MATERIALISM DIALECTIC

                        UPDATE OF DIALECTIC MATERIALISM OR

                        MARXISM IN THE 21ST CENTURY

   Bibeau.robert@videotron.ca    Éditeur.   http://www.les7duquebec.com

 29.11.2017

THE ARTICLE IS AVAILABLE ON THE WEBMAGAZINE:

http://www.les7duquebec.com/7-au-front/actualisation-du-materialisme-dialectique-ou-le-marxisme-au-xxie-siecle/

Pure sciences and social sciences, metaphysics and ontology.

Imagine that all internationally recognized astrophysicists, including some Nobel Prize-winning luminaries, have never been able to get a single rocket off the ground. At each aborted attempt the astronauts would have died in their ship-tombs. Do you believe that these astrophysicists, engineers and technicians would retain any credibility, any notoriety?

Yet, no Nobel Prize-winning and made sacred bourgeois economist can anticipate what will happen following the systemic economic crisis of 2007-2008. They can not even agree on the prediction of a protracted crisis or an onset of recovery. However, the bourgeois go-left plays its role of propagandist and fumist and offers its forums to one or the other of these dazed experts appearing before assemblies of idle militants.

Demonstration, some time ago was held at the prestigious Sorbonne of Paris a conference of Master Rémi Herrera, researcher at the CNRS, on the theme “The degenerative disease of the economy: the neoclassicism” in the framework of a seminar entitled, “Marx in the 21st century“. The scientist committed an attempt to “actualize” the Marxist thought in political economy. Since the master did not really master his subject, the poor wandered, without understanding that he was serving the cause that he claimed to defend. (1)

From the outset, the professor of the National Center for Scientific Research went from two falsehoods to conclude with a proven sophism. He postulated that China, an economically prosperous country, includes capitalist components , but especially socialist components. Then, he said that China feeds properly 22% of the world population (1.3 billion people). He concluded that these are the unquestionable proofs that only the socialism can ensure such a performance and that the capitalism would never succeed.

In the long run, one mode of production per country, the same in all countries.

If the researcher knew the Marxist political economy, he would know that according to Marxist theory two antagonistic modes of production can not survive or coexist on a given national territory without phagocyting. It is always the most efficient mode of production that absorbs the least productive. It is a law of Marxist political economy.

Incidentally, it is because the first mode of production was not sufficient for the task, no longer fulfilled its historical mission that the second mode of production (of replacement)  arose, born from the insoluble contradictions of the first. If it was true that the Chinese economy includes capitalist components and other socialist ones and if it is true that these two modes of production are different, then the most efficient – effective – productive – will absorb the less productive, the less efficient.

As the duel “socialist camp” against “Western capitalist camp” proved during the Cold War (1945 – 1991) the private financial capitalist economy absorbed the socialist (state) industrialist capitalist industrialist economy, attesting the more effective.

Then, Mr.Herrera does not seem to know that the misery is great in China, that every year thousands of wild strikes broke out involving millions of proletarians overexploited, underpaid, precarious against corrupt officials, paid by mafia businessmen. The researcher seems unaware that millions of expropriated peasants are being driven off their land and often without compensation. They will swell the slums on the outskirts of the free zones (excluding taxes for multinational imperialists). Finally, the theorist seems to be unaware that this social misery cohabits more and more difficult with the exuberance of an “emerging” bourgeois class composed of flourishing billionaires and a whole fringe of greedy petty-bourgeois. However, we, by advanced capitalist countries, know better than anyone what will happen to these petty-bourgeois – bobos and sycophants – during the next cycle of economic crisis. They will find themselves precarious and impoverished like those millions of proletarianized Chinese peasants who are forced to migrate from a region to another of the capitalizing “emerging” China in search of an infamous job.

Socialist economy – state capitalist – communist mode of production.

