Chat bot generated poems and critique
[Continued from above]
The second paragraph of your first point is obviously true. It was my fault for sloppily stating that the productive forces/technology had put an end to famine and starvation on a mass scale. To now put that statement correctly, I shall say that the productive forces/technology have ended the spectre of famine in Europe, reaching the point where there is no need for anybody to be hungry, let alone die of starvation, in the world. Imagine the starving child in Africa. Now consider the lunacy of past EU butter mountains and wine lakes etc. That people are still starving is not a production problem; it is a distribution problem, a problem of the relations of production. (See link below.)
From the above, it's obvious to conclude that whereas the relations of production – capitalism – was initially beneficial in raising production to the point where there is a surplus of sufficiency, it has now become a hindrance to the distribution of that surplus and needs to be replaced by a communistic co-operative one. This of course returns us to my main point: the forces of production/technology are not the problem; the existing relations of production are the problem, and need to be got rid of, to enable humans as a whole to continue along our path of social evolution. Oliver Cromwell understood this well enough back in the 17th century.
As far as your point two is concerned I'm not sure that 'power' is the correct word to use. The forces of production are of course immensely uselful to the capitalist class, but then again the forces of production were equally useful to that Stone Age man I mentioned in my previous post who dicovered that if he picked up a rock and skillfully hit a flint he could produce a more efficient arrow-head and procure a greater supply of food for himself and his family/tribe etc. I don't see how your point takes us any further along the road to a solution to our present-day problems. If you and I were able to reject any given FoP/technology development, the problem would still be that the FoP/technology, whatever its level of development, remains in the hands of the Capitalist. Surely this reinforces the kernal of my argument that the problem is not the FoP/technology, but is the present relations of production, capitalism, and in order for humanity as a whole to be able to advance/evolve it needs to be replaced with a co-operative system.
The final sentence of your point two is incorrect: the reason we have the things you mention – insecure work, gig economy, union-bashing and so forth – is because capitalism is a competitive society. If one capitalist adopts a production process, working-practice, buys a new, more efficient machine that allows him to increase their rate of profit, the rest have to follow, otherwise they go out of business. The competitive nature of capitalism is why it has been so good at improving the forces of production. However, as I've said time over, now that it has improved the forces of production to the extent that there is a surplus of sufficiency, it's time for it to be replaced. It's now simply producing for production sake and, as I've said, is harming the world. You're misunderstanding what's happening and blaming the forces of production/technology instead of the relations of production – capitalism – which is where the responsibility really lies. 'The point, however,' as Marx understood, is to change it.
In point three, the relations of production – capitalism – are wholly determined by the forces of production/technology. You could not have had a capitalist economy in the 8th century, for example. You misunderstand the term.
To explain what I meant by use and exchange value, although it's not essential to this discussion, I'll take Johnny Caveman's rock as as example. The use value of the rock is simply how useful it is to Johnny Caveman – he can use it to shape flint. It's exchange value, however, is what it is worth to another caveman – say two chickens. If Johnny Caveman should decide to improve his rock by shaping grips in it for his fingers to hold, he would increase the exchange value of his rock, which now may be worth four chickens to another caveman. The increase in value of the rock has come from the human labour invested in it: the Labour Theory Of Value. It's why a hand-made chair costs more than something flat-pack from IKEA. As I said, though, that's not relevant to this discussion.
For my part, I've been trying to keep my argument general, to explain how the evolution of society occurs. However, since with point four you've now become specific, talking about Russia, I'm sure you'll forgive me if I say that it's utter nonsense. For a start, the USSR was never a communist/socialist/workers' state of any sort, except for about five minutes immediately after the October revolution (the final one of the three, by the way, 1905 , March 1917, being the dates of the other two).
To understand this – and I'll be as brief as possible on a complicated subject – it's necessary to take into account the circumstances prevailing at the time in Europe. In 1917, Russia had been at war with Germany for three years, severely depleting the already scarce resourcess of a relatively poor country. Immediately following the successful revolution of October, the dispossed class – the Whites – launched their counter-revolution. Naturally their efforts were reinforced with weapons, blockades, sanctions etc. by a West, including Britain – which actually landed a force in archangel in the north – hostile to the Bolsheviks. Bitter fighting continued with the counter-revolutionary forces for nearly three years, for a part of which time the war with Germany continued, before miraculously the Bolsheviks and their revolution managed to defeat them. I'm sure you'll agree that these were not ideal conditions for building a socialist society.
Russia is vast. The industrial parts of the country were some 200 years ahead of the more rural parts, which were still very much feudal. Because of this disparity in the relations of production Lenin and the Bolsheviks were fully aware before the October revolution that if the revolution was to survive one of the advanced industrial countries of Europe, such as Germany or Britain, had to have their own socialst revolutions, too, to spread the revolution and make it truly international, or, as Lenin put it, 'They will crush us.' The civil war locked up the Bolsheviks in Russia at a vital time, preventing them from helping the communist parties of other countries. The German revolution was stillborn, strangled by a ruthless German state. Rosa Luxemberg and
Karl Liebknecht, leaders of the German revolutionary Spartacist party were brutally murdered. (See link below.) The British working class, as we know, lost in 1926, largely due to the useless leadership of the TUC. All of this left the Bolsheviks very much isolated.
In a nutshell, Lenin died, Stalin gained control of the Bolshevik party because the casualties sustained in both the war and the civil war had left it a shadow of its former self. Trotsky and others formed the Left Opposition, but Stalin prevailed and set about establishing his 'Socialism in one Country' theory. Any opposition from Marxists/Trotskyists was cold-bloodedly put down, hence his 'purges'. Trotsky himself was exiled and eventually assassinated in Mexico, his skull being smashed in with an ice-axe.
[Continued Below]
The second paragraph of your first point is obviously true. It was my fault for sloppily stating that the productive forces/technology had put an end to famine and starvation on a mass scale. To now put that statement correctly, I shall say that the productive forces/technology have ended the spectre of famine in Europe, reaching the point where there is no need for anybody to be hungry, let alone die of starvation, in the world. Imagine the starving child in Africa. Now consider the lunacy of past EU butter mountains and wine lakes etc. That people are still starving is not a production problem; it is a distribution problem, a problem of the relations of production. (See link below.)
