>>Angela:
>>as a pretty fine bit of story-telling.... but anyways, saying that history
>is the history of antagonisms, class struggle is not the same thing as
>saying that the content, form, essence of these struggles was the same.
>Charles to Roger: So, class struggle is a transhistorical category in some
>sense. That was my point. My point does not contradict what you s
>ay above.
Right Charles. And, it seemed to me that what you said did not contradict Angela's point (above) about the different forms of class struggle, which I was trying to elaborate.
>I would say the hard part for intellectuals, as most are on this list, has
been >practice. They can usually understand the contradictions or
>interpret them, but the changing the world part is the toughest.
Here's where we see things a bit differently. I don't think current contradictions are well understaood at all, by anybody I am aware of. And that's a major reason, in my opinion why changing the world is so tough.
So how about a couple of questions. Do you think the organic compostion has been rising since WWII? Are workers being paid more in wages than their cost of reproduction? How have the various changes over decades in the way surplus value is realized in exchange affected the laws of motion? Was Baran and Sweezy's Monopoly Capital theory of a rising surplus a Marxist work? Is it an accurate description of, or basis, for anything? How does the creation of value in the financial sphere, which Doug and others have been discussing, fit into all of this?
>________
>Roger:
>Like no one before, Marx pieced together the practice of his day and
>explained its essence--the laws of motion of capitalism. Not discounting
>his efforts to organize workers based on the conditions of his time, but
>*that* was really important to the future of the class struggle.
>
>_________
>Charles Brown
>
>
>$*$*$*$*$ 2 LINES REFORMATTED BY POPPER AT igc.apc.org $*$*$*$*$
>