The Means of Production

[Connolly]

I must create this thread as I feel I am changing the course of other topics by including the MoP. Which of course is necessary for these topics but not exactly the question asked.......

So, to structure this "problem" of materialist outcome.

Some questions I would like many to answer with thought towards material direction. If you dont have a materialist basis for your answers then dont bother with a reply.


1) Do you believe a change in the means/methods of production is necessary for socialist/communist revolution and societal change?

2) If not, do you believe the means of production have currently matured to this form?

3) If yes, What form will this production take?

4) What is your materialist basis for this form of production?


Please answer with some thought applied. :D

TRB

[Led Zeppelin]

1) Do you believe a change in the means/methods of production is necessary for socialist/communist revolution and societal change?

Yes, it's called industrialization.


3) If yes, What form will this production take?

Industrialization.


4) What is your materialist basis for this form of production?

What is the material basis for industrialization? The accumulation of Capital.

[Connolly]

Yes, it's called industrialization.

Ok....... Now......... What is the name of the capitalist form of production. After you have answered this, what is the name of the communist form of production. Since logically they cannot be the same.


Industrialization.

Industrialization. Ok. We have established that. Now. What are the methods of production you are talking about, in some detail. ie. the need for the worker? energy source? material source? technology involved? - also, method of distribution. How, in a materialist fashion, do these unfold?


What is the material basis for industrialization? The accumulation of Capital.

Very simple answer, if not too simple to the fact that it dosnt describe the material processes involved. We are not talking playschool now.

So the material conditions are ready, ie, the means of production. Yes/No.

How do you explain the continuous growth in production currently?
How do you explain the technological leaps still being discovered at rapidity do to the capitalist system?
How do you explain the continuation of automation(the elimination of the worker) yet domestic labour markets are yet to be hit by capitalist "regression".
How do you explain the continuation of renewable energy/recycling to the capitalist benifit?
How do you explain yet so much capitalist economic growth without the impoverishment of the domestic labour market?
Should capitalism not be affecting the most advanced countries to the point of impoverishment as it attempts to reduce production costs?






Would anyone else like to answer my original questions. someone who can answer with some materialist, technical and common sense understanding. <_<

TRB

[Djehuti]

Originally posted by The [email protected] 6 2005, 01:40 PM
1) Do you believe a change in the means/methods of production is necessary for socialist/communist revolution and societal change?

2) If not, do you believe the means of production have currently matured to this form?

3) If yes, What form will this production take?

4) What is your materialist basis for this form of production?


Please answer with some thought applied. :D

TRB
1: Yes
2: I do believe that our production apparatus is advanced enough for communism to be possible. I do also however believe that we need to change the way we use technology, the organisation of work, the way machines work, the entire structure at the work places, et cetera. The technology is needed exist, but we can&#39;t use it as we use it today.
3: Production of use values, by our selves for ourselves.

I can&#39;t ofcource anwser you exactly what energy source we should use in a communist society, nor what technology will be involved. I neither have the knowledge to make qualitive guesses on this subject, nor the authority to decide these things. We will use what technology, material and energy source we find mos suiting for the task at hand, concidering the situation of ourselves, society and the environment, et cetera.

[Led Zeppelin]

Sorry for the late reply, I forgot about this thread.


Ok....... Now......... What is the name of the capitalist form of production. After you have answered this, what is the name of the communist form of production. Since logically they cannot be the same.


The name of the capitalist mode of production is "the anarchy of production", in Communism it is "centralized production".


Now. What are the methods of production you are talking about, in some detail. ie. the need for the worker? energy source? material source? technology involved? - also, method of distribution. How, in a materialist fashion, do these unfold?

The USSR from 1932 to 1953 was a great example of this.


So the material conditions are ready, ie, the means of production. Yes/No.


In some nations, yes.


How do you explain the continuous growth in production currently?

Just because they are ready at one point doesn&#39;t mean they can&#39;t increase and be "more ready".


How do you explain the technological leaps still being discovered at rapidity do to the capitalist system?


Technological leaps? Which technological leaps are these?

If it wasn&#39;t for capitalism we would have been driving around in hydrogen powered cars, the technology is there, shell is blocking it, big surprise.


How do you explain the continuation of automation(the elimination of the worker) yet domestic labour markets are yet to be hit by capitalist "regression".


Service sector.


How do you explain the continuation of renewable energy/recycling to the capitalist benifit?

I don&#39;t understand what you&#39;re saying here, please explain.


How do you explain yet so much capitalist economic growth without the impoverishment of the domestic labour market?


Marx and the theory of absolute impoverishment of the working class under capitalism (http://www.oneparty.co.uk/index.html?http%3A//www.oneparty.co.uk/html/impov.html)


Should capitalism not be affecting the most advanced countries to the point of impoverishment as it attempts to reduce production costs?

See above.

[NovelGentry]

Communism would rightfully be considered post-industrial society.

[Led Zeppelin]

Wow, thanks for your in-depth response NovelGentry, care to actually back up what you said?

[NovelGentry]

Wow, thanks for your in-depth response NovelGentry, care to actually back up what you said?

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Post-industrial_society -- all you need to do is read what it is. Most advanced capitalist nations have already achieved it to some degree, you think in another few decades that they will somehow regress?

[Led Zeppelin]

Interesting, so you agree with him that post-industrial society has to be reached for socialist revolution to occur?

[NovelGentry]

Interesting, so you agree with him that post-industrial society has to be reached for socialist revolution to occur?

Not really. I think you could probably be on the edge of post-industrialization. It&#39;s a difficult game to play, because post-industrialization doesn&#39;t often equate simply to advancements in the means of production but a shift in one of the "means of production" namely the workers. This is to say, the US is a post-industrial society because it lends it&#39;s economic productive capacity to the workers of various other parts of the world.

We certainly have enough capital to become a post-industrial society on our own, and maybe we would be even if we were isolated, but it&#39;s impossible to say. A post-industrial economy is often a good sign, but there are obvious distinctions to be made. Each case is different and must be looked at differently, but generally speaking you should already be aware that I think the most advanced nations (generally post-industrial) will advance to socialism first.

[Connolly]

The name of the capitalist mode of production is "the anarchy of production", in Communism it is "centralized production".

Straight from a text book............. Your quick :blush:.


The USSR from 1932 to 1953 was a great example of this.


