Re: Complexity and nostalgia

[Nina Temporär]

Wow, nettime’s very own James Damore moment -
And hardly anyone calls him out.

I cannot believe how easily so many people here allowed A.B. to 
intellectually-click-bait 
them into a discussion just because he whispered the magic words „Marx“ and 
„class“,
And willingly delivered him material to refine his language for his 
pseudo-philosophical
White male ängst-driven project,
Even after he had already lashed out in a dangerously generalized way against 
academia,
After he had already generally denounced identity politics as self-pity and 
whining, after he
Had claimed gender & race as having no social realities, after he had judged 
the welfare 
State as an infantilization of society and, on top of all, had totally 
ridiculously indulged himself 
In a teenage-like invention rage of cock-culture-worshipping neologisms that he 
obviously enjoys
To decorate his little short-20th-Century binary phantasy land with.

While a few of the answers with serious reactions to the classism question were 
really a 
Pleasure to read and very much worth considering under different premises, I 
don’t understand 
why almost nobody here (except for Alice, Ian, and Florian - thanks for your 
interventions) did see 
The contradiction that the very same people he claims to be wanting to work 
with in that new class 
War he dreams of, get insulted so badly and in a hierarchy-reproducing manner, 
that a future
Cooperation is being boycotted before it has even started.

Is that really only a sad lack of strategic thinking? Or not rather revealing 
how inclusive his
New class war phantasy actually is, and whose perspective he expects to be 
adopted as
Conceptual lead? 

There is a big difference between disagreement and lashing out in a way that 
reveals absolute
Entitlement, and even worse: the assumption to be „safe“ when stating such 
stuff in a place
Like nettime mailing list.

It’s so tiring to be forced to point out, once more, that entitlement is key in 
this problematic:

While Alexander and his followers have very well understood that investing into 
digital literacy
Is an absolute necessity if they want to survive in these times, any knowledge 
update in relation to
Gender & anti-racism debates is shrugged of as community-specific expertise 
(and commented 
With the reproach of having an only self-healing effect) instead of understood 
as the fundamental,
Constitutive (not so new) change of perspective, without which no thorough 
analysis of class 
Struggle can withstand. 

It was really interesting to read Dan’s report/ analysis of the beginning of 
‚identity politics‘ in the US
(In Europe, I assume, this is a slightly different story) and his 
acknowledgement/ claim that it is his 
Generation's own fault not to have passed on the historic context to the next 
generation.
I would really like to engage in this discussion by asking if it is really 
about the lack of history in a 
Negative sense, or, if the (assumed) lack of history/ continuity might not be 
expression of a generally
Positive phenomenon: the attitude of a generation being sick of any kind of 
further waiting and gradual 
Development, legitimately bold enough to demand full acceptance here and now - 
even if this leads to 
A roundhouse-kick-radicality that sometimes feels moralizing and partly unfair 
even to antecedent
activists. (And no, I am not part of that generation and often enough annoyed 
myself, but try to 
Understand.)

I’m not keen of discussing it in a context, though, where Alexander Bard can 
blatantly display his near-hatred 
Anger on certain minority activism without being sanctioned, just days after a 
shooting in a synagogue and 
Lethal threats to critics of Trump, with daily Police brutality towards POC, 
regular attacks on homes for asylum 
Seekers in Germany, harassment of anti-Trump academics in the US and similar 
harassments of academics 
Criticising right-wing politics now - even structurally organised - by the AfD 
in Germany as well, and ongoing 
And normalised discrimination of and assaults on women.
Incitement to violence is a spark easily ignited these days.

Last but not least, I have the impression A.B. never really had to speak up for 
himself against a mainstream
Opinion, otherwise he would know how much courage it takes and that it is no 
way just 'fighting for one’s 
Own good‘ but helps numerous others affected by that norm, and that keeping 
quiet and adapting, even at 
The high price of ongoing unfair treatment, is often the easier way.

It seems to be necessary to point out that repeating just a mainstream opinion, 
once it is tumbling and 
Forced to open up to multi-perspective views, does  n o t  count as such.

