Re: [Marxism-Thaxis] Robotic Nation by Marshall Brain
In a message dated 2/2/2010 9:31:43 P.M. Pacific Standard Time, jann...@gmail.com writes: Lastly, what strikes me about WL's posts is that they repeat the same error that I'm going out on a limb in calling a type of 'psychologism'. As if somehow this insight about financialization and siliconchipping will lead to some sort of collective awareness and transformation. It might feel nicer than cynicism and despair but honestly it makes me feel more cynical and despairing. CJ Reply Here is a sample of Brain's from part 3 of Robotics Nation. At least 50 percent of the people working in the American job market today are working in people-powered industries like fast-food restaurants (McDonald's, Burger King, Wendy's, etc.), retail stores (Wal-Mart, Home Depot, Target, Toys R Us, etc.), delivery companies (the post office, Fedex, UPS, etc.), construction, airlines, amusement parks, hotels and motels, warehousing and so on. All of these jobs are prime targets for robotic replacement. In 2003 we are seeing the deployment of automated checkout lines in stores all across the U.S. This is the leading edge of the robotic revolution in retail. By 2015 we will start to see voice-recognizing robots helping customers in these stores, inventory-shelving robots putting the products out, cleaning robots sweeping the floors and the parking lots, cart robots bringing the shopping carts back into the store Robots will be moving in to make the completely automated retail store a reality in a 2020 time frame. [See Evidence for details.] Brain ends his article on this note: Robots have the potential to do so much good for the world, because they will finally free people from the requirement of human labor. The only way for all of us to experience these benefits, however, is to create an economic system that maximizes freedom and choice for everyone in the economy. The proposal presented in this article shows that there are ways to enhance the capitalistic system and in the process make life better for everyone. My hope is that we begin discussing and then implementing systems that will let our society and our economy get the most benefit from the new robotic nation. We should use robots to give every citizen true economic freedom for the first time in human history. The quality of McDonald's food was not the subject of Robotic Nation. My read of this article was that displacement of labor driven by falling profit margins and more efficient form of laboring increases the demand for implementing more advanced robotics in the production process. WL. ___ Marxism-Thaxis mailing list Marxism-Thaxis@lists.econ.utah.edu To change your options or unsubscribe go to: http://lists.econ.utah.edu/mailman/listinfo/marxism-thaxis
Re: [Marxism-Thaxis] Robotic Nation by Marshall Brain
The quality of McDonald's food was not the subject of Robotic Nation. My read of this article was that displacement of labor driven by falling profit margins and more efficient form of laboring increases the demand for implementing more advanced robotics in the production process. Who said that the quality of the food was the subject of RN? I didn't, but the purpose of my post was not simply to agree with RN. I probably said more about profits at McD's than either you or the office did. Have you ever worked at a fastfood restaurant? I did, 1980-1983. From what I can see about the process and work place now when I visit a fastfood restaurant is very little has changed. Have you ever or would you ever work for $2.20 an hour? I did at Hardee's fastood for two years. Were vending machines 'advanced robotics'? Were robots on Detroit assembly lines 'advanced robotics'? Are ATMs advanced robotics? Are any machines that replace low-paid human labor advanced robotics? The reality of advanced robotics is that they often cost more than cheap humans (e.g. Haitians, unemployed Detroiters, white or blacks living in non-union areas of the US, etc.) and that their machine-human interface fails. What was the point of that author's McD's 'moment of revelation'? CJ ___ Marxism-Thaxis mailing list Marxism-Thaxis@lists.econ.utah.edu To change your options or unsubscribe go to: http://lists.econ.utah.edu/mailman/listinfo/marxism-thaxis
Re: [Marxism-Thaxis] Robotic Nation by Marshall Brain
I probably said more about profits at McD's than either you or the office did. Sorry, I find as I get older when there is a distraction I make these 'phonetic' mistakes. I meant 'author' there , not office. But the cats in the office are making such a racket I am finding it hard to concentrate. CJ -- Japan Higher Education Outlook http://japanheo.blogspot.com/ ELT in Japan http://eltinjapan.blogspot.com/ We are Feral Cats http://wearechikineko.blogspot.com/ ___ Marxism-Thaxis mailing list Marxism-Thaxis@lists.econ.utah.edu To change your options or unsubscribe go to: http://lists.econ.utah.edu/mailman/listinfo/marxism-thaxis
Re: [Marxism-Thaxis] Robotic Nation by Marshall Brain
I'm old enough to remember a cafeteria that operated like this. Where was it? A federal facility in Williamsburg, VA, perhaps? http://www.theautomat.com/inside/welcome/welcom.html ___ Marxism-Thaxis mailing list Marxism-Thaxis@lists.econ.utah.edu To change your options or unsubscribe go to: http://lists.econ.utah.edu/mailman/listinfo/marxism-thaxis
Re: [Marxism-Thaxis] Robotic Nation by Marshall Brain
