/edu/ - Education

>>21026
all you have is nostalgia.
dont worry, you can still have communism in fbi.gov servers, HOI4 and sim city. just let go.

I'm sorry do you really think computers don't need miners and assemblers? That all this infrastructure just exists in the air the way a Djinn does in Islam?

>>21028
its not about erasing that aspect of production, but about giving it secondary concern to the imperative functions that cyberspace impresses upon us. we cant make computers without using computers - its this sort of chain that i'm emphasising.

>>21029
classic motte and bailey, you start with 'youtubers are more important than warehouse workers' and now backtrack to 'uhh computers are important for modern production' (wow groundbreaking stuff)

YouTube is a primary area of production if you're hopelessly media addicted, but not if you live in the real world

>>21030
wheres the backtracking? in marxism, the superstructure is not something illusory, but only secondary. in today's economy, the culture industry, youtubers ARE primary in the mode of production, which is based in data that then signals for production in markets. the whole market is online today.
>>21031
the world is media-addicted. everyone has a mobile phone now.

>>21032
the economy isn't ONLY the culture industry, humans do still need to eat, live in houses, etc

>>21033
yes and necessities have become increasingly cheap, so production has imported itself into culture, like how it takes thousands of staff and millions of spectators for capital to make a positive return on a superhero movie. today, views are increasingly passive, with advertising taking the reins of this corporate overhauling, making cultural capital more liquid for content creation and so on.

>>21034
>yes and necessities have become increasingly cheap

bro rent takes up like more than a third of most people's income. yes there is something to be said about the overproduction of culture products but to retreat into this nonsense that 'reality doesn't exist' is asinine, if there is some kind of global self-sustaining VR network that you can just live your whole life in then ok I might agree that reality has been abolished

>>21035
some people dont even work and just sit on their ass all day because we live in effective post-scarcity, thats why the succdems constantly push for UBI.
>rent
yes, this is a relic of the landed aristocracy, which is increasingly being taken over by estate agencies sponsored by the state, which in most western countries apply coverage for struggling tenants, and we even have squatters rights and so on.
rent is something which is being abolished slowly but surely - the critiques on the left and right are still the same though, that the houses themselves exist for everyone to have, so the production of necessities has been complete, they are just being held back from distribution by monopolies.
like the classical economists understood, abolishing rents is good for the economy.
>reality doesnt exist
there is no central reality anymore - no global project, no stratified classes, no distinction between labours and values. this is the horizontalizing effect of technologies that entrench a radical democracy into the mix of our social experience.

>>21036
You're delusional, rents are getting higher each year, not being abolished. The existence of classes is no less real now than it was 200 years ago.

>>478011
And you're free to shit in one hand and put the abolition of reality into the other, see which one fills up faster.

>>21038
do you feel free to achieve political action? thats all that matters.

>>21039
Define 'free to'? Like yeah I can yell on a street corner but that doesn't mean anyone will listen. Obviously establishing socialism isn't easy but it's the only possible solution to the current situation that won't make everything worse.

>>21040
my point is that there's no such thing as "socialism" except in it being another simulacrum of nostalgic industrialism which gets away from the object of its own demise, the postmodern horizon, which we are already born in. building towards socialism is building backwards to a lost future.
socialism in practice is the universal church of trotskyist orgs and leftist bookclubs; the wretched of the earth congregating together in despair for their dead god, like the disciples at the crucifixion. the orgs sustain themselves by a socialist-capital, selling marxist books and pins and flags - i can get it cheaper on amazon. its no difference except the level of engagement with the system i feel, whether its performatively anticapitalist or conformist, but the end is the same.
politics is democratic in the age of mass democracy - this is the whole point. if you want power, be popular, not just a nuisance.

>>21041
>politics is democratic in the age of mass democracy

the age of mass democracy never existed, fuckwit. the government in the US and UK (and most other western countries) has like 30% or lower approval ratings.

>>21042
the internet is mass democracy, which is why it builds itself from this abstract cyberspace. the biggest companies are publicly-owned, fused within the state structure as all things blend into its call for necessity of global trade in capital's expansion into the very psyches of its subjects.
this is the distributive access of capital and why the market flattens all things by competition. mass democracy further flattens competition itself by engaging humanity into inter-passive entertainment, where all content creators can be equally enriched, and where data itself becomes the commodity of social organisation, which reverses the order of domination whereby capital pluralises to individual possessors in the labour of their consumption: voting with your dollar as friedman says.
the idea of socialism in capitalist realism is to embrace socialist-capital as the tract out of reactionary-capital or whatever else. today we have the scourge of woke capital spreading its universal projections, but this is only in contrast to elon musk and his "based" ideas or whatever. the internet is the public space of the whole world, that is its democratic mechanism.

All true btw

>>21043
Guess what, you can't live in cyberspace. You live in the real world.

>>21045
cyberspace is the "real" world. thats my whole point. we are speaking in cyberspace right now.

>>21046
We are sitting at computers typing at each other, we still will need to eat, sleep, shit, get money, spend money, in the near future. We will probably even need to leave the house at some point. Cyberspace is closer to 'unreality' than the chair you're sitting in now.

>>21047
but you see how "reality" is already held in ambiguity? people say cyberspace isnt "physical" yet physics is the description of all causal objects in spacetime. so "where" is the internet? its like the other question, "where is my mind"? these questions have answers, yet remain anti-intuitive, as we have evolved into a new frontier of discourse which points to an ontological overcoming of the previous ages. things are not so simple anymore, and as i have said, they have in fact become reversed.
people can only speak of matter in the case of causal inference but not to its atomic essence, for matter as substance is not essence - science by dialectical method has proven that there is no essence; that mechanics melt into relative circumstances at the extremes of physical impression, like singularities or in quantum realms. the contradiction in matter itself is its own split between empirical and abstract dichotomies. there will never be reconciliation between the quantum and relativistic worlds, because they are not the same. being postmodern is about accepting this plurality.
to speak of "reality" and "matter" in the same way is to ignore the experience of reality in its qualitative form, where we speak telepathically across the world by the coordination of robots in the orbit of the earth. reality has changed. it has become unreal. again, as zizek has said, "matter has nothing to do with matter".
so, what is "reality" to you?

>>21048
Zizek is a tedious obscurantist, and the way you're expressing yourself is also seemingly designed to obscure all meaning. Obviously the internet is real, everything that exists is real. Nothing has really changed in terms of 'reality' except in a rhetorical sense of 'hyperreal' and so on (which of course doesn't actually mean we are not living in reality).

