Date: Sun, 7 Dec 1997 12:14:10 -0500 (EST)
From: Justin Schwartz <jschwart-AT-freenet.columbus.oh.us>
Subject: Re: M-TH: All Work and No Play? No Way!



I had sworn I wasn't going to read another think by Malecki, and then here
he comes along and starts talking like an intelligent person. Wrong, but
anyway someone playing the same game as the rest of us. He's quite right,
however, that getting clear on who the bourgeouisie really are is a much
more useful task than discussion of whether they're Wells' Eloi. 

If I understand Malecki's idea, the big bourgeoisie are the people who own
industrial capital, not finance capital. This is an odd notion from
someone who professes to be a Leninist. It is doubly odd in these days of
the communications revolution, where an increasing amount of crucial
property is intellectual. 

A financier like Soros is certianly a member of the big bourgeoisie, even
if he only owns factories and raw materials for a few minutes at a time
during any given day and makes most of his money from devishly intricate
derivatives swaps. (I should say I have no idea how Soros makes most of
his money). One misconception in Malecki's idea is that only lasting title
to physical plant, equipment, and mineral rights are "real" sources of
wealth. In fact the "paper" he derides generally involves title of some
sort to, among other things, just those things, but in a finance capital
world, property rights are sliced up and repackaged in all sorts of really
clever ways. Moreover, control of the physical assets is useless without
the money to put it into action, and it's in virtue of that sort of
control that Soros or Milkin have their real power. That's why Lenin
correctly insisted that in the er of imperialism finance capital is the
dominant sector of the bourgeoisie.

Maybe what's misleading Malecki here is the clearly unproductive grab for
state property that's the main form of Russian "capitalism" today. There
we simply have redistribution of surplus created in the Soviet era and no
real new accumpulation, as evinced by seven years iof negative growth.
(Although according to the EConomist there has been a decrease in the
negative growth rate and by some measures the Russian GDP nmight be
positive this year.) But musch of the paper shuffling by finance
capitalists in the west isn't like that; it's not just rearrangement, but
actual investment, even if musch of this is complicated, arcane, and
refined. For example, Milkin's junk bonds--that was an 80's
phenomenon, but widely regarded as the ultimate in mere
speculation--created a great deal of money for investment in new,
undercapitalized, and risky firms, largely (Doug, am I right in this?) in
computers and such.   

Malecki's insistence on "real," that is, physical, assets also ignores the
information economy. Bill Gates is a member of the bourgeoisie if anyone
is, but his wealth is based on the ownership of intellectual property, in
particular, the operating systems of personal computers and widely used
wordprocessing programs. He could sell every bit of  physical plant and
equipment he owns and lease that stuff from lesser lights and it wouldn't
change his dominating position one bit.  

I am somewhat puzzled by what I take to be M's claim that the Arab oil
bosses aren't "real" bourgeoisie. Even on his terms, they would be: their
power is based on the ownership of physical assets. Their position is
slightly anomalous and would merit analysis by someone who is in a
position to know, because of their relations with the Western oil companies.

A footnote. M says that the bourgeois kids who go to Oxford are somehow
different from my Princeton classmates or indeed from the undergrads I
taught while a grad student at Cambridge. Somehow Diana's funeral is
supposed to be relevant to this in a way I cannot see. It's probably not
worthexploring, but I'd like to understand what's going on here.

On Sun, 7 Dec 1997, Robert Malecki wrote:

