[Marxism] The Chinese Revolution (90 years ago) - theory
Waistline2 at aol.com
Waistline2 at aol.com
Wed Nov 18 15:41:53 MST 2009
You need to be in a real communist collective because your talent is being
wasted on this list.
You do not know it yet but you are going to end up back into Detroit. I am
pissed off because you will not read your own articles. You write all this
stuff and then will not read it. You need to be in the propaganda unit.
Actually a unit called a fraction.
The revolution from feudalism to capitalism was a real revolution in the
material power of production. The real revolution was from manufacture to
industrial production, with the property relations within. The Marxist
ideologues at the back of the curve of the industrial revolution have dominated
the movement and defined the conceptual frameworks. Lenin, Trotsky and Stalin
is the Russianization of Marxism.
This has been our undoing and cause us much grief.
Manufacture is a specific organization or of labor. The property relation
within that has been at work, within a specific organization of labor blinds
the revolutionary to the elementary. No matter how it is explained, at the
end of the day, social revolution comes about because of revolution in the
material power of production. A change in the form of wealth and its
corresponding expression in class cannot produce revolution on its own.
The reason I articulate social revolution from the standpoint of the
material power of productive forces is because it - the material power of
production, is the more mobile aspect of the unity that is mode of production.
Both are mobile as forms of wealth but one is more mobile than the other.
Here is what you wrote in objection: The overture to an era of social
revolution is, as Marx put it, the conflict between the means of production and
the social relations of production-- between the organization of the means
of production in a specific form of
property, and the demands for the reproduction of that specific property
which can no longer be satisfied by the means of production when organized
in that form. Coincidentally, as the opposite identity of this process,
organization of the specific property relations encapsulating production
become an obstacle to the further development of the means of production."
Revolution does not come about as the result of the conflict between means
of production and the social relations of production. Really. Revolution
comes about because of revolution inn the material power of production or the
productive forces. It is precisely the revolution in the productive forces
that sets the stage for the emergence of antagonism between means of
production and social relations.
Marx talks about how the steam engine served as a catalyst for the
revolution in the material power of production. He also describes in detail the
impact of the cotton gin. It is the quantitative addition of a new quality - a
new technology regime, which brings to an end, the intensive and extensive
expansion of production on the old basis. This happens because the new
technological regime is a more efficient form of deployment of human-labor.
The very real conflict you speak of - (between the organization of the
means of production in a specific form of property, and the demands for the
reproduction of that specific property) drives a specific organization of
human labor + machinery + external energy source through all its boundaries of
quantitative expansion. You write that at a certain stage quantitative
expansion of the production forces inhibit and prevent reproduction of the
social relations with the property relation within, in which they have been
at work. Here is how you write this:
"Coincidentally, as the opposite identity of this process, organization of
the specific property relations encapsulating production become an obstacle
to the further development of the means of production."
In the language of Hegelian dialectic quantitative expansion leads to -
produces, quality change or antagonism between the forward advance of
productive forces and stagnate social relations, property. . What causes the
property relation to become an obstacle to the further development of productive
forces is not their quantitative expansion or increase in density.
A new quality or new qualitative definition must enter the process to
produce the material for a leap. By leap is meant "process of transition" or all
the stages of quantitative additions of the new quality that reconfigure
productive forces on a new basis.
This tiny thing called "revolution in the productive forces" is left out in
the "conflict narrative." First, a new quality must be injected into the
existing system of production. If nothing change then nothing changes.
The new quality is a new technology that is the result of human ingenuity.
Change does not occur all at one time. It is the quantitative accumulation
of the new quality - technology regime, which produces the leap.
Marx kept it simple and said the steam engine produces the industrial
revolution. He did not mean the steam engine by itself or the cotton gin by it
self. He meant the underlying new technology regime expressed in/as the
steam engine and the cotton gin.
In the field of production, as social relations, a quantitative increase of
the same thing, or rather the increase in the same configuration of
machinery + labor + energy source, cannot produce a qualitative leap. We have to
explain what causes the leap or transition to a new quality.
Your problem brother is that you will not take serious what you wrote on
the semiconductor industry, which consolidated the leap in my understanding.
