tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-69594372024-03-13T16:44:39.762-04:00The Wolf Report:Nonconfidential analysis for the anti-investorThe Wolf Reportshttp://www.blogger.com/profile/13300136765791861726noreply@blogger.comBlogger368125tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6959437.post-25504250243868081412022-01-07T18:08:00.003-05:002022-01-07T18:08:56.847-05:00How They Lost Both Houses of Congress<p> </p><p><b>Week: July 27-August 2 2020<span> </span><span> </span><span> </span><span> </span><span> </span><span> </span><span> </span></b></p><p><b>Number ICU beds (US): 72,068</b></p><p><b>Percent ICU beds occupied: 69%</b></p><p><b>FEMA provided hospital beds 2020: 22,000</b></p><p><b><br /></b></p><p><b>Week: January 3-9 2022<span> </span><span> </span><span> </span><span> </span><span> </span><span> </span><span> </span><span> </span><span> </span></b></p><p><b>Number ICU beds (US): 81,090 </b></p><p><b>Percent ICU beds occupied: 81%</b></p><p><b>FEMA provided hospital beds 2021: None reported</b></p><p><b>FEMA funeral assistance 2021: $1.47 billion</b></p><p><b><br /></b></p><p>S.Artesian</p><p>01/07/22</p><p><b><br /></b></p><p><br /></p><p><br /></p><p><br /></p><p><br /></p><div class="blogger-post-footer">address all comments to:
sartesian@earthlink.net</div>The Wolf Reportshttp://www.blogger.com/profile/13300136765791861726noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6959437.post-10360536641636163222019-09-19T07:47:00.001-04:002019-09-21T12:04:32.464-04:00What's Good For the Price of Oil.......<strong>1. </strong>Staggering under the weight of its overproduction, capitalism spies in the visage of its recent savior, China, the image of its once and future enemy, China. Every <em>thing</em> that was the producer of "recovery," "growth," "expansion," -- fracked oil, microprocessors, corn, soybeans, smartphones, flat screens, container ships, becomes a <em>relation</em> of relapse, decline, contraction.<br />
<br />
Behind the trade-wars, the tariffs, the jingoism; behind this grotesque chorus line of little Bonapartist-Rockettes, high-kicking their way through the club version of " My Way," are the entrepreneurs, the investors, the capitalists, trying to parlay nothing into something in a world of negative interest rates.<br />
Behind all of this is the impairment and disruption of the dance where time partners money, where time becomes money. Everywhere, every capitalist trembles with anxiety and anticipation, knowing it's time to change partners.<br />
<br />
This is the always immanent trajectory of capital, a trajectory programmed by the conversion of labor into labor-time, labor-time into value, and value into profit.<br />
<br />
<strong>2. </strong>In 2014, jacked on the juice, the juice being the tight oil cracked and squeezed from the Permian Basin in Texas and the Bakken fields in North Dakota, US manufacturing's operating income improved some 8 percent from the previous year. The operating income <em>ratio</em>, operating income as a portion of net plant, property, and equipment (PPE) reached 35.3 percent, which would prove to be a high for the decade.<br />
<br />
Money talks, for sure, but most of the time it says "Good-bye." Operating income for manufacturing fell back in 2015; fell again in 2016 , the year of the shadow recession (Good-bye to you Barack); and recovered modestly in 2017. In 2018, operating income finally broke the 2014 ceiling (Welcome, Donald!), only to fall back again in the first half of 2019 (check that welcome).<br />
<br />
Through all those ups (and downs), however, the operating income ratio to net plant, property, and equipment never reached the 2014 level. Through 2015, 2016, and 2017, the rate declined to an average 31.3 percent Even the 2018 ratio barely met the 2015 mark before declining in the first half of 2019. Operating earnings couldn't keep up. (Rates calculated from the data published in the US Commerce Department's <a href="https://www.census.gov/econ/qfr/" rel="noopener" target="_blank">Quarterly Financial Reports</a>)<br />
<br />
Where the story was one of modest swings in operating income and ratios for all of manufacturing, it was a different story for the petroleum industry itself. There operating income fell by 45 percent in 2015, disappeared almost completely in 2016, reappeared in 2017 at half the size of <em>2013, </em>rang the bell in 2018 with a mass 25% greater than 2014, only to tumble 47 percent in 2019. Operating ratios measured:<br />
<strong>(2014)</strong> 8.5%; <strong>(2015) </strong> 4.3% <strong>(2016)</strong> .09%; <strong>(2017)</strong> 3.8 %; <strong>(2018)</strong> 9.4% <strong>(1/2 2019)</strong> 4.9%<br />
<br />
Even in its "best" years, the petroleum industry's operating ratio, the return on its net PPE, is barely 30 percent of the return for manufacturing as a whole. While the petroleum industry's net PPE accounts for 24 percent of the total net PPE for US manufacturing, its operating income amounts to......only 6 percent of the total.<br />
<br />
<strong>3. </strong>As with all things capital, and crude, risk is enshrined as the gateway to reward, as long as that risk can be laid off on other people, other money, other people's money. The volatility of Bakken crude was just such a risk to be laid off on others, until it couldn't, until the Bakken crude blew apart Lac Megantic. After that, North Dakota imposed regulations requiring the stabilization of the crude, removing the volatile compounds, prior to shipment, just as had always been done with the oil fracked out of the Permian Basin.<br />
<br />
Nothing, however, could be done to stabilize the price of the fracked oil when the very mode of its production depended on its instability, on the immense variation of price from value; when the very process of producing because of and for a target price moved the target, and down; <em>because </em>price is the mechanism by which particular capitals claim a piece of the general pie, the general surplus value, but <em>production</em> always, and always must, throw into the markets more value than it takes out, than can be realized, reproduced, over time.<br />
<br />
Overproduction is the default condition of capitalism.<br />
<br />
So in aiming at the target price of $114 a barrel, the tight oil producers brought the price down to $70, and then $60, and then $40, and then their dreams were haunted by the waking reality of another go-round of $20 per barrel prices, something which hadn't occurred since 2002. "What the hell did we invade Iraq for if the price of oil is going to plummet to $20 barrel? Was our noble sacrifice of other people's lives all for naught? Is their no progress in this world?"<br />
<br />
In 1991, of course, in the midst of a recession where oil prices collapsed, taking the US savings and loan industry with it, the US led the noble crusade to liberate poor little Kuwait, and coincidentally, get the price up to $40 a barrel. When prices collapsed again in 1998, again under the weight of overproduction fed by the application of horizontal drilling, 3D seismic imaging, and other <em>additions </em>to the technical composition of the exploration and lifting processes, the US bourgeoisie could be heard muttering about the 3 million barrels a day Iraq was still putting into the markets.<br />
<br />
Friend turning to friend, the US turned to Saudi Arabia for the help it needed in the worst way. And it got it. Saudi Arabia went that extra nautical mile to help its great friend, taking steps to restrict the supply in 1999, and seconding 17 of its favorite sons to abbreviated crash courses at US aviation schools: "Skip the landing part, captain. We're a little pressed for time."<br />
<br />
The downturn of 2001 was reflected in the 2002 price of oil, $20 a barrel, and the US was on its way to Iraq, again.<br />
<br />
<strong>4. </strong>Sometimes, a capitalist or capitalists appear(s) content with the lower return, arbitraging at higher than higher speeds the smaller margins, the pennies massaged out of thousands and thousands of trades each second. <em>Arbitrage </em>is the dilettante's butter on the manufacturer's bread. Sometimes. And sometimes accumulation, the allocation of accumulated surplus value, lives not by bread and butter alone.<br />
<br />
Marx maintained that there was only a single rate of profit, a general or average rate of profit that every industry achieved. The petroleum industry, apparently, never got that news, operating at rates of return below that of the average for manufacturing. As with all things Marx, the "average" the "general" is an abstraction, a measure of the totality of capital relations and exchanges that is in fact a product of all the concrete deviations and variations-- a product established through competition, predatory pricing, muscle, corruption, fraud, debt, credit, subsidy, "excessive exuberance," inflation, chronic depression, through violence-- all the things that give capital it's human face, if the human has the face of Dorian Gray.<br />
<br />
Which gets us where we are today-- with claims that half of Saudi daily production has been removed from the world markets after drone strikes, cruise missile attacks, directed against Aramco's Abqaiq processing facility and the Khurais field.<br />
<br />
<em>[ Which gets us, by the way, where we are today-- to a point, a condition, to conditions<span style="color: var(--color-text);"> less than, and worse than accumulation without reproduction, where profit comes at the expense of reproducing the basis for social labor, a</span> condition perfectly expressed at home, <strong>in homes</strong>, in the mass marketing of opioids to a population deemed disposable]</em><br />
<em><br /></em>
The US is convinced, but unconvincing, that Iran is the source of the attack. After all, the other two-thirds of the "axis of evil" are now parts of the US boys' club, with the US doing banana flips to absolve Iraq, in particular, of any responsibility, since the regime in Iraq, or lack thereof, is the direct product of the previous US crusades on behalf of elevated oil prices.<br />
<br />
Every generation, and regeneration of capital, needs its 9/11, even if it's a poor copy of the dismal original, with drones instead of wide-body commercial jets; even if it's a Saudi processing plant with no structure greater than 30 meters in height instead of 1000 feet tall towers.<br />
<br />
Every generation, and regeneration of capital, needs its 9/11, its Gulf War, its operation Ira(q,n)i Freedom.<br />
<br />
Every generation, and regeneration of capital, needs its shock and awe, even when its unsurprising and insipid.<br />
<br />
Every generation, and regeneration of capital, needs its own military officer as Secretary of State, acting out Goebbels' principles of lying, boldly, repeatedly and baldly.<br />
<br />
Every generation, and regeneration of capital, needs its surge, its smart bombs and cruise missiles, its live streaming of targets acquired, targets dispatched.<br />
<br />
Every generation, and regeneration of capital, needs to rescue profitability from its obsolescence, its abolition, its <em>overthrow. </em><br />
<em><br /></em>
S. Artesian<br />
September 18, 2019<div class="blogger-post-footer">address all comments to:
sartesian@earthlink.net</div>The Wolf Reportshttp://www.blogger.com/profile/13300136765791861726noreply@blogger.com2tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6959437.post-66308147187263617052018-12-17T17:44:00.000-05:002018-12-17T17:53:23.311-05:00Problems of Value Production (2)<div style="text-align: center;">
<b>The Productivity of Labor</b></div>
<div style="text-align: left;">
<b><br /></b></div>
<div style="text-align: left;">
<b><br /></b></div>
<div style="text-align: left;">
<b>1. Funny</b></div>
<div style="text-align: left;">
<br /></div>
<div style="text-align: left;">
Evaluating the work of Pierre Proudhon, Marx writes that Proudhon had "a natural inclination for dialectics." However, as Proudhon never truly comprehended real "scientific dialectics," Proudhon "never got any further than sophistry." Marx identifies this sophistry, this substitute for dialectics, as an attempt at "balancing" opposing characteristics, through a formula-- "on the one hand....while on the other hand" as if there is an equilibrium that can, and should be, achieved between the oppositions rather than a totality of relations that determine the antagonisms, and lead in turn to the overthrow, the negation of the totality. </div>
<div style="text-align: left;">
<br /></div>
<div style="text-align: left;">
It's funny, funny weird and funny ha-ha, that Marx would condense the petty-bourgeoisie substitution for and evasion of dialectics in the two phrases, "on the one hand...while on the other hand," since Marx in his application of rigorous scientific dialectics to political economy frequently, in fact habitually use just those phrases to describe the antagonistic but coincident processes of capital. How frequently? Roughly, one thousand times frequently in <i>Capital</i>, in <i>Theories of Surplus Value, </i>in the <i>Grundrisse</i>, and in the other <i>Economic Manuscripts. </i>About one thousand times, Marx resorts to "on the one hand...while on the other hand" in presenting the totality of relations, expression, repercussions, intrinsic to the reproduction of capital.</div>
<div style="text-align: left;">
<br /></div>
<div style="text-align: left;">
In Marx, this OTOH...OTOH isn't employed to reconcile conflicts in the motion of capital.</div>
<div style="text-align: left;">
<br /></div>
<div style="text-align: left;">
But "OTOH...OTOH" illustrates the problematic impact of the amplified productivity of labor on the extraction of surplus value that Marx presents in his "economic" works. </div>
<div style="text-align: left;">
<br /></div>
<div style="text-align: left;">
<b>2. Strictly Speaking</b></div>
<div style="text-align: left;">
<br /></div>
<div style="text-align: left;">
Marx maintains, pretty much, the absolute dominion of time for capital. Value is the representation of labor-time, the <i>alienated, </i>commercial expression of labor-time underlying exchange. Given that dominion, the increased or amplified productivity of labor is a straightforward concept with a straightforward measure. It is the increase in the physical output, the mass of product within a set unit of time. If 500 nails were produced in one labor-hour, then the productivity of labor is amplified by a factor of one hundred when 50,000 nails are produced in one labor-hour.</div>
<div style="text-align: left;">
<br /></div>
<div style="text-align: left;">
What the amplified productivity cannot due is increase the amount of <i>new </i>value absorbed by and embedded in the increased mass of commodities. A labor-hour is a labor-hour is a labor-hour, whether that hour is worked up in 500 or 50,000 nails. </div>
<div style="text-align: left;">
<br /></div>
<div style="text-align: left;">
So where does that leave us for augmenting the extraction of surplus value, for changing the proportion of the working period that is surplus-time, time beyond that required for the laborer to reproduce himself/herself as the wage laborer; time beyond that required to reproduce the value represented by the wage? </div>
<div style="text-align: left;">
<br /></div>
<div style="text-align: left;">
<b>3. Necessity, relatively</b></div>
<div style="text-align: left;">
<br /></div>
<div style="text-align: left;">
With amplified productivity, the total value is unaltered. The value, the labor-time, necessary for the reproduction for each individual commodity declines The commodity is devalued. Similarly, enhanced productivity of labor can alter the rate of surplus value if (and only if since the total value is unaltered), the units of labor-power are themselves devalued-- if, and only if, the wage, the time of necessary labor, falls.</div>
<div style="text-align: left;">
<br /></div>
<div style="text-align: left;">
The decline in the time of necessary labor, is the decline in the value of the labor-power, is the decline in the value of the means of subsistence required for the reproduction of the laborer, <i>in the wage</i>. This decline has to exceed any decline in the the total working hours brought about by these same efficiencies in production, brought about by the improvements in the production process, brought about by the substitution of machinery for labor-power, brought about by the improved productivity of labor itself. </div>
<div style="text-align: left;">
<br /></div>
<div style="text-align: left;">
The individual capitalists, seeing only <i>cost</i> and never surplus-value, strive to increase the productivity of labor, to increase output and reduce costs, driving down the price of the individual commodity. The social force of capital, the "collectivity" of capital in its ascendancy, seizes control of agriculture, housing, transportation, and shapes these individual efforts into the social reduction, into the devaluation of labor-power. That devaluation of labor-power alone alters the ratio of necessary to surplus labor-time leading to a higher rate of surplus-value. The substitution of machinery by itself cannot alter the rate of surplus-value. Improvements in the division of labor themselves cannot improve the rate of surplus value. The impact must be social, and the wage is that social expression. </div>
<div style="text-align: left;">
<br /></div>
<div style="text-align: left;">
Productivity improvements in individual enterprises, in specific sectors can become part of the advancement in general social productivity when the necessary time for the reproduction of labor falls; when the wage manifests the reduced value of labor-power.</div>
<div style="text-align: left;">
<br /></div>
<div style="text-align: left;">
<b>4. A thousand points..</b></div>
<div style="text-align: left;">
<b><br /></b></div>
<div style="text-align: left;">
If the capitalists see only costs and never surplus-value, and if the amplified productivity of labor does not automatically increase the rate of surplus value, how does the improved productivity serve the accumulation of capital even when the wage does not decline? Quite simply, the proliferation of use-values acts to expand the arena of capitalist exchange, compelling capital to create new markets, expand old ones, to engage increasing numbers in the processes of exchange, to travel more widely, to penetrate more deeply; to create fifty thousand new points of exchange for its 50,000 new nails every hour. </div>
<div style="text-align: left;">
<br /></div>
<div style="text-align: left;">
And all points of exchange in capitalism ultimately return that primary exchange of capital with labor-power. The amplified productivity of labor enhances the power of capital to employ new labor-power in new pursuits of new products and new profits as the time required to produce the "old products," the "old necessities" is reduced. To a point, this release of labor-time, and capital, triggers the expansion of capital, the employment of larger numbers working more hours, the production and exchange of new commodities addressing enhanced, expanded needs. <i>More</i> time can be aggrandized. More exchanges can be executed. </div>
<div style="text-align: left;">
<br /></div>
<div style="text-align: left;">
<b>5. O</b>n <b>T</b>he <b>O</b>ne <b>H</b>and, <b>O</b>n <b>T</b>he <b>O</b>ther <b>H</b>and</div>
<div style="text-align: left;">
<br /></div>
<div style="text-align: left;">
Marx seems to be of two minds, and two hands, in his examination of the impact of enhanced productivity, oscillating between the strictest requirements for that productivity to impact rates of surplus-value and the apparently casual acceptance that the application of machinery, automatically accelerates and increases both the labor process and the valorization process. </div>
<div style="text-align: left;">
<br /></div>
<div style="text-align: left;">
<b>OTO(ne)H</b>, Marx writes: </div>
<blockquote class="tr_bq" style="text-align: left;">
<i>Both machine and raw material enter into the labour process; neither of them enters into the process of creating surplus-value</i>. –Marx, <i>Theories of Surplus Value</i>, Chapter 8</blockquote>
and:<br />
<blockquote class="tr_bq" style="text-align: left;">
<i>If Herr Rodbertus wants to differentiate between agriculture and industry, then that element of capital which consists of fixed capital such as machinery and tools belongs entirely to industry. This element of capital, in so far as it becomes part of any capital, can only enter into constant capital; and can never increase surplus-value by a single farthing</i>.—Marx, <i>Theories of Surplus Value</i>, Chapter 8</blockquote>
<b>OTO(ther)H</b>, Marx writes:<br />
<blockquote class="tr_bq">
<span style="font-family: "times new roman" , serif;"><i>With a
given length of labour-time, this surplus-value can only be increased by an
increase in productivity, or at a given productivity, by a lengthening of the
labour-time</i></span><i style="font-family: "Times New Roman", serif;">.—</i><span style="font-family: "times new roman" , serif;">Marx</span><i style="font-family: "Times New Roman", serif;">, Theories of Surplus
Value, </i><span style="font-family: "times new roman" , serif;">Chapter 4</span></blockquote>
and:<br />
<blockquote class="tr_bq">
<i>On the other hand however, these variations in the conditions of production themselves indicate that labour has become more productive and thus the rate of surplus-value has risen. For more raw material is now being consumed by the same amount of living labour only because it can now work up the same amount in less time, and more machinery is now being used only because the cost of machinery is smaller than the cost of labour it replaces. Thus it is a question here of making up to a certain extent the fall in the rate of profit by increasing the rate of surplus-value and therefore also the total amount of surplus value</i>—Marx, <i>Theories of Surplus Value</i>, Chapter 20</blockquote>
<b>OTOH, </b>Marx writes:<br />
<blockquote class="tr_bq">
