Marx and Automation

[Anonymous]

@ Robbo 2.03  I am gonna take a look at that pamphlet. (Much appreciated)I see what you mean about the "stateless society". I thought you were using it in Bakunin's sense, as some sort of total structural-liquidation, which was not the case. Now, about Class, Robbo, I am inclined to state that we are already in a "classless society", class has been fragmented to such a radical extent, do to the artificial fabrication of price, value and wage, that, now, we have more or less fragmented into affinity groups. Microscopic networks aligned along various affinities. Such as Punks, Goths, SPGB forum, anarcho-autonomous-collectives etc.etc.etc. People, more or less relate to each other, within post-industrial, post-modern society, no longer, predominantly along class-lines, but in a multiplicity of variable groups, relations and manners.Namely, I go to political meetings, take part in academic discussions/groups, go to hockey games, critique litterature after supper, rear cattle in the morning, Read Marx after midnight. And/or Take part in a Union strike in the afternoon, Wear clothes made in Mexico on the streets of Montreal etc. (I see no class. I see affinities.)  And I've written on it in Dissident Voice:@ Steve San Fran, I don't know if your being sarcastic, about conspiracy. But there no such thing as conspiracies, in my estimation, there are only good business practices, good business relationships and "the maximization of profits by any means necessary, at the lowest financial cost, as soon as possible". Of course, conspiracies do occur, but, these are really the extreme case scenarios of the logic of capitalism, produced by the quest to maximize profit by any means necessary, at the lowest financial cost, as soon as possible", which can produce temporary conspiracies. But this is not the norm and are, more or less, anomalies manifested by the mechanics of the logic of capitalism, not functioning properly or fanatically.Robbo has this idea (I think he might have written it somewhere in a book and/or in some posts, I cannot remember), namely, that, Capitalism is no longer functioning efficiently and is essentially lumbering across the globe sputtering from crisis to crisis, trying to re-spark the flame of capital accumulation. Its an old idea, from the Grundrisse and the Das Capital Volumes that Capitalism is slowly crumbling under the weight of its own contradictions and the falling rate of profit. These ideas are currently being peddled by contemporary Marxist Dinausaurs like David Harvey, Antonio Negri etc., namely the Grandfathers of leftist social theory, from some far-out, bye-gone era, namely, when your wooden Television and your wooden record player took-up 3/4 of your living-room.Hence, my analogy with Frankenstein, pertaining to Robbo's definition of capitalism as some lumbering, ineffective, antiquated system, fit more for the museum than a first-rate global economy. Another fitting analogy, I like to use, for these type of ancient dinausaur ideas, is Zombies. Capitalism as some un-dead, yet living, inefficient, dumb, system that lives evermore sucking labor-power,i.e., brains, from the workforce.It places capitalism as some dumb mass, lurching around the globe, falling ass-over into continuous crises. Its a platitude, peddled by the grand-dads of leftist social theory, to get their faces on television, youtube and to sell a few books to secure some needed Rogain, Rolaids and some heavy duty depends, for the long ride home. (You get the picture)      Having studied corporations, how they function and how they operate and synergize with government agencies. And coupled with how the State-apparatus, both the repressive-state-apparatus and the ideological-state-apparatuses, are organized and function to weed-out and neutralize dissent and undesirables from the socio-economic processes of capitalism. I do not necessarily see a lumbering Frankenstein, but a well-honed, monitoring, categorizing, system, rewarding obedience and ideological congruity, while purging, censoring and marginalizing deviation and ideological incongruities. Western Societies, have all the technology of hardline-totalitarian-states, information gathering, mass surveillance, nifty drone strikes etc., but despite having the technology of hardline-totalitarian-states, western societies don't exercise this technology according to hardline-principles, like the old autocratic-states have done in the past like the former soviet union and/or Fascists states. There is leeway, there is certain liberal tolerance, there are varying degrees of technological application being applied to the population, depending on the percieved transgression and/or deviation. There is leeway. We are free to work for capitalism, anywhere, but we must work for capitalism, less we find ourselves living on the streets. We are free to shop, anywhere, but we must shop according to the dictates of capitalism, less we find ourselves trapped in the legal system. We are free to vote, but we must vote for the few candidates offered up by capitalism, less we throw our vote away. We are free to demonstrate in the streets, but we must make sure to be home for work by monday, less the government steps-in in some shape or form to regulate us back to work. Deviate too much, like Occupy, and one risks the implementation of varying degrees of discipline and punishment, depending on the intensity and magnitude of the transgression. And the state-apparatus, both the repressive and the ideological-state-apparatuses, have military-like-playbooks and legal-playbooks, by which to deal with various types of dissent and dissenters.Please note that this does not mean people cannot overthrow the system and implement something more equitable. but its a little more complicated than dealing with a lumbering frankenstein, tripping over itself over and over, in periodic crisis.    I call western societies, SOFT-TOTALITARIAN-STATES, there is elasticity to western societies, certain tolerance for gender, race, cultural, political and group etc., differences, but there is relatively little tolerance for economic difference, meaning soft-totalitarian-states cannot tolerate alternative modes of production, consumption and distribution. Anything like this poping up is usually stamped-out with certain speed and hardened sentiment, both conceptually, legally and materially etc. Think of any socialist squatter-movements in North America, how they are dealt with. Why are they dealt with such speed and ferocity, because these are anti-capitalism zones, which breed autonomy and alternative modes of production, consumption and distribution.   I offer strategies and tactics (in the manifesto) one can use to effectively engage-in, so as, to eventually overcome the soft-totalitarian-state engenedered by the logic of capitalism. It is a war of attrition and a long march towards anarcho-socialism founded in many sprouting revolutionary rabbles, which can eventually snap the elastic tether of post-industrial, post-modern capitalism. Ultimately short-circuiting the logic of capitalism, while implementing a new central-operating-code for the re-organization of socio-economic life.        

