The material basis for Anarchism.

[Hiero]

I have not read any Anarchist books, and on this site it has never been clearly defined for my. What is the material basis for having a socialist society without a government?

Note: I did not ask why do you not want a state, i already know the reason for this.

In Marxist theory, the state is nothing more then a meduim between classes. It is created by class conflict, and only did it not exist in the time when there were no classes.

After revolution the proleteriat create a socialist system and collectivise. Due to the knowledge that there is still clas conflict, as the bourgioes are always trying to regain power, a state is neccasary.

So the Marxist knows to destroy the old state and replace a proleteriat state. The aim of the proleteriat state is to continue class war while finding the best way for the proleteriat to control the state. The Leninist addition is to use a vagaurd, though there is other ways, Luxemberg has her own ideas for how the proleteriat can control the state.

As a Marxist, since i believe that the state is something created by class war, even if Anarchist revolution were succesfull there would still be class conflict, and a state would emerge. Though with the Anarchist not have knowledge of this, it would be a unprepared state and one that would be arkward with Anarchist ideology of no state.

Either way the Marxist by studying objective laws, knows the state is created when there is class conflict. What i want to know how does the Anarchist justify there is no need for a state, what is the material basis for this idea?

[Vanguard1917]

What i want to know how does the Anarchist justify there is no need for a state, what is the material basis for this idea?

You can have a look at Bakunin'sMarxism, Freedom and the State (http://www.marxists.org/reference/archive/bakunin/works/mf-state/index.htm).

Though i don't think you'll find much discussion about the material basis for justifying the abolition of the state as such, largely because anarchism is an idealist theory.

[novemba]

to orthodox marxists, you have one strict meaning for the state. that is a classes repression of another, so essentially it's a matter of class dicatatorship.

in anarchist theory, (please forgive me if im wrong, im a newb), there is more than just one thing that makes up the basis for the states repression, and the state itself.

we both have the same goals for a classless society, but sometimes i just feel orthodox marxists are only trying to smash the bourgeosie state, while revolutionary anarchists are trying to smash all forms of the state.

socialism creates bueracracies, give me one example where it didn't and ill stand corrected.

[RASH chris]

socialism creates bueracracies, give me one example where it didn't and ill stand corrected.

Please demonstrate to me hard evidence that anarchism will not create beauracracy. And why all Marxism inevitably leads to beauracracy?

[JC1]

Though i don't think you'll find much discussion about the material basis for justifying the abolition of the state as such, largely because anarchism is an idealist theory.

Qouted for truth.

[rioters bloc]

Originally posted by [email protected] 29 2005, 09:22 AM


in anarchist theory, (please forgive me if im wrong, im a newb), there is more than just one thing that makes up the basis for the states repression, and the state itself.
*nods*

my problem with marxism is that all oppression is seemingly centred around economics, around class division due to disparities in material wealth. anarchism looks beyond that, and recognises that there are so many other form of oppression as well; racism, sexism, sexualitism [word?], etc. and sees the state as the tool which implements and furthers this oppression.

[RASH chris]

Originally posted by rioters bloc+Sep 29 2005, 12:32 AM--> (rioters bloc @ Sep 29 2005, 12:32 AM)
[email protected] 29 2005, 09:22 AM


in anarchist theory, (please forgive me if im wrong, im a newb), there is more than just one thing that makes up the basis for the states repression, and the state itself.
*nods*

my problem with marxism is that all oppression is seemingly centred around economics, around class division due to disparities in material wealth. anarchism looks beyond that, and recognises that there are so many other form of oppression as well; racism, sexism, sexualitism [word?], etc. and sees the state as the tool which implements and furthers this oppression. [/b]
Marxism acknowledges those forms of opression in the same way that anarchism does...as things created by the ruling class to keep the proletariat separated. And therefore Marxists also see the state as the tool for implementing those things, because the state is the tool of the ruling class who created such divisions.

[Hiero]

You have not showed me material basis for Anarchism. If there is none, then it is true that Anarchism is just an idealist theory.

[novemba]

demonstrate hard evidence that anarchism will not create beauracracy

demonstrate hard evidence that socialism will not create a beauracracy.

that arguement is pointless, it'll get us no where.


And why [does] all Marxism inevitably leads to beauracracy?

i never did, nor meant to, convey that message.


You have not showed me material basis for Anarchism. If there is none, then it is true that Anarchism is just an idealist theory.

What exactly is meant by material basis? I don't know what you meant by this exactly but some examples of anarchism in action are the collectives formed in catalonia during the spanish civil war...chiapas, mexico...that's all i'm aware of, but then again you show me examples of communism in action.


Anarchist revolution were succesfull there would still be class conflict

Why?


socialism creates bueracracies, give me one example where it didn't and ill stand corrected.

[JazzRemington]

I don't understand what the original poster means by "material basis." Perhaps if you would provide a clearer meaning, we would be able to answer. Not to sound like a dick, of course.

[Hiero]

What exactly is meant by material basis? I don't know what you meant by this exactly but some examples of anarchism in action are the collectives formed in catalonia during the spanish civil war...chiapas, mexico...that's all i'm aware of, but then again you show me examples of communism in action.

The sceintific proof that once the proleteriat over throw the bourgioes they are able to maintain a collective society and continue the class war without a state developing.

THe only time a state has not existed has been in primitave human civilisation when there were no classes. Every time there has been class a state develops to control the class warfare.

Since i have been at this forum no Anarchist has proved that a state wont develop in a proleteriat society, if the proleteriat choose not to have a State. All evidence points to there always going to emerge a State where there is class conflict. The Anarchist just always points to the beauracracy that emerges in a socialist state, this however does not prove that a socialist society can exist without a state.

This just proves things we already know, that a socialist state can become beaurocractic and lead to a capitalist restoration. This is well known, and especially well documented by the Maoist, and there is much works on this phenomena. This however does not prove that the material basis for a state is wrong.

So untill a member can show me some sound theory for material basis for not having a state, then i can never become an anarchist or read their work. I also adivse you to do the same thing. If you are an Anarchist because it sounds like a good idea, then you a very ideological weak. I would too like to be an Anarchist, because it sounds like a very good idea to stop bureaucracy, though there is no material basis for this idea, so i could never be a Anarchist.


Anarchist revolution were succesfull there would still be class conflict

Because the actual bourgioes and other petty bourgioes still exist. You would need to commit huge murders to kill them all in one go. Larger then that of Pol Pot. Then you still have to deal with reactionaries from all spheres of the society, thoose who find ways to create a nice position above everyone in society, so they try to revert back to capitalism. Thoose in positions of power, influence and wealth aren't going to just fall in love with the new proleteriat society, they are going to want to regain their position. So class war still exists.

http://www.marxists.org/reference/archive/.../1969/04/01.htm (http://www.marxists.org/reference/archive/lin-biao/1969/04/01.htm)

That is a speach by Lin Biao in 1969, he gives good quotes and a good speach about class conflist existing in pre revolution. You may just want to read the first part as you may not agree with the methods of Mao.

[Monty Cantsin]

Originally posted by rioters [email protected] 29 2005, 12:32 AM

my problem with marxism is that all oppression is seemingly centred around economics, around class division due to disparities in material wealth. anarchism looks beyond that, and recognises that there are so many other form of oppression as well; racism, sexism, sexualitism [word?], etc. and sees the state as the tool which implements and furthers this oppression.
Engles was writing about gender inequality back in the 1880s....Simone de Beauvoir was influenced by him in her 'second sex'. Marx also adressed race but it wasnt there primary concern.

many leninist writers have treated other axes of inequality(other then class) as second to the revolution and to be dealt with after the fact.

[saint max]

Anarchy can be about a material change in society as well as psychological one. We seek to claim space and time to experiment in freedom.

You can read all the old and new heads, but anarchy is not an ideology. There are some who are ideological, but anarchy remain theory and deed, not a party line, or concrete collection of "how." More, we seek to create problems, ask "why?" and reject questions we are subjected to through the existent world, in order to ask our own.

That is to say, freedom cannot be decreed. Even if it were possible to vote on abolishing capitalism (which is exactly, in deed, what a mass/quantitive revolutionary movement seeks to do), "it would mean nothing. Most of the electorate would vote in favor of capitalism, because they tranquilly leave home, office, or market place they cannot imagine any other world but the one of commodities and money. Even if they voted to abolish capitalism nothing would change, to be authentic, such a question would exclude the existence of voters,"wrote an anonymous itallian. Society must change, in order for there to be the ripe conditons for insurrection, insurrection changes society towards the conditions for freedom--space and time to experiement and play. It is a projectual way of life that seizes and discovers freedom by subversion of the existant world.

cheers,
-max

[Nothing Human Is Alien]

Qouted for truth.

Quoted for quoting the truth.


I would too like to be an Anarchist, because it sounds .. very good

Indeed. I think that's why most people [that do] choose it.


All evidence points to there always going to emerge a State where there is class conflict.

