|
A Buttery Pastry posted:This is why a nuclear war is necessary, to make Marx not outdated. Everyone knows the post-apocalypse is libertarian.
|
#
?
Oct 31, 2016 17:22
|
|
|
|
| # ? May 30, 2024 14:59 |
|
|
MeLKoR posted:Marx correctly pointed the finger at the problem but his solutions are outdated because the dynamic of the class war today is not the same as it was during the industrial revolution. Also I think communism doesn't work because Marx is ultimately wrong with his alienation theory but that is, just my opinion man, literally. His writing style is super good tho and he liked to get really angry with stupid people. Cool dude.
|
|
#
?
Oct 31, 2016 17:23
|
|
|
MeLKoR posted:Everyone knows the post-apocalypse is libertarian.
|
|
#
?
Oct 31, 2016 17:23
|
|
|
I can't wait for the apocalypse, it's gonna be rad.
|
|
#
?
Oct 31, 2016 17:24
|
|
|
Hey buttery, are there any insufficiently secured nuclear weapons near where you live? Just askin'.
|
|
#
?
Oct 31, 2016 17:27
|
|
|
Our society can no more predict what communism would be like than a blind man can predict what he'll see after a corrective surgery. That's some basic Hegelian poo poo.
|
|
#
?
Oct 31, 2016 17:30
|
|
|
caps on caps on caps posted:Also I think communism doesn't work because Marx is ultimately wrong with his alienation theory but that is, just my opinion man, literally. His writing style is super good tho and he liked to get really angry with stupid people. Cool dude. That's the one part that is undeniably true, though. Capital trumps labor in the division of surplus production among the production factors, which makes the worker alienated from his own product.
|
|
#
?
Oct 31, 2016 17:32
|
|
|
Raspberry Jam It In Me posted:Hey buttery, are there any insufficiently secured nuclear weapons near where you live? Just askin'.
|
|
#
?
Oct 31, 2016 17:37
|
|
|
steinrokkan posted:That's the one part that is undeniably true, though. Capital trumps labor in the division of surplus production among the production factors, which makes the worker alienated from his own product. but men will always be alienated from his true human nature and ultimately also from his own product because that Hegelian/Marxist concept doesn't exist in reality. And even if it did, then a new relation between capital and labor would not solve the human condition, which I think becomes more and more clear in our society. Not that I know, living in capitalism and all that. But it's my belief. In other words you can establish a communist economic and political order, but it will fail eventually and you will never reach communism as described by Marx, because that requires complete unity of humans with their true social nature. Haramstufe Rot fucked around with this message at 17:39 on Oct 31, 2016 |
|
#
?
Oct 31, 2016 17:37
|
|
|
Friendly Humour posted:I can't wait for the apocalypse, it's gonna be rad. Hey, whatever, as long as it's not red.
|
|
#
?
Oct 31, 2016 17:40
|
|
|
caps on caps on caps posted:but men will always be alienated from his true human nature and ultimately also from his own product because that Hegelian/Marxist concept doesn't exist in reality. And even if it did, then a new relation between capital and labor would not solve the human condition, which I think becomes more and more clear in our society. Not that I know, living in capitalism and all that. But it's my belief. In other words you can establish a communist economic and political order, but it will fail eventually and you will never reach communism as described by Marx, because that requires complete unity of humans with their true social nature. Where'd you get that? You aren't alienated from parts of your body under normal situations, and you aren't alienated from stuff you make yourself for yourself to use. As for why communism failed, personally I think it was the basic misconception that economic class would engender natural cooperation when external pressures were removed. Turns out people actually do need to choose to cooperate. You can hold a gun to a workers head and tell him to dig, but that works only as long as you can actually pull the trigger. As for unity with social nature, that'll be resolved. If the problem is that we can't freely share our minds and intentions and come to a collective consensus, the solution is simply to give us that ability. Neural interfaces and the collective consciousness formed irrespective of space will allow us to form new kinds of societies without the need to alienate parts of our nature to bureaucracy or to the means of production for society to function. Cheers!
|
|
#
?
