- Charles Brown Marx and Engels, and followers purport to appeal to white workers self-interest , ultimately class material self-interest, in calling for unity of the international proletariat. However, this "self-interest" is not quite identical with everyday experience and long term experience. Thus , class collaborationism and opportunism by blue color Reaganites and bourgeoisified workers in Britain, etc. , etc. The "opportunities" taken are not at all utter illusions. Lenin claimed that much of this was bought with imperialist booty from colonies. We are in a different era but there is still some colonialist exploitation by the G - 9 through World Bank, IMF, hedge funds, international funds and banks of all kinds. Lenin's finance capitalism still;as the basis for bribing large sections of the US "middle class"
Charles Brown Pray for a miracle? That is too depressing /// I always say post-modernism and post-structuralism are basically philosophical idealism , including neo-Kantianism. Idealism as Engels uses the term in distinction from philosophical materialism is largely identical with religion, theism. Materialism is identical with atheism after Feuerbach for Engels and Marx. Anyway, in my typology of those guys I would predict they would become religious.- Charles Brown Here we have the programme and tactics of the economic struggle and of the trade union movement for several decades to come, for all the lengthy period in which the proletariat will prepare its forces for the “coming battle.” All this should be compared with numerous references _by Marx and Engels to the example of the British labor movement, showing how industrial “property” leads to attempts “to buy the proletariat” (Briefwechsel, Vol. 1, p. 136).[3] to divert them from the struggle; how this prosperity in general “demoralizes the workers” (Vol. 2, p. 218); how the British proletariat becomes “bourgeoisified”—“this most bourgeois of all nations is apparently aiming ultimately at the possession of a bourgeois aristocracy and a bourgeois proletariat alongside the bourgeoisie” Chartists (1866; Vol. 3, p. 305)[4]; how the British workers’ leaders are becoming a type midway between “a radical bourgeois and a worker” (in reference to Holyoak, Vol. 4, p. 209); how, owning to Britain’s monopoly, and as long as that monopoly lasts, “the British workingman will not budge” (Vol. 4, p. 433).[5] _ (emphasis added - CB). The tactics of the economic struggle, in connection with the general course (and outcome) of the working-class movement, are considered here from a remarkably broad, comprehensive, dialectical, and genuinely revolutionary standpoint. https://www.marxists.org/.../works/1914/granat/ch05.htm
- Charles Brown "how the British workers’ leaders are becoming a type midway between “a radical bourgeois and a worker” (" ////// The last chapter of _Capital_ gives a historical materialist basis for even more bourgeosified and libertarian, petit producers and property owners, mass petit bourgeois mentality. Basically , it explains how because of all the free land in the US, masses of white settlers, farmers, pioneers, frontiersmen, cowboys, ranchers unexpropriated themselves of some means of production undoing some of the primitive accumulation which involved expropriation of masses. "As in the colonies the separation of the labourer from the conditions of labour and their root, the soil, does not exist, or only sporadically, or on too limited a scale, so neither does the separation of agriculture from industry exist, nor the destruction of the household industry of the peasantry. Whence then is to come the internal market for capital? “No part of the population of America is exclusively agricultural, excepting slaves and their employers who combine capital and labour in particular works. Free Americans, who cultivate the soil, follow many other occupations. Some portion of the furniture and tools which they use is commonly made by themselves. They frequently build their own houses, and carry to market, at whatever distance, the produce of their own industry. They are spinners and weavers; they make soap and candles, as well as, in many cases, shoes and clothes for their own use. In America the cultivation of land is often the secondary pursuit of a blacksmith, a miller or a shopkeeper.” [12] With such queer people as these, where is the “field of abstinence” for the capitalists? " https://www.marxists.org/archive/marx/works/1867-c1/ch33.htm
- Charles Brown "One of the prerequisites of wage labor, and one of the historic conditions for capital, is free labor and the exchange of free labor against money, in order to reproduce money and to convert it into values, in order to be consumed by money, not as use value for enjoyment, but as use value for money. Another prerequisite is the separation of free labor from the objective conditions of its realization — from the means and material of labor. This means above all that the workers must be separated from the land, which functions as his natural laboratory. This means the dissolution both of free petty landownership and of communal landed property, based on the oriental commune" http://www.marxists.org/.../1857/precapitalist/ch01.htm
