UnwelcomeGuests - User contributions [en]

521 - Walling Us In and The Illusion of Separation (No One is Illegal, No Borders)

2015-01-12T01:49:48Z

Mirleau:

{{Episode
|date=2010-10-16
|number=521
|title=Walling Us In and The Illusion of Separation
|subtitle=No One is Illegal, No Borders
|image=521.jpg
|image_caption=
|summary=This week, we continue our series on separation, we look at wall building by governments to keep people separate. Is this, as we are told, to keep ordinary citizens safe from terrorism or drug smugglers? In light of the mound of evidence about [[:category:false_Flags | false flag]] terror and [[:category:CIA | CIA]]-sponsored drug smuggling, it seems rational to look for another explanation. In our second hour, [[Wendy Brown]] asks whether it could be to keep us separate and, symbolically, divided, to symbolically perpetuate the illusion of state power? Our first hour starts with a short clip from [[George Draffan]] speaking on the introduction of passports and state use of technology to control people. It finishes with a condensed speech by Jaggi Singh on migration and the growing No One Is Illegal resistance movement.
|description=This week is a packed show without much time for commentary. We start our first hour with a short section of an interview with George Draffan about his book, ''Welcome To The Machine'', talking about how governments ratchet up social control mechanisms in times of 'temporary' crisis and then neglect to roll them back. As an example, passports, were introduced ostensibly to prevent German spies from entering France, but in fact to prevent escape of French young men seeking to avoid fighting in WW1. This temporary measure was never repealed.

Next it's Jaggi Singh, talking about migration. It is a response both to war and natural disasters and the economic imbalance resultant from the exploitation of the 'poor' countries by the 'developed' ones. Focussing on Canada, he uncovers the reality behind the oft cited tolerance of the Northern countries, detailing injustices done to minority groups in Canada in the 20<sup>th</sup> century, and recent legislation aimed at reducing immigration while upholding a façade of legitimacy and tolerance. He touches on ICIS, the Canadian secret service, their role in setting up white extremist movements, inciting acts of terror by Muslim young men, and comments on Canada's worst act of terror, Air India Flight 182, noting the destruction of evidence by ICIS officers. I condensed Jaggi Singh's original presentation (74 minutes) down to about 45, so you may wish to download it - see the list of contents below.

Our second hour, ''Porous Sovereignty, Walled Democracy'', an insightful and highly concentrated lecture from 2008. Wendy Brown addresses the curious phenomenon that finds nation-states building physical walls at their borders as never before. The US government's plans would dwarf the great wall of China! An interesting contrast with the free flow global capital. Yet these walls may not be what they appear. In an ostensibly ever more globalized world, such walls raise a series of questions. What is the relationship between these walls and the erosion of national sovereignty by transnational forces? Do the walls assert sovereignty or do they confess its failures? What is the relationship of economy and security at the site of walls? And what transformation in democracy do the new walls herald? You may need to listen to this more than once, as it is highly refined stuff!
|contributors=[[George Draffan]], [[Jaggi Singh]], [[Wendy Brown]]
|credits=
|music= R.E.M., Babar Luck
|content={{mp3 | url=http://UnwelcomeGuests.net/archive/521/Porous%20Sovereignty,%20Walled%20Democracy%20(Wendy%20Brown).mp3 | name=Porous Sovereignty, Walled Democracy | min=57 | author=Wendy Brown}}
{{mp3 | url=http://UnwelcomeGuests.net/archive/521/Welcome%20to%20the%20Machine%20(George%20Draffan%202005-08-10).mp3 | name=Welcome to the Machine | min=50 | author=George Draffan}}
{{mp3 | url=http://UnwelcomeGuests.net/archive/521/World%20Citizen%20(Babar%20Luck).mp3 | name=World Citizen | min=5 | author=Babar Luck}}
{{mp3 | url=http://UnwelcomeGuests.net/archive/521/No%20One%20Is%20Illegal%20(Jaggi%20Singh,%20maybe%202007).mp3 | name=No One Is Illegal | min=74 | author=Jaggi Singh}}
}}

