Marxism

[Sundiata]

I don't see how that has anything to do with economics.


No, not really.

Rapid industrialization contributed to the Holodomor, and in China's case, we all know how the Great Leap Forward turned out.
If you wish to provide proof of socialism's production capacity, you may.

I think you're conflating ideology with types of economies. It's a difficult distinction and this sort of discourse is often limited by language.

Command economies can get targeted goals accomplished pretty quickly, the ideology of socialism is irrelevant to that fact. Joseph Stalin was no fool.

[Sundiata]

My biggest problem with Marxist thought has got to be the materialism and absence of God. That said, I'm not educated enough to critique every nuance of Marx's ideas.

It's too bad Constantinopolis is no longer here. He was a Leninist and Orthodox Christian. He probably could have given you a good response.

Fascinating, I would like to see how the two seemingly opposed concepts are compatible.

[Kubra]

Just gonna put it out there, ND has a point. Rapid industrialization certainly requires heavy state involvement in investment as well as planning, but that ain't necessarily a socialist thing. I mean ain't nobody gonna call Meiji japan a socialist place.
As it stands, the Soviet economy repeatedly failed when it came to goods more complicated than steel and, um, stamped steel.

[UniversalCommons]

You are right, communism does not create post-scarcity, advances in technology have the potential to create abundance which is a better term for the state of post scarcity. Technological abundance is less likely to happen under communism.

Rapid industrialization under the soviet union was done for the defense of the country. It was spurred by self protection and military needs. It is not that different than Meiji Japan in that it was fueled by the military and fear of foreign enemies. The United States also had rapid industrialization during World War II. It was out of military necessity. War planning and rapid industrialization are not unique to communism.

There is nothing inherently wrong with labor and performing labor. However, leisure is preferable. There is a basic idea. If you like having time to do what you want. Maybe it is educate yourself, travel, attend cultural events, you should be able to do this. If automation reduces hours of labor to allow people to do other meaningful things with their lives, then it is a good thing. Work is overvalued, it does not have to be the center of a person's life. If you have leisure and the means to do what you want, it is very likely people will find additional ways to reduce labor and introduce automation. Scientific and cultural improvements do not come from laboring on making safety pins all day or cleaning cesspits. Machinery to reduce this kind of labor is quite welcome. You don't get good music if all the young people are working in call centers all day. People who need time to invent new things also have to have large clear blocks of time doing things which appear to be useless in terms of labor. Communism and capitalism create a trap with an excessive focus on labor. That and productivity. People get reduced to being laborers and consumers. This can be very inhumane.

[Duvniask]

Who said anything about post-scarcity?

Your quote falls apart in settings where scarcity is present.

Seeing as capitalists do not inherently deserve to hold title to the means of production, the expropriation of their ill-gotten gains is favorable compared to reducing the great masses of people to preventable misery.

Exploitation is a real concern. It is the taking advantage of the ill-standing of another to further your own ends. Just as you can sexually exploit a destitute woman who has nothing to offer but her body, so too will you be exploiting the proletariat for their labor power when your class is the one that possesses what they need to survive. Working for others is a necessity of life in this society, there is no getting around that, and it places one group of people at greater risk, in a position of unequal bargaining power against those who posses the means of production. It would be little different to you possessing the cure to a disease and have people throw themselves at you with offers to do your bidding. "Free choice" my ass.


What is this nonsense. Communists expect that in the new society, carrying over from the old, there will be a retention of the principle of equivalence: social labor in return for products of social labor. Only in cases where abundance has rendered most concerns about scarcity moot (i.e. running water, which for many in the first world is an afterthought) will provision be based on need; in the final analysis "to each according to his ability, to each according to his needs" describes a society where work is largely unnecessary, but becomes "life's prime want" - work could be something interesting, enjoyable, stimulating in such a society, not the toil we know it as today in regards to most jobs.

The premise that people exist who only possess value in their bodies is completely ridiculous, but that's beside the point. People do not deserve anything lest they strive for it, aside from the intermittent acts of charity among some people. The cure for a disease, food, shelter, healthcare, all these things are the mana from Heaven that you demand for simply existing. The kind of "pleasurable" work the Marxist envisions could be ten hours of poetry reading as much as it could be something productive, and without a market to determine the value of anything, it will collapse. Work becomes indistinguishable from recreation, which is utopian madness. The capitalist, meanwhile, has risen thanks to superior wit or talent.

