Marx

[Genevieve]

Read the manifesto, it was around the time I was getting more interested in Rothbard, Mises and the like, so about 4 or 5 years ago. The way I saw it is, if I'm going to read up on something I might as well read the counter argument. Well, the counter-argument was very naive of the nature of government and citizens. Hell, I even think some of it borders on insanity, but whatever. Things that weren't clearly bad ideas back then have also been proven to be bad ideas by now (the Wallstreet crash of 2008, for example, is the result of regulated credit by a central bank, etc).

I don't remember many details perse, though I do remember it made a very bad impression on me.

[the acid never lies]

Read the manifesto, it was around the time I was getting more interested in Rothbard, Mises and the like, so about 4 or 5 years ago. The way I saw it is, if I'm going to read up on something I might as well read the counter argument. Well, the counter-argument was very naive of the nature of government and citizens. Hell, I even think some of it borders on insanity, but whatever. Things that weren't clearly bad ideas back then have also been proven to be bad ideas by now (the Wallstreet crash of 2008, for example, is the result of regulated credit by a central bank, etc).

I don't remember many details perse, though I do remember it made a very bad impression on me.

You know that the communist manifesto is was a propaganda piece written for the workers' movement at the time right? If that's all you're going by I would suggest casting your net a bit wider.

[the acid never lies]

I believe marx realized a few very true things, however a lot of his concepts don't translate well verbatim when comparing it to how our industries are run today. Worker's rights can't be viewed in the same way now. And the exploitation of the lower classes is even more centralized than the classic and simple bourgeoisie vs proletariat phenomena that was extremely prevalent during his time. The ugliest facet of capitalism is now intangible, and understanding the means of production is not as important as understanding market behavior, and corporate trade.

I believe socialism is however inevitable, as marx said. The direction our technology has taken us I think is telling of how whole facets of our society are becoming more open, social, democratic, efficient, etc. From how we build computers to how we fight wars to how we communicate to how we purchase goods. At some point, humans will become obsolete in the workplace and things like money will become less relevant.

I would say I disagree with most of this

Much has changed since Marx wrote Capital but the essence of capitalism remains the same; while it is Marx's method which is the more important, that one should start from concrete reality rather than the theory doesn't change that his central characterisations are still by and large correct. On the other hand, socialism is most definitely not inevitable, and this is directly related to how capitalism works. I'll try to tackle these things separately although they are related.

Consider what Marx said about the nature of capital: is it not still the case that it rests on the exploitation of workers, that it has an insatiable hunger for surplus labour (profits) and so accordingly searches constantly for ways to extend and intensify the workday, drive down real wages and increase productivity? What has developed in the last two centuries that has made you think capital is fundamentally different? The centralisation that you speak of is not a progressive thing; it is a feature of capital to drive towards centralisation and monopoly. 'The classic and simple bourgeoisie vs proletariat phenomena' has everything to do with who owns and controls the means and production and who is forced to sell their labour in order to live but has no ownership over what that labour produces. How has this changed?

Marx acknowledged that capital takes no account of the health and length of life of the worker, unless society forces it to do so. If socialism was really inevitable, there would be no need for political intervention and Marx, Lenin et al wouldn't have seen the importance of agitating in the class. Consider the characterisation that the spirit of capitalist production, 'which is oriented towards the most immediate monetary profit' is contrary to 'the whole gamut of permanent conditions of life required by the chain of human generations'. Given the likelihood of ecological disaster this seems more relevant even than before. What you say about all the things that are completely changed,

It is ironic that in some ways your conclusion that socialism is inevitable and looking at it in economistic terms is the same error that the Second Communist International made (which led to the separation of the social democratic parties from the communist parties) and later that the degenerated Soviet Union bureaucracy made about the transition to communism. The common error is misunderstanding the centrality of the working class. To be honest I think Das Kapital is partly to blame, as it only tells part of the story (the side of capital) when the fuller story would expand on the working class in and of itself, and not simply as an abstracted 'worker' in relation to capital.

I'm not sure how well I addressed your points and I know there is far more to comment on but as you well know, it's difficult to approach all these things at once! There is a very good book by Michael Lebowitz called Beyond Capital: Marx's Political Economy of the Working Class which (is far less dense, and) looks at the shortcomings of Capital, why it is not the complete picture and addresses the question of agency and why the working class is central to an understanding of capitalism but also for how to build a better world (and why indeed it is so necessary!)