<i>We have shown previously that a general law of the production of commodities decrees: the productivity of labour and its faculty of creating value stand in opposition to one another</i>—Marx, <i>Capital</i>, Volume 2, Chapter 6</blockquote>
<b>OTOH, </b>Marx writes:<br />
<blockquote class="tr_bq">
<i><span style="font-family: "times new roman" , serif;">The rate
of surplus-value remains unchanged in both cases; it changes, however, if any
change in the </span><u style="font-family: "Times New Roman", serif;">technological</u></i><span style="font-family: "times new roman" , serif;"><i> composition takes place: it increases if the
constant capital increases (because labour is more productive) and declines
when it falls (because labour is then less productive)</i>.</span><i style="font-family: "Times New Roman", serif;"> –</i><span style="font-family: "times new roman" , serif;">Marx</span><i style="font-family: "Times New Roman", serif;">, Theories of Surplus Value, </i><span style="font-family: "times new roman" , serif;">Chapter 23</span></blockquote>
<b>OTOH</b>, Marx writes:<br />
<div class="MsoNormal">
<span style="font-family: "times new roman" , "serif";"><i><o:p></o:p></i></span></div>
<blockquote class="tr_bq">
<i>The increase in the productive powers of labour, so far as it does not imply an additional investment of capital-value, augments in the first analysis indeed only the quantity of the product, not its value, except the extent to which it is enabled to produce more constant capital with the same labour and thus to preserve its value. But it forms at the same time new material for capital, hence the basis for an increased accumulation of capital</i>—Marx, <i>Capital</i>, Volume 2, Chapter 18</blockquote>
<b>OTOH, </b>Marx writes:<br />
<blockquote class="tr_bq">
<i>The growth of the productive power of labour is identical in meaning with (a) the growth of relative surplus value or of the relative surplus labour time which the worker gives to capital</i>--Marx, <i>Grundrisse</i>, Notebook 7, The Chapter on Capital</blockquote>
and:<br />
<blockquote class="tr_bq">
<span style="font-family: "times new roman" , "serif"; font-size: 11.0pt; line-height: 115%;"><i>The
proportion in which constant capital enters into a commodity does not
affect the <u>values </u>of the commodities, the relative quantities of labour
contained in the commodities, but it does directly affect the different
quantities of <u>surplus-value </u>or <u>surplus-labour</u> contained in the
commodities embodying equal amounts of labour-time--</i>Marx<i>, Theories of Surplus Value, </i>Chapter 10<i>.</i></span></blockquote>
<br />
<b>OTOH, </b>Marx writes:<br />
<blockquote class="tr_bq">
<i>If the productivity in wool spinning is trebled then, provided the conditions of wool production have remained the same, three times as much time as previously would have to be spent, three times as much capital would have to be expended on labour in wool production, whereas only the same amount of the spinners’ labour time would be required to spin up this trebled quantity of wool. But the rate [of surplus value] would remain the same. The same spinning labour would have the same value as before and contain the same surplus-value.</i>—Marx, <i>Theories of Surplus Value</i>, Chapter 9.</blockquote>
<b>6. Resolution</b><br />
<b><br /></b>
So what are we to make of this? Is Marx confused, or equivocating, or lost trying to balance the imbalances of capital? I don't think Marx ever equivocated or was ever lost. I think the trend of productivity increases coincident with generally expanding industrial employment at the time Marx was writing his Economic Manuscripts (including <i>Capital</i>) allowed him to conflate improving productivity with greater rates of surplus value, when it was the greater mass of surplus value determining the advance of the mode of production.<br />
<br />
It is the period after Marx completes most of his Economic Manuscripts (including <i>Capital</i>), that period known as the "Long Deflation" 1873-1896, when capital manifested the "classic" pattern for increasing the rate of surplus value, with improving productivity dramatically reducing the cost of necessities in turn driving down the value of the labor-power, driving down the<i> wage</i>.<br />
<br />
That was then. This is now. Now, meaning since 1973, when the reduction in wages has been accomplished not by reducing the value of the labor-power, but by driving the wage below the value of the labor-power, improvements in productivity are accompanied by general expansions <i>outside</i> the advanced centers of capital. In the advanced centers, because the reduction of the wage below the value of labor-power meets resistance well before it reaches its own limits, where improved productivity leads to permanent diminution of the total working hours-- now the improved productivity leads to a condition where <i>less</i> new value is pumped into the networks of circulation; where <i>less</i> surplus value is extracted.<br />
<br />
As if to show us how the future of capital unfolding in its immediate condition, Marx wrote:<br />
<br />
<blockquote class="tr_bq">
<i style="mso-bidi-font-style: normal;"><span style="font-family: "times new roman" , "serif";">But nothing is more fallacious
than that, generally speaking, the rate of profit can increase while the amount
of capital laid out on labour declines. Exactly the opposite takes
place. Proportionally less surplus-value is produced, and the rate of
profit therefore falls.—</span></i><span style="font-family: "times new roman" , "serif";">Marx,
<i>Theories of Surplus Value</i>, Chapter 24</span></blockquote>
It is there, in that almost throw-away line, that Marx has grasped the truth of capital and with both hands.<br />
<br />
S. Artesian<br />
December 17, 2018<br />
<br /><div class="blogger-post-footer">address all comments to:
sartesian@earthlink.net</div>The Wolf Reportshttp://www.blogger.com/profile/13300136765791861726noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6959437.post-7521157255669356102018-12-05T18:34:00.001-05:002018-12-05T18:35:55.715-05:00Problems of Value Production (1)<strong>The intensity of production</strong><br />
<em><br /></em>
<br />
<blockquote class="tr_bq">
<em>Competition, according to an American economist, determines how many days of simple labor are contained in one day’s compound labor. Does not this reduction of days of compound labor to days of simple labor suppose that simple labor is itself taken as a measure of value? If the mere quantity of labor functions as a measure of value regardless of quality, it presupposes that simple labor has become the pivot of industry. It presupposes that labor has been equalized by the subordination of man to the machine or by the extreme division of labor; that men are effaced by their labor; that the pendulum of the clock has become as accurate a measure of the relative activity of two workers as it is of the speed of two locomotives. Therefore, we should not say that one man’s hour is worth another man’s hour, but rather that one man during an hour is worth just as much as another man during an hour. Time is everything, man is nothing; he is, at the most, time’s carcase. </em><em> Quality no longer matters. Quantity alone decides everything; hour for hour, day for day; </em> </blockquote>
<blockquote class="tr_bq">
Marx, <em>The Poverty of Philosophy</em></blockquote>
<br />
In Marx's analysis the commodity embodies and binds together time and space. The commodity possesses both physical and social characteristics, even if the commodity is provided as a service. The social existence is <em>of </em>time. The commodity circulates on the back of a mule called socially necessary labor time.<br />
<br />
Similarly, in Marx's work wealth and poverty in capitalism are expressed in both physical and social terms.<br />
<br />
For capitalism, wealth is the access to use-values, mediated by private ownership of the means of production.<br />
<br />
For socialism, wealth is access to the abundance use-values, mediated by <em>necessity</em>.<br />
<br />
In all societies, wealth is the disposition over time. All economies are economies of time, but not all economies of time are economies of value.<br />
<br />
For socialism, wealth is the ability to expend collective time to the benefit of all individuals.<br />
<br />
For capitalists, for capitalism, wealth is the disposition over the time <em>of others</em><br />
<em><br /></em>
Poverty is the scarcity, the lack of, and lack of access to, use-values. Scarcity is a class distinction, enforced by capital.<br />
<br />
In capitalism, poverty is the loss of time in and to the mode of production. It is a sacrifice that devours the time of the laborers, strips it away through <em>alienation. </em> Alienation is not a psychological process, but a commercial one; an exchange that converts the laborers' time into the property of the capitalists.<br />
<br />
As time is alienated, embedded in the commodity as value, it is weaponized. Value accumulates and returns to production as machinery. The machinery is designed to reduce the labor-time required to produce any single unit of output while increasing the time aggrandized and materialized yet again as more commodities.<br />
<br />
Labor-time is the source of value, but it only becomes, and begets, value under specific conditions, specific social relations of classes which reproduce the alienation of the laborers' time.<br />
<br />
Time is everything.<br />
<br />
Or is it?<br />
<br />
Marx recognizes that laboring is a physical activity, requiring a physical expenditure by the laborers. Marx conceptualizes this physical expenditure demanded by capital as the <em>intensity </em>of the labor process. Because everywhere and always capitalist production is both a labor and a valorization process, Marx proposes a valorization of the intensity of the process, asserting that a process that requires greater intensity, greater expenditure of effort, than the social norm actually adds value to commodities during equal expanses of time.<br />
<br />
In <em>Capital, Volume 1, </em>Chapter 17, Marx writes:<br />
<blockquote class="tr_bq">
<em>Increased intensity of labour means increased expenditure of labour in a given time. Hence a working-day of more intense labour is embodied in more products than is one of less intense labour, the length of each day being the same. Increased productiveness of labour also, it is true, will supply more products in a given working-day. But in this latter case, the value of each single product falls, for it costs less labour than before; in the former case, that value remains unchanged, for each article costs the same labour as before. Here we have an increase in the number of products, unaccompanied by a fall in their individual prices: as their number increases, so does the sum of their prices. But in the case of increased productiveness, a given value is spread over a greater mass of products. Hence the length of the working-day being constant, a day's labour of increased intensity will be incorporated in an increased value, and, the value of money remaining unchanged, in more money. The value created varies with the extent to which the intensity of labour deviates from its normal intensity in the society. A given working-day, therefore, no longer creates a constant, but a variable value; in a day of 12 hours of ordinary intensity, the value created is, say 6 shillings, but with increased intensity, the value created may be 7, 8, or more shillings. It is clear that, if the value created by a day's labour increases from, say, 6 to 8 shillings then the two parts into which this value is divided, viz., price of labour-power and surplus-value, may both of them increase simultaneously, and either equally or unequally. They may both simultaneously increase from 3 shillings to 4. Here, the rise in the price of labour-power does not necessarily imply that the price has risen above the value of labour-power. On the contrary, the rise in price may be accompanied by a fall in value. This occurs whenever the rise in the price of labour-power does not compensate for its increased wear and tear.</em> </blockquote>
<blockquote class="tr_bq">
<em></em><em>We know that, with transitory exceptions, a change in the productiveness of labour does not cause any change in the value of labour-power, nor consequently in the magnitude of surplus-value, unless the products of the industries affected are articles habitually consumed by the labourers. In the present case this condition no longer applies. For when the variation is either in the duration or in the intensity of labour, there is always a corresponding change in the magnitude of the value created, independently of the nature of the article in which that value is embodied.</em> </blockquote>
<blockquote class="tr_bq">
<em></em><em>If the intensity of labour were to increase simultaneously and equally in every branch of industry, then the new and higher degree of intensity would become the normal degree for the society, and would therefore cease to be taken account of. But still, even then, the intensity of labour would be different in different countries, and would modify the international application of the law of value. The more intense working-day of one nation would be represented by a greater sum of money than would the less intense day of another nation.</em></blockquote>
We have a conceptualization-- increased expenditure of labor in a given time.<br />
<br />
We have a valorization-- increased intensity will be incorporated as increased value <em>and</em> the unit values of the commodities will not fall as more value is embedded in the increased number of commodities.<br />
<br />
What we don't have is a means to quantify intensity. We have no way of measuring differences in intensity, and converting those measurements, equating, resolving, transforming, <em>exchanging </em>those differences into portions, proportions, ratios, <em>rates </em>of the substance common to all commodities.<br />
<br />
<em>"We know that, with transitory exceptions, a change in the productiveness of labour does not cause any change in the value of labour-power, nor consequently in the magnitude of surplus-value," </em>writes Marx, and that is critical to the sum of value produced in a working day.<br />
<br />
But <em>"this condition no longer applies,"-- </em>an hour of labor no longer contains an hour of labor. The working day is now detached for the conditions that made it a constant, even if variable, source of value.<br />
<br />
Marx continues:<br />
<blockquote class="tr_bq">
<em>The more the productiveness of labour increases, the more can the working-day be shortened; and the more the working-day is shortened, the more can the intensity of labour increase. From a social point of view, the productiveness increases in the same ratio as the economy of labour, which, in its turn, includes not only economy of the means of production, but also the avoidance of all useless labour. The capitalist mode of production, while on the one hand, enforcing economy in each individual business, on the other hand, begets, by its anarchical system of competition, the most outrageous squandering of labour-power and of the social means of production, not to mention the creation of a vast number of employments, at present indispensable, but in themselves superfluous.</em></blockquote>
Here the enhanced productivity of labor provides the platform for the intensification of labor through the shortening of the working day. Now not only is the value of the working day no longer the value of the duration of the working day, but the shorter working day produces the same if not greater value than the longer, but less intense working day.<br />
<br />
The productivity of labor is generated mainly through improvements in the production process, eliminating steps or "stations," and the application of machinery. The application of machinery creates no new value, and moreover, the reduction in living labor hours necessary for increased output shrinks the new value. Unless the machinery causes the value of labor power to decline by reducing the value of the means of subsistence necessary to reproduce that labor power, the mass of surplus value declines also. We know that then the rate of profit falls.<br />
<br />
However, if the same productivity of labor, the same reduction in working hours trigger intensification, and intensification triggers greater value aggrandizement, then the valorization process is rescued from its self-devaluation; the increased rate of surplus value can offset the decline in the rate of profit. We now have a system where labor can be continuously and increasingly expelled from the production process, without impact on the valorization process. The wage need not fall in order to increase the rate of surplus value. The working day not only need not be lengthened to increase absolute surplus value, but increased surplus value now blossoms with a shorter working day.<br />
<br />
Marx's conflict between labor and the condition of labor dissipates.<br />
<br />
The conflict between the forces of production and the relations of production, namely the production of value, is put into permanent suspension...at least until the point where all labor-power is expelled.<br />
Engels, in his <em>Synopsis of Capital </em>writes:<br />
<blockquote class="tr_bq">
<em>At the beginning, with the speeding-up of the machine, the intensity of labour increases simultaneously with the lengthening of labour-time. But, soon the point is reached where the two exclude each other.</em> </blockquote>
<blockquote class="tr_bq">
<em>It is different, however, when labour-time is restricted. Intensity can only grow; in 10 hours, as much work can be done as ordinarily in 12 or more, and now the more intensive working-day counts as raised to a higher power, and labour is measured not merely by its time, but by its intensity. (P.400)</em> </blockquote>
<blockquote class="tr_bq">
<em>Thus, in 5 hours of necessary and 5 hours of surplus-labour, the same surplus-value can be attained as in 6 hours of necessary and 6 hours of surplus-labour at lower intensity. (P.400 )</em></blockquote>
<blockquote class="tr_bq">
<em>How is labour intensified? In manufacture, it has been proved (Note 159, p.401), pottery, for instance, etc., that mere shortening of the working-day is sufficient to raise productivity enormously. In machine labour, this was far more doubtful. But, R. Gardner's proof. (Pp.401-02)</em></blockquote>
<blockquote class="tr_bq">
<em>As soon as the shortened working-day becomes law, the machine becomes a means of squeezing more intensive labour out of the worker, either by greater speed or fewer hands in relation to machine. Examples. (Pp.403-07 ) Evidence that enrichment and expansion of the factory grew simultaneously therewith </em></blockquote>
<em><br /></em>
Engels here presumes that the amount of work is equal to the amount of value, and that this is somehow distinguishable from the increased amount of "work" resulting from improved productivity of labor. However, how can the markets distinguish between greater intensity of labor and the greater productivity of labor when there is no quantitative measure established? They cannot and do not, for the portions, proportions, ratios, <em>rates </em>of exchange of commodities is determined by the labor-time necessary for their production. There is no celestial accounting that "rewards" 6 hours of work performed in 5 hours with 6 hours of value.<br />
<br />
Marx writes in Chapter 15 of <em>Capital Volume 1</em>:<br />
<blockquote class="tr_bq">
<em><strong>C. Intensification of Labour</strong></em> </blockquote>
<blockquote class="tr_bq">
<em>The immoderate lengthening of the working-day, produced by machinery in the hands of capital, leads to a reaction on the part of society, the very sources of whose life are menaced; and, thence, to a normal working-day whose length is fixed by law.</em> </blockquote>
<blockquote class="tr_bq">
<em> Thenceforth a phenomenon that we have already met with, namely, the intensification of labour, develops into great importance. Our analysis of absolute surplus-value had reference primarily to the extension or duration of the labour, its intensity being assumed as given. We now proceed to consider the substitution of a more intensified labour for labour of more extensive duration, and the degree of the former.</em> </blockquote>
<blockquote class="tr_bq">
<em></em><em>It is self-evident, that in proportion as the use of machinery spreads, and the experience of a special class of workmen habituated to machinery accumulates, the rapidity and intensity of labour increase as a natural consequence. Thus in England, during half a century, lengthening of the working-day went hand in hand with increasing intensity of factory labour. Nevertheless the reader will clearly see, that where we have labour, not carried on by fits and starts, but repeated day after day with unvarying uniformity, a point must inevitably be reached, where extension of the working-day and intensity of the labour mutually exclude one another, in such a way that lengthening of the working-day becomes compatible only with a lower degree of intensity, and a higher degree of intensity, only with a shortening of the working-day. So soon as the gradually surging revolt of the working-class compelled Parliament to shorten compulsorily the hours of labour, and to begin by imposing a normal working-day on factories proper, so soon consequently as an increased production of surplus-value by the prolongation of the working-day was once for all put a stop to, from that moment capital threw itself with all its might into the production of relative surplus-value, by hastening on the further improvement of machinery. At the same time a change took place in the nature of relative surplus-value. Generally speaking, the mode of producing relative surplus-value consists in raising the productive power of the workman, so as to enable him to produce more in a given time with the same expenditure of labour. Labour-time continues to transmit as before the same value to the total product, but this unchanged amount of exchange-value is spread over more use-value; hence the value of each single commodity sinks.</em> </blockquote>
