Lenin's thesis, based on > > > > the changes , in the first place, by the existence of the Soviet Union > > > > for 75 years, and its struggle with imperialism. Inter-imperialist > > > > rivalry was negated because imperialism had to unite against the SU > > > > and socialist countries. Imperialist countries still export capital, > > > > including to other imperialist countries. As I said finance capital > > > > is still the dominant sector. It is no accident the central organs of > > > > transnational capital are hedge funds, the US treasury, IMF and World > > > > Bank etc. , in other words finance capital institutions. Colonialism > > > > has been through an overthrow of the old system , especially bulwarked > > > > by the existence of the SU, institution of a neo-colonialist system, > > > > and now a "neo-liberal" colonialist system after the fall of the SU. > > > > > > > > Also, that industry is scattered and not concentrated > > > > geographically/in space , does not mean that industry is not still an > > > > important part of capitalism technologically, and that industrial > > > > workers are not an important part of the working class. So, Marxists > > > > should not fail to pay attention to industrial workers. Leninist's > > > > thesis on opportunism based on imperialist booty corrupting the US and > > > > other imperialist countries' working classes and trade union leaders > > > > is pretty much the story " of our lives" , no ? So, that aspect of > > > > Leninism is unfortunately quite valid today. > > > > > > > > The Leninist party model from _What is to be done ?_ was largely > > > > specific to Russia with its lack of experience with democracy relative > > > > to countries like the US even in 1905 -1917. Add to that the US > > > > party going through McCarthyism, requiring strict participation in the > > > > US traditions of electoral politics all along and certainly for 60 > > > > years, not to mention the whole Cold War intense brainwashing of the > > > > American population in anti-Communism, anti-Sovietism, and that's > > > > substantially or completely negated. Having said all that, the US > > > > Democratic and Republican parties, and unions operate on the principle > > > > of democratic centralism, but just don't call it that. So, in a > > > > certain sense, democratic centralism is as American as apple pie. It > > > > 's basically the represtentative or republican principle. Also, the > > > > two-party system is something of a fraud and a one-party system > > > > operating as a phony two-party system. Effectively, on this issue the > > > > main thing is not to be quoting Lenin, but a lot of his ideas are > > > > still pertinent. > > > > > > > > The principles in _Materialism and Empirio-Criticism_, the critique of > > > > Kantian dualism and subjective idealism is very fresh in critiquing > > > > post-modernism. The heart of post-modernism is neo-Kantianism , I'd > > > > say. > > > > > > > > There may be some other aspects that are preserved. > > > > > > > > I appreciate your pushing me to articulate this > > > > > > > > I see you quote James Boggs. Are you in the Detroit area ? > > > > > > > > What say you ? > > > > > > > > Charles > > > > > > > > On 10/11/09, Matthew Birkhold
https://www.marxists.org/archive/marx/works/1867-c1/ch31.htm
Obamacare or the _Affordable_ Care Act gets health insurance to millions of poor people who couldn't afford it before. So , Obamacare is the first extension of Lyndon Johnson's War on Poverty since Johnson; contrary to what Cornel West and other Obama-haters say, Obama _has_ done something that helps Black people and poor people , as there are proportionally more Black poor. Everybody knew the War on Poverty was especially to help "Urban" areas.
Here we have your precise error on display. It is exactly wrong that biological sex is socially constructed at all. Sex is probably the most important concept in biology given the essential nature of reproduction to perpetuation of species , i.e. Avoiding extinction.
LGBT'er : "a "Marxist" sounds like a paid spokesperson for the Christian Coalition "///
CB: I'm a paid spokesperson for Darwinian evolution and biology and anthropology at a college. What I'm espousing is dialectical MATERIALISM , Marxism. Your position is the "Marxist" post-modernist literary criticism one .
Here we have your precise error on display. It is exactly wrong that biological sex is socially constructed at all. Sex is probably the most important concept in biology given the essential nature of reproduction to perpetuation of species , i.e. Avoiding extinction.
Non-human species do not have gender, because they don't have culture, language, symbols. Gender is culturally determined . Animals have only sex.
There are only two biological sexes, and it is impossible for an individual to transfer from one to the other . The two are complementary opposites, two sides of a coin , a biologically derived division of labor ( a labor of love ; viva la difference, we dialecticians say). Sexual reproduction originates one billion years ago . Before that life reproduced by cloning . Sexual reproduction was selected for because it produces offspring that are more diverse. This is all a materialist or scientific understanding of sex. Hate to break it to you.
CB: I'm a paid spokesperson for Darwinian evolution and biology and anthropology at a college. What I'm espousing is dialectical MATERIALISM , Marxism. Your position is the "Marxist" post-modernist literary criticism one .
Here we have your precise error on display. It is exactly wrong that biological sex is socially constructed at all. Sex is probably the most important concept in biology given the essential nature of reproduction to perpetuation of species , i.e. Avoiding extinction.
