[OPE-L:6349] Re: Re: recent science and society and Fred M's interpretation

From: Rakesh Bhandari (rakeshb@stanford.edu)
Date: Thu Jan 17 2002 - 15:42:57 EST


>Rakesh, Are you sure you mean what you write below.  It seems to deny
>Marx's grounds from revolutionary activity of the working class in
>circumstances in which productive forces develops (production of relative
>surplus value) and wages rise (e.g., through unionization).

But Paul Z trade union activity is not revolutionary activity.

In defending trade union activity Marx was trying to clarify not only 
the basis of their struggle (closing the gap between the value of 
their power and the labor which they expend)but also to turn that 
struggle into a self conscious training ground for future 
revolutionary action which he knew presupposed an objective 
disintegrationof the capitalist system.

so yes, Paul Z, I meant what I said because Marxian theory does not 
attempt to explain why certain individuals and exceptional 
intellectuals become revolutionaries but the conditions under which 
workers will have to become revolutionaries, i.e., more than trade 
unionists, to protect their gains and achieve their own emancipation. 
Those conditions reduce to an objectively disintegrating capitalism.

>  Both can
>occur, ALONG WITH a rising rate of exploitation.  Therefore, rising
>exploitation would NOT be a basis of revolutionary activity.

I mean a rising rate of exploitation that is not only not compensated 
by real wage gains but erodes those gains of the past while also 
subjecting workers to greater uncertainty and fear in the stability 
of their employment.


This archive was generated by hypermail 2b30 : Sat Feb 02 2002 - 00:00:05 EST