Marx and Automation
- This topic has 650 replies, 23 voices, and was last updated 5 years, 10 months ago by
.
-
Posts
-
MBellemare wrote: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!
I think when you've calmed down you will see this is quite uncalled for. I simply said that you seem to be confusing us with authoritarian Leninism to which I am opposed every bit as much as you are. Neither do we take Marx as bible. There is much that he wrote that is sound and it is silly to suggest otherwise but there is also stuff that he wrote with which we sharply disagree. With respect I think I know a lot more about the SPGB than you despite your suggestion that I have no idea what I am talking. As for my views on postmodernism yes I have read some of the literature – Jean Baudrillard and his bizarre notion of simulacra, Lacan and a few others – but I can't say I am overly impressed. For the most part I think its just a load of pretentious twaddle. Since you havent offered any reason why I should think otherwise I cant really comment on why you think I am a 20th century blockhead for not going along with all that pretentious twaddle Besides, all this is straying a long way off from the subject of this thread – Marx and Automation – dont you think?
Reminder: 1. The general topic of each forum is given by the posted forum description. Do not start a thread in a forum unless it matches the given topic, and do not derail existing threads with off-topic posts.
It all depends on whose standards and criteria one is judging by, Robbo203. You and SPGB certainly do not have a monopoly on what actually constitutes twaddle and what actually constitutes verity. No matter what you think ROBBO203, the post-modernists were right on at least one count. There is no longer a universal criteria by which to judge once and for all. And if you believe otherwise, and I think you do, Robbo203, then, most certainly by my limited criteria called: structural-anarchism, you are a throw-back to a bye-gone Enlightenment era. An ancient time, when people still believed in God and the sanctity of sacred texts. Hey…I am just speaking from the future, for better or for worst, ole'timer. Anarchism Now! Anarchism Forever!
1st warning: 1. The general topic of each forum is given by the posted forum description. Do not start a thread in a forum unless it matches the given topic, and do not derail existing threads with off-topic posts.
MBellemare wrote:It all depends on whose standards and criteria one is judging by, Robbo203. You and SPGB certainly do not have a monopoly on what actually constitutes twaddle and what actually constitutes verity. No matter what you think ROBBO203, the post-modernists were right on at least one count. There is no longer a universal criteria by which to judge once and for all. And if you believe otherwise, and I think you do, Robbo203, then, most certainly by my limited criteria called: structural-anarchism, you are a throw-back to a bye-gone Enlightenment era. An ancient time, when people still believed in God and the sanctity of sacred texts. Hey…I am just speaking from the future, for better or for worst, ole'timer. Anarchism Now! Anarchism Forever!MBellemare wrote:It all depends on whose standards and criteria one is judging by, Robbo203. You and SPGB certainly do not have a monopoly on what actually constitutes twaddle and what actually constitutes verity. No matter what you think ROBBO203, the post-modernists were right on at least one count. There is no longer a universal criteria by which to judge once and for all.Does this mean we (or you for that matter as regards your views about the SPGB) are not entitled to express an opinion on what constitutes twaddle and what constitutes truth If anything goes is it perfectly acceptable for a racist to call for the genocidal liquidation of people with a differnet skin colour or for a misogynist to insist that women should be confined to the kitchen or bedroom but on no account should be allowed in to the workplace?If there is no universal human standard one can appeal to then on what grounds could you possibly object to this racist or mysogynist if you think all views are equally valid?
