Re: ruling class subjectivity, was: Re: AUT: a rejuvenated

[Bill Bartlett <billbartlett@xxxxxxxxxxxxx>]

Chris Wright wrote:

>
>No, the simple point is that capital does not exist by itself,

We agree on that.


>  nor does it have any positive existence.

An excessively ambiguous turn of phrase.  "Positive" in what sense of the word?


>   I don't think it is a small point to make
>since many Marxists, esp. those defending the tired old notion of 'base and
>superstructure' (which you may or may not),

Never even heard of the notion. Have no idea what it means.

>  basically turn class struggle
>into something which at most mediates the structures and 'laws' that
>magically exist independently of it.

Seems logical that class struggle has an effect. There are those who
claim the effect is not necessarily all that useful, but I think they
are referring mainly to the sort of class struggle that concentrates
on reforms like shorter hours. The gains of which are arguably
somewhat illusionary. I can't say I agree with that entirely, but it
has an element of truth.


>   Capital does NOT exist as the product
>of the struggle between labor and and the attempt to exploit it in this
>view.

No. But surely something existing as a product of a struggle between
itself and something else is a class A paradox.

>  Where is the class struggle in the base/superstructure notion?  That
>is partially what I am trying to get at.

You'd have to explain the base/superstructure notion to me before i'd
want to take a stab at answering that. But since you have indicated
that no further correspondence will be entered into, I guess that's
unlikely.

>
>But does the working class exist as the bearer of something other than the
>capital-labor relation?  Yes.  Does capital?  No.

Capitalism is the historical agent of a revolution in the technology
of production. A technological revolution absolutely necessary to
create the material conditions necessary for socialism, since
socialism is not viable under conditions of scarcity. I recall you
mentioning in an earlier post that capitalism is also the agent of
significant social and cultural changes which are a precondition.

To say that capital does not have a positive existence, on the basis
that capitalists will cease to exist with the end of capitalism
seems, doesn't seem particularly helpful. In fact it seems a case of
dressing up the bleeding obvious as a great revelation.

>   Capital can be nothing
>other than what it is and it roams blindly about because of it
>(competition.)  Labor, on the other hand, the working class, has a future as
>its own negation when it negates (overthrows) capital, i.e. the relation of
>exploitation.  The relationship is not symmetrical, but asymmetrical.  We
>are not talking about thesis-antithesis-synthesis here, in which the two
>come together to form something new.  Labor's revolution means the absolute
>negation of capital, not blending in with it.  That's why the working class
>has a different meaning in relation to capital, than capital does in
>relation to labor.

Labour's revolution is humanity's revolution though, capitalists are
still human and would share the same future. Your point is sound, but
I just fail to see any significance in it. Yet. I'll chew it over.

>
>[...]
>Actually, the working class may continue to exist to some extent, even if as
>a vanishing class after the revolution because we will not get to
>revolutionize everything at once.

An anachronistic subjective working class consciousness might linger.
I agree that might take time to disappear completely, though there
would have to be major change in consciousness before a revolution
would be possible in the first place. In any case a working class, as
such, would not exist.


>   I expect 'a bit' of a lag between the
>revolution and the achievement of communism.  I won't bother repeating The
>Critique of the Gotha Program.  I could take an example nearer to home.
>Under the so-called 'communist' regimes, nothing much of a capitalist class
>existed.

However, that wasn't a socialist society. More like a feudal society.
The capitalist class in the former USSR was a criminalised class. It
is now emerging as the new ruling class, along with elements of the
former feudal party hierarchy as both engage in a frenzy of
accumulation. Something of a similar pattern occurred when the rest
of Europe overthrew feudalism, it took a bit longer in Russia though.


>I also do not see where you get the idea that I defend a denial of class
>differences.

I inferred this largely from what I interpreted as a denial of the
existence of a capitalist class.


>  I just see capital as the ultimately weak and dependent pole
>of the class relation.  Marx did not write about the power of capital or to
>show how it worked.  He wrote to show its weakness and vulnerability because
>it is a product of labor's power.

Of course I agree that the capitalist class is objectively weak and
vulnerable. It still manages to stay firmly in charge though, so I
felt that rumours of its non-existence were greatly exaggerated. ;-)
Glad we've cleared that up.


>
>>  >Capital does not have an existence or motion separate from the disruptive
>>  >power of labor
>>
>>  But it does seem to have other problems as well as the class
>>  struggle. These problems usually come down to the way free markets
>>  work under conditions of excess productive capacity. Something of a
>>  serious structural problem when you consider the massive productive
>>  capacity of modern-day technology.  If you think otherwise, please
>>  explain your reasoning. I can see how the exclusively "vertical"
>>  analysis of capitalism's problems might be supportable by some rather
>>  broad definitions of "class struggle" (including the operations of
>>  market forces within the definition of class struggle for example).
>>  But other than such strained efforts, I am inclined to dismiss either
>>  the eclusively "vertical" or the exclusively "horizontal" theories.
>
>First, crisis as Marxists usually refer to it means 'economic crisis', a bit
>of a problem in the first place.  But I would argue, along with a pretty
>good tradition from autonomism, that it is not 'overproduction',
>'underconsumption', 'disequilibrium between departments', 'The Tendency of
>the rate of profit to fall', etc., but the overaccumulation of capital, aka
>the overexploitation of labor power.

This is similar to the Keynsian theory of crisis then?

>   All these other things are simply
>expressions of the fact that capital has run into a roadblock where it
>cannot any longer get the producitivity gains, wage cuts, etc. because the
>working class creates a barrier in struggle.

I see it otherwise and in any case your argument is not logically
consistent. If frustrated in its attempts to get productivity gains
by wage cuts, the capitalist class will seek productivity gains by
technological innovation which reduce the demand for labour. This in
turn weakens the working class, reduces real wages and makes labour
costs more attractive again.

