World economy fundamentally unsound?
- Thread starter cockneyrebel
- Start date
Bernie Gunther
Fundamentalist Druid
What I thought was interesting in that Goldner article I linked was on the one hand, the discussion of how titles to wealth, in this case ficticious wealth, act on the 'pure model' built on surplus value, and on the other hand the role of ongoing primitive accumulation, or something analogous to it, in keeping the system going despite the lack of actual value to back all those paper claims.
And the reasoning is specifically anti-working class;
"No longer was the undermining of capitalism the operation of Marx's singular "mole" --the industrial proletariat--but rather of what Sergio Bologna termed a "tribe of moles."39
The reason they extend productive labour outside of the capital/labour relation is that they want to relegate the struggle of the working class against capital to just one of a number of struggles - to part of a tribe of moles. Bizarre expression but there you go.
Paradoxically echoing the Stalinists who also want to relegate the working class struggle for socialism to the past.
So nothing new or good there then.
"No longer was the undermining of capitalism the operation of Marx's singular "mole" --the industrial proletariat--but rather of what Sergio Bologna termed a "tribe of moles."39
The reason they extend productive labour outside of the capital/labour relation is that they want to relegate the struggle of the working class against capital to just one of a number of struggles - to part of a tribe of moles. Bizarre expression but there you go.
Paradoxically echoing the Stalinists who also want to relegate the working class struggle for socialism to the past.
So nothing new or good there then.
urbanrevolt
New Member
I think you'll find all the groups mentioned are indeed actually in close proximity to resources that the imperialists want to have control over.Backatcha Bandit said:
What's your answer, then?
cockneyrebel
New Member
No offense but you'll probably find that fanciful's grasp of those definitions is a bit better than your good self.......
cockneyrebel
New Member
Someone around here was saying that personal stuff should be left out as it derails threads. Leave it out eh
urbanrevolt
New Member
I think it was an attempt at humour! Best ignored, I think.
Perhaps we all need to make sure we get out and actually do some of the stuff most of us advocate on these boards-
building working class organisations etc.
However, this isn't counterposed to a sensible and self-reflective debate and discusssion about how this is best done. It should however be a discussion in tandem with actually doing some of those things.
Perhaps we all need to make sure we get out and actually do some of the stuff most of us advocate on these boards-
building working class organisations etc.
However, this isn't counterposed to a sensible and self-reflective debate and discusssion about how this is best done. It should however be a discussion in tandem with actually doing some of those things.
cockneyrebel
New Member
I thought you were joking. And in reply I was ribbing mk12.
To be honest a quick glance over some of the articles on the PR site (by Bill) will show you that he knows what he's talking about.
urbanrevolt
New Member
mk12 said:
Come on Random's comment was a simple piss-take as in der! of course I'm being sarcastic.
OK, fine I don't mind a bit of sarcasm though it might be better to at least occasionally have some sensible contributions to the debate as well as attemtps at humour but whatever
Random no doubt was making an allusion to Trotsky's (I think) comment about revolutionary organisations being the memory of the class- may be s/he's taking the piss out of that too
but so what- I don't see anything particularly wrong with the idea that a party or revolutionary organisation can attempt to draw out and learn the lessons of history, to store them for future workers in struggle as a resource to be used critically
quite a nice metaphor I think
By the way to explain fanciful's comment Stalinist parties do today tend to ideologically relegate the struggle of the working class for socialism to the past- of course in reality where they have had held power stalinists have thwarted, sold out and smashed the struggles of working class people for socialism
Yes if you read the autonomous stuff it wants to make out that the struggle of the industrial working class against capital is only one of several struggles, all of which share an equal status. Hence the redefinition of productive activity to any activity which produces something - rather than the production of surplus value by the working class in the capital/labour relationship.
All very revisionist.
All very revisionist.
fanciful said:
Why do groups like PR focus on student struggles? Or a group trying to stop a hospital closure? Or trying to stop a school from being turned into an academy? Or from campaiging on the environment? These are struggles which are not focused around purelyt he "industrial working class".
urbanrevolt
New Member
mk12 said:
Yeah right in one piss-take- unless you're claiming that you and Random have a party line on these things?!
Anyway what is wrong with working class people learning from previous struggles and passing on what we've learned as a resource to the next generation? Is that too elitist or something? Notice I said as a resource- not knowledge to be absorbed uncritically
as for being a different topic entirely when has that stopped you?
The student thing I'll think about a bit more but as far as I can see working class struggle isn't just at the production point or just around surplus value- we seek to bring together the struggles of all workers and the oppressed, to link and unify those struggles around a contest for power.
In that sense, certain workers who have more economic muscle may play a more critical role- it's not to say that they are more important as people or any such nonsense but that we need to link e.g. student struggles with the struggle of factory workers.