MBellemare wrote:Marcos…stating that Proudhon is not an anarchist, makes you sound out of touch and out of your mind. Of course, you can believe anything you like, as a proponent of plurality, but for the sake of meaningful discourse, on this thread, Proudhon is an anarchist. He stated as much in "Property is theft". Again, Bakunin is a proto-leninist makes you sound out of touch and out of your mind. If anything, Bakunin is an anarchist, he stated as much, and Bakunin might be a proto-Nestor Makhno. Bakunin critiqued Marx and Marxism as totalitarianism and authoritarianism.And he was right.You can call me whatever you want, that is part of your faulty argumentation, that will not make me lose my temper, you have already shown your underwear, but the essence of the discussion is that the idea that Property is theft, Proudhon was basing himself on the private ownership of the land, something similar to the original populist of Russia of which Plekhanov was a member and then ended up becoming one of his most fervent critiquers, and they became terrorist. Opposition to the government doesn't turn you into an anarchist, at the present time some sectors of the ruling class is opposing governments, are they anarchists? Have you read the USA bourgeoise economist known as Henry George ? or his famous book Progress and Misery? He also made the same type of critiques, and proposition, it was also made by the early theoretician of liberal capitalism and Proudhom wanted everybody to own a piece of land, and that idea was also proposed by the so-called founders fathers of the USA, and in modern time it is called Market capitalism, and by the Cuban leaders under the so-called Agrarian reform, and the nationalization of the land, which they called a Green revolution, and some right-wingers presidents have also proposed land reform or agrarian reform, to pacify the peasants, idea which was supported by some leftwingers. Richard Wolf who calls himself a Marxist, he is also making the same proposition as Proudhon, and cooperatives do not conduct us to socialism, they have many of them in BoliviaBefore you write anything try to make some research, go ahead and read Lenin what is to be done? and Kautsky conception of the Vanguard party, and Blanquist conception and then you can make your own conclusion, of what is a proto-Leninist. I already did my homework a long time ago when you were still wearing pampers
Trouble is that anarchism and anarchists suffer from the same flaw as you accuse Marxists of possessing…no agreement or consensus on what anarchism means, hence the same need to always hyphenate themselves to identify their ideas.I think we can differentiate Proudhon from various anarchist writers an proponents by describing him as a mutualist.
MBellemare wrote:Oh…and Matt…don't sulk and play the victim….crying that I have not given SPGB… a fair shake, boo hoo!…Let me remind you that the SPGB found me…and I joined the forum to defend, an unwarranted critique of my work, a year ago. I have been defending my theory on this thread for a year, against unwarranted ridiculous definitional criticisms. Being an, out of date, 20th century block-head, does not give some SPGB members, carte blanch to comport themselves like Stalinists. I am the slighted party.Anything but answer the darn question put to him.
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.MBellemare wrote:Marcos…stating that Proudhon is not an anarchist, makes you sound out of touch and out of your mind. Of course, you can believe anything you like, as a proponent of plurality, but for the sake of meaningful discourse, on this thread, Proudhon is an anarchist. He stated as much in "Property is theft". Again, Bakunin is a proto-leninist makes you sound out of touch and out of your mind. If anything, Bakunin is an anarchist, he stated as much, and Bakunin might be a proto-Nestor Makhno. Bakunin critiqued Marx and Marxism as totalitarianism and authoritarianism.And he was right.If Nestor Makhno was not a proto-Leninist or a Blanquist, but an Anarchist, I might say that Ernesto Che Guevara is part of that movement, when he said that power comes thru the barrel of a gun, but Trotsky who was a military man, and the head of the Soviet army and who conducted the killing of many Russian anarchists, said that there is nothing more practical than a machine gun, he was referring to the lack of theory
I've said my opinion and it fits you like a glove Robbo203, a coward, hiding behind a lowly anonymous moniker. And now, I would like to pivot the conversation back onto topic…crisis and automation. A crisis is the result of a shift in a power-relation. This is not an economic law, because power-relations are essentially unquantifiable. For instance, Tariffs are an effect of a shift in a power-relation, like the chance election of an American President. In Canada, the current Tariffs imposed, are the result of an attempted shift, a move of power, to instigate a radical shift in the equilibrium of a collective of power-relations. There is no man made law and/or quantifiable law prompting this. It is only an unquantifiable thirst for power. This is the start of a possible economic crisis.
