Marx and Automation
- This topic has 650 replies, 23 voices, and was last updated 5 years, 10 months ago by
.
-
Posts
-
Steve San fran…don't let these marxists ideologues get you down. There are may be 2 or 3 genuine people on this thread, ready to discuss new possibilities. You being one. The rest are not interested in original thoughts…but like neo-stalinists they are more interested to stuff marxism down people's throats like the out of touch, out of date *tankies*, they are. Be grateful these *tankies* do not have any influence any longer, bud. That is why these *tankies* shit on everything new and post-marxist on this thread. That is all *tankies* have left. Spewing verbal diarrhea on everything that is different, heterogeneous and post-modern on this thread. Steve they are authoritarian totalitarianists…bitter that much of the totalitarian marxist narrative ended in a horror show. Anarchism, Now! ANARCHISM, Forever!
"these *tankies*"An interesting overlap on topicshttps://www.worldsocialism.org/spgb/forum/world-socialist-movement/tankie-cririques-spgb "Maybe try a Lenin thread… you can talk about how bolshevism is still relevant and not totalitarian."And there was members of the SPGB opposing Lenin and the Bolsheviks when many anarchists were fawning over them and actually cooperating with those authoritarian totalitarians."authoritarian totalitarianists"Not even our harshest critics in the British anarchist movement who know us intimately would ever describe us as such and would distance themselves from any such accusation."I know my Marx, Inside And Out"Goodness me….i've never met anyone who has read everything Marx has ever written and actually understood it all. That is a first. But, i am genuinely disappointed that in these last couple of posts you reveal that your knowledge of the SPGB is minimal and that you still have to learn basic facts before reaching your conclusions.Is Marx out of date…an irrelevancy for today's times and that we are now in a post-Marx era?Time will no doubt tell, but it is claims that have been made from the late 19th C. and one that has been repeated by every up-coming philosopher and political thinker seeking a reputation…but it is usually they who in due course are forgotten and sink into obscurity.
MBellemare wrote:Steve San fran…don't let these marxists ideologues get you down. There are may be 2 or 3 genuine people on this thread, ready to discuss new possibilities. You being one. The rest are not interested in original thoughts…but like neo-stalinists they are more interested to stuff marxism down people's throats like the out of touch, out of date *tankies*, they are. Be grateful these *tankies* do not have any influence any longer, bud. That is why these *tankies* shit on everything new and post-marxist on this thread. That is all *tankies* have left. Spewing verbal diarrhea on everything that is different, heterogeneous and post-modern on this thread. Steve they are authoritarian totalitarianists…bitter that much of the totalitarian marxist narrative ended in a horror show. Anarchism, Now! ANARCHISM, Forever!It seems M Bellamere does not know what the word "Tankies" means or that socialists have been amongst the fiercest critics of the whole authoritarian Leninist project right from the start. That makes his comment that we are "bitter" that it all ended in a "horror show" all the more incomprehensible. MBellamere – please, please please – do some basic homework on this before commenting. You are clearly confusing socialists and socialism as we see it with something else. And no we dont "shit on everything new and post-marxist on this thread". Marx and Marxism is fallible like any other point of view and there are things that Marx said with which we strongly disagree. At the same time, dont just accept new ideas just because they are (supposedly) new. You are doing exactly what you accuse your critics of doing by doing this – being dogmatic. There are very serious criticisms to be made of post modernism which you have simply ignored
@MBellemare + any who choose to freely associate by spending time reading and considering.
