Re: Social Relations, Revolution, and Capital

[MARIPOWER716@xxxxxxx]

At the end of the day classes are formed not by abstract logic but by
the material act of introducing new productivity equipment into the
process of production and this signals an internal development-taking
place. Again the question is framed as I raised the initial discussion
as "what takes place to cause the abolition of a class?" "What is it
that unravels the value producing system as it unfolds in our daily
life?" "What is the impact of the injection of a qualitative new
ingredient into the production process?" I State emphatically that a
communist class has in fact arisen and what we are experiencing is
different than what Marx and Engels called "the reserved army of
unemployed."  ^^^^^^^

CB: Lets look at these issues one more time.  Seems to me that classes are
defined by their ownership or lack of ownership relationships to the process
of production.   With the introduction of even qualitatively new
productivity equipment into the process of production, such as cybernetics
or even cyborgs or even a matrix,  a new class arises if a new form of
ownership relationship to this equipment arises. A new technological or
physical functional division of labor does not define a new class unless it
spurs new ownership forms.


Reply

Well, yes. That is why social revolution is called forth. The new class or
classes  begins formation first, within the boundary and framework of the old
social system and old social relations and the resultant shifts - quakes, that
signal its emergence relatively outside the boundary of the old law system that
governs the social relations that birthed it, unfold in society and society
is compelled "leap forward." Why does society have - is compelled, to leap
forward?

This is the ABC to Marx approach to social revolution and why society has
moved in class antagonism.

The real process is that a new class is not and cannot be consolidated in its
totality until the political superstructure is reconfigured and destroys the
fetters to its development. The new class is then free to evolve on the basis
of a new law system.

In my opinion here is the real meaning of "as society move in class
antagonism." The antagonism does not simply signify and mean change and 
sublating
because antagonism is a specific form of movement and development. A deeper 
meaning
is the abolition of a preexisting class and it being superseded by another
class driven on the basis of a new law system. Not just making a lower class
ruler, but abolition of a social class as it exists in relationship to property
and the actual instruments of production.

Emancipation is not Liberation. Everything in American history teaches us
that a class can be emancipated without being liberated from toil. Marxism has 
no
meaning if it is not fused with our actuality. Or rather Marxism becomes
bourgeois politics and the bourgeoisie within Marxism.

In this sense Soviet socialism and American capitalism or rather Soviet
industrialism and American industrialism were not antagonistic at the point of
their respective mode of production but hostile enemies on the basis of their
property relations or form of capital.

I am aware that hardly any Marxist take this position and the "T-----------"
are impossible simpletons and ideologues. Give them twenty more years when no
one can deny the emergence of the communist class and they will act as if
they discovered a new planet. It is recorded and historically retrievable that a
section of communist in American have been waging the ideological and
theoretical battle for a decade over the emergence of the communist class, why 
and how
classes are formed in their fundamentality.

I am driven by history to note that this process was observed on the basis of
the historic struggle of the African American people and the liquidation of
the sharecropper class. This is noted because the imperial peoples and social
imperialist are agents of capital and miss the most obvious features of social
life in America.

At the end of the day classes are formed not by abstract logic but by the
material act of introducing new productivity equipment into the process of
production and this signals an internal development-taking place, that in the 
last
instance leads to the compulsion to alter property relationship. This of course
is the ABC of Marxism - the bottom line approach and the most elementary
entry point into the materialist conception of history. How this reconfiguration
takes place cannot even be discussed because the bourgeois intelligencia resist
the basic proposition.

I do recall that we have discussed this concretely in the form of the
transformation of cooperation as the specific logic movement and shape of the
emergent industrial system. No one discusses things like this but you and I. 
Why is
that?

In my opinion this is the meaning of Marx words.


Peace


Melvin P.