Marxist thought

[chenGOD]

2 hours ago, cyanobacteria said:

at this point I'm going to have to assume you know literally nothing about marxism given that every other post on that topic is a misconception that I, a fucking moron, have to correct and try to explain what you are misunderstanding on the topic.  there is in theory room for disagreement on actually existing socialism, and there is room for debate on the topic of marxism, but even the basic concepts of marxism are not only entirely lost, but blatantly misrepresented time and time again, it's embarrassing for you

Do you agree or not that Marx’s basic premise for beginning the transformation to communism is the violent overthrow of the bourgeois?

[Zephyr_Nova]

https://archive.org/details/gov.archives.arc.616322

[prdctvsm]

Oh OK its Collectivized Matriarchal Slime Communism!

[logakght]

https://anticapitalism.quora.com/

[logakght]

 

[prdctvsm]

 

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Late_capitalismhttps://www.theatlantic.com/business/archive/2017/05/late-capitalism/524943/

https://www.reddit.com/r/LateStageCapitalism/

[zlemflolia]

5 hours ago, chenGOD said:

Do you agree or not that Marx’s basic premise for beginning the transformation to communism is the violent overthrow of the bourgeois?

of course, though it must be noted that there would be none if they willingly gave up "their" private property and let us achieve socialism and communism.  the violence without exception comes from the bourgeoisie against people in the first place, whereas the violence inherent to socialism is limited to that of the theft, or rather the reclaiming, of the very means of production the proletariat themselves created. what does this have to do with the topic of whether there is such a thing as non-democratic socialism, of which there is not?

[zlemflolia]

43 minutes ago, logakght said:

 

everything from them is always great, another good recent one

https://citationsneeded.libsyn.com/episode-131-the-essential-worker-racket-how-covid-hero-discourse-is-used-to-discipline-labor

 

[zlemflolia]

3 hours ago, prdctvsm said:

Oh OK its Collectivized Matriarchal Slime Communism!

gross fascist stuff in here no me gusta, also pretty heavily transphobic and sexist

Edited May 10, 2021 by cyanobacteria

[zlemflolia]

54 minutes ago, cyanobacteria said:

of course, though it must be noted that there would be none if they willingly gave up "their" private property and let us achieve socialism and communism.  the violence without exception comes from the bourgeoisie against people in the first place, whereas the violence inherent to socialism is limited to that of the theft, or rather the reclaiming, of the very means of production the proletariat themselves created. what does this have to do with the topic of whether there is such a thing as non-democratic socialism, of which there is not?

interesting that you admit in your very question that the bourgeoisie have power.  voting alone cannot work since the voting mechanisms they give us are designed to keep them in power.

[Thu Zaw]

The world is gonna be so peaceful once you've imprisoned and executed everyone who stands in the way of your ideology.

 

You do know, don't you, that this "communism trip" you're going through is a phase. It's a widely known, and frankly mocked, phenomenon in Western liberal cultures, that young, usually white kids, particularly if they go to art school or do a philosophy major, tend to go through this communism phase. It's practically a right of passage. 

You're gonna grow out of it eventually. You will likely think back to these threads and cringe at yourself, embarrass by your naivety and ignorance. 

Currently you think you've hit upon some radical, underground school of thought; and you probably think everyone around you is some simpleton, a drone in society, coasting through life as a pawn of 'the man'. They could never be such a visionary like you. 

I'm not saying these things to patronise you. I'm just spitting some truths. Most people on this forum have probably gone through some communist-flirtation phase at some point in their youth. It's practically a right of passage. No educated adult takes any of it seriously. Because any educated adult becomes aware of the realities and practicalities of life. 

I think you put too much faith in the power of individuals. Most people, even at high levels, don't have a fucking clue what they're doing. Everyone, bar few people with severe psychological issues, is racked with insecurity, doubt, base desires and a memory of their ignorant child-self. 

You don't state where you are located, but I can safely assume you're American. I can safely assume you're middle class and relatively well-educated. I can guess that you probably don't have a huge amount of experience of the world, professionally, socially, internationally. 

Do you little Marxist fad, but just bear in mind that you're probably gonna look back at yourself in 5/10yrs time, and think to yourself, "God, what a dick I was". Cos we all do.

Well, that is, if you do emerge from your phase. Not everyone does.

I have the worldview and my ideas about politics that I have now precisely because I've allowed myself to change my mind. I've pushed myself to interrogate my own ideas and I've swallowed my pride enough to allow myself to admit I've been wrong, and moved on with my ideas. 

