CB,
I'd also like to read how you justify this theory.
Victor
- Original Message -
From: <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
To:
Sent: Friday, September 16, 2005 2:06
Subject: Re: [Marxism-Thaxis] The Specter of a Soviet-Style Crisis:
Evidencesof Fette...
The trend in U.S. property relations is
WL,
I've written my comments under the appropriate paragraphs below.
Peace and the strength to preserve it,
Victor
- Original Message -
From: <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
To:
Sent: Friday, September 16, 2005 1:44
Subject: Re: [Marxism-Thaxis] Fettering
1. No capitalist can afford to fetter
I am a little puzzled here. See below:
At 12:11 PM 9/16/2005 +1000, Ian Hunt wrote:
Dear Ralph,
Now I see your point - it was not clear before. (BTW "In
Contradiction" is earlier - the science and society article is based
on it but it does spell out more completely his argument). I agree
with y
You are assuming of course that we know how or what kinds of productive
forces WILL prevail in communist society.
If you take your model of the communist mode of production from the late and
mostly unlamented People's Democratic Republics and Soviets as well as from
the various more successful
Dear Ralph,
Now I see your point - it was not clear before. (BTW "In
Contradiction" is earlier - the science and society article is based
on it but it does spell out more completely his argument). I agree
with you that Graham Priest's interest is primarily with logic and
ways in which we r
>>The trend in U.S. property relations is to move the factories further and
further from the locus of the owners, as a byproduct of running the plants away
from the U.S. workers. Effectively, this is fettering the development of the
material productive forces _in_ the
U.S. national territory.<<
1. No capitalist can afford to fetter the development of the forces of
production without going down. Marx made the point that in order just to
maintain a stable rate of profit capitalist enterprises must at very least
conform to the general state of development of the means of production and
>>Without question the drive to realize a profit forces the revolutionizing
of production and
mitigate against the overall development of the productive forces, in
relationship to
the previous mode of production, rather than say, communist society.<<
Correction
Without question the drive to
>>1. No capitalist can afford to fetter the development of the forces of
production without going down. Marx made the point that in order just to
maintain a stable rate of profit capitalist enterprises must at very least
conform to the general state of development of the means of production an
CB: How you gonna say with a straight face that the Industrial Revolution
was the Industrial Social Revolution, or that Marx treated it as a social
revolution ?
Comment
I am saying with a stright face that Karl Marx and Frederick Engels treated
the Industrial Revolution as a Social Revolution .
In a message dated 9/15/2005 1:57:04 PM Central Standard Time,
[EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
CB: How you gonna say with a straight face that the Industrial Revolution
was the Industrial Social Revolution, or that Marx treated it as a social
revolution ?
:>)
Comment
Obviously you are joking. The indu
WL: I reiterate:
1. No capitalist can afford to fetter the development of the forces of
production without going down. Marx made the point that in order just to
maintain a stable rate of profit capitalist enterprises must at very least
conform to the general state of development of the means
Re : Re: Graham Priest: dialectic & dialetheic (Ian Hunt)
> From: Ian Hunt <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
> Subject: Re: [Marxism-Thaxis] Graham Priest: dialectic & dialetheic
> Dear Ralph,
> I wonder what the purpose of your review is? We could surely do
> without the abuse (Priest and Sayers are 'philisti
In Memoriam: Lisa Rogers
25 August 1961 - 15 September 1996
My review is part of a much larger project, which has to do with te relation of
logic and reality, and beyond that, the fragmentation of knowledge under
conditions of alienation. That would be the "marxist" angle that iunterests me,
An epoch of social revolution was in fact indisputably completing itself
world wide and no one disputes that this was the Industrial Social
Revolution of
which Marx wrote and called for the communists and proletarians to place
themselves at the head of the process.
CB: How you gonna say wi
Dialectics!
V: >>The principle of self-regulation of production that is basic to the
capitalist mode of production militates against the fettering of the
development
of productive forces. The limitations of the expanding absolute surplus value
(lengthening the work day and reducing wages) com
Emmanuel Todd's comments excerpted here might be said to characterize U.S.
domestic industrial decline as property relations fettering development of
the material productive forces. The Katrina phenomenon might be a microcosm
of the larger U.S. system. The trend in U.S. property relations is to mo
CB and WB
Dialectics!
The principle of self-regulation of production that is basic to the
capitalist mode of production militates against the fettering of the
development of productive forces.
The limitations of the expanding absolute surplus value (lengthening the
work day and reducing wages
Dear Ralph,
I wonder what the purpose of your review is? We could surely do
without the abuse (Priest and Sayers are 'philistines' etc). A little
more argument and less assertion would go a long way, as would a bit
better knowledge of Tarski's semantic theory of truth: the Tarski bit
should re
19 matches
Mail list logo