MBellemare wrote:Steve San fran…don't let these marxists ideologues get you down. There are may be 2 or 3 genuine people on this thread, ready to discuss new possibilities. You being one. The rest are not interested in original thoughts…but like neo-stalinists they are more interested to stuff marxism down people's throats like the out of touch, out of date *tankies*, they are. Be grateful these *tankies* do not have any influence any longer, bud. That is why these *tankies* shit on everything new and post-marxist on this thread. That is all *tankies* have left. Spewing verbal diarrhea on everything that is different, heterogeneous and post-modern on this thread. Steve they are authoritarian totalitarianists…bitter that much of the totalitarian marxist narrative ended in a horror show. Anarchism, Now! ANARCHISM, Forever!Thanks for the encouragement of my efforts and your attention time in reading, reasoning, and writing. I consider there are maybe 2 or 3 people looking actively for new thoughts and ideas on this thread. The rest are interested in preserving the integrity and defending the repuations of great scholars and idealist from the past so they are not lost to our culture and history. This is a good goal for them, just not my primary goal or maybe not your primary goal. I think Marx and Lennin too both deserve some die hard adherents ready to stand by their ideals till they die and defend them from perversion and protect their sanctity like the bible was protected. I have no objection to Marx being considered a sacred text similar to the bible in it's cultural relevance and use. the bible and Marx have a ot of good advice in them I think the world is better off listening too. I'm and athiest and scientist, so I focus on evolving the idea ecosystm, which is kind of at odds with preserving the ideas of Marx and there's some understandable difference of goals and conflicts on how to distributed resources such "attention time" in various markets such as "this discussion forum". I kind of see this discussion forum as a market where people buy ideas and sell ideas and words in exchange for time and attention. It's a bit of a monopolistic market maybe? As far as compeitor products vying for time and attention in the this marketplace of ideas, I expect them to compete and advertise their brand and product for everone's attention which is what happens in markets. Hostile competition for hearts and minds happens here like hostile competition for money happens in the marketplace. Apple rejects and caricatures Microsoft products in the tech marketplace. Marxist reject and caricatures lenninist in the idea marketplace of this forum. So I recognize a lot of this behavior from board room voting environments and other common forms of competition in organizations that I've worked in the past. Socialism certainly does seem to compete using similar modes of competition as capitialism for ideas and hearts and minds and time and attention of the public. For what it's worth, I use this forum sometimes for many purpose and one of them is product discovery research. I like to know which parts of my product and ideas are most theatening to my competition ("Tankies"? or other). I like to search out areas to convergence here, but don't expect it to be easy. I expect it to be high value or novel information I can get from even most opositional responses. Also, there's a growing and continuous need to position my project and product as competitors to comunism when I market my products to capitalist power brokers. Having a few well sellected rants against my project by socialist with established repuatioins and authority such as marcos has already saved me time and improved my conversion rates in selling the idea to capitalist worldviews. I have occaisional need to position my project and products as clearly not endorsed by socialism or communism in order to get buy in from capitalist, and some of the people in this public discussion forum are happy to provide me with suitable evidence of the fundamental and foundational incompatibilty of anything I might say or do with Marx. This is a public forum, and I link here as verifiable evidence whenever I need to convince someone that I'm not tryint to sell them lenninism or socialism or marxism or whatever is is they're afraid of. Criticism and intollerance received from here has infromation value I can resell elsewhere.
Quote:This is a public forum, and I link here as verifiable evidence whenever I need to convince someone that I'm not tryint to sell them lenninism or socialism or marxism or whatever is is they're afraid of. Criticism and intollerance received from here has infromation value I can resell elsewhere.The fact that you are indeed permitted to frequently post your views on this forum (albeit within certain understandable guidelines) demonstrates that this political party does not censor or impose restrictions on the expression of one's political views. If as you claim their exits intolerance then it is not sanctioned but debate, discussion and disagreement is encouraged and this forum is the medium we hope that fosters the exchanges of thought. Even before the advent of these discussion lists, the SPGB had a policy of inviting critics to take the platform in our always open-to-all public meetings.As a chair at one of our conferences, i recall someone who looked through the window, came in to have a listen to the proceedings and then getting the opportunity to offer a contribution to conference, since time was available. Tell me any other organisation that would let a complete stranger address their conference. Mind you, if he had as much as either of you two to say, i am sure, i would have needed to invite him to quickly make his point.
