Against techno-optimism — Bitter Crank
I recommend that we exercise a preferential option for workers over machines as a starting point. — Bitter Crank
Can machines create wealth? If they can, it would seem that they do so with less cost than using human workers. Can capitalists (employers of the most self-sustaining machines) do away with workers? If workers can be disposed of, isn't that the end of economics? — Bitter Crank
If Marx were correct and we all were motivated out of a sense to promote the common good, we wouldn't need check out operators. We could each just take what we needed from the shelves (no more and no less) and go home and feed our families. — Hanover
The check out operator is actually just a security officer, standing over the money and making sure no one takes too much. — Hanover
He's a creation of the capitalistic greed machine, where people are assumed to be selfish. I envision a time when such selfish motives will vanish from the human psyche and we'll all live together as one in a John Lennonesque orgasm (a Lennongasm if you will). All we need is for humans not to be humans, a realistic goal as any. — Hanover
If he only thought that people ought to be concerned about the public good, but recognized they wouldn't be, then that would suggest he fully intended communism to be totalitarian, else how else would the people do something they didn't want to do?Was Marx really of the position that we're all motivated out of a sense to promote the common good? Or was he rather of the position that we ought to be? The former seems naïve and mistaken. — Sapientia
Concerns about people paying too little and that the money is secured are generally security matters, namely that the money that belongs to the store is received and protected.No, that's not quite right, since security is only part of the job. They're also to ensure that no one pays too little. They're to ensure that the correct amount of money is paid and secured, as well as providing satisfactory customer service. — Sapientia
Alternatives to capitalism need not be in the form of the naïve, unrealistic ideal that you describe above. — Sapientia
If he only thought that people ought to be concerned about the public good, but recognized they wouldn't be, then that would suggest he fully intended communism to be totalitarian, else how would the people do something they didn't want to do? — Hanover
I was attacking Marxism, which was what had been brought up. It seems that no matter how many times Marxist regimes fail, Marxists insist upon explaining how that failure was the result of poor adherence to true Marxist doctrine. — Hanover
But to the question of whether there is something better than capitalism, I doubt it. — Hanover
Maybe the machines owe the unemployed financial support. — Bitter Crank
So, we raise taxes to give benefits to those who can't earn them and we redistribute the wealth and further polarize the have and have nots. — Hanover
My question wasn't about what Marx thought motivated everyone. My question was, "What happens to people who labor when machines take their place (when production is fully automated)? — Bitter Crank
Anyway, it sounds like you're talking about a post-scarcity society where no human need work. — Marchesk
If he only thought that people ought to be concerned about the public good, but recognized they wouldn't be, then that would suggest he fully intended communism to be totalitarian, else how else would the people do something they didn't want to do? — Hanover
The 'dictatorship of the proletariat' is supposed to designate such a system, in which total political power emanates from democratic worker councils and governmental/inter-local institutions are meant largely as coordinating bodies for carrying out decisions coming from them. — Shevek
Or we can simply finally recognize that Marxism is an unworkable theory in practice and that constant efforts to explain how it might work make it a meaningless tautology where it's just true that if we all live together as one, we'll be happy.Of course we can all make criticisms of Marx and update it to more contemporary conditions. — Shevek
There would have to be a limitation placed on such a democracy which would require that it adhere to the principle that each must contribute to the best of their ability and each is entitled to his fair share. That is, you can't just assert there will be an open democracy with each voting his individual conscience for whatever he wants, else there most certainly will be some group of people who will vote for privatization and capitalism. which would defeat the whole point of enterprise. In fact, I'd expect that no rule could be passed (even should it emanate from the worker's council) that does not require certain behavior consistent with working for the collective. Those restrictions placed on democracy are what will (and has) led to totalitarianism within communist systems. — Hanover
Or we can simply finally recognize that Marxism is an unworkable theory in practice and that constant efforts to explain how it might work make it a meaningless tautology where it's just true that if we all live together as one, we'll be happy. — Hanover
By your reasoning, any system with 'restrictions' (i.e. all of them) lead directly to totalitarianism. — Shevek
