Date: Sat, 12 Sep 1998 10:31:36 -0400 (EDT)
Subject: Re: AUT: Grundrisse/MBM


To begin with, let me apologize for not responding to previous posts (e.g.
by Harry). I've been very busy and pre-occupied with other matters of
late. I do want to respond briefly to some points of Franco, though, in
the hope that this (potentially important) discussion continues.

Franco wrote:

> <snip> It seems to me, however, that the crucial issue to
> be focused in this regard concerns the different nature of capitalist
> vs working class responses.

I don't agree, though, that the best (most complete) way to conceptualize
capitalist strategic reactions to crises is in terms of responses to
working-class organization and resistance. Certainly, that is _part_ of
what is happening -- indeed a very _large_ part. However, we have to
recognize that capital is not simple unity alone but also exists as
diversity (many capitals) and unity-in-diversity. Thus, we have to
consider how capitalist competition has shaped the strategic responses of
individual capitalists and how capital exists internationally. Thus, for
example, the differing interests of capitalists in different nation-states
has had an impact on their particular policies. (Of course, we also have
to consider the tension between capitalist rivalry internationally and
attempts at international capitalist collaboration and coordination). 

I'm not sure that you would disagree with what I wrote above, but there
does seem to be a difference in _focus_. 
 
> It is on the background of such
> difference that we should put the whole question of the oft-quoted
> "autonomists'" "rejection" of Marxian dialectics, as in Negri's "Marx
> beyond Marx" (I would prefer to say, rather than "rejection":
> locating dialectics at the level of illustration of capitalists'
> tactics of reproduction, and overcoming it in order to develop class
> strategies of subversion of capitalist command). In fact, Negri's
> point is, to put it shortly, that dialectics can show how capitalists
> have "responded" to worker struggles developing mechanisms
> (collective bargaining, social citizenship, productivity-linked
> wages, Keynesian-managed internal demand and other forms of
> mediation) which have not only "integrated" worker struggles inside
> capitalist development, but have made worker struggles an engine for
> the reproduction of capitalist accumulation at higher levels
> (therefore "dialectically") of profits, consumption and social
> consent. As Harry wrote in "Reading Capital Politically", Marx used
> dialectics as a tool for understanding and counter-strategy in
> relation to the enemy's moves, in the same way as Clausewitz's
> abstractions in "On War" served the purpose of outlining possible
> tactics and moves of an enemy army. On the other hand, the crisis of
> social mediation, in various countries and to various degrees, from
> the 1970s in the context of rising working class radicalization,
> showed the limitations of such forms of social mediation and
> consent. But this also showed the capacity of worker struggles to
> overcome dialectics *as the "dynamics of motion" of capital*, and to
> articulate their demands on different, separated levels of
> subjectivity and self-organization, not mechanically determied by
> the development of the forces of production in relation to the
> oppressive nature of social relations of production (for which, I
> think, Deleuze and Guattari's notion of "plateaux" is pertinent),
> which rejected productivity bargaining and translated wage struggles
> and struggles over redistribution of time and non- payment of
> services into a direct, conscious worker attack on levels of
> capitalist profits in the form of refusal of the logic of waged 
> labour, and for an immediate control of factories, quality of life 
> and territories. The innovations determined by these worker practices
> were, on the other hand, confirmed by the fact that, far from
> resorting to previous forms of mediation and compromise, capital
> tried to enforce, in its "neoliberal" phase, new forms of domination
> and worker compliance based on the generalized fear and insecurity
> due to downward labour market competition, undermining of stable
> forms of employment and generalized precarisation.

Again we disagree. I don't think that dialectics had this role _alone_
within the context of the _Grundrisse_ (or _Capital_ for that matter). It
seems to me that the most important way in which we can see Marx's
dialectical method is in terms of the logical structure of these works. 
One might view (as Toni and Harry do) the _Grundrisse_ and/or _Capital_ as
a guide for working-class organization. While I agree that Marx
had a political agenda in writing these works, I  DON'T agree that this
was his _primary_ purpose. That purpose, as expressed in the "Preface to
the First Edition" of Volume 1 was to "reveal the economic law of motion
of modern society." Expressing the issue somewhat differently, I believe
that dialectics was the logical method that Marx used to reconstruct the
inherent nature and structure of capitalism in thought. And here I have a
practical suggestion. Let's begin an examination of the _Grundrisse_
with a close reading of the "Introduction" -- one of the better sources
for an understanding of his logic, IMHO.

These might seem as if they are "academic" concerns that are removed from
our understanding of the class struggle. I disagree. I think they are
central to our understanding of the dynamics of capitalism today. Perhaps
you agree?

Please forgive me in advance if my responses to any future posts in this
thread are delayed.

Jerry



     --- from list aut-op-sy-AT-lists.village.virginia.edu ---