From the above, it's obvious to conclude that whereas the relations of production – capitalism – was initially beneficial in raising production to the point where there is a surplus of sufficiency, it has now become a hindrance to the distribution of that surplus and needs to be replaced by a communistic co-operative one. This of course returns us to my main point: the forces of production/technology are not the problem; the existing relations of production are the problem, and need to be got rid of, to enable humans as a whole to continue along our path of social evolution. Oliver Cromwell understood this well enough back in the 17th century.
As far as your point two is concerned I'm not sure that 'power' is the correct word to use. The forces of production are of course immensely uselful to the capitalist class, but then again the forces of production were equally useful to that Stone Age man I mentioned in my previous post who dicovered that if he picked up a rock and skillfully hit a flint he could produce a more efficient arrow-head and procure a greater supply of food for himself and his family/tribe etc. I don't see how your point takes us any further along the road to a solution to our present-day problems. If you and I were able to reject any given FoP/technology development, the problem would still be that the FoP/technology, whatever its level of development, remains in the hands of the Capitalist. Surely this reinforces the kernal of my argument that the problem is not the FoP/technology, but is the present relations of production, capitalism, and in order for humanity as a whole to be able to advance/evolve it needs to be replaced with a co-operative system.
The final sentence of your point two is incorrect: the reason we have the things you mention – insecure work, gig economy, union-bashing and so forth – is because capitalism is a competitive society. If one capitalist adopts a production process, working-practice, buys a new, more efficient machine that allows him to increase their rate of profit, the rest have to follow, otherwise they go out of business. The competitive nature of capitalism is why it has been so good at improving the forces of production. However, as I've said time over, now that it has improved the forces of production to the extent that there is a surplus of sufficiency, it's time for it to be replaced. It's now simply producing for production sake and, as I've said, is harming the world. You're misunderstanding what's happening and blaming the forces of production/technology instead of the relations of production – capitalism – which is where the responsibility really lies. 'The point, however,' as Marx understood, is to change it.
In point three, the relations of production – capitalism – are wholly determined by the forces of production/technology. You could not have had a capitalist economy in the 8th century, for example. You misunderstand the term.
To explain what I meant by use and exchange value, although it's not essential to this discussion, I'll take Johnny Caveman's rock as as example. The use value of the rock is simply how useful it is to Johnny Caveman – he can use it to shape flint. It's exchange value, however, is what it is worth to another caveman – say two chickens. If Johnny Caveman should decide to improve his rock by shaping grips in it for his fingers to hold, he would increase the exchange value of his rock, which now may be worth four chickens to another caveman. The increase in value of the rock has come from the human labour invested in it: the Labour Theory Of Value. It's why a hand-made chair costs more than something flat-pack from IKEA. As I said, though, that's not relevant to this discussion.
For my part, I've been trying to keep my argument general, to explain how the evolution of society occurs. However, since with point four you've now become specific, talking about Russia, I'm sure you'll forgive me if I say that it's utter nonsense. For a start, the USSR was never a communist/socialist/workers' state of any sort, except for about five minutes immediately after the October revolution (the final one of the three, by the way, 1905 , March 1917, being the dates of the other two).
To understand this – and I'll be as brief as possible on a complicated subject – it's necessary to take into account the circumstances prevailing at the time in Europe. In 1917, Russia had been at war with Germany for three years, severely depleting the already scarce resourcess of a relatively poor country. Immediately following the successful revolution of October, the dispossed class – the Whites – launched their counter-revolution. Naturally their efforts were reinforced with weapons, blockades, sanctions etc. by a West, including Britain – which actually landed a force in archangel in the north – hostile to the Bolsheviks. Bitter fighting continued with the counter-revolutionary forces for nearly three years, for a part of which time the war with Germany continued, before miraculously the Bolsheviks and their revolution managed to defeat them. I'm sure you'll agree that these were not ideal conditions for building a socialist society.
Russia is vast. The industrial parts of the country were some 200 years ahead of the more rural parts, which were still very much feudal. Because of this disparity in the relations of production Lenin and the Bolsheviks were fully aware before the October revolution that if the revolution was to survive one of the advanced industrial countries of Europe, such as Germany or Britain, had to have their own socialst revolutions, too, to spread the revolution and make it truly international, or, as Lenin put it, 'They will crush us.' The civil war locked up the Bolsheviks in Russia at a vital time, preventing them from helping the communist parties of other countries. The German revolution was stillborn, strangled by a ruthless German state. Rosa Luxemberg and
Karl Liebknecht, leaders of the German revolutionary Spartacist party were brutally murdered. (See link below.) The British working class, as we know, lost in 1926, largely due to the useless leadership of the TUC. All of this left the Bolsheviks very much isolated.
In a nutshell, Lenin died, Stalin gained control of the Bolshevik party because the casualties sustained in both the war and the civil war had left it a shadow of its former self. Trotsky and others formed the Left Opposition, but Stalin prevailed and set about establishing his 'Socialism in one Country' theory. Any opposition from Marxists/Trotskyists was cold-bloodedly put down, hence his 'purges'. Trotsky himself was exiled and eventually assassinated in Mexico, his skull being smashed in with an ice-axe.
[Continued Below]
[Continued from above]
So, to the crucial point: the relations of production existing in Stalinist Russia were not ones of communism/socialism. They were in fact what is know as State Capitalism. Any economist, of the left or right, would say the same. Basically, the state controls and directs the whole of production. The whole country acts as a unit of capital, like a company in the West, but it's competing against whole countries. Russia went bust in 1989, as many on the left (Tony Cliff, Socialist Review Group etc.) back in the nineteen-fifties predicted it would. So you see, far from communism 'not working', as you state, the simple fact is that it has never been tried.
Just to clarify something on this point: a Marxist revolution is by definition 'the emancipation of the working class by the working class themseves.' As an illustration, the Russian revolution was Marxist. The Cuban revolution with Castro and Ché wasn't.
