Marxism

[Latvijas Otra Republika]

At least someone.
Had a generation in my lineage that found work in managing roles within collective farms and goods distribution, they got their work from knowing people and most of their wages were made by side bribes and ‘missing’ equipment. Logically I would want such a safe and secure job for my future, I don’t. The entire thing sucked, only sucks more when you’re living in its grey ruins.

Damn that sucks but it wasn't communism

Love the sarcasm bro.
Damn, so the whole cult based around a transition to true communism and fanaticism over the ‘working class’ paraded in every aspect of culture did not indicate a Marxist Society.

[Cisairse]

Damn that sucks but it wasn't communism

Love the sarcasm bro.
Damn, so the whole cult based around a transition to true communism and fanaticism over the ‘working class’ paraded in every aspect of culture did not indicate a Marxist Society.

"Marxist Society" isn't really a thing

Also I don't think that was sarcasm

[UniversalCommons]

I think it is time for the left to try something out with more modern thought. Science and sociology have advanced quite a bit since Marx. It is time for a change.

you know not what you ask for, traveller. I advise against learning French or buying anything published by semiotexte, lest you see where this line of thought leads.

Semiotexte makes for great science fiction. It is not believable. It reminds me of Dada. Also a little bit of Fluxus. This kind of nonsense makes for great art, great personal freedom and total failure as a system of governance or politics. It is like anarchism, great for protesting, but useless for actual governance. I have no plan of becoming a French communist like Sartre. There is too much angst for my tastes. I am closer to the ideas of Cascadia and utopian science fiction than semiotics. The idea of participatory democracy and anticorruption appeal to me.

Right now, almost every government in the world is a kind of a republic. Soon every place will be aimed at becoming an automated information economy. It is about to get very strange. Marx has no answer for information based economies. There is currently no answer.

[Cisairse]

you know not what you ask for, traveller. I advise against learning French or buying anything published by semiotexte, lest you see where this line of thought leads.

Semiotexte makes for great science fiction. It is not believable. It reminds me of Dada. Also a little bit of Fluxus. This kind of nonsense makes for great art, great personal freedom and total failure as a system of governance or politics. It is like anarchism, great for protesting, but useless for actual governance. I have no plan of becoming a French communist like Sartre. There is too much angst for my tastes. I am closer to the ideas of Cascadia and utopian science fiction than semiotics. The idea of participatory democracy and anticorruption appeal to me.

Right now, almost every government in the world is a kind of a republic. Soon every place will be aimed at becoming an automated information economy. It is about to get very strange. Marx has no answer for information based economies. There is currently no answer.

There's nothing special about "information based economies"

[UniversalCommons]

There is no laborer class in an information economy. Everyone becomes a "creative" or their own 'brand". Also, what would be considered the proletariat ceases to exist as capital replaces labor with machinery. When this happens, all forms of production are replaced and every kind of labor eventually becomes a kind of mental activity that is quite often unnecessary. The economy becomes based on ideas which are ephemeral. The people in control of machines and ideas own everything. Thus you get people like Bill Gates and others who control things through software. Information has become more valuable than energy. Communism and capitalism act as abstract ideas in an economy where information is the main commodity.

[Rojava Free State]

There is no laborer class in an information economy. Everyone becomes a "creative" or their own 'brand". Also, what would be considered the proletariat ceases to exist as capital replaces labor with machinery. When this happens, all forms of production are replaced and every kind of labor eventually becomes a kind of mental activity that is quite often unnecessary. The economy becomes based on ideas which are ephemeral. The people in control of machines and ideas own everything. Thus you get people like Bill Gates and others who control things through software. Information has become more valuable than energy. Communism and capitalism act as abstract ideas in an economy where information is the main commodity.

There is no laborer class? I would highly beg to differ

[Cisairse]

There is no laborer class in an information economy. Everyone becomes a "creative" or their own 'brand". Also, what would be considered the proletariat ceases to exist as capital replaces labor with machinery. When this happens, all forms of production are replaced and every kind of labor eventually becomes a kind of mental activity that is quite often unnecessary. The economy becomes based on ideas which are ephemeral. The people in control of machines and ideas own everything. Thus you get people like Bill Gates and others who control things through software. Information has become more valuable than energy. Communism and capitalism act as abstract ideas in an economy where information is the main commodity.

This seems to imply that there is no work being done by any humans and also that all the machines are publicly owned, both of which are not attainable states of society naturally.