[twc]

LBird wrote:

Once we've clarified … that Marx and Engels were talking about 'social production' (and not 'matter')…

If the passages (which you mocked) from Socialism: Utopian and Scientific can’t change your opinion about whether Engels was saying the “same thing” as Marx’s Preface to the Contribution, then my opinion can’t.Since, in your idealist–materialist [sic] view, thought can never break free from opinion, the onus falls squarely on you to explain, in your opinion:Why your idealism–materialism [sic] misled you to your former opinion — that Engels was not saying the “same thing” as Marx’s Preface to the Contribution?Why, in idealist–materialist [sic] terms, you have now changed your mind?

[Anonymous]

Read # 369 Marcos. We, North Americans, have a different idea of "stateless", state = administration, semantics, dear Comrade Marcos, nothing but semantics! As I ascribe to a federation of municipalities, cooperatives and autonomous-collectives. Clearly, I am for having an administration. I think the Brit-Forum can give me a little leeway.  Famous? What does that mean, famous? (Lol)Actually, I think Robbo is more famous, don't you Marcos?I am merely entertaining, a Grunge/Punk Curiousity for Brit-Doggers.Didn't the spanish anarchists of 1936, have some success? As I currently sit across from the Canadian monument to the spanish revolution.

[alanjjohnstone]

LBird. i'm not going to enter into any long exchange since i'm off the grid right now and sitting in a Starfucks at 2 quid a cup of tea.But i think Tim answered for me and you really shouldn't read into messages what you want to read. I think its called confirmation bias.Lee Harvey Oswald quickly learned that the Soviet Union was not socialism and that there existed an elite in control that used the pretence of workers' democracy as a cover. We see it in our own trade unions…The accusations against the Trots of making union meeting so fucking boring no-one attends and therefore they get what they want passed is well documented.I think we can have TOO MUCH democracy and anyone who has been a member of the SPGB for any length of time will recognise what i mean.We implement decisions with the speed of a glacier. But i have to do other things right now while online.

[robbo203]

MBellemare wrote:

@ Robbo 2.03  I am gonna take a look at that pamphlet. (Much appreciated)I see what you mean about the "stateless society". I thought you were using it in Bakunin's sense, as some sort of total structural-liquidation, which was not the case. Now, about Class, Robbo, I am inclined to state that we are already in a "classless society", class has been fragmented to such a radical extent, do to the artificial fabrication of price, value and wage, that, now, we have more or less fragmented into affinity groups. Microscopic networks aligned along various affinities. Such as Punks, Goths, SPGB forum, anarcho-autonomous-collectives etc.etc.etc. People, more or less relate to each other, within post-industrial, post-modern society, no longer, predominantly along class-lines, but in a multiplicity of variable groups, relations and manners.Namely, I go to political meetings, take part in academic discussions/groups, go to hockey games, critique litterature after supper, rear cattle in the morning, Read Marx after midnight. And/or Take part in a Union strike in the afternoon, Wear clothes made in Mexico on the streets of Montreal etc. (I see no class. I see affinities.)   

