Log in

View Full Version : Expanded Marxism



Teemu Ruskeepää
29th December 2007, 10:11
I'm a first year student of Sociology at the University of Lapland. I've developed a theory about capitalism, with influences from Marx, various sociological literature, Pierre Bourdieu, the Socialist Party of Great Britain http://www.worldsocialism.org/principles.php, communitarianism, individualism and direct democracy. Because present internet forums are impractical, I'm going to summarize. I've used Youtube as an outlet and developed my theory there. http://www.youtube.com/view_play_list?p=0A251F558A03377A and http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Hb7Fn8hEDzg

Summary: Capitalism does not mean hegemony over the means of production but hegemony over any form of capital. Pierre Bourdieu has demonstrated that economic capital, knowledge capital, skill capital, rank capital and social connections capital are constantly fought over, switched between, are the weapon of violent oppression and form the classes of the society, not just based of the control over the means of production, but control over any of the types.

Shortly, capitalism is a cultural form, which has existed since the stone age, where the capitals are used to take away the capital others possess. Capital is the different forms of social action, which produce influence over other people, and it exists in everything social. Socialism on the other hand, is a cultural form, where the capitals are used to make others gain capital.

Every social action holds some or all types of capital, which influences other people. In capitalism, the capital becomes exclusive because the others are regarded as enemies. Capitalism is way of conduct to incapacitate others, thus a violent way of suppression, and the social classes are the representation of similar type and amount of capital possessed by a group of people.

Marx said that the History is the history of class struggle. In my view, it is the struggle over the hegemony of capital in a culture which conditionalizes others as enemies. That's why socialism means the end of all wars, because once individuals regard each other as recipients of capital and not a threat to selfishly possessed capital, all violence would have been replaced by peaceful social action and the promotion of individual abilities.

Socialism doesn't mean a new economic model, since it creates new classes based on symbolic capital. Marx was right in a limited sense. It was not about that his theory about the predicament of the working class proved exactly what was wrong with the Industrial Society and that the oppression could stop through their empowerment with the control of the economic capital. Marx's theory only proved that this particular type of capitalism exists. Pierre Bourdieu has expanded that theory and demonstrated that capitalist oppression has also a symbolic aspect. The true end of class stratification results from careful and particular eradication of discrimination in all types of capital.

Hit The North
29th December 2007, 14:09
Just a few comments:


Capitalism does not mean hegemony over the means of production but hegemony over any form of capital.

Capitalism is the (contested) hegemony of capital over all forms of human association, including the means of production. However, it is difficult to see how capital could exercise hegemony over the cultural/ideological/symbolic forms of association unless it controlled the means of production in the first place. In other words, the material basis for the rule of capital is essential. The symbolic forms are dependent.


Pierre Bourdieu has demonstrated that economic capital, knowledge capital, skill capital, rank capital and social connections capital are constantly fought over, switched between, are the weapon of violent oppression and form the classes of the society, not just based of the control over the means of production, but control over any of the types.

If Bourdieu (who's work I respect for its methodological rigor) is claiming that types of symbolic capital form social classes, I would disagree with him in favour of Marx's emphasis on relations to the means of production. Nevertheless I like Bourdieu's use of symbolic capital as a means of explaining how classes are further dimensionalized, experienced and articulated within capitalist society; and how "social capital" aids the reproduction of class relations.

I disagree with most of the rest of your post as it leads you to this conclusion:


Socialism doesn't mean a new economic model

which I think it patently does. Otherwise what is the point of even conceptualizing the struggle for socialism as "class struggle"? In fact the transformation of the relations of production is a prerequisite. I think you're underplaying the material basis for capitalism and downplaying how it sustains the symbolic forms.


Pierre Bourdieu has expanded that theory and demonstrated that capitalist oppression has also a symbolic aspect.

Yes and this will whither away as the material conditions which support capitalism are abolished.

Hit The North
29th December 2007, 14:27
Welcome to RevLeft, by the way. I hope you find the debates here constructive.

Teemu Ruskeepää
29th December 2007, 15:24
---

Hit The North
29th December 2007, 18:48
Originally posted by Teemu Ruskeepää@December 29, 2007 03:23 pm
Hi, what is your real name please?
I gave up my slave name long ago. I am Spartacus :)


The old marxist idea that everything is based on just one capital is overruled with the discovery that it is not just economic capital the oligarchs control, it is all the other capitals as well.

Why? The fact that the ruling class further their interests by monopolizing other types of social and symbolic goods; use their power to determine laws in their own interests; or arrange through a handful of high status schools and other exclusive social networks to reproduce their privilege and pass it down to the next generation; none of this falsifies the Marxist proposition that monopolizing and concentrating economic power is the only secure source of ruling class power and the bedrock of all its other powers.


Please mind that everything is capital when it is used in interaction.

That might be true. Especially in a capitalist society. Of course you need to define your term 'capital' and what you mean by it. You may find it differs from Marx and even from Bourdieu.


My bottom line is that all human interaction works in an either capitalist or socialist way.

Again, you need to define your terms because when you abstract the terms 'capitalism' and 'socialism' from being modes of production then I get a bit lost. It is true that human interaction can be either competitive and exploitative or cooperative and enabling or a mixture of both.


It is not possible to leap into one form of socialism without a total cultural reconfiguration.

Of course. None of these facets of human interaction change in isolation. There's no contradiction there with orthodox marxism.


It also reforms the idea of an oppressed class outwards of the limits of the economic capital and forms a new alliance of all classes, with the proof that sharing capital is more productive and correct than harbouring it. I deduce that the revolution can't happen by classes but by knowledge which obliterates classes.

The above reads like a version of pre-Marxist utopian socialism. If Marx and Engels demonstrated anything, it was that socialism will not be bought about through an appeal to men's consciences but that it would take a revolution in order to abolish class society. Further, that only the working class would have the interest and the power to be the agent of that revolution.

To say that classes must be abolished before a revolution is possible is to put the horse behind the cart. If we have already abolished class society, what would be the point of revolution?

mikelepore
29th December 2007, 20:49
Originally posted by Teemu Ruskeepää@December 29, 2007 10:10 am
economic capital, knowledge capital, skill capital, rank capital and social connections capital


I think this kind of terminology misses the main point of how the system operates. Someone who has the money simply buys, hires, bribes, or otherwise receives, all other forms of social influence. See Marx, "He who can buy bravery is brave, though a coward", etc. [Manuscripts of 1844] Therefore, the various forms of influence that you list are not forms of capital. Capital is nearly the antonym of knowledge and skill. Capital is something that you can plug into a "black box" process, with no further intelligent intervention on your part, and later you find that a profit pops out into your hand. If at some point you need some brains, knowledge, skills or old-boy-network connections, speak a command or scribble a memo to have some hired.

Teemu Ruskeepää
31st December 2007, 14:16
I know what these two writers are after. As communists, they fear that I'm a revisionist who accepts the private ownership of the means of production. That's the most common mistake non-communists make about capitalism and these two assume I'm one of the commoners. They are wrong. I think that the control of economic capital is not the source of the class society but I think it is a form of class society. I have realized by reading the science of Bourdieu that the capitalist forms of production, and this a different concept than the economic capital, existed before the means of production where in hands of the few. Private ownership is just a product of hierarchy, which can be quantified with the consept of symbolic capital. None of the capitals precede another one, but the way they are used in social interaction precedes all forms of capitalist violence. Its the choice between capitalist violence and capital sharing which produce all types of class structures. I can also give you details if this discussion proves constructive, but now they would just support you in inflating this thread.