CB: Repeat: THE COMPUTER REV IS NOT BEING DEVELOPED IN A WAY THAT COMES INTO
CONFLICT WITH THE EXISTING BOURGEOIS CONTROL IN RELATIONS OF PRODUCTION. IT IS
BEING DEVELOPED IN A WAY THAT IS IN HARMONY WITH AND ENHANCES BOURGEOIS
CONTROL IN RELATIONS OF PRODUCTION IN THE USA.
WL: In America -
CB: The computer development of the material productive forces has _not_ yet
come into conflict with the existing relations of production so as to cause
a revolution in the legal expression of the relations of production. It has
not changed the laws controlling relations of production, which is
The old society in which I was born and grew into manhood, is being destroyed
by an objective process and nothing can stop it. Old formula is useless. We
have inherited a treasure house of Marxist literature covering virtually every
conceivable subject. We have also been wounded in the past my
Thursday, November 03, 2005
The world is watching North Carolina
Today in Raleigh, North Carolina, state workers will be holding a historic
public hearing.
Jurists from around the world will hear testimony from employees about racist
incidents, forced overtime, and most critically a Jim
WL says:
Lets proceed from the Marxism of CB. Comrade CB defines relations of
production as class relations and under capitalism the primary social
classes are
bourgeois proletarian and the petty bourgeoisie. These are the three great
social
class of which Marx speaks. These classes are the
WL: Revolution comes about as a result of
the development of the means of production.
CB: However in the current computer rev in the means of production , a
revolution has not come about.
___
Marxism-Thaxis mailing list
CB: Then WL proceeds to give _WL'S_ conception of CB's conception of the
relations of production, in which WL at will and at his leisure sticks in
all kinds of distortions and misrepresentations of what CB says, just as CB
told WL a few days ago. Let me go back and find where told him that and he
WL: Revolution comes about as a result of
the development of the means of production.
CB: However in the current computer rev in the means of production , a
revolution has not come about.
WL: That is your opinion. I defined what I mean by revolution as a process
that is taking place in
WL:Dammit, the feudal political order and the agrarian system it stood upon
were
overthrown by classes outside the primary social classes that made the
system
what it was - the bourgeoisie and the modern working class.
^^^
CB: You are a liar. :)
WL: Fine. What of the issues. I cannot understand what you write from your
framework. Deal with the issue.
^^^
CB: I have already dealt with the issue several times. The curent or
latest leaps in the development of the instruments of production have not
led to a rev over throwing bourgeois
Comrade, one moment you are the self appointed designator of what is
classical Marxism and the next moment you demand a thousand definitions to
everything,
which I provide, and then when we disagree you get hurt.
^
CB: I act no more like the self appointed designator of what is classical
CB: Basically, two phrases with the words relations of production in them.
I'll take
social relations of production = organization of the shopfloor
relations of producttion in their totality = property relations
**
WL: Well Marx states in the quote you presented from the
I apparently have thicker skin.
CB: If so, it's not apparent.
^^^
And of course I tend to speak with
authenticity of experience and a verifiable record for what I write.
^
CB: Not really,
^
From my standpoint
you have not been able to understand dialectic and
CB: I have already dealt with the issue several times. The curent or
latest leaps in the development of the instruments of production have not
led to a rev over throwing bourgeois private property.
WL: Revolutions do not overthrow a civic power. That is called the act of
insurrection. What the
CB: I act no more like the self appointed designator of what is classical
Marxism than you do. You constantly assert authority as a to Marxism. There
is nothing wrong with me doing the same thing right back at you.
No I don't demand a thousand definitions to everything. This is a
Waistline2
WL: Revolution comes about as a result of
the development of the means of production.
CB: However in the current computer rev in the means of production , a
revolution has not come about.
WL: -clip-
I defined what I mean by revolution as a process
that is taking place in
WL: -clip-
I defined what I mean by revolution as a process
that is taking place in front of us.
WL: Revolutions do not overthrow a civic power. That is called the act of
insurrection. What the revolution in the means of production do is sublate
one
form and quality of the organization of
Waistline: What is lacking is the subjective understanding of the moment. We
are still trying to advance on the basis of formulations and doctrine of the
past period
and they are useless today.
DG: I wish it was like this and we could pass to a higher civilisation than
capitalism without any
^^^
CB; That's because you are the self-appointed arbiter of understanding
dialectic and antagonism.
WL: Actually I stated my source. Please state yours and prove me a liar.
Where have you ever stated your source on antagonism in the history of the
International Communist movement. I began with
DG: I wish it was like this and we could pass to a higher civilisation than
capitalism without any reorganisation of production, distribution etc. But
transitions in history do not work like that. I do not deny the fact that the
more
a society is advanced the shorter may be the transition. I
Like I said before, I don´t have the time to sit in front of this computer
neither the economic resources for sitting here and have a debate about my
historical interpretation of the counterrevolutionary process that led us to
this particular situation. Anyway, I want to say or repeat what I
Greetings!
I don´t have the economic resources to stay sitting at this computer for more
than 30 minutes...Anyway, I see the transition period from one mode of
production to another on a world scale as we intended to in the historical
period that goes from 1917 to 1923. During the
This says Toffler talks about a super-industrial society.
CB
^^
Future Shock
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia.
Jump to: navigation http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Future_Shock#column-one ,
search http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Future_Shock#searchInput
Cover of Future Shock
W^^^
CB; That's because you are the self-appointed arbiter of understanding
dialectic and antagonism.
WL: Actually I stated my source. Please state yours and prove me a liar.
^
CB: I cited the passage from _The Manifesto of the Communist Party_. Therein
Marx and Engels discuss class
The distinguishing feature of communism is not the abolition of property
generally, but the abolition of bourgeois property. But modern bourgeois
private property is the final and most complete expression of the system of
producing and appropriating products that is based on _class antagonisms_
The distinguishing feature of communism is not the abolition of property
generally, but the abolition of bourgeois property. But modern bourgeois
private property is the final and most complete expression of the system of
producing and appropriating products that is based on _class antagonisms_
CB: I cited the passage from _The Manifesto of the Communist Party_. Therein
Marx and Engels discuss class antagonism in terms of the irreconcilable
conflicts of interest between the oppressing and exploiting class and the
oppressed and exploited class. I'll send it to you again tomorrow. But you
WL: OK . . . your feeling are hurt. Sorry. Lets make up and go to the motel.
^
CB: I'm agitating you. Agitation and propaganda.
I think you got me mixed up with somebody else.
WL: Not in the least bit. This is old hat and a set up.
Apparently I have the wrong relations of production. :-)
As the theory of the national question and the African American people, I've
heard your discussion of it a number of times, and your criticism of the
CPUSA positions. What you say is ... I don't know what to call it...It's
doesn't seem out and out wrong, but it's not particularly persuasive. I
29 matches
Mail list logo