 Once again , we seem to be talking from quite differnent perspectives as in the case of the term "state". Look, the word "class" can be used in serveral different ways.  Mainstream statisticians use the term to denote various occupational/income groupings in society. Even factors like education and upbringing can be used as a class determinant.  There is no right or wrong way to use the term "class".   You can classify people in whichever way you want.  What matters is the purpose behind your classification system If you are involved in marketing some product then you might want to tailor your advertising to appeal o a certain target sector of the population – perhaps the "upper middle class" or those aspiring to enter that class.  Needless to say the purpose behind the Marxian classification system is completely different We Marxists are concerned with the radical transformation of society from capitalism to socialism  and the question of class is key to this process.  It is what unlocks an understanding of what is entailed in this process.  Class is what defines one's relationship to the means of  production.  Far from contemporary capitalism fragmenting into a "classless society ", a mantra of one ex British Prime Minisiter, John Major, the opposite is true.  Capitalism is more and more rigidifying into a two-class society – the  top 1 per cent versus the rest.  In other words a tiny minority who effectively monopolise the means of wealth production and the huge majority who own little or no capital to live upon without  having to submit to the rigours of wage slavery – selling their skills for a wage to the owning class Certainly , this is a sweeping generalisation  and as with all generalisations there are exceptions to the rule.  There is, for example, a grey area between these two class categories –  worker and capitalist – where one class shades into the other and I would say a good example of this is the CEOs of smaller sized corporations  (the CEOs of big corporations with an average annual compensation package of about 20 million dollar per year are unquestionably capitalist in my book and derive much of their income from stock options) However, in broad outline, at least from a  Marxian perspective, we are very clearly living in a class based sciety and there is no evidence whatsoever of any tendency for capitalism to fragment into a "clasless society"

[LBird]

twc wrote:

LBird wrote:

Once we've clarified … that Marx and Engels were talking about 'social production' (and not 'matter')…

If the passages (which you mocked) from Socialism: Utopian and Scientific can’t change your opinion about whether Engels was saying the “same thing” as Marx’s Preface to the Contribution, then my opinion can’t.Since, in your idealist–materialist [sic] view, thought can never break free from opinion, the onus falls squarely on you to explain, in your opinion:Why your idealism–materialism [sic] misled you to your former opinion — that Engels was not saying the “same thing” as Marx’s Preface to the Contribution?Why, in idealist–materialist [sic] terms, you have now changed your mind?

I'm a bit confused now, twc.All I asked is for you to confirm what you wrote – that Marx and Engels were talking about 'social production', and not 'matter'.I can only try again – twc, do you agree that Marx and Engels were talking about 'social production', and not 'matter'?Once we've clarified that political issue, we can move on to a discussion about to what extent Marx and Engels, as writers, built upon that understanding, and to what extent, either or both of them, confused the issue for future generations of democratic socialists (by allowing the myth to grow that they were talking about 'matter', and not 'social production').There's a chance for a real political discussion here – why not take it?

[LBird]

alanjjohnstone wrote:

LBird. i'm not going to enter into any long exchange since i'm off the grid right now and sitting in a Starfucks at 2 quid a cup of tea.But i think Tim answered for me and you really shouldn't read into messages what you want to read. I think its called confirmation bias.

I still think my assumption was correct – you discussed "workers' democracy" in the context of the Soviet Union. Why would you discuss "workers' democracy" and supposed potential problems surrounding it, by reference to the political practices of the Stalinists, if you weren't making some link between them? Surely, if someone were to discuss 'socialism' by reference to 'National Socialism', you'd assume that that person saw some link between 'socialism' and 'Nazism', which we'd both be quick to reject. In the same way, I reject any political link between "workers' democracy" and the non-democratic SU. I wanted to know why you brought up the comparison – if not to damn "workers' democracy" by linking it in some way to the SU.

ajj wrote:

Lee Harvey Oswald quickly learned that the Soviet Union was not socialism and that there existed an elite in control that used the pretence of workers' democracy as a cover. We see it in our own trade unions…The accusations against the Trots of making union meeting so fucking boring no-one attends and therefore they get what they want passed is well documented.

