Re: Re: Argentina and money/reform

[Waistline2@xxxxxxx]

Dialectics of Reform and Revolution in Argentina

Melvin P



Marx standpoint, or rather vision has always been that of man in his actual
or apparent circumstances of life, his pains, suffering, longings, material
activity and spiritual dimensions. Man dominates Marx vision from beginning
to end and Marx speaks of man in the material activity of reproducing himself
and his conceptions of reproducing himself and the conceptions. Marx calls
the methodology of Marx dialectics - in contradistinction to ontology and
heuristic frameworks outside "method," no matter how "deep rooted,"
"inspired" or "ideologically thick." The word "dialectic" is not the method
but rather a sound construct used to describe a qualitatively distinct thing.


Contrary to the historical assertions, Marx cast man center stage in the life
of society and as the axis on which revolves activity riveted to the
individual as man. Karl Marx material activity as individual furnishes
authenticity to his conception of the authenticity of the individual. The
power of the individual or "one" consists not in their connection with
others, but in the impossibility of the existence of "one" outside "others" -
even when "others" become fragmented and recreated as the philosophic
"other."

Marx cast man center stage in man existence as material activity, distinct
from his growing insight into the scope, depth and boundaries of material
activity. The recognition of "fundamentality" - even when its disclosure has
not met what every the standards of the day consist, predates Marx. Since
Marx pioneering work all heuristic constructs generally concede that when
something fundamental changes in an equation or process, (here the nature of
society is isolated), everything dependent upon that which is fundamental for
relative stability is altered, reformulated and or reconstituted. Marx
individuality consists in his pioneering work on that which is fundamental to
societal changes and redefining that, which constitutes fundamental change.
Some who adopt the method of Marx calls his achievement the "science of
society."

By "science" is meant the isolation of the general processes that constitutes
fundamentality. Process is understood to mean a series of events that
complete and repeat themselves and it is this repetition that allows
disclosure. What constitutes the science of "the science of society" is
isolation of that which constitutes fundamentality and compels change,
reformation or reconstitution of material activity. What constitutes
"society" is the existence of a discernible framework of material activity
that distinguishes and shows men in the reproduction of themselves has passed
to associations riveted to instruments and labor divisions establishing the
meaning of the word society. The "law system" that governs society and
societal change implies knowledge of that, which is fundamental and produces
historical consequences or irreversible societal change when viewed from the
historical totality of progression.

>From this standpoint "reform" - as in the social movement in Argentina, is
examined.  A reform movement in any society at any historically specific
stage of development is a movement by a portion of society to alter its
relationship within the components of society. The quantitative and
qualitative dimensions of "portion of society" are not yet isolated. However,
one must concede that "portion" as a magnitude is the individual and it is
individuality that gives voice and articulates what is to be altered. To
realize that, which is to be altered may or may not require an alteration in
fundamentality. Thus, the question posed for social revolutionaries aspiring
to use the methodology of the individual Marx is not "reform or revolution"
but first a description of the boundaries of a historically specific period
and of its fundamentality. After the boundaries of fundamentality have been
ascertained an assessment of the human material that creates fundamentality
has to be made. In other words the individual human mind - the subjective
factor. Contrary to the historic assertion that Marx method is deterministic
(economic determinist) the human mind remains the most powerful force in
society. This includes the individual human minds seeking alterations and
those opposed to alterations.

Not "reform or revolution," but a specific description of the boundaries
wherein reform movements become the historical consequence that alters
fundamentality. If anything the direction is social revolution on the basis
of a qualitative reformation of the articulating feature(s) fundamentality.
Much of the following has been stated before but edited with new features at
the endings.

Society moves in class antagonism. "At a certain stage of their development,
the material forces of production in society come into conflict . . . with
the property relations . . .  From forms of development of the forces of
production, these (property) relations turn into their fetters. Then comes
the period of social revolution."

"Then comes the period of social revolution - not before "then." Application
of new (technological) methods cheapens labor-power and increasingly renders
every larger portions of world labor superfluous to the production of
commodities. Human labor is the source of the value borne in commodities.
Increasingly value-less production is incompatible with a system based of the
sell and purchase of labor-power. The technological advance must by
definition further polarize a society based on the sell and purchase of
labor-power. Polarization means the increasing separation - externalization,
of the poles that constitute the unity and strife in the production process -
labor and capital, a rupture in the unity and emergence of the poles as
relatively independent entities.

The "rupture" in the contradiction labor and capital mean a rupture in the
social fabric. Society is being torn from its old foundations -
fundamentality, or undergoing a 'leap' to a new mode of production. The
authenticity of the objective aspect of the leap is revealed in the
introduction of something new, the transition from automated
electro-mechanical processes to automated digitalized processes. If the means
of production have undergone a leap, then the social response must be
characterized as a leap - transition to a new consciousness necessary to form
the subjective counterpart (compliment) to the new mode of production.