[South Odreria 2]

There is no laborer class in an information economy. Everyone becomes a "creative" or their own 'brand". Also, what would be considered the proletariat ceases to exist as capital replaces labor with machinery. When this happens, all forms of production are replaced and every kind of labor eventually becomes a kind of mental activity that is quite often unnecessary. The economy becomes based on ideas which are ephemeral. The people in control of machines and ideas own everything. Thus you get people like Bill Gates and others who control things through software. Information has become more valuable than energy. Communism and capitalism act as abstract ideas in an economy where information is the main commodity.

Lmao

[Rojava Free State]

How can I exist if laborers don't?

Big Thincc

[UniversalCommons]

There is no laborer class in an information economy. Everyone becomes a "creative" or their own 'brand". Also, what would be considered the proletariat ceases to exist as capital replaces labor with machinery. When this happens, all forms of production are replaced and every kind of labor eventually becomes a kind of mental activity that is quite often unnecessary. The economy becomes based on ideas which are ephemeral. The people in control of machines and ideas own everything. Thus you get people like Bill Gates and others who control things through software. Information has become more valuable than energy. Communism and capitalism act as abstract ideas in an economy where information is the main commodity.

This seems to imply that there is no work being done by any humans and also that all the machines are publicly owned, both of which are not attainable states of society naturally.

You end up in a monopoly situation where the machinery is privately owned by a group of technically oriented people. Capital replaces labor, where the people who can buy and maintain machines will own almost everything. Automation already can replace more than half of the workforce. The more automation there is, the less low end labor as well as repetitive white collar jobs and service jobs. There is limited work being done by people and most of it is mental. It is the exact opposite of post scarcity in its structure.

[Cisairse]

This seems to imply that there is no work being done by any humans and also that all the machines are publicly owned, both of which are not attainable states of society naturally.

You end up in a monopoly situation where the machinery is privately owned by a group of technically oriented people. Capital replaces labor, where the people who can buy and maintain machines will own almost everything. Automation already can replace more than half of the workforce. The more automation there is, the less low end labor as well as repetitive white collar jobs and service jobs. There is limited work being done by people and most of it is mental. It is the exact opposite of post scarcity in its structure.

And where do you think the labor class will magically get money from to not die, in this utopian scenario?

[Liriena]

Do you believe that Marx's views on the class dichotomy are valid, or reductionist? Some modern authors have claimed that Marx downplayed the role of intersectionality in oppression, but Marx himself wrote about gender roles etc often, including in the Manifesto.

I don't think his theory is reductionist in and of itself, but it does easily lend itself to such a use. He shared a lot of the same blind spots that the Enlightenment did when it came to tyranny, inequality and exploitation.

Is Marxism—Leninism revisionist, or is it merely an extension of Marx's views?

I'm gonna go with "revisionist", if pressed to choose between those two options. I cannot imagine that Marx intended the sort of revolution and dictatorship of the proletariat that Lenin and the Bolsheviks helped install.

Do you believe that Marx has been vindicated or damned by the more than 170 years since he began to publish his theories?

I feel he has been vindicated, in a way only a few thinkers ever do.

I think Adam Smith has also been tragically vindicated in a sense, insofar as the parts of his theory that ancaps and right-libs tend to ignore have routinely come into fruition.

[Liriena]

There is no laborer class in an information economy. Everyone becomes a "creative" or their own 'brand".

[headdesk]

Ah, yes, there are no employees anymore.

[Kubra]

you know not what you ask for, traveller. I advise against learning French or buying anything published by semiotexte, lest you see where this line of thought leads.

Semiotexte makes for great science fiction. It is not believable. It reminds me of Dada. Also a little bit of Fluxus. This kind of nonsense makes for great art, great personal freedom and total failure as a system of governance or politics. It is like anarchism, great for protesting, but useless for actual governance. I have no plan of becoming a French communist like Sartre. There is too much angst for my tastes. I am closer to the ideas of Cascadia and utopian science fiction than semiotics. The idea of participatory democracy and anticorruption appeal to me.

Right now, almost every government in the world is a kind of a republic. Soon every place will be aimed at becoming an automated information economy. It is about to get very strange. Marx has no answer for information based economies. There is currently no answer.

Oh no, semiotexte is a publishing house under MIT's umbrella that puts out a lot of lesser known leftist books and compilations, often italian ones. Some are actually great reads, but hahahahah i realised I hadn't looked at their published lineup in quite some time, pulled up their site, and saw the title "Immunodemocracy: Capitalist Asphyxia". like damn how do folks come up with this stuff?