Hey we had a financial bubble at about the same time too. http://www.theautomat.com/inside/welcome/welcom.html When the first Automat opened in 1902, the United States had begun, in earnest, its ascent to becoming one of the most powerful countries in the world. It had done this the old-fashioned way, by assembling an empire made up of less industrialized, militarily backward and agriculture-based territories like those in Latin America, the American West, and the Far East. Through immigration and conquest, there was an abundance of low-wage, but nevertheless often skilled, labor, crucial to the development of a strong manufacturing-based economy. This process was also made possible due to the triumphs of modern mechanical engineering. The steam engine and the machinery it ran, the train, mass production techniques, and abundant fuel for refrigeration and power production, all played key roles. Access to plentiful water and good agricultural land, albeit much of it wrested from its former owners, completed the picture. It almost seemed as though man had conquered not just other men, but nature itself, mountains, tunnels and bridges, the material plane in its entirety, and was ready to move on to greater triumphs. We had collectively evolved past the stage of producing the goods needed to prosper, and were ready to take on other greater challenges, perhaps even to devote ourselves to higher purposes. Nowhere did these pieces fit closer together than in the great northeastern cities, the original Capitals of the Republic, Philadelphia and New York. Densely populated with both long-time residents and newer arrivals, their diversity of activity and regular European-style urban organization, multi-story buildings and ubiquitous streetcars, defined the modern city. When Joseph Horn and Frank Hardart began their little luncheonette business, across the street from Wanamaker's Department Store in Philadelphia in 1892, they were too busy cooking and cleaning to have any time to imagine the day, thirty years later, when they would be serving a million dishes of food a day to a growing army of famished and grateful patrons. As novice entrepreneurs with a limited amount of borrowed money, they were probably worried that they wouldn't last even one year, having used up their entire investment putting together their first tiny enterprise. Luckily, Frank Hardart had learned in a previous job in New Orleans, how to make a great cup of French Roast coffee. Like the founder of STARBUCKS over a century later, he realized that the magical properties of caffeine, heated sufficiently to rush it into the bloodstream of urbanites, frantic for the fuel needed to get around the next lap, was black gold, legal dope, and a mighty fine cup of joe. You could hardly find a better way to spend a nickel. One other invaluable insight shared by these erstwhile partners, was that people were tired of the shabby fare passed off as food, which typified moderately priced restaurants of their time. In contrast to the nearly universal contempt in which restaurateurs held their low-income patrons, Horn and Hardart began to upgrade and improve their offerings until they stood stories above their competitors. During the ten-year period in which they operated their modest establishment, they were rewarded with a growing and grateful clientele. It was at this point that a timely trip by Hardart to Europe uncovered the existence of the waiterless restaurant, an innovation based upon a vending device capable of serving food through little windows. A shipment of these devices to the States followed quickly and, after a series of radical modifications and improvements, their first implantation on Chestnut Street in Philadelphia. The popularity of this system was established rapidly and expanded to a chain of eighty stores, equally divided between New York and its native Philadelphia. Its dual and seemingly contradictory identity, as a rare and exotic phenomenon, an absolute must-see destination for tourists from around the country and the world, and yet the most commonplace, and ubiquitous place to grab a good and quick meal, for locals, began almost immediately and never ended. The survival of this institution and especially its ability to maintain its unique high standards over that period of time, for nearly a century, is quite remarkable. The expansion of the operation into the first large-scale retail take-out operation, with hundreds of Less Work for Mother outlets also selling freshly made and high quality fare, marks them as the precursor of another of the 20th century's major gastronomical business developments. Along with their ability to see the future and show the way to legions of others who could not, their story is a textbook example of the rewards of doing things right, not just doing them first. Using economy of scale as their lever, they were able to demonstrate that you did not have to compromise quality in order to be able
Re: [Marxism-Thaxis] Robotic Nation by Marshall Brain
In a message dated 2/3/2010 2:22:21 A.M. Pacific Standard Time, jann...@gmail.com writes: Have you ever worked at a fastfood restaurant? I did, 1980-1983. From what I can see about the process and work place now when I visit a fastfood restaurant is very little has changed. Have you ever or would you ever work for $2.20 an hour? I did at Hardee's fastood for two years. Reply No I have not worked at a fast food restaurant. Nor would I work for $2.20 an hour if that was the singularly wage. Personally, I would find work in the illegal economy meaning outside the taxing reach of the government. The information on the automat was pretty fascinating stuff. In the late 1970s, early 1980s we replaced much of our automat food service in the plant for hot cooked meals during contract negotiations. These mechanized food dispensaries were a source of headaches with workers losing much money when the machine malfunctioned and delivered no food. Early automation or automatons were realized based on a different technology and do not qualify as advanced robotics. Advanced robotics is the application of a new technology to advanced automation. It is not one device or invention that constitutes a new technological regime. It is the coalescing of new technologies and new inventions that begins and accelerates the revolution in the productive forces. Ultimately the revolution in the productive forces compels society to leap to a new economic, social and political basis. 21st century robotics does not automate but rather advances automation through systems with human like sensory perception and precise functioning. For instance modern Coca Cola machines have the ability to dispense hundreds of different mixtures of drink not possible in the pre-robotics era. Automation during the first half of the past century grew and expanded the industrial form of the working class. Advanced robotics does the opposite. WL. ___ Marxism-Thaxis mailing list Marxism-Thaxis@lists.econ.utah.edu To change your options or unsubscribe go to: http://lists.econ.utah.edu/mailman/listinfo/marxism-thaxis