The one ingredient left out of this terrific article - brilliant I would
say, is the impact of the technology embodied in the semi-conductor. You
analyzed the semi conductor from inside the process of production rather than
its impact on the existing configuration of production.
I always felt you approached the subject from inside the process because
that is what you do and you do this pretty well. Pardon, while I get
personal. Maybe six or seven years ago we exchanged some writings from Marx Theory
of Surplus Value, Vol 3 I think, on the external collision of opposites and
the emergence of antagonism. What I could not account for is what is it
that drives a "thing" to leap outside the process that birthed it, and stand
in external collision with the very process of its birth?
Well, you know what the capitalist say, a million here and a million there
and you start to get into real money. Well, I thought about this problem
since 1978 when the group I was in did a rather harsh critique of Mao’s
dialectic. I love Mao but . . . whewwwwwwwww,
"On the Correct Handling of Contractions Amongst the People" and "On
Contradiction" did not ascend to the level of the 1939 Soviet Textbook on
Marxist Philosophy. We outgrew the Textbook - which is one of the three books II
have actually read, a little while ago.
You say exactly what the 1939 Textbook says. Conflict creates social
revolution. Well dammit it don’t!
What account for the leap and emergence of antagonism and not just the
sterile conception of an on-going "conflict?"
The modern proletariat of which Marx speaks is the product of two
simultaneous events: revolution in the productive forces and the form of property.
The modern proletariat is modern in relationship to industrial implements
of production, described as cooperation in Capital Vol 1 and proletariat in
regards to the property form. What creates him?
It is the quantitative addition of a new quality to an existing system of
production that transforms a "conflict" into an antagonism.
At least this was my first impression.
The conflict - contradiction, which is the "organization of the specific
property relations encapsulating production" does not become antagonism.
This proposition is specifically what Chairman Mao writes. The conflict
between say the serf and nobility never became antagonistic because it could not.
An existing state of development of production - quality, cannot become
antagonistic to itself, based on an intensive and extensive quantitative
increase of itself.
The addition of a new quality reconfiguring productive forces creates new
classes - forms of class, to utilize the new technology regime. The
application of electricity to the industrial process created the industrial
machinist. The application of the semiconductor to the industrial process create a
class of software workers. These new classes, or rather form of class are
birth in antagonism with the pre-existing system of production.
Contradiction or "the conflict" does not become antagonistic. New classes are birthed
in antagonism. That is contradiction gives way - is superseded, by
antagonism. Conflict remains driving a system through its quantitative boundaries.
In the case of feudalism, we really means the manufacturing process.
Consequently, the previous generations of communists ad Marxist could not
explain the behavior of the industrial proletariat at the front of the
curve. We _ I, felt that imperial bribery of the workers was the problem and
with revolutionary fortitude we could overcome what turned out to be a problem
of productive forces development. Then I started trying to write from the
standpoint of boundaries in the development of the industrial system. The
serf could no more overthrow the system of feudalism than the industrial
workers could over throw the system of industrial organization of labor - with
the property relations within. What overthrows feudalism is the revolution
in productive forces as it creates new classes hostile to the old system
of production and its corresponding property forms.
Read your article on the semiconductor industry backwards, starting at the
last paragraph. Then consider if what you describe is the internal
operation of a new technological regime.
The semiconductor ain’t no modified steam engine.
Now the proletarians in American are not really concerned about all of
this. Their question is what is the next boundary or what do we do now. I tell
them the truth.
"Yesterday, we made money hand over fist. Today we like Brucster the
Rooster, we ain’t what we use to."
Social Revolution is on the agenda and the 1776 are trying to win again."
The dialectic is a bitch. I am not a 1776 guy. I like 1863 a little better
and 1965 better than that. My political life began post 1967.
Comrade D., you have to learn another side of the Chinese Revolution and
write the path of the Third American Revolution. This is no workers
revolution we face but proletarian revolution.
We can fucking lose. This is no damn conflict but antagonism.
Society moves in class antagonism.
This email was cleaned by emailStripper, available for free from
More information about the Marxism