Question About Marxism

[emma_goldman]

Can someone explain what this means or else their thoughts and comments. Thanks. :D

"In bourgeois society capital is independent and has individuality,
while the living person is dependent and has no individuality."

[EusebioScrib]

Capital rules over everything and determines all conditions. Capital becomes the "law of motion" in society. The individual has no say in his condition, he must always be subject to the "laws of motion" and is compelled to work and conform to society in order to live.

I think that's what it's saying...

[Poum_1936]

I dont agree with the previous posters post.


Capital becomes the "law of motion" in society. The individual has no say in his condition, he must always be subject to the "laws of motion"

Kinda seems like there is no escape. Its just a vicious circle.

Could you provide more than just the single sentence?

[Hit The North]

Originally posted by [email protected] 28 2006, 02:48 PM
I dont agree with the previous posters post.


Capital becomes the "law of motion" in society. The individual has no say in his condition, he must always be subject to the "laws of motion"

Kinda seems like there is no escape. Its just a vicious circle.

Could you provide more than just the single sentence?
I think Eusebio is spot on. Marx is describing the condition of workers under capitalism. This doesn't preclude the idea that capitalism can be smashed and thus releasing the worker from the tyranny of capital.

Obviously.

[Si Pinto]

Originally posted by [email protected] 28 2006, 01:48 PM
Kinda seems like there is no escape. Its just a vicious circle.

That's the point my friend, it is a vicious circle!!

[Hit The North]

Originally posted by Si Pinto+Jun 28 2006, 04:55 PM--> (Si Pinto @ Jun 28 2006, 04:55 PM)
[email protected] 28 2006, 01:48 PM
Kinda seems like there is no escape. Its just a vicious circle.

That's the point my friend, it is a vicious circle!! [/b]
Unless you look again dialectically and then you'll discover that the circle is in fact a spiral.

Or whatever. :blink: :D

[More Fire for the People]

"In bourgeois society capital is independent and has individuality,
while the living person is dependent and has no individuality."
'Capital' has become the ideal, the independent 'thing' of existence. Those that posses capital live in independence of everything but their slaves. The proletariat and its allied social groups have no 'individual' existence in comparison to that of the capitalists. Work here, do that. Live there, fuck this.

[Marion]

Originally posted by Hopscotch [email protected] 28 2006, 05:31 PM

"In bourgeois society capital is independent and has individuality,
while the living person is dependent and has no individuality."
'Capital' has become the ideal, the independent 'thing' of existence. Those that posses capital live in independence of everything but their slaves. The proletariat and its allied social groups have no 'individual' existence in comparison to that of the capitalists. Work here, do that. Live there, fuck this.
Not sure to the extent that you're merely interpreting the original quote and to what extent you're putting forward your own definition. Anyway, you raise some interesting points.

To what extent does it make sense to speak of capital as a "thing" (even in inverted commas) that people can possess? Obviously money does exist, but does it not make more sense to speak of capitalism, and of capitalism as being a social relationship? After all, money is relatively irrelevant in and of itself, what is important is the control that it enables and this is a social relationship. It is this social control (rather than capital as a "thing") that I think you quite rightly refer to in your final comments when you comment about capitalism meaning you're forced to "work here, do that" etc.

You interpret the passage as saying that "those that posses capital live in independence of everything but their slaves". I'm not sure that the passage can be personified in such a way. Presuming its useful to talk about "capital" (I'm not sure it is, as stated above, but for the sake of argument...), I possess capital. You possess capital. Everyone possesses some form of capital. Sure, some possess more than others, but everyone pretty much has some of it. With regards to those who possess more than others, are they really independent? Marx refered in one of his early works to alienation being a general human condition under capitalism (i.e. even those who "possess capital" cannot really live in independence as they are alienated). Is Marx wrong (and he is often enough on other things)? If not, then how do we square the original passage with it?