[Kubra]

There is no laborer class in an information economy. Everyone becomes a "creative" or their own 'brand".

[headdesk]

Ah, yes, there are no employees anymore.

all shall be subsumed under the cognitariat, the true revolutionary class

[UniversalCommons]

You end up in a monopoly situation where the machinery is privately owned by a group of technically oriented people. Capital replaces labor, where the people who can buy and maintain machines will own almost everything. Automation already can replace more than half of the workforce. The more automation there is, the less low end labor as well as repetitive white collar jobs and service jobs. There is limited work being done by people and most of it is mental. It is the exact opposite of post scarcity in its structure.

And where do you think the labor class will magically get money from to not die, in this utopian scenario?

This is not a utopian scenario. It is a dystopian scenario, where people become servants to a ruling class where the middle class shrivels up. They get to be a great unwashed. A lower class of gig workers who are fed by streams of very part time jobs and a universal basic income and if they are lucky tiny apartments. https://www.wbur.org/hereandnow/2018/04 ... ddle-class

[Cisairse]

And where do you think the labor class will magically get money from to not die, in this utopian scenario?

This is not a utopian scenario. It is a dystopian scenario, where people become servants to a ruling class where the middle class shrivels up. They get to be a great unwashed. A lower class of gig workers who are fed by streams of very part time jobs and a universal basic income and if they are lucky tiny apartments. https://www.wbur.org/hereandnow/2018/04 ... ddle-class

I don't really see how this is different from the current order.

[Servilis]

How? The USSR lasted 60+ years, Cuba, Vietnam, DPRK and Laos still exist. I leave out China because i am not educated on China to know whether it is communist or not. Mao's China however, basically achieved full communism.

The DPRK is not completely Marxist. It, if I remember correctly, has formed its own ideology.

One might assume it's Monarcho-Communist but then again it'd still have to do the Com in MonCom, so at it's current rate is Juche.

[Zottistan]

There is no laborer class in an information economy. Everyone becomes a "creative" or their own 'brand". Also, what would be considered the proletariat ceases to exist as capital replaces labor with machinery. When this happens, all forms of production are replaced and every kind of labor eventually becomes a kind of mental activity that is quite often unnecessary. The economy becomes based on ideas which are ephemeral. The people in control of machines and ideas own everything. Thus you get people like Bill Gates and others who control things through software. Information has become more valuable than energy. Communism and capitalism act as abstract ideas in an economy where information is the main commodity.

Of course there's a traditional labourer class, they're just all literal slaves in south east Asia. This is what happens when capital is global and labour isn't. Just because you can't see it doesn't mean it isn't there.

[Kremlinian Russia]

Is Marxism—Leninism revisionist, or is it merely an extension of Marx's views?

I'm gonna go with "revisionist", if pressed to choose between those two options. I cannot imagine that Marx intended the sort of revolution and dictatorship of the proletariat that Lenin and the Bolsheviks helped install.

The question then arises: What transformation will the state undergo in communist society? In other words, what social functions will remain in existence there that are analogous to present state functions? This question can only be answered scientifically, and one does not get a flea-hop nearer to the problem by a thousand-fold combination of the word 'people' with the word 'state'.

Between capitalist and communist society there lies the period of the revolutionary transformation of the one into the other. Corresponding to this is also a political transition period in which the state can be nothing but the revolutionary dictatorship of the proletariat.
- Karl Marx, Critique of the Gotha Program, Part IV (https://www.marxists.org/archive/marx/w ... a/ch04.htm)

[Gensokyo Soviet Fairies Republic]

The DPRK is not completely Marxist. It, if I remember correctly, has formed its own ideology.

One might assume it's Monarcho-Communist but then again it'd still have to do the Com in MonCom, so at it's current rate is Juche.

Juche is not mutually exclusive with Marxism/ML. Juche is part of a long strand of thought that comes genealogically from Marxism, similar to Maoism. Juche, in contrast to the questions of class struggle and how the means of production are to be seized, answers the question of what should people do after seizing the means of production - a logical conclusion of Marxism-Leninism to a socialist country like DPRK.

Also, DPRK ain't monarchist as Kim Jong Un is only commander of the armed forces, there are also two people (heads of state) that are as powerful as him.

[Joohan]

But they don't even create wealth.

As the definition of wealth is: An abundance of valuable material possessions or resources; riches, and they now control the production of all or nearly all material possessions, they literally do create wealth.