Oct 31, 2016 17:49
|
|
|
Friendly Humour posted:You can hold a gun to a workers head and tell him to dig, but that works only as long as you can actually pull the trigger. Funny how this sounds like capitalism to me.
|
|
#
?
Oct 31, 2016 19:36
|
|
|
I think the hardest part to overcome about the various forms of economic alienation is the massive scale stuff is done in the modern world. People have 100-200 "real people" they can relate to and some abstract tribes they stand behind. Running a society of tens of millions of people as an organized unit running on compassion rather than competition seems impossible to me taking human nature into account. Utopian communism may well be a complete pipe dream. However, I can imagine a society where competition has been shifted from the shoulders of individuals to freely associating "teams" that non-hierarchical enterprises would consist of. Management can be seen as a job among others if the managers' decision making power is given from below rather than above. The worst excesses of capitalism would be removed by this kind of market socialist system, and there would be hope for a less corrupt democratic public sector that would function in a social democratic manner, filling in where markets don't work properly. It wouldn't be much of a social revolution, but that means we know how to explain how to make the system work using existing research. And whatever revolution had produced this kind of system, it would also have produced the conditions for the new system's continuation. The competition with slightly more efficient, already established cooperative enterprise would prevent hierarchical enterprise (arising from a likely capitalist pushback, as well as corruption within formerly cooperative enterprise) from taking over the system. Without major concentrations of hierarchical enterprise, there would be no mega-rich oligarchs and the only way to hijack the system would be if the people were really disappointed with it and willing to vote against it. Or if someone were to orchestrate a massive foreign embargo/coup effort, I guess. Basically, even if the Marxian ideals of communism were proven impossible, it doesn't mean that we can't do better than capitalism while still taking human nature into account. I would not call the current individualist competition fetishization perfectly in sync with human nature either. The failures of USSR, China, Venezuela and so on tell us nothing about capitalism, just all the ways you can design a system that fucks up any chances of successful long-term progressive evolution. For that matter, I think social democracy has also proven itself to be a failed idea, because it doesn't produce changes that would defend it from the inevitable market liberal pushback. And social democracy really seems like the best capitalism can do, including state capitalism.
|
|
#
?
Oct 31, 2016 20:08
|
|
|
Friendly Humour posted:As for why communism failed, personally I think it was the basic misconception that economic class would engender natural cooperation when external pressures were removed. Turns out people actually do need to choose to cooperate. You can hold a gun to a workers head and tell him to dig, but that works only as long as you can actually pull the trigger. hmm this sounds suspiciously like the common and hilariously unsuccessful plan of "first, assume that everyone has become a better person..."
|
|
#
?
Oct 31, 2016 20:10
|
|
I CANNOT EJACULATE WITHOUT SEEING NATIVE AMERICANS BRUTALISED!
|
uncop posted:For that matter, I think social democracy has also proven itself to be a failed idea, because it doesn't produce changes that would defend it from the inevitable market liberal pushback. My main beef with revolutionary politics/strategy/tactics is this very thing I quoted right there. You must design a system that can support itself, with the most inclusive definition of "support", but also that can withstand, outnumbered and outgunned, the inevitable market liberal response.
|
|
#
?
Oct 31, 2016 20:15
|
|
|
blowfish posted:hmm this sounds suspiciously like the common and hilariously unsuccessful plan of "first, assume that everyone has become a better person..." Well yes, if you ignore the whole "wire everybody's brains together" part.
|
|
#
?
Oct 31, 2016 22:10
|
|
|
Its funny that countries that betrayed the East now have communism on the rise.western Betrayl karma
|
|
#
?
Oct 31, 2016 23:49
|
|
|
Friendly Humour posted:Well yes, if you ignore the whole "wire everybody's brains together" part. A wizard did it! Also why are you so sure the reaction would be "I am immeasurably grateful for this deeper insight into my fellow man and will forever join humanity in working for the good of all" and not "you're all terrible go die in a fire" suck my woke dick fucked around with this message at 23:58 on Oct 31, 2016 |
|
#
?
