[Marxism] Why didn't Lenin go capitalist-Marx political
Waistline2 at aol.com
Waistline2 at aol.com
Tue Jun 8 13:39:30 MDT 2004
In a message dated 6/8/2004 1:03:19 PM Central Standard Time,
cbrown at michiganlegal.org writes:
CB: I said "negation of capitalist anarchy of production" not "capitalist
production" . I am referring to the opposition between "anarchy" and
Here I use "negation" as simply "get rid of", replace.
MP: Sorry. I took it to mean a philosophic concept as used in the writings of
Marx and Engels, implying the process of sublating. Primitive communism is
negated by private property as class antagonism and the negation of the negation
in the form of communist society abolishes all property as class antagonism
by abolishing its last form - bourgeois property.
Marx describes the process of the negation of the negation, in respects to
property as class antagonism as requiring a transition whose political content
is the dictatorship of the proletariat. The impact of property is not abolished
at a stroke but requires a more or less lengthy period.
CB: The bureaucracy's commands would be ignored if not backed by the state
with its repressive apparatus. The bureaucracy is nothing without the state.
MP: I believe the point was that the industrial bureaucracy does not grow out
of the state. The industrial bureaucracy grows of industry. I agree. The
state as a product of class antagonism by definition is the armed protector of the
The fact of the matter is that the bureaucracy is the most dangerous enemy
of the social revolution in all countries during all periods of human
history after the division of labor has been realized in society.
CB: Do you get this from Marx ? Where does Marx discuss "bureaucracy" ?
Where is it in the fundamentals of his political economy.
MP: Marx most famous statement on the essence of the question of bureaucracy
as the material organization of a distinct system of production - say the
feudal bureaucracy, is in his the Introduction to "A Contribution to A critique of
CB: "The social revolution" is not some non-human thing that creates
revolutionaries. The social revolution is a way of referring to certain
activities of people. Those who carry out the social revolution are (social)
revolutionaries. Proto-social revolutionary activities by people prepare
the ground for direct social revolutionary activities by people.
MP: Actually, Marx proves that the social revolution takes place in the mode
of production as expressed in a ceratin stage of development of the productive
forces or the material power of production. Engels and Marx says point blank
that we presuppose the existence of people as the basis of history. It is not
the consiousness of men that determine their being but their being that
determines their consciousness.
The real issue is the revolution in the technological regime taking place
CB: "this process " or "economic logic" is not an abstract thing in the
air.Its content is people acting. Gold does not ascend on its own. Its
ascension is constituted by people's conduct and exchange with each other.
In thissense, it _was_ the activity of a class , the bourgeoisie, that
contributed to undermining feudalism.
Perhaps you mean that the bourgeois were not consciously trying to make a
revolution by their activities with gold, etc.
MP: Actually, what was meant was what was stated. It is the change in the
form of wealth from landed property to what Engles called "movable property" that
undermined economic feudalism and accelerated the exchange of commodities.
More information about the Marxism