> The Thaxis discussion between Jerry,Doug,Hugh, Justin and others on this 
> stuff should be turned towards another more interesting subject, subjects or 
> at least linked to it. 
> 
> And that is the tendency in the  post war economic boom of inter-class 
> marriages and middle-class ideologi vis a vis the working class. Also the so 
> called "social climbers" out of the proletariat and into and alien class. In 
> fact it was not only the crumbs and the *real* leisure involved in all of 
> this stuff, but and extremely important ideological weapon in the hands of 
> the bourgeoisie.
> 
> These days at least in Sweden people are talking about a "new" class. In 
> this period of dismantling the welfare state and downsizing as we now go in 
> the other direction. Then their is also the shift in Social Democracy 
> towards the middle class which I believe in the long run a utopian 
> pipedream. The only "new" class the big bourgeoisie are interested in is 
> putting history back on their course especially in the states around the 
> Baltic sea. The prolos are always the prolos and the middle class a tool 
> which can be used or discarded at will and need...
> 
> Because behind the original arguements lie the left's anti-western worker 
> stance and in fact the reverse side of this stuff which Yoshie was getting 
> into. However I disagree with her conclusions that painting up the 
> lifestyles of the bourgeoisie as a big champagne party is somehow used 
> against poor and working class people. 
> 
> Then their is the whole question of the "big" bourgeoisie and who they 
> really are? I would deam to make the assertion that the big bourgeoisie are 
> the ones that own real material resources of production and distribution and 
> they certainly have a historical thread which can be followed both backwards 
> and forwards through history over and above the present debate on drinking 
> and mating habits.  This is concrete and real. Where as the people like  
> Soros, the Americans or Arabs who mainly push paper and speculation, or 
> investments in more soluable things are paper tigers or relatively newcomers 
> in the game. (The Americans and Arabs)
> 
> Hugh talked about "blue chip" stocks. Well their is something very real 
> behind them.. Not only industrial clout but social and historical clout. 
> 
> Then their is another side of this stuff which is even far more interesting. 
> The "new" capitalist class in the ex USSR and deformed workers states! And 
> how it is effected by this stuff. As the old stock big bourgeoisie really 
> has not existed in the USSR for quite a long time. In Germany we have a 
> quite different situation which effects not only the former east Germany bit 
> the old idea of the Third Riech turning into the Fourth Reich!
> 
> Everybody is talking about the "wild west" atomosphere in the USSR and a lot 
> of the International big bourgeoisie see both opportunities and the dangers 
> in what is going on their. Thus here in Sweden one sees the clever approach 
> towards the now defunct Baltic States. Here they are going back to find the 
> ties of the old stock bourgeoisie which survived either in exile or the 
> bureaucracy connected to building up the army and police to defend their 
> interests.Not in the least they dragged out Carl Gustav and the monarchy to 
> make these links real! 
> 
> Where as the Swedish "big" bourgeoisie are putting all of their cards on 
> building up the infrastructure in these countries and have pretty much by 
> passed quite conciously the Soviet Union which they are quite skeptical too 
> because of the fact that the whole operation could explode in their faces 
> and know way to control it. 
> 
> When Yeltsin was here, one sees the idiot that other big imperialists 
> interest, not in the least the Americans are supporting as their man in 
> Moscow. And as far as the American "big" bourgeoisie--historically--they are 
> just newcomers on the arena and mostly considered "louts", big mouthed and 
> clumsy" connected to using muscle instead of their heads to rule!  In this 
> sense Justin's description of his "mates" at college are very funny but I 
> doubt if the boys and girls at Oxford see it in the same way. In fact the 
> recent events around Di show the real class of decadent monarchy and the 
> real power of the big bourgeoisie and their lackies in turning this into a 
> fucking parade for jolly old England as it sinks into the sunset..
> 
> But the swedish bourgeoisie were more interested in more realistic goals in 
> regards to their strategy. Thus all the talk was about troop withdrawals 
> especially around the Baltic states and Poland which they see as the real 
> bastion for moving their positions forward.. They see the always historic 
> dream of the swedish ruling class controling the countries that border the 
> Baltic sea. Naturally the clout to build their empire depends on Germany or 
> a NATO umbrella to defend these interests.And in back of this stuff is the 
> rebuilding of and industrial infrastructure connected to low labor costs and 
> a grateful "anti-communist" and nationalist ideology looking for and 
> identity that was lost when the Red Army occupied these countries. And the 
> King and the big bourgeoisie in Sweden are more then willing to give a 
> "helping" hand.. 
> 
> The German "big" bourgeoisie are certainly not sitting back and watching all 
> this stuff going on without defending their historical interests which 
> survived after the secind world war. They to are acting in their *own* 
> interests and hardly for the Americans or any body else. Just as the French 
> and others are doing. Probably the only old "bourgeoisie" which is really 
> bad off is the English who's empire faded into the sunset with the end of 
> the boat and seafaring nations mighty imperialist power came to be replaced 
> by the tank and the airplane.. In fact I hear that it is the "new" Arab 
> bourgeoisie that owns have of London and not the other way around!
> 
> Despite the "Victorian" imperialist culture and all that represented best at 
> Jefferson Village by Chris B and his left version of this now dead bird..
> 
> I stop their for the time being. But I think this discussion could give far 
> more then the jousting at present taking place on the list. Wish we had a 
> smart German here. And our "Dutch/Finnish" expert could tell us about not 
> only the revangeist history of the Finnish ruling class who certainly have a 
> score to settle with Russia. But the Dutch ruling class and Dutch East 
> Indies empire and all that..Then there is the Italian "big" bougeoisie 
> playing their games in Albania and Africa. The french in Africa..And that 
> stuff. Spain would also be interesting to here about and what the "big" 
> bourgeoisie are doing these days. Because set the stage for world war two. 
> Just as the former Yugoslavia is a prelude to the next imperialist 
> confrontation..
> 
> Not to mention the Southern belly of the ex Soviet Union, Turkey and Iran. 
> And what is the big bourgeoisie of Japan doing and the Chinese bourgeoisie 
> which is preparing to retake the mainland..
> 
> I think that if one links the "big" bourgeoisie as a class and family 
> usually under one nation and their god--gods, one can also see that they are 
> alive and kicking and acting according to their own history and 
> traditions..The "discreet charmers" verses upp comers and "workerholics" is 
> just a fluke discussion. Although the "new" bourgeoisies like the Arabs are 
> certainly a force albut without any military clout whereas the black 
> bonapartes like in the former Zaire recruited as neo-colonial message boys 
> can produce the cannon fodder necessary to penetrate this new and changing 
> situation. Here to the British are fucked. Despite Nelson Mandela..It is the 
> French, Belgians and Americans with the ex Soviet Union playing a has been 
> role..
> 
> Warm regards
> Bob Malecki
> 
> Ps! Just a thought I want to throw out here..We have talked about the "weak 
> link" in the imperialist chain and revolutions after the first and second 
> world war. Perhaps the new weak link will be a few of the core imperialist 
> countries like England with a bourgeoisie that has the tradition but no real 
> social clout any longer with all the colonies gone being the new weak link 
> where the opportunity of proletarian revolution could very well sweep them 
> away. Before like in Franco's Spain they had the imperial troops and empire 
> to use to smash any rebellion at home. this is not the case today.. Whereas 
> the Swedes and the germans understand the need for the infrastructure in 
> order to uphold their rule. England on the other hand has nothing but the 
> middle class left and Tony Blair! A fucking by product of ages long 
> gone and by passed..Naturally this goes for Proyects boring us with his 
> India history which has no point at all other then as Juri says Proyect 
> trying to find a justification of some sort for his present "Gren" trajectory..
> 
> Warm regards
> Bob Malecki
> 
> 
> 
>      --- from list marxism-thaxis-AT-lists.village.virginia.edu ---





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