Marxism is obsolete.

[Michael De Panama]

I was a regular to this board years ago, left, then periodically came back to it, only to leave again shortly afterwards. Many of you probably don't recognize me. I used to refer to myself as a "Democratic Marxist."

Communism is a better system than capitalism, no doubt. I'm sure you all agree, and there's no need to argue this with any of you.

As a worker, I would certainly rather the working majority have control over society, as well as their own lives, as opposed to handing this power over to a bourgeois minority. I would rather the working majority have equal share of society's wealth. And there is no doubt in my mind that a true communist society can exist.

By "true communist," I am, of course, talking about a society without economic or political heirarchy. One that is born from the industrial conditions outlined by Marx, as opposed to the feudalist and pre-industrial conditions of China and the Soviet Union, and every other failed attempt at communism. Most importantly, the structure of a true communist society will not be authoritarian.

And, with that said, fuck communism.

Fuck true communism. Fuck fake communism. Fuck Karl Marx. And fuck every last one of you.

Imagine living in your idealistic workers paradise. Equal wealth, equal political power, equal social status, and no authoritative power to exploit you.

You still won't be fucking happy, because you'll be working the same exact shit jobs you'd be working under any other industrial society.

Capitalism isn't the problem.

Industrial society, as a whole, is the problem.

Marxism is hundreds of years obsolete. The Communist Manifesto was written at the dawn of the Industrial Revolution. Before Starbucks, before McDonalds, before Wal Marts, and before white collar jobs. Back when industrialization was something romantic. Marx never foresaw the pointlessness of it all. The most developed nations in the world are the ones with the least significant jobs.

The Industrial Revolution was the last true revolution. A victory for the communists would change the power structure of society, without really changing anything else.

True revolutionaries won't be uniting the working class. They'll be burning the workplaces down.

True revolutionaries will have nothing to do with the "left".

Any questions?

[flyby]

there are so many assumptions here that it would be hard to unravel.

But i want to say some things in short:

Socialized production will have allways "hierarchies" -- in the sense that human labor and exchange needs to be organized, and you can't just personally decide what to do, when our work and life is integrated in complex networks that are even international.

So in classless society, there may be hierarchies -- but they won't be antagonistic, alienated, and oppressive -- in other words the organization of human life will not be rooted in class and exploitation.

Second, I don't think we will all still have the same shit jobs. That assumption is kinda wack. And is far less visionary than my view of what communism would be like. Humans will always do labor (i.e. productive activities) but there is not reason it has to be shitty, alienating, life-draining, stultifying, boring, repetitive, back-breaking etc. We can and will transend that.

Further:

Marxism is not rooted in nineteenth century conditions. It is a living scientific approach, and as the world changes, it is inevitable that Marxism has new summations (and even changes some previous verdicts that were thought to be correct.)

I don't agree that the problem is industrial life, and not capitalism.

All future human society will build on the industrial base that capitalism created.

We will produce socially (not in the maddening petty production of artisan life or peasant farming). We will be international and internatinalist. We will be connected with all of humanity, not cloistered in our region or communities.

And we will build on all those interconnections to build radical new forms of living -- living creative and volunatary associations of human beings.

Let's join in together to envision and realize it!!

Here is how the maoists of the RCP,USA describe the future society:

Communism will see the end of humanity’s enslaving subordination to the division of labor in which some people do only manual labor and others do all the intellectual work, or men run society and women raise children. The gulf between city and countryside will be closed. People’s lives will be rich in *variety: working with others in production as well as creating art, delving into scientific experiment as well as debating the future of the planet and universe, raising the next generations, as well as helping to administer society, with time left over for recreation, entertainment, and celebration.

Work will no longer be enslaving but productive, creative, and fulfilling. Everyone will work cooperatively to contribute the most they can to society and everyone will get back from society what they need, with enough of a surplus produced to contribute to the all-around development of society. Money itself will no longer even exist, as there will be no need for it. This is the communist slogan inscribed by Marx: From each according to their ability, to each according to their needs.

