Neco-con socialism is fascism 4 - end

Waistline2 at Waistline2 at
Sun Sep 7 09:59:59 MDT 2003

We are well into a new era of history and history has been more than less
generous to us and gives revolutionaries in America the most revolutionary of all
revolutionary tasks. Once we dispense with the ideological baggage of the
past one can examine a body of thought expressed on Marxline I call neo-con
socialism or imperial fascism without disguise. Allow me to back up and start at
the beginning.

The primitive accumulation of capital is a description of a historical period
that brings something new into existence. Primitive accumulation is not a
class relationship or a property relationship. Nor is it a production relation.
The primitive accumulation of capital is the transition phase - the
evolutionary leap, linking one distinct mode of production or way of life to another mode
of production and way of life. In this sense Marx states:

 "In the history of primitive accumulation, all revolutions are epoch-making
that act as levers for the capital class in course of formation;"

and one of those levers was the transition in the form of wealth and the
increasing use of money, which would later serve as universal means of exchange
and allow for the universal emergence of the law of value. The universal
emergence of the law of value and the commodity form has already taken place, reached
its zenith in the most imperial areas of the world, "crossed over" and begins
its decay - decomposition. No communist worker - much less Marxist worth
their salt, advocates unity with imperialism to effect capitalist development,
especially in a period when the law of value begins its decline. The dialectic of
the process is not understood or ignored by the neo-con socialist.

Computerization, advanced robotics and digitalized processes are new
qualitative ingredients injected into the production process. These new ingredients
radically lower the value of labor power and this very real process hurls a
section of the working class outside active engagement with the productive forces
because their labor power is not needed. This is one meaning of the
destruction of value. The increasing value-less nature of commodity production is the
meaning of the popular term "post industrial society," from the standpoint of
the theory logic of Marx Capital.

Another way that the revolution in the material power of production begins
the decomposition of the value form is the increasing overcapacity every sector
of "industry" is face with. This appears as increasing under utilization of
productive forces and destabilization of previously privileged sectors of the
working class. Not simply the intensification of the outbreak of crisis of
overproduction, but absolute overcapacity and mounting pressure of absolute

I have experienced this process in the flesh on the basis of thirty years in
the auto industry and remain unimpressed by a mass of statistics that miss the
point and lack Marxist clarification. How many vehicles are sold in America?
How many of these vehicles were made in America? How man-hours went into these
vehicles?  What is the size of the world workforce producing vehicles
worldwide?  From 1972 - 2002 vehicles sold in America jumped from twelve million to
seventeen million with a radical and absolute decline in the work force
producing these vehicles. At Ford Rouge Local 600 - once the largest industrial
center in the "free world," every active workers is matched with three living
retired workers today. A mass of statistics explaining neo-con socialist fables -
and spin, is unacceptable to the communist worker.

Perhaps two year ago I forwarded to Marxline a speech by Jergen Schempp on
the state of world auto production and his description of the absolute
overcapacity that makes what was once a periodic outbreak of the crisis of
overproduction permanent. Here is the real permanent social revolution and its economic
content any school child can understand. Here is the economic content and basis
in which I understand Comrade DMS periodic articles on overproduction and why
it pinpoint devaluation - "destruction of the commodity form" or "increasingly
valueless production" or in the language of our modern bourgeoisie, or rather
those regarded as bourgeoisie, "profitless prosperity."  Overcapacity or
underutilization and an absolute surplus - mass of capital that cannot be
profitably invested in the production of commodities, is overproduction. Speculative
capital is the face of this stage of the crisis of overproduction. A quick
reading of Marx statements on this question of overproduction in "Theories of
Surplus Value" is enough to convince the layperson.

Roughly 200,000 workers in auto are to be removed from production permanently
and this was reported about two years ago. Here again is the economic content
of permanent revolution and why in the content of this era, one speaks about
the unraveling of the commodity form and the decomposition of the law of

The program of modern communism will be the same no matter what ones
political tradition if the theory framework of Marx is adhered to. One must arrive at
the same conclusion. Political tradition dictates how one describes the
process and not the internal unraveling of the process itself. To be an ideologist
is to arrive at a political conclusion based on politics and not the
examination of economic data and economic theory.

