The necessity of Capitalism...

[Cult of Reason]

I seem to have read quite a lot here that Capitalism has to happen before Communism/Anarchy can. Why is this so?

Is Capitalism needed in order to develop an area industrially? Why can this not be done by a communist or anarchic society? Must there be a profit motive for industrialisation of a primitive society to take place? I cannot see why, if they so chose, a Third World area could not become communist and then industrialise in a democratic fashion.

Thankyou in advance.

[ComradeOm]

A very short answer is that communism requires the proletariat. This is the only class capable of creating socialism. As a class it is created in the factories owned by the bourgeoisie. Hence you need capitalism to create the proletariat which is needed to create socialism.

[Connolly]

In my view, capitalism must come before socialism.

Unless of course, some great gigantic leap forward to the means of production comes about.................which is unthinkable.

Capitalism is a society structured around a particular system of production, just like feudalism and socialism. So society goes through phases, dependent on technological advancement and social relations.

To go from feudalism to socialism, skipping the capitalsit phase, would be a huge (IMO, impossible) undertaking if no other society has actually reached socialism yet (through capitalism)

It would be possible IMO, to quicken the time it takes to reach socialism from feudalism if some other nation has already reached socialism, as the technology is already invented and applied. This would naturally spread to other less developed societies in time. A hell of alot easier than having to invent this stuff from scratch!!

to go from feudalism to socialism is possible - IMHO, its something forced and not going to happen anytime soon, socialism must be achieved first by an advanced capitalist nation.

[American_Lenin]

Yes, like that of the United States
If there is no proletariat than Socialism cant exists and cant evolve into Communism.
Also the country needs the leaders in place dedicated to Socialism and the proletariat must be conscience of the ideals of Marx and that a Revolution is possible.

[Cult of Reason]

A very short answer is that communism requires the proletariat. This is the only class capable of creating socialism.

OK. Why is that?



In my view, capitalism must come before socialism.

This is assuming that socialism must come before communism? You might as well tell me why that is as well.

You say that this is largely based on the technology available. However, in order for socialism to be implemented, such technology would already have to exist in Capitalism. If people know how all this technology works and they have the natural resources, what prevents them from starting from scratch?

Consider an extreme example, that which is in the Fallout computer games. Some of the survivors would have technological knowledge. If they had the needed resources, what could stop them from building a communist society?

[ComradeOm]

Originally posted by [email protected] 12 2006, 05:53 PM
OK. Why is that?
Well who else is going to do it? :lol:

[Cult of Reason]

Well who else is going to do it?

Serfs? Slaves? Peasants? Poor farmers and farm labourers from the Third World? I read before that proletariat was a result of capitalism, so I suppose my question was, in a way, why can communism only be made by proletariat?

[Noah]

Serfs? Slaves? Peasants? Poor farmers and farm labourers from the Third World?

These are all the proletriat I believe.

A slave is forced to do work because he is owned, in return the slave gets nothing but food and clothes.

A working class man must sell his labour in order to survive and with the money he buys decent food and clothes, he is also owned by his boss, without the little capital he would have nothing.


Do you see the relation?

[Connolly]

This is assuming that socialism must come before communism? You might as well tell me why that is as well.

Well, being a Marxist - i do believe in the socialist phase. I dont believe an anarchist revolution and transformation is viable. *offpoint*


However, in order for socialism to be implemented, such technology would already have to exist in Capitalism.

Yes, a particular level of societal development is needed.


If people know how all this technology works and they have the natural resources, what prevents them from starting from scratch?

Assuming socialism/communism exists somewhere, and that this society has achieved substantial advances. Why cant the capitalist countries remaining reach socialism, is what your asking right.........?

Well, in this situation, as I said in my last post, it is possible to achieve a post capitalist society quicker than having to create and invent the advancements from scratch.

But they must have the will and unity to achieve such a goal, and to have the will and unity they must be class aware!!

Class awareness is dependent on material conditions, if those material conditions do not exist, class awareness will not exist. And so unity and the will to transform society will not come about.

These material conditions are defined by the economic basis of society (technology, exchange and social relations).

So, for these remaining capitalist nations to reach socialism (or in your case communism), the means of production must reach a particular stage so as to bring about class awareness.

And since class awareness is based on the material conditions of society, and the material conditions of society is based on economic conditions, and the economic conditions is based on the level of development of the technology and of social relations, the will for the transformation of society would only come about when particular advancements are applied to existing production.

