[lbo-talk] Understanding _Capital_ (Was Re: barbaric)

Yoshie Furuhashi critical.montages at gmail.com
Tue Mar 6 23:21:45 PST 2007


On 3/7/07, tfast <tfast at yorku.ca> wrote:
> So yes capitalism relies in
> the first and last instance on force as do all social orders but capitalism
> does not rely on direct force for the (re)production of surplus value.

That -- force being the foundation of class society in general, including capitalism -- is the part that is more or less forgotten nowadays, so it bears repetition imho. From that oblivion arises, for instance, the thought that capitalism can do without imperialism "if the ruling class are rational." Perhaps that is in part due to real declines in strikes and other workers' collective actions in the West, especially in the USA, for force is necessary in any class society -- even in feudal society -- _only to the extent that the exploited resist exploitation_.

Marx wrote in Capital: "The advance of capitalist production develops a working-class, which by education, tradition, habit, looks upon the conditions of that mode of production as self-evident laws of Nature. The organisation of the capitalist process of production, once fully developed, breaks down all resistance." One mystery is, though, how Marx squared this thought with another idea he also held: transition to socialism is most likely in advanced capitalist society. If the former is true, the latter can't be. -- Yoshie <http://montages.blogspot.com/> <http://mrzine.org> <http://monthlyreview.org/>



More information about the lbo-talk mailing list