Marx and Automation
- This topic has 650 replies, 23 voices, and was last updated 6 years, 1 month ago by
.
-
Posts
-
MBellemare wrote:Marx wants to have it the other way arouND. The falling rate of profit causes war and instigated the destruction of vast amounts of constant capital.
Where did he say that ?
MBellemare wrote:Robbo203, 1. Power-relations consists the sum of society, not just workers and capitalists. Due to this, economic crisis can have a variety of causes.2. There are no independent economic laws, or tendential laws, if that was the case, all societies since the dawn of the time would have been subject to these independent economic laws. For instance, caveman society would have been subject to the independent economic laws like the tendential law of the falling rate of profit as it is independent. 3. Countries go to war not because of the falling rate of profit, they go to war because of shifts in relations of power. A falling rate of profit will be an illusory effect of war, due to dead workers and the destruction of vast amounts of constant capital.You have not discovered the Matchbox yet because for several decades the SPGB has been saying that the falling rate of profit is not the cause of war, even more, we have never supported and participated in any capitalist war because we do know the real causes of war.We were not going to fight in order to prolong the life of capitalism and its market. Capitalists will destroy constant capital and variable capital in order to carry their aim for markets, and they do not care if millions of peoples go to the streets to protest against wars
MBellemare wrote:Robbo203, 1. Power-relations consists the sum of society, not just workers and capitalists. Due to this, economic crisis can have a variety of causes.OK I can go along with the first sentence to a degree. Power manifests itself in multiple forms in contemporary society not just in the assymetrical relationship between workers and capitalists. For example, there is the parent-child relationship. But my question to you is how do these assymetries in power relationships result in or express themselves in specifically "economic crises". You havent answered the question at all only asserted that a one way causal connection obtains between them. In any case as I pointed out , the relationship between power and the economy is NOT one way. In a depression , the bargaining power of workers vis-a-vis the capitalists is undermined; in an economic boom, it is conversely enhanced
MBellemare wrote:2. There are no independent economic laws, or tendential laws, if that was the case, all societies since the dawn of the time would have been subject to these independent economic laws. For instance, caveman society would have been subject to the independent economic laws like the tendential law of the falling rate of profit as it is independent.No, this doesnt follow at all. Nobody is saying that economic laws, so called , are independent of society. In a strict sense all it means is that they operate independently of the wills of particular agents constituting society. For example nobody had intentionally engineeered an economic crisis yet economic crises happen. They happen despite, and not becuase of, the will of economic agents Your reference to caveman society also demonstrates that you totally misunderstand what Marxian theory is about. Marx was very explicit on this matter – that different socio-economic formations have different modes of operation and hence "economic laws" or tendencies corresponding to each. It was simply not possible for paleolithic society to expereince "economic crises" in this uniquely capitalist sense of economic gluts giving rising to the economic misery of mass unemployment etc. Apart from anything else there was no such thing as separate realm of reality called the "economy".in hunter gatherer society. Nor anything like "employment", "wage labour" and "profit" – let alone a "falling rate of profit"!
MBellemare wrote:3. Countries go to war not because of the falling rate of profit, they go to war because of shifts in relations of power. A falling rate of profit will be an illusory effect of war, due to dead workers and the destruction of vast amounts of constant capital.As explained, the SPGB does not subscribe to the falling rate of profit theory as an explanation for ecnomic crises. Its view of crises is based on disproportionality theory – a view which Marx also held. There is something about crises here which you might find of interest http://www.worldsocialism.org/spgb/education/study-guides/study-guide-economic-crises This does not mean there does not exist a tendency for the rate of profit to fall but as an explanation for economic crises it seem questionable for the reasons cited. The changing organic composition of capital would be too slow to account for such crises.Neither I nor the SPGB suggest that countries go to war because of the falling rate of profit as such. They go to war fundamentally because of economic conflicts over such things as markets, resoruces, trade routes and the like even though such conflicts are dressed up in ,or mediated by, ideological rationalisations
1. Bijou…I highly doubt you have read anyrhing of mine. 2. Pareilly…there are no economic laws so we can change capitalism into any system we like, but there are no overarching laws to change. That is the problem with capitalism it operates beyond any concievable overarching laws. It is lawlessness.Marx gave too much validity to a rational capitalism. Capitalism is far worst than he ever imagined because it does as it wills, rational one day, irrational the next, anything goes. It obeys nothing. Its only imperative, if it has one is the maximization of profit by any means necessary. It is lawless in its insatiable thirst for power and profit.3. You can disagree all you want Robbo203 but economic crisis are cause by shiftING power-relations. Think chaos theory…a shift in a power-relation in China can resonate into an explosive economic crash in Britain, which can then move on to Cuba or Argentina etc., all we can know with any accuracy is that economic crisis begin with a shift in a power-relation.