So you advocate regression to inferior forms of production? And no, it isnt a great example of "this". 1932 - 1953 production is "primitive" in comparison to what we have today - the development of automation. 1) YOU ARE STUCK IN THE PAST 2) YOU KNOW FUCK ALL ABOUT PRODUCTION & MANUFACTURE (hence the vague answers) and 3) YOU HAVE YET TO DEVELOP A MATERIALIST UNDERSTANDING OF THE CAPITALIST SYSTEM (hence, you think the material conditions are ready for natural transformation of society based on advancement of the means of production - of course, to anyone who knows about this issue - you are mistaken, drastically.)


In some nations, yes

If you know what you are talking about, 1) name these nations and 2) explain, in detail the processes of manufacture and production involved, and why these particular forms of production are sufficient for the transformation from the capitalist mode of production (mass production, minimal labour required) to the socialist/communist mode of production (near, if not total automation of services, production and distribution) - as logically, socialist/communist methods of production cannot be the same as capitalist mass production - It must be a "higher form of production".



Just because they are ready at one point doesn&#39;t mean they can&#39;t increase and be "more ready".


Sorry, whats that - utter know nothing babble....... Well actually, if the material conditions were ready, production would not increase as the capitalist system will have reached its maximum productive capacity, hence the need to transform this form of production. If it does not reach its productive capacity, and there is still room for productive expansion, then there is no need for a change in the system of production. It is only necessary to transform production when a particular productive mode is holding us back. Capitalist production is still growing day by day and so there is no need to scrap it yet. WHAT YOU ARE SAYING IS UTTER SHIT, AND YOU PROBABLY KNOW YOU KNOW NOTHING OF WHAT YOU ARE TALKING ABOUT - YOR SENTENCE DOSNT EVEN MAKE SENSE AND SOUNDS VERY IDEALIST.


Technological leaps? Which technological leaps are these?

If it wasn&#39;t for capitalism we would have been driving around in hydrogen powered cars, the technology is there, shell is blocking it, big surprise.

Where the fuck are you living, in some third world country? where little technological movements cannot be seen. You must be walking around with your eyes closed you fool. Look at the rate at which technological improvements are and have been made to production distribution and services under the current system.

Im sorry, again I must correct your stupidity - of which you know nothing about the feudal transition of production. The difference is, the capitalist system is not stopping/blocking the advancement of our technological discoveries and their applications, it is delaying their application to mainstream production. There is a huge difference between stopping something from developing and delaying something and its application. HUGE DIFFERENCE. Do you think feudal society and humanities need for a higher mode production was satisfied simply with the invention of the steam engine. The technology existed decades before any sort of change was possible. Feudal society was transformed with the introduction of the Limited company (ltd) (middle class backing) which changed the property and risk relations of the time which brought about the industrial revolutions in France, Britain etc. Of course, the technological opportuniies needed to exist for the limited company to exist and come into being - technology is the prime mover.
This applies to the capitalist system, the technology may exist - but unless certain other changes to industrial relations are made (unknown, unpredictable) - Production will not advance - (but we know, human advancement is inevitable).Reactionary elements will attempt to stop such transformation.


Service sector

As I said above, your very quick...............

Try be a little less vague, and at least do a good job of pretending you know something about this.


I don&#39;t understand what you&#39;re saying here, please explain

Yu no speek Eeenglish no?

And you want to read Das Kapital - good luck on that one. I doubt you will get by the title if you cant understand my question.



http://www.oneparty.co.uk/index.html?http%3A//www.oneparty.co.uk/html/impov.html

And you direct me to a Lenninist bullshit page, how typical. Did I not say in a previous discussion that the only people who would believe the material conditions are ready are those who support the vanguared methods?.............Proves my point exactly.

Try argue for yourself instead of linking websites and quoting official phrases of which you know little about.


See above.

Your smart.

[Led Zeppelin]

Stop flaming me, I will see to it that you get a warning point.

Oh, and fuck your post, however I must reply to that horseshit, I will, check this post in a few hours, I will edit it in.


Straight from a text book............. Your quick

Actually it came straight from my brain, you know, that thing that most people have in their heads, you wouldn&#39;t know, so I understand the confusion.


So you advocate regression to inferior forms of production?

You can&#39;t stop looking at "technological" advance, can you? Wow, fetishisms do suck, especially when combined with "theory".

Look kid, get this through your head, the modernity of a factory doesn&#39;t matter, the factory itself matters, industrialized society, no matter how "technologically advanced", is ready for socialist revolution, you know why? Because, get this, Marx had this "rad" idea, that when the majority of workers (in a nation in which the working class is the majority) are exploited they will eventually revolt. :o

And, get this, he didn&#39;t give a shit about "new energy sources", "new energy sources" don&#39;t make classes, no shit.


1932 - 1953 production is "primitive" in comparison to what we have today - the development of automation.

So? What is your point? Does "the development of automation" matter at all to the class structure of society? Sure, more people will work in the service sector since less people are required in the industry sector, are they not workers? Yes they are, so basically, who gives a fuck is a great question.

Only a person with a fetish like yourself is the answer.


1) YOU ARE STUCK IN THE PAST

Class analysis is exactly the same as it was then; proletariat, petty-bourgeois, bourgeois.

Of course you don&#39;t care about class, you care about if we have flying cars and robotic prostitutes.


2) YOU KNOW FUCK ALL ABOUT PRODUCTION & MANUFACTURE (hence the vague answers)

Writing in caps won&#39;t make your sentences less worthless.


3) YOU HAVE YET TO DEVELOP A MATERIALIST UNDERSTANDING OF THE CAPITALIST SYSTEM (hence, you think the material conditions are ready for natural transformation of society based on advancement of the means of production - of course, to anyone who knows about this issue - you are mistaken, drastically.)

Or 4) I actually conduct in something called "class analysis", instead of mentally masturbating over the advancement of technology.


1) name these nations

All Imperialist nations.


2) explain, in detail the processes of manufacture and production involved, and why these particular forms of production are sufficient for the transformation from the capitalist mode of production (mass production, minimal labour required) to the socialist/communist mode of production (near, if not total automation of services, production and distribution) - as logically, socialist/communist methods of production cannot be the same as capitalist mass production - It must be a "higher form of production".

You know what, I don&#39;t have to, weird huh?

All I have to do is look at the class structure of those nations, which are products of the means of production, to see that Socialist revolution is possible.

That&#39;s what happens when you have no fetish, it&#39;s pretty neat.


Well actually, if the material conditions were ready, production would not increase as the capitalist system will have reached its maximum productive capacity, hence the need to transform this form of production.

Oh, ok, so let me see if I get you: "Fuck classes, all hail the means of production and let&#39;s hope it changes soon".

Great logic you got there buddy, you are one of Marx&#39;s closest co-thinkers, seriously.


