[Marxism] Marx political economy/bureaucracy/our history

Waistline2 at aol.com Waistline2 at aol.com
Sat Jun 5 05:51:15 MDT 2004

>keep on writing.  extremely eye-opening stuff.  i just double checked - you 
are right, indeed Marx did NOT say that the proletariat was the gravedigger 
of bourgeoisie, but instead the very advance of industry itself.  hmm...<



Life is interactive and everything in reality is really cause and effect. It 
is very difficult to pull out one event and make it stand alone, yet without 
isolating events and moments one cannot make sense of motion. Exposition must 
isolate moments so that the reader can independently learn the Marxist method 
and approach and find their moment in history. It is not enough to state that 
everything mediates everything or "its the dialectic." 

When one speaks of the mode of production in material life, by definition one 
is talking about people or the subjective factor of biological existence. The 
most revolutionary aspect of the productive forces is the human mind. 
Nevertheless, unraveling the working of the human mind and brain functions does not 
explain why society is compelled to leap forward from one technological regime 
to the next. Therefore, communist workers have deployed the term "fundamental" 
or fundamentality for the past eighty years. 

Society is formed on the basis of the unity between the productive forces or 
as it is called by Marx, the material power of production - and, production 
relations. Production relations are not simply so-called "Social relations," but 
more importantly, the laws defining property and the relationship of people 
to property in the process of production. The constant spontaneous development 
of the productive forces eventually disrupts that unity.  

An epoch of social revolution creates new production relations that reflect 
the level of, and are compatible with, the newly developed productive forces. 
>From the viewpoint of this science of society, one can easily examine the 
fundamentals of Soviet history. 

Social revolution comes about as a result of the development of the means of 
production or in standard American English, changes in the technological 
regime. What happens is that an antagonism develops between the new, emerging 
economic relations and the old, static political relations within the 
superstructure of the old society. 

The fundamentality or the mobile aspect of the unity of society is revealed 
in the changes in the means of production. These changes in the means of 
production collide with the static nature of property relations and their political 
forms as the superstructure. This does not mean these are not interactive 
aspects of a totality. 

What is a bureaucracy? Most dictionaries state that bureaucracy "is 
government by many bureaus, administrators or petty officials. 2. the body of officials 
and administrators and concentration of power in the administrative bureaus 
or individual administrator." What is a bureau? A bureau is - in our usage of 
the term, "a division of a government department or an independent 
administrative unit. An agency or office for collecting or distributing news or 
information; coordinating the work of related businesses." (Webster Unabridged 
Dictionary of the English Language).  

Is the bureaucracy the state? No.
Is the bureaucracy the superstructure? No. 
Is the bureaucracy the property relations? No. 

In the language of the past generation of communists (which is limited) is 
the bureaucracy a products of the "economic base of society" or the 
superstructure - in its fundamentality? 

This does not address the issue properly but it is enough to move pass the 
ideologists. Something is always more fundamental in the societal transition or 
we repudiate Marx and all his writings. 

We face enormous political and ideological problems of Marxism in America 
that cannot be won in my lifetime. These problems are part of the formation of 
our working class and on the ideological plane entrenched white chauvinism and 
sixty years of a diet of anti-Sovietism. 


The industrial revolution really began as the result of European landing in 
the Americas and did not come moonwalking out of the English countryside. 

Comrade, can you imagine the significance of transferring the form of wealth 
from the ownership of land to the ownership of gold - what Engels call 
"movable wealth?" This is what really broke up economic feudalism and led to the 
development of heavy manufacturing. Ship building, iron and steel industries and 
the enormously profitable slave trade all developed as means to exploit the 
riches of the Americas or as it was called "the New World." 

The people who were going to be enriched the most by the conquest of the 
Americas were the people driving the process or closest to the process: England, 
France and the Netherlands lead the breakup of feudalism and the development of 
the bourgeois property relations. 

I am deeply aware that this approach runs against the grain of 99% of 
everything a person reads about the development of capitalism, but it is basically 
what Marx states point blank, when he discusses the primitive accumulation of 
capital and the emergence of the "capitalist mode of production." 

I am stating that here is the origin or moment in history where we can talk 
about the evolution of what would become the industrial bureaucracy on a 
planetary scale and it grew out of heavy manufacturing as opposed to the manufacture 
of consumable items for the feudal aristocracy. 

Pardon . . . the concept of "heavy manufacture" versus "light manufacture" 
had to be introduced. 

The bourgeoisie and workers were not the grave digger of feudal economic and 
social relations but the advance of industry and the changes in the form of 
wealth. These formulations have earned me the title of the "unreconstructed 
Stalinists" - although there is nothing in Stalin or Lenin for that matter that 
makes the above formulations. 

I relish in this title because it separates "me" from "them" - the 

Remember the politics and ideology of this thesis: the ideologists say that 
the bureaucracy grows out of the state power as fundamentality and point an 
accusing finger at the Soviet State. The generation of Marxist from which I 
evolved says, "No" - the industrial bureaucracy grows out of the industrial process 
as it emerges from specifically the evolution of heavy manufacture and 

Pardon, if I write in a manner to silence the critics and their rank white 
chauvinist ideological error. And it is an error that is correctable.  

One cannot understand the Soviet bureaucracy without assembling pieces of the 
picture describing the evolution of industrial bureaucracy on a world scale 
and why the genesis of bureaucracy has to be wedded to the "economic base" and 
not the "political superstructure" or as it is called by the ideologists - the 
state as police agency. 

In terms of Soviet history a simple division called the Stalin government and 
the Soviet bureaucracy will get one on their way to understanding. 

Nikita Khrushchev - a puny buffoon of no personal merit, altered world 
history or was rather the person that for a brief moment became the axis that world 
events would become altered. Nikita faced a complexity that was the Stalinist 
government and the Soviet bureaucracy. To confuse the former with the latter 
is a serious political mistake and faulty economic logic. 

On a lighter note, the Bush Jr., is in horrible crises. Tenet is out. He 
should have thrown Rummy overboard. Bush Jr. is not even a good politician and 
would be eaten alive by most Trade Union leaders. Beneath the surface Bush faces 
a crises of communism or a doomed attempt to preserve the unity between the 
productive forces and productive relations by destroying the outdated feudal 
like political and social features of the superstructure in Iraq and the "Middle 
East" in general. Opening the Middle East to speculative capital accelerates 
the crisis. 

Africa is next and not simply because of oil. The wall that has been hit is 
the industrial mode of production with the property relations within. 

Everyone hits the wall at roughly the same time. We are hitting "the wall" 
and Marxist have to describe the moment in history. 

Melvin P. 

More information about the Marxism mailing list