[Marxism-Thaxis] Reminiscences of Lenin
N. K. Krupskaya's Reminiscences of Lenin http://www.marxists.org/archive/krupskaya/works/rol/index.htm Written: 1933 First Published: International Publishers, 1970 Translated: Bernard Isaacs Transcribed: Sally Ryan 1999 HTML Markup: Sally Ryan 1999 CONTENTS Introduction Part I. St. Petersburg In Exile, 1898-1901 Munich, 1901-1902 Life in London, 1902-1903 Geneva, 1903 The Second Congress, July-August 1903 After the Second Congress, 1903-1904 The Year 1905: Life in emigration Back in St. Petersburg St Petersburg and Finland, 1905-07 Again Abroad. End of 1907 Part II. Second Emigration Years of Reaction Geneva, 1908 Paris, 1909-1910 The Years of New Revolutionary Upsurge, 1911-1914 Paris, 1911-1912 Early 1912 Cracow, 1912-14 The Years of The War Cracow, 1914 Berne, 1914-1915 Zurich, 1916 Last Months in Emigration... In Petrograd Underground Again On the Eve of the Uprising Part III. Preface to Part III The October Days From the October Revolution to the Peace of Brest Ilyich Moves to Moscow, His First Months of Work in Moscow 1919 ___ Marxism-Thaxis mailing list Marxism-Thaxis@lists.econ.utah.edu To change your options or unsubscribe go to: http://lists.econ.utah.edu/mailman/listinfo/marxism-thaxis
[Marxism-Thaxis] Introduction
Krupskaya's “Reminiscences of Lenin” Introduction The reminiscences printed in this volume cover the period 1894 to 1917 from the time I first met Vladimir Ilyich up to the October Revolution. I have often been told that my reminiscences are rather sketchy. Everyone, of course, is eager to learn all he can about Ilyich, and besides, the epoch itself was one of tremendous historical importance. It saw the development of a mass movement among the workers, the creation of a strong staunch party of the working class, steeled under the most difficult conditions of underground activity and the steady growth of working-class consciousness and organization. It was an epoch of desperate struggle, which ended in the victory of the proletarian socialist revolution. Heaps of interesting articles and books could be written both about that epoch and about Ilyich. The purpose of these reminiscences is to give a picture of the conditions under which Vladimir Ilyich lived and worked. I wrote only of those things which stood out most vividly in my memory. These reminiscences were written in two stages. Part I, covering the period 1894-1907, was written a few years after Lenin's death. It contains recollections relating to his work in St. Petersburg, to the time of his Siberian exile, the Munich and London periods of his first emigration, the period preceding the Second Congress of the Party, the Second Congress itself and the period immediately following it right up to 1905. Then come recollections of 1905 both in Russia and abroad, and finally of the period 1905-1907. I wrote them for the most part at Gorki, where I roamed about the large house and the overgrown paths of the park in which Ilyich had spent the last year of his life. The years 1894-1907 saw the upsurge of the young working-class movement, and one's thoughts were involuntarily drawn back to that period, when the foundations of our Party were laid. I wrote the first part almost entirely from memory. The second part was written a few years later. One had to study very hard during those years, to reread Lenin sedulously, to learn to link up the past with the present, to learn how to live with Ilyich without Ilyich. And so the second part of the book differs from the first. The first has a more personal touch, the second deals more with Ilyich's interests and thoughts. I think both parts should preferably be read together. The first part is closely linked with the second, and the latter, if read alone, may strike the reader as being less reminiscential than it really is. Part II of the reminiscences was written at a time when many other recollections and symposiums, as well as the second edition of Lenin's Works, had come off the press. This, to a certain extent, determined the character of the reminiscences of the second period of emigration. It enabled me to check up on myself. Moreover, the period they deal with (1908-1917) was far more complex than the first. The first period (1893-1907) covered the early steps of the working-class movement, the efforts to build up a Party, the rising wave of the first revolution directed chiefly against tsarism, and the defeat of that revolution. The second period – that of the second emigration – was far more involved. It was a summing up of the revolutionary struggle of the first period, a period of struggle against the reaction, a period of fierce struggle against opportunism of every kind and description, a struggle for the necessity of adapting our work to every kind of condition without any falling off in its revolutionary content. The period of second emigration was a period of impending world war, when opportunism in the working-class parties led to the collapse of the Second International, when entirely new problems faced the world proletariat, when new paths had to be laid, and the foundation of the Third International built up stone by stone, when the struggle for socialism had to be started under the most adverse conditions. In