Perhaps sixteen months ago another article for Marxline was written
explaining why the economist at Ford Motor Company spoke of society entering an era of
"profitless prosperity."  "Profitless prosperity" is the exact words used in
the report to the shareholders and the communist in Detroit calls this same
phenomenon "value-less production."

Society is undergoing the evolutionary leap and the meaning of "leap" is
defined as transition. This does not conform to the previous generation of Marxist
writings and description of dialectics and transition but that is no crime -
only a historical limitation. This includes the "Trotskyites" and "Stalinist."

In the content of class society, the dialectic of the evolutionary leap
basically refers to the "event horizon" or "nodal point" that indicates the
properties of a distinct process is no longer in ascendancy and has begun decay. This
decay express itself as polarization that evolves further and then assumes
the form of external existence of the two basic properties that made up the
contradiction in the first place. The connecting tissue of the contradiction is
"broken" and the two basic properties, which once governed the self-movement of
the contradiction, enter an era of existence no longer "connected."  Not
simply polarization of wealth and poverty, but something different. External
collision is the watchword - the umbilical cord is "severed."

This is the meaning of Marx statement that society moves in class antagonism.
The previous generation understood this to mean that the workers are locked
into mortal combat with the bourgeois property relations. This is incorrect
however, when the totality of the process is witnessed. The further evolution of
the process - the value system and the commodity form, has today shown us that
the two primary classes that constitute the economic basis of a society
cannot overthrow the economic relationship by definition. What evolves from the
primary classes is an unending struggle for reform. The serf could not and did
not overthrow feudalism. The workers could not and did not over throw industrial
society or the bourgeoisie property relations in any imperial centers because
a social and economic system cannot be overthrow as such. It is not possible.
Something else has to happen that cause the two properties of the
contradiction to face one another in external collision.

What must happen is that a new qualitative ingredient is injected into the
society that begins to unravel the basis of the old classes and creates new
classes existing outside the old economic bond called feudal lord and serf or
worker and capitalist. Something must evolve that undermine the basis of the old
system of wealth creation and for feudalism this was the transformation in the
form of wealth from landed property to gold or money and the growth of two new
classes on this basis. The bourgeois revolution does not mean the bourgeoisie
overthrow economic feudalism. Feudalism or rather the society whose economic
relations, social relations and wealth accumulation was based in landed
property began decomposition on the basis of  - yep, a development in the means of
production and transformation in the form of wealth - a new qualitative
ingredient that caused the decomposition of landed property relations. Society was
compelled to leap to a new political basis to allow the universal ascendancy of
the new ingredients in the means of production. This is the meaning of the
bourgeois revolution in property relations. The bourgeoisie does not create
industry but rather, industry creates the bourgeoisie.

Advance technology creates a mass of proletarians outside the buying and
selling basis of the industrial system. Here is the "new class" or the "communist
class."  This new mass of poverty-stricken proletariat - on a world scale, has
no connecting tissue with the bourgeoisie and those regarded as bourgeoisie
through the production process. This mass of proletarians with no connecting
tissue to the bourgeoisie is also expressed as a mass of surplus capital or a
speculative sector of capital that has no connecting tissue with production.
Here is the antagonism. Contradiction is replaced by antagonism because the
connecting tissue that makes a contradiction a contradiction is broken. A "broken
contradiction" is not a contradiction, or rather is the meaning of antagonism
replaces contradiction. The theory of "quantity" and "quality" and
understanding contradiction on this basis is historically obsolete and belongs to the
stock and trade of the ideologist.

Society moves in class antagonism and is compelled to leap forward to a new
political basis that allows for the expansion and growth of the new classes. A
new political basis means the destruction of the property relations upheld and
enforced by the political structures of society. The destruction of the
property old relations allows the new qualitative ingredients injected into the
productive forces to operate unfettered by buying and selling and allows for the
liberation of the proletariat as proletariat.

This process could not and did not take place in the last century because the
proletariat cannot be liberated as proletariat on the basis of the industrial
system. To confuse the current process of the destruction of value with
primitive accumulation of capital (a transition phase - the actual leap, in which
the value producing system rises to ascendancy) is the repudiation of
elementary Marxist economic theory and dialectics.

