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
No comments:
Post a Comment