Re: On Nestor's "analysis"

["Charles Brown" <CharlesB@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>]

>>> juliohuato@xxxxxxxxxxx 05/09/01 11:30AM >>>
Charles Brown writes:

>CB: Yes, but the assertion "Essentially, capitalist reproduction does NOT
>require extra-economic force to go on"   is drastically false and the
>complete opposite of fundamental  or beginning Marxism.  Without state
>power capitalism and capitalist reproduction at any stage would definitely
>come to an immediate end.
>

That concrete capitalist reproduction in present Mexico takes place under
the protection of laws and state power does NOT mean that laws and state
power are essential parts of it.

((((((((

CB: Without the protection by the state power, the capitalists would not last 
very long. As discussed below, your use of "essential" is not a Marxist concept.

(((((((((

The historical, concrete PREMISES of
capitalist reproduction are not necessarily essential to it.  The specific
essence of capitalist reproduction is the repeated production of surplus
value and its cyclical circulation through its various possible forms
(financial assets, money, inventories, labor power acquired by capitalists,
etc.).

(((((((((((

CB: Your notion of the essential or essence does not inform practical critical 
activity to overthrow capitalism.

 A ruling class must hold state power as a NECESSARY  condition of the 
reproduction of its mode of production. The capitalist ruling class is not an 
exception to this generalization.  But for capitalist state power, no 
capitalist economic reproduction. Capitalist reproduction implies capitalist 
state power. That is what is important about the relationship between state 
power and capitalist reproduction to the working class struggle, for it informs 
us that we must win state power in order to end capitalism , i.e. end 
capitalist economic reproduction.  We cannot aim only to control capitalist 
economic reproduction, as if such a strategy without regard for state power 
could abolish capitalism.

You are in an economist error.  Your anti-Leninism prevents you from learning 
one of the main lessons of _What is to be done_. The working class must not 
only take up economic, trade union , shopfloor, point of production ( and 
reproduction) issues, but POLITCAL, i.e. state power issues and questions.

((((((((



For example, the process of reproduction requires as a PREMISE that
capitalists have the habit or desire to organize production, make workers
produce surplus value, and accumulate it as capital.  I remember Carlos
Toranzo Roca (a Bolivian Marxist) once saying that in the concrete,
historical conditions of Bolivian capitalism in the early 1980's,
capitalists had a very low drive to organize production and exact surplus
value.  They had a mentality of accumulating wealth by means of cheating or
stealing public funds or something like that.

A question would be why the capitalist mentality of Bolivian capitalists was
such; and the answer was very likely to be related to Bolivia's overall
capitalist underdevelopment.  But that aside, without such capitalist
mentality, capitalist reproduction proper is not possible.  Does that mean
that the capitalist entrepreneurial mentality and other ideologies are an
essential part of capitalist reproduction, on the same plane as the actual
production of surplus value?

((((((((((

CB: I guess you are defining "essence" as  "unique". The capitalist form of 
extraction of surplus value is unique in history, but capitalism's unique 
characteristics are not its only necessary conditions.  The capitalist form of 
extraction of surplus value is not sufficient to have capitalism. The 
capitalists must also have state power or they will not be able to carry on the 
"essence" of capitalism.  That is what is important to the movement.

((((((((((



Another example is given by the fact that capitalist reproduction requires
AS A PREMISE that workers, while they are under the command of capitalists,
behave obediently.  One can immediately think of historical instances, small
and big, of workers NOT behaving.  Why would workers behave?  Roughly
speaking, because they think it is the right thing to do, are under
ideological pressure, or under the threat of punishment or violence (laws
and state power or paramilitaries here), or are physically coerced.  Say
that they are under some sort of psychological coercion (fear instilled in
them while they feel unable to overcome it), then this kind of ideology is a
pre-requisite for capitalist reproduction.  However, how can we grasp the
essential dynamics of capitalism if we regard surplus-value production and
the ideology of obedience as equally essential?

((((((((((

CB: In this regard then , it is only a sort of scholastic or abstract task to 
"grasp the essential dynamics of capitalism". I believe you claim to be 
espousing Marxism , but you are not. You are espousing a scholasticism.   
Marxism unites theory and practice and is practical critical activity.  The 
essence you distil here is deficient for guiding practical critical, i.e. 
revolutionary, activity.

(((((((




The whole thrust of historical materialism is the distinction between
productive forces (whose reproduction constitute the MATERIAL reproduction
of a society), the economic structure (whose reproduction constitute the
ESSENCE of the SOCIAL reproduction of a society), and the legal, political,
and ideological super-structure (whose reproduction constitute the remaining
PHENOMENON of the SOCIAL reproduction of a society).  This distinction is
crucial in, for example, showing the historicity of capitalism or deciding
the right strategy to struggle against capitalism.

(((((((((((

CB: Exactly wrong. The whole thrust of historical and dialectical materialism 
is not only to distinguish these , but to understand them as a whole and a 
unity and struggle of differences, and only in that way can we develop a 
winning strategy in the struggle against capitalism.

Marxism is political economy, not just economics. ( See subtitle of _Capital_)

((((((((((


Confusing this
distinction is important to reactionaries.  If you can conflate means of
production (productive forces) with capital (social relations), then you can
'prove' that capitalism is eternal, since no society can live without
'capital'.

(((((((((

CB: But we are talking about the state power component here, and in a way that 
does not implicate any conflation of productive forces with social relations. 
So, this is a red herring ( irrelevant argument)  in this discussion.


(((((((((


The MATERIAL process of reproduction (the reproduction of people as people)
is one thing.  The SOCIAL process of reproduction (the reproduction of
people as members of social classes) is another thing.  And the more
historical and concrete aspects of reproduction (state power, laws, and
ideologies) are something else.  As necessary as they are for the process to
take place, they are NOT essential.  Historical materialism does not deny
that social life is a complex flow where everything mixes together.  But how
do we grasp the main driving forces of this process if we refuse to
distinguish the essential from the nonessential?


((((((((((

CB: Your definition of "essential" is not essential to the Marxist project.

The "main driving forces" driving things toward what ? The contradictions in 
the relations of production are the main "forces" driving toward a new mode of 
production.

More directly to the point of this thread ,  for the project to abolish 
capitalism, what keeps capitalist "forces" in control of the economic processes 
is just as important to know as what directs capitalist economic reproduction.

It is not some magical mystification or hypnosis of the workers' 
consciousnesses by or superstitious belief in the sacredness of the wage-labor 
contract relationship in capitalist economic reproduction that prevents the 
workers from taking over factories when a strike gets militant. It is the 
police.