Principia Dialectica Commits Collective Suicide

collective suicide would imply that Principia has principles; I think it's more likely that they just went with it, and are now trying to out-Aufheben Aufheben.

When did you stop loving them?

@AN Previously,here , you pointed out how you think Kurz gets too much credit.

I, for one, took that on board but an inability to read German meant I couldn't take it any further. I'd also be interested to understand your criticism of the crisis theory - is it on your blog?

The extract you've posted, doesn't seem to show that Kurz has renounced but is rather in the vein of the outlook typically found on libcom where anyone who sees a fetishism of the working class is labelled as: lacking principles, liberal, anti-working class, anti-struggle, postmodern etc. This false logic therefore means that any support for a struggle etc. is then taken as also a change in attitude to the role of class as the subject. On the other hand, perhaps Kurz has had a religious experience and felt the mystical power of the proletariat? Oh well, I can see the attraction - things seemed so much simpler then.

On cue?

http://www.principiadialectica.co.uk/blog/?p=576

"Comments are closed.".

Do they argue that just the reduction will lead to this or that the elimination of necessary labour leads to systemic break down? If they argue the former, it appears (as you say) that they didn't read the chapter on relative surplus value. The latter is a more sound argument.

The Krisis/Exit argument seems reasonable for a theoretical economy consisting of companies who all have the same rates of profit, as each other, i.e. the average. But is it reasonable to apply the argument to an economy with a dynamic distribution of rates of profit, and treat the effects as that of a universal average? I'm not sure that I agree with the conclusions, derived from the following extract, but I do think it highlights this overall question. Surely this has to be addressed before evaluating the merit of Krisis/Exit's versus your arguments since, I assume, they both operate within this average assumption?

They go on to argue that a dynamic equilibrium operates which keeps the long term average rate of profit fairly constant.

A better alternative to 'quasi-vanguardist' might be 'coherent and impactful communication'. It is good to know the history of ideas but I think PD trying to find and propagate better theories rather than becoming trainspotters of them.

I'm all in favour of agitational groups and propagating theories, but I've never really seen "communication" as being that high on PD's list of priorities.

A nicely strung together set of entirely unsubstantiated slurs, topped off with a bit of bolshevik porn - trolltastic.

Fair point, I think communication is a priority for PD but they tend to write what they would like to read rather than considering whether a potential audience might find something else more accessible.

Weeler wrote:

'The horror... The horror'

In the last 8 months, while Postone had 45 page-mentions, Rubin also got 9. You should base your criticisms on a sound historical view!

I don't understand the point you're trying to make. Firstly, you try to construe that Sean68 was "lining up behind the bail out of the banks" but in the quote you show, he is simply saying that what would have happened if the banks hadn't been bailed out, i.e. barbarism. The whole thing is a bit of a non-issue because the resulting Teabreak doesn't seem to suggest not bailing out the banks or scapegoating "greedy bankers".

Here you made a number of points against blaming "greedy bankers" including:

Neither supporting the bail-out, or not supporting the bailout, are radical positions - a bail-out was capital's 2008 approach and no bailout was capital's 1929 approach (I know there are a great deal of substantive differences between the two periods). However, unless you believe that events such as the Spanish Revolution were dependent on the previous decision to not bailout the banks in 1929 - and that similar conditions still hold today - then why would you take issue with someone pointing out that no bailout would have likely caused a great deal of hardship and insecurity, probably resulting in a far more barbaric state?

They're open now.

You mean like...?

Or...?

Not that imitation itself is a crime, it's just that imitating what you are criticising when criticising what you are imitating shows how difficult it is to communicate effectively in this area. Alright, revised score: Kurz 45 - Rubin 8, happy now?

It's good that you have perspective of where Postone and Kurz fit into the wider debate. I also don't think it's helpful, for the wider propagation of these ideas, for them to be overly identified with particular individuals. However, PD is rightly wary of the typical approaches to broadening the base of a set of ideas: forming a group round a manifesto (e.g. the SI), productising the ideas into a brand (e.g. Class War) so it is hard to see how to move beyond the "lone genius" stage. There is also a theory that 'Postonian' ideas will be adopted by existing groups, such as anarcho-syndicalists, in the same way that they have assimilated council communism etc. I'm sceptical about this because I think that the trenchant class-as-subject approach is a support for some unresolved authoritarian tendencies.

Hey Wheeler your thread that was was unfairly binned on post 499 by the fascistic mods, has made me forgive you for wearing that hideous excuse for a cardigan. In fact I feel so well disposed towards you,I am not even going to mention the swastika buttons.

so good to see you guys trying tho.

I believe this to be what you're trying to make something of - is there any chance of you actually making a substantive point? Or, are you just going to keep dribbling on about inconsistencies, half-read Debord etc. and, of course, your awesome cardigan?

Rather Wheeler's cardigan than another issue of PD any day.

actually making a substantive point? I think you find the wonderfully woeful Wheeler made a very substantive point at the end of the thread you link to.

If "What a mess." counts for you as a substantive statement then no wonder cardigans bring you so much pleasure.

Well for some writing a lot of text in verbose jargon counts as substantive, for others, it is saying what needs to said in as a clear and concise manner. On the thread you link to, it is clear that Wheelers made a substantive post in just three words, which totally summed up what needed to be said. It would appear that it is necessary for the wicked Wheelers of the West to magic the said text into a three thousand word essay of dense Kurzian turdrid language for you to understand.

Do you support these actions? You probably don't know, until you've had a chance to consult your proletarianometer, and work out whether these students are sufficiently working class enough to be able to make a proper revolution, or whether are putting sufficient effort to connect with the right sort of workers.

Heaven forfend that you might be stirred to show some support. Some fascists might also turn up there too, and then your mates - hurr durr - might think you've become a bit fascist too. Like, I've heard it's catching if you stand too close. No, you'd better make sure any demos you go on are invitation-only and you get to see the guest list beforehand.

"What a mess" isn't substantive, it's a platitude which applies to many things such as my sockdraw, entropy, capitalism and most aspects of the left.

Sure, Kurz, et al',s turdrid (sic) language can be off-putting but you are wrong to assume that it therefore has no value. You should ask yourself, how important is it to have a good theory of capitalism? Postone (in Time, Labor and Social Domination), develops an argument that the understanding of labour held by traditional marxists was instrumental in the failure of past revolutions. So criticisms of working-class-as-subject aren't being driven by some kind of intellectual exercise but a genuine concern that the class-struggle approach isn't capable of moving beyond capitalism. Read the book - ignorance is no defence!

Nah can't say Ican support them foreign students, have you seen the cardigans they're wearing. postone is no defence!

going to student demos? that's what PD replaced the 'obsolete' proletarian struggle' with? Oy vey....

Is there any Kurz in English on the web?

http://www.exit-online.org/text1.php?tabelle=transnationales&index=1

One of the PD-bloggers can't stomach the fact that Zizek is "now" "praising" Postone on the "blogosphere", for surely "now" that Zizek has been "taken apart" by Adam Kirsch as a deadly jester, this can only be proof of what exactly? That Postone isn't the unique intellectual property of PD. That these "nows" are actually one year old news, already discussed elsewhere long ago. That Zizek only will "praise" someone, if he can add some criticism of his own (see his polemical remark on Postone made in his First as tragedy book).

Maybe PD's afraid that Zizek is like a king's jester while they are more like the kind of clowns who scrape for birthday party gigs at upper middle class homes.

How the hell can the leninist Zizek be praising Postone? Or is it just a pat on the back, from overhyped academic to overhyped academic?