It's good to change your ideas; it means you're constantly learning and growing. One should feel pride that they think differently now compared to before, not feel shame for previous ideas.

Life is fucking complex. Politics is fucking complex. People are complex. 

Cultures, ethnicities, religions, borders, crossed allegiances, the myriad of viewpoints within the political spectrum... There's so much to unpack that you could never understand it all. You certainly can't fix it all. Certainly not with a one-size-fits-all ideology.

There's an endless middle of pluralities and uncertainties in the existence of man. There's no such thing as universal peace. 

My advice to you is to allow yourself to soften a little. Let go of your ego a little and allow yourself to absorb new ideas and take constructive opposition and criticism. 

I don't have a political ideal. I'm not a leftie or a rightie. I wouldn't even call myself a centrist. You're right when you say that I am against authoritarianism. Absolutely I am. I'm critical of any idea that gives too much power to the state, whether it's capitalist or socialist. 

I'm interested in maintaining boring, non-revolutionary, slow, democrat, civil policy making. I'm interested in maintaining peaceful, constructive, mature, evidence-based reasoning between opposing ideas. I'm interested in pluralism.

Mostly, I'm interested in the nature of tribalism and culture, and how it perpetuates in-group thinking. How are individuals' ideas formed by the influence of cultural conformity affected by those around them. 

I've seen a lot of shit in my life, bro. And I'm still unpacking it all. I live with endless conflicting identifies and cultural allegiances, that all combine to create me. I spent my childhood (was nurtured, educated) in some of the world's most disparate communities; 

- a secular and progressive Netherlands

- Conservative, Christian Texas

- majority Buddhist, authoritarian, impoverished Burma

- religious, fundamentalist Pakistan

- ancient, fusty and relatively stable UK

 

I love all these places and the people within them, whilst accepting their faults. I love the all, whilst accepting that there are groups within each community who consider the other the enemy. I know the diversity of people and ideas within people of each these places.

Life is like that: huge, varied, contradictory, ancient, vague, imperfect. It's good to accept the imperfect nature of our species. You don't need to change the world; you just need to influence what positivity you can in the very, very small portion of it which you inhabit. That's all. And it's enough. 

 

My life motto is:

"In your lifetime, meet as many people who are not like you as you can"

 

By listening to and understanding others, we can better understand ourselves, and vice versa. We realize how small our worlds are. We realize we are simply part of something so enormous and so messy, there's really little value to be had trying to tame it. We should dedicate our lives to controlling our own nature, not that of others. 

There's a lovely line by Slug on a Deep Puddle Dynamics track:

"I think I’d like people more if they’d think more like me
So quietly I wait for my inner revolution"

[dcom]

20 minutes ago, Thu Zaw said:

By listening to and understanding others, we can better understand ourselves, and vice versa. We realize how small our worlds are. We realize we are simply part of something so enormous and so messy, there's really little value to be had trying to tame it. We should dedicate our lives to controlling our own nature, not that of others. 

I wish I had your patience responding to the flow of insufferable ideological faux pas. I use impulsive and aggressive rhetoric way too often, which doesn't benefit anyone.

[Thu Zaw]

1 minute ago, dcom said:

I wish I had your patience responding to the flow of insufferable ideological faux pas. I use impulsive and aggressive rhetoric way too often, which doesn't benefit anyone.

I'm learning...

[chenGOD]

7 hours ago, cyanobacteria said:

of course, though it must be noted that there would be none if they willingly gave up "their" private property and let us achieve socialism and communism.

So how is this democratic?

[brian trageskin]

1 hour ago, chenGOD said:

So how is this democratic?

[Wunderbar]

cant wait to finally start sharing my wife.

[cwmbrancity]

9 hours ago, cyanobacteria said:

violence inherent

 

56 minutes ago, Wunderbar said:

cant wait to finally start sharing my wife.

https://www.swingingheaven.co.uk/

[Cryptowen]

imo there's an element of truth to the "you grow out of radical political positions as you get older" line of thinking, but it doesn't ultimately invalidate the radical position. for sure, young people tend to get caught up in overly simplistic "good guys vs bad guys" narratives. As they get older they hopefully become more nuanced in their thinking, and begin to recognize that many of the ostensibly rebellious acts they undertook in their youth were nothing more than commodified lifestyle packages sold to them by the very system they were trying to undermine.

