Marx and Automation

[alanjjohnstone]

 

Quote:

You have captured my sentiment. Anarchism, Now! Anarchism, Forever!

I wonder if you have come across these 19thC observations by the author of 'The Nature of Human Brain Work' I find them still appropriate for today's times.

Quote:

"The terms anarchist, socialist, communist should be so "mixed" together, that no muddlehead could tell which is which. Language serves not only the purpose of distinguishing things but also of uniting them- for it is dialectic." June 9, 1886"For my part, I lay little stress on the distinction, whether a man is an anarchist or a socialist because it seems to me that too much weight is attributed to this difference…..While the anarchists may have mad and brainless individuals in their ranks, the socialists have an abundance of cowards. For this reason, I care as much for one as the other…The majority in both camps are still in great need of education, and this will bring about a reconciliation in time"- April 20, 1886"If a worker wants to take part in the self-emancipation of his class, the basic requirement is that he should cease allowing others to teach him and should set about teaching himself." – Joseph Dietzgen 

 

[Anonymous]

alanjjohnstone wrote:

 

Quote:

You have captured my sentiment. Anarchism, Now! Anarchism, Forever!

I wonder if you have come across these 19thC observations by the author of 'The Nature of Human Brain Work' I find them still appropriate for today's times.

Quote:

"The terms anarchist, socialist, communist should be so "mixed" together, that no muddlehead could tell which is which. Language serves not only the purpose of distinguishing things but also of uniting them- for it is dialectic." June 9, 1886"For my part, I lay little stress on the distinction, whether a man is an anarchist or a socialist because it seems to me that too much weight is attributed to this difference…..While the anarchists may have mad and brainless individuals in their ranks, the socialists have an abundance of cowards. For this reason, I care as much for one as the other…The majority in both camps are still in great need of education, and this will bring about a reconciliation in time"- April 20, 1886"If a worker wants to take part in the self-emancipation of his class, the basic requirement is that he should cease allowing others to teach him and should set about teaching himself." – Joseph Dietzgen 

 

http://mailstrom.blogspot.com/2007/04/joseph-dietzgen-workers-philosopher.html. Adam Buick from Socialist Party of Great Britain"The Workers Philosopher ", Joseph Dietzgen, the man that coined the concept of Dialectical Materialism.   When Karl Marx was asked by his daughter to fill in a ‘confession’, a light-hearted Victorian questionnaire, he declared that his favourite motto – usually attributed to Rene Descartes – was De omnibus dubitandum. Or, to put it another way, ‘question everything’.

[Anonymous]

alanjjohnstone wrote:

 

Quote:

You have captured my sentiment. Anarchism, Now! Anarchism, Forever!

I wonder if you have come across these 19thC observations by the author of 'The Nature of Human Brain Work' I find them still appropriate for today's times.

Quote:

"The terms anarchist, socialist, communist should be so "mixed" together, that no muddlehead could tell which is which. Language serves not only the purpose of distinguishing things but also of uniting them- for it is dialectic." June 9, 1886"For my part, I lay little stress on the distinction, whether a man is an anarchist or a socialist because it seems to me that too much weight is attributed to this difference…..While the anarchists may have mad and brainless individuals in their ranks, the socialists have an abundance of cowards. For this reason, I care as much for one as the other…The majority in both camps are still in great need of education, and this will bring about a reconciliation in time"- April 20, 1886"If a worker wants to take part in the self-emancipation of his class, the basic requirement is that he should cease allowing others to teach him and should set about teaching himself." – Joseph Dietzgen 

 

He has a long road to travel. Like Mark Twain said: When I came back from the university, I learned one thing, how little I knew, and How much my father knew, and I would personally say:  When I came to the WSM I learned one thing: How little I knew, and how the SPGB knew. Still, I have a long road to travel after more than 45 years involved in the worker's movement ( If we can call it the movement because the movement doesn't exist yet )Dr Richard Wolf said that after pursuing his doctorate degree in Economics in Yale and Harvard, he discovered he did not know anything about economics until he studied Marx's works in economics. He also said if you know that there are conflicts in a family with two children, you must listen to both children in order to understand the root of the conflict. Personally, I do not support his solution based on Coop 

[Bijou Drains]

MBellend wrote:

1. Bijou…I highly doubt you have read anyrhing of mine. 

https://dissidentvoice.org/2017/02/the-post-industrial-post-modern-theory-of-value-and-surplus-value-2/https://dissidentvoice.org/2016/09/the-social-construction-of-value-price-and-wages/https://dissidentvoice.org/2017/11/the-post-modern-project-is-not-complete/ When you're in a hole, son, stop digging!

[robbo203]

Bijou Drains wrote:

 https://dissidentvoice.org/2017/11/the-post-modern-project-is-not-complete/ When you're in a hole, son, stop digging!

 I see our "structural anarchist" is a post modernist of sorts.  Well that figures.  A recipe for narcissism and working class disempowerment if there ever was one

[robbo203]

robbo203 wrote:

Bijou Drains wrote:

 https://dissidentvoice.org/2017/11/the-post-modern-project-is-not-complete/ When you're in a hole, son, stop digging!

