Results 1 to 17 of 17
How do we guarantee victory?
This seems like such a simple and obvious question. I'm sure I figured it out before, but have since forgotten. But... what if we rise up and lose, permanently? Like, shit, what if we just manufacture a bunch of robots and then the rich turn them on just us and kill us. And the proletariat is now robots. I mean, what if we don't even get to rise up? The rich just get together and decide to kill us all? I mean, how is that not at least as likely as the workers deciding to do that to the rich instead?
Personally, I'd just start (posthumously) cheering for the proletarobots. Just to kill off the people who killed me off.
This has crossed my mind too.
The rule of the bourgeoisie (as owners of the means of production) is dependent on the existence of a working class to actually produce the robots.
Arguably, the introduction of robotics would screw up the wage labor system; i.e. robots can't do the jobs, so people get laid off, but if everyone's unemployed, they have no money to spend to the capitalists can't sell the stuff their producing. So this would produce extremely acute socioeconomic conditions for a revolution.
however, this does look at it as an instantaneous change of robots suddenly appearing in society. so, it would be more complicated than this in real life.
And the bourgeoisie will built a glorious utopia on the back of the robot class! hurah for what remains of the human race!
anyway, the point is that things would get so bad before that point that logically, people would have to turn round and say- no, we have a right to have some of this stuff too because we need it!
As Sheldon Cooper put it; the robots will rise up and the ATMs will lead the charge! lets see how the bourgeoisie survives without money...
If you fall, get back up. Next to that so inspirational quote I think that your semi Irobot robocop universal destroyer 3000 Schwarzenegger scenario is a bit unrealistic. If the rich kill everyone there won't be too many people left that will buy their products and/or use their services. And if I have to sketch how a revolution would look like I would't say that the rich would form an private army but more like the state (through policeman and the army) defending them.
The purpose is not "win" something but change. If the working class was aboslihed, there would not be a point in, say whatever you call "socialism".
It is the stupidest thing, coming from a Marxist analysis, to be "socialist" for the sake of being a "socialist" for the sake of -establishing- "socialism". This shows the fault and mistake in your understanding. I suggest you change it
The socialism we talk about is only within the context of existant relations, it is not supposed to be alien to the world that comes out of nowhere. A society where the working class is killed by robots means a SIGNIFICANT CHANGE in the relations where realization of socialism as a proleterian dictatorship is out of question.
http://www.nyu.edu/projects/ollman/
http://www2.hawaii.edu/~manicas/pdf_files/New_Courses/Marx'sPhilosophy.pdf
http://marxmyths.org/index.php / http://www.marxists.org/subject/marx...ay/article.htm
http://www.thehobgoblin.co.uk/journal/h4holloway.html
Ask yourself this: For socialism or socialism for, you are a revolutionary
If the working class was killed then technically the society would be classless and thus a communist society.
I think communer stumbled upon a vast conspiracy were the rich seek to destroy the working class in order to establish communism. It all makes perfect sense.
Joking aside, the original proposition is science fiction. Nothing man made could possibly kill the 6+ billion working class on this planet.
If the working class dies, everyone else dies with them (or we get a regression). If the working class gets abolished as a real strata, the ruling class must do so too.
"Quotations are useful in periods of ignorance or obscurantist beliefs."
- Guy Debord (Panegyric)
"Guided by the Marxist leader-dogmas of misbehaviourism and hysterical materialism, inevitably the masses will embrace, not only Groucho Marxism, but also each other."
- Bob Black (Theses on Groucho Marxism)
"I think that the task of philosophy is not to provide answers, but to show how the way we perceive a problem can be itself part of a problem."
- Slavoj Žižek ("Year of Distraction" lecture)
I was going to go into that as well, but decided to leave at "its about social relations".
In a society where working class is gone, the completely new set of relations could be something like what we envision when we say "communism" in utopian terms. And like the above poster said, no working class, no ruling class, hence no classes. That kills the whole point of being a "rich" class for the OP. Rich is defined by its relations to what is not rich anyways.
http://www.nyu.edu/projects/ollman/
http://www2.hawaii.edu/~manicas/pdf_files/New_Courses/Marx'sPhilosophy.pdf
http://marxmyths.org/index.php / http://www.marxists.org/subject/marx...ay/article.htm
http://www.thehobgoblin.co.uk/journal/h4holloway.html
Ask yourself this: For socialism or socialism for, you are a revolutionary
That is one strange situation you have thought up...
I am not sure if the capitalist system can still work if the workforce is completely composed of robots whose only needs are those of repair and energy.
If we lose permanently... Well, they can't say we didn't try!
The sense of maintaining themselves in higher class position is to have a possibility to feel superiority comparing to another ones. Do you feel a superiority comparing computer or TV set? If not, nobody will kill you feel that you're below him because superiority over robots won't give any satisfaction.
