Post scarcity and tecno-genic revolution

[Dean]

Since I was a child, I was involved in the socialist paradigm. I went to labor union rallies, I considered the morality of universal benefit and redistribution. And when I got older, I learned about communism. Everythign fell into place - it made since why I thought that all peopel ought to be treated equally, athat we all deserved a fair share. No longer did I have a vague sense of what was right and what ought to be, but I had a distinct ideolgoy that specifically explained the rationale, and even the creative conditions of the future classless society. I learned that the proletarait, acting out of rational self(class)-interest, would rise up and take what they worked for back from the capitalists. That this was a logical conclusion of the class antagonism. And there are various creative theories on this subject. Others say that it is all people, not just proletarians, who will be compelled to rise up. Some say that it is simply a human response to inhuman conditions.Even others talk about guiding, compelling the workign class to act.

I knew of all this before I came here. none of the concepts struck me as bad, and at times I have believed in all of these. But there is a strange new concept I ahve learned of upon coming here. That is, that bounty and technology will deliver us the revolution. This is truly a dangrous ideology, because its consequence is that we no longer look to ourselves as the creators of the revolutionary situation, but rather to technology or the accesibility of commodies. It is not the response of human activity to our conditions, but the conditions themselves as defined by inanimate objects, that are seen to revolutionize society. It is as if one looks at the information age, and all the social changes that have come with it, as a soley technological creation - nevermind that it took humans to respond to it socially to get where we are today.

In such a paradigm, we are waiting for the revolution. it is detached - it is a futuristic conept, not generated by human impulses, but specifically by commodities, and not even today's commodities, but tomorrow's. We are directly saying that we will and should submit to the situation that is created by commodities, and more importantly that capitalism doesn't stir up a human impulse to revolutionize society. Rather, capitalism brings the revoltion to your door, compliments of IBM, ITT, Union Carbide and EXxon.

I am the actor in revolution, not the object of it, and as such I reject the dead impulse to sit idly by and wait for our fancy toys to save us.

[Demogorgon]

I quite agree, the whole technocracy thing is really just wishful thinking. It is a classic case of "it would be nice if x were the case, therefore x can be/is the case".

The whole technocracy thing hangs on vague future goals, many of which I doubt are possible. The whole eliminating scarcity thing, that is everyone can have as much as they want. For that to come about capacity to produce will have to exceed capacity to consume and even leaving aside the fact that we only have finite resources, we are a long, long way from achieving that. Are we simply supposed to wait?

And that is before we even get to the silly things concerning robots.

[ÑóẊîöʼn]

But there is a strange new concept I ahve learned of upon coming here. That is, that bounty and technology will deliver us the revolution.

And who's saying this? Nobody so far as I know. What is apparant to me is that a definate abundance of materials and energy are required in order to sustain a classless society.


This is truly a dangrous ideology, because its consequence is that we no longer look to ourselves as the creators of the revolutionary situation, but rather to technology or the accesibility of commodies.Advanced technology and high levels of energy and materials usage are requirements in addition to, not replacing a mass movement and revolutionary consciousness.

You seem to be somehow embarassed at merely recognising that fact. As materialists it is fundamental that we recognise that certain material conditions must be in place before sustainable (in senses of the word other than environmental) classless society is possible.

It is a historical fact that with new social organisations comes new technology. It is also a historical fact that as technology advances, as it increases in scope and capability, that energy and materials usage also increases. The increases do not have a 1:1 correlation, but few things do.

Also, it is not just the existance of certain technologies that makes certain societies possible - capitalism would have been impossible without the steam engine, but the steam engine as an abstract invention dates back to ancient Greek times. But wasn't until the rise of the steam engine in the 18-19th centuries when it became a socially useful technology wityh practical applications that capitalism really managed to get a foothold.

Indeed, the vast majority of modern power generation consists consists of the steam engine, and modern high-tech variants such as nuclear power plants. The internal combustion engine, the power plant of choice for almost all Earth-bound vehicles, is perhaps equally important.

Is anyone seriously arguing that capitalism, especially modern capitalism of the type we see today, is possible without such things?

You simply cannot create modern capitalism, and by extension classless society, exporting coffee and tobacco to imperialist countries.

Advanced capitalist countries may give the appearance of of being materially wealthy enough to sustain classless society. But I don't know that, and what's more I suspect you don't either.


It is not the response of human activity to our conditions, but the conditions themselves as defined by inanimate objects, that are seen to revolutionize society.Well, what defines and limits human activity, on the grand scale of history? Material conditions, that's what.

If you're a consistent materialist, it follows that "free will" is necessarily an illusion, and immaterial ideas only have "force" when they manifest themselves in an historically significant and material manner - like the widespread take-up of the steam engine and it's descendants that I mentioned earlier.

Therefore, revolutionary ideas will only "catch on" when the material conditions for them are correct. As revolutionaries, it is our job to make sure that those ideas are available when or if the time comes.

We are putting Marx's hypothesis to the test.


It is as if one looks at the information age, and all the social changes that have come with it, as a soley technological creation - nevermind that it took humans to respond to it socially to get where we are today.But that "human response" would have been impossible without the invention of integrated circuits, the transistor, the steam engine etc etc.

There would have been nothing to "respond to" as it were.


In such a paradigm, we are waiting for the revolution. No, we should be spreading revolutionary ideas. In every way we can.

We also should be arguing like hell, but since we need little encouragement to do that it's hardly ever worth mentioning.


it is detached - it is a futuristic conept, not generated by human impulses, but specifically by commodities, and not even today's commodities, but tomorrow's. We are directly saying that we will and should submit to the situation that is created by commodities, and more importantly that capitalism doesn't stir up a human impulse to revolutionize society. Rather, capitalism brings the revoltion to your door, compliments of IBM, ITT, Union Carbide and EXxon.A laughable strawman, of course. Currently, we may have the ability to sustain classless society in advanced capitalist countries. But the requirements of widespread revolutionary consciousness and a mass movement actively struggling for classless society do not exist in any meaningful way.

That's a "human impulse" that certainly missing. It tells me that the material conditions are missing, and I can certainly see why - a quick look around the bourgeouis media will fairly quickly tell you that we live in an age of reaction.

As for "sumbitting" I challenge you to find one post of mine where I encourage sumbission to the bourgeouis authorities.

As for capitalism stirring up a "revolutionary impulse", it may well do that, but not in any significant manner at present. One job of revolutionaries is to try their best to stir up as much outrage as they can, and to use that awareness of capitalism's outrages to (what we hope to be) revolutionary activity.


I am the actor in revolution, not the object of it, and as such I reject the dead impulse to sit idly by and wait for our fancy toys to save us.I'm certainly not expecting 3D printers to alleviate us all from work in my lifetime, and if I was, do you seriously expect I'd waste any time replying to you?


I quite agree, the whole technocracy thing is really just wishful thinking. It is a classic case of "it would be nice if x were the case, therefore x can be/is the case".

Marxism can also be dismissed as "wishful thinking", which is in fact what most bourgeuouis ideologues do.

It doesn't give any weight to their assertions, and it gives no weight to yours.


The whole technocracy thing hangs on vague future goals, many of which I doubt are possible.Such as what?