Marxism and mainstream economics are stories we tell ourselves to sleep better at night. As both have the sâme fictitious structure as any religion, Christianity. Fairy-tales we tell our children to make us seem in control. Yes, Marxism is an opiate for some people.
Huh…I place Marxism and Bourgeois-Capitalism in the same boat. They are meta-narratives, which lack any validity and/or any overarching logic, by which we can *all* live by. Both are out for power and to enslave the world under one rubric. With the death of God, Marxism and Bourgeois-capitalism have sought to fill the void left by the death of God and Christianity, with their own religion. Both have sought to become the new religion, the new saving grace of humanity.Both are to be done away with. And, anarchism, the only socio-economic system, which has made plurality, diversity and socio-economic multiplicity, the center of its program and theory, is the only road out of Marxism and Bourgeois-Capitalism alike. Only thru differences, can totalitarian bourgeois-capitalism and totalitarian Marxism, avoided and overcome.You see, structural-anarchism is bent on doing away with both Marxism and Bourgeois-Capitalism, that is, reducing them to the level from which they sprang as just two micro-narratives, who have gotten too big for their own good and the good of the general-population.Here are some of the outdated, nonsensical terms within Marx's texts that are utterly useless today (I won't bother with capitalism, because it is totally useless):Here are the outdated obsolete Marxist terms:Socially Necesary Labor-Time. (Obsolete)The tedential law of the falling rate of profit. (Obsolete and a Lie)The Proletariat. (Obsolete)The Dictatorship of The Proletariat. (Obsolete)Total Value = Total Price. (Obsolete)Unproductive labor and Productive Labor. (Obsolete)Abstract Labor. (Obsolete)Historical Materialism. (A Lie)Dialectical Materialism. (A Fallacy)Value ( A figment of the imagination)(Now there are a lot of other terms within Marx, which have not lost their importance today, principally, EXPLOITATION)Nevertheless, anyone, who defends any of these outdated obsolete terms, or thinks these terms are even applicable today, is deluded, dishonest and an impediment to intellectual and revolutionary progress.There is nothing more that can be said, other than, the fact that if SPGB stands by these outdated, obsolete terms, and is not willing to change its foundational principles, and accept new, more accurate theoretical revolutionary theories, it is an organization comprised of lost souls, yearning for a master and its own destruction.
MBellemare wrote:Huh…I place Marxism and Bourgeois-Capitalism in the same boat. They are meta-narratives, which lack any validity and/or any overarching logic, by which we can *all* live by. Both are out for power and to enslave the world under one rubric. With the death of God, Marxism and Bourgeois-capitalism have sought to fill the void left by the death of God and Christianity, with their own religion. Both have sought to become the new religion, the new saving grace of humanity.Both are to be done away with. And, anarchism, the only socio-economic system, which has made plurality, diversity and socio-economic multiplicity, the center of its program and theory, is the only road out of Marxism and Bourgeois-Capitalism alike. Only thru differences, can totalitarian bourgeois-capitalism and totalitarian Marxism, avoided and overcome.You see, structural-anarchism is bent on doing away with both Marxism and Bourgeois-Capitalism, that is, reducing them to the level from which they sprang as just two micro-narratives, who have gotten too big for their own good and the good of the general-population.Here are some of the outdated, nonsensical terms within Marx's texts that are utterly useless today (I won't bother with capitalism, because it is totally useless):Here are the outdated obsolete Marxist terms:Socially Necesary Labor-Time. (Obsolete)The tedential law of the falling rate of profit. (Obsolete and a Lie)The Proletariat. (Obsolete)The Dictatorship of The Proletariat. (Obsolete)Total Value = Total Price. (Obsolete)Unproductive labor and Productive Labor. (Obsolete)Abstract Labor. (Obsolete)Historical Materialism. (A Lie)Dialectical Materialism. (A Fallacy)Value ( A figment of the imagination)(Now there are a lot of other terms within Marx, which have not lost their importance today, principally, EXPLOITATION)Nevertheless, anyone, who defends any of these outdated obsolete terms, or thinks these terms are even applicable today, is deluded, dishonest and an impediment to intellectual and revolutionary progress.There is nothing more that can be said, other than, the fact that if SPGB stands by these outdated, obsolete terms, and is not willing to change its foundational principles, and accept new, more accurate theoretical revolutionary theories, it is an organization comprised of lost souls, yearning for a master and its own destruction.In what planet or crystal ball are you living in? The concept of God, religion, and Christianity has not disappeared from the human society, it will exist until the original conditions that motivated it to exist be still present in our society, and those conditions still exist, and most peoples have not replaced Marx conception for