If it does not reach its productive capacity, and there is still room for productive expansion, then there is no need for a change in the system of production. It is only necessary to transform production when a particular productive mode is holding us back. Capitalist production is still growing day by day and so there is no need to scrap it yet.

I&#39;m sure the pre-Capitalist means of production could grow too, too bad the class structures didn&#39;t wait for that.


WHAT YOU ARE SAYING IS UTTER SHIT, AND YOU PROBABLY KNOW YOU KNOW NOTHING OF WHAT YOU ARE TALKING ABOUT - YOR SENTENCE DOSNT EVEN MAKE SENSE AND SOUNDS VERY IDEALIST.


How is basic school going?


Im sorry, horseshit horseshit horseshit horseshit

"No social order ever perishes before all the productive forces for which there is room in it have developed; and new, higher relations of production never appear before the material conditions of their existence have matured in the womb of the old society itself." Marx

Oh my god :o , Marx is saying that "higher relations of production" will appear in the new (Socialist/Communist) society.


Yu no speek Eeenglish no?

No I do speak English, your sentence was just utter nonsense.


And you direct me to a Lenninist bullshit page, how typical. Did I not say in a previous discussion that the only people who would believe the material conditions are ready are those who support the vanguared methods?.............Proves my point exactly.

Try argue for yourself instead of linking websites and quoting official phrases of which you know little about.


Can&#39;t bother to actually read something huh? No wonder you have your current "style of thinking".


Your smart.

Your not.

[Connolly]

however I must reply to that horseshit

"God" You change your mind easy dont you. One minuite you wont, next minuite you will. Any more changes before you proceed.



horseshit - better than the pigshit youv been posting. :lol:

[Connolly]

so I understand the confusion.

Dont worry, im not the one confused.



You can&#39;t stop looking at "technological" advance, can you?

It is what seperates man from the apes, feudalism from capitalism, lada from toyota. The basis of our existance is the ability to sustain our species, depending on what level of technological advancement is made. The way your going on it seems it wouldnt matter whether man used a spear to gain food or used a manufacturing plant. Im really annoyed that you call yourself a Marxist yet fail to relise this fundamental. There is no means of production without technology, unless of course you are talking about foreging, unaided hunting or grazing - of which I suppose is a form of evolutionary advancement.


Wow, fetishisms do suck

Anything you dont understand is a fetish. Your fetish on the mind, youd wanna stop logging on to those scat sites, its really taking effect.


when combined with "theory

Some say materialism is a mechanical method of philosophical thought - I agree.


Look kid

:lol: I suppose your going to tell me my horoscope next.



the modernity of a factory doesn&#39;t matter

Ignorance speaking. I suppose the organizationl structure hasnt change in factories since the early 1900s ether.


industrialized society, no matter how "technologically advanced", is ready for socialist revolution

How so? Isnt this the discussion - You cant provide an logical or rational answer for your wild assumptions.


Marx had this "rad" idea, that when the majority of workers (in a nation in which the working class is the majority) are exploited they will eventually revolt.

You know the basics of Marxism, so what?

Marx also came up with the theory of how human society advances. It implies that when a particular form of production becomes so great as to outgrow the society it is based in, class struggle is necessary for its advancment. Has current production(based on technological advancment) out grown the society we are living in? even though it continues to expand? even though present production is compatable with that of present society?.


And, get this, he didn&#39;t give a shit about "new energy sources

Thats why he thought his form of production was advanced - steam engine, fossil fuels, coal, steam looms..........................He is so right................That is advanced. How about quite obviously no.

Like to argue against this?


So? What is your point? Does "the development of automation" matter at all to the class structure of society?

Let me point out your contradiction for all to see, using a quote from further down the order.


which are products of the means of production

First you ask in a sarcastic manner, does the development of automation matter at all to the class structure of society?

And then you clearly contradict yourself by saying that it does after commenting in a way which suggests it doesnt. You are the one confused.

Automation is a method of production.


Sure, more people will work in the service sector since less people are required in the industry sector, are they not workers? Yes they are, so basically, who gives a fuck is a great question.

The service sector is not production. So yes, it does matter. If there is no one working in production - what is the purpose of the capitalist class? Its necessary need to exploit and extract working value from the lower class is no longer neeeded - thier existance becomes unnecessary. Not to mention that the capitalist class dominates the service sectors aswell. They are driven by the same factors as those of the production capitalist - the need to consistently gain capital - be it, the reduction and eventual elimination of the worker. Therefore, the service sector is also developing automation. Since capitalism is not compatible with total automation, our methods of production outgrows the capitalist system.


Class analysis is exactly the same as it was then; proletariat, petty-bourgeois, bourgeois.

I am not disputing this. This is the class structure of the capitalist system. However, what has changed is the way we, as a species, sustain ourselves. The means of production and its future path has changed with the possibility of automation.


Of course you don&#39;t care about class, you care about if we have flying cars and robotic prostitutes.

Class is very important. What is even more important is the means of production - for which the class structure is defined.


Or 4) I actually conduct in something called "class analysis",

You, conduct a class analysis. You must be joking. You cant even count. This point number is three not four. :lol:


All I have to do is look at the class structure of those nations, which are products of the means of production, to see that Socialist revolution is possible.

Capitalism has, lets say, a frequency band of advancements to put it simply.
Throughout this frequency band of time/advancement the class system pretty much remains the same. The system only can be overthrown naturally when this frequency band reaches its end

So, lets just say, you are taking the class system at the beginning of this band. This class system will be the same as that at the end. The differencesbetween the start and end of this band is the methods of production and social maturity. So to simply take class analysis as the sole Marxist "tool" is highly flaud and innaccurate.

Other factors must be included. You have dismissed them as irrelevent.

You lack enough Marxist theoretical knowledge to understand what you are talking about. Examine the crude frequency band I have just written.


"Fuck classes, all hail the means of production and let&#39;s hope it changes soon".

Class war is the tool, the means of production is the hand which holds and uses the tool. If the tool is not needed, It wont be used. In the present case, the tool is not needed yet.


I&#39;m sure the pre-Capitalist means of production could grow too, too bad the class structures didn&#39;t wait for that.

It could be tweaked, but it couldnt grow. There are natural limits to everything. You can only make a car aerodynamic to a point, after that there is no room for improvement.


How is basic school going?

Your the one who cant count. Maybe you should go back to school - or maybe you havnt left yet.


