Re: On Nestor's "analysis"

["Mario Jose de Lima" <mjlima@xxxxxxxxxx>]

C.B. wrore

"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."

...the capacity of formularizations of laws for the state device has some
purpose? How to explain the State? How to explain the guarantee of the
property right, for example?


----- Original Message -----
From: "Charles Brown" <CharlesB@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>
To: <marxism@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>
Sent: Wednesday, May 09, 2001 3:07 PM
Subject: Re: On Nestor's "analysis"


>
>
> >>> 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.
>
>
>
>
>
>