In every venture the capitalist has put their capital on the line, which renders the means of production as rightfully theirs. Toil is virtuous, leisure is not.

This is straight up sadomasochism. We could have a society that guarantees the basic existential foundation of all its members so that they can freely pursue (or strive, as you would say) their own self-actualization, the realization of their dreams. BUT NO, they have to suffer because you have zero regard for human life and have some sort of fetish for "hard work"; never mind that hard work is no guarantee of anything on its own, because people are unequal, born in unequal circumstances and subject to the fluctuations of their environment. To say people must "strive" for things, when you and your ilk would have every conceivable equalizing measure repealed is just pure lunacy. It makes the process of "striving" inherently biased towards those who start off well. It would be like watching a race between Usain Bolt and a legless man and thinking it fair.

People like you really are why we can't have nice things, because you believe needless suffering is virtuous. Please don't ever have children; I don't want to imagine little Northern Davincia Jr. to be told he can't have a birthday gift because his parent thinks he has to toil for everything and only provide conditional love out of some deranged belief that we shouldn't have a duty to ever help anyone have a better life, because goodness is awful or something.

[Northern Davincia]

Your quote falls apart in settings where scarcity is present.

The premise that people exist who only possess value in their bodies is completely ridiculous, but that's beside the point. People do not deserve anything lest they strive for it, aside from the intermittent acts of charity among some people. The cure for a disease, food, shelter, healthcare, all these things are the mana from Heaven that you demand for simply existing. The kind of "pleasurable" work the Marxist envisions could be ten hours of poetry reading as much as it could be something productive, and without a market to determine the value of anything, it will collapse. Work becomes indistinguishable from recreation, which is utopian madness. The capitalist, meanwhile, has risen thanks to superior wit or talent.

In every venture the capitalist has put their capital on the line, which renders the means of production as rightfully theirs. Toil is virtuous, leisure is not.

This is straight up sadomasochism. We could have a society that guarantees the basic existential foundation of all its members so that they can freely pursue (or strive, as you would say) their own self-actualization, the realization of their dreams. BUT NO, they have to suffer because you have zero regard for human life and have some sort of fetish for "hard work"; never mind that hard work is no guarantee of anything on its own, because people are unequal, born in unequal circumstances and subject to the fluctuations of their environment. To say people must "strive" for things, when you and your ilk would have every conceivable equalizing measure repealed is just pure lunacy. It makes the process of "striving" inherently biased towards those who start off well. It would be like watching a race between Usain Bolt and a legless man and thinking it fair.

People like you really are why we can't have nice things, because you believe needless suffering is virtuous. Please don't ever have children; I don't want to imagine little Northern Davincia Jr. to be told he can't have a birthday gift because his parent thinks he has to toil for everything and only provide conditional love out of some deranged belief that we shouldn't have a duty to ever help anyone have a better life, because goodness is awful or something.

The inescapable truth is that men are unequal, and a legless man should never even bother entering a race outside the Special Olympics. Not everyone is equally equipped for a task, and to pursue a universal self-actualization is folly. The market guides everyone to where their talents are best suited, even if it does not grant them hedonistic pleasure. Some tasks are inherently unpleasant as well, and nevertheless they are vital and require a thorough level of experience to perform. To strive for something greater in the face of extreme difficulty irons out weak-willed men and gives the individual in his purest form - the Galt-esque figure that stands over lesser minds. It was never about fairness. Nature is unfair.

In leisure, the moral character of men decays and opens up to degeneracy. Toil, however, strengthens integrity. In parenting, the elder expects their child to perform chores as a kind of repayment for the years of work that went into raising the former infant. A child is not expected to do nothing for the entire duration of life with their parents. A child must be taught proper virtues and demonstrate their ability to commit to those virtues. I take issue with the idea that a "better life" is a hedonistic one, as opposed to a virtuous one.

[Duvniask]

yo that sounds great, where can I get my brain hooked up to this vat?

ND’s post gives me the “communists just want FREE STUFF FOR NOTHING!” vibes.

It is that, but here it appears in its true, unmasked form as sadomasochism, along with deranged worship of the powerful as Übermensch.

