Welcome to DU! The truly grassroots left-of-center political community where regular people, not algorithms, drive the discussions and set the standards. Join the community: Create a free account Support DU (and get rid of ads!): Become a Star Member All Forums Issue Forums Culture Forums Alliance Forums Region Forums Support Forums Help & Search

joshcryer

(62,265 posts)
37. Capitalism is inherently hierarchical.
Tue Aug 27, 2013, 01:13 AM
Aug 2013

But I don't know how what I said can be considered "a recent articulation of the age old hierarchical mode of production," perhaps from a totally reductive position where all non-possessive property relationships are see as capitalist, but I would rather reduce that to authoritarianism. Capitalism, sure, is but one manifestation of authoritarianism. I don't suggest that all forms of non-possessive property relationships are capitalist.

I don't suggest that technology is an emancipating force, because I explicitly state that organization is necessary to use a technology that way. This is in contrast to Marx who thinks that "new productive faculties" (this is called technology) will "change the economic relations." Objectively false, as proven by history. Technology can be emancipating, that's all.

My criticism of Marx is that he didn't write out a fundamental reason why capitalist production relations within the workplace are damaging to revolutionary action. Indeed, had he did that (after plagiarizing huge chunks of Proudhon including surplus value, which Proudhon was first to recognize), it would've rendered his entire critique one of authoritarianism and not capitalism, directly. All anti-authoritarians are anti-capitalist (capitalism is inherently hierarchical and authoritarian), but not all anti-capitalists are anti-authoritarian (some anti-capitalists are just after the productive faculties and not in fact for changing the way they operate to any substantial degree). Note: Marx did later back off his "steam mill = industrial capitalism" rhetoric, but it was never explicitly defined from what I've read of him.

The closest you get is Marx's critique of workplace alienation, which btw, he also copied from Proudhon. What he does is argue that the bourgeois class runs the work place and workers are alienated, but if the workers ran the work place, they wouldn't be alienated (this is a very generalized overview, you'll forgive me if it's not up to your standards). However, he doesn't say how those workers should manage the workplace. In fact, the implication, is that the workplace should be managed, due to the central production rhetoric in the Communist Manifesto, centrally, directly through capitalist-style management processes. Or, as a term I'm coining right now, the authoritarian mode of production. Where within the workplace there is a class system in and of itself because managers form cliques, cronyism is rampant, and those who want to better themselves are unable to do so without themselves being alienated. And guess what? Almost all implemented forms of Marxist Communism followed this model to one extent or another. The work place effectively became a state owned corporation which was ran by crony elites.

Proudhon spends a huge chunk of his writings explaining how the non-possessive workshop works, and Marx only mocked him, nevermind that workplace alienation was the entire reason Proudhon felt that workers should, as he mocked Proudhon, "make not only the twelfth part of a pin, but successively all twelve parts of it." To rid ones self of workplace alienation you must be involved in the totality of the process. Workers committees only go so far in that, if they don't allow individuals to be involved in the totality of the process, they are inviting the possibility for workplace alienation and inner-workplace cliques and quasi-class systems.

In a word, yes. Proud Public Servant Jul 2013 #1
In a word, no. ChairmanAgnostic Jul 2013 #2
Perhaps. TBF Jul 2013 #3
hmmm pretty interesting limpyhobbler Jul 2013 #7
Marx and Engels wrote each other letters talking about the problem. Starry Messenger Jul 2013 #4
Thanks for the links limpyhobbler Aug 2013 #11
In a word, maybe. Jackpine Radical Jul 2013 #5
So the middle class in some places may turn out to have been sort of temporary. limpyhobbler Aug 2013 #8
Well to me that's the crux of this question...... socialist_n_TN Aug 2013 #9
Yeah it really seems that way. limpyhobbler Aug 2013 #10
There's a lot of history behind ALL of these reform/revolution arguments.... socialist_n_TN Aug 2013 #12
Yeah this is limpyhobbler Aug 2013 #13
Well I'm not so sure that eminent domain couldn't be used.... socialist_n_TN Aug 2013 #14
They should be using eminent domain for that. limpyhobbler Aug 2013 #16
reform vs revolution DonCoquixote Aug 2013 #28
Just a quick reply as I have to go to work in a few.......... socialist_n_TN Aug 2013 #29
my reply DonCoquixote Aug 2013 #30
Well once again, I don't think that it's a guarantee that the ....... socialist_n_TN Aug 2013 #31
Marx didn't get industry. joshcryer Jul 2013 #6
"at no point in history did new productive facilities actually change the mode of production" BOG PERSON Aug 2013 #20
That's a Jensen view. joshcryer Aug 2013 #21
i appreciate the name-dropping BOG PERSON Aug 2013 #22
I don't reject that notion. joshcryer Aug 2013 #23
"Ideally historical materialism would've said, BOG PERSON Aug 2013 #24
it was actually utopian socialists, e.g. the saint simonians - BOG PERSON Aug 2013 #25
I didn't say historical materialism said that. joshcryer Aug 2013 #32
i'm sorry historical materialism didnt say what you wanted it to say BOG PERSON Aug 2013 #33
What do you think "new productive faculties" are? joshcryer Aug 2013 #34
you remain wrong about the "new productive faculties" BOG PERSON Aug 2013 #35
This message was self-deleted by its author BOG PERSON Aug 2013 #36
Capitalism is inherently hierarchical. joshcryer Aug 2013 #37
what is workplace alienation? BOG PERSON Aug 2013 #38
Eh. Disengagement commenced. joshcryer Aug 2013 #39
Three things changed since Marx that were firsts in history Taverner Aug 2013 #15
Coal, oil and gas certainly did fuel the development of modern society. limpyhobbler Aug 2013 #17
The Peak Oil Hypothesis still holds Taverner Aug 2013 #18
no BOG PERSON Aug 2013 #19
Yes he did, for a couple of reasons Warpy Aug 2013 #26
Not at all. David__77 Aug 2013 #27
Latest Discussions»Retired Forums»Socialist Progressives»Did Marx underestimate th...»Reply #37