In point 5 Percy and his 'withdrawal of labour' tactic, if that's indeed what he means in your quoted extract, as you appear to think, is exactly what I meant when I said we need to fight against the capitalist class, to get rid of them. Did you think I meant that we should all take a pitchfork, a burning brand, and attack the Houses of Parliament, like a bunch of extras in an old Frankenstein film? The strike tactic is our principal weapon, almost our only weapon. However, as the two miners' strikes showed, this is not enough on its own. In 1974, the boss class could afford to retreat, regroup and prepare - building up coal supplies to prevent blackouts etc. – for the fresh assault on the trades union movement and the working class with the 1984-85 miners' strike, in order to clear the way for a reversion from a Keynesian economy to a neo-liberal one. You saw then how far they were prepared to go – the soldiers masquerading as policemen, identification numbers torn off etc. The Battle of Orgreave and so on. The strike tactic, even in a General Strike, is only the presentation of the question. The answer to that question comes in the subsequent developments.
Reformism –and the Co-operative Society, like the Labour Party to which it is affiliated, is a reformist organisation – is no solution. No ruling class in history has alllowed itself to be reformed away. Cromwell would agree with me on this point. That's not to say reformist organisations shouldn't be critically supported, however, but it's necessary to understand that it can only go so far and at some point in the development of any class struggle it will be necessary to break with it if a revolutionary situation develops. However recognising that critical moment is crucial. Lenin and the Bolsheviks, for example, several times in the July and August days of 1917 held back the workers because the moment was not yet ripe and would have ended in defeat. Good leadership is essential. The merchant class etc. had it in the 17th century, with Cromwell, the Bolsheviks had it, with Lenin, Trotsky and others in 1917; the English working class in 1926 and the General Strike, didn't. The TUC then, as in the 1984-85 Miners's Strike proved themselves to be nothing more than the bosses' lackeys. Norman Willis may you burn in Hell!
If, on the other hand, as seems more likely to me, Percy is saying that we should act collectively in deciding what things as consumers we buy, so that we're left with some sort of benign capitalistic society, well, that's just hopelessly idealistic, I'm afraid. For example, do we collectively decide that the internal combustion engine is a bad thing, and refuse collectively to buy cars from the showroom, thereby ending their production?
You can see the problem with this, surely? Do we have meetings to determine what is a 'good' product and therefore acceptable, and what is a 'bad' product and therefore not? Do we determine this by a majority vote? If so, do we ballot the whole country? On every product? Every time something new is produced? However, maybe I've misunderstood.
With regard to point six, I entirely agree. I can only commend you on your stance. We're on the same side and that's the main thing. The proof of the rest will come out in the practice. That's the truth of anything, I suppose: does it work?
With point seven, I partly agree. Nature is something that has to be overcome. If it rains, you have to have a roof; if it's snowing you have to keep warm, but equally so it's obviously essential that humans don't wreck the planet. The sad fact is that under the present relations of production they will. However, if we can get rid of capitalism and continue our evolution as a species, we shall not. At this point in time, though, getting rid of capitalism isn't going to happen any time soon, sadly.
For my own part, no revolutionary situation existing in Britain at present, I'm not walking around waving a red flag and urging everyone to smash the capitalist pigs, so to speak. I just help to fight the little battles: delivering leaflets for the Labour Party at local and general election time; stuff with my own party; helping to protect refugee hostels/hotes from attacks from far-right groups; trades union things; participating in demos and such. I've been on several of the demos for Palestine in the UK recently. They won't do any good, though, sadly.
In my two rather long posts I've tried to show the laws governing the development of human society. These laws are applicable to any point in time of that development. Capitalistic relations of production has served its historical purpose – it has developed the forces of production to the extent that a surplus of sufficency exists. The next and final stage in the evolution of human society is a co-operative society, communism. It is a final stage because it is a classless society – no ruling class, no exploited class – therefore no more revolutions – eventually no State. The forces of production have now made that co-operative society possible. It is the historical task of the international working class to bring that society about. (See link below.)
In a nutshell:
1) : the relations of production, not the forces of production, are the problem. The forces of production/technology, whatever their level of development, are in the control of the capitalist class. Production for profit – serving the need of a single class – is harming the planet.
2) It's no use just knowing that. The point is to change it by becoming actively involved in the struggle.
All the best, Josh, mate. I enjoy these discussions, as Ahavati.has taught me to call them. As I said above, that we're on the same side is the main thing .
Keep dodging the bullets,🙃
Alex.
References:
The Russian Civil War:
https://www.marxists.org/history/etol/newspape/isj2/2000/isj2-086/trudell.htm
The Murder Of Rosa Luxemberg:
https://www.theguardian.com/books/2019/jan/09/the-murder-of-rosa-luxemburg-by-klaus-gietinger-review
Global Food Production:
www.gov.uk/government/statistics/united-kingdom-food-security-report-2021/united-kingdom-food-security-report-2021-theme-1-global-food-availability#united-kingdom-food-security-report-2021-theme1-indicator-1-1-1
Communist Manifesto:
https://www.marxists.org/archive/marx/works/1848/communist-manifesto/
So, to the crucial point: the relations of production existing in Stalinist Russia were not ones of communism/socialism. They were in fact what is know as State Capitalism. Any economist, of the left or right, would say the same. Basically, the state controls and directs the whole of production. The whole country acts as a unit of capital, like a company in the West, but it's competing against whole countries. Russia went bust in 1989, as many on the left (Tony Cliff, Socialist Review Group etc.) back in the nineteen-fifties predicted it would. So you see, far from communism 'not working', as you state, the simple fact is that it has never been tried.
Just to clarify something on this point: a Marxist revolution is by definition 'the emancipation of the working class by the working class themseves.' As an illustration, the Russian revolution was Marxist. The Cuban revolution with Castro and Ché wasn't.
