Marx and Automation
- This topic has 650 replies, 23 voices, and was last updated 6 years, 1 month ago by
.
-
Posts
-
MBellemare wrote:It is post-industrial in the sense that the majority of work done today is unquantifiable. There is no such thing as the regulatory mechanism of socially necessary labor-time, anymore. To quote, Paul Feyerabend, "Anything Goes", today. Marx's value theory today is thus obsolete, despite being a beautifully rational theory.
Paul Feyerabend is a bourgeoise philosopher like any other bourgeoise philosopher and philosophy is a useless discipline which was also abandoned by Marx. He is in the same line as the so called anarcho capitalist
1. Marcos…Marcos…Marcos…Of course, I am an anarchist, I litterally wrote "THE" book on it for the 21st century, The Structural-Anarchism Manifesto, go to Amazon.com. Of course, in a post-modern society, you can dream up any defintion you like, but, my manifesto touches on all the collectivist points, concerning the history and theory of anarchism. Plus, I have the pepper-spray scars to prove it. 2. DJP….the difference between industrial and post-industrial is that today, in post-industrialism, the point of production, which Marx, spoke about is everywhere and anywhere, while, during the industrial era it was localized inside the factory. In a post-industrial society, post-fordism society, we, as humans, are always in a moment of production, specifically, a moment of production, consumption and distribution. We are always immersed in the production and reproduction of capitalism in the age of post-industrialism. Ultimately, this means that labor-power, is both quantifiable and unquantifiable, it can no longer be accurately measured, or arbitrarily divided, according to Marx, between productive and unproductive labor. It is now primarily always productive. Therefore, Socially Necessary Labor-Time, which according to Marx, is abstract labor, the law of value, is inoperative. That is, labor, which is quantifiable and meets the parameters set by social necessity across production spheres, is no longer adequate to describe our age, or to describe our exploitation. Capitalism obeys no economic laws, it is a will to power. There are no economic laws, anymore, in the sense that economic laws are relatively arbitrary and unquantifiable, today, more or less, because what constitutes labor-power, within post-industrialism, is primarily unquantifiable and arbitrary, it is cognitive, too complex and constantly happening. Finally, post-industrialism can be defined as the age where the arbitrary/artificial fabricrations of value, price and wage is the rule of thumb, whereupon, value, price and wage obey nothing more that the arbitrary, fanciful, whims of capitalists, that is, unfounded, unscientific, networks of power. Industrialism is the age where Marx's law of value rules. That is, the age, wherefore, the regulatory mechanism of socially necessary labor-time operates and functions as a hegemony. If in the industrial age, the system was rigged according to socially necessary labor-time, i.e., the law of value, in a post-industrial age, the economic system is totally rigged according to the arbitrary, fanciful, whims of capitalists, that is, the artificial and arbitrary fabrication of value, price and wage.Anarchism, Now! Anarchism, Forever!
Oh…I am quite confident that Paul Feyerabend is sympathetic to Anarchism, Anarchism principles and the Anarchist World View.
MBellemare wrote:the law of value, in a post-industrial age, the economic system is totally rigged according to the arbitrary, fanciful, whims of capitalists, that is, the artificial and arbitrary fabrication of value, price and wage.So why is their a falling rate of profit, economic crisis and companies going bust?Thanks for writing your reply but I doubt I’ll have time to discuss further. What you have written doesn’t seem to have more explanatory power…
Its a good thing you are stepping away DJP, because, what I am suggesting might be well over your head and what you can handle. Better you stay asleep in your Marxist-Value-Theory and Marxist Ideological Fetishism. This is too cutting-edge for you and the SPGB. Afterall, Old Baby-Boomers Should Not Venture Too Far From Home and their Marxist Armchairs. Here We Go:1. There is no such thing as the falling rate of profit. It is utter nonsense, today, a figment of the imagination, derived from a dubious, murky, notion of socially necessary labor-time, which is swiss cheese and inoperative, today (see above). First and foremost, if Marx was right about the falling rate of profit, capitalism would have come to an end long, long ago. The falling rate of profit is an after-effect, an illusion, derived from spheres of production, which have not yet congealed into monopoly and/or oligarchy. Once, a ruling network has been established in and across a sphere of production, consumption and distribution, the falling rate of profit vanishes, along with competition. The falling rate of profit requires competition, where there is no competition, there is no falling rate of profit. 2. Companies go bust because new companies, new spheres, and new technologies are created and come into existence, which make old companies outdated, or companies, suspetible to being absorbed into super-companies. Moreover, there are always new companies, and more and more companies being created, daily, then are going bust, daily. And where, companies organize into oligarchy, or monopoly, companies do not go bust, if they keep up with technological progress. 3. Economic crisis happen because the arbitrary/artificial fabrications of value, price and wage, including technological progress, encroach too heavily upon the population, upon production, upon consumption, and upon distribution etc. Meaning, an oligarchical network, or networks, exert too much influence over the workforce, over each other, over the market, and/or over the government, whereupon, they invetably buckle under the pressure. Certainly, this might appear as a drop in the rate of profit, but, this is an illusion, a temporary by-product of the buckling,i.e., temporary breakdown, derived from an oligarchical network, exerting too much pressure. The falling rate of profit is not the cause of economic crisis, it is an effect of economic crisis. It is something that happens after the fact. Anarchism, Now! Anarchism, Forever! (p.s. you should go to bed, cause you head must hurt terrribly after this DJP…haha)
Economic crisis causes a temporary falling rate of profit. The falling rate of profit is an illusory effect, long after the crisis has happened,or is well into its happening. The cause of economic crisis is the shifting power-relations inside the ruling networks within a sphere of production, consumption and/or distribution. As long as power-relations remain relatively stable, there is no falling rate of profit. Therefore, most of the time, there is no tendential law of the falling rate of profit, Marx and Kliman are mistaken. They fail to notice all the shifts in power-relations, within a sphere of production, consumption and/or distribution, manifesting the illusion of a falling rate of profit well after the crash has happened. Economic laws are the illusory result of shifting power-relations, not the cause, for the shifts in relations of power.
