Hate Your Boss: Marxism, Capitalism, Socialism, Anarchy and the Left

The Something Awful Forums > Discussion > Debate & Discussion > Hate Your Boss: Marxism, Capitalism, Socialism, Anarchy and the Left

readingatwork: Jan 8, 2009; Hello Fatty!; Fun Shoe

Reserved.

I'm not going to use this space but I'm not giving it back either. Let this be your first lesson in how capitalism works.

# ¿ Nov 5, 2020 05:01

Adbot: ADBOT LOVES YOU

# ¿ May 15, 2024 03:13

readingatwork: Jan 8, 2009; Hello Fatty!; Fun Shoe

Let's ask some controversial questions and get some debate going that's actually interesting beyond explaining the basics.

What do people feel are some legitimate problems with left wing theory?

I actually think there are several. A big one though is that I'm not sure how stable Socialism/Comminism is over time. I worry that even if we implement a perfect version of Luxury Gay Communism that over time future generations become comfortable and unaware of the realities of class struggle. They'll de-radicalize and eventually liberal/wealthy factions will start gaining power again as people start carving up the welfare state for their own benefit one tiny piece at a time. The end result might not be capitalism necessarily but some form of class hierarchy would reform and the injustices we fought to unto will begin again. Of course, this is likely a problem in any society, not just Marxist ones, but I still think about it a lot.

This is doubly true when talking about Anarchist societies. While good in a lot of ways, Anarchism is actually really dumb as a governing philosophy in much the same ways Libertarianism is. It makes some incredibly unrealistic assumptions about human nature and as a result it's endgame is basically ten thousand mini states with no central organization to keep the district of Los Angeles from annexing Sacramento other than the other districts threatening military action (which might not happen if the attacked district is unpopular). All you've done is take the problems with nation states we have now and multiplied it by ten thousand. It's only a matter before one of them gets the upper-hand and starts doing the empire thing and devours everything nearby. And they'll win too because one of the big services a state provides is a centralized military which doesn't have to coordinate with fifty other factions with their own motivations and agendas.

E: Awful snipe. Just terrible.

# ¿ Nov 5, 2020 05:29

readingatwork: Jan 8, 2009; Hello Fatty!; Fun Shoe

human garbage bag posted:

Jumping in here, but I think Socialism is supposed to solve the problem of gross inequality, like there shouldn't be a janitor who works 80 hours a week in horrible conditions only to go back and watch TV in their hovel while their boss answers emails for 3 hours a week and spends the rest of their time on vacation.

So for the doctor/janitor analogy, I think an equitable scenario that can be achieved under Socialism is that the doctor and janitor both enjoy life the same amount. This can be quantified by the percentage of their time that each spend working and their salary. Those two values can be adjusted so over their lifetimes both the doctor and janitor enjoy life the same amount. For instance the doctor would have to spend years in medical school, and to compensate for that lost time they are paid more or work less hours than the janitor once they start working as doctors.

I think an important thing to understand when talking about this stuff is that people are messy bitches and that a perfect utopia isn't possible. In the example you provided there might be a legitimate need for the doctor or janitor to put in more hours or for one to make more money than the other (becoming a doctor takes a lot of work and SOME financial incentive might be necessary), and this will lead to some unavoidable discrepancies in quality of life.

So, rather than leaning on socialism as a recipe for a perfect world I think it's better to think of Socialism/Communism/Anarchism as a framework for understanding societies that can help guide you to better outcomes. So while the doctor might always make more than the janitor we can still understand that perhaps doctors are a bit overpaid and janitors underpaid thanks to the way we structure companies and capitalism and adjust the law accordingly to compensate. Still not perfect, but better.

# ¿ Nov 5, 2020 05:44

readingatwork: Jan 8, 2009; Hello Fatty!; Fun Shoe

The Oldest Man posted:

I'm curious how this take contacts the reality of the EZLN and survives, or do you not consider them "real" anarchists?

I don't know what this is but I am interested in hearing more.

I'm aware that small Anarchist societies exist successfully. My concern is that the idea doesn't scale well to something the size of the US, where there are multiple large factions that hate each other. Anarchists I've listened to all seem to assume that we'll get to a place where that just won't be the case ~somehow~ and that doesn't seem realistic to me.

E: For the record Anarchism is fantastic and a lot of ways, unlike libertarianism which is pure garbage designed to let billionaires dump nuclear waste in the everglades. I just also think it has serious flaws which make it difficult to implement in practice.

E2: I'm also not sure how an Anarchist society would deal with other nations which are openly fighting for resources that are in limited supply. To say nothing of a country like the US which is openly hostile to their existence. I don't think it's a coincidence that the Leftist countries that have survived for any length of time are like the USSR or Cuba where there's a strong centralized government and military.

readingatwork fucked around with this message at 05:57 on Nov 5, 2020

# ¿ Nov 5, 2020 05:47

readingatwork: Jan 8, 2009; Hello Fatty!; Fun Shoe

BoldFrankensteinMir posted:

Yeah but that's the whole point: what if my work, or even my entire existence, adds only subjective or even dubious value? What then?

Let's say I'm a professional entertainer with a niche audience that barely keeps me fed, and I live on the edges of society avoiding people wherever possible, and I'm just barely getting by under capitalism but I'm not dead yet. That describes a lot of even the greatest artists ever, like it's a cliche that artists are only appreciated after they're dead. So under socialism would I be allowed to devote my life to that? Is there gonna be some bureau or office with a chart that determines how much value my work adds to society based on reviews of my latest poetry reading and how much I got in my busking hat (if that's still allowed)?