"No social order ever perishes before all the productive forces for which there is room in it have developed; and new, higher relations of production never appear before the material conditions of their existence have matured in the womb of the old society itself." Marx

Now this is cannon fodder. You quote Marx in an attempt to crush my argument yet the quote, if you understand it has actually crushed your own argument. So I take it you dont understand the quote you have posted.

Take note. No social order ever perishes before all productive forces for which there is room in it have developed.

In other words, the present social class cannot perish until all productive forces have developed to the point of non expansion.............And in the current case, the capitalist method of production has not developed to the point of total capacity because there is "room" for development/productive expansion. You said so yourself.

Talk about shooting yourself in the foot.

Thanks for the research though, that quote will come in handy if I need to reiterate my point.

Its a pitty you cant understand Marxs phrasing though, it could have saved you a lot of embarassment. :lol: :lol:

[Led Zeppelin]

Dont worry, im not the one confused.

Keep believing that, it might become reality.


The way your going on it seems it wouldnt matter whether man used a spear to gain food or used a manufacturing plant. Im really annoyed that you call yourself a Marxist yet fail to relise this fundamental. There is no means of production without technology, unless of course you are talking about foreging, unaided hunting or grazing - of which I suppose is a form of evolutionary advancement.


I meant continued technological advance, not technological advance in general, I guess I was right, you are still in basic school.

For example the means of production are ready for revolution at the moment, any Marxist who understands the basics of Marxism, which is class struggle, "gets" that, you don&#39;t, it&#39;s the fetish.


Anything you dont understand is a fetish.

No, your fetish is a fetish.


Ignorance speaking. I suppose the organizationl structure hasnt change in factories since the early 1900s ether.


Does it matter to the basis of the class structure? No, it doesn&#39;t, so as a Marxist it doesn&#39;t matter at all.

Here&#39;s a tip, stop thinking that you&#39;re a Marxist.


How so? Isnt this the discussion - You cant provide an logical or rational answer for your wild assumptions.


The majority of the people are proletariat. :o


You know the basics of Marxism, so what?


Obviously you don&#39;t.


Marx also came up with the theory of how human society advances.

So what are you trying to say here, that Marx was contradicting himself with his own theories? I think you are the one who is contradicting Marx, with your misunderstanding of what Marxism really is.


Let me point out your contradiction for all to see, using a quote from further down the order.


Good job dodging my argument, bravo.


First you ask in a sarcastic manner, does the development of automation matter at all to the class structure of society?

And then you clearly contradict yourself by saying that it does after commenting in a way which suggests it doesnt. You are the one confused.

Automation is a method of production.


Yes, but it doesn&#39;t make a difference to the class structure, in other words, the majority proletariat still remains the majority proletariat.


The service sector is not production.

:lol: I assume this is a joke.


If there is no one working in production - what is the purpose of the capitalist class?

This question is based on a false assumption, sorry.


I am not disputing this.

Then you are wasting your time with your technology fetishism crap.


You, conduct a class analysis. You must be joking. You cant even count. This point number is three not four.

:lol: Now I know for certain that you&#39;re in basic school:


1) YOU ARE STUCK IN THE PAST 2) YOU KNOW FUCK ALL ABOUT PRODUCTION & MANUFACTURE (hence the vague answers) and 3) YOU HAVE YET TO DEVELOP A MATERIALIST UNDERSTANDING OF THE CAPITALIST SYSTEM (hence, you think the material conditions are ready for natural transformation of society based on advancement of the means of production - of course, to anyone who knows about this issue - you are mistaken, drastically.)

:rolleyes:


It could be tweaked, but it couldnt grow.

And how do you know this? Or is this just pulled out of your ass?


Now this is cannon fodder. You quote Marx in an attempt to crush my argument yet the quote, if you understand it has actually crushed your own argument. So I take it you dont understand the quote you have posted.


Obviously you didn&#39;t get the second part of the quote:


and new, higher relations of production never appear before the material conditions of their existence have matured in the womb of the old society itself.

These "new, higher relations of production" only have to mature in Capitalism, not come into existence in it.


In other words, the present social class cannot perish until all productive forces have developed to the point of non expansion.............And in the current case, the capitalist method of production has not developed to the point of total capacity because there is "room" for development/productive expansion. You said so yourself.

Talk about shooting yourself in the foot.


Have you never heard of reading quotes in their entirety? Wait, I already know the answer to that question.


Your the one who cant count.

:blink: Wow, you really are a kid.

[Connolly]

I wont bother responding to the rest of your ingnorant tripe. You are highly stubborn to change. You cant face the fact that you are wrong. Marx proved this in the quote you gladly supplied.


Here&#39;s a tip, stop thinking that you&#39;re a Marxist.

like wise.


Obviously you didn&#39;t get the second part of the quote:

I dont need the second part of the quote. The first part confirmed my argument correct. Why should you be allowed dictate where the quote stops and ends. Since I am using the quote, I will display the quote portion necessary for my purpose.

I will quote it again - as a fresh reminder of my victory over your ignorant, unmaterialist, nonMarxist argument.

I will supply the second portion aswell, as this also secures my victory against you. (Thats if you need me to translate Marxs phrasing and the quote, which you dont undersatnd, again)

"No social order ever perishes before all the productive forces for which there is room in it have developed; and new, higher relations of production never appear before the material conditions of their existence have matured in the womb of the old society itself." Marx

"No social order ever perishes before all the productive forces for which there is room in it have developed; and new, higher relations of production never appear before the material conditions of their existence have matured in the womb of the old society itself." Marx

"No social order ever perishes before all the productive forces for which there is room in it have developed; and new, higher relations of production never appear before the material conditions of their existence have matured in the womb of the old society itself." Marx

"No social order ever perishes before all the productive forces for which there is room in it have developed; and new, higher relations of production never appear before the material conditions of their existence have matured in the womb of the old society itself." Marx

[Led Zeppelin]

I dont need the second part of the quote.

That&#39;s right, ignore it and it will go away.

Oh, and you posted that quote 4 times. :lol:

[Connolly]

Oh, and you posted that quote 4 times.

Im glad you have learned how to count. Well done. No, seriously, well done.

"No social order ever perishes before all the productive forces for which there is room in it have developed; and new, higher relations of production never appear before the material conditions of their existence have matured in the womb of the old society itself." Marx

A quote of Rational victory ^

:cool: :hammer:

[Led Zeppelin]

Im glad you have learned how to count. Well done. No, seriously, well done.


Yes, apparently I already knew how to do this. :lol:

Oh, and your blog sucks.

[Connolly]

Oh, and your blog sucks.

