Or knifed by one

Choked to death by an extremely attractive woman

Speaking of which, still hoping for an eventual English translation of Peter Zapffe's On The Tragic

Human wellbeing and human suffering necessarily take place at the level of the individual, for the individual. — baker

It is self-evident that one person's happiness can result in another person's misery. — baker

Besides the fact that the latter contradicts the former, the latter also typically devolves in hypothetical moral qualms which are practically useless, even more so given vast ethical problems that actually exist today. I don't see the point in individualizing ethical questions when wealth inequality soared during a global pandemic which disproportionately affected minority ethnic groups while working classes suffer for the benefit of Capitalists. I just don't care about hypothetical mind experiments where e.g. John would gain more wellbeing than Bobby if Johnny took Bobby's flute, but this violates property ownership so how can he do that?? Don't care.

Can one person's increase in well-being result in another person's misery? Sure, but aren't we already working within the suffering/wellbeing framework I've outline? If you want to ask, what's the right thing to do in this hypothetical then we require an actual hypothetical example, but we're nevertheless working on the assumption that there is a moral realism predicated on human suffering and wellbeing.

Then what does it mean? — baker

The opening post asked for arguments in favor of Moral Realism and I outlined a brief schema defending the concept with universal application ("human well-being", "human suffering", i.e. shared humanity). No corollary to this outline implies an individualized perspective which partitions the individual and the other, and removes the latter from the schema, or as you ask, "Whatever enhances my wellbeing and diminishes my suffering is moral (morally good, morally right, just, righteous), even if in the process of this, other people or their property get hurt or damaged" regardless of its context, gratuitous or not. I would suggest we don't look at ethical theories based on human collectivity and immediately seek to atomize it, asking how this can benefit me, irrespective of how it impacts others.

The Origin of Capitalism by Ellen Meiksins Wood (rereading)

No point wasting time on someone responding in bad faith to a post made 3 years ago

no

Send in the clowns!

Still, their are companies pursuing what is either a delusion or a premature technology. — Bitter Crank

Sure, irrational exuberance

I think that's true of Marx, but do we have any reason to believe it's true of reality? — fdrake

Of course not, and I'm pretty skeptical about the technological viability of automation or AI. And I don't think that Marx is saying this is an inevitability either, but rather a tendency by virtue of investing towards labor saving fixed capital. There are of course numerous counterforces that can push back against this tendency, the most obvious being a majority wage labor population.

A real world example of this tendency towards fixed capital contra workers, along with my following skepticism on how fully viable the former is, is Uber, which has fought tooth-and-nail to declassify their US drivers from employees to contractors, exempting full employee benefits they would otherwise receive, while simultaneously investing in AI technology for self-driving cars, according to Uber co-founder and former CEO Travis Kalanick back in 2014:

when there's no other dude in the car, the cost of taking an Uber anywhere becomes cheaper than owning a vehicle. So the magic there is, you basically bring the cost below the cost of ownership for everybody, and then car ownership goes away."

Uber has never been profitable, and there doesn't appear to be any road to profitability other than diminishing costs for Uber drivers to the point of eliminating them.

However, self-driving vehicles seem like a sci-fi delusion to me. And maybe it appears to be a delusion Uber too since they sold their autonomous vehicle division several months ago, and that even if it were technologically feasible operating costs might be too cumbersome to drive profitability.

A common misreading of Marx stems from interpreting the Labor Theory of Value as a trans-historical theory. It's not! It's a theory of how value is created given a specific process of production, in Marx's use-case, Capitalism.

In regards to automation, Marx actually did discuss it conceptually in the Grundrisse. I will place together some selected quotes from the short section, Contradiction between the Foundation of Bourgeois Production (value as measure) and its Development. Machines etc.:

The exchange of living labour for objectified labour – i.e. the positing of social labour in the form of the contradiction of capital and wage labour – is the ultimate development of the value-relation and of production resting on value. Its presupposition is – and remains – the mass of direct labour time, the quantity of labour employed, as the determinant factor in the production of wealth. But to the degree that large industry develops, the creation of real wealth comes to depend less on labour time and on the amount of labour employed than on the power of the agencies set in motion during labour time, whose ‘powerful effectiveness’ is itself in turn out of all proportion to the direct labour time spent on their production, but depends rather on the general state of science and on the progress of technology, or the application of this science to production....Real wealth manifests itself, rather – and large industry reveals this – in the monstrous disproportion between the labour time applied, and its product, as well as in the qualitative imbalance between labour, reduced to a pure abstraction, and the power of the production process it superintends. Labour no longer appears so much to be included within the production process; rather, the human being comes to relate more as watchman and regulator to the production process itself....The theft of alien labour time, on which the present wealth is based, appears a miserable foundation in face of this new one, created by large-scale industry itself. As soon as labour in the direct form has ceased to be the great well-spring of wealth, labour time ceases and must cease to be its measure, and hence exchange value [must cease to be the measure] of use value. The surplus labour of the mass has ceased to be the condition for the development of general wealth, just as the non-labour of the few, for the development of the general powers of the human head....With that, production based on exchange value breaks down, and the direct, material production process is stripped of the form of penury and antithesis. The free development of individualities, and hence not the reduction of necessary labour time so as to posit surplus labour, but rather the general reduction of the necessary labour of society to a minimum, which then corresponds to the artistic, scientific etc. development of the individuals in the time set free, and with the means created, for all of them.