I agree entirely, alan. But, "the pretence of workers' democracy" clearly isn't "workers' democracy" (as you know), so why link my arguments for "workers' democracy" with a non-democratic, elitist, Leninist political regime? I had to assume that you're savvy enough to have realised what you were doing, within the context of a political discussion about 'democracy'.

ajj wrote:

I think we can have TOO MUCH democracy and anyone who has been a member of the SPGB for any length of time will recognise what i mean.We implement decisions with the speed of a glacier. 

Ahhh… now we get to the nub of the political issue – you've already decided that 'we can have TOO MUCH democracy'.Well, that's a good start, when trying to attract interested, curious, workers to 'democratic socialism' – tell them that the 'democratic' part is problematic, and you are part of the elite that has pre-decided that, even before workers themselves get a chance to employ their own 'social theory and practice', to see if they themselves can make 'democracy-for-them' work or not.For you, membership and experience of the theory and practice of the SPGB has shown that the theory of 'full democracy' doesn't work, and produces 'glacier-like' practice.Have you never considered that the 'theory' of the SPGB is not actually 'democratic'? That the SPGB, when challenged by me to talk about its 'democratic theory' in social production, either can't answer, resorts to 'elite experts', resorts to 'individuals', or resorts to personal abuse?Given that the SPGB's version of 'democratic theory' is so questionable, it would come as no surprise to find that the 'democratic practice' based upon that flawed 'theory', doesn't actually work.Couln't that account for your experience of 'democracy'? That your experience is much the same as workers in the SU? That both sets of workers have met a load of elitist bluffers, who use 'democracy' as a 'cover' for their own elite theory and practice?Even when I ask you 'who in socialism would produce 'truth', if not the social producers by democratic methods?', you can't (or won't) answer.I suppose it's easier to blame Democratic Communists and Marxists for arguing for 'TOO MUCH democracy', and to tell workers now that, in effect, the SPGB 'knows better' than the world proletariat. Isn't this much the same approach, as that of the Leninists towards the workers in the SU?

[Anonymous]

MBellemare wrote:

Read # 369 Marcos. We, North Americans, have a different idea of "stateless", state = administration, semantics, dear Comrade Marcos, nothing but semantics! As I ascribe to a federation of municipalities, cooperatives and autonomous-collectives. Clearly, I am for having an administration. I think the Brit-Forum can give me a little leeway.  Famous? What does that mean, famous? (Lol)Actually, I think Robbo is more famous, don't you Marcos?I am merely entertaining, a Grunge/Punk Curiousity for Brit-Doggers.Didn't the spanish anarchists of 1936, have some success? As I currently sit across from the Canadian monument to the spanish revolution.

Which North Americans, the Canadian, the USAer,( The USA of North America )  or the Mexican? You must clarify that, because the Mexican are North Americans too, they are part of the North American Continent, and they have a different concept of State and administration, even more, the majority of the Mexican  workers have more class consciousness too, and they make distinction between  the  two concepts, and they do not idealize the state,  and if  you travel to other countries around the whole world , for them, there are differences between the state and the administration of an institution, if it is a case  of semantic I might say that the administration of a corporation is equal to a state.The legal system establishes difference between the State and an administration ( Corporate Law establish the different too ), and the legal system of all Latin America countries also establish the difference,, and it is more complete, and more advanced  because it includes Roman Code, French Code, British Code, and the National code of every country. In will and Trust the management of a codicil is called State, and it is based on the concept of Property of the English feudal law, it is just a term created by the rulers of the USA  to make people believe that they are electing an administrator of the state instead of being the representative of the ruling class, the state is an organ of class, the organ of a single class which is the capitalist class. You are more confused than a dollar watch. Like the historian  Howard Zinn wrote, in North America, the concept of class has been eliminated from history, and that is what you are doingWhich anarchists are you talking about? There are hundreds of schools of Anarchism, and just one is the correct one, which is the one that supports a stateless society, and that was not the case of the so-called Anarchist of Spain, they advocated for the establishment of a Republic, none of them advocated for a stateless society, and also  it can not be called a revolution either. We have a different revolutionary concept about revolution and it is not semantic either.In North America everyone that is not a conservative ( I called it reactionary )  is called a Liberal, and it is not a matter of semantics, it is a matter of wrong conception and lack of political and economic education, because Liberalism was advocated in England and France and it never existed in its purity because the state must always participate in the affairs of the economy, 

[robbo203]

LBird wrote:

 Ahhh… now we get to the nub of the political issue – you've already decided that 'we can have TOO MUCH democracy'. 