I will ask though, what was your point about the means of production? Surely the important thing isn't to 'understand' the means of production but to collectivise and democratically control them? (This is why we call the USSR 'state capitalist' because the means of production were owned and controlled by the state)

Sorry for long post

[the acid never lies]

Cool picture! Yeah I really like constructivism too. Since you're interested in that period/aesthetic, I would recommend watching Man With a Movie Camera. It's pretty much a cinematic orchestra, with loads of weird editing and all about celebrating the forward march towards communism (whoops...). It all about PRODUCTION! and MACHINES! and such, and tries to demystify commodities by reminding us everything is a product of human labour. HELL YEAH!

http://video.google.com/videoplay?docid ... 4189244913

Unfortunately I couldn't find a version with the original soundtrack but this one with a modern score might be interesting.

The Cinematic Orchestra did a score for this, I didn't think it was quite in the musical spirit of that time but it still does a good job of it.

That's a well interesting fact about US abstract expressionists and the CIA.

I think that's the one I posted. Will have to watch it when I find some time, although I must say I'm a sucker for the original score.

[the acid never lies]

They thought of machines as a way to liberate man from labor so they could spend more time on intellectual pursuits...

Now - instead of building wealth all around - and developing minds..
the machines are being used to squeeze the money - from the people..
to put it into the hands of a few...who fail to be civically minded

That my friends - makes me kind of red...


America in the 50's...was running things as far as art was concerned...
They embodied the true communist spirit more than any other place..
But then again...wealthy business people and entrepreneurs had vision back then..

of a better future..for everyone..

(and because alot of the exiled soviets and germans had come here - and taught at our schools)

Black Mountain College in Asheville N.C. - was like the new Bauhaus

If you want to see some good and proper marxist analysis of why the USSR was not a socialist state, check this publication by Tony Cliff State Capitalism in Russia: http://www.marxists.org/archive/cliff/w ... /index.htm

[Shum]

I think that's the one I posted. Will have to watch it when I find some time, although I must say I'm a sucker for the original score.

Hang on... Wasn't this a silent film? It would have been accompanied by live music, as was the practice in the day. I'd be interested to hear what sort of music they used as the obvious choice in my mind, Shostakovich, would have been too young at the time.

[the acid never lies]

Yes good point! I'm probably referring to this one:


1996 – Norwegian composer Geir Jenssen (aka Biosphere) was commissioned by the Tromsø International Film Festival to write a new soundtrack for the movie, using the director's written instructions for the original accompanying piano player. Jenssen wrote half of the soundtrack, turning the other half to Per Martinsen (aka Mental Overdrive). It was used for the Norwegian version Mannen med filmkameraet at the 1996 TIFF. Scored movie not available after the festival. The soundtrack was released in 2001 on Substrata 2.

ANyway it sounded 'old'

[scspkr99]

I think that's the one I posted. Will have to watch it when I find some time, although I must say I'm a sucker for the original score.

Hang on... Wasn't this a silent film? It would have been accompanied by live music, as was the practice in the day. I'd be interested to hear what sort of music they used as the obvious choice in my mind, Shostakovich, would have been too young at the time.

You know Tony Cliff was originally brought over to argue against the position that the USSR was state capitalist when whatever faction of the 4th International found itself debating the position of whether it was deformed workers state or state capitalist? Apparently he found the arguments of Jock Haston too persuasive and thus led one of the major polemics in the 2nd half of the 20th century Marxism.

I tend to think that Marxism has more to offer as a tool to understand capitalism and think it's main failure is repeated attempts to impose it as some blueprint for how the dialectic will result in the transformation from capitalism to socialism. There was an almost deterministic position taken by Marxists despite Gramsci, one of the most underrated Marxist theorists imho, raising the question of hegemony. People failed to apply the theories of Marx to a changing political and social landscape, an irony that the proponents of dialectical materialism were unable to adapt.

[the acid never lies]

I think that's the one I posted. Will have to watch it when I find some time, although I must say I'm a sucker for the original score.

Hang on... Wasn't this a silent film? It would have been accompanied by live music, as was the practice in the day. I'd be interested to hear what sort of music they used as the obvious choice in my mind, Shostakovich, would have been too young at the time.

You know Tony Cliff was originally brought over to argue against the position that the USSR was state capitalist when whatever faction of the 4th International found itself debating the position of whether it was deformed workers state or state capitalist? Apparently he found the arguments of Jock Haston too persuasive and thus led one of the major polemics in the 2nd half of the 20th century Marxism.