emigration, all these problems were sharply focussed and concrete. Unless these problems are understood it is impossible for anyone to grasp how Lenin rose to be the leader of October, the leader of the world revolution. Leaders are formed in and grow out of the struggle, from which they draw their strength. No reminiscences of Lenin during the period of emigration are conceivable that do not link up every detail of his life with the struggle that he waged at that time. The nine years of his second emigration had not changed Ilyich a bit. He worked just as hard and as methodically, he took the same keen interest in every little detail, was able to put two and two together and had lost none of his ability to see the truth and face it, no matter how bitter it was. He hated oppression and exploitation as cordially as ever, was just as devoted to the cause of the proletariat, the cause of the working
[Marxism-Thaxis] Card Check
Charlie Brown kicking at the football , and Lucy pulling it away ? Charlie B Card Check: Labor's Charlie Brown Moment? (part 2) By Robert Fitch Winter 2010 Whole #: 48 Vol:XII-4 http://newpolitics.mayfirst.org/fromthearchives?nid=185 Economic Foundations of Business Unionism The idea that unions are active in organizing but they're held back solely by bad labor laws and employer resistance is one of the most widely shared assumptions of the Card Check debate. In fact, a lot of the reason unions don't organize is that they don't try. While there's a lot of employer resistance, most unions don't try to overcome it. Just a handful of unions are at all active in elections -- with the Teamsters alone contesting more than a quarter of all contests.[63] U.S. unions no more seek to represent all the workers in the country than insurance companies seek to insure all the potential sick people. Whereas insurance companies concentrate on pools of the young and the healthy, the labor unions focus on workers in jurisdictions who are paid by employers with deep pockets who have a certain monopoly power. The restaurant workers union in New York City focuses on the midtown Manhattan venues where waiters can make $200 a night in tips. It ignores Chinatown where the dishwashers may make as little as $180 a week.[64] Historically, this selective concentration produced a high union premium. But as increased competition erodes employer monopoly, union ability to achieve the union premium declines too, calling into question the economic foundation of American business unionism. The point here is not to support the Owenite John Weston's claim that unions can't raise wages; that wage increases are automatically followed by price increases. So that workers gain nothing and unions are pointless. In his famous response, Marx shattered Weston's assumption that wages were fixed. He went on to explain wage variations in terms of the cost of labor power, modified by historical factors -- workers who ride bikes to work need less wages than workers who commute by car -- and most importantly by fluctuations in supply and demand. Variations in demand were determined chiefly by rate of accumulation and the share of wage capital in total capital, which tends to fall, while the supply of labor by the size of the labor force, all of which fluctuate, rather than remain fixed as Weston assumed. Historically, Marx observed, the general tendency of wages, notwithstanding bursts of rising wages -- e.g., 50s to the 70s in 19th c. and the same period again in the 20th c., stagnation or even decline predominated[65] -- for supply outran demand. Recent studies and recent developments have justified Marx's skepticism. From 1500-1800 wages didn't rise, fluctuating with Malthusian forces around subsistence; nor is it clear that wages increased at all during the industrial revolution despite historic increases in productivity; true wages rose after 1850; certainly increased between 1940s and 1970s. Subsequently, U.S. median hourly wages for non-supervisory workers have stagnated or even fallen. European unions are under the same competitive pressures as their American counterparts. But they've adapted better. Even in France, where the labor movement is often portrayed as having fared worse than the U.S. because it has fewer dues paying members, unions still bargain for more than 90 percent of the French workforce. Political action takes far more militant and broad scale forms; local boss knappings occur against the background of millions of workers demonstrating in nation-wide actions against austerity. It's true that French unions lost the 35 hour week, but the French labor Left and its allies can still boast of universal childcare; universal health coverage; six week vacations, and a minimum wage is 8.71 euros an hour: $12.28 at current exchange rates. (the U.S. minimum in 2009 is $7.25) The French as well as most other European unions share a common ancestor with their American counterparts in the 19th c. monopolistic craft union, but in Europe, craft unionism was very early on absolutely suppressed. With the passage of la loi Chapelier, in 1791, the French Revolution banned all forms of workers' organizations. When unions emerged from illegality in 1886 it was as a contentious, competitive mass movement dominated by Marxists and anarchists, operating on a national scale, not as thousands of rent-seeking enclaves. Just as the U.S. political system remained comparatively localized and patronage- ridden, never developing European style mass parties, American labor institutions haven't really evolved either. As comparative labor historian Gerald Friedman observes, American unions abandoned inclusive and industrial organization just when these forms were replacing craft unions in France.[66] They retain a suite of features from their 19th c. forebearers which originally emerged by adapting strictly to the monopoly niches of the economy. Craft
[Marxism-Thaxis] Contradiction in text
