Date: Tue, 15 Sep 1998 14:19:15 -0500 (CDT)
Subject: Re: AUT: Grundrisse/MBM


Jerry: Comments interspersed.

On Sat, 12 Sep 1998, Gerald Levy wrote:

> To begin with, let me apologize for not responding to previous posts (e.g.
> by Harry). 

Jerry: apology accepted, :-)

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. 

Jerry: On one level, I couldn't agree more, certainly capital is no
monolith and it`s own internal sordid stories have to be taken into
account. On another, however, I think that understanding those sordid
stories is not really a different subject from the class relation, there
really isn't much of an "internal" dimension to capital separate from the
class struggle. As I have written elsewhere every model of competition can
be understood in terms of class forces (price competition, product
differentiation, etc.). In each case the capitalist who wins is the one
which has the best control over workers and in wining extends that control
to a larger segment of the working class. In class terms competition is
the form through which capital reorganizes its pattern of control over the
working class. True locally, true 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). 
> 

Jerry:NO doubt about it, as those of us who track capitalist policy making
at the international level are well aware. Yet, ultimately, these
"intercapitalist" conflicts and collaborations are secondary to the
consequences for workers. There are always SOME existing policies, not
always coordinated and coherent, that have to be dealt with. These
dynamics are of particular importance in periods of change.

> I'm not sure that you would disagree with what I wrote above, but there
> does seem to be a difference in _focus_. 
>  

Jerry: As I hope the above has clarifed; there is a difference in focus,
what I call an autonomist focus keeps the working class (us) in the
picture at all times and sees even sideshows as part of the class picture.

(Franco wrote:> > 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. 

Jerry:Yes, I agree that this is an important approach to understanding
--which is one reason why I teach CAPITAL in my classes. On the other
hand, please note: the logical structure of these works is precisely the
logical structure of capital. The formal presentation lays out the
dialectic of that structure, of the dynamics of capitalist control and
working class resistance and what results from the encounter of these two
forces. This was, in my reading, what Franco was saying.

> 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. 

Jerry: I'm not sure how one identifies "primary" purposes, but the
argument with which you are differing, I think, is one that sees Marx's
intellectual work/writing WITHIN his political activity, as political
acts. HOWEVER he analysed capital and the dynamics of struggle, he did so
as part of the struggle against it.

> 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." 

Jerry: But, for many of us, this is no different than understanding
capital in terms of the dynamics of class struggle in a way which
contributes to the struggle to transcend it. The "laws" of motion are
merely the regularities of relationships which emerge within the struggle.

> 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.

Jerry: I think you are right about this, but I personally would rather not
begin with this issue --since I agree. I'd like to hear from the person
who originally proposed discussing MBM.

 > 
> 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
Jerry: In as much as school has started again and many of us are
academics, it will frequently be the case that we can't respond
immediately. Too bad, but that's the way it is.

Harry
............................................................................
Harry Cleaver
Department of Economics
University of Texas at Austin
Austin, Texas 78712-1173  USA
Phone Numbers: (hm)  (512) 478-8427
               (off) (512) 475-8535   Fax:(512) 471-3510
E-mail: hmcleave-AT-eco.utexas.edu
Cleaver homepage: 
http://www.eco.utexas.edu/faculty/Cleaver/index.html
Chiapas95 homepage:
http://www.eco.utexas.edu/faculty/Cleaver/chiapas95.html
Accion Zapatista homepage:
http://www.utexas.edu/students/nave/
............................................................................




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