This jump from feudalism to communsim you speak of, would need huge imports of advances (both knowledge based and material based) to develop class awareness. Something which the King or ruling class may not allow...........but difficult to contain if these advances are thought up from within.

Im not familiar with fallout computer games, whatever thaty is :unsure:

[Connolly]

Serfs? Slaves? Peasants? Poor farmers and farm labourers from the Third World? I read before that proletariat was a result of capitalism, so I suppose my question was, in a way, why can communism only be made by proletariat?

Because, as I said in my last post, material conditions must exist for the transformatiion of society.

And since the proletariat are the class which exists within a society which is materially ready for transformation - it is their role, being the only opposing class to the capitalist system, to overthrow it.

Under feudal conditions, which contain more classes (in relation to the means of production), only some may become class aware, based on particular material conditions.

In the case of feudal society, the class which becomes aware based on such material conditions, is the up and coming capitalist class. Hence the emergence of a system by their "rules".

[Cult of Reason]

These are all the proletriat I believe.


Are you then implying that Capitalism is not necessary for communism to happen?


Assuming socialism/communism exists somewhere, and that this society has achieved substantial advances. Why cant the capitalist countries remaining reach socialism, is what your asking right.........?

No, I am asking: Assuming the existance of an advanced Capitalist society, why cannot some people who are experts on the technology etc. of that society go to some place in the Third World and, with the local people there, implement communism assuming all the resources were there? Surely they could form communes and then industrialise with the knowledge and resources they have?


So, for these remaining capitalist nations to reach socialism (or in your case communism), the means of production must reach a particular stage so as to bring about class awareness.

What about those peasants in Nepal? Is what they are displaying not class awareness? Or is class awareness more complex than just knowing that there is inequality and that it can be done away with?


the will for the transformation of society would only come about when particular advancements are applied to existing production.

What advancements? Automation and assembly lines? Factory production? People in Russia seemed willing to transform society, as did those where other revolutions have happened, mostly, as far as I know, in undeveloped countries. Am I misunderstanding something?


Something which the King or ruling class may not allow

People in undeveloped countries often seem willing to get rid of them. Why can communism then not be brought straight in if foreigners are there with knowledge of requisite technology?


Im not familiar with fallout computer games, whatever thaty is

Fallout and Fallout 2 are computer RPGs from 1997 and 1998 set in a post-nuclear war world.


In the case of feudal society, the class which becomes aware based on such material conditions, is the up and coming capitalist class. Hence the emergence of a system by their "rules".

Why is that? Are the serfs too downtrodden to be able to think about significant dissent.

Thankyou very much for your time, please carry on.

[Storming Heaven]

Well who else is going to do it? [achieve Socialism]


Serfs? Slaves? Peasants? Poor farmers and farm labourers from the Third World? I read before that proletariat was a result of capitalism, so I suppose my question was, in a way, why can communism only be made by proletariat?


Are the serfs too downtrodden to be able to think about significant dissent.

No, it's not because the serfs are too downtrodden, (major peasant revolts have happened as long as there have been peasants) it's because they have a very different set of social/material relations from those of the proletariat - the industrial working class.

Note the form of labour that capitalism brings upon proletaria. A factory can only operate if every section of the production line is operating. This forces workers to co-operate - and on a massive scale. So, is it really so suprising when, during times of preletarian rebellion and revolution against the capitalist system, that so-operative and directly democratic forms of organisation (e.g. the soviets in Russia) emerge?

[KC]

OK. Why is that?

Because they are the only class capable of realizing communism in its full potential. It's for the exact same reason that Luddites weren't communists. They couldn't see the real problem; they blamed the machines when the real problem is the bourgeoisie.



This is assuming that socialism must come before communism? You might as well tell me why that is as well.


Because in order to implement communism the proletariat has to take control of society. The bourgeoisie isn't going to implement it itself; that would be class suicide.




These are all the proletriat I believe.

A slave is forced to do work because he is owned, in return the slave gets nothing but food and clothes.

A working class man must sell his labour in order to survive and with the money he buys decent food and clothes, he is also owned by his boss, without the little capital he would have nothing.


Do you see the relation?

A serf is not proletarian for the very reason that he isn't selling his labour-power to survive; he is trading a portion of his produce, as well as offering "civil service" work to his lord.

A slave is obviously not proletarian for the very fact that their labour-power is given away, and not sold.

Only those that sell their labour-power to survive are proletarian.