wikipedia on Krupskaya: Although she was highly regarded within the party, Krupskaya was unable to prevent Joseph Stalin's consolidation of power after Lenin's death[citation needed]. She was then politically isolated by Stalin and his supporters.[citation needed] Krupskaya apparently favored Stalin in the great debates between the Left Opposition and the CPSU majority of the 1920s. In 1925, she attacked Trotsky in a polemic that was in response to Trotsky's tract The Need To Study October. In it, she stated that Marxist analysis was never Comrade Trotsky’s strong point.[11] In relation to the debate around Socialism in one country versus Permanent Revolution, she asserted that Trotsky under-estimates the role played by the peasantry.[12] Furthermore, she held that Trotsky had misinterpreted the revolutionary situation in post-WWI Germany.[13] ^^ CB: If she apparently favored Stalin, the implication would be not that she was politically isolated by Stalin, but was politically aligned with Stalin. ___ Marxism-Thaxis mailing list Marxism-Thaxis@lists.econ.utah.edu To change your options or unsubscribe go to: http://lists.econ.utah.edu/mailman/listinfo/marxism-thaxis
Re: [Marxism-Thaxis] Contradiction in text
Of course lots of people who were politically aligned with Stalin in the 1920s eventually found themselves in a labor camp or looking at the wrong end of a gun later on. Just ask Bukharin. Jim F. http://independent.academia.edu/JimFarmelant -- Original Message -- From: c b cb31...@gmail.com To: Forum for the discussion of theoretical issues raised by Karl Marx and the thinkers he inspired marxism-thaxis@lists.econ.utah.edu, a-l...@lists.econ.utah.edu Subject: [Marxism-Thaxis] Contradiction in text Date: Wed, 3 Feb 2010 13:10:33 -0500 wikipedia on Krupskaya: Although she was highly regarded within the party, Krupskaya was unable to prevent Joseph Stalin's consolidation of power after Lenin's death[citation needed]. She was then politically isolated by Stalin and his supporters.[citation needed] Krupskaya apparently favored Stalin in the great debates between the Left Opposition and the CPSU majority of the 1920s. In 1925, she attacked Trotsky in a polemic that was in response to Trotsky's tract The Need To Study October. In it, she stated that Marxist analysis was never Comrade Trotskys strong point.[11] In relation to the debate around Socialism in one country versus Permanent Revolution, she asserted that Trotsky under-estimates the role played by the peasantry.[12] Furthermore, she held that Trotsky had misinterpreted the revolutionary situation in post-WWI Germany.[13] ^^ CB: If she apparently favored Stalin, the implication would be not that she was politically isolated by Stalin, but was politically aligned with Stalin. ___ Marxism-Thaxis mailing list Marxism-Thaxis@lists.econ.utah.edu To change your options or unsubscribe go to: http://lists.econ.utah.edu/mailman/listinfo/marxism-thaxis Weight Loss Program Best Weight Loss Program - Click Here! http://thirdpartyoffers.juno.com/TGL2141/c?cp=_qHxab1yoyfSE2Cs_DN4gQAAJ1AP8ttsZd_TbiVxkZxsC3mBAAYAAADNAAAEUgA= ___ Marxism-Thaxis mailing list Marxism-Thaxis@lists.econ.utah.edu To change your options or unsubscribe go to: http://lists.econ.utah.edu/mailman/listinfo/marxism-thaxis
Re: [Marxism-Thaxis] Contradiction in text
On Feb 3, 2010, at 1:16 PM, farmela...@juno.com wrote: Of course lots of people who were politically aligned with Stalin in the 1920s eventually found themselves in a labor camp or looking at the wrong end of a gun later on. Just ask Bukharin... ...Krupskaya apparently favored Stalin in the great debates between the Left Opposition and the CPSU majority of the 1920s. In 1925, she attacked Trotsky in a polemic that was in response to Trotsky's tract The Need To Study October... CB: If she apparently favored Stalin, the implication would be not that she was politically isolated by Stalin, but was politically aligned with Stalin. The truth is that Krupskaya was politically aligned with Zinoviev. In 1925 Zinoviev was in a bloc with Stalin (and against Bukharin and Trotsky) and so Krupskaya echoed his attacks against Trotsky. In 1926-1927 Zinoviev was politically aligned with Trotsky in the United Opposition and Krupskaya likewise. Similarly, Bukharin through the mid-1920's (until late 1927) was aligned against Zinoviev and Trotsky, and so aligned with Stalin. If the Stalin apparatus had not abolished political life inside the CPSU at the end of 1927, Bukharin would have become aligned with Trotsky in 1928. The economic policy discussion (which Stalin systematically avoided while single-mindedly building the bureaucratic apparatus on which his subsequent totalitarian misrule was to be based) determining those alliances is best described in the brilliant book by Alexander Erlich, The Soviet Industrialization Debate, 1924-1928. Shane Mage This cosmos did none of gods or men make, but it always was and is and shall be: an everlasting fire, kindling in measures and going out in measures. Herakleitos of Ephesos ___ Marxism-Thaxis mailing list Marxism-Thaxis@lists.econ.utah.edu To change your options or unsubscribe go to: http://lists.econ.utah.edu/mailman/listinfo/marxism-thaxis
Re: [Marxism-Thaxis] Contradiction in text