Your comment/interpretation that the working-class has "no 'individual' existence in comparison to that of the capitalists" is very interesting. If the passage is asserting this (and I'd agree with you that it is) then how do people ever manage to struggle against capitalism? Are people really "dependent" upon capitalism and have "no individuality"? Can people not act against and impact upon capitalism? If so, can capitalism really be independent of working-class action?

Just some initital ideas I'm throwing out - don't feel obliged to answer them all!

[Hit The North]

To what extent does it make sense to speak of capital as a "thing" (even in inverted commas) that people can possess? Obviously money does exist, but does it not make more sense to speak of capitalism, and of capitalism as being a social relationship? After all, money is relatively irrelevant in and of itself, what is important is the control that it enables and this is a social relationship.

This is the point that Marx is making. He's referring to reification which can be defined as the act (or result of the act) of transforming human properties, relations and actions into properties, relations and actions of man-produced things which have become independent (and which are imagined as originally indpendent) of man and govern his life.

Reification is the result of the commodification of human relations and is seen as a special form of alienation characteristic of capitalist society.


Your comment/interpretation that the working-class has "no 'individual' existence in comparison to that of the capitalists" is very interesting. If the passage is asserting this (and I'd agree with you that it is) then how do people ever manage to struggle against capitalism? Are people really "dependent" upon capitalism and have "no individuality"? Can people not act against and impact upon capitalism? If so, can capitalism really be independent of working-class action?


Marx isn't saying this is really the case - however, it does take on a reality at the level of appearence in the minds of both capitalists and workers. In other words it becomes one of the central tenents of bourgeoise ideology. It doesn't prevent workers from resisting their exploitation under capitalism but its acceptance does limit the extent of workers struggle. It's the job of revolutionaries to tear down the walls of illusion.

[Marion]

Originally posted by Citizen [email protected] 30 2006, 10:49 AM
This is the point that Marx is making. He's referring to reification which can be defined as the act (or result of the act) of transforming human properties, relations and actions into properties, relations and actions of man-produced things which have become independent (and which are imagined as originally indpendent) of man and govern his life.

Reification is the result of the commodification of human relations and is seen as a special form of alienation characteristic of capitalist society.
Yep, definitely agree with what you're saying about reification and its overall importance (particularly stressed by the early Marx).

If we agree that it is vital that we view capital as a social relation rather than a thing this raises a number of questions for much interpretation of Marx.

So, my next set of questions would be:

1) If capital is really about a social relationship, does this mean that the working class is inherently part of "capital" itself as they partake in this social relationship?

2) If the working class is part of this social relationship, to what extent is the development of capitalism driven by the (so far unsuccessful) attempts of the working class to get out of this relationship or, conversely, to what extent is it driven by the internal laws of capitalism?

3) Rephrasing slightly the above point: If capitalism is pretty much driven by the internal laws of capitalism (as many on the left claim) does it make sense to talk of capital as a social relationship at all?

4) If capitalism is driven by responses to working class developments, is the more traditional view of the working class as the victims of capitalism superceded by one stressing how the working class has power and potential of its own?

Basically I'm playing around with a few ideas from the likes of John Holloway to try and work out my own views on things, so would welcome any comments you may have.

[Hit The North]

Originally posted by Marion+Jun 30 2006, 01:29 PM--> (Marion @ Jun 30 2006, 01:29 PM)
Citizen [email protected] 30 2006, 10:49 AM
This is the point that Marx is making. He's referring to reification which can be defined as the act (or result of the act) of transforming human properties, relations and actions into properties, relations and actions of man-produced things which have become independent (and which are imagined as originally indpendent) of man and govern his life.

Reification is the result of the commodification of human relations and is seen as a special form of alienation characteristic of capitalist society.
Yep, definitely agree with what you're saying about reification and its overall importance (particularly stressed by the early Marx).

If we agree that it is vital that we view capital as a social relation rather than a thing this raises a number of questions for much interpretation of Marx.