[[category:Canada]]
[[category:resistance]]
[[category:migration]]
[[category:social_Control]]
[[category:globalization]]
[[category:separation]]

Talk:Contact

2014-04-29T10:27:30Z

Mirleau: /* Mails bounced -- Mirleau (talk) 13:42, 11 April 2014 (PDT) */

== Mails bounced -- [[User:Mirleau|Mirleau]] ([[User talk:Mirleau|talk]]) 13:42, 11 April 2014 (PDT) ==

Hi Robin, sorry to use this page to reach you, my mails to you get bounced. Will try to find alternative like you suggested.
Olivier

===Update -- [[User:Mirleau|Mirleau]] ([[User talk:Mirleau|talk]]) 03:27, 29 April 2014 (PDT)===

<ul>
<li> I do receive your mails.</li>
<li> Mails from a newly created email address @bluewin.ch also gets bounced.</li>
<li> Installed BM, have green connection status and had dialog with echo server. There's a message sent your way, but its status seems stuck at "Waiting for their encryption key. Will request it again soon."</li>
<li> Will fall back to phone :-)</li>
</ul>

Talk:Contact

2014-04-11T20:42:12Z

Mirleau: /* Mails bounced -- ~~~~ */ new section

Talk:116 - Fooling Most of the People Most of the Time (Illusions of American Popular Rule)

2013-10-19T22:21:26Z

Mirleau:

== Comment on the McCollum memo. -- [[User:Mirleau|Mirleau]] 15:17, 19 October 2013 (PDT) ==

Stinnett's book gets partially discredited here:
http://www.artbarninc.org/REY/Stinnett.pdf
[ 'A Deceitful Book: Robert B. Stinnett’s book “Day of Deceit” ', By Rear Admiral Richard E. Young, USN (Ret) ]

That criticism does not however discuss the contents of the McCollum memo.
It rather criticizes Stinnett's book on other accounts, which on the face of it look
valid to me. It is therefore interesting to look at the memo itself and
see what is actually in there. You can find it here:

http://www.bibliotecapleyades.net/sociopolitica/sociopol_warterrorism03a.htm

What we see written there, towards the end, is:

"It is not believed that in the present state of POLITICAL OPINION
the United States government is capable of declaring war against Japan
without more ado"

... McCollum then suggests his 8 points of action ...

and concludes with this final sentence of the memo:
"If BY THESE MEANS Japan could be led to commit an overt act of war,
SO MUCH THE BETTER."

Whether FDR knew and approved of this strategy is, following Young, not
proven. What does seem to have happened is that these suggestions were
actually executed, and were understood, at least by McCollum, to be
provocations to the Japanese. From that point on the question of
whether or not the US were monitoring the Japs and whether/when exactly
they intercepted and translated messages, and thus whether the US were
surprised or not becomes beside the point: If you DESIRE to be attacked,
possibly for valid geopolitical reasons that McCullom states in detail,
and if you take steps to provoke such an attack, then
it's a moot point whether you end up surprised by the attack or not.

An interesting fact about the McCollum memo is that it's right up
there with the Northwoods and the PNAC document in the sense that it is
an illustration of the thought patterns of military global strategists:

1. Strategists for a reason, valid or not, come to a goal:
- McCollum: A war with Japan is strategically desirable.
- Northwoods: An invasion of Cuba is strategically desirable.
- PNAC: Expansion of US military dominion to global scale is
desirable.

2. PUBLIC OPINION of the time is an obstacle for directly reaching this
goal.
- McCollum: Can't directly attack Japan.
- Northwoods: Can't directly invade Cuba.
- PNAC: Can't directly get the necessary budget increase.

3. In order to bend that public opinion, a 'first strike' by an
opponent is DESIRED:
- McCollum: "If by these means Japan could be led to commit an overt act of war, so much the better."
- Northwoods: "casualty lists in U.S. newspapers would create a
helpful wave of national indignation"
- PNAC: "Further, the process of transformation ... is likely to be
a long one, absent some catastrophic and catalyzing event – like a
new Pearl Harbor."

In the McCollum memo the 'first strike' is suggested to be PROVOKED. In
the Northwoods case, the 'first strike' is suggested to be FAKED. In the
PNAC document, it is left as 'DESIRED'.

