The idea of at least there being the possibility to live a luxurious and ostentatious lifestyle through your efforts in life is the proven best motivator. — Outlander

Best motivator for what? Rapacious life styles?

And will you live as an ordinary citizen with others who you do not know and know nothing about you — Outlander

Well, that's pretty much the way it is now in large stretches of the world. I grew up in a very small town--2000 people. Everyone did not know everything about everybody there. Still, I was extremely happy to leave for cities like Boston or Minneapolis, where ordinary citizens mostly don't know anything about each other. After 50 years, I still prefer a certain degree of anonymity.

isn't "economic liberalism" a political and economic philosophy based on strong support for a market economy and private property in the means of production. I'm not hot on defending that system even though it is the system I have always lived in, and haven't suffered too greatly from it.

In the context of this discussion there are two kinds of property: personal property (your house, your car, your bed, your computer...) and business property (rental property, stores, railroads, factories, airlines, etc.). Marxists have no objection to people owning a house, a car, a toaster. We plan on abolishing business property. If you have some business property, like a foundry, a fleet of trucks, a for-profit nursing home, we plan on taking it away from you, and no, you won't be getting a big settlement.

I lived without owning any substantial personal property until I was 50. After I left for college, I rented rooms and apartments for the next 32 years. I never objected to renting -- I liked not being tied down to a particular address, and since I don't drive, moving to be closer to work or social life was facilitated by not owning a house.

I didn't live in deluxe rental housing by any stretch of the imagination, but they were always clean, decent, reasonably safe (minimum fire hazards, sound structure, etc.). I want people to be able to afford clean, decent, sufficiently large (not crowded) housing. People don't have to own it, but it needs to be available.

From whom would people rent if business property were eliminated? They would receive housing from a much expanded public housing department. That 20 story luxury apartment building you own? You'll lose it under the "from each according to his means" proviso, but since you know the building well, presumably, you might be hired in the maintenance department. The building will be added to the pool of housing. Public housing has a bad reputation because quite a few cities allowed what started out to be quality buildings to turn into dumps through minimal maintenance. In cities where the buildings have been maintained, 50 years later they are still in good shape, providing good quality housing.

To each according to their needs... Do you need the 15 room house you occupy by yourself and your mistress? No. You and your mistress should be comfortable in a 1000 square foot house or apartment. Do the two of you need 2 sedans, one SUV, and one convertible? No. You should be able to get alone where you will be living by taking public transit or bicycle. Your vehicles will be recycled. There are 1 billion cars on the world's roads. Obviously unsustainable.

No external stimulus, no language, nothing. What do you think life would be like? — JoeyB

Brain activity would be severely limited because the brain requires input from the getgo to function--not just normally, but to function at all. Well, the brainstem features would maintain your respiration and heartbeat, stuff like that, but otherwise, you'd be a non-entity.

What would life be like without a body i.e. you are just a brain/mind/consciousness. — JoeyB

This is the "brains in a vat" deal. Much discussed. It gets at various topics, like solipsism -- I am the only being, others exist in my imagination, etc.

Showing me that the Milwaukee housing market is designed to exploit people who have no other choice than to live in a pile of Wisconsin snow doesn't explain much about the ideals of liberalism. It just indicates that people are fat bastards. — frank

Well, it shows what we liberals are willing to allow to stand right next to our liberal ideals. We live with major contradictions.

I just meant that observing the millions upon millions who died as a direct result of Communism doesn't tell you much about Marxism, much less american marxism. — frank

Oh, that's what you meant. Well, I totally agree.

Build a society that works, and then we can discuss the facts on the ground. Until then, the discussion can only be about ideas, right? — frank

We need to identify and understand the facts on the ground right now -- the ones that we keep tripping over. We won't get anywhere without doing that. It's dirty work, dealing with the brute facts of bourgeois ways and means, but somebody has to do it.

