Re: <nettime> Debtors' of The World Unite! The Initiative to form an International Debtors' Party.

[Dmytri Kleiner <dk@telekommunisten.net>]

On Tue, 27 Sep 2011 21:13:38 +0200, Matze Schmidt
<matze.schmidt@n0name.de>
wrote:

> Sorry, some last words to it:

Thanks, I appreciate your feedback.

> If you reject the possibility of
> knowing the essence (which is a dynamic thing not just 'static essence')
> behind, under or besides the appearance(s) (Hegel), you just follow
> what's the form of it and see only form (impressionism).

I don't reject the possibility of knowing anything, I've arrived at the
realization that movements are not fueled by theories.


> That is your contradiction: First you state the debtors would feel equal
> know their situation as debtors with power and then you want to
> missionise them. 

Us. Not Them. It is not "them" I wish to "missionise," it is the historic
mission of the proletariate to abolish class, and do this, we must
organize. What is the alternative? Do nothing and lecture the few random
people you encounter on theory?

The proletariate must organize themselves. The Debtors' Party can be a
component of such organization.


>> So the only possibilities are Capitalism or Bolshevism?
> 
> Never said that. It's only that one can learn a lot from the
> Bolsheviki-story and from must of a New Economic Policy (NEP) around
> 1921.

Yes, and since we didn't learn that Capitalist provisioning was the only
possible solution, and since we've not talked about, nor should we talk
about, the specifics of how such provisioning would be implemented, how is
this is not yet another random, non-germaine, tangent? You're simply
employing a false dilema; that any non-capitalist provisioning must lead to
same outcome as it did in Bolshevik history.



>> You are forgetting that almost no worker has "built a care he can not
>> afford" since most workers in the Western economies are no-longer
>> direct producers. As explained in the text.
> 
> Well, that's wrong as we know. 

You seem to be misunderstanding what is meant by direct-producer as
opposed to indirect producer. There are many texts on the subject, perhaps
you would find my description of technologists as non-direct workers more
clear:

>From http://dmytri.info/capital-doesnt-automate-it-entangles

"While the skilled technologists that design the software are increasingly
separated from the location of direct production, where surlus-value is
created, and thus are abstracted from the appropriation of surplus value.

Technologists, often do not see themselves as exploited labour. Since they
do not directly toil in the production of consumer goods or services, they
often feel enabled, not exploited by capital. They produce ideas, designs,
maybe prototypes, but never final products for sale. The Capitalists allow
them to realize their technical visions, they don't directly take anything
from them."


Best,


-- 
Dmyri Kleiner
Venture Communist





#  distributed via <nettime>: no commercial use without permission
#  <nettime>  is a moderated mailing list for net criticism,
#  collaborative text filtering and cultural politics of the nets
#  more info: http://mx.kein.org/mailman/listinfo/nettime-l
#  archive: http://www.nettime.org contact: nettime@kein.org