But it's also overly reductionist to suggest that this typical move away from revolutionary identities is wholly the product of wisdom. i think people continuously run a cost-benefit analysis on a semi-conscious level. when you're young the world seems full of possibility. as you get old, it starts to seem less likely that the revolution will happen in your lifetime, thus the idea of trying to eke out a stable existence within the logic of the imperfect world that presents itself to you becomes appealing. but obviously revolutions do happen. Old ways of thinking get swept away and replaced with new ones. it was not even 250 years ago that the united states founding itself on notions of individual liberty would have been considered a radical act. to suggest that we're in the end stage of human social development (even in embryonic form), that it couldn't be displaced by entirely different forms of understanding within this very century - pure ideology *sniff*

imo a person of revolutionary inclination should hedge their bets. do research. try to better understand the functional limitations and psychological impositions of the system we're currently in. come to see the ways in which most people will resist your line of thinking. see the distortions playing out in your own thinking (even in your projections of what a post-revolutionary world might look like). recognize that these changes are largely unpredictable and move at a scale beyond that of a typical human lifetime. the revolution might not happen in your life, and it very well might not be the kind of revolution you'd like to see. but don't disregard that which compels you to ask - how could this be different?

Edited May 10, 2021 by Cryptowen

[chenGOD]

16 hours ago, cyanobacteria said:

  I don't want all of the fruits of my labor, I want a percentage to go to a private owner....my needs prioritized when it comes to building mass transit infrastructure

Would many people have jobs without private ownership of some industry? Do you think for example, a Microsoft or BMW or Royal Dutch Oil comes about through communal activity? Corporations are sadly, almost a natural outgrowth of business activity. I'm sure I've said this elsewhere, but the book "The Company" by economic historians John Micklethwait and Adrian Woolridge describes how similar structures to corporate activity have formed throughout history, with a key inflection point being in 1555 with the formation of the Muscovy Company (these same authors argue for more oversight and regulation of corporations in a later book).  An explicit note that I am not advocating for deregulation, on the contrary, regulation on corporations should be much more thorough and enforced strongly.

I am also not saying that all economic opportunity comes from corporations, indeed, in America, approximately 50% of the population is employed in small enterprise, and if you include medium enterprise that percentage rises further. So what would you think about a successful baker who has one location where demand exceeds her capacity to supply that demand? Should she be denied opening a second location elsewhere in the locality (which would require hiring employees, managing resources, inventory flow, for which I presume she should be financially compensated with respect to her responsibility and risk). Does she suddenly become a capitalist moving from one bakery to opening a second?

While I'm not sure exactly how public transport relates to Marxist thought, some of the most effective public transportation in the world (Japan, South Korea, Netherlands as examples) are run by a mixture of public and private ownership. China's national rail system allows for foreign capital investment, and is owned by shareholders (at least in the freight sector). Pure models (either private or public) have seen much less success, and as an example of the most extreme, North Korea's subway system is pretty decrepit. Looks nice in the station, but inside is clearly from decades ago (see pictures).

You want critique of Marx: While I think Marx offers some useful insight into the cyclical nature of capitalist modes of production, I don't think he accounts for the adaptability of capitalism, as well as the power of creative destruction. I also don't think Marx offers much in the way of prescription to elide the cyclical nature of commerce and manufacture, and  history demonstrates clearly that central planning is a less efficient means of distributing scarce resources than through well-regulated markets with capital investment and private firms. You have repeatedly said that Marxism is not a utopia, so I assume you are not entertaining the fantasy of a "post-scarcity" economic model.

 

[Alcofribas]

lush pics ^^

[zlemflolia]

5 hours ago, chenGOD said:

So how is this democratic?

this is an overly simplified question.  were the violent revolutions needed to install electoral representative democracies democratic in the way they describe themselves as being after those revolutions finished?  no, but they are more democratic than monarchism even though they required a period of revolt to achieve their system.  why was that period needed? because of the resistance from the status quo powers at the time, not because of their newly desired system.  socialism does NOT require violent revolution.  in theory the bourgeoisie could come to their senses, see the error of their ways, and help us achieve socialism themselves in a world historic twist of fate for humanity.  but we all know that won't happen.

[zlemflolia]

10 hours ago, Thu Zaw said:

The world is gonna be so peaceful once you've imprisoned and executed everyone who stands in the way of your ideology.

 

You do know, don't you, that this "communism trip" you're going through is a phase. It's a widely known, and frankly mocked, phenomenon in Western liberal cultures, that young, usually white kids, particularly if they go to art school or do a philosophy major, tend to go through this communism phase. It's practically a right of passage. 

