By the way, my hypothesis on the dispersal of the points of production in the post-Fordist period was based in a notion of dialectical contradiction and sublation of the contradiction between Modern Industrial Machinery and Cooperation as the unity and struggle of those opposites is analyzed by Marx in his Part IV of _Capital_ Vol. 1 on Relative Surplus Value.
Part IV: Production of Relative Surplus Value
Ch. 12: The Concept of Relative Surplus-Value
Ch. 13: Co-operation Ch. 14: Division of Labour and Manufacture
Ch. 15: Machinery and Modern Industry
I'd say the contradiction between 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 is 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 industrial
@ mail-archive.com machinery and cooperation there consists in the
my hypothesis on the dispersal of the points of production in the post-Fordist period was based in a notion of dialectical contradiction and sublation of the contradiction between Modern Industrial Machinery and Cooperation as the unity and struggle of those opposites is analyzed by Marx in his Part IV of _Capital_ Vol. 1 on Relative Surplus Value.
Part IV: Production of Relative Surplus Value
Ch. 12: The Concept of Relative Surplus-Value
Ch. 13: Co-operation Ch. 14: Division of Labour and Manufacture
Ch. 15: Machinery and Modern Industry
I'd say the contradiction between 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_ .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 is introduced because it is "more efficient" in producing surplus-value and profits 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). This increases the rate of relative surplus value.
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_. It negates cooperation while maintaining the rate of surplus value by superprofiting in neo-colonies.
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 us bailed out 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, caused 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" ( better termed Reagan-Bush) 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, nor 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' wage-labor classes and trade union leaders is pretty much the story " of our lives" , for US Marxidts , no ? So, that aspect of Leninist theory of Imperialism 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 peaceful traditions of electoral politics all along and certainly for 60 years, not to mention the whole Cold War ( Nuclear weapons on both sides, Mutually Assured Destruction, negated the possibility of World Wars , another aspect of Leninism negated) intense brainwashing of the American population in anti-Communism, anti-Sovietism ; the possibility of the Party leading a Dictatorship of the Proletariat is substantially or completely negated. McCarthyism negated the possibility of a CP leading the Wage-Labour Class to electoral victory
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 representative 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 by way of dialectical critique of them
Still valid is Lenin's political economic / historical materialist method of guide to action concrete analysis of the concrete situation "
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, though I doubt that more and more. Postmod is a total disaster . 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.
Gramsciians would say the culture of this was Fordism, as discussed below.
"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.
Marx in Capital defines two factors in the qualitiative emergence of industrial capitalism over manufacture capitalism. They are the use of machinery 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 revolution in science and technology which has begotten a revolution in transportation and communication, creating such things as just -in -time delivery, containerization , robots world cars. 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 ;(not the end of industrial plants; slimming them down as with steel mini-mills.
And scattering them globally :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 corresponding to the cultural change now named post-Fordism.
> But don't count the proletariat out. The slogan workers of the world unite , is more true today than when Marx and Engels coined it. And the proletariat , the WageLaborClass, the 99.9 % , city and country , is fresher than post-Fordist theory might know. In other words, the proletariat knows how to > go with the new. (Fast forward to successful UAW strike . Detroiters probably could show post-ologists a thing or two about what is new. from Proletarian /WageLabourCentral, We r the 99% ! We r the 99%
DetroitCharles ___________________________
____________________ > > > > > > 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 > > > > > > > > > > > > > ________________________
No comments:
Post a Comment