CCCP's Workshop.

[GeneralTacticus]

I presume, then, that you consider administration to have no place in a modern society?

[Xian]

^^Reaserch rates can change dramatically in any social choice, depending on how you play, in terms of base sizes, placement of bases resources etc.

Even as an anarchist in the style of Baukunin, i would still like to be able to join the CCCP and extend my support to it. I am in agreement with everything said here, however, im not sure marx was. Im what youd call a council communist- a VERY left wing marxist with SOME critical views towards SOME of marx's ideas. I find it revolting to hold ONE MAN responsible for so much progress, for all of marxist's critique of religion, im afraid i find a lot of marxists to be worshippers of marx - hence the term *marxists*

That said - Is it blaspheme to ask to join your party?


---


Adam Smith was NOT the Father of capitalist ideology, in fact his goals were the SAME as the labour unions an Marx and the anarchists and so on. He argued that in a scoiety that maximizes freedom, *EQUALITY* would be maximized as well. Furthermore, people seem to have the REVERSE of the truth in their minds: it is SMITHS views that are OLDER THAN MARX's, and do NOT apply as well to a modern industrial society! If anything communism is a much more realistic plan for freedom of the working class than Capitalism

WE sould be envisioning a society in which l;abor is not only the highest thing valued, but the highest WANT as well

one more thing: bosses do no work! Just as Whipping slaves makes no contribution to society, neither does hiring, firing, exploiting and ripping off the general population.

[Drogue]

Originally posted by Pandemoniak
You're misreading it, any neutral reader of Marx will clearlyread that Marx wants to abolish child labour, and not pretend that he actually supports it in another form.

I can attest to this. I am neutral, in that I do not agree with Marx, and do not think it works in a modern society, but do like his principles, and believe he has much to offer. In the same vein, I agree with capitalist theory, and do see it is as the best option in the real world. But it is not completely right, and Adam Smith made many mistakes too IMHO. On the point however, as a neutral, I do take it to mean that Marx wants to abolish child labour, and add education. I do not think he supported it.

[Pandemoniak]

Originally posted by Archaic
Das Kapitol was not published for many years *AFTER* this, meaning he would not have referred to such a precise aspect of his theory in this document, simply because he hadn't published it yet. So much for your arguement.

Who cares if it was published or not ? Marx was already familiar with concepts such as materialism and material/merchant value, else, he wouldnt have been asked to write the manifesto.

Even if we *did* make the assumption that he'd refer to a piece of theory in the Manifesto that he hadn't created until the Kapitol, then there's 2 issues still to be looked at.

Ok, lets make this assumption.

Firstly, that you haven't given me any page or quote references so that I can check this for myself (Given that the whole discussion is about you misrepresenting a point of Marxism for your own gain, I can't take your interpretations at face value).

You're misreading it, any neutral reader of Marx will clearlyread that Marx wants to abolish child labour, and not pretend that he actually supports it in another form. Anyway, I can give you this link. If you need another, just precise what you look for.

Secondly, that industrial production and material production have meanings that are synonyms.

No, on the contrary, thats the whole point. Quite obvious actually.

If he meant the work in service industries (Which is what your "material production" seems to describe.),

No, material production is all kind of work that increase merchant value, not only service industries. Are you sure you read Das Kapital ?

why would he and the writer of the translation authorized by Marx and Engels state it in such a way that it'd be easily misinterpreted to its common, synonym meaning?

