Moishe Postone "Marx in the Age of Trump"

John Cleese Impersonator Destroys SocDems, MarkSocs, ☭TANKIE☭s and Idpolers With One Weird Dialectical Speech


Source: youtube.com/watch?v=OJIaze-C2Qs

(This actually doesn't have much to do with Trump)

Can we not do this? This is a bad idea

He's not truly the new marx unless he hates jews

He meant "you can" as "it's possible". Basically, he's saying that merely getting rid of the bourgeoisie won't abolish capitalism.

Moishe Postone isn't arguing for "capitalism without capitalists", he's a Marxist, and he's arguing it's possible, I mean that is what Marx's fundamental critique of Proudhon and Mutalism was, and it's also what the USSR more or less looked like tbh.

i still remember when you mocked anyone that said "obama's era"
stop being so dramatic, nothing has changed in 50 years

The title was poorly chosen, they actually barely even mention Trump during the talk.

...

He's right though, an economy of only co-ops would be still be capitalism. Probably look like fascism as there would be no class antagonisms but still full of self exploitation in order to invest and circulate capital.

But it's true. Capitalism is first and foremost predicated upon abstract categories and mechanisms, not just on the existence of a specific appropriating class.

Capital is the enemy, not capitalists.
but capitalists can still get fucked anyway

co-ops = socialism may may

This. It's also why it would be easy to imagine a reactionary Mutualism.

Outside of c4ss do mutualists even exist?

Yeah.

user, what makes you think Fascism is not filled to the brim - and founded upon - class antagonisms turned up to eleven?

...

It's definitely fringe, but no more fringe then any other Leftist sect. I mean how many Egoists, or Leftcoms, or Maoists do you know irl? That doesn't mean they aren't out there. But that's not my point, I'm not saying there's a huge Mutualist movement in threat of becoming a dangerous reactionary force, I'm saying that hypothetically it would be easy to formulate a reactionary Mutualism in a way that wouldn't be too incoherent or need too, too much alteration. I'm not saying that Mutualism is crypto-facist, I'm saying it has a ridiculously narrow idea of what it would take to abolish Capitalism, and even if there aren't too many card carrying Mutualists around today, that shallow critique that says "Capitalism is the greed of Capitalists!" is still plenty common on the Left.

They do in New Hampshire. I've also been told there are mutualists in Burlington, VT and Portland, OR.

An economy of circlejerkers wouldn't survive any well then as in now.

It's a retarded statement. The bourgeoisie are the active colonists and drivers of capitalism. A 'capitalism without bourgeoisie' is a capitalism that cannot sustain itself. It withers on the vine. The Soviet Union attempted to emulate the role of the bourgeoisie in state and failed. China also does this, but allows for greater degree of private enterprise creating an effective mixed economy with a significant degree of bourgeoisie activity.


Wait 35 years.

Not if the proles themselves assume the role of "active colonist and driver" of capitalism.

Yes, the crisis of labor. The moment the working class can no longer exist, capitalism goes with it.

A prole who opens a tool shop is called a bourgeoisie.

Not if he doesn't have any employee. Anyway, I was thinking more of a co-op situation and the self-exploitation associated with it.

Proles who share power are collectively called bourgeoisie. Co-ops don't stop homeless from crowding the street.

But then there is in this case no separate bourgeois class, proletariat and bourgeoisie are combined into one. Which is what Postone meant by capitalism being able to exist without a bourgeoisie.

...

Bourgeoisie dominance is called the modern state of the world.

bump

smh

Hey I watched it. I thought it was interesting. He seems to be the opinion that the industrial working class is disappearing, due to automation etc, but I was wondering how the emerging gig economy plays into this. Is he implying a return to serfdom or a lumpenization of the former (industrial) working class? I'd have liked to hear him elloborate of that.

Elaborate*

Investing isn't self-exploitation unless the reward for the investment is over your expected time horizon.