To paraphrase, what Marx is saying is that as Capitalism continues to develop labor-saving technology, Capitalists can invest more in fixed capital (i.e. Machines) here also referred to as "Objectified Labor" rather than "Living Labor" (i.e. the workers). The end result of this potential process would be solely automated production. But, this in turn would transform the Labor Theory of Value as well into something applicable in a post-Capitalist society when living labor i.e. the working class is rendered moot in the production process.

Marx continues:

On the one side, then, it calls to life all the powers of science and of nature, as of social combination and of social intercourse, in order to make the creation of wealth independent (relatively) of the labour time employed on it. On the other side, it wants to use labour time as the measuring rod for the giant social forces thereby created, and to confine them within the limits required to maintain the already created value as value. Forces of production and social relations – two different sides of the development of the social individual – appear to capital as mere means, and are merely means for it to produce on its limited foundation. In fact, however, they are the material conditions to blow this foundation sky-high.

This is such an interesting passage. Marx is saying here that on one side automated machinery can create wealth regardless of labor time (i.e. necessary labor time) that is employed into the production process. But on the other hand, Capital still seeks to measure value (and as a corollary, price, and wealth) based on necessary labor time. Capital, according to Marx, "becomes a moving contradiction that it presses to reduce labour time to a minimum, while it posits labour time, on the other side, as sole measure and source of wealth."

This contradiction leads to a material condition which can "blow this foundation sky-high", in other words the Labor Theory of Value becomes irrelevant, we've moved past it to something else! A Theory of Value based on automated machine power.

But this poses a looming question and places humanity at an important crossroad. Who owns the automated machinery and as a corollary, who owns the profits and wealth created by the machines? If they are owned by a minority of Capitalists then we may have something that looks similar to Blade Runner, where mega-trillionaires own the vast majority of wealth, most people are unemployed and are sustained through a measly Andrew Yang-style UBI at the cost of public support. If they are owned by the people, with the created wealth flowing back to the public, maybe we can see a more Star Trek like society where everyone's needs are met, housing, food, health etc., with disposable time open up to free development, personal, intellectual, social etc.

Marx continues in this section to say:

​‘Truly wealthy a nation, when the working day is 6 rather than 12 hours. Wealth is not command over surplus labour time’ (real wealth), ‘but rather, disposable time outside that needed in direct production, for every individual and the whole society.’

Wealth here isn't the accumulation of profits, or commodities etc., it is the disposable time "for every individual and the whole of society" beyond what is required by individuals in the production process.

Black Skin, White Masks by Frantz Fanon

Imagine giving a shit about Hunter Biden

In hindsight, it's funny to re-read Obama's misgivings about Biden's campaign abilities (while accurate) given Biden's (by admission) far better stimulus overshadowing Obama's by a trillion $. The Biden Administration told Larry Summers to fuck off at least.

If there wasn't a once-in-a-century global virus, it's undeniable that Trump would have won. Even intra-pandemic decisions such as passing a larger stimulus prior to the election could have changed the outcome of the election, as pointed out. It's an exercise to precisely recollect - a year plus after the fact and given the year we've have - how absolutely fucked Biden's campaign seemed to be until Super Tuesday when still viable candidates suddenly dropped out and Biden became the de facto nominee despite how close the delegate count was. There was even some ad hoc Presidential support for Andrew Cuomo

Cuomo has emerged as a possible, but not plausible, alternative to square off against the president, not only because of the coronavirus, Sabato said, but because of the current state of the Democratic race.

"The scene has changed...Biden was able to derail Sanders," Sabato said, calling the Vermont senator the great "fear" of mainstream Democratic leadership. "Then they started refocusing and seeing all of [Biden’s] drawbacks."

"They're focusing now on his age and, you know, the lack of articulation and fill in the blank. They just wonder if he's vigorous enough to take on Trump," he added.