Of course. As long as there is class division there will be a state (a monopoly on organized force by one class, used to suppress others).

The material conditions for classless society can only be created by the supression of the capitalist class by the proletariat.

[Hiero]

saint max, you didn' answer anything and added more confusion to the topic.

[saint max]

Perhaps my mixture of academic language and urban/white trash slang is confusing eh? Then again, read through the lines...

I'll help. Yes, anarchy does work with materialist philosophy, but not exclusively. The arguement of primitive anarchistic society is a pretty good one for anarchy in the material world (albiet pre-modern.) Although anarchy as a politics or anti-politics finds it's orgin in pre-modernism (read: pre-enlightenment) and is elaborated by post-modern philosophy (sarte, lacan, derrida, simon and friends) and anti-modernism (zerzan, jensen, glendening, bonanno, landstriecher) as well.

Then again, we do live in a post-industrial age, ya? So materialism and dialectics is a little bit topsy turny anyhoo.

cheers,
-max

[Monty Cantsin]

Originally posted by saint [email protected] 29 2005, 11:19 AM

Then again, we do live in a post-industrial age, ya? So materialism and dialectics is a little bit topsy turny anyhoo.

cheers,
-max
that line of logic doesnt make any sence...or it’s ambiguous enough so I don’t know what you’re saying

[Karl Marx's Camel]

You have not showed me material basis for Anarchism.

Would you define material basis?

[The Feral Underclass]

Originally posted by [email protected] 28 2005, 01:14 PM
The aim of the proleteriat state is to continue class war while finding the best way for the proleteriat to control the state.
Precisely. And the material conditions which this create, reflect that aim.


As a Marxist, since i believe that the state is something created by class war

No, a state is created to consolidate the power of a ruling class.


even if Anarchist revolution were succesfull there would still be class conflict, and a state would emerge.

That depends on how you define a state.


it would be a unprepared state and one that would be arkward with Anarchist ideology of no state.

That doesn't make sense.


Either way the Marxist by studying objective laws, knows the state is created when there is class conflict.

No, the state is created when a class consolidates its power into the specific tools of a state mechanism. A mechanism which is inherently hierarchical.


What i want to know how does the Anarchist justify there is no need for a state, what is the material basis for this idea?

Because the consolidation of working class power cannot be transferred into mechanised tools of control which are inherently hierarchical while a process of creating a stateless society is maintained. By inherent I mean that they can only function based on such a hierarchy.

This process of maintaining a state and controlling society through it creates material conditions that make it impossible for society to continue into a stateless one. You cannot create a stateless society by maintaining a state. The material conditions, which the consolidation of state control creates, cannot be advanced to communism.

[RASH chris]

Because the consolidation of working class power cannot be transferred into mechanised tools of control which are inherently hierarchical while a process of creating a stateless society is maintained. By inherent I mean that they can only function based on such a hierarchy.

This process of maintaining a state and controlling society through it creates material conditions that make it impossible for society to continue into a stateless one. You cannot create a stateless society by maintaining a state. The material conditions, which the consolidation of state control creates, cannot be advanced to communism.

But in the event that the proletariat controls the state then would the state not disolve if that was the wishes of the proletariat? What would anarchists do if the proletariat wished to keep a state in a transitional period in order to defend from attacks of imperialist nations and reactionary elements within society? Thusfar anarchists have demonstrated that they will attack the state, even when it is a proletarian instituion. How does the anarchist (as a proletarian revolutionary) justify fighting against the wishes of the proletarian, wishing to instill their theory over that of the one the proletariat wants? (i.e. Makhno)

[Connolly]

Would you define material basis?

How are Marxists and Anarchists supposed to discuss on the same level if they dont have the same definition of what a materialist basis is?

To define, and to indirectly ask the question again:

*The natural unfolding of events based on rational materialist progression.

Why does it need to be defined if one is an anarchist/Marxist and understands materialism?

Do anarchists agree that society and its structures are based around the means of production?

Do You also agree that the state must exist around a particular form of production and that anarchism/communism is not possible unless this production is developed? - just curious.

RB

[Connolly]

But in the event that the proletariat controls the state then would the state not disolve if that was the wishes of the proletariat?

Do you think the proletariat sit around in a board room and discuss their direction. Surly not. There is no choice, just natural progressive individual/small scale decisions that affect the greater whole.


What would anarchists do if the proletariat wished to keep a state in a transitional period in order to defend from attacks of imperialist nations and reactionary elements within society?

Again you seem to think humanity controls its destiny, not the case.

[Donnie]

Originally posted by [email protected] 28 2005, 12:14 PM
I have not read any Anarchist books, and on this site it has never been clearly defined for my. What is the material basis for having a socialist society without a government?

Note: I did not ask why do you not want a state, i already know the reason for this.

In Marxist theory, the state is nothing more then a meduim between classes. It is created by class conflict, and only did it not exist in the time when there were no classes.

After revolution the proleteriat create a socialist system and collectivise. Due to the knowledge that there is still clas conflict, as the bourgioes are always trying to regain power, a state is neccasary.

So the Marxist knows to destroy the old state and replace a proleteriat state. The aim of the proleteriat state is to continue class war while finding the best way for the proleteriat to control the state. The Leninist addition is to use a vagaurd, though there is other ways, Luxemberg has her own ideas for how the proleteriat can control the state.

As a Marxist, since i believe that the state is something created by class war, even if Anarchist revolution were succesfull there would still be class conflict, and a state would emerge. Though with the Anarchist not have knowledge of this, it would be a unprepared state and one that would be arkward with Anarchist ideology of no state.

Either way the Marxist by studying objective laws, knows the state is created when there is class conflict. What i want to know how does the Anarchist justify there is no need for a state, what is the material basis for this idea?
We don't use the state because it's not necessary (in my opinion). Just like the Marxists have the party for state seizure the Anarchists have the Libertarian Communist Federation in which we use to discuss all the main issues and revolutionary actions that are to come during and after the revolution

For example we have the Anarchist Federation and the International Anarchist Federation which is a federation of Anarcho-communists like myself.
The Anarchist Federation has already set itself up ready for a communist revolution however the organisation is already doing its revolutionary work as we speak by the members. We have set up local autonomous anarchist communist groups in our local areas of where we live. Our local groups are then federated into the AF where we hold regular meeting like the NDM and other such meetings.

We feel a system of federalism introduced during and after the revolution is a better idea than the Marxist stance of state seizure.

The Anarchist Communist organisation is already prepared for revolution just like the Marxists are ready for state seizure, although I feel as a working class person that the Anarchists are more prepared for revolution than the Marxists because they work with my local working class communities which I feel the Marxists are not doing. Even my dad who used to be a bit of a class struggle radical agrees with me that the Marxists do nothing except fuss over theories instead of getting to the nitty gritty within the communities.

[YKTMX]

Dunno: lunacy? Petit-bourgeois individualism? Quicksand?

All of these could be considered basis for anarchism.

[STI]

Do anarchists agree that society and its structures are based around the means of production?

Yes, most of the anarchists I've talked to do, myself included. Not all do, though.


Do You also agree that the state must exist around a particular form of production and that anarchism/communism is not possible unless this production is developed? - just curious.

No. I believe advanced capitalism must first be reached before communism is possible, but that, by then, production is already developed enough.

Actually, this is why I don't think communism is possible in the third world. Socialism is all that's possible, which will then, after industrialising the nation, become capitalism.

[Connolly]

No. I believe advanced capitalism must first be reached before communism is possible, but that, by then, production is already developed enough.

Advanced capitalist production would be needed before any sort of major social change can "materialize", im glad someone agrees :D . But that is all it is, advanced capitalist production. This sort of production, although just about to outgrow itself, will not have developed fully during this advanced stage due to capitalist restraints (ie. obvious problems like need for labour, maintaining of commodity value etc.), keeping many areas of production "manual". So, to say production will have developed enough without any transitionary stage of implementation of remaining technologies would be a little wrong dont you think? After all, a particular form of production would need to exist in order to achieve communism. According to capitalist progression to date, and judging by its needs and present and logical direction, this form of production is automation, ie. the elimination of the worker. And since advanced capitalism will not have eliminated the worker totally, a transitionary phase would be needed between advanced capitalism (near total automation, although manual labour still present) and Communism (total automation - "higher" form of production, worker eliminated ). This is where socialism is needed.

To attempt to apply technology after capitalism has been overthrown to the remaining manual sectors (hypothetically, early communism), would contradict Communisms need for a mature form of production, automation.


Actually, this is why I don't think communism is possible in the third world.

Agreed.


Socialism is all that's possible, which will then, after industrialising the nation, become capitalism.

Well that depends on your definition of socialism. I personally, being a Marxist, wouldnt call them a socialist model, in that they are not the transitionary phase between communism.

Would like to here your views. TRB ;)

[Nothing Human Is Alien]

I personally, being a communist, would.

