[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." 
(end quotre) 
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 mailing list