[Northern Davincia]

ND’s post gives me the “communists just want FREE STUFF FOR NOTHING!” vibes.

It is that, but here it appears in its true, unmasked form as sadomasochism, along with deranged worship of the powerful as Übermensch.

Elon Musk is the modern Übermensch, though. A titan of industry who bends his surroundings to his will. It's very admirable.

[Philjia]

It is that, but here it appears in its true, unmasked form as sadomasochism, along with deranged worship of the powerful as Übermensch.

Elon Musk is the modern Übermensch, though. A titan of industry who bends his surroundings to his will. It's very admirable.

A house of cards shakily held together by severely overworked employees.

[UniversalCommons]

Elon Musk has alignment in his factories. He is in industries where people want to participate. He is not superhuman, he chooses the right industries where people are interested in what they are doing so they work hard. His products are driven by goals and dreams to reach Mars, to build an electric car, to have cheap solar power, to build an electric jet. This is what drives his industry. These people are not there because of toil like digging ditches. They are there because they are highly motivated to reach a dream. They are not the kind of people who talk about toil. They talk about how to work smarter, more efficiently, enjoy what you are doing. He is building dreams. His dreams are big and universal. People buy into them. HIs products represent ideals. To be able to do more of this, you have to reduce the amount of time spent on hard toil through automation so you can redirect people into projects like Elon Musk does. A ditch diggers economy does not create Tesla's, Edison's or people like Elon Musk. There has to be the leisure to invent, to try out new things. Invention and creativity require surplus.

[Kowani]

The market guides everyone to where their talents are best suited,

This is laughably false.

[Kubra]

Your quote falls apart in settings where scarcity is present.

The premise that people exist who only possess value in their bodies is completely ridiculous, but that's beside the point. People do not deserve anything lest they strive for it, aside from the intermittent acts of charity among some people. The cure for a disease, food, shelter, healthcare, all these things are the mana from Heaven that you demand for simply existing. The kind of "pleasurable" work the Marxist envisions could be ten hours of poetry reading as much as it could be something productive, and without a market to determine the value of anything, it will collapse. Work becomes indistinguishable from recreation, which is utopian madness. The capitalist, meanwhile, has risen thanks to superior wit or talent.

In every venture the capitalist has put their capital on the line, which renders the means of production as rightfully theirs. Toil is virtuous, leisure is not.

This is straight up sadomasochism. We could have a society that guarantees the basic existential foundation of all its members so that they can freely pursue (or strive, as you would say) their own self-actualization, the realization of their dreams. BUT NO, they have to suffer because you have zero regard for human life and have some sort of fetish for "hard work"; never mind that hard work is no guarantee of anything on its own, because people are unequal, born in unequal circumstances and subject to the fluctuations of their environment. To say people must "strive" for things, when you and your ilk would have every conceivable equalizing measure repealed is just pure lunacy. It makes the process of "striving" inherently biased towards those who start off well. It would be like watching a race between Usain Bolt and a legless man and thinking it fair.

People like you really are why we can't have nice things, because you believe needless suffering is virtuous. Please don't ever have children; I don't want to imagine little Northern Davincia Jr. to be told he can't have a birthday gift because his parent thinks he has to toil for everything and only provide conditional love out of some deranged belief that we shouldn't have a duty to ever help anyone have a better life, because goodness is awful or something.

Now now, there's a middle ground here. It is quite rewarding to labour at, say, writing a paper or putting together a band or (I assume) discovering the principles of evolution. That labour might be stressful, but it is altogether rewarding.
Much less rewarding is, say, being that one kid in a british labour report back in the 1800's who was paid maybe a shilling a day at best to sit near a particular factory door and make sure it was closed after it was used. The shilling is nice, but the kid otherwise spends 12 hours a day basically becoming dumber. Fuck that kind of work, who cares how much it pays?

[Northern Davincia]

The market guides everyone to where their talents are best suited,

This is laughably false.

Compared to everything else, it is the best system of talent allocation available.