No, I am asking: Assuming the existance of an advanced Capitalist society, why cannot some people who are experts on the technology etc. of that society go to some place in the Third World and, with the local people there, implement communism assuming all the resources were there? Surely they could form communes and then industrialise with the knowledge and resources they have?

Because they wouldn't be able to achieve a significant amount of wealth/power, they wouldn't have enough resources to live a life as others in the capitalist world would, and if they started gathering wealth/power/popular support, they would be suppressed by the bourgeoisie. I suggest looking into utopian socialism, as this is what they advocated would bring about socialism.

[Connolly]

No, I am asking: Assuming the existance of an advanced Capitalist society, why cannot some people who are experts on the technology etc. of that society go to some place in the Third World and, with the local people there, implement communism assuming all the resources were there? Surely they could form communes and then industrialise with the knowledge and resources they have?

Ok ok...... So, we are assuming there is no socialist/communist society in existance, only advanced capitalist (like the present US or Ireland?)(but who are we to say whats advanced, after all, Marx thought his era was advanced).

If there is no communist society in existance, and we understand that the means of production needs to reach a particular technological stage for communism to work and come into being, then how would these engineers, technicians etc. set up communism when the technology has not been invented? since they are still living under capitalism, which hasnt reached the necessary level of advanement - since its still capitalism? - are you saying that these engineers/technicians have some sort of technological understanding superior to present society AND THE WORLD, sort seeing into the future?

Why would they try implement communism from scratch in some backward country, when the prospects for communist revolution are greater in their own country - being advanced capitalist?

Im sorry, but what you are saying is not possible until communism has actually been reached somewhere. Where we know what communism is, and the necessary advancements are understood for social change - something we dont know!!!!!

Not to mention how difficult it would be to organise something like what you say - complete idealism IMHO.


What about those peasants in Nepal? Is what they are displaying not class awareness? Or is class awareness more complex than just knowing that there is inequality and that it can be done away with?

What Nepal is going through right now is not a socialist/communist revolution at all. What Russia went through was not a socialist revolution!!!!!

How can it be?...........To those fighting it may seem they are "doing it", but in material reality, they are simply advancing the mode of production to the capitalist form from fedalism - so its a bourgeois revolution in reality.

As for it being a peasant "revolution", well, this gets pretty complicated, but simply, there is more than one way to achieve the capitalist mode of production. No matter what these peasants do, the capitalist system will emerge. Material reality will always peer through, that being the lack of advanced production for communism.


What advancements? Automation and assembly lines? Factory production? People in Russia seemed willing to transform society, as did those where other revolutions have happened, mostly, as far as I know, in undeveloped countries. Am I misunderstanding something?

What advancements are needed to reach communism?........Well I dont know, I cant see into the future, I cant just create these advancements if they havnt been invented and applied yet..........(to hazard a guess, in pure technological terms, the automation of society until breakingpoint, where the capitalist system can do nothing but hold back human development).

As I said, the russian revolution was not communist, nor are up and coming undeveloped nations revolutions.

Remember that society and its structures are based around the means of production. No matter what society does, or believes its doing, material reality will prevail and the proper and suitable form of society will emerge around its mode of production inevitably. This is why these third world revolutions are bourgeosie.


People in undeveloped countries often seem willing to get rid of them. Why can communism then not be brought straight in if foreigners are there with knowledge of requisite technology?

Ok, Ill answer this assuming communism exists somewhere (otherwise the technology would not be known)

The interests of the King, state and ruling class of these underdeveloped countries are different from the people themselves. It would go against their interests to allow technology enter their borders. This is what class struggle is all about. The class that gain versus the class that will be brought down. This is why the proletariat must fight the bourgeosie, the capitalists dont want communism, just as the king dosnt want communism.


Why is that? Are the serfs too downtrodden to be able to think about significant dissent.

As I said, there is more than one way to achieve a particular form of production. Initially, the transformation from feudalism to capitalism was carried out by the industrial middle classes, as it was in their immediate interest to change the system.

Now, however, new ideologies have developed to transform society from feudalism using any lower class to achieve capitalism, for example Leninism, Maoism etc., call it a human advancement, where we now have more options for feudal to capitalist transformation!!!

Just like this, there will more than probably be more than one way to achieve socialism and communism!!!

But first, such a society must emerge using its initial class in opposition. Proletariat Vs Bourgeosie.

