[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 
this process. 
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 
production process. 
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 
Melvin P. 

More information about the Marxism mailing list