prikryl posted:therealmovement.wordpress.com. I am also on Twitter @damn_jehu
Can We Completely Abolish Labor, Right Now?
sure critique it but it's not really the biggest issue. anyway you should probably read some better criticisms of the gates foundation because they mostly focus on
Which criticisms, the ones published by First World liberals?
the way they distort healthcare provision around a few "blockbuster" diseases - note this crit isn't "they give out contraceptio which is bad because reproductive choice is bad because henry kissinger said we should depopulate the third world 40 years ago", it's based on, uh, what the people at the receiving end see as the problem.
Like contraception. In fact that's probably the most difficult issue they've had to "deal" with from the "receiving end" given strong opposition in much of the Third World to contraceptive aid.
"Receiving end" is an apt term for population control's success in fucking over the Third World.
Edited by mustang ()
i do mean "was" and not "were" here, speaking about actual history
how would you figure out the rate of exploitation for a society where there was no abstract labor
That's a good question. How do you figure out the rate of exploitation in general? Is there a specific value for the rate of exploitation in the US? Of course you're not going to provide it, you're going to give me a wall of obscurantist hoop.
mustang posted:A class is a group of people with aligned interests. As for limousine liberals constituting a part of the petty bourgeoise- look around you, read a McCaine blog and tell me that academics aren't total trots.
lol. mccaine is neither a trot nor at all representative of academia generally. plus, your concept of class is bourgeois weberian trash. read marx again please.
mustang posted:This is total nonsense. The high rate of exploitation under feudalism is a reason why it results in social revolution.
wrong. the reason feudalism results in social revolution is that it produces a bourgeoisie - initially mercantile/financial, then becoming industrial - that accumulates enough wealth and increases its social significance such that it can seize political power. hell, let's look at the manifesto:
"Each step in the development of the bourgeoisie was accompanied by a corresponding political advance of that class. An oppressed class under the sway of the feudal nobility, an armed and self-governing association in the medieval commune(4): here independent urban republic (as in Italy and Germany); there taxable “third estate” of the monarchy (as in France); afterwards, in the period of manufacturing proper, serving either the semi-feudal or the absolute monarchy as a counterpoise against the nobility, and, in fact, cornerstone of the great monarchies in general, the bourgeoisie has at last, since the establishment of Modern Industry and of the world market, conquered for itself, in the modern representative State, exclusive political sway. The executive of the modern state is but a committee for managing the common affairs of the whole bourgeoisie.
The bourgeoisie, historically, has played a most revolutionary part.
The bourgeoisie, wherever it has got the upper hand, has put an end to all feudal, patriarchal, idyllic relations. It has pitilessly torn asunder the motley feudal ties that bound man to his “natural superiors”, and has left remaining no other nexus between man and man than naked self-interest, than callous “cash payment”. It has drowned the most heavenly ecstasies of religious fervour, of chivalrous enthusiasm, of philistine sentimentalism, in the icy water of egotistical calculation. It has resolved personal worth into exchange value, and in place of the numberless indefeasible chartered freedoms, has set up that single, unconscionable freedom — Free Trade. In one word, for exploitation, veiled by religious and political illusions, it has substituted naked, shameless, direct, brutal exploitation."
do you think all feudalisms ended with a peasants revolt or something? in the case of china, they more often than not invigorated it into this kind of stable absolutism.
mustang posted:Yes it did. Just a sentence ago you brought up imperialist exploitation.
no, i brought up invasion. i don't imagine japan managed to really get all that much out of china in the time it held what portion it did. but i'm being specious. of course china was at the receiving end of rapacious imperialism - marx, by the way, supported the taiping rebellion - but this was merely what laid the social terrain that permitted the chinese communist party to organise a peasant guerilla war and come to power. they did it, the chinese. exploitation didn't do it, that's garbage.
mustang posted:how would you figure out the rate of exploitation for a society where there was no abstract labor
That's a good question. How do you figure out the rate of exploitation in general? Is there a specific value for the rate of exploitation in the US? Of course you're not going to provide it, you're going to give me a wall of obscurantist hoop.