No offense but I'm gonna stop engaging now and go to bed.

>>21049
okay its been a good conversation
my response is that Reality is fractured, that existence and non-existence; real and unreal are relative concepts and that so much of culture is stuck in the 19th and 20th century, and so cannot respond to the accelerating expansion of reality in its pluralistic speciation.
we already know about cosmic evolution and expansion. the postmodern thesis is that this is likewise occuring on the planet earth due to our place in Time, which has created an abstract pocket where its speculative realities are competing along vector lines of various cultural fictions - where life imitates art, and where, in material necessities, life becomes* art.
things are not as they were.
things have changed.
and things will only get weirder, until the last of you sceptics bend the knee and see the unreality of our moment before your very eyes, where the qualitative leads the quantitative - where incarnate intelligences move matter from above and all things become possible in representation. primitive artificial intelligence systems already threaten social collapse by arranging pixels in different formats - this is the way forward, of semiotic revolutions.

>>21025
Firstly, what people call "postmodernism" is actually properly called "post-structuralism" and secondly, I do not believe we have fully transitioned to the postmodernity, no more than I believe we have completely abandoned the society of discipline, threats of violence and jail time are still important ways the state enforces its authority, though manufacturing consent and preventing people access to things do work incredibly well so we definitely already have strong elements of the society of control.

Our society is not yet post-industrial and class divisions are still real. What is really happening is that our current system is a sandwich of modernity and postmodernity, industrialism and post-industrialism. Whether class politics are effective or not in today's age is very debatable however.

>>21050
"Reality" is what resists. The concept of reality itself is simply a way to describe the world around us, it does not denote any objective truth because there is none, objective truth is advocated by Cartesian baffoons who think they can somehow seperate the subject from the world around them, even though the world is the experience of the subject in the first place, therefore the Advaita Vedanta's idea that we are Brahman is not completely unfounded, even though I do not personally believe in it.

please convert all your images away from .jfif it's not even post or modern

>>21025
First of all, I would like to say that your article is very thoughtful and I am happy to have read something like this throughout my life. I actually agree with most of what you said, but there are some uncertainity in me of some of the things you stated which are haunting my mind.

So, in the first stage, you have indicated that the culture-art commodity production in the cyberspace have absorbed the traditional industrial production of old type of commodities.

But, isn't it simply an extension of the capital within actualizing new states which create 'use value' - simply, the appetite of mind upon a relation with the directed object would create a substance of value- in other words, a desire. We as organismic beings not only produce the desire on the organic necessities of the biological organs, but also non-organic in the gaze of new conditions.

Before the internet- or even to dive in middle ages, there was no addictive desire implying a necessity of internet. Because a relation for that dimension were not actualized yet- as the emergence of cyberspace simply extended the commodity production to sources of use value in that space. The capital have just shifted in virtual culture production, and for my uncertainity-

Why culture production is the reversal of Marxian dialetics and philosophy while Marx also have talked about commodity fetishism a lot and the capital extending into new popularized use values?
Isn't 'superstructure' a subjective reflection of a thing while 'the base' is the relations of production of that thing?

I kinda don't see abstract production in cyberspace as "unvalid" type of production or "unreal economy" - just as an art could be commodified while being a mere and useless abstract for many other.

>>21054
In marxist terms anything besides necessities are seen as "irrational" forms of production, which is why to him the proletariat is situated in the specific character of the industrial worker, who is regimented for the creation of "concrete" goods, where of course their use-value are seen to be in the form or material of the thing - the very material consumed. Today, production is increasingly abstract, thus representing the "mystifying" and alienating elements of the superstructure which obscure material conditions - in the mid-20th century this was seen as the rise of the "culture industry", which exported "unreal" content to be consumed with increasing passivity - just think of a film. What is the flesh of a film which we consume? It is made of light and sound. This is the generally abstract trajectory of technological representation, which builds from its own base and encases us within its own alternative or "virtual" reality. This reality aims to re-present our own, producing "hyperrealities", or realities which are "more real than real" - animation is a good example, which by its transparent unreality still manages to express feeling better than so many live-action films. The exaggerated movements and features display a "virtual" or "unconscious" identification with the thing.
Many critics of the culture industry where marxists themselves who thought that the rise of things like jazz and hollywood distracted from the "socialist realist" movement in art, which attempted to close the contradictions of representation of the society it was filmed in. Socialist realism is typically seen as a gritty, slice-of-life form of art that captures "normal" life. Today it is mutated into the degradations of soap operas which turn it into melodrama. The basic idea here though is that capital seeks to splinter culture along these different lines of consumption, in the chaos of irrational, decentralised production.
The point of our unreality is that it is self-creating culture manufacture, since we all own our means of production with mobile phones and other digital equipment. We have become factories of a sort, but factories of abstract commodities rather than necessities.
This is a direct reversal of marxism since we have a sort of communism, but of culture creation, where the superstructure builds upon itself and the productive base becomes the secondary character in production. The proletariat has been outsourced to machines and man has lost the horizon of his species-being, which is the abyss of today's nihilism - that at history's end, it loses its own purpose.

the involution of the objet petit a into the dialectical framework of the psyche unveils a profound synthesis of Lacanian desire, elucidating the intricate dance between the unconscious and societal constructs in the formation of subjective identity.

Within this theoretical landscape, Lacan's conceptualization of the objet petit a serves as a pivotal lens through which we can deconstruct the unconscious yearnings that shape individual subjectivities. As the object of unattainable desire, it propels a perpetual quest for fulfillment, entwining itself with the intricate threads of the symbolic and imaginary realms. This dialectical tension between the unattainable objet petit a and the societal constructs lays bare the paradoxical nature of human yearning, echoing the existential struggles embedded within the human condition.

Moreover, the involution of the objet petit a navigates the liminal spaces where psychoanalysis converges with existential philosophy. Jean-Paul Sartre's exploration of radical freedom and responsibility finds resonance as individuals grapple with the elusive nature of desire, confronting the void that emerges when societal norms clash with authentic self-expression. In this existential dialectic, the objet petit a becomes a symbolic anchor, both propelling individuals towards self-discovery and tethering them to the societal structures that shape their identity.