I tend to think that Marxism has more to offer as a tool to understand capitalism and think it's main failure is repeated attempts to impose it as some blueprint for how the dialectic will result in the transformation from capitalism to socialism. There was an almost deterministic position taken by Marxists despite Gramsci, one of the most underrated Marxist theorists imho, raising the question of hegemony. People failed to apply the theories of Marx to a changing political and social landscape, an irony that the proponents of dialectical materialism were unable to adapt.

Indeed, but I think the imposition of a 'marxist blueprint' or indeed any other kind is impossible in a genuine revolution. I agree that this idea that to achieve socialism you have to go through the different 'stages' of fully developing each mode of production is rubbish but it has been thoroughly discredited save amongst a few crusty tankies. Apart from the Stalinists it was only ever the Mensheviks and those social democrats who broke with communism after the Second International who ever believed that I think. I don't think it makes sense to cut off Marx from its revolutionary impetus and to look at his writings merely at the level of political economy. Marx's whole purpose was to go beyond political economy so as to render it irrelevant but how far he managed this with his work is questionable. Even Gramsci was a Leninist

[scspkr99]

Indeed, but I think the imposition of a 'marxist blueprint' or indeed any other kind is impossible in a genuine revolution. I agree that this idea that to achieve socialism you have to go through the different 'stages' of fully developing each mode of production has been thoroughly discredited save amongst a few crusty tankies. Apart from the Stalinists it was only ever the Mensheviks and those social democrats who broke with communism after the Second International who ever believed that I think. I don't think it makes sense to cut off Marx from its revolutionary impetus however and say that its worth is merely at the level of political economy. Marx's whole purpose was to go beyond political economy so as to render it irrelevant but how far he managed this with his work is questionable. Even Gramsci was a Leninist

I get this and I agree to a point but I think while it doesn't make sense to separate it's revolutionary impetus from it's economic analysis it's happened anyway. I don't actually think this is a failure of Marxism more a failure of subsequent iterations of Marxists.

If we consider just how much energy the left has spent in the UK over the last 50 years on internecine struggle, if we consider the very real theoretical differences between those that would consider themselves Marxists, the problem with small groups developing as cadres within larger class struggles in more advanced western societies.

This doesn't even consider the failure of Marxists to predict just how Capitalism would reinvent itself and how entrenched it would make itself globally, how it would, effectively, win the war of ideas. Marxists and Marxism has been slower to respond to the changing political and social landscape than it needed to be, add this to the fact that those notionally socialist revolutions, Russia primarily but to a lesser extent Cuba have generally been portrayed so negatively that it becomes even more difficult to win that very war of ideas necessary for socialism.

[raboonthebaboon]

it's funny you're so ready to take the piss of "conspiracy theories" (hate that term)
but then you say you're a marxist
oh the irony

[scspkr99]

it's funny you're so ready to take the piss of "conspiracy theories" (hate that term)
but then you say you're a marxist
oh the irony

where do you think the irony is?

[raboonthebaboon]

the hills are alive with the sound of muuuuusssiiiicc

[the acid never lies]

Indeed, but I think the imposition of a 'marxist blueprint' or indeed any other kind is impossible in a genuine revolution. I agree that this idea that to achieve socialism you have to go through the different 'stages' of fully developing each mode of production has been thoroughly discredited save amongst a few crusty tankies. Apart from the Stalinists it was only ever the Mensheviks and those social democrats who broke with communism after the Second International who ever believed that I think. I don't think it makes sense to cut off Marx from its revolutionary impetus however and say that its worth is merely at the level of political economy. Marx's whole purpose was to go beyond political economy so as to render it irrelevant but how far he managed this with his work is questionable. Even Gramsci was a Leninist

I get this and I agree to a point but I think while it doesn't make sense to separate it's revolutionary impetus from it's economic analysis it's happened anyway. I don't actually think this is a failure of Marxism more a failure of subsequent iterations of Marxists.

If we consider just how much energy the left has spent in the UK over the last 50 years on internecine struggle, if we consider the very real theoretical differences between those that would consider themselves Marxists, the problem with small groups developing as cadres within larger class struggles in more advanced western societies.

This doesn't even consider the failure of Marxists to predict just how Capitalism would reinvent itself and how entrenched it would make itself globally, how it would, effectively, win the war of ideas. Marxists and Marxism has been slower to respond to the changing political and social landscape than it needed to be, add this to the fact that those notionally socialist revolutions, Russia primarily but to a lesser extent Cuba have generally been portrayed so negatively that it becomes even more difficult to win that very war of ideas necessary for socialism.

Yeah I think this is on point. The question is of course *why* this has been the case, why have socialist ideas failed to spread and the subsequent disorientation, infighting and disintegration of marxists and their organisations. I think the more difficult question is how to respond as there does tend to be a lot of sound analysis on the former despite most of the splits on the left having occurred on older disputes and tactical questions.

