Date: Thu, 22 Jun 2000 12:20:47 +0200
From: benni-AT-pseud.pseud
Subject: Re: M-INTRO: marxism and one wage


Dear Galen,

>Many students relate to the idea that if we don't
>think about change as something that needs to occur in our own lifetime
>and if we think of change as a process of collective action and
>discussion (praxis...smile), then change becomes a real possibility.

First of all I don't see any argument in this statement. 
I also wonder, what you want to say: Is it that 'things' should be changed asap *or* has 'change' to be a result of a collective process?  
Those points are not standing in contrast. But the fact that you confront those statements, leeds me to the question, why do you think 'things' (btw: to say 'things' is not adequate for the object of a marxist discussion: the capitalism. It's up to us devolp its essential determination and its intended purpose! That's theory and the *only way of praxis* is to share our knowledge with as much people as we can reach and make them to enemies of this harmful conditions and this follows to  revolution! The people must know, why it is *their interest*.) should be changed? Isn't it because of the fact, that the only mean to live a workingclassmember has is to sell his labourpower to the capital. Labourpower as a mean for a worker and laborupower as a mean for the capital is a contradiction: The purpose of the capital is to spend an advance to get a surplus and that's what the capital needs the labourpower for. 
1) Only because of the diffence between the value of labourpower and the expression of the labour*power* in making commodities adding more moneyworth labour to them then payed for reproduction of labourpower in it's consumtion, it is bought by the capital. That necessarily means, that those who produce the wealth excluded from it. 
2) The value of labourpower is not an objectiv quantity. The worker does not get what *he* needs. He only exists as labourpower and labourpower is determined by the needs of  the capital (and it is arranged by the ideal collectiveidealist - the state - because the capital itself is not interested in preservation of its basis. Its point of view is to make more money out of money and not to support and suplly the workingclass. This does not mean, that the state is a supporter or supplier od the workingclass. The state keeps them *functionaly* for the capital.): What kind of workingclass is needed to do that labour that has to be done to produce the commodities. The value of labourpower thus only exists as functional quantity to the capital.
And this is not wholesome to those who *have to* use the unsuitable mean labour. *They* have to roll over these conditions. They have to be shown *why* there life is so disconsolate and that there isn't a good reason for it. 
That's why it has to be a collective process *and* it has to happen asap!

B.



     --- from list marxism-intro-AT-lists.village.virginia.edu ---