Marx and Automation
- This topic has 650 replies, 23 voices, and was last updated 6 years, 6 months ago by
.
-
Posts
-
Matt, once again, you are stuck in the same, theoretical clap-trap, Marx and Engels fell into. You are reducing anarchism to a homogenized totality, when it is exactly the opposite, a multiplicity of incommensurable pluralized versions of anarchism. There is not a singular anarchism, MATT! And moreover, your statement is couched in an inherent belief that you hold universal truth between the inherent limit that lies between your two ears. You are guilty of righteousness, like any Enlightenment philosopher, and/or Marxist. Think! MATT…Think plurality!!!! Matt…. many truths…many types economies….many perspectives all of which have equal claims to truth, in relative equal measure….existing in a patchwork/federation of municipalities, worker-cooperatives, and autonomous-collectives. That is, anachism! Anarchism is devoid of any overarching totality, devoid of any federal state-apparatus, and devoid of bourgeois-capitalism.That is, Anarchism….
Oh…and Matt…don't sulk and play the victim….crying that I have not given SPGB… a fair shake, boo hoo!…Let me remind you that the SPGB found me…and I joined the forum to defend, an unwarranted critique of my work, a year ago. I have been defending my theory on this thread for a year, against unwarranted ridiculous definitional criticisms. Being an, out of date, 20th century block-head, does not give some SPGB members, carte blanch to comport themselves like Stalinists. I am the slighted party.
Thx, Matt, for correcting my spelling. You have found your niche on this thread. Est-ce-que tu peut corriger en francais s'il vous plait, connard? Tu va aller loin, trou-de-cul! hee hee
Reminder: 7. You are free to express your views candidly and forcefully provided you remain civil. Do not use the forums to send abuse, threats, personal insults or attacks, or purposely inflammatory remarks (trolling). Do not respond to such messages.
MBellemare wrote:Robbo203, You have no idea what you are talking about. To quote, Max Stirner, " You have wheels in your head…you are haunted by spooks"…a zealot from a bye-gone era. (like there is an authentic reading of Marx, or authentic universal truth. Could you be more obsolete and a 20th century block-head!Bijou….you are about as uneducated as they come, that is, the worst type of educated, i.e., a narrow-minded, conservative, type of educated. I suggest you get your head out of your ass, and actually read my work, before you slander. Its good that you hide your sorry ass behind a moniker, chicken shit! Because, its clear you are all yap yap yap and no action. Not even an original thought in vacant head. Matt, you want to to go around around the marry-go-around of samantics with me. Read my work!Patreilly, I don't read SPGB, because SPGB is a perspective, among a litany of other more pressing perspective, which are unfortunately more relevant right now. And when I do read, I read the masters, Marx, Stirner, Nietzsche, Engels, Lenin, Foucault, Althusser, post-modernists…etc….I am not interested in samantics, and un-original thinking, or the re-writing. I mean come-on, Marx and Engels, by kicking out Bakunin, proved their totalitarian despotic aspirations. And Stalinism was the culmination of their vision. SORRY SPGB! But Marxism never articulated open-participatory-democracy, like structural-anarchism, its vision was always a dictatorship, the dictatorship of the proletariat. The Soviet Union was always what Marx and Engel worked for and wanted.Anarchism, Now! Anarchism, Forever!That wasn't the main debate at the First International ( composed of several tendencies ) and that is where the name Marxist ( and the term Marxism ) comes from, a concept created by Bakunin, ( and mistakenly followed by Engels ) the main debate was about the political participation of the working class, versus the Blanquist conspirative theory, and the winner was the political one, which was also the political stand taken by Lenin and the Bolsheviks, There are others accusation in regard to the controversy between Proudhon and Marx, the thing is that Proudhon is not the father of Anarchism and he was not an anarchist either, and Stalin committed the same mistake on his book on Anarchism, because Anarchism is not based on selfishness as he described Anarchism, that selfishness come from Proudhon, the movement is totally social, and there are many schools or trends on Anarchism. The French Anarchists had a tremendous influence on Marx and several of his phrases originated with the Anarchist movement, and we supported themBakunin was a proto-Leninist, he did support like Lenin the conspirative theory or the taking of power by a minority group, and the first translation of the Communist Manifesto into the Russian language was done by Bakunin and Plekhanov corrected some of the mistakes made on the translation. It is also an indication that Bakunin gave certain merits to Marx and we have recognized that the Communist Manifesto has many reformist clauses. Personally, I think it shouldn't be called a Communist ManifestoI have read the works of most of the major figures and personalities within the Anarchist movement including the Cuban, the Argentinean and the Spanish and several of them have recognized that Marx is also one of the theoreticians of Anarchism, and the biggest critiquer of Marx wasn't Bakunin it is Rodulf Rocker and I have read him too, and he has also recognized the contributions of Marx to socialism.In Spain where the Anarchist had the majority of participants during the Civil war did not want to establish a stateless society but a bourgeois democratic republic which is conflictive with the main purpose of truly Anarchists, and in Cuba the Anarchist had a large incidence within the peasants movement, they had more incidence than the Stalinists and the Leninists, but many Anarchists in Argentina were absorbed by Peronism which is pure Argentinean bourgeois nationalism
Ah…shucks!….I still like the SPGB…and this thread, regardless. Despite, our microscopic semantic/definitional differences, we are in agreement on the horrors that is bourgeois-state-capitalism.Slugs and Hugs!No Hard Feelings!