Their "wealth" creates itself on its own.

A means of production which they exclusively own.

And make use of the "elite's capital" to do what - buy things that cost nothing to produce?

Are you under the impression that a fully automated economy would somehow be removed from the fact that the Earth's resources are finite? The only cost which automation removes is the labor cost. Owners will still need to invest in power, facilities, resources, technicians, tariffs, taxes and other necessary components of the production process. The economy hasn't become post-scarcity, it's just become post-people.

What's the use of money to the "elite" who can already acquire goods without lifting a finger?

Money is always going to be useful, as it is the universal item for trade. Earth's resources are finite and not everyone can have everything they want, and so money is a fantastic way at making the bargaining process easier. As the Elite no longer need to trade for the goods they desire though, the incentive for continued ownership then becomes power.

Marx understood that owning the means of production meant power - in a fully automated economy, the working class is completely removed from the means of production, concentrating economic power exclusively into the hands of the elite.

[Philjia]

Also, DPRK ain't monarchist as Kim Jong Un is only commander of the armed forces, there are also two people (heads of state) that are as powerful as him.

The de jure status of entities in autocracies are generally different to their de facto status. Choe Ryong-hae and Pak Pong-ju both exercise considerable power in their respective positions, but most probably not as much as the names of their jobs would suggest, and will remain subservient to Kim Jong-un, who is both chairman of the party and leader of the armed forces, giving him direct control of both of the DPRK's primary power bases.

[Duvniask]

But they don't even create wealth.

As the definition of wealth is: An abundance of valuable material possessions or resources; riches, and they now control the production of all or nearly all material possessions, they literally do create wealth.

No, that's nonsense. They don't create anything, their automated machines do.

Their "wealth" creates itself on its own.

A means of production which they exclusively own.

And ownership is not a productive activity. In your scenario of full automation they create nothing, they merely possess a legal right to the products of their automated machinery.

And make use of the "elite's capital" to do what - buy things that cost nothing to produce?

Are you under the impression that a fully automated economy would somehow be removed from the fact that the Earth's resources are finite? The only cost which automation removes is the labor cost. Owners will still need to invest in power, facilities, resources, technicians, tariffs, taxes and other necessary components of the production process. The economy hasn't become post-scarcity, it's just become post-people.

Here's what you said.

"Some marxists believe that, should we achieve this, so called, Post Scarcity Economy, everything will just get nationalized and become publically owned. Fully Automated Gay Luxury Space Communism. This of course, assumes that power can be wrenched from a now unfathomably wealthy and influential elite, who literally control the world now."

Either you've confused yourself about what you actually said (and what I responded to), or you're deliberately being a weasel.

Also, the other things you're saying are nonsense, too: a "post-people" economy does not need technicians, nor does it need someone to allocate investments (that would imply it is not a post-people economy, merely one with a significant degree of automation). It suggests a social alignment where production is completely divorced from human intervention; that implies the material sustenance of human beings is completely effortless.

What's the use of money to the "elite" who can already acquire goods without lifting a finger?

Money is always going to be useful, as it is the universal item for trade. Earth's resources are finite and not everyone can have everything they want, and so money is a fantastic way at making the bargaining process easier. As the Elite no longer need to trade for the goods they desire though, the incentive for continued ownership then becomes power.

No, money is useful in our current society based on the production and exchange of commodities for the market (capitalism). In a society without exchange, that would not be the case at all, where inputs are allocated according to a common plan between all components.

Marx understood that owning the means of production meant power - in a fully automated economy, the working class is completely removed from the means of production, concentrating economic power exclusively into the hands of the elite.

And they have no income to which they can buy things from your imagined capitalists... who also have no reason to deal in capital.

You can say they will provide a UBI so that the unemployed masses may consume, but what does this achieve? You're giving the non-owners money so they can pay for someone to provide goods they don't even have to lift a finger for; what do the capitalists need the money for? Regardless of whether resources are finite, their automated machinery isn't driven by money, it's driven by its own automated logic (build more, build better, produce), it needs no investment. It's not like in our current time where you have to pay workers to produce for you; the machinery does so with no labor cost, and full automation implies the machinery is maintained by other machines which also have no labor costs.

[Stylan]

The DPRK is not completely Marxist. It, if I remember correctly, has formed its own ideology.

One might assume it's Monarcho-Communist but then again it'd still have to do the Com in MonCom, so at it's current rate is Juche.

You do realize the DPRK has elections right? Their are four parties currently in the legislature of North Korea.