Non-human species do not have gender, because they don't have culture, language, symbols. Gender is culturally determined . Animals have only sex.
There are only two biological sexes, and it is impossible for an individual to transfer from one to the other . The two are complementary opposites, two sides of a coin , a biologically derived division of labor ( a labor of love ; viva la difference, we dialecticians say). Sexual reproduction originates one billion years ago . Before that life reproduced by cloning . Sexual reproduction was selected for because it produces offspring that are more diverse. This is all a materialist or scientific understanding of sex. Hate to break it to you.
Marx locates and describes in Hegelian terms the central dialectic of the revolutionary transformation of capitalist accumulation into socialist universal satisfaction of necessities of life, socialist materialist dialectic , here:
"The capitalist mode of appropriation, the result of the capitalist mode of production, produces capitalist private property. This is the first negation of individual private property, as founded on the labour of the proprietor. But capitalist production begets, with the inexorability of a law of Nature, its own negation. It is the negation of negation. This does not re-establish private property for the producer, but gives him individual property based on the acquisition of the capitalist era: i.e., on cooperation and the possession in common of the land and of the means of production." https://www.marxists.org/archive/marx/works/1867-c1/ch32.htm
World Revolution, it turns out, is not the whole world throwing out capitalism all at the same time necessarily. It is an epochal process that starts in one country, and does spread. Not only as capturing state powers, but in forcing socialist reforms or social democratic reform concessions on capitalists to placate their working classes.
The idea that there are NOT sections of the ruling class has been the bain of the Communist movement since 1946 ; it is a drastically wrongheaded assessment of class politics ; it has destroyed much of the US Left for decades . Use of the term Stalinism bespeaks very befuddled political thinking ; the idea that there are not different sections of the ruling class such that we should not ally with different sections in this circumstance of balances of class conscious and unconscious workers IS TOTAL MISLEADERSHIP of the working class giving "Marxism" a bad name as out of touch with objective political reality ; non-materialist
The unemployed and poor as part of the working class, the 99%, the WAGE-LABOR CLASS M I agree that we need to bring back the term "the working class" in economic debates, however this article is not about the WAGE-LABOR CLASS , working class, the proletariat , 99% of the population. This is about the chronically poor who cannot work for physical reasons, addiction or lack of basic education. These don't need unions, industrial training or job hunting skills - in other words - TANF. They need the kind of remedial attention to education and health issues that looks more like Welfare - although the funds should go toward payment for going to school rather than staying home (although the subject of the article should not have to work or learn - but his disability should be raised so he does not have to work). In short, we need to do something for the poor - including legalizing drugs and providing treatment. Sadly, this is not possible in this political environment. If the working class and the poor would actually vote, there would be no question of them getting the aid they need - of course the GOP is trying to make sure they can't, even if they want to, because if they did there would be no GOP.
Billie Burk We are spending money to make homelessness illegal. Probably costs less to provide modest housing for anyone that needs shelter and not in a group hovel. But we'd rather ostracize and humiliate than lift people up. Actually extinction of the human race is probably a good thing. Yesterday at 7:52am · Like · 2
Warren Chamberlain If a person has a right to life he has a right to work to sustain that right, so everyone has a right to the means of production land and capital; Who will "provide" that? We should make joblessness illegal. Yesterday at 7:58am · Edited · Like · 2
Maria Minno A lot of rich people have drug addictions, and that doesn't prevent them from being rich. Yesterday at 9:10am · Like · 2
Billie Burk And...point??? So the poor should have no problem grubbing along?? Yesterday at 9:25am · Like · 1
Michael Bindner No, it means that the poor should be treated when necessary and trained when necessary - but they are not in the working class, nor should they be called that - until they are ready for work. If not, their disability payments should be enough to live on, not just subsist. 14 hrs · Unlike · 2
Maria Minno "This is about the chronically poor who cannot work for physical reasons, //addiction// or lack of basic education. "
Well, my comment is a tangent, but I wanted to remind people not to fall for the stereotype that poor people are all drug addicts, or drug users are poor. It's not just poor people. In fact, people with money are more able to buy drugs, both illegal and pharmaceutical, so are probably more likely to be addicted, but not convicted. And it's not just illegal drugs. The worst drugs and the drugs with the most widespread use are legal. (Think of the mayem if all of a sudden nobody could get their caffeine fix in the morning, and their alcohol at night!) I don't actually know how much of a problem drug addiction amounts to; do you? I see the stereotype of drug addicted poor people as part of blaming the poor for their economic condition.
10 hrs · Edited · Unlike · 3 Billie Burk YES!!! Excellent! Gotcha. 10 hrs · Edited · Like
Charles Brown http://take10charles.blogspot.com/.../needed...