www.marxists.org
As these were not intended for publication, but rather Marx’s self-clarification... See More - Charles Brown What does the primitive accumulation of capital, i.e., its historical genesis, resolve itself into? In so far as it is not immediate transformation of slaves and serfs into wage labourers, and therefore a mere change of form, it only means the expropriation of the immediate producers, i.e., the dissolution of private property based on the labour of its owner. Private property, as the antithesis to social, collective property, exists only where the means of labour and the external conditions of labour belong to private individuals. But according as these private individuals are labourers or not labourers, private property has a different character. The numberless shades, that it at first sight presents, correspond to the intermediate stages lying between these two extremes. The private property of the labourer in his means of production is the foundation of petty industry, whether agricultural, manufacturing, or both; petty industry, again, is an essential condition for the development of social production and of the free individuality of the labourer himself. Of course, this petty mode of production exists also under slavery, serfdom, and other states of dependence. But it flourishes, it lets loose its whole energy, it attains its adequate classical form, only where the labourer is the private owner of his own means of labour set in action by himself: the peasant of the land which he cultivates, the artisan of the tool which he handles as a virtuoso. This mode of production presupposes parcelling of the soil and scattering of the other means of production. As it excludes the concentration of these means of production, so also it excludes cooperation, division of labour within each separate process of production, the control over, and the productive application of the forces of Nature by society, and the free development of the social productive powers. It is compatible only with a system of production, and a society, moving within narrow and more or less primitive bounds. To perpetuate it would be, as Pecqueur rightly says, “to decree universal mediocrity". At a certain stage of development, it brings forth the material agencies for its own dissolution. From that moment new forces and new passions spring up in the bosom of society; but the old social organization fetters them and keeps them down. It must be annihilated; it is annihilated. Its annihilation, the transformation of the individualized and scattered means of production into socially concentrated ones, of the pigmy property of the many into the huge property of the few, the expropriation of the great mass of the people from the soil, from the means of subsistence, and from the means of labour, this fearful and painful expropriation of the mass of the people forms the prelude to the history of capital. It comprises a series of forcible methods, of which we have passed in review only those that have been epoch-making as methods of the primitive accumulation of capital. The expropriation of the immediate producers was accomplished with merciless Vandalism, and under the stimulus of passions the most infamous, the most sordid, the pettiest, the most meanly odious. Self-earned private property, that is based, so to say, on the fusing together of the isolated, independent labouring individual with the conditions of his labour, is supplanted by capitalistic private property, which rests on exploitation of the nominally free labour of others, i.e., on wage labour. [1]
- Charles Brown 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.
The transformation of scattered private property, arising from individual labour, into capitalist private property is, naturally, a process, incomparably more protracted, violent, and difficult, than the transformation of capitalistic private property, already practically resting on socialized production, into socialized property. In the former case, we had the expropriation of the mass of the people by a few usurpers; in the latter, we have the expropriation of a few usurpers by the mass of the people. [2] - Charles Brown of the pigmy property of the many into the huge property of the few, t/////////// In the US, because of all the land given out in the colonial period and 1800's, pigmy property returns bigtime. Thus, Murica has more libertarians embued with the entrepreneurial spirit than anyplace else in the world .petit bourgeois ideology is epidemic in the US working class in 2014, with the tea party and all that bullshit, because of these historical root.s in pygmy property, petty producers, hustlers, door to door salesmen, gangsters. , private detectives. every damn petit bourgeois thing you can think of , business people.
Monday, March 11, 2019
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
No comments:
Post a Comment