One of the reasons why the average American worker (blue collar, white collar, high school drop out or Phd) hasn't made more progress towards their own liberation is that they have persisted in thinking we are all free and equal, and that the only reason the poor stay poor is that they are too god damned lazy to make it, and the reason people got ahead was because they were smart and very hard working, and they did it all by themselves.

Do they believe people are born equal and free? — frank

If Marxism is a method of analyzing the nature of society, the answer would have to be a resounding "NO". Clearly we are born into established conditions that curtail both our equality and freedom. The son or daughter of an office cleaner does not have the same opportunity as the son or daughter of the billionaire that owns the office. The idea that technically everyone is equal and free to pursue whatever dreams they wish to pursue runs into the implacable brick wall of reality. A few people might get over the brick wall, but most (the vast majority) do not.

How do marxists imagine laws are justified? — frank

In the existing system (and previously existing conditions) laws are justified on the basis of their serving the needs of the ruling class. Take the law the establishes a meagre minimum wage (or a more generous one). The law wouldn't be there if it didn't serve the needs of the ruling -- employing -- class. The meagre minimum wage is too low to keep a family alive, so it clearly isn't in the interests of the working class.

Sometimes the state is sort of generous because the pressure boiling up from below is dangerous. One aim of the various social welfare programs put in place in the US (and elsewhere) is to pacify the working class--the better to prevent them from revolting. Even so, very conservative parties in the US (southern Democrats, conservative Republicans) opposed social welfare programs in court -- Social Security, Unemployment Insurance, Disability insurance, Medicare, Medicaid, ACA, etc. have all been opposed in court and legislatures by politicians who would rather not spend a dime on those in need.

It is a bitter realization to come to understand that our system operates pretty much for the benefit of the rich, and the poor are free and equal insofar as they obey.

What are the differences between Marxism and Communism? — Outlander

Marx said, "A spectre is haunting Europe—the spectre of communism. All the powers of old Europe have entered into a holy alliance to exorcise this spectre." in 1844, in the Communist Manifesto. The "communism" that we think of was in the future. There was social and labor unrest at the time, and various polemics were being batted around. The Communist Manifesto introduction exhorts Communists to openly publish their views and aims, to "meet this nursery tale of the spectre of communism with a manifesto of the party itself".

But when Marx wrote the Manifesto, 1844, there was no more than a handful of communists in the world.

Sometime in the 1880s, Engles was asked to define Marxism. He said, "In four words, 'Marxism is a method'". It's a method of analyzing developments in political economy. It isn't a movement. "Socialism" or "communism" came later on - both for Karl Marx, and for the world. His thinking on instituting changes in the world ("Philosophers have striven to understand the world; the point is to change it.") developed over time.

"Communism" came into being in Russia in 1917. Socialism, and social democracy, were advocated prior to 1917, and sometimes put into practice. Over time, other people in various places, like Antonio Gramsci in Italy during (and against Mussolini) the 1930s contributed importantly to the understanding and practice of socialism/communism.

As I said above, Marx is probably spinning in his grave over what has been done in his name.

An american marxist would agree that all people are born equal and free, and that the state infringes on our freedom because we accept that control as part of our citizenship. — frank

They would? News to me.

Any social contract is a tradeoff of benefits and sacrificed self-interests.

The orthodox marxists I know dismiss reform out of hand. As humane people, they of course want the state to protect working people from the vagaries of the market. They go further to say that there is nothing vague about the market: It is inherently exploitative, and screwing the people is just what it does. (It's the continual transfer of wealth from workers to the bourgeoisie.).

Here: Take the recent book "Evicted". It's a documentary volume on the way the market in housing for the poor works in Milwaukee. Landlords accumulate considerable wealth from the many poor people to whom they rent lousy, substandard housing. Crappy neighborhoods are full of crappy housing that goes onto the market through tax auctions and other means. You buy a piece of junk for $12,000, maybe. You fix anything that absolutely has to be fixed -- like not having a furnace of some sort, not having water service. You charge rent at the highest level the market for poor housing will bear, maybe $500 a month. In two years you have paid for the shit pile and for the next few years you earn more profit. During your ownership tenure you tend to fix nothing. Toilet breaks? Blame the tenants and charge them extra to fix it. They don't pay? Evict them, get some other desperate broke family in there. Maybe the toilet got fixed, maybe not.