In point 5 Percy and his 'withdrawal of labour' tactic, if that's indeed what he means in your quoted extract, as you appear to think, is exactly what I meant when I said we need to fight against the capitalist class, to get rid of them. Did you think I meant that we should all take a pitchfork, a burning brand, and attack the Houses of Parliament, like a bunch of extras in an old Frankenstein film? The strike tactic is our principal weapon, almost our only weapon. However, as the two miners' strikes showed, this is not enough on its own. In 1974, the boss class could afford to retreat, regroup and prepare - building up coal supplies to prevent blackouts etc. – for the fresh assault on the trades union movement and the working class with the 1984-85 miners' strike, in order to clear the way for a reversion from a Keynesian economy to a neo-liberal one. You saw then how far they were prepared to go – the soldiers masquerading as policemen, identification numbers torn off etc. The Battle of Orgreave and so on. The strike tactic, even in a General Strike, is only the presentation of the question. The answer to that question comes in the subsequent developments.
Reformism –and the Co-operative Society, like the Labour Party to which it is affiliated, is a reformist organisation – is no solution. No ruling class in history has alllowed itself to be reformed away. Cromwell would agree with me on this point. That's not to say reformist organisations shouldn't be critically supported, however, but it's necessary to understand that it can only go so far and at some point in the development of any class struggle it will be necessary to break with it if a revolutionary situation develops. However recognising that critical moment is crucial. Lenin and the Bolsheviks, for example, several times in the July and August days of 1917 held back the workers because the moment was not yet ripe and would have ended in defeat. Good leadership is essential. The merchant class etc. had it in the 17th century, with Cromwell, the Bolsheviks had it, with Lenin, Trotsky and others in 1917; the English working class in 1926 and the General Strike, didn't. The TUC then, as in the 1984-85 Miners's Strike proved themselves to be nothing more than the bosses' lackeys. Norman Willis may you burn in Hell!
If, on the other hand, as seems more likely to me, Percy is saying that we should act collectively in deciding what things as consumers we buy, so that we're left with some sort of benign capitalistic society, well, that's just hopelessly idealistic, I'm afraid. For example, do we collectively decide that the internal combustion engine is a bad thing, and refuse collectively to buy cars from the showroom, thereby ending their production?
You can see the problem with this, surely? Do we have meetings to determine what is a 'good' product and therefore acceptable, and what is a 'bad' product and therefore not? Do we determine this by a majority vote? If so, do we ballot the whole country? On every product? Every time something new is produced? However, maybe I've misunderstood.
With regard to point six, I entirely agree. I can only commend you on your stance. We're on the same side and that's the main thing. The proof of the rest will come out in the practice. That's the truth of anything, I suppose: does it work?
With point seven, I partly agree. Nature is something that has to be overcome. If it rains, you have to have a roof; if it's snowing you have to keep warm, but equally so it's obviously essential that humans don't wreck the planet. The sad fact is that under the present relations of production they will. However, if we can get rid of capitalism and continue our evolution as a species, we shall not. At this point in time, though, getting rid of capitalism isn't going to happen any time soon, sadly.
For my own part, no revolutionary situation existing in Britain at present, I'm not walking around waving a red flag and urging everyone to smash the capitalist pigs, so to speak. I just help to fight the little battles: delivering leaflets for the Labour Party at local and general election time; stuff with my own party; helping to protect refugee hostels/hotes from attacks from far-right groups; trades union things; participating in demos and such. I've been on several of the demos for Palestine in the UK recently. They won't do any good, though, sadly.
In my two rather long posts I've tried to show the laws governing the development of human society. These laws are applicable to any point in time of that development. Capitalistic relations of production has served its historical purpose – it has developed the forces of production to the extent that a surplus of sufficency exists. The next and final stage in the evolution of human society is a co-operative society, communism. It is a final stage because it is a classless society – no ruling class, no exploited class – therefore no more revolutions – eventually no State. The forces of production have now made that co-operative society possible. It is the historical task of the international working class to bring that society about. (See link below.)
In a nutshell:
1) : the relations of production, not the forces of production, are the problem. The forces of production/technology, whatever their level of development, are in the control of the capitalist class. Production for profit – serving the need of a single class – is harming the planet.
2) It's no use just knowing that. The point is to change it by becoming actively involved in the struggle.
All the best, Josh, mate. I enjoy these discussions, as Ahavati.has taught me to call them. As I said above, that we're on the same side is the main thing .
Keep dodging the bullets,🙃
Alex.
References:
The Russian Civil War:
https://www.marxists.org/history/etol/newspape/isj2/2000/isj2-086/trudell.htm
The Murder Of Rosa Luxemberg:
https://www.theguardian.com/books/2019/jan/09/the-murder-of-rosa-luxemburg-by-klaus-gietinger-review
Global Food Production:
www.gov.uk/government/statistics/united-kingdom-food-security-report-2021/united-kingdom-food-security-report-2021-theme-1-global-food-availability#united-kingdom-food-security-report-2021-theme1-indicator-1-1-1
Communist Manifesto:
https://www.marxists.org/archive/marx/works/1848/communist-manifesto/
This is fascinating. Saturn the Teacher in Pisces representing water animals. AI connectivity breakthroughs: whales speak and two vowels have been recognized.
https://twitter.com/begusgasper/status/1732069051512598797
https://twitter.com/begusgasper/status/1732069051512598797
ajay said:[Continued from above]
......
......
......
In a nutshell:
1) : the relations of production, not the forces of production, are the problem. The forces of production/technology, whatever their level of development, are in the control of the capitalist class. Production for profit – serving the need of a single class – is harming the planet.
2) It's no use just knowing that. The point is to change it by becoming actively involved in the struggle.
All the best, Josh, mate. I enjoy these discussions, as Ahavati.has taught me to call them. As I said above, that we're on the same side is the main thing .
Keep dodging the bullets,🙃
Alex.