Together with the end of classes and class distinctions comes the most radical rupture with traditional ideas. People will share a scientific approach to reality. They will have no need to invent “gods” that are imagined to control the natural world or human destiny. Knowledge will no longer be the private property of an elite, and humanity will confront the reality of the natural world with its mysteries, surprises, and challenges in entirely new ways. People will see themselves as trustees of the planet, unable to conceive of shortsightedly damaging the world that future generations will inhabit.

Human imagination will take flight in a way inconceivable in class society. There will be no ridiculous notions of one group of people being superior to another. Humanity will celebrate its diversity and for the first time in history people will see themselves and act as part of a world community of freely associating human beings. This will be a time where a view of the planet from outer space will be a reflection of the actual organization of human society—where there are no borders.

This may sound like heaven, but it’s not. It’s a rational and achievable goal on earth. Men and women will not be angels, but they will, overwhelmingly, be communists, with the material and ideological basis to consciously change themselves and the world without violent struggle or political suppression. Communism is not the end of history—as long as there is humanity there is no such thing. Each generation will challenge the previous one and will change the world in new ways. Science, technology, ideas and institutions will grow old and be overturned by new arising ones. But change, development, and struggle will no longer involve antagonistic social conflict—there will be no more wars, jails, and political suppression.

from their program here: http://rwor.org/margorp/progpart1-e.htm

[Paradox]

Marxism is hundreds of years obsolete.


Any questions?

Don't you know how to count?


Communism is a better system than capitalism, no doubt.


And, with that said, fuck communism.

Contradictory, don't you think? What made you come to such a conclusion?


True revolutionaries won't be uniting the working class. They'll be burning the workplaces down.

True revolutionaries will have nothing to do with the "left".

Burn the workplaces down? Hmm... And where will the things people need be produced after the workplaces are burned down? Or are you just being melodramatic? And what do you mean that revolutionaries won't have anything to do with the "left"? What will they have anything to do with, according to you? Not that any of this has any effect on what I believe, I'm just curious as how you came to such a conclusion.

[Michael De Panama]

there are so many assumptions here that it would be hard to unravel.
Before I go any further, I would like to remind you that I was once a devoted Marxist. I've been studying Marx since I was 13 years old. I've been reading this message board since 2001, and have been registered since early 2002. I can asure you I'm more well-versed in Marxist rhetoric than the majority of the people on this forum.

Socialized production will have allways "hierarchies" -- in the sense that human labor and exchange needs to be organized, and you can't just personally decide what to do, when our work and life is integrated in complex networks that are even international.
I completely agree. And that is precisely why integrated and complex networks should be destroyed.

So in classless society, there may be hierarchies -- but they won't be antagonistic, alienated, and oppressive -- in other words the organization of human life will not be rooted in class and exploitation.
Again, I completely agree with you. I would much rather live in a society where the organization of human life is controlled by the proletariat than by the bourgeoisie. However, there are minimal perks to what you refer to as "the organization of human life," and far too many negative effects, including the fact that such a society would need to be controlled by something, be it the proletariat, the bourgeoisie, the government, whatever.

Second, I don't think we will all still have the same shit jobs. That assumption is kinda wack. And is far less visionary than my view of what communism would be like. Humans will always do labor (i.e. productive activities) but there is not reason it has to be shitty, alienating, life-draining, stultifying, boring, repetitive, back-breaking etc. We can and will transend that.
If your vision of communism involves technological progress, then, I'm sorry, but workers will still have to put up with working shit jobs. In order for society to advance itself, it needs workers to clean up it's shit. It needs people to build things, and it needs other people to put these things on shelves. It requires people to perform mindless tasks that only complement the mindless tasks performed by others. In order for industrial society to progress, it needs workers to act as cogs in a machine.

Marxism is not rooted in nineteenth century conditions. It is a living scientific approach, and as the world changes, it is inevitable that Marxism has new summations (and even changes some previous verdicts that were thought to be correct.)
Alright. But at the heart of it all, Marxism is a glorification of industrial society, and that's what I'm referring to. It makes the assumption that what's best for the working class is a fair and just work environment. When in reality, today's working class is more frustated by the system as a whole, not who's running it.

I don't agree that the problem is industrial life, and not capitalism.