The whole eliminating scarcity thing, that is everyone can have as much as they want. For that to come about capacity to produce will have to exceed capacity to consume and even leaving aside the fact that we only have finite resources, we are a long, long way from achieving that.Humans have finite desires. There does not have to be an infinity of energy or materials in order to satisfy them.


Are we simply supposed to wait?Of course not.

[Demogorgon]

Marxism can also be dismissed as "wishful thinking", which is in fact what most bourgeuouis ideologues do.

It doesn't give any weight to their assertions, and it gives no weight to yours.
No it can't and no they don't, not the ones who understand Marxism anyway. Marx had little to say about future goals, he was focussed on the here and now, bourgeoisie thinkers usually accuse Marx of having too dark a look on society, not of wishful thinking. You are showing your ignorance of Marxism.

Yet again

Such as what?Giving people all they wish, allocating through energy accounting, having robots do the work, solving everything through technology, and so on.


Humans have finite desires. There does not have to be an infinity of energy or materials in order to satisfy them.We don't know whether wants are infinite or not. The consensus is, in fact, that they are. That does not matter much though, because people only have a finite capacity to consume. However our capacity to consume is far greater than our capacity to produce, so no such luck.


Of course not.
So what is the point in dreaming of vague, science-fiction , utopias when we could be focussing on actually achieving concrete change?

[ÑóẊîöʼn]

No it can't and no they don't, not the ones who understand Marxism anyway. Marx had little to say about future goals, he was focussed on the here and now, bourgeoisie thinkers usually accuse Marx of having too dark a look on society, not of wishful thinking. You are showing your ignorance of Marxism.

Yet againIs that why we keep getting that "Marxism is a religion" crap?

And if Marx's views on society are so "dark" then why is communism considered so "utopian"?


Giving people all they wish, That's a goal, which may or may not be achieved, depending on material circumstances. Whether or not such a goal is attainable, it should be striven for.


allocating through energy accounting,It appears to be very much superior to what currently happens. We should strive to be in a position to put it to the test.


having robots do the work,Again, a goal that should be striven for as much as possible, whether or not it's total realisation is possible. Some jobs may be impractical or even undesirable to automate, but we should automate as much of them as we can.

Complete automation (or anything seriously approaching it) is of course impossible under modern capitalism.


solving everything through technology, and so on.We are material beings, as are our technological artefacts. We use technology to do a staggering amount of things. In fact, we do more things with technology than we do without. Can you fly at hundreds of km per hour over open ocean while carrying several tons of cargo? I know I can't, but a jet airplane can.

None these are "vague" but have definate answers.

Our task should be to find out what those answers are and base our political actions off of them accordingly.


We don't know whether wants are infinite or not. The consensus is, in fact, that they are.Sod the consensus. Facts about the real world are not decided by consensus.

Are human desires infinite? We don't know, but whatever the amount of human desires, if we can satisfy the most important ones for the largest amount of people, we will have achieved a damn sight more than capitalism.


That does not matter much though, because people only have a finite capacity to consume. However our capacity to consume is far greater than our capacity to produce, so no such luck.So you say. And even if you are correct, that will not necessarily be the case all of the time.


So what is the point in dreaming of vague, science-fiction , utopias when we could be focussing on actually achieving concrete change?Because it's better to base our actions on ideas based on what actually happens in the material world rather than recycling dreary Leninist cliches, or jumping into the same muck as the reformists, or retreating into "lifestylism" or any other such distractions.

[Demogorgon]

Is that why we keep getting that "Marxism is a religion" crap?

And if Marx's views on society are so "dark" then why is communism considered so "utopian"?You don't get much "Marxism is religion" at all. You get people in OI saying it here, and it is probably true that some people use it as a surrogate religion. But of course those are the same people who know little about it anyway. Certainly it is very difficult to understand Marx and regard it as anything more or less than analysis of capitalist society.


That's a goal, which may or may not be achieved, depending on material circumstances. Whether or not such a goal is attainable, it should be striven for.Fine, but nobody denies the goal is laudable. We just think that your proposed methods are science fiction geekery and nothing more.


It appears to be very much superior to what currently happens. We should strive to be in a position to put it to the test.How can you say it appears to be superior when there has never been any attempt to try it or even explain in detail how it might work? I seriously doubt energy accounting is even possible, never mind superior to any other given model. If you disagree, prove me wrong, give me a detailed explanation of how it would work and we will see.


Again, a goal that should be striven for as much as possible, whether or not it's total realisation is possible. Some jobs may be impractical or even undesirable to automate, but we should automate as much of them as we can.

Complete automation (or anything seriously approaching it) is of course impossible under modern capitalism.Production gets automated all the time. If that is all you ask for, you are easily satisfied. But of course it isn't. What you insist on doing is turn everybody off with a geek's fantasy of robots doing everything


We are material beings, as are our technological artefacts. We use technology to do a staggering amount of things. In fact, we do more things with technology than we do without. Can you fly at hundreds of km per hour over open ocean while carrying several tons of cargo? I know I can't, but a jet airplane can.Your point being? Nobody denies that technology is useful, what I am mocking is the blind faith that it will solve everything. The problems in this world primarily stem from politics and economics and it is through politics and economics that they will be solved. Development of technology will go on of course, but it is a separate process.


Are human desires infinite? We don't know, but whatever the amount of human desires, if we can satisfy the most important ones for the largest amount of people, we will have achieved a damn sight more than capitalism.
Nobody denies that, but simply stating that as your goal does not validate your method.

So you say. And even if you are correct, that will not necessarily be the case all of the time.We don't have the resources to satisfy everybody's capacity to consume, fortunately we do have the resources to give everybody what they need and a fair bit more, but all they want, no. Perhaps in a few centuries when the moon and mars and so on can be mined for resources it will be possible. But I want socialism today, not in five hundred years. And besides as I have already said, all the technology in the world won't bring socialism. It needs to be political and economic change, not techno-geek fantasies.


Because it's better to base our actions on ideas based on what actually happens in the material world rather than recycling dreary Leninist cliches, or jumping into the same muck as the reformists, or retreating into "lifestylism" or any other such distractions.And this is just ridiculous. "what actually happens"?:laugh:

There is not a single thing on earth even vaguely pointing to technocrats being correct.

[Lynx]

Comment: Interesting, but what does this have to do with economics?

[Bilan]

You don't get much "Marxism is religion" at all. You get people in OI saying it here, and it is probably true that some people use it as a surrogate religion. But of course those are the same people who know little about it anyway. Certainly it is very difficult to understand Marx and regard it as anything more or less than analysis of capitalist society.


Are you joking?
Marxism, Communism, etc. are quite often ignorantly demonised as religions. Furthermore, they are demonised as utopian - Hast thou ne'er had, "It's a good idea, but it can't happen; it goes against human nature" argument?

I don't know what planet you're on, but that is not uncommon.

[Bilan]

Comment: Interesting, but what does this have to do with economics?

Good question.
I'll leave it, though.

[Demogorgon]

Are you joking?
Marxism, Communism, etc. are quite often ignorantly demonised as religions. Furthermore, they are demonised as utopian - Hast thou ne'er had, "It's a good idea, but it can't happen; it goes against human nature" argument?

I don't know what planet you're on, but that is not uncommon.

Sure people say that, but they are ones who don't know anything about Marxism. The serious criticisms of Marx from the right never say that.