References:
The Russian Civil War:
https://www.marxists.org/history/etol/newspape/isj2/2000/isj2-086/trudell.htm
The Murder Of Rosa Luxemberg:
https://www.theguardian.com/books/2019/jan/09/the-murder-of-rosa-luxemburg-by-klaus-gietinger-review
Global Food Production:
www.gov.uk/government/statistics/united-kingdom-food-security-report-2021/united-kingdom-food-security-report-2021-theme-1-global-food-availability#united-kingdom-food-security-report-2021-theme1-indicator-1-1-1
Communist Manifesto:
https://www.marxists.org/archive/marx/works/1848/communist-manifesto/
Hi Alex,
I have had an interesting time reading the links. I knew Russian history was pretty brutal on the Russian body & psyche but not as far-reaching as the account goes. And Rosa Luxemburg was a name in my mind, but minus the story of what happened. I found (re)-reading The Communist Manifesto fascinating — so up-to-date in many ways concerning the means of continuous re-exploitation of the many by the few.
I think we are agreed that the Capitalist model of running the world through various means of exploitation — especially in its current arch-capitalist mode — is unacceptable and has now reached fever-pitch.
I think we agree that we want to change the world, although I would say understanding it is a precursor as to how to change it. The Communist Manifesto is an understanding-the-world that underpins the recommended action that subsequently needs to take place.
I think we agree destruction of the planet needs to stop.
You’ve said a couple of times that you are a ‘materialist’. I’d really like to know what you mean by that because I am not; I am an 'intronaut' — and these two differing viewpoints suggest differing (but maybe also complementary) ways of changing things for the better.
My position as an intronaut is that I understand the world as essentially non-material, though with a material component we have to deal with everyday, and where much suffering takes place.
At the individual level, the invisible non-material dimensions of life impact on everyday material experience. A moment of inspiration, an imaginative vision of a better world, an intuitive gut-feeling decision, an instinctive act - (epiphany moments?) - these are examples of the motive power of the non-material powering material change.
At the collective level, ideologies (religious & political, economic & scientific) strongly influence how people en masse vote/work/put-up-with-shit/go-to-war - with definitive material outcomes.
If I have a purely material analysis of the problem (Communist Manifesto) then the resultant action for a solution is not taking into account non-material forces at work (which are more powerful in the long run - “powers and principalities in heaven and on earth” in bible language).
So, back to my question, what do you mean by being a materialist? And how do you see that as helping ‘right action’ to improve things, including changing the relations of production?
Cheers,
Josh.
......
......
......
In a nutshell:
1) : the relations of production, not the forces of production, are the problem. The forces of production/technology, whatever their level of development, are in the control of the capitalist class. Production for profit – serving the need of a single class – is harming the planet.
2) It's no use just knowing that. The point is to change it by becoming actively involved in the struggle.
All the best, Josh, mate. I enjoy these discussions, as Ahavati.has taught me to call them. As I said above, that we're on the same side is the main thing .
Keep dodging the bullets,🙃
Alex.
References:
The Russian Civil War:
https://www.marxists.org/history/etol/newspape/isj2/2000/isj2-086/trudell.htm
The Murder Of Rosa Luxemberg:
https://www.theguardian.com/books/2019/jan/09/the-murder-of-rosa-luxemburg-by-klaus-gietinger-review
Global Food Production:
www.gov.uk/government/statistics/united-kingdom-food-security-report-2021/united-kingdom-food-security-report-2021-theme-1-global-food-availability#united-kingdom-food-security-report-2021-theme1-indicator-1-1-1
Communist Manifesto:
https://www.marxists.org/archive/marx/works/1848/communist-manifesto/
Hi Alex,
I have had an interesting time reading the links. I knew Russian history was pretty brutal on the Russian body & psyche but not as far-reaching as the account goes. And Rosa Luxemburg was a name in my mind, but minus the story of what happened. I found (re)-reading The Communist Manifesto fascinating — so up-to-date in many ways concerning the means of continuous re-exploitation of the many by the few.
I think we are agreed that the Capitalist model of running the world through various means of exploitation — especially in its current arch-capitalist mode — is unacceptable and has now reached fever-pitch.
I think we agree that we want to change the world, although I would say understanding it is a precursor as to how to change it. The Communist Manifesto is an understanding-the-world that underpins the recommended action that subsequently needs to take place.
I think we agree destruction of the planet needs to stop.
You’ve said a couple of times that you are a ‘materialist’. I’d really like to know what you mean by that because I am not; I am an 'intronaut' — and these two differing viewpoints suggest differing (but maybe also complementary) ways of changing things for the better.
My position as an intronaut is that I understand the world as essentially non-material, though with a material component we have to deal with everyday, and where much suffering takes place.
At the individual level, the invisible non-material dimensions of life impact on everyday material experience. A moment of inspiration, an imaginative vision of a better world, an intuitive gut-feeling decision, an instinctive act - (epiphany moments?) - these are examples of the motive power of the non-material powering material change.
At the collective level, ideologies (religious & political, economic & scientific) strongly influence how people en masse vote/work/put-up-with-shit/go-to-war - with definitive material outcomes.
If I have a purely material analysis of the problem (Communist Manifesto) then the resultant action for a solution is not taking into account non-material forces at work (which are more powerful in the long run - “powers and principalities in heaven and on earth” in bible language).
So, back to my question, what do you mean by being a materialist? And how do you see that as helping ‘right action’ to improve things, including changing the relations of production?
Cheers,
Josh.
Josh said:
So, back to my question, what do you mean by being a materialist? And how do you see that as helping ‘right action’ to improve things, including changing the relations of production?
Cheers,
Josh.
Hi, Josh.
I wish I were in Portugal at the moment. It's cold, wet and windy here.🥶🌧️☔
As far as your question goes, I would have thought that the content of my last two posts would have made what I meant apparent when I said I was a materialist. A materialist will base his ideas on existing material reality: Matter is primary; Idea is secondary, in other words. The analysis I gave of the development of human society, of the way the world works – the production of a surplus, changes in the relations of production, the formation of classes with opposing interests etc. – in those posts was a materialist one; those changes had a material basis and were caused by the material process I described. Historical materialism, to be precise. This process has brought us to the present day, the existing stage of societal development , and is a process which continues.
To give an example of the opposite of materialism – idealism, the primacy of Idea – the words of the well-known hymn, 'All Things Bright and Beautiful' will suffice:
The rich man in his castle,
The poor man at his gate,
God made them, high or lowly,
And ordered their estate.