Marcos…stating that Proudhon is not an anarchist, makes you sound out of touch and out of your mind. Of course, you can believe anything you like, as a proponent of plurality, but for the sake of meaningful discourse, on this thread, Proudhon is an anarchist. He stated as much in "Property is theft". Again, Bakunin is a proto-leninist makes you sound out of touch and out of your mind. If anything, Bakunin is an anarchist, he stated as much, and Bakunin might be a proto-Nestor Makhno. Bakunin critiqued Marx and Marxism as totalitarianism and authoritarianism.And he was right.
MBellend wrote:Bijou….you are about as uneducated as they come, that is, the worst type of educated, i.e., a narrow-minded, conservative, type of educated. I suggest you get your head out of your ass, and actually read my work, before you slander. Its good that you hide your sorry ass behind a moniker, chicken shit! Because, its clear you are all yap yap yap and no action. Not even an original thought in vacant head.If I had defamed you, which I havent, it would be libel not slander, you really should be more exact in your terminology. As stated previously, I would like an answer to my question about tariffs, it seems to blow a huge whole in your whole argument.You could also tell me if you are the Donny Osmond lookalike featured in this article:https://www.pressreader.com/canada/ottawa-citizen/20111231/295931838219892 If so am I right to assume that this isn't a political discussion but is actually a piece of really shit performance art?
Marcos, Bakunin, may have believed Marx had merit, initially, but after, his expulsion by Marx, he saw Marx and Marxism for what they were authoritarianism.
In my country, bijiou it is slander.
MBellemare wrote:In my country, bijiou it is slander.You're not getting much right today, are you:https://www.cbabc.org/For-the-Public/Dial-A-Law/Scripts/Your-Rights/240 Slander covers the spoken word
Bijiou, you are a narrow-minded, conservative, out-of-date, block-head. The article you have read….is a slanderous one and is full of lies. It was orchestrated by those, who hate those that can make a living with their art and their writing. Nothing more can be said. The paper did print a retraction, months later. Bijiou, hiding behind a moniker, like a frightened little boy.
No…once again, slander is perfectly acceptable, term.
So rigid, you are, Bijiou! Like truth is some ironclad concrete artifact, and not some malleable plurality.
MBellemare wrote:Marcos, Bakunin, may have believed Marx had merit, initially, but after, his expulsion by Marx, he saw Marx and Marxism for what they were authoritarianism.I know the history of Marx, Bakunin and the First international pretty well, and i have read the biography of Marx and Bakunin, nobody can bullshit me, I always read, or study before giving an opinion, and when I am wrong I do recognize my mistakesBakunin was not expelled by Marx personally, the First International was composed of several tendencies including leaders of workers union and women, non-socialist, and the followers of Marx were in minority, The Bakunists and Anarchists had the majority of the membership at the First International and many Anarchists did not support Bakunin. The merits of one person or an institution cannot be eliminated due to personal conflicts or revenge, he has personally rejection against Marx up to the point that he became an anti-semite, and that is not a good sign within our movement, because some of his followers became anti-semite too, as well Marx also had the same type of problems when he expressed some racism against La Salle, I do not know how he reacted with his son in law which was a Cuban-French Mulato, both were men of his epoch, and both had their own merits, and both made significant contributions to the theoretical arsenal of socialism
- You must be logged in to reply to this topic.