<blockquote class="tr_bq">
<em> Otherwise, however, so soon as the compulsory shortening of the hours of labour takes place. The immense impetus it gives the development of productive power, and to economy in the means of production, imposes on the workman increased expenditure of labour in a given time, heightened tension of labour-power, and closer filling up of the pores of the working-day, or condensation of labour to a degree that is attainable only within the limits of the shortened working-day. This condensation of a greater mass of labour into a given period thenceforward counts for what it really is, a greater quantity of labour. In addition to a measure of its extension, i.e., duration, labour now acquires a measure of its intensity or of the degree of its condensation or density. The denser hour of the ten hours’ working-day contains more labour, i.e., expended labour-power than the more porous hour of the twelve hours’ working-day. The product therefore of one of the former hours has as much or more value than has the product of 1 1/5 of the latter hours. Apart from the increased yield of relative surplus-value through the heightened productiveness of labour, the same mass of value is now produced for the capitalist say by 3 1/3 hours of surplus-labour, and 6 2/3 hours of necessary labour, as was previously produced by four hours of surplus-labour and eight hours of necessary labour.</em> </blockquote>
<blockquote class="tr_bq">
<em></em><em>We now come to the question: How is the labour intensified?</em> </blockquote>
<blockquote class="tr_bq">
<em></em><em>The first effect of shortening the working-day results from the self-evident law, that the efficiency of labour-power is in an inverse ratio to the duration of its expenditure. Hence, within certain limits what is lost by shortening the duration is gained by the increasing tension of labour-power. That the workman moreover really does expend more labour-power, is ensured by the mode in which the capitalist pays him. In those industries, such as potteries, where machinery plays little or no part, the introduction of the Factory Acts has strikingly shown that the mere shortening of the working-day increases to a wonderful degree the regularity, uniformity, order, continuity, and energy of the labour. </em> </blockquote>
<blockquote class="tr_bq">
<em>It seemed, however, doubtful whether this effect was produced in the factory proper, where the dependence of the workman on the continuous and uniform motion of the machinery had already created the strictest discipline. Hence, when in 1844 the reduction of the working-day to less than twelve hours was being debated, the masters almost unanimously declared </em><em>“that their overlookers in the different rooms took good care that the hands lost no time,” that “the extent of vigilance and attention on the part of the workmen was hardly capable of being increased,” and, therefore, that the speed of the machinery and other conditions remaining unaltered, “to expect in a well-managed factory any important result from increased attention of the workmen was an absurdity."</em> </blockquote>
<blockquote class="tr_bq">
<em></em><em>This assertion was contradicted by experiments. Mr. Robert Gardner reduced the hours of labour in his two large factories at Preston, on and after the 20th April, 1844, from twelve to eleven hours a day. The result of about a year’s working was that “the same amount of product for the same cost was received, and the workpeople as a whole earned in eleven hours as much wages as they did before in twelve.” </em> </blockquote>
<blockquote class="tr_bq">
<em>I pass over the experiments made in the spinning and carding rooms, because they were accompanied by an increase of 2% in the speed of the machines. But in the weaving department, where, moreover, many sorts of figured fancy articles were woven, there was not the slightest alteration in the conditions of the work. The result was: “From 6th January to 20th April, 1844, with a twelve hours’ day, average weekly wages of each hand 10s. 1½d., from 20th April to 29th June, 1844, with day of eleven hours, average weekly wages 10s. 3½d.” Here we have more produced in eleven hours than previously in twelve, and entirely in consequence of more steady application and economy of time by the workpeople. While they got the same wages and gained one hour of spare time, the capitalist got the same amount produced and saved the cost of coal, gas, and other such items, for one hour. Similar experiments, and with the like success, were carried out in the mills of Messrs. Horrocks and Jacson. </em> </blockquote>
<blockquote class="tr_bq">
<em></em><em>The shortening of the hours of labour creates, to begin with, the subjective conditions for the condensation of labour, by enabling the workman to exert more strength in a given time. So soon as that shortening becomes compulsory, machinery becomes in the hands of capital the objective means, systematically employed for squeezing out more labour in a given time. This is effected in two ways: by increasing the speed of the machinery, and by giving the workman more machinery to tent. Improved construction of the machinery is necessary, partly because without it greater pressure cannot be put on the workman, and partly because the shortened hours of labour force the capitalist to exercise the strictest watch over the cost of production. The improvements in the steam-engine have increased the piston speed, and at the same time have made it possible, by means of a greater economy of power, to drive with the same or even a smaller consumption of coal more machinery with the same engine. The improvements in the transmitting mechanism have lessened friction, and, what so strikingly distinguishes modern from the older machinery, have reduced the diameter and weight of the shafting to a constantly decreasing minimum.</em> </blockquote>
<blockquote class="tr_bq">
<em>Finally, the improvements in the operative machines have, while reducing their size, increased their speed and efficiency, as in the modern power-loom; or, while increasing the size of their framework, have also increased the extent and number of their working parts, as in spinning-mules, or have added to the speed of these working parts by imperceptible alterations of detail, such as those which ten years ago increased the speed of the spindles in self-acting mules by one-fifth.</em></blockquote>
This is a remarkable section. First, contrary to Marx's presentation in Chapter 12, now the introduction of machinery alone in whatever sphere of production is capable of altering, and improving, the rate of surplus value, leading to greater portions of relative surplus value. Secondly, Marx introduces a whole host of descriptions about the physical nature of intensified labor without providing us with the means to measure those conditions. We get the "heightened tension of labour-power," the "condensation of labour," the increasing "density" of labor, the "squeezing" of labor, and with no way to measure tension, condensation, density, squeezing <em>other than by the volume of output, </em>which in Marx's analysis is not the same, cannot be assumed to be the same, as increased value. In fact, in Marx's other discussions, the increased output is circumscribed within the identity of static value.<br />
<br />
Certainly, labor may be intensified, greater effort required and extracted, output accelerated. Time was, back in the day, a major point of contention in the automobile assembly industry was the speed of "the line," and management efforts to increase that speed. Did the speed up increase the rate and mass of surplus-value extraction? Or did it, like any other increase in productivity, reduce costs and provide a fractional competitive advantage based on the difference between the individual values of the units and the social average of all the values in the market? Is it the arbitrage of the difference in values, or was additional value created? For exchange to occur, value has to realize itself as the embodiment of labor-time. The market is the arena for the arbitrage of discrepancy in times of production.<br />
<br />
Time really is everything for capital. Level of effort remains unmeasured, and therefore <em>unvalued. </em>Increased intensities of the labor process do not create additional surplus value in the valorization process. These increased intensity is indistinguishable from increased productivity.<br />
<br />
S. Artesian<br />
<br />
December 2, 2018<br />
<br />
<br />
<strong>Next: Problems of Value (2): Productivity and the rate of surplus value.</strong><br />
<br /><div class="blogger-post-footer">address all comments to:
sartesian@earthlink.net</div>The Wolf Reportshttp://www.blogger.com/profile/13300136765791861726noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6959437.post-30054462090257919502018-06-20T23:14:00.003-04:002018-06-20T23:14:41.585-04:00The Ministry of Cruelty<strong>A</strong>ccidents never happen in a perfect world, and accidents are few and far between in the perfectly miserable world fashioned by advanced, decrepit capitalism. It's no accident and it's no mistake that at this moment, ten years into the non-recovery, the president of the United States is a serial bankruptcy artist, a double-self-dealing, empty-headed lout; a "developer" of country clubs for golf-cart night riders and recreational fascists; selling his double-self-dealing loutish self for all the market can bear.<br />
<br />
We are, after all, ten years into a supposed recovery which has only magnified the conditions that created the crash.<br />
<br />
It's a special vengeance that capital takes on those who only make counterrevolution halfway. And make no mistake, the policies and programs of the last ten years have been half-a-counterrevolution. Whether presented as austerity, or as special investment vehicles, or direct capital injections, or quantitative easing, behind all those masks stands the attack on labor, but an attack, no matter how brutal and sustained, isn't close to being enough.<br />
<br />
To all that's been undone-- Brexit, G7, Shengen, Greece, public education, health care, environmental protection, capital passes a single judgement, "Not enough. Not by half."<br />
<br />
Now comes the other half, that half that makes it evident that all those who proposed the "rescue" of capital; that all those who couldn't contemplate the "horror" of the complete implosion of capitalism <em>opted for the greater evil. </em>The total collapse of capitalism, even without any prospect for the development of a revolutionary alternative, is always the <em>lesser evil</em> when we confront the survival of the system.<br />
<br />
So now we get the Ministry of Cruelty, known to the bourgeoisie as the Department of Justice, where the Minister, twice named for heroes of the slaveholders' rebellion, finds fulfillment in separating children from their parents at the border. "In God We Trust," says the Minister, his hand on the bible,"and.......Arbeit Macht Frei."<br />
<br />
"E pluribus unum, my dying ass," says the lout, putting his likeness on everything from currency to toilet paper.<br />
<br />
The attack on labor did not begin with the attack on <em>immigrants, on immigrant labor</em>. The attack on labor began some 40 years ago, but the attack on immigrant labor provides a level of cruelty, provides it on a daily basis and in increasing doses, preparing society for the more cruelty to come, and the cruelty that this system, this organization of always the greater evil, requires.<br />
<br />
Disband Immigration and Customs Enforcement bureau. Disband the Customs and Border Patrol forces.<br />
<br />
June 16, 2018<br />
<br />
<br />
Originally appeared: <a href="https://anticapital0.wordpress.com/the-ministry-of-cruelty/" target="_blank">https://anticapital0.wordpress.com/the-ministry-of-cruelty/</a><div class="blogger-post-footer">address all comments to:
sartesian@earthlink.net</div>The Wolf Reportshttp://www.blogger.com/profile/13300136765791861726noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6959437.post-16650403316068751522018-01-26T18:32:00.002-05:002018-01-26T18:32:33.066-05:00Their Brightest HourS. Artesian<br />
<br />
1. Things, that is to say relations, are looking good to and for the bourgeoisie. Stock markets around the world from Tokyo to Frankfurt to New York are, to say the very least, buoyant. Modest increases in interest rates haven’t presented any obstacles to debt markets around the world. Regulatory control of the financial sector is being rolled back and rolled up without having been tested by real world events. “Structural reform”– the bourgeoisie’s favorite euphemism for attacks on labor– has advanced the actions designed to codify, to enact as policy, what the market has brought to pass as improvisation– that is to say the temporary, part-time, sporadic, benefit-stripped modes of employment in the economically “developed,” “developing,” “underdeveloped,” and “not even close” sections of this single stage called capitalism.<br />
<br />
full at: <a href="https://anticapital0.wordpress.com/their-brightest-hour/">https://anticapital0.wordpress.com/their-brightest-hour/</a><div class="blogger-post-footer">address all comments to:
sartesian@earthlink.net</div>The Wolf Reportshttp://www.blogger.com/profile/13300136765791861726noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6959437.post-11804635629155605782017-12-13T11:14:00.001-05:002017-12-13T11:14:26.337-05:00Breaking News<h2>
<span style="font-size: large;">CHILD MOLESTER LOSES SENATE RACE IN ALABAMA</span></h2>
<h2 style="text-align: center;">
<span style="font-size: small;">49.1 PERCENT OF NATION BREATHES SIGH OF RELIEF</span></h2>
<h4 style="text-align: center;">
<span style="font-size: x-small;">DEMOCRATS: "WE'RE BACK. BRING ON THE SERIAL KILLERS!"</span></h4>
<h3 style="text-align: center;">
<b><span style="font-size: x-small;">REPUBLICANS LEARN LESSON:</span></b></h3>
<h3 style="text-align: center;">
<b><span style="font-size: xx-small;">TOO MANY BLACK PEOPLE VOTING</span></b></h3>
<div style="text-align: center;">
<b><span style="font-size: xx-small;">McCONNELL PROMISES QUICK FIX: </span></b></div>
<div style="text-align: center;">
<b><span style="font-size: xx-small;">"NEVER AGAIN!"</span></b></div>
<div style="text-align: center;">
<b><span style="font-size: x-small;"><br /></span></b></div>
<div style="text-align: center;">
<span style="font-size: xx-small;">BANNON BLAMES JEWS: "NEVER AGAIN!"</span></div>
<div style="text-align: center;">
<b><span style="font-size: xx-small;"><br /></span></b></div>
<h3 style="text-align: left;">
<br /></h3>
<div>
<br /></div>
<div>
<b>December 13, 2017</b></div>
<div class="blogger-post-footer">address all comments to:
sartesian@earthlink.net</div>The Wolf Reportshttp://www.blogger.com/profile/13300136765791861726noreply@blogger.com1tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6959437.post-15152026649858107162017-11-10T00:20:00.000-05:002017-11-10T00:20:16.735-05:00Echoes of October, october, october, october, octoberSo, we'll always have October. It doesn't take much to see that the problems of three or four or four hundred little sects don't amount to a hill of beans in this crazy world. Someday you'll understand that. We'll always have October. We'll always have the lesson of October-- that social revolutions can take place in countries where capitalism really hasn't completely taken hold; does not operate as the model in a book that was never meant to be a textbook.<br />
<br />
That's the lesson. That social revolutions take place where capitalism has <em><span style="text-decoration-line: underline;">not</span> </em>reorganized the relations of land, labor, and landed labor specifically in the countryside in its own imagined perfect reflection, as <em>capital</em>, with land and machinery existing only as <em>values</em> to aggrandize <em>value </em>and value having no other existence save that it <em>presumes, </em>takes on, takes <em>over</em> from labor power expressed as wage-labor; and, where Lenin to the contrary not withstanding, the <em>capitalist</em> development of agriculture has not, is not, cannot, proceed apace.<br />
<br />
And in these economies, nonetheless, enclaves of capitalism have been "transplanted" or grafted, or extruded from the international root to the local branch, with of course a corresponding working class. So then, these economies are integrated into the overall worldwide dominance of capital and react to the pressures transmitted through world markets-- i.e. experience, suffer, transmit the results of overproduction in particular in grain, agricultural, and certain key industrial products.<br />
<br />
Given the archaic property relations in which capitalism finds itself enmeshed, the bourgeoisie are politically weak at best, a weakness that corresponds to the pre-capitalist relations that dominate the countryside, or the bourgeoisie are creations, implants, of that international domination. Doesn't mean that bourgeoisie is not brutal. On the contrary, the brutality is very essence of the constraint, the limit, to accumulation and reproduction.<br />
<br />
Then, the working class revolution, in some shape, alone maintains enough cohesion to abolish the pre-capitalist relations in the countryside, while, in isolation from the advanced countries, that revolution cannot gain enough strength to accelerate agricultural or industrial productivity to a level equal to that of the advanced capitalist countries. Unable to sustain growth over the long term, shortages arise, production stagnates. These economies are compelled to turn more and more frequently to the world markets; to hard currency earnings; to the assumption of debt. Then the state bureaucracy, formed originally in the rupture between city and countryside, in the very backwardness of agricultural production, begins to function as an <span style="text-decoration-line: underline;"><em><strong>analogue</strong></em></span> to capital and capitalism; analogue in the biological, organic, evolutionary sense-- as in, <em>different origin</em> serving a <em>similar function. </em><br />
<em><br /></em>
In this case that function becomes, and from the getgo, to administer, mediate, the impulse to capitalist restoration. Sometimes the state is more successful in mediating that impulse, like say China, imposing some "order" on the process which nevertheless involves a)bankruptcy, forced, enforced and market-driven, on state enterprises b)dispossession of workers from the "social wage"-- i.e. pensions, health care, education c)privatization of land and landed property through financial structuring-- turning land into assets for financialization and then using the resulting revenue streams to finance further capitalist enterprise, debilitating the rural households, sweeping away the individual pools of money, assets, accumulated over decades, in and by the financial torrents...<br />
Sometimes the process gets out of control; the state rotted away from the inside, collapses and the plunder, literally, goes ahead without mediation-- say Russia.<br />
<br />
What's the lesson?: that neither "state capitalism" nor "degenerate (d) (ing) workers' state" have any real relevance to the actual processes of reproduction and decomposition coursing through country, countries, market, markets.<br />
<br />
Here's looking at you......<br />
<br />
S.Artesian<br />
November 10, 2017<br />
<div class="blogger-post-footer">address all comments to:
sartesian@earthlink.net</div>The Wolf Reportshttp://www.blogger.com/profile/13300136765791861726noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6959437.post-75836856682515088442017-10-28T13:49:00.000-04:002017-10-28T13:49:02.331-04:00Lessons of Previous Septembers (and Octobers and Februarys....) Part 1<div style="background-color: white; box-sizing: inherit; color: #1a1a1a; font-size: 16px; margin-bottom: 1.75em;">
<span style="font-family: Times, Times New Roman, serif;"><span style="box-sizing: inherit; font-weight: 700;">1. On </span>September 18, 1850, the 31st Congress of the United States passed “An Act to amend, and supplementary to, the Act entitled ‘An Act respecting Fugitives from Justice, and Persons escaping from the Service of their Masters,’ approved February twelfth, one thousand seven hundred and ninety-three.” This 1850 supplement was known as the Fugitive Slave Act and was part of the “Compromise of 1850” which admitted California to the Union as a free state; fashioned the territories of Utah and New Mexico out of a portion of the land seized from Mexico in the 1846-1848 war; effectively annulled the Maine-Missouri Compromise of 1820 by allowing these new territories to determine for themselves whether slavery would be permitted; and outlawed the slave trade within the limits of the District of Columbia.</span></div>
<div style="background-color: white; box-sizing: inherit; color: #1a1a1a; font-size: 16px; margin-bottom: 1.75em;">
<span style="font-family: Times, Times New Roman, serif;">The compromise was the follow-up to the war against Mexico; the war was a follow-up to the admission of Texas as a slaveholders’ state to the Union; the admission of Texas as a slaveholders’ state was the follow up to the “rebellion” of Anglo slaveholders in this territory of Mexico who were threatened by Mexico’s abolition of slavery in all regions <i style="box-sizing: inherit;">save </i>Texas, and prohibitions on the slave-trade throughout the country; the “rebellion” was fed by <i style="box-sizing: inherit;"> </i>the decision of Mexico’s military commander of Upper Galveston to <i style="box-sizing: inherit;">arrest </i>a Louisiana slaveholder attempting the recapture of two fugitive slaves.</span></div>
<div style="background-color: white; box-sizing: inherit; color: #1a1a1a; font-size: 16px; margin-bottom: 1.75em;">