[Cult of Reason]

Note the form of labour that capitalism brings upon proletaria. A factory can only operate if every section of the production line is operating. This forces workers to co-operate - and on a massive scale. So, is it really so suprising when, during times of preletarian rebellion and revolution against the capitalist system, that so-operative and directly democratic forms of organisation (e.g. the soviets in Russia) emerge?

That sounds convincing. However, according to Gerald Brenan in his book The Spanish Labyrinth, the medieval communes of Spanish peasants had a very cooperative arrangement of large-scale organisation, tilling communal fields. In fact, he uses that as one of the reasons why Anarchism was popular in Spain: collective organisation of people was already part of the culture for production (although this had mostly been replace by more capitalistic practises by the Civil War, with 65% of the land owned by a small group of people and organisations).


Because they are the only class capable of realizing communism in its full potential. It's for the exact same reason that Luddites weren't communists. They couldn't see the real problem; they blamed the machines when the real problem is the bourgeoisie.

I accept your point on the Luddites.

Communism in its full potential... OK. What then if there was a "primitive communism" that then industrialised? If it was possible, would there be any ill effects from the industrialisation (aside from any environmental damage)?



Because in order to implement communism the proletariat has to take control of society. The bourgeoisie isn't going to implement it itself; that would be class suicide.

Surely that is what the revolution is for?



Because they wouldn't be able to achieve a significant amount of wealth/power, they wouldn't have enough resources to live a life as others in the capitalist world would, and if they started gathering wealth/power/popular support, they would be suppressed by the bourgeoisie. I suggest looking into utopian socialism, as this is what they advocated would bring about socialism.

Surely, after the oppressors of that system are removed and if the inhabitants are convinced that communism is the way to go, they could get production up and running after a few decades of industrialisation, assuming prior knowledge of such technology?

Utopian Socialism as in Robert Owen and his little communities? That is not quite what I had in mind. <_<



If there is no communist society in existance, and we understand that the means of production needs to reach a particular technological stage for communism to work and come into being, then how would these engineers, technicians etc. set up communism when the technology has not been invented? since they are still living under capitalism, which hasnt reached the necessary level of advanement - since its still capitalism? - are you saying that these engineers/technicians have some sort of technological understanding superior to present society AND THE WORLD, sort seeing into the future?

Well, I see the distribution system and production system of communism as being a little similar and not mutually exclusive to a technate. Technocrats (more information on this can be found at www.technocracy.ca) say that North America had sufficient technology to have a stateless, classless society in 1910, after conducting an energy survey of that continent (no, I do not know what the energy survey actually contained). As far as I can see, here we have all we need to make communism a reality.

Assuming that the 1910 figure is true, and that it is probably not too hard to build such infrastructure in a few decades and sufficient natural resources, then if a communal society had knowledge of such technology, they should be able to build it up with sufficient work and never have to suffer the oppression of capitalism.



What Nepal is going through right now is not a socialist/communist revolution at all. What Russia went through was not a socialist revolution&#33;&#33;&#33;&#33;&#33;

How can it be?...........To those fighting it may seem they are "doing it", but in material reality, they are simply advancing the mode of production to the capitalist form from fedalism - so its a bourgeois revolution in reality.

As for it being a peasant "revolution", well, this gets pretty complicated, but simply, there is more than one way to achieve the capitalist mode of production. No matter what these peasants do, the capitalist system will emerge. Material reality will always peer through, that being the lack of advanced production for communism.


I know, but what I asked was: what is class awareness?


to hazard a guess, in pure technological terms, the automation of society until breakingpoint, where the capitalist system can do nothing but hold back human development

Technocracy claims that that situation already exists, and that 98% of all production is from machine labour. The only reason it is not higher is because it would detroy profits. But the technology is already here, and has existed for decades. Or by technology do you mean the solid objects and machines, rather than the concepts and designs of those objects and machines? That might be where our misunderstanding comes from.


The interests of the King, state and ruling class of these underdeveloped countries are different from the people themselves. It would go against their interests to allow technology enter their borders. This is what class struggle is all about. The class that gain versus the class that will be brought down. This is why the proletariat must fight the bourgeosie, the capitalists dont want communism, just as the king dosnt want communism.

Again, is this technological concepts or objects you refer to? If the former, then if they know about it the common people could arrange for such technology to be aquired, especially if they happen to have some foreign revolutionaries who just happen to know about how to produce the machines and operate them.

I know this is all very far-fetched but I am trying to take this to its limits to see where they are. :)

Thankyou very much, comrades&#33; Please continue.

