[OPE-L:6354] Re: Re: Re: recent science and society and Fred M's interpretation

From: Paul Zarembka (zarembka@ACSU.BUFFALO.EDU)
Date: Thu Jan 17 2002 - 18:44:46 EST

Rakesh Bhandari <rakeshb@stanford.edu> said, on 01/17/02 [OPE-L:6349]:

>>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.

I know this.

>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.

I know this also, except perhaps the last phrase "he knew presupposed an
objective  disintegration of the capitalist system" as I'm not convinced
Marx was emphasizing breaddown theory in his mature work.

>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.

What you had said was CONSISTENT with rising productivity and rising wages,
WHILE ALSO a rising rate of exploitation.  Not now, however. 

I was NOT reacting to anything about exceptional intellectuals/leaders, one
way or another.

>>  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

You did not say anything rising rate of exploitation until now (after I

But if you are amending your statement to include pre-supposing a rising
rate of exploitation then I withdraw my concern.


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