Economic Determinism Marxian Style

[nino_savatte]

Well, its been fun and all, but I think we've had enough of your distractions now. Since you have nothing of substance to contribute, I must ask you to leave this thread without any further protest. And take your cuddly toy with you too. "Bye bye, bye bye, Nino and Panda are waving Goodbye..."

Are you still in Uruguay? Or was it Panama? Who cares? You should fucking stay there, you insufferable troll.

Did you start this thread? No, so you have no business to tell anyone to leave it. But you're such an egomaniac that I suppose that thought never entered your tiny mind.

So just to irritate the hell out of you, I shall be staying. Your objections have been noted and disposed of.

 

[ViolentPanda]

Actually its because I like the sound of "Nino and Panda," it sounds like a children's TV show, and you offer approximately the same level of intellectual discourse as Andy and Teddy too.

Oh dear, phil's hatred of criticism is manifesting itself as childish name-calling again.

It's such a pity, I'd expect better manners from such a luminary of the intellectual sphere, someone who feels themselves to be a cut above the rest, and is always willing to let people know that fact.

Could it be that you're a big fat phoney who uses bullying and derailing tactics to try and mask his manifold insecurities, "phildwyer"?

Now please stop derailing numerous threads with your ego-massaging and discourtesy. If you're not polite by nature then please at least pretend to be.

 

[phildwyer]

Are you still in Uruguay? Or was it Panama? Who cares? You should fucking stay there, you insufferable troll.

Did you start this thread? No, so you have no business to tell anyone to leave it. But you're such an egomaniac that I suppose that thought never entered your tiny mind.

So just to irritate the hell out of you, I shall be staying. Your objections have been noted and disposed of.

And now you openly admit, nay *boast,* that your only purpose here is to annoy and irritate. If you'll recall, I politely demanded that you leave several threads I *did* start, and you responded with the same brazen statement of intent to cause disruption. Stalk and troll, troll and stalk, that's all you ever do. Prove me wrong, and make a worthwhile contribution. Otherwise, you should leave us in peace.

 

[articul8]

Capital *did* recuperate the SI via punk, but that was most certainly not its plan. The mass media's hysterically hostile reaction to the emergence of punk was born of genuine fear.

(valiantly trying to prevent thread from being derailed) - I don't think you can say that the SI has been entirely recuperated by capital. I don't see many popularisations of Debord competing with your David Starkeys or Simon Schamas. The point is we need to grasp the politics of the SI, not just parrot its formulas (edit - or lyrics ).

And you have a tendency to read back the products of late-capitalist society as a whole. Even if you are correct about the role of the image in the economy *today* ( ), can you really posit this as some kind of ahistorical essence of exchange?

 

[ViolentPanda]

And now you openly admit, nay *boast,* that your only purpose here is to annoy and irritate. If you'll recall, I politely demanded that you leave several threads I *did* start, and you responded with the same brazen statement of intent to cause disruption. Stalk and troll, troll and stalk, that's all you ever do. Prove me wrong, and make a worthwhile contribution. Otherwise, you should leave us in peace.

If you're really that incensed, and if you really believe that anyone would care, then report him to the mods, but please stop disrupting and derailing the bloody thread with your injured vanity!

 

[phildwyer]

And you have a tendency to read back the products of late-capitalist society as a whole. Even if you are correct about the role of the image in the economy *today* ( ), can you really posit this as some kind of ahistorical essence of exchange?

I think its the essence of exchange-value being revealed in the course of history. Exchange-value always *was* a mere image, but it was not fully manifest as such until the late twentieth century.

 

[articul8]

I think its the essence of exchange-value being revealed in the course of history. Exchange-value always *was* a mere image, but it was not fully manifest as such until the late twentieth century.

I'm not sure you can speak about "the essence" of exchange value - unless perpetual metamorphosis can constitute an "essence".

 

[nino_savatte]

And now you openly admit, nay *boast,* that your only purpose here is to annoy and irritate. If you'll recall, I politely demanded that you leave several threads I *did* start, and you responded with the same brazen statement of intent to cause disruption. Stalk and troll, troll and stalk, that's all you ever do. Prove me wrong, and make a worthwhile contribution. Otherwise, you should leave us in peace.

Change the record will you? How many times have I seen you post this tripe in response to one of my pointed posts? Too many to count. You enjoy this sort of thing, don't you? You post up text that is provocatively worded in order to attract attention.

You haven't made a single contribution to this thread yet you continue to project your inadequacies onto me; it is truly the mark of a coward. But you aren't simply a coward, you are nasty vicious troll with a vastly [self] inflated ego. No one takes you seriously but yourself.

 

[Fruitloop]

Random bits of semi-apposite Marx;

The simplest economic category, say, exchange-value, implies the existence of population, population that is engaged in production within determined relations; it also implies the existence of certain types of family, class, or state, etc. It can have no other existence except as an abstract one-sided relation of an already given concrete and living aggregate (Marx, 1904, 294).

My dialectic method is not only different from the Hegelian, but is its direct opposite. To Hegel, the life-process of the human brain, i.e., the process of thinking, which, under the name of 'the Idea,' he even transforms into an independent subject, is the demiurgos of the real world, and the real world is only the external, phenomenal form of 'the Idea.' With me, on the contrary, the ideal is nothing else than the material world reflected by the human mind, and translated into forms of thought.

 

[gorski]

Posted in a wrong place... but corrected...

The bit that is relevant in this thread is this:

Marx to Engels, 18 June 1862 [from "Selected Writings", p. 526]

...Darwin, whom I have looked up again, amuses me when he says he is applying the 'Malthusian' theory also to plants and animals, as if with Mr. Malthus the whole point were not that he does not apply the theory to plants and animals but only to human beings - and with geometrical progression - as opposed to plants and animals. It is remarkable how Darwin recognizes among beasts and plants his English society with its division of labour, competition, opening-up of new markets, `inventions', and the Malthusian `struggle for existence'. It is Hobbes's bellum omnium contra omnes, and one is reminded of Hegel's Phenomenology, where civil society is described as a `spiritual animal kingdom', while in Darwin the animal kingdom figures as civil society...

So, I must withdraw my earlier comment/guess he didn't know of Darwin's confession...

 

[Fruitloop]

deleted

 

[Fruitloop]

and again...

 

[Fruitloop]

ooops.

 

[General Ludd]

Any chance of a mod deleting phildwyer and nino_savatte?