Taking to the streets on March 26th - Cuts protest

[worm]

I also "believe that humankind can change political structures and alter the course of history" and I also "don't believe that history has a course".

But I'm not stupid enough to think that that can mean that humanity will ever be able to make something out of nothing either. And so it *IS* inevitable that capitalism will collapse.

[worm]

His premise, Neil, was material determinism. On the basis of this premise, he suggested that we would change our failing social structure to adapt to our history of modernism as a matter of inevitability. He didn't ever consider the fact that we actually break from history and that products are disconnected from their past.

[eFestivals]

What are you babbling on about now? Who said anything about making something up out of nothing?

capitalism absolutely requires an expanding economy. No expanding economy, no capitalism.

So unless you've discovered a way of making finite resources infinite, capitalism is without doubt a transitory period of human history.

i'm winging it

yes, I know.

Certainly.......

That isn't his premise.

I didn't say it was. As ever, you get to show why you're so often completely off the mark; you read to satisfy your prejudices and don't read what's actually been said.

Liar. I've never once said that I haven't read Marx. I've studied him extensively.

You'll say any old shit.

The liar is you. :rolleyes

You've admitted more than once that you've never read him. What you have said is that you've read critiques of his writings.

Which of course leads you to have the bias' of those critiques, and a resultingly poor understanding of what Marx actually said.

[worm]

capitalism absolutely requires an expanding economy. No expanding economy, no capitalism.

So unless you've discovered a way of making finite resources infinite, capitalism is without doubt a transitory period of human history.

Edited April 8, 2011 by worm

[eFestivals]

What are you babbling on about now? Who said anything about making something up out of nothing?

that's what would be necessary for capitalism to continue indefinitely.

But seeing as you can make up what you post out of nothing, I'm sure you coulsd do the same for capitalism too.

Then what you said had absolutely nothing to do with his premise then.

Yes it did.

There was his premise, and then there was the only other possible alternative to his premise - which is the bit you bolded.

Because, as I said, I don't subscribe to the idea that future history is firmly fixed, I gave that alternative. It's not one that Marx himself offered for whatever reasons - probably the same false hopes in humanity that you have.

Total bullshit.

PMSL. I guess this is yet another of those things where you've posted one thing at one time, and at a later day claim you've said nothing like it. The list of these things is HUGELY long.

It's because you're a wing nut.

[worm]

that's what would be necessary for capitalism to continue indefinitely.

But seeing as you can make up what you post out of nothing, I'm sure you coulsd do the same for capitalism too.

Edited April 8, 2011 by worm

[eFestivals]

The inevitability wasn't with the material aspect, with which I agree, it was with the ideological aspect, with which I disagree.

He didn't just say how ideology would change, he said what it would change into because he thought that he could read the meaning of material on the basis of its historical context.

What it will change into is 100% clear, to anyone who is able to do a dot-to-dot puzzle suitable for ages 5 and upwards.

Either humanity will tear itself apart as some try to hold onto their unfair share of the world's resources, or humanity will learn to share those resources just as Marx said

Marx missed the first of those, but the very different times in which he wrote makes that unsurprising. I doubt anyone back then was considering the fact of the world's finite resources, so neither would they have considered what different consequences that fact might bring about.

No it isn't. He never once said that we would die if we didn't adapt to an alternative modernist social structure - you've made that bit up. What he said was that we would adjust to it because we are materially conditioned to the social structure of modernism.

the person making it up - as ever - is you.

I've not said he said that. Your own prejudices have led you to read things in that way - twice now, even with a clearer explanation having been given, and with an explicit statement of mine saying that Marx had not said that.

FFS

Your prejudices are too huge to ever read or consider anything in a proper manner. And from that pathetic, anti-academic arrogance the amount you get wrong is massive.

No, it's you making shit up.

says the man who has just posted "He never once said that we would die if we didn't adapt" in response to me saying "I gave that alternative. It's not one that Marx himself offered".

[worm]

What it will change into is 100% clear, to anyone who is able to do a dot-to-dot puzzle suitable for ages 5 and upwards.

Either humanity will tear itself apart as some try to hold onto their unfair share of the world's resources, or humanity will learn to share those resources just as Marx said

Edited April 8, 2011 by worm

[eFestivals]

According to you, not Marx.