[Hit The North]

I don't really understand the point being made in the OP. Is it accusing Technocracy of being a form of revolutionary fatalism? If it is, I think Dean misses the point which is that technocracy is not a theory of revolutionary action at all. It's main preoccupation does seem to be speculation of how to organise an advanced post-capitalist society. As such it has little to offer us in terms of how we approach over-turning capitalist society.

[Jazzratt]

You don't get much "Marxism is religion" at all. You get people in OI saying it here, and it is probably true that some people use it as a surrogate religion. But of course those are the same people who know little about it anyway. Certainly it is very difficult to understand Marx and regard it as anything more or less than analysis of capitalist society.

Anyone who understands technocracy doesn't give your half-arsed oft-refuted critisisms either, you pompus prick.


We just think that your proposed methods are science fiction geekery and nothing more.That's because from your tower of ignorance you've never bothered to examine what is actually proposed by technocracy but instead cry "geeks" and put you fingers in your ears.


How can you say it appears to be superior when there has never been any attempt to try it or even explain in detail how it might work?It has yet to be tried that is true, but to claim that it hasn't been described in detail is pure horseshit and you know it.


I seriously doubt energy accounting is even possible, never mind superior to any other given model.That's fantastic, you can seriously doubt it as much as you like, it's clear that you do so simply because you're scared it's an attack on the traditional marxism you have such an enormous emotional investment in.



Production gets automated all the time. If that is all you ask for, you are easily satisfied. But of course it isn't. What you insist on doing is turn everybody off with a geek's fantasy of robots doing everything
Your point being? Nobody denies that technology is useful, what I am mocking is the blind faith that it will solve everything.Mocking strawmen, while it may satisfy your poor self-esteem, is not a substitute for argument. No one has blind faith that technology will solve "everything", otherwise there would be no revolutionary technocrats and we'd all sit around waiting for technology to "save us" (as you pretend that we do). What we're pointing out is that technology can and should be used to solve more problems, because it can. Take, for example, food shortages and famine (very pertinent issues) - if it is not technology that will solve it then what?

The bottom line is that we wish to harness technology in order to create things more efficiently, not just through automation but through things like genetically engineered crops and cloned animals (for two examples of how technology can help an industry [agriculture] without "robots doing everything" ).


The problems in this world primarily stem from politics and economics and it is through politics and economics that they will be solved. Development of technology will go on of course, but it is a separate process.Bollocks, in a crisis an intelligent engineer will always be of more use than some windbag politician or a posturing economist. Politics and economics exist only to either impede or stimulate technological growth, when they impede it (wars, capitalism, price systems in general, political lobbying against useful technologies (GM crops) and so on) we get disasters.


Nobody denies that, but simply stating that as your goal does not validate your method. We don't have the resources to satisfy everybody's capacity to consume, fortunately we do have the resources to give everybody what they need and a fair bit more, but all they want, no.Technocracy exists to make that "fair bit more" as big as possible by applying the most effecient means of using our available energy to make that "fair bit more" as big as possible.


Perhaps in a few centuries when the moon and mars and so on can be mined for resources it will be possible. But [B]I want socialism today, not in five hundred years.Socialism today? In the precise material conditions of 28/07/08? And you call us utopian nutters? (Actually you don't you call us sci-fi geeks because it makes you feel about being beaten up at school or something).


And besides as I have already said, all the technology in the world won't bring socialism. It needs to be political and economic change, not techno-geek fantasies. Technology is a part of our material reality, if you want to pretend that you can somehow have communism without advanced industrial technologies, more power to you and your delusions but maybe you shoul present your views elsewhere - here on revleft the adults are talking.


There is not a single thing on earth even vaguely pointing to technocrats being correct.Yes because everything in the world is pointing at the politics of Marx & Lenin as the correct way to run anything other than a tinpot shithole.

[Demogorgon]

Anyone who understands technocracy doesn't give your half-arsed oft-refuted critisisms either, you pompus prick.
If nobody cares, why do you lot get so hysterical when I mock your fantasies? And if my points are so easily refuted, why have you not refuted them


It has yet to be tried that is true, but to claim that it hasn't been described in detail is pure horseshit and you know it. No it hasn't. There has been plenty of utopian talk about what you would like, but precious little on the how side of things. Why don't you try coughing up detailed models explaining how all of this is going to work?


That's fantastic, you can seriously doubt it as much as you like, it's clear that you do so simply because you're scared it's an attack on the traditional marxism you have such an enormous emotional investment in.I have no trouble in moving away from traditional Marxism, I do it allt he time. What I have a problem with is childish stupidity. I doubt energy accounting would work because I am almost certain tht it is mathematically impossible.

Don't just whine and bluster there. Prove me wrong. If it works, tell me what formulae you will use in your accounting. If you cannot manage that, at least try and explain what inputs and outputs they will use. Explain why those are the correct inputs. Then tell me how you will cope with constant changes in preferences and demographics and how disputes as to what course of action should be followed can be resolved.

For any proposed system that has been sought through, those questions are easy to answer. So answer them.


Mocking strawmen, while it may satisfy your poor self-esteem, is not a substitute for argument. No one has blind faith that technology will solve "everything", otherwise there would be no revolutionary technocrats and we'd all sit around waiting for technology to "save us" (as you pretend that we do). What we're pointing out is that technology can and should be used to solve more problems, because it can. Take, for example, food shortages and famine (very pertinent issues) - if it is not technology that will solve it then what?

The bottom line is that we wish to harness technology in order to create things more efficiently, not just through automation but through things like genetically engineered crops and cloned animals (for two examples of how technology can help an industry [agriculture] without "robots doing everything" [because, realistically, they cannot]).Nobody disputes that technological process solves problems. It is the ridiculous notions that technocrats have, concerning technology that are the object of ridicule

Incidentally how on earth are cloned animals meant to solve agricultural problems?


Bollocks, in a crisis an intelligent engineer will always be of more use than some windbag politician or a posturing economist. Politics and economics exist only to either impede or stimulate technological growth, when they impede it (wars, capitalism, price systems in general, political lobbying against useful technologies (GM crops) and so on) we get disasters. So if you are trying to end a civil war, you will get an engineer to mediate between the two sides?


Technocracy exists to make that "fair bit more" as big as possible by applying the most effecient means of using our available energy to make that "fair bit more" as big as possible. Again, the question is HOW? How are you going to do this? Again until you demonstrate how energy accounting can possibly work, this is just a wishful statement.


Socialism today? In the precise material conditions of 28/07/08? And you call us utopian nutters? (Actually you don't you call us sci-fi geeks because it makes you feel about being beaten up at school or something).The political conditions are not right obviously, but should they become so, socialism is completely possible. Our task is to persuade people of the need for socialism, plain and simple. Should people come to agree that there is a need for change and succeed in dislodging those who presently hold power, socialism is certainly achievable right now. In the west at least.

And on another note, don't worry, I wasn't beaten up in school. I wasn't a sci-fi nerd


Technology is a part of our material reality, if you want to pretend that you can somehow have communism without advanced industrial technologies, more power to you and your delusions but maybe you shoul present your views elsewhere - here on revleft the adults are talking.Advanced industrial technology has existed for decades. What precisely is technocracy proposing to add to the equation there? Should Britain or France, America or any other industrial power followed Russia in revolution in 1917, socialism would have been possible even back then, it is certainly possible now.