If a section of the third world advances to socialism, when the same happens in sections of the first world, the material basis [for communism] will began to exist, thus making it a stage of the transition to [world] communism.

[Connolly]

If a section of the third world advances to socialism, when the same happens in sections of the first world, the material basis [for communism] will began to exist,

Why do you think the third world would advance at the same rate as an advanced capitalist nation?.............What is your materialist basis for this assumtion?.........And wouldnt that make them an advanced capitalist nation in that case?

Do you think the means of production willl develop evenly throughout the third and first world?

TRB

[STI]

So, to say production will have developed enough without any transitionary stage of implementation of remaining technologies would be a little wrong dont you think?

Look, I'm all for mechanizing as much human labour as possible after the revolution, and it's not that I don't think there'll be a transition. There'll always be a transition, it's just that I don't think that transition needs to or even should take on the form of a state. I think people will do it themselves because, well, it'll mean they have to work less!


This is where socialism is needed.

I fail to see how a new group of bosses is needed to achieve this.


Well that depends on your definition of socialism. I personally, being a Marxist, wouldnt call them a socialist model, in that they are not the transitionary phase between communism.

They were intended to be, though. Despite his flaws, I don't doubt that Lenin had the best of intentions. I think, though, that that's all that socialism ever can be - a ticket back to capitalism.

[The Feral Underclass]

Originally posted by [email protected] 29 2005, 06:05 PM
Dunno: lunacy? Petit-bourgeois individualism? Quicksand?

All of these could be considered basis for anarchism.
Read a book maybe?...

...Or better still :o this thread!

[The Feral Underclass]

Originally posted by [email protected] 29 2005, 04:56 PM
But in the event that the proletariat controls the state then would the state not disolve if that was the wishes of the proletariat?
Are you talking about the entire proletariat?

And in order for the state to dissolve, there needs to be a process? What would that process be? Marxists say that when class division doesn't exist anymore, the state will cease to function? How does it cease to function? Remember also that the state needs to exist until there has been a revolution around the world, or at least in the countries surrounding you. How long will that take?

Furthermore, the state creates a new class. The bureaucratic class, proven by every attempt at this transitional phase. Look what has happened in Cuba and China to name but two. The state has maintained itself over a large period of time and has now consolidated the bureaucrat’s control. How can it now dissolve?

It has nothing to do with wishes. It has to do with objective material conditions and the conditions the state creates will not, no matter how much you wish, create a stateless society.


What would anarchists do if the proletariat wished to keep a state in a transitional period in order to defend from attacks of imperialist nations and reactionary elements within society?

I can't speak for the entire anarchist movement I'm afraid. It would be important to agitate the destruction of the state and when possible within communities and factories reject its control. Why fight imperialists and reactionaries only to be controlled by rulers who give us a promise they can't keep? We want communism, not Socialism.


Thusfar anarchists have demonstrated that they will attack the state, even when it is a proletarian instituion.

A state can never be a proletarian institution. Class is defined based on your relationship to the means of production. A "Workers" state is controlled by bureaucrats whose relationship to the means of production is: They control it. Which, in Marxist terms, makes them a ruling class.

Proletarians are people who work within the means of production to make it function. The idea of anarchism is to remove the division of those who work and those who control and consolidate the two, so that those who work within something, also have control over it. That means removing hierarchy, and in turn the state as the state cannot function without hierarchy.


How does the anarchist (as a proletarian revolutionary) justify fighting against the wishes of the proletarian, wishing to instil their theory over that of the one the proletariat wants? (i.e. Makhno)

It has nothing to do with wishes. The state will never create communism. The proletariat wants capitalism now? Does that mean we should stop fighting it? If a party attempts to consolidate its control within the state, we need to make sure that we either stop them and hand control over to ourselves, or we fight them, just as we would fight any state which attempts to control society.

[enigma2517]

Yes, I am curious.

How is it a worker's state?

You have Dictatorship of the Proletariat, that is, the reverse of class roles. The majority (proletariat) now rules over the minority (bourgeiosie). Authoritarian Marxists say that this kind of social order can only exist wit the help of a state. Hence, how is the state, something that is undebatably hierchical (meaning that it gets smaller as you get to the top) something that is run by the workers?

Because they vote who gets into it? Because they are represented? Creating a classless society is a hard job. So hard that only those at the grassroots level can do it. Not you, or any of your intellectual friends, nor the willpower of any well to do revolutionary. This is a major change in history and can only come from the bottom-up!

You want organization? Fine! Federations are far and wide. The difference is, the federation relies on the cooperation of the workers, not the other way around.

[novemba]

So hard that only those at the grassroots level can do it. Not you, or any of your intellectual friends, nor the willpower of any well to do revolutionary. This is a major change in history and can only come from the bottom-up

speak for your damn self i am the bottom.

[saint max]

Look, I'm all for mechanizing as much human labour as possible after the revolution, and it's not that I don't think there'll be a transition. There'll always be a transition, it's just that I don't think that transition needs to or even should take on the form of a state. I think people will do it themselves because, well, it'll mean they have to work less!

You are suggesting that people should and will volunteer to work more (as in sell their labor and time for bread) in order to work less some day, when we are capable of not working at all today by cutting our social relationship with techno-capitalism(and socialism)?! That seems a bit absurd. I'm not particularly sure that it is possible to arranged that, with out a state or psuedo-state (one big union, militias...etc)

[STI]

You are suggesting that people should and will volunteer to work more (as in sell their labor and time for bread) in order to work less some day

You say "some day" as though it's some distant thing that will never really happen.

But, in reality, it happens daily, even now. People pay money (which they sold their time to get) to buy appliances that will make their lives easier (reduce the amount of labour they have to expend). Why would this not continue?


when we are capable of not working at all today by cutting our social relationship with techno-capitalism(and socialism)?

When you say "we", you're obviously talking about some group other than "everybody". If everybody were to "cut their relationship with techno-capital" and "hunt food with a stick" or whatever the fuck you primmies want to do, less than 1/500 people would survive, at best. No thanks. I'd prefer a technologically-advanced communist society.

Hell, I'd prefer capitalism to what you clowns advocate.


That seems a bit absurd. I'm not particularly sure that it is possible to arranged that, with out a state or psuedo-state (one big union, militias...etc)


Even though it happens on its own today, and has happened since the beginning of civilization...

[saint max]

But, in reality, it happens daily, even now. People pay money (which they sold their time to get) to buy appliances that will make their lives easier (reduce the amount of labour they have to expend). Why would this not continue?

so you're advocating consumerism in advanced capitalism? Have you thought of non-post-industrial societies?



when we are capable of not working at all today by cutting our social relationship with techno-capitalism(and socialism)?


When you say "we", you're obviously talking about some group other than "everybody". If everybody were to "cut their relationship with techno-capital" and "hunt food with a stick" or whatever the fuck you primmies want to do, less than 1/500 people would survive, at best. No thanks. I'd prefer a technologically-advanced communist society.

Hell, I'd prefer capitalism to what you clowns advocate.

You will eventutally have to deal with the growing ecological crisis. Workerism won't save you. 6.5 billion can't all eat tofu or beef.


That seems a bit absurd. I'm not particularly sure that it is possible to arranged that, with out a state or psuedo-state (one big union, militias...etc)


Even though it happens on its own today, and has happened since the beginning of civilization...

On it's 'own' today when there is a state and a coercive social realtion called what? capitalism...Thanks for making my point for me.

You advocate a world that is mabye .01% different than the existant. How interesting...

cheers,
-max

[STI]

so you're advocating consumerism in advanced capitalism? Have you thought of non-post-industrial societies?


You've got to be kidding me.

1)I nowhere "advocated" it, I just said that it happens. Not that I'm against it, but you're just drawing conclusions
2)All societies must go through industrialization. Of course, it would happen much more quickly and humanely if it were done without foreign exploitation, and even moreso then if it were done under socialism. But them's, as the saying goes, the breaks.
3)Whether or not I buy a lawnmower has no real effect on third-world residents.
4)All this "advocating consumerism" business is neither here nor there with regards to the discussion concerning reduction of labour in a communist society.


You will eventutally have to deal with the growing ecological crisis.

Since I'm in a listing mood this evening (and a drinkin' mood, but that's beside the point), I'll make another list.

1)Great. So we develop green technology. Wind power and hydrogen cells are developing already. Humans have a way of pulling through in the face of crisis. Technology helps with that. Remember Malthus?
2)Eventually, we'll be able to leave Earth, so we won't really have to deal with the environment anymore.


Workerism won't save you. 6.5 billion can't all eat tofu or beef.

It could happen now, the only reason it isn't is because of distribution "issues", not because there isn't enough food.

And, like I said before, Malthus was squaking "doom and gloom" ages ago, but we developed and we're doing alright now (green revolution, GMOs).



On it's 'own' today when there is a state and a coercive social realtion called what?

Homophobia has decreased when there is a state and a coercive social relation called what?

