[Marxism] Capitalist contradictions

Waistline2 at aol.com Waistline2 at aol.com
Wed Mar 10 08:56:56 MST 2004


In a message dated 3/10/2004 8:46:07 AM Central Standard Time, lnp3 at panix.com 
writes:
LA Times, March 10, 2004

Is Recovery Without Jobs Now the Norm?

"I'm growing increasingly suspicious that something more fundamental may 
be happening to the job market and the economy," said Mark Zandi, chief 
economist at Economy.com, a research and consulting firm in West 
Chester, Pa.

Most economists agree that the next few months will tell whether there 
has been a temporary or a permanent shift in the relationship between 
economic and job growth. 

The last recession officially ended in November 2001. 

Comment

What Marxists have in advance of the theorists of bourgeois property is a 
conceptual framework to understand the interplay of the evolving technological 
regime as it impacts the material power of production and its organization and 
engagement of real human beings. With very little data - that the bourgeoisie 
collects for us, we can outline broad patterns and general conclusions. 

The issue of the "new class" or "communist class" is not contrived, but a 
material category of real people locked outside of active engagement or a level 
of engagement with the productive forces that allows them to reproduce 
themselves as proletarians.  

A couple of years ago I wrote a piece on Marxmail talking about a report from 
the Ford Motor Company where their leading economist stated society has 
entered a period of "profitless prosperity." 

"Profitless Prosperity" is the exact terms or concept used. Some Marxists 
have tried to formulate this as "increasingly valueless production," or the 
unraveling of the commodity form on the basis of the revolution in the 
technological regime. The world historic impulse for the overthrow of all property - under 
conditions of bourgeois property, is sharply expressed not on the basis of 
the struggle between the social forms of the basic class that actively engage 
production (employed workers and actively deployed capital) but by the beginning 
formation of classes outside of engagement of production. 

This theory proposition has immense importance for insurgent Marxism and 
communism. Engels observed this mass of poverty stricken humanity as they were 
being transformed into modern proletarians. We are observing this poverty 
stricken mass as they are being detached from active engagement with production. Here 
is the revolutionary meaning of Marx famous script, 

"From each according to their ability to each according to their need." 

On the banner of Socialism is "He who does not work shall not eat."  The 
right and entitlement to labor was guaranteed by Soviet Power - something 
bourgeois property could never do. 

The contradiction of bourgeois production is passing over into antagonism. 
The bourgeoisie has hit the historical wall. This is not a partial crisis of 
overproduction where a mass of commodities can be destroyed and the means of 
production engaged. Nor can this be characterized as a symptom of the general 
crisis of capitalism facing a different form of property in the shape of Soviet 
power. 

Communist class, "new class," "the great unwashed in the technological era," 
"marginalized workers," "prison proletarians," "proletarian bums in 
proletarian slums," - not matter what we call this new configuration of society, 
everyone - including the bourgeoisie, does not deny its existence. 

Why not call it what it is? 

The communist class. They are compelled by the logic of their social position 
to demand distribution of social products outside the buying and selling of 
labor power. This is so because they must eat, be clothed, secure shelter, 
education, medical service and transportation. They need tickets to the theater, 
cell phone cards, the latest popular CD's and a free lunch. 

They need communism not socialism. 


Melvin P. 




More information about the Marxism mailing list