It's very neat and tidy to say we get rewards based on the value of our work, but, to get back to my original question, is value only defined as something that leads towards growth or expansion, or the wellbeing of others? What if my work does zip-all for the material well being of others? What if my entire life is devoted to unpopular art with no provable material value? Am I just not welcome in the socialist society?

I think you're touching on a legitimate blind spot in Marxist thinking. Marxism can be very utilitarian in it's single minded focus on economics and material equality and wellbeing. And while this is incredibly important (I mean, gently caress, look at the US right now) it doesn't really have a place in itself (that I know of) for work that's not really essential but is still fun or enjoyable to others like creating art. It doesn't explicitly say these professions *can't* exist, mind you, it just doesn't seem to have thought about it all that much.

Which is a big problem if you ask me because one of Capitalism's biggest selling points is that you can do the stupid thing you like and potentially make ten million dollars doing it. What does Communism offer a YouTube video creator? or a cartoonist? Or even a philosopher? I think that if we on the left want to get people on board we need to have a good answer for that.

The answer exists btw. It's to just say "fine, you can make and sell your stupid bullshit within certain limitations but you will never become a billionaire or leverage your work into being a megacorp, sorry". Small businesses could still exist to a point in Communism. They would just be a side show rather than the driving force of society.

# ¿ Nov 5, 2020 06:14

readingatwork: Jan 8, 2009; Hello Fatty!; Fun Shoe

The Oldest Man posted:

This is a prime example of all the value of work (that in this case being ad revenue) being siphoned off by the capital owners who then then pay a pittance to the laborers in comparison. You can make the exact same comparison to professional sports teams. Labor is labor. If the art is valued (this being in direct contradiction to the example above where no one values the art being produced), that value is being stolen right now.

Agreed. Let's nationalize YouTube!

Ruzihm posted:

^ You sure about that? Marx was pretty enthusiastic about workers under socialism laboring beyond material necessity for the sake of self-fulfillment. He expected that people would pursue many hobbies, some productive and some purely recreational, through their daily lives:

Source: The German Ideology

You're talking about hobbies. And I agree that people would be much more free under Communism to pursue side-hobbies that they actually enjoy simply by virtue of having the time to do so and not having every "wasted" moment feel like a personal failure. I'm talking about small businesses which are basically what everybody dreams of doing. I have no doubt I could write a novel under communism, but could I make it my day job?

BoldFrankensteinMir posted:

This. Everybody wants to dump on Horatio Alger rags-to-riches thinking because it's unsustainable and self-destructive, which are totally valid points, but they fail to address the key benefit on the other side which is drat what a sexy premise!. Do whatever I want and get rich!?!? Yes please!!!!

There's a reason that one of the classic anti-soviet views was "their art is ugly and joyless", because a lot of it really really was. If the only art that is allowed is big inofensive concrete sculptures of fearless leader, that's not a very appealing pitch. But I agree there is an answer out there for this, and it probably involves some kind of UBI that treats avant garde artists as essentially disabled people, freeing them to do whatever crazy thing they want and not starve. And a larger society that sees the value in this and doesn't whine about the "lazy artists" getting access to medicine and such. What a lovely world that would be.

A better option I think is to just let small businesses be a thing but severely limit their influence (you exist on the whims of the economy, the economy does not serve you), cap how much they can make and require them to become worker-owned/non-profit at a certain point. Also if somebody makes the next Twitter or whatever it gets nationalized and distributed freely. This way you can still make selling furry porn your day job if you want and you still get your free healthcare and SS check, but you don't get rich or powerful doing it which I think will be fine for a lot of people who just like making smut.

# ¿ Nov 5, 2020 06:54

readingatwork: Jan 8, 2009; Hello Fatty!; Fun Shoe

Ruzihm posted:

Muke made a video that touched on mandatory work under socialism in marxist theory and some practice. might be worth a watch https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=-3vbRNM5Pw8

I think there's truth to the idea that a job is way less lovely when you don't feel coerced into doing it and that we can create a much more healthy relationship to the work we do. That said I find the idea that all work can be 100% consensual and a thing of passion to be a bit naive.

While watching this I had a question in mind: "in the ideal society how do the toilets get cleaned?" and I never got a great answer. Nobody is going to go around town cleaning toilets for fun*. You will need to goose people into doing it somehow either through coercion or (more ideally) though increased compensation. Even then it's not exactly something you'll love doing.

*Well this one guy might but he's a weirdo:

# ¿ Nov 5, 2020 07:22

Adbot: ADBOT LOVES YOU

# ¿ May 15, 2024 03:13

readingatwork: Jan 8, 2009; Hello Fatty!; Fun Shoe

The Oldest Man posted:

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Zapatista_Army_of_National_Liberation
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Rebel_Zapatista_Autonomous_Municipalities

They're an anarchist-adjacent popular indigenous insurgent movement in Mexico that's managed to more or less take control of about half of the state of Chiapas through ultra-low-intensity warfare.

Thanks for these I'll check it out later.

# ¿ Nov 5, 2020 07:26

The Something Awful Forums > Discussion > Debate & Discussion > Hate Your Boss: Marxism, Capitalism, Socialism, Anarchy and the Left