So, my next set of questions would be:

1) If capital is really about a social relationship, does this mean that the working class is inherently part of "capital" itself as they partake in this social relationship?

2) If the working class is part of this social relationship, to what extent is the development of capitalism driven by the (so far unsuccessful) attempts of the working class to get out of this relationship or, conversely, to what extent is it driven by the internal laws of capitalism?

3) Rephrasing slightly the above point: If capitalism is pretty much driven by the internal laws of capitalism (as many on the left claim) does it make sense to talk of capital as a social relationship at all?

4) If capitalism is driven by responses to working class developments, is the more traditional view of the working class as the victims of capitalism superceded by one stressing how the working class has power and potential of its own?

Basically I'm playing around with a few ideas from the likes of John Holloway to try and work out my own views on things, so would welcome any comments you may have. [/b]
There are some interesting questions there.

I won't take them individually but I think, yes, capital has to be seen as a relationship, albeit one where it plays the dominant role.

Capitalism should be seen as a contradictory unity. Unified in that the fundamental relations of production produce a specific mode of production with attendent power relations which are expressed through legal and ideological forms. Contradictory because capitalism emerges from the fundamentally antagonistic relationship between capital and labour.

There's a strong element of dependency here. Capital cannot be created without labour power, so the bourgeosie are reliant upon their ability to force the proletariate to acquiese to their own exploitation. On the other hand, within capitalist relations of production, the proletatriat is dependent upon the bourgeoisie in order to make a living for themselves and their families. In other words, they are compelled to acquiese to their own exploitation.

Bourgeois ideology tends to focus on this element of co-dependence and weave it into a myth of inter-class unity - the most visible manifestation of this being nationalism (and, latterly, social democracy).

The fact that exploitation is often hidden means that workers, unconscious of the process, can be won to an identification with their exploiters.

On the question of what conditions social change in capitalist society we do need to examine the 'internal laws of capitalism' but also appreciate that worker's power exerts a contradictory pull on this. In other words, despite Capital dominating over labour, the capitalist class is not at liberty to shape the society exactly in the way it wishes, according to it's own internal logic. In any particular era the balance of class forces will have a decisive impact on the direction society goes in.

[Marion]

Cheers for taking the time to reply in such detail - most appreciated.

A small query: do you think capitalism only emerges from the antagonistic relationship between capital and labour as a singular historical event or would you say that as capital as a whole is a social relation it is constantly being recreated and thus that capital is continually being remade or emerging as a struggle between capital and labour? I'm guessing the latter, as otherwise it would be hard for you to argue that workers can still exert a contradictory pull over capitalist laws.

If it is the latter, and I may have interpreted things wrongly, then where does this dynamic constant re-emerging of capital with its constant antagonism fit with the more static "unified" view you give? Is it enough to say it is "contradictory"? Is there any way of combining the two?

I think we agree that there are ebbs and flows in working class activity. However, an interesting question is how capital develops. When new developments happen in capitalism is it the result of capital as a creative force coming up with new ideas for exploitation? Or is it that capital has to react to new developments among the working class? As an example, was something like Keynesianism the result of capitalist desires for more money or was it a defensive tactic (harnessing pay to productivity) to save capitalism from working class wage claims? Was, for example, Marx correct when he said "It would be possible to write quite a history of the inventions made since 1830, for the sole purpose of supplying capital with weapons against the revolts of the working class"?

[Hit The North]

A small query: do you think capitalism only emerges from the antagonistic relationship between capital and labour as a singular historical event

No


or would you say that as capital as a whole is a social relation it is constantly being recreated and thus that capital is continually being remade or emerging as a struggle between capital and labour?

Yes.

