Decadence
Feb 14 2006 18:27
#122
Would all comrades not have a right to soft toilet paper? I don't see how we can have a worker's paradise if some of the workers have itchy arseholes.
Feb 14 2006 18:51
#123
Hi
Perhaps the cost of luxury toilet paper will make the planners think it is too frivolous to produce. Also, the devil will find work for supple ring-pieces to do.
I can imagine Brinton knocking out a quick pamphlet showing how authoritarian conditioning and itchy ring-pieces are linked via Freudian anal obsession.
I expect Jack will be along in a moment. The thread will be binned, and it’s all my fault. Mwha ha ha ah.
Some communist had better pipe up with a recipe for tomorrow’s cookshop soon, or someone’s going to have to build their own toilet paper factory and incur the wrath of the Special Commissar for the Inhibition of Markets, not to mention the officer in charge of the Elimination of Private Ownership.
Love
LR
Feb 14 2006 19:51
#124
Lazy Riser wrote:
I think an economically self-sufficient Britain could survive as a Working Class Autonomy, especially if we took advantage of our excellent robotics industry and coal.
Quite possible.
None of us can predict what Britain will be like (technologically) just before and after a revolution. For all we know, Cornwall may be able to survive as a self sufficient place!
Lazy Riser wrote:
This gives me considerable cause for concern regarding the viability of contemporary communist economics.
Remember, Communism requires abundance. However, you may like the suggestions in here....
And....
There are some really good Anarchist pieces about post-revolutionary societies and I think some pieces by the French Marxists of 68', but these are the only pieces that I have read that suggested the use of "swipe-card" technology in helping determine want and need.
Feb 14 2006 20:53
#125
Hi
Quote:
Communism requires abundance
That’s something communism and I have in common. How do communists suggest we achieve an appropriate level of frivolous indulgence? The general strike perhaps?
Love
LR
Feb 14 2006 21:49
#126
Lazy Riser wrote:
How do communists suggest we achieve an appropriate level of frivolous indulgence?
Technological advancement, how else?
Feb 15 2006 10:19
#127
Hi
Armchair Socialism wrote:
Remember, Communism requires abundance
Lazy Riser wrote:
How do communists suggest we achieve an appropriate level of frivolous indulgence?
Armchair Socialism wrote:
Technological advancement, how else?
So, do we require abundance to have working class revolution in the first place?
If so, does that imply that capitalism’s productive forces can still be developed in the interests of humanity, and can still afford significant gains to the workers?
Love
LR
Feb 15 2006 10:43
#128
I love you guys
Feb 15 2006 18:45
#129
Lazy Riser wrote:
So, do we require abundance to have working class revolution in the first place?
Well that's a difficult question, because "abundance" is a loose term and basically means enough to enable a Communist society to function - and of course until we see a functioning Communist society we won't be able to tell what actually constitutes an "abundance".
However, I'd speculate that when we start to see the real proletarian revolutions - not the bourgeois revolutions of the last century that "cloaked" themselves in Marxist rhetoric - there will already be a suitable "abundance" which will make Communism materially possible.
Why? ....because class societies tend to "fall apart" when technological development seriously undermines the existing ruling classes hegemony.
The Printing Press for instance, made it possible for the French Revolutionaries to mock the King - and Religion - with great "gusto". This kind of attack on the existing social relations wouldn't have been possible without that particular piece of new technology.
Similarly I expect new technologies to do the same to Capitalism whilst also creating the conditions under which a Communist society could flourish.
Of course with Capitalism there were many Industrial developments that helped the rise of the bourgeois, the rise of the working class will be - I expect - very similar in that respect.
Lazy Riser wrote:
If so, does that imply that capitalism’s productive forces can still be developed in the interests of humanity, and can still afford significant gains to the workers?
In certain places, yes.
Feb 15 2006 18:57
#130
Hi
So achieving working class economic security (abundance) is the essential task of the revolutionary project?
Love
LR
Feb 15 2006 19:20
#131
Lazy Riser wrote:
So achieving working class economic security (abundance) is the essential task of the revolutionary project?
Nah, overthrowing the bourgeois is the "essential task of the revolutionary project".
Feb 15 2006 20:46
#132
Hi
Quote:
Nah, overthrowing the bourgeois is the "essential task of the revolutionary project".
If we ensure our economic security then the bourgeoisie will be overthrown automatically.
Love
LR
Feb 15 2006 21:44
#133
Armchair Socialism wrote:
overthrowing the bourgeois is the "essential task of the revolutionary project".
i think ignoring the boozhwah is the essential task of the revolutionary project?
Feb 15 2006 22:28
#134
Hi
Yep. We should just do our thing and remove them if they get in the way.
Love
LR
Hi
Don't encourage him...
http://www.libcom.org/forums/viewtopic.php?p=61878&highlight=#61878
Market Parecon with tax and usury. Nasty biz if you ask me.
Love
LR