Jim, value and rate of prodfit
JOEFREEMEN at aol.com
JOEFREEMEN at aol.com
Mon Dec 31 12:17:05 MST 2001
>From Jim Drysdale,
The ' Textbook of Marxist Philosophy, ' writes....
snip> In Capital Marx begins from the simplest, basic relations of
>merchant-capitalist society - the exchange of commodities. He at once shows
>the ambiguity, the contradictory characteristic of a "commodity," an article
>made simply for sale, as a unity of price and value, discloses its internal
>contradictions, the ambiguous character of the labor that creates the
>article, the concrete labor on the one hand and one the other the abstract
l>abor that creates the value.
>JD: What may look like a history lesson in Capital vol 1 ch1 is no such
>thing. Indeed, Marx begins with C- M- C and then shows C - C primitive
>exchange, barter. This, without the use of the money form of value. What
>Marx is showing is the evolution of exchange, that is, the evolution of
>abstract labour in society.
>That is, he reveals the origins of the historical material process of our
>species. That is, the origins of the evolutionary process of different
>forms of society. (exchange)
The Text Book of Marxist Philosophy is in fact a history lesson and summation
of Marxist Philosophy, which is why it is entitled "A Textbook of Marxist
Capital in all its volumes is not the story of "the origins of the
evolutionary process of different forms of society" . . . "the evolution of
exchange, that is the evolution of abstract labor in society," or a
revelation into "the origins of the historical material process of our
Marx "Capital" Volume I is what it says it is on the front cover, "a Critical
analysis of Capitalist Production."
The third page with writing on it in my copy of Capital volume one, published
1967 by International Publisher, fourth printing 1972, says "Capital, A
Critique of Political Economy by Karl Marx, Volume I, The Process of
Capitalist Production. Translated from the third German edition by Samuel
Moore and Edward Aveling. Edited by Frederick Engels, International
Publishers, New York."
The origin of species is an exciting field of study but this is not the
intent of the exposition of capital that Marx articulates in the books called
Capital. The Textbook of Marxist Philosophy is not a summation of historical
materialism, origins of species but a summation of the dialectical process as
understood by the Communist Party of the Soviet Union in 1937 and the
political pressure it could exert on the Leningrad Institute of Philosophy to
produce a correct text. "Correct" contains an ideological meaning and
accounts for the ideological "thickness" of the book. I have no interest in
denying the "thickness" of the ideology of the text, but can however
articulate the exactitude and crispness of the presentation of the movement
of contradictions from beginning to end to the average worker in America.
The specific paragraphs quoted from the Textbook of Marxist Philosophy in
part 1 of the "Organic Composition of capital" - which comrade Jim is silent
on, is from Chapter IV which is called, "Analysis of the movement of the
contradiction of a process from its beginning to its end." The summation
quoted serve as an excellent guild for anyone that seek to understand the
2030 pages that comprise Capital Volumes I, 2 and 3 - this does not include
the footnotes or the three volumes of Surplus value. Actually the eight
paragraph summation is brilliant and outside my intellectual capacity and a
stupendous academic achievement of the proletarian revolution.
Anyone familiar with the life of the planetary proletariat know that we hate
the ignorance imposed on us by capitalist property relations, which is why we
mortgage our future to send our children to school, while literally starving.
Marx and Engels were smarter than all of us put together, which is why they
are called geniuses.
Comrade Jim seeks to preserve the integrity of the standpoint of Marx and
Engels without an exposition on the basis of dialectics. Condemnation of what
he thinks is "wrong" is his method of approach, which is lacking for anyone
that has invested 10, 20, or even thirty years in unraveling dialectics.
Academia and the intellegenica has a responsibility to seek truth and
exactitude, even when it hurts. The summations and conclusions of Marx must
be based on the features of the era that the working class face. It is not
enough to say what Marx meant one hundred years ago and rest content, but one
must apply the standpoint of Marx to the features of the 21st century. I have
done that based on an inheritance of a legacy that is outdated. The next Marx
and Engels were born yesterday and I envy her and marvel at what she
considers the obvious.
I do not have the big head and have a perspective on the fact that "my"
Marxism was born of the highest levels of the class struggle in North America
over the past thirty years. This can be proven with recorded and documented ev
ents. This understanding emerged in the context of the domination of
financial-industrial capital in transition to speculative-financial capital.
Comrade Jim, you have not outlined the organic composition of capital and the
theory of the tendency of the rate of profit to fall, or extracted its
revolutionary conclusions. The reason for this failure has nothing to do with
the intellectual captivity of the "individual as such," but is an element of
the class struggle.
Many comrades need to study Marx and you cannot be accused of this. My
failure is in relaying the fresh conclusion of class battles that can be
summarized and update on the basis of the standpoint of Marx. In 1995 Local
51 of the United Autoworkers Union, struck Chrysler in the most intense
strike to hit it in 40 years. The membership was devastated and beaten into
demoralization. I was compelled to organize the member on the basis of
rejecting the existing majority of the union leaders who lead us on strike.
This movement became the first in 20 years of wholesale rejection of the
leaders that grew up and took shape on the basis of the last reform movement
in capital - the Civil Rights Movement.
The strike was over the transformation of the production process and the
building of two new engine plants in Detroit - Mack I and II, which could not
meet our demands for quantity of employment. The entire workforce was forced
under the jackboot of capital and forced to examine the new features of
I do not believe in self-effacing genuflecting but I really understand what I
did not do. This article is 72 months after the damn fact.
PLEASE clip all extraneous text before replying to a message.
More information about the Marxism