Intricacies deepen as we delve into the existential implications of the objet petit a's involution. Existential angst, as posited by philosophers like Kierkegaard and Heidegger, intertwines with Lacanian desire, creating a complex interplay between the fear of non-being and the pursuit of authentic becoming. The objet petit a, oscillating between the realms of lack and excess, mirrors the existential tension between the desire for meaning and the absurdity inherent in the human quest for self-realization. As we unravel these layers, the involution of the objet petit a emerges as a profound journey through the depths of the psyche, a journey where the individual confronts the shadows of their desires and grapples with the existential significance of their subjective experience.

The postmodern turn, heavily influenced by Lacanian psychoanalysis, challenges the foundational tenets of Marxism by emphasizing the fluidity and fragmentation of contemporary reality. Lacan's deconstruction of stable identities and fixed meanings finds resonance in the postmodern critique, highlighting the contingency and multiplicity of truths. In this light, the grand narratives of Marxism, with their overarching teleological structures and deterministic visions, appear increasingly inadequate in capturing the diverse, fragmented nature of contemporary society.

Lacanian insights into the symbolic order and the construction of meaning intersect with postmodern skepticism towards metanarratives, questioning the universal applicability of Marxist analyses. The postmodern emphasis on language as a constitutive force in shaping reality aligns with Lacan's understanding of language as a symbolic structure that mediates our experience. This convergence challenges the Marxist notion of a singular, objective truth and suggests that the plurality of discourses and subjective interpretations in postmodernity undermines the monolithic framework of Marxist theory.

Moreover, Lacan's focus on desire and lack, when integrated into a postmodern context, emphasizes the proliferation of desires and identities that resist essentialist categorizations. This challenges the Marxist emphasis on class struggle as the primary driving force of historical change, suggesting that the fluidity of desires and identities in postmodernity surpasses the rigid boundaries prescribed by traditional Marxist frameworks.

In essence, the amalgamation of Lacanian psychoanalysis and postmodern perspectives introduces a nuanced critique that questions the relevance of Marxist grand narratives in our contemporary, fragmented world. The emphasis on fluidity, subjectivity, and the multiplicity of truths in postmodernity challenges the structural determinism inherent in Marxist thought, signaling a reevaluation of its applicability in understanding the complexities of the contemporary socio-cultural landscape.

>>21025
>This is sustained by Keynesian mediation, which maintains crises of overproduction and overemployment, such as FDR said after the new deal, "I have saved capitalism", but of course, capital is the agent, which has saved itself by wrapping itself into the state structure, amplifying its reach over the world. As Keynes says in his prophetic tone: "in the long run, we are all dead".
You forgot about unequal exchange and uneven development. Its sustained by Imperialism.

>You imagine communism, but what does it look like in contradiction to today's progress?
Increasing the productive forces must Accelerate. The only way out is through and if you want to make it you Gotta Go Fast. Neo China Arrives from the Future.

In the context of YouTube, TikTok, and virtual reality, the obsolescence of Marxism becomes evident as these platforms embody the postmodern and Lacanian critiques of fixed structures and deterministic narratives. Marxist theory traditionally relies on a linear understanding of historical progress, emphasizing class struggle as the driving force. However, these digital spaces disrupt this narrative by showcasing a decentralized, fluid landscape where power dynamics and cultural production are distributed among diverse user communities.

On YouTube, content creators from various backgrounds produce narratives that challenge traditional class-based analyses. The democratization of content creation blurs class distinctions, with individuals from different socioeconomic backgrounds contributing to and consuming a wide array of content. This decentralization undermines the simplistic class dichotomies posited by Marxism, revealing a more complex interplay of identities and desires in the digital sphere.

TikTok, with its emphasis on short, visually engaging content, amplifies the postmodern notion of identity as a performative construct. Users on TikTok continuously remix and reinterpret cultural elements, fostering a dynamic landscape where fixed class identities give way to a kaleidoscope of ever-shifting subjectivities. This constant flux challenges the Marxist notion of stable class structures, pointing to a more fragmented and subjective understanding of identity.

Virtual reality, by offering immersive and customizable experiences, disrupts the Marxist focus on material conditions and economic relations. In virtual worlds, individuals can transcend traditional constraints, creating and interacting in environments that defy the predetermined structures of class-based societies. This challenges the Marxist emphasis on the material base as the primary determinant of social relations, highlighting the significance of symbolic and subjective elements in shaping digital experiences.

In essence, these digital platforms exemplify the obsolescence of Marxist frameworks by presenting a dynamic, decentralized, and fluid landscape that transcends traditional class-based analyses. The postmodern and Lacanian influences within these digital realms underscore the need for a more nuanced understanding of contemporary society, one that goes beyond the rigid structures and deterministic narratives inherent in classical Marxist thought.

>>478130
>And what resists?
Well, laws of physics for starters. Unlike in dreams, we can't really control laws of physics. We can't really control reality as a whole in general, only change things here and there. That's why populists rely on class politics so much, they recognise that we're all powerless in the grand scheme of things as Lovecraft points out so they hope that if they poison enough people with their memes the resulting goo will be overwhelming enough to the existing social order, pure ideological imperialism due to not being able to wage an actual war. It's like Christian evangelism, an escapist fantasy born out of despair.

>>21058
>>21056
GPT? This reads like a bad wiki summary and parts are incorrect.

>>21060
I've been using chat gpt since the OP.

> Today we have the multiverse of multimedia involutions, reflected in quantum mechanics and cinematic representation.
Didn't clue you in?

>>21055
>In marxist terms anything besides necessities are seen as "irrational" forms of production, which is why to him the proletariat is situated in the specific character of the industrial worker, who is regimented for the creation of "concrete" goods, where of course their use-value are seen to be in the form or material of the thing
Something which Bataille criticized btw. The dichotomy between necessity and excess is a false one.

>>21057
The point im making is that production has been relegated to the virtual, so just building factories is part of the fallacy that burning enough coal using production lines gets you "the future" in any terms. Nick himself would agree that capital doesnt simply seek to turn the earth into paper clips, but is part of this process of involution.

>>21061
i was about to start arguing. OP just sounded like someone doing a good job riffing on Land

>>478129
>We have entered a post-class society which is due to the reconfiguration of our means and modes of production, which is increasingly automated and abstract - the keynesian post-scarcity economy even designates consumption as a productive activity in itself, where "stimulation" of an unreal economy *is* our political economy.

This and several other things youve said seem completely detached from reality, but I guess thats kind of what you are saying. The unreal economy in western developed nations is still based on a real economy that they outsource to other countries. Its like you are taking an analysis of propaganda and the psychologic effects of living under a capitalist dictatorship and mixing it with a belief in the end of history and the assumption that fiat money can indefinitely prop up imperialism without the material to support a military to back it up.