As I'm sure you can see, this is an idea that does not have a basis in materialist thought.
I hope that's answered the first part of your question satisfactorily.
As far as the second part of your question, concerning a materialist philosophy and 'right action', as you term it, is concerned, it's necessary to mention and give a brief definition of superstructure. [See link below for a fuller explanation.] I'll then give an example of how a materialist philosophy guides my actions in a particular circumstance.
So, up to now we've been discussing, among other things, the forces of production and the relations of production. These two forces together are what we term the 'base'. What rises upon this base is what we term the superstructure: the state: the political and juridicial forms, church, the media, customs etc., society in general. The function of the state is to protect the existing relations of production of the ruling class of whatever epoch. However, it's also the battleground for competing ideas, whether socialist, capitalist, fascist etc. The battle for 'minds', in other words. The boss class has a very powerful media on their side to put across and reinforce their view. [See link below.] However, we must do what we can to give our side of the story. As an example:
I meet someone I haven't seen for a while who's become unemployed. He's not had a very good education – he doesn't have an Msc., for instance🙃 – so consequently is finding it difficult to gain employment at a time when the economic cycle is at its low point: ie, a 'slump'. He may begin grumbling that all of these 'bloody foreigners' are the problem and that if they were all sent back home there would be plenty of jobs for English people. He may even be considering joining one of the far-right groups, with their nasty nationalistic theories.
However, if I am able to explain – because being a materialist I have taken the time to learn how capitalism works – that immigration isn't the reason for his unemployment, that capitalism by necessity demands a 'reserve pool of labour', which will contract in a period of economic expansion and expand in a period of a slump, that even if every foreigner were kicked out of the country a 'reserve pool of labour' would still be necessary to capitalist economics, not least to exert a downward pressure on wage rises, to control inflation, I may be successful in diverting him away from idealist right-wing theories and directing him to where the problem really lies – the competitive relations of production of capitalism. Perhaps when he does find employment again he'll join his trades union, because of the things I've said to him, and become an active member of it, fighting for better pay and conditions, becoming part of the solution, not a part of the problem. I'm sure you'll agree that this would be a 'right approach'.
As far as my actions in relation to myself are concerned, my materialistic knowledge of the formation from the very earliest times of classes with opposing interests will cause me to join a trades union at work, to protect not only my own pay and working conditions but also those of my colleagues and other members of the working class. As we saw with the Miners' Strike of 84-85 and the boss class's assault on workers and the trades union movement as a whole, it's essential for the working class to stick together, to protect each other in the class struggle. The Notts miners didn't; they allowed the gov. to split the miners. Had they had a more materialistic understanding of the class struggle, the history of it, and had they applied that reasoning to understand the conditions prevailing at the time better perhaps they wouldn't have split away, and the miners would have won. Had the individual members of the other unions had a greater understanding of the class struggle, perhaps they wouldn't have allowed the miners to stand alone, then we could have had a revolutionary situation similar to 1926, which this time we may have won. Whenever the occasion should arise, I argue the Marxist line, to attempt to bring about that greater understanding. (Ahavati's doing a similar thing, although not Marxist, with her 'Trump's Indictment' thread. Always attempt to persuade!) That's one illustration of how a materialistic understanding of human society can help to bring about a change in the relations of production. I am, of course, active in other ways, which I detailed in one of my previous posts.
I hope the two examples above have answered the second half of your question. If we as a class understand materialistically the way things are, we can act collectively to bring about change. The working class in the industrialised countries is, after all, the class that creates the wealth of the world. Collectively, we are much, much stronger than the ruling class. A materialist understanding of the way human society works will help us to understand that and to understand that the point is to change it, to change that society, with material action.
[Continued below]
So, back to my question, what do you mean by being a materialist? And how do you see that as helping ‘right action’ to improve things, including changing the relations of production?
Cheers,
Josh.
Hi, Josh.
I wish I were in Portugal at the moment. It's cold, wet and windy here.🥶🌧️☔
As far as your question goes, I would have thought that the content of my last two posts would have made what I meant apparent when I said I was a materialist. A materialist will base his ideas on existing material reality: Matter is primary; Idea is secondary, in other words. The analysis I gave of the development of human society, of the way the world works – the production of a surplus, changes in the relations of production, the formation of classes with opposing interests etc. – in those posts was a materialist one; those changes had a material basis and were caused by the material process I described. Historical materialism, to be precise. This process has brought us to the present day, the existing stage of societal development , and is a process which continues.
To give an example of the opposite of materialism – idealism, the primacy of Idea – the words of the well-known hymn, 'All Things Bright and Beautiful' will suffice:
The rich man in his castle,
The poor man at his gate,
God made them, high or lowly,
And ordered their estate.
As I'm sure you can see, this is an idea that does not have a basis in materialist thought.
I hope that's answered the first part of your question satisfactorily.
As far as the second part of your question, concerning a materialist philosophy and 'right action', as you term it, is concerned, it's necessary to mention and give a brief definition of superstructure. [See link below for a fuller explanation.] I'll then give an example of how a materialist philosophy guides my actions in a particular circumstance.
So, up to now we've been discussing, among other things, the forces of production and the relations of production. These two forces together are what we term the 'base'. What rises upon this base is what we term the superstructure: the state: the political and juridicial forms, church, the media, customs etc., society in general. The function of the state is to protect the existing relations of production of the ruling class of whatever epoch. However, it's also the battleground for competing ideas, whether socialist, capitalist, fascist etc. The battle for 'minds', in other words. The boss class has a very powerful media on their side to put across and reinforce their view. [See link below.] However, we must do what we can to give our side of the story. As an example:
I meet someone I haven't seen for a while who's become unemployed. He's not had a very good education – he doesn't have an Msc., for instance🙃 – so consequently is finding it difficult to gain employment at a time when the economic cycle is at its low point: ie, a 'slump'. He may begin grumbling that all of these 'bloody foreigners' are the problem and that if they were all sent back home there would be plenty of jobs for English people. He may even be considering joining one of the far-right groups, with their nasty nationalistic theories.