On 2/3/10, farmela...@juno.com farmela...@juno.com wrote: Of course lots of people who were politically aligned with Stalin in the 1920s eventually found themselves in a labor camp or looking at the wrong end of a gun later on. Just ask Bukharin. Jim F. http://independent.academia.edu/JimFarmelant CB: Krupskaya wasn't in a labor camp or at the wrong end of a gun, so This wikipedia note says she was unable to prevent Stalin's consolidation of power, implying that she was trying to prevent Stalin's consolidation of power. But why would she be trying to prevent his consolidation of power if Krupskaya apparently favored Stalin in the great debates between the Left Opposition and the CPSU majority of the 1920s. -- Original Message -- From: c b cb31...@gmail.com To: Forum for the discussion of theoretical issues raised by Karl Marx and the thinkers he inspired marxism-thaxis@lists.econ.utah.edu, a-l...@lists.econ.utah.edu Subject: [Marxism-Thaxis] Contradiction in text Date: Wed, 3 Feb 2010 13:10:33 -0500 wikipedia on Krupskaya: Although she was highly regarded within the party, Krupskaya was unable to prevent Joseph Stalin's consolidation of power after Lenin's death[citation needed]. She was then politically isolated by Stalin and his supporters.[citation needed] Krupskaya apparently favored Stalin in the great debates between the Left Opposition and the CPSU majority of the 1920s. In 1925, she attacked Trotsky in a polemic that was in response to Trotsky's tract The Need To Study October. In it, she stated that Marxist analysis was never Comrade Trotsky’s strong point.[11] In relation to the debate around Socialism in one country versus Permanent Revolution, she asserted that Trotsky under-estimates the role played by the peasantry.[12] Furthermore, she held that Trotsky had misinterpreted the revolutionary situation in post-WWI Germany.[13] ^^ CB: If she apparently favored Stalin, the implication would be not that she was politically isolated by Stalin, but was politically aligned with Stalin. ___ Marxism-Thaxis mailing list Marxism-Thaxis@lists.econ.utah.edu To change your options or unsubscribe go to: http://lists.econ.utah.edu/mailman/listinfo/marxism-thaxis Weight Loss Program Best Weight Loss Program - Click Here! http://thirdpartyoffers.juno.com/TGL2141/c?cp=_qHxab1yoyfSE2Cs_DN4gQAAJ1AP8ttsZd_TbiVxkZxsC3mBAAYAAADNAAAEUgA= ___ Marxism-Thaxis mailing list Marxism-Thaxis@lists.econ.utah.edu To change your options or unsubscribe go to: http://lists.econ.utah.edu/mailman/listinfo/marxism-thaxis ___ Marxism-Thaxis mailing list Marxism-Thaxis@lists.econ.utah.edu To change your options or unsubscribe go to: http://lists.econ.utah.edu/mailman/listinfo/marxism-thaxis
Re: [Marxism-Thaxis] Contradiction in text
On Feb 3, 2010, at 3:58 PM, c b wrote: On 2/3/10, farmela...@juno.com farmela...@juno.com wrote: Of course lots of people who were politically aligned with Stalin in the 1920s eventually found themselves in a labor camp or looking at the wrong end of a gun later on. Just ask Bukharin. Jim F. http://independent.academia.edu/JimFarmelant CB: Krupskaya wasn't in a labor camp or at the wrong end of a gun, so This wikipedia note says she was unable to prevent Stalin's consolidation of power, implying that she was trying to prevent Stalin's consolidation of power. But why would she be trying to prevent his consolidation of power if Krupskaya apparently favored Stalin in the great debates between the Left Opposition and the CPSU majority of the 1920s. Thus does Wikipedia stupidity end up in Thaxis inanity. As I pointed out today, Krupskaya was a Zinovievite; with Stalin against Trotsky when that was Zinoviev's stance, with Trotsky against Stalin when Zinoviev joined Trotsky to form the United Opposition in 1926. As to Stalin's role in the great debates of the 1920's--let me quote the title of Erlich's chapter on Stalin: An Exercise in Evasion. And the CPSU majority (the members, not the apparatus) favored either Bukharin or Trotsky, with Stalin acting only within the apparatus and the Central Committee it controlled by manipulation and indirect election. Shane Mage This cosmos did none of gods or men make, but it always was and is and shall be: an everlasting fire, kindling in measures and going out in measures. Herakleitos of Ephesos ___ Marxism-Thaxis mailing list Marxism-Thaxis@lists.econ.utah.edu To change your options or unsubscribe go to: http://lists.econ.utah.edu/mailman/listinfo/marxism-thaxis
Re: [Marxism-Thaxis] Setting the record straight
CJ, forgive me for saying so but you seem to have something (below) that looks like a conspiracy theory. I would make two points: (1) the emergence of the transnational-capitalist-corporations-economy cannot be reduced to what is happening in the USA, but is a world structure that has ramifications throughout the world and back onto the USA just like all other countries. In other words, since the 1970s the ontology of world capitalism has changed dramatically. Contrary to what you say below, such a process cannot be reduced to anybody's plan, not even a plan of powerful people in the USA. It needs to be analysed as a process. (2) Your account does not explain why all the other major capitalist countries have agreed with and gone along with the USA since the 1970s. The reason is that the transnational-capitalist-corporations-economy is in the mutual interests of all the leading capitalist countries, including China. So if any country goes against the logic of this world economy, they bring everybody else down including themselves. That is why China has not tried to stand out against the USA, for example. The major capitalist countries are all in it together, and the 'it' is the transnational-capitalist-corporations-economy, which none of them control but whose rules they must obey. Phil Walden -Original Message- From: marxism-thaxis-boun...@lists.econ.utah.edu [mailto:marxism-thaxis-boun...@lists.econ.utah.edu] On Behalf Of CeJ Sent: 01 February 2010 01:28 To: marxism-thaxis@lists.econ.utah.edu Subject: Re: [Marxism-Thaxis] Setting the record straight Phil Walden wrote: even the richest and most powerful nation-state - the USA - became in the 1970s very much subordinate to the transnational capitalist corporations. The age of capitalist nation-states dictating their own national economic policy completely died in the 1970s. CJ wrote: But that was the plan. An elite of Americans would dominate the world post 1945 and wanted to continue to do so until the end of humanity. Ask yourself why it is the US that dominates investment banking, hedge funds and private equity. Ask yourself why it is American companies that dominate desktop and server computing. Why does the US get to spend well over a trillion dollars it doesn't have on its superpower military, borrowing the money it needs to float it all from Europe, Gulf States, Japan, S. Korea and China? Clearly there is a nation-state superpower agenda your formulation seems to be missing out. CJ ___ Marxism-Thaxis mailing list Marxism-Thaxis@lists.econ.utah.edu To change your options or unsubscribe go to: http://lists.econ.utah.edu/mailman/listinfo/marxism-thaxis ___ Marxism-Thaxis mailing list Marxism-Thaxis@lists.econ.utah.edu To change your options or unsubscribe go to: http://lists.econ.utah.edu/mailman/listinfo/marxism-thaxis