religion, most peoples around the world are supporting the capitalist way of thinking, many religious people helped Donald Trump to become president, and the Vatican and the Episcopal church have large influences in Latin America. We have a pamphlet with certain errors which explain the real origin of religion named How the Gods were MadeYou need serious reading about religion, its origin, and why they exist, and understanding of the whole body of ideas of Marx and Engels. First, and understanding of philosophy and anthropology, the concept of dialectical materialism was not created by Marx, but by Geitzen what Marx developed was the Materialist conception of history, and I think you have not read the works of Geitzen, but there is a good article written by Adam Buick, known as The worker's" philosopher, and we had a long discussion in this forum.The WSM has raised many critiques against Marx and Engels and we have recognized their mistakes, but we have taken the most essential concepts of the analysis of Marx, and we do not consider ourselves as Marxists and we do not worship Marx, we support some of his conceptions, and we have articles confirming that statement, and we have outlined the conceptions that we supportMarx abandoned many philosophical concepts when he started to grow in the working class movement, and we had a long discussion in this forum where some personalities indicated that he abandoned dialectic, only the Marxist-Humanist persist on that. It is not a bourgeois conception ( it shows that you do not know the meaning of bourgeois ) because he was not a reformist, and a bourgeoisie is a person which possess means of productions, and Marx body of ideas does not support the bourgeoisie possession of private propertyMany terms used by Marx they already existed before he came to the scenario, and many terms were also taken from the French Anarchists, and he developed them including the class struggle, and the dictatorship of the proletariat was a temporary measure for the XIX century and the SPGB does not support that concept, you are talking without checking facts and without any knowledge about the subject matter, I bet my head that you do not know the meaning of the DOP. We have plenty of articles about that, and they explain why Lenin distorted the conceptThe concept of Proletariat come from the Roman world, it was when the slave sold his prole for material exchange, and the term is still applicable nowadays because human being must sell their labour in exchange for money, the bourgeoisie want that concept to be buried because they do not want the working class to understand their real social condition, and some petty bourgeois want to eliminate too, because they think that they are part of the middle class, but they are proletariat too.Abstract and concrete they are philosophical terms that Marx transformed from Hegel, and abstract and concrete labour exist because it is human being the one produce real social wealth in our society, but your mind does not permit you to see the contributions of the working class to our society.You are just doing the work of the sniper hitting whatever you find I front because you do not have sufficient background on the whole body of ideas of Marx in order to hit the target properly, continue in your endeavour in Arts because you are not an economist and you are not a revolutionary. You have serious flaws in your analysis, like popular saying: They do not hold waterRichard Wolf, Andrew Killman, and Peter Hudis they are economists and they know what they are talking about, and we have our reservations and critiques about them
MBellemare wrote:Huh…I place Marxism and Bourgeois-Capitalism in the same boat. They are meta-narratives, which lack any validity and/or any overarching logic, by which we can *all* live by. Both are out for power and to enslave the world under one rubric. With the death of God, Marxism and Bourgeois-capitalism have sought to fill the void left by the death of God and Christianity, with their own religion. Both have sought to become the new religion, the new saving grace of humanity.Both are to be done away with. And, anarchism, the only socio-economic system, which has made plurality, diversity and socio-economic multiplicity, the center of its program and theory, is the only road out of Marxism and Bourgeois-Capitalism alike. Only thru differences, can totalitarian bourgeois-capitalism and totalitarian Marxism, avoided and overcome.You see, structural-anarchism is bent on doing away with both Marxism and Bourgeois-Capitalism, that is, reducing them to the level from which they sprang as just two micro-narratives, who have gotten too big for their own good and the good of the general-population.Here are some of the outdated, nonsensical terms within Marx's texts that are utterly useless today (I won't bother with capitalism, because it is totally useless):Here are the outdated obsolete Marxist terms:Socially Necesary Labor-Time. (Obsolete)The tedential law of the falling rate of profit. (Obsolete and a Lie)The Proletariat. (Obsolete)The Dictatorship of The Proletariat. (Obsolete)Total Value = Total Price. (Obsolete)Unproductive labor and Productive Labor. (Obsolete)Abstract Labor. (Obsolete)Historical Materialism. (A Lie)Dialectical Materialism. (A Fallacy)Value ( A figment of the