Best, N
Ps: Alice and Ian, your mails arrived while I wrote this, thanks again


> Am 03.11.2018 um 18:30 schrieb Brian Holmes :

> On Sat, Nov 3, 2018 at 7:11 AM Felix Stalder  > wrote:
> On Sat, Nov 3, 2018, 6:07 AM Alexander Bard   wrote:
> 

#  

Re: apropos of nothing

[Willem van Weelden]

dear angela,
relax dear.
it is ok.
noone is recruiting anyone here.
chill.
best,
w


> On 03 Nov 2018, at 23:04, Angela Mitropoulos  
> wrote:
> 
> 
> What is Nettime's policy on whether or not it should give fascists a platform 
> from which to recruit? 
> 
> Angela 
> 
> 
> 
> #  distributed via : no commercial use without permission
> #is a moderated mailing list for net criticism,
> #  collaborative text filtering and cultural politics of the nets
> #  more info: http://mx.kein.org/mailman/listinfo/nettime-l
> #  archive: http://www.nettime.org contact: nett...@kein.org
> #  @nettime_bot tweets mail w/ sender unless #ANON is in Subject:

#  distributed via : no commercial use without permission
#is a moderated mailing list for net criticism,
#  collaborative text filtering and cultural politics of the nets
#  more info: http://mx.kein.org/mailman/listinfo/nettime-l
#  archive: http://www.nettime.org contact: nett...@kein.org
#  @nettime_bot tweets mail w/ sender unless #ANON is in Subject:

apropos of nothing

[Angela Mitropoulos]

What is Nettime's policy on whether or not it should give fascists a
platform from which to recruit?

Angela
#  distributed via : no commercial use without permission
#is a moderated mailing list for net criticism,
#  collaborative text filtering and cultural politics of the nets
#  more info: http://mx.kein.org/mailman/listinfo/nettime-l
#  archive: http://www.nettime.org contact: nett...@kein.org
#  @nettime_bot tweets mail w/ sender unless #ANON is in Subject:

Re: Interview with Richard Stallman in New Left Review (September-October 2018)

[Carsten Agger]

On 11/1/18 12:46 PM, mp wrote:


On 01/11/2018 10:23, Carsten Agger wrote:


That's another question and a valid argument: Do we even want computers
to exist at all?

Note, that if we *do* want it, software needs to be free.  And, if we
can't avoid them to exist and we need to use software, software also
needs to be free.

There's an additional (meta)question: what kind of software/hardware?

The alphabetic culture that spawned book culture, which in turn led to
computers, is only one of an infinity of possible literacies (beware
conflating the general with the particular). "The book" (and now the
computer) has also historically been a colonial force that violently
destroyed all other forms of literacies: it is a monocultural literacy.


That's completely true. That a written culture was introduced, in my own 
part of the world as late as around 1000 along with the introduction of 
Christianity, doesn't mean that people were "ignorant" or "illiterate" 
before that time - on the contrary, they had a rich literature including 
thousands of poems, stories and songs, the vast majority of which are 
now lost, all of which was memorized and orally transmitted.


And as the written language takes over, the motivation and, in the end, 
the capacity for memorizing everything dies, and a rich way of thinking 
and transmitting and living with literature is lost.


So when advocating software freedom I'm not, let's be clear, saying we 
should necessarily have software or build our infrastructure with it and 
the hardware it runs on. I'm saying that software freedom is a necessary 
(not sufficient) condition for a society built on software to be free.


I also believe that widespread computer literacy, enough to enable 
groups without access to heavy funding to build their own 
infrastructure, is necessary for that purpose.


But, unlike Stallman, I don't love programming and working with software 
as such - I always considered it to be work, not fun. I'd definitely 
rather have a society without the extreme centralization of all 
communication infrastructure we're seeing in these years - Google, 
Facebook, Amazon, Twitter, Microsoft and Apple be damned and go to hell.



See for instance attached paper. Here is a quote touching upon some of
the significant aspects of these colonial/conquest processes:

"The narrow vision of what ‘writing’ was led to the encoding of
indigenous languages in Roman script in an attempt to ‘render the spoken
visible.’ Latin was seen by those chronicling the ‘New World languages’
as a universal linguistic system, and as such this was taken as the
grammatical basis for the Amerindian languages (Mignolo, 1992,
p.  304). Since they were Spanish speakers, the early scholars’ attempts
to represent the sounds of the languages were governed by Spanish
phonographic rules (the lasting effect of which will be discussed in the
third section of this article). The first ‘alphabetizing’ of indigenous
languages, then, can be understood as an “opression symbolique” (Calvet,
1999, p. 233), a ‘symbolic oppression’ whereby languages are forced into
the norms of an external system and made an object which the
colonizers can ‘possess’ (Mignolo, 1992, p. 306). From the outset, the
‘technology of literacy’ was used in such a way that it removed language
and literacy from the indigenous peoples and reframed them to fit with a
colonial worldview."