Oct 31, 2016 23:56
|
|
|
blowfish posted:A wizard did it! Also why are you so sure the reaction would be "I am immeasurably grateful for this deeper insight into my fellow man and will forever join humanity in working for the good of all" and not "you're all terrible go die in a fire" I'm not? Your ideas smell likem poop where did you get them. The whole point is to overcome the unnatural alienation our modern way of life has trapped us into. But don't worry, I'm not going to "share my mind" with you. Because you seem like a poo poo poopoo person. And no amount of aftificial synapses is ever going to fix that.
|
|
#
?
Nov 1, 2016 00:14
|
|
|
Friendly Humour posted:I'm not? Your ideas smell likem poop where did you get them. The whole point is to overcome the unnatural alienation our modern way of life has trapped us into. But don't worry, I'm not going to "share my mind" with you. Because you seem like a poo poo poopoo person. And no amount of aftificial synapses is ever going to fix that. This is called depression.
|
|
#
?
Nov 1, 2016 04:25
|
|
|
tsa posted:This is called depression. You cracked the case, people are just too sad to lift themselves up by their bootstraps. If they thought more positively, they would also be successful and cool like me, a captain of industry. Alienation is the contradiction between two ontological propositions, the historical thesis and antithesis, projected onto an individual. It is the representation of the current social system's dysfunctions, and the driving force of reform and revolution. It has nothing to do with individual moral profile or psychology, it's the inevitable effect of the larger workings of society being subject to cognition. steinrokkan fucked around with this message at 08:27 on Nov 1, 2016 |
|
#
?
Nov 1, 2016 08:23
|
|
|
ITT commies who have not learned anything from the last 150 years of history and are certain that the next time it is going to work. You are sort of like 7th day adventists that keeps on thinking Jesus is finally going to come back this time. But hey, it explains why socialists tend to be atheist.
|
|
#
?
Nov 1, 2016 08:33
|
|
|
LeoMarr posted:Its funny that countries that betrayed the East now have communism on the rise.western Betrayl karma What is this referring to? Raspberry Jam It In Me posted:Oettinger called Wallonia's government a bunch of communists. Specifically, a micro-region ruled by communists.
|
|
#
?
Nov 1, 2016 12:29
|
|
|
Cardiac posted:ITT commies who have not learned anything from the last 150 years of history and are certain that the next time it is going to work. Are you talking to somebody or do you just like the occasional driveby strawman?
|
|
#
?
Nov 1, 2016 12:59
|
|
|
uncop posted:However, I can imagine a society where competition has been shifted from the shoulders of individuals to freely associating "teams" that non-hierarchical enterprises would consist of. Management can be seen as a job among others if the managers' decision making power is given from below rather than above. The worst excesses of capitalism would be removed by this kind of market socialist system, and there would be hope for a less corrupt democratic public sector that would function in a social democratic manner, filling in where markets don't work properly. That's completely incompatible with the capitalistic mode of production. As long as you have private ownership of the means of production, truly flat hierarchies and group competition is impossible. Your free associating teams require starting capital for their business and everyone who comes working for the company later and doesn't contribute an equal share of capital is just going to be an employee. This employee status is what puts you into individual competition with everyone else who wants to work there. Yeah, the toxic side effects of this economic form can be somewhat mitigated, but it's never going to be a good system or ever really working. That's just delusional. As soon as we, as a species, have found any kind of viable alternative, we are outta this lovely mode of production.
|
|
#
?