imagination)(Now there are a lot of other terms within Marx, which have not lost their importance today, principally, EXPLOITATION)Nevertheless, anyone, who defends any of these outdated obsolete terms, or thinks these terms are even applicable today, is deluded, dishonest and an impediment to intellectual and revolutionary progress.There is nothing more that can be said, other than, the fact that if SPGB stands by these outdated, obsolete terms, and is not willing to change its foundational principles, and accept new, more accurate theoretical revolutionary theories, it is an organization comprised of lost souls, yearning for a master and its own destruction.I remember that many years ago Adam Buick and I we had a discussion about Feuerbach, and the told me that I have heard about him from second sources, and he was right because I had not read Feuerbach from his original works, and that motivated me to read it and then I discovered that I was wrong.The same situation is happening to you, you are repeating what others second sources are saying about Marx, and many so-called Anarchists have raised many lies about Marx, like Rudolf Rocker, but many real Anarchists have recognized the contributions of Marx, even more, many of them have considered him as one of the theoreticians of Anarchism.https://www.marxists.org/archive/rubel/1973/marx-anarchism.htmhttps://www.goodreads.com/book/show/25770137-marx-and-anarchism. In this book Rudolf Rocker spread many lies about Marx and Stalin and Mao are not a product of Marx, and whatever took place in the Soviet Union has nothing to do with Marx ideas, Isaac Deutscher the biographer of Trotsky ( who was a Trotsky ) indicated that Trotsky himself motived the ascend of Stalin, I don't that Lenin himself would have approved the creation of concept known as Marxism-Leninism, it was a creation of Joseph Stalin
MBellemare wrote:You can disagree all you want Robbo203 but economic crisis are cause by shiftING power-relations. Think chaos theory…a shift in a power-relation in China can resonate into an explosive economic crash in Britain, which can then move on to Cuba or Argentina etc., all we can know with any accuracy is that economic crisis begin with a shift in a power-relation.Once again, I have asked you HOW a shift in power relations can cause an economic crisis and once again you have failed to come up with an answer. Part of the problem is that you fail to explain what you mean by terms like a "shift in power relations". Power relations between whom or what? Economic classes? Nation states? or what? Of course modern socialised production is all interconnected and it is this quality of interconnectedness that allows us to see phenomena in terms of chaos theory – small changes occurng somewhere that accumulate in intensity and and strength and express themselves in a wider spatial context. But what you dont appear to understand is that that the Marxian disproportionality theory of economic crises is in a sense precisely a description of this very process in an economic form. I suggest you read the link I prpvded in an earlier post
Hmmm…all down to semantics it seems…definitions.Revolutionaries separated by a common language…to paraphrase an idiom I recall Marx (or someone) saying you cannot determine the cause of a slump except by looking back at it after the event. If we could forecast the bubbles bursting we would all be very rich comrades
MBellemare wrote:Huh…I place Marxism and Bourgeois-Capitalism in the same boat. They are meta-narratives, which lack any validity and/or any overarching logic, by which we can *all* live by. Both are out for power and to enslave the world under one rubric. With the death of God, Marxism and Bourgeois-capitalism have sought to fill the void left by the death of God and Christianity, with their own religion. Both have sought to become the new religion, the new saving grace of humanity.Both are to be done away with. And, anarchism, the only socio-economic system, which has made plurality, diversity and socio-economic multiplicity, the center of its program and theory, is the only road out of Marxism and Bourgeois-Capitalism alike. Only thru differences, can totalitarian bourgeois-capitalism and totalitarian Marxism, avoided and overcome.You see, structural-anarchism is bent on doing away with both Marxism and Bourgeois-Capitalism, that is, reducing them to the level from which they sprang as just two micro-narratives, who have gotten too big for their own good and the good of the general-population.Here are some of the outdated, nonsensical terms within Marx's texts that are utterly useless today (I won't bother with capitalism, because it is totally useless):Here are the outdated obsolete Marxist terms:Socially Necesary Labor-Time. (Obsolete)The tedential law of the falling rate of profit. (Obsolete and a Lie)The Proletariat. (Obsolete)The Dictatorship of The Proletariat. (Obsolete)Total Value = Total Price. (Obsolete)Unproductive labor and Productive Labor. (Obsolete)Abstract Labor. (Obsolete)Historical Materialism. (A Lie)Dialectical Materialism. (A Fallacy)Value ( A figment of the imagination)(Now there are a lot of other terms within Marx, which have not lost their importance today, principally, EXPLOITATION)Nevertheless, anyone, who defends any of these outdated obsolete