Here's a quote from Marx:

Whatever the social form of the production process, it has to be continuous, it must periodically repeat the same phases. A society can no more cease to produce than it can cease to consume. When viewed, therefore, as a connected whole, and in the constant flux of its incessant renewal, every social process of production is at the same time a process of reproduction. (Marx, Capital 1, ch. 23)

Althusser argues that the reproduction of capitalist relations takes place on three levels: the economic, the ideological and the political. With the economic dominating "in the last instance".


where does this dynamic constant re-emerging of capital with its constant antagonism fit with the more static "unified" view you give? Is it enough to say it is "contradictory"? Is there any way of combining the two?

Yes, through class struggle.

I'm not suggesting that capitalism is integrated in an unproblematic sense. It's not a static system with an unchanging equalibrium. It's precisely because it is contradictory that it's open to change. Capitalism attempts to reproduce itself as a coherent system , but because it is ultimately based on exploitative relations, the class which it creates in the process of that exploitation, the proletariat, will eventually oppose its own interests (high wages, high quality welfare, a democratic say in society, etc.) against the interests of the bourgeoisie (high profits, low public expenditure, a monopoly over decision making, etc.). Thus, the essential antagonism which is endlessly reproduced at the point of production finds its expression at the ideological and political levels. The extent to which the proletariat will contest this reproduction will depend on (a) the ability of capital to deliver jobs and a reasonably decent standard of living; and (b) the confidence and class consciousness of the workers themselves.


When new developments happen in capitalism is it the result of capital as a creative force coming up with new ideas for exploitation? Or is it that capital has to react to new developments among the working class?

Some of both, particularly if the "new development" among the working class is a rise in militancy.

What generally happens, however, is that changes in capital accumulation will reshape the working class. In the West, for instance, the shift from reliance on industrial capital (manufacture) to finance capital (services), necessitates the transformation of industrial workers into service workers.


As an example, was something like Keynesianism the result of capitalist desires for more money or was it a defensive tactic (harnessing pay to productivity) to save capitalism from working class wage claims?

I believe Keynsianism was an attempt to manage capitalism to avoid the tendency towards crisis which plagued world capitalism in the 1930s. It was also seized upon by labourist and social democratic reformists because of its emphasis on full employment and welfare services to offset the misery of any potential future crash.
As such it was a class compromise position which seemed to meet working class interests but nevertheless left the capitalists in charge.


Was, for example, Marx correct when he said "It would be possible to write quite a history of the inventions made since 1830, for the sole purpose of supplying capital with weapons against the revolts of the working class"?

Probably.

[Marion]

Originally posted by Citizen [email protected] 30 2006, 09:29 PM
Althusser argues that the reproduction of capitalist relations takes place on three levels: the economic, the ideological and the political. With the economic dominating "in the last instance".


where does this dynamic constant re-emerging of capital with its constant antagonism fit with the more static "unified" view you give? Is it enough to say it is "contradictory"? Is there any way of combining the two?

Yes, through class struggle.

I'm not suggesting that capitalism is integrated in an unproblematic sense. It's not a static system with an unchanging equalibrium. It's precisely because it is contradictory that it's open to change. Capitalism attempts to reproduce itself as a coherent system , but because it is ultimately based on exploitative relations, the class which it creates in the process of that exploitation, the proletariat, will eventually oppose its own interests (high wages, high quality welfare, a democratic say in society, etc.) against the interests of the bourgeoisie (high profits, low public expenditure, a monopoly over decision making, etc.). Thus, the essential antagonism which is endlessly reproduced at the point of production finds its expression at the ideological and political levels. The extent to which the proletariat will contest this reproduction will depend on (a) the ability of capital to deliver jobs and a reasonably decent standard of living; and (b) the confidence and class consciousness of the workers themselves.

...

What generally happens, however, is that changes in capital accumulation will reshape the working class. In the West, for instance, the shift from reliance on industrial capital (manufacture) to finance capital (services), necessitates the transformation of industrial workers into service workers.

Thanks again for your detailed considerations. Will try and keep my reply relatively short in order to save us both more time.

