Cjames1961
Forum Replies Created
-
Posts
-
ALBOne person who is commenting here is why I don’t waste my time anymore discussing in-depth complex ideas in comment sections. As he said he "glanced through [my] book" which is truly a case of intellectual dishonesty. Doing hermeneutical hopscotch through anyone’s work to find one thing you disagree with, never engaging the content deeply and honestly, and then “repudiating” it is truly a farcical pastime. Strawman arguments appeal only to strawman intellects. People who do these kind of things only goal seems to be to appear “superior” to minor intellects and get them not to read any book they take an instant reactionary dislike to. Having never read it fully themselves, or done any in depth research on the subject matter from all sides, they of course are an expert in the field.Since the Marxian economist Meghnad Desai read my book and enjoyed it an acknowledged that I was correct that he pulled his punch at the end of his book and that I completed his own train of reasoning is more than enough acclaim for me. I have had Techno-Marxist’s rave about it as well. One said it was the best book on Marx he had read in a long long time. Across the spectrum and from every political vantage point those who have truly read it in depth have enjoyed it. In fact, the only people who “don’t get it” have been conservatives. Conservatives seem to have a mental block where this kind of “evolutionary” and technological content is concerned. They are also reactionary against the term “socialism” in the title.I personally adhere to the older “Promethean ideals” of socialism. This is firmly based in honesty, virtue, integrity, especially intellectual honesty, and honor. The Sargasso Sea of today, lying for expediency on behalf of one’s beliefs/ideology I truly abhor. We have lowered ourselves by engaging in tactics that have not built socialism up, but rather have torn it intellectually down. Many on the neo-left today have so narrowed their intellectual horizons that they are living in a rut, by a rigid petrified catechism that is not open to any other interpretations of the “faith” they believe in. Or what is truly sad, they have a “blogged consciousness.” They speak, think and post in patchwork blog memes thrown out at random as an answer to any content they may find “difficult” or “troubling.” It is truly sad as Marx himself said, “Question everything.” At each new millennium it is customary to reexamine what has gone before and to look forward to what can be, based on correcting any erroneous interpretations of the past. The Frankfurt school tried to do this in the early 20th century. In that same vein I did my research.I am willing to discuss the issues in my book with anyone who actually reads through it, page by page, and has knowledgeable questions and/or comments. All of my contact info is in the front cover pages.I know that this is not a satisfying answer for people who have been miseducated and “dumbed down” by todays educational system and the internet and want easy quick answers on the fly, but nothing is more satisfying then actually rolling up one’s intellectual sleeves, fully using one’s brain and doing the in depth mental work. Thank you
Your response is why I don't debate or discuss my work in comment sections. #1 an in depth discussion that is based on years of research cant be covered in so small a space. #2. I run into people who are only interested in pointless argument and/or blog droping. And By your response it is obvious that it would not be a fruitful exchange. You've already descended into immature comments.
I dont have time to engage in every comment section, my book has all the relevant facts and notes on this subject. Thank you
I gave three interviews so far with another 1000 word review coming out soon. Click on the links below http://ieet.org/index.php/IEET/more/murphy20150626 http://www.seriouswonder.com/singularity-socialism-interview-author-c-james-townsend/ http://adamalonzi.libsyn.com/the-economics-of-the-singularity-with-c-james-townsend-mises-marx-complexity-theory-techno-optimism-and-the-way-to-abundance
The problem with your analysis is that it violates Karl Marx's later thinking. As Meghnad Desai the marxian economist details in his Marx's Revenge or as I do in my The Singulairty and Soclalism, only the full evolution of capitalism leads us to the end point of capitalism and the arising of a new form of production. We re dealing with an evoutionary process that brings on the revolution,.