That's how the bottom of the housing market works. Reform it? No. Do away with it altogether.

Isn't it true that marxists start by rejecting the world as it is? — frank

No. They might not like the world as it is (who does?) but existing methods of production (a vast topic encapsulated in a brief phrase), the existing class and power structures, the culture as it exists -- all that and more -- have to be taken into consideration as "from this point forward".

Marxists look forward to a revolutionary overthrow of the existing capitalist system (a rejection of the world as it is) but they don't engage in a future-other-worldly rejection of the world as it is.

Is this a problem? For marxists, yes. We live in a tension between the world as it is and the way we would like the world to be. The same problem is shared by all world reformers. Religionists and political-economic revolutionaries share this form of suffering.

Like their was Jesus and then there are Christians? — frank

One of my favorite topics is how we got from Jesus to Christianity. When one looks at the topic as a historical problem rather than the unfolding plan of salvation, a fascinating conundrum is presented. What happened during the "dark gap" between the (probable) fact or Jesus and the definite fact of Christianity?

We don't know, for sure, because it is, after all, a dark gap. How much of what we know about Jesus was compounded after the fact? In some ways, Jesus is a creation of the church the church says He founded. (Heresy, of course.).

The transition from Marx to Marxism happened in "our time" more or less. We saw Karl's ideas taken up by maybe well-meaning but pretty vicious types in Russia, China, and elsewhere. Surely Karl was spinning in his Highgate Cemetery grave.

Like their was Jesus and then there are Christians? — frank

Yes.

Is there something philosophical about your fondness for Marxism? Could you explain what it is? — frank

Such demanding questions you ask, and it's a holiday to boot.

Probably more social than philosophical. Above I confessed to being some sort of shoddy marxist. I'm a shoddier philosopher.

Jesus and Karl are both seminal characters; of course we know vastly more about Karl than Jesus, and Jesus has been a thing vastly longer than Karl has. In a way, they both are "eschatologists" in a way -- more Jesus than Karl on that point. But for somebody steeped in Christianity (I was), it's natural to taste the eschatological flavor of the egalitarian classless society, free of the state and corporation. Workers of the world, unite! Or, Repent and prepare for the kingdom of God.

Six of one, a half a dozen of the other.

I found a community of like-minded people among some marxists. They were in earnest, serious, secular people. Some were much more intellectually charged up than others, given different levels of education. Some marxists are widely tolerant, others are very narrowly doctrinaire. I find the latter dreary.

I think it is better to think of Marx as providing a framework than a cookbook.

The left abandoned structuralism because it seemed to say that we can't reinvent ourselves — frank

What I know about the history of cultural criticism (structuralism, et al) would fit on a 3x5 card. I should do better, but...

F. Scott Fitzgerald (died 1940) said: “there are no second acts in American lives.”

Not sure what exactly he was thinking of, but American history is replete with people managing second, third, fourth... acts. Riff raff rising to the top, blue bloods ending up in the gutter, and back again. If structuralism was an itchy pinchy intellectual corset, post structuralism has resulted in worse.

I went looking for Marx's view of human nature one time and gave up. It shouldn't be that hard to nail down. That's why I just recently gave up on trying to discover if he was a determinist. — frank

There was Karl Marx and then there are marxists.

Any honest Marxist will believe in trying to shape human nature away — BitconnectCarlos

Marxists will also quarrel with the notion that there is such a thing as "human nature". Clearly, and irrefutably, we are a species which manifests various characteristics -- just like Canadian geese, grey wolves, and porpoises do. In that way there is certainly "human nature". We use very complex language, for instance, and we use it a lot. We have a central nervous system with certain characteristics -- emotional, cognitive, and sensory capabilities. More "human nature".