Here is the theory problem of socialism that the various "ism's" could not
even pose much less grapple with. Let us put to the side the screamers of
permanent revolution and the haters perpetually screaming "Stalin" and "Trotsky" and
state the obvious. A political law cannot abolish an economic law. No policy
- no matter how revolutionary, can abolish an economic law and this means the
commodity form of the social product cannot be abolished with "a correct
understanding of money." The economic problems of industrial socialism has to be
understood from the standpoint of what constitutes an industrial system of
production and why exchange cannot be abolished by a political act.

Soviet socialism evolved during the transition from agriculture to industry.
One cannot abolish the law of value by decree or political will.  At best
socialism and revolutionary policy can set the basis for the transition to the
valueless society or destruction of the commodity form without the antagonism
that is the result of bourgeois property.

This proposition goes against the main body of economic theory of the past
period. The bourgeois property relations did not create the commodity form. The
bourgeois property relations did not create the law of value - why and under
what conditions commodities become exchangeable on the basis of a substance
common to them. The bourgeois property relations did not create industrial
society. Industrial society arose on the basis of the bourgeois property relations
and was created by the revolution in the productive forces. It is the
revolution in the means of production that accelerates the development of the law of
value and creates the commodity form.

The commodity form of the social products cannot be destroyed in a society
that is in transition from agricultural relations to industrial relations.
Socialism is better than capitalism without question. In the absence of this
understanding all kinds of clever and reactionary theories about state capitalism
were advanced in the last period.

What we have to look at is our own history with the process logic contained
in Marx capital. The slave was emancipated as slave, not as a manual worker -
toiler and or property owners connected to the land. No matter what shape his
property relations took - yeoman farmer or sharecropper, he must conform to the
law of value as it was made manifest in 1865.

If the whole world had gone socialist - meaning several of the advanced
industrial bourgeois countries, bourgeois right would persist in the shape of the
commodity form and the degree of development of exchange in the world - the
productive forces. The property relation does not give rise to the commodity form
and changing the property relations to another property relations cannot
destroy the commodity form.

One can argue until they are blue in the face about what leader should have
done what. Hating and advocating fighting each other to the death ain't gonna
solve one question we face in America and in the last instance is insanity and
bourgeois reaction.

At a certain stage in the development of capital reproduction, the value
forms comes not simply under assault in the form of crisis of overproduction, but
begins decompoistion because of a new qualitative configuration of the
production process. We have entered such an era.

My approach to this question of primitive accumulation draws a line of
distinction between the historical process associated with the formation of the
capitalist class and capital accumulation, which is associated with the decay, and
destruction of the capitalist class.

The expropriation of the agricultural producer and formation of the
capitalist class is not the logic of capital accumulation although at first glance this
might seem the case. Capital accumulation expropriates the agricultural
producers also; look at the old sharecropper and understand why he went the way of
all flesh! The rub is that capital accumulation does not cause the formation
of the capitalist class but causes its decay as a capitalist class, along with
the proletariat as a class.

During the period of the primitive accumulation of capital no section of the
capitalist class can be expropriated or destroyed in the market because it
does not exist as such. Nor can any section of the class that does not yet exist,
decay and morph. What Marx called the "modern bourgeoisie" evolved from the
"original" bourgeoisie - the middle class, and decayed - was transformed, with
the development of industry. The merchant capitalist, the manufacturer and the
industrialist "bit the bullet," decayed and/ or sublated on the basis of
capital accumulation - not the primitive accumulation of capital.

The primitive accumulation of capital is not the process of capital
accumulation but a historical phase of transition. The accumulation of capital is not a
transition phase but a historical process operating on the basis of its own
law system - the law of value.  Marx has already explained the dialectic of the
process and there is no need to invent clever, original - and very bourgeois,

Marx explains the process logic of the decay of the capitalist class and the
proletariat in discussing the role of credit in capitalist production in
Volume 3 Chapter 27 of Capital. It become clear why primitive accumulation is a
transition and capital accumulation is a process.

"Before we go any further, there is still the following economically
important fact to be noted: Since profit here assumes the pure form of interest,
undertakings of this sort are still possible if they yield bare interest, and this
is one of the causes, stemming the fall of the general rate of profit, since
such undertakings, in which the ratio of constant capital to the variable is so
enormous, do not necessarily enter into the equalisation of the general rate
of profit.