This is straight up sadomasochism. We could have a society that guarantees the basic existential foundation of all its members so that they can freely pursue (or strive, as you would say) their own self-actualization, the realization of their dreams. BUT NO, they have to suffer because you have zero regard for human life and have some sort of fetish for "hard work"; never mind that hard work is no guarantee of anything on its own, because people are unequal, born in unequal circumstances and subject to the fluctuations of their environment. To say people must "strive" for things, when you and your ilk would have every conceivable equalizing measure repealed is just pure lunacy. It makes the process of "striving" inherently biased towards those who start off well. It would be like watching a race between Usain Bolt and a legless man and thinking it fair.

People like you really are why we can't have nice things, because you believe needless suffering is virtuous. Please don't ever have children; I don't want to imagine little Northern Davincia Jr. to be told he can't have a birthday gift because his parent thinks he has to toil for everything and only provide conditional love out of some deranged belief that we shouldn't have a duty to ever help anyone have a better life, because goodness is awful or something.

Now now, there's a middle ground here. It is quite rewarding to labour at, say, writing a paper or putting together a band or (I assume) discovering the principles of evolution. That labour might be stressful, but it is altogether rewarding.
Much less rewarding is, say, being that one kid in a british labour report back in the 1800's who was paid maybe a shilling a day at best to sit near a particular factory door and make sure it was closed after it was used. The shilling is nice, but the kid otherwise spends 12 hours a day basically becoming dumber. Fuck that kind of work, who cares how much it pays?

If you're criticizing child labor, I can see your point. An adult in that same position is not something to worry about.

[Kubra]

This is laughably false.

Compared to everything else, it is the best system of talent allocation available.

Now now, there's a middle ground here. It is quite rewarding to labour at, say, writing a paper or putting together a band or (I assume) discovering the principles of evolution. That labour might be stressful, but it is altogether rewarding.
Much less rewarding is, say, being that one kid in a british labour report back in the 1800's who was paid maybe a shilling a day at best to sit near a particular factory door and make sure it was closed after it was used. The shilling is nice, but the kid otherwise spends 12 hours a day basically becoming dumber. Fuck that kind of work, who cares how much it pays?

If you're criticizing child labor, I can see your point. An adult in that same position is not something to worry about.

Eeeeuuuuuugh and here's where devils advocate ends
Fella, this don't look good for your grand philosophical pronouncement on the value of work. I mean grand philosophical pronouncements are cheap, but this is bottom-barrel at a night market closing cheap.

[Northern Davincia]

Compared to everything else, it is the best system of talent allocation available.

If you're criticizing child labor, I can see your point. An adult in that same position is not something to worry about.

Eeeeuuuuuugh and here's where devils advocate ends
Fella, this don't look good for your grand philosophical pronouncement on the value of work.

There are plenty of homeless people that would be willing to do such menial tasks, I imagine. It's a better use of their time than sitting on the street.

[Kubra]

Eeeeuuuuuugh and here's where devils advocate ends
Fella, this don't look good for your grand philosophical pronouncement on the value of work.

There are plenty of homeless people that would be willing to do such menial tasks, I imagine. It's a better use of their time than sitting on the street.

And now you're just being facetious.

[Northern Davincia]

There are plenty of homeless people that would be willing to do such menial tasks, I imagine. It's a better use of their time than sitting on the street.

And now you're just being facetious.

I distinctly remember talking about jobs that are unpleasant but necessary. Even in these, there is a simple virtue.

[Kubra]

And now you're just being facetious.

I distinctly remember talking about jobs that are unpleasant but necessary. Even in these, there is a simple virtue.

Alright, I'll assume you're serious.
The thing was it wasn't "necessary" except in a strictly economic sense, kid might have saved double what he was paid in the cost of heating, although we can imagine it was nonetheless a meagre amount.
As for "simple virtue", simple is right. One must imagine Sisyphus happy, no?

[Duvniask]

It is that, but here it appears in its true, unmasked form as sadomasochism, along with deranged worship of the powerful as Übermensch.

Elon Musk is the modern Übermensch, though. A titan of industry who bends his surroundings to his will. It's very admirable.

Elon Musk was born into wealth. His ideas are also really dumb. He's a typical billionaire who would rather sink money into vanity projects than do anything useful with it. To suggest this asshole knows how to effectively allocate the resources of society is complete lunacy. I cannot fathom all these tech bros who worship him.