The difficulty arises when statements like "war is inevitable" or "people are naturally selfish" are made. Even "people are naturally good" and "everyone wants peace" are problematic statements. Certainly, war is decidedly more likely when societies devote a great deal of treasure, time, and talent toward preparation for war. If the economy is organized as a free-for-all fight, selfishness makes sense.

People have better experiences, behave better, behave more peacefully, in a society which meets basic human requirements and affords available rich cultural experiences (like food, clothing, shelter, care, and the opportunity and means for self expression).

That "environment strongly influences outcomes" isn't exactly a new revelation.

Any honest Marxist will believe in trying to shape human nature away from what it has been. — BitconnectCarlos

Like @fdrake I'm probably some sort of shoddy Marxist. Societies are always trying to shape ""human nature", and to some extent they are successful, for better and for worse, of which there are many examples.

I've found that a reasonably tolerant, reasonably stable, reasonably affluent society produces reasonably good results, for me, at least. An intolerant, unstable, and poor society is likely to produce more of the same. Virtuous cycles and vicious cycles beget more virtuous and vicious cycles.

Billions of people have grown up in societies of both kinds, and unfortunately goodness doesn't always last because competing interests sort out winners and losers. The Post WWII Boom, 1946 to 1973, roughly, was a reasonably good time had by quite a bit of the American society--certainly not all, and not all at the same time. Competing policies brought the boom to an end, and since we have had a less equitable society, over all, which is now quite inequitable. The European Community project has produced very good results for a widening circle of people. How all of that work will pan out in the longer run remains to be seen.

Though a monument of rational justifications may exist to support Marxism, it remains as unproven as the existence of the average god.

Therefore, a society is more likely to flourish if it rejects utopian visions and faces the world as it is. — frank

"Reality" is always a good starting point, whether one sets out to remake the bathroom or remake the world.

Ah, but "reality" is a tricky word. Who will enforce the definition?

How we see the world, our negative thoughts about it, in my experience can be improved through conscious effort and will power. — Emmanuel

Yes, I think that is true; most people are not clinically depressed, and managing one's thoughts about the world is a good idea. Conscious effort is required. And diligence, and good habits of mind.

Many years ago, when I was just out of college, an old professor I liked who was going through difficult personal problems, said "We have to be careful about the kind of language we use when we talk to ourselves." One can certainly talk one's self into a pretty unappealing defeatist position, and conversely, one can promote positive views.

I've had depression (diagnosed, treated with meds) for...35 years or so. I worked diligently at helping myself, and achieved some beneficial results. However, I couldn't just "not be depressed". Depression reduced my happiness, work performance, relationship success, and so forth. There were deficits from depression itself, and from medication.

About 10 years ago, after forced retirement, after the death of my spouse and a period of grieving, I did--through no willful effort on my part, "snap out of it". Why, I don't know. I'm not looking this enormously valuable gift horse in the mouth.º. My mental functioning, level of happiness, sleep patterns, energy -- all are much improved, adjusting for age (73). I have read more in the last 10 years than in the previous 30, and with pleasure.

Something in my body changed; I do not know what it was. Depression arrived in 35 years ago in very much the same way: I just stopped functioning well in a variety of ways, and despite medication and psychotherapy, I didn't get better.

ºLooking a gift horse in the mouth means examining it to see what is wrong with it, that somebody would give it away. In the future when we have given up our wasteful ways and no longer travel everywhere in heavy metal vehicles, this expression about horses might become current again.

A journey through depression, is about learning to tame your demons.
The harsh realities of life are facts to be dealt with, to be accepted.
The harsh realities of life are to be embraced.

In life we all will get hit and fall, but it's not about that.
It is about getting up fast, faster...
Making the best of today.

Dealing with defeat calmly and with a clear mind, is a mark of strength, it can be innate but it can also be learned. — Emmanuel

Yada yada yada.

There's the blues, which billions of people experience and overcome regularly, and then there is depression which leads to mental dysfunction. DYSFUNCTION: The brain is no longer working properly.