Very interesting, thanks!

This kind of literacy has brought us detachment from the soil and the
earth as such, climate chaos and, in its Twitter form, Trumpisms.


Yes. And given the coming fascist takeover in Brazil, enabled by fake 
news (outright and very deplorable lies) spread through Facebooks 
WhatsApp product, all the more scary these years.



Best

Carsten

#  distributed via : no commercial use without permission
#is a moderated mailing list for net criticism,
#  collaborative text filtering and cultural politics of the nets
#  more info: http://mx.kein.org/mailman/listinfo/nettime-l
#  archive: http://www.nettime.org contact: nett...@kein.org
#  @nettime_bot tweets mail w/ sender unless #ANON is in Subject:

(no subject)

[ari]

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Nn5_-jA2X18
#  distributed via : no commercial use without permission
#is a moderated mailing list for net criticism,
#  collaborative text filtering and cultural politics of the nets
#  more info: http://mx.kein.org/mailman/listinfo/nettime-l
#  archive: http://www.nettime.org contact: nett...@kein.org
#  @nettime_bot tweets mail w/ sender unless #ANON is in Subject:

Re: Complexity and nostalgia

[Brian Holmes]

On Sat, Nov 3, 2018 at 7:11 AM Felix Stalder  wrote:

>  Our task, in my view, is to develop new languages, and new
> esthetics, to account for, and deal with, the sharply increased
> complexity. That means, that there is no single privileged point-of-view
> or layer of analysis. If there is any strength, it will come out of
> multiplicity, out of ways of translating one set of explicit experiences
> into another one, showing that how and why resonate with each other.


This is totally persuasive to me, and it's what I have been doing since
2008. However the uptake of such efforts appears somewhat low.

The corporate Internet has been one massive effort to deal with complexity,
essentially by individualizing it, in order to streamline the bureaucratic
aspects of life and reduce the daunting challenge of consumer choice. Web
2.0 has largely exhausted the population and left little energy for
progressive networked media. The most common nostalgia is not for class
consciousness but for a free afternoon with no bells and whistles of any
kind.

I am curious about specific projects and/or social trends that go in the
direction you suggest, Felix. Say more.

Identity politics is definitely not something we can abandon in the US.
That would leave only corporate liberalism and national populism. But
identity politics as developed so far is not capable of articulating the
multiplicity of positions in society, which is what liberalism used to do
relatively better than any other form of really existing governance. Obama
represents the pinnacle and decline of liberalism's capacity to manage
social complexity through government. As for market forces, they have
failed tragically, as the election of Bolsonaro by WhatsApp proves if you
didn't already know.

So, Felix, you have stated the problem pretty well. Let's really go further
with this one. In current identity politics, translating one set of
explicity experiences into another one is called intersectionality, it's
the contemporary rejoinder to class consciousness and surely represents a
giant evolutionary step beyond that old Lukacsian relic. In an imperial and
soon, post-imperial US context, it seems to me that the types of coalitions
that can be knitted together through intersectionality need to be extended,
augmented and/or relayed by other communication processes and other
aesthetics too, in order to deal with the sprawling issues of politic
economy and political ecology, which just keep spinning further out of
control.

The US isn't the only context. The partial breakdown of the EU is a pretty
serious failure to manage complexity. Other regions face still other
versions of this problem. Let's talk about it.

best, Brian
#  distributed via : no commercial use without permission
#is a moderated mailing list for net criticism,
#  collaborative text filtering and cultural politics of the nets
#  more info: http://mx.kein.org/mailman/listinfo/nettime-l
#  archive: http://www.nettime.org contact: nett...@kein.org
#  @nettime_bot tweets mail w/ sender unless #ANON is in Subject:

Re: Complexity and nostalgia

[Alice Yang]

I cannot believe (but can believe) that the discussion has become a typical one 
of ~Millennials and Gen Z need to grow up already!~ Alexander, your claim that 
the class oppressed need to study white male academics whose works are only 
kept in circulation by an echo chamber of elitism such as Hegel and Freud is 
bewildering.

