From: BHANDARI, RAKESH (bhandari@BERKELEY.EDU)
Date: Tue Sep 27 2005 - 19:28:13 EDT
On Tue, 27 Sep 2005 19:14:45 -0400 Gerald_A_Levy@MSN.COM wrote: > Rakesh: > > It is "one-sided Marxism" because it assumes that whatever capital > wants, capital gets. Hence the presumption that when capitalism is > in crisis the outcome in reference to the length of the working day > can _only_ be a lengthening. Non responsive. Even if at a certain stage of accumulation the outcome will be lengthening, it does not follow that there is no room for class struggle. Class struggle can moderate the rate at which the working day is lengethened and intensified. > > It is one-sided also in the following because it presumes that > reductions in the length of the working day -- and indeed "any reforms > for the working class" -- can _only_ occur after the "seizure of > power" by the working class. Again it does not follow from this (that positive gains are no longer possible) that on going daily class struggle is dismissed as ineffectual or unimportant. I don't see how you are defending your point against the criticism that I made. > > All of this is said with an air of inevitability -- indeed, the author > claims that the following is "obvious" from Marx's critique. What > should be obvious, though, is that within this framework there is no > role _whatsoever_ for the working class to struggle for limited reforms > and win. But there is a role for the working class to struggle not for gains but to slow down the rate at which it is reduced to a group of wretches. Hence, the class struggle is not a struggle at all -- the results > are pre-determined and dictated by the will, actions, and structure > of capital. Again this does not follow. The logical flaw is glaring. Within this context, the working class is merely an object > rather than a subject. Again a screaming non sequitar. That's why I indicated that I viewed it as an > excellent example of one-side Marxism. > > In referring to it being one-sided, I was using -- I believe -- > Michael L's understanding of what constitutes one-sided Marxism. > He can correct me if I am mistaken, of course. Again the defensive view of class struggle can be criticized as not Marx's own and/or flawed in itself. But there is no reason to caricature it. Yours, Rakesh > > In solidarity, Jerry > >> > http://en.internationalism.org/wr/285_longer_hours.html >> > "Taking this critique [Marx's critique in _Capital_, JL] as a whole, it >> > is obvious that any reforms for the working class, any reduction >> > in the working day for example, can only henceforth come about >> > after the seizure of power by the proletariat and as steps towards >> > a fully communist society."
This archive was generated by hypermail 2.1.5 : Wed Sep 28 2005 - 00:00:02 EDT