09-12-2012, 05:07 AM
(This post was last modified: 09-12-2012, 05:15 AM by FireIceTalon.)
Dude, he is speaking in the context of who owns the machinery. If the Bourgeois own the machinery, then yes, he is absolutely right and demonstrably so: there were many impoverished and unemployed workers back then, and there still are today. If the workers own the machines, it is a completely different ball game - because they have self-determination and are not subject to the will of a ruling class - goods would be created and distributed based on social need instead of profitability. It would seem silly to me for anyone to detest a machine anyways, since it is a inanimate object. The ruling class creates more machinery to drive wages down, but this only matters because the ruling class OWNS the machines (the means of production). It has nothing to do with the machines themselves, and everything to do with social relationships in relation to the machines.
https://www.youtube.com/user/FireIceTalon
"Your very ideas are but the outgrowth of conditions of your bourgeois production and bourgeois property, just as your jurisprudence is but the will of your class, made into law for all, a will whose essential character and direction are determined by the economic conditions of the existence of your class." - Marx (on capitalist laws and institutions)
"Your very ideas are but the outgrowth of conditions of your bourgeois production and bourgeois property, just as your jurisprudence is but the will of your class, made into law for all, a will whose essential character and direction are determined by the economic conditions of the existence of your class." - Marx (on capitalist laws and institutions)