Coming from you thats a complement. But then again, how valid is a complement if it comes from a 2 tonne steel bar - rigid, unmoveable, ungalvanised and vulnerable to the elements.

[Led Zeppelin]

Usage Note: Complement and compliment, though quite distinct in meaning, are sometimes confused because they are pronounced the same. As a noun, complement means “something that completes or brings to perfection” (The antique silver was a complement to the beautifully set table); used as a verb it means “to serve as a complement to.” The noun compliment means “an expression or act of courtesy or praise” (They gave us a compliment on our beautifully set table), while the verb means “to pay a compliment to.”

[Connolly]

Only a coward cant admit to his defeat. In this small, and particular instance of a incorrect spelling, I admit to my error. However, you on the other hand - pure coward - not to be able to admit defeat. :angry:

[KC]

Only a coward cant admit to his defeat. In this small, and particular instance of a incorrect spelling, I admit to my error. However, you on the other hand - pure coward - not to be able to admit defeat. mad.gif

That&#39;s because you didn&#39;t defeat him.

[novemba]

both of yall shut the fuck up, i love how they can go at it for a whole thread, but when i flame someone about avakian i get threatened with a ban

[Led Zeppelin]

That&#39;s probably because everyone hates you here.

[red_che]

Originally posted by The [email protected] 6 2005, 11:59 AM
I must create this thread as I feel I am changing the course of other topics by including the MoP. Which of course is necessary for these topics but not exactly the question asked.......

So, to structure this "problem" of materialist outcome.

Some questions I would like many to answer with thought towards material direction. If you dont have a materialist basis for your answers then dont bother with a reply.


1) Do you believe a change in the means/methods of production is necessary for socialist/communist revolution and societal change?

2) If not, do you believe the means of production have currently matured to this form?

3) If yes, What form will this production take?

4) What is your materialist basis for this form of production?


Please answer with some thought applied. :D

TRB
Uhhh, maybe let&#39;s get on to the topic again.

Yes, the mode of production should be changed. No new society can advance to a higher level without first abolishing the old rotten system that hinders its development. Capitalism have long been able to reach its peak of development (since the start of the 20th century.) Now, Capitalism has gotten into its rotting stage and is needed to be abolished.

For communism to be possible, all the relics of the old society must be smashed, most specially its old mode of production. The capitalist mode of production would be replaced by a socialist mode of production that would serve as a revolutionary transition to communism. The forces of production would basically change. The workers would now be the main forces of production and would become the ruling class. Production would be based on the needs of society and would be planned and centralized in lieu of the capitalist "anarchy of production for profit." Machines and other means of production would be developed to a more adavanced tool to be utilized by humans, unlike today that capitalists were developing technology to replace human labor, again to earn more profit.

The capitalist relations of wage system would be abolished. The socialist relations (from each according to abilities to each according to work done) would replace it. No one would now work for a mere wage but would work for what is needed by the society.

The capitalists&#39; main machinery, the state, would be replaced by a proletarian state wherein it would safeguard the socialist society against all forms of capitalist restoration.

After all of these were put in place and all capitalist relations and systems were removed the society can advance to communism.

[Connolly]

Cheers for the reply :D


Capitalism have long been able to reach its peak of development (since the start of the 20th century.)

If capitalism has reached its productive limit and social maturity - how is it that society continuosly is adapting to the revolutionary methods of production still being applied and advanced within the capitalist system, yet the capitalist system is compatable with these levels of production being introduced.

In my view, the capitalist system has not nearly reached its productive capacity, as it continues to revolutionise the means of production - through automation - which, at first, is to the benefit of the capitalist - but in time, incompatable with the capitalist system. And since the capitalist system is compatable with present forms of production, and will be for some time, it is not necessary for humanity to naturally change it yet.

We must ask what is the means of production. - it is the method of sustaining the human species. This can be broken down to the type of machinary used, material source and energy source. These three are fundamental to the understanding of the material conditions and the direction of our species, as it is these three that seperate the capitalist method of production from that of any other sort, be it feudal or socialist, or even primitive. Only when these have been understood can we define when the system can necessarily be overthrown.


You say the capitalist system has reached its maximum productive capacity?
What defines the capitalist productive capacity? - what defines it is 1) the availability of energy, 2) the availability of material resources 3) the level of technological advancement (to machinary and such) and 4) which, finally defines whether it should be overthrown or not, is whether it can or cant advance our species further, whether it is stopping further advance to the first three elemements (energy,material and technology) or not. This is how the means of production, in a materialist way should be looked at.

From this understanding of the means of production we see that the current capitalist system is, as from those three elements which make the basis of the meas of production -

1) Energy. is the capitalist system currently restrained from furthering this element?
To an extent it delays the furthering of renewable energy with reactionary elements of the capitalist class still holding on to the old form of energy source, Fossil (hence the war on Iraq). But slowly, renewables are approaching and being implemented to production (this would be a lot faster only for those reactionary capitalist members).
But the real question is, is the capitalist system compatable with renewable energy? - the total application of solar, wind and tidal energy to production.
The answer is yes. It is in the capitalist interest to develop this energy source - think of the profit making potential of a factory running on free energy, less expenditure on 1) labour - for the extraction of oil/coal and 2) less expenditure on equipment for the production of this energy source. Only with the combination of both material and machinary technology applied do we see the unnecessary need for the capitalist as a whole in future situations.


2) Material. This is pretty much the same as as number one. The development of renewable sources of material - recycling of plastic, metals, liquids and gases.
Again, the question is if the capitalist system is compatable. Again - for the very same reason as one - less costs when dealing with "free" material. So we see it is in the capitalist interest to develop such methods of material gathering. It will further this particular source along with renewable energy.

To locate our historical position in the passage of time - we see that, although the capitalist system is still using reactionary energy and metals - it is developing these technologies. It is in their interest, it is in the interest for the driving factor of the capitalist, the accumilation of capital.

Therefore, we see from these two alone, that the capitalist system has not reached its maximum productive capacity - as whats slowing its productive capacity is the availability of energy and resources. To look for a scapegoat, we see that the leading figures behind this slowing down is reactionary elements of the capitalist class - who, by the way, do not represent the majority of capitalists who are involved in energy and material necessary industries such as manufacture, transport and agriculture. This is why those reactionary capitalists will have to cave in to the greater needs of the majority capitalists.

Capitalism is not regressive or static when dealing with energy and material production - it is progressive currently.


3) Machinary and its technologies. The most important&#33;&#33;. The question again, Is the capitalist system restrained from furthering this technology of what we can clearly see is in the form of automation, the elimination of the worker in todays society?

