[Marxism] Marx Theory and the Workers
Waistline2 at aol.com
Waistline2 at aol.com
Thu May 13 10:00:48 MDT 2004
To limit Marx method, approach and conceptual framework to his exposition is
a mistake. Exposition by definition is static or schematic, unless of course
someone has discovered a method that allows the individual or class to
instantly assimilate the totality of a subject (process). We assimilate Marx
conclusions and conceptual framework in a dogmatic manner with creativity evolving much
later. Then we are challenged to present the conceptual framework on the
basis of our existing state of development of the material power of the productive
forces, with an eye to how people actually think these out.
Marx spent a lifetime changing and improving his exposition so that the
workers would understand the "science of society."
No society has ever been overthrown by the social and economic formations
within the system. Society has always been overthrown by something external to
the existing economy or economic formation. The basic reason workers in the
American Union did not overthrow bourgeois property is because they couldn't. The
reason is not the totality of all our subjective errors in history but rather
because we are confronting law systems that cannot be changed and altered
simply because we think things are "bad."
The struggle between those most intimately connected to the means of
production - in the feudal period of history, are the serf and nobility as class
formations. The struggle between the serf and nobility drove a qualitative stage of
history along quantitatively. But it did not and could not put an end to that
qualitative stage of history . . . nor did the serf and nobility create that
stage of history. The quality being spoken of is the landed property relation
as the primary form of wealth. Marx was absolutely correct in stating that the
struggle between the exploited and the exploiters has driven history through
its quantitative stages of development.
During the unfolding of history a historical period emerges, where by "hook"
or "crook" an external force comes into play to begin the destruction of the
existing society. Sometimes this force is an enemy army that is remotely
created and developed by new means of production and sometimes it is something that
is created within the existing society.
The struggle between the workers and capitalist during the past century in
America drove our society through its quantitative expansion of the quality
called the industrial system. This struggle was by definition for a more equitable
share of the social product and for the extension of political liberties.
This is the meaning of reform. This is not the inner meaning of class struggle or
more accurately society moving in class antagonism.
The struggle between the owning class and the exploited class, for any
historical period, has driven forward and accelerated the development of the means
of production. When our workers won higher wages this meant they consumed more.
Greater consumption broadens the market. Broadening the market meant fiercer
competition for the market and greater rationalization of labor and means of
production. This created the conditions to restrict the market as less workers
begin to create a great mass of commodities than what was required yesterday.
More and more modern means of production are created that are "labor saving"
or as Engels called it "labor wasting" machinery. Engels noted very earlier
that labor saving devices created unemployment and then permanent unemployment.
What brought the last period of history to an end was not the existence of
massive unemployment but the injection into the production process of computers,
digitalized production process and advanced robotics. These ingredients bring
to an end the quantitative expansion of the quality called industrial society
in the same way that the steam engine brought to an end the system of
These qualitatively new productive forces and the new classes they are
creating are outside the existing economic and social system. The existing economic
and social system is not an "ism" or capitalism or more accurately the
bourgeois property relations, but the industrial system in its economic and social
relations. The old society is being destroyed by an objective law and nothing
can stop this destruction. Our diverse peoples are going to have to decide what
kind of society will replace the old.
The destruction of the old society means the destruction of the existing
economy, which is the thing that society is built upon. The economy and our
society is built upon an industrial economy with certain laws Marx outline in
Capital. The invasion of the computer and advanced robotics is destroying those laws
in the same way that the steam engine began the destruction of the laws
peculiar to manufacture. Marx gives the most breath taking and detailed account of
Marx description of the process makes it clear that industry did not come
from the industrialists, but rather arose from the manufacturing class. The
industrialist did not fly to earth from out of space. Industry grew step by step
and stage by stage within the manufacturing process. Then a certain leap began
(at a certain stage in the development of the material power of production it
comes into conflict with the existing society). The leap is a period of
transition and not a magically qualitative jump from one state of being to another.
During the leap from manufacture to industry the invention of the steam engine
took place and suddenly industry had a stable energy source. As a result
industry rapidly replaced manufacture. A certain group of manufacturers created
industry, just as a certain group of industrialist set the stage for the
emergence of the financial bourgeoisie.
The revolution we face today is more complex than simply the overthrow of one
class. We are talking about the reorganization of society itself to conform
to advanced robotics and computers. Virtually everyone in American society
understands - on one level or another, that computers and advanced robotics change
all the rules. In this regard the thinking of the people of America is
outstripping that of the Marxists.
Society is straining to reorganize itself on the basis of computers and
advanced robotics but it cannot do so because the property relations block its full
implementation. The private property relations prevents the development of
and implementation of advanced robotics to its fullest extent. That is to say
the private ownership of socially necessary means of production drives the cycle
of reproduction based on profitability to the capitalist.
Marx called the bourgeoisie the involuntary promoter of industrial
development and technological implementation because he is driven in his cycles of
reproduction by profit.
Consequently, a spontaneous reaction by various sectors of society, from
various view points, is destroying the society created during the industrial era
and this most certainly includes the destruction of the education system or the
industrial form of education.
The old class of unemployed and permanently unemployed are recast by the
qualitative changes in the technological regime and cannot be looked at as they
existed within the boundary of the framework of the industrial system. Rather
they have to be measured as they exist in relationship to this stage of
development of the material power of production. Hence the "new class" or "communist
The financial capitalist of yesteryear cannot be looked at as it existed
within the boundary of the industrial system. Hence, the rise to domination of the
world total social capital . . . speculative capital. The new proletariat in
all its features is not the only class attacking the society. Different
sectors of capital are attacking the society from different vantage points and in
different directs but for the same reason.
For the past twenty years voices from every section of our working class have
attacked the speculator who makes absurd amounts of money totally divorces
from producing any real material wealth. The speculator is securely outside the
When we communist workers talk about the destruction of American society and
the dialectic of change, we are saying that this destruction is coming about
as a result of spontaneous changes in the industrial mode of production which
in turn drives the spontaneous activity of practically every social grouping
and every class. The various social groupings and classes may not be fully aware
of what is taking place but everyone is saying, "We have to change this
because everything is being changed due to technology."
When fundamental things change, everything dependent upon them must in turn
change. Such is the law of life. Change does not take place all at one time and
the results of change are not always direct and immediate. Change is by our
new definitions interactive, but we have to make sense of this interactivity
and not "get lost in the sauce." Scientific thinking demand that we find and
isolate the motivation for such change, place this change in a proper context and
make an estimation of the impact and consequence of fundamental change in the
mode of production or the material power of the productive forces.
The struggle in our society today is different from the era of industrial
upsurge of the workers to reform the system and even that of the African American
peoples noble struggle to reform the system in their flavor/favor. Today we
are facing Marx meaning of the class struggle. This class struggle or society
moving in class antagonism emerges as a result of changes in the mode of
More information about the Marxism