MBellend wrote:Bijou. ..posting links does not make you a reader… any marxist numb-skull can post a link. So once again Bijou why don't you excuse yourself from the conversation because it is beyond your vocabulary and limits of what you have read. Maybe try a Lenin thread… you can talk about how bolshevism is still relevant and not totalitarian. As for post-modernism I do like foucault and much of post-modern writings because they point-out the righteousness of marxism and capitalism, alike. BOTH ARE TOTALITARIAN NARRATIVES. The fact is marxism and bourgeois-capitalism are narratives, stories, …devoid of universal truth. Too Bad, its just the way reality appears to be. Without a multi-level, multi-lateral coalition, Marxism is dead as disco. And post-modernism is the only philosophy out-there that truly grasps what it means to have a true plurality. And that means that Marxism has to open itself to criticism and new theories such as structural-anarchism. No one wants a marxist dictatorship of the proletariat ever again…Marxism IS Old HAT! So I Read All Sorts Of PHILOSOPHY. Unlike You Bijou I Am Not Limited And Confined To The ONE-Dimensionality OF Marx. And I know my Marx, Inside And Out. So You Can Play SAMANTICS With Me And STRUCTURAL-Anarchism. But It Does Not Make Marx Any More Relevant Today But It Does Make Him Evermore Obsolete. History is proving this to be an accurate assessment. Narratives, Narratives Narratives, everywhere narratives. Anarchism, Now! ANARCHISM, FOREVER!You stated that I cannot have read your material because you have a web counter and you would know if I had, I then post you links to where I have read the guff that you have written and now you accuse me of not bothering to read it. You go on to you state that I would defend bolshevism as being relevant and non-totalitarian, it looks like it's YOU that has not been reading, my friend. You clearly have not read anything to do with theory and history of the SPGB. The SPGB has opposed bolshevism since 1917! We had our meetings broken up by the bolshevists in the 1920s and 30s.Also I'm glad that a man if your standing has been able to put such a reasoned and cogent argument together (sic). Interesting that you accuse others of being anti-democratic, elitist and against reasoned debate and then tell me to leave the thread as only those who reach the enlightened level of your good self should take part in it.Enough, however, of your puerile insults and attempts at proof by assertion. let's get back to the nub of your "theory", i.e. that prices are set at the whim of capitalists and that they do not relate to value. As I stated earlier in this thread, amongst other criticisms of position, if it is the case that prices can be set in the way you describe, why is Trump proposing tariffs to exclude Chines steel from being dumped on the US market?This is a twofold problem for your position. Firstly if prices could be set on a whim, US steel manufacturers could simply reduce the price of their steel to below that of the dumped Chinese steel and secondly if prices could be set on a whim the Chinese could simply absorb the tariff into the price of their steel so the tariff wouldn’t be a problem and neither side would go to the bother of putting them in place.I have been waiting for you to answer this for some time. As, as stated frequently, you have a PHD and as you clearly intellectually superior to the plebs in the SPGB, surely such a task should not have taken a man of your calibre as long to answer?Oh and by the way misspelling semantics is pure comedy gold, my hearty congratulations.As for disco being dead, looks like your wrong there as well;http://www.nilerodgers.com/events-listGet down and boogie, brother.
It is sad to see good committed socialists wasting their energy on this rubbish. These people are not interested in the case for socialism or what what the SPGB has to say. They have not bothered to read a single thing published by the party and they have no intention of doing so.Workers are not interested in this shit either so why waste your valuable brain cells on it.
Quote:MBellemere: marxism and capitalism, alike. BOTH ARE TOTALITARIAN NARRATIVES. The fact is marxism and bourgeois-capitalism are narratives, stories, …devoid of universal truth. Too Bad, its just the way reality appears to be. Without a multi-level, multi-lateral coalition, Marxism is dead as disco. And post-modernism is the only philosophy out-there that truly grasps what it means to have a true plurality.A coalition with whom and for what purpose? As Voltaire put it,"The comfort of the rich is dependent upon an abundant supply of the poor." This should surely indicate the impossibility of capitalism surrendering power which ended their economic parasitism.