MBellemare wrote:Its a good thing you are stepping away DJP, because, what I am suggesting might be well over your head and what you can handle. Better you stay asleep in your Marxist-Value-Theory and Marxist Ideological Fetishism. This is too cutting-edge for you and the SPGB. Afterall, Old Baby-Boomers Should Not Venture Too Far From Home and their Marxist Armchairs. Here We Go:1. There is no such thing as the falling rate of profit. It is utter nonsense, today, a figment of the imagination, derived from a dubious, murky, notion of socially necessary labor-time, which is swiss cheese and inoperative, today (see above). First and foremost, if Marx was right about the falling rate of profit, capitalism would have come to an end long, long ago. The falling rate of profit is an after-effect, an illusion, derived from spheres of production, which have not yet congealed into monopoly and/or oligarchy. Once, a ruling network has been established in and across a sphere of production, consumption and distribution, the falling rate of profit vanishes, along with competition. The falling rate of profit requires competition, where there is no competition, there is no falling rate of profit. 2. Companies go bust because new companies, new spheres, and new technologies are created and come into existence, which make old companies outdated, or companies, suspetible to being absorbed into super-companies. Moreover, there are always new companies, and more and more companies being created, daily, then are going bust, daily. And where, companies organize into oligarchy, or monopoly, companies do not go bust, if they keep up with technological progress. 3. Economic crisis happen because the arbitrary/artificial fabrications of value, price and wage, including technological progress, encroach too heavily upon the population, upon production, upon consumption, and upon distribution etc. Meaning, an oligarchical network, or networks, exert too much influence over the workforce, over each other, over the market, and/or over the government, whereupon, they invetably buckle under the pressure. Certainly, this might appear as a drop in the rate of profit, but, this is an illusion, a temporary by-product of the buckling,i.e., temporary breakdown, derived from an oligarchical network, exerting too much pressure. The falling rate of profit is not the cause of economic crisis, it is an effect of economic crisis. It is something that happens after the fact. Anarchism, Now! Anarchism, Forever! (p.s. you should go to bed, cause you head must hurt terrribly after this DJP…haha)Are you posting messages for Samuelson or Galbraith? They both had the same point of view like you as capitalist economists
MBellemare wrote:Anarchism, Now! Anarchism, Forever! (p.s. you should go to bed, cause you head must hurt terrribly after this DJP…haha)Pure scholarship. Thanks
MBellemare wrote:Oh…I am quite confident that Paul Feyerabend is sympathetic to Anarchism, Anarchism principles and the Anarchist World View.Anarchists that support the capitalist state., The Anarcho-capitalists are self-called anarchists,and we had a long discussion with them on the WSM forum, and it was proven that they re just a bunch of pro-capitalists, like yourself. Noam Chomsky calls himself an anarchist and he supports capitalist parties, and he supported Hugo Chavez and Fidel Castro, two capitalist leaders.