<i style="box-sizing: inherit;"><span style="font-family: Times, Times New Roman, serif;">Nothing says freedom like or louder than defending the fugitive, the runaway.</span></i></div>
<div style="background-color: white; box-sizing: inherit; color: #1a1a1a; font-size: 16px; margin-bottom: 1.75em;">
<span style="font-family: Times, Times New Roman, serif;"><i style="box-sizing: inherit;">Nothing says compromise like the empowering</i> <em style="box-sizing: inherit;">of</em><i style="box-sizing: inherit;"> the slave-catcher.</i></span></div>
<div style="background-color: white; box-sizing: inherit; color: #1a1a1a; font-size: 16px; margin-bottom: 1.75em;">
<span style="font-family: Times, Times New Roman, serif;">Mexico stood with the runaways. The US with the slave-catcher.</span></div>
<div style="background-color: white; box-sizing: inherit; color: #1a1a1a; font-size: 16px; margin-bottom: 1.75em;">
<span style="font-family: Times, Times New Roman, serif;">Engels stood with the US in its war against Mexico</span></div>
<div style="background-color: white; box-sizing: inherit; color: #1a1a1a; font-size: 16px; margin-bottom: 1.75em;">
<span style="font-family: Times, Times New Roman, serif;">Blame it all on Engels? Of course not. Blame it all on Texas? Hmmh…….let me think a moment.</span></div>
<div style="background-color: white; box-sizing: inherit; color: #1a1a1a; font-size: 16px; margin-bottom: 1.75em;">
<span style="font-family: Times, Times New Roman, serif;">full at: <a href="https://anticapital0.wordpress.com/lessons-of-previous-septembers-and-octobers-and-februarys-etc-etc-part-1/" target="_blank">https://anticapital0.wordpress.com/lessons-of-previous-septembers-and-octobers-and-februarys-etc-etc-part-1/</a></span></div>
<div style="background-color: white; box-sizing: inherit; color: #1a1a1a; font-size: 16px; margin-bottom: 1.75em;">
<span style="font-family: Times, Times New Roman, serif;"><br /></span></div>
<div class="blogger-post-footer">address all comments to:
sartesian@earthlink.net</div>The Wolf Reportshttp://www.blogger.com/profile/13300136765791861726noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6959437.post-89138808117968371722017-10-10T18:59:00.002-04:002017-10-10T18:59:19.815-04:00Don't Cry for Me, Catalonia<div style="background-color: white; box-sizing: inherit; color: #1a1a1a; font-family: Merriweather, Georgia, serif; font-size: 16px; margin-bottom: 1.75em;">
1. Either the secessionist wave mobilizing hundreds of thousands in Catalonia is being generated by the conflicts and antagonisms intrinsic to capitalism in general as expressed in the particular conflicts and antagonisms embedded in the capitalist relations of Catalonia with the rest of Spain, <span style="box-sizing: inherit; font-weight: 700;"><em style="box-sizing: inherit;">or</em></span>…or nothing, because then the critique of capital, and historical materialism have nothing to say.</div>
<div style="background-color: white; box-sizing: inherit; color: #1a1a1a; font-family: Merriweather, Georgia, serif; font-size: 16px; margin-bottom: 1.75em;">
2. If that <span style="box-sizing: inherit; font-weight: 700;"><em style="box-sizing: inherit;">“or” </em></span>is the case all the “debate” from the “left,” of all stripes, from “libertarian,” to “ultra-left,” to Leninist, to class-collaborationist pop-fronters is just lip-syncing to a song without lyrics.</div>
<div style="background-color: white; box-sizing: inherit; color: #1a1a1a; font-family: Merriweather, Georgia, serif; font-size: 16px; margin-bottom: 1.75em;">
3. The roots of Catalonia’s resistance to the rule of Spain can be traced back for centuries, and those roots have little, if anything, to do with current wave of secession. Catalonia has and maintained its own language for centuries, and that language has little, if anything to do, with the current wave of succession.</div>
<div style="background-color: white; box-sizing: inherit; color: #1a1a1a; font-family: Merriweather, Georgia, serif; font-size: 16px; margin-bottom: 1.75em;">
full at: <a href="https://anticapital0.wordpress.com/dont-cry-for-me-catalonia/" target="_blank"> https://anticapital0.wordpress.com/dont-cry-for-me-catalonia/</a></div>
<div style="background-color: white; box-sizing: inherit; color: #1a1a1a; font-family: Merriweather, Georgia, serif; font-size: 16px; margin-bottom: 1.75em;">
<br /></div>
<div class="blogger-post-footer">address all comments to:
sartesian@earthlink.net</div>The Wolf Reportshttp://www.blogger.com/profile/13300136765791861726noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6959437.post-18039660933304506362017-10-08T18:34:00.001-04:002017-10-08T19:25:34.707-04:00So anyway.........SamFanto (Fantomas, get it?) of <a href="http://dialectical-delinquents.com/" target="_blank">Dialectical Delinquent</a>, a person I don't know but whose website I enjoy and like, "attempted a dialogue" (he calls it) with me, back when I pulled out of Libcom for its decision to maintain access on its site to the works of that brave black flag anarchist and incidental white supremacist, race-war mongering, fascist Michael Schmidt. At the same time, Libcom was busy deleting the work of the late Chris Harman for being, horror of horrors, a "Leninist." Leninism was not, of course, the real issue. The "real" issue was that Harman was a member of the UK SWP, a leading member of the UK SWP, and thus according to Libcom-ers, responsible for the sexual abuse and cover-up of sexual abuse by another leading member of the SWP. The fact that Harman had died a couple of years before the abuse came to light; that no accusations either of abuse or cover-up were directed at Harman was as immaterial as the fact that the book removed contained nothing advocating or protecting sexual abuse.<br />
<br />
Schmidt, on the other hand, denied and for a substantial period of time, assertions that he was doing a bit more than role-playing on various white supremacist websites; that he was advocating race war. In that he was aided by some comrades who, despite knowing of his activities for years, maintained that the recent accusations were unfounded; that Herr Schmidt was innocent until proven guilty; that Herr Schmidt deserved a full hearing, the benefit of the doubt and a commission of inquiry given his meritorious service to the cause of the blag flack, I mean black flag. Besides, how could Schmidt be considered a racist? He had had girlfriends who were women of color! And photos to prove it!<br />
<br />
Then even after Schmidt admitted his "dual identity"-- blaming it on mental illness, post-traumatic stress disorder, previous head injuries, some of those same individuals and groups set out excusing, apologizing, <i>recuperating </i>Schmidt on the basis of his earlier service, earlier writings in the service of blag flack.<br />
<br />
Libcom in maintaining access to those writings on its site plays directly into that attempt at recuperation.<br />
<br />
That's why I "broke," not because I give a rat's ass about Chris Harman, or Chris Harman's writings; nor if it's legitimate for an anarcho-communist website to archive, and offer, the writings of Leninists, or Bordigaists, or Marxists, or Bakuninists-- but because Libcom was playing and being played for the recuperation of a white supremacist.<br />
<br />
So anyway...<i>DD</i> thought breaking with Libcom over censoring a dead Leninist was ridiculous; that there were a million better reasons to break with Libcom, like his own reason-- that Libcom defended, and continues to defend a leading member of the <strike>Pretentious Twit</strike> Aufheben group who just happens to advise the UK police.<br />
<br />
That's a good reason to break, too. I have no problem with that. But there's something else going on for <i>DD. </i>I think DD wants to make some sort of "critique" of Marxism as authoritarian, anti-revolutionary, "unwoke" and/or just plan inadequate/obsolete because of Marxism's "recognition" of the "state," or rather the necessity for the proletariat to organize itself in a struggle for state power; to execute the abolition of capitalism, which means to execute the abolition of the capitalists through its own state power.<br />
<br />
So anyway......you can read <i>DD's</i> version of the "attempt at dialogue"<a href="http://dialectical-delinquents.com/articles/uncategorised/an-attempt-at-dialogue-with-a-marxist/" target="_blank"> here</a>. You can read my version below, parsed between paragraphs of the <i>DD</i> version. I don't think this is very important, but I do hope it's a bit interesting, and clarifies, if nothing else, how little the "ultras"-- "anarcho-communists," "libertarian communists," situationists, pre or post-modern whatevers-- really get about Marx's critique of capital and the immanent condition for its abolition:<br />
<br />
<div>
</div>
<div>
<strong>DD: In this epoch the will to separation takes many forms, but
often the security of a separate identity and the desire to maintain it (in his
case, “Marxist”) is classically conventional characterological armour, the
un-self-questioning self-justification for sneeringly rejecting anything that
tries to question a petrified ideology. Whilst maintaining his Marxist role, and
close-to Leninist role, he pretends he can contribute to fighting alienation
with alienated means, in an alienated form.</strong></div>
<div>
<strong><br /></strong></div>
<div>
<strong><br /></strong></div>
<div>
<div>
<em>SA: Priceless. You got any fries to go with that shake? Any
indication that I’ve used Marxism as “un-self-questioning self-justication for
sneeringly rejecting anything that trie</em><em>s to question a petrified ideolgy.” Any
evidence of that in say my analysis of Greece, or Brazil, or the US,
or.......even the discussions on Libcom? Any indication that I ever dismissed
any argument out of hand for not being “Marxist” or “Marxist enough.” Or is simply the fact that I don’t accept the terms of the discussion as you want to
define them evidence enough? Come on. a paragraph before this one, you’re
complaining that I’m reading into a perfectly innocent comment and using that
misreading to tell you, ambiguously, to go fuck yourself. Now here you are
“reading in” nonsense and explicitly using that nonsense to deal with the
substance of what “my” Marxism actually demonstrates. It’s this sort of junk
that makes me tell some people, “go fuck yourself.” </em></div>
</div>
<div>
<em><br /></em></div>
<div>
<div>
<strong>DD: However, of all the reasons to break with libcom, this has to
be merely indicative of as ideological an attitude as libcom’s – i.e the classic
and roughly 150-year old split between Marx and Bakunin, Marxism and anarchism.
In other words, no prospect of some critical supercession: rivalry turned into
the essence of the revolutionary perspective. A typical expression of the
retreat from the revolutionary question relevant to this utterly
counter-revolutionary epoch, based on positions related to events way way back
in the past, which only become obstacles in the present if one chooses to make
them so.</strong></div>
</div>
<div>
<strong><br /></strong></div>
<div>
<div>
<em>SA: My reading of Hegel is probably a bit different than yours. I
don’t think “critical supercession” is a category that applies to the “conflict”
between Marx and Bakunin, between Marxist analysis and anarchism. </em><em> FWIW, I mean if you’re going to get all “dialectic” about this stuff, I don’t think there’s any “critical supercession” to be had i.e. Bakunin and Marx. For that to occur there would have to be some necessary, self-reproducing relation between the two, where each, so to speak requires, produces, the other, in the material conditions of the reproduction of society. Doesn’t play that way with anarchism and Marxism. </em><em>I did not,
and do not now, engage in “theoretical” “ideological” posing of the
opposition of Marxism to anarchism. I never did anything like that anywhere. Never on Libcom. What you cite is what I wrote to you in an email about the charges of Leninism certain "anarchists" made against me based on my acceptance of Marx's.......labor theory of value. I am not kidding. What differences I have, and they are
profound and legion, are practical differences—practically involved with the
analysis of capitalism and the practical development of the struggle against
capitalism. Do certain anarchists at
certain times make practical contributions to the development of social
revolution against capitalism? Most definitely. Is there an anarchist critique
of capitalism that “compares” to Marx; that explores the self-generating limits
to accumulation that resides in the very condition of social labor that defines
capitalism? No. </em></div>
</div>
<div>
<strong><br /></strong></div>
<div>
<div>
<strong>DD: Whilst most self-styled anarchists are prepared to criticise
Bakunin in some ways, it appears that far more self-styled Marxists (Marx was,
famously, “not a Marxist”) consider their guru untouchable. I don’t think anyone
calls themselves a Bakuninist or Kropotkinist or Durrutist, but for those who
call themselves Marxists Marx, despite all the horrendous state-capitalists and
others who have called themselves some version of a Marxist, is somehow treated
as the provider of “revolutionary theory” whose application to today we must all
carefully study.</strong></div>
</div>
<div>
<strong><br /></strong></div>
<div>
<em>SA: Fuck no, I don’t consider Marx “untouchable.” I just don’t consider
remarks made in correspondence, their (Marx and Engels) flaws, mistakes, racial
expressions as <u>fundamental,</u> necessary, essential, to their critique of
capital and the prospects for capital's overthrow. Engels supported the US in the
slaveholder precipitated Mexican-American War; Engels flat out endorsed
Prussian victory in the war against Louis Napoleon’s France. What counts
however, IMO, and what accounts for my “fidelity” to Marxist analysis, is the
critique of capital as a social relation of production; is the exposition and
development of historical materialism as an instrument for comprehending and
advancing revolutionary struggle. </em></div>
<div>
<strong><br /></strong></div>
<div>
<div>
<strong>DD: Thus he unthinkingly dismisses (and caricatures) those who
criticise the connection between Marx and Lenin:“Marx’s analysis, leading as it
does to class struggle for power, requiring a dictatorship of the proletariat,
was “statist;” and led inexorably to Lenin to Stalin blahblahblahblah… the usual
nonsense and bullshit.” Whilst saying Marx’s analysis led inexorably to Lenin to
Stalin is bullshit, it’s the inclusion of “inexorably” which is
bullshit.</strong></div>
<div>
<strong><br /></strong></div>
<div>
<div>
<em>SA: You assume what you need to prove. Where exactly is my caricature of the typical Libcom-anarchist critique of Marx and Marxism? Of course there’s a “connection” between
Marx and Lenin—it’s called capitalism. And of course there’s a connection
between Lenin and Stalin. The problem comes when you, or the Libcomers, or the "anarcho-libertarian-communists" take “<u>connection</u>” to
mean <u>“identity”</u> and thus <u>inevitability</u>—to the point where Marx’s
work can be dismissed, discounted because it inevitably leads to.........Stalin;
to the point where the Russian Revolution itself is dismissed, with the benefit
of highly developed hindsight, as “capitalist” or “state capitalist” or a
“fraud” or the result of “German gold.” As you yourself demonstrate in subsequent comments you adhere to the very inexorability you decry as caricature. </em></div>
</div>
<div>
<em><br /></em></div>
<div>
<div>
<strong>DD: Certainly Marx was contradictory – but his belief in the State
certainly was a contributory factor leading to Lenin etc. And this is confirmed
by S.Artesian’s defence of a conventional hierarchical army, which clearly did
lead to Kronstadt, etc. Armed struggle is certainly necessary, but there have
been lots of instances of armed groups doing damage to class power without
having a formal hierarchy (for instance, Spain in the 30s, or those parts of the
French resistance not subservient to either the Gaullists or the Stalinists, of
which little is known). And even during the Russian revolution, Makhno’s army,
though obviously criticisable, was not the same kind of rigid hierarchy as the
Red Army or the Whites. He says he rejects “the two critical elements of
so-called Leninism– the vanguard party, and Lenin’s explanation of imperialism”
but fails to mention the seizure of state power as being intrinsic to Leninism,
and thus defends the creation of the Red Army, the epitome of fighting
alienation in an alienated way, fighting against the forces of hierarchy in a
hierarchical manner, an authoritarian way of trying to destroy
authority.</strong></div>
</div>
</div>
<div>
<strong><br /></strong></div>
<div>
<div>
<em>SA: Really? Can you show us
where and how “Marx’s belief in the state was a contributory factor leading to
Lenin etc. <u>with the "etc" being what?</u> Define the "etc." What exactly does that mean? That because Marx believed the proletariat had to organize itself as an armed force to break up the bourgeoisie's state machinery and replace it with its own state machinery to suppress counterrevolution, and impose, by force, its rule, its organization of social labor, that led to...Kronstadt? Clearly, that's precisely what you mean by the etc.... and you'd rather use the "etc" to avoid using "inexorably." </em></div>
<div>
<em><br /></em></div>
<div>
<em>By "Lenin etc" you mean Stalin,
don’t you? So get to the nits and grits, and show us, how, regardless of the
material conditions which propelled, determined, and constrained the Russian
Revolution, “Marx’s belief in the state” contributed to Stalin, and the defeat of the revolution in China, Spain, Britain, France, Vietnam, Germany I don’t think you can, just as I don’t think others
who make this argument can. Doesn’t stop them, of course, from making the
argument, but why should it?</em></div>
<div>
</div>
<div>
<em>Was the creation of the Red Army the result of Marx’s “belief in the
state”? Or was the creation of a Red Army a necessity imposed on the
revolution by the material conditions, advanced and backward as they were and
were simultaneously—that’s what the meaning and legacy of uneven and combined
development are—in which the revolution was enmeshed from the getgo? FWIW, the
“emotional” determinants, for lack of a better term, that drove Lenin and
Trotsky and the Bolsheviks toward the establishment of the Red Army were, IMO
only, a commitment that the revolution NOT go the way of the Paris Commune, but
hold on to power no matter the cost until the revolution conquered power in the
“advanced” countries of Europe. Maybe you disagree with me. Maybe you disagree with <u>them</u> but that makes a bit more sense, given the background of each in Marx's work and the real concrete circumstances they faced, than this nonsense about "the State." </em></div>
<div>
</div>
<div>
<em>Was there a civil war in Russia after the October Revolution? I think
there was. Does that require a centralized, commanded labor force to successfully pursue. I think it does. The simple logistics of supplying and resupplying revolutionary armies in the field impose that upon any class pursuing power. </em><em>You offer, in a near hilarious confirmation of exactly what you want
to dispute—“there have been lots of instances of armed groups doing damage to
class power without having a formal hierarchy.” No shit. Except we’re not
talking about “doing damage” while leaving the class structure essentially
intact, which is precisely what did occur in popular front Spain, or in France
during WW2, we’re talking about a revolution seizing power and liquidating a
counterrevolution That quite simply
requires centralization, concentration, and will produce, as dangerous as it
is—and it is extremely dangerous—hierarchy. Organization is, in the last
analysis, determined by surplus and scarcity, and the Russian Revolution was
operating within conditions of extreme scarcity, not just material (which itself
was extreme) but historical, as the historical determines the material; in the
case of the Russian Revolution that historical scarcity was the scarcity of the
extension of the revolutionary wave. That, not the so-called connection of Marx
with Lenin or Lenin with Stalin, was the issue.</em></div>
<div>
</div>
<div>
<em>Of course I “fail to mention the seizure of state power as being
intrinsic to Leninism”—because I don’t disagree with the seizure of state power
and because while intrinsic to Lenin, it’s not <u>unique </u>to Lenin. Lenin’s
theory of the vanguard party, and the practice of that theory; Lenin’s “theory”
of imperialism (which hardly warrants the term “theory”) are intrinsic and
unique to Lenin. You can after all recognize the necessity of seizing state
power without being a Leninist, although <u>your point</u>, I guess, is that
<u>you can’t: </u>that once you accept the necessity of seizing state power, of
breaking up the state machinery of the bourgeoisie and “critically superseding”
that state power with the state power of the proletariat, you’re already down at
the bottom of the slippery slope and a........Leninist? Nope, not good enough,
Stalinist? Much better, no? Except if that’s the case you’ve proven what I
said at the getgo about “inexorably” being the key component to those who
“connect” Marx to Lenin to Stalin, and the bullshit, such that it is, is all
yours. </em></div>
</div>
<div>
<strong><br /></strong></div>
<div>
<div>
<strong>DD: But then he treats Marx as an authority. In S.Artesian’s
dogmatic defence of him, every true revolutionary must bow down before Marx’s
past interpretations, rather than develop their own theory and practice, in part
based on critiques of previous theories and practices, and the reasoning behind
them. </strong></div>
</div>
<div>
<strong><br /></strong></div>
<div>
<div>
<em>SA: Bow down? This
where I usually say to someone raising that accusation, unambiguously—go fuck yourself. I don't think I've ever written anything, anywhere, anytime, demanding that anyone anywhere ever genuflect before the “one, true, revolutionary
Marx.” Claiming I have is either deliberate distortion or complete ignorance.