  LOL the irony of ironies –  LBird accusing others of having "already decided" that we can have too much democracy when LBird himself has "already decided"  without so much as a single  working class voice in support of his daft idea that in communism the workers throughout the world will be voting on tens of thousands  of scientific theories every year? Whats the matter LBird?  Dont you like the idea of us mere workers voicing an opinion on what we want democracy for and where we dont see it as being necessary.  Why are we not allowed to say this proposal of yours is utterly harebrained, completely pointless and totally impractical?  Are we meant to defer to your superior wisdom  on the nature and extent of democrcy in a communist society?

[twc]

LBird, you are the only person to state here that Engels thought the materialist conception of history was about matter.Read (above) what Engels wrote about the materialist conception of history in Socialism: Utopian and Scientific. It’s clear enough.So far you have decided on matter,  Nobody else has.  Surely that’s clear enough.

[LBird]

twc wrote:

LBird, you are the only person to state here that Engels thought the materialist conception of history was about matter.Read (above) what Engels wrote about the materialist conception of history in Socialism: Utopian and Scientific. It’s clear enough.So far you have decided on matter,  Nobody else has.  Surely that’s clear enough.

So, for the third time, will you confirm what you wrote earlier, that Marx and Engels were talking about 'social production', and not 'matter'?What's the problem with simply confirming what you wrote earlier?

[LBird]

robbo203 wrote:

LBird wrote:

Ahhh… now we get to the nub of the political issue – you've already decided that 'we can have TOO MUCH democracy'.

LOL the irony of ironies –  LBird accusing others of having "already decided" that we can have too much democracy when LBird himself has "already decided"  without so much as a single  working class voice in support of his daft idea that in communism the workers throughout the world will be voting on tens of thousands  of scientific theories every year? Whats the matter LBird?  Dont you like the idea of us mere workers voicing an opinion on what we want democracy for and where we dont see it as being necessary.  Why are we not allowed to say this proposal of yours is utterly harebrained, completely pointless and totally impractical?  Are we meant to defer to your superior wisdom  on the nature and extent of democrcy in a communist society?

That's right, robbo – I've already decide that 'democratic socialism' can only mean 'democratic socialism', and not alan's 'NOT TOO DEMOCRATIC socialism'. I'm a worker that's had experience of a form of 'democracy' a bit like alan's (ie. 'democratic centralism').I'm quite willing to put this to a vote of workers – do they want 'democratic socialism' (within which they decide) or do they want 'NOT TOO DEMOCRATIC socialism' (within which it's been pre-decided by an elite, that somethings cannot be decided by the workers themselves).I already know that this issue is of no interest to you – at least alan wants some sort of 'democratic socialism', whereas you just want 'robbo individualism'.So, we can expect, during the struggle to build socialism by workers, for those workers to be confronted by this question. Perhaps they'll vote for the SPGB's and alan's 'NOT TOO DEMOCRATIC socialism', perhaps for 'democratic socialism'… perhaps even for 'robbo individualism'.I'm prepared for their decision. Unlike you or alan, apparently.

[twc]

LBird, yes.Yes, when Engels is investigating society — from pre-historical primitive communist modes of production (of which he is a pioneer), through pre-capitalist social-class modes of production, the capitalist mode of production (of which he is a pioneer, before Marx) and a future socialist mode of production (of which he saw clearly before anyone else) — he is talking about the implications of ‘social production’. Always without exception.Yes.  Engels’s celebrated account, in Socialism: Utopian and Scientific, of the materialist conception of history, which is effectively his popularization for workers of Marx’s Preface to the Critique (which I excerpted for you, in continuous sequence, above) is social.Yes. I have affirmed this, and have always affirmed it, and have no need to re-affirm what I’ve never denied.I stand by my word.