1) I think where I'm having difficulties is in squaring the Althusserian view of different levels etc with the economy as determinant in the last instance, with the view that there is an "essential antagonism" of capital and the working-class. If the economy is finally determinant then how do we theorise the role of struggle within this antagonism? From what I've read (not much on Althusser, so feel free to correct me), his philosophical viewpoint completely removed class struggle from any real role.

2) Don't disagree with you at all over your view on the shift from industrial to finance capital in the West. However, to what extent has this approach of capital been driven by the struggles across Europe and North America in the 1970s and the militancy in places such as the factories of Italy and to what extent can it be put down to any "laws" of capitalism? If there is an "essential anatagonism" of capital and the working class within capitalism, then can we not say that the extent that any "laws" actually occur in practise are not merely the outcomes of this antagonism?

[Hit The North]

Originally posted by [email protected] 2 2006, 04:48 PM
Thanks again for your detailed considerations. Will try and keep my reply relatively short in order to save us both more time.

1) I think where I'm having difficulties is in squaring the Althusserian view of different levels etc with the economy as determinant in the last instance, with the view that there is an "essential antagonism" of capital and the working-class. If the economy is finally determinant then how do we theorise the role of struggle within this antagonism? From what I've read (not much on Althusser, so feel free to correct me), his philosophical viewpoint completely removed class struggle from any real role.

2) Don't disagree with you at all over your view on the shift from industrial to finance capital in the West. However, to what extent has this approach of capital been driven by the struggles across Europe and North America in the 1970s and the militancy in places such as the factories of Italy and to what extent can it be put down to any "laws" of capitalism? If there is an "essential anatagonism" of capital and the working class within capitalism, then can we not say that the extent that any "laws" actually occur in practise are not merely the outcomes of this antagonism?
No need to thank me. I'm working this stuff out as I reply to your question, so we both benefit!

1) I don't subscribe to Althusser's structuralist marxism, I was just using him for illustration as he does have a knack of concretising things. I think you're correct that his schema limits the potential of class struggle and so therefore I'd reject it.

What I'm trying to say is that the class struggle permeates all these levels of society. I suppose Marx used the base/superstructure distinction. The base comprises the means of production and the relations of production. The bourgeosie will always dominate at this level because they monopolise ownership of the means. The relations of production, however, are constantly being reproduced during the act of production itself and because this relation is antagonistic, its reproduction can be problematic for the bourgeoisie, as workers combine and seek to push their interests. It's therefore here where workers have power as they seek to reduce their exploitation and as a consequence limit the profitability of the capitalist enterprise.

The political, legal and ideological superstructure is important because it's here that the bourgeosie seek to reinforce their ability to enforce the reproduction of the relations of production by translating their economic power into political and cultural power. Of course the economic compulsion of owning only your labour power severely hampers the workers' bargaining position in the first place, but it helps the bourgeosie if it can demonstrate the rightness of its position through laws and ideology (as well as having control over the apparatus of repression).

However, as soon as the bourgeosie plants its flags in these areas of the superstructure, they become sites for further class conflict. Unions will fight against legislation which clamps them too severely; militant workers will oppose unjust laws like the Poll Tax (I always find it amusing that the Tories called the poll tax the 'Community Charge' and that's exactly what it turned into!). The battle over ideas takes place constantly and broadly reflects the clash of two world views: the individualism of the bourgeosie and the collectivism of the proletariat.

This "in the last instance" phrase of Althussers is problematic, I think, for his own system of analysis. What i would say, though, is that although superstructural struggles are important, the most decisive is at the point of production, simply because this is where the bourgeosie draw all their power from. Until the workers refuse to reproduce capitalist relations of production and seize the means for themselves, then we don't really have a revolution on our hands.