All future human society will build on the industrial base that capitalism created.
And, in that case, all future human society will be just as oppressive as the capitalist one you have so much contempt towards.

But, really, the cyclical apocalyptic nature of Marxism, specifically the theory dialectal materialism, would argue against your assumption that society is only headed in one direction - up!

We will produce socially (not in the maddening petty production of artisan life or peasant farming). We will be international and internatinalist. We will be connected with all of humanity, not cloistered in our region or communities.

And we will build on all those interconnections to build radical new forms of living -- living creative and volunatary associations of human beings.

Let's join in together to envision and realize it!!
Again, I was among you in envisioning this. I no longer am, and no longer will be. Globalization is not what's best for the working class.


Communism is a better system than capitalism, no doubt.


And, with that said, fuck communism.

Contradictory, don't you think? What made you come to such a conclusion?
Not contradictory at all. I became disillusioned with liberalism after peacefully protesting the Iraq war, only to see Mr. Bush ignore the people such as myself who were holding pieces of cardboard with catchy slogans written on them. I became disillusioned with communism after getting out of High School and becoming a part of the working world.

Just because I hate communism doesn't mean I can't hate capitalism.

That said, if an actual, physical, destructive revolution against capitalism does take place, and it is led by communists, I have absolutely no reason not to join in on the fun.

However, ideologically, I'm alienating myself from anybody who supports the industrial system.


True revolutionaries won't be uniting the working class. They'll be burning the workplaces down.

True revolutionaries will have nothing to do with the "left".

Burn the workplaces down? Hmm... And where will the things people need be produced after the workplaces are burned down? Or are you just being melodramatic?
Hmm... isn't it implied that the people would just have to stop acting like housepets and learn how to produce their own things, rather than wait for their owners to feed them? I'm not being melodramatic in the least bit. You think voting or picketing will change things for either of us?

And what do you mean that revolutionaries won't have anything to do with the "left"? What will they have anything to do with, according to you?
The destruction of industrial society.

Not that any of this has any effect on what I believe, I'm just curious as how you came to such a conclusion.
I'm not posting here to change anybody else's beliefs. I couldn't give a fuck what any of you do with your lives. I'm only here for nostalgic purposes, and to see if anybody can give me a decent argument.

[Guest1]

I can't be bothered to argue against primitivism.

It's not a serious force, and never will be. I can only feel sorry for its proponents, who have simply become burnt out fighting this system, and turned to the desperation that has ensnared so many before them. The system is oppressive, Communism is elusive, so fuck it all, let's just burn everything!

It doesn't fly.

[Michael De Panama]

Primitivism may not be a "serious force" at this point in time, but neither is communism. For that matter, primitvism is more of a lifestyle than simply an ideology. Primitivism is more about mankind returning to it's animalistic nature than about civilization returning to nothingness. There are plenty of primitivists who prefer to alienate themselves from industrial society, rather than attempt to destroy it.

Again, communism isn't a serious force either.

Feel sorry for me all you want.

[Michael De Panama]

How ridiculous. Why did this shit get moved?

[The Garbage Disposal Unit]

It's funny that one would label communist thought apocalyptic when a sustainable primitivist society would require reducing the population of the earth by about 90%.

Attacking technology is akin to chewing off one's arm to deal with an infected cut. This metaphor takes on a second ammusing element, in that such occurence would become commonplace with the destruction of modern medical understandings.

This of course reveals the poverty of primitivism - how is it that the human might and express themself in a world of hand-to-mouth living, that is nasty brutal and short? Certainly, I don't think primitive humans' lives were nasty brutish and short because of any defficiency of human nature - there's wonderful evidence of co- operation within primitive groups - but the objective problems of survival act to handicap meaningful social development and actualization.

Primitivism is not a lifestyle - it is a wretched ideology of the most grand sort. It wishes to establish a distorted metanarrative of a pre-social paradise that never existed. It is reactionary in the most extreme sense.