"This is the abolition of the capitalist mode of production within the
capitalist mode of production itself, and hence a self-dissolving contradiction,
which prima facie represents a mere phase of transition to a new form of
production. It manifests itself as such a contradiction in its effects. It establishes
a monopoly in certain spheres and thereby requires state interference. It
reproduces a new financial aristocracy, a new variety of parasites in the shape
of promoters, speculators and simply nominal directors; a whole system of
swindling and cheating by means of corporation promotion, stock issuance, and stock
speculation. It is private production without the control of private property.

"IV. Aside from the stock-company business, which represents the abolition of
capitalist private industry on the basis of the capitalist system itself and
destroys private industry as it expands and invades new spheres of production,
credit offers to the individual capitalist; or to one who is regarded as a
capitalist, absolute control within certain limits over the capital and property
of others, and thereby over the labour of others. (End of quote)

Here Marx describes the process logic of capital accumulation as it
reconfigures and destroys class sectors, created - that arose from the transition
period called the primitive accumulation of capital. When he states "one who is
regarded as a capitalist" and "private production without the control of private
property" he is describing production on the basis of the bourgeois property
relations without the real bourgeoisie. This is the abolition of the capitalist
mode of production within the capitalist mode of production.

Primitive accumulation creates the condition for the rise of universal
commodity production. Capital accumulation - even as it penetrates the backward
agricultural areas and invades other imperial power in search of colonies and
sphere of domination, destroys the law of value and the commodity form and the
proletariat as it arose in history.  Two radically different things are being

The worker can understand the process logic Marx describes because he wrote
Capital for the workers. Primitive accumulation leads to the creation of
bourgeois property, capitalist and proletarians. Capital accumulation leads to the
destruction of bourgeois property and the commodity form and decomposition of
the class of capitalist and proletarians. This process of decomposition unfolds
as a curve that goes "up" and "down" based on the quantitative expansion in
the boundary of the industrial system and "down" as the absolute motion
governing the old classes as industrial society passes to post industrial society.
Marx continues:

"Expropriation extends here from the direct producers to the smaller and the
medium-sized capitalists themselves. It is the point of departure for the
capitalist mode of production; its accomplishment is the goal of this production.
In the last instance, it aims at the expropriation of the means of production
from all individuals. With the development of social production the means of
production cease to be means of private production and products of private
production, and can thereafter be only means of production in the hands of
associated producers, i.e., the latter's social property, much as they are their
social products. However, this expropriation appears within the capitalist system
in a contradictory form, as appropriation of social property by a few; and
credit lends the latter more and more the aspect of pure adventurers. . . .

" . . .But the antithesis between capital and labour is overcome within them,
if at first only by way of making the associated laborers into their own
capitalist, i.e., by enabling them to use the means of production for the
employment of their own labour. They show how a new mode of production naturally grows
out of an old one, when the development of the material forces of production
and of the corresponding forms of social production have reached a particular
stage. The credit system is not only the principal basis for the gradual
transformation of capitalist private enterprises into capitalist stock companies,
but equally offers the means for the gradual extension of co-operative
enterprises on a more or less national scale. The capitalist stock companies, as much
as the co-operative factories, should be considered as transitional forms from
the capitalist mode of production to the associated one, with the only
distinction that the antagonism is resolved negatively in the one and positively in
the other." (End of quote)

Marx says that capital accumulation - not primitive accumulation, as it is
driven on the basis of the system of credit overcome the antithesis between
capital and labor within the framework of the bourgeois property relations and
creates "those regarded as capitalist." This does not take place in any shape and
form during the transition phase called the primitive accumulation of
capital. At this stage of development we can add to this that those regarded as
proletariat are created as society leaves the industrial era and this defines the
meaning of "a particular stage."

The real question is the decay of the commodity form and the unraveling of
the law of value as society passes to post industrial production and the
emergence of the "communist class." In other words communism - not socialism, is
placed on the agenda for American society on the basis of the development of the
means of production.

Here is the basic reason theory reason why placing primitive accumulation of
capital within the framework of capital accumulation in 2003 - when we are at
the beginning process of postindustrial society, just does not make sense on
the surface and is revealed as the swan song of reaction when unraveled in its
essence. To advocate on the basis of this "development of Marx theory" for
revolutionaries to lead a political revolution to establish "capitalist
development" - bourgeois property, in the less developed countries can only be
described as neo-con socialism - fascism, in as much as modern imperialism is fascism.
Neo-con socialism is fascism.

Melvin P.

PLEASE clip all extraneous text before replying to a message.

More information about the Marxism mailing list