Date: Sat, 1 Nov 1997 20:12:26 -0500 Subject: Re: M-I: David Harvey on the Communist Manifesto From: farmelantj-AT-juno.com (James Farmelant) On Sat, 1 Nov 1997 17:30:37 -0500 Yoshie Furuhashi <Furuhashi.1-AT-osu.edu> writes: >I basically agree with Michael Hoover's and Rakesh Bhandari's comments >on >James's one-sided approach to capitalism. > >I merely add that capitalism can often happily co-exist with and >sometimes >exacerbate the pre-existing backward social relations. Such backward >social >relations have a paradoxical role of strenghtening the power of >capital and >at the same time of becoming obstacles to its further development. >Racism >and sexism are prime examples of such backward relations. And that is >why >capitalists always need soc dem "reformers" and energetic labor + >social >movements to have even what may be ultimately good for capital imposed >on >themselves. > >Yoshie Furuhashi > Yoshie's points merit further development in my view. Her points concerning the possibilities of symbiosis between capitalist and pre-capitalist social relations of production were I believe elaborated by Rosa Luxemburg within the context of her analysis of imperialism. Since most discussions concerning Marx's views on imperialism and progress focus on his famous articles on India I wonder if anybody here has anything to contribute on the interactions between India's caste system and Indian capitalism. To what extant does the caste system help strengthen the power of capital (both domestic and international) and to what extant does the caste system act as a barrier to its further development? Yoshie's point that the long term interests of capital as a whole may require the existence of social democratic reform movements was recognized by Marx himself. In *Capital, Vol. 1,* chapter X, "The Working Day" Marx pointed out how the process of competition between capitalists drives them under penalty of death to seek to maximize the length of the working day. But this process by pushing labor to the point of exhaustion is contrary to the long-term interests of capital. Marx pointed out that the establishment of what he called a "normal working-day" is a result of class struggle between capital and labor. To the extent that labor is successful in establishing controls over the length of the working-day the long-term interests of capital itself are served. One can go even further and analyze this in terms of game theory. Capitalists can be seen as facing a "tragedy of the commons"-type situation. The exhaustion of labor is contrary to each capitalist's long-term interests but no capitalist can dare to take these interests into account (by acting on his own to shortern the working days of his own workers) without undermining his own competitive position. Therefore, as Yoshie suggests soc democratic and "energetic labor +social movements" can actually further the development of capital. James F. --- from list marxism-international-AT-lists.village.virginia.edu ---
Display software: ArchTracker © Malgosia Askanas, 2000-2005