JazzRemington
7th May 2009, 04:50
For the present semester at school, I've been doing an indepenent research project combining aspects of sociologist Max Weber with Karl Marx. Below are some points that I feel are most important to the work. P.S., sorry for the length.
1
We all know the story. We've read the history books written by the great political scientists who posit their theories that justify the present conditions, wishing to conserve the existing status quo. The pride of democracy and abstract ideal types existing somewhere beyond the heavens in Greek philosophy was the logical outcome of a society organized in autonomous, self-sustaining city-states where a minority took part in the pleasures of power to dominate a large majority who were not part of this proto-civil society. Those who were of greatest influence, who successfully made the linguistic leap from ordinary language to the strange and alien world of Philosophy, claimed to have some knowledge that was imparted to them because they, and only they could understand the workings of the world through thought alone.
Our political scientists would have us believe in a mystical time period where Man was in a state of nature, at war with each other as individuals who had nothing but freedoms and no rights against others. They organized, by way of a voluntary contract, into a commonwealth with an absolute sovereign where the subjects had no rights and the sovereign nearly all. Or maybe the subjects have all the rights but the sovereign only with the general defense of the whole from within and without. So maybe we are all together in chains, though we are truly free from the violence of each other. They would have us believe all of this occurred during a period that probably never existed. To wit, a fairy tale.
But we conceive of our world as a material world, where we base our ideas firmly in the ground of the real, material, sensual world. Wherever the wind-blown wisp we call imagination lands, we must always make sure that it does so on the side of skeptical, materialistic empiricism. This is not to say, of course, that things that are not material have no say in the world. World history tells us that many wars were fought over many things, including honor or patriotism or justice. But these to must always be met with the same skepticism as anything else.
6
The class situation of the proletariat is one of less likelihood than other class situations to obtain goods and services or have a high quality of external life conditions. This is so because they have no control over the means of production in any given economic relation. The sale of his labor power ensures this. He belongs to a class that is dominated by the bourgeoisie, who will use every means available, legal or otherwise, to extract from them the highest rate of surplus value.
The proletariat seeks to enhance his class situation by securing shorter work-days, better pay, and all-around better working conditions. This has been done by the use of strikes, collective bargaining, or any other means deemed necessary. But this can only go so far, as the relation between the proletarian and the bourgeoisie is zero-sum: the proletarian gain as the bourgeoisie lose, and vise versa.
Our proletariat is something else, also. He is alienated. He is alienated from the product of his labor and his labor has become something above him and beyond his control. Because he has no control over the means of production, he has no control over where the products of his labor are distributed. They are distributed in some strange and new way where he is not in direct control but some other equally strange force is – the market. Instead of being direct distribution, the process is rationalized and forced into a process involving a scientific determination of distribution. He now has become disinterested in his product for its own sake; he now is only interested in the product to the extent that it provides him with a means to satisfy his labor.
Even if the worker is not happy, with any particular relationship he is in, he must still sell his labor power and thus give up control over the means of production in yet another relationship. He must still make sure that the gnawing hunger of his labor is quenched, for his labor haunts him like a dead albatross hanging around his neck, weighing him down with constant reminders of its own selfish needs.
8
The context of the emergence of these classes is capitalism. We can expresses capitalism in the following formula M-(CC+VC)...L...C-M”. That is, any dominant economic system where production of a good or service follows the general pattern of using money to purchase capital (constant and variable) used in the labor process to produce a commodity (that is “pregnant” with the surplus value generated by labor) that is sold for more money. The type of government or the way the State is organized makes no difference to us regarding the above formula: any economy that follows said general formula is capitalism, regardless of the State or government, or who controls the means of production (whether individuals, corporations, or the State).