You're gonna grow out of it eventually. You will likely think back to these threads and cringe at yourself, embarrass by your naivety and ignorance. 

Currently you think you've hit upon some radical, underground school of thought; and you probably think everyone around you is some simpleton, a drone in society, coasting through life as a pawn of 'the man'. They could never be such a visionary like you. 

I'm not saying these things to patronise you. I'm just spitting some truths. Most people on this forum have probably gone through some communist-flirtation phase at some point in their youth. It's practically a right of passage. No educated adult takes any of it seriously. Because any educated adult becomes aware of the realities and practicalities of life. 

I think you put too much faith in the power of individuals. Most people, even at high levels, don't have a fucking clue what they're doing. Everyone, bar few people with severe psychological issues, is racked with insecurity, doubt, base desires and a memory of their ignorant child-self. 

You don't state where you are located, but I can safely assume you're American. I can safely assume you're middle class and relatively well-educated. I can guess that you probably don't have a huge amount of experience of the world, professionally, socially, internationally. 

Do you little Marxist fad, but just bear in mind that you're probably gonna look back at yourself in 5/10yrs time, and think to yourself, "God, what a dick I was". Cos we all do.

Well, that is, if you do emerge from your phase. Not everyone does.

I have the worldview and my ideas about politics that I have now precisely because I've allowed myself to change my mind. I've pushed myself to interrogate my own ideas and I've swallowed my pride enough to allow myself to admit I've been wrong, and moved on with my ideas. 

It's good to change your ideas; it means you're constantly learning and growing. One should feel pride that they think differently now compared to before, not feel shame for previous ideas.

Life is fucking complex. Politics is fucking complex. People are complex. 

Cultures, ethnicities, religions, borders, crossed allegiances, the myriad of viewpoints within the political spectrum... There's so much to unpack that you could never understand it all. You certainly can't fix it all. Certainly not with a one-size-fits-all ideology.

There's an endless middle of pluralities and uncertainties in the existence of man. There's no such thing as universal peace. 

My advice to you is to allow yourself to soften a little. Let go of your ego a little and allow yourself to absorb new ideas and take constructive opposition and criticism. 

I don't have a political ideal. I'm not a leftie or a rightie. I wouldn't even call myself a centrist. You're right when you say that I am against authoritarianism. Absolutely I am. I'm critical of any idea that gives too much power to the state, whether it's capitalist or socialist. 

I'm interested in maintaining boring, non-revolutionary, slow, democrat, civil policy making. I'm interested in maintaining peaceful, constructive, mature, evidence-based reasoning between opposing ideas. I'm interested in pluralism.

Mostly, I'm interested in the nature of tribalism and culture, and how it perpetuates in-group thinking. How are individuals' ideas formed by the influence of cultural conformity affected by those around them. 

I've seen a lot of shit in my life, bro. And I'm still unpacking it all. I live with endless conflicting identifies and cultural allegiances, that all combine to create me. I spent my childhood (was nurtured, educated) in some of the world's most disparate communities; 

- a secular and progressive Netherlands

- Conservative, Christian Texas

- majority Buddhist, authoritarian, impoverished Burma

- religious, fundamentalist Pakistan

- ancient, fusty and relatively stable UK

 

I love all these places and the people within them, whilst accepting their faults. I love the all, whilst accepting that there are groups within each community who consider the other the enemy. I know the diversity of people and ideas within people of each these places.

Life is like that: huge, varied, contradictory, ancient, vague, imperfect. It's good to accept the imperfect nature of our species. You don't need to change the world; you just need to influence what positivity you can in the very, very small portion of it which you inhabit. That's all. And it's enough. 

 

My life motto is:

"In your lifetime, meet as many people who are not like you as you can"

 

By listening to and understanding others, we can better understand ourselves, and vice versa. We realize how small our worlds are. We realize we are simply part of something so enormous and so messy, there's really little value to be had trying to tame it. We should dedicate our lives to controlling our own nature, not that of others. 

There's a lovely line by Slug on a Deep Puddle Dynamics track:

"I think I’d like people more if they’d think more like me
So quietly I wait for my inner revolution"

>communism is just a phase that young white kids from western liberal cultures go through

did you just not pay attention in history class or economics? the struggle of capitalism vs communism is the struggle of the 20th century and it was resolved in one direction through mass quantities of violence on the part of capitalists, to the detriment of the workers.  you have no idea what you're talking about.