There is definitely something to be said about psychology as a field and how it can be incorporated into Marxism and people like Zizek or Deleuze can be useful for that but even Lacan wasn't trying to debunk Marxism or anything like that. Reintegrating postmodernism back into a comprehensive understanding of the world is more about understanding how capitalist propaganda effects class consciousness.

Mark Fisher also addresses this topic in Capitalist Realism.

>>21062
Yes.
Marx comes out of the school of classical economics which emphasised Reason as a tool of organisation. Bataille obviously rides the spirit of the age and gets to the sacrificial core of today's movement

>>21065
There are many OPs in this thread
Argue away, let me feed on your aggressions

>>21066
Getting back to a "material analysis" is a fruitless goal since it misses the mark of what "matter" even is. Thats been my point aboit simulation, that "matter" itself has changed and so too has our mode of production.

>>21068
prompts dont work rite if you dont understand what you are mashining together

>>21059
Physics is getting wonky itself, like i reference in our increasingly dichotomous multiverse, starting with einstein who breaks the mould of mechanics with dialectical understanding. The quantum world displays an inseparable divide in the structure of "physical" reality between the "fundamental" in different sizes. This shows that reality pertains to a certain flatness, like a circle broken up into intervals, splayed out into infinity.
Today even men become women. New things are happening all the time.

>>21070
Its good to meet the prompts where they're at. Like summoning prophecies out of a magic 8-ball, or casting lots before jehovah.

>>21071
You haven't eliminated the hierarchy of needs. We are physical beings with physical needs. This is all just the wankery of people who have those needs fulfilled by other people's labor.

>>21073
The base needs I meant.

>>21073
The post-scarcity economy is a starting point to eliminating labour. The service economy itself employs people for busy-work - like universities who send out for homework on useless exercises. The issue is that we havent adapted our politics to our material conditions - UBI, public housing, the elimination of IP, etc would be good starts
Soon enough roborts will replace third-world slaves like they have replaced the artiface of any protestant pride in self-mutilation like we find in our neo-athenian west.
There is "work" to be done, it just has to embrace the future rather than the past.

>>21069
>that "matter" itself has changed and so too has our mode of production
>>21064
>The point im making is that production has been relegated to the virtual
It really hasn't. That's why I bring up uneven development. Not everyone is post scarcity and few the people that live post scarcity virtual lifestyles do it on the back of imperialism.

>>21073
>hierarchy of needs
It's pyramid of needs, calling the animal food chain and the pyramid of needs "hierarchies" is bourgeois propaganda.

>>21076
This is all withinin its progressive stage of development. And still, the west largely bases its economy on "soft" and digital products which is the unreal wealth that it affords itself. Again, is your idea to "retvrn" to the factory floor in leninist antiquities? We are at the forefront of a social revolution, but it will expand as it must.

>>21078
The west largely bases its economy on financial manipulation and military power.

>>21080
What do you think would happen to the west if america brought all of their soldiers home? As an open question.

What are you talking about comrade? We're initiating the people's war. Come on, we're going to smoke some pigs.

>>21082
"Whats that, grug? Communism, technology, anime? Did you hit your head before you fell asleep? Come on, we need you for the hunt."

>>21055
>>21056

( I am that anon who asked u questions )

>In marxist terms anything besides necessities are seen as "irrational" forms of production,

This is false, Marx is not an idealist who qualitificates and categorizes "necessities"

<A commodity is, in the first place, an object outside us, a thing that by its properties satisfies human wants of some sort or another. The nature of such wants, whether, for instance, they spring from the stomach or from fancy, makes no difference.[2]…..

<2. “Desire implies want, it is the appetite of the mind, and as natural as hunger to the body… The greatest number (of things) have their value from supplying the wants of the mind.”

From Das Kapital I

Organic or non-organic, what is your "basis" to attritube a thing into being a necessity, taking form of the state of being necessity but not non-necessity for one- it's an abstract condition.

>Many critics of the culture industry where marxists themselves who thought that the rise of things like jazz and hollywood distracted from the "socialist realist" movement in art

The 1920 USSR had rampant socialist constructivist, surrealist, futurist and realist art movements. I do not favor any art.

>This is a direct reversal of marxism since we have a sort of communism, but of culture creation, where the superstructure builds upon itself and the productive base becomes the secondary character in production.

Uhh, I agree with your previous texts except some parts, but how it is a communism of culture-production, I didnt get it??

>Marxist notion of a singular, objective truth and suggests that the plurality of discourses and subjective interpretations in postmodernity undermines the monolithic framework of Marxist theory.

I see Marxist theories somehow likely from the viewpoint of Gramsci and Althusser. It does not presuppose "objective truth" but subjective conditions of progression

>the structural determinism inherent in Marxist thought

Umm, isn't saying "everything is fluidic and structures break into newly moments" assumes that it's the law?
But yeah, I don't think that we are structurally determined to have communism, althrough we'll see capitalism getting through another forms and crisises, inefficiency of production- like we just see it now. The grandè stagnation.

>>21079
Hierarchies can only be applied in the context of social, political and economic power, everything else that is otherwise called hierarchies are either priority assignment, power dynamics or violence which are not the same as examining control over others. This is a neat trick that allows right-wingers to equate capitalism with the natural order. A lion does not literally tell a zebra to become its food, he uses his capacity for violence in an anarchistic, non-hierarchical way. And zebras can even fight back, they have very powerful legs, they travel in hordes and are really fast which gives them some advantages over lone predators and small prides.