"Property is theft."
Pierre-Joseph Proudhon
"the system of wage labor is a system of slavery"
Karl Heinrich Marx
Hmm...This has crossed my mind too.
The rule of the bourgeoisie (as owners of the means of production) is dependent on the existence of a working class to actually produce the robots.
Arguably, the introduction of robotics would screw up the wage labor system; i.e. robots can't do the jobs, so people get laid off, but if everyone's unemployed, they have no money to spend to the capitalists can't sell the stuff their producing. So this would produce extremely acute socioeconomic conditions for a revolution.
however, this does look at it as an instantaneous change of robots suddenly appearing in society. so, it would be more complicated than this in real life.
And the bourgeoisie will built a glorious utopia on the back of the robot class! hurah for what remains of the human race!
anyway, the point is that things would get so bad before that point that logically, people would have to turn round and say- no, we have a right to have some of this stuff too because we need it!
As Sheldon Cooper put it; the robots will rise up and the ATMs will lead the charge! lets see how the bourgeoisie survives without money...
That explanation makes a good deal of sense to me. Nice, thanks.
...huh?The purpose is not "win" something but change. If the working class was aboslihed, there would not be a point in, say whatever you call "socialism".
It is the stupidest thing, coming from a Marxist analysis, to be "socialist" for the sake of being a "socialist" for the sake of -establishing- "socialism". This shows the fault and mistake in your understanding. I suggest you change it
The socialism we talk about is only within the context of existant relations, it is not supposed to be alien to the world that comes out of nowhere. A society where the working class is killed by robots means a SIGNIFICANT CHANGE in the relations where realization of socialism as a proleterian dictatorship is out of question.
I'm glad you appreciate my genius.
Fuck, if we could build robots and make them the proletariat and make ourselves the bourgeoisie I think that would be just awesome. It wouldn't be exploitation because robots are not sentient beings. We could work them for 24 hours a day, nonstop, producing food, and building houses, while we sit on our asses.
But, first we would have to achieve communism to even do that. So that still puts us in exactly the same position. Oh well.
The answer is very simple. If we lose, we return, we keep trying. The left cannot be completely defeated, no matter how much one tries. There will always be someone logical, someone who wants to bring change and make the world a better place. Like we could never completely get rid of the right-wingers, they can't either. But we can gather and change the way the world works. Neither side can "lose permanently". Even during Hitler's reign there were communists, even if they remained hidden.
What I am saying is that your logic-reasoning in OP shows your flawed understanding of Marxism. That is, if you consider yourself a Marxist or a "Socialist" for the sake of "socialism".
You seem to assume that we are here to "win" a cause, that is "absolute" and that the point is to establish "socialism" no matter what in a religious-dogmatic sense.
Whereas, being Marxist means that you see socialism as a necessity, by dialectical critique and negation of the existing relations, based from WITHIN what you are living in now.
I.E, if all working class were killed by robots, the relations would have made a radical change.
Last edited by Dodo; 23rd March 2014 at 12:44.
http://www.nyu.edu/projects/ollman/
http://www2.hawaii.edu/~manicas/pdf_files/New_Courses/Marx'sPhilosophy.pdf
http://marxmyths.org/index.php / http://www.marxists.org/subject/marx...ay/article.htm
http://www.thehobgoblin.co.uk/journal/h4holloway.html
Ask yourself this: For socialism or socialism for, you are a revolutionary
Strike first before the bourgeoisie can. Go out and work on the revolution.
Economic Left/Right: -8.75Social Libertarian/Authoritarian: -7.08
"Freedom in a Capitalist society always remains about the same as it did in the ancient Greek republics: Freedom for slave owners." Vladimir Lenin.
"Communism needs democracy like the human body needs oxygen." Leon Trotsky.
The bourgeoisie already striked first in the 18th Century, thats why they are the bourgeoisie and we are the proletariat.
I do not think that soclialism is inevitable. It may be likely in our current state of social relationships, but social relationships are dynamic and progression toward socialism is no gauranteed.
17th Century nobility never saw the coming and the power of 18th Century bourgeoisie.
What do you mean by "work on the revolution"?
Segui il tuo corso e lascia dir le genti.
Socialism resides entirely in the revolutionary negation of the capitalist ENTERPRISE, not in granting the enterprise to the factory workers.
- Bordiga
Can't believe nobody has said this already.
Capitalists cannot extract surplus value from machines.
You guarantee victory by having a majority, not 50% +1 but a significant committed majority.
Socialism is not inevitable, there's nothing to say the human race cannot be wiped out beforehand by a rogue meteor hitting earth or whatever.
But for the mode of production to seriously change from capitalism, the next conceivable stage has to be socialism.
