If you are a Marxist it is necessary to read Whitehead. Whitehead's cosmology completes Marx...

It's not anthropocentric in the sense that it's an abysmal theory of man and culture. That goes doubly for Smith's constructions (of which Marx happily imbibed) which are flat-out falsified by modern anthropological evidence.

ok so here i found it took me 5 mins:
ecopoiesiscom.files.wordpress.com/2018/03/anne-fairchild-pomeroy-lenore-langsdorf-marx-and-whitehead-process-dialectics-and-the-critique-of-capitalism.pdf
would you care to talk about this book op? or would you rather spam your retard shit

Bump

Dude on the right has a striking resemblance to stefan molyneux

For Marx nature is as much a source of wealth as labour. From Capital:
>Labour is therefore not the only source of material wealth, i.e. of use-values it produces. As William Petty says, labour is the father of material wealth, the earth is its mother.
It's only different for value because by value he means a purely social relation, separate from wealth.

>"culture is a series of labour relations"
No he didn't

>why yes I'm a tranny neet how could you tell?

neets are based and are the aristocrats of the modern world

>why yes I wear programming socks how could you tell?

when did the ASD computer trannies switch over from team Land to team Whitehead? the lore is hard to keep up with.

retard

Gregory Bateson, Maturana and Varela, Stafford Beer, RD Laing, Bateson von Forrester, the whole earth catalog, a comprehensive archaeologic survey of eco and psycho cybernetics is long overdue. The question is, how are are we to disentangle the liberating potentialities from the military industrial mechanisms of Control, from their very origin intertwined?

How do marxists explain the Cold War? Most of the time you get either simplistic nostalgia for state socialism or a mere dismisal of it as not real communism, but it feels like there is something that remains unexplained and needs to be explained.

Marxism really needs to confront the question of technics. Weren't the capitalist west and the socialist east both dominated by massive industrial apparatuses based on taylorist behavioural modification and permanent total mobilisation via propaganda? Wasn't the cold war primarily a struggle for full spectrum dominance, an arms race relative to the technical management of human populations? ie. Counterinsurgency was the western response to maoist theories of guerilla warfare, while both cold war powers were considerably invested in mind control research and psychiatric experimentation.

The west's technics of control and pacification simply proved more effective. The imperial core is not only a site of accumulation and gratuitous expenditure, but a social laboratory were new forms of management are tested. Of course we need a serious critique of ''capital'' but it has to take into account that technological, political, ecological, social, economic and even aesthetic/moral considerations are inseparable from each other. I just feel like too many leftists are just people who are afraid and guilty and ready to submit to the very totalising socio-technical system that imprisions them.
youtube.com/watch?v=sb8Q4EHozjU

Attached: 6a00d8342e0dee53ef010536e514ec970c.jpg (817x581, 197K)

Marxist theory is the mirror of capitalist production, it has decent explanatory power, but it remains unable to transcend the industrial system it criticises. That is why, historically, Marxism has tended to manifest itself as a fetishism of production for its own sake and a cult of the worker as an abstraction. The 19th century worker's movement owed way more to memories of artisan traditions and religious dissidence than it is commonly acknowledged. Also 'Utopian socialists' such as Charles Fourier and the arts and crafts movement have been unfairly neglected because most marxists chose to align themselves with a process of industrial rationalisation they believed to be inherently more 'legitimate' and 'scientific'

Based