Nov 1, 2016 13:03
|
|
|
Friendly Humour posted:Where'd you get that? You aren't alienated from parts of your body under normal situations, and you aren't alienated from stuff you make yourself for yourself to use. Marx writing before Capital, around Paris to Belgium time. Friendly Humour posted:As for unity with social nature, that'll be resolved. If the problem is that we can't freely share our minds and intentions and come to a collective consensus, the solution is simply to give us that ability. Neural interfaces and the collective consciousness formed irrespective of space will allow us to form new kinds of societies without the need to alienate parts of our nature to bureaucracy or to the means of production for society to function. Cheers! Information is not what Marx speaks about at all, nor coordination. In Marx view, human nature is different in capitalism and communism. More correctly, humans under capitalism are not natural at all, as humans are this social being. In communism humans will automatically realize their social nature, their being and actions are targeted in achieving the social outcome as individual and social objectives are the same. This happens the same way as "humanism" transformation after breaking free of the religious system. Information or consensus are immaterial issues in communism, as goals are aligned. The question of incentives necessarily does not exist. If you do not believe that people will change in this way, you are simply not of communist (Marx) ideology. Haramstufe Rot fucked around with this message at 18:37 on Nov 1, 2016 |
|
#
?
Nov 1, 2016 18:31
|
|
|
uncop posted:
Can you be more specific? What is a team? Who makes teams? Who decides who gets to join which team? What does free association mean? Do I have to accept everyone in my team? How are profits shared? Who regulates my and other teams? What form of competition happens?
|
|
#
?
Nov 1, 2016 18:36
|
|
|
caps on caps on caps posted:Can you be more specific? What is a team? Who makes teams? Who decides who gets to join which team? What does free association mean? Do I have to accept everyone in my team? How are profits shared? Who regulates my and other teams? What form of competition happens? Imagine some sort of Gigantic Colisseum overflowing with nerds from various walks of life. Who will live? Who will die? Who will get a kiss from the Prince?
|
|
#
?
Nov 1, 2016 19:45
|
|
|
caps on caps on caps posted:Can you be more specific? What is a team? Who makes teams? Who decides who gets to join which team? What does free association mean? Do I have to accept everyone in my team? How are profits shared? Who regulates my and other teams? What form of competition happens? I'm not terribly well read on real cooperative organization, so I basically meant an imaginary company structure that mainly copies from known examples of scalable worker co-ops. Probably the only hard rules would be that executive power is always given democratically by the workers and that there are certain hard limits on what kind of powers can be given to an individual. Think presidents, they don't get to make laws or budgets, and are not above the law. Profits are shared according to rules that are decided with a (optimally direct) democratic vote, and so on. By "team" I meant a unit within the workplace that works together and knows each other, a social unit usually united by a purpose. The differentiation is because modern companies are often big enough that nobody really knows what most of the people working there even do. People everywhere seem to organize naturally in this tribal way where there's your tribe (team), the neighboring tribes you compete with but also respect (rest of the company) and "the others". It's not at all a "we should organize in this way" thing, just a "we seem to organize in this way if no conscious effort is made against it" thing. Assuming a free society, it will happen like it happens now. I guess the requirements within the company and the competencies and interests of the people ultimately decide who belongs in which team. And there's a natural incentive to form teams that work well together. They would either manage themselves or decide together who should manage them. On a company level, hiring and firing decisions would have to be ultimately decided democratically, with the majority of the workforce at least being able to veto any intolerable decision. Economic competition would be much the same as it is now. Make a product that people want to spend their money on over everyone else's products. Social competition, I hope, would become less centered on the individual. In a hierarchical company, you compete with the rest of your team to please your boss. Your boss then pits your team against other teams in order to show off to their boss. In this kind of cooperative company, you compete together against other teams to show off to your teammates. Unlike your boss, the collective of your teammates is unlikely to see you as a replaceable cog or through the lens of an irrational personal like/dislike when they make decisions about your future in the company.
|
|
#
?