[LBird]

twc wrote:

LBird, yes.Yes, when Engels is investigating society — from pre-historical primitive communist modes of production (of which he is a pioneer), through pre-capitalist social-class modes of production, the capitalist mode of production (of which he is a pioneer, before Marx) and a future socialist mode of production (of which he saw clearly before anyone else) — he is talking about the implications of ‘social production’. Always without exception.Yes.  Engels’s celebrated account, in Socialism: Utopian and Scientific, of the materialist conception of history, which is effectively his popularization for workers of Marx’s Preface to the Critique (which I excerpted for you, in continuous sequence, above) is social.Yes. I have affirmed this, and have always affirmed it, and have no need to re-affirm what I’ve never denied.I stand by my word.

[my bold]So, as you clearly affirm, and have always affirmed, and quite reasonably see no need to re-affirm yet again, when the term 'materialist' is used by both Marx and Engels, it always means 'social production'.That's what I've always affirmed, too. That 'material production' is synonymous with 'social production'.Now, we can stand by our word, twc.And move this discussion forward. Let's hope no-one reverts to claiming that Marx was talking about 'matter', something that 'exists' outside of our 'social production'.Since we 'socially produce' what the bourgeoisie call 'matter', we can change the concept, as Marx argued, to 'inorganic nature'.And discuss how humans, being consciously active, labour upon 'inorganic nature' to socially produce 'organic nature'.Although, it's odd that Engels seemed to think, at times, that 'inorganic nature' meant 'matter'. But we've put that all aside now, haven't we? And realised that Engels was really talking, just as Marx was, about 'social production'.We could even start a new thread (which no doubt would please the ever-forbearing mods) about who, when and why humans socially produced 'matter'.

[robbo203]

LBird wrote:

robbo203 wrote:

LBird wrote:

Ahhh… now we get to the nub of the political issue – you've already decided that 'we can have TOO MUCH democracy'.

LOL the irony of ironies –  LBird accusing others of having "already decided" that we can have too much democracy when LBird himself has "already decided"  without so much as a single  working class voice in support of his daft idea that in communism the workers throughout the world will be voting on tens of thousands  of scientific theories every year? Whats the matter LBird?  Dont you like the idea of us mere workers voicing an opinion on what we want democracy for and where we dont see it as being necessary.  Why are we not allowed to say this proposal of yours is utterly harebrained, completely pointless and totally impractical?  Are we meant to defer to your superior wisdom  on the nature and extent of democrcy in a communist society?

That's right, robbo – I've already decide that 'democratic socialism' can only mean 'democratic socialism', and not alan's 'NOT TOO DEMOCRATIC socialism'. I'm a worker that's had experience of a form of 'democracy' a bit like alan's (ie. 'democratic centralism').I'm quite willing to put this to a vote of workers – do they want 'democratic socialism' (within which they decide) or do they want 'NOT TOO DEMOCRATIC socialism' (within which it's been pre-decided by an elite, that somethings cannot be decided by the workers themselves).I already know that this issue is of no interest to you – at least alan wants some sort of 'democratic socialism', whereas you just want 'robbo individualism'.So, we can expect, during the struggle to build socialism by workers, for those workers to be confronted by this question. Perhaps they'll vote for the SPGB's and alan's 'NOT TOO DEMOCRATIC socialism', perhaps for 'democratic socialism'… perhaps even for 'robbo individualism'.I'm prepared for their decision. Unlike you or alan, apparently.

 You will once again note how  LBird slyly avoids the two questions asked of him.  He he claims to be prepared for  the workers decision on the make up of democracy while his opponents are being "elitist" for prejudging the decision.  Its a typical devious LBird ploy. His opponents can just as easily counter by saying that they  too are prepared for whatever the decision the workers give but  the probability is the workers will opt for the much mre realistic concept of demcracy put forward by his oppoents than for LBird.s bartty  idea As for "Robbos individualism" why has LBird declined  to comment on thread that I recently started that demonstrates pretty conclusivly that Marx himslef who LBird constantly invokes, has a strobg streak of individualistic ideas runnng through his writings – at least by Lbirds interpretation of "individualism".  

[Author]

Posts