Antagonism with its intense polarization of wealth and poverty, separation of
poles expressing the unity of labor and capital in the production process;
quantitative and qualitative dimensions and changes; leaps and evolutionary
leaps are not separate categories but isolated as aspects of development to
indicate why society behaves a certain way and why what was simply a mass of
unemployed labor has been transformed into the emergence of a new class.

The leap - sometimes a very long process, is the transition from one quality
to another or better yet, the transition from one law system to another. The
leap is not some slow quantitative moving away from the old, but a sudden
break in the continuity and the establishment of a new qualitative
development, incompatible with the old law system. Nor is the leap the swift
establishment of the new law system of a quality all in one bold stroke. A
leap denotes a crisis in a process and a crisis is an interruption in a
process.

Capitalism has not, could not and did not ensure the standard of living and
cultural development of the world working class. What was not understood was
the specific limitation of capitalist property relations as a historically
evolved social force, because the technological revolution had not unfolded.
Generally all of us agree that the maturing of a system of production creates
the conditions for its change. Maturation - to mature or ripen, means the
ending of quantitative development and transition to a new phase. The
collective human eye - the physical eye, cannot see transition. In the
absence of the existence of the concrete material conditions for the leap
from one law system to the next or a change in the mode of production, the
specific boundaries of capitalist commodity production could not be defined
and was articulated as "at a certain stage of their development, the material
forces of production in society come into conflict . . . with the property
relations . . ."

The first phase of transition is witnessed at the second stage. The
physically concrete conditions that define the historical boundary of
capitalist commodity production and the horizon of a new law system of
production are summed up as value-less production. Increasingly value-less
production is the primary qualitative distinction defining the leap -
transition, from one mode of production to another. Here is the primary
quality that demands that property relations - fundamentality, be
reconfigured on a planetary scale.

The new system of technology is grafted onto the old infrastructure -
fundamentality. The new is new because it contains qualitative features that
can only develop quantitatively in unity with a complex of "new," which
drives a new law system. Thus, the new technology is incompatible with the
law system governing the old fundamentality and the new begins to destroy the
old social relations that gave stability to the old fundamentality. In the
language of the Marx dialectic this is stated as a general law of process
development: "transition to a new qualitative state begins with the
quantitative introduction of the new quality into the quantitative dimensions
of the old."

Here is what limited the framework of the social struggle in yesteryear.

1.  An exploited class cannot overthrow an exploiting class since they
together make up the system. Their unending struggle is over the division of
the social product and political liberties.
2.  Since they cannot overthrow the system, the basic struggle of the masses
led by the organized sector of the working class was to re form or
restructure the system in favor of the people. These reforms or restructuring
is society's recognition of quantitative changes in the economic process that
demand changes in the social contract. Thus, all reforms are political and
redefine the relations between classes.

Under such conditions not simply the communist, but everyone is reduced to
sector interest and maneuvering to "get what I got coming." As long as reform
is left in the system - that is as long as a series of quantitative
developments can still take place within the mode of production, the
spontaneous movement for reform is driven along the line of logic
articulating the question in the sectarian movement as "reform or
revolution."

Once development of the old means of production stop, "reform" as a
quantitative reconfiguration between classes stop. The revolutionary change
in the economy (the quantitative introduction of a new qualitative dimension)
begins to destroy the society built on the old foundations. Reform on the
basis of the old fundamentality is not possible because a new partial
qualitative development is underway.

This new partial qualitative development is the initial leap signals that a
new period of accumulation of a qualitatively new fundamentality. The new
fundamentality cannot achieve dominance without shattering and displace all
that of "the old" which blocks its development. The process of shattering and
sweeping from the field that which blocks the universal establishment of a
new fundamentality is called an evolutionary leap in the language of the
method of Marx. The evolutionary leap is the process of establishing the
dominance of a new law system. The leap is governed by the thinking "man" -
subjective factor, and not the productive forces because the leap means
transition.

The shift from spontaneous development based on quantitative reformulation to
development based on consciousness must be fought for and consolidated on the
basis of the spontaneous reform movements in society.  Marx of course never
belittled thinking man - the individual, but advocated a program of the
proletarian social revolution completing all the quantitative reformation
within the productive forces that prepares the ground for distribution based
on needs. Here is the meaning of the "revolution in permanence" as opposed to
the export of revolution or waiting for revolutionary Europe to "explode."
"Revolution in permanence" is an anaylsis of a quantitative growth in the
productive forces and an estimate of the intellectual plan and path the
proletarian revolution must adopt to complete all the quantitative
developments to a society where distribution is based on needs.

Since the initial qualitative leap in the productive forces has taken place -
the application or establishment of the new quality, there must take place a
leap - transition, from one political base (set of ideas and vision) to
another and this is entirely subjective. What kind of society will there be?
How shall society be reorganized to conform to the new developments in the
productive forces? How will people cloth themselves, eat and secure housing?

