[PEN-L:9429] Re: Re: China debate

["Charles Brown" <CharlesB@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>]

>>> Jim Devine <jdevine@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> 07/21/99 01:28PM >>>

I would characterize the way in which the "superstructure" and the "base"
relate in the following terms, which sort of apes the "equilibrium
thinking" of economics: when the superstructure and base are in sync, there
is limited conflict between the two, so that society is relatively
harmonious.

Superstructure and base typically develop unevenly, with the former only
imperfectly reflecting the latter and vice-versa (because class struggle
and intraclass competition are expressed in different ways on these two
levels, i.e., because of the relative autonomy of the superstructure). This
uneven development can lead to the two being out of sync, encouraging
societal conflict. For example, one might argue that the Federal
government's acceptance of the limited-liability form of corporation came
after "the economy" was ready for that kind of organization (as economies
of scale and scope became more pronounced), spawning massive political
efforts by the growing big business sector and resistance by small
business, farmers, and to some extent organized labor. Eventually the
Supreme Court gave in, interpreting the 14th amendment in a totally
half-assed way to allow such corporations.

((((((((((((((

Charles: Yes, thanks for adding some dynamism to the model of this dialogue. I would say that historical materialism ( Marx and Engels' approach) suggests some leading or determining role for the base or infrastructure relative to superstructure. The caricature of hist. mat. as vulgar materialism is based on the kernel of truth of this asymetry. Otherwise, it wouldn't be materialism.

Really, I spoke too scholastically about base and superstructure when I didn't frame it in terms of class struggle. Sorry. Once this main theme of the Communist Manifesto is added as the real center of historical materialism it is seen as verily Marxist to analyze bourgeois vulgar motives as effective agents of superstructural , legal , moral determination, limited only by outbreaks of working class opposition; and without committing Big man theory of history error or economist error.

I should say , I am assuming different levels of abstraction. One is the level of transition between modes of production. The lower level of abstraction is the dynamics and big shifts that go on within just one mode, the capitalist mode. Within the capitalist mode, as on this thread, vulgar and conscious ruling class motives are an important factor. Between modes, the rise of counterruling class actions is more important. So, changes in the U.S. law and Constitution within capitalism, "reforms" (mainly concessions) and reactions, are dominated by ruling class motives (relatively conscious) limited and punctuated by much less conscious working class reforms.

((((((((((((((((





(As usual, I include relations of patriarchy and ethnic domination as part
of the "base." As usual in such discussions, the above is very abstract and
needs to be filled out.)

(((((((((((

Charles: I agree with this. This is what I meant when I said to you recently that racism/colonialism is as much a part of the relations of production of capitalism as it has actually gone down in history as wage labor is. Thus, racism is part of the base and its presence in superstructure should be analyzed similarly to reflections of other aspects of the mode in superstructure.

(((((((((((((((((


>In a way, he is saying that the U.S. Constitution , part of the
superstructure, is AHEAD of the actual relations of production on the
ground, the actual practice in the U.S. This is sort of the opposite of
what historical materialism suggests. <

Jim :
We don't know whether the superst. is "ahead" of the base, since we don't
know what's going to happen in the future. But I would say that in many
ways the constitution could be seen as BEHIND the base, in the sense that
it's a holdover from an earlier age. By and large, the part of the
constitution that's most "ahead" of capitalism (in the normative sense of
fitting with socialist principles) is the Bill of Rights. This was
instituted, as I understand it, because of popular resistance to the
constitution that the Federalists wanted to foist on the public. It's
something that fit the political power of independent producers and to a
much lesser extent urban workers of the time. As a victory against the big
landowners and merchants of the time, it represents a victory for us.

((((((((((((((

Charles: By "leading" , I mean that the  Marxist approach recognizes a progression from feudalism to capitalism to socialism (modes of production). So, if the U.S. Constitution has provisions that are more progressive than practice on the ground, it is leading events on the ground. I don't mean that it is a prediction of what is to come in the actual history sequence of events, because as the history of capitalism and socialism has taught well, initial achievement of progressions can be reversed.

In addition to the Bill of Rights the 13th, 14th , 15th and 19th Amendments are progressive still under capitalism and ahead of developments on the ground. They and the Bill of Rights are punctuations of working class insurgency against bourgeois hegemony. And they have been repeatedly reversed and depreciated by ruling class counter-reform. The written words of the Constitution are ahead of the legal interpretation of them in a dynamic, fluctuating way, reflecting ongoing class struggle.

((((((((((((((((

Jim:
The Bill of Rights also seems behind the times in the sense that it
generally doesn't apply within corporations (especially freedom of speech)
and it sure seems as if the corporations are taking over the world.

(((((((((((

Charles: Yes, I just wrote this to a talk show host in critiquing libertarians who treat the Bill of Rights as if the only two players are indivdual citizens and the government, as originally conceived. This ignores the major modern player, the monopoly corporation and its dominance of government. Thus, you get ridiculous ideas such as protecting the freedom of speech to advertise of giant corporations ("persons") from  government suppression. This is anachronistic dillusion. I say a radical reform demand is a Bill of Rights on giant corporations, the actual modern government.

By radical reform, I mean it can't really be achieved under capitalism, but it gives people something to struggle for which simultaneously raises consciousness that the system must be changed to really do it.

(((((((((((((

>No criticism of Jim intended, because I agree with his larger position.
I'm just trying to think of this in historical materialists terms. Of
course, there are parts of the Constitution and other laws that correspond
to capitalist relations of production. Perhaps the point is that capitalism
is so obsolete, in the sense that it has staid past its time, that it comes
into conflict !<

Capitalism, unfortunately, still has a lot of life in it, and so hasn't
been proven "obsolete" in practice, even though it is obsolete in terms of
socialist principles.

(((((((((((((

Charles:  Yes, it is like the movie The Night of the Living Dead -  post-moribund capitalism, monstrosities that still have superpowers after they have decayed. By the obsolescence of capitalism, I mean that in its youth its ratio of good to harm for humanity was better. Now, it is like an overripe fruit that clings to the vine, a Frankenstein corpse with superpowers. Its rottenness stinks things up more and more as time goes on. Its "life" is actually more and more death.

And specifically on principles, what I mean here is that rotten capitalism  violates more and more the best principles of fresh capitalism, such as those in the Bill of Rights. It is more and more hypocritical and absurd. You are correct that these are violations of socialist principle too.

I don't mean by obsolescence that it has in fact been put in its grave, but that we have its logical replacement , socialism, so we can put capitalism on the scrap heap of history with full confidence and good riddance.


Charles Brown