You miss my perspective is all. You can read Marx as a philosopher or you can read him as a politician. The former leaves us having all sorts of heady discussions about alternative ways to structure our society, and perhaps we can talk about revolutions and bringing down the oppressive structures so prevalent in our society (despite the fact that the oppressive structures in non-Marxist countries are child's play when compared to those in Marxist countries). The latter leaves us with a very different discussion. We stop caring about theories, hypotheticals, and endless debates in smoke filled rooms. We simply ask: does this work? It seems not to. You've built a hell of a mousetrap, but it just doesn't catch mice.You're obviously coming from a place of ignorance when you purport to have figured out everything wrong with Marx's arguments. Have you even read Marx, let alone tried to extend the least bit of charitability in trying to understand his arguments? Attacking strawmen gets tiring, and it is quite unfortunate because I'd really like to hear intelligent criticisms of Marx from perspectives that know what he's talking about. I don't believe everything Marx says, but I try to understand what he says before evaluating it. — Shevek
The distinction is that a Marxist government would have to set forth Marxist principles within its constitution and it would necessarily begin with the notion that the state (or community, or whatever you wish to call the collective) maintains some level of supremacy over the individual. It is that notion that leads to the totalitarianism that is characteristic of every state that considers itself Marxist. Such places have never been bastions of individual rights. And so when the proletariat votes, should it vote for anything over the subjugation of the person to the collective, then it has redefined it's god. — Hanover
You miss my perspective is all. You can read Marx as a philosopher or you can read him as a politician. The former leaves us having all sorts of heady discussions about alternative ways to structure our society, and perhaps we can talk about revolutions and bringing down the oppressive structures so prevalent in our society (despite the fact that the oppressive structures in non-Marxist countries are child's play when compared to those in Marxist countries). The latter leaves us with a very different discussion. We stop caring about theories, hypotheticals, and endless debates in smoke filled rooms. We simply ask: does this work? It seems not to. You've built a hell of a mousetrap, but it just doesn't catch mice.
So, sure, I could go about discussing Marx like many discuss Descartes (for example). Interesting stuff with a massive academic history that really doesn't matter outside of academic settings. That, though, isn't why he's being discussed. You guys are discussing him like he ought to matter outside of academia. — Hanover
(despite the fact that the oppressive structures in non-Marxist countries are child's play when compared to those in Marxist countries) — Hanover
Don't all governments necessarily back up their authority on principles that the state maintains some level of supremacy over the individual? — Shevek
This characterizes Marxist governments as nothing other than protectors against capitalism, as if they have no proactive goal of their own.Marxists want to create a system where the state isn't a coercive apparatus for the capitalist class to enforce their unequal power relation with labour and the economically/politically excluded. — Shevek
It's hard to coherently speak of self-determination when you suggest it doesn't exist. If I voluntarily choose a job that requires behavior that I find oppressive, then one must ask why I chose it unless I find the pros of that job outweigh the cons, which simply means I've made a rational choice. If you're suggesting that I was forced to take that job because I was forced not to have adequate skills to find other employment, then I don't know what you mean by choice or self-determination. That is to say, if you don't like wearing a hair net at McDonalds because it makes you look silly, then don't work there.Large political and economic forces suppress the vast majority of individuals in capitalist societies. Freedom of expression and self-determination suddenly magically disappear when you enter the workplace, where most people spend a majority of their waking life. — Shevek
So basically you've convinced yourself that by calling Marx a 'politician', you can dismiss an entire body of work and say that it's flawed without ever having to read it or understand it. That's pretty convenient. I should have tried that trick in my philosophy program in college. I can't believe philosophers haven't found out that devastating way of arguing yet. — Shevek
The better question is why they all do, not why they all must, including in Vietnam.And why would a Marxist charter necessarily include such measures? — Shevek
Oh, yes, nothing like a single government media outlet to get your news from. Although I understand that you don't really care about the market force of demand, maybe ask yourself why the trail of immigrants moves from Vietnam to the US and not the other way around.For what it's worth, I'm an American living in one of those scary supposedly 'Marxist' countries (Vietnam), and I can tell you from first hand experience that a) there is nothing meaningfully Marxist about the organization of society, except for perhaps some terminology and government posters, and b) to say that oppressive structures in the US are "child's play" compared to here is more than simply hyperbole, it's blatantly false and the truth is arguably the opposite in certain aspects. — Shevek
Spoiler alert: 'Marxism' isn't a set of doctrines but a tradition of many different writers disagreeing with each other. — Shevek
I know, but you'll keep talking to me about it because you can't help yourself not to. It's just too near and dear to your heart for some reason.But I don't see any virtue in further discussing these contexts or arguing why Marx matters outside of academia if you're unashamedly sticking to intellectual laziness and dogmatism. — Shevek
Get involved in philosophical discussions about knowledge, truth, language, consciousness, science, politics, religion, logic and mathematics, art, history, and lots more. No ads, no clutter, and very little agreement — just fascinating conversations.