Marx didnt authorized it, he was dead in 1888, IIRC. Anyway, heres a good quote from Engels : since you have the 1888 edition, you probably read the preface, here's a quote :

However much that state of things may have altered during the last twenty-five years, the general principles laid down in the Manifesto are, on the whole, as correct today as ever. Here and there, some detail might be improved. The practical application of the principles will depend, as the Manifesto itself states, everywhere and at all times, on the historical conditions for the time being existing, and, for that reason, no special stress is laid on the revolutionary measures proposed at the end of Section II. That passage would, in many respects, be very differently worded today. In view of the gigantic strides of Modern Industry since 1848, and of the accompanying improved and extended organization of the working class, in view of the practical experience gained, first in the February Revolution, and then, still more, in the Paris Commune, where the proletariat for the first time held political power for two whole months, this programme has in some details been antiquated. One thing especially was proved by the Commune, viz., that "the working class cannot simply lay hold of ready-made state machinery, and wield it for its own purposes." (See The Civil War in France: Address of the General Council of the International Working Men's Assocation 1871, where this point is further developed.) Further, it is self-evident that the criticism of socialist literature is deficient in relation to the present time, because it comes down only to 1847; also that the remarks on the relation of the Communists to the various opposition parties (Section IV), although, in principle still correct, yet in practice are antiquated, because the political situation has been entirely changed, and the progress of history has swept from off the Earth the greater portion of the political parties there enumerated.
"But then, the Manifesto has become a historical document which we have no longer any right to alter."

[Drogue]

I did not ignore it. He wanted to abolish what was currently there (see almost any dickens novel for an idea of the appauling conditions for child labourers) and replace it with something different. What he wanted to replace it with, all we have to go on is "Combination of education with industrial production". This shows the main difference between what was happening and what Marx wanted, was that Marx wanted children to be educated. Stopping child labour altogether, imediatly, would have been impossible. Therefore the pratical thing would have been to have tried to get less child labour, and more education (which is exactly what Marx said). The bit that sticks out for me is not that he condoned industrial production, which could not have been abolished at the time, but that he wanted to add education, which was quite a task, and IMHO, a noble one.

[GeneralTacticus]

Saying that he wanted to abolish child factory labour sems pretty clear in it's meaning.

You ignored the second part of the sentence, which said 'in it's present form'. This is what Wong pointed out, and what Archaic is basing his argument on.

[Drogue]

Originally posted by lucky22
"To Whing"?

To whinge I believe. It is like complaining, but a more derogatory version. Often used by a parent to their child, when they refuse to stop complaining (not that I would know about that

[lucky22]

Originally posted by Archaic

Stop whinging, it's already been proven that it's what Marxism promotes.

"To Whing"? Proven?

If that was the current practice at the time, then that was the current practice. Just because it was the current practise doesn't mean it wasn't evil and immoral.

Quite right. I certainly never even implied they weren't.

And your analogy is flawed, not to mention a red herring. Get something that relates to the topic, and something you can prove while you're at it.

Something I can prove? And it is no red herring- we are discussing social practices in the service of economy.

Kindly tell me in what context we should consider an evil act (Say, a government forcing people to work against their will, essentially a form of slavery.) to be not evil? That it was the custom of the time, or that people didn't think it was evil at the time are no excuses.

Again, who are you responding to here? Not me.

His fluency in English would seem to kill that arguement before it even gets off the ground.

Yes it would.

Your comment polarized education under the Marxist system, which merges education with forced labour, with no education whatsoever. Perhaps you should learn to be more clear with what you say.

I'm being perfectly clear. You on the other hand didn't answer my question at all and, based on what you did respond with, apparently didn't understand a word I wrote.

How is teaching people to be blue collar labourers make us more productive when we already have the robotics that makes such jobs obsolete? We need more engineers, professionals and scientists, not more joe averages. The reality of labour here on Chiron is white collar, and teaching people blue collar skills isn't going to help anyone.

Teaching all individuals to both obtain ultimate personal development and to make maximum contribtion to our collective existence here on planet will require manual and mental labor for all. Who repairs the robots?

" idealizing a path which thouroughly legitimizes both the idle rich and white trash"? Explain how you can possibily make a comment to imply that I am in any way racist.