Talk:116 - Fooling Most of the People Most of the Time (Illusions of American Popular Rule)

2013-10-19T22:17:50Z

Mirleau: Comment on the McCollum memo. -- ~~~~

== Comment on the McCollum memo. -- [[User:Mirleau|Mirleau]] 15:17, 19 October 2013 (PDT) ==

Stinnett's book gets partially discredited here:
http://www.artbarninc.org/REY/Stinnett.pdf
[ 'A Deceitful Book: Robert B. Stinnett’s book “Day of Deceit” ', By Rear Admiral Richard E. Young, USN (Ret) ]

That criticism does not however discuss the contents of the McCollum memo.
It rather criticizes Stinnett's book on other accounts, which on the face of it look
valid to me. It is therefore interesting to look at the memo itself and
see what is actually in there. You can find it here:

http://www.bibliotecapleyades.net/sociopolitica/sociopol_warterrorism03a.htm

What we see written there, towards the end, is:

"It is not believed that in the present state of POLITICAL OPINION
the United States government is capable of declaring war against Japan
without more ado"

... McCollum then suggests his 8 points of action ...

and concludes with this final sentence of the memo:
"If BY THESE MEANS Japan could be led to commit an overt act of war,
SO MUCH THE BETTER."

Whether FDR knew and approved of this strategy is, following Young, not
proven. What does seem to have happened is that these suggestions were
actually executed, and were understood, at least by McCollum, to be
provocations to the Japanese. From that point on the question of
whether or not the US were monitoring the Japs and whether/when exactly
they intercepted and translated messages, and thus whether the US were
surprised or not becomes beside the point: If you DESIRE to be attacked,
possibly for valid geopolitical reasons that McCullom states in detail,
and if you take steps to provoke such an attack, then
it's a moot point whether you end up surprised by the attack or not.

An interesting fact about the McCollum memo is that it's right up
there with the Northwoods and the PNAC document in the sense that it is
an illustration of the thought patterns of military global strategists:

1. Strategists for a reason, valid or not, come to a goal:
- McCollum: A war with Japan is strategically desirable.
- Northwoods: An invasion of Cuba is strategically desirable.
- PNAC: Expansion of US military dominion to global scale is
desirable.

2. PUBLIC OPINION of the time is an obstacle for directly reaching this
goal.
- McCollum: Can't directly attack Japan.
- Northwoods: Can't directly invade Cuba.
- PNAC: Can't directly get the necessary budget increase.

3. In order to bend that public opinion, a 'first strike' by an
opponent is DESIRED:
- McCollum: "If by these means Japan could be led to commit an overt
act of war, so much the better."
- Northwoods: "casualty lists in U.S. newspapers would create a
helpful wave of national indignation"
- PNAC: "Further, the process of transformation ... is likely to be
a long one, absent some catastrophic and catalyzing event – like a
new Pearl Harbor."

In the McCollum memo the 'first strike' is suggested to be PROVOKED. In
the Northwoods case, the 'first strike' is suggested to be FAKED. In the
PNAC document, it is left as 'DESIRED'.

Talk:627 - The Progressive Process of Desocialization (Marxian Class Analysis 4)

2012-10-29T09:43:42Z

Mirleau: Dolores Hayden's book -- ~~~~

== Dolores Hayden's book -- [[User:Mirleau|Mirleau]] 02:43, 29 October 2012 (PDT) ==

Silvia Frederici refers to a book (or books) that she highly recommends:

" ... Dolores Hayden, [like] America[n] by Design .."

I found two books called America by Design, One by Spiro Kostov, the other by David Noble, the latter is about patents.

