[PEN-L:32617] Re: Re: RE: Re: John Rawls/I forgot

[Waistline2@xxxxxxx]

I forgot who I was replying to, but the article is worthwhile - to me. (To much fun). 

Melvin P. 



>> "Communism no longer exists, American military power has never
been greater, but the U.S. has never been so insecure and its people
more vulnerable. After fifty years of interventions in the affairs of
dozens of nations on every continent, interventions that varied from
training police and armies to supplying them with lethal equipment and
advisers to teach them how to use it, after two major wars involving
its own manpower for years, America's sustained, intense, and costly
efforts have only culminated in greater risks to itself. There is more
instability and violence in the world than ever, and now it has
finally reached its own shores--and its political leaders have
declared it will continue. . . .

>     "It is not accurate, nor is it consolation, to argue as many do
that without an activist foreign policy and military policy the
present world situation could have been worse or that communism would
have triumphed in many more places. Many of the CIA's analysts always
perceived the Soviet Union's actions as essentially defensive, and
that it was ready to grasp opportunities that posed no obvious dangers
to it but unwilling to take great risks. As Marxists they believed
that history was predestined to favor them, and that adventurism was
unnecessary--"infantile," to use Lenin's description. But communism
was a reflection rather than the cause of the severe disorder in
international affairs that produced two incredibly destructive world
wars, a result of deeper and older problems, and those who led the
USSR gradually ceased to have the conviction essential to perpetuate
the original Leninist beliefs and systemic legacies. As a ruling
system, it has disappeared in Europe and virtually disintegrated in
Asia, peacefully and by its own leaders' volition--and not by force of
American arms.

>     The fear of communism which justified vast military expenses and
mobilized NATO and America's allies is now gone, but the qualitative
importance of this fundamental transformation has not led to any
equivalent or appropriate changes in Washington's perceptions, much
less spending. It can no longer define its enemies clearly, where they
live or how they will behave, and it is unwilling to confront the
analytic problems that the immense changes in world affairs since 1989
have created. <

(end of quote)


Comment:

The above is summarized as a "vision" of history and the future from a bourgeois apologetic or standpoint totaly within the framework of bourgeoisie thinking.

"Communism no longer exists," begs the question - what is communism? 

"As Marxists they believed that history was predestined to favor them, and that adventurism was unnecessary--"infantile," to use Lenin's description. But communism was a reflection rather than the cause of the severe disorder in
international affairs that produced two incredibly destructive world
wars, a result of deeper and older problems, and those who led the
USSR gradually ceased to have the conviction essential to perpetuate
the original Leninist beliefs and systemic legacies." (end of quote) 

Communism is not Marxism. Marxism is a theory and doctrine. As a theory of social development, Marxism - a term Karl Marx disliked that apparently lead him to state, "thank God I am not a Marxist," rivets on the mode of production in material life as constituting the axis of societal change and fundamental societal reconstruction and reconstitution. Marx himself describes his method of inquiry in his "After word to the Second German Edition of Capital," dated London, January 25, 1873.

Karl method of inquiry is not the theory associated with the name "Marxism." Marx method of inquiry is generally referred to as "materialist dialectics" or dialectical materialism.  

Marxism as a doctrine embraces the theory of the class struggle and the politics of fighting for working class domination of that in society, which is social necessary means of production. 

Communism or common - collective, or societal possession as distinct from class ownership (not simply individual ownership), of the socially necessary means of production - means a certain stage in the development of the mode of production, which compels society to reorganize itself on the basis of radical changes in the mode of production. 

The word communism gets in the way of itself because an "ism" is understood to mean a doctrine. I am not against the word "communism" but it has somewhat outlived its usefulness as a description of the societal advance. Collective, or societal possession of the socially necessary means of production is not a doctrine but means that the technological advance in the shape of advanced robotics, computerized production process and digitalization contains an inherent quality that renders the mode of exchange - distribution of the social product, based on human laboring ineffective. The intrusive invasion of advanced robotics into the production process disrupts exchange based on everyone laboring and exchanging products because of its qualitatively enhanced production capacity that replaces human labor. 

Just as it takes "two to tangle," it requires two to exchange and advanced robotics increasingly replaces one of the two components constituting commodity exchange. Advanced robotics - the robot, cannot exchange anything with a human being. This a theoretical conclusion of Karl Marx and Frederick Engels based on their investigation of the fundamentality of the motive forces of history, which has as its axis the technological underpinning and advance in the evolution of the mode of production. 

Thus communism or rather, collective, or societal possession of the socially necessary means of production is the "iron clad mechanical logic" of the development of the material power of the productive forces. This "iron clad mechanical logic" does not evolve mechanically, however.  

"Socially necessary means of production," embraces a practical and yes, collective point of view containing a profound theoretical observation. What is in fact "necessary?" "Necessary" is governed by a law system and contains a distinct signature that stamps it with a social character. That is to say "necessary" is not a stagnated concept or frozen category. Nor is "necessary" understood as an individual conception of social reality arising from the individual wants and needs of the "one." Socially necessary, by definition means the infrastructure framework that allows society to exist a society instead of the aggregate homo-sapiens population. 