[Michael De Panama]

It's funny that one would label communist thought apocalyptic when a sustainable primitivist society would require reducing the population of the earth by about 90%.
First off, there's nothing wrong with being apocalyptic. Communist thought may be apocalyptic, but it's nowhere as apocalyptic as primitivist thought. The apocalypse is one of my most favorite things in the whole world. ;)

Secondly, I understand there would be consequences to the fall of industrial society, but rewilding isn't going to reduce the earth's population to 10% of what it is now. That's a ridiculous exaggeration.

Attacking technology is akin to chewing off one's arm to deal with an infected cut. This metaphor takes on a second ammusing element, in that such occurence would become commonplace with the destruction of modern medical understandings.
I don't believe that technology as a whole is the problem. I'm only opposed to technology that requires the presence of the industrial machine in order to produce. That doesn't mean we need to erase our minds of modern medical understandings, of course.

This of course reveals the poverty of primitivism - how is it that the human might and express themself in a world of hand-to-mouth living, that is nasty brutal and short? Certainly, I don't think primitive humans' lives were nasty brutish and short because of any defficiency of human nature - there's wonderful evidence of co- operation within primitive groups - but the objective problems of survival act to handicap meaningful social development and actualization.
So, rather than accept that this is the true nature of mankind, and not resent it, you'd rather forcibly mold people to behave in what you consider to be a socially acceptable manner?

Primitivism is not a lifestyle - it is a wretched ideology of the most grand sort. It wishes to establish a distorted metanarrative of a pre-social paradise that never existed. It is reactionary in the most extreme sense.
We can only be considered reactionary in our attitude towards civilization. But, I personally didn't enter primitivism from a conservative or a reactionary point of view, and I would consider myself to be more of a radical than a reactionary. But call me what you will. We certainly would rather support the progress of mankind as a whole than the progress of civillization.

[Invader Zim]

You still won't be fucking happy, because you'll be working the same exact shit jobs you'd be working under any other industrial society.


It appears that the major flaw in your whole out look on life, is that you believe that you can ever be happy in your job. Sorry too break it too you, but you can't, 99% of people will always hate their jobs. Glamorous jobs, where you can honestly feel that you are doing something constructive and interesting are very rare. If you think that you would prefer a job using pre-industrial technology then you are a naive fool. I have worked doing jobs which are only a couple of steps above that, and I guarantee too you that it isn't a paradise, it is just as hard, monotonous and unrewarding as any other job, if not more so.

Work sucks, nothing you ever conceivably do will change that. Work has always sucked, and always will. So the idea of a socialist society is not too in some way to make work less monotonous and more interesting. But to give people fair reward for the bullshit they have too put up with on a daily basis.

[Michael De Panama]

Originally posted by [email protected] 6 2005, 09:22 PM
You still won't be fucking happy, because you'll be working the same exact shit jobs you'd be working under any other industrial society.


It appears that the major flaw in your whole out look on life, is that you believe that you can ever be happy in your job. Sorry too break it too you, but you can't, 99% of people will always hate their jobs. Glamorous jobs, where you can honestly feel that you are doing something constructive and interesting are very rare. If you think that you would prefer a job using pre-industrial technology then you are a naive fool. I have worked doing jobs which are only a couple of steps above that, and I guarantee too you that it isn't a paradise, it is just as hard, monotonous and unrewarding as any other job, if not more so.

Work sucks, nothing you ever conceivably do will change that. Work has always sucked, and always will. So the idea of a socialist society is not too in some way to make work less monotonous and more interesting. But to give people fair reward for the bullshit they have too put up with on a daily basis.
What? When did I ever say I believe I can ever be happy in my job? I, like everybody else I know, fucking hate working. Everything you're saying is completely true, and I agree with you 100%. I have no arguments whatsoever.

[VukBZ2005]

It's funny that one would label communist thought apocalyptic when a sustainable primitivist society would require reducing the population of the earth by about 90%.

I Agree with you. Primitivism - is a pretty stupid ideology - and one - that if were
successful i fear - would drive the human species into extinction and out of
existence. It is simply not maintainable, as human society needs technology and
industrialization.



Attacking technology is akin to chewing off one's arm to deal with an infected cut. This metaphor takes on a second ammusing element, in that such occurence would become commonplace with the destruction of modern medical understandings.