Re: [Marxism-Thaxis] Robotic Nation by Marshall Brain
The information on the automat was pretty fascinating stuff. In the late 1970s, early 1980s we replaced much of our automat food service in the plant for hot cooked meals during contract negotiations. These mechanized food dispensaries were a source of headaches with workers losing much money when the machine malfunctioned and delivered no food. Most likely a lack of maintenance, or an inability to maintain or upgrade because the manufacturer was gone and could not provide new parts. Happens all the time in the world of technology. How many of you could get a floppy disk read right now? Advanced robotics is the application of a new technology to advanced automation. It is not one device or invention that constitutes a new technological regime. It is the coalescing of new technologies and new inventions that begins and accelerates the revolution in the productive forces. One point is that new automation simply replaces old automation. For example, we now have Coke machines in Japan that use Java programming, communicate with the company when they need refilled or are malfunctioning, and provide machine-read information to customers using mobile phone cameras. They can even debit an account (so you don't need to use change or a bill) that is set up through the phone service provider and processed through the Coke machine interacting with the mobile phone. But I would bet the most time-consuming aspect and therefore one that uses a lot of labor is someone has to go clean up the waste receptacle area placed next to such machines (Japanese often, as soon as they see a trash bin in public, dispose of everything they can, including the kitchen sink). The materials facts of this world as we now live it include realities like Haitians piling up pieces of rubble to build their new houses. Or that over a billion people (at least) suffer from malnutrition. That 1 in 10 Americans goes to bed hungry while the country suffers from an epidemic of obesity. That much of the world lives in physical conditions not much different than what Dickens described in the Victorian era. I'm not sure what all this leads up to, but I don't think a revolution in productive forces quite captures it. CJ ___ Marxism-Thaxis mailing list Marxism-Thaxis@lists.econ.utah.edu To change your options or unsubscribe go to: http://lists.econ.utah.edu/mailman/listinfo/marxism-thaxis
Re: [Marxism-Thaxis] Robotic Nation by Marshall Brain
In a message dated 2/3/2010 6:19:02 P.M. Pacific Standard Time, jann...@gmail.com writes: The materials facts of this world as we now live it include realities like Haitians piling up pieces of rubble to build their new houses. Or that over a billion people (at least) suffer from malnutrition. That 1 in 10 Americans goes to bed hungry while the country suffers from an epidemic of obesity. That much of the world lives in physical conditions not much different than what Dickens described in the Victorian era. I'm not sure what all this leads up to, but I don't think a revolution in productive forces quite captures it. CJ Reply Revolution in the productive forces, a new revolution post industrial revolution, is the environment in which we carry out our activity. The environment of a thing - any thing, say the working class, is not he the thing - working class, although the working class is also an environment within itself overlapping with and providing the environment in which the development of the productive forces express itself. This issue of the here and now and changes in the social life is important. More and more articles like Robotics Nation are being written because people in America are trying to come to rips with real changes in our lives. The mounting upheaval in our society is driven by crisis and dislocation of the old social contract as one layer after another of the workers are cast into poverty. Making an assessment of what is taking place requires thinking and insight into the moment we live. Where do we focus our energy is political proposition based on where how one views the key kinks in a chain of events. I belong to organizations concentrating our meager resources along a line of march based on a specific section of the working class. Analysis of shifting social forces in America, shifts brought into play as the result of revolution in the productive forces, is not a proposition meant to feed one person, but locates where we organize to aid the working in organizing the fight for survival. Robotic Nation speaks of a probable future of tings to come. WL. ___ Marxism-Thaxis mailing list Marxism-Thaxis@lists.econ.utah.edu To change your options or unsubscribe go to: http://lists.econ.utah.edu/mailman/listinfo/marxism-thaxis
Re: [Marxism-Thaxis] Setting the record straight