The circumstances that arose with globalisation and the casualisation of labour that has occurred even in countries where a bulk of production has shifted to has meant different sorts of resistence are necessary and we have seen glimmers of this in latin america where precarious and ununionised workers have managed to join forced with what still exisits of the traditional organised working class. Marxism as we know it could not have been born without the lessons of the Paris Commune or the chartist movement, andimilarly marxists today no doubt will have to look to others (who most likely won't self identify as either marxists or socialists) but this will only occur in the struggle. For now all we can do is agitate for radical action and try to get beyond token calls forf unity on the left. If marxism isn't living, breathing and adapting, it is dead.

[test_recordings]

I am going to read his material when I get the chance, my mate explained his work to me succinctly and I was impressed at his (Marx's) logical deduction

[64hz]

tried to read it when i was much too young to even get the slightest grasp of his ideas. i just thought being a marxist sounded cool and ,y'know, like, fuck capitalism.
still got the books and all so may try to get back into it.
at the moment though, from what i do understand, i cant decide whether he was years (read: a century or two) ahead of his time or if he should be resigned to the history books.

[scspkr99]

Yeah I think this is on point. The question is of course *why* this has been the case, why have socialist ideas failed to spread and the subsequent disorientation, infighting and disintegration of marxists and their organisations. I think the more difficult question is how to respond as there does tend to be a lot of sound analysis on the former despite most of the splits on the left having occurred on older disputes and tactical questions.

The circumstances that arose with globalisation and the casualisation of labour that has occurred even in countries where a bulk of production has shifted to has meant different sorts of resistence are necessary and we have seen glimmers of this in latin america where precarious and ununionised workers have managed to join forced with what still exisits of the traditional organised working class. Marxism as we know it could not have been born without the lessons of the Paris Commune or the chartist movement, andimilarly marxists today no doubt will have to look to others (who most likely won't self identify as either marxists or socialists) but this will only occur in the struggle. For now all we can do is agitate for radical action and try to get beyond token calls forf unity on the left. If marxism isn't living, breathing and adapting, it is dead.

I'm kinda slow to respond to this because I'm not sure whether I want to agree with it more than I do or whether I agree with it more than I would like.

On the one hand I agree that there will be new struggles with leadership born of new popular fronts that Marxism should be looking to learn from and add to. I definitely agree that if Marxism isn't living and breathing then it's dead but I don't know that there's any answer to what Marxism is which doesn't lend itself to Marxism having any chance of influencing events in the absence of some kind of theoretical and practical coherence.

I think while Marxism is as fractured it loses any ability to influence working class struggle in the developed nations, while there will always be opportunities for localised leadership by proving themselves in resistance movements these tend to be very specific and while there is a globalisation of the anti-capitalist movement it's agenda seems to be anti-capital rather than pro socialist.

There's just such a massive divergence in ideals and goals I'm not convinced that the kind of permanent transformation from a capitalist society to a socialist one is ever really achievable.

[sirjonnyp]

Few things I picked up from a politics degree on Marx, having read the Manifesto, some of Kapital, and a book on Marx vs. the Peasant:

Marx loved capitalism. It was the only viable route to steps towards communism, and a necessary one.
Peasants were/are idiots.
Marx was a layabout who sponged off of Engels, and lived in the Engel's family home for part of his life that was paid for by the capitalist mill they owned.
Marx rushed most of the Manifesto, as the Communist group at the time wanted it out as soon as possible for one of their international conferences. He then spent the rest of his life writing letters to his friends that said he regretted what he wrote in the manifesto, and couldn't believe people were taking the notion of communism seriously.

Anyhoo, those are probably a tad out because it's been a few years since I touched any philosophical politics, and my memory aint grand

[ed teach]

Free trade. Problem solved.

[bright maroon]

..free trade..yeah..like that addresses problems


more like - a base system needs to be created to keep dumbasses out of industry altogether..
pay for their dogs and birthday cake..

Then create an experimental phase of life where people can test and experiment with different modes of working
BEFORE they commit to specific schools that will get them deeper into specific industries..guarenteed

This should be open and flexible for cross pollination - in some way...
minded by invested and proven - more seasoned workers who can observe and judge effectiveness..
while maintaining production and quality requirements..

With the ultimate goal being streamlined effectiveness and minimal impact - to retain quality of life..

regular mindful rotation and upward matriculation...

The problem is getting people to actually care about what they are doing...
Instead of just signing onto jobs because they need money.