I’m in favor of the questions Dan posed. We need to redefine class as not 
separate from race and gender but another component of belief entangled with 
it. 

The revolution isn’t the redistribution of resources (land, money, women) for 
reownership but the realization of their condition of ownership by the objects 
themselves (climate change, decolonization, feminism).

Sent from my iPhone

> On Nov 3, 2018, at 10:10 AM, Felix Stalder  wrote:
> 
> I cannot believe we are still debating "class vs. identity". If you look
> at the current wave of far-right strong mean, it's seems obvious their
> project is the restoration of race AND class privilege AND patriarchy.
> 
> Behind this, in my view, is a jump in social complexity (globalization,
> Internet, climate crises, multipolar geopolitics etc) over the last 30
> years and the inability to find forms of governance adequate to
> contemporary social realities.
> 
> The neoliberal center has tried to manage this through expansion of
> market forces, in the best Hayekian tradition seeing the market as the
> ultimate information processor [1]. At the periphery (social as well as
> geographic) this never worked particularly well and in 2008, it came
> crashing down in the center as well. That created a giant nostalgia for
> a less complex word which the right eagerly fills.
> 
> In my view, the call to return to a more classic class analysis also has
> the whiff of such a nostalgia.
> 
> We -- lets say cultural producers of any kind -- should not give in to
> this. Our task, in my view, is to develop new languages, and new
> esthetics, to account for, and deal with, the sharply increased
> complexity. That means, that there is no single privileged point-of-view
> or layer of analysis. If there is any strength, it will come out of
> multiplicity, out of ways of translating one set of explicit experiences
> into another one, showing that how and why resonate with each other.
> 
> That's not all that's needed, of course, but might be one of the ways
> where culture can generate agency.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> [1] Hayek, Friedrich A. 1945. “The Use of Knowledge in Society,”
> American Economic Review (Sept.), 35 (4): 519–30.
> 
> 
> #  distributed via : no commercial use without permission
> #is a moderated mailing list for net criticism,
> #  collaborative text filtering and cultural politics of the nets
> #  more info: http://mx.kein.org/mailman/listinfo/nettime-l
> #  archive: http://www.nettime.org contact: nett...@kein.org
> #  @nettime_bot tweets mail w/ sender unless #ANON is in Subject:
#  distributed via : no commercial use without permission
#is a moderated mailing list for net criticism,
#  collaborative text filtering and cultural politics of the nets
#  more info: http://mx.kein.org/mailman/listinfo/nettime-l
#  archive: http://www.nettime.org contact: nett...@kein.org
#  @nettime_bot tweets mail w/ sender unless #ANON is in Subject:

Complexity and nostalgia

[Felix Stalder]

I cannot believe we are still debating "class vs. identity". If you look
at the current wave of far-right strong mean, it's seems obvious their
project is the restoration of race AND class privilege AND patriarchy.

Behind this, in my view, is a jump in social complexity (globalization,
Internet, climate crises, multipolar geopolitics etc) over the last 30
years and the inability to find forms of governance adequate to
contemporary social realities.

The neoliberal center has tried to manage this through expansion of
market forces, in the best Hayekian tradition seeing the market as the
ultimate information processor [1]. At the periphery (social as well as
geographic) this never worked particularly well and in 2008, it came
crashing down in the center as well. That created a giant nostalgia for
a less complex word which the right eagerly fills.

In my view, the call to return to a more classic class analysis also has
the whiff of such a nostalgia.

We -- lets say cultural producers of any kind -- should not give in to
this. Our task, in my view, is to develop new languages, and new
esthetics, to account for, and deal with, the sharply increased
complexity. That means, that there is no single privileged point-of-view
or layer of analysis. If there is any strength, it will come out of
multiplicity, out of ways of translating one set of explicit experiences
into another one, showing that how and why resonate with each other.

That's not all that's needed, of course, but might be one of the ways
where culture can generate agency.


