2) That's an interesting question. I suppose one could argue that the power of industrial labour made shifting to an emphasis on financial capital an urgent task for capital. This was certainly the way it was read by Thatcher in Britain when she smashed manufacture and heavy industry in the 1980s. Her resolve to crush trade union power made the destruction of the steel and coal and car industries a price worth paying in her eyes. And when you look around the UK today with its timerous unions and new labour apologists for the free market, you have to admit she did a great job for her class.

In answer to your last statement: I think our analysis has to take in both the laws or logic of capital and the influence of class struggle or antagonism and that the historical landscape is formed through their historically specific interactions. I mean, in a sense, class struggle is a part of the logic of the system in its broader sense, anyway. You can't have capitalism without class conflict.

[Marion]

Cheers,

I think we probably agree on a fair amount of this one (always nice!), but probably have quite important differences of emphasis on certain things (not necessarily a bad thing!). I suppose perhaps the main difference is that I'm not convinced that you can talk about "laws" of capitalism without seeing class struggle (or, perhaps, its absence) as playing an integral role in how these "laws" work in practice.

Personally (so you can see where I'm coming from) I'm increasingly unconvinced that it makes sense to hypothesise about the structure of capitalism (e.g. base, superstructure etc) in any type of way that tries to say certain elements are determinant or some are based on the other etc. I'd completely agree with you that there obviously are such separate concepts that prove useful as economy, means of production etc, but I think that the exact strengths of the relationship between them cannot be figured out in sort of structure. Obviously you can still see the economy and work as something that's very important without needing to work out a structure, I just don't see how you can work a system around it. Plus, as the likes of Harry Cleaver point out, if communism spends all its time explaining the faults of communism, to a large extent this just provides capitalism with the tools to overcome these flaws.

I suppose I'm rather conscious of a point Chomsky continually makes, that there is so little that science can prove about relatively simple things, so something like making any rules about human society with all the different variables involved, is pretty much impossible.

A small aside: you refer to the fact that "the bourgeosie will always dominate at this [base] level". I remember reading someone once (my memory fails me again) saying that when you read "capitalist" literature such as management mmagazine, business studies info etc, it's very easy to see that capitalists are always completely worried that they are not dominating at this level and that they need to do x, y, z to maintain their position. Not having read the literature I'm not sure how true it is, but its a comforting thought!!

[Hit The North]

I suppose perhaps the main difference is that I'm not convinced that you can talk about "laws" of capitalism without seeing class struggle (or, perhaps, its absence) as playing an integral role in how these "laws" work in practice.

I don't think that is a significant difference between us, if you read my last statement above. However, I think it is possible to analyse capitalist laws of development - afterall, Marx arguably did a pretty good job of that in Capital.


Personally (so you can see where I'm coming from) I'm increasingly unconvinced that it makes sense to hypothesise about the structure of capitalism (e.g. base, superstructure etc) in any type of way that tries to say certain elements are determinant or some are based on the other etc.

Well, this I do disagree with. On the one hand, I don't think we should consider the Base/Superstructure model as anything but a metaphor which helps us to think about the relationship between discrete social elements. Of course, in real life, there are overlaps, dislocations and contradictions. But, in analytical terms, I find it useful to think in this way. For instance, it allows us to understand something like Thatcherism as something more than just a phenomenon which emerges from ideology and leadership, but has it's roots in the material crisis of capitalism. Of course one could just as plausibly argue that Thatcherism emerged as a response to the legitimacy crisis of capitalism at the political level. However, one still needs to explain why the political crisis occured in the first place. In my view (and I doubt this is original or controversial) it was precisely the inability of British capitalism, in the face of confident, militant and organised workers, to reproduce the relations of production in the way that suited them the best. It's no accident that as soon as they had conquered political power, the Thatcherites saw the next urgent task as being a restoration of the power of capital over labour - summed up in Thatcher's phrase, 'Allowing management to manage.'

So Thatcherism is a good example of how the political level acts back on the economic to provide a solution to problems which originate at the point of production.