[Morpheus]

Note the form of labour that capitalism brings upon proletaria. A factory can only operate if every section of the production line is operating. This forces workers to co-operate - and on a massive scale. So, is it really so suprising when, during times of preletarian rebellion and revolution against the capitalist system, that so-operative and directly democratic forms of organisation (e.g. the soviets in Russia) emerge?

Even if true, that only makes communist revolution in a pre-industrial society more difficult, it doesn&#39;t make it impossible. Plus there are examples both of cooperative labor in pre-capitalist societies and of peasants, serfs or slaves forming similar directly democratic forms of organizing. For example, the soviets in Russia weren&#39;t limited to workers, peasants also had their own soviets and village assemblies. Plus the same interconnected nature of industrialization can also make it harder to revolt. They must all revolt at the same time in a coordinated manner or they will be defeated. Peasant villages can revolt one at a time, potentially making revolution easier. There is no reason why pre-capitalist societies cannot have socialist or communistic revolutions. In fact, I would argue that the so-called "collapses" of several ancient civilizations involved revolutions and a switch to low-tech versions of socialism/communism.

[Storming Heaven]

However, according to Gerald Brenan in his book The Spanish Labyrinth, the medieval communes of Spanish peasants had a very cooperative arrangement of large-scale organisation, tilling communal fields. In fact, he uses that as one of the reasons why Anarchism was popular in Spain: collective organisation of people was already part of the culture for production (although this had mostly been replace by more capitalistic practises by the Civil War, with 65% of the land owned by a small group of people and organisations).

I am not an expert on historical modes of production, but I suspect that the medieval communes in Spain were not utopias of collective organisation. I imagine that, being part of a feudal system they would have been presided over by a Lord in some manner or other, and that the peasants were required to tribute part of their production to the Lord, as was the case elsewhere in Europe. But again, I am no expert on Spanish history, so correct me if I am wrong&#33;

Also, the fact that co-operative peasant structures already existed in Spain cannot explain why Anarchism was so popular there. Not only did co-operative structures exist elsewhere (and not lead to Anarchism), but there were other co-operative alternatives open to the Spanish during the 1930s.


Even if true, that only makes communist revolution in a pre-industrial society more difficult, it doesn&#39;t make it impossible ... Plus the same interconnected nature of industrialization can also make it harder to revolt. They must all revolt at the same time in a coordinated manner or they will be defeated. Peasant villages can revolt one at a time, potentially making revolution easier.

I think that it makes it practically impossible. It has to do with what you deem &#39;the interconnected nature of industrialization&#39;. Indeed you are correct in saying that this makes revolt (and hence revolution) more difficult - a suitably large portion of the proletariat must revolt at the same time if they are to achieve anything. But you are wrong in asserting that the diffuse nature of peasant society makes a peasant revolution easier. It makes revolt easier, as it can occur individually, but these fragmented revolts are all too easily crushed. Witness that while there were numerous peasant revolts during feudal times, none had any measure of success. Revolution is more than simple revolt writ large.

[Connolly]

then if a communal society had knowledge of such technology, they should be able to build it up with sufficient work and never have to suffer the oppression of capitalism.

But how does it become communal without sufficient productive forces in place at first?

Then, even if the "populace" did have this knowledge, the governing state and ruling class wouldnt allow advancement.

A class war must happen between the "populace" and the ruling class (military, police, state, law etc.)

THIS IS MARXISM&#33;&#33;&#33;&#33;


Technocracy claims that that situation already exists, and that 98% of all production is from machine labour. The only reason it is not higher is because it would detroy profits. But the technology is already here, and has existed for decades.

Exactly how do they know they can create a communist society with present levels of advancement?

All sorts have claimed to be capable of creating societies with what we have now (Marx was guilty, Lenin was guilty).

But reality, beyond our own, [present] understanding will decide.

A group of "intellectuals", using their mere human brain cannot create and structure a society from scratch.

Humans are imperfect. Societal change must come through the actions of the billions in their own unique and individual way.


I know, but what I asked was: what is class awareness?

Sorry comrade&#33; i tend to call it this.

Youll hear it alot on this website (its very important).

Its actually called "class consciousness".



I must say, I dont know much about this "technocracy", but it sure sounds very like Marxism.

(could be some sort of copy) :&#33;:

[Noah]

Are you then implying that Capitalism is not necessary for communism to happen?