There is not even the mention of delaying this to an "extent". This is happening at a rapid pace within todays production and society. I have mentioned these before with examples such as automatic checkouts at TESCO being applied. So, we ask, is this higher form of production being restrained? absolutly not. Do I really need to explain this further???????????????

What limits this technology is one and two, energy and material - these machines need constant supplies and energy.

The crucial question, is the capitalist system compatable with this form of production?
No. Since we have not develoed this form of production nearly enough, society is not ready for a higher form of production.

The capitalist system is not compatable with this form of production, known as total automation for two main reasons.

1) combined with renewable energy and material, automation could potentially have the ability to produce huge, if not too much of a certain commodity. Therefore leading to overproduction - decreasing the value of a commodity - and the capitalist does not want this to happen, for obvious reasons. Do I need to explain this accepted Marxist position and fact???

2) automation, in its attempt to reduce costs for the capitalist, it has the effect of eliminating the worker. Too much automation means too little workers. Who buys the food and goods these machines of automation produce in a wage labour society? - again this is pretty obvious. But this is an inevitability&#33;&#33;&#33;&#33;&#33; The capitalist just cant help himself from extracting value from the product - his need to eliminate the worker. Since the capitalist system does not have control over its own production (hence the name anarchy of production), and each individual capitalist has his own interests in mind - they cannot resist the technology of automation&#33;&#33;&#33; - yet, their own system in which they work is not compatable with their needs for the elimination of labour.

This is the point where the capitalist system becomes the restricter of a higher form of production rather than the promoter.



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

To sum this up, we can see, at least I can, that the present mode of production is still advancing and remains to be a progressive force for humanity.

Automation is the clear higher form of production, but it is not ready yet. Energy, material, technological conditions and social conditions still need to come into existance.

Only after the means of production is understood, can we begin to understand the material conditions for a natural transition of society and a class analysis.

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


Now, Capitalism has gotten into its rotting stage and is needed to be abolished.

Where is this rotting and regressive, static stage?


The workers would now be the main forces of production and would become the ruling class.

If the main forces of production are the workers, how will the socialist/communist mode of production be a higher form - since today the mode of production still relies mainly on the worker. A higher form of production must, quite obviously have a greater productive capacity. the "manual" worker does not have this capability.


unlike today that capitalists were developing technology to replace human labor, again to earn more profit.

is this not an self spoken example of how capitalist production is still progressive?

If it is still progressing humanities productive capacity, why should it be overthrown?


No one would now work for a mere wage but would work for what is needed by the society.

But you said it yourself, the capitalist is eliminating the worker. This is a higher form of production&#33;&#33;&#33; - why should the worker still exist. Not to mention that "the worker working for the greater good of society" is very very idealist.

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

The arguments of all of you are based on the production methods of over 100 years ago. Much has changed - automation is the new production methods.

Drop this shit about the worker working for the greater good of society.

1) it has no basis when it comes to modern productive capabilities
2) from point 1, it has no material basis.
and
3) it is highly idealist, utopian like. - I bet you have doubts about it too inside.

TRB

respond with appropriate responses please, say i didnt waste my time :D

[Led Zeppelin]

"The RedBanner" perfectly fits this description:


Originally posted by Trotsky
It is nonsense to say that stages cannot in general be skipped. The living historical process always makes leaps over isolated “stages” which derive from theoretical breakdown into its component parts of the process of development in its entirety, that is, taken in its fullest scope. The same is demanded of revolutionary policy at critical moments. It may be said that the first distinction between a revolutionist and a vulgar evolutionist lies in the capacity to recognize and exploit such moments.

Marx”s breakdown of the development of industry into handicraft, manufacture and factory is part of the A.B.C. of political economy, or more precisely, of historico-economic theory. In Russia, however, the factory came by skipping over the epoch of manufacture and of urban handicrafts. This is already among the syllables of history.
Emphasis added

[red_che]

Cheers for the reply


QUOTE
Capitalism have long been able to reach its peak of development (since the start of the 20th century.)



If capitalism has reached its productive limit and social maturity - how is it that society continuosly is adapting to the revolutionary methods of production still being applied and advanced within the capitalist system, yet the capitalist system is compatable with these levels of production being introduced.


I didn&#39;t mean the peak of its productive limit, but rather its peak of social, political and economic development. As Marx puts it, every society goes into two stages, development and downfall. Capitalism started in its elementary stage of free market competition, where every enterprise is blossoming and radical and revolutionary advances in technology were developed such as modern machines, and new relations of production such as wages, and the division and collectivization of labor. However, when capitalism developed into its Imperialisst stage, the stage of monopoly capitalism, there were no longer fundamental/revolutionary advances that happened. It ceased on improving its system, only they were merely renovating its old system. The " free trade, globalization, etc." propaganda were mere replications of the old post-modernist thoughts.


We must ask what is the means of production. - it is the method of sustaining the human species. This can be broken down to the type of machinary used, material source and energy source. These three are fundamental to the understanding of the material conditions and the direction of our species, as it is these three that seperate the capitalist method of production from that of any other sort, be it feudal or socialist, or even primitive. Only when these have been understood can we define when the system can necessarily be overthrown.


While those three you&#39;ve mentioned above were the material conditions necessary for humanity&#39;s existence, the system of how it applies to society varies, such as in a primitive, slave, feudal, capitalist, or socialist society. If that system no longer conforms to the needs of society as a whole, then it is necessary for it to be abolished. Such as today, the three you&#39;ve mentioned above served the necessity of the capitalist society in its initial stages of development. But now, the fruits of human labor through those three means of production are increasingly contentrated at an unprecedented level to only a very small portion of the population, the monopoly bourgeoisie and their cohorts and only a very small portion of humanity&#39;s labor go to the general population. As that happened, then Capitalist society no longer conforms to social condition, hence the need for it to be overthrown.

Going down further your post, I realized you were very mechanical in dealing with this subject matter, and worst, you even went on to state that this system, Capitalism, "that the present mode of production is still advancing and remains to be a progressive force for humanity."

Oh gross, I won&#39;t be surprised if one day you&#39;d say Capitalism needs not be changed forever. :angry:


2) automation, in its attempt to reduce costs for the capitalist, it has the effect of eliminating the worker. Too much automation means too little workers. Who buys the food and goods these machines of automation produce in a wage labour society? - again this is pretty obvious. But this is an inevitability&#33;&#33;&#33;&#33;&#33; The capitalist just cant help himself from extracting value from the product - his need to eliminate the worker. Since the capitalist system does not have control over its own production (hence the name anarchy of production), and each individual capitalist has his own interests in mind - they cannot resist the technology of automation&#33;&#33;&#33; - yet, their own system in which they work is not compatable with their needs for the elimination of labour.