The book by Dolores Hayden that Frederici refers to is probably "Redesigning the American Dream":
http://www.zcommunications.org/redesigning-the-american-dream-by-dolores-hayden

Talk:624 - The Vast Machine To Perpetuate Hopelessness (Marxian Class Analysis 1)

2012-10-27T21:36:06Z

Mirleau: /* How is a slave different from a free person? -- Mirleau 16:28, 15 October 2012 (PDT) */

== 'Class' comes from the word 'Classify'? -- [[User:Drake411|Drake411]] 16:34, 11 October 2012 (PDT) ==

[[Richard Wolff|Wolff]] was a little irritating to me when he started of his lecture saying that the word class "comes from" the word to classify; the noun verbed. Then he gives a bunch of "different" examples that classify according to wealth. That was irritating too. I got about fifteen minutes in and had too much to say to listen anymore.
Firstly, the word class "comes from" the french word ''classe'' which comes from a particular and interesting use in Latin. [http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Servius_Tullius#Classes Servius Tullius] a Roman King divided the Roman people into groups for the purpose of taxation. The group ''Classis'' which means "the group on call to fight". So the Latin word for class comes from the Latin word to call or calare. Which brings up my second point. One can easily find ways to group people that don't involve money or wealth. Social scientist use classes, market researchers too that divide populations by gender, employment, family type, people who vote, and race. Different measures of wealth could include owning a radio, TV or computer; walking, owning a bike, owning a car, renting vs owning, working vs living off income from property. That said, Servius Tullius King of ancient Rome divided his people into six classes with five classes of ''classisi'' and one ''proletarii''. The wealthiest were the only ones called to arms and the poorest had only their children as property (potential slaves). Still haves and have-nots but it is where the word class "comes from".

===Well Listened -- [[User:Robin|Robin]] 06:29, 12 October 2012 (PDT)===

: I'll add an erratum; he [http://www.etymonline.com/index.php?term=classify does get the etymology backwards]. Sorry Wolff wasn't helpful for you.

Having gone back to listen to more I have to say this is a great lecture. So he meant that class for Marx is about the classification of groups and not some notion of style or aristocracy but about power. I know this stuff to some degree but this was so current and informed that it was really thrilling to listen to. The idea that Marx is all about labor surplus - bang on. In communism the worker gets the surplus with modern examples of exploitative vs communist situations - beautiful. Pointing out we can occupy more than one class at a time and that they can conflict with observations about marriage - genius. When he pointed out that the day after the Russian revolution the workers were still in an exploitative situation and didn't bring their production home, I had to come back and apologize.

== How is a slave different from a free person? -- [[User:Mirleau|Mirleau]] 16:28, 15 October 2012 (PDT) ==

Hi, I had the same startle when Wolff claimed that class "comes from" classification, but I held through and came away with quite a good feeling about these lectures. I understand more about Marx' framework than I did before. Thanks to Robin :-)

More understanding usually leads to new questions, which I summarized in the slightly ridiculous question above, let me explain:

I put myself in the capitalist's place: He's going to say that all his employees are free to leave him, and that therefore he's not expoiting them.
In fact the employees might actually believe him, and pride themselves to be entrepreneurs in their own way:
They are in the business of renting themselves out, and from a certain perspective you can see wage-slavery as self-employment:
You do what you're good at, and you just happen to specialize in offering employee services to firms.

Now Marx would say: The boss gets to decide where the surplus goes, therefore it's exploitation and not equivalent to self-employment.

The boss would say: Employee A knows how to make left-handed gloves, employee B knows about right-handed ones. The organization sells pairs of gloves at a price way higher than twice what a self-employed person can get for single gloves. Therefore, if people with these skills would be self-employed the single glove-makers would need to sell to a professional trader who would repackage the single gloves to pairs. The manufacturers would be 'free' but completely dependent on what the traders will pay them. If there's only one trader, it's going to be a low price. They're free but still slaves in the sense of dependency.

And then presumably Marx would say: Yes of course cooperation leads to added value, the whole is better than the parts. that's what communism can help you with.

Actually I don't know for sure what Marx would say, but if it's the above, then I'm left with three questions:

1. The boss has a point about the self-employed being enslaved in a way. Compare the modern american farmer: Self-employed but played out against each other. OTHER PEOPLE, the monopolists, determine how much the farmers get. This puts the notion of 'freedom' in a different light, hence the caricature title.