Just because it happens in capitalism doesn&#39;t mean it&#39;s a bad thing <_<

When I said &#39;on its own&#39;, I was referring to the fact that there&#39;s no institutionalized programme to decrease the need for human labour, people just take it upon themselves to do it (something which you said they wouldn&#39;t).



You advocate a world that is mabye .01% different than the existant

Except, y&#39;know, for that whole fundamental change in class relations thing...

But ya, when compared with what you want, some kind of primitivist fairy-land, it probably doesn&#39;t seem all that different. After all, we still won&#39;t have to shit outside in the winter :o


...And so what if it&#39;s ".01%" different than what we have now? Does that somehow make it less valid?

Not only was your post full of logical fallacies, but the content was garbage too.

[saint max]

3)Whether or not I buy a lawnmower has no real effect on third-world residents.

But the social relations you have that allows you to buy a lawnmower does. Why am I pointing this out--are&#39;nt yall the materialists&#33;?


4)All this "advocating consumerism" business is neither here nor there with regards to the discussion concerning reduction of labour in a communist society.

Yes it is, techno-capital extracts resources from where so who can have more? Modernization needs a hierarchy. How is this not obvious?


2)Eventually, we&#39;ll be able to leave Earth, so we won&#39;t really have to deal with the environment anymore.

What the hell is up with you technophile weirdos? Is&#39;nt dungeons and dragons or startrek enough for you? In some other post people are argueing for a transhuman communism...You won&#39;t leave the earth. You will die, like everyone else. Don&#39;t give me some anti-doomsday cilche&#39;s and then expect to get away with "we&#39;ll all live in space&#33;" nonsense. Ecological crisis is quite real. Ask your scientists.


And, like I said before, Malthus was squaking "doom and gloom" ages ago, but we developed and we&#39;re doing alright now (green revolution, GMOs).

You&#39;re for Genetically Modified Oragnisms and the Green Revoloution--The event responsible for destroying entire villages in India?


Homophobia has decreased when there is a state and a coercive social relation called what?

Are you straight?&#33; Homophobia has decreased becuase Silvia Riveara, and other homos rioted. Do you know what stonewall was? It has decreased for modernity becuase like most oppressed groups, people willed it into happening. They created, not merely awaited, the conditions for insurrection. Gay marrige, however is still the opiate of queers...

But what has this to do with the obivous self-enslavement to techno-capital?


When I said &#39;on its own&#39;, I was referring to the fact that there&#39;s no institutionalized programme to decrease the need for human labour, people just take it upon themselves to do it (something which you said they wouldn&#39;t).

You mean desires constructed through media(tion) and the forms it takes through technological advances are&#39;nt an "institutional progamme?" What do you think the enlightenment and progress is about?


Except, y&#39;know, for that whole fundamental change in class relations thing...

If a classless society exists, but there is still work, and the rest of our social relations looks the same, what&#39;s the fucking point? Woo, equality among the slaves...sweet.

cheers,
-max

[The Feral Underclass]

Originally posted by saint [email protected] 1 2005, 12:00 PM
If a classless society exists, but there is still work, and the rest of our social relations looks the same, what&#39;s the fucking point? Woo, equality among the slaves...sweet.
You will always have to work, whether it is on your own for yourself or whether it is for a community. If you want to survive then you&#39;ve going to have to work. It doesn&#39;t matter what "-ism" we have, you are still going to have to put in some graft in order to harvest your vegitables.

[Connolly]

But the social relations you have that allows you to buy a lawnmower does.

I would love to know what the hell buying a lawnmower has got to do with materialist progression. Are we letting our personal feelings about the third world people get involved with our materialist outlook? Some people are just not fortunite to be born into certain material conditions. So what? Nothing we can do on a mass scale. Not yet anyway.


so you&#39;re advocating consumerism in advanced capitalism?

Its not a question of whether a person advocates consumerism or not, but rather is consumerism an inevitable/necessary materialist outcome. I dont advocate/support capitalism - but it is necessary.


What the hell is up with you technophile weirdos?

These are normally the words of a person who does not understand materialism and the basis of human advancement. I wont pass judgement yet. Although I agree, it is very possible to get carried away when talking technological advancement - I try to limit myself within some reachable brackets - but then again, who am I to say what is reachable?


You won&#39;t leave the earth.

We already have. Only within 60-70 years of discovering manned powered flight have we reached space.


Ecological crisis is quite real.

Agreed. And from a materialist point of view it is very difficult if not impossible to estimate our chances of survival, with many possible outcomes. The two most prominant 1) Total destruction of Human Race and 2) Humanity overcomes using adaptability.
Many possible factors must be taken into account - fossil fuel quantity Vs planet/atmospheric area, Rate of technological advancement Vs ecological destruction, Human conditional survival limit(temperature, food types) Vs climatic change, Societal phase (technological limiting) etc. etc................But to say, ""You won&#39;t leave the earth. You will die, like everyone else. Don&#39;t give me some anti-doomsday cilche&#39;s and then expect to get away with"" is highly prophetic and inaccurate to say the least..............................


You&#39;re for Genetically Modified Oragnisms and the Green Revoloution--The event responsible for destroying entire villages in India?

Are you letting your personal feelings get in the way again? So what if it destroyed an entire village in India? If it didnt happen there it would have happened somewhere else. If the atomic bomb wasnt dropped on on hiroshima it would have happened somewhere else. Human advancement&#33;&#33;&#33;&#33;&#33;&#33;&#33;&#33;&#33; Shit happens. And since its an advancement, its necessary. Dont get me wrong, I dont agree with these killings, but they are inevitable. Its simply materialist progression.


If a classless society exists, but there is still work, and the rest of our social relations looks the same, what&#39;s the fucking point? Woo, equality among the slaves...sweet.

Sorry, maybe I missed something, but explain how there is still work under a classless communist society?..............Social relations, what sort?

Try exclude personal feelings and think on a more rational scale.

By the way, what happened to the question "materialist basis for anarchism"?

TRB

[Connolly]

You will always have to work, whether it is on your own for yourself or whether it is for a community. If you want to survive then you&#39;ve going to have to work. It doesn&#39;t matter what "-ism" we have, you are still going to have to put in some graft in order to harvest your vegitables.

Sorry for repeating this question, but why will we have to work? Why was the self cleaning oven invented? to reduce work. Same with the dish washer, car, automatic gears, automated production, CNC milling machines, Vacuum cleaner, email, clothes dryer, all off hand. Surely humanity must reach a point where work is not necessary. After all, the tasks humans do everyday are really not that complex. Most could be replicated by even todays technology. Why the need for Work? <_<

[bombeverything]

So the Marxist knows to destroy the old state and replace a proleteriat state. The aim of the proleteriat state is to continue class war while finding the best way for the proleteriat to control the state. The Leninist addition is to use a vagaurd, though there is other ways, Luxemberg has her own ideas for how the proleteriat can control the state.

As already mentioned the structure of the state apparatus itself with it&#39;s centralised authority makes it such that it can only really benefit the ruling class, and is thus the state is a threat to the class war. A state would mark the end [rather than the continuation of class war] to the detriment of the working class.


As a Marxist, since i believe that the state is something created by class war, even if Anarchist revolution were succesfull there would still be class conflict, and a state would emerge. Though with the Anarchist not have knowledge of this, it would be a unprepared state and one that would be arkward with Anarchist ideology of no state.

The state exists in order to protect the ruling minority. Further progression will not be possible until the state is abolished.


Though i don&#39;t think you&#39;ll find much discussion about the material basis for justifying the abolition of the state as such, largely because anarchism is an idealist theory.

:rolleyes:

As was already mentioned, we do not believe that we need the state. It isn&#39;t that we simply don&#39;t want it -- we feel that it is unnecessary and a danger to the revolution. We differ in our method.


my problem with marxism is that all oppression is seemingly centred around economics, around class division due to disparities in material wealth. anarchism looks beyond that, and recognises that there are so many other form of oppression as well; racism, sexism, sexualitism [word?], etc. and sees the state as the tool which implements and furthers this oppression.

Agreed. Anarchopunkchris: I believe she meant that Marxists tend to underestimate the significance and influence of the state as an institution.


Sorry for repeating this question, but why will we have to work? Why was the self cleaning oven invented? to reduce work. Same with the dish washer, car, automatic gears, automated production, CNC milling machines, Vacuum cleaner, email, clothes dryer, all off hand. Surely humanity must reach a point where work is not necessary. After all, the tasks humans do everyday are really not that complex. Most could be replicated by even todays technology. Why the need for Work?

There will always be a need for people to contribute to maintaining the society that they are living within.

[Connolly]

As already mentioned the structure of the state apparatus itself with it&#39;s centralised authority

But you are comparing the form of the capitalist state to the form of the socialist one, how do you know a socialist state will be centralised?. If there is a new form of society then one can only assume that the state will take another form aswell, if it is needed.



makes it such that it can only really benefit the ruling class

If it were a socialist state, wouldnt the ruling class be the proletariat?