Thus, the need for it to be overthrown.

[Connolly]

I didn&#39;t mean the peak of its productive limit, but rather its peak of social, political and economic development.

I would argue that its social, political and economic peaks have not reached its height.

Since society is still changing and adapting to the means of production being introduced, automation, it cannot have reached its peak of development. As it is still changing and "developing" around the reality of worker elimination. Maybe I am missing your approach to this - but society continues to change without reaching a crystalized structure before transformation.

Political. I assume you are talking about certain changes of attitude towards capitalism amongst political leaders developing much opposition to Bush&#39;s system of capitalism ie, Hugo Chavez etc. But, in my view, this is reactionary. Most of this opposition existed from the beginning of capitalism and will always exist as long as there is class divisions. But, another great aspect of this is opposition is to climate change - in which capitalism is said to be destroying the world for definite. But lets not look at this from a human point of view, it is highly possible that capitalism could destroy the environment - it is highly dependent on the body of matter we live on, quantity of oil etc. Much due to how fortunate we are. I wont get into this, but just take the scenario were we live on a planet the size of the moon with oil reserves 20 times the size of our own and going through a capitalist phase. The probability of the earth/moon being destroyed is nearly inevitable. While in comparison a planet the size of jupitor with half our oil/fossil reserves and going through capitalism. All political perspectives like these are reactionary with no real basis of undersatnding towards the greater movement of things. Political development is very difficult, if not impossible to relate to the materialist progression of things. -- -- I do not see the relevence of political development, unless you believe a vanguard political party is necessary for the transformation of the capitalist system. I disagree, but lets not get into this political thing as it will end up in a debate about whether the vanguard is necessary or not. I dont want to go there, unless you want to set up a new thread.

Economic. First of all, there is still economic expansion, there is still the ability for the general capitalist to increase profits - and for a long time to come. Is this what you define as economic development? The expansion to new markets and new ways of extracting value from the commodity to the capitalsit benefit?.........I dont want to start off describing how the capitalsit system still has this economic develoment capability without understanding exactly what you mean by "economic peak of development".


Capitalism started in its elementary stage of free market competition, where every enterprise is blossoming and radical and revolutionary advances in technology were developed such as modern machines, and new relations of production such as wages, and the division and collectivization of labor. However, when capitalism developed into its Imperialisst stage, the stage of monopoly capitalism, there were no longer fundamental/revolutionary advances that happened.It ceased on improving its system, only they were merely renovating its old system

But capitalism is, and will blossom for some time. It can only stop blossoming when the system becomes obsolete and fails to extract yet more value from its existing markets.
Radical advances are being made to the technology of production, unless you deny the existance of continued automation. Also, whole new relations to production are developing with the elimination of the worker from every sector once dominated by the wage labourer. Is this not revolutionary/fundamental changes to both the means/technology of production and social relations to the means of production? Of course they are. Are these not improvements to the capitalist method of production? They surely arnt renovations?


If that system no longer conforms to the needs of society as a whole, then it is necessary for it to be abolished.

You are looking at this from a human level, where starvation, poverty and injustice is ripe. But these have always existed within a society of inequality - this does not mean the means of production should be replaced. Generally, the means of production has never represented the whole of society, but represents the future survival of future generations where the sacrafice of those of the past are necessary for the survival of those of the future. The means of production does not represent the whole of societies present needs, but the advancement of the species in general. The advancement of the means of production, and therefore society in general, go&#39;s hand in hand with the sacrafice of human persons. Only when the means of production is holding back this advancement of the human species, is it necessary for its change.


Such as today, the three you&#39;ve mentioned above served the necessity of the capitalist society in its initial stages of development.

Energy, material and the general technology of the means of production are as relevent today as it was in capitalisms initial stages. The capitalist system did not have the capability of automation in its initial stages, but it has now. New windows of opportunity have opened up. Unknown to the capitalist, this new window of opportunity sows the seeds of its demise.


But now, the fruits of human labor through those three means of production are increasingly contentrated at an unprecedented level to only a very small portion of the population, the monopoly bourgeoisie and their cohorts and only a very small portion of humanity&#39;s labor go to the general population.

This does not necessarily mean it is holding societies advances back. Only when it comes to the point where they are stopping/incompatabile with advances does this become relevent. As I said before, the means of production comes first, class structure second. As it is class structure that is defined by the means of production.


As that happened, then Capitalist society no longer conforms to social condition, hence the need for it to be overthrown.

As with above, the capitalist system becomes obsolete when it dosnt conform to advances in the means of production - not societies needs. Society is based around the means of production, therefore, the means of production must be looked at first.


Oh gross, I won&#39;t be surprised if one day you&#39;d say Capitalism needs not be changed forever.

I posted in my other reply the conditions for which the means of production outgrow the capitalsit system - total automation. Capitalism needs to be changed when this condition starts to become evident. Until then. Yes, we must wait - or die from the energy needs of the capitalist system.

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

I must also state, that I am a Marxist. And I must do so before I get restricted to the opposing ideologies forum :lol: . I am a Marxist because 1) I look at the means of production in a materialist way, 2) I believe class struggle is necessary for the advancement of the means of production and 3) I see a state necessary for the socialist transformation of the means of production.

So, I assure you, I am a Marxist - I just dont have to believe the material conditions are ready for socialist transformation. Too many people overlook the means of production as the main fundamental to Marxist theory.

[red_che]

QUOTE
I didn&#39;t mean the peak of its productive limit, but rather its peak of social, political and economic development.



I would argue that its social, political and economic peaks have not reached its height.

Since society is still changing and adapting to the means of production being introduced, automation, it cannot have reached its peak of development. As it is still changing and "developing" around the reality of worker elimination. Maybe I am missing your approach to this - but society continues to change without reaching a crystalized structure before transformation.

