>>> "rc-am" <rcollins at netlink.com.au> 03/18/99 01:36PM >>>
>>CB: Marx and all of them seem to formulate their theory that there
must be a developed proletariat, wage-labor, capitalist relations of
production, developed industrial, mass production and division of
labor as an OBJECTIVE precondition for transition to socialism. These
preconditions have been in existence and way beyond ready for many
decades in many countries , including the U.S. and Austalia. Many
capitalist ongoing and cyclical crises have occurred over the years
based on the objective , law governed motion of the capitalist mode.
The capitalists have shown that they will always take back when they
get the chance, any and all reforms won by past struggles.<<
Angela: what they formulate, as distinct from formalise, is that capitalism is the precursor to socialism. the extent to which this has to be 'developed' is very unclear.
CB: Doesn't seem unclear to me. Why do you say it is unclear that Marx and his followers projected and project not only that capitalism is the precursor to socialism, but that a developed proletariat is necessary to be the agent that makes the change ?
(((((((((((((((((((((((((
moreover, it is important me thinks to keep in mind the difference between the formulation of an hypothesis and the formalisation of a beleif.
CB: Well, there is a range of certainty. You know in legal evidence here there is from a preponderant of the evidence to beyond a reasonable doubt. Hypothesis is sort of a preliminary disgarding of doubt in science that implies further testing. Belief can be based on empirical evidence or other things. I'd say the Marxist prediction is more than a hypothesis.
(((((((((((((((((((((((((((
in any case, one could possibly go through these various 'objective factors' (a phrase that deserves the scare quotes) and show that there is no ideal type anywhere in existence. for instance: the working class is not homogeneous, production methods are constantly changing in ways which amplify (give new life to and underpin, generate, transform into a different organisation of) this lack of homogeniety, etc. it's a struggle, not an endless wait for real consciousness to spring forth from behind the phenomenal modes of its appearance, since these phenomenal modes are also its very being, relate to the forms of its existence, including that of the kinds of the labour process that obtain, objectively, in your terms.
CB: If you put scare quotes around objective factors, you might as well put scare quote around the whole paragraph. The objective factors are no less an accurate generalization than "struggle" and the other concepts that you treat as more definite. Why don't you put scare quotes around "capitalism" or "socialism" ? Capitalism has had slavery mixed in in it's history .It is not entirely capitalism..
Objective factors is sufficiently definite not to have scare quote around it.
(((((((((((((((((((((((
so: when you say that capitalists reverse gains, this is also a part of the ways in which (subjectively and objectively) these conditions are in fact hardly 'ripe'. the fruit analogy just doesn't quite make it.
CB: It is like all metaphors. It breaks down at a certain point. But it is a good metaphor for this.
The objective conditions are more ripe for the system that follows capitalism than the conditions were 100 or 200 years ago. The taking back by capitalists is part of the objective conditons of the working class. The conduct of the bourgeoisie is part of the objective conditons of the working class. Their inclination to take back is permanent, contrary to the wishes of some reforming laborites. But that has been proven in the real world enough. It is established as one of the objective circumstances of capitalism. It is no longer just hypothesized.
((((((((((((((((((((((((((((
>>CB: The more the face changes, the more it stays the same, from now
on, until it makes the real change. It's like McDonald's coming out
with a new hamburger combination with a new name periodically.<<
now, who's advocating the french conservative slogan?
CB: You chopped off my last sentence which was "The only real change will be when the face of the working class takes on the determined smile of revolutionary overthrow". THAT would be my slogan. It is the opposite of the French structuralist slogan, because it posits real change ! It's meaning is established by putting next to its opposite the French phrase. The French phrase describes the fake McDonald like change well. It also describes the treadmill nature of the changes in the work process that you were mentioning.
Charles Brown