>>21084
Marx is describing commodities, but he was against commodity production and instead wanted to only produce necessities which accounted for the socially-necessary labour time of the worker, thus eliminating wage labour in a socialist system, where we only work for what is "necessary". The production of luxuries is a very contentious aspect of marxism, but it is of secondary concern, unlike today.
The "communism" of today is the lived experience of being in a post-scarcity world with a portable factory in our pocket - this factory only makes abstract commodities and not necessities however. This is the public working for themselves, but in the terms of culture creation, which opposes marxism since marx's dialectic of production and exchange ends itself in the closing loop of alienation, which terminates in socialism, where in lenin's words, society operates like a "factory floor", which is analogous to today, but in an extremely counter-intuitive way.

you will never be a 14 year old japanese girl hooked up to a computer. you will always spend 16 hours of your life labouring and sleeping, not to mention chores and errands

>>21086
>Marx is describing commodities, but he was against commodity production and instead wanted to only produce necessities which accounted for the socially-necessary labour time of the worker

Marx was against to form of Commodity production, not the quality of the commodity, like in feudalism- a desired thing would not take form of a commodity during the exchange.
How do you define a "necessity"?
Unlike that viewpoint, Marx really does not categorize an object's attritubion of being necessary or not- as long as it's desired ( or namely, needed. )

>The "communism" of today is the lived experience of being in a post-scarcity world with a portable factory in our pocket - this factory only makes abstract commodities and not necessities however. This is the public working for themselves, but in the terms of culture creation, which opposes marxism since marx's dialectic of production and exchange ends itself in the closing loop of alienation, which terminates in socialism, where in lenin's words, society operates like a "factory floor", which is analogous to today, but in an extremely counter-intuitive way.

The computers have electric consumption & maintance thus they are more likely to be "machines of viewing an art" - and yesh, in internet , the art-production is not necessarily commodified. But it's not like having communism in your automatic factories modded minecraft server prevents the current conditions to progress of the non-cyber world.

>>21087
Thats what you think…

>>21089
and i don't seem to understand

>>21084 (me)

>Umm, isn't saying "everything is fluidic and structures break into newly moments" assumes that it's the law?

Also, I still wonder whats ur opinion in this, postmodernist-boo anon

>>21088
Yes, necessities are defined democratically by workers. Marx saw the market as an imperfect mechanism of this and simply wanted to improve upon it by centralising production thus immediating economic signals to their designated status by the state. The market today is not as "free" as it used to be and many public companies lie in bed with the state so we certainly see an analogous centralisation that marx predicts - the soviet model doesnt work though. Some companies are centralised while others are decentralised - this balance of markets also operates in china, who model capital to its own national interests. I think keynesianism is the final economic theory in line with neo-keynesianisms like MMT and so on. Markets over capital, like we see in cyberspace.
>But it's not like having communism in your automatic factories modded minecraft server prevents the current conditions to progress of the non-cyber world.
No, but as ive said previously, today you need computers to make computers. Everything gets funneled through the internet to come out through the other end. The internet here is our tool of social mediation - in the long run it will replace the state and that will be "full communism", if we still care about that.
>>21091
I am not that other poster. Im OP. the other guy pretended to be me.

>>21092
>Marx saw the market as an imperfect mechanism of this and simply wanted to improve upon it by centralising production thus immediating economic signals to their designated status by the state.

False

<[…]"All the social functions of the capitalist are now performed by salaried employees. The capitalist has no further social function than that of pocketing dividends, tearing off coupons, and gambling on the Stock Exchange, where the different capitalists despoil one another of their capital. At first the capitalist mode of production forces out the workers. Now it forces out the capitalists, and reduces them, just as it reduced the workers, to the ranks of the surplus population, although not immediately into those of the industrial reserve army.
But the transformation, either into joint-stock companies, or into state ownership, does not do away with the capitalistic nature of the productive forces. In the joint-stock companies this is obvious. And the modern state, again, is only the organisation that bourgeois society takes on in order to support the general external conditions of the capitalist mode of production against the encroachments as well of the workers as of individual capitalists. The modern state, no matter what its form, is essentially a capitalist machine, the state of the capitalists, the ideal personification of the total national capital. The more it proceeds to the taking over of productive forces, the more does it actually become the national capitalist, the more citizens does it exploit. The workers remain wage-workers — proletarians. The capitalist relation is not done away with. It is rather brought to a head. But, brought to a head, it topples over. State ownership of the productive forces is not the solution of the conflict, but concealed within it are the technical conditions that form the elements of that solution…"

Anti-Dühring by Frederick Engels 1877 Part III: Socialism

State centralizing of insturments of the production is a temporary phase thus it keeps the exchange relations likely to the capitalist system, it's like keyneysianism but even with more centralization for a temporary restructuring. It's like war communism in which the efficiency or socially necessary work time is not emphasized but the transformation process itself. Of course there will be overproduction and lack of connection in pre-socialist revolutionary stage. Althrough they enactrd NEP afterwards..

>the soviet model doesnt work though.

It wasn't pure planning or web of feedback between the productive forces so..

>I am not that other poster. Im OP. the other guy pretended to be me.

Well, u should answer it instead of that anon!!! You both share the same geist *w-

>>21087
>>21091
>Umm, isn't saying "everything is fluidic and structures break into newly moments" assumes that it's the law?
"everything is fluidic and structures break into newly emergent moments" does not purport to establish an ontological or epistemological law akin to the deterministic principles inherent in classical Marxist thought. Rather, it posits a perspectival acknowledgment of ontic contingency and epistemic relativity within the manifold phenomena under consideration. The emphasis lies in delineating the non-universalizable, context-dependent nature of socio-cultural, and economic configurations, eschewing a totalizing determinism while highlighting the need for a dialectical engagement with the multifarious factors constituting our intricate reality. In this manner, it aligns itself with the postmodern rejection of metanarratives, advocating for a decentered, contextually sensitive analytical framework that navigates the nuanced topography of contemporary socio-political landscapes.s.

>>21094
In quantum mechanical terms, the conceptual departure from deterministic frameworks akin to classical Marxism parallels the abandonment of a Newtonian causality in favor of a probabilistic understanding. The proposition that "everything is fluidic and structures break into newly emergent moments" resonates with the probabilistic nature of quantum states, where the trajectory of particles is not preordained but exists within a realm of indeterminacy until observed. The postmodern emphasis on fluidity and context-dependent interpretations aligns with the inherent uncertainty and wave-particle duality encapsulated by Heisenberg's uncertainty principle.

Furthermore, just as quantum superposition allows particles to exist in multiple states simultaneously until observed, the postmodern contention recognizes the simultaneous coexistence of multiple narratives and truths within the sociocultural fabric. This resonates with the quantum understanding that particles can occupy multiple positions until a measurement collapses the wavefunction.

The interplay between postmodern philosophy and quantum mechanics transcends mere analogy; it converges on the profound implication that the act of observation and interpretation shapes the reality we apprehend. Similarly, the postmodern critique underscores the interpretive nature of knowledge construction, aligning with the quantum principle that the act of measurement fundamentally alters the quantum state. In this juxtaposition, the confluence of postmodern thought and quantum mechanics prompts a paradigmatic shift towards acknowledging the intrinsic indeterminacy and contextual subjectivity inherent in both the microcosmic and macrocosmic realms.

