Date: Sun, 22 Feb 1998 23:35:18 +0100 From: Hugh Rodwell <m-14970-AT-mailbox.swipnet.se> Subject: M-TH: Information and the worker On the whole I agree with Carrol in his comments on Rob's remarks in the following exchange: >> I've banged on about this before here, but I'd like to compare this list's >> responses (if any) to my little scenario with whatever I get back on pen-l. >> It's about the usefulness of deeming our time so radical a transition as to >> constitute qualitatively new social relations. >[SNIP] > >The social relationship that defines capitalism is ownership of the means >of production by the capitalist class, ownership of their own labor power >which they must sell to live by the working class. > >Subordinate changes occur endlessly, for that is the nature of capitalism, >which *cannot* stop changing. But any theory that sees these changes, no >matter how tremendous or shocking, as a "qualittive change in social >relations," i.e., the replacement of capitalism by another mode of >production, dissolves Marxism, reducing to one more "philosophy" among >many but of no particular political interest. It is this sort of claim, >that capitalism has "changed," that can properly be labelled >"revisionism," and it differs qualitatively from all other errors or >crimes that marxists can commit, for it is a final separation from the >cause of the working class. > >> In so much of this shift, we see the capitalist benefitting from socially >> produced information (as knowledges already inculcated in workers) - it >> comes almost gratis, yet manifests as commodities. >[SNIP] > >This has always been the case. Marx discusses it in some detail. > >> 1. intellectual workers will have to be given more autonomy (ie less >> taylorisation') so that the capitalist can benefit from cooperation among >> workers - this creates a great cleavage in the proletariat (industrial v. >> information prols), >[SNIP] > >This has always been the case; it always will be the case under >capitalism. The working class has always been radically disunited under >capitalism. The "unity of the working class" is just another name for >revolution. > >> 3. A politicised first world lumpen proletariat is forming, able to sell >> their labour only in areas where cheap imports can't compete (real lawn >> mowing, real blow jobs,[SNIP] > >So? No change. "Lumpen proletariat" is a concept that is mostly irrelevant >except when studying the balance of forces when a workers' movement is >growing strong enough that revolution may be an imminent impossibility. It >is essentially a political concept, not useful to fundamental analysis of >a mode of production. > >> 5. The periphery of the periphery can, I suppose starve at relatively >low >> cost to the system for a good while, but then fundamentalist Islam might >> probably show the way there [SNIP] > >So? The world is one large struggle. Why speculate about the infinite >possibilities of variation within the capitalist system. We need to get a >deeper and deeper grasp of its daynamic from a political perspective: >e.g., which sectors of the working class can be moved into what kind of >anti-imperialist/capitalist action NOW. > >Why do you spend your time on these sorts of speculation, Rob? The only trouble is that Carrol's approach, as in his use of value theory to elucidate Milton, is too abstract and complacent. His own enlightenment is sufficient unto itself, everybody else is unenlightened and wasting their time. The problem is that to read Carrol you'd think it was deliberate idiocy and perversity underlying the lack of enlightenment. Such impatience with the lost, such a hurry to condemn and then scuttle back to the shelter of omniscience ... There's a sectarianism here that is basically related to a lack of experience of fighting with workers in the class struggle and seeing how they can develop at their own pace with the right kind of help (theoretical input that's relevant and at the right level) and the right kind of encouragement from events (when the struggle produces good results). Interpreting things correctly is only the *start* of a revolutionary process of social change. This is one of the differences Yoshie thought were unnecessary in my reaction to Carrol's use of value theory in his interpretation of Milton (when I objected to a description of exchange value as "spiritual", Carrol replied as if every damn fool knew all about commodity fetishism and its place in Marx's theory!). My guess as to why Rob speculates in this way is that like so many others he thinks it's important. His emotions are involved in the surface phenomena he relates to in his conscious reflections, and he isn't emotionally convinced yet of the validity and robustness of the Marxist explanations for these phenomena -- he's investigating the links between our exploitative economic system and the social reality he perceives, and he's still not sure he's grasped it all. And no wonder given the contradictory and confusing explanations jumbled up under the name of Marxism today. And to top it all off there's all the non-Marxist impressionistic explanations parading around like proud emperors in their new clothes all over the academic world -- pomo, regulationism, Gramsci and Lukacs (semi-Marxist in origin, but often non-Marxist in their epigones, particularly Gramsci) -- a never-ending stream of sewage shimmering fluorescently to lure the unsuspecting scholar to the oracular navel (???) of the earth where the fumes pour out thickest ... In the beginning was the turd ... And just like a lot of labour aristocrats, academic Jobsworths often imagine they're immune to the evils affecting the ordinary sods around them -- the poor bastards down there at the foot of the ivory tower, milling around like so many stressed-out ants -- and they ruthlessly suppress any suggestion (from the outside or from the conscience) that they are paying a price for their "security" and that it's too high ... Much of the inadequacy of our discussions here would be remedied if the majority of subscribers were involved in actual working-class struggles on a day-to-day basis. It'd get the priorities into better order, and clarify who we're really discussing for and why. Cheers, Hugh PS Given the company we keep here, I'd better spell it out -- what I said above is mere guesswork as to Rob's motives, based on general observations of (less) him and (more) other academics. I welcome correction and development of these speculations. --- from list marxism-thaxis-AT-lists.village.virginia.edu ---
Display software: ArchTracker © Malgosia Askanas, 2000-2005