Yeah, I accept Marx as an authority—on the history, development, and mechanisms
of capital accumulation. And to abuse an analogy, I accept lots of
authorities—I accept Einstein as an authority on the general theory of
relativity (I even accept the speed of light as an absolute authority in this
universe). I accept Trotsky as an authority on uneven and combined
development, as well as the critique of the popular front. I accept Darwin as “an authority” on the evolution of the
species. Newsflash, comrade, accepting an authority is not identical to
uncritical, slavish, adulation. So ever so gently, and with all earned respect.....go fuck yourself.</em></div>
</div>
<div>
<em><br /></em></div>
<div>
<div>
<strong>DD: Thus S.Artesian can rhetorically ask“Do you call Marx a
capitalist because he endorsed Lincoln and the US north in the civil war?” The
vital question of the moment, on absolutely everybody’s lips. However – given I
feel forced to answer an essentially irrelevant question – the question would be
a little bit more relevant to ask whether this endorsement was typical of Marx’s
politically mediated view of revolution. He himself is unlikely to have
seriously believed that Lincoln was anything other than an opportunist aiming to
develop the “more progressive” forms of class power represented by the North by
manipulating those who hated slavery (the blacks, especially) into supporting
his war. After all, Lincoln in his election speeches, sometimes supported
slavery, sometimes opposed it, depending on where he was giving his speech –
typical 2-faced politician. And even after the war had started he did not come
out with a clear statement that the war was against slavery until he very
obviously needed to recruit blacks (“In the spring of 1862 [ie a year after the
war had started] he signed bills abolishing slavery in the territories, and
proclaiming emancipation with compensation for the slaveholders, in the District
of Colombia. But he continued to grope for a policy which would not alienate the
Border slave states, whose loyalties were crucial to Union success, and not
aggravate northern fears that emancipation would result in a flood of freedmen
coming to the North…Lincoln decided that emancipation was the only measure which
could bolster the sagging spirit of the Union army, provide a fresh pool of
manpower for the armed forces and convince world opinion that the Union cause
was something more than an attempt to suppress the South’s desire for
independence.” – Eric Foner’s introduction to W.E.B. Du Bois’ really interesting
text on the struggle and development of blacks’ power within the Union army –
“The General Strike” –which can be found here). It’s possible Marx had no
knowledge of this. But it’s also possible that it was another example of Marx
putting “forward openly reformist ideas because they would draw the masses to
his party where they would eventually learn the whole truth. Modern day
Bolshevism is the logical outcome of this mediated view of revolution. Political
consciousness is no longer a means to an end, it becomes an end in itself”
(Cronin & Seltzer, Call It Sleep). And we now know full well, what with Jim
Crow and all the other shit, that whilst US capitalism continues in whatever
form, blacks there will be treated like dirt. Whether this was clear in the
1860s is another question. However, such a discussion seems just typical student
politico point-scoring unless it relates to the present. And if the same
attitudes as Marx’s then were applied to now they would end up with the same
kind of idiotic Leftism that S.Artesian constantly, and obviously rightly,
denounces – support for Syriza in Greece, Chavism in Venezuela, etc. </strong></div>
</div>
<div>
<strong><br /></strong></div>
<div>
<div>
<em>SA: Yes, indeed, Marx had a politically mediated view of revolution. Question: what's a soviet if not a "political mediation"? </em></div>
<div>
<em><br /></em></div>
<div>
<em>So... if we can indulge a bit in historical materialism—what does your
“unmediated” revolutionary theory tell us about the US Civil War? That it was a battle not
worth engaging? That the Union, the capitalist union, would hesitate, back
track, retreat, cower, when confronting the slave power, because of the
allegiance the capitalists held to property? Not to put too fine a point
on it: 1) all struggles are politically mediated 2) the recalcitrance of the
bourgeoisie does not detract from the importance of the struggle to abolish
slavery. Do Marxists acknowledge, grasp that the bourgeoisie would not follow
through on the struggle? Would abandon Reconstruction? Would restore
the former Confederates through Redemptionist governments? Of course, we do.
We grasp those things on the basis of understanding the limits, the class
limits, to the political mediations, <u>the property,</u> that determined the
war from jump street. <u>You </u>turn to a Foner, who certainly employs Marx's historical materialism and produces a very concrete and critical analysis precisely based on a grasp of the
political mediations to prove...what? That Marxism because of its linkage to political mediations is ignorant, incapable of grasping the limitations that </em><em>political mediations impose on historical conflicts. That’s almost hilarious. </em></div>
<div>
<em> </em></div>
<div>
<em>As for this: <strong>“And if the same attitudes as Marx’s then were
applied to now they would end up with the same kind of idiotic Leftism that
S.Artesian constantly, and obviously rightly, denounces – support for Syriza in
Greece, Chavism in Venezuela, etc” </strong>that’s just nonsense. Now it’s
nonsense social democrats, democratic socialists, Lenin tombstoners, Gindinites,
etc. etc. would like you to believe—“Oh, in supporting Syriza we’re just doing
what Marx did in 1861” but it’s still nonsense. There’s this “thing” called
history, like 155 years of capitalist development, like the conflict between
relations and forces of production that, determined by the social conditions of
labor, in turn determines the class struggle. The problem isn’t some abstract notion, or supra-historical allegiance to
“political mediation” as a thing in itself—indeed there is no “political
mediation” as a thing in itself. The problem isn’t
that Syriza or Maduro have a “politically mediated” view of revolution, but that
they are capitalist formations, designed and determined to maintain capitalist
political mediation.</em></div>
</div>
<div>
<em><br /></em></div>
<div>
<div>
<strong>DD: S.Artesian clearly does not in any way respond to any critique of
Marx except to say it was Engels who said this, that or the other (it was
certainly NOT just Engels). This idealisation of Marx as not being intrinsically
racist conforms to the pure image of his hero (as I said, Marx was not alone in
this racism – he was similar to the vast majority of thinkers of his epoch,
revolutionary or otherwise, and the basis of some of his, and others’, racism
was an ideology of progress; Marx’s approval of many of Tremaux’s theories of
superior and inferior races is an additional aspect of this). Taking Marx as an
influence amongst other influences is too wish-washy and undevoted an attitude
to take amongst those who pride themselves on an anti-anarchist rivalry utterly
unconscious of its useless consequences.</strong></div>
</div>
<div>
<strong><br /></strong></div>
<div>
<div>
<em>SA: The issue is not now, nor was it ever, if Marx personally expressed
racist sentiments. The issues are: 1) does any theoretical, practical, ideological support for the hierarchical segregation of human
beings by race form any part of Mar'x critique of capitalism; Marx's explanation of the conditions immanent in capital that lead to its overthrow; Marx's analysis and concept of class struggle; and Marx’s socialism? 2) does Marx’s <u>critique </u>of
capital, Marx’s analysis of the necessity for the overthrow of capital, involve
maintaining and perpetuating notions of “race” “racial superiority” “racial
dominance”? 3) does Marx’s critique of capital provide the tools to explain the
basis for the institutions developed by capital that maintain and expand notions
of racial superiority, dominance, and hierarchy? 4)does the necessity for the
abolition of capital as Marx presents it actually require a struggle against and the overthrow of the
institutions, and the ideology, of racial superiority, dominance, and
hierarchy?</em></div>
<div>
<em><br /></em></div>
<div>
<em>I think the answers are 1) no 2) no 3) yes 4) yes. </em><em>Hence I
conclude Marx was not a racist, and Marxism is not racist. On the contrary,
Marx’s analysis for the overthrow of capitalism requires a relentless struggle
against the institutions and ideology of racial superiority. </em></div>
</div>
<div>
<em><br /></em></div>
<div>
<div>
<strong>DD: S.Artesian also doesn’t respond seriously to the idea that libcom
including Michael Schidt in its insanely eclectic library is no worse than
including that of a Stalinist’s account of his participation in the Spanish
(counter-) revolution or Bordiga, the guy who continued to defend the Kronstadt
massacre. Or loads of other dangerous nasty nonsense using “revolutionary”
language. Fascists are not worse than Stalinists or other defenders of state
capitalist mass murder. Even though historically individuals who aligned
themselves with Stalin or Lenin might have been more human, “better intentioned’
than fascists, from the point of view of the struggle for the self-emancipation
of the working class, Stalinism and Leninism have been more devastating and more
demoralising since they expropriated radical language and turned it into its
opposite. And still do.</strong></div>
</div>
<div>
<strong><br /></strong></div>
<div>
<div>
<em>SA: One mo’ time: I objected to the removal of Chris Harman’s work. That
work was removed after a person demanded the removal on the basis that Chris
Harman was member of the hierarchy of an organization that tolerated, enabled,
the sexual abuse of female members. Since Harman had died a year or two before
the information was made public; since the information did not identify Harman as
having been a participant, a facilitator or an apologist for the abuse; and
because Harman’s work in no way advocated sexual abuse, I found it ridiculous to
remove the ebook from Libcom’s library. Others on Libcom argued that since
Harman was a Leninist the work shouldn’t have been in the library in the first
place. I thought that too was ridiculous, given the wide range and dubious
political and personal lives of authors so represented. As the argument
evolved, I pointed out that Libcom still maintained the writings of Michael
Schmidt who while “covered” as a bona-fide black flag anarcho communist
(presumably one who doesn’t believe in political mediations), actually functioned as a white
supremacist militant in various right-wing locations. In addition, Schmidt supporters had known
about this, covered it up, and actually utilized Libcom to defend Schmidt. Furthermore Schmidt’s current supporters were attempting to use his previous written
“contributions” to anarcho-communism as “grounds” to maintain ties and
connections with Schmidt, rather than break all connection with him. I pointed
out then, and do again, that on the whole, I could care or less who is or who is
not in the Libcom “library” but the issue has become the fact that those works
by Schmidt are being used as an apologetic, almost as “character references” in
order to prevent the exclusion of this person due to his white supremacy activity.
Under those circumstances, every communist, anarchist, situationist, mediated
or unmediated, has the obligation to demand the removal of the works. This
isn’t a case of “well Leninists and Stalinists did evil things.” What the fuck
does that have to do with anything? This has everything to do with the
practical reality of Libcom being willing to remove a book based on "guilt by association" while preserving a different book and thus contribute to an effort
designed by others to preserve a known white supremacist in the “communist movement.”