People who are really depressed, not merely 'blue', are beyond endorsing and acting upon up-beat, positive-sounding, get-up-and-go preaching. They can not "just snap out of it". If they could, believe me, they would.

Depression is no luxury item.

To all:

Thanks for the responses. After reading through them I will withdraw the suggestion that mask wearing is virtue signally. Maybe it signals solidarity, or the intent to comply, but not virtue.

I won't cite newspaper articles (Guardian, Wall Street Journal, New York Times) about the epidemic, but at least many public health experts have voiced that opinion in the pages of those papers. It makes sense because most masks were not manufactured for the purpose of blocking viruses or very small droplets of virus-carrying moisture. They were designed to reduce inhalation of hazardous dusts and pollution (smoke, for instance). The kinds of masks that are designed to block particles both into and out of a person's respiratory track are just not available, or should be reserved for people working in close contact with infected people.

As noted above, even very cheap paper masks can block some transmission -- not much, but a little. But it probably doesn't help for a person actively coughing and shedding virus to reduce the viral cloud issuing forth from their mouth and nose 10% or 15%.

Thorough and regular hand washing, social distancing, and staying at home (not quarantined but not running around a lot) are the most critical steps that one can take, if one can.

If one suspects one is infected or sick, they should self-isolate for 2 weeks. Well before the end of 14 days they will know whether they are sick, and how badly. If they are very sick, they should call a doctor.

All this has been repeated over and over -- so I'm comfortable calling it a consensus.

Donald Trump is unanimous in his opinion that he should definitely be swallowing hydroxychloroquine, and I think he should take as much as he can swallow. More, more, Donald! Eat more hydroxychloroquine! You are the Maximum Test Subject/stable genius. We need to know what the fatal dose is, so more, more.

Pantless people properly place protection on their publicly presented penises. I live in Lutheran Lockdown Land so there are no pantless persons, alas.

The great thing about 'virtue signaling' is that people identify the signaler as virtuous, without the signaler having to actually go to the considerable inconvenience of being virtuous.

what makes you think they are ineffective? — Judaka

Masks are certainly made which can be worn for hours and remain effective. These are not generally available to members of the public, or are quite expensive. Many masks -

do not fit very firmly against the face (without beard hair) and therefore leak air. beards cause extensive air leaking, unless the mask can be fastened tightly against the face/hair

get wet from moisture in one's exhaled air and soften or disintegrate fairly soon (if made out of paper)
are quite uncomfortable after a period of time; this results in people fidgeting with the mask, getting virus on their fingers (if infected), and then fingering the can of corn you will buy 10 minutes later

do not actually stop all droplets from coughs, sneezes, or talking from escaping the mask enclosure

Still and all, I do wear the best mask I can find when in enclosed pubic places.

There is no such scientific consensus. — SophistiCat

Technically, true: No consensus. However, there is consistently less certainty about the value of various kinds of masks people are wearing than the value of social distancing (6 feet), hand washing after promiscuous contact with publicly touched surfaces (door handles, bus / subway straps, hand railings, store check-out equipment, etc.

True, 20% reduction of risk IS better than nothing, but avoidance of avoidable pubic contact is too. I for one don't get around much these days. I don't like it, but...

Sorry; I didn't read any responses to the OP.

In this scenario human error and greed is removed. — TheDarkElf

Any human system from which the presumption of human error and greed (and more) are removed is ipso facto fantasy. I voted for communism being the perfect system (I'm a pinko commie), but no matter what system we have or wish for, it MUST account for real human nature. Real human nature, in my book, is actually on balance somewhat positive, but we can't forget the stuff that (on balance) is pretty negative.

So, a good society is made up of heathy people, the vast majority of whom have learned to keep their destructive urges in check and execute their benevolent urges intelligently. Quite a few societies, using various governmental forms, have managed to do that. Probably most societies have.

"From each according to his abilities, to each according to his needs" is a most excellent idea, but it has to be fleshed out in law, policy, institutions, and so forth. It doesn't just "happen".