>>21093
I dont think postmodernity overcomes capital, it simply overcomes the category of the proletariat, which is the practical step forward in eliminating class society. Post-industrialisation, the service economy, automation, the internet and so on are the devices of a post-historical horizon where the geist becomes extinguished into the fury of its own splendour. Communism is paradoxically planned production alongside overproduction - this to me is the self-creative implementation of computers. Where, like i say, the dialectic between production and exchange comes to an end, but only with exchange taking precedence over production - the superstructure becomes the base.
Thats my material analysis.

>>21094
What you're describing seems akin to calling this a "a lawly paradigm of sensing and attritubing but with framework of uncertainity"

>Rather, it posits a perspectival acknowledgment of ontic contingency and epistemic relativity within the manifold phenomena under consideration. The emphasis lies in delineating the non-universalizable, context-dependent nature of socio-cultural, and economic configurations, eschewing a totalizing determinism while highlighting the need for a dialectical engagement with the multifarious factors constituting our intricate reality.

I think this is basically likely to Marxian dialetical materialism, or the term of "scientific" in general, but I'll just get to another topic.

So , for the example of "delineating" as in its content, it's methodical ways are established as a contrarian position to the prior ones, prior ways to "delineate". But perhaps even inconcinously- we are playing as a wheells of established relations which shape how delineating is processed. Make 'it's object's cause' unknown, plural, uncertain, or make the cause the so, perhaps at the end there's no validity or must-ness for a seed to take form of a tree, but we perceive it so in our current mysterious stage. Saying "it may be fluid" carries the same abstraction as "it may be constant". Applies for "non-universal" to "universal" So, I can see how the uncertainity may not essentially establish a fluidity but the absurdness in the term of "fluidity or constantness" themselves.

Like, such as,
Why we ask "why" , what does it really correspond to?

To "acknowledge" a thing?
Isn't the answer of why is mostly a mere assumption of forming a "valid relation" between Object X and Object Y even if in themselves they may not necessarily have a relation. So, you may think that you acknowledge a thing- but "why" not vice versa? Isn't acknowledging for you a perhaps is a sensation, an aestetic temptation.

Those words seems to be structural linguistic symbiosises as established to narrate forms of relations which may be "assumed" to really conform how things interact between.

But the law, or whatever you call- be it behind, between or upside on it , if there's one- why it is not constant but fluid, or as you may say, both on the different stages.

So, "the question of why" as a linguistic element is a symbolic narrative, which may have it's content or not, and it may not be a tool of "necessarily" "acknowledge" the relation between the objects. Who would and how would judge you for pursuing an esoteric , strange feeling? Be it a truth or not.. What should we base it on?

I am just confused how "postmodernist viewpoint" is not methodical while assuming a law of established plurality and uncertainity.

>>21097
I didnt get the last sentence exactly , but i guess i may agree with you in overall..

>>21099
Marx's dialectic is in seeing the contradiction between modes of production and exchange, otherwise known as the base and superstructure. The tension between these two is known as alienation - such as in the case of the proletariat, where the proletariat is alienated twofold - in the base and superstructure. He is first alienated in his Being, where he is made to be a worker for survival and secondly in exchange, where his labour is not given in full representation but is mediated by cash - the value of his labour in an alienated format.
Marx wants to close the gap between the base and superstructure by representing the value of labour in its concreteness until money has been abolished and man simply takes what he needs from the mass of products made from labour. In communism too, man is no longer a worker, but fully human, he has achieved his species-being, or man-as-man.
I think in postmodernity this is achieved but in reverse, where the gap between base and superstructure is closed, but in the way that the superstructure becomes the productive base, yet has no abstract representation to alienate itself from, for the production of man in this system is abstraction itself, in cultural industrialisation - this is the play on words, that culture is seen by marx to be secondary to industry, but culture industry synomymises these concepts.
Here, man becomes self-creating because he represents himself and so has escaped the subjection of industrial capitalism and emerges as an artistic self-creation - this is the overturning of the category of the proletariat, which is part of the post-insdustrial movement in the west - to abolish the *form* of the factory floor and to replace it with portable factories in our pockets.
What is "productive" today? Clicks, likes, views.
You can become a millionaire from making youtube videos - material conditions have radically evolved.
Today, there is no proletariat and there is no humanity - so modernity is finished. Universality has been overcome. We exist in the multiverse.

>>21025
>Today, the qualitative virtuality of culture leads in productive capacity, which gives false pretence to the necessity of industrial labour. The truth is that a youtuber and their data are more useful today than any warehouse slave.
What a fucking pseud. Imagine still believing in the "Post-industrial society" in 2023. Without substantial power and telecommunications infrastrucure in Earth and space, "The Wired" would literally be nothing. If you think you can survive without factories or powerplants, then you can turn to the power of your mind to feed and clothe yourself.

>>21100
It's amazing how badly you misunderstood Marx.

>>21102
Then correct me

>>21101
I think you misunderstood, but its ok

>>21103
There is no contradiction between the capitalist mode of production and exchange. It's its very basis. The contradiction you likely misunderstood is between the forces of production, due to its social nature due to the division of labour, and the relations of production, i.e. privation of the means of production through private property.

This has nothing to do with the base and superstructure. That one is just that famous Marx quote, about being determining consciousness, extended to the whole of society. It really just means that a capitalist society will produce capitalist art, capitalist technology, capitalist critiques of capitalism.

I did not read the rest.

>>21056
> the grand narratives of Marxism, with their overarching teleological structures and deterministic visions
>>21056
>the multiplicity of truths in postmodernity challenges the structural determinism inherent in Marxist thought
>>21058
> Marxist theory traditionally relies on a linear understanding of historical progress
>>21094
>deterministic principles inherent in classical Marxist thought


>>21103
>Then correct me

Its basically a liberal caricatures of Marx. Marxism is not deterministic. What it goes on to say is the solution is actually closer to a description of Marxism with random postmodern terms thrown in.

>>21025
>Today we have the multiverse of multimedia involutions, reflected in quantum mechanics and cinematic representation.
Right off the bat OP quantum mechanics has no perceptible effect on our everyday reality. That's the greatest pseud warning sign when someone tries to associate it with some philosophical mumbo jumbo.