The fact that you still refuse to engage with that critical issue means that,
quite frankly, the distance between you and Libcom is less than you imagined,
and the distance between you and me is more than you will ever know. </em></div>
</div>
<div>
<em><br /></em></div>
<div>
So anyway... that's today's entertainment.</div>
<div>
<br /></div>
<div>
S.Artesian</div>
<div>
October 8, 2017</div>
<div class="blogger-post-footer">address all comments to:
sartesian@earthlink.net</div>The Wolf Reportshttp://www.blogger.com/profile/13300136765791861726noreply@blogger.com1tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6959437.post-75882900727639198452017-10-07T02:20:00.002-04:002017-10-07T02:25:56.041-04:00Of Love and Hegel<i>Note: I don't ever do this-- "review" things, like books, or films, or plays, or art exhibitions. I don't ever even pretend to review things, like books, or movies, or plays, so I can glom the review copies, or get free tickets to advanced screenings, or any of that <strike>nonsense</strike> trade. Among the numerous things I knew I never wanted to be in my life-- like a cop, like a vegetarian, like a lawyer, like a cheerleader for this, or that, for any or all iterations of deformed </i><i>"workers' states," like president of the United or any other states-- I knew I never wanted to be a "critic" a "reviewer."</i><br />
<i><br /></i>
<i>But, you know what they say about never saying never and all that, so maybe just this once, maybe just this one film...</i><br />
<i><br /></i>
"Quite an experience to liven in fear isn't it? That's what it is to be a slave." So says Roy Batty to the policeman sworn to "retire" him, Rick Deckard. Batty says that just before saving Deckard's life in <i>Blade Runner </i>(1982).<br />
<i><br /></i>
Of course we can trace <i>that--</i>that two sentence exposition on the history of human relations-- back, and we should, since the sequel to <i>Blade Runner, Blade Runner 2049, </i>is all about tracing things, relations, beings, back; tracing images back; tracing memories; tracing generations and regenerations back to their origins; and tracing the origins themselves back, specifically because the origins are artificial, synthetic, designed, manipulated, <i>implanted. </i><br />
<br />
We can trace it back to Hegel's master-slave dialectic; where the master creates the condition of the world where the master experiences everything through the activity, <i>the work, </i>through the self-conscious-ness of the slave.<br />
<i><br /></i>
We can trace it forward from Hegel, beyond Hegel, to Marx's dialectic of the social relations between capitalists and proletarians; to the struggle between capital and wage-labor; where the relentless need to aggrandize labor-power in order to express that aggrandizement as profit; to appropriate the "self-conscious-ness" of the class of laborers through the wage relation, through the reduction, compression, of necessary labor-time, takes us to a world where<i> </i>profit trends every downward, accrues in fits and starts and in proportionately smaller and skinnier increments.<br />
<br />
This, <i>Blade Runner 2049</i>, is a story of origins and endings, as <i>Blade Runner </i>was a story of origins and endings... as life is a story of origin and death is its ending.<br />
<br />
<i>Blade Runner</i> was a story about what happens <i>in</i> that dialectic under conditions of expanded, accumulated, decay, where and when the needs of commerce, of business, of reproducing the masters make the life of the entire species more than precarious; less than marginal; and less than marginal <i>at best. </i> (Almost) The entire species of human beings is made immaterial and irrelevant to anything and everything other than reproducing fragments of synthetic life-- "I just do eyes...ju-ju just eyes," says Hannibal Chew when confronting the being implanted with "his" eyes. Irrelevant and immaterial unless reproducing fragments of synthetic life <i>or... </i>policing those stumbling through the wasteland commerce has created and retiring those beings required to do the "heavy lifting" that sustains the accumulation of decay, the replicants. "Chew, if only you could see what I've seen with your eyes," replies Roy.<br />
<br />
The beings that are <i>of </i>the earth, that are the natural-born human beings, undesigned, unsynthetic are superfluous to the reproduction of their own social lives. They trade in artifice. They are the trade in artifice, always scampering between landfill and night club.<br />
<br />
The replicants, those beings artificially generated, quickened, are designed for and restricted to the great commercial endeavor of the time, the reduction of entire planets to colonies.<br />
<br />
The replicants are in both <i>Blade Runner</i> and <i>Blade Runner 2049, </i>just like us; just like their marginalized sub-masters, except bigger most of the time, stronger almost all the time, smarter more than usually, and.....better looking most definitely. Like ourselves, they are coded beings; they're being is derived from a code, a set of instructions generated and replicating in every cell at every moment of existence. Like ourselves, they develop from experience, from training, from emulation.<br />
<br />
They develop their identities, their beings from the resonance those experiences, that training, the emulation creates upon impact with that code. The resonance gets processed, captured, archived as memory. Memory is the neural loop; the self-adjusting algorithm, the product of the code. It becomes life, real or simulated, real and simulated. <br />
<br />
Just like us, the replicants have a defined life-span. In <i>Blade Runner, </i>the limits to the definition are designed and implanted in the code, and is independent, most of the time, from experience, emulation, and training. In <i>2049, </i>the life-span is defined by the interaction of the code with experience, training, emulation, more like us.<br />
<br />
And more like us is the step taken in <i>Blade Runner 2049. </i>"More human than human" was the Tyrell Corporations slogan, but Tyrell went under in the big blackout that destroyed almost all the digitized electronic data that had been accumulated, or so we're supposed to believe. Indications are that there's quite a bit of that institutional memory that's been recovered. If after all, memory is adhesive, the tissue that binds the disparate organs, functions, systems, into an identity, what happens to a society that has had its memory erased?<br />
<br />
What's missing isn't just the memory, but the access to it; the ability to recover the memory.<br />
<br />
More like us, the replicants in 2049 are not immediately and automatically outcasts, outlaws, scourges, scapegoats. They become outcasts, outlaws, scourges, criminal when they look, strive, and search for too much, too much for the all important commerce that can only support them in their assigned roles as slaves, and slave catchers, can only support them in a degraded existence.....just like us.<br />
<br />
<i>Blade Runner </i>appears as an origin story where the synthesized beings are allotted a time so compressed and constrained as to make every intake of breath a blade descending unto the neck of the breathers.<br />
<br />
The replicants have a bit more room to breathe in <i>2049</i>, but the air is more foul than ever.<br />
<br />
Both <i>Blade Runner</i> and <i>Blade Runner 2049 </i>appear as origin stories, with the issue of love representing a <i>complication </i>to the quest for the understanding of origin; to the reconciliation and reconstruction of memory. The link between the movies, and within the movies, is that the origin of their life is incomprehensible when separated from love, in both its social expression, and its physical, intimate, <i>coupled</i> expression.<br />
<br />
In <i>Blade Runner, </i>the replicants are possessed of and by a critical difference from the humans. The replicants alone, it appears are able to love; and to act out of love. They are driven not solely by a need for life in general, but also by the need for intimate, personal love. Roy loves Pris. He is determined to win more life for himself and for her. When her life is taken by Deckard, Roy cries for Pris.<br />
<br />
The humans don't cry for anyone. Tyrell doesn't. Gaff doesn't. Bryant wouldn't be caught dead crying. J.F. Sebastian comes the closest to crying, and loving someone, but then he's possessed by the very same syndrome that drives Roy and Pris: "Methuselah Syndrome." "Accelerated Decrepitude."<br />
<br />
Who does Deckard cry for? Nobody. Better question: who would cry for Deckard?<br />
<br />
Rachael?-- but that's the point, isn't it? <i>She's</i> the replicant; yet she can love. Deckard cannot...until he is saved by Batty.<br />
<br />
These are the themes, strains actually, cultures like micro-flora that are carried over from<i> Blade Runner </i> to <i>Blade Runner 2049. </i>The new movie is not just a sequel to, but the successor to the original, expanding and expounding upon the themes. We discover that what defines human beings is the ability to make <i>more</i> human beings <i>and </i>make <i>more human</i> beings. We discover that the freedom of the slave begins when the slaves reproduce of and by themselves <i>outside</i> the limitations of the masters, outside the <i>code</i>, so that the issues of that reproduction, those <i>children</i>, are not slaves, are not property. We discover that Hegel was right. The slave can't simply transcend the master; transcend the condition of slavery. The slave must overthrow, abolish, destroy the master as the embodiment of slave<i>holding</i>. The death grapple cannot be avoided as the existence of the institution itself is an everyday slow motion death grapple. <br />
<br />
As for the usual movie review stuff, I'll just point out how good Ryan Gosling is in the part of the blade runner 2049 in his quest for the memory of his origins, his history, and love. I 'll point out the brilliance of having Deckard hiding out in our very own derelict, post-nuclear version of Stonehenge, Las Vegas. I'll point out the genius in confining Dr. Ana Stelline in a germ-free bubble because of an immune deficiency... and tell you to see the movie for all those things, but see it two or three times more for the other reasons.<br />
<br />
S. Artesian<br />
October 7, 2017<br />
<br />
<i><br /></i>
<i><br /></i>
<div class="blogger-post-footer">address all comments to:
sartesian@earthlink.net</div>The Wolf Reportshttp://www.blogger.com/profile/13300136765791861726noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6959437.post-59988335397324926762017-10-06T16:40:00.002-04:002017-10-06T16:40:19.968-04:00Puerto DolorUnder capitalism, and are we ever under capitalism, there is no such thing as a "natural disaster," a natural catastrophe. The triumph of capitalism is the appropriation, subordination, even weaponizing of nature in the service of expropriation and aggrandizement.<br />
<br />
The "acts" of nature cannot be contained, isolated, abstracted apart from the impact of the acts on the vulnerability and well-being of the classes generated and contained within the relations of capital. Neither can the response to the "acts" of nature be separated from the interests, needs, and power of those classes.<br />
<br />
Nor can the results and impacts of those responses to those acts be characterized as "mistakes" "errors" "failures" "incompetence." No capitalist agency<strong> </strong>is <i> simply </i>incompetent. Incompetence serves a purpose. It serves its class when the power of that class to rule requires the sacrifice of the <em>ruled. </em><br />
<em><br /></em>
The <em>incompetent</em> serves <em>that </em>purpose<em> </em>and will always be rewarded by that ruling class, with a title, a salary, a flag, a membership.<br />
<br />
There is not now and there never was anything that qualifies as "benign neglect." There is no "blind to suffering." The neglect is conscious, designed, intentional, even when and especially when manifesting itself as ignorance. The blindness is already a <em>vision. </em> There is always a calculus-- an intersection of and where ignorance, entitlement, brutality and greed, meet and each furthers all in their service to oppression, exploitation, and that destruction accumulation that is now and forever known as capitalism.<br />
<br />
The damning of bodies and souls to hunger, thirst, disease, misery is a social policy dressed up as and manifested through individual pathology.<br />
<br />
full at: <a href="https://anticapital0.wordpress.com/puerto-dolor">https://anticapital0.wordpress.com/puerto-dolor</a>/<br />
<br />
October 6, 2017<br />
<div class="blogger-post-footer">address all comments to:
sartesian@earthlink.net</div>The Wolf Reportshttp://www.blogger.com/profile/13300136765791861726noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6959437.post-30861655836823427652017-08-30T22:03:00.001-04:002017-08-30T22:03:52.174-04:00Trump Visits TexasPresident Donald J. Trump visited the areas of Texas ravaged by Hurricane Harvey and announced his absolutely fabulous recovery and prevention plan. Said Trump:<br />
<blockquote class="tr_bq">
<i>We will build a wall, a wall so high you can't get over it; a wall so wide you can't get around it; a wall so deep you can't get under it. </i></blockquote>
<blockquote class="tr_bq">
<i>We will build this high, wide, and deep wall out of coal, putting thousands of miners back to work. </i></blockquote>
<blockquote class="tr_bq">
<i>We will build this high, wide, and deep wall out of coal to protect our borders. And......we'll make the Gulf of Mexico pay for it. </i> </blockquote>
<blockquote class="tr_bq">
<i>It will be beautiful, believe me. </i> </blockquote>
<br />
<br />
S.Artesian<br />
August 30, 2017<br />
<blockquote class="tr_bq">
<br /></blockquote>
<blockquote class="tr_bq">
<br /></blockquote>
<div class="blogger-post-footer">address all comments to:
sartesian@earthlink.net</div>The Wolf Reportshttp://www.blogger.com/profile/13300136765791861726noreply@blogger.com2tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6959437.post-32335649641255081662017-08-16T10:43:00.002-04:002017-08-16T10:43:51.669-04:00Go Figure<br />
Go Figure.<br />
<br />
After a five month silence, <em>Insurgent Notes</em> produced another e-volume of its <a href="http://insurgentnotes.com/">online </a>journal, which, strangely enough remained silent about the <a href="http://insurgentnotes.com/2017/08/from-the-editors/">causes </a>of the five month silence. Certainly the conflicts and disagreements that paralyzed <em>IN </em>were described in the lead editorial, but they were not examined. And there is a difference.<br />
<br />
That <em>IN </em>slipped into its near catatonic state directly upon the heels of its "peak" moment, its post-Trump election conference; that there is significant disagreement among the <em>IN</em> participants on the appeal of Trump to the US working class (if such an appeal exists), and if that appeal is something other than that of racism, did not impress upon the editors the need to devote considerable time to a) the presentations of the differing analyses b) the resolution of those differences through the construction and elaboration of a single<i> IN </i>explanation of this moment, the moment that almost <em>uncreated</em> them.<br />
<br />
Then came Charlottesville. Charlottesville was different, and no Charlottesville was not unforeseen, unique, or an aberration. But it was different. How different? Murderously different. This different:<br />
<img height="443" src="https://i1.wp.com/www.gregpalast.com/wp-content/uploads/3_ZDR.jpg" width="640" /><br />
That's a picture in Charlottesville, maybe of so-called aggrieved white workers, or maybe aggrieved white petit-bourgeois, or maybe not so aggrieved just white racist sacks of shit stomping an African-American educator who had the audacity to tell them to fuck off.<br />
<br />
Now that's different. Not unique. Certainly not unknown in US history. But different, for the right here, right now. Really, who do they think they are? The LAPD?<br />
And <em><strong>that </strong></em>is the point.<br />
<br />
Charlottesville was, and is, different because it represents the convergence of extra-state terrorism with the state terrorism that has been practiced for years against immigrants, people of color, women, -- all those sections, fractions, components that make up the class of workers.<br />
<br />
The winks and the nods and the hand signals and the codes have done their bit, and in so doing, have been jettisoned.<br />
<br />
The night-riders have returned, and because they have champions in the federal government, in all branches of the federal government, they ride by day.<br />
<br />
Clearly the terms of engagement have changed. Clearly there are lessons to be learned, and learning to be applied if we are to win this struggle and turn the stomping around. It was and is absolutely vital that any organization claiming to be revolutionist, Marxist, communist, whatever-ist, recognize, identify, clarify what is different, and what the difference this day has made. I urged that the comrades at <em>IN</em> issue a statement about this difference, utilizing the space provided in IN's "comments" field:<br />
<blockquote>
<em>"Not for nothing, comrades, but do the editors at IN feel compelled to say something after Charlottesville?</em> </blockquote>
<blockquote>
<em>I mean the whole issue of Trump supporters and their dance with racism has, by your own admission, effectively paralyzed IN for 5 months.</em> </blockquote>
<blockquote>
<em>You’ve got a dialogue running between Amiri and Noel about “whiteness”– in the abstract, I guess; now whiteness in the concrete makes its, or another, play and….??????</em> </blockquote>
<blockquote>
<em>Do I expect IN’s statement to change the course of history? Of course not. No more than I consider the statements made by the IWW, or Anti-Capital, or all the antifa groups put together will change history.</em> </blockquote>
<blockquote>
<em>But Charlottesville itself is a change– where fascists collectively and explicitly have undertaken a campaign of terrorism like that undertaken by the KKK and the Knights of the White Camelia in support of redemptionism.</em> </blockquote>
<blockquote>
<em>Worth a paragraph or two, don’t you think, given the significance of historical materialism to Marxist theory and practice? Charlottesville is historical and it is material"</em></blockquote>
John Garvey, one of the two main editors of <em>IN</em> responded, but not in the public <em>IN</em> comments area, but in a private email, in which he wrote:<br />
<blockquote>
<div dir="ltr">
<em>In response to your comment on the IN page, I promise we'll say something when we know what to say.</em><br />
<div>
</div>
<div>
<em>In the meantime, check out one of the bad guys' point of view. It's from Matt Parrot of the Traditionalist Workers' Party:</em> </div>
</div>
</blockquote>
<div dir="ltr">
<blockquote>
<em><a href="https://steemit.com/altright/@mattparrott/catcher-in-the-reich-my-account-of-my-experience-in-charlottesville-by-matt-parrott.">https://steemit.com/altright/@mattparrott/catcher-in-the-reich-my-account-of-my-experience-in-charlottesville-by-matt-parrott.</a></em> </blockquote>
<blockquote>
<em>Have you read or written anything yet that's an adequate response to that?</em> </blockquote>
<blockquote>
<em>John</em></blockquote>
Huh? Read the nazi account of the bravery and glory of being nazis? Odd, no? Odd yes.<br />
It brought the following reply, posted to <em>IN </em>along with Garvey's email:</div>
<br />
<blockquote>
<em>Hey John, I don’t have to read “the bad guy’s point of view.” I know what the issues are. That’s what historical materialism equips us to do. You should try it some time.</em> </blockquote>
<blockquote>
<em>Have I written anything that’s an adequate response to a Nazi explaining the great thrill he gets out of being a fucking Nazi? What? Are you serious? You think that’s what’s important? If so, you don’t know what you are talking about, John, which is exactly what I gleaned from your performance attempting to “moderate” the February 5 conference.</em> </blockquote>
<blockquote>
<em> </em><br />
<em>You don’t write in response to that, to the Nazi glorifying in and of Nazi-ism. You write to organize the destruction of that nonsense And IN’s silence speaks volumes.</em> </blockquote>
<blockquote>
<em>You don’t know what to say? You knew what to say when you claimed Trump supporters had “reasonable grievances,“ that led them to support Trump didn’t you, imposing I guess your own version of reasonable grievances?</em> </blockquote>
<blockquote>
<em>You knew what to say when you wrote that you thought we could, we should win over Trump supporters, didn’t you? Now you don’t know what to say. Priceless. For everything else there’s Mastercard.</em> </blockquote>
<blockquote>
<em>Your question is nonsensical in its very structure, in the very act of posing it.</em></blockquote>
<blockquote>
<em>Really, how long have you been at this... that you still don’t know what to say, and more importantly, who you need to address it to?</em> </blockquote>
<blockquote>
<em>Short version: You don’t have to say anything else. You’ve already said quite enough"</em></blockquote>
<em>IN</em> has had its share of problems, some brought on by its unwillingness to maintain and enforce a rigorous schedule for publication, but not solely that. There is/was publication of the Rectenwald article dismissing the actions of and against the Syriza government in Greece as <em>IN's </em>sole inquiry and exposition into the conflict between revolution and counterrevolution in that country; compounded by Rectenwald's apparent separation from <em>IN </em>and re-emergence in right-wing, or alt-right, circles, without <em>IN </em>acknowledging, explaining, defending, and publicizing the break. That's bad.<br />
But nowhere near as bad as not yet knowing what to say about Charlottesville. That's just pathetic.<br />
<br />
Ferragosto 2017<div class="blogger-post-footer">address all comments to:
sartesian@earthlink.net</div>The Wolf Reportshttp://www.blogger.com/profile/13300136765791861726noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6959437.post-50786729570270613602017-08-14T17:41:00.001-04:002017-08-14T17:42:20.635-04:00Letter from a FriendEmail from my good friend in London:<br />
<br />
<blockquote class="tr_bq">
"This from my daily NYT mailshot:<br />
<table cellpadding="0" cellspacing="0" style="background-color: white; max-width: 600px; padding-bottom: 0px; padding-left: 0px; padding-right: 0px; padding-top: 0px; width: 100%;">
<tbody>
<tr>
<td align="left" style="color: #333333; font-family: Georgia, Times, serif; font-size: 16px; line-height: 22px; margin: 0px; padding: 20px 0px 16px;"><em>Good <span __postbox-detected-content="__postbox-detected-date" class="__postbox-detected-content __postbox-detected-date" style="display: inline; padding-bottom: 0pt; padding-left: 0pt; padding-right: 0pt; padding-top: 0pt;">Monday</span>
morning, </em></td></tr>
<tr>
<td align="left" style="color: #333333; font-family: Georgia, Times, serif; font-size: 16px; line-height: 22px; margin: 0px; padding: 0px 0px 16px;"><em>Here are some of the stories making news in Washington and
politics today:</em></td></tr>
<tr>
<td style="padding-bottom: 16px; padding-left: 0px; padding-right: 0px; padding-top: 0px;"><ul align="left" style="color: #333333; font-family: Georgia, Times, serif; font-size: 16px; line-height: 22px; margin: 0px; padding: 0px;">
<li style="list-style-position: outside; list-style-type: disc; margin: 0px 0px 0px 14px; mso-special-format: bullet; padding-bottom: 0px; padding-left: 0px; padding-right: 0px; padding-top: 0px;">After
a<strong> white nationalist rally in Charlottesville, Va.,</strong> led to
melees and the death of a 32-year-old woman, the <a href="http://p.nytimes.com/email/re?location=pMJKdIFVI6pghfX2HXfSzxRpdoyDWYNW3fjiFYfs57vHvCCefBI22gQxqIz4SrstvIImex9piOq1e2s0pqVtRm2oyiNhkJjd96E8kT1NO8GsSaIJv0sXabnB4moaPREj92Kn6CwIvGR/mbTmvQVy1lpdMPaTmxsHoiRG0JGpTeE=&campaign_id=7779&instance_id=101566&segment_id=111820&user_id=cdf50745ae78006397262d332237378c&regi_id=57603902" style="color: rgb(50, 104, 145) !important;">city
tried to recover</a> — as the police, in particular, came under criticism.
