|
|
Post by ulstersocialist on Jul 25, 2008 18:23:03 GMT -5
I am a technocratic marxist and anti capitalist I believe in marxist economics with technocratic planning of means of production and education. Here is an introduction to technocracy- www.youtube.com/watch?v=I9ps5vJrIxM |
|
tipnup
New Member
anti-reactionary
Posts: 6
|
Post by tipnup on Jul 25, 2008 21:26:02 GMT -5
hey ulster,
i'm more or less an Autonomist Marxist.
if these fools even know what that is.
|
|
|
|
Post by leninsbane on Jul 27, 2008 23:38:00 GMT -5
Well, when you consider how todays Marxists call themselves such after abandoning all the essentials of his nonsense...
Who care's what you are
|
|
|
|
Post by ulstersocialist on Jul 28, 2008 11:12:14 GMT -5
Well, when you consider how todays Marxists call themselves such after abandoning all the essentials of his nonsense... Who care's what you are actually it was the traitors like Stalin and Chairman Mao that you like to deride are the ones who abandoned the essentials of Marxism! |
|
|
|
Post by leninsbane on Jul 28, 2008 14:35:08 GMT -5
1) Do you believe in the LTV? If so defend it. You cant. So you have to discard it.
2) Do you believe in the Materialist Conception Of History? If so defend it. See above.
3) Do you believe in false consciousness/class consciousness? Defend it.
4) You already deviated from Marx when you assert that he had nothing against personal property.
|
|
|
|
Post by ulstersocialist on Jul 29, 2008 5:51:19 GMT -5
1) Do you believe in the LTV? If so defend it. You cant. So you have to discard it. How do you want me to defend it? Asking me to defend something without providing a specific contextual criticism is too broad a question. Its like asking me to defend newtonian calculus. 2) Do you believe in the Materialist Conception Of History? If so defend it. See above. see above. 3) Do you believe in false consciousness/class consciousness? Defend it. see above. 4) You already deviated from Marx when you assert that he had nothing against personal property. nope, youre the one who took marx out of context. Marx only criticised personal ownership of means of production. |
|
|
|
Post by leninsbane on Jul 29, 2008 6:58:23 GMT -5
You're dancing around the question. Since you want to be spoon fed, ok.
1) Do you think Labor is the sole source if value for a commodity and do you think Marx's derivation of "surplus value" is correct, true, and the shit?
2) Do you believe that all of Human History is driven by the "material productive forces" from start to finish, and all other factors are secondary?
3) Do you believe ideology, or even simple statements of fact can be disqualified only because a member of a certain class holds it?
4) Personal ownership of the means of production as opposed to....lets say...a house? car? bank account? Does not a shoe maker own the means of production? You would have me believe Marx approved of them.
|
|
|
|
Post by ulstersocialist on Jul 29, 2008 9:03:03 GMT -5
You're dancing around the question. Since you want to be spoon fed, ok. 1) Do you think Labor is the sole source if value for a commodity and do you think Marx's derivation of "surplus value" is correct, true, and the shit? I agree with Marx's postulate that all capital without exception is the product of labour. 2) Do you believe that all of Human History is driven by the "material productive forces" from start to finish, and all other factors are secondary? Depends what you mean by secondary factors. 3) Do you believe ideology, or even simple statements of fact can be disqualified only because a member of a certain class holds it? No, a member of any class can hold a progressive belief as long as it incorporates the interests of the species at heart rather than a belief which is both purely self serving but detrimental to the interests of others. [ 4) Personal ownership of the means of production as opposed to....lets say...a house? car? bank account? Does not a shoe maker own the means of production? You would have me believe Marx approved of them. By means of production it refers for the most part to larger facilities such as factories, offices etc that utilise the labour of others but do not necessarilly require any work on the part of the owner. Smaller businesspeople, who work for themselves are not beourgiose since they do not necessarilly employ others (at least not en masse) neither do they own the capacity to mass produce which is another factor which would make one ruling class. This is where we would draw the class distinction between beourgiose and proletariat. They are commonly referred to in marxist circles as the 'petit beourgiose' or middle class. When marx attacked private property the focus of his vitriol was against beourgiose property. It is important to make that distinction since beourgiose property is acquired by exappropriation of labour, not by merit of labour itself. Hope that helps. |
|
|
|
Post by leninsbane on Jul 29, 2008 23:16:15 GMT -5
Can you demonstrate this? If I employ someone who would otherwise not be employed, trained him, paid him, sold my goods on the market...is he the sole reason I sold my burgers for 4.50 instead of 3.75?
I dont think you know what's at stake here. I could spend all day making mud pies. Do I impart value to the pies? How much can I sell them for. Marx forsaw this bjection. So he said that the labor going into a commodity was to be "socially necessry". How did he determine what was socially necessary? Through price, the very thing that labor alone was to determine. He argued in a circle.
See the other thread.
|
|
|
|
Post by leninsbane on Jul 29, 2008 23:24:03 GMT -5
Can you demonstrate this? If I employ someone who would otherwise not be employed, trained him, paid him, sold my goods on the market...is he the sole reason I sold my burgers for 4.50 instead of 3.75?
I dont think you know what's at stake here. I could spend all day making mud pies. Do I impart value to the pies? How much can I sell them for. Marx forsaw this ojection. So he said that the labor going into a commodity was to be "socially necessry". How did he determine what was socially necessary? Through price, the very thing that labor alone was to determine. He argued in a circle.
See the other thread.
That shows you dont know fuck all about historical materialism. A Historical materialist would say that the material productive forces are THE primary mover of history, what is secondary is irrelevant, not "it depends". Later in life, whenMarx and Engles were pushed to the wall on the absurdity of the theory, Engles retreated and said that Material factors move history, "in the last resort".
Yeah, im aware of the Petit Bourgeois. Marx prophesied that as the capitalists competed, there would be a glut, the economy would go in the shitter, and the "Petit Bourgeoise" would join the proletariat. Marx did not consider them any different, he just believed them to be less efficient capitalists. Since in the "critique of the Gotha program" Marx said that currency will be replaced by "labor certificates" can you really see how he approved of an independant business man, producing for his own prifit for cash?
Me neither
|
|
|
|
Post by ulstersocialist on Aug 2, 2008 6:35:59 GMT -5
Can you demonstrate this? If I employ someone who would otherwise not be employed, trained him, paid him, sold my goods on the market...is he the sole reason I sold my burgers for 4.50 instead of 3.75? whose fault is it the burger maker cant get another job? How did you acquire your burgers in the first place? Theres all sorts of variables like these you need to consider. I dont think you know what's at stake here. I could spend all day making mud pies. Do I impart value to the pies? How much can I sell them for. Marx forsaw this bjection. So he said that the labor going into a commodity was to be "socially necessry". How did he determine what was socially necessary? Through price, the very thing that labor alone was to determine. He argued in a circle. It depends on the relationship between the original owner of the mud pies and the means by which they were produced. Yeah, im aware of the Petit Bourgeois. Marx prophesied that as the capitalists competed, there would be a glut, the economy would go in the shitter, and the "Petit Bourgeoise" would join the proletariat. Marx did not consider them any different, he just believed them to be less efficient capitalists. Since in the "critique of the Gotha program" Marx said that currency will be replaced by "labor certificates" can you really see how he approved of an independant business man, producing for his own prifit for cash? Well this is where Marx and i go in a tangent. I am a student of the technocracy school of labour-goods exchange. |
|
|
|
Post by leninsbane on Aug 2, 2008 20:17:35 GMT -5
Lets carry this to the other one, more efficient ya know.
|
|