Oh, and Adults talking on Revleft?:laugh:


Yes because everything in the world is pointing at the politics of Marx & Lenin as the correct way to run anything other than a tinpot shithole.
And what precisely did Marx advocate on the subject of running anything? In terms of analysing Capitalism, Marx was probably the best writer the world has yet thrown up, but he was perfectly candid that he did not know much about how to organise a society post revolution and made little attempt to come up with any formula. The fact that you do not know that is telling.

[Dean]

And who's saying this? Nobody so far as I know. What is apparant to me is that a definate abundance of materials and energy are required in order to sustain a classless society.

Advanced technology and high levels of energy and materials usage are requirements in addition to, not replacing a mass movement and revolutionary consciousness.

You seem to be somehow embarassed at merely recognising that fact. As materialists it is fundamental that we recognise that certain material conditions must be in place before sustainable (in senses of the word other than environmental) classless society is possible.
We have had adequate materials to restructure society for millenia. In the very specifical industrialized concept put forth by Marx, it has been available since the late 1900s. Simply put, human society does not basically rest on our relationship to material, but to human things, i.e. our labor and social existence.


It is a historical fact that with new social organisations comes new technology. It is also a historical fact that as technology advances, as it increases in scope and capability, that energy and materials usage also increases. The increases do not have a 1:1 correlation, but few things do.

Also, it is not just the existance of certain technologies that makes certain societies possible - capitalism would have been impossible without the steam engine, but the steam engine as an abstract invention dates back to ancient Greek times. But wasn't until the rise of the steam engine in the 18-19th centuries when it became a socially useful technology wityh practical applications that capitalism really managed to get a foothold.

Indeed, the vast majority of modern power generation consists consists of the steam engine, and modern high-tech variants such as nuclear power plants. The internal combustion engine, the power plant of choice for almost all Earth-bound vehicles, is perhaps equally important.

Is anyone seriously arguing that capitalism, especially modern capitalism of the type we see today, is possible without such things?
Capitalism, yes. Modern capitalism, no. Capitalism is an orientation of society that is based on the profit motive; that it existed in a specific time frame, during and post industrial revolution, doesn't in any way indicate that it couddln't have existed before, given the correct social conditions.


You simply cannot create modern capitalism, and by extension classless society, exporting coffee and tobacco to imperialist countries.
Not in and of that activity, no. But in that context, there is no real reason why classless society cannot flower.


Well, what defines and limits human activity, on the grand scale of history? Material conditions, that's what.
Real deep. You refuse to acknowledge, however, that the material world and commodity / technology are distinct.


If you're a consistent materialist, it follows that "free will" is necessarily an illusion, and immaterial ideas only have "force" when they manifest themselves in an historically significant and material manner - like the widespread take-up of the steam engine and it's descendants that I mentioned earlier.

Therefore, revolutionary ideas will only "catch on" when the material conditions for them are correct. As revolutionaries, it is our job to make sure that those ideas are available when or if the time comes.

We are putting Marx's hypothesis to the test.

But that "human response" would have been impossible without the invention of integrated circuits, the transistor, the steam engine etc etc.

There would have been nothing to "respond to" as it were.

No, we should be spreading revolutionary ideas. In every way we can.

We also should be arguing like hell, but since we need little encouragement to do that it's hardly ever worth mentioning.
You, however, seperate the human from the material conditions. The human being is the primary motivater and actor in regards to revolution, technology is only a context within which human beings act. We cannot base revolutionary theory on the context of its creator, but its creator.


A laughable strawman, of course. Currently, we may have the ability to sustain classless society in advanced capitalist countries. But the requirements of widespread revolutionary consciousness and a mass movement actively struggling for classless society do not exist in any meaningful way.

That's a "human impulse" that certainly missing. It tells me that the material conditions are missing, and I can certainly see why - a quick look around the bourgeouis media will fairly quickly tell you that we live in an age of reaction.

As for "sumbitting" I challenge you to find one post of mine where I encourage sumbission to the bourgeouis authorities.

As for capitalism stirring up a "revolutionary impulse", it may well do that, but not in any significant manner at present. One job of revolutionaries is to try their best to stir up as much outrage as they can, and to use that awareness of capitalism's outrages to (what we hope to be) revolutionary activity.
Technology as it exists today is a bourgeois commodity. To say that revolution is impossible outside of a specific technological context, which the working classes will not control until after revolution, is directly saying that only the bourgeois can create the calyst for revolution. That is absurd.


I'm certainly not expecting 3D printers to alleviate us all from work in my lifetime, and if I was, do you seriously expect I'd waste any time replying to you?
I wonder why people who look to machines, rather than humans, as their saviors, have any business on a revolutionary leftist website.


Good question.
I'll leave it, though.
It has business here because it is about the economic context within which revolution exists. It is about whether the economic situation as defined by human labor or technology is the determining factor in our society's readiness for revolution.

[Vanguard1917]

Advanced industrial technology has existed for decades... Should Britain or France, America or any other industrial power followed Russia in revolution in 1917, socialism would have been possible even back then, it is certainly possible now.


This is an ahistorical viewpoint. For one thing, human wants, needs, desires aren't static but always changing. So, for example, the level of development in 1917 Britain would not be able to provide a sufficient basis to build a socialist society for the 21st century. Socialism is historically justified if it can develop the productive forces of society. This is something which is historically relative. In other words, a socialist society has to be able to bring about progress above contemporary conditions. There is no 'level of sufficient development for socialism' that we can set in advance.

More importantly, though, capitalism is not overthrown when people decide that it's hypothetically possible to start a new society. From a materialist perspective, socialism becomes historically necessary because capitalism hinders the development of society's means of production. Of course, working class people have to be won over to revolutionary politics, and this is in the end decisive, but the reason why capitalism is a historically limited social system subject to overthrow is that it stands in the way of economic development.

Some strong arguments are no doubt to be had against 'technocracy'. But the argument that some seem to be making, i.e. that technological development is not central to historical development, is no argument at all.

[Lynx]

The technocratic movement has no interest in class struggle, historical context, politics or revolution. That may cause some leftists to reject it, so be it. Their material analysis however, imo, is bang on.

I would like to see a debate regarding the details and merits of energy accounting. Would it work if there remained scarcity as is perceived today?

(A technical debate is preferable to an idealogical one)

[Demogorgon]

This is an ahistorical viewpoint. For one thing, human wants, needs, desires aren't static but always changing. So, for example, the level of development in 1917 Britain would not be able to provide a sufficient basis to build a socialist society for the 21st century. Socialism is historically justified if it can develop the productive forces of society. This is something which is historically relative. In other words, a socialist society has to be able to bring about progress above contemporary conditions. There is no 'level of sufficient development for socialism' that we can set in advance.

More importantly, though, capitalism is not overthrown when people decide that it's hypothetically possible to start a new society. From a materialist perspective, socialism becomes historically necessary because capitalism hinders the development of society's means of production. Of course, working class people have to be won over to revolutionary politics, and this is in the end decisive, but the reason why capitalism is a historically limited social system subject to overthrow is that it stands in the way of economic development.

Some strong arguments are no doubt to be had against 'technocracy'. But the argument that some seem to be making, i.e. that technological development is not central to historical development, is no argument at all.
I did not say that technological development is not necessary, but rather that it is incidental to change. Socialism would have been achievable in 1917, given the right political conditions because it was economically possible. Technological progress would of course have continued and while we cannot possibly predict what route it would have taken, we would certainly have become more advanced over time.