2. In case of communism, as in "without a hierarchy that redistributes the surplus", if I understand correctly, Marx doesn't give us a prescription for getting there, and more particularly, if we stay within the money-paradigm, how that money is going to be divided, and if we get out of the money-paradigm, how to achieve that. Wolff says that Marx mostly wrote about what will go wrong with capitalism, rather than suggesting how to migrate a society away from money. In fact the whole notion of societal migration is in a way 'social engineering', and is in itself already hierarchical (in the sense of elitist) at the root. So the question is: Is there a theory of migration toward a gift economy, preferably based on practical experience?

3. Within the context of the money-paradigm, what is Marx' definition of "the surplus" produced by an individual? In the case of employees A, B and the trader cooperatively producing a pair of gloves that gets sold for 30 hamburgers, does Marx suggest a procedure to distribute that surplus IN CASE THE MEMBERS OF THE COOP DON'T AGREE?

Bye! Thanks again for this program, I've been listening since a few years now, and it keeps on inspiring! :-)

===Re: How is a slave different from a free person? -- [[User:Mirleau|Mirleau]] 14:36, 27 October 2012 (PDT)===

: Replying to my question 1: Probably Wolff's identification of modern "Self-Employment" with Marx' "Ancient Arrangement" is too simple. Probably Marx meant "Self-Sufficient", which is different from "Self-Employed". You can be exploited if you're self-employed, but under reasonable definitions, you can't if you're self-sufficient.

Talk:624 - The Vast Machine To Perpetuate Hopelessness (Marxian Class Analysis 1)

2012-10-15T23:33:03Z

Mirleau: /* How is a slave different from a free person? -- Mirleau 16:28, 15 October 2012 (PDT) */

Talk:624 - The Vast Machine To Perpetuate Hopelessness (Marxian Class Analysis 1)

2012-10-15T23:31:47Z

Mirleau: /* How is a slave different from a free person? -- Mirleau 16:28, 15 October 2012 (PDT) */

== 'Class' comes from the word 'Classify'? -- [[User:Drake411|Drake411]] 16:34, 11 October 2012 (PDT) ==

[[Richard Wolff|Wolff]] was a little irritating to me when he started of his lecture saying that the word class "comes from" the word to classify; the noun verbed. Then he gives a bunch of "different" examples that classify according to wealth. That was irritating too. I got about fifteen minutes in and had too much to say to listen anymore.
Firstly, the word class "comes from" the french word ''classe'' which comes from a particular and interesting use in Latin. [http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Servius_Tullius#Classes Servius Tullius] a Roman King divided the Roman people into groups for the purpose of taxation. The group ''Classis'' which means "the group on call to fight". So the Latin word for class comes from the Latin word to call or calare. Which brings up my second point. One can easily find ways to group people that don't involve money or wealth. Social scientist use classes, market researchers too that divide populations by gender, employment, family type, people who vote, and race. Different measures of wealth could include owning a radio, TV or computer; walking, owning a bike, owning a car, renting vs owning, working vs living off income from property. That said, Servius Tullius King of ancient Rome divided his people into six classes with five classes of ''classisi'' and one ''proletarii''. The wealthiest were the only ones called to arms and the poorest had only their children as property (potential slaves). Still haves and have-nots but it is where the word class "comes from".

===Well Listened -- [[User:Robin|Robin]] 06:29, 12 October 2012 (PDT)===

: I'll add an erratum; he [http://www.etymonline.com/index.php?term=classify does get the etymology backwards]. Sorry Wolff wasn't helpful for you.

Having gone back to listen to more I have to say this is a great lecture. So he meant that class for Marx is about the classification of groups and not some notion of style or aristocracy but about power. I know this stuff to some degree but this was so current and informed that it was really thrilling to listen to. The idea that Marx is all about labor surplus - bang on. In communism the worker gets the surplus with modern examples of exploitative vs communist situations - beautiful. Pointing out we can occupy more than one class at a time and that they can conflict with observations about marriage - genius. When he pointed out that the day after the Russian revolution the workers were still in an exploitative situation and didn't bring their production home, I had to come back and apologize.