>>21105
The contradiction is in the mode of exchange to *adapt* to revolutions in the productive base - which is what politics is for, to progress exchange in line with the burgeoning modes of production already present within the order.
The whole schematic of communism comes from this understanding, that "Socialism" proper is an outgrowth from the socialist mode of production, already present in marx's time. Here, the contradiction between production and exchange reveals itself in the contradiction of capital itself, like the crises of overproduction, which a socialist state could easily mitigate, yet which a market economy is powerless against. Here is the dialectic of darwinian evolution where exchange adapts to its conditioning environment.
Youre right that a capitalist mode of production produces capitalist modes of exchange, including capitalist cultures - but marx's whole horizon is that socialism is already here, it just needs to have its own mode of exchange, which is only possible through revolutionary politics.
The ultimate goal of socialism is to abolish the superstructure; to abolish exchange and for it to be subsumed into the productive base, that sustains itself by necessity. This is the end of history. What ive been saying in all my posts is that we have now entered into this realm, where the base and superstructure are the same thing, and so history has ended by the singularity of its own demise. Thats why we have postmodern theory today which carries the torch to enliven the fullness of our postmodern condition.
>>21106
Marxism IS deterministic. Thats the whole point.

>>21107
Dark matter also has no bearing on our experience, yet it says something about reality.

>>21108
>Marxism IS deterministic. Thats the whole point.
Nope. Thats the second time you have got something flat out wrong and then just repeated it. I was starting to think it was GPTs fault for sourcing from wiki but I think its your fault for giving it bad prompts because you don't understand the text.

>>21110
Explain why im wrong

>>21109
Says what exactly? You can take any random physical phenomenon and try to make some illogical philosophical extrapolation out of it.

>>21113
>explain why im wrong
<no
Ok. Nice talking to you.

>>21112
It leaves an impression in the mind to consider that the universe is being ripped apart faster than the speed of light by stretching into infinite hyperspace

>>21114
Sartre correctly points out that to understand an individual it is necessary to dig deeper than the vulgar Marxist class analysis, to examine specific historical complexities, and to investigate in detail the individual's biography, beginning with his or her family and childhood. There is certainly nothing un-Marxist about going beyond a simplistic two-class view or examining personal psychological motivation; this is obvious in many of Marx's works, exemplified by the very rich historical complexity in his analysis of Napoleon III.14 Some of Sartre's followers have remained more existentialist than Marxist. One, Richard Pozzuto, writes: "Given a scientific interpretation of the world the potential for human liberation is stifled since man has given up responsibility and control of his life to an external force. If we were to follow the argumenthat Marx is a determinist, we would find no political task for human actors." Any institutionalist or Marxist can sympathize with Pozzuto's desire for human freedom and his opposition to treating humans as puppets. It is a false dichotomy, however, to set political freedom against a "scientific interpretation" or "determinist" view of history. As noted earlier, Marx argued that people freely make their own history-it is not predetermined by God, Marx, or economic trends-but they do make historical choices under given conditions.

Scientific Marxist determinism has always emphasized that human beliefs and actions must be included as a dynamic determining factor of social analysis. Certainly, humans are "free" in the sense that they may make any decision they care to make and may act upon it. Humans are "determined" in the sense that their decisions are predictable as a statistical probability for an entire group within the limits of social science knowledge, just as the weather is predictable as a statistical probability within the limits of current human knowledge of natural science (as well as our fact-gathering technology). Human decisions are predictable (within those limits) because they result from human ideas and psychological states. These ideas and states are determined for each individual by his or her experiences from birth to the present (and his or her inherited physiology). Knowing a group's history and environment, social scientists can predict its behavior (within the limits stated above), but that does not make the group or the individual member any less free or their actions any more predetermined by some outside plan. Of course, humans can carry out their decisions only within biological, physical, and political-economic conditions inherited from the past. Humans make their own history, but under given ("determining") conditions, and in predictable ways, although our predictive powers are limited in the ways stated above.

>>21115
Again what does that have to do with amything relevant to politics, economics, or philosophy?

Is Marxism deterministic?
> Bourgeois ideology thus attacks Marxism both for being too deterministic and for not being deterministic enough. In every historical situation there is a tension between necessity and freedom, between what is objectively determined and what we can affect or change, but the balance between necessity and freedom is not fixed or stable. At the dawn of human history and for a long time thereafter the element of necessity was heavily dominant. Human behaviour was massively dominated by forces beyond our control, by the interaction between external nature and our own physical constitution. Yet also present from the beginning – indeed it is what marks the beginning – is the embryo of human freedom, namely conscious social labour. The whole of history is the struggle to expand human freedom through the development of the power of human labour. The socialist revolution is this resolution of this contradiction. With each step taken towards the international abolition of classes and the unification of humanity, human beings take increasing control of their own destiny. As material scarcity is progressively overcome, so the ‘tyranny of economics’ is ended. What was hitherto the ‘ultimately determining factor’ in history, namely the production of the necessities of human life, while not disappearing, will play an ever decreasing role in shaping human behaviour.
https://www.marxists.org/history/etol/writers/molyneux/1995/xx/determin.htm

Determinism and Indeterminism (Necessity and Free Will)
>Social determinism, i.e., the doctrine that all social phenomena are conditioned, have causes from which they necessarily flow, must not be confused with fatalism, which is a belief in a blind, inevitable destiny, a "fate", weighing down upon everything, and to which everything is subjected. Man's will is nothing. Man is not a quantity to be considered among causes; he is simply a passive substance. This teaching denies the human will as a factor in evolution, which determinism does not.
https://www.marxists.org/archive/bukharin/works/1921/histmat/2.htm

Marxism and the New Physics
>Marxism, not being a theory of physical materialism and not bound to Newtonian determinism, is not affected by the new physics and microphysics. To be sure, Marx had no way of rejecting and no desire to reject the physics of the nineteenth century. What distinguished his historical materialism from middle class materialism was his rejection of the latter’s direct confrontation of individual man and external reality and its inability to see society and social labour as an indivisible aspect of the whole of reality. What united Marxism with middle class materialism was the conviction that there is an external world independent of men and that science contributes to the knowledge of this objective reality.
https://www.marxists.org/archive/mattick-paul/1960/new-physics.htm

The Myth of Marx’s Economic Determinism
https://www.marxists.org/subject/marxmyths/peter-stillman/article.htm

No, Marxism Isn’t Economic Determinism
https://jacobin.com/2021/10/axel-honneth-marxism-economic-determinism-recognition-moral-psychology-critical-theory/

