RT @flancian
"The Machine doesn't even need anymore a special ruling class to maintain its power. (...) The machine can do without capitalists and owners, as the examples of the socialist states and state enterprises in the West demonstrate."
@flancian I'm not sure what they're referring to by "West", but east germany, for instance, was as oppressive as any other socialist state, surveillance and torture and all - or do they mean something else?
@srs I would guess East Germany counts as "socialist state" in this context. I don't see a contradiction between what you state and the point that p.m. is trying to make here (I think): the "machine", although often associated with capitalism, preserves itself just fine even in non-capitalist settings.
@flancian Ah now I get the statement. At the same time... Socialist states tend to have a very strictly defined ruling class in form of the CP hierarchy. And this ruling class is necessary to preserve the structure of the society.
@srs yes; this is pretty much Hans Widmer's take I believe as well, although here he is making the point that the machine is self-preserving even in situations where a ruling class is not directly involved. We all preserve hierarchical structures even when the ruler is away, in some sense.
He's an anarchist so he is very much against this state of affairs, to be clear.
@srs interesting, why do you think they are bad?
They seem dated to me but it's a book from 1983 :)