The trouble with the notion that socialism needs advanced technology is that advanced technology is a completely subjective concept. What was cutting edge in 1900 is not hopelessly out of date. State of the art technology today, will be laughably quaint a hundred years from now and so on. Those who make a fetish out of improving technology and saying we need to get it right before socialism is possible will never be satisfied, because technology will always improve-there is no final point of development.

You refer to socialism becoming necessary when capitalism is fettering production. That is true, but it is not necessarily a technological thing (indeed capitalism has been hindering technical developments for ages now, that condition is well in place), but rather it hinders production by preventing optimal workplace structures. It is not a very controversial thing to say that worker-run workplaces are far superior to hierarchical workplaces (capitalist economists themselves acknowledge this when they are forced to address the issue), but capitalism prevents it from happening very often. That is an example of capitalism fettering production.

Once again, I am not saying that technology is not important, but rather that making a fetish out of it and imagining that technological development is all that is needed for change is simply absurd. I maintain that a socialist society would be perfectly feasible at current levels of technology, but that does not mean that I oppose technological development, merely that I refuse to accept such development as an excuse for inaction.

My primary criticism of technocracy incidentally is, as you will note is the utterly infeasible nature of their proposition. Allocating through energy-accounting is, so far as I can see, impossible and the technocrats here are making no attempt to explain how it would work.

Technocracy sounds lovely, a world where we can have all we want and never have to work, but it is nothing but a pipe dream and as such is useless.

I went somewhat off-course there, in my response, but I thought it better to clarify the whole body of my views.

[Cult of Reason]

I don't really understand the point being made in the OP. Is it accusing Technocracy of being a form of revolutionary fatalism? If it is, I think Dean misses the point which is that technocracy is not a theory of revolutionary action at all. It's main preoccupation does seem to be speculation of how to organise an advanced post-capitalist society. As such it has little to offer us in terms of how we approach over-turning capitalist society.

As far as orthodox Technocracy goes, Bob The Builder is essentially correct. In the 1920s the Technical Alliance's activities were dominated by working out what productive capacity the USA and Canada had compared to the physical and social limits of human consumption and concluded that the former exceeded the latter, providing all necessary materials were available (hence the inclusion of Greenland (for cryolite, presumably, so probably useless now) and Latin America down to the borders with Brazil, Peru and Ecuador), despite the apparent scarcity (due to low load factors, the market and inefficiencies). From this they tried to work out how best to run a society that placed no artificial limits on production capacity and concluded that, among other things, it would need to be economically equal and would need to use a method for accounting embodied energy. Of course, to deny the influence of Socialism on their thoughts would disingeneous, since it was "everywhere" at the time. The IWW, after all, reached its peak membership in (what?) 1924 (or something like that). In fact, Howard Scott had a few things to say about the bourgoisie (not that it matters).

However, despite the non-revolutionary stance of the orthodox Technocrats, I think that, if Technocracy is correct, a few of its conclusions should be taken into account by any revolutionary organisation. Firstly: the third world does not have the productive capacity, the technology or the educated population necessary to have a sustainable egalitarian system. Secondly: the world cannot feasibly be (yet) encompassed by such a system, due to asymmetrical development, distance and physical obstacles. There will be no (ultimately successful (though that depends on how you define success, in this case)) revolution either in the Third World alone or world-wide any time soon. Thirdly: there are areas of high development (e.g. Canada-USA-Mexico-Central America-Carribean-Colombia-Venezuela-Guyana-French Guiana-Suriname) that CAN sustain an egalitarian system. To me that would imply that the main focus of organisation should neither be national nor global, but based upon such regions, such as the example given above (Communist Party of Northern America? Anyone?). In addition, if the goal is specifically a Technate, I think that something similar to syndicalist organisation may be necessary.


I would like to see a debate regarding the details and merits of energy accounting.

It might be interesting, but not in this thread, where the OP was such a straw man and not conducive to constructive argument (read: I am unprepared for such a debate at this time, since I have not discussed Energy Accounting in quite a while).


Would it work if there remained scarcity as is perceived today?


Not sustainably, and probably not at all, with the method Technocracy describes, which was designed for abundance. Some other method, perhaps (perhaps), of accounting energy degradation, but not Energy Accounting specifically (Energy Accounting vs. energy accounting ;)). Certainly, some portions of the environmental movement have advocated accounting embodied energy, in some way, within the market already, IIRC. Of course, that is as a supplement, not a replacement, so it is not entirely comparable.

[Dean]

This is an ahistorical viewpoint. For one thing, human wants, needs, desires aren't static but always changing. So, for example, the level of development in 1917 Britain would not be able to provide a sufficient basis to build a socialist society for the 21st century. Socialism is historically justified if it can develop the productive forces of society. This is something which is historically relative. In other words, a socialist society has to be able to bring about progress above contemporary conditions. There is no 'level of sufficient development for socialism' that we can set in advance.
So? It is obvious that societal organization schematics rest upon the current standards. That doesn't prove that classless society is basically rooted in a specific level of production.


More importantly, though, capitalism is not overthrown when people decide that it's hypothetically possible to start a new society. From a materialist perspective, socialism becomes historically necessary because capitalism hinders the development of society's means of production. Of course, working class people have to be won over to revolutionary politics, and this is in the end decisive, but the reason why capitalism is a historically limited social system subject to overthrow is that it stands in the way of economic development.
Really? Do the machines get together and say "we're not being used to full capacity, lets revolutionize society"? Or is it this: the humans get together and say, "we want to restructure society and end class oppression"? Honestly, even if you argue that it is primarily economic, you can't have such change without the human element as a primary motive and actor.


Some strong arguments are no doubt to be had against 'technocracy'. But the argument that some seem to be making, i.e. that technological development is not central to historical development, is no argument at all.
Technological development is important. Some here think it is in and of itself socially creative, however, and that is totally false.

[ckaihatsu]

This post is meant as a quick sketch of what may be currently possible, thanks to the coordination potential made possible by the technological revolution of the Internet. Many of these points have already been made in this thread, and there are some news article excerpts and references at the end, for context.

In accordance with Marx's Declining Rate of Profit, world capitalism is currently seeing an economic crisis as profound as 1929. Bank profits are sharply down, and the Dow has fallen from former highs, now stagnating for several months. It's not quite a stock market crash, but effectively may be just as bad, with most prognostications indicating more of the same, if not worse.

Just as a political, or constitutional, crisis will lead all eyes to the agents of final arbitration, the judges, the current economic crisis is leading all eyes to the institutions of final accounting, the credit rating agencies. Accompanied by hedge funds that are acting as giant black holes of deflation, vacuuming out massive quantities of finance capital -- that is, the accumulated wealth of past labor effort -- we are left with a crisis of valuation: What is a vehicle worth, anyway, if all it can do is decelerate?

Will we see a de facto nationalization in the direction of the FDIC, where a falling tide shrinks all ships to $100,000?

It seems as though the capitalist economy, such as it is, will soon not be worth the effort anymore. An enlightened, informed work force -- even including those who measure their self-worth by their net worth, will find their private adventures landing only on barren islands.

