Re: steve's note di discussione

[mauro.jr@xxxxxx]

 Michael Hard wrote, replying to Steve

>2. There seems to be some confusion regarding the dialectic and the real
>subsumption.  It might be helpful to distinguish among at least three
>conceptions of the dialectic:
<cut>
>a third that is a three-part structure in which the
>third moment is a subsumption of the first two.

Mauro jr:
Not at all, Michael. You are confusing the synthesis, in the sense of
overcoming, with the subsumption. The third part, i.e. the third element of
the dialectical process, is the synthesis and you could apply it to the
opposition capital/labour which is overcome by communism, on the base of the
elimination of the capital's relationships.
The subsumption which Marx talk about (Grundrisse) is, meterially (that is
the process by which all the human activities (expecially any work, of
course) become (structurely) ruled by the capitalist relationships and (at
the superstructure level) the citizien of the bourgeois social formation is
drawn to think and feel in the "capitalist way". As older (and decadent)
become a society, as its citizens are subsumed to the society's structure.
(That's why revolutionaries cannot be a "mass organisation" during the
"normal periods" of the social formation).
Thus, it is not
>useful to think a rupture of the dialectic in thinking a kind of struggle
>that is not directly oppositional (and supportive of power in a negative
>way) but rather more autonomous.
You may talk as you want (with the italian aut-ops and with Negri) about the
rupture of the dialectic, but the dialectic is still there: capital against
labor and the third element which has still to come.
This, we (internationalists) think, is the general frame in which we have to
move in discussing the capitalist dynamics, that is the crisis of the
accumulation cycle started after the II WW, the capotalists answers, the
restructuring process in the production, the consequent changes in the
working-class composition. Without risking to fall in the pre-communist
reformism as many do.


> And for me the difference between the
>real and formal subsumptions have been a way to think what postmodernism
>might mean through Marx's texts, particularly in relation to the change in
>the form of the State.  (I know this is cryptic but I don't know how much
>to go into it.)
Of course this is cryptic, as always happens when the frame is confused.
And that's why these points worth to be clarified (and of course, I don't
know whether Steve agrees).
The rest to a next post.
rev. greetings
Mauro jr



     --- from list aut-op-sy@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx ---