annatar wrote:I'm not sure Potemkin, and i'm not saying that just because PI is my friend. 'stability' and 'efficiency' is what Marxists had originally stated would be the result of adopting the more rational Socialism as the mode of production. And, I have seen various 'Leftists' promote what ordinarily would be seen as 'conservative' social values, when they are in fact, the rational social values. Is not the rational development also the organic development, that grows indeed out of the interplay of forces in life?
Perhaps I really am more of a 'National Bolshevik' or 'Strasserite', then, but nonetheless has not history born out that what they predicted has come to pass, if not their own solutions just yet? What i'm saying I think is that there is another 'Left' that has grown out of the contact of Revolution with Reality, and 'Marxists' have become divorced from reality following the Liberals into 'Identity Politics' and other vulgar Bourgeosie ideas. Marx didn't shit marble on Olympus either; he expressed beliefs which would make his modern followers blush.
Not to come off as rude, but to me this is a lot of gesticulating without making any actual point. No offense. Saying that "Marxists have become divorced from reality" and follow "vulgar Bourgeoisie ideas" is just a whole lot of ad hom and bluster without attaching it to someone.
As far as saying that "Marx didn't shit marble on Olympus either"; I agree, but you're not exactly saying much without offering an example of what you mean by "beliefs which would make his modern followers blush".
quetzalcoatl wrote:Revolution is not an end, it opens up a path to an end. Just as technological changes made modern capitalism possible, technology will in time eliminate its hold on the world. What follows on may be good or bad, but it won't be capitalism as we understand it. A political revolution cannot change the the underlying structure of political economy: scarcity=>capitalism. Capitalism will end if and only if it faces an unresolvable crisis. A political revolution can only arise in response to such a crisis, it cannot precipitate it. The only unresolvable crisis I perceive is the loss of the ability to control the means of production.
Revolution is a means to an end, true. However some things I disagree with: the end of capitalism is inevitable. Just because the practical considerations that create scarcity have been eliminated does not mean that scarcity has to be eliminated. I mean we today have the means to produce enough food to feed the world, yet people still go hungry. We have the means to provide everyone with the medicine necessary, yet people still die of preventable diseases. We have the means to provide shelter for every person on the planet, yet people still live on the streets. The big lie sold to the world by capitalists is that we have a scarcity problem. Without scarcity there's no profit, and we live in a world where it is illegal not to maximize profits.
By the way, your theory creates a paradox. The loss of the ability to control the means of production can only be realized by the revolution. Else, the institutions in place at current, in every Western country at least, are in place to ensure that such a control will be established by any means necessary. You're protected now because the bourgeoisie is in control, but they have a failsafe protection: martial law. Don't think they won't hesitate to use it to protect themselves either. That's why those institutions themselves must be destroyed, so that we can realize collective ownership without the interference of a reactionary police state.
That's why it's so important to continue to advocate for privacy protection, continue to not allow the reactionary elements of government to close those security holes that they so desperately fear. Absolutely in the 21st century we could eliminate all terrorism using the surveillance state, a disarmed citizenship, and a technocratic police state. As socialists we need to continue to create negative associations with those ideas, because we need those loopholes in order for us to destroy capitalism. Otherwise no, I don't think the ownership of the means of production will be threatened. To me, that's a scary prospect, a post-singularity owned by capitalists. They will own the universe itself or destroy us all, and we simply cannot allow either of those outcomes to happen.