A state would mark the end [rather than the continuation of class war] to the detriment of the working class.

Isnt that the purpose of a socialist state?.......to mark the end of class war by eliminating the opposing class. Assuming the state does not take the form of a lenninist "vanguard" personality cult dictatorship, for which it wouldnt be materialist, and so wouldnt be a transitional state in the first place.


The state exists in order to protect the ruling minority

Unless the state takes a different form, for which its purpose is to protect the ruling majority.


Further progression will not be possible until the state is abolished.

Agreed, hence communism.


As was already mentioned, we do not believe that we need the state. It isn&#39;t that we simply don&#39;t want it -- we feel that it is unnecessary and a danger to the revolution.

Sure, who wants the state to take on the capitalist form - Marxist/Anarchist - No. But for it to take on another materialist form would be necessary for a number of reasons. 1) For the maturing of the means of production. 2) Organizational purposes. 3) The elimination of the capitalist class. 4) The materialist destruction of its self.


We differ in our method.

Is there a choice about which direction we take? - No. If both Marxism and Anarchism are using materialism as the basis for prediction, then one must seriously be wrong in their unfolding of events, or both are incorrect.


Marxists tend to underestimate the significance and influence of the state as an institution.

Again you compare a capitalist state to a socialist one. How do you know the influence of something that has never existed?


There will always be a need for people to contribute to maintaining the society that they are living within

Maybe its just me, but that sounds very vague. What do you mean by "maintaing society"?

TRB

[STI]

But the social relations you have that allows you to buy a lawnmower does. Why am I pointing this out--are&#39;nt yall the materialists&#33;?


You&#39;re ignoring the fact that it would happen whether or not I bought that lawnmower, so waxing poetic about it is little more than a waste of time.


Yes it is, techno-capital extracts resources from where so who can have more? Modernization needs a hierarchy. How is this not obvious?


When I buy a blender (a small step in modernization), I do it so that I can save time mashing shit together or have blended stuff that I couldn&#39;t normally have. I don&#39;t do it because anybody tells me to, but because I see it as being in my own interest to do (ie: "it happens on its own").


What the hell is up with you technophile weirdos? Is&#39;nt dungeons and dragons or startrek enough for you? In some other post people are argueing for a transhuman communism...You won&#39;t leave the earth. You will die, like everyone else. Don&#39;t give me some anti-doomsday cilche&#39;s and then expect to get away with "we&#39;ll all live in space&#33;" nonsense. Ecological crisis is quite real. Ask your scientists.

Back in, say, the 1850s, any scientist would have told you that the Earth would reach its maximum carrying capacity by about 1950, and we&#39;d be fucked. Based on the technology they had in the day, they were pretty much right. But, being humans, we found a way out.

We&#39;ve avoided "doomsday" before and there are ways of avoiding it other than the knee-jerk reaction of a return to savagery.



You&#39;re for Genetically Modified Oragnisms and the Green Revoloution--The event responsible for destroying entire villages in India?

Yes, and I&#39;ll tell you why: it&#39;s better that a few villages get wiped out than an entire species (remember Mathus&#39; "War, Disease, Famine, and Pestilence"?).

Besides, it&#39;s entirely possible, especially given India&#39;s high Natural Increase Rate, that most of those people would have died of starvation or hunger anyway. I&#39;m more than certain that more people have lived as a result of GMOs than have died.


Are you straight?&#33; Homophobia has decreased becuase Silvia Riveara, and other homos rioted. Do you know what stonewall was? It has decreased for modernity becuase like most oppressed groups, people willed it into happening. They created, not merely awaited, the conditions for insurrectio

...And it&#39;s just a coincidence that things like that didn&#39;t start happening until the advanced capitalist stage of development? Come on now. Whether you like it or not, a lot of irrationality does start to fade away during capitalism. The idea of "divine right", for one. Religion. Racism. Sexism. Homophobia. All of the serious gains regarding these irrationalities were made either during or after the bourgeois revolutions.



But what has this to do with the obivous self-enslavement to techno-capital?

Here&#39;s a point-form recap of the things that led to where we are right now.

-I said a state isn&#39;t necessary for technological advancement.
-You said "why would people work extra-hard just to get more leisure time later?"
-I said, "It happens now on its own. Why wouldn&#39;t it continue?". I brought up the example of a lawnmower.
-You said, "And all this happened under a social relation called what? Capitalism". (which had nothing to do with the point of my comment).
-I said "Ya, so did a decrease in homophobia. Some good things happen under capitalism".


You mean desires constructed through media(tion) and the forms it takes through technological advances are&#39;nt an "institutional progamme?

I would have the desire to spend less time and effort on household tasks with or without the media. I own a hose so that I don&#39;t have to keep going back to the house for buckets of water, not because the Canadian Tire Guy told me to buy one (I fucking hate that guy).




If a classless society exists, but there is still work, and the rest of our social relations looks the same, what&#39;s the fucking point? Woo, equality among the slaves...sweet.

1)We&#39;d have to work less, and the conditions of that labour would be much different (what with it being voluntary and all...)
2)Who would we be slaves to? You seem to equate all expendature of nerve, mind, or muscle other than chasing rabits in the forest with "slavery". Not so.

[STI]

Sorry for repeating this question, but why will we have to work? Why was the self cleaning oven invented? to reduce work. Same with the dish washer, car, automatic gears, automated production, CNC milling machines, Vacuum cleaner, email, clothes dryer, all off hand. Surely humanity must reach a point where work is not necessary. After all, the tasks humans do everyday are really not that complex. Most could be replicated by even todays technology. Why the need for Work? dry.gif

The need for work is an unfortunate thing, yes. We&#39;re definately doing our part to reduce it, but we won&#39;t all-of-a-sudden be able to just kick back for the *entire* day. It&#39;ll take a while before we get there.

You said "surely, humanity must reach a point where work is not necessary". We will. We&#39;re just not there yet. Until that happens, we&#39;ll have to work.

[Connolly]

The need for work is an unfortunate thing, yes. We&#39;re definately doing our part to reduce it, but we won&#39;t all-of-a-sudden be able to just kick back for the *entire* day. It&#39;ll take a while before we get there.

Agreed&#33; .............but until we "get there", communism is logically not achievable.

TRB

[STI]

Why not? Communism is "the abolishment of private property and wage-slavery", not "the abolishment of the need for the expenditure of human labour". Until we get robots to wipe our asses and machines to get us out of bed, we&#39;ll still need to work. By your definition, communism wouldn&#39;t be possible with the technology available in "The Jetsons".

[bombeverything]

Unless the state takes a different form, for which its purpose is to protect the ruling majority.

Why do we need a state? Do you believe that the working class are incapable of organising their own lives? Of "protecting" themselves?


But for it to take on another materialist form would be necessary for a number of reasons. 1) For the maturing of the means of production. 2) Organizational purposes. 3) The elimination of the capitalist class. 4) The materialist destruction of its self.

We do not disagree with most of this, however we do not believe that this is impossible without a state.


But you are comparing the form of the capitalist state to the form of the socialist one, how do you know a socialist state will be centralised?. If there is a new form of society then one can only assume that the state will take another form aswell, if it is needed.

Because it is a state. It cannot, by it&#39;s very nature take "another form". The state is an instrument for establishing monopolies in favour of ruling minorities. Those in power have control over things, ie. control that the rest of society is ultimately denied.


If it were a socialist state, wouldnt the ruling class be the proletariat?

No. Unless you define the "proletariat" as merely a small number of "workers".


Isnt that the purpose of a socialist state?.......to mark the end of class war by eliminating the opposing class.

Not if another one is created.

[The Feral Underclass]

Originally posted by The [email protected] 1 2005, 10:49 PM

You will always have to work, whether it is on your own for yourself or whether it is for a community. If you want to survive then you&#39;ve going to have to work. It doesn&#39;t matter what "-ism" we have, you are still going to have to put in some graft in order to harvest your vegitables.

Sorry for repeating this question, but why will we have to work? Why was the self cleaning oven invented? to reduce work. Same with the dish washer, car, automatic gears, automated production, CNC milling machines, Vacuum cleaner, email, clothes dryer, all off hand. Surely humanity must reach a point where work is not necessary. After all, the tasks humans do everyday are really not that complex. Most could be replicated by even todays technology. Why the need for Work? <_<
All the things you have mentioned need to be operated by a human being.

If you&#39;re saying that we are going to invent a way in which our vacuum cleaners can vacuum the floor by themselves then maybe that is possible, but the question is, who is going to produce and manufacture those things? Does that not take work? Who will do that work? Quite frankly, I am happy with the level of technology that we have now; I don&#39;t need a vacuum cleaner that can clean my floor without me having to do it. Furthermore, I am not prepared to contribute my time in advancing such technologies.