[Duvniask]

This is straight up sadomasochism. We could have a society that guarantees the basic existential foundation of all its members so that they can freely pursue (or strive, as you would say) their own self-actualization, the realization of their dreams. BUT NO, they have to suffer because you have zero regard for human life and have some sort of fetish for "hard work"; never mind that hard work is no guarantee of anything on its own, because people are unequal, born in unequal circumstances and subject to the fluctuations of their environment. To say people must "strive" for things, when you and your ilk would have every conceivable equalizing measure repealed is just pure lunacy. It makes the process of "striving" inherently biased towards those who start off well. It would be like watching a race between Usain Bolt and a legless man and thinking it fair.

People like you really are why we can't have nice things, because you believe needless suffering is virtuous. Please don't ever have children; I don't want to imagine little Northern Davincia Jr. to be told he can't have a birthday gift because his parent thinks he has to toil for everything and only provide conditional love out of some deranged belief that we shouldn't have a duty to ever help anyone have a better life, because goodness is awful or something.

Now now, there's a middle ground here. It is quite rewarding to labour at, say, writing a paper or putting together a band or (I assume) discovering the principles of evolution. That labour might be stressful, but it is altogether rewarding.
Much less rewarding is, say, being that one kid in a british labour report back in the 1800's who was paid maybe a shilling a day at best to sit near a particular factory door and make sure it was closed after it was used. The shilling is nice, but the kid otherwise spends 12 hours a day basically becoming dumber. Fuck that kind of work, who cares how much it pays?

You're not really responding to me here. I said nothing about hard work necessarily being unrewarding (or not necessary at times). What's dumb is the fetishization of hard work for its own sake, when we could make everyone's lives better and level the playing field. Not providing basic foundational goods like healthcare because "people have to strive for it" is the dumbest shit.

I just found out I have elevated iron levels in my blood, for instance, and my dad is already diagnosed with haemochromatosis. Here is Northen Davincia thinking I have to suffer needlessly because life took a dump on me through no fault of my own. Through sheer un-luck, I would be made to "strive" in ways other people will not, because he thinks it wise to condemn people to damnation. It's basically a temper tantrum (masquerading as an ideology) about the fact that society has obligations to its members.

[Northern Davincia]

Elon Musk is the modern Übermensch, though. A titan of industry who bends his surroundings to his will. It's very admirable.

Elon Musk was born into wealth. His ideas are also really dumb. He's a typical billionaire who would rather sink money into vanity projects than do anything useful with it. To suggest this asshole knows how to effectively allocate the resources of society is complete lunacy. I cannot fathom all these tech bros who worship him.

Everyone has their flaws, but it does not detract from his overall genius.

Now now, there's a middle ground here. It is quite rewarding to labour at, say, writing a paper or putting together a band or (I assume) discovering the principles of evolution. That labour might be stressful, but it is altogether rewarding.
Much less rewarding is, say, being that one kid in a british labour report back in the 1800's who was paid maybe a shilling a day at best to sit near a particular factory door and make sure it was closed after it was used. The shilling is nice, but the kid otherwise spends 12 hours a day basically becoming dumber. Fuck that kind of work, who cares how much it pays?

You're not really responding to me here. I said nothing about hard work necessarily being unrewarding (or not necessary at times). What's dumb is the fetishization of hard work for its own sake, when we could make everyone's lives better and level the playing field. Not providing basic foundational goods like healthcare because "people have to strive for it" is the dumbest shit.

I just found out I have elevated iron levels in my blood, for instance, and my dad is already diagnosed with haemochromatosis. Here is Northen Davincia thinking I have to suffer needlessly because life took a dump on me through no fault of my own. Through sheer un-luck, I would be made to "strive" in ways other people will not, because he thinks it wise to condemn people to damnation. It's basically a temper tantrum (masquerading as an ideology) about the fact that society has obligations to its members.

Everyone's lives could indeed be made better (a goal that is achievable with capitalism), but to "level the playing field" is a vague and unnatural position outside of hunter-gatherer societies. We are deserving of nothing, and to ensure that we acquire some means of living, we engage in work. The doctor has every right to turn you away if you have nothing to give him, for he operates under the same pressure to protect his livelihood. You speak of temper tantrums despite asking for all the world's comforts on a silver platter, at no expense to you. If the premise were to improve the lives of folks who earn it, you might gain sympathy from me.