What makes you say that? I was replying in regards to this :



Serfs? Slaves? Peasants? Poor farmers and farm labourers..

These are all proletarians.

[Storming Heaven]

Serfs? Slaves? Peasants? Poor farmers and farm labourers..



These are all proletarians.

No, there is a difference between proletarians and other working classes. Read Engel&#39;s The Principles of Communism, especially sections 2, 7 and 8.

Marxists.com: The Principles of Communism (http://marxists.anu.edu.au/archive/marx/works/1847/11/prin-com.htm)

[Morpheus]

Originally posted by Storming [email protected] 14 2006, 09:32 AM
I think that it makes it practically impossible. It has to do with what you deem &#39;the interconnected nature of industrialization&#39;. Indeed you are correct in saying that this makes revolt (and hence revolution) more difficult - a suitably large portion of the proletariat must revolt at the same time if they are to achieve anything. But you are wrong in asserting that the diffuse nature of peasant society makes a peasant revolution easier. It makes revolt easier, as it can occur individually, but these fragmented revolts are all too easily crushed. Witness that while there were numerous peasant revolts during feudal times, none had any measure of success. Revolution is more than simple revolt writ large.
Except there are many cases of peasant revolts turning into sucessful revolutions. A lone revolt may be crushed, but if one revolt causes another village to revolt and then another and another, etc. eventually the whole system will come crashing down. That&#39;s basically what happened in the Chinese revolution. The advantage of this over a revolution in industrial societies is that, although revolts need to come quickly in sucession to be sucessful, they don&#39;t all have to be coordinated to be at the same time. There have been many revolutions in peasant societies; most revolutions have happened in peasant societies. The whole wave of Marxist-Leninist revolutions in the last century happened in peasant societies. The Qing dynasy in China was overthrown due to a peasant revolution. Even in medieval Europe several peasant revolts came close to victory, including the great revolts of the 14th century (especially in France & England). They came as close to victory as any attempted proletarian revolution, arguably closer. None of these revolutions resulted in anarcho-communism, true, but that&#39;s because the revolutionaries who made these revolutions largely didn&#39;t have anarcho-communism as their goal.

[Storming Heaven]

That&#39;s basically what happened in the Chinese revolution ... There have been many revolutions in peasant societies; most revolutions have happened in peasant societies.

Yeah, right - and look at China now...

I don&#39;t think &#39;revolutions in peasant societies&#39; are the same as &#39;peasant revolutions&#39;, if you take my meaning. The peasantry, as with all sections of the populous, are quite capable of supporting a revolution that may not have their best interests at heart. Look at the bourgeois French revolution - that was supported by the bulk of the French peasantry who wanted to remove the oppressive monarchy. Revolutions supported by peasants are not necessarily revolutions of peasants and the revolutions peasants bring about have an uncanny tendency to result in State-directed capitalism.

Having said this, it appears to me that the Spanish revolution was defeated by a Communist party that was essentially counter-revolutionary, crying for the establishment of a capitalist parliamentary democracy and the reversal of collectivization, etc. So it would seem that whilst peasant uprisings are unlikely to end in socialism (which appears to require some amount of industrialization) - they shouldn&#39;t be discouraged. How to make them work?

[Dimentio]

I do not believe that capitalism is necessary. A technocratic answer to modernisation would be that in order for under-developed areas to begin to develop, they must aquire technology and knowledge in order to utilise their resources. Capitalism may help there, combined with state intervention.

NET would work a lot along those theories, when the Sequence of Empathy is implemented [we would start development projects in parts of the third world].

[Cult of Reason]

Its actually called "class consciousness".

OK. In order for me to not have any future misunderstanding, please explain to me what it is, as myself learning what it is from context might mislead me.


I must say, I dont know much about this "technocracy", but it sure sounds very like Marxism.

(could be some sort of copy)

Technocrats, such as myself, claim that not to be so. It is not a copy. This is because it was reached through a different method. The conclusions happen to be similar.


Sequence of Empathy

Enrique, why must there be such indirectness of the title (which I do not like anyway, but you know my opinions)? Why not Sequence of Intercontinental Development? Sequence of Extra-Technate Industrialisation?

[Axel1917]

I believe that Trotsky&#39;s Theory of Permanent Revolution (see http://www.trotsky.net/trotsky_year/perman...evolution.html) (http://www.trotsky.net/trotsky_year/permanent_revolution.html)) is the solution to such problems in today&#39;s world.