Communism means of production

Ostrom

asdasd wrote: »

By the that it seems that Marxists are abandoning their idea of a global "abundance" - the one which happens mysteriously after the immiseration of the proletariat in the West.

Now it is about equalising world wages. with the end to non-productive industries like (um) marketing, financials, service economics, real estate agencies, modelling, and so on most of the Western proletariat seems fit to lose it's jobs. Cant really see tha catching on with any real working class. The Chinese have taken to Capitalism quite strongly too. Whats left for Marxism, lumpen proles, undergraduates, and tenured parasites.

Let's name a non-productive parasitical industiry. I call University Marxism unproductive, as useful as a bike with flippers, and surplus to requirements.

The Marxist industry also lives on the surplus value created by productive workers ( and capitalists) in the private sector in the form of Tax. Furthermore the non-priductive parasites ( to use a word favoured by Marxists) in the universities who espose Marxism not only earn more than the average industrial wage - the hyprocritical oafs - but , unlike capitalists who engage in the non-zero sum game of creating wealth, create no goods, service, or industry of any use whatsoever.

I am more productive before 8:30 in the morning than a Marxist professor will be all his life. The parasite. So is the capitalist who "expolits" me by selling me my breakfast.

The purveyors of rehashed 19th century theory are more useless than pretty much anybody else on the planet, of far less utility than most of their university colleagues ( particularly in the sciences).

Mostly, this parasitical group hails from the Upper Middle classes, and live off my ( and other proletarians) surplus which is taken from us by force. in their idiotic literature they ever mention that piece of ruling class theft. ( For ruling class they most certainly are - State employees of no worth, or use to society, demanding the extension of their State, which is a mechanism for taking income from workers)/

So lets not get rid of the industries the Marxist academic finds redundant.

Lets, firstly, get rid of the Marxists.

Thats a little rough.

Since that post is squarely directed at me and my supervisor, what is it exactly you hate so much about it/us?

DadaKopf

efla wrote: »

Thats a little rough.

Since that post is squarely directed at me and my supervisor, what is it exactly you hate so much about it/us?

Supervisor? Wha?

Ostrom

DadaKopf wrote: »

Supervisor? Wha?

Since the post was about academic Marxism, I'm take it personally (my thesis suervisor)

Nothing we do has anything to do with social change or communism in practice btw

DadaKopf

Wotcha doing the PhD on?

Red Hand

I smiled at asdasd's post.

Are academic Marxist's producing or contributing anything of any value in the same manner as an academic in the science/engineering college courses, who will contribute, directly or indirectly, towards generating wealth through new technology?

Ostrom

19th century farming in Ireland, and Marx's later writings on pre-capitalist modes of production.

What bothers me about his post is (and I'm assuming this will be responded to) the assumption that all academic 'marxism' is concerned with developing applicable concepts of communism.

I can understand his feelings on the issue, most of what he is referring to annoys the s**t out of me too.

Anyway, this is just pride

Ostrom

Jeremiah 16:1 wrote: »

I smiled at asdasd's post.

Are academic Marxist's producing or contributing anything of any value in the same manner as an academic in the science/engineering college courses, who will contribute, directly or indirectly, towards generating wealth through new technology?

As per my other post, 'academic marxists' is about as specific as 'stuff'

turgon

efla wrote: »

the assumption that all academic 'marxism' is concerned with developing applicable concepts of communism.

Fair enough. Although the continuation of Marxism for purely academic reasons gives real world communists a degree of hope. So we have to put up with people coming here and lecturing to us about how great Cuba is and about the only reason it isnt a utopia is because of the Embargo.

We have to put up with people advocating a system whereby their views are forcibly transfered onto others. And then they claim that this is for the good of us and society.

Ostrom

turgon wrote: »

Fair enough. Although the continuation of Marxism for purely academic reasons gives real world communists a degree of hope. So we have to put up with people coming here and lecturing to us about how great Cuba is and about the only reason it isnt a utopia is because of the Embargo.

We have to put up with people advocating a system whereby their views are forcibly transfered onto others. And then they claim that this is for the good of us and society.

And I'm always sorry to disappoint

I dont believe in or work toward social change in the sense in which Marx spoke of (though I dont deny serious and extensive reform is necessary), nor do I believe communism in its academically-debated multitude of forms is possible.

I do consider Marx's later works to be of major historical importance - the limited documentary evidence on the existence of the Irish commune, and the multitude of insights offered by Marx on its various forms across Europe at various points throughout history could, I hope, fill in some key gaps in our understanding of pre-18th century Irish settlement patterns.

I would consider the dominant form of what is limited output in Irish academia in a strictly Marxist tradition to be in this vein, historical

DadaKopf

I would consider the dominant form of what is limited output in Irish academia in a strictly Marxist tradition to be in this vein, historical

I remember reading years ago about how in the early twentieth century, Irish socialists/communists were theorising the links between the political-economy and culture, effectively predating Gramsci's theories. Interesting, then, how the socialist revolutionary movement quickly dissipated after independence.

Another article, written in the late 1990s, argued that the mistake of social sciences is to claim to predict anything. I think this is especially the case with the left where the tradition (its methodologies and philosophical starting points) work much better in retrospect than in predicting anything, and I think this is how it should be. The future necessarily entails uncertainty, so why not admit it? That's not to say you can't identify patterns and dynamics and then try to avoid them or use them.

I would, however, like to see more left-wing praxis in the Irish context. One of the difficulties is extracting socialist praxis from the Connolly/Larkin variant still dominant in the (mythology) of the trade union movement, for example. Things have changed, and theories need to move off the page and into social action. And, as 'post-left' theorists argue for, it's essential that this 'revolution' is truly a passive revolution.

brianthebard

Dadakopf have you had a chance to look at Connolly's writings much before? I think you would find them very interesting. He does talk about the link between political economy and culture as you point out. He also anticipated Lenin's views on imperialism, although perhaps not as developed a position as the Russki.

DadaKopf

I've looked at some, alright. But I'm still not happy about the attempt to reconcile nationalism and socialism. This said, the unfortunate reality is that in some way, people will find a way to divide us from one another. Right now I'm delving into Laclau's theory of populism, that's keeping me occupied! But I'll get around to Connolly, I keep meaning to read more.

Ostrom

DadaKopf wrote: »

I've looked at some, alright. But I'm still not happy about the attempt to reconcile nationalism and socialism. This said, the unfortunate reality is that in some way, people will find a way to divide us from one another. Right now I'm delving into Laclau's theory of populism, that's keeping me occupied! But I'll get around to Connolly, I keep meaning to read more.

Any references for the above? (Irish context).

I'm not very familiar with it

brianthebard

DadaKopf wrote: »

I've looked at some, alright. But I'm still not happy about the attempt to reconcile nationalism and socialism. This said, the unfortunate reality is that in some way, people will find a way to divide us from one another. Right now I'm delving into Laclau's theory of populism, that's keeping me occupied! But I'll get around to Connolly, I keep meaning to read more.

I understand what you mean, but I think in occupied countries it might be necessary to accept at least some elements of nationalism. Also Connolly quite intelligently argued with nationalists that if they got their way and had an independent country that nothing substantial would change until the (British) capitalist system was overthrown. He saw nationalism as a step on the way to Irish communism and true independence, and tried to convince others of this fact. Someone who might have been convinced was Pearse, although he died before a full transformation of politics. If you get a chance look for a book called the last writings, its very good, has most of his editorials from various papers. Also marxist.org also has a lot of his work transcribed, so that's a free resource.