There are no more reforms left in capital means that the spontaneous struggle
of the reform movement in Argentina - for nonexistent reforms within the
framework of the old fundamentality, cannot but force the introduction of new
ideas - ideas compatible with and reflecting the economic revolution or the
new qualitative feature in the productive process. One must embrace the
demand for money and reform of the system because there is no other framework
that express class antagonism.

Until the complex of classes have differentiated themselves, the new ideas
cannot arise from the spontaneous movement for nonexistent reforms, but must
be worked out and introduced to the social movement from outside by what is
called the "conscious element."  This is the task of modern communism.

Not the demand for socialism, which in our current conditions is obsolete,  -
or rather do not clearly express that, which is new (qualitatively new and
distinct) in our system of production. There exist no need to build "the
material basis" for socialism or socialism as such. What is needed is not the
building of a comprehensive industrial infrastructure or a system based on
ones labor contribution - the sell of labor power, but a system based on
needs.

Calling for "Soviets" and demanding that the reform movement transcend its
reform basis violates the dialectic governing subjective processes and
confuses separates processes governed by different law systems. In the
intellectual arena the demand is not for "Soviets" but for "needs" to be met.
It is true that the process of forming appropriate organizations is important
but these new spontaneous organization in formation must be riveted to the
new fundamentality in the world economy.

What separates society from expanding the all round development of value-less
production (the new qualitative development) is political authority in the
hands of the workers. Political change is driven by thinking human beings and
takes place more rapid by pursuing a general strategic line. If all the
quantitative phases in a process must complete themselves and a new
qualitative feature must be imparted to excite qualitative transformation,
this is true of consciousness. Calling for Soviets instead of developing the
social movement on the intellectual a basis articulating "needs" - based on
our current possibilities, is a recipe for utter defeat.

The vision Marx spoke of has come true: "To each according to their need,
from each according to their ability." Engel's prophetic insight into the
historical limit of value as a mediator of human relations - articulated in
1844, has been confirmed in our daily lives.

The Argentina masses - in their totality and class complexity, broke into
stores and spontaneously took food (distribution), demanded the liquidation
of debt and this impulse has profoundly affected the communist in North
America. Condemnation of the movement in Argentina for being a reform
movement is a misreading and horrible application of the method of Marx.

If society moves in antagonism - increasing polarization and separation of
polarity as society is torn from the old fundamentality, then one must have
an estimate of the stages of this process to call for a specific kind of
social formation. In other words to what degree is the state machinery
polarized? What are the quantitative and qualitative dimensions of the armed
bodies of men polarization and who is siding with the people in their class
complexity? What is the level of the destruction of the productive forces,
how and what forms of organization are in formation to combat total
disintegration? What segment of the ruling class is in the process of
separation and desertion to the side of the proletariat? What are the
quantitative dimensions of creating the critical masses within the
proletariat capable of rallying all of society to its just demands? What is
the organizational state of the advance thinkers articulating the mass
"needs?" What phase of the process is the various political groups
experiencing in forming a "national" police consensus that articulates
"needs?"

To violate the stages of a process is not merely "infantile leftist-ness" or
the "senility of the right" but wrong and dangerous. During the Revolution
that overthrow slavery in our Southern states, the slogan that men shouted on
their way to the grave was "He died to make men Holy, let us die to make them
free, his truth is marching on." It took half a century of anti-slavery
propaganda to prepare for what became the bloodiest "single" conflict in
human "modern" history.

Even in the Soviet Revolution it was only at a specific stage under the
wartime collapse, that the demand for "All Power to the Soviets" emerged as
an immediate political action. Heck, the demand was for "land, bread and
peace."  The promise of the Bolsheviks was to give the people what they
wanted, "land, bread and peace."

We of course can never tell our compatriots what to do or think, least we run
the risk of being rightfully branded imperialist scoundrels and adventurers.
Yet, we can extract a simple conclusion: the program of the world working
class is apparently headed in the direction of distribution based on need,
not a specific political organization to realize the demand. Putting the cart
in front of the horse is the wrong way to use horsepower.

During the time of Marx he articulated a vision based on the law system he
discovered governing "what is possible based on a change in fundamentality in
societal reproduction" and began an incredible intellectual battle to create
a critical mass of the subjective expression corresponding to the "objective
process." The numerous Internet discussion riveted to Marx method is
testimony to his individuality.

At each quantitative phase of capital - including its qualitative reformation
on the basis of imperial domination, students of Marx method have attempted
to give a precise statement on the boundaries of the mode of production
peculiar to capitalist reproduction. The estimate of "what is possible" is
purely subjective (not the boundary of fundamentality once the second stage
of a new qualitative dimension is witnessed).

Marx and Engels were often incorrect is estimating the subjective factor -
what individual man can accomplish within a specific quantitative
configuration, but their outline of the law system called the "science of
society" remains unsurpassed. Human knowledge will always flow along a
trajectory from the absurd to the less absurd.  If I could only be as
incorrect as Marx and Engels!


Melvin