http://www.marxists.org/archive/marx/works/1867-c1/ch18.htm
are you seriously asking me why this doesn't work in a pre-capitalist society
jools posted:lol are you jehu prikryl. if yes then hi, if not then you should follow him because he's enjoyable to read but wrong about most things imo
no im not jehu. followed as per suggestion, though
i actually might post a thread defending liberalism. i quite like the way that for the first time in history we have things like the exploited classes organising as classes and women organising as a gender and stuff like that. thats all pretty liberal stuff.
of course this requires you to understand liberalism as something other than a product of a centuries-long discussion between various european men, but there you go
do you think all feudalisms ended with a peasants revolt or something? in the case of china, they more often than not invigorated it into this kind of stable absolutism.
Which resulted in communist revolution, in fact it's the only setting that ever has. The semi-feudal situation is doubly exploitative. It's so exploitative that not even the bourgeois necessarily favor it.
no, i brought up invasion. i don't imagine japan managed to really get all that much out of china in the time it held what portion it did. but i'm being specious. of course china was at the receiving end of rapacious imperialism - marx, by the way, supported the taiping rebellion - but this was merely what laid the social terrain that permitted the chinese communist party to organise a peasant guerilla war and come to power. they did it, the chinese.
At least we agree up to that point. I'll give you a break while I hoola hoop.
are you seriously asking me why this doesn't work in a pre-capitalist society
Alright, so we can answer the question, correct? What is the value of "necessary labor" and "surplus labor" in the US?
yes, he is, because he hasn't actually read marx, or tried to understand him. he's a virgin filled with rage against liberalism for whatever reason.
Cry harder Jools, you would want capitalism back the second you lost your iphone. Without actively opposing incrementalism, all your arguments will ever do is support actually existing liberalism.
roseweird posted:jools you are cool and your posts are informative but virgin is not really a cool insult tbh
but he is a virgin
I would imagine almost 99.9999% of Marxists have no idea the proletariat has no interest to assert against the bourgeoisie.
Jehu @Damn_Jehu
They routinely refer to a working class interest as if this an acceptable way to describe the relation between the two classes.
Jehu @Damn_Jehu
In labor theory the interest of a class, "achieves an independent existence over against the individuals".
Jehu @Damn_Jehu
Engels and Marx make the assertion that is absolutely critical to their entire argument: not until the proletariat appears does it become...
... possible to abolish all classes, precisely because these proletarians have no class interest to assert.
Jehu @Damn_Jehu
There is no way around this argument.
Jehu @Damn_Jehu
No Marxist can identify as a Marxist and assert the proletariat has an interest distinct from the bourgeoisie.
Jehu @Damn_Jehu
You can only make such an assertion by fundamentally revising Engels and Marx theory.
Jehu @Damn_Jehu
The proletariat cannot, under any circumstances, act as a class and all attempts to act as a class must fail.
Jehu @Damn_Jehu
This means in all political conflicts where what counts is a clash of class interests, the proletariat is bound to lose.
Jehu @Damn_Jehu
It cannot win, because it is incapable of acting as a class.
Jehu @Damn_Jehu
This last point is absolutely critical to understand in Marx's and Engels' theory because since this class is incapable of acting ...
... as a class and must act as individuals, these individual must abolish politics -- they must overthrow the state.
Jehu @Damn_Jehu
No Marxist who identifies as a Marxist can argue any state, in any form, can give the proletariat power to control its conditions of life.
Jehu @Damn_Jehu
Since the proletariat has no class interest, it can put an end to all classes.
What does the term ‘demand’ mean? This term has no place in a Marxist analysis — it is a fascist term, not Marxism.
mustang posted:Alright, so we can answer the question, correct? What is the value of "necessary labor" and "surplus labor" in the US?
do you understand the difference between a disputed answer and an incoherent question
and it matters to him for some reason, and he hates the working class, so i went with it
If you love the working class you need to oppose all income unearned from work. Including rent, interest, and liberal welfare.