I never said it was all Marx's.

You just said that it was his premise.

Three times - two very explicitly - I've said different to that, and you still think the opposite.

I don't care. You said 'if humanity is to survive'. That's got f**k all to do with Marx.

I never said it was.

Wow - the wonders of the most deeply held prejudices in the world, shining thru.

No wonder you're such a thick twat.

[worm]

I never said it was all Marx's.

[worm]

All the same, Marx's basic premise was correct. When (not "if") capitalism is no longer able to sustain itself, then - if humanity is to survive - the only answer will be a truly communal system of exchange, where profit is no part of it.

Edited April 8, 2011 by worm

[llcoolphil]

Can capitalism be avoided though Phil? I'm asking sincerely. If we're not going to conceed to Marx et al in that capitalism cannot be stopped by man, only by its own failing, then how could a system of capitalism be defunked realitically and succesfully after a revolution had taken place?

Edited April 8, 2011 by llcoolphil

[eFestivals]

You were saying that Marx's premise was right because ''for humanity to survive'' etc. That has nothing to do with anything Marx ever said.

No I didn't. I see that full stops have no meaning to your understanding of anything.

I wrote something which wasn't as clear as it might have been; but this is now the 5th time I've clarified it, and you're still too thick to get it.

You said that it was his premise. That's what I was objecting to.

No I didn't. It's merely your prejudices which has you convinced of that.

You're so f**king stupidly arrogant that you really believe that you can know my meaning better than I can.

You said right after you said that his premise was right. The fact that humanity may ''tear itself apart'' has absolutely f**k all to do with Marx's premise.

The words 'tear itself apart' came after a full stop. And they were also between hyphens like this " - ".

To someone with the most rudimentary knowledge of English, such things are taken as being separators, that separate one set of words from another. Such separation is made for a reason. As it's clearly beyond you, shall I ask my 8 year old niece to email you the reason?

FFS.

[worm]

Oh I have no doubts that it isn't a 'battle' that'll be won in my lifetime. But the minute wont become the small if I and everyone else shrugs their shoulders and goes 'ah well' so I might as well do what I can and see what can be done rather as much as the answer to that is negligible to the point of statistically not a thing.

[worm]

You were saying that Marx's premise was right because ''for humanity to survive'' etc.

[eFestivals]

So you were wrong to say that Marx's basic premise was correct, as you've now conceeded. This is because Marx was not saying anything about humanity surviving, but about what humanity would do when the demands of modernism changed.

Marx's basic premise WAS correct.

But his words were of his time, just as your own words here are of his time. And rather dumb because of it.

In fact, he didn't even say what humanity would do when modernism changed. He just mentioned some of the effects on humanity, as the social system was undergoing change. And it is clear beyond doubt that he got this wrong.

How can you say he got it wrong? All you're doing here is proving how little you know of what he said.

[worm]

Marx's basic premise WAS correct.

[worm]

How can you say he got it wrong?

[worm]

I'm bored of this idiocy now and am off for some wine on my balcony. And the literature of choice will not be Marx.

[eFestivals]

Oh I have no doubts that it isn't a 'battle' that'll be won in my lifetime. But the minute wont become the small if I and everyone else shrugs their shoulders and goes 'ah well' so I might as well do what I can and see what can be done as much as the answer to that is negligible to the point of statistically not a thing.

I reckon it's not something that people can be convinced of by others. People are what they are in part because of what they've got invested in what they are. For their thinking to change then something about their investment has to change too.

I've very much with the general ideas of Marx, in that a crisis of some kind brings about a change of thinking. However, modern society has got much better at managing crisise(sp?), by manipulating systems so that no crisis affects too many all at once, and if it affects someone they make sure it doesn't affect them for too long. For instance, the USA's welfare systems are formed in the way that they are for that effect, and it's what we're getting here too.

But ultimately they're fighting a losing battle. That's capitalism for you.

[eFestivals]

How many times are you going to change your tune Neil? Is it correct or not? You keep changing your mind.

I've not changed my mind once.

How many times are you going to demonstrate just how deeply ingrained your prejudices are?

His basic premise was material determinism. His basic outcome was that we'd need a communist utopia. Do you perhaps mean that his predicted outcome was correct rather than his premise?

His premise was correct.