[1] Hayek, Friedrich A. 1945. “The Use of Knowledge in Society,”
American Economic Review (Sept.), 35 (4): 519–30.




signature.asc
Description: OpenPGP digital signature
#  distributed via : no commercial use without permission
#is a moderated mailing list for net criticism,
#  collaborative text filtering and cultural politics of the nets
#  more info: http://mx.kein.org/mailman/listinfo/nettime-l
#  archive: http://www.nettime.org contact: nett...@kein.org
#  @nettime_bot tweets mail w/ sender unless #ANON is in Subject:

Against the Logistics of Exploitation (Stockholm Meeting, Nov 23-25) | Transnational Social Strike Platform

[Örsan Şenalp]

https://snuproject.wordpress.com/2018/11/03/against-the-logistics-of-exploitation-presentation-stockholm-meeting-nov-23-25/

Against the Logistics of Exploitation (Stockholm Meeting, Nov 23-25) |
Transnational Social Strike Platform

Read the first program outline:
https://www.transnational-strike.info/2018/10/26/against-the-logistics-of-exploitation-program-outline-stockholm-meeting-nov-23-25/

Unions and collectives from Sweden, UK, Germany, France, Poland,
Italy, Bulgaria, Georgia, Greece, Spain, Norway, Slovenia, Slovakia
and Czech Republic have confirmed their presence. Please in order to
take part in the meeting fill in this registration form:
https://goo.gl/forms/MKJnOiKzRZA3GqMI2

Read the call out in several languages:
https://www.transnational-strike.info/2018/05/24/against-the-logistics-of-exploitation-stockholm-november-23-24th-2018-tss-meeting-call-out-2/

Check out the Facebook event: https://www.facebook.com/events/342866613135963/

Presentation:
Against the Logistics of Exploitation: Notes from the TSS Platform

Over the weekend of November 23rd-25th, 2018, the Transnational Social
Strike Platform (TSS) calls workers, union members and activists from
across Europe and beyond to meet in Stockholm to discuss how to
organize against logistical command over labor. We call logistical
command a set of transformations that interests the whole world,
changing economies, political geographies and the functioning of
society and institutions. As logistics is one of the main forces that
affects the capacity of workers and migrants to organize and win, a
new assessment of the situation in which we act is needed in order to
increase the capacity of our struggles: logistics is a battlefield we
need to understand and practice if we want to reverse today’s power
relations.

Two are the intertwined dimensions of this logistical command we want
to focus on. The first one concerns the material connections that tie
together production sites across the globe:  what happens in one spot
of the chains of production and distribution affects the other spots.
Multinational companies, international subcontracting, posting of
workers, outsourcing, privatizations of formerly public enterprises:
all these processes place each workplace, factory, warehouse,
construction site into a wider and interconnected network. Moreover,
the development of international infrastructural projects such as The
New Silk Road, creating material, economic and political links between
China and Europe throughout Central Asia, pushes us to come to terms
with the coexistence of a wildly differentiated situation in terms of
working conditions and organizing practices. The second one concerns
the fact that such transformations are strictly connected to a
politics of regulations of labor and government of mobility that
affects every place, albeit in different ways, producing both
interdependency and fragmentation.

Logistics is first and foremost the transnational organization of
labor we need to confront. This organization has produced in the last
years new seedbeds of struggles: sensible points to be disrupted, new
concentration of labor force in strategic nodes, new strike waves and
connections between migrant and native workers. At the same time,
logistics responds to conflict by isolating, fragmenting and weakening
the possibility for a collective rebellion against exploitation and
its conditions. We thus need to elaborate a clear picture of the ways
in which the logistical management of labor acts in order not to make
our struggles be just temporary, isolated and predictable setbacks in
the gears of this transnational engine. While struggles are too often
confined to single industrial categories and based at the national
level, company and bosses benefit from different national labor laws
and wage differentials and “delocalization” effects are played out in
each locality through outsourcing, the multiplication of employment
forms and the hiring of blackmailed precarious and migrant labor. At
the same time, an increasing mobility of workers across labor sectors
and borders reveals a workers’ use of this very mobility against the
pretension of logistical command.