Heaven and earth are ruthless,
and treat the myriad creatures
as straw dogs

:up: :flower:

Black Marxism: The Making of the Black Radical Tradition by Cedric Robinson

Speaking of:

It is thus, despite itself, instrumental in creating the means of social disposable time, in order to reduce labour time for the whole society to a diminishing minimum, and thus to free everyone’s time for their own development. But its tendency always, on the one side, to create disposable time, on the other, to convert it into surplus labour.

For Creators, Everything Is for Sale

But as the market gets more and more competitive — and the platforms and their algorithms remain unreliable — creators are devising new, hyper-specific revenue streams.

One comes in the form of NewNew, a start-up in Los Angeles, that describes its product as creating a “human stock market.” On the app, fans pay to vote in polls to control some of a creator’s day-to-day decisions.

Courtne Smith, the founder and chief executive of NewNew, said the company was “similar to the stock market” in that “you can buy shares, which are essentially votes, to be able to control a certain level of a person’s life.”

“We’re building an economy of attention where you purchase moments in other people’s lives, and we take it a step further by allowing and enabling people to control those moments,” she said.

:death:

This was my first read of Grundrisse, and so it was interesting to compare with Capital given that the latter was an edited work, whereas Grundrisse is collected manuscript of notes that wasn't meant for publication (and was never completed anyway). So through stream of consciousness, it reveals a certain side of Marx that you don't quite see in Capital. Of course Marx develops his economic thoughts more concisely in Capital (and there's more writing on class struggle in V1), so it shouldn't be a substitute for it, but through the occasional digressions in Grundrisse he reveals more overarching thoughts about society, such as alienation, ideological production under Capitalism, and human development, and some abstract considerations for what Marx's post-Capitalist society might look like. For example, the creation of disposable time that becomes theoretically available for all under Capitalism, but, for the working class, becomes subsumed under Capitalism's raison d'etre viz., wealth accumulation. Under Marx's socialism, real wealth comes from disposable time so that all individuals may pursue their own free desires, interests, and other means that enable and fulfill self-development.

The creation of a large quantity of disposable time apart from necessary labour time for society generally and each of its members (i.e. room for the development of the individuals’ full productive forces, hence those of society also), this creation of not-labour time appears in the stage of capital, as of all earlier ones, as not-labour time, free time, for a few....

It is thus, despite itself, instrumental in creating the means of social disposable time, in order to reduce labour time for the whole society to a diminishing minimum, and thus to free everyone’s time for their own development.

But its tendency always, on the one side, to create disposable time, on the other, to convert it into surplus labour.

For real wealth is the developed productive power of all individuals. The measure of wealth is then not any longer, in any way, labour time, but rather disposable time.

A page earlier from the above, he approvingly quotes a passage from an early 19th century book,

‘Truly wealthy a nation, when the working day is 6 rather than 12 hours. Wealth is not command over surplus labour time’ (real wealth), ‘but rather, disposable time outside that needed in direct production, for every individual and the whole society.’

But I think the largest benefit of reading Grundrisse, for me, was that it threaded together Capitalist production, circulation, distribution, and consumption (which are more isolated focus points that comprise the three volumes of Capital), thereby edifying their interactivity and emphasizing the Totality of the Capitalist system, which further elucidates Capitalism as a profoundly complex mode of production and in turn has decisive effects on society and social relationships. This helped further clarify Marx's Historical Materialism for me.

I think the perception that Marx is a determinist is largely due to the dominance of The Communist Manifesto in the public discourse that surrounds Marx, and the heuristic approach of treating the document as the overarching expression of Marxism, despite how early it appears in Marx's working intellectual life (he wrote it when he was only 30, and to be fair additional work around that time was also fairly deterministic and assured, but his intellectual output continued for another 30 years). It can also be due to the fact that his productive output is largely contained within the 1840s when he was in his twenties and entering into his thirties, although his more profound and mature work was largely written sporadically from 1852 (The Eighteenth Brumaire) until his death in 1883.

After the Revolutions of 1848 fail to produce the desired socialist revolution, he begins to shy away from the confident determinism of his youth, which is reflected in the language and choice of words he uses, particularly in Grundrisse and Capital, where he rarely utilizes causal language preferring instead to use words such as "tendency", "appears", "reveals", etc. when dissecting Capitalism. For example, it's sometimes pointed out that Marx's Fall of the Rate of Profit is a deterministic law that ensures the (eventually) self-destruction of Capitalism, but he nevertheless refers to it as a "tendency" after introducing the concept in both Grundrisse and Capital V3 and then goes on provides counteracting factors. From a more Archimedean point of view, I think Marx's framework of dialectical historical materialism precludes determinism given the complex relationship between modes of production and social reproduction, technology, class and social relations, and the clash of ideology that is both engendered by and shapes those material relations.