terms, or thinks these terms are even applicable today, is deluded, dishonest and an impediment to intellectual and revolutionary progress.This is absurd and ludicrously dogmatic to boot. One does not have to agree with everything Marx wrote – the SPGB certainly does not – to see this is nonsense. And incidentally, I dont know of any self respecting anarchist who would go along with what you say either – at least not in its totality – unless you are maybe unwittngly alluding to the anarcho-capitalist crowd perhaps. So exploitation, according to you, has lost it importance,eh? Does that mean capitalism is no longer an exploitative society and, if so, why bother to overthrow it? How is Historical Materialism a "Lie?" In what sense is the distinction between unproductive (non-surplus value producing) labour and productive labour (labour that produces surplus value ) "obsolete" (it seems you share the same worldview as the bourgeois neoclassical economists in that case). How is the proletariat obsolete when it is growing rapidly across the world with the relative decline in peasant production? How is the tendential law of the falling rate of profit. "Obsolete and a Lie"? Are you aware that Marx also specified certain factors that counteract the tendency for the rate of profit to fall? Here are some statistical data that completely refute your unsubstantiated assertion https://thenextrecession.wordpress.com/2016/10/04/the-us-rate-of-profit-1948-2015/ One could go on. You talk about Marxism having become a religion but actually looking at your own comments I would suggest that that jibe would far more accurately apply to your own worldview which strikes me as having little to do with anarchism and would certainly be rejected by most anarchists as some kind of post-modernist mish mash
robbo203 wrote:MBellemare wrote:Huh…I place Marxism and Bourgeois-Capitalism in the same boat. They are meta-narratives, which lack any validity and/or any overarching logic, by which we can *all* live by. Both are out for power and to enslave the world under one rubric. With the death of God, Marxism and Bourgeois-capitalism have sought to fill the void left by the death of God and Christianity, with their own religion. Both have sought to become the new religion, the new saving grace of humanity.Both are to be done away with. And, anarchism, the only socio-economic system, which has made plurality, diversity and socio-economic multiplicity, the center of its program and theory, is the only road out of Marxism and Bourgeois-Capitalism alike. Only thru differences, can totalitarian bourgeois-capitalism and totalitarian Marxism, avoided and overcome.You see, structural-anarchism is bent on doing away with both Marxism and Bourgeois-Capitalism, that is, reducing them to the level from which they sprang as just two micro-narratives, who have gotten too big for their own good and the good of the general-population.Here are some of the outdated, nonsensical terms within Marx's texts that are utterly useless today (I won't bother with capitalism, because it is totally useless):Here are the outdated obsolete Marxist terms:Socially Necesary Labor-Time. (Obsolete)The tedential law of the falling rate of profit. (Obsolete and a Lie)The Proletariat. (Obsolete)The Dictatorship of The Proletariat. (Obsolete)Total Value = Total Price. (Obsolete)Unproductive labor and Productive Labor. (Obsolete)Abstract Labor. (Obsolete)Historical Materialism. (A Lie)Dialectical Materialism. (A Fallacy)Value ( A figment of the imagination)(Now there are a lot of other terms within Marx, which have not lost their importance today, principally, EXPLOITATION)Nevertheless, anyone, who defends any of these outdated obsolete terms, or thinks these terms are even applicable today, is deluded, dishonest and an impediment to intellectual and revolutionary progress.This is absurd and ludicrously dogmatic to boot. One does not have to agree with everything Marx wrote – the SPGB certainly does not – to see this is nonsense. And incidentally, I don't know of any self respecting anarchist who would go along with what you say either – at least not in its totality – unless you are maybe unwittingly alluding to the anarcho-capitalist crowd perhaps. So exploitation, according to you, has lost it importance,eh? Does that mean capitalism is no longer an exploitative society and, if so, why bother to overthrow it? How is Historical Materialism a "Lie?" In what sense is the distinction between unproductive (non-surplus value producing) labour and productive labour (labour that produces surplus value ) "obsolete" (it seems you share the same worldview as the bourgeois neoclassical economists in that case). How is the proletariat obsolete when it is growing rapidly across the world with the relative decline in peasant production? How is the tendential law of the falling rate of profit. "Obsolete and a Lie"? Are you aware that Marx also specified certain factors that counteract the tendency for the rate of profit to fall? Here are some statistical data that completely refute your unsubstantiated assertion https://thenextrecession.wordpress.com/2016/10/04/the-us-rate-of-profit-1948-2015/ One could go on. You talk about Marxism having become a religion but actually looking at your own comments I would suggest that that jibe would far more accurately apply to your own worldview which strikes me as having little to do with anarchism and would certainly be rejected by most anarchists as some kind of post-modernist mish mash