9
The State is an institution that serves the needs of the dominant ruling class. It does so because it can enjoy a monopoly on the legitimate use of violence. The State developed out of the agricultural revolution, when the (then small) surplus produced required management by a group of people who did not work to produce the surplus. Whether initiated through violence or vote, the State soon became an end in itself. Thousands of years of support and theory ensure that its basis is never questioned. From the earliest philosopher-priest, to contemporary political scientists, all ideas about the State only support the State as a given, eternal truth.
Originally, the ruling class and the State were one and the same. That is to say, the great military conquerers of ancient Sumer had direct and everlasting control over the State, they were the State. This was so from ancient Sumer to the rise of feudalism in Europe and Japan. But soon there was a schism between the ruling class and the State. The rise of the middle class in the late middle ages ensured a new ruling class who did not require becoming the State, but rather a State that would respond to their needs. The result was the creation of a State that was not comprised of the members of the ruling class, but was comprised of members who would support the general interests of the ruling class. Even in situations where the State acts against the ruling class, it is only in the interest of preserving existing social conditions.
The authority of the State is related to power, though the limitation of dominance is spread out over society. To wit, authority ensures that the State has dominance over the wider society. Several types of authority exist in history. The earliest of which is possibly charismatic. The original priests and religious leaders were able to tap into the ignorance of the masses and sway them to the idea that “the gods” wanted these people in charge. Legal authority posits an authority that is beyond the grasp of humans. It could only develop by the severing of the ruling class from the State, which allowed for the creation of laws that all were subject to – even those who comprise the State. Legal authority is based on the appeal to a set of rules that are presented as being the logical outcome of the same basic premises used to justify the State. Traditional authority is derived from an appeal to tradition, the way things have always been done. We should submit to the terrible rule of the State because we have always submitted to some form of authority – it is natural.
The idea is that those who make up the State are indeed a special group of people, who are the only ones wise and intelligent enough to make the important decisions that affect everyone. But such logic is self-defeating. To be a doctor, one must have at least 11 years of training (8 college, 3 residency) and pass numerous tests and exams. To be lawyer, one must have at least 7 years of training (4 undergrad, 2 or 3 graduate) and pass two tests. The point being that every occupation in society that provides for its smooth functioning require years of training and education. What sort of training does one need to be a politician? What long years of education, exams, license hearings, and training does a politician to stand before the huddle masses and proclaim intimate truths, that he is necessary because they – though equally uneducated and uncouth – are too stupid to run their own lives? Further, without garbage-men there would be no garbage pickup. Without janitors there would be no cleaning. Without medical scientists there would be no medicine. What would be missing without politicians?
14
The failure of all past attempts at moving past capitalism have proven to be disastrous for the working class. The early successes of the Russian revolution, with the rise of the autonomous worker's councils, the only true and logical vehicle for proletarian power, were crushed under Lenin's bureaucracy. The end result was the creation of a massive, nightmarish bureaucracy that acted as a placeholder for the bourgeoisie until the time was right for their ascension to power and dominance. The economic relations of capitalism was artificially created by the State with the entirety of society acting the role of temporary proletariat and the State as the capitalist. Under the guise of emancipation, the State swallowed whole all attempts at expressing proletarian power.
The main failure was the idea that a society that is to be built on massive surplus could be built atop a backwards, agricultural society. The move beyond capitalism requires a massive surplus capable of being generated from technological innovations. To wit, each new mode of production requires the existence of a previous mode of production to build upon. Russia at the time was largely agricultural with little industry. Lenin believed that it was possible to artificially induce the material conditions of capitalism by force through bureaucratic management of society. The end result was a mode of production was organized and functioned as a capitalist economy.
The insistence of Marxist-Leninists on a centralized dictatorship of the proletariat and on a vanguard that will show the flock The Way to the Promised Land is the poison that destroyed the international workers' movements. Rapid developments in technology allowing for decentralized production and distribution is the basis for a decentralized dictatorship of the proletariat – autonomous, federated workers councils. The workers councils are the natural product of the workers' movement – they are created by workers and not on behalf of them; the failure of all vanguardist movements is the failure to realize the workers movement must be the product of the workers themselves and not the product of power-hungry bureaucrats seeking to recreate the conditions of exploitation.