 I see our "structural anarchist" is a post modernist of sorts.  Well that figures.  A recipe for narcissism and working class disempowerment if there ever was one

 There is a clutch of reviews of books on the theme of postmodernism here – from the Socialist Standard :http://www.worldsocialism.org/spgb/socialist-standard/1990s/1999/no-1136-april-1999/book-reviews If MBellamare really does subscribe to this regressive and narcisssitic nonsense that is postmodernism he needs to undestand what an insidious impact it has on the whole project of working class emancipation. Far from assisting  the realisation of a truly anarchist society which he and, in a sense, we too want it will do the very opposite 

[Anonymous]

robbo203 wrote:

Bijou Drains wrote:

 https://dissidentvoice.org/2017/11/the-post-modern-project-is-not-complete/ When you're in a hole, son, stop digging!

 I see our "structural anarchist" is a post modernist of sorts.  Well that figures.  A recipe for narcissism and working class disempowerment if there ever was one

Postmodernism is what Noam Chomsky properly has called the Bubble of the French intellectuals, and it is a movement which is totally detached from the working class, it is just a petty bourgeois movement based on petty bourgeois thoughts. It is funny that they call Marxism a bourgeois trend, but idealism is one of the pillars of the bourgeois ideology. At the present time, there is nothing progressive in France, most workers are moving toward  reactionary and recalcitrant ideas, specially ultra-right wing thoughts, Noam Chomsky considers that postmodernism is one of the causes of the emerging of the ultra-right movement in France. http://www.openculture.com/2018/02/noam-chomsky-explains-whats-wrong-with-postmodern-philosophy-french-intellectuals.html

[Anonymous]

Another Trojan Horse,  the French Philosopher Lacan:https://www.worldsocialism.org/spgb/forum/general-discussion/new-trojan-horse-elf-lacan-left

[Anonymous]

robbo203 wrote:

robbo203 wrote:

Bijou Drains wrote:

 https://dissidentvoice.org/2017/11/the-post-modern-project-is-not-complete/ When you're in a hole, son, stop digging!

 I see our "structural anarchist" is a post modernist of sorts.  Well that figures.  A recipe for narcissism and working class disempowerment if there ever was one

 There is a clutch of reviews of books on the theme of postmodernism here – from the Socialist Standard :http://www.worldsocialism.org/spgb/socialist-standard/1990s/1999/no-1136-april-1999/book-reviews If MBellamare really does subscribe to this regressive and narcisssitic nonsense that is postmodernism he needs to undestand what an insidious impact it has on the whole project of working class emancipation. Far from assisting  the realisation of a truly anarchist society which he and, in a sense, we too want it will do the very opposite 

If you look careful toward this reactionary trend you will see how close it is to the reactionary movement of Donald Trump. There is nothing revolutionary in this movementhttps://areomagazine.com/2017/03/27/how-french-intellectuals-ruined-the-west-postmodernism-and-its-impact-explained/

[Anonymous]

robbo203 wrote:

Bijou Drains wrote:

 https://dissidentvoice.org/2017/11/the-post-modern-project-is-not-complete/ When you're in a hole, son, stop digging!

 I see our "structural anarchist" is a post modernist of sorts.  Well that figures.  A recipe for narcissism and working class disempowerment if there ever was one

It is only an instrument of power https://newsclick.in/noam-chomsky-postmodernism-instrument-power

[Anonymous]

Marcos wrote:

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

@Marcos,This was an interesting read from you and I appreciate something I can understand and seems relevant to me. A couple thoughts that I expect you'll disagree with or ignore or object too since they're coming from me. but maybe you'll consder my questions?1) If a single conclusion from historical materialism is shown false does that make the whole concept false?  Alternatively, can a thoery that is completely self consistent be true, but nevertheless non-valuable in producing further knowledge? if so would this exhausted idea that has allready been applied to all areas it can be successfully applied be called obsolete fairly?  I gbuess I'm questioning what is the criteria used to determine "true" and "obsolete" because it seems to me this is maybe a question of differences of viewpoint as has been suggested before. 2) What would Marx and Engels think of the questioning the idea that there could also be periods in the future or present in other locations than the one your at where the state and class differentiation don't exist in the same form as Marx and Engels experienced in their lifetime?3) If someone re-wrote Marx from a completely new perspetive, how would someone from a Marx perspective interpret it?  Would it not seem false from a Marx perspective and somehow profane siince it re-writes marx?4) How do you describe black markets and other markets where there is no state involvement of any kind.   I'm thinking that things are still baught and sold in some sort of economy if markets where there is no state involvment.  the familiy household is one sort of free market that operates on a socialist principle in some cases.  The black market seems to be another.  Failed states without government of any kind still have econmies even today.  Do you agree this is worth exploring?5) how wouild you react to the argument that "Structural Anarachism" is the principle that there must be more than one answer for people to choose from and that having 1000 variations is part of the value of a structural anarchism solution as apposed to a monopolistic one government for all the world soluiton usually endorsed by capitalist and socialists.   How would you react to the idea that there must be only one kind animal in a forest? is like asking how would you react to the idea that there must be only one kind of political system in an economy. Can structural Anarchism be summarized as "one solution does not fit all?" and if so would you agree or disagree with the statment "one political economic solution is all the world will ever need as long as it's the solution I want"?

