Re: Forwarded from Tom O'Lincoln (state capitalism)

[Greg Schofield <gschofield@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx>]

Carol, I will not at this time overburden the debate, but you emphaisize
just the right part.

THE MODE OF PRODUCTION the essential element, we are talking about
capitalism, but where the capital form is a fetter. It is a curly one that
hits at a lot assumptions.

To be frank, times have changed radically, the mass movement away from
private property in the means of production, the internationalisation of it
via state mediated public companies has changed the world we lived in. No
surprise then that suddenly Marx seems to be saying different things to us now.

The experience you have just had with this quote is similar to mine to a
number of others things just a few weeks ago. Very quickly my opinions have
changed radically and stuff I thought I knew reshaped itself (I know this
sounds corny).

Rather then continue a long such a emotional vein, I would be very
interested in your opinions to the article I referred to in my post. The
proposition in that article may well be wrong (obviously I don't believe
that), but there are areas which previously have been passed over which now
seem to me to stand out and abound in unforeseen and interesting
contradictions.

I agree with you, I would go further, pretend that technology becomes
absolutely frozen at this point - dissolve any form of technological
determinism whatsoever and the still quote stands on its feet and becomes
very sharp indeed.

Consider this elaboration, a contradiction, the bourgeoisie are removed
because they are a fetter (unnecessary), but then the proletariat must take
the MODE OF PRODUCTION forward (that is they must further develop the
capital-labour relation!).

Ok this is implied by the quote but not explicitly said. Link it however to
Marx's instance of NO MODE OF PRODUCTION CEASES UNTIL IT HAS EXHAUSTED THE
RELATIONS OF PRODUCTION. Egads, this is not what we thought! This would
mean that the proletariat continues developing the productive forces WITHIN
the capital-labour relation until it is exhausted - until some more
effective way is found which supplants it.

Sorry Carol to make it so dramatic. But only recently I was struck by how
much I had missed in Marx and that all to this is not some obscure quotes
at all but often repeated and said ad nauseam by him.

Consider also in this quote how the bourgeoisie left to their own devices
will expropriate themselves - and then look around. Where is the private
property in the means of production?

Effectively the bourgeoisie have all but negated themselves. It is an
interesting thought and one very apt for the times - I return at this point
to the sentence you so ably pointed to (there is much to discuss).

Greg

At 11:05  18/04/01 -0500, you wrote:


>Greg Schofield wrote: (Quoting from the Grundrisse)
> >
> >  The monopoly of capital
> > becomes a fetter upon THE MODE OF PRODUCTION [my emphasis] which has sprung
> > up and flourished along with, and under it.
>
>I had missed that in my reading of the work. I have always been highly
>sceptical of the notion of relations becoming a fetter on the forces of
>production -- it far too easily leads to a form of technological
>determinism. But this is quite different -- though I will have to think
>it over to get a sense of its implications. I would be interested in
>further comment by you.
>
>Carrol