Nov 1, 2016 20:05
|
|
|
uncop posted:I'm not terribly well read on real cooperative organization, so I basically meant an imaginary company structure that mainly copies from known examples of scalable worker co-ops. Probably the only hard rules would be that executive power is always given democratically by the workers and that there are certain hard limits on what kind of powers can be given to an individual. Think presidents, they don't get to make laws or budgets, and are not above the law. Profits are shared according to rules that are decided with a (optimally direct) democratic vote, and so on. I imagine that in any society those system get uncounsciously made depending on serendipity and force of circumstances but I would add that one of the many things I gather by the cooperatives I read about is that they desire a counscious reflection on how to organize things to soberly find what works best for everyone, trying to be as little coercitive as possible. Who knows how things would develop if tried that way. On the economic competition being the same, I think many voices inside the cooperative moment argue in favour of complementarity instead of trade, as in, different countries producing the things they are good at for everybody and then producing and exchanging the products to cover all needs. I'd add that and agree with your post.
|
|
#
?
Nov 1, 2016 20:25
|
|
|
Dawncloack posted:On the economic competition being the same, I think many voices inside the cooperative moment argue in favour of complementarity instead of trade, as in, different countries producing the things they are good at for everybody and then producing and exchanging the products to cover all needs. I'd add that and agree with your post. That is stupid, needs are completely arbitrary, in constant flux and dependant on societal priorities, competition would still arise as producers would want to influence these needs to keep their expertise relevant as to safeguard their own educational investment, sense of purpose and personal comfort. Zudgemud fucked around with this message at 08:47 on Nov 2, 2016 |
|
#
?
Nov 2, 2016 08:45
|
|
|
i will haunt you all when i die
|
|
#
?
Nov 2, 2016 08:47
|
|
|
Zudgemud posted:That is stupid, needs are completely arbitrary, in constant flux and dependant on societal priorities, competition would still arise as producers would want to influence these needs to keep their expertise relevant as to safeguard their own educational investment, sense of purpose and personal comfort. Additionally, countries and companies that were once good at manufacturing something tend to go to poo poo if removed from external stimuli of self-improvement. As evidenced by socialist countries in EE that went from making competitive goods to making trash people bought only because there was no alternative, or the structuralist governments in LA where favored corporations only survived thanks to protectionism and would die the second they had to justify their existence on the market.
|
|
#
?
Nov 2, 2016 08:56
|
|
|
Avshalom posted:i will haunt you all when i die stay safe, poetry ghost
|
|
#
?
Nov 2, 2016 09:33
|
|
|
steinrokkan posted:Additionally, countries and companies that were once good at manufacturing something tend to go to poo poo if removed from external stimuli of self-improvement. As evidenced by socialist countries in EE that went from making competitive goods to making trash people bought only because there was no alternative, or the structuralist governments in LA where favored corporations only survived thanks to protectionism and would die the second they had to justify their existence on the market. So what you mean is we need an even more coercitive system of government to keep people accountable?
|
|
#
?
Nov 2, 2016 09:50
|
|
|
We need fascism to put an end to decades of free-tradeism.
|
|
#
?
Nov 2, 2016 10:08
|
|
|
Fascism is better than capitalism since if i'm going to be oppressed and murdered id prefer it be done for ideological reasons rather than Just greed.
|
|
#
?
Nov 2, 2016 10:15
|
|
|
doverhog posted:Fascism is better than capitalism since if i'm going to be oppressed and murdered id prefer it be done for ideological reasons rather than Just greed. same but the opposite
|
|
#
?
Nov 2, 2016 10:36
|
|
|
doverhog posted:Fascism is better than capitalism since if i'm going to be oppressed and murdered id prefer it be done for ideological reasons rather than Just greed. Fascism is better than capitalism because no one bats an eye when you hang fascists from light poles as so many strings of sausages.
|
|
#
?
Nov 2, 2016 10:59
|
|
|
|
| # ? May 30, 2024 14:59 |
|
|
When you think about it, there's something to be said in favor of political violence: it's cathartic, and a net good when it targets the right people (fascists, capital owners and capitalists in general)
Flowers For Algeria fucked around with this message at 11:11 on Nov 2, 2016 |
|
#
?
Nov 2, 2016 11:09
|
|