The class struggle at this level (as opposed to the class struggle
with a revolutionary objective) is merely a factor in the operation
of market forces. It runs in cycles and doesn't really cause any
major problems for capitalism, though of course catastrophes for
individual capitalists might be common.

The insoluble problem for capitalism is the attainment of productive
capacity to satisfy all social needs, which could theoretically put
an end to scarcity. Of course market forces are quite capable of
operating in the context of supply exceeding demand, but market
prices do tend to fall below the cost of production in that
environment.

So the profit system itself cannot operate in such an environment.
The only way capitalism, as a profit-driven system, can operate is by
artificially maintaining shortages of commodities despite the
capacity to produce all that is needed.

Economic Keynsianism, in defiance of this theory, held that the
problem could instead be solved by increasing the share of wealth
enjoyed by the working class. But the theory did not take cognisance
of the effect this would have on the class struggle, rather than be
grateful and satisfied, the working class tended to become surly and
insolent. Their new-found security only encouraged them to demand
more, much more. They also tended to become less keen to strive for
the benefit of their bosses. This was a dead end, because once again
profit could not be made.

So we are now being returned to an artifically maintained Dickensian
world of grinding poverty, obscene wealth and over-exploitation.
Alongside a latent technological capacity to satisfy the needs of
everyone, to end misery and poverty. But it must be so, without at
least some scarcity the market price of goods would not leave room
for a profit margin. Or else, under keynsian capitalism, the working
class could not be induced, by the the fear of poverty, to work hard
enough to be profitable.

This is the age of capitalism on life-support. Unable to survive in
the environment it has created, it lingers on awaiting the working
class to finally pull the plug.


>  For example, the post-WWII
>boom did not end because of competition, overproduction, etc., but because
>teh international working class began to reject the post-war deal of
>producitivity increases for wage increases.

Yes. To a degree. See above explanation for more insight into *why*.


>   Alongside this came the
>anti-colonial struggles which disrupted capital's power and cost huge sums
>of money.  Examples?  Viet Nam, Algeria, Portugal in 1974, Chile 73, Prague
>Spring 68, Paris '68, the Hot Autumn in Italy, the Black power movement (esp
>in the factories), the U.S. wave of wildcats in the late 1960's to early
>1970's, and so on.  Is it an accident that these struggles coincided with
>the oncoming crisis? Hardly.  They caused it by making it impossible for
>capital to continue the same old accumulation at the same proit levels.  Is
>that stretching it?  Not by half, I think.


Not a co-incidence, I agree. But it doesn't necessarily follow that
the crisis was caused by the struggles, it might also be the other
way around. On balance though I tend to agree with your
interpretation, but I thought I better keep you honest. ;-)

>
>Second, the 'economic' notion of class is a very constricted one.  class
>shapes every relationship.

I agree class shapes every relationship. I don't agree however that
this in any way undermines the validity of an economic notion of
class. Again, it is a matter of judging cause and effect, but on this
issue I fear we seem to fundamentally disagree.


>   Almost every relation in society in and through
>the class struggle, whether gender, race, sexuality, etc.  That is part of
>capital's legacy and brittleness: the total immersion of the world in a
>highly perfected form of class relation.  Everything becomes abstract in
>capitalist society because human labor itself becomes traded for the perfect
>and meaningless form of money, the ultimate abstraction of all life into
>quantifiable terms.  In return, class becomes the generative relation for
>all other social relations.

Or perhaps not? You seem to agree that the economics are the
determining factor in class and that this in turn influences othert
socia relations. I see now that your statement about economic notions
of class being "restrictive" does not indicate that you would use any
other method of defining it. You are merely saying it shapes
non-economic life as well?

I feared you were asserting that non-economic factors should be used
in defining class. Wrong again it seems.


>  > Labour no, but the working *class*, as a class, cannot but cease to
>>  exist in any meaningful way if there is no other class. At the risk
>>  of stating the obvious, again, class is a concept which depends on
>>  distinctions.  A classification system with only a single
>>  classification category would be supremely perverse.
>
>See above on miraculous immediate disappearance of the working class and
>thousands of years of shit.


Now who's being melodramatic? A miracle is not something I'm counting
on and I don't imagine historical facts will be changed by future
events. But perhaps that was just an emotional reaction to suddenly
realising you'd said something silly. Don't take it hard, to err is
human, its not being able to recognise your mistakes that causes
problems, everyone makes them.


>[...]



>To the extent that racism is part and parcel of capital's very existence
>(and always has been), the notion that we can end it under capital's reign
>is rather absurd.  Racism will be severely weakened by the end of capital,
>but even then, i do not have high hopes that we will see it disappear as if
>by magic.


You will have to explain how capitalism can be ended without
overcoming racism first. I assume that class-conscious unity is
necessary, but class-consciousness is incompatible with racism.
Racism is an ideology based on a supposed racial division, whereas
working class consciousness asserts the unity of all working class
people.

So if you are right, you must either have some other strategy that
does not entail revolution being the class-conscious act of the
working class itself, or revolution is impossible.

Not that I'm saying that overcoming racism is necessarily
revolutionary, I disagree with you on that. I beleive it is a
necessary precondition, but I don't think it is revolutionary in and
of itself either. Any more than I believe racism is essential to the
functioning of a capitalist system.

In fact I hold that racism is an anachronistic remnant of earlier
social relations, an actual inhibition on efficient capitalist
exploitation. Ending racism is one of the historical missions of
capitalism. A mission it seems to behind schedule on, we'll need to
lend a hand with (a task you are already engaged in I believe) before
we can get on with our real work,.

Anyhow mate. Nice talking to you.

Bill Bartlett
Bracknell tas


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