>>21116
Sartre was an idealist who famously had a sperg out against freud because the idea of an unconscious was disturbing to him, who rightly saw it as a limiting factor of human agency - that what is freely chosen in the unconscious is not what we willingly choose for ourselves - our instincts precede our reason and so we are only determined by these chaotic forces. This is nothing new of course, the gods have always sealed the fate of men.
Political "freedom" begins as a baseless abstraction. What is freedom? Free choice? The point of socialism is to live by the fruits of labour, which with technology give us the delights of their occult potentials. Like ive said, we talk on the phone using satellites. We live in miraculous times, yet "freedom" is something i dont consider. I dont know what it means.
>marx says men make their own history
The passage is explicitly saying that the history men make for themselves is held in repetition, because man is a circular animal in his ambitions - this is why revolution comes from technological advancement which evolves humanity into the horizon of fuller opportunities, but these themselves are only mediated by these same machines. We are free to do what the internet allows us to do like we are free to consume what we are allowed to produce.
Proudhon and the anarchists idolise an "essential" human "freedom" - but marx departs from this.

>>21108
I don't know where this mode of exchange thing comes from, but not from Marx, that's for sure. Socialism *is* the socialist mode of production, not some "outgrowth". Again, the contradiction is not between production and exchange, but the forces of production and the relations of production. The forces of production are already "socialistic", they are communal in the sense that to produce a single good, you need the input of many-many people. The contradiction is that despite this, the relations of production are still private, the means of production are owned privately, private property exists and the proletariat are exploited. To resolve the contradiction, the relation of production has to be made collective, which is what the revolution is supposed to achieve, by abolishing private property. The abolition of private property is the ultimate goal of socialism/communism.

The superstructure cannot be abolished because it is a pretty arbitrary analytical distinction that was invented purely to shut up idealists from trying to reform capitalism through conscious consumption and shit like that.

>>21025
pseud post

Marxism belongs in the 19th century the way a fish belongs in a tank or dinosaur bones in museum

>>21120
We basically totally agree but we just use different language
>>21122
Marxism is already stuck in the 19th century. Thats why marxists want to enter us *back* into history to achieve its lost future. Same way nazis are also stuck in ww2, because they dont realise that the "nazis" in any historically relevant terms went on to work for USA and helped develop the contemporary military industrial complex.
Like how communism by any standards would just reproduce postmodernity since postmodernity has escaped history, thus ending the historical contradiction - but in reverse, like i say, where in postmodernity we experience the autoproduction of our alienation (abstract mediation) rather than smashing everything down to "material" circumstances.
This is because science and technology has revealed what "matter" really is, and it isnt "material" in any schematic sense. Thats why i have said earlier that "use value" is becoming a disappearing concept, since the flesh of objects are becoming digital and thus intangible. This is the unrealisation of contemporary political economy.
>>21117
Its about the transcendental horizon of discovery and its impacts. The nazis hated einstein because he defeated newtonian mechanics and absolutism - but this itself is only possible within the horizon of the changing tides of matter itself, experiencing its self-consciousness through the human. Interestingly enough, einstein also held ideological views about the universe, concluding that there was no big bang. To do this he came up with the cosmological constant or dark energy - this he later denied in lieu of evidence for the big bang, however, it turned out he was right. Einstein too denied the "spooky" effects of quantum mechanics which have now become the staple of research today, producing effects in culture like consciousness of the multiverse, which is being massively explored in cinema - thus representing how culture operates by this revelation of concepts. We can then give poetic device to this and see how in postmodernity the multiverse concept coincides with the increasing plurality in society.
Lysenko might say this is just capitalism's old tricks, of metaphysicalising its own economic properties, like some said about darwin - that he was a malthusian, a whig and so on. Marx ofc too said that darwin went round the world to discover victorian england, with its conditions of mere life and market dominations, like smith's invisible hand.
Its possible ideas are historically contingent.
I do believe that darwinism is being revised all the time - not to disprove its basic princippes, but its qualitative conclusions. Donna Harraway for example forwards theories of "bio-semiotics" to account for the modalities of communication in nature. Nature is not just brutal market mechanics, from *within* nature, but from an artificial gaze it probably is.
Fascinatingly enough, darwin himself thought it was possible that plants were intelligent beings, so science can often work itself back round that way.

>>21123
While some of the specifics Marx wrote about seem outdated now, the core conceit of marxism, of bourgeois and proletariat, has not changed. We still live in a class struggle.

>>21124
The proletariat and bourgeoisie are being erased every day, unless you are a revisionist and think every service worker receiving a wage is the same as what marx was talking about
The bourgeoisie are being erased by the proliferation of publicly-owned companies which produce the postcapitalist conditions of the "managerial revolution" like what james burnham talks about.
Thats why reactionaries love "small business owners" and hate "woke capital" because corporations are overriding the political syndication of the middle class. Some would rightly argue that this just creates deeper stratification with the ultra rich and very poor, and i agree - but this is not "class struggle" in the old sense.

>>21125
>unless you are a revisionist and think every service worker receiving a wage is the same as what marx was talking about

how the fuck is that 'revisionist', there were non manufacturing workers in marx's day too

>Some would rightly argue that this just creates deeper stratification with the ultra rich and very poor, and i agree - but this is not "class struggle" in the old sense.

How is it not??? There were also 'publicly owned' (a euphemism of course for 'owned by wealthy people and investment funds') companies in Marx's day too. 'Managerialism' is just another word for capitalism, there were plenty of factory owners in 1800 that weren't involved with managing their own businesses

>>21126
Yes theres always been a wide variety of jobs in capitalist society, but marxism has always been specific to analysing the industrial working class, like in england during the 19th century. Today these sorts of premilennial speculations about everyone being shafted into this domain is antiquated, since markets have evolved and technology has appropriated much of the role of this designation. Thats why revisions such as any number of neo-marxisms take its place, since it remains relevant.
Going into a supermarket and railing about "proletarians" to checkout workers like lenin on a soapbox is already a parodic thought. Labour has shifted its concerns.
>Managerialism' is just another word for capitalism
Its a different type of capitalism which creates different sorts of workers. Ofc today we have the scourge of the PMC and so on. The white collar office worker fulfils a different mode of production to the warehouse picker and packer. It all serves profit, but not to individual capitalists, but a growing managerial elite.

>>21127
>Thats why revisions such as any number of neo-marxisms take its place, since it remains relevant
Revisionism is based actually, orthodoxy is unscientific, ACCELERATE REVISIONISM.

>>21128
True