Labor Power: Needed: Constitutional Amendment for the Right to a Decent Job take10charles.blogspot.com 13 mins · Like · Remove Preview
Charles Brown but they are not in the working class, nor should they be called that - until they are ready for work. If not, their disability payments should be enough to live on, not just subsist.///////// always, chronically, secularly large numbers of the working class are part of the relative surplus population and the reserved army of the unemployed, many poor https://www.marxists.org/.../marx/works/1867-c1/ch25.htm... Economic Manuscripts: Capital Vol. I - Chapter Twenty-Five www.marxists.org The composition of capital is to be understood in a two-fold sense. 9 mins · Edited · Like · Remove Preview
Charles Brown "Considering the social capital in its totality, the movement of its accumulation now causes periodical changes, affecting it more or less as a whole, now distributes its various phases simultaneously over the different spheres of production. In some spheres a change in the composition of capital occurs without increase of its absolute magnitude, as a consequence of simple centralisation; in others the absolute growth of capital is connected with absolute diminution of its variable constituent, or of the labour power absorbed by it; in others again, capital continues growing for a time on its given technical basis, and attracts additional labour power in proportion to its increase, while at other times it undergoes organic change, and lessens its variable constituent; in all spheres, the increase of the variable part of capital, and therefore of the number of labourers employed by it, is always connected with violent fluctuations and transitory production of surplus population, whether this takes the more striking form of the repulsion of labourers already employed, or the less evident but not less real form of the more difficult absorption of the additional labouring population through the usual channels. [14] With the magnitude of social capital already functioning, and the degree of its increase, with the extension of the scale of production, and the mass of the labourers set in motion, with the development of the productiveness of their labour, with the greater breadth and fulness of all sources of wealth, there is also an extension of the scale on which greater attraction of labourers by capital is accompanied by their greater repulsion; the rapidity of the change in the organic composition of capital, and in its technical form increases, and an increasing number of spheres of production becomes involved in this change, now simultaneously, now alternately. The labouring population therefore produces, along with the accumulation of capital produced by it, the means by which it itself is made relatively superfluous, is turned into a relative surplus population; and it does this to an always increasing extent. [15] This is a law of population peculiar to the capitalist mode of production; and in fact every special historic mode of production has its own special laws of population, historically valid within its limits and only in so far as man has not interfered with them. " 6 mins · Like
Charles Brown "After Political Economy has thus demonstrated the constant production of a relative surplus population of labourers to be a necessity of capitalistic accumulation, she very aptly, in the guise of an old maid, puts in the mouth of her “beau ideal” of a capitalist the following words addressed to those supernumeraries thrown on the streets by their own creation of additional capital: —
“We manufacturers do what we can for you, whilst we are increasing that capital on which you must subsist, and you must do the rest by accommodating your numbers to the means of subsistence.” [18]
Capitalist production can by no means content itself with the quantity of disposable labour power which the natural increase of population yields. It requires for its free play an industrial reserve army independent of these natural limits. " 2 mins · Like
Charles Brown "The greater the social wealth, the functioning capital, the extent and energy of its growth, and, therefore, also the absolute mass of the proletariat and the productiveness of its labour, the greater is the industrial reserve army. The same causes which develop the expansive power of capital, develop also the labour power at its disposal. The relative mass of the industrial reserve army increases therefore with the potential energy of wealth. But the greater this reserve army in proportion to the active labour army, the greater is the mass of a consolidated surplus population, whose misery is in inverse ratio to its torment of labour. The more extensive, finally, the lazarus layers of the working class, and the industrial reserve army, the greater is official pauperism. This is the absolute general law of capitalist accumulation. Like all other laws it is modified in its working by many circumstances, the analysis of which does not concern us here. "
r government is a corporation! 6 mins · Like Charles Brown Our government is not a _private profiting_ corporation, That is a fundamental difference. The above describes for profit corporations. It is dangerous to feed into the Reaganite anti-Gov'ment propaganda. Occupy Wall Street was a revolutionary advance in protest demonstrations because it was against private corporations that dominate the government, and not in DC or at a government site.' It demonstrated, literally, that the true ruling class capitol, the Capitol of Capital is "Wall Street" , not D.C.
OCCUPY WALLSTREET ! WE R THE 99% ! WE R THE 99% !!
r government is a corporation! 6 mins · Like
Charles Brown Our government is not a _private profiting_ corporation, That is a fundamental difference. The above describes for profit corporations. It is dangerous to feed into the Reaganite anti-Gov'ment propaganda. Occupy Wall Street was a revolutionary advance in protest demonstrations because it was against private corporations that dominate the government, and not in DC or at a government site.' It demonstrated, literally, that the true ruling class capitol, the Capitol of Capital is "Wall Street" , not D.C.
r government is a corporation! 6 mins · Like
Charles Brown Our government is not a _private profiting_ corporation, That is a fundamental difference. The above describes for profit corporations. It is dangerous to feed into the Reaganite anti-Gov'ment propaganda. Occupy Wall Street was a revolutionary advance in protest demonstrations because it was against private corporations that dominate the government, and not in DC or at a government site.' It demonstrated, literally, that the true ruling class capitol, the Capitol of Capital is "Wall Street" , not D.C.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)