The CNRS researcher then gets bogged down in the characterization of what characterizes a socialist economy and the proletarian communist mode of production. Let us first say that according to Marx the socialist mode of production does not exist. According to Marx, the capitalist mode of production, have reached its culminating point, the one where its internal contradictions will have reached a point of no return, and where this mode of production will have harnessed the totality of the productive forces which it will be able to valorise (to generate surplus-value) then, this mode of production will crumble under the weight of antagonistic insurrectionary forces. From this destructive anarchy will emerge the proletarian revolutionary movement that will build a new revolutionary mode of production, the proletarian communist mode of production.

The proletarian communist mode of production.

But above all, for the Marxists, the communist mode of production is not the nationalization or the planning of the economy by the state, nor the equity in the distribution of goods and the accumulated capital. For the Marxists the proletarian communist mode of production is the abolition of the market economy, the ownership of the means of production, exchange and communication, it is the abolition of wage labor, money, stock market and the banks, it is the extinction of the State, and the end of the separation of the producers from their means of production (original alienation according to Marx), and the end of the separation between the city and the countryside (basic alienation according to Marx). In short, the socialist economy more or less state, nationalized and planned, it is neither a condition, or the achievement of the proletarian communist mode of production.

Note that Marx has tried to describe briefly how the capitalist societies will move from a mode of production to another, but these suppositions are among his most obscure passages and we advise readers not to dwell on them. The passage from a mode of production to another will be the work of those who will live this long and complex historical phase, totally unprecedented, truly exalting and for which the revolutionary proletarians still have time before them.

The capitalism of Socialist state.

Since the Bolshevik revolution in Russia, the Leninists have imagined a long transitional phase of systemic passage from the fallen capitalist mode of production to the communist mode of production promoted under the dictatorship of the proletariat, they claimed. It was then that was invented the mode of production of socialist transition, a state passage arranged between feudalism and communism without going through capitalism.(2) However, since that time, no country has even approached this situation of transition between the capitalist mode of production, having reached its degenerative peak, and the communist mode of production, contained in seeds within the very heart of the old system, presenting its override, predicted Marx. Neither the USSR, or China, or Vietnam, or Cuba, or North Korea to name only the examples that the cliche presents in support of his theory. Not even the Romania of Ceausescu, the genius of the Carpathians (sic), or the self-managing Yugoslavia of Tito, or the economically backward Albania from this good Enver Hodja from the country of the eagles, have approached conditions of high technology, economic productivity and financial hegemony to glimpse the end of socialist capitalism and the advent of communism. Contrary to what Lenin claimed in 1916, the capitalist mode of production, which was just beginning its ascending imperialist phase, had not finished of harnessing all the productive forces that were large enough to contain – that is to say, accumulate the capital to be valued. The archaic state of the feudal economies of China, India, Africa, and East Asia at that time (1916) should have sufficed to convince him. (3)

The hegemonic financial capital.

But let’s resume the line of the CNRS scientist’s presentation. He announces that he has discovered two elements which has recorded in his book: 1- the first is that the dominant fraction of capital, the fraction of financial capital, would impose on the whole world its laws and its destiny. However, according to the Marxist theory there are not three monopoly capitalist fractions, one industrial, the other commercial and the third financial banking and stock market as the economists of the left claim. Since Lenin we know that industrial – commercial and banking capital has merged with the stock market to form only an individual international capital, the hegemonic globalized financial capital. (4)

The “scientific” metaphysics

Let’s continue our investigation of the ideas of the Marxist seeker. Master Herrera reveals the second discovery recorded in his book: 2- there would be “problems in economic models of neoclassicism imposed by the dominant mainstream thinking, many serious theoretical problems that prevent economists to understand the crisis and solve it“(5). Let us settle quickly a dispute which opposes us here to the Marxist thinker. Marx has repeatedly stated that it is impossible to solve the systemic crisis of capitalism and we are in tune with Marx on this point. Solving the ills of moribund capitalism will require more than words, a social revolution.