Exactly - which will lead to the horifying re-introduction of old diseases and the
rise of new ones Like smallpox. And i can not phantom such sick thoughts.




Primitivism is not a lifestyle - it is a wretched ideology of the most grand sort. It wishes to establish a distorted metanarrative of a pre-social paradise that never existed. It is reactionary in the most extreme sense.

You took the words right out of my mouth!

[Michael De Panama]

I don't believe people exist who honestly think that mankind needs industrial society so much that it would become extinct if the industrial machine ever collapsed, despite the fact that the majority of mankind's existence was prior to the Industrial Revolution. "Communist FireFox" is obviously just trying to make stupid statements in order to be obnoxious.

[Invader Zim]

Originally posted by Michael De Panama+Feb 7 2005, 03:28 AM--> (Michael De Panama @ Feb 7 2005, 03:28 AM)
[email protected] 6 2005, 09:22 PM
You still won't be fucking happy, because you'll be working the same exact shit jobs you'd be working under any other industrial society.


It appears that the major flaw in your whole out look on life, is that you believe that you can ever be happy in your job. Sorry too break it too you, but you can't, 99% of people will always hate their jobs. Glamorous jobs, where you can honestly feel that you are doing something constructive and interesting are very rare. If you think that you would prefer a job using pre-industrial technology then you are a naive fool. I have worked doing jobs which are only a couple of steps above that, and I guarantee too you that it isn't a paradise, it is just as hard, monotonous and unrewarding as any other job, if not more so.

Work sucks, nothing you ever conceivably do will change that. Work has always sucked, and always will. So the idea of a socialist society is not too in some way to make work less monotonous and more interesting. But to give people fair reward for the bullshit they have too put up with on a daily basis.
What? When did I ever say I believe I can ever be happy in my job? I, like everybody else I know, fucking hate working. Everything you're saying is completely true, and I agree with you 100%. I have no arguments whatsoever. [/b]
Then why the destruction of industrial society? Unless you have some wild idea that people will be happier that way?

[Michael De Panama]

Originally posted by Enigma+Feb 6 2005, 10:12 PM--> (Enigma @ Feb 6 2005, 10:12 PM)
Originally posted by Michael De [email protected] 7 2005, 03:28 AM

[email protected] 6 2005, 09:22 PM
You still won't be fucking happy, because you'll be working the same exact shit jobs you'd be working under any other industrial society.


It appears that the major flaw in your whole out look on life, is that you believe that you can ever be happy in your job. Sorry too break it too you, but you can't, 99% of people will always hate their jobs. Glamorous jobs, where you can honestly feel that you are doing something constructive and interesting are very rare. If you think that you would prefer a job using pre-industrial technology then you are a naive fool. I have worked doing jobs which are only a couple of steps above that, and I guarantee too you that it isn't a paradise, it is just as hard, monotonous and unrewarding as any other job, if not more so.

Work sucks, nothing you ever conceivably do will change that. Work has always sucked, and always will. So the idea of a socialist society is not too in some way to make work less monotonous and more interesting. But to give people fair reward for the bullshit they have too put up with on a daily basis.
What? When did I ever say I believe I can ever be happy in my job? I, like everybody else I know, fucking hate working. Everything you're saying is completely true, and I agree with you 100%. I have no arguments whatsoever.
Then why the destruction of industrial society? Unless you have some wild idea that people will be happier that way?[/b]
Because, like you said, work sucks. Fairly rewarding workers for the bullshit they put up with is fine, but at the end of the day they still have to put up with bullshit. They shouldn't have to, though. And they don't have to.

Yes, I believe people would be happier outside the industrial machine.

[redstar2000]

Redstar2000's Recipe for Shit Soup

Begin with turds (human or herbivorous animal) that are thoroughly dry; dry them in direct sunlight if possible. (They must not still "smell like shit".)

1. Using a blunt object, gently reduce the turds to powder.

2. Remove seeds and undigested plant material.

3. Place two or more handfuls of seeds, etc. in boiling water for 30 minutes, then simmer for at least an hour. Add fresh plant or animal material at this time if available.

