From: Dogan Goecmen (Dogangoecmen@AOL.COM)
Date: Wed Dec 13 2006 - 14:43:35 EST
Dear Paulo! Sorry for the delay. I am struggling to meet some deadlines. Therefore a very short reply: I think that the answer to your question lies in the passage below from Communist Manifesto. It may also be very useful to read the chapter on "Forms which precede capitalist production: (Concerning the process which precedes the formation of the capital relation or of original accumulation)" in the second section of the Grundrisse See: _http://www.marx.org/archive/marx/works/1857/grundrisse/ch09.htm#iiie2_ (http://www.marx.org/archive/marx/works/1857/grundrisse/ch09.htm#iiie2) Communist Manifesto "The distinguishing feature of Communism is not the abolition of property generally, but the abolition of bourgeois property. But modern bourgeois private property is the final and most complete expression of the system of producing and appropriating products, that is based on class antagonisms, on the exploitation of the many by the few. In this sense, the theory of the Communists may be summed up in the single sentence: Abolition of private property. We Communists have been reproached with the desire of abolishing the right of personally acquiring property as the fruit of a man’s own labour, which property is alleged to be the groundwork of all personal freedom, activity and independence. Hard-won, self-acquired, self-earned property! Do you mean the property of petty artisan and of the small peasant, a form of property that preceded the bourgeois form? There is no need to abolish that; the development of industry has to a great extent already destroyed it, and is still destroying it daily. Or do you mean the modern bourgeois private property? But does wage-labour create any property for the labourer? Not a bit. It creates capital, i.e., that kind of property which exploits wage-labour, and which cannot increase except upon condition of begetting a new supply of wage-labour for fresh exploitation. Property, in its present form, is based on the antagonism of capital and wage labour. Let us examine both sides of this antagonism. To be a capitalist, is to have not only a purely personal, but a social status in production. Capital is a collective product, and only by the united action of many members, nay, in the last resort, only by the united action of all members of society, can it be set in motion. Capital is therefore not only personal; it is a social power. When, therefore, capital is converted into common property, into the property of all members of society, personal property is not thereby transformed into social property. It is only the social character of the property that is changed. It loses its class character." See: _http://www.marx.org/archive/marx/works/1848/communist-manifesto/ch02.htm_ (http://www.marx.org/archive/marx/works/1848/communist-manifesto/ch02.htm) Comradely Dogan In einer eMail vom 11.12.2006 21:33:53 Westeuropäische Normalzeit schreibt cipolla@UFPR.BR: Francisco Paulo Cipolla wrote: Dogan, is the citation right? Why does Marx say "but gives him individual property" instead of collective property? Co-operation or possession in common seem to be the opposite of individual property! Paulo Dogan Goecmen wrote: Dear David in Capital, Vol. 1, Part VIII: Primitive Accumulation, Chapter Thirty-Two: Historical Tendency of Capitalist Accumulation, in the paragraph before the last paragraph Marx says: *The capitalist mode of appropriation, the result of the capitalist mode of production, produces capitalist private property. This is the first negation of individual private property, as founded on the labor of the proprietor. But capitalist production begets, with the inexorability of a law of Nature, its own negation. It is the negation of negation. This does not re-establish private property for the producer, but gives him individual property based on the acquisition of the capitalist era: i.e., on co-operation and the possession in common of the land and of the means of production.*See: _http://www.marx.org/archive/marx/works/1867-c1/ch32.htm_ (http://www.marx.org/archive/marx/works/1867-c1/ch32.htm) ;alternatively: Karl Marx, Capital, Moscow: Progress Publishers, Vol. I, p. 715.If more references needed please let us know. There are many similar passages in various other works of Marx and Engels. Since you put in your email Marx on the first place I selected a passage from Capital. CheersDogan In einer eMail vom 08.12.2006 22:40:26 Westeuropäische Normalzeit schreibt dlaibman@SCIENCEANDSOCIETY.COM: Dear OPE comrades, Folks on this list are *so good* at tracking things down, that I could not resist passing this one along. One of my colleagues at *Science & Society,* Barbara Foley, asks: where does Marx (I think she would include Engels as well) put forward the idea that history proceeds in spiral form -- i.e., negation of the negation, with elements present in the first-posited stage returning, in a "higher" state, in a third stage? Any references would be appreciated. In solidarity, David David Laibman
This archive was generated by hypermail 2.1.5 : Sun Dec 31 2006 - 00:00:04 EST