Re: Neco-con socialist, haters and Marxism - 3

[Waistline2@xxxxxxx]

Fifty years after the overthrow of the democratic governments of the South,
changes in the means of production - the mechanization of agriculture, would
begin to decomposed the sharecropper class and set the basis for their
transition to modern proletarians. During the first phase of this entire 
process of
decomposition - the Civil War or the beginning of the beginning of the end, it
appeared as if a process of severing the union existing between the labouring
man and his backwards instruments of labor was taking place.

The theory problem with the group of communist that held that the plantation
system was a form of the primitive accumulation of capital - up to the Civil
War, is that they rejected what Marx wrote exhaustively on this question and
could not grasp that "the content of history changes first" and then the social
forms. Stated another way the industrial revolution - as it arose from the
revolution in the productive forces and on the basis of the bourgeois property
relation, was the new qualitative feature, that drew within its orbit and
transformed the patriarchal character of slavery to a value producing system.
Entering within the orbit of bourgeois commodity production in turn causes the 
labor
process to evolve in a direction that destroyed not just slave labor but
manual labor as a primary form of productivity. Stated another way, as the 
world -
lead by the advance capitalist countries, passed from manufacture to industry
the pre-existing labor forms could not accommodate or incorporate in their
laboring process increasing machine utilization.  One way or another the old
form of labor is compelled to change with revolution in the means of production.

The social revolution imposed on the South transformed the form of labor by
abolishing slavery and the slave oligarchy as a class. The content of history
in the shape of antiquated class forms was changed and its labor form could not
and would not qualitatively leap forward until something else was injected
into the production process. That something new was the mechanization of
agriculture on a world historic process level.

Although this is an elementary and general Marxist theory framework, which
the screamers call dogmatic and insufficient, nowhere in the eighty years
history of this debate are these precepts explained - nowhere. Everyone else on 
the
so-called left speaks of "black labor" devoid of class concepts of development
and the commodity form and its development.

The doctrines of the past need to be placed in the wastepaper basket
especially the political theory of permanent revolution. Until one fuses their
politics with economic logic they remain ideologist. A minor advance would be to
speak of the economic essence - not politics, of permanent revolution. This
requires a fundamental grasp of Marxism. After this series on plantation 
slavery I
will describe in details this process and challenge the "permanents" to produce
one historical document that even comes close to the discloses of the
commodity form from the "permanents" history. (Spared me the prattle of Mandal 
and
other primitive accumulation-ist).  To continue.

The forms of history that generations of Marxists learnt by rote are slave,
feudal, capitalist, socialist/communist. This is no crime but a historical
limitation. The content of history was called "the class struggle" and this is 
no
crime but a historical limitation.  In the process of history, the content of
history is the general stages of the development of the productive forces,
which can be identified with forms of motive power. These general forms: manual,
mechanical (or industrial), and electronic are the foundation of the "forms"
of history, with the more familiar categories being called slave, feudal,
capitalist, socialist and communist society. These forms, however, correspond to
specific historical content: slavery and feudalism belong to the period of
manual labor; and capitalism and socialism correspond to the period of
industrialism.

The fundamental importance of the development of productive forces, and their
leap from one quality to another, is critically significant to the unfolding
of history. If we cannot see the radical break from the period of manual labor
to industrialism; and the ongoing break from industrialism to
electronics-based production, we are going to be blind to what is happening in 
history.
Society does not simply advance from capitalism to socialism, which are 
industrial
forms of organization and production, but rather from one qualitative state of
development of the productive forces to another.

The same thinking applies to unraveling Marx meaning of the primitive
accumulation of capital as it is to be understood today and not as it appeared 
to the
previous generation. Marx speaks clearly of the primitive accumulation of
capital as "the historical process."  A process is historical because it
qualitatively reconfigures history and once this new qualitative configuration 
emerges
society can never be de-evolved or go backwards. This raises another
theoretical question. Why is it that a qualitatively new configuration cannot go
backwards?

For the last generation of communist this question was unsolvable. Everyone
shouted in harmony, "history is the history of the class struggle." At one
point, I tried to shout the loudest. Well history is a lot more than "the class
struggle."

What cannot be reversed or de-evolved is the development of the means of
production or to be exact, the continuing evolution of the material power of
production cannot be halted - only slowed down and this is relative. Society 
cannot
return to the era of manufacture on the basis of political revolution or
counterrevolution. This is so because the social stratification in the form of 
the
laboring process, primitive instruments of labor, political superstructure
and all those things that define manufacture no longer exist. There is nothing
to go back to. As a pure theoretical postulate the reason is the meaning of
antagonism and why contradiction is replaced by antagonism. Antagonism only
appears as a form of contradiction to the human eye, when it fact antagonism
emerges as the result of the tearing apart of that, which constituted the 
internal
connecting tissue of the contradiction in the first place.

Society can be destroyed but the curve of history can never de-evolve or be
compelled to re-establish a pre-existing stage in the development of the
productive forces.  What is being spoken of is the curve of history or the
historical process as its movement is unravel as dialectical logic - motion. 
Human
beings by definition cannot de-evolve machines or a societal infrastructure or 
as
Marx puts it men do not relinquish what they have won.

This question of qualitative development cannot be framed in old logic from
an era gone by as "even and uneven development." The root question and issue is
not the political form of society or even its property relations, but the
development of a new qualitative feature in the productive forces. No Great Wall
of China separates these categories but the distinction is important.

When something fundamental to a process change everything dependent on the
process must in turn change. This change cannot take place all at once and as a
general rule the form of society and of the laboring process blocks - becomes
a fetter, and society is compelled to leap forward to a new political basis to
remove the fetters and allow the universal emergence of a new law system of
production. What we are talking about is the qualitative changes in the
material power of production and not simply property relations or ownership 
rights.
What confronts us is the evolution of the law of value.

This raises another old question formulated incorrectly by the ideologist.
One form of ownership rights or property relations do not negate another or
constitute a qualitative reconfiguration of society at its root. The emergence 
of
private property in human history negates and reconfigures the society with no
property rights in existence. What negates private property in history is not
public property or socialist property or proletarian property but communism.
Communism is the negation of the negation. No form of socialism can be the
negation of the negation as property relations in human history, because
socialism is a property relation.

All of the above points are riveted to a conception of qualitative change and
junctures in society that indicates the emergence of something new or the
emergence of a new qualitative configuration in the material power of 
production.
To advocate that communism and socialist implement a policy to fight for or
lead capitalist development in 2003 is a class for fascism and aligning oneself
with the most imperial of the bourgeoisie. This is not mistaken thinking but
a fascist thrust within socialism or the wolf in sheep clothing.


Melvin P.


~~~~~~~
PLEASE clip all extraneous text before replying to a message.