We witness a reality of widespread but scattered forms of
insubordination to logistical command, which shows the possibility of
its rejection. But all this calls for new forms of organization and
requires overcoming the narrowness of sectorial disputes and the
limits of the present forms of union organizing and activist
solidarity, especially in terms of transnational connections and
efficacy of the strikes: while nationalist discourses divide workers
leaving capital’s rule undisturbed, we need to surpass the idea that a
national dimension of struggle can keep up with the attack of
logistical command. The case of this summer’s Amazon strike launched
from Spain and then taken up by warehouses across Europe, is a
concrete example of the necessity to build on existing
insubordinations to 

Grand narratives vs Identitarianism

[Alexander Bard]

Dear Dan

Your posting is so damn brilliant I hardly know where to start praising it.
Yes yes yes, this is the summary of the amazing achievements made by a
politics of identity. But is also came out of an ideological conviction
that there was class as superior category (including all people, globally)
under which we then find the sub-categories which this politics rightfully
built as proper subcultures that were encouraged to speak and be seen and
heard. And this was indeed a massive achievement that worked. Precisely
because of its firm roots in Marxism.

However there is always a point where those who are being seen and heard
must also be held responsible for what they say and give voice to. Is what
you're saying actually factually true? And is it relevant to the priorities
that we must make going forward in the class struggle proper? And also,
what in all this is "left" or "right"? Maybe what you say is relevant but
isn't necessarily a Marxist priority but rather a universal priority where
we can find liberal and even conservative allies (say principles like "rule
of law", "free speech", "gender, race and sexual orientation equality" or
say even "cannabis legalization"), then let's find those allies while we
still emphatically address the class issue which liberals and conservatives
will always ignore. Where we instead may even have to go to war for justice
to be made. Just like Lenin said.

Because that's how a society works. The politics of identity also did
succeed in this department. The end of apartheid in South Africa proved it.
Any damn pride parade proves it. However the question now is whether those
pride parades still address say gender, race and sexual orientation issues,
and attract allies, or have just become stations for what we should refer
to as a "politics of trauma" rather than as a "politics of identity".
Rousseauian cults and sects. An infantilized version of leftist discourse,
where a narcissistic call for "look at me, look at me, look at me" has
replaced the Marxist class struggle proper for equal opportunity for all in
any given society through empowerment and a demand for adulthood from all
involved. Where what is said is properly challenged and not just accounted
for depending on who speaks. As for Scandinavia, the LGBT people proper are
now leaving the pride parades as these have been taken over by heterosexual
gender scientists who merely use the parades for their own benefit as
professional state bureaucrats. Need I add that the latter all use
"identity politics" as their excuse for even being there in the first place?

And this is my possibly only disagreement with you, Dan. You say that the
previous generation should have taught the new generation on what it
achieved and how it got there. But has the new generation, fostered by
social media, the welfare state and consumer society to always seek The
Great Tit rather than empowering iitself toward adulthood, even bothered to
study history? Do they even know who Marx is? Do they even know who Hegel,
Nietzsche and Freud are? I believe the responsibility for this The Great
Generational Gap lies with both generations. And it is fundamentally
ideologically a huge step away from Marx into the arms of Rousseau.
Marxists can handle what triggers them, anything that does not kill them
makes them stronger and not weaker.

The college trigger warnings and safe zones today have absolutely nothing
to do with Marxism. But they have everything to do with a Rousseauian
middle class petit-bourgeois anti-ideology that is obsessed with tonality
and etiquette (of others, mind you, not their own venomous tonality, since
they always refer to the excuse of "suffering from trauma"), an attitude
toward political struggle that is obscenely infantile and ironically way
more Versailles than Paris. Watch out for anybody and everybody who
constantly "takes offense". You will see nothing but Rousseauian self-pity
behind such (a lack of proper) arguments. You simply can not mix Marx with
smelling salts with impunity. Instead the Rousseuians must be called out on
their game. Is this struggle about you being seen and heard only for the
reason that you want to be seen and heard (media-driven narcissism), or is
this struggle about the genuine unfairness of class divisions, the
genuinely unfair distribution of the resources that society has
accumulated, the genuinely unfair distribution of the costs for that
accumulation (ecology etc), the equal distribution of both rights and
duties among adults in a society of adults?

And do we then have the visionary and strategic tools for such a proper
Marxist class struggle? Because it is precisely when vision and strategy is
lacking, when the outer circuit is weak and the inner circuit expands at
the cost of the outer circuit, that Rousseau makes his ugly return in our
midst. We lost Marx, still benefited from the Marxist heritage for another
30-40 years. What we now see is the total disappeareance of Marx replaced
with