[Region of Dwipantara]

Elon Musk is the modern Übermensch, though. A titan of industry who bends his surroundings to his will. It's very admirable.

Elon Musk was born into wealth. His ideas are also really dumb. He's a typical billionaire who would rather sink money into vanity projects than do anything useful with it. To suggest this asshole knows how to effectively allocate the resources of society is complete lunacy. I cannot fathom all these tech bros who worship him.

From an Optimistic Nihilism point of view, Musk's ideals makes perfect sense. What you see as "vanity projects" can also be seen as the obvious furtherment of human civilization. I mean, he did rekindled human's interest for space exploration, and significantly cut the cost for it, of which the government have spectacularly failed to do so. This innovation-based industry might even directly benefit me too (a third world country citizen), as the Starlink may pave the way for the eventual realization of internet access everywhere. Meanwhile, I fail to see how would a 19th century concept of labor can be applied to 21st century high productivity innovation economy. The old producer-consumer concept has even started to crack with the emergence of participatory economics.

[Duvniask]

Elon Musk was born into wealth. His ideas are also really dumb. He's a typical billionaire who would rather sink money into vanity projects than do anything useful with it. To suggest this asshole knows how to effectively allocate the resources of society is complete lunacy. I cannot fathom all these tech bros who worship him.

Everyone has their flaws, but it does not detract from his overall genius.

A genius who calls people pedophiles on Twitter because they don't endorse his fucking-magic publicity stunts, huh.

I just found out I have elevated iron levels in my blood, for instance, and my dad is already diagnosed with haemochromatosis. Here is Northen Davincia thinking I have to suffer needlessly because life took a dump on me through no fault of my own. Through sheer un-luck, I would be made to "strive" in ways other people will not, because he thinks it wise to condemn people to damnation. It's basically a temper tantrum (masquerading as an ideology) about the fact that society has obligations to its members.

Everyone's lives could indeed be made better (a goal that is achievable with capitalism),

Everyone's live have been "made better" in a material sense by developing productive forces at each stage of history. Capitalism is not unique in this regard, and it too can be surpassed by a system that does away with monetary-based "efficiency".

but to "level the playing field" is a vague and unnatural position outside of hunter-gatherer societies.

I suppose leveling the playing field of eye sight by providing glasses is unnatural, too. No one thinks the playing field can be leveled completely, for as Engels says: "the living conditions of the Alpine dwellers will always be different from the plainsmen".

We are deserving of nothing, and to ensure that we acquire some means of living, we engage in work.

Northen Davincia comes across a drowning child: "He's deserving of nothing, he didn't do anything productive for me". Thus he went about his day, disgusted at the notion that we have moral obligations toward our fellow man.

The doctor has every right to turn you away if you have nothing to give him, for he operates under the same pressure to protect his livelihood.

Not if his livelihood comes from the deliberate allocation of the social surplus, decided by the polity, in order that all can receive the necessary medical treatment for their conditions. It is the setting aside of funds for the depreciation of the social machinery, that is to say people.

You speak of temper tantrums despite asking for all the world's comforts on a silver platter, at no expense to you. If the premise were to improve the lives of folks who earn it, you might gain sympathy from me.

???

[Yebloin]

A plague

[Major-Tom]

Elon Musk was born into wealth. His ideas are also really dumb. He's a typical billionaire who would rather sink money into vanity projects than do anything useful with it. To suggest this asshole knows how to effectively allocate the resources of society is complete lunacy. I cannot fathom all these tech bros who worship him.

Everyone has their flaws, but it does not detract from his overall genius.

I don't doubt that he's quite a smart guy, but even smart people are prone to bouts of erraticism and downright stupidity. It happens all the time. He's never really had anybody say "NO" to him before, and that's likely affected him in such a way that he can't process how idiotic his Hyperloop plans are, his nonsensical musings on Twitter, the lack of build quality and downright poor management model that plagues Tesla. They remain profitable solely by name recognition and good PR, and they were able to get profitable in the first place via tons of government subsidies, IE, heavy crony capitalism. I don't see you as a fan of that.

That said, Elon's space-related ventures have been quite successful, and I wish he'd just stay within that capacity, let other people assist him in managing Tesla (since it still is promising), and above everything else, treat his workers with dignity and shut the fuck up on Twitter.