I'm not implying you are racist at all. "White trash" is a classist term here in the U.S. My use of it is a sad reflection, sure, and I probably should have used a more politically correct term. They are the majority of the American cultural base for the underclass. You know, live in a trailer, three broken-down old cars in the front gravel, proud to be ignorant, addicted to methamphetamines and alcohol, right wing, calls itself "middle class". I thank liberal individualism for them.

As for the "idle rich"......if they're not doing work, but instead living off their inheritance, that's up to them. Their spending and investments help the economy flow along, and there's nothing wrong with that. Their contribution to society are those investments, and that's how they earn their income. Not looking so idle now, are they?

Yes they are! Unless they are actually managing their investments- that's work.

Or do you still consider labour and work the only possible ways to make valuable contributions to society? If you do, guess what? They aren't!. Mull over that fact for a while.

Consumption is not a valuable contribution. It is necessary, but it breaks down and uses up rather than maintaining, building or generating anything.

[Main_Brain]

^Typo 'Das Kapital'

[Drogue]

Is it easily misinterpreted? From your definition

10. Free education for all children in public schools. Abolition of children's factory labor in its present form. Combination of education with industrial production, etc.

Saying that he wanted to abolish child factory labour sems pretty clear in it's meaning. However, it would not make sense for his next sentance to say he supported child factory labour. It seems pretty simple to me that he wanted to abolish child factory labour and repace it with a combination of education and work, which is similar to an apprenticeship. I don't see your point. Marx clearly stated that he was against child factory labour, in your translation, and wanted to change it.

[Archaic]

Das Kapitol was not published for many years *AFTER* this, meaning he would not have referred to such a precise aspect of his theory in this document, simply because he hadn't published it yet. So much for your arguement.

Even if we *did* make the assumption that he'd refer to a piece of theory in the Manifesto that he hadn't created until the Kapitol, then there's 2 issues still to be looked at.

Firstly, that you haven't given me any page or quote references so that I can check this for myself (Given that the whole discussion is about you misrepresenting a point of Marxism for your own gain, I can't take your interpretations at face value).

Secondly, that industrial production and material production have meanings that are synonyms. If he meant the work in service industries (Which is what your "material production" seems to describe.), why would he and the writer of the translation authorized by Marx and Engels state it in such a way that it'd be easily misinterpreted to its common, synonym meaning?

[Pandemoniak]

Combination of education with industrial production
Combination of education with material production

So you dont see the difference ?

Well, industrial production means a production that is made in an industry, ie a factory, while material production represent a very precise aspect of the marxist theory, explained in the Capital.

For example, people who works in a train are considered as working for material production, since moving the goods they carry increase their merchant value, and therefore they do material production.

So if you read it properly, considering the marxists concept of "material" and materialism, this is simply a combination between education and increasement of merchant value -- apprenticeship. Thus the children - and actually not only the childrens, all the intellectuals, are recommended by Marx to be "materialisticaly" educated, to receive an education that is also (since it s a combination) an increasment of merchant value.

[Archaic]

Originally posted by lucky22
No, it isn't what Marxism promotes. If that was the current practice at the time, then that was the current practice. That's like saying "liberal individualism promotes FORCING people to commute to work in automobiles".

Stop whinging, it's already been proven that it's what Marxism promotes.
If that was the current practice at the time, then that was the current practice. Just because it was the current practise doesn't mean it wasn't evil and immoral. Context of the times and moral relativism are no defence.
And your analogy is flawed, not to mention a red herring. Get something that relates to the topic, and something you can prove while you're at it.

Originally posted by lucky22
I seriously never understood Pan to be treating Marx like Moses. No one participating in this discussion hasn't lept into an arguement with one or two elements missing. In this case, context.

Kindly tell me in what context we should consider an evil act (Say, a government forcing people to work against their will, essentially a form of slavery.) to be not evil? That it was the custom of the time, or that people didn't think it was evil at the time are no excuses.

Originally posted by lucky22
And actually, this not being exigesis of sacred texts, who is going to try to argue that Engels was the best ultimate judge of the technical quality of the translation?