1
We all know the story. We've read the history books written by the great political scientists who posit their theories that justify the present conditions, wishing to conserve the existing status quo. The pride of democracy and abstract ideal types existing somewhere beyond the heavens in Greek philosophy was the logical outcome of a society organized in autonomous, self-sustaining city-states where a minority took part in the pleasures of power to dominate a large majority who were not part of this proto-civil society. Those who were of greatest influence, who successfully made the linguistic leap from ordinary language to the strange and alien world of Philosophy, claimed to have some knowledge that was imparted to them because they, and only they could understand the workings of the world through thought alone.
Our political scientists would have us believe in a mystical time period where Man was in a state of nature, at war with each other as individuals who had nothing but freedoms and no rights against others. They organized, by way of a voluntary contract, into a commonwealth with an absolute sovereign where the subjects had no rights and the sovereign nearly all. Or maybe the subjects have all the rights but the sovereign only with the general defense of the whole from within and without. So maybe we are all together in chains, though we are truly free from the violence of each other. They would have us believe all of this occurred during a period that probably never existed. To wit, a fairy tale.
But we conceive of our world as a material world, where we base our ideas firmly in the ground of the real, material, sensual world. Wherever the wind-blown wisp we call imagination lands, we must always make sure that it does so on the side of skeptical, materialistic empiricism. This is not to say, of course, that things that are not material have no say in the world. World history tells us that many wars were fought over many things, including honor or patriotism or justice. But these to must always be met with the same skepticism as anything else.
6
The class situation of the proletariat is one of less likelihood than other class situations to obtain goods and services or have a high quality of external life conditions. This is so because they have no control over the means of production in any given economic relation. The sale of his labor power ensures this. He belongs to a class that is dominated by the bourgeoisie, who will use every means available, legal or otherwise, to extract from them the highest rate of surplus value.
The proletariat seeks to enhance his class situation by securing shorter work-days, better pay, and all-around better working conditions. This has been done by the use of strikes, collective bargaining, or any other means deemed necessary. But this can only go so far, as the relation between the proletarian and the bourgeoisie is zero-sum: the proletarian gain as the bourgeoisie lose, and vise versa.
Our proletariat is something else, also. He is alienated. He is alienated from the product of his labor and his labor has become something above him and beyond his control. Because he has no control over the means of production, he has no control over where the products of his labor are distributed. They are distributed in some strange and new way where he is not in direct control but some other equally strange force is – the market. Instead of being direct distribution, the process is rationalized and forced into a process involving a scientific determination of distribution. He now has become disinterested in his product for its own sake; he now is only interested in the product to the extent that it provides him with a means to satisfy his labor.
Even if the worker is not happy, with any particular relationship he is in, he must still sell his labor power and thus give up control over the means of production in yet another relationship. He must still make sure that the gnawing hunger of his labor is quenched, for his labor haunts him like a dead albatross hanging around his neck, weighing him down with constant reminders of its own selfish needs.
8
The context of the emergence of these classes is capitalism. We can expresses capitalism in the following formula M-(CC+VC)...L...C-M”. That is, any dominant economic system where production of a good or service follows the general pattern of using money to purchase capital (constant and variable) used in the labor process to produce a commodity (that is “pregnant” with the surplus value generated by labor) that is sold for more money. The type of government or the way the State is organized makes no difference to us regarding the above formula: any economy that follows said general formula is capitalism, regardless of the State or government, or who controls the means of production (whether individuals, corporations, or the State).
9
The State is an institution that serves the needs of the dominant ruling class. It does so because it can enjoy a monopoly on the legitimate use of violence. The State developed out of the agricultural revolution, when the (then small) surplus produced required management by a group of people who did not work to produce the surplus. Whether initiated through violence or vote, the State soon became an end in itself. Thousands of years of support and theory ensure that its basis is never questioned. From the earliest philosopher-priest, to contemporary political scientists, all ideas about the State only support the State as a given, eternal truth.