Maybe you and a group of people can get together and invent this vacuum cleaner that cleans by itself and when you have, you can mine all the parts you need and produce it yourselves, because unless you force people to produce these things, how else will you do it? And even then, people might not even care enough to want one.

[The Feral Underclass]

Originally posted by [email protected] 2 2005, 09:48 PM
Until we get robots to wipe our asses and machines to get us out of bed, we&#39;ll still need to work. By your definition, communism wouldn&#39;t be possible with the technology available in "The Jetsons".
And why would you want that? Why would you want a piece of technology to wipe your arse or get you out of bed?

Surely there&#39;s a line somewhere? There&#39;s a difference between reducing mundane tasks and making our lives comfortable. and allowing technology to take over every function of our existence.

[Axel1917]

This is pretty short, but I believe that Lenin does well in pointing out errors in Anarchism in his Anarchism and Socialism (http://www.marxists.org/archive/lenin/works/1901/dec/31.htm).

[Connolly]

Why not? Communism is "the abolishment of private property and wage-slavery", not "the abolishment of the need for the expenditure of human labour"

Communism is a higher stage of productive capability, directly reliant on technological advancement. Every other factor, be it the state, private property or the elimination of labour stem from this fact and are organized around the method of production. For example, early man used spears to hunt for food. Because of this, there is no need for property. When the "invention" of farming/livestock becomes available, property becomes necessary. Property only exists as long as it is necessary for it to exist. And since the existence of property is due to the mode of production, a change in the mode of production can only bring about a property less society. Since this mode of production is far more advanced than present, labour also becomes unnecessary. If property wsant necessary under the capitalist/present mode of production, it wouldnt exist. The simple fact it is here, proves materially it is necessary.

What great leap to the means of production has come about to transform the capitalist mode of production (industrialization)?...........None yet.
The next logical materialist step for production is total automation. Would you care to argue against this FACT............................


Until we get robots to wipe our asses and machines to get us out of bed, we&#39;ll still need to work.

Do you call wiping your ass work? I would call this a person luxury in that we could do without it :lol: . Work is something that is necessary, your examples are pretty stupid. And to give an example of how this technology is already available, although a "rushed" link -

http://www.racquelroberts.com/photoTokyo__...4877664321.html (http://www.racquelroberts.com/photoTokyo__Japan4877664321.html)

I cant afford one now, but in time.................


By your definition, communism wouldn&#39;t be possible with the technology available in "The Jetsons".

What is wrong with the closed loop system of production. Much of its basis already exists, computers, recycling technology, renewable energy, surplus food production capability. It is very real. And it is the future form of production.




Why do we need a state? Do you believe that the working class are incapable of organising their own lives? Of "protecting" themselves?

The state has many dimensions. Sure, an individual household can organize themselves. But they do not see their small but significant contribution towards the rest of society. Your theory seems to rely too much on individual awareness and action.


We do not disagree with most of this, however we do not believe that this is impossible without a state.

Well, I think given control of the means of production, currently I could near automate production and society. But its not what I think and what our potential is, but whether its materially viable.


Because it is a state. It cannot, by it&#39;s very nature take "another form". The state is an instrument for establishing monopolies in favour of ruling minorities. Those in power have control over things, ie. control that the rest of society is ultimately denied.

But a different form of state yet to be seen. Man can not naturally fly, but he can FLY. Why do you maintain this minority ruling position. Under certain material conditions this is the case. But with a shift in the conditions the form of the state also changes. Nothing can remain the same for ever. First lesson in materialism&#33;&#33;&#33;&#33;&#33;


Not if another one is created.

It is only created if it is necessary for it to be created. If the method of production denies the creation of another class, then the state can remain to combat the old class system. If you compare this to Lenninism etc. well, what can i say, they just werent socialist revolutions.



All the things you have mentioned need to be operated by a human being.

I was just outlining humans "quest" to reduce work. Im sorry but your entering into dangerous water. 1) the car does not need human control - Technology available and used - held back for various reasons. 2) automatic gears - well this speaks for itself and can be combined with no.1 3) automated production - again, speaks for itself. although not fully developed, can be used without human interference/operation. 4) CNC milling machines, again, the purpose of the CNC (Computer Numerical Control) milling machine is to remove the operator from the equasion...........................I could go on and on, outlining technology that already exists. The question is what will exist, using todays technology as its basis. Automation (closed loop system) is fully possible. Again, Argue against this........


If you&#39;re saying that we are going to invent a way in which our vacuum cleaners can vacuum the floor by themselves then maybe that is possible

http://www.robotbooks.com/robotic_lawn_mow...obot_vacuum.htm (http://www.robotbooks.com/robotic_lawn_mower_robot_vacuum.htm)

Exists, and on the market already.


who is going to produce and manufacture those things? Does that not take work? Who will do that work?

Most household items, even under todays production capabilities are produced with little human interference. The human element can be replaced very simply as the tasks are not that difficult. The only reason the human element remains in most production plants is the cost of the machinary to replace the worker. Except of course the designer, but in time.......................


Quite frankly, I am happy with the level of technology that we have now;

Well sorry for ya, inevitably technology does not remain the same, but always advances. If you are happy with the level of technology we have today, commiunism is not possible. New form of production needed.


I don&#39;t need a vacuum cleaner that can clean my floor without me having to do it.

Tell that to the generation of people a few decades away. I dont need a dish washer, clothes dryer, washing machine - but it is nice to have them. Its not what you want, but inevitably its what you will have. Its called human advancement ;) .


Furthermore, I am not prepared to contribute my time in advancing such technologies.

Who asked you to? Some people enjoy science, engineering and inventing in general. Society naturally produces these advances. This is what is called materialism. Not to mention capitalist corporations frequently make discoveries to make themselves more competitive, a reason why they are still progressive forces in society. Eventually though................


Maybe you and a group of people can get together and invent this vacuum cleaner that cleans by itself and

I cant invent something thats already invented.


you can mine all the parts you need and produce it yourselves

Oh yes, Im going to go down to the quarry with my pick axe, and see if I can dig out a central processing unit from the limestone. Please, give me a break.


because unless you force people to produce these things, how else will you do it?

You seem to be stuck in the past. Firstly, much of the raw materials for products are removed by machines, which can, if applied, RUN THEMSELVES....WOW. Thats using todays technology remember. As I have said above, the manufacture of products are and can be automated too. Also, the distribution of those products can also be automated and are in many ways.



and allowing technology to take over every function of our existence.

You really sound like you are on the workers side. <_< So the function of our existance is to work? is that the case?


Im sorry, but I can only conclude that 1) You lack a materialist understanding of the means of production - the basis for societal class, state, property and our existance and 2) you know very little about present technological advancement and direction. You clearly also lack knowledge about the methods of production and distribution. These are vital to the understanding of our species direction and processes.

I think you are commenting about something you know little about....
however, I will admit I am weak in areas of marxist theory....
At least Im honest.

Maybe this has been the failure of the Marxist attempts at socialism and the understanding of material conditions - too many politicians and not enough engineers. LOL

TRB

[Connolly]

This is pretty short, but I believe that Lenin does well in pointing out errors in Anarchism in his Anarchism and Socialism.

In order to try explain how anarchism is not possible, one must also understand materialist progression. Something which lenin lacked in a big way. Henec the USSR. Absolute materialist failure&#33;&#33;&#33;&#33;&#33;&#33;

And I must say, congrats to the anarchists, it is difficult to dissprove (If possible). ;)

[The Feral Underclass]

Originally posted by The [email protected] 3 2005, 06:08 PM

If you&#39;re saying that we are going to invent a way in which our vacuum cleaners can vacuum the floor by themselves then maybe that is possible

http://www.robotbooks.com/robotic_lawn_mow...obot_vacuum.htm (http://www.robotbooks.com/robotic_lawn_mower_robot_vacuum.htm)

Exists, and on the market already.
Interesting, I&#39;m sure.



who is going to produce and manufacture those things? Does that not take work? Who will do that work?

Most household items, even under todays production capabilities are produced with little human interference. The human element can be replaced very simply as the tasks are not that difficult. The only reason the human element remains in most production plants is the cost of the machinary to replace the worker. Except of course the designer, but in time.......................

That&#39;s all well and good then, but so what?



I don&#39;t need a vacuum cleaner that can clean my floor without me having to do it.

Tell that to the generation of people a few decades away. I dont need a dish washer, clothes dryer, washing machine - but it is nice to have them. Its not what you want, but inevitably its what you will have. Its called human advancement ;) .

I&#39;m sure it is. The problem is, that these "advancements" are what have spawned and perpetuated consumerism to the point of implosion.

Yes, I admit, the creation of a vacuum cleaner that cleans without us having to operate it may very well be the next step in human advancment, but quite frankly, there are some more important human advancments that need to be corrected before we, as communists (I&#39;m assuming you&#39;re not one) can discuss such, to be honest, inane things.

If the next generation of people&#39;s so desire to have a life without having to vacuum, we are indeed, and the world to go with it, fucked.