MBellemare wrote:1. Marcos…Marcos…Marcos…Of course, I am an anarchist, I litterally wrote "THE" book on it for the 21st century, The Structural-Anarchism Manifesto, go to Amazon.com. Of course, in a post-modern society, you can dream up any defintion you like, but, my manifesto touches on all the collectivist points, concerning the history and theory of anarchism. Plus, I have the pepper-spray scars to prove it. 2. DJP….the difference between industrial and post-industrial is that today, in post-industrialism, the point of production, which Marx, spoke about is everywhere and anywhere, while, during the industrial era it was localized inside the factory. In a post-industrial society, post-fordism society, we, as humans, are always in a moment of production, specifically, a moment of production, consumption and distribution. We are always immersed in the production and reproduction of capitalism in the age of post-industrialism. Ultimately, this means that labor-power, is both quantifiable and unquantifiable, it can no longer be accurately measured, or arbitrarily divided, according to Marx, between productive and unproductive labor. It is now primarily always productive. Therefore, Socially Necessary Labor-Time, which according to Marx, is abstract labor, the law of value, is inoperative. That is, labor, which is quantifiable and meets the parameters set by social necessity across production spheres, is no longer adequate to describe our age, or to describe our exploitation. Capitalism obeys no economic laws, it is a will to power. There are no economic laws, anymore, in the sense that economic laws are relatively arbitrary and unquantifiable, today, more or less, because what constitutes labor-power, within post-industrialism, is primarily unquantifiable and arbitrary, it is cognitive, too complex and constantly happening. Finally, post-industrialism can be defined as the age where the arbitrary/artificial fabricrations of value, price and wage is the rule of thumb, whereupon, value, price and wage obey nothing more that the arbitrary, fanciful, whims of capitalists, that is, unfounded, unscientific, networks of power. Industrialism is the age where Marx's law of value rules. That is, the age, wherefore, the regulatory mechanism of socially necessary labor-time operates and functions as a hegemony. If in the industrial age, the system was rigged according to socially necessary labor-time, i.e., the law of value, in a post-industrial age, the economic system is totally rigged according to the arbitrary, fanciful, whims of capitalists, that is, the artificial and arbitrary fabrication of value, price and wage.Anarchism, Now! Anarchism, Forever!So what? My neighbour is an ultra-right winger and he has been pepper sprayed several times. I have confronted two brutal capitalist dictatorships and I have risked my life in the workers class movement, so what?
DJP wrote:MBellemare wrote:Anarchism, Now! Anarchism, Forever! (p.s. you should go to bed, cause you head must hurt terrribly after this DJP…haha)Pure scholarship. Thanks
DJPTypical arrogance of petty bourgeoise intellectual. They are the first one that goes under a bed when they hear the first shot by the state forces. I have known and seen many amateurs like him
Oh…Glad to see DJP that you have not yet reclined your comfortable marxist armchair, for your afternoon nap, as of yet. But seeing how little you have delved into what I have said, can only mean your head really, really hurts. Go to bed, it will do you good. 1. (Jesus Was a Communist, Marcos)…lolololol…. You should know, I don't support the capitalist-state, I want to do away with it, in all its shapes and/or forms. This includes all forms of religion. 2. And I am quite sure Galbraith, did not argue my anarchist point. No political-economic theorist to date has argued that prices, values, and wages, are arbitrarily/artificially fabricrated, by ruling capitalist networks, based solely the whims of these ruling capitalist networks, meaning the extent of their power and influence. But, I guess to SPGB Marxists, I must seem like capitalist, since, marxism is the answer to all social ills."The Sacred Texts, The Sacred Texts, No One Must Tamper with Marx's Sacred Texts…by any means necessary!1. First rule of SPGB…Do Not Critique The Sacred Marxist Texts.2. Second rule of SPGB…DO NOT CRITIQUE THE SACRED MARXIST TEXTS.
MBellemare wrote:Oh…Glad to see DJP that you have not yet reclined your comfortable marxist armchair, for your afternoon nap, as of yet. But seeing how little you have delved into what I have said, can only mean your head really, really hurts. Go to bed, it will do you good. 1. (Jesus Was a Communist, Marcos)…lolololol…. You should know, I don't support the capitalist-state, I want to do away with it, in all its shapes and/or forms. This includes all forms of religion. 2. And I am quite sure Galbraith, did not argue my anarchist point. No political-economic theorist to date has argued that prices, values, and wages, are arbitrarily/artificially fabricrated, by ruling capitalist networks, based solely the whims of these ruling capitalist networks, meaning the extent of their power and influence. But, I guess to SPGB Marxists, I must seem like capitalist, since, marxism is the answer to all social ills."The Sacred Texts, The Sacred Texts, No One Must Tamper with Marx's Sacred Texts…by any means necessary!1. First rule of SPGB…Do Not Critique The Sacred Marxist Texts.2. Second rule of SPGB…DO NOT CRITIQUE THE SACRED MARXIST TEXTS.If Jesus was a communist as you said, ( I don't see the relationship with the topic ) you probably do not know what communism really is, and I know pretty well the history of-Christianity, and the history of socialism-communism and I have not seen any similarity between both concepts The utopian socialists were Christians and they were groups of reformers, and they romanticized Feudalism., and there are many in existence in Mexico, and they call themselves anarchists tooThere is a list of more than 60 types of socialism, and none of them fill up the requirement to be called socialism or communism, the last one added to the list is the Islamic socialism or Arabian socialism, it looks like Muhammad was a communist tooThere were not any economic conditions during the times of classical slavery to have that kind of thought, and religion is a reflex of the economics and surrounding conditions of every society, and Jesus is not an exception, even more, it was a mythology taken from the Egyptian religion. Was Horus a communist god ? Engels did indicate that Christianity ( which does not have any relationship with Christ ) was a working-class movement, of the poor peoples because poverty was like an epidemic in those days. Probably, you should join forces with Pope FranciscoIt looks like you have not read Samuelson or Galbraith because both were textbook of the Department of General Studies of the University that I attended when I was very young in 1968, and it was a mandatory class, and both laid down the same theories, and both were anti-Marxist and pro-capitalists. Nothing about economic is new. they are old theories of an old economic system, old illusions which looks like new. We have had many tailors and surgeon trying to add and cut pieces to beautify this economic system.
