[OPE-L:7843] Re: Re: Re: Help with interstices

From: Michael Perelman (michael@ECST.CSUCHICO.EDU)
Date: Sat Oct 19 2002 - 11:56:28 EDT

Marx certainly believed that the transition to communisim could be
interstitial -- at least in his discussion of the building up of
infrastructure and the growth of joint stock companies -- unless
insterstitial only means small developments.

On Sat, Oct 19, 2002 at 09:31:44AM -0600, John Holloway wrote:
> Mike, Allin, Jerry, 
>     Many thanks for the responses. Mike comes closest to what I'm looking
> for.
>     On Mike's question: Yes, I think part of the baggage of orthodox Marxism
> is the assumption that the transition from capitalism to communism (unlike
> the transition from feudalism to capitalism) cannot be interstitial. This
> seems to me to be wrong, that in fact the only way to think of revolution is
> as interstitial. This is not reformism or gradualism, but rather an attempt
> to keep the concept of revolution alive and central to our thought. 
>     John
> ----------
> From: "michael a. lebowitz" <mlebowit@sfu.ca>
> To: ope-l@galaxy.csuchico.edu
> Subject: [OPE-L:7838] Re: Help with interstices
> Date: Fri, Oct 18, 2002, 1:31 PM
> At 12:38 17/10/2002 -0600, you wrote:
> Does anyone know who said when and where that the transition from capitalism
> to communism was fundamentally different from the transition from feudalism
> to capitalism, in the sense that capitalism grew up in the interstices of
> feudalism, whereas communism could not grow up in the interstices of
> capitalism?
>     John
> John,
>         There may be others who made similar points, but Evgeny
> Preobrazhensky in his The New Economics (Oxford, 1965) in his argument for
> 'primitive socialist accumulation' argues 'that socialist accumulation can
> begin only after the proletarian revolution, whereas the process of
> primitive capitalist accumulation begins and goes on before the bourgeois
> revolutions (116).'  It's a very interesting discussion of a process of
> contested reproduction-- marred, I would suggest, by the tendency to
> identify socialism with industry (regardless of its productive relations)
> and to miss the point that primitive capitalist accumulation for Marx
> referred first of all to a change in productive relations within
> agriculture. I suspect this latter question is not what interests you,
> though. Are you proposing that, within capitalism, we can identify the
> emergence of new, communist relations (and, thus, such a contrast is
> incorrect)?
>         in solidarity,
>          mike
> Michael A. Lebowitz
> Economics Department
> Simon Fraser University
> Burnaby, B.C., Canada V5A 1S6
> Office: Phone (604) 291-4669
>          Fax  (604) 291-5944
> Home:   Phone (604) 872-0494
>          Fax  (604) 872-0485
> Lasqueti Island: (250) 333-8810

Michael Perelman
Economics Department
California State University
Chico, CA 95929

Tel. 530-898-5321
E-Mail michael@ecst.csuchico.edu

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.1.5 : Sun Oct 20 2002 - 00:00:01 EDT