Already, the desperate hug-fest precipitated by plummeting asset worth has driven the decades-old trend of mergers and acquisitions, resulting today in gargantuan corporate constructions with lean, efficient operations, but that are now decidedly top-heavy and increasingly out-of-reach from consumers at the ground level.

From the point of view of leftist revolutionaries this is not necessarily a bad thing. The dynamic of corporatization has done much of our work for us, if only we can engineer a way to get inside and kick the bastards out -- or, as I am raising here, possibly to collectively wander around the place until the bastards become so disoriented that they have nowhere to go but out.

I will posit that, just as the Scientific Revolution of the 17th century laid the groundwork for the social-political revolutions of the 18th century, we may be experiencing a scientific revolution in the present day that will propel a new era of social and political revolution to bring about final and decisive control over labor by labor.

I would like to submit that this point is reached when mass lifestyle meets mass capacity, or when mass capacity meets mass lifestyle. In other words, could we really sidestep capitalism through syndicalism, given a certain cheap, satisfying, readily accessible standard of living, thanks to advanced automation?

The Internet itself is a trophy-case example of successful automation -- where once we had professional women manually routing every single phone call by plugging plugs into jacks, today we have the 100% hands-off routing of innumerable information packets through the constellation of hubs that makes up the circuitry of the Internet. Furthermore, the cost for all of this is practically negligible for the end user, which is a complete reversal from what would be expected for providing any other kind of service.

This ease of information, including the digitization of any media that is text-, image-, audio-, or video-based, means that a universe of cultural goods is now available at virtually zero cost to anyone with an Internet connection.

Is this ground adequate for supporting a new era of lifestyles that can sidestep the demands for labor and financial autocracy of capitalism altogether?

Perhaps this combined personal and political revolution would usher in a new period of digitally equipped hunter-gatherers, living off the land of highly leveraged technologies, collectively forming a public consensus that eschews the labor-ownership relationship forever.

At times each participant could check in at their connectivity oasis, for as long as it takes to catch up on their own portion of the mass administration of it all, now made almost effortless through mass coordination and order achieved over the Internet, creating a unified system of production and workers management spanning the globe and including everyone from local to global scales.

After doing one's part for the big picture we may return to our own endeavors which may or may not contribute to the cultural goods available on the Internet, free from the bother of labor exploitation or military-financial conquest.


Chris




--


--
___

RevLeft.com -- Home of the Revolutionary Left
www.revleft.com/vb/member.php?u=16162

Photoillustrations, Political Diagrams by Chris Kaihatsu
community.webshots.com/user/ckaihatsu/

3D Design Communications - Let Your Design Do Your Footwork
ckaihatsu.elance.com

MySpace:
myspace.com/ckaihatsu

CouchSurfing:
tinyurl.com/yoh74u













---


'Marketplace' Report: Broke Banks


Day to Day, August 27, 2008 · The number of shaky U.S. banks is at the highest level in about five years and bank profits plunged by 86 percent in the second quarter according to the Federal Deposit Insurance Corporation.

http://www.npr.org/templates/story/story.php?storyId=94019636


---


What Happens To Patrons' Cash When Bank Fails?


Morning Edition, August 19, 2008 · Banks are failing as a result of the housing crisis. The bust has already produced the third-largest bank failure in U.S. history, and a former chief economist with the International Monetary Fund predicted Tuesday that the global financial crisis is far from over.

In the United States, when a bank fails, deposits up to $100,000 are insured. Renee Montagne talks to David Wessel, economics editor of The Wall Street Journal, about what happens to people with money in a bank that fails.

http://www.npr.org/templates/story/story.php?storyId=93728811



---



InjuryBoard.com


FDIC's Worst-Case Scenario for IndyMac and Other Banks: Even Worst than Expected


Posted by Paul Kiesel
Wednesday, August 27, 2008 8:35 PM EST

As Joe Biden said last year during the Democratic presidential primary debates, and will likely reiterate tonight in Denver, the main source for our current credit crisis lies in mysterious lending practices of banks over the last six years (TILA violations; other mortgage & securities fraud, etc.) and a lack of transparency; allowing for bank losses to spiral out of control and for the FDIC to underestimate the economic damage that has already occurred and will grow larger.

Yesterday, federal regulators boosted previous estimated costs of IndyMac Bank's failure to $8.9 billion and prepared the public for more collapses, reporting that the number of troubled banks shot up 30% in just the last three months.

FDIC Chairwoman Sheila Bair said at a news conference, "Quite frankly, the results were pretty dismal." With the exception of bank earnings reported from the fourth quarter of 2007, bank earning for 2008 were at their lowest since 1991, when another Bush was in the White House. Bair also stated that, "We don't think this credit cycle's bottomed out yet."

Bair is most likely right; the credit crunch isn't over and most conservative and liberal economists will at least agree on the fact that the U.S. economy has some months (12-18 possibly?) before it begins to recover from the damage drowning credit markets over the past 18 months.

A problem for the FDIC: If they can't estimate or are underestimating the cost of bank failures, how will they be able to come up with the funds to cover those losses in the future (i.e. see WAMU, and Wachovia)? There have already been reports today that the FDIC might have to borrow money from the Treasury department, who's already loaning more money than it should to help support a copious amount of Wall Street mergers and struggling financial firms that have been suffering the pangs of the mortgage mess (JP Morgan-Bear Stearns deal, Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac's blank check, etc.).

The original estimated loss for IndyMac by the FDIC: $4 billion. Two weeks later it got revised to $4-8 billion. Now it's almost at $9 billion. And the only reason why the figure (estimated loss) rose $5 billion from its initial "guesstimate" is because the FDIC finally performed its own evaluation of IndyMac's assets and, according to the Los Angeles Times, it also discovered more deposits than initially estimated were covered by insurance. Conclusion: IndyMac was not as transparent as it should have been, and suffered the consequences. Let's hope Americans won't have to suffer for it, too.

And now because of the IndyMac failure, and as we get closer to seeing two other major banks' possible implosions, the deposit insurance fund has dropped below its mandated level, which is a very troubling sign. How will they be able to cover funds, if they don't have enough money?

Joe Biden was right back in late-2007. The wave of foreclosures, brought on largely due to mortgage fraud and TILA violations, and U.S. credit markets tightening, due to a lack of transparency in its business practices (CDO's, hedge fund managers defrauding investors, etc.) over the previous five years, were the result of lax regulation and oversight from federal regulators. The FDIC, the Fed, and the FBI have no idea how deep the problems run. "We need more transparency," Biden said, "particularly with regard to hedge funds. They are the ones that are causing this thing to go under. And there's no transparency, no accountability. We don't know how deep this problem is."

Find this article at:

http://losangeles.injuryboard.com/miscellaneous/fdics-worstcase-scenario-for-indymac-and-other-banks-even-worst-than-expected.aspx?googleid=246412
(c) 2008 InjuryBoard.com


---


Credit Rating Agencies Under Severe Pressure


Thursday 31st July 2008

As we continue the blame game on both sides of the Atlantic it seems that the credit rating agencies are next under the hammer with EU and US officials looking at possible prosecutions. The likes of Standard and Poors, Fitch and Moody’s are being blamed for a failure to warn investors that the ratings on some of their investments were in trouble.

http://financialadvice.co.uk/news/5/investments/7414/Credit-Rating-Agencies-Under-Severe-Pressure.html


---


> [L]ike one of popular Jazz musician George Benson’s titles, “Moody’s Mood”, the rating agencies science may end being determined by just that: “Moody’s mood, or that of the other two of the triplets.