His fluency in English would seem to kill that arguement before it even gets off the ground.

Originally posted by lucky22

The key words are combination and with. It's not education of how to work in the factories, it's actually WORKING IN THE FACTORIES.

Right. an education instead of no education while doing what they would be doing otherwise- working. The notion of proletarian kids not working would be alien.

How do you come to the conclusion that I'm Anti-Education? Slippery Slope falacy at work?

Where in the world do you get me to be considering you anti-education? Please distinguish me from the voices in your mind.

Your comment polarized education under the Marxist system, which merges education with forced labour, with no education whatsoever. Perhaps you should learn to be more clear with what you say.

Originally posted by lucky22
Mandatory education, but not in the context of what is actually necessary to be productive? We're only talking about the reality of labor, including the labor involved working with flows of data and information. It seems to me you are idealizing a path which thouroughly legitimizes both the idle rich and white trash. I'm happy to disagree with you.

How is teaching people to be blue collar labourers make us more productive when we already have the robotics that makes such jobs obsolete? We need more engineers, professionals and scientists, not more joe averages. The reality of labour here on Chiron is white collar, and teaching people blue collar skills isn't going to help anyone.
" idealizing a path which thouroughly legitimizes both the idle rich and white trash"? Explain how you can possibily make a comment to imply that I am in any way racist. As for the "idle rich"......if they're not doing work, but instead living off their inheritance, that's up to them. Their spending and investments help the economy flow along, and there's nothing wrong with that. Their contribution to society are those investments, and that's how they earn their income. Not looking so idle now, are they? Or do you still consider labour and work the only possible ways to make valuable contributions to society? If you do, guess what? They aren't!. Mull over that fact for a while.

[Main_Brain]

Its rather funny if you think about it..
Education though Ideologically influenced&controlled was to a certain degree Free, though Contacts/special Skills were needed to gain acess. While in the 'Free' United States Education is very expensive due to high Fee' s..

[lucky22]

Originally posted by Archaic

Irrelevant. It's still immoral (ie. Wrong) to FORCE a child into labour, which is what Marxism promotes.

No, it isn't what Marxism promotes. If that was the current practice at the time, then that was the current practice. That's like saying "liberal individualism promotes FORCING people to commute to work in automobiles".

They're not technical educations, apprenticeships and internships to begin with. The arguement was over Pan supporting child labour. He said Marxism was never wrong. So your modernized Marxism doesn't count here, only the original form. If he was never wrong, then he shouldn't be supporting Forced Child Labour, should he? Oops, looks like he made a boo boo. It's just up to Pan now if he wants to admit or not that Marxism has had its flaws from the very beginning and that Marx promoted Forced Child Labour.

I seriously never understood Pan to be treating Marx like Moses. No one participating in this discussion hasn't lept into an arguement with one or two elements missing. In this case, context.
And actually, this not being exigesis of sacred texts, who is going to try to argue that Engels was the best ultimate judge of the technical quality of the translation?

How do you come to the conclusion that I'm Anti-Education? Slippery Slope falacy at work?

Where in the world do you get me to be considering you anti-education? Please distinguish me from the voices in your mind.

I'm very much *FOR* free and manditory education, with a heavy slant towards the sciences (Including the social science of economics) and life skills (Read as "Budgeting" and "Business Skills", since by the time we'd landed here on planet, we certainly were beyond needing unskilled grunts, especially with our advances in robotics since landing. What we *need* are more white collars.). What I'm *AGAINST* is the combination of Forced Labour (manual labour or not) into the system, which is what you're promoting even with your "modernized" viewpoint.

Mandatory education, but not in the context of what is actually necessary to be productive? We're only talking about the reality of labor, including the labor involved working with flows of data and information. It seems to me you are idealizing a path which thouroughly legitimizes both the idle rich and white trash. I'm happy to disagree with you.