Originally, the ruling class and the State were one and the same. That is to say, the great military conquerers of ancient Sumer had direct and everlasting control over the State, they were the State. This was so from ancient Sumer to the rise of feudalism in Europe and Japan. But soon there was a schism between the ruling class and the State. The rise of the middle class in the late middle ages ensured a new ruling class who did not require becoming the State, but rather a State that would respond to their needs. The result was the creation of a State that was not comprised of the members of the ruling class, but was comprised of members who would support the general interests of the ruling class. Even in situations where the State acts against the ruling class, it is only in the interest of preserving existing social conditions.
The authority of the State is related to power, though the limitation of dominance is spread out over society. To wit, authority ensures that the State has dominance over the wider society. Several types of authority exist in history. The earliest of which is possibly charismatic. The original priests and religious leaders were able to tap into the ignorance of the masses and sway them to the idea that “the gods” wanted these people in charge. Legal authority posits an authority that is beyond the grasp of humans. It could only develop by the severing of the ruling class from the State, which allowed for the creation of laws that all were subject to – even those who comprise the State. Legal authority is based on the appeal to a set of rules that are presented as being the logical outcome of the same basic premises used to justify the State. Traditional authority is derived from an appeal to tradition, the way things have always been done. We should submit to the terrible rule of the State because we have always submitted to some form of authority – it is natural.
The idea is that those who make up the State are indeed a special group of people, who are the only ones wise and intelligent enough to make the important decisions that affect everyone. But such logic is self-defeating. To be a doctor, one must have at least 11 years of training (8 college, 3 residency) and pass numerous tests and exams. To be lawyer, one must have at least 7 years of training (4 undergrad, 2 or 3 graduate) and pass two tests. The point being that every occupation in society that provides for its smooth functioning require years of training and education. What sort of training does one need to be a politician? What long years of education, exams, license hearings, and training does a politician to stand before the huddle masses and proclaim intimate truths, that he is necessary because they – though equally uneducated and uncouth – are too stupid to run their own lives? Further, without garbage-men there would be no garbage pickup. Without janitors there would be no cleaning. Without medical scientists there would be no medicine. What would be missing without politicians?
14
The failure of all past attempts at moving past capitalism have proven to be disastrous for the working class. The early successes of the Russian revolution, with the rise of the autonomous worker's councils, the only true and logical vehicle for proletarian power, were crushed under Lenin's bureaucracy. The end result was the creation of a massive, nightmarish bureaucracy that acted as a placeholder for the bourgeoisie until the time was right for their ascension to power and dominance. The economic relations of capitalism was artificially created by the State with the entirety of society acting the role of temporary proletariat and the State as the capitalist. Under the guise of emancipation, the State swallowed whole all attempts at expressing proletarian power.
The main failure was the idea that a society that is to be built on massive surplus could be built atop a backwards, agricultural society. The move beyond capitalism requires a massive surplus capable of being generated from technological innovations. To wit, each new mode of production requires the existence of a previous mode of production to build upon. Russia at the time was largely agricultural with little industry. Lenin believed that it was possible to artificially induce the material conditions of capitalism by force through bureaucratic management of society. The end result was a mode of production was organized and functioned as a capitalist economy.
The insistence of Marxist-Leninists on a centralized dictatorship of the proletariat and on a vanguard that will show the flock The Way to the Promised Land is the poison that destroyed the international workers' movements. Rapid developments in technology allowing for decentralized production and distribution is the basis for a decentralized dictatorship of the proletariat – autonomous, federated workers councils. The workers councils are the natural product of the workers' movement – they are created by workers and not on behalf of them; the failure of all vanguardist movements is the failure to realize the workers movement must be the product of the workers themselves and not the product of power-hungry bureaucrats seeking to recreate the conditions of exploitation.