</li>
<li style="list-style-position: outside; list-style-type: disc; margin: 16px 0px 0px 14px; mso-special-format: bullet; padding-bottom: 0px; padding-left: 0px; padding-right: 0px; padding-top: 0px;">After
Charlottesville, will <strong>extremist groups</strong> <a href="http://p.nytimes.com/email/re?location=pMJKdIFVI6pghfX2HXfSzxRpdoyDWYNW3fjiFYfs57sP07T+PUbOK/dQ/QVrqefWFzkntMT+kJy2kXeR++ngBKCRKE410+kQIVOvHn8dJG5ekIl80cGxNQvOOPZ5ChU1ML9EQCrJSU5h7Iq+egrxxHLNi1TiF6jrkkTTXYmM4uKcuxFE0BbPg2nUXqZExXcZ&campaign_id=7779&instance_id=101566&segment_id=111820&user_id=cdf50745ae78006397262d332237378c&regi_id=57603902" style="color: rgb(50, 104, 145) !important;">return
to the margins of politics,</a> or become normalized and enter the national
conversation?</li>
</ul>
</td></tr>
</tbody></table>
<br />
normalized!!!??? Return to
the margins? Conversation? What planet do those fuckers at the NYT live
on?</blockquote>
<br />
<div>
Indeed, what planet and....what a bunch fuckers. They live on planet upper east side penthouse. They live on planet building with a doorman. They live on planet car-service. They live on planet home-fucking-delivery. They live on planet commentary, where the virtue in "freedom of speech," "freedom the press" is that they can<i> comment </i>on oppression, exploitation, bigotry, and murder as if the whole world was a Charlie Rose show on PBS.</div>
<div>
<br /></div>
<div>
The live on planet enlightened German bourgeoisie where the "great values" of Goethe, Schiller "won't allow" a short-fingered, overcombed vulgarian like Hitler and his NSDAP goons to take power-- even though we, the <i>erleuchtete deutsche bourgeoisie </i> think something <i>has to be done to </i>get those communists under control.<br />
<br />
They live on the planet "fuck you," and the only sane response is "fuck them." They are as bad as Murdoch, and nobody, with the exception of Kissinger, is as
bad as Murdoch. <br />
<br />
S.Artesian<br />
August 14, 2017<br />
<br />
<br />
<br /></div>
<div>
<br /></div>
<div>
<br /></div>
<div class="blogger-post-footer">address all comments to:
sartesian@earthlink.net</div>The Wolf Reportshttp://www.blogger.com/profile/13300136765791861726noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6959437.post-13959364929879940952017-08-13T20:13:00.002-04:002017-08-13T20:13:41.875-04:00After Charlottesville<b>1. </b><strong>To the comrades fighting in Charlottesville...and Seattle...and Portland...and Minneapolis...and Ferguson...and Cincinnati...and Houston...and New Orleans....and Maricopa County.</strong><br />
<strong><br /></strong>
You knew, we all knew, this was going to happen, and sooner rather than later. The knife attacks in Portland, and in Sacramento; the shooting in Seattle told us that much. Doesn't make it any less painful; any less heartbreaking; any less appalling. But you knew it and we knew it was going to happen.<br />
<br />
The nazi-right, stoked on secret hand signals from Stephen Miller; stroked and groomed by Rupert Murdoch and Fox and Friends; decided to make the removal the statue honoring the traitorous general of the traitorous army of the slaveholder traitors' rebellion the call to arms, with the arms being this time a tricked out retro-new Dodge Challenger ersatz 1960s muscle car, so perfectly representative of the imaginary nostalgia, the longing for a past that never was, that defines so-called modern capitalism.<br />
<br />
And why not? With an attorney general named after two of the great traitors leading the slaveholders' rebellion, why not assemble to protect the legacy of a third. Sure thing, the nazi-right (indistinguishable, most of the time, from the "ordinary" quotidian right) waxed poetic and patriotic about the Great American that was Robert E. Lee. Calling Robert E. Lee "a great American" is psychopathology masquerading as history. Lee abandoned his position as a commissioned officer in the US Military, and took up arms against the government of the United States in order to defend slaveholders' property; the holding of other human being as property, in bondage.<br />
<br />
The fact that Lee was never charged with treason, much less hanged for it; that he, like Beauregard was pardoned by Andrew Johnson and lived out his life in relative comfort while Freedmen's Bureaus were attacked and destroyed, while Reconstruction governments were overthrown, while millions of freed black men and women were compelled to toil under their ex-masters, a "working relationship" secured by the terrorism of the nazi-right of those days, the KKK, the Knights of the White Camellia, is not just an index to the cowardice of the bourgeoisie even after victory, but a product of the profitable entanglement the bourgeoisie enjoyed with the Redemptionist governments.<br />
<br />
The fact that any statue of Lee or the other icons of the slaveholders' rebellion is allowed today is more than an index to how cowardly the bourgeoisie still are. It shows how conveniently the psychopathology of the "right" serves the bourgeoisie in its permanent, and preemptive, counterrevolution against labor.<br />
<br />
<b>2</b>. <b>N</b>ext up, of course, the bourgeoisie's current collection of self-greasing slugs called "the government," will establish an "inter-executive committee" to:<br />
<br />
a) remove the Statue of Liberty<br />
<br />
b) replace the Statue of Liberty with a theme park containing all the statues of Robert E. Lee and Jefferson Davis and PT Beauregard and Nathan Bedford Forrest and others made homeless by elitist city and state governments, a regular US version of Qin Shi Huang's Terra Cotta Army.<br />
<br />
c) replace the poem "The New Colossus" at the base of the current statue with the haiku submitted by Stephen Miller:<br />
<div style="text-align: center;">
<i>restrooms are reserved</i></div>
<div style="text-align: center;">
<i>for English speakers only</i></div>
<div style="text-align: center;">
<i>and Germans of course</i></div>
<div style="text-align: center;">
<i><br /></i></div>
<b>3. W</b>e knew this was going to happen because we've endured forty-five years of the bourgeoisie attacking the organizations of labor; forty-five years of the bourgeoisie rolling back the modest steps toward equality made during the 1950s and 1960s; fifty years of the bourgeoisie attacking voting rights, starting within days of the passing of the Voting Rights Act; forty years of fusing Christian fundamentalism with police power, and calling the fusion "social policy;" twenty years of disenfranchising African-Americans on the basis of imaginary voters fraud when the real voters fraud is the disenfranchisement itself; eight years when, indignity of indignity, the country-club fascists and polo-shirted Klan-boys had to suffer the outrage of a black president who wouldn't answer to the word "boy."<br />
<br />
We've had two years of Trump urging "Go ahead. Knock the crap out of him. I'll pay your legal expenses."<br />
<br />
We've had years of toxic avengers avenging the outrages that never occurred-- like the Bowling Green non-massacre, the Pizzagate pedophile Satanic circle.<br />
<br />
We've had 2 plus X number of years of Trump and company establishing World Wide Wrestling as the "go-to" think tank of the Tea Party-Heritage Foundation-American Enterprise Institute-Goldman Sachs-JP Morgan Chase-Conservative Political Action Committee-Breitbart-Fox News coalition. "If it ain't smackdown, it ain't real American."<br />
<br />
And X plus 2 years of the Democrats accommodating, acquiescing, participating in all this madness, because the madness is power, and sharing the madness-- like expelling more migrants in eight years than any previous administration-- means sharing the ... <i>money; </i>because the cruelty of capitalism <i>pays. </i>That's all you need to know about Democrats.<br />
<br />
<b>4. </b>It's not an accident that this attack occurred in this manner, with an automobile as the weapon. State legislatures in Tennessee, North Dakota, Florida have all debated new laws that would indemnify vehicle drivers who strike protesters occupying or blocking a public roadway.<br />
Whether or not theses bills pass or are defeated becomes more and more irrelevant as the political structures of capitalism become less and less capable of controlling the conflicts generated by and inherent to capitalism. <i> Then </i>the issue moves from one of <i>authority, </i>to one of <i>license</i>.<br />
<br />
We can talk <i>tactics</i>, and we should, because we don't want this to happen again. We can talk about protecting the rear of the march with "lookouts" equipped with spike chains that can be deployed and be dragged along the entire line of march, but spike chains present their own risks to safety.<br />
We can and should have lookouts (always working in pairs, never alone) protect each flank at every intersection or cross street.<br />
<br />
Instant communication between and among the lookouts based on the current messaging platforms for cell phones is easy.<br />
<br />
Organizing that protection means organizing the directions that must be issued to and enforced upon the body of the protest and that is not so easy. That takes a bit of planning.<br />
<br />
We can and should equip all those organizing demonstrations with personal body-cams (yes, you can get them on Amazon).<br />
<br />
We can and should assemble as a mass; we can and should operate as cells.<br />
<br />
And like generals, we'll then become very good at re-fighting the last war.<br />
<br />
The truth is bad tactics sometimes lose battles, good tactics <i>never win</i> wars.<br />
<br />
<b>5. </b><b> I</b>t's not an accident that this attack occurred just eight days after the UAW failed in its drive to unionize a Nissan plant in Mississippi. Right-to-work, disenfranchisement of African-Americans, that is to say <i>black workers</i>, assaults on migrants, documented and undocumented, are both mother's milk, and the holy body of Christ. Those three components make-up the trifecta of so-called modern capitalism. There are no accidents in the most perfect world of the "free market."<br />
<br />
Defeating the attacks on demonstrations means defeating the bourgeoisie's trifecta.<br />
<br />
We oppose all right-to-work laws not because we think the ability to organize <i>unions </i>is the ends, or even the means to the ends, but because restricting the power of workers to act collectively as a class is fundamental to capitalism, to the maintenance of bourgeois power; opposing all restrictions on the ability of workers to act collectively <i>is </i>the means to the end.<br />
<br />
We oppose all voter suppression/voter ID laws/gerrymandering not because we think the franchise can overthrow capitalism, but because these laws are designed to perpetuate fragmentation of the working class, to maintain the ineffectiveness of the class as a class.<br />
<br />
We oppose all voter suppression/voter ID laws/gerrymandering not because we want to elect a "better" fraction of the ruling class, but because we want to eliminate the fractional-ization of the working class; not because we want to elect "better" state, and federal, governments, but because we want to do away with state and federal governments and replace them with councils of workers and poor, seizing assets and control of the conditions of social existence-- health care, education, industry, communications, transportation.<br />
<br />
We oppose all attacks on migrants because all such attacks are attacks on migrant <i>workers. </i>The bourgeoisie engage in such attacks in order to increase the strength of the police; to immobilize so-called "native-born" workers; to expand the ranks of the marginalized, those who can be exploited and disposed of, rather than provided with the means of sustaining themselves <i>as a class. </i><br />
<i><br /></i>
The polo-shirted beady-eyed white-boy Klan fans aren't going to stand and fight an organized working class that fights for itself by fighting for each other (and for almost everyone else) by fighting against the coalition that perfectly defines so-called modern capitalism: redemptionists, ante-bellum nostalgists, bankers, hedge-fund goons, industrialists, and cops.<br />
<br />
<h4>
(originally published on)</h4>
<b><i><a href="https://anticapital0.wordpress.com/after-charlottesville/" target="_blank">Anti-Capital </a></i></b><br />
<b><i><br /></i></b>
<b><i>August 13, 2017</i></b><div class="blogger-post-footer">address all comments to:
sartesian@earthlink.net</div>The Wolf Reportshttp://www.blogger.com/profile/13300136765791861726noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6959437.post-16666434130418635682017-08-04T15:27:00.005-04:002017-08-05T12:07:34.425-04:00(Assisted Living) THUNDERDOME!<blockquote class="tr_bq" style="text-align: center;">
<i><b><u>TWO ALTE KAKERS ENTER; ONE ALTE KAKER LEAVES </u></b></i></blockquote>
Over on Michael Roberts' <a href="https://thenextrecession.wordpress.com/" target="_blank">blog</a>, Mr. Roberts, no relation as far as I know to the Lt. (JG) Douglas A. 'Doug' Roberts of the movie <i>Mister Roberts, </i>posted an <a href="https://thenextrecession.wordpress.com/2017/08/03/the-tragedy-of-venezuela/" target="_blank">article </a>on the "tragedy" of Venezuela which article was mildly, modestly, moderately critical of the Maduro government. <br />
<br />
Despite the mild nature of the criticism, the fact that it was criticism at all and not blind cheer leading provoked the Trotskyist answer to Rex Reed, Louis Proyect to <a href="http://www.marxmail.org/msg146377.html" target="_blank">opine </a>that Mr. Roberts had allied himself "with the anti-Maduro left."<br />
<br />
Then tearing himself away from the latest screening of whatever movie comps him, Proyect decided to appear, live (as far as I can tell) and in person (virtually, which is what "in person" means these days) to take up the defense of Maduro. <br />
<br />
Said Louie: <br />
<blockquote class="tr_bq">
<i>Michael, I value your analysis of the capitalist economy very highly but I think that your analysis of the problems of building socialism needs some work especially after I clicked the link in the article above to your one on China. Marx, Engels, Lenin, Luxemburg, Trotsky et al believed that socialism was a world system just as capitalism before it. The notion of building socialism in a single country was an “innovation” of Joseph Stalin that in the long term proved unworkable. The USSR had immense natural resources, a powerful military and buffer states against the West. If Hugo Chavez or Maduro for that matter had taken the sort of steps that Fidel Castro took in 1960, the country would have suffered the same fate as Nicaragua in 1990. The USA tolerated Venezuela to some extent because it understood that “21st Century Socialism” was basically an attempt to create something not that different from Costa Rica in the 40s to the 70s until neoliberalism sank in. Although this article was answering another critic of Chavismo, some of what I wrote applies here...</i></blockquote>
<br />
Always in the Hollywood state of mind, Louie included a link to his vitally important article in the vitally important <i>Counterpunch, </i>defending the bona fides of the vitally important Chavismo, Bolivarianismo, whatever-is-current<i>ismo,</i> (and always in the anti-Hollywood state of mind, I won't include that link).<br />
<br />
To which comment, I replied:<br />
<blockquote class="tr_bq">
<i>So says the unapologetic endorser and fan-boy of Syriza. The shorter version of Mr. Proyect’s homily for Chavez-ism is derived, not from Marx, but from Thatcher: “There is no alternative.”</i></blockquote>
And then he said:<br />
<br />
<blockquote class="tr_bq">
<i> When Marx was writing his great works capitalism was not a world system of any kind, not even close.<br />—<br />“Will it be possible for this revolution to take place in one country alone?”<br />Engels answered:</i> </blockquote>
<blockquote class="tr_bq">
<i>No. By creating the world market, big industry has already brought all the peoples of the Earth, and especially the civilized peoples, into such close relation with one another that none is independent of what happens to the others.</i> </blockquote>
<blockquote class="tr_bq">
<i>Further, it has co-ordinated the social development of the civilized countries to such an extent that, in all of them, bourgeoisie and proletariat have become the decisive classes, and the struggle between them the great struggle of the day. It follows that the communist revolution will not merely be a national phenomenon but must take place simultaneously in all civilized countries – that is to say, at least in England, America, France, and Germany. </i></blockquote>
Never missing a trick, Louie included a link to an article in his own blog about the difficulties of advancing a revolution in Greece ( always willing, eager to block that trick, I have eliminated that link).<br />
<br />
Then I said: <br />
<blockquote class="tr_bq">
<i>Well, yeah, it was a “world-system’ by the time <u>Capital</u>, <u>The Civil War in France</u> were written. The Civil War in the US, the reaction against Reconstruction proved that. The impact of the Suez Canal, the Meiji period, the cultivation of cotton in India, and Egypt; the “concessions” “won” from the Ottoman Empire, pretty much make it painfully clear to the most casual observer how “worldly” capital already was– a “worldliness” that increase during the long deflation 1873-1895– which saw the movement of US capital into Mexico (railroads, hemp plantations); a period of tremendous displacement and migration of rural populations throughout the world do to rising agricultural productivity in the US, Argentina, Australia, etc.</i> </blockquote>
<blockquote class="tr_bq">
<i>Of course a revolutionary wave does not take place in one country alone, but it gets manifested in individual countries with individual particularities. In any case, the revolution very well can begin in one country, but cannot be sustained, without expansion into other countries. Kind of the most obvious meaning of the Russian Revolution, no?</i> </blockquote>
<blockquote class="tr_bq">
<i>But to use that as an excuse for arguing “there can’t be a revolution” or “that this is all we can expect” for supporting an Allende, a Lula, or Correa, or Tsipras (all that “how will Greece survive without the Euro?” blubbering) or Maduro– for endorsing programs and policies that lead to….exactly what they have led to over the last 40 years has to be the nastiest trick of the pseudo-Marxists.</i></blockquote>
And then Proyect wrote:<br />
<blockquote class="tr_bq">
<i>(t)he impossibility of ‘socialism in one country’ as an explanation of failure is a metaphysical abdication of genuine historical analysis, a phrase that explains away every socialist historical movement by explaining nothing, and allows its propagator to bathe in the righteous glow of a superior self-satisfied ‘I told you so!’<br />—<br />Oh, sure. Building socialism in Greece, Venezuela, Vietnam and Nicaragua was eezy-peezy. But instead of applying a correct revolutionary program based on the proletariat, all these pseudo-leftist leaders decided that they preferred capitalism when push came to shove. Instead of such sell-outs, we need courageous, determined, principled revolutionaries of the sort that post comments on blogs such as this. </i> </blockquote>
<blockquote class="tr_bq">
<i>The joke is that there is a direct proportional relationship between Internet windbags and their actual record of activism. It is a Walter Mitty complex that reveals a sputtering, phrase-mongering crowd that operates on a strictly idealist basis. The problem with a Daniel Ortega or a Hugo Chavez is that they lacked a correct “program”, not that the relationship of class forces constrained the possibilities of what could be done.</i> </blockquote>
<blockquote class="tr_bq">
<i>What was the last “successful” proletarian revolution? Cuba, obviously. What was the relationship of class forces? There was a Soviet Union that was willing to arm Cuba, defend it even if poorly, and that was willing to buy sugar at above world market prices. And what was the program of the July 26th Movement? It was more Marti than Marx, after all.</i></blockquote>
And then I wrote: <br />
<br />
<blockquote class="tr_bq">
<i>(LP) “Oh, sure. Building socialism in Greece, Venezuela, Vietnam and Nicaragua was eezy-peezy. ”</i></blockquote>
<blockquote class="tr_bq">
<i>(SA)Nobody said that. Period. What was, and is, being said was that cheerleading support for Tsipras, Ortega, Chavez was counter to “building socialism;” and would lead to the collapse of the SOCIAL MOVEMENT that could form the basis for a revolutionary transformation of Greece, Nicaragua, Venezuela… as support for the KMT, the Popular Front, the Unidad Popular led to the crushing of the possibility for social revolution in China, Spain, Chile… ad nauseum.</i></blockquote>
<blockquote class="tr_bq">