Rating agencies should not have the last word


Written by Jared Osoro

http://www.bdafrica.com/index.php?option=com_content&task=view&id=9572&Itemid=5821


---


> With recent growth in structured finance, corresponding wealth created for banks and revenues generated for the rating agencies, longtime rating agency veterans saw their companies go "from being obscure and unimportant players to central ones," according to Lowenstein. Lewis Ranieri, a key mortgage-bonds Salomon Brothers banker, reportedly stated that the "whole creation of mortgage securities was involved with a rating." The rating agencies held the key to the capital markets and the banks involved in structured finance wanted to get through the door, leading commentators, regulators and lawmakers to suggest that the rating agencies behaved less like gatekeepers than gate-openers.


SEC: Rating Agencies Suffer From Conflicts of Interest


Jeffrey A. Barrack
The Legal Intelligencer
August 27, 2008

http://www.law.com/jsp/ihc/PubArticleIHC.jsp?id=1202424079090


---


Ticked Off


Muni Bonds Paying for Others' Mistakes


By Dan Burrows |Dan Burrows Archive |Published: August 27, 2008

> The market forces that have crippled bond insurers Ambac (ABK: 5.24, +0.02, +0.38%) and MBIA (MBI: 11.98, +1.06, +9.70%) and mortgage giants Fannie Mae (FNM: 6.48, +0.86, +15.30%) and Freddie Mac (FRE: 4.75, +0.78, +19.64%) have hurt munis, too, but with little good reason. True, ratings agencies Moody's and S&P blew their calls on all that nutty securitized debt that got us into this mess, but historically munis have been rock solid. The odds of default on a top-rated muni are less than 0.01%. In other words, municipal bond insurance is, well, a racket.

http://www.smartmoney.com/ticked-off/index.cfm?story=20080827-muni-bonds

[kingmob68]

Interesting post Chris. I think its definitely important not to forget the role technology plays in the universe of capitalism. We can't simply downplay one aspect of the greater picture because the 'totality' of a Marxian economic analysis must always consider the way the spider-web vibrates depending on certain factors and how things vibrate back.

On the issue of technology, you are right to bring up the issue of falling rate of profit, but its always important to remember that this is a tendency and not necessarily a law. There are always ways to counteract this and money capital, credit, finance, fictitious capital, etc. help to lubricate this issue not to mention a variety of levers for keeping up the rate of profit by tweaking other factors. This is why we see labour-intensive low constant/fixed capital cost production going on right in 1st world countries.

Technology is certainly a precondition for a variety of classless universes we can imagine, maybe some no, but in my view automation is crucial and technological progress is often stunted because the rate of profit will be fought for with a vengeance no doubt. This brings in the question of states and international economic organizations, thus making the question even larger. Globalization is arguably doing nothing but necessitating the function of the state even more to facilitate the expansion of an extremely turbulent mode of production. So what will be required on national and then global proportions to establish some type of communism in a meaningful way? Is it possible for a nation to be communist in a capitalist globe?
Since relative surplus value is an absolutely established means of extraction and consequently tied into the way we get our food, medicine, clothes and resoures like energy, heat, etc, I don't think capitalism will be able to go back on any of its technological advancements. After all absolute surplus extraction is there but the technological lever is one of the main components of accumulation, ensuring a steady flow of capital and removing blockages, competition and the rate of profit. The rate of profit is one of the indicators of an economy's health along with the interest-rate. Maybe more so the latter.

So technology's overall role in today's capitalist universe is one of many ways of digging into the contradictions of capital. With the rise of finance capital over industrial capital however, technology as a lever (what i really mean is socially necessary labour time) seems subordinate to finanace as a means of facilitating competition and accumulation, not to mention the subsumption of profit from lower-producing sectors or lines.

The contradictions on the level of money capital are displaced right up to the top of the pyramid at which we can see a sort of dialectic of state and the capitalist class. The state has plenty to deal with as we can see especially during times of crisis, stagnation and overaccumulation. Look at the way they're bailing these suckers out...'too big to fail'...

In the end, from a Marxist economic perspective, it will be the contradictions of capitalism that we should focus on and the necessary preconditions that must be established before having a classless society. This means that a lot of the 'revolution now' sentiment needs to be put on the back-burner for more thoughtful action. The preconditons must be fulfilled first and we should work towards figuring out what those necessary conditions are and work towards establishing them more meticulously. The immanent spasms of the structure will give the gaps through which we can organize revolt. Unfortunately it will be the contradictions that inspire class consciousness, not the other way around since the class struggle is an expression of this immanent contradiction which is structural imo, not having to do with the 'state of mind' or 'ideologies' of the workers. So with 'ideologies' as a difficult means of generating change and the avenues of class-struggle for the working day, wages etc. tied into the capitalist dialectic, contradictions are the avenue for change. This is a difficult task since like yin and yang the consumer is the worker and as both produces and consumes and therefore generates and consumates surplus-value. We are as workers split subjects. So aside from agitation and activist work which is the daily given, the most powerful lever for turning on the taste for revolt and something better is the coming of immanent crisis. So despite its supposed messianism and futurism, Marx and Marxists give a great deal of objective analysis highlighting the importance of crisis; technological progress and the state of credit are just as important to consider as everyday forms of resistance and change.

[ckaihatsu]

Interesting post Chris. I think its definitely important not to forget the role technology plays in the universe of capitalism. We can't simply downplay one aspect of the greater picture because the 'totality' of a Marxian economic analysis must always consider the way the spider-web vibrates depending on certain factors and how things vibrate back.


Thanks for the comments, kingmob68. Your mention of the interplay of technology and economics makes me reflect on which is more of a determining factor -- sometimes it's very difficult to disentangle the two, but in the current, advanced state of imperialist / capitalist decay, we can safely say that the economic situation is stagnating, thus hindering the advancement of further large-scale technological developments -- energy sourcing is a very good example of this.



On the issue of technology, you are right to bring up the issue of falling rate of profit, but its always important to remember that this is a tendency and not necessarily a law.


I don't think you should look to split hairs on this one -- in this case 'tendency' and 'law' mean pretty much the same thing -- besides, the empirical evidence is there, as I noted with current bank profits.



There are always ways to counteract this and money capital, credit, finance, fictitious capital, etc. help to lubricate this issue not to mention a variety of levers for keeping up the rate of profit by tweaking other factors.


The only thing the capitalists have with which to buy some time is credit, and that has its limits, too -- we saw the U.S. had to go off of Bretton Woods (the gold standard, and the U.S. dollar as the world's yardstick currency) in 1971 as a result of spending on the Vietnam War. Right now China is propping up U.S. Treasury debt because of its super-exploitation of its workforce, but the U.S. still gets to run its protection racket / rent-a-cop role all over the world.

Whatever camera angle you want to use in viewing the soap opera at the top of the world is up to you, but in the end it's still being run by the global elite, using capitalism, which doesn't benefit us any....



This is why we see labour-intensive low constant/fixed capital cost production going on right in 1st world countries.