Furthermore, I am not prepared to contribute my time in advancing such technologies.

Who asked you to? Some people enjoy science, engineering and inventing in general. Society naturally produces these advances. This is what is called materialism. Not to mention capitalist corporations frequently make discoveries to make themselves more competitive, a reason why they are still progressive forces in society. Eventually though................

Materialism in the marxist sense is not based on vacuum cleaners or washing machines, it&#39;s based on class antagonisms.



Maybe you and a group of people can get together and invent this vacuum cleaner that cleans by itself and

I cant invent something thats already invented.

Touche :rolleyes:



you can mine all the parts you need and produce it yourselves

Oh yes, Im going to go down to the quarry with my pick axe, and see if I can dig out a central processing unit from the limestone. Please, give me a break.

You&#39;re sarcasm is really boring. You should stop that.

I&#39;m assuming that to produce certain things, such as plastics, chips or whatever it is you need to create your inventions, there is going to need some kind of production. You need oil to create plastic no?

Of course, if you can find some machine post revolution and maitain it to produce these things, I&#39;m sure you will be able to invent the machine in which you need to not produce these things using humans in order to produce what ever it is you want to invent.



because unless you force people to produce these things, how else will you do it?

You seem to be stuck in the past. Firstly, much of the raw materials for products are removed by machines, which can, if applied, RUN THEMSELVES....WOW.

Well, that&#39;s clarified isn&#39;t it.




and allowing technology to take over every function of our existence.

You really sound like you are on the workers side. <_< So the function of our existance is to work? is that the case?

I&#39;m sure if we can have a machine that produces our food for us, fine. But there are certain things in which removing the human element would be grotesque to say the least. There are things that humans do as work which bring together communities, friends and families. Maybe that&#39;s just old faschined of me, but I quite enjoy cooking with my friends,


Im sorry, but I can only conclude that 1) You lack a materialist understanding of the means of production the basis for societal class, state, property and our existance

I understand it fine.


[2) you know very little about present technological advancement and direction. You clearly also lack knowledge about the methods of production and distribution. These are vital to the understanding of our species direction and processes.

True, but so what?


I think you are commenting about something you know little about....
however, I will admit I am weak in areas of marxist theory....
At least Im honest.

I never claimed to understand anythying, I&#39;m simply replying to what you wrote.


Maybe this has been the failure of the Marxist attempts at socialism and the understanding of material conditions - too many politicians and not enough engineers. LOL

No, that hasn&#39;t been the failure of Marxism. But I&#39;m sure if you studied it a little more, you&#39;d get it.

[novemba]

since when did marxism &#39;fail&#39; ? i just think it needs a little revisions...same goes for any theory.

[STI]

I was saying that TRB wouldn&#39;t think communism were possible until we had those things, not that they&#39;re on my wish list for Santa Claus.

[Connolly]

That&#39;s all well and good then, but so what?

If you cant put two and two together then why the fuck are you posting.


You will always have to work, whether it is on your own for yourself or whether it is for a community. If you want to survive then you&#39;ve going to have to work.

This is so what. The continuous pattern to of human advancement to date has been for the reduction of work, (combine harvester, unmanned mining equipment etc etc etc etc.........) and also for the elimination of the need for labour, (automated production) as soon as technology is discovered and applied.

Let me ask you some questions.

1)So you believe we will always have to work?.........Please explain how this can be..........Now I dont mean hobbies - cooking for ones self and family, helping the community through your own will, model aircraft flying etc.

2) Explain how communism is possible without a change in the means of production, the basis of man kinds society and existence?

3)If you agree that a change in the means of production is needed, what form will this production take?

4) What is the material basis for this form of production you suggest?


but quite frankly, there are some more important human advancments that need to be corrected

What sort of problems?..................Poverty in the third world, exploitation of the workers?...........................Which the mode of production is responsible for (capitalist mode) as it is the basis of society. Do you argue that this is not the case?


before we, as communists (I&#39;m assuming you&#39;re not one) can discuss such, to be honest, inane things.

Why do you assume I am not communist? because I see the current capitalist system as progressive?............ Because I look at the most fundamental aspect of society, the means of production, and take a materialist standpoint on it?
What is so inane about the means of production?.......Or are you talking about wiping your arse and getting up out of bed machine which I did not bring up.


Materialism in the marxist sense is not based on vacuum cleaners or washing machines, it&#39;s based on class antagonisms

You really dont understand materialism do you?..................The means of production defines whether there are class antagonisms or not. Marxism is fundamentally based on the means of production, its littered throughout the works. It is just that those who dont understandit pass by it as if it is insignificant - they want to get to the more "exciting" bits such as revolution, class wars etc. But you can not understand how materialism or society works unless you understand the means of production - the basis of society.


You&#39;re sarcasm is really boring. You should stop that.

Sorry I didnt portray it with some childish excitement and topic.


You need oil to create plastic no?

Yes, or if enough plastic is produced from the oil, a surpluss of "waste" plastic will be available for production if recycled from packaging etc. Just as it is today. Although recycling has not fully developed yet, it will as capitalism seeks cheap, if not free raw materials.


Of course, if you can find some machine post revolution and maitain it to produce these things,

Post revolution? Why should the "communst" method of production develop this "machine"?.... If you look at this from a materialist point of view, assuming you understand it, it is not necessary for a comunist society to develop the "machine" as the capitalist mode naturally developes such technology/machines/methods as it attempts to reduce, in the case of raw materials, material costs. In the case of Energy to run the machine, renewables as a source of cheap/free energy. This is one of the main reasons why the material conditions are not developed for natural societal transition yet. Clear capitalist attempts are all around us in relation to their dvelopment of recyclables and renewables.


But there are certain things in which removing the human element would be grotesque to say the least. There are things that humans do as work which bring together communities, friends and families.

I agree to a point. But you seem to be talking about hobbies, and other recreational pursuits. They would still exist. However, WORK would no longer exist, and because it wont, dosnt mean the community would fall apart. Recreational pursuits and hobbies could take its place. Not that I or you know how future communities are organized and spend their days. I am just assuming this would take its place, its difficult to tell.


I understand it fine.

Sorry for being so harsh. Although i do think you should develop a better understanding of the means of production.


True, but so what?

Well, to understand whether labour will exist or not, the technology of the means of production should be understood, along with its methods of distribution and production. As this is the basis for which society (civilised) exists, it defines evrything from the nature of the state to the class system. As I said, It is Vital to materialist understanding and the unfolding of events. You can not fully undersatnd materialism if you exclude the major part, the MoP.


I never claimed to understand anythying, I&#39;m simply replying to what you wrote.

Thats fine to question Marxist/my theory. It helps me to confirm my beliefs and you to confirm yours.


No, that hasn&#39;t been the failure of Marxism. But I&#39;m sure if you studied it a little more, you&#39;d get it.

Well infact it is. Che guevara and the Cuban revolution for example - with Che as the Industrial minister :rolleyes: . Che belived he could create an independant Cuba with its own industrial base. Free from the chains of the USSR and external help. Only when he got the reality of what manufacture and Industry was all about, did he change his plan. By this time it is too late. The reality in Cubas case was that it didnt have sufficiant coal supplies or raw materials, making it a virtual slave to those nations who control such resources (USSR)..........Just one example where an unqualified revolutionary has a vision yet dosnt understand the reality of what he "thinks" could happen............

Marx himself was unqualified in this area, believing the material conditions were ripe for socialist revolution and societal change. We now know that the "steam loom" of Marxs time is very primitive compared to what we have today. Showing material progression of the means of production is still advancing. Marx should have consulted with someone who maybe knew about production and its developments.

In the case of the USSR. The reason why this wasnt a socialist revolution to change the society towards communism, we now know the material conditions were not developed, ie, the means of production which defines all other material conditions. Lenin, a Lawyer, sure knows his philosophy, law and politics - but a technical expert - no. Maybe he had some consultants. But they would have been drafted in after the revolution - again, by which time it is too late. As I said above with Marxs time - the steam engine isnt exactly advanced.

All I am saying is that the methods of production should be more included in Marxist, or even Anarchist theory - as it is vital to the understanding of the correct materialist conditions. People on this board at least, and all through revolutionary history, have been too hasty in their decleration that NOW IS THE TIME FOR REVOLUTION. THE MATERIAL CONDITIONS ARE RIPE. - most who say this dont really have a clue about what they are talking about&#33;&#33;&#33;&#33; - Thats fact - Che included.


since when did marxism &#39;fail&#39; ?

I didnt say Marxism has failed. How could it if it hasnt been tried under the correct material conditions. What I am saying is that Marxist attempts at socialist revolution and natural societal change has failed........................Would you also like to argue against this?................Start a new topic and I will be happy to crush your petty attempts for justifying the Soviet Union................I am a Marxist by the way, I dont need to support lunacy.


I was saying that TRB wouldn&#39;t think communism were possible until we had those things, not that they&#39;re on my wish list for Santa Claus.

