Kindle Notes & Highlights
Read between
February 12 - April 20, 2023
The characteristic task of each and every philosophy is to represent, in theory, a given class position.
We ask the reader to grant us no more than that the conditions of existence of Philosophy that we have defined are plausible.
The reader disagrees.
We might take the example of nineteenth-century India or China in order to ask ourselves whether these societies which had social classes (even if they were disguised in the form of castes, as in India) but not science
He can't be serious.
we have ‘found’ so far, setting out from the simple observation that Philosophy has not always existed: we have found (empirically) that the existence and transformations of Philosophy seem to bear a close relation to the conjunction of important events in class relations and the state,
Such a weak empirical argument.
The fact that these social and human sciences do not acknowledge that Marx’s theory is the foundation for their true existence as sciences, the fact that they persist in upholding ideological notions which make them semi-sciences, pseudo-sciences or mere techniques of social adaptation is due to the dominant influence of bourgeois ideology, which prevents them from recognizing Marx as the founder of their true theory.
Exactly what a cultist would say.
The technical level of the agents of a labour process is thus always determined by the nature of the instruments of labour and, more generally (see below), by the existing means of production.
This isn't true anymore in primarily service based economies, open information and (free) education.
For millennia, however, modifications of the means of production were either virtually non-existent or all but imperceptible.
He must be demented. Oh wait that is actually a fact.
let us say that a sum is the index of a provisional lacuna that clearly has to be filled.
Thankfully he doesn't teach math
renewing the means of production in the requisite proportions, because means of production are gradually depleted (a mine) or wear out (tools, machines).
Huge contradiction here. He admits they take on the task of renewing the means of production while he claims they are not part of the productive process.
As everyone knows, real ‘production’ cannot take place unless the means of production (which do not ‘work’ all by themselves) are set into relation with – and set to work by – labour-power, that is, waged workers.
Not true for intellectual property.
the wage conceded to the workers and the ‘surplus-value’ extorted from them, which is pocketed by the capitalist without further ado.
This implies that exploitation through "wage slavery" only occurs in capitalism, which of course is not true.
Our ‘adversary’ is, here too, the same as before: namely, the technocratic-technicist ideology that we may describe as ‘economistic
A strong well founded adversary ;-)
The other posts, involving somewhat more elevated organizational tasks and, higher up, ‘planning’ and partial management of the labour process, are monopolized by members of other social strata: engineers and technicians, as well as middle-level and upper-level supervisory personnel.
Enhineers and technicians cannot be working class? He clearly has no idea what he's talking about.
There are class differences among those who work for wages, for source of revenue does not determine class affiliation.
the worker who becomes an engineer or even a manager, he is, in our society, a museum piece exhibited to encourage belief in the ‘possibility’ of the impossible
What is he on about, it's getting embarassing
workers for life.
Would make a great band name
factory directors and all their assistants) hold a monopoly on certain contents and forms of knowledge, and thus on a form of ‘know-how’,
Nothing – unless a factory has an ‘ultramodern’ staff trained in the pseudo-scientific techniques of ‘human-resources’ ‘social psychology’, and perhaps not even then – can eliminate the need for functions of surveillance and repression,
It is no accident that the workers call engineers, very aptly, ‘little bosses’.
Has he ever visited a factory or worked in general?
Lenin’s desperate insistence on the need to establish a new, polytechnic school education (it unfortunately had small success),
Was it a matter of fortune or was the premise faulty?
proletarians and other wage-workers must, just to survive, take jobs in the production that exploits them, since none of the means of production are in their hands.
Anyone can own some means of production nowadays and this has largely always true for certain crafts.
the technicist-economistic ideology which has it that ‘there must, after all, be different jobs within the division of labour’ and such-and-such individuals to fill them.
Division of labour predates capitalism and economists.
To ‘build socialism’, it will be necessary to establish new relations of production that abolish, concretely, the exploitative effects of the previous relations of production, together with all their class effects.
To build a spaceship travelling at the speed of light it will be necessary to abolish some of the laws of physics.
Every misunderstanding of these formulas and their inexorable logic does an objective disservice to the revolutionary cause and the construction of socialism.
Anyone who misunderstands will be sent to the Gulags.
We say the average economist = the average capitalist, because both express the viewpoint of the enterprise; they content themselves with simply commenting on the terms of its financial accounting practice.
we have to take Marx’s ‘global’ approach.
He's clearly incapable of independent thinking. To tie his shoes he'd have to look up "Das shoelaces vol3"