MBellemare 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!Ha Ha Ha, you have fallen in your own trap, you are cooking yourself in your own sauce. You have applied to yourself Lenin's What is to be done ? written in 1901-1902, which is the conception of the vanguard party, a Machiavelli conception ( The Prince of Russia ) in which intelectuals are the liberator of the working class, and it is the opposite view of Marx who considered that the liberation of the working class would be obtained by themselves, ( that is the core idea of Marx ) but for Lenin the workers were ignorants and they did not have any intelectual knowledge to liberate themselves, a professional cadres or a guru must liberate them. Lenin might come to this forum and might say that the members of the SPGB are not up to his vocabulary, and he was a doctor in Jurisprudence ( I had the same title and I cleaned my anus with the diploma ) It is clear indication that you do not know your Marx as you have saidhttps://www.worldsocialism.org/spgb/socialist-standard/2000s/2002/no-1179-november-2002/what-we-should-not-do. What we should not do, SPGBhttps://www.worldsocialism.org/spgb/socialist-standard/2000s/2005/no-1215-november-2005/cult-professional-revolutionaryThe Cult of the Professional Revolutionary, SPGB. ( I am not just posting links, I had read them, i took an early retirement to read the index of the Socialsit Party and the WSM, and I know must of the titles and content of the articles and Pamphlet, and when i do not know I ask to somebody else, because there are peoples in this party who are long standing members ) https://www.worldsocialism.org/spgb/socialist-standard/1970s/1970/no-788-april-1970/lenin-just-russian-revolutionary. We knew for many years that Lenin was not a Marxist or a socialist, but now, How many Leninists have discovered that ? Most of them are still living on the same mistake, from my own generation only one or two were able to recognize that, How many peoples like you think that Russia was a socialist country ? Millions believe that, but my grandfather only had the education of an 8 grader, and he knew that the Soviet Union was not socialist, and I heard him saying that many times, and he never studied Marx or Engels, he had a shortwave radio to educate himselfBefore the shit hits the fan it is preferable to double check and make the proper investigation because the SPGB has never supported the coneption of the vanguard party to lead, but you do, even more, Lenin in some way was sincere when he said that it was only applicable to the reality of Russia and it was not going to republish it, but most intelectuals in their own arrogance continued using it, and the Stalnist turned it into the main organizative platform of the Bolshevik party. Congratulation, you are a Bolshevik and a Machiavelic !!!
robbo203 wrote: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
Apparently he doesn't know the meaning and the origin of the expression, it comes from the Soviet invasion of Hungary when the pro-Kruschevites said: "Send the tanks in," but there were others sectors of the so-called 'Marxist-Leninist" movement who did not approve the invasion, and they were the leaders of Albania and the leaders of China, or the Hoxhaists and the Maoists, and the also rejected the invasion of Chevoslovaquia. The thing is that the Kruschevite have rejected Stalinism but Mao and Hoxha had not rejected it, they were hardcore Stalinists, they would approve the invasion if the tanks would have been sent by Joseph StalinThe only Tankies left were Fidel Castro, Ernesto Che Guevara, and their followers, because they approved both invasions and they were Kruschevites and pro-Soviets, even more, both were known as vassals of the so-called Soviet social-imperialism, and they supported the military incursion of the Soviet Union in Africa, and they were part of the COMECON, but they were not part of the Warsaw Pact. That movement is completely dead.The question is how many invasions o wars did the SPGB approve or support? It is very easy to be answered, if you check the pages of the history of the Socialist Party, the Socialist Party of Canada, and the World Socialist Party of the US, we can see that we did not support any war, or invasions, including the war of national liberation and our stand toward war, produced many problems, and rejection within the Leninists and the Stalinists, we did not support the patriotic war of the soviet union, we did not support any part involved in the Vietnam and Korean war, and many of our members were willng to be incarcelated instead of killing his own class brother, and other moved to different countries, Are we tankies ? I don't think so
It is interesting that you place political motives ahead of economic ones. Can they be separated as easily as you seem to believe.That "chance" election of a particular US president was because of his economic promises and the changes for the better he said he would make for particular sections of the population to acquire votes. Some he is currently carrying out despite the knock-on effects and risks to other parts of the constituencies. Political parties as socialists are forever pointing out, is merely a difference between vested interests, rather than differences in personalities. But as someone who knows his Marx inside out, you are aware that occasionally a maverick politician acts independently – The 18th Brumaire of Napoleon Bonaparte indicates the occasional hiccup that sometimes arises (whoever accused Marx of economic determinism and failing to take into account human individuality is very wrong)When a CEO chooses one business strategy over another, this can be described as a switch in power-relations but the business plan is ultimately based on economic laws that are inherent in the form of social relations that exist within capitalism…bosses want to increase the extraction of labour (-time) from their employees for the least cost and the workers seek to demand the maximum remuneration for the least work. [Sales and marketing ploys are not as fundamental to profitability as presented in the text books.] And, as Marx said, it does all come down to the respective economic/political power of both camps – who is prevailing in the class struggle. And to paraphrase that quote from Buffet, there is a class war and his side is winning it.
I would disagree with you Alan. Economic laws are fairy tales …illusory manifestations from shifts in power-relations.
No…*tankies* in North America has a mellenial spin, that is just super funny, which has been tied to old orthodox marxist-socialists, who somehow think the Soviet Union was not true marxism or communism. And/or it has been used to describe those orthodox marxists who hold on to the notion of socially necessary labor-time as somehow still valid and still applicable.
- You must be logged in to reply to this topic.