Posted by davidasearles@yahoo.com on June 20, 2009 at 12:04:01:
Sure, capitalist do not have the same direct economic
interest as workers, especially in the wage/profit
tussle. What I object to is the substitution for
thought that goes on with the use of the idea in
axiomatic fashion to apply to absolutely everything -
to our detriment.
e.g. as applied to state:
"The state is a product of society at a certain stage
of development--an admission that the society is so
divided into irreconcilable, antagonistic class
interests that the class in power needs a force to
stand above society for the purpose of keeping the
conflict in check. The very existence of the state is
proof that the class differences can not be
reconciled." Engels - Origins Family, Private
Property and the State
Is class interest a monolith?
Marx's Capital dealt with a certain type of basic
exploitation - the wages system as applied to the
production of commodities.
By the early 21st Century - look around, where are
the manufacturies of commodities? Scant few remain
and the inexeorable trend is that because of our
standard of living compared to undeveloped countries
manuafacturies are migrating in droves out of the US,
even out of China, to less developed countries. So
what does that do to the antagonism between the
growing number of unemployed commodity workers and
the remaining capitalists? The whole relationship is
nowhere as stark as it was at the turn of the 20th
Century. The power of the "industrial" capitalist
vis a vis the political state in the US is at a very
low ebb, to say the least. Shouldn't workers and
their friends work to try to convince the state
(currently representing the remaining Capitalists) to
use its financial powers to put workers into
collective control of the industrial means of
production and distribution?