Warning: Undefined array key -1 in /customers/3/0/2/riff-raff.se/httpd.www/wiki/inc/html.php on line 1458

Differences

This shows you the differences between two versions of the page.

--- 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 95: / Line 95: @@
 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 //self-presupposition//. How does this reproduction come about?
-//The whole// contests according to Marx of ‘the reproduction and new production of //the relation of capital and labour itself//…’, between the working class and the capitalist class. TC insists on that it is via Marx’s //concept of exploitation//, that is to say the conditions for the extraction of surplus labour, that makes it possible to illuminate how the capitalist society and its class contradictions are reproduced as a totality and expressed as such.
+//The whole// consists according to Marx of ‘the reproduction and new production of //the relation of capital and labour itself//…’, between the working class and the capitalist class. TC insists on that it is via Marx’s //concept of exploitation//, that is to say the conditions for the extraction of surplus labour, that makes it possible to illuminate how the capitalist society and its class contradictions are reproduced as a totality and expressed as such.
 > Exploitation, which is the content of the relation, can be deconstructed into three moments: the selling and purchasing of labour power; capital’s subsumtion of labour; the transformation of the surplus-value into additional capital, i.e. to new transformed means of production and new, transformed labour power. ((Théorie communiste, ‘A reply to Aufheben’, p. 164))
@@ 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.
-> 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, what is to say: a reciprocal but non-symetrical implication (subsumption); a process in contradiction with its own reproduction (the fall of the rate of profit), a whole of wich each element exists only as a definition of its other in contradiction with it and from there with itself (productive labour and accumulation of capital, surplus labour and necessary labour).((See //Théorie communiste// № 2, p. 10 and № 20, pp. 71--72; pp. 78--79; p. 170; p. 190.))
 >
-> 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 of the proletarait by itself in the movement when the whole is, in its dynamics, contradictory to itself as the activity of a class.((See //Théorie communiste// № 20, p. 54)) (Roland Simon in an e-mail to riff-raff, September 14, 2006)
+> 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, what is to say: a reciprocal but non-symetrical implication (subsumption); a process in contradiction with its own reproduction (the fall of the rate of profit), a whole of which each element exists only as a definition of its other in contradiction with it and from there with itself (productive labour and accumulation of capital, surplus labour and necessary labour).((See //Théorie communiste// № 2, p. 10 and № 20, pp. 71--72; pp. 78--79; p. 170; p. 190.))
+>
+> 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 of the proletarat by itself in the movement when the whole is, in its dynamics, contradictory to itself as the activity of a class.((See //Théorie communiste// № 20, p. 54.)) (Roland Simon in an e-mail to riff-raff, September 14, 2006)
 ==== From self-organisation to communisation ====