Quote:And that means that Marxism has to open itself to criticism and new theories such as structural-anarchism. No one wants a marxist dictatorship of the proletariat ever again…What on earth does this rant mean?We have never had the dictatorship of the proletariat. Marx himself only rarely used the term to describe the capture of power, with dictatorship synonymous with government and he was writing when workers did not even have the franchise. Perhaps the writer is confusing the Bolshevic, post-feudal dictatorship OVER the workers and peasants, with some post-capitalist society. It was very much a bourgeois revolution.Socialism/communism, I use the terms interchangeably as Marx did, is the task of the immense majority to usher in , the last great emancipatory wave the abolition of the wages system, freeing wage-slaves and creating an advanced post-capitalist, production for use , free access society of social equals.He would have rejected Lenins 'state capitalist, post feudal, top-down putch, just as we did in 1918." The emancipation of the working classes must be conquered by the working classes themselves. We cannot, therefore, co-operate with people who openly state that the workers are too uneducated to emancipate themselves and must be freed from above by philanthropic big bourgeois and petty bourgeois."(1879 Marx and Engels )
Quote:Marxism IS Old HAT! So I Read All Sorts Of PHILOSOPHY. Unlike You Bijou I Am Not Limited And Confined To The ONE-Dimensionality OF Marx. And I know my Marx, Inside And Out. So You Can Play SAMANTICS With Me And STRUCTURAL-Anarchism. But It Does Not Make Marx Any More Relevant Today But It Does Make Him Evermore Obsolete.We have made our own criticism of the one dimensionality of some Marxist writers but it is much more nuanced and considered than your rant.http://www.worldsocialism.org/english/world-socialist-no3-spring-1985/state-and-its-abolition-part-1http://www.worldsocialism.org/english/world-socialist-no3-spring-1985/state-and-its-abolition-part-2http://www.worldsocialism.org/english/world-socialist-no3-spring-1985/state-and-its-abolition-part-3As I read somewhere, "“The philosophers have only interpreted the world, in various ways. The point, however, is to change it." Hardly one dimensional.
Quote:History is proving this to be an accurate assessment. Narratives, Narratives Narratives, everywhere narratives.Your ill tempered and boorish narrative seems to obscure any constructive input you may have.
Quote:Anarchism, Now! ANARCHISM, FOREVER!There is nothing we advocate that any real anarchists I have encountered over the years could object to, save the use of capitalist democracy initially, to capture the repressive state apparatus, to prevent it being used against the revolution.Our objective is the establishment of a system of society where the means of production and distribution are owned in common and controlled democratically by the whole population. This will be a classless society as we will be socially equal. With no private, corporate or state ownership and control of resources we can proceed to a production for use model, with production of utilities enabling free access to the common store resources. Decisions about production can be effectively taken at the point of production and the utilisation of developed productive capacities inherited from capitalism allied with informational networks we can make effective demand decisions base upon human needs rather than speculative anarchy of competitive capitalism based upon profit considerations.We envision the use of delegatory democratic principles in administration, locally regionally and globally over resources rather than over people. We see recallable delegation where specialisation is required being a practical prevention of elitist development.In any case, the decisions will be made at the time, by the people themselves, who establish the new society and not from prescriptions of instructed gobbledegook serving as recipes for the cookhouse of the future.
@Alanjohnstone, + any who wish to freely associate and spend their time in order to profit by gaining some information or knowledge which is admitedly in abundance at the quality and relevance level offered.Thanks, Alan. Your comment is one of the many reasons I love SPGB. A agree with your views in your comment completely and don't need to add anything. Just wanted to say thanks.
alanjjohnstone wrote:Quote:This is a public forum, and I link here as verifiable evidence whenever I need to convince someone that I'm not tryint to sell them lenninism or socialism or marxism or whatever is is they're afraid of. Criticism and intollerance received from here has infromation value I can resell elsewhere.The fact that you are indeed permitted to frequently post your views on this forum (albeit within certain understandable guidelines) demonstrates that this political party does not censor or impose restrictions on the expression of one's political views. If as you claim their exits intolerance then it is not sanctioned but debate, discussion and disagreement is encouraged and this forum is the medium we hope that fosters the exchanges of thought. Even before the advent of these discussion lists, the SPGB had a policy of inviting critics to take the platform in our always open-to-all public meetings.As a chair at one of our conferences, i recall someone who looked through the window, came in to have a listen to the proceedings and then getting the opportunity to offer a contribution to conference, since time was available. Tell me any other organisation that would let a complete stranger address their conference. Mind you, if he had as much as either of you two to say, i am sure, i would have needed to invite him to quickly make his point.
but since I always like to add a few "optional" reading thougths to confirm for you I spent my time to read your thoughts and I profited from the information and knowldge you shared. . .You mentioned that even in socialist meeting by socialist for socialist, you discovered a scarcity of time and the need to "invite her to quickly make her point". There is a problem with scarcity of time and attention. Even in a perfect socialist society you can only pay attention to one person or idea at a time because of natural human limitations. Perhaps a consideration of Time Value Accounting economics wouild reveal that time does not work like money when used as mode for exchanging human centric value (as apposed to capital centric value).
