Marxism
mailing list archive
[ Other Periods
| Other mailing lists
| Search
]
Date:
[ Previous
| Next
]
Thread:
[ Previous
| Next
]
Index:
[ Author
| Date
| Thread
]
Re: [Marxism] Permanent Revolution
- To: "Activists and scholars in Marxist tradition" <marxism@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>
- Subject: Re: [Marxism] Permanent Revolution
- From: "Darrel Furlotte" <darrel.furlotte@xxxxxxxxx>
- Date: Mon, 29 May 2006 18:06:00 -0400
- Domainkey-signature: a=rsa-sha1; q=dns; c=nofws; s=beta; d=gmail.com; h=received:message-id:from:to:references:subject:date:mime-version:content-type:content-transfer-encoding:x-priority:x-msmail-priority:x-mailer:x-mimeole; b=BYn73mqwTcBFCmcEJRmq+t8to9dCzu4NrSHgNL6hJcw08aLOeByMQiuGMxyu+bM9Vt/88kC2uUM0wchWV/hrNroF/3rKy52a11QOXWmh8NyFsuZaEnBbqlkrw3/0xyq//gJZD2IclQPsDqlCXeUA74/3LyYQEG6M39OFr3n645g=
From: "sartesian" <sartesian@xxxxxxxxxxxxx>
Marxism is way bit more than theory. We can say it is the concrete
examination of capital's immanent contradiction between the unlimited
expansion of the means of production and the restricted possibilities
for maintaining sufficient profitability of such expanded means which
only exist as overaccumulated capital itself.
I know such phrasing is anathema to Carrol and many who might wish Marx
were less precise in the focus and locus of his work. But his ironic
comment to the contrary notwithstanding, Marx is, first, last,
foremost, and always, a Marxist.
Your first paragraph, above, is exactly the kind of expression that led Marx
to declare that he was not a Marxist. Look at your statement again; it is
best described as Hegelian, rather than marxian.
Yep, it really is about capital, about the conflict between the means
and relations of production, about the extraction and expropriation of
surplus value-- and given that "univeralizing" dynamic within the
capital, within the contradictions of capital, it's just baloney to
think that there areNOT commonalities, shared traits, common DNA, even
general theories of all revolutionary struggles under and against
capital.
Marx thought it was really about struggle -- class struggle. But even then,
he remained concerned about understanding real human beings, who are not
"defined" in their social actions simply by economic class. Marx was not an
economic determinist. And again, Marx was looking for (and finding)
commonalities; but it wasn't about the "contadictions of capital". Marx, the
political animal, the social revolutionary, the communist, was accutely
aware of the many capitals at work and the many "classes" engaged in the
"struggle".
Carrol's point (an excellent one for those communists engaged in the actual
class struggles) is that the historical abstractions you tend to give us are
not very useful. We need concrete information and analysis of the people
and forces actually in motion. Emphasis on in motion, on many levels.
Darrel Furlotte
________________________________________________
YOU MUST clip all extraneous text before replying to a message.
Send list submissions to: Marxism@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
Set your options at: http://lists.econ.utah.edu/mailman/listinfo/marxism
- Thread context:
- RE: [Marxism] Permanent Revolution, (continued)
[ Other Periods
| Other mailing lists
| Search
]