Is Domino Pizza or the Burger King embodiment of social necessary means of production? That is to say is the instrument of production that drives Domino's, Pizza Hut, Burger King or McDonalds "socially necessary" for the maintenance of the societal infrastructure?

What on earth is socially necessary? Without a description of this modern this "thing," modern communism becomes an ideological nightmare. For now one must leave this question and confront the extremely bourgeois assertion quoted above. 

"As Marxists they believed that history was predestined to favor them, and that adventurism was unnecessary--"infantile," to use Lenin's description. But communism was a reflection rather than the cause of the severe disorder in
international affairs that produced two incredibly destructive world
wars, a result of deeper and older problems, and those who led the
USSR gradually ceased to have the conviction essential to perpetuate
the original Leninist beliefs and systemic legacies." (end of quote)

Actually, communism or rather, collective, or societal possession of the socially necessary means of production is a lot more than a "reflection," although as reflection - ideological categories, it is a longing - ideological striving, that is very ancient in every culture on earth. The Marxist vision of communism or rather, collective, or societal possession of the socially necessary means of production may be historically obsolete or all together wrong. Let us assume that the Marxist or rather Soviet vision - reflection, is simply wrong, which it was not when one considers the events and framework in which Sovietism arose. 

As a wrong vision one is still confronted with the reality of advance robotics, computerized and digital production processes that undermine the value - human imparted ingredient, of all commodities. The bourgeoisie understands this more intensely than the laboring masses. Here is a man - person, who must downsize his operation to remain profitable, speculate in currency, bonds, all kind of notes - directives, and then apply labor replacing technology or be destroyed by competitors who will "do what it takes" to stay in business.  This man is between a "rock and a hard place." In the main the industrial capitalist as a distinct prominent sector of the capitalist class have been destroyed, compelled out of its class position by the technological advance. 

The point is that communism, or rather; collective, or societal possession of the socially necessary means of production is not a reflection, but the logic of development of the material power of the productive forces. The reflection is ones vision of communism, or rather, collective, or societal possession of the socially necessary means of production.

Now the bourgeoisie are people also. As people they have reflection. To the bourgeoisie communist are people who want to take their power and wealth away because they have an opposing ideological reflection. The bourgeoisie call such people communist revolutionaries, Marxist or just revolutionaries who do not respect the rights of property in the hands of individuals. 

The above categories are not what "communist" in modern parlance means. The real communist or rather, people slowly being driven to conceive of collective, or societal possession of the socially necessary means of production, are sections of society losing their economic ability to consistently partake in exchange at a level that allows them to maintain what they perceive as a cultured existence.  This communism is called "objective communism" for lack of a better term, because it does not arise from ideological conviction or "reflection." 

This "man" - the bourgeoisie, is  "in a hard way" and personally hates what is taking place in society: its increasing polarization and poverty. I am not patronizing anyone. Here is a man who lives and expands based on consumption - expanding exchange, and this is based on the sale and enhancement of labor power or the ability of labor power to expand as a societal force. The bourgeoisie has held off automating the productive forces for half a century only to be compelled by the leap in technology to implement the new processes to stay in business. 

My point of course is that the above is not simply faulty logic - which no one is immune to, but a bourgeois reflection of the world social order and history. 

Everything is Soviet history is better understood on the basis of the stage of development of the material power of the productive forces, the ability of the Soviets to effect the evolutionary leap in technology and then the manner in which this was fought out in the ideological sphere. 

The destruction of productive forces is at hand. That is to say, the transformation from one mode of production to the next is in transition and what is being destroyed is the industrial system of value production. No reflection can halt this process because it is historical. Historical in this context means a process that takes place in time increments of hundred of years and not quarterly profit reports. 

Actually, the communist and Marxist were correct to "believed that history was predestined to favor them, and that adventurism was unnecessary--"infantile," to use Lenin's description."

This is why we reject terrorism, terrorist methods and "ideological classism" as a solution to problems posed by history. We do not reject the theory and strategy of the mass uprising because the people are going to say "I am for anyone that uses that goddamn robot to give me what I need and want." 

Communism or rather, collective, or societal possession of the socially necessary means of production is "preordained" in the sense of the ceaseless forward moving evolution of the material power of the productive forces. 

Aye "square" - and its a bunch of squares out there, check this out: "what you gonna do when they come for you?" 

"They come for LeRoy yesterday and his sister this morning." "What you gon do when they come for you?" 

That robot - advanced robotics, computerization and digitalized processes is going to come for you man. And that ain't no damn "reflection." 

Now this thing about socially necessary means of production and who owns the local Pizza joint is not really important in the American ideology - at least at this time or the fore see-able future. If you want to throw dough up in the air, "more power to you." 


Melvin P