== How is a slave different from a free person? -- [[User:Mirleau|Mirleau]] 16:28, 15 October 2012 (PDT) ==

Hi, I had the same startle when Wolff claimed that class "comes from" classification, but I held through and came away with quite a good feeling about these lectures. I understand more about Marx' framework than I did before. Thanks to Robin :-)

More understanding usually leads to new questions, which I summarized in the slightly ridiculous question above, let me explain:

I put myself in the capitalist's place: He's going to say that all his employees are free to leave him, and that therefore he's not expoiting them.
In fact the employees might actually believe him, and pride themselves to be entrepreneurs in their own way:
They are in the business of renting themselves out, and from a certain perspective you can see wage-slavery as self-employment:
You do what you're good at, and you just happen to specialize in offering employee services to firms.

Now Marx would say: The boss gets to decide where the surplus goes, therefore it's exploitation and not equivalent to self-employment.

The boss would say: Employee A knows how to make left-handed gloves, employee B knows about right-handed ones. The organization sells pairs of gloves at a price way higher than twice what a self-employed person can get for single gloves. Therefore, if people with these skills would be self-employed the single glove-makers would need to sell to a professional trader who would repackage the single gloves to pairs. The manufacturers would be 'free' but completely dependent on what the traders will pay them. If there's only one trader, it's going to be a low price. They're free but still slaves in the sense of dependency.

And then presumably Marx would say: Yes of course cooperation leads to added value, the whole is better than the parts. that's what communism can help you with.

Actually I don't know for sure what Marx would say, but if it's the above, then I'm left with three questions:

1. The boss has a point about the self-employed being enslaved in a way. Compare the modern american farmer: Self-employed but played out against each other. OTHER PEOPLE, the monopolists, determine how much the farmers get. This puts the notion of 'freedom' in a different light, hence the caricature title.

2. In case of communism, as in "without a hierarchy that redistributes the surplus", if I understand correctly, Marx doesn't give us a prescription for getting there, and more particularly, if we stay within the money-paradigm, how the stash is going to be divided, and if we get out of the money-paradigm, how to achieve that. Wolff says that Marx mostly wrote about what will go wrong with capitalism, rather than suggesting how to migrate a society away from money. In fact the whole notion of societal migration is in a way 'social engineering', and is in itself already hierarchical (in the sense of elitist) at the root. So the question is: Is there a theory of migration toward a gift economy, preferably based on practical experience?

3. Within the context of the money-paradigm, what is Marx' definition of "the surplus" produced by an individual? In the case of employees A, B and the trader cooperatively producing a pair of gloves that gets sold for 30 hamburgers, does Marx suggest a procedure to distribute that surplus IN CASE THE MEMBERS OF THE COOP DON'T AGREE?

Bye! Thanks again for this program, I've been listening since a few years now, and it keeps on inspiring! :-)

Talk:624 - The Vast Machine To Perpetuate Hopelessness (Marxian Class Analysis 1)

2012-10-15T23:28:38Z

Mirleau: /* How is a slave different from a free person? -- ~~~~ */ new section

== 'Class' comes from the word 'Classify'? -- [[User:Drake411|Drake411]] 16:34, 11 October 2012 (PDT) ==

[[Richard Wolff|Wolff]] was a little irritating to me when he started of his lecture saying that the word class "comes from" the word to classify; the noun verbed. Then he gives a bunch of "different" examples that classify according to wealth. That was irritating too. I got about fifteen minutes in and had too much to say to listen anymore.
Firstly, the word class "comes from" the french word ''classe'' which comes from a particular and interesting use in Latin. [http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Servius_Tullius#Classes Servius Tullius] a Roman King divided the Roman people into groups for the purpose of taxation. The group ''Classis'' which means "the group on call to fight". So the Latin word for class comes from the Latin word to call or calare. Which brings up my second point. One can easily find ways to group people that don't involve money or wealth. Social scientist use classes, market researchers too that divide populations by gender, employment, family type, people who vote, and race. Different measures of wealth could include owning a radio, TV or computer; walking, owning a bike, owning a car, renting vs owning, working vs living off income from property. That said, Servius Tullius King of ancient Rome divided his people into six classes with five classes of ''classisi'' and one ''proletarii''. The wealthiest were the only ones called to arms and the poorest had only their children as property (potential slaves). Still haves and have-nots but it is where the word class "comes from".