CJ, forgive me for saying so but you seem to have something (below) that looks like a conspiracy theory. Conspiracies take place all the time--it's called realworld politics. Consider, for example, the conspiracy of Bush and Blair to attack and occupy Iraq. Consider the conspiracy of certain Democrats to de-fund and even sabotage anti-war Democrats running in the 2006 elections (one of whom works in Obama's WH as chief-of-staff). People on the intellectual left have got lazy with throwing around the 'conspiracy theory' label everytime one of their own theories comes up short. I would make two points: (1) the emergence of the transnational-capitalist-corporations-economy cannot be reduced to what is happening in the USA, but is a world structure that has ramifications throughout the world and back onto the USA just like all other countries. Yes, but things like unilateral monetary decisions that affect all of world trade, monetary and even fiscal policies and are being made by a US president can not be reduced to your 'world structure' theory. Nixon didn't just decide to re-juggle the world currency system because it would benefit all of world capitalism (as if he could perceive all of world capitalism sitting in his office). He took in a limited amount of information and decided it was the best way for the US to finance its way out of the debt hangover from the 1960s while force-balancing trade with Japan. He did it to try and benefit the sort of interests who helped finance the Republican Party and helped to get him re-elected. He might even have done it because he guessed it might help draw nationalistic Democrat voters over to the Republican side. If asked to rationalize it, I would bet he said something like it being in the best interest of all of America. They always do. In other words, since the 1970s the ontology of world capitalism has changed dramatically. Contrary to what you say below, such a process cannot be reduced to anybody's plan, not even a plan of powerful people in the USA. What does it mean to say that the 'ontology' of something has changed dramatically'? New entities and configurations have come into existence and that a world system of capitalism has taken over because of these new entities and configurations? Or that the old system absorbed these new entities and configurations into the old system? Could you put that into a paraphrase that would make sense? There are theories which are only metatheory--theory about theory, theory about the possiblity of theory. And then there are the actual beliefs, motives, etc. that underlie or at least coincide with decisions and actions (and these are not necessarily after-the-fact rationales). I don't think I ever meant to say things can be reduced to anybody's plan except as a figure of speech. Even if they can be reduced to a 'world structure', I highly doubt the ability of human intelligence to perceive such a structure. Rather, the 'structure' is simply a conspiratorial delusion of metatheorists. I think rationality lies in being able to grasp the limits of rationality. It needs to be analysed as a process. (2) Your account does not explain why all the other major capitalist countries have agreed with and gone along with the USA since the 1970s. What would be the political or academic or business rewards of going against such a system? How could they be presented in anyway that would make a difference? Is there a democratic socialist way to overthrow, replace the US-dominated system leading to socialism and communism for all? The reason is that the transnational-capitalist-corporations-economy is in the mutual interests of all the leading capitalist countries, including China. So if any country goes against the logic of this world economy, they bring everybody else down including themselves. That is why China has not tried to stand out against the USA, for example. The major capitalist countries are all in it together, and the 'it' is the transnational-capitalist-corporations-economy, which none of them control but whose rules they must obey. Do you think political or business leaders in , say, France or Italy, or Japan or S. Korea, get up in the morning and ask themselves, What can I do today to stay in conformance with the logic and ontology of the corporate-capitalist world structure? I know, for example, it isn't the transnational-capitalist-corporate economy that is denying 80 million Americans health insurance--because so many other OECD countries have it. I think George Soros has stood up more than the current oligarchy of China. I think his argument was that it was the US, 2001- ? that was going against the 'logic' of the system and threatening to bring the party to a crashing end. The biggest manipulation the Bush administration got away with, if you ask me, was to help engineer the price of oil higher so as to make domestic US oil and coal 'competitive'. The other manipulation has been one that has
Re: [Marxism-Thaxis] Robotic Nation by Marshall Brain
Where do we focus our energy is political proposition based on where how one views the key kinks in a chain of events. Just where can we focus our political energy? National security states like the one the US uses to dominate the world are by and large insulated from democracy in the polling place or democracy in the work place. We might make something of academics or bloggers taking potshots at the 'powers that be', but that doesn't mean it gives us a political or social action focus. You privilege M. Hudson and now Blogger Roboto as being peculiarly explanatory for your understanding of our present and our future. I don't. They seem to me more like just another symptom. Robotic Nation speaks of a probable future of tings to come. No probability means of things that might come, because in the realm of possibility. But I would suggest futurology is a dead end. The last great work of it that the 'left' paid attention to was that silly book Empire by Hardt and Negri. Your own stuff seems to smack of such millenarian projections. The best I can say of future predictions is that some make them in hopes they don't come true. CJ ___ Marxism-Thaxis mailing list Marxism-Thaxis@lists.econ.utah.edu To change your options or unsubscribe go to: http://lists.econ.utah.edu/mailman/listinfo/marxism-thaxis