The only alternative would be supporting the nonworking class, which uses Twitter.
roseweird posted:jools posted:and it matters to him for some reason, and he hates the working class, so i went with it
i am just imagining some nice virgin lurker reading this and feeling bad about being a virgin then they go out and get laid and it is awkward and terrible, their sexual development is crippled, all for the sake of an insult on the internet, do you want that on your conscience
good looking out roseweird
do you understand the difference between a disputed answer and an incoherent question
Of course not. In any case this random Google link disagrees with you. The fact that exploitation is unquantifiable doesn't mean it's nonexistent.
http://books.google.com/books?id=aFGZZuMkqfUC&pg=PA36&lpg=PA36&dq=feudalism+rate+of+exploitation&source=bl&ots=F846norH1b&sig=oOJU3Nb65qklEnH71iZz9lV_zu0&hl=en&sa=X&ei=L3utUcbADc-z0QH7zoH4Dg&ved=0CFIQ6AEwBA#v=onepage&q=feudalism%20rate%20of%20exploitation&f=false
A rate of exploitation for feudal society as a whole in the sense of a quantitative measure did not exist as an objective phenomenon. (Goes on to divide surplus feudal corn by necessary feudal corn.)
daddyholes posted:to explain what you are not grasping mustang: using some commodity to average the exploitation of every serf in a feudal society arrives at a value that doesn't mean anything because that labor is directly social, i.e., the serf's products are taken from him. you would end up with a number floating in space that didn't mean anything to anyone
its still real to me dammit
roseweird posted:jools posted:and it matters to him for some reason, and he hates the working class, so i went with it
i am just imagining some nice virgin lurker reading this and feeling bad about being a virgin then they go out and get laid and it is awkward and terrible, their sexual development is crippled, all for the sake of an insult on the internet, do you want that on your conscience
to that virgin lurker, i'm rooting for you.
mustang posted:Of course not. In any case this random Google link disagrees with you. The fact that exploitation is unquantifiable doesn't mean it's nonexistent.
http://books.google.com/books?id=aFGZZuMkqfUC&pg=PA36&lpg=PA36&dq=feudalism+rate+of+exploitation&source=bl&ots=F846norH1b&sig=oOJU3Nb65qklEnH71iZz9lV_zu0&hl=en&sa=X&ei=L3utUcbADc-z0QH7zoH4Dg&ved=0CFIQ6AEwBA#v=onepage&q=feudalism%20rate%20of%20exploitation&f=false
A rate of exploitation for feudal society as a whole in the sense of a quantitative measure did not exist as an objective phenomenon.
hahaha okay i see you already self-owned
mustang posted:and it matters to him for some reason, and he hates the working class, so i went with it
If you love the working class you need to oppose all income unearned from work. Including rent, interest, and liberal welfare.
The only alternative would be supporting the nonworking class, which uses Twitter.
why is welfare vitiated by its liberalism
to explain what you are not grasping mustang: using some commodity to average the exploitation of every serf in a feudal society arrives at a value that doesn't mean anything because that labor is directly social, i.e., the serf's products are taken from him. you would end up with a number floating in space that didn't mean anything to anyone
The worker's products are taken from him as well. You're just throwing faeces out there.
mustang you literally sought out a source explaining why you are wrong and posted links and quotes
Again, you're just throwing crap out there. The source demonstrates how to calculate exploitation in a feudal economy.
also i apologise if i've been obscurantist at any point. if you're unclear about what i'm saying anywhere, please point it out to me
You actually made very constructive posts IMHO, you just aren't repelled by global liberalism enough to be a real communist.
mustang posted:also i apologise if i've been obscurantist at any point. if you're unclear about what i'm saying anywhere, please point it out to me
You actually made very constructive posts IMHO, you just aren't repelled by global liberalism enough to be a real communist.
this sounds like moralism to me. what do you find repellent about global liberalism? i have to say i find events and people usually more repellent than abstract concepts of dubious value...
mustang posted:The worker's products are taken from him as well. You're just throwing faeces out there.
news flash: your teacher doesn't actually live at school
Again, you're just throwing crap out there. The source demonstrates how to calculate exploitation in a feudal economy.
it explains why that would be the stupidest fucking thing to try to do