Yeah, this is Trotsky's combined and uneven development -- smaller businesses will still find niches in which to operate in feudal-like conditions, employing immigrant and other low-cost labor in very inefficient operations. In the absence of a centralized, coordinated mode of production this bullshit continues to exist, oppressing workers and society both -- even some well-funded state-run programs could help to expunge the markets that allow backward processes to continue, but that's obviously not there, either....



Technology is certainly a precondition for a variety of classless universes we can imagine, maybe some no, but in my view automation is crucial and technological progress is often stunted because the rate of profit will be fought for with a vengeance no doubt.


Actually, technology and automation have *nothing* to do with the class struggle, past the point of industrialization, which brings workers together in one place and in front of industrial machinery.

Who are you saying is fighting for the rate of profit with a vengeance? Investors can only refer to the conditions of the markets, as they are, or else collectively martial up a surge of militarism in search of conquering new markets abroad -- and I think we all know what the U.S.'s quagmire in Afghanistan and Iraq is like right now....



This brings in the question of states and international economic organizations, thus making the question even larger.


Care to elaborate with some specifics here? Are you refering to the IMF, World Bank, WTO? (It doesn't matter who's discussing it -- capitalism is a mechanism, remember -- the "invisible hand" -- and thus is not under any organization's intentional control.)



Globalization is arguably doing nothing but necessitating the function of the state even more to facilitate the expansion of an extremely turbulent mode of production.


Um, * what * ??? Again, states and organizations can only intervene in the market to a limited degree, and the rest is the mechanism of the markets itself. This market-based, hands-off anarchy is the best argument for socializing all goods and services, under workers' control, worldwide. And what is a "turbulent mode of production"? (capitalism?)



So what will be required on national and then global proportions to establish some type of communism in a meaningful way?


Communism requires a worldwide socialist workers' revolution.



Is it possible for a nation to be communist in a capitalist globe?


No -- by composition it would devolve into a dictatorship by a bureaucratic elite, or Stalinism.



Since relative surplus value is an absolutely established means of extraction and consequently tied into the way we get our food, medicine, clothes and resoures like energy, heat, etc, I don't think capitalism will be able to go back on any of its technological advancements.


Technology is *not* a given under capitalism -- many technological advancements take place through wartime efforts, and the scale of organization and technology production is abandoned once the war is over.

Surplus value is *not* a *means* of extraction -- it *is* >>> the extraction <<<. Surplus value results from *any* means of extraction that happens to produce a surplus -- it could be agriculture, or industry, or-- well, that's about it, actually -- finance is just predatory (parasitic), so agriculture and indsutry is what we've got so far....



After all absolute surplus extraction is there but the technological lever is one of the main components of accumulation, ensuring a steady flow of capital and removing blockages, competition and the rate of profit. The rate of profit is one of the indicators of an economy's health along with the interest-rate. Maybe more so the latter.


There's the anarchist saying that "War is the health of the state" and I tend to agree. If business is doing well then that means there's enough surplus value lying around to invest in armaments to go and conquer new territory for markets -- if business isn't doing so well then associations are more difficult to keep together, and no one wants to go out on a limb.



So technology's overall role in today's capitalist universe is one of many ways of digging into the contradictions of capital. With the rise of finance capital over industrial capital however, technology as a lever (what i really mean is socially necessary labour time) seems subordinate to finanace as a means of facilitating competition and accumulation, not to mention the subsumption of profit from lower-producing sectors or lines.


Again, technology is *not* the determining factor. Socially necessary labor time just means the amount of labor required to re-fuel the worker so that the whole thing can be repeated for one more day (and one more day and so on). Finance is parasitic, because it is a *cost* for business that does not necessarily add to the bottom line -- marketing, advertising, finance, insurance, and real estate are all examples of finance-related expenses. Technology, too, is an expense for business, but is much more directly linked to productivity (factories, equipment) than finance is.

Lower-producing sectors are basically niche, or specialized, markets -- furniture upholstery may be an example. It's more labor-intensive, so it can't just be done by machine in a factory-automated process. Ditto for landscaping, tailoring, etc. -- no fortunes made there....



The contradictions on the level of money capital are displaced right up to the top of the pyramid at which we can see a sort of dialectic of state and the capitalist class. The state has plenty to deal with as we can see especially during times of crisis, stagnation and overaccumulation. Look at the way they're bailing these suckers out...'too big to fail'...


Right -- the state is dependent on revenues from business-producing activities for its own health -- no business, no tax receipts. All the state knows how to do is look after its own, bailing out the giants both so that they can be kept afloat to "compete" with their foreign counterparts abroad, and also so that their teetering insolvency doesn't spark a ripple effect and bring down the economy as a whole.



In the end, from a Marxist economic perspective, it will be the contradictions of capitalism that we should focus on and the necessary preconditions that must be established before having a classless society.


Well, I tend to agree that people should be class conscious, and knowledgeable about *how* capitalism doesn't work -- that's why I'm responding here....



This means that a lot of the 'revolution now' sentiment needs to be put on the back-burner for more thoughtful action. The preconditons must be fulfilled first and we should work towards figuring out what those necessary conditions are and work towards establishing them more meticulously. The immanent spasms of the structure will give the gaps through which we can organize revolt. Unfortunately it will be the contradictions that inspire class consciousness, not the other way around since the class struggle is an expression of this immanent contradiction which is structural imo, not having to do with the 'state of mind' or 'ideologies' of the workers.


Well, there's never a good reason to wait -- ever since workers were brought into workplaces in common the conditions have objectively existed for socialist revolution. By sheer numbers alone there wouldn't even need to be a single bullet fired -- but class consciousness is something that the system fights against with the media, mass culture, social institutions, etc.

Certainly when economic conditions worsen the people can see more easily that the emperor has no clothes, but revolt and revolution often happen in *good* economic conditions (1960s), so, again, there's never a reason to wait.



So with 'ideologies' as a difficult means of generating change and the avenues of class-struggle for the working day, wages etc. tied into the capitalist dialectic, contradictions are the avenue for change.


Yeah, it helps to help workers realize their own interests as workers -- you can call this 'ideology' if you like, but it *is* based in the workers' own best material interests to control the process and fruits of their own labor, as much as possible.



This is a difficult task since like yin and yang the consumer is the worker and as both produces and consumes and therefore generates and consumates surplus-value. We are as workers split subjects.


This point you're making is problematic. You're basically saying that workers are "bought-off" because they benefit from consuming portions of the surplus value, which come from their own labor.

But the surplus value they are given access to is but a fraction of the surplus value they are creating by laboring. Wages (and benefits) do not reflect the proportionate share of revenues from sales, by the proportion of value they're inputting through working. Investment capital is always receiving a disproportionate reward of revenue (profits), so workers can *never* be blamed for being consumers because they're *always*, *automatically* underpaid, and therefore overcharged, regardless of the consuming situation.



So aside from agitation and activist work which is the daily given, the most powerful lever for turning on the taste for revolt and something better is the coming of immanent crisis. So despite its supposed messianism and futurism, Marx and Marxists give a great deal of objective analysis highlighting the importance of crisis; technological progress and the state of credit are just as important to consider as everyday forms of resistance and change.


I have to disagree here -- again, the objective justifications for revolt and revolution have "always" been there -- whatever the current state of technology and/or crisis happens to be, workers are still constantly getting screwed out of their rightful share of the surplus value created by society.