As a materialist I would have to insist on the central importance of the economic level, not only in terms of how it supports the prevailing order or conditions the general life of the society, but also in terms of the thing which unites everyone on RevLeft, which is the overthrow of capitalism and creating a society based on workers power.


Obviously you can still see the economy and work as something that's very important without needing to work out a structure, I just don't see how you can work a system around it.

Well, it's my view that society doesn't just happen spontaneously or randomly and it's difficult to even think about the economy unless you see it as a cluster of specific and regular interactions (i.e. a system).


I suppose I'm rather conscious of a point Chomsky continually makes, that there is so little that science can prove about relatively simple things, so something like making any rules about human society with all the different variables involved, is pretty much impossible.

And yet I'm sure Chomski falls back into 'rule making' whenever he tries to explain patterns of globalisation, the institutionalised practices of mass media, or the U.S.'s foriegn policy towards the Middle East. I mean, he doesn't think these are just random occurences, does he?


A small aside: you refer to the fact that "the bourgeosie will always dominate at this [base] level". I remember reading someone once (my memory fails me again) saying that when you read "capitalist" literature such as management mmagazine, business studies info etc, it's very easy to see that capitalists are always completely worried that they are not dominating at this level and that they need to do x, y, z to maintain their position. Not having read the literature I'm not sure how true it is, but its a comforting thought!!

A nervousness which I think nicely illustrates that the relations of production are the dynamic powder keg I think they are.

BTW, I meant that the bourgeosie always dominated the means of production (through ownership, obviously) and this gives them greater leverage when it comes to organising the relations of production. As the above mentioned management magazines demonstrate, the capitalists aren't insecure about their ownership - after all there's no chance that the working class will save up in order to buy the means of production from the cappies - but they are concerned with the fractious business of exerting authority over the relations of production. They understand that the workers are the real producers of wealth and this power haunts them.

[Marion]

Probably didn’t explain myself well enough re. laws of capitalism (my fault). My basic view is that I doubt how much sense it makes to speak of the “laws” of capitalism if you accept class struggle is the essential antagonism behind them as this leaves them open and not necessarily “laws” in any real practical sense. Of course, there’s the potential to theoretically abstract such “laws” in a closed economic system, but I don’t think this is that helpful if you’re saying that behind the validity of such “laws” is the result of class struggle. Given that, I think it is more helpful to talk about class struggle as primary and then see any ways that capitalism develops as largely part of the outworking of these struggles. In the same way as I think its hard to accept structuralism as it tends to remove the activity of the working class, I think its not all that useful about objective “laws” of capitalism.

I’d stress, though, that I don’t think this removes the possibility of analysing society or examining capitalism very closely, just that it should be based upon viewing capitalism as a contested, open space and seeing class struggle as the starting point of any analysis.

Basically, I’m against seeing the base/superstructure model as being rigid and am very doubtful about whether it makes sense to try and make a model in the first place. How helpful is it to speak of the base/superstructure model as a metaphor? I probably don’t properly understand what you mean by metaphor, but if you mean that the “model” is not to be taken as a “model” at all and merely an approximation, then this probably throws into doubt the nature of many of the supposed “laws” of capitalism and makes them merely, from your pov, guidelines that are useful depending on the extent to which the “metaphor” corresponds to reality. I suppose the best you could then say is that they are not necessary laws of capitalism, but laws of particular metaphors of capitalism. Any thoughts?

[Hit The North]

I think it is more helpful to talk about class struggle as primary and then see any ways that capitalism develops as largely part of the outworking of these struggles.

Primary in what sense? For a start, you need a system of production before you can talk about the class antagonisms within it.

Before we can talk about capitalism we need to think of the material prerequisites for its existence, such as private ownership of the means of production; a formally free population of workers (which the emerging bourgeosie create through the 2nd agricultural revolution and enclosure movements); the existence of free markets for exchange; a specific amount of capital; and a certain level of technology.


