Marx

[bright maroon]

I don't know...

I don't know what I'm trying to say...

But after working at a bunch of places, waxing assholes seems like a decent job.

Spa services.

[bright maroon]

prostitution may be the fountain of youth

[bright maroon]

Some of the kids I worked with from Ghana say..

That in Africa..people live with their parents and stay in school until they are well into their 30's..
Because there are no jobs - They literally have to wait for someone to die to get work.

Most of them have studied in Germany and other places in Europe before they came to the states to get work.
They are all trying to buy mini-busses to act as taxis for other Africans..who need to get around for work.

Taxi services.
super-highly educated taxi services..

[bright maroon]

Politics make me feel so disjointed and crazy..

I'm just going to concentrate on taking the "cure" for now..

<iframe src="/forum/video.php?url=http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=1CqfEJyMjVM" frameborder="0" style="overflow:hidden; height:auto; max-width:540px"></iframe>

[ed teach]

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


more like - a base system needs to be created to keep dumbasses out of industry altogether..
fucking 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.

I feel ya, and I do like the sound of what you're proposing here.

Problem is no one system of growth management will ever be employed all over the world absolutely. It's a case of finding what's right for each nations' economy in its current state and seeking to address production/consumption imbalances without damaging existing industries, even if they are wasteful, unnecessary and outdated (as many are).

Given that many developed nations currently have a major reliance on either mass export or mass import (be it goods or services) to maintain their economy, it's now past being a national issue. But economic systems such as capitalism and socialism are applied at different levels through an elected government to their own land and people, and this makes much of the "which is better?" argument quite meaningless in the world today.

More dynamic systems like that which you mentioned are needed.

[ed teach]

If we could normalise the production of physical commodities we might actually start doing the things we're good at. More value given to intellectual property/ability and so on.

[test_recordings]

Why don't we just stop having a hypothetical system of economic symbolism and have one that is based on what actually exists in reality?

[ed teach]

Yo is this you?

[bright maroon]

Why don't we just stop having a hypothetical system of economic symbolism and have one that is based on what actually exists in reality?

You mean trade that stock pile of home grown potatoes I don't have for a new mixer?

[the acid never lies]

Why don't we just stop having a hypothetical system of economic symbolism and have one that is based on what actually exists in reality?

Well here is the difference between what is known as 'utopian socialism' and socialism since Marx: utopian socialists often had great ideas concerning what sort of society they would like to live in, but had no clear idea of how that cold be achieved. Marx, by looking at the forces and antagonisms that drive the capitalist mode of production realised that the working class was uniquely placed in terms if its relationship to production and that its interests run in direct opposition to that of capital whose tendency is to overcome all barriers to growth, by extending the workday, raising productivity and driving down wages. It is when you recognise that the ruling class will never let go of power willingly that the question of revolution takes centre stage, and that is where Marx is especially useful. It is not for a few 'architects' to conspire how to build a new society however as Marxists are sometimes portrayed.

[the acid never lies]

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.

It's really a question of good praxis though isn't it? A reason I am an adherent of democratic centralism is it really allows Marxists to punch above their weight to influence the most militant and advanced sections of the movement. Now I am not sure it would be possible to build a mass, socialist party unless the question of power were raised in the movement. Obviously this would be determined by a specific set of conditions, by this point there would no doubt be parallel structures that are developed enough to challenge state power by their very existence, like the almost revolutionary situation that existed in Bolivia in 2005 or if you want to go back to the soviets. I don't think it is necessary for the movement to be self-consciously marxist or socialist. I do think marxists should be as organised as possible to influence events at critical junctures in the struggle. Hell, where would do-it-yourself reformism (a la syndicalism or Tony Benn) be without committed revolutionaries?

[firky]

I highly recommend this book, I hesitate to use the word but I guess it was inspirational for me. When I was about 15 my mum brought her copy home from work for me to read, saying it'll appeal to me. She was right and it has remained one of my favourite NF books. It is an extremely easy book to read even if the subject matter can be quite taxing. The way it is written is very eloquent, informative and has no pretense to appeal to pseudo-intellectuals with superfluous words long out of use.

Anyway, ladies and gentleman.... Bottomore and Rubel present to you:

Karl Marx Selected Writings in Sociology and Social Philosophy

[Lichee]

read Kapital loosely (i was 16), read a bunch of books on him, his philosophy (Hegel etc), have a book on selected journalism as well but still feel like i don't actually know that much. He's just so hard to read, i find i'm reading th same page twice just to take in what he's actually writing, he doesn't waste words

[the acid never lies]

Hey Firky, I didn't know Marx was popular with he NF

Thanks for the suggestion.

I recommend to anybody wanting to get through Capital to do so in a reading group. We have one that we've started at my university and it is open to everyone (not just students or young people).

[the acid never lies]

On the topic of 'inspirational' (yuck!) I would have to put CLR James's Every Cook Can Govern in that category http://www.marxists.org/archive/james-c ... y-cook.htm (I love that all of this is so easy to find online)

[autobot]

I had to read a bunch of his stuff for my pols papers at uni. He comes across in his writing as a completely pretentious tnuc - i dunno, i just thought his whole take that the masses were too stupid to be able to decide for themselves what their future should hold really fucked me off.

now Utilitarianism and john stuart mill, thats more my kind of idealist political structure that will never really work

[test_recordings]

Why don't we just stop having a hypothetical system of economic symbolism and have one that is based on what actually exists in reality?

Well here is the difference between what is known as 'utopian socialism' and socialism since Marx: utopian socialists often had great ideas concerning what sort of society they would like to live in, but had no clear idea of how that cold be achieved. Marx, by looking at the forces and antagonisms that drive the capitalist mode of production realised that the working class was uniquely placed in terms if its relationship to production and that its interests run in direct opposition to that of capital whose tendency is to overcome all barriers to growth, by extending the workday, raising productivity and driving down wages. It is when you recognise that the ruling class will never let go of power willingly that the question of revolution takes centre stage, and that is where Marx is especially useful. It is not for a few 'architects' to conspire how to build a new society however as Marxists are sometimes portrayed.

I think Baudrillard was much more accurate in his assessment that noted capitalism was actually based on consumption rather than production per se, without consumption there would be no capitalism as people would realise they could live their lives happy without working endlessly to acquire the latest toy! America had its material needs covered in 1922, everything since then has just been to 'stimulate growth' (this is where psychology was enlisted to create its demonic offspring 'marketing')!

[test_recordings]

Yo is this you?

Naa there's at least one other label with that name, Dillinger also used it for test presses... I'm a bit gutted that someone's already got the name but I'll think of a better one if I need to

[the acid never lies]

the masses were too stupid to be able to decide for themselves what their future should hold

Umm... really?

The emancipation of the working class must be the act of the workers themselves

In other words, nobody can make a revolution on behalf of the masses, it is the masses that make history. This is really your take on Marx rather than Marx's take on the class. How can he think that the working class is at the vanguard of revolution and at the same time think they are too stupid to decide their own fate? Doesn't make sense.