4. Serve.

(Do not discuss defecation during the meal; if someone says "this is good shit", keep a straight face.)

--------------------------------------

In areas where food was very scarce, primitive peoples actually did this (or something very much like this); anthropologists call it "the second harvest". Turds were stored in special rooms or in caves...to be used if hunger threatened.

"Rewilding" has its drawbacks.

http://www.websmileys.com/sm/cool/123.gif

[Djehuti]

Originally posted by Michael De [email protected] 6 2005, 09:35 PM
By "true communist," I am, of course, talking about a society without economic or political heirarchy. One that is born from the industrial conditions outlined by Marx,

You still won't be fucking happy, because you'll be working the same exact shit jobs you'd be working under any other industrial society.


By "true communist," I am, of course, talking about a society without economic or political heirarchy. One that is born from the industrial conditions outlined by Marx,
/.../
You still won't be fucking happy, because you'll be working the same exact shit jobs you'd be working under any other industrial society.

You want to work less? If so, I do not really understand your solution.
Industrialism has revolutionized the means of production over and over again,
today we can create 100 units of something in the same time as we barely could produce one just a hundred years ago. The production has doubled many times, but still we work more then ever. The problem is NOT industrialisation as such, but capitalism. The machines are used against us rather then for us. The machines becomes enemies to the workers, forces them to work faster, under more control and stress, etc and the workers starts to fight the machines and fight more automatisation of the production.

In a communist society the machine is your friend. It will help us produce products in a much faster way, but it wont anymore force us to adjust to it, to be the slaves of the machines. In a communist society, we are the masters and the machines are the slaves, they work for us. From there on, every time the machines (which should be implentated everywere...full automatisation everywhere possible, we humans should rather do things that the machine cannot, productive work, learning and teachning, taking care of eachother, plan our future, having fun, research, etc...some crap work will still be left, but we can handle it) enable us to produce twice as much as earlier, we will have a choice...do we want to work half as much, or do we want to get twice as much stuff? For an example.


Communism is the emancipation of the human's creativeness and from our submission under capitalism, wage labour and technology. In a communist society we are the masters of the world and our own future.



Btw, have anyone here read Raniero Panzieri? For example 'The Capitalist Use of Machinery: Marx Versus the Objectivists', it can be found here:
http://www.geocities.com/cordobakaf/panzieri.html

Iam very intrested in Panzieri, I think I should read him.

[Guest1]

I think the best response so far is Djehuti's.

Technology is nothing but a tool. Just as we must liberate ourselves from the bourgeoisie, so too must we liberate technology. When it is returned to its rightful place, as a collective good used for te benefit of all, only then can we unleash its full potential for progress. Only then can technology become not just secondary to the good of humanity and the earth, but intrinsically geared towards humanity's and the earth's health.

[Princess Leon and Koba Fett]

And, with that said, fuck communism.

Fuck true communism. Fuck fake communism. Fuck Karl Marx. And fuck every last one of you.

Imagine living in your idealistic workers paradise. Equal wealth, equal political power, equal social status, and no authoritative power to exploit you.

You still won't be fucking happy, because you'll be working the same exact shit jobs you'd be working under any other industrial society.

Capitalism isn't the problem.

Industrial society, as a whole, is the problem.

I am glad to see that at least one other person here has gotten to the root of the problem. It's maddening to watch all those little 'revolutionaries' praising the accomplishments of industrialism. "OMG ih tis the next stepp. Tecknologie iZ or freind! Workurz of tehh world unite!!"

[The Garbage Disposal Unit]

Explain then, how destroying the means of human communication, development, and understanding will in any way be liberating.

It's kinda funny - without the internet and glossy magazines (Green Anarchy) primitivism wouldn't even be discussed . . . and it's a self-destructive meme. Implementation of primitivism, ironicly, subverts the means by which the idea of primitivism perpetuates itself.

[Morpheus]

I don't see why the abolition of work should automatically entail the abolition of all advanced technology.

[redstar2000]

One of the best attacks on primitivism that I've run across...

Civilisation, Primitivism and anarchism (http://struggle.ws/andrew/primitivism.html)

http://www.websmileys.com/sm/cool/123.gif