===Well Listened -- [[User:Robin|Robin]] 06:29, 12 October 2012 (PDT)===

: I'll add an erratum; he [http://www.etymonline.com/index.php?term=classify does get the etymology backwards]. Sorry Wolff wasn't helpful for you.

Having gone back to listen to more I have to say this is a great lecture. So he meant that class for Marx is about the classification of groups and not some notion of style or aristocracy but about power. I know this stuff to some degree but this was so current and informed that it was really thrilling to listen to. The idea that Marx is all about labor surplus - bang on. In communism the worker gets the surplus with modern examples of exploitative vs communist situations - beautiful. Pointing out we can occupy more than one class at a time and that they can conflict with observations about marriage - genius. When he pointed out that the day after the Russian revolution the workers were still in an exploitative situation and didn't bring their production home, I had to come back and apologize.

== How is a slave different from a free person? -- [[User:Mirleau|Mirleau]] 16:28, 15 October 2012 (PDT) ==

Hi, I had the same startle when Wolff claimed that class "comes from" classification, but I held through and came away with quite a good feeling about these lectures. I understand more about Marx' framework than I did before. Thanks to Robin :-)

More understanding usually leads to new questions, which I summarized in the slightly ridiculous question above, let me explain:

I put myself in the capitalist's place: He's going to say that all his employees are free to leave him, and that therefore he's not expoiting them.
In fact the employees might actually believe him, and pride themselves to be entrepreneurs in their own way:
They are in the business of renting themselves out, and from a certain perspective you can see wage-slavery as self-employment:
You do what you're good at, and you just happen to specialize in offering employee services to firms.

Now Marx would say: The boss gets to decide where the surplus goes, therefore it's exploitation and not equivalent to self-employment.

The boss would say: Employee A knows how to make left-handed gloves, employee B knows about right-handed ones. The organization sells pairs of gloves at a price way higher than twice what a self-employed person can get for single gloves. Therefore, if people with these skills would be self-employed the single glove-makers would need to sell to a professional trader who would repackage the single gloves to pairs. The manufacturers would be 'free' but completely dependent on what the traders will pay them. If there's only one trader, it's going to be a low price. They're free but still slaves in the sense of dependency.

And then presumably Marx would say: Yes of course cooperation leads to added value, the whole is better than the parts. that's what communism can help you with.

Actually I don't know for sure what Marx would say, but if it's the above, then I'm left with three questions:

1. The boss has a point about the self-employed being enslaved in a way. Compare the modern american farmer: Self-employed but played out against each other. OTHER PEOPLE, the monopolists, determine how much the farmers get. This puts the notion of 'freedom' in a different light, hence the caricature title.
2. In case of communism, as in "without a hierarchy that redistributes the surplus", if I understand correctly, Marx doesn't give us a prescription for getting there, and more particularly, if we stay within the money-paradigm, how the stash is going to be divided, and if we get out of the money-paradigm, how to achieve that. Wolff says that Marx mostly wrote about what will go wrong with capitalism, rather than suggesting how to migrate a society away from money. In fact the whole notion of societal migration is in a way 'social engineering', and is in itself already hierarchical (in the sense of elitist) at the root. So the question is: Is there a theory of migration toward a gift economy, preferably based on practical experience?
3. Within the context of the money-paradigm, what is Marx' definition of "the surplus" produced by an individual? In the case of employees A, B and the trader cooperatively producing a pair of gloves that gets sold for 30 hamburgers, does Marx suggest a procedure to distribute that surplus IN CASE THE MEMBERS OF THE COOP DON'T AGREE?

Bye! Thanks again for this program, I've been listening since a few years now, and it keeps on inspiring! :-)

Talk:456 - The Market Is Naked (2) (A Radical Blackfoot on the Market Religion)

2012-02-13T23:29:35Z

Mirleau: Prof Craven suspended -- ~~~~ -- ~~~~

== Prof Craven suspended -- [[User:Mirleau|Mirleau]] 15:29, 13 February 2012 (PST) -- [[User:Mirleau|Mirleau]] 15:29, 13 February 2012 (PST) ==

http://jimcraven10.wordpress.com/