Date: Thu, 1 Aug 1996 19:03:16 -0400 (EDT)
Subject: Lumpy Potatoes and Sirloin Steak


Before i address Mark Adkins newest post I want to aplologize for getting
too excited in my last 2 posts.  I shouldn't have been so rude...it became
obvious to me after I reread them.  Its just that this Mark pisses me
off...I tried to be quite friendly, understanding, helpfull at first
thinking this is a genuine questining person...and then he takes up this
snotty attitude and turn sout not to be so innocent & genuine.  Anyway I
should still have controlled myself.

emerald-AT-aztec.asu.edu (MARK ADKINS) writes:

>>The bourg. desire for profit remains constant.  But the world, the 
>>context in which this desire takes place is infact defined by its 
>>DYNAMIC nature.  What is progresive yesterday id reactionary today.  
>>After around 1848, the borg., still figfhting fo their intrests, became
>>reactionary.  The prusuit of profit has become a fetter to progress.
>
>It's true that democracy and capitalism are improvements upon feudalism.
>
>But when Comrade Locker starts talking about "society" as a monolithic
>unit, without reference to the relative effects of economic forces
>on different classes, he sounds more like a bourgeois capitalist than

This is true; all changes effect each class differently (and each layer of
the class differently).  But the point is that society as a whole
progressed.  The wealth, knowledge, culture and potential for furure wealth
production grew by leaps and bounds.

>a Marxist (or even an informed liberal).  The position that industrial
>exploitation was a boon to the workers before 1848 but a bane after
>1848 is untenable, and is in fact absurd on its face.  No doubt the
>exploited classes of Dickensian England, in many cases working as
>wage slaves under brutal conditions, and dying of starvation, exposure
>to the elements, horrendously unsafe work environments, and extreme
>punishments (often capital) for trivial and economically motivated
>offenses like the theft of bread, would have disagreed with Comrade
>Locker's assessment.  Who knows, they might even have preferred
>the relative comfort of feudal village life.

Of course it was not fun.  But that is not the point.  Slavery, no matter
its historical context is no fun for the slave.  But, in the historical
sense ancient slavery (not US slavery) was a very progresive development.
Engels has an excellent qoute on how ancient slavery was evan an improvemnet
for the slaves; instead of being simply killed or eaten after being captured
in battle they would be set to work as a slave.

Yes, early workers had terrible lives.  But in the historical sense it was
progresive.  It was necessary.  They did not have the power to do anything
about it.  And, in a sense there lives were better than under feudalism.
The feudal realtions were torn apart -- the bourgeios notion of
individuality was introduced.  They moved (actually were forced to) to the
city were they were aurronded by culture.  The feudal life was no fun
either, mind you.  I don't know enough about the topic to definitvly saw
what the conditions were for the avg. joe under european feudalism or early
capitalism...but you can't just say early capitalism was bruttle.  You have
to compare it to life under feudalism and then make a relative comparsion,
not an absolute statement.

>And why 1848?  What is so magical about 1848, Comrade Locker?  Why
>not 1847, or 1849?  Is this when the "molten hot objective laws
>of history" kicked in?  

Marxists general agree on 1848 has a decisive turning point in the history
of the bourgeoisie.  Durring the revolutions of 1848 they proved themselves
unable of boldly leading a revolutionary struggle against the feudal
aristocracy.  They heistated, vascillated, and eventually betrayed their
alliance with the workers inorder to strike a compromise with the
reactionaries.  Before 1848 fought out the ractionaries to the end...now
they were forced to be conservative for 2 reasons:

a) they had alot less to gain now.  They were in a o.k position in society
(not to say the aristocrats weren't afetter on their growth; it was just
_relitively_ less of a fetter)

b) they had more to lose than they had before.  Workers were starting to
assert their own seperate needs & demands.

Anyway 1848 is not just an random year picked out of hat.  It is a
traditionally accepted turning point amongst marxists (including Marx & engels).

--
Philip Locker
Labor Militant
NYC, USA



     --- from list marxism2-AT-lists.village.virginia.edu ---