Robbo203, You have no idea what you are talking about. To quote, Max Stirner, " You have wheels in your head…you are haunted by spooks"…a zealot from a bye-gone era. (like there is an authentic reading of Marx, or authentic universal truth. Could you be more obsolete and a 20th century block-head!Bijou….you are about as uneducated as they come, that is, the worst type of educated, i.e., a narrow-minded, conservative, type of educated. I suggest you get your head out of your ass, and actually read my work, before you slander. Its good that you hide your sorry ass behind a moniker, chicken shit! Because, its clear you are all yap yap yap and no action. Not even an original thought in vacant head. Matt, you want to to go around around the marry-go-around of samantics with me. Read my work!Patreilly, I don't read SPGB, because SPGB is a perspective, among a litany of other more pressing perspective, which are unfortunately more relevant right now. And when I do read, I read the masters, Marx, Stirner, Nietzsche, Engels, Lenin, Foucault, Althusser, post-modernists…etc….I am not interested in samantics, and un-original thinking, or the re-writing. I mean come-on, Marx and Engels, by kicking out Bakunin, proved their totalitarian despotic aspirations. And Stalinism was the culmination of their vision. SORRY SPGB! But Marxism never articulated open-participatory-democracy, like structural-anarchism, its vision was always a dictatorship, the dictatorship of the proletariat. The Soviet Union was always what Marx and Engel worked for and wanted.Anarchism, Now! Anarchism, Forever!
MBellemare wrote:Patreilly, I don't read SPGB, because SPGB is a perspective, among a litany of other more pressing perspective, which are unfortunately more relevant right now.So, you have not read SPGB literature but you KNOW about it and can make judgement on it. Illogical! I wont be wasting any more time here.
In fact, anyone with a moniker on here, bitching and trolling, is a spineless coward! Nothing but Arm-Chair Socialist-Marxists!
Never, said I know SPGB…I know Marx, with certain exactitude. Lets say I have an idea about Marx and Engels. And I thank my lucky stars I am an anarchist and never fell under their spell.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=zyzumxhHNI0Anarchism, Now! Anarchism, Forever!
Quote:Matt, you want to to go around around the marry-go-around of samantics with me. Read my work!Samantics https://www.samantics.co.uk/ Samantics is a next generation one man band. Using a loop-station and a Brand new Album Available I think you mean semantics. but your word appears to describe you better.
Quote:Never, said I know SPGB…I know Marx, with certain exactitude. Lets say I have an idea about Marx and Engels. And I thank my lucky stars I am an anarchist and never fell under their spell."There is a principle which is a bar against all information, which is proof against all arguments, and which cannot fail to keep a man in everlasting ignorance—that principle is contempt prior to investigation." That is what you accuse others of doing but you will not extend the same courtesy to us, preferring prejudiced pro-capitalist analyses. Anarchists I know are at at least revolutionary and would not recognise your approach as conducive to the interests of solidarity with other revolutionary workers. I responded to your post of,
Quote:M. Bellemere:Without a multi-level, multi-lateral coalition, Marxism is dead as disco. And post-modernism is the only philosophy out-there that truly grasps what it means to have a true plurality.with a question which you have not answered namely.
Quote:Matt: A coalition with whom and for what purpose? As Voltaire put it,"The comfort of the rich is dependent upon an abundant supply of the poor." This should surely indicate the impossibility of capitalism surrendering power which ended their economic parasitism.Your response to genuine criticism of your prejudiced assumptions about us, is to disengage with dialogue and once again lump us in with Leninists and other Leftists whose erroneous views we have spent over a century combating.I am done with you too.
- You must be logged in to reply to this topic.