However, if I am able to explain – because being a materialist I have taken the time to learn how capitalism works – that immigration isn't the reason for his unemployment, that capitalism by necessity demands a 'reserve pool of labour', which will contract in a period of economic expansion and expand in a period of a slump, that even if every foreigner were kicked out of the country a 'reserve pool of labour' would still be necessary to capitalist economics, not least to exert a downward pressure on wage rises, to control inflation, I may be successful in diverting him away from idealist right-wing theories and directing him to where the problem really lies – the competitive relations of production of capitalism. Perhaps when he does find employment again he'll join his trades union, because of the things I've said to him, and become an active member of it, fighting for better pay and conditions, becoming part of the solution, not a part of the problem. I'm sure you'll agree that this would be a 'right approach'.
As far as my actions in relation to myself are concerned, my materialistic knowledge of the formation from the very earliest times of classes with opposing interests will cause me to join a trades union at work, to protect not only my own pay and working conditions but also those of my colleagues and other members of the working class. As we saw with the Miners' Strike of 84-85 and the boss class's assault on workers and the trades union movement as a whole, it's essential for the working class to stick together, to protect each other in the class struggle. The Notts miners didn't; they allowed the gov. to split the miners. Had they had a more materialistic understanding of the class struggle, the history of it, and had they applied that reasoning to understand the conditions prevailing at the time better perhaps they wouldn't have split away, and the miners would have won. Had the individual members of the other unions had a greater understanding of the class struggle, perhaps they wouldn't have allowed the miners to stand alone, then we could have had a revolutionary situation similar to 1926, which this time we may have won. Whenever the occasion should arise, I argue the Marxist line, to attempt to bring about that greater understanding. (Ahavati's doing a similar thing, although not Marxist, with her 'Trump's Indictment' thread. Always attempt to persuade!) That's one illustration of how a materialistic understanding of human society can help to bring about a change in the relations of production. I am, of course, active in other ways, which I detailed in one of my previous posts.
I hope the two examples above have answered the second half of your question. If we as a class understand materialistically the way things are, we can act collectively to bring about change. The working class in the industrialised countries is, after all, the class that creates the wealth of the world. Collectively, we are much, much stronger than the ruling class. A materialist understanding of the way human society works will help us to understand that and to understand that the point is to change it, to change that society, with material action.
[Continued below]
[Continued from above]
So much for me. Turning to you:
in the below segment of your last post, you assert things which puzzle me.
'My position as an intronaut is that I understand the world as essentially non-material, though with a material component we have to deal with everyday, and where much suffering takes place.'
How can a f*cking big ball of rock, spinning in space, be 'essentially non-material'? You've got me there, Josh.🌍
'At the individual level, the invisible non-material dimensions of life impact on everyday material experience. A moment of inspiration, an imaginative vision of a better world, an intuitive gut-feeling decision, an instinctive act - (epiphany moments?) - these are examples of the motive power of the non-material powering material change.'
In the above, from where does this 'moment of inspiration', 'this imaginative vision of a better world' this 'intuitive gut-feeling decision', this 'instinctive act' you mention come other than as a reflection through our senses of material reality? To have the 'imaginative vision of a better world', for example, you have to have a material world in the first place. Again, matter is primary, consciousness/ideas is secondary.
'If I have a purely material analysis of the problem (Communist Manifesto) then the resultant action for a solution is not taking into account non-material forces at work (which are more powerful in the long run - “powers and principalities in heaven and on earth” in bible language.'
Are we talking about gods here? If we are, I'm outta here. If someone believes, that's fair enough to me. 🙃
I had intended this to be only a short post, but que sera, sera ... 🙃.
I'll close with part of Engels' address at Marx's funeral. (We can go into 'surplus value' later, if you want.)
Engels' funeral address:
'Just as Darwin discovered the law of development of organic nature, so Marx discovered the law of development of human history: the simple fact, hitherto concealed by an overgrowth of ideology, that mankind must first of all eat, drink, have shelter and clothing, before it can pursue politics, science, art, religion, etc.; that therefore the production of the immediate material means, and consequently the degree of economic development attained by a given people or during a given epoch, form the foundation upon which the state institutions, the legal conceptions, art, and even the ideas on religion, of the people concerned have been evolved, and in the light of which they must, therefore, be explained, instead of vice versa, as had hitherto been the case.
But that is not all. Marx also discovered the special law of motion governing the present-day capitalist mode of production, and the bourgeois society that this mode of production has created. The discovery of surplus value suddenly threw light on the problem, in trying to solve which all previous investigations, of both bourgeois economists and socialist critics, had been groping in the dark.'
Best wishes, and my apologies for the tardy reply. I saw your post only at the weekend.
Alex
Links:
Forces and relations of production.
Base and superstructure.
https://www.rs21.org.uk/2018/01/21/marx-and-historical-materialism/
Media. (Bastards, nearly all of 'em.🙃)
https://www.medialens.org/2018/how-to-be-a-reliable-mainstream-journalist/
So much for me. Turning to you:
in the below segment of your last post, you assert things which puzzle me.
'My position as an intronaut is that I understand the world as essentially non-material, though with a material component we have to deal with everyday, and where much suffering takes place.'
How can a f*cking big ball of rock, spinning in space, be 'essentially non-material'? You've got me there, Josh.🌍
'At the individual level, the invisible non-material dimensions of life impact on everyday material experience. A moment of inspiration, an imaginative vision of a better world, an intuitive gut-feeling decision, an instinctive act - (epiphany moments?) - these are examples of the motive power of the non-material powering material change.'
In the above, from where does this 'moment of inspiration', 'this imaginative vision of a better world' this 'intuitive gut-feeling decision', this 'instinctive act' you mention come other than as a reflection through our senses of material reality? To have the 'imaginative vision of a better world', for example, you have to have a material world in the first place. Again, matter is primary, consciousness/ideas is secondary.
'If I have a purely material analysis of the problem (Communist Manifesto) then the resultant action for a solution is not taking into account non-material forces at work (which are more powerful in the long run - “powers and principalities in heaven and on earth” in bible language.'