I dont just think communism is not possible without these advances, I Know it is not Rationally possible. But it is possible once the material conditions have developed, ie. the means of production.

TRB

[Axel1917]

Originally posted by The [email protected] 3 2005, 05:33 PM

This is pretty short, but I believe that Lenin does well in pointing out errors in Anarchism in his Anarchism and Socialism.

In order to try explain how anarchism is not possible, one must also understand materialist progression. Something which lenin lacked in a big way. Henec the USSR. Absolute materialist failure&#33;&#33;&#33;&#33;&#33;&#33;

And I must say, congrats to the anarchists, it is difficult to dissprove (If possible). ;)
Have you even read any of Lenin&#39;s works? It seems that you haven&#39;t.

[Connolly]

Have you even read any of Lenin&#39;s works? It seems that you haven&#39;t.

Yes, I have read some of Lenins work. Why do you assume I havnt? Because I see that his material analysis of the time was a near total failure. Or do you agree with his analysis?...............the one which thought a society could skip a material phase and go directly to socialism - even with no material conditions present for such a leap?.....................He should have done his sums before taking up the position of dictator to(of) the proletariat.

Also, Imperialism, the decay and final stage of capitalism - what a failure to understand the means of production and the subsequent effects it has on society and capitalist movements. Some on this board have even suggested that the war on Iraq is evidence of this imperialism. Ignorance is a terrible thing. :lol: :lol:

TRB

[enigma2517]

I wouldn&#39;t stop working even if I could.

Being productive keeps your mind sharp and it makes me feel a sense of accomplishment.

Of course we wouldn&#39;t "have" to work...its a given that all communist labor is voluntary. The elmination of scarcity is the fundation for it all.

This doesn&#39;t mean I wouldn&#39;t work to create an even larger surplus (above the "sustainable minimum" requirements for living) and I also would take some time into developing and testing new technologies.

Fine, eliminate the tedious work, elminate the capitalist mode of production, elminate whatever else you want but work (or rather, productive labor) will always be needed, and hell, even wanted.

[Connolly]

Also, Imperialism, the decay and final stage of capitalism - what a failure to understand the means of production and the subsequent effects it has on society and capitalist movements. Some on this board have even suggested that the war on Iraq is evidence of this imperialism. Ignorance is a terrible thing.

This is what I call a "shit stirring" comment. I am amazed nobody picked up on this and gave a huge backlash - It seems people are truly asleep&#33;&#33;&#33; :P :lol:



I wouldn&#39;t stop working even if I could.

Being productive keeps your mind sharp and it makes me feel a sense of accomplishment.

Of course we wouldn&#39;t "have" to work...its a given that all communist labor is voluntary. The elmination of scarcity is the fundation for it all.

This doesn&#39;t mean I wouldn&#39;t work to create an even larger surplus (above the "sustainable minimum" requirements for living) and I also would take some time into developing and testing new technologies.

Fine, eliminate the tedious work, elminate the capitalist mode of production, elminate whatever else you want but work (or rather, productive labor) will always be needed, and hell, even wanted.

Well said. Many people enjoy their work, if they want to, then they probably will. The materialist progression of advanced capitalism will deny people the opportunity to work at various things. The tool of their labour will be of "little" use to profit making. Under communism, well, ........freedom to choose ones own path......


Im sorry I have to bring many topics "off course" with this MoP thing, but it should be established which form of production will come about, for which most other arguments can rely and be based on.

Its not possible to have a discussion about the materialist basis for anarchism if we dont have a unified, logical materialist outcome for the MoP.

Ill start a new more structured topic in theory to get to the bottom of this major issue, without "polluting" other topics. Hopefully the outcome of this will create a materialist standard MoP concept for both Marxism and Anarchism.


T.R.B.

[Axel1917]

Originally posted by The [email protected] 5 2005, 08:52 PM

Have you even read any of Lenin&#39;s works? It seems that you haven&#39;t.

Yes, I have read some of Lenins work. Why do you assume I havnt? Because I see that his material analysis of the time was a near total failure. Or do you agree with his analysis?...............the one which thought a society could skip a material phase and go directly to socialism - even with no material conditions present for such a leap?.....................He should have done his sums before taking up the position of dictator to(of) the proletariat.

Also, Imperialism, the decay and final stage of capitalism - what a failure to understand the means of production and the subsequent effects it has on society and capitalist movements. Some on this board have even suggested that the war on Iraq is evidence of this imperialism. Ignorance is a terrible thing. :lol: :lol:

TRB
What have you read? You don&#39;t seem to understand that he ended up adopting Trotsky&#39;s Theory of Permanent Revolution (http://www.trotsky.net/trotsky_year/permanent_revolution.html). It is a fundamental flaw to not take the Theory of Permanent Revolution into account.

[Connolly]

What have you read?

I cant possibly remember everything I have read of Lenin, what I can remember reading are:

"The three sources and three components of Marxism" - Lenin

"Karl Marx biography of" - Lenin

also

"Frederick Engels biography of" - Lenin

"Imperialism, the highest stage of capitalism" - Lenin

"The Tasks of Proletarian in the Revolution" - Lenin

Various, but not all parts of "State and revolution" - Lenin

"Socialism and Religion" - Lenin

"The Paris Commune" - Lenin

Much of what I have read on Lenin and by Lenin are not listed here. Not that listing them have any relevance to whether Lenins practical material analysis was correct or not...........................
Just because you know the name of a particular work of Lenins does not mean you understand it nor able to argue in favour of.

Stop pissing around, Lenin could not possibly have forseen the correct material conditions, marx nether. How could they, with no sufficient technological basis for seeing such material conditions? The whole material basis for Marxism has changed now. With the posssibility of eliminating the worker present. This has dramatic effects on the unfolding of anarchism and Marxism...............Not that Marx and lenin are irrelevent, they have set insight into our understanding of various material conditions. But they must be built upon as our understanding developes.

TRB

[bombeverything]

The state has many dimensions. Sure, an individual household can organize themselves. But they do not see their small but significant contribution towards the rest of society. Your theory seems to rely too much on individual awareness and action.

We are talking about collective, not individual action. We are opposed to authority not collective organisation.


Well, I think given control of the means of production, currently I could near automate production and society. But its not what I think and what our potential is, but whether its materially viable.

I know. But I cannot see how it isn’t. Why is the workers taking control of the means of production without external compulsion materially impossible?


But a different form of state yet to be seen. Man can not naturally fly, but he can FLY. Why do you maintain this minority ruling position. Under certain material conditions this is the case. But with a shift in the conditions the form of the state also changes. Nothing can remain the same for ever. First lesson in materialism&#33;&#33;&#33;&#33;&#33;

I never said that things would remain “the same forever”. But authority and the state must be something that existed in the past if we ever want to achieve and work towards communism. The state would be a step backwards. As an institution, the state will always be oppressive as it necessities the centralisation of wealth, and power through the “legitimate” use of force over others. All external authority is based on injustice and compulsion over the individual.


It is only created if it is necessary for it to be created. If the method of production denies the creation of another class, then the state can remain to combat the old class system. If you compare this to Lenninism etc. well, what can i say, they just werent socialist revolutions.

It is never “necessary” to create a state with the aim of achieving communism. The workers as a collective will have the power to eliminate the old class system. Thus the state is unnecessary and counterproductive. This is the lesson that we have learnt from the past. We must build on Marx, not follow his work as if it is some sort of a template.


Well sorry for ya, inevitably technology does not remain the same, but always advances. If you are happy with the level of technology we have today, commiunism is not possible. New form of production needed.

You can only really say that it “advances” when it actually benefits the people as a whole.


Its called human advancement.

Human advancement is the advancement of thought and action against the power of those who oppress us --- the ruling class. Fighting the class war is the first and foremost step in achieving human advancement. Without this, technology is pointless.


The continuous pattern to of human advancement to date has been for the reduction of work, (combine harvester, unmanned mining equipment etc etc etc etc.........)

I haven’t really seen this in practice. Most people are working harder and longer hours. Why do you think this is?

[ÑóẊîöʼn]

Originally posted by [email protected] 7 2005, 06:28 AM

The continuous pattern to of human advancement to date has been for the reduction of work, (combine harvester, unmanned mining equipment etc etc etc etc.........)

I haven’t really seen this in practice. Most people are working harder and longer hours. Why do you think this is?
It&#39;s capitalism, stupid&#33; They want to squeeze more blood out the stone. I&#39;m amazed you fail to realise this.

[bombeverything]

Originally posted by [email protected] 7 2005, 08:37 AM
It&#39;s capitalism, stupid&#33; They want to squeeze more blood out the stone. I&#39;m amazed you fail to realise this.

:P Oh shut up. It&#39;s true. I simply fail to see why technology is such a top priority, that is all.

[The Feral Underclass]

Originally posted by [email protected] 7 2005, 11:52 PM
I simply fail to see how technology is a top priority.
Because it isn&#39;t.