[zlemflolia]

2 hours ago, chenGOD said:

Would many people have jobs without private ownership of some industry? Do you think for example, a Microsoft or BMW or Royal Dutch Oil comes about through communal activity? Corporations are sadly, almost a natural outgrowth of business activity. I'm sure I've said this elsewhere, but the book "The Company" by economic historians John Micklethwait and Adrian Woolridge describes how similar structures to corporate activity have formed throughout history, with a key inflection point being in 1555 with the formation of the Muscovy Company (these same authors argue for more oversight and regulation of corporations in a later book).  An explicit note that I am not advocating for deregulation, on the contrary, regulation on corporations should be much more thorough and enforced strongly.

I am also not saying that all economic opportunity comes from corporations, indeed, in America, approximately 50% of the population is employed in small enterprise, and if you include medium enterprise that percentage rises further. So what would you think about a successful baker who has one location where demand exceeds her capacity to supply that demand? Should she be denied opening a second location elsewhere in the locality (which would require hiring employees, managing resources, inventory flow, for which I presume she should be financially compensated with respect to her responsibility and risk). Does she suddenly become a capitalist moving from one bakery to opening a second?

While I'm not sure exactly how public transport relates to Marxist thought, some of the most effective public transportation in the world (Japan, South Korea, Netherlands as examples) are run by a mixture of public and private ownership. China's national rail system allows for foreign capital investment, and is owned by shareholders (at least in the freight sector). Pure models (either private or public) have seen much less success, and as an example of the most extreme, North Korea's subway system is pretty decrepit. Looks nice in the station, but inside is clearly from decades ago (see pictures).

You want critique of Marx: While I think Marx offers some useful insight into the cyclical nature of capitalist modes of production, I don't think he accounts for the adaptability of capitalism, as well as the power of creative destruction. I also don't think Marx offers much in the way of prescription to elide the cyclical nature of commerce and manufacture, and  history demonstrates clearly that central planning is a less efficient means of distributing scarce resources than through well-regulated markets with capital investment and private firms. You have repeatedly said that Marxism is not a utopia, so I assume you are not entertaining the fantasy of a "post-scarcity" economic model.

you're better off asking whether we want a microsoft given their history of monopolizing software markets to the detriment of customers.  same for bmw and shell.  given their insistence on not fixing climate change to maintain their profits.  i oppose them for the same reason i oppose too much of a focus on industry-tied workers' unions under socialism.  the oil workers union cannot be allowed to override the decision to fix climate change just like the corporations should not be allowed to, yet the corporations themselves are more powerful than the states.  corporations are not a natural outgrowth of business activity, they are a particular type of organization of private property rights and a pool of maintained wage laborers or otherwise. 

that baker is not taking on risk, the workers are taking on more risk than her since presumably they have less capital to pay for their life tragedies, given that they've resorted to wage labor.  she may be "risking" money if the new business fails, but that money was earned from what exactly? from the labor of the workers in her business.  you ask questions presumably on how these topics are interpreted within a marxist lens but still fundamentally are incapable of understanding that lens yourself given the assumptions in your questions

capitalism alienates the worker and reduces them to nothingness, to a commodity traded in markets.  if you're okay with that because you like the material benefits capitalism gives you just admit it.  you don't want to bother aiming for anything higher.  you think it's apparently impossible for coordinated labor to happen without private property.  apparently the means of production must be owned by small groups receiving all the benefits of that labor rather than being owned by the workers as a class themselves

Edited May 10, 2021 by cyanobacteria

[zlemflolia]

you're okay with perpetual enslavement to the bourgeois class, maybe because you yourself have reached financial stability in life and don't mind anymore, or maybe because you've made peace with being a slave or adopted some other type of individualist bourgeois ideology that lets your heart be still and ignore the cries of the struggling third world proletariat.  but I suspect it always was still.

[milkface]

39 minutes ago, cyanobacteria said:

>communism is just a phase that young white kids from western liberal cultures go through

did you just not pay attention in history class or economics? the struggle of capitalism vs communism is the struggle of the 20th century and it was resolved in one direction through mass quantities of violence on the part of capitalists, to the detriment of the workers.  you have no idea what you're talking about.

this lol. what about all of the socialists who existed and still exist in south america, africa and asia. they didn't/don't seem like young educated white first-worlders to me. and besides how do you 'grow out' of a phase when you know better? liberals tend to be the most clueless and right wingers are straight evil because they're aware of what they're doing.