Notwithstanding this, let’s continue with the professor who identifies three points of articulation that are lacking according to him: 
A) macro-and-micro-economy. B) Articulation between economy and politics. C) Articulation between economics and philosophy of ontological ethics that founds the neoclassical economics.

No need to go further, the discoveries of the economist professor with marxist leanings are the same water that distill the bourgeois economists which he criticizes.

The contemporary bourgeois economists practice the economics as metaphysical astrologers theologians practiced the science in the Middle Ages. Instead of auscultating the real world around them, the neoliberal economists seek in dogmas and “scholarly” books the answer to their questions. Let’s take a concrete example. It is undeniable that big capital does not renounce any embezzlement to escape the tax by concealing its profits in tax havens.

But this pragmatic economic behavior is not a consequence of the problem of “the articulation between philosophy of ontological ethics and neoclassical economics“. It is equally undeniable that government policies and programs serve the interests of billionaires and corporate capital, but this behavior of the political functionaries of capitalism is not the result of a bad “articulation between economics and politics” which constitute the practical materialization.

In other words, it is not the “neoclassical and neoliberal” ideology that manipulates and triturates the contemporary economic situation, but it is the laws of capitalist production of goods and services, which make it possible to ensure the valorization (enlarged reproduction of capital) which forces capitalists to become inventive in terms of fiscal efficiency; the constraints to direct their politicians to austerity policies and encourages them to subsidize the research on neoliberal and neoclassical policies of CNRS (sic).

As the real astrophysicists, physicists, engineers and chemists have understood and apply it, it is not their ideological, religious, or ontological orientation that guides their research and scientific work, but the concrete reality that surrounds them and that they are auscultating, sometimes even giving way to formulate and popularize this science which they produce in the form of theories that are downright ascientific or more often approximate, such as the divine origin of life; the Earth center of the universe; the original Bigbang; Darwinism; relativity, etc. Since Marx the world of the social and economic sciences has the chance to repudiate the counter-scientific theories on which the speculations of the specialists are based and to indulge in the true dialectical social and economic sciences, but to do this the researchers must remember that the theories formalize the reality, they do not invent it, they do not even change the reality. A “marxizing” seeker who forgets it risks to regress rather than actualizing the Marxist dialectical materialist science. (6)

                                                        NOTES 

  1. Remi Herrera. (2015) The degenerative disease of the economy: the neoclassicism. Delga. Paris. To see on Vimeo https://vimeo.com/119639904
  2. Hence the text of Lenin State and the Revolutionpublished in 1917.
  3. Lenin   Imperialism is the supreme stage of capitalism.  Social publishing.
  4. Lenin   Imperialism is the supreme stage of capitalism.  Social publishing.
  5. Rémi Herrera (2015). The degenerative disease of the economy: the neoclassicism.

 Delga editions https://www.decitre.fr/livres/la-maladie-degenerative-de-l-economie-le-neoclassicisme-9782915854732.html

  1. Robert Bibeau (2017)   National question and proletarian revolution under modern imperialism. L’Harmattan. Paris. ORDER AMAZON

https://www.amazon.ca/Question-nationale-r%C3%A9volution-prol%C3%A9tarienne-limp%C3%A9rialis/dp/2343114749/ref=sr_1_1?ie=UTF8&qid=1496234995&sr=8-1&keywords= Robert Bibeau +

Traduction   by  Claudio Buttinelli.  Roma

ENGLISH BOOK  FREE  (HERE)  http://www.les7duquebec.com/wp-content/uploads/2017/05/bon-NATIONAL-QUESTION-AND-PROLETARIAN-REVOLUTION-UNDER-THE-MODERN-IMPERIALISM-revision.docx ET ITALIAN BOOK  (ICIGRATUITEMENT EN TÉLÉCHARGEMENT.

Bibeau.robert@videotron.ca

Éditeur du webmagazine  http://www.les7duquebec.com

MATERIALISM DIALECTICultima modifica: 2017-12-08T16:33:10+01:00da davi-luciano
Reposta per primo quest’articolo