American industrial capital exported capital to Asia, Central and South America, Africa ; export of capital , less goods is characteristic of imperialism according to Lenin

Marxist theoretical explanation/ looks at change in terms of a developing internal contradiction: In this case I am proposing the contradiction in between two original aspects of the capitalist technological mode of production as analyzed by Marx in Capital , cooperation and mechanization. are isolated by Marx as the bases for the manufacturing and industrial stages, respectively, of capitalist advances in organization of production. These are the two moments, in the bourgeoisie's constant revolutionizing of the means of production, which marked the historical point when the bourgeois mode came to prevail. Kapn phe Eagels As history went on these two aspects can be seen as in di Petrin contradiction. Originally both increased productivity as Marx explains.<



But eventually, mechanization and, especially its extension as automation and cybernation, have increased productivity to an extent that it has negated or made secondary the productive advantage of cooperation, i.e. large numbers of workers working close together in space and time, graphically the giant factory and industrial urban centers and regions. (increased productivity, greater efficiency of production, the goal of the constantly "revolutionizing the means of production that the bourgeoisie does are, afterall, the same amount of value produced with a smaller amount of human labor time other words machines that allow fewer people to produce the same amount.



Marx explainsdextensively how this is aimed at increasing / 303 surplus value for the capitalist as follows...) hen mine a my te machines and the means o transport and communication has reached the point where the capitalists are not hindered achieving productivity increases by smaller factories and a more scattered territorial configuration i.e. the antithesis of the form of the original cooperation. Perhaps, more precisely it should be said that in terms of achieving the highest productivity the capitalist can choose either a scattered or concentrated territorial configuration. The capitalists have an inclination to choose a widespread arrangement, and more frequent shifting of locations, because these practices tend to undermine and disrupt worker solidarity, collectivity,etc.


I propose as a critical defining change of the STR, because it has important implications for the class struggle and some of its rudimentary logistics and tactics. Maybe an impression of what I mean can be had when one considers the big factory as the key scene for classical communist work. The point 8Inctions of production. This seems to have definitelenti creased the proportion of workers who do predominantly mental -and the nrodortion of workers in manufacturing of production remains the key scene for communist work, but that scattered more. point (the big factory) can be broken into smaller pieces and (Rouge Plant example. Other statistical evidence ?) Furthermore, the capitalist has a motivation to scatter the points of production through outsourcing near and far so as to breakup the traditional industrial centers which facilitate solidarity and unity among ther largest numbers of industrial workers. In other words, the STR allows the capitalists to breakup labor strongholds without loss of productivity for technological reasons. The capitalists "suffered" the sideeffect consequences of cooperation - solidarity and growth of class consciousness among workers due to the suggestion of the strength of their massive numbers from huge numbers working in single factories, etc. Marx's day and for many years after because of the productivity advantage. Now the capitalist can disperse production without loss of the old form of cooperation's productivity benefit. Not only at the point of production, but home neighborhoods are more scattered. The workers from a particular plant or industry are less ghettoized. This is also in part the result of the revolution in the means of transportation and communication. the industrial workers' direct, day to day contact in a plant is by and large with a smaller groups of workers. So, this key dynamic in formation of collective and class consciousness is changed. In fact, one can speculate that manufacturing workers will have to rely more on the revolutionized means of transportation and communication for that collective and class contact. The wholé technological revolution - machinery, transport, communication, et al. - has resulted in "cooperation" of workers in the manufacturing process on a higher level, i.e. a negation of the negation. Overall, in line with Marx and Engels long term observation, the STR creates a greater socialization of production or increase in the division of labor. This is familiarly referred to at this stage of history as the internationalization or globalization of the capitalist economies. As suggested above, this broadening of the area of common "workplaces" or cooperation has the potential for more direct social and political connections between broader groups of workers. The scattering of workplaces gives the capitalists a temporary advantage (see discussion of Tarpinian's article below).


Yet, it carries with it the potential and tendency for the workers of all different regions and "all countries" to unite on a qualitatively higher level than ever before, e.g. 2Inctions of production. This seems to have definitelenti creased the proportion of workers who do predominantly mental -and the nrodortion of workers in manufacturing of production remains the key scene for communist work, but that scattered more. point (the big factory) can be broken into smaller pieces and (Rouge Plant example. Other statistical evidence ?) Furthermore, the capitalist has a motivation to scatter the points of production through outsourcing near and far so as to breakup the traditional industrial centers which facilitate solidarity and unity among ther largest numbers of industrial workers. In other words, the STR allows the capitalists to breakup labor strongholds without loss of productivity for technological reasons. The capitalists "suffered" the sideeffect consequences of cooperation - solidarity and growth of class consciousness among workers due to the suggestion of the strength of their massive numbers from huge numbers working in single factories, etc. Marx's day and for many years after because of the productivity advantage. Now the capitalist can disperse production without loss of the old form of cooperation's productivity benefit. Not only at the point of production, but home neighborhoods are more scattered. The workers from a particular plant or industry are less ghettoized. This is also in part the result of the revolution in the means of transportation and communication. the industrial workers' direct, day to day contact in a plant is by and large with a smaller groups of workers. So, this key dynamic in formation of collective and class consciousness is changed. In fact, one can speculate that manufacturing workers will have to rely more on the revolutionized means of transportation and communication for that collective and class contact. The wholé technological revolution - machinery, transport, communication, et al. - has resulted in "cooperation" of workers in the manufacturing process on a higher level, i.e. a negation of the negation. Overall, in line with Marx and Engels long term observation, the STR creates a greater socialization of production or increase in the division of labor. This is familiarly referred to at this stage of history as the internationalization or globalization of the capitalist economies. As suggested above, this broadening of the area of common "workplaces" or cooperation has the potential for more direct social and political connections between broader groups of workers. The scattering of workplaces gives the capitalists a temporary advantage (see discussion of Tarpinian's article below). Yet, it carries with it the potential and tendency for the workers of all different regions and "all countries" to unite on a qualitatively higher level than ever before, e.g.Proletarianization is over a much wider territorial and geographical area, less in relatively small pockets. But it takes a while for broader network to "congeal". And we are in that lag time now where the labor movement is weakened, the bourgeois is able to take advantage of the rearrangement made possible by the STR. somethi oppositt 3) 40* is the accumalation accumalation of qua hange ?When was the hology? How is this trial revolution? article "Specific Pe and Technological Tachenko (10 The seiel al Effects and Prospec restions are given. In thal qualitative and qu and technological revo. with the development of feature may be c st scientific and a coincidence in t There have been si however, was the ependence inherent and technology <



capitalists can Scatter points of production because of computerization . This is Machinery ( computers) overcoming the need for close physical proximity of factory workers in Industrial production. <


, my hypothesis on the dispersal of the points of productio out of cities to suburbs, midwest to south and overseas in the post-Fordist period post 1979 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. 1 801• 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 o production in capitalism mentioned in the Manifesto of the Communist Party ) in general 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 industru. i mail-archive.com