[Anonymous]

@MBellemare + any interested.from https://www.worldsocialism.org/spgb/forum/general-discussion/marx-and-automation?page=52#comment-47725

MBellemare wrote:

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. 

I want to focus on this one question particularly."if it has one is the maximization of profit by any means necessary. It is lawless in its insatiable thirst for power and profit."it seems to be that even without man made laws there are still natural laws that the economy and capitalist must follow even in states of abundance what are considered no-scarce environments. Consider for example, something that used to be in scarce supply.  Reading material. There was a time in history when the concept of "too much to read" just didn't compute because all writing was valuable and scarce.  Now, we live in a world where facebook is accused of producing too much writing of the wrong kind and while the writing is free and surplus from the economy, it's actually not valued anymore in the same way because it's no longer a scarce resource.  Advertisemetns and written communication is no longer scarce exactly.  However, there are natural laws to how much writing and reading a person can naturally consume.  The supply of free reading material  in gerneral as a commodity is infinite, but the cost of specfic reading material varies dramatically between free and extremely expensive today with some reading material having negative value to the reader.   It would be inconceviable for someone at long ago in history near the birth of the printing press to consider any written material as obsolete, or having a negative value.  But today? As Another example, consider some natural economic laws that are required for an economy to be viable.  These are like of natural rules and natural laws, and one law of capitalism economics is that the same money can't be captured by two business or two sales at the same time.  In capitalism once you give you money to someone to buy something, you lose that money completely forever.  So there is a sort of capitalist natural law that says we can't have the same money used twice.  Money can not be created out of nothign and can only be spent one time before it's used up and passed to someone else.  BUT, this is not a natural law, this is an accounting law (one that governments break).  This is an accounting law that is required for capitalism to work, but not necessarily an accounting low required of other polticial systems such as socialism (maybe, depending on the type). Other natural law that seems to apply to any form of physical distribution is the line laws.  There are always lines because one distributor or socialist store has a limited speed it can give things away and people take a finite amount of time to understand they know they need things.  The current line law is first come first served. For example, 100,000 people can not buy or take off the shelf for free from the socialist store, a can oppener all at the same time from just one store or seller or distributor.  In order to get a can opener in any economic system there are natural laws like how many people can walk through the store, find the can opener they want, and then leave the store in an hour.  This natural law is based on the size of the store and the impossibility of having two people take up the same space (you can't stack people on top of each other).  The natural law says that in any real world store there is a limit to how many exchanges can be made per hour of time.  Some will have to wait if too many want the same thing.  Now, there are ways to try to get around this natural law, but they don't work well and involve coordinated distirbution points and distributing the 100,000 people into 1000 stores each in a diffrent locatation and each selling or giving to just 100 people in an hour.  BUT, then you have to calculate the travel distance and travel time for the sellers to distribute and the buyers to find their store from out of the 1000 other stores.  Online sales change this natural law by making creating a virtual reality where it actually is possible for 100,000 people to buy the same thing from an online store without waiting.  BUT online sales still don't change the distributio part of the natural law.  The online seller only has so many boxers and shipping clerks so the sales delivery will be slow even if the purchase is fast.  To overcome even this natural law is possible, but it wouild require some sort of economic distribution system that could anticipate the wants of people and distribute in advance for them before the people themeselves know they want a can operner.  But distribution in advance requires some very very difficult society scale integreated planning and information processing and predicting ability that's not available.  Capitalism comes up with a solution based on market supply and demand with just in time delivery and such, but it's not very good in practice.  Socialism comes up with a solution based on something I don't understand personally and I call "denial of the natural problem".  Structural anarchism advocates for an open solution with capitalism or socialsm being chosen on a per store store basis along with stores for other economic systems and argues that all these stores can co-exist at the same time and be used by different people and chosen freely and mixed and matched.  So in a anarchist society you individuall might "buy(capitalism) or "take of the shelf" (socialism) some reading material or a can opener at either or both the communist store or the capitalist store or some alternative third store.  The stores might be on the same block and right next to each other under structural anarchism laws and rules. Do you agree? Does this make sense to you personally? Thx. 

[alanjjohnstone]

 

Quote:

states of abundance what are considered no-scarce environments.

 I'm not sure what these societies are.  I did read that the average American worker toils and labours longer and harder than a medieval peasant http://blogs.reuters.com/great-debate/2013/08/29/why-a-medieval-peasant-got-more-vacation-time-than-you/ And that hunter-gatherers such as the Bushmen have more leisure time  http://www.rewild.com/in-depth/leisure.html Suggests to me that man-made laws of economics have superseded natural laws

[Anonymous]

'Exchange and property are not 'natural' and there are no 'natural' laws relating to them: They are man made(sic). This is 'nonsense upon stilts'

[Anonymous]

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!

[Author]

Posts