I'll think about it some more but that's what i'd say off thinking aloud, as an instant response
But who has the social power? Students or industrial workers? The answers pretty obvious and given your avowed disdain for the middle classes I'm surprised you should so readily leap to their defence - while they have struggles that we should support they are clearly not as important as those of the industrial workers.
articul8
Dishonest sociopath
fanciful said:
No this is a huge misreading. The fact that all struggles aren't immediate reflectionsof economic relations in no way implies that all social struggles are merely "equivalent".
No relationships exist outside of the capital/labour distinction which governs the totality of social identities - but at the same time, cultural production isn't a mere mirror image of economic relations.
Well what do you make of this then;
"No longer was the undermining of capitalism the operation of Marx's singular "mole" --the industrial proletariat--but rather of what Sergio Bologna termed a "tribe of moles."39 The `autonomy' of autonomist Marxism thus came to affirm both labour's fundamental otherness from capital, and also the recognition of variety within labour. This in turn leads away from vanguardist, centralised organisation, directed from above, toward lateral, polycentric concept of anti-capitalist alliances-indiversity, connecting a plurality of agencies in a circulation of struggles."
Marx stressed the singular importance of the industrial working class because they had the social power to overthrow capitalism. Autonomism on the other hand puts the industrial proletariat on the level of a "purality of agencies in a circulation of struggles", as different but on a par with "students", "housewives" or "peasants". The centrality of the working class is lost in favour of a mish mash of struggles and social groups without any real centre or focus and without the social power or means for destroying capitalism.
For all its aversion to Stalinism it merely invents Eurocommunism but in a different form.
Hardly a step forward.
This bit reinforces the point;
"Focusing mainly on the European context, he and his colleagues look at a series of movements--amongst nurses, media workers, students--which have challenged neoliberal restructuring. In particular, they have been inspired by the successive
waves of social revolt which have shaken French society, from the student protests of 1986 to the interlinked revolts of students, workers and immigrants in 1994 against proposals to cut the minimum wage to young job entrants, to the massive three week strike wave of 1996 against the neoliberal Juppe plan. These movements of the socialised worker, Negri says,
take forms completely different from the factory struggles of the mass worker..."
If anything these movements of the "socialised worker" i.e. of the non-industrial working class or not necessarily even the working class, students, media workers and what not supercede the struggles of the "mass worker".
"No longer was the undermining of capitalism the operation of Marx's singular "mole" --the industrial proletariat--but rather of what Sergio Bologna termed a "tribe of moles."39 The `autonomy' of autonomist Marxism thus came to affirm both labour's fundamental otherness from capital, and also the recognition of variety within labour. This in turn leads away from vanguardist, centralised organisation, directed from above, toward lateral, polycentric concept of anti-capitalist alliances-indiversity, connecting a plurality of agencies in a circulation of struggles."
Marx stressed the singular importance of the industrial working class because they had the social power to overthrow capitalism. Autonomism on the other hand puts the industrial proletariat on the level of a "purality of agencies in a circulation of struggles", as different but on a par with "students", "housewives" or "peasants". The centrality of the working class is lost in favour of a mish mash of struggles and social groups without any real centre or focus and without the social power or means for destroying capitalism.
For all its aversion to Stalinism it merely invents Eurocommunism but in a different form.
Hardly a step forward.
This bit reinforces the point;
"Focusing mainly on the European context, he and his colleagues look at a series of movements--amongst nurses, media workers, students--which have challenged neoliberal restructuring. In particular, they have been inspired by the successive
waves of social revolt which have shaken French society, from the student protests of 1986 to the interlinked revolts of students, workers and immigrants in 1994 against proposals to cut the minimum wage to young job entrants, to the massive three week strike wave of 1996 against the neoliberal Juppe plan. These movements of the socialised worker, Negri says,
take forms completely different from the factory struggles of the mass worker..."
If anything these movements of the "socialised worker" i.e. of the non-industrial working class or not necessarily even the working class, students, media workers and what not supercede the struggles of the "mass worker".
cockneyrebel
New Member
Random was clearly taking the piss. Given that you had a go at me for criticising DF on the other thread (and in that case it wasn't taking the piss but what I saw as his political cynicism disrupting threads) I think you should have a bit of consistency.
Anyway sorry, this is probably disrupting this thread, which has got some interesting points. Cheers for the links you put up earlier by the way.
Just out of interest mk12 how would you describe yourself politically now days?
cockneyrebel
New Member
Absolutely, I know what you're saying is a real criticism from you but I don't think it's done in the most constructive way. One liners (like with Donna Ferentes) don't really get debate very far.
To be honest I don't think you'll ever get an exact definition, just like you'll never get an exact definition of who is working class, middle class or lumpen. But just because there are blurred edges doesn't mean terms aren't still useful.
For instance everyone knew what Bob Crow was saying when he said about the TUC wanting a Banjo player over a striker.
glenquagmire
Rightwing NuLab apologist
I'm a big fan of Bob, and can't remember the last time I disagreed with anything he's said to the right wing tossers of the TUC, but that really was an unhelpful comment.
Similar threads