We all know the world is run by the corporations, might as well make it obvious who’s running what — Justin Peterson

Why not just eliminate the corporations? There's nothing that requires us to have corporations that have the rights of persons (as is the case in the USA). There's no physical law, like gravity or heat transfer, that says we have to have profit making corporations. If we wish to rid ourselves of them, we can (assuming we can muster the will to do so).

I'm going to give your solution short shrift -- meaning rejection.

It isn't the forms of currency that are at the root of our economic problems at this time.

Our problems are several: insufficient taxation to bear the cost of government (the rich are not paying enough); the political wing of most governments are in the pocket of the wealthiest class; insufficient investment in human capital (heath, education, environment, etc.), pointless production for profit rather than production for use (much of the consumer economy is based on sham needs), and so on.

In other words its the organization of the political economy that is the problem.

Or did they not... what, unite? No, they -- we -- have not united. Not the way idealists would hope for, anyway.

at the small scale it is true that a common threat unites different groups — TheMadFool

Or spreads them apart. Note that some people marched on their statehouses with guns to demand their freedom to get infected, while others defended public health measures. Fucking morons.

World Unity, alleged to be the result of an alien invasion, wouldn't do us much good because the aliens -- having come from very far away they would thus be more advanced than us. It is possible, I suppose, that they traveled all that way to share the blessings of civilization. More likely they are here for their own benefit, or maybe they didn't intend to land on this god forsaken planet at all and are none to happy about what they have found.

The planet wouldn't unite. Some groups would attempt to ally themselves with the aliens, which others would take as an inherently hostile act. Other groups would attack the alien-lovers and aliens both. A bad time would be had by earthlings, at the very least. How the aliens might fare depends on their technology.

Smallpox, AIDS, polio, Covid-19, McDonalds, Ford, Standard Oil, Christianity, Islam, and other plagues have failed to unite the planet.

Mass media has always been big business. As a business, it's primary function is to make money for the media owners. The way mass media makes money is to sell advertising to other businesses. Programming -- whether splendid or vile -- is the bait which attracts audiences to see the advertising.

Of course, media presents itself as an instrument of free expression, or a means to entertain the masses, or a way of presenting dramas which enrich the culture, or to present the NEWS so that the public will be well informed. By coincidence, mass media occasionally achieves its goals. Some of the programming is actually entertaining. Once in a while mass media facilitates free expression of opinion. Some of the programming resonates with broad audiences. At times mass media does actually present news stories of value.

But remember: good programming is gravy. The meat and potatoes of mass media is selling and delivering advertising messages.

Does mass media suck? Absolutely.

The behavior of law enforcement in the county where this happened displays yet more ways of being bad. Corruption (which comes in 31 flavors, like ice cream) doesn't always involve financial malfeasance.

I'm not excusing or making lightweight of any of this. The murders and the prosecutors are very bad.

To borrow a phrase, "corruption is socially constructed"; it isn't just what a bad cop or bad DA does. It's also what the dominant society in that time and place is willing to put up with. Some communities (in all parts of the country) are at least somewhat willing to put up with some degree of official corruption--I'm thinking of Boston, Chicago, and Los Angeles which have displayed outstanding examples of corruption. Dig down and one finds examples of corruption (any of 31 flavors) in one's home town.

Citizen activism and vigilance are the antidotes to corruption; a working press also helps. More and more places have lost their local newspapers, which are a critical piece of community vigilance.

The killing most likely had significant racial components, but there are many ways to be bad that don't involve race. Vigilante justice (most common in the southern and western US) for example, need not involve racial issues.

BTW, I like to check out construction sites, just to see how things get put together; how big/deep the basement is going to be; or walk around rail yards--just what did the inside of a caboose look like? The murdered man did this in broad daylight, (I gather).

Maybe he had to take a leak?

@HANOVER, how common are murders in Georgia, these days? Prosecution rates and success?

Its all a crocodillia of shit.