Prt 2 antagonism and contradiction
JOEFREEMEN at aol.com
JOEFREEMEN at aol.com
Wed Dec 19 12:00:47 MST 2001
Part Two: Antagonism and Contradiction
Antagonism as a word used to describe a specific contradiction and
developmental process, cannot exist between man and women ("The antagonisms
that have traditionally existed between the sexes"). There exists not
antagonism between man and woman, only contradictions. Contradictions and
violence and then division of labor have to be considered concretely and in
detail to disclose singularity development, and determine whether one pole
has to be abolished for further development.
My attempt to use the human organism as an example of developmental phases of
science, further muddied the water. The attempted point was to grasp an
element of the bloodletting in Stalin's Russia. Compared to our modern -
current, method of scientific technique, bloodletting is absurd, or rather
our current methods are less absurd than bloodletting. My real point had to
do with the development of commodity production theoretically isolated from
property relations, but embracing the various levels of ownership. The
growth of the bureaucracy, the limited field of development of commodity
production combine to express the material elements fueling the growth of
privilege, bureaucracy, speculation and exploitation - or rather "oppression"
of labor in the Soviet Union.
The point was that capitalist relations of production are historically
obsolete and its demise is historically inevitable from the standpoint of the
development of the labor polarity. Specially, commodity production operates -
is fueled by, the law of value. The law of value reduces itself to the amount
of socially necessary labor in the production of commodities serves as the
fundamental base line for the exchange of production. The law of value
operated in the Soviet Union because this is a law of commodity production
not simply capitalist commodity production.
Why didn't I say this is the first place? Because I got clever and thought a
couple of sentences would suffice.
Historical inevitability is the examination of the entire field of operations
of a singular process and establishing its conclusion as a distinct process.
Capitalist commodity productions end is historically inevitable because
technology destroys the basis of all commodity production by radically and
fundamentally reducing and destroying the living labor content involved in
the general field of social production. Stated another way the organic
composition of capital contains or rather express the antagonistic field of
operation dominating labor. In other words dead labor dominates - in the form
of machinery, and destroys the capacity of living labor to sell its labor
power to secure the means for exchange. As living labor is driven towards
relative zero in the composition of capital, the antagonism that expressed
the inability of capitalist to further develop commodity exchange intensifies
and assumes an exceptionally violent character.
In real life the ruthless assertion of technology that drives living labor
towards zero - the "zero equation," takes place in the context where
commodities with little value achieve profitability in the context of the
exchange of commodities with greater labor. Simply because the bourgeoisie
can fool people and cause increasingly valueless commodities to be exchange
for commodities with greater value does not deny the antagonistic character
of capitalist market relations. The worlds people don't know that computers
are being built in Taiwan for next to nothing, by outsourcing the labor to
mainland China. Dell Computers and Gateway sell a computer system superior to
the one I am writing on (433 megahertz) for $799 and $699.00, respectively -
with a CD burner, is worth maybe $50 bucks in today's market. People are slow
to adapting to a new qualitative dimension in production.
In the process of social production the polarity between living labor and
dead labor is historically resolved, not by destroying all machinery, but
establishing the domination of living labor over dead labor. It is the task
of the social revolution to liberate the productive forces from the
limitation place on commodity production by capitalist property relations, so
that commodity production can develop on its own basis under new property
relations. Freed from private property relations, commodity production
develops towards disintegration concretely. This process unfolded in the
Soviet Union in a particularly violent manner, although quantifying
"particularly violent" will be easier after capital is overthrown as a system
of social production on a world scale and we gather all the statistics.
Bloodletting as an analogy using the human body was my way of describing an
antagonistic process that unfolded in the Soviet Union. I of course have zero
training as a medical student but over the course of time have developed a
reasonably theoretical approach to healing. My mother was a nurse and we
often clashed over my use of herbal remedies. I will be very careful in the
future is using such analogies. Having thus stated this my specific approach
follow the teaching and theoretical point of view of the eminent German
scientist Professor Arnold Ehret. He of course proved in the filed of
theoretical science and practical application the source of all disease in
the human organism.
Just as the feudal medical establishment could not exceed the scientific
limitations of their time, and these limitations are viewed from the
standpoint of scientific applications mirrored in the field of social
production, neither could the revolutionaries in the Soviet Union. Ruthless
bloodletting and purging the party and society could not dictate or suppress
the filed of operation generated on the basis of commodity production,
despite changed relations of production - property relations. Yet, this
"disease" had to be fought.
Stated another way, Professor Arnold Ehret demolished the last bastion of
alchemy as the science of the medical industry, although alchemy still
dominates branches of the medical industry. Here, what is being referenced
is not the politics of the overthrow of women as the fundamental healers in
society, or the consolidation of the power of the church - men, or the
superseding of alchemy over "folk-healing," but the limitations of
understanding each generation operates under, as different representatives of
The field of limitations of the first proletarian state is in my estimate
based upon the degree of development of commodity production as the
fundamental consideration. This fundamental consideration is interactive with
and operates in a field we recognize as the world market and the various
states and political groupings. I concur with your previous statement about
the uselessness in trying to determine who was the "greatest democrat."
In my approach class factors never "overshadow" human thinking and cultural
inheritance, but become the framework in which prehistoric bunk (human
thinking and cultural inheritance) is continuously reshaped and developed.
>From the standpoint of materialist dialectics - as an approach, the framework
of the overthrow of women as fundamental healers in society and the growth of
a male dominated medical establishment is part and parcel of the
commoditization of all elements of social life. There exist an indissoluble
connection between the growth of landed private property, the role of the
church and the burning of witches, or rather women as the bloody face of
usurpation. Commoditization is commodity production development, which
arises on the basis of division of labor, which men and women are the
integral actors. The antagonism is not in the actors but the process that
My articulation of antagonism is correct and by the word "leap" is not meant,
"to jump forward" as a singular step. A leap is a series of processes by
which synthesis is achieved. There is a "dialectic of the leap." The working
class does not become capitalist as owners of production, but move in the
direction of destroying ownership rights as a category of history. The need
for abolition of a previously dominant pole indicates an antagonistic
contradiction. Men don't need to be abolished - or I am in deep trouble, but
a certain behavior needs to be abolished.
Being burned at the stake and being told that you are not suffering from an
antagonistic contradiction with the men of the church is no consolation.
Being told that capitalist relations of production are historically limited
is no consolation to the lowest stratum of the working class. Yet, after the
communist, or rather collectivist come to power, policy must be based on an
analysis of how social phenomenon evolves. Participating in everyday life
requires an understanding of antagonism.
Although violence has characterized the relationship between black laborers
and non-black laborers in North America, this is not an antagonistic
contradiction. The antagonism exists between the laborers irrespective of
nationality and color and capital as a social force. Hence, a class program
is paramount to the development of class-consciousness. Thus, in my writings
I have consciously abandoned any description of labor that strategically
revolves around the color question. Tactically, the last reform in capitalism
- and reform does not mean winning the fight for a reduced water bill but
rather, reform in the Marxist sense means a reconstitution of the political
relations between classes, was the Civil Rights Movement which cast the
working class movement in what is called "the color question."
Discrimination still exists and the "color question" will not go away, but
the talk about "white workers" is sickening and fails to grasp antagonism and
how to formulate a class program.
Antagonism is a specific express of contradiction. Antagonism can be
dissolved, contradictions cannot. This is a profound theoretical question
that I screwed up and probably screwed up again, trying to explain the first
screw up. Sorry.
PLEASE clip all extraneous text before replying to a message.
More information about the Marxism