Returning to Marx's post-1848 experiences, we continue to see repeated disappointment influence what was otherwise more deterministic outlooks after subsequent economic crises, increasingly global in scale, fail to produce the desired revolutionary changes (e.g. Panic of 1857, 1866, and 1873).

Happily, tomorrow or this weekend (i.e. not while having had a few drinks :party:)

By the way the left wing Gestapo came for Dr. Seuss today, and I am in despair. The Cat in the Hat was my very first book, and I take this personally. — fishfry

The article you yourself linked to does not indicate that "the left" had anything to do with this. It was simply a business decision made by the publishing company unprompted by external political influences.

From the article:

"The decision to cease publication and sales of the books was made last year after months of discussion, the company, which was founded by Seuss’ family"

"Random House Children Books, Dr. Seuss’ publisher, issued a brief statement Tuesday: 'We respect the decision of Dr. Seuss Enterprises (DSE) and the work of the panel that reviewed this content last year, and their recommendation.”

The article also says that The Cat in the Hat will continue to be published. Sounds like your reading skills haven't progressed beyond that.

Within two weeks two different children's companies made internal business decisions for their own products. Hasbro dropped the Mr. moniker for their Potato Head brand (they are keeping the Mr. Potato Head character), and Dr. Seuss Enterprises are ceasing publications of children's books that contain racist caricatures as they stated "ceasing sales of these books is only part of our commitment and our broader plan to ensure Dr. Seuss Enterprises’s catalog represents and supports all communities and families." Simply a long term business decision to protect the brand, and ensure continued audience appeal.

Agreed that Marx is better understood as a socioeconomist rather than a philosopher, albeit he was more interested in the latter as a student and young adult, which helped lay conceptual foundations for his subsequent work and analysis in the former.

Marx (in the end) was a historical determinist — 180 Proof

Mostly untrue, increasingly so after the Revolutions of 1848 and after subsequent crises of Capitalism failed to bring about socialist revolution.

Yeah I'll post some thoughts after I finish, hopefully by this weekend.

Finished Liberty and Property a couple of days ago. Just finishing up the last 100 pages of Grundrisse.

If you actually care about this culture war bullshit that's entered it's sixth year in public discourse you might just be brain dead.

Since you cry at the mere sight of truth, believe things uncritically, and use "like" in the worst fashion, I'm forced to imagine your voice with a high rising terminal — NOS4A2

Since you write like this I'm forced to believe you haven't gotten pussy in well over a year

the New York Times spread the misinformation to their readers, but I’m the liar? — NOS4A2

This guy misses Trump so much he's crying about a possible misreport by the NYT that has in fact been updated as new information appeared. Like god damn what a boring loser.

How are you finding this and its prequal? — StreetlightX

Works of frustrating lucidity; books empowered with a forceful and cogent conceptual apparatus (i.e. historical materialism), packed with material that I find it simultaneously brilliant, yet aggravating. Aggregating in that there is clearly much more that can be told beyond the selected political and social philosophers. To your point "pop". Wish there was more meat to it. I love Jonathon Israel's work, and I agree with the thrust of it, but it's somewhat conceptually limited by prioritizing "ideas responding to ideas" while subordinating material and social explanans.

Liberty and Property: A Social History of Western Political Thought from Renaissance to Enlightenment by Ellen Meiksins Wood

I think we seriously need to consider the self-help and responsibility-focused philosophy of Jordan Peterson, author of 12 Rules for Life: An Antidote to Chaos, who afterwards became addicted to benzos and was placed in a medically induced coma for eight days in Russia.

Remember when Jordan Peterson participated in a debate on Marxism and announced the only book by Marx he had ever read was the Communist Manifesto and that he had only previously read it once before, when he was in college.

I can recall how hard the media pushed figures like Bannon, Sohrab Ahmari, Michael Anton, recently Josh Hawley, and of course Jordan Peterson (or the "Intellectually Dark Web generally"), as right-wing intellectuals who require serious intellectual engagement until it becomes universally evident, even by liberal standards, that they are just batshit lunatics at best and subsequently dropped from discourse.

to be clear, I am joking

Why? — Isaac

Right wing ideas are very intellectual and serious

It's funny to see how this has become such a controversial issue, back in the 2000s the golden age of internet forums, people would get the "ban hammer" for saying similar nonsense repeated on these forums and no one gave a shit.

this is so Orwellian we need to engage with ideas from the right

Then you get this total lunacy of Super PC BS, that only serves to hurt the left, and give the room to the far right to come in and complain about "socialism" or whatever. — Manuel

No instance of "political correctness", whatever that's supposed to refer to here, justifies the encroachment of fascism

It's been pretty amusing seeing recent threads and posts decrying the preponderance of leftists on this site, the necessity and importance of having right wingers to provide ideological counter balance, etc. and this is what we get.