MBellemare wrote:Oh…Glad to see DJP that you have not yet reclined your comfortable marxist armchair, for your afternoon nap, as of yet. But seeing how little you have delved into what I have said, can only mean your head really, really hurts. Go to bed, it will do you good. 1. (Jesus Was a Communist, Marcos)…lolololol…. You should know, I don't support the capitalist-state, I want to do away with it, in all its shapes and/or forms. This includes all forms of religion. 2. And I am quite sure Galbraith, did not argue my anarchist point. No political-economic theorist to date has argued that prices, values, and wages, are arbitrarily/artificially fabricrated, by ruling capitalist networks, based solely the whims of these ruling capitalist networks, meaning the extent of their power and influence. But, I guess to SPGB Marxists, I must seem like capitalist, since, marxism is the answer to all social ills."The Sacred Texts, The Sacred Texts, No One Must Tamper with Marx's Sacred Texts…by any means necessary!1. First rule of SPGB…Do Not Critique The Sacred Marxist Texts.2. Second rule of SPGB…DO NOT CRITIQUE THE SACRED MARXIST TEXTS.I’ve got to say this is one of the most ill argued posts I’ve ever seen on this forum, and that I’ve seen some horseshit over the years.To begin with you imply by your use of terms like arm chair etc. that DJP is old, interesting that a self proclaimed “anarchist” would resort to ageism, why not try sexism, racism or antisemitism, or would that not be acceptable, ok to use age related insults but not any other non-pc insults. I think your actions demonstrate your true “anarchist” credentials, I have met many genuine Anarchists who would be horrified at such comments.Your next line of argument is that “your head must really hurt” what a pathetic response to reasoned argument. The world must stand in admiration of your intellectual prowess, and anybody who doubts you must be feeble minded. Earlier on in the thread you informed us that you wrote a book, well fuck me sideways, you wrote a book. It might come as a surprise to you, but lots of people have written books, and lots of the books were shite. I am not sure of the accepted a academic standards in Canada, but if any of the undergraduates I teach had submitted such poorly argued content as your posts on this site, they’d be sitting with their heads in their hands to play with. One thing you probably got right (I suppose if you produce such a lot of horse shit something’s got to be right eventually) no political economic theorist to date has argued that prices, values (sic) and wages (by the way your use of the Oxford comma is deplorable) are arbitrarily/artificially fabricated by ruling capitalist networks, etc. The reason no one has argued this is because it is very clearly evident that they are not. If a ruling network were arbitrarily fabricating prices why would tariffs exist? If prices could be arbitrarily set they could be set to undermine the tariffs. If prices could be arbitrarily set why do capitalist businesses go bust, they could just “arbitrarily” raise their prices and increase their profits.Next time you write “a book” you might want to stick to pissy modern art and leave the revolutionary stuff to people who know they’re on about.
As usual, Bijou, "Mon Petite Chou Chou", you come to the conversation, much too late, ill-informed, out of context, swinging at air, totally in the dark. Have you even read "my book", NO! So, I suggest you look in the mirror, bub. And next time you start swinging at Stirner-like "spooks", you should have read the lines of thought, post by post. I have explained myself, quite well, and repeatedly. If you and your ideologues refuse to admit that I have a point, well, so be it, sit back in your arm-chair, feet-up, with your ideologues, comrades, and dillude yourself evermore into believing, "you still got it"!…lol The fact is I have made a valid point, and I put my money where my mouth is, IN A BOOK! So go back to your bourgeois-classroom, lick the shiny leather boots of your bourgeois-master, like the good docile little boy, you are, and let the real thinking to the professionals, i.e., those out here, doing a job, with little or no support, or capital, a job you clearly are too scared, or obediently subservient, to do!
- You must be logged in to reply to this topic.