Are we talking about gods here? If we are, I'm outta here. If someone believes, that's fair enough to me. 🙃
I had intended this to be only a short post, but que sera, sera ... 🙃.
I'll close with part of Engels' address at Marx's funeral. (We can go into 'surplus value' later, if you want.)
Engels' funeral address:
'Just as Darwin discovered the law of development of organic nature, so Marx discovered the law of development of human history: the simple fact, hitherto concealed by an overgrowth of ideology, that mankind must first of all eat, drink, have shelter and clothing, before it can pursue politics, science, art, religion, etc.; that therefore the production of the immediate material means, and consequently the degree of economic development attained by a given people or during a given epoch, form the foundation upon which the state institutions, the legal conceptions, art, and even the ideas on religion, of the people concerned have been evolved, and in the light of which they must, therefore, be explained, instead of vice versa, as had hitherto been the case.
But that is not all. Marx also discovered the special law of motion governing the present-day capitalist mode of production, and the bourgeois society that this mode of production has created. The discovery of surplus value suddenly threw light on the problem, in trying to solve which all previous investigations, of both bourgeois economists and socialist critics, had been groping in the dark.'
Best wishes, and my apologies for the tardy reply. I saw your post only at the weekend.
Alex
Links:
Forces and relations of production.
Base and superstructure.
https://www.rs21.org.uk/2018/01/21/marx-and-historical-materialism/
Media. (Bastards, nearly all of 'em.🙃)
https://www.medialens.org/2018/how-to-be-a-reliable-mainstream-journalist/
ajay said:[Continued from above]
.....
.....
Best wishes, and my apologies for the tardy reply. I saw your post only at the weekend.
Alex
Links:
Forces and relations of production.
Base and superstructure.
https://www.rs21.org.uk/2018/01/21/marx-and-historical-materialism/
Media. (Bastards, nearly all of 'em.🙃)
https://www.medialens.org/2018/how-to-be-a-reliable-mainstream-journalist/
Hi Ajay,
Thanks for the reply -- I'll get back to you.
Looks like we've got the next 10 days sunney here, but down to 3degC at night & 15degC max in the day.
Cheers, Josh..
.....
.....
Best wishes, and my apologies for the tardy reply. I saw your post only at the weekend.
Alex
Links:
Forces and relations of production.
Base and superstructure.
https://www.rs21.org.uk/2018/01/21/marx-and-historical-materialism/
Media. (Bastards, nearly all of 'em.🙃)
https://www.medialens.org/2018/how-to-be-a-reliable-mainstream-journalist/
Hi Ajay,
Thanks for the reply -- I'll get back to you.
Looks like we've got the next 10 days sunney here, but down to 3degC at night & 15degC max in the day.
Cheers, Josh.. Ahavati said:This is fascinating. Saturn the Teacher in Pisces representing water animals. AI connectivity breakthroughs: whales speak and two vowels have been recognized.
https://twitter.com/begusgasper/status/1732069051512598797
Here's a bit more on this story, A. AI's a useful tool.
https://www.vice.com/en/article/4a35kp/scientists-have-reported-a-breakthrough-in-understanding-whale-language
💐
https://twitter.com/begusgasper/status/1732069051512598797
Here's a bit more on this story, A. AI's a useful tool.
https://www.vice.com/en/article/4a35kp/scientists-have-reported-a-breakthrough-in-understanding-whale-language
💐
crimsin said:here's a picture a photographer used AI to capture
Dazzlingly wonderful pictures for sure, Crim. Thanks for posting.
Like most technologies, they have their place (though some technologies, [eg: much weaponry], shouldn't have any place at all, except in the dustbin of history).
And as long as they stay in their place, and don't get over-elevated by human beliefs in them, then all continues to be generally o.k.
Dazzlingly wonderful pictures for sure, Crim. Thanks for posting.
Like most technologies, they have their place (though some technologies, [eg: much weaponry], shouldn't have any place at all, except in the dustbin of history).
And as long as they stay in their place, and don't get over-elevated by human beliefs in them, then all continues to be generally o.k.
Just to return this thread to its title, I must say that I don't have a problem with AI poems – provided they're not entered for competitions, of course. If a machine can write better poetry than a human, I'm going to read and buy the AI stuff. I don't see what's wrong with that. As far as the plagiarism thing is concerned, to quote TS Eliot: 'Good writers borrow; great writers steal', so that aspect of it is nothing new.
Having said that, however, at the present stage of AI development, the poems and critique it generates are all rubbish – as the examples on DU so adequately demonstrate.
Having said that, however, at the present stage of AI development, the poems and critique it generates are all rubbish – as the examples on DU so adequately demonstrate.
ajay said:Just to return this thread to its title,
Images have been part of the discussion. I don't think they should be limited. Art is art. I remember studying how realists despised impressionism, etc. Art is evolutionary.
Ahavati said:Just for clarification: What about images that accompany posts written by a human? I have been playing around with AI digital creations on some of my posts and always disclaim they are AI generated with PS etc.
lepperochan said:
I think the webmiss thought carefully about her wording and in the near to mid-future will clarify further with an additional passage within the guidelines
I think from reading back through this thread and the other one related to it any bad vibes were towards the poetry more than the pictures (which were generally accepted)
Edit: I can see how the above two paragraphs don't really compliment each other. I'd say for now maybe take the webmiss words literally
Images have been part of the discussion. I don't think they should be limited. Art is art. I remember studying how realists despised impressionism, etc. Art is evolutionary.
Ahavati said:Just for clarification: What about images that accompany posts written by a human? I have been playing around with AI digital creations on some of my posts and always disclaim they are AI generated with PS etc.
lepperochan said:
I think the webmiss thought carefully about her wording and in the near to mid-future will clarify further with an additional passage within the guidelines
I think from reading back through this thread and the other one related to it any bad vibes were towards the poetry more than the pictures (which were generally accepted)
Edit: I can see how the above two paragraphs don't really compliment each other. I'd say for now maybe take the webmiss words literally
