From: "Greg Schofield" <g_schofield-AT-dingoblue.net.au>
Subject: AUT: Perplexing Times
Date: Sat, 9 Mar 2002 23:25:52 +0800


I have not been a regular contributor to this list and comrades here may in all fairness give me my marching orders.

In a couple of threads I have strayed over  what might be seen as disjointed issues.

Marx's two phases of communism.
Marx and Lenin's socialisation of capital thesis.
The end of classic imperialism.
Mention of various forms of socialism including bourgeois socialism.
Identification of socialism with state-capitalism.
Identification of proletarian socialism with the dictatorship and the first phase of communism.
The idea of pure (second phase)communism as the complete negation of class society.
And finally,
The peculiar nature of international affairs today.

Now I would assert there are some useful interconnections between these various issues. Obviously in a post nothing like a full argument can be presented and equally obviously it would be pointless to get into a debate, however I would like to at least present things coherently, if this makes sense to some readers then fine, if not too bad.

1) If Marx's two phases means that the first phase is the dictatorship of the proletariat, then it follows that the capital labour relation mainatins itself, capitalism in some form persists until phase two begins.

>From this premise some sub points can be drawn.
    a) the socialistion of the means of production does not equal the abolishment of property as such but only specific forms.
    b) the dictatorship is itself a contradiction where the working class supervises its own exploitation.
    c) point (b) makes a simple and understandable historical contradiction which can only lead in one direction, the class by directing its own productive efforts erodes the need for any such direction which assumes the alienation of labour at its source - in other words labour slowly ceases to be alienated and class society and the need for the state wither.

 I would point out that point (c) also has the seeds for emerging (not just declining) class interests trying to exert control - hence the period is a living struggle, not the result of legislating changes and then enjoying the benefits in utopia.

There is some power in point (c) in explaining the rocky road of revolutions in the past, it also sits comfortably with Marx's various expressions on the period and finally I would argue it just makes simple historical sense. Socialisied property remains property of some form, the relation of production remain alienated for some time, the division of labour persists and one does not have to be a genius to see that capital does not magically disappear.

Plus class struggle becomes the defining project and not some special social formular.

2) Marx spoke of the the socialisation of production in his own day (the factory system) remarked similiarily on joint stock companies (in the Grundrisse in  detail) and saw this contradictoiry movement from private production mediated by the market to more socialisied production as part and parcel to the historical development of capital. Lenin furthered this in Imperialism by seeing national financial capital as further socialising production on a grand scale and mobilising the state to realise this as a contest between imperial capitals across the world.

a) socialisation of the means of capital, means of finance and even the means of profit realisation need not be excluded. Indeed, the growth of monsterous inter-connected world corproations makes this rather obvious.

b) such socialisation (between members of the bourgeois class) has to be protected by the state, in fact it is mediated by the state. The state might now only be part of a greater international order, but in this function it remains state-capitalist.

3) Imperialism only makes sense in the context of a contest between imperial powers. The emergance of a single superpower so large that practically all other leading nations would need to combine in order to assualt its power is a logical outcome of imperialism. Odd contraidctions are now thrown up. The superpower expresses the movements of international capital, but international capital is not confined to the superpower as a homeland. Contests between capital do not translate into state to state conflicts, but one state in order to maintain its supremacy has to champion one section of this capital against most other interests. Odd very odd.

a) the superpower already has practically the whole world as a market, military actions are not needed to secure such markets but excessive military actions now appear endemic to the superpower.

b) as much as international capital gains some expression through the superpowers actions, perhaps even the bulk of international capital is not so well served - counter pressure for a less arbitary international condition just amongst the bourgeoisie must be assumed (amongst the rest of us the desire has much more immediate requirements).

c) the notions associated with classic imperialism, the struggle of colonies for national liberation, the safe guarding of homeland capital, productive powers and the favourable relative position of the homeland working class seems less and less applicable to the world.

4) As socialism is just the socialisation of private property in the means of production and Proletarian socialism is distinguished only by the class interest that dominates. We have some interesting possiblities. One of which is that the present period is one of bourgeois socialism (not a very good thing I might add). In otherwords class struggle itself and not any particular change to the property form is the only historical item on the agenda. A point which has important political consequences if taken seriously.

5)given the points raised above (1,2 and 4) assuming that capital persists within any form of socialism(1), that the issue of class control of society is now central(4) and that the state mediates the socialisied property form (state-capitalism point 2) the styruggle for democratic proletarian control over the state becomes the international struggle. In a sense we already have state capitalism, in this we already have a form of socialism but the wrong class has power.

6) point five leads back to the dictatorship of the proletariat and this in turn highlights the sub points about the historical role of the proletariat in this position (ie a historical contradiction). From this we may well be in a form of socialism (socialisied property) but we are certainly not in phase one of communism. I hope comrades can see this is all just one idea being expressed.

7) point 6 is defined by the fact that the second phase of communism is defined as the negation of class society, while the dictatorship supplies the only engine for this negation within the context of workers directing their own exploitation which requires they have collective control of the means of production -- ie through having it socialisied and mediated through the state - ie state-capitalism under workers control is a contradiction which must eventually dissolve itself and all the blind economic relations on which it depends - hence this point of complete dissolution is the definition Marx gives to the second phase of communism (logically and historically necessary).

8) which all brings us to the peculiar position we find ourselves and the world we inhabit. Please note nothing I have said determines any tactics, though the strategic direction is not hard to fathom. Further note, history is not clean and all soughts of odds and sods hang about which cannot neatly fit into the thesis above (including isreal and palestine I hasten to mention) but the world was never meant to be neat.

Sorry comrades with abusing your list to spill this stuff out. Anyhow here is hoping someone has caught my drift and may be able to better develop these themes than I am myself.



Greg Schofield
Perth Australia
g_schofield-AT-dingoblue.net.au
_______________________________________________
_______________________________________________

Use LesTecML Mailer (http://www.lestec.com.au/)
* Powerful filters.
* Create you own headers.
* Have email types launch scripts.
* Use emails to automat your work.
* Add comments on receive.
* Use scripts to extract and check emails.
* Use MAID to create taylor-made solutions.
* LesTecML Mailer is fully controlled by REXX.
* A REXX interpreter is freely available.
_______________________________________________
_______________________________________________


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