<i>(LP) "But instead of applying a correct revolutionary program based on the proletariat, all these pseudo-leftist leaders decided that they preferred capitalism when push came to shove. Instead of such sell-outs, we need courageous, determined, principled revolutionaries of the sort that post comments on blogs such as this.”</i></blockquote>
<blockquote class="tr_bq">
<i>(SA) Nobody said that here. YOU, othoh, did say something very close to that on other platforms, like your marxmail list and/or your blog– when you argued that the role of Marxists vis a vis Syriza was to “keep them honest” and if Syriza did not keep its “promises,” ally with the left wing of Syriza to replace the unprincipled capitulators with the authentic revolutionaries in Syriza’s left wing.</i> </blockquote>
<blockquote class="tr_bq">
<i>(LP)“The joke is that there is a direct proportional relationship between Internet windbags and their actual record of activism. ”</i></blockquote>
<blockquote class="tr_bq">
<i>(SA) Says the ultimate internet windbag.</i></blockquote>
<blockquote class="tr_bq">
<i>(LP) "The problem with a Daniel Ortega or a Hugo Chavez is that they lacked a correct “program”, not that the relationship of class forces constrained the possibilities of what could be done.”</i></blockquote>
<blockquote class="tr_bq">
<i>(SA)Again, nobody said that. Except you. Others, not quite so prone to windbaggery and misdirection, began the criticism of Ortega or Chavez with the recognition that the relation of class forces constrained the possibilities of what THEY– Chavez, Ortega, the “Bolivarians” the FMLN– COULD DO, and that the Bolivarian movement and/or the FMLN was and would remain fundamentally incapable of changing that relationship of class forces, BECAUSE of their collaboration, accommodation, of sections of the bourgeoisie, and to the bourgeois relations of production.</i><i><br /></i><i>Interesting to see that our internet windbag no longer considers the defeat of the US in Vietnam to be a successful proletarian revolution..</i></blockquote>
And then he said:<br />
<blockquote class="tr_bq">
<i>...Here’s the point, Sartesian. You are a 70+ year old man who has spent the past 15 years at least spouting revolutionary rhetoric but have not done a single thing that qualifies as activism. You are basically an Internet troll.</i> </blockquote>
<blockquote class="tr_bq">
<i>You are fond of denouncing me as a pseudo-leftist traitor. Okay, I am a pseudo-leftist traitor but at least I have acted on my beliefs. What actions have you taken? What risks? You are an armchair revolutionary just like every other Internet troll. Talk is cheap, as they say.</i></blockquote>
And then I said:<br />
<blockquote class="tr_bq">
<i>I’m not going to waste everybody’s time with responding on this platform to Louis’ evasion of content, and his attempt to turn this into a pissing match.</i></blockquote>
<blockquote class="tr_bq">
<i>Anyone who wants the details can contact me privately at my email address, or via The Wolf Report, and I’ll be happy to provide them.</i></blockquote>
<blockquote class="tr_bq">
<i>Proyect and I have a deep, noble, and entertaining, so I’ve been told, history of mutual dislike, and that’s putting it mildly.</i></blockquote>
Well, having promised, or at least hinted at, something I like to deliver, so here's the response I spared those reading Mr. Roberts' blog. <br />
<br />
First of all, Proyect is projecting, or proyecting. I'm not yet 70, much less 70+. He is. I look forward to becoming 70+, as I look forward to becoming 80+, 90+, 100+, and 100 ++. But not yet and not that it matters, other than the matter of simple accuracy. <br />
<br />
As for "activisim;" I don't know that anybody's really interested in Louie's record of activism that begins I think with his hiring on as a "peace pig" for the SWP-YSA. In that capacity, Louie risked life and limb (a regular <i>starker </i>our alte kaker once was), bravely defending the right of US senators and other government officials, to speak at anti-Vietnam war rallies on the platforms provided by the SWP's front alliances (various "Mobilization"s ). <br />
<br />
Louie manned up <i>against </i>the more rude, more militant,(and more astute), anti-war participants and activists who objected and wanted to put an end to the strategic hypocrisy of allowing<i> representatives of the institutions responsible for the war </i><b>protect</b>, and <b>reinforce</b> those institutions of war by announcing their individual "opposition" to<i> policy, as if the issue were one of policy </i>and not of institutions, of class, of modes of production. <br />
<br />
And I don't know that anyone is interested in Louie's charitable missions to Nicaragua with the Technica project, determined to deliver modern information technology to the Sandinistas, so Ortega could put it to good use... doing what? <br />
<br />
Proyect's getting in touch with his inner Bernstein here-- you know where "movement," or activism is everything; where everything is a "quantity"-- without quality; with zero content; or rather with the content of securing the continued dominance of the institutions that continue to dominate-- exactly as he did in peace pig days. You know, "capitalism with a human face," because that's all that is possible.<br />
<br />
The careful reader will note that nowhere does Louie engage with any of the substantive issues raised, nor with the accuracy of the criticism lodged against activist Louie.<br />
<br />
Did he support Syriza? He sure did. Did he say that if Syriza didn't deliver, it would be necessary to appeal to the "left wing" of Syriza to break with the government, and replace Tsipras? He sure did-----UNTIL of course Syriza didn't deliver. Then he didn't call for a break, period. He defended the Tsipras government with the nonsense about how hard it would be to exit the Euro, how difficult it would be to cancel the debt, how tough it is to........be ACTIVELY anti-capitalist. Then it was "Give me the armchair. And the internet. And the Syriza government." <br />
<br />
Proyect takes risks? Along with his inner Bernstein, Louie is getting in touch with his inner bond trader. Right, he takes risks. Sure thing. And just like the bond trader, he takes those risks with other people's money, or other people's struggles against capitalism. The problem not for Proyect, but that Proyect inflicts on others, with his "activism" has been, is now, and will probably always be activisim in defense of capitalism, all be it, capitalism with human face. Like Dorian Gray's human face.<br />
<br />
Since we're concerned about records, let's set the record straight. I have never denounced Proyect as a "pseudo leftist traitor." He should use his mighty internet powers and resources and let me know if he can find any reference I have ever made to him as a "pseudo leftist traitor." <br />
<br />
Nope, on the contrary. I think Proyect is authentic, REAL. I think Proyect is a REAL LEFTIST. I think Proyect is a REAL LEFTIST.... LOYALIST; loyal to Chavez, Maduro, Correa, Syriza, Podemos, Allende, popular fronts of all types, and loyal to the ideology that says There Is No Alternative, repeating that mantra as a justification for repeating the defense of movements designed to preempt, obstruct, prevent social revolution.<br />
<br />
S. Artesian<br />
August 4, 2017<br />
<br />
<br />
<br />
<br />
<br />
<br />
<br /><div class="blogger-post-footer">address all comments to:
sartesian@earthlink.net</div>The Wolf Reportshttp://www.blogger.com/profile/13300136765791861726noreply@blogger.com3tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6959437.post-4468626258243142662017-07-18T13:28:00.000-04:002017-07-18T13:29:48.710-04:00So......So in the end, it really was all about race; that is to say the election of 2016; that is to say the big surprise; that is to say the "great defection," the great backlash, the great "working class" protest; the great resentment; the grand pettiness that so perfectly describes "Make America Great Again." It was always about race-- as in color; as in African-American.<br />
<br />
The flailings and failings of the Republicans' attempt to replace the Affordable Care Act are not simply a measure of their own incompetence-- and incompetent they are, incompetence and entitlement going hand in glove, foot in mouth, head in ass--but also the measure of the motivation behind the opposition; the relations behind the ideology, and that is, always has been, always will be about race, as in color, as in how dare that Barack Obama do, initiate, attempt something, anything, that indicates a person of color:<br />
<br />
a) is more competent than they are <br />
b) is concerned with something other than how many people can be screwed over in the shortest period of time, even if that concern of that literally half-African-half-American natural-born US citizen was minimal, less than momentary<br />
c) doesn't know his place; never knew his place; can't really be American, because he's African and doesn't know his place<br />
d) brought, along with his own considerable intelligence, and beauty, that considerable intelligence, and beauty of his African-American wife, and the considerable intelligence, and beauty of their African-American daughters<br />
e) has the gall to sing lyrics from Al Green's "Love and Happiness." <br />
<br />
"The horror, the horror," proclaimed the three Kurtzes-- Kurtz McConnell, Kurtz Ryan, and the philosopher-in-residence at Redemptionist University, Kurtz Gingrich-- the horror being not, of course what the US had done throughout history to African-Americans, but that the US hadn't done enough to prevent African-American being <i>not</i> the game for them, or in the game for them, but knowing, playing, the game better than them.<br />
<br />
The resentment that brought Trump the election was nurtured over 240 years of retreats, denials, deconstructions, conditions, qualifications, disavowals of "all men are created equal;" 230 years of the same disavowals, qualifications on the prohibitions of slavery, as in the Northwest Territories Ordinance of 1787, (grandfathered into the union in 1789)<br />
<br />
<blockquote class="tr_bq">
<i>Art. 6. There shall be neither slavery nor involuntary servitude in the said territory, otherwise than in the punishment of crimes whereof the party shall have been duly convicted: Provided, always, That any person escaping into the same, from whom labor or service is lawfully claimed in any one of the original States, such fugitive may be lawfully reclaimed and conveyed to the person claiming his or her labor or service as aforesaid </i>;</blockquote>
150 years of flight, attack, obstruction of the 13th, 14th, 15th amendments of the US Constitution; of reneging not just on the <i>promise of</i> Radical Reconstruction, but the <i>necessity </i>of Radical Reconstruction to prevent the resurgence of the slaveholders' power in another garb, and in any other name; 40 years of panic and flight from civil rights, voting rights, of integrated schools.<br />
<br />
All that stuff about "neglected" white workers; about the passed-over, left-behind, frozen-out white workers-- that was all.....uhh....bullshit. All those references to Macomb county without investigation into the history of Macomb County, the actual condition of the supposedly aggrieved white workers in Macomb County-- that was all bullshit.<br />
<br />
All that stuff about walls and anti-Nafta and "let's mine some coal," and... that was all bullshit.<br />
<br />
It was all, and always, about color. All those Tea Party financed "anti-Obamacare" rallies? That was all bullshit. "We don't like the black guy" was the real force being tapped into for commercial purposes.<br />
<br />
All that "Don't let Obama take away our constitutionally guaranteed right to assault rifles with large magazines"? That was all bullshit. "We want to be able to shoot the black guy and all other black guys" was the sentiment being mobilized for......commercial reasons.<br />
<br />
All that nonsense about "Crooked Hillary"? That was bullshit. "We can't get the black guy, so let's get the bitch" was the emotion being stoked for.......commercial reasons.<br />
<br />
So.. now that the African-American is no longer president, and the white woman has been turned away, the three Kurtzes can't quite get the job done; have lost their mojo; their <i>déraison d'etre. </i><br />
<i><br /></i>
Meanwhile, the other half of the co-dependent couple, the Democrats, want to deflect from their real failures and onto-- Russia. <i>As if </i> the disgrace of the 2016 election was the influence of the Russians; as if the Russians acted on behalf of the Trump-ets for their own reasons and that made the difference. <i>As if </i>the disgrace of the 2016 election was not the previous 16 years of voter suppression, voter ID legislation, mass removal of qualified voters from the voting registrations-- something the Democrats did absolutely nothing to attack, much less reverse. <br />
<br />
<i>As if </i> the Russian hacks of email had more to do with the 2016 election than the decision of the Chief Justice of the US Supreme Court, John Roberts to invalidate Section 4 of the Voting Rights Act. <br />
<br />
Roberts of course had been hard at work for some thirty years, seeking to demolish the enforcement provisions of the act, having studied at the knee of William ("I think Plessy v Ferguson was right") Rehnquist, for whom he clerked in 1980; having pursued demolition of Section 2 of the VRA while employed as Special Assistant to Reagan's AG, William French Smith. <br />
<br />
After the Roberts court finally demolished Section 4, did Obama and the Democrats immediately introduce new legislation to repair the hole in the voting protections? Did Obama and the Democrats have legislation ready even prior to the decision, knowing, as they all did, who and what Roberts is all about? Of course not. The Democrats did "the Democrat"-- know to others as the big roll-over. <br />
<br />
So..<br />
<br />
It was all about color. It was never about class. <br />
<br />
So...that's where we are today.....nowhere; with clowns fighting over a seltzer bottle, while the ringmasters spray gasoline on the confused audience.<br />
<br />
We have the longest way to go before class actually outweighs color in this capitalism. <br />
<br />
S. Artesian<br />
<br />
July 18, 2017<br />
<div>
<br /></div>
<br />
<br /><div class="blogger-post-footer">address all comments to:
sartesian@earthlink.net</div>The Wolf Reportshttp://www.blogger.com/profile/13300136765791861726noreply@blogger.com1tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6959437.post-13516324161681065072017-06-29T21:31:00.003-04:002017-06-29T21:31:58.861-04:00(Great White) Hope(s) Spring(s) EternalS.Artesian<br />
<br />
They're at it again, those who don't know any better, but pretend they know more. The ones who supported Syriza, and then Podemos; those on a never-ending search for the next lesser-evil-best- thing; those mini-maxi Ahabs, peg-legging amidst the doldrums determined to pursue and capture the "democratic" alternative, the "expansion" of rights, liberties, the "enlightened, progressive," still-capital-but-almost-social-ISM that is the Moby Dick/Holy Grail of their dreams.<br />
<br />
Have you seen the white whale?<br />
<br />
full at: <a href="https://anticapital0.wordpress.com/great-white-hopes-springs-eternal/">https://anticapital0.wordpress.com/great-white-hopes-springs-eternal/</a><br />
<div>
<br />
<br />
<br /></div>
<div class="blogger-post-footer">address all comments to:
sartesian@earthlink.net</div>The Wolf Reportshttp://www.blogger.com/profile/13300136765791861726noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6959437.post-61501629238570131602017-06-16T21:27:00.003-04:002017-06-16T21:27:24.131-04:00150, 100...ZERO<br />1. One hundred and fifty years ago, Marx’s Capital (volume 1) was published. Nobody, OK, almost nobody thought it was a big deal.<br /><br />One hundred years ago, the event voted “least likely to succeed” by the senior class attending the Second International’s Karl Kautsky Gymnasium, occurred. Everybody, everywhere knew the Russian Revolution was a really big deal.<br /><br />And that’s OK. Marx was first, foremost, last, and always a revolutionist. “Economics” is, in his own word, shit. <br /><br />Revolution, in Lenin’s words is “the festival of the oppressed.” Everybody, well almost everybody, knows how much Marx and Engels loved to party.<br /><br />If there were still a Soviet Union around, the 100th anniversary of the Russian Revolution would be marked by some big-ass parades in Red Square– rocket launchers, tanks, armored personnel carriers, airborne troops, with the usual gray eminences standing appropriately/inappropriately atop Lenin’s Tomb, looking like they were just three hours either side of the cardiac intensive care unit; clapping hands (their own), pounding chests (each other’s) to keep warm enough, breathe long enough to have time for one more cigarette, one more shot of vodka.<div>
<br /></div>
<div>
<i>Read more at <a href="https://anticapital0.wordpress.com/anti-capital-4/"> <b>Anti-Capital # 4</b></a></i></div>
<div class="blogger-post-footer">address all comments to:
sartesian@earthlink.net</div>The Wolf Reportshttp://www.blogger.com/profile/13300136765791861726noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6959437.post-43302158117858856192017-06-10T10:36:00.004-04:002017-06-10T10:36:45.214-04:00THIS JUST IN...<h3 style="text-align: center;">
Pathological Liar Offers Sworn Testimony</h3>
<div style="text-align: center;">
<b>Nation Relieved </b></div>
<div class="blogger-post-footer">address all comments to:
sartesian@earthlink.net</div>The Wolf Reportshttp://www.blogger.com/profile/13300136765791861726noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6959437.post-27738673956177145182017-05-04T15:26:00.001-04:002017-05-04T15:26:27.422-04:00Thumbnail ReviewWho could ever forget Yanis Varoufakis? Leather clad, bike riding, game theorist, erratic Marxist, a regular one-man circus, with clowns, minus elephants.<br />
<br />
Now Southside Yanni has a new book, <i>Adults in the Room</i>, all about-- you guessed it-- Yanis Varoufakis. <i>Quelle surprise. </i>Or as we say in the vernacular, strip my gears and call me shiftless.<br />
<br />
<b><u>Q:</u></b> <b>What's the difference between Yanni and, say, Margaret Thatcher? </b><br />
<br />
<b><u>A:</u></b> <b>Nothing. For both, of both, by both, it all comes down to this: TINA-- there is no alternative. There is no alternative to capitalism. </b><br />
<b><br /></b>
You can bluff and bluster and pull the odd fast one, but there's no alternative, so sooner rather than later, your bluff is called, your bluster is empty, and it turns out that the man in the wheelchair is infinitely faster than you. <br />
<br />
That this rat bastard-- no, not Wolfgang, but rather Yanis-- can use the devastation of Greece as a platform for his own celebrity tells us all we need to know about him, his game, his theory, his "Marxism," and the current mode of production, any one of which is enough to gag a maggot.<br />
<br />
S.Artesian<br />
May 4, 2017<br />
<br /><div class="blogger-post-footer">address all comments to:
sartesian@earthlink.net</div>The Wolf Reportshttp://www.blogger.com/profile/13300136765791861726noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6959437.post-10151263566691099612017-04-23T10:51:00.007-04:002017-04-23T10:51:58.238-04:00The Hardest ThingThe April 15 "Free Speech Rally" planned by various fascist groups for Berkeley, California was both bait and trap. Black bloc and "antifa" swallowed the former and was swallowed in turn by the latter. <br />
<br />
This isn't about courage or commitment or dedication. Nobody doubts the courage and dedication of the Black bloc or the antifascist fighters.<br />
<br />
This isn't about whether or not Black bloc is immature, irresponsible, juvenile, disruptive, and or a giant pain in the ass. <br />
<br />
full at:<a href="https://anticapital0.wordpress.com/the-hardest-thing/"> https://anticapital0.wordpress.com/the-hardest-thing/ </a><div class="blogger-post-footer">address all comments to:
sartesian@earthlink.net</div>The Wolf Reportshttp://www.blogger.com/profile/13300136765791861726noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6959437.post-47705822045485026132017-04-19T16:30:00.000-04:002017-04-19T16:30:05.694-04:00Two Headlines<i style="font-weight: bold;"><br /></i>
<i style="font-weight: bold;"><br /></i>
0707 hrs: <i style="font-weight: bold;">"Former NFL star Aaron Hernandez hangs self in cell, pronounced dead at Massachusetts hospital"</i><br />
<br />
1441 hrs: <b><i>"Bill O’Reilly out at Fox News"</i></b><br />
<b><i><br /></i></b>
Personally, I'd be much happier, and the world would be a much better place, if the heads were swapped but the lines remained the same.<br />
<br />
S.Artesian<div class="blogger-post-footer">address all comments to:
sartesian@earthlink.net</div>The Wolf Reportshttp://www.blogger.com/profile/13300136765791861726noreply@blogger.com0