If Historical Materialism is a lie, probably, the long research made by Lewis Morgan on his book "The Ancient Society" is a complete lie too, he was able to reach to the same conclusion as Marx when he had the opportunity to study for more than 25 years the society of the Iroquois, he also indicated that man before thinking about politics, and religion had to satisfy his/her materials needs. His discovery motivated Marx and Engels to change or modify their definition of history by indicating that there was a period in mankind where the state and the class differentiation didn't existMarx was the first one who said that everything must be questioned. Somebody asked him that when he was going to write his complete works, he said that they must be written again, he never considered that everything that he wrote was final and conclusive.He does sound like the Chicago boys, and the Anarcho-capitalists, both have been carrying long attacks against Marx and Communism, and especially the Anarcho-capitalist have considered that everything said by Marx is obsolete, and they call themselves as Anarchists but they are not because a capitalist society without the state is something absurd, and Anarchists have rejected them too.It is preferable to investigate first before coming to a final derogatory conclusion. He must also define what kind of Anarchism is the so-called substitution of Marxism because there are a hundred schools of Anarchism and each one has a different version, approach and methods, and in several places they are completely discredited, and they have ended in terrorism, and some are populists and pro-peasants
MBellemare wrote:Marxism and mainstream economics are stories we tell ourselves to sleep better at night. As both have the sâme fictitious structure as any religion, Christianity. Fairy-tales we tell our children to make us seem in control. Yes, Marxism is an opiate for some people.McArthy had similar opinion about the so-called Marxism, instead of calling it Soviet state capitalism, he was one of the most reactionary and recalcitrant Senator that the US has ever had during the cold war, and he did not know a shit about socialism, or Marxism, a trend which was never created by Marx, but by Bakunin., and many ignorants repeat it like parrotsThe writer Charles Denby was told by some right-wingers that he had been brainwashed by the Communists, and he said that he should have been brainwashed by them when he was born because he came too late on his life to understand the motor of society when he was an adult.I encountered the works of Marx and Engels when I was 18 years old and I will never come back to what I had learned before that, and I have never stopped reading it, and I could say like Charles Denby that I should have been brainwashed when I was born, and I should have encountered the SPGB when I was less than 18 years agoReligion is to believe in the existence of a supernatural being which is out of this world, and I have never found anything supernatural on the conception of socialism, or in the writings of Marx and Engels which have laid down the Materialist Conception of History, I have not found any opiate on that conception, but I have found opiate on the idealist conception of the worldTherefore, if you consider that there too many peoples brainwashed or drugged in this place, what the fuck are you doing here? The problem is that you can not fool anybody around here with your jargons, Your prophecies do not work with us. I have seen too many teachers coming to the SPGB and at the end, it has been proven that they are just amateurs or students. https://newsandletters.org/charles-denby-worker-editor/. Charles Denby, he was not an intellectual, he was a factory worker, a proletarian at an assembly line, but his reading on Marx, Engels and socialism gave him the knowledge that he needed in order to understand his social situation, and he became a worker activist, an editor of a newspaper, he was a walking library
Alan Johnstone, you are wise and worthy of your station! #530…is an absolute gem on this thread. You have captured my sentiment.Anarchism, Now! Anarchism, Forever!
Historical materialism is a narrative, a way of looking at the world, devoid of underlying verity and/or universal truth. Chaos theory is just as valid. Things happen…because other things happen, there isn't an underlying law-like logic. History can progress, regress, stay in place, collapse, rellapse, etc… both sequentially, and simultaneously. Anarchy is the prevailent state of history. We cannot predict with accuracy what will happen. or that humanity is progessing at all.Anarchy reigns. I believe this is the correct way to look at history and historical unfoldings. An argument can be made that technology progresses but simultaneously are human beings regressing, evermore, morally?Its a matter of opinion. Marx is an opinion on the world, a set of lens, we can put on and off. But there are things in Marx which are obsolete and confuse the population towards truly asserting itself.Just my opinion.Anarchism, Now! Anarchism, Forever!
- You must be logged in to reply to this topic.