Political. I assume you are talking about certain changes of attitude towards capitalism amongst political leaders developing much opposition to Bush&#39;s system of capitalism ie, Hugo Chavez etc. But, in my view, this is reactionary. Most of this opposition existed from the beginning of capitalism and will always exist as long as there is class divisions. But, another great aspect of this is opposition is to climate change - in which capitalism is said to be destroying the world for definite. But lets not look at this from a human point of view, it is highly possible that capitalism could destroy the environment - it is highly dependent on the body of matter we live on, quantity of oil etc. Much due to how fortunate we are. I wont get into this, but just take the scenario were we live on a planet the size of the moon with oil reserves 20 times the size of our own and going through a capitalist phase. The probability of the earth/moon being destroyed is nearly inevitable. While in comparison a planet the size of jupitor with half our oil/fossil reserves and going through capitalism. All political perspectives like these are reactionary with no real basis of undersatnding towards the greater movement of things. Political development is very difficult, if not impossible to relate to the materialist progression of things. -- -- I do not see the relevence of political development, unless you believe a vanguard political party is necessary for the transformation of the capitalist system. I disagree, but lets not get into this political thing as it will end up in a debate about whether the vanguard is necessary or not. I dont want to go there, unless you want to set up a new thread.

Economic. First of all, there is still economic expansion, there is still the ability for the general capitalist to increase profits - and for a long time to come. Is this what you define as economic development? The expansion to new markets and new ways of extracting value from the commodity to the capitalsit benefit?.........I dont want to start off describing how the capitalsit system still has this economic develoment capability without understanding exactly what you mean by "economic peak of development".


QUOTE
Capitalism started in its elementary stage of free market competition, where every enterprise is blossoming and radical and revolutionary advances in technology were developed such as modern machines, and new relations of production such as wages, and the division and collectivization of labor. However, when capitalism developed into its Imperialisst stage, the stage of monopoly capitalism, there were no longer fundamental/revolutionary advances that happened.It ceased on improving its system, only they were merely renovating its old system



But capitalism is, and will blossom for some time. It can only stop blossoming when the system becomes obsolete and fails to extract yet more value from its existing markets.
Radical advances are being made to the technology of production, unless you deny the existance of continued automation. Also, whole new relations to production are developing with the elimination of the worker from every sector once dominated by the wage labourer. Is this not revolutionary/fundamental changes to both the means/technology of production and social relations to the means of production? Of course they are. Are these not improvements to the capitalist method of production? They surely arnt renovations?


QUOTE
If that system no longer conforms to the needs of society as a whole, then it is necessary for it to be abolished.



You are looking at this from a human level, where starvation, poverty and injustice is ripe. But these have always existed within a society of inequality - this does not mean the means of production should be replaced. Generally, the means of production has never represented the whole of society, but represents the future survival of future generations where the sacrafice of those of the past are necessary for the survival of those of the future. The means of production does not represent the whole of societies present needs, but the advancement of the species in general. The advancement of the means of production, and therefore society in general, go&#39;s hand in hand with the sacrafice of human persons. Only when the means of production is holding back this advancement of the human species, is it necessary for its change.


QUOTE
Such as today, the three you&#39;ve mentioned above served the necessity of the capitalist society in its initial stages of development.



Energy, material and the general technology of the means of production are as relevent today as it was in capitalisms initial stages. The capitalist system did not have the capability of automation in its initial stages, but it has now. New windows of opportunity have opened up. Unknown to the capitalist, this new window of opportunity sows the seeds of its demise.


QUOTE
But now, the fruits of human labor through those three means of production are increasingly contentrated at an unprecedented level to only a very small portion of the population, the monopoly bourgeoisie and their cohorts and only a very small portion of humanity&#39;s labor go to the general population.



This does not necessarily mean it is holding societies advances back. Only when it comes to the point where they are stopping/incompatabile with advances does this become relevent. As I said before, the means of production comes first, class structure second. As it is class structure that is defined by the means of production.


QUOTE
As that happened, then Capitalist society no longer conforms to social condition, hence the need for it to be overthrown.



As with above, the capitalist system becomes obsolete when it dosnt conform to advances in the means of production - not societies needs. Society is based around the means of production, therefore, the means of production must be looked at first.


QUOTE
Oh gross, I won&#39;t be surprised if one day you&#39;d say Capitalism needs not be changed forever.



I posted in my other reply the conditions for which the means of production outgrow the capitalsit system - total automation. Capitalism needs to be changed when this condition starts to become evident. Until then. Yes, we must wait - or die from the energy needs of the capitalist system.

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

I must also state, that I am a Marxist. And I must do so before I get restricted to the opposing ideologies forum . I am a Marxist because 1) I look at the means of production in a materialist way, 2) I believe class struggle is necessary for the advancement of the means of production and 3) I see a state necessary for the socialist transformation of the means of production.

So, I assure you, I am a Marxist - I just dont have to believe the material conditions are ready for socialist transformation. Too many people overlook the means of production as the main fundamental to Marxist theory.


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

"Time is the room of human development. A man who has no free time to dispose of, whose whole lifetime, apart from the mere physical interruptions by sleep, meals, and so forth, is absorbed by his labour for the capitalist, is less than a beast of burden. He is a mere machine for producing Foreign Wealth, broken in body and brutalised in mind." - Karl Marx - Wages, Price and Profit.

Support and Join the:

Communist Revolutionary Movement of Ireland


Okay, Marx said that a society&#39;s development depends on the development of its material foundation, its mode of production. Mode of production continues to develop as long as the development in the productive forces correspond and go along with its relations of production. Today, only the means of production in the capitalist system are advancing (i.e. machines, technology, etc. which can go into what you are saying as "automation".), while the relationships existing in this production lagged behind and became a force that hinders the total development of the mode of production.

As technology and machines are advancing, more and more products are produced. However, the workers and the masses of the people all over the world don&#39;t have enough money to buy these products, which would then result into a general crisis of capitalism. And every cirisis that hits capitalism is getting sharper than it was before. Automation is not actually an advancement in the forces of production but helps the capitalists evade from purchasing human labor.

Again, I say, the material condition for a society&#39;s development is its mode of production, the forces and relations of production, not only the machines. Machines are only a part of the means of production of an entire forces of production. And the two elements of the mode of production (forces and relations of production) must get along and develop side-by-side. When one lags behind the other or had stopped advancing, the society can no longer advance to a higher stage, but instead, needs to be replaced by a new social order. Therefore, a society, when it reaches this point that its relations of production can no longer cope up with the booming forces of production, had already reached its peak of development. This condition of the relations of production would only serve as a hindrance to society&#39;s progress, as is evident today where more and more people are poor, hungry, oppressed and cannot reap the benefits of their labor. In its peak of development, a society suffers unprecedented crisis, as is happening now to the capitalist system.

So, not only are the tools for production that must be taken into account here, but also the relationship it has with the other forces of production, much more to their relation with human labor which is the main factor for production of commodities. The dialectical relationships of every matter involved in the production process (the contradictions between and among them), not only its existence, is the real material condition that should be viewed in order to understand when can we say that a society has already reached its peak of development.