Tim Cornelis

Where do we promote Marxistpedia? Could we ask for a plug from marxists.org or something like that?

Some cut off? So it's first come first serve?

"he produces no commodities and sells his labour-power to no one in particular" But does this not exclude many workers from 'proletarian'? Such as teachers.

Another thing I've been thinking about is the media.

What transition is the private media going to experience under the capitalism->communism?
What transition would media in general undergo?

By private I mean ran in a way that the ones who run it decide everything, and choose who is included in running it. Not about profit.

Someone wants to start a newspaper and wants to have it printed 100,000 times each day. But this is not only one person wanting this. It's many wanting their private media. In capitalism this is handled by if you have enough money, you get served. How would it work under socialism?

Otherwise how is the existence of private media guaranteed? Is the destruction of private media a given of communism? Would collective media not have the risk to fall under the influence of one party?

Is the understanding of free speech to be limited to one individual speaking their thoughts and not to groups having access to having their own newspapers etc.?

I've asked these questions before but did not have satisfactory answers. So I ask them to you..

Is a teacher a proletarian? Is a politician a proletarian?

The teacher and proletarian are both wage-laborers and do not hold ownership of the means of production. The teacher 'produces' knowledge. The politician 'produces' law.

But the politician is tied to the bourgeois state and capitalist mode of production. He also is tied to capital's wishes.

WHAT does this tell us? Does it mean that the basic analysis of class society proletarian-bourgeois is not enough? Or does it mean that I have misunderstandings about these analyses and their functions? WHY do these questions appear to be relevant to me? ARE these questions relevant

I think using the terms 'socialist society' and/or 'socialist mode of production' is not sticking to classical Marxist.

As far as I know, with 'socialism', Marx & Engels referred to movements, to ideologies. e.g. scientific socialism, utopian socialism, bourgeois socialism. They never used it to refer to a mode of production or form of organization of society.

For instance, neoliberalism does not make a revolution more likely. Rather, it hampers the organization of the working class, difficults the revolution. As well, social gains for the working class make the revolution have better chances to succeed. But this does not mean arbitrary restrictions upon the 'free market' in the capitalist mode of production should be supported.

Of course, when the masses have extremely low standards of living, this makes a 'revolution' more likely, but this is not the revolution we talk about: a social revolution in the advanced states with a developed capitalism. Rather, this revolution is more likely to be socialist in words and authoritarian-populist in contents. That revolution would be more likely to take place when everyone has low standards of living, our revolution would be more likely to become stronger each time the proletariat has social gains.

At least, that is how I understand it.

I find the concept behind accelerationism (not its particular expressions) to be most interesting. I've long ago made a point that Marxism ought to be separated from 'free market restriction' populism. But I do not believe this needs to result in the conclusion that social measures ought to be opposed, for instance. What is your take on this?

Ok, I've copied portions of Communpedia's CSS. See here: http://marxistpedia.mwzip.com/wiki/Talk:North_Korea (You'll need to refresh your browser's cache fully to see it fine.)

I've copied only part of their CSS file. You can see their CSS file by editing the same "MediaWiki:Common.css" in their Wiki.

Apparently, we can modify "Common.css" here: http://marxistpedia.mwzip.com/w/inde...ss&action=edit

They say Pro gives you FTP and SSH access to the server, which actually may mean several things, the most broad meaning being total access to the server. But it could as well be that there were limitations upon our FTP and SSH users which allow us to only modify certain files, for instance. But I believe it will be more than enough.