This shows you the differences between two versions of the page.
Both sides previous revision Previous revision Next revision | Previous revision | ||
en:riff-raff:introduction_to_riff-raff8 [Y-m-dH:i] titorelli |
en:riff-raff:introduction_to_riff-raff8 [Y-m-dH:i] (current) titorelli |
||
---|---|---|---|
Line 91: | Line 91: | ||
//Figure I. Double mill in motion. The reproduction of capital and labour?// | //Figure I. Double mill in motion. The reproduction of capital and labour?// | ||
- | The original French translator of //Das Kapital//, Joseph Roy, decided to play on the sense of mill and came up with //double moulinet//, explicitly evoking the image of two cogs or cycles, with the added benefit that a moulinet was also a grinder. It seems as though Roy got a good aproximation, at least Marx seemed to think so as he supervised the translation and even claimed it was better than the original. Which is more than can be said for his English counterparts; | + | The original French translator of //Das Kapital//, Joseph Roy, decided to play on the sense of mill and came up with //double moulinet//, explicitly evoking the image of two cogs or cycles, with the added benefit that a moulinet was also a grinder. It seems as though Roy got a good approximation, at least Marx seemed to think so as he supervised the translation and even claimed it was better than the original. Which is more than can be said for his English counterparts; |
This disquisition of the Mill game is of value in context because TC makes such a big deal about it and they think that it sheds light on an important problematic. The analogy is used to illustrate a picture of //the whole of the capitalist mode of production and the reproduction of its classes//, its // | This disquisition of the Mill game is of value in context because TC makes such a big deal about it and they think that it sheds light on an important problematic. The analogy is used to illustrate a picture of //the whole of the capitalist mode of production and the reproduction of its classes//, its // | ||
- | //The whole// | + | //The whole// |
> Exploitation, | > Exploitation, | ||
Line 114: | Line 114: | ||
> As a matter of fact, the worker is caugt in a trap but the strength of the image of the ‘double moulinet’ lies in the fact that it shows that he owes not his position and definition to a manoeuver but to a structural definition of reproduction. The proletariat cannot abolish capital without abolishing itself at the same time. (You get this idea in the phrase ‘double moulinet’.) If understanding the contradictory reproduction through the ‘double moulinet’ dismisses the liberation of the class, it nevertheless induces a terrible question: how can the abolition of its own rules be part and parcel of the game, as a relation between its terms and also as a movement of the whole? In the contradiction between its poles is the object itself (the mode of production) which is in contradiction with itself. Because capital is a contradiction in process proletariat against capital includes the negation of its own existence. | > As a matter of fact, the worker is caugt in a trap but the strength of the image of the ‘double moulinet’ lies in the fact that it shows that he owes not his position and definition to a manoeuver but to a structural definition of reproduction. The proletariat cannot abolish capital without abolishing itself at the same time. (You get this idea in the phrase ‘double moulinet’.) If understanding the contradictory reproduction through the ‘double moulinet’ dismisses the liberation of the class, it nevertheless induces a terrible question: how can the abolition of its own rules be part and parcel of the game, as a relation between its terms and also as a movement of the whole? In the contradiction between its poles is the object itself (the mode of production) which is in contradiction with itself. Because capital is a contradiction in process proletariat against capital includes the negation of its own existence. | ||
- | |||
- | > To answer this question would amount to reconsider the whole analysis of the contradictory course of the capitalist mode of production, not only as contradictory and reflexive game between two classes which constitute the two poles of the same whole, but as an internal movement within a whole which has two poles. It is only in apprehending contradiction (exploitation) as the internal movement of a whole that we will only be able to grasp the way in which the game comes to the abolition of its own rule and in no way the transient and random victory of one of the players (who actually is always the same one). | ||
- | |||
- | > Exploitation makes it possible to build class struggle as contradiction, | ||
> | > | ||
- | > All this only functions if we achieve understanding the fall of the rate of profit as a contradiction between the classes and as a questionning | + | > To answer this question would amount to reconsider the whole analysis of the contradictory course of the capitalist mode of production, not only as contradictory and reflexive game between two classes which constitute the two poles of the same whole, but as an internal movement within a whole which has two poles. It is only in apprehending contradiction (exploitation) as the internal movement of a whole that we will be able to grasp the way in which the game comes to the abolition of its own rule and in no way the transient and random victory of one of the players (who actually is always the same one). |
+ | > | ||
+ | > Exploitation makes it possible to build class struggle as contradiction, | ||
+ | > | ||
+ | > All this only functions if we achieve understanding the fall of the rate of profit as a contradiction between the classes and as a questioning | ||
==== From self-organisation to communisation ==== | ==== From self-organisation to communisation ==== |