I’d stress, though, that I don’t think this removes the possibility of analysing society or examining capitalism very closely, just that it should be based upon viewing capitalism as a contested, open space and seeing class struggle as the starting point of any analysis.

It is that, but within limits. It's not a totally open space as it's full of specific historical and social relations which are necessary and independent of the actors. There are relations which take on the form of "laws" (if only in the minds of the actors) and limit the scope for social change. If this wasn't the case, then revolution would be easy.

I wouldn't argue against seeing class struggle as the starting point of any analysis, although a complex 'object' like capitalism can be analysed from a range of starting points. I think the essential task is that our analysis seeks to connect all the discrete spheres of social activity and demonstrate how they mediate each other.

How I see it, if you're a Marxist then your starting point is the economic base. If you're a particular brand of anarchist, then your starting point is at the level of politics (especially the critique of the State). Both positions carry dangerous tendencies. For the Marxist, the danger is lapsing into a kind of 2nd International fatalism, waiting for capitalism to self-destruct or analysing away class struggle like Althusser does. For the Anarchist, the danger is reducing the struggle to ideology and voluntarism.


How helpful is it to speak of the base/superstructure model as a metaphor? I probably don’t properly understand what you mean by metaphor, but if you mean that the “model” is not to be taken as a “model” at all and merely an approximation, then this probably throws into doubt the nature of many of the supposed “laws” of capitalism and makes them merely, from your pov, guidelines that are useful depending on the extent to which the “metaphor” corresponds to reality.

A metaphor is when you compare something with something else it is not in order to help you visualise and abstract otherwise invisible relations. All models, whether metaphors or not, are only approximations of reality, by their nature they are abstractions of the real thing.

The base/Superstructure model doesn't serve the purpose of demonstrating the laws of capitalism, it's meant to help us visualise the bare bones of social reality and its determinations. The directions and strength or otherwise of those determinations is one of the key debates amongst different marxist schools.

To understand the laws of capitalist motion we need to turn to Capital. Here Marx writes about imperatives of the system, such as competition and accumulation: in order to survive, the capitalist (independent of his will) is compelled to maximise the relative level of profit in order to succeed in the cut-throat competition of capitalist production. He also discusses 'laws' within the system such as monopoly, falling rate of profit, overconsumption, etc. However, he's careful to also talk about countervailing forces. In other words, the laws become tendencies contingent on other factors (technological innovation, political management, working class resistance, etc.).

[Marion]

Originally posted by Citizen [email protected] 3 2006, 03:09 PM

Primary in what sense? For a start, you need a system of production before you can talk about the class antagonisms within it.



I'd say class antagonisms are primary in the sense of a starting point for our analysis rather than as chronologically. I think we can talk about capitalism though without having to talk about it a definite system and without having to work out the way in which all these aspects interact in a once-and-for-all manner.

Glad that you wouldn't argue against class struggle as a valid potential starting point of any analysis (would agree with you that capitalism is not completely open and didn't intend to imply this). I think we'd probably both agree that there are different potential approaches and which one you use depends on which is more useful. Obviously we disagree though to the extent that we think creating a model or metaphor is likely to prove useful and I'd argue it isn't all that useful at all.



The base/Superstructure model doesn't serve the purpose of demonstrating the laws of capitalism, it's meant to help us visualise the bare bones of social reality and its determinations. The directions and strength or otherwise of those determinations is one of the key debates amongst different marxist schools.

If the model helps us visualise the determinations of the system, yet it does not state the direction or strength of them, then how does it help us visualise them? What remains of the determination if it doesn't stress their direction or strength? Perhaps I've misunderstood and you're arguing that the model Marx laid out does state the direction and strength of the determinations, but merely that different schools continue to argue over them...

Anyway, perhaps we've outlived the course of this debate?? Happy to leave the last word to yourself if you want...