I saw this and thought of your thread-
https://m.facebook.com/story.php?story_fbid=1018363788315773&id=574719552680201&refsrc=http%3A%2F%2Fwww.google.com%2F&_rdr

What do you think? Is this the sort of way of life you'd prefer people to live by?

Also I disagree with the equalizing and trivializing of the personal value and meaning of different forms of work you have to give me an argument for why they have the same meaning and end in despair for the individual

@
Apologies, this is the version of the video. What do you think? Is this the kind of connection to products you mean?
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=jVCjb_9aj7M

Also I disagree with the equalizing and trivializing of the personal value and meaning of different forms of work you have to give me an argument for why they have the same meaning and end in despair for the individual — aporiap

I meant to say that most are lever pushing outside the very few who change processes for millions. They perhaps have a much greater stake in the production. Even this is one instance and since can't be a part of the whole process, is simply also a passive recipient like the rest.

I don't know if it ends in despair, but it ends with individuals being just very minuscule participants, and thus are essentially pinballs in the "given" of the environs which the behemoth of the world economy provides for the individuals.

Now the burden is to show when things weren't bad, and why they weren't, and how we can maybe fix that. It's easy to decry things. It's very hard to explain how to make things better. — csalisbury

Indeed. If not being alienated from production means slaving away on a farm to make ends meet, I probably would rather be alienated with all my consumer goods, unless I'm really into farming.

Let's not kid ourselves. Before capitalism there was feudalism, and that was not better for most people, despite there being a lot less alienation with production. And there are still parts of the world where people have to produce their own goods. They tend to be rather poor, and many of them would rather have access to the alienated labor and goods.

If being alienated means I have clean drinking water, abundance of food choices, access to healthcare, education, travel, etc. then that's magnitudes better than most humans had before me.

How am I "alienated" from production if I help build something without understanding all of the production processes involved? It's just a made-up concept by Marxists without any significance. So, we would somehow be less "alienated" if we lived in abject poverty because production was radically reduced so we could all understand how each product is made from start to finish? I prefer my modern standard of living, so no thank you, Marxists.

Would I do a better job of providing all of these requirements myself? Emphatically no! I cannot be an expert in everything. — Shatter

Indeed! Specialization (along with automation) has allowed the standard of living to go way up, for all of us unfortunate souls who get to be alienated. Not saying it's a perfect result, but I would say it's generally less bad than what came before.

Although I have no idea what life was a hunter/gatherer would be like, but at least with civilization, the standard of living is much better now, for those who have access.

Indeed! Specialization (along with automation) has allowed the standard of living to go way up, for all of us unfortunate souls who get to be alienated. Not saying it's a perfect result, but I would say it's generally less bad than what came before.

Although I have no idea what life was a hunter/gatherer would be like, but at least with civilized life, the standard of living is much better now, for those who have access. — Marchesk

The point of my post was to address the fact that we are mostly ignorant of the very processes and things we take utilize in daily life. We become passive participants and eventually become beholden to the given which is:

You want the STUFF (i.e. all the complex technologically created goods). > YOU must contribute now (since most people aren't technological pioneers through circumstance or lack of aptitude this means lever pushing for many). > You are beholden to the forces of technology because if you want the STUFF

The point of my post was to address the fact that we are mostly ignorant of the very processes and things we take utilize in daily life. We become passive participants and eventually become beholden to the given which is: — schopenhauer1

Yes, and maybe there is something less than good about that. Thus the DIY movement, and all those shows about how STUFF gets made. But is it worse than what we had before?

Maybe a smith would know everything about how an object was made. Was their life better off overall?

But is it worse than what we had before?

Maybe a smith would know everything about how an object was made. Was their life better off overall? — Marchesk

I am not advocating going backwards in time. I am just pointing to our ignorance and how beholden we are to larger forces we had no hand in and did not create ourselves but certainly dictate modern life for us. I can't explain its significance more than there is an alienation or atomization to this.

I am not advocating going backwards in time. I am just pointing to our ignorance and how beholden we are to larger forces we had no hand in and did not create ourselves but certainly dictate modern life for us. I can't explain its significance more than there is an alienation or atomization to this. — schopenhauer1

I see. Well, it might get worse if AI becomes more generalized in capability.

On a different note, are we really, relatively speaking, all that alienated? Does a monkey know how fruit is produced? — Shatter

"Being alienated from the products of one's labor" is not an obvious condition for industrial workers, let alone monkeys. "Alienation" in the case of products isn't "a bad feeling" like being alienated from one's parents, for instance, whose love once seemed secure. Rather, it's an insight into one's relationship to production which one might grasp alone, but will more quickly grasp if prompted by someone like Marx.

Workers in capitalist economies are definitely alienated from production. They may be, and probably are alienated in other ways too, where alienation is a psychological phenomenon.

Chomsky argues that anarchism is not disorganised, but is instead organisation without hierarchy. Fanciful as this may sound, it does offer a potential to alleviate the "inherently bad" aspect of (corporate) organisation without the wanton destruction of everything we rely on for our survival. — Shatter

Yes, this is true. Anarchy is an-archy not helter-skelter. I love the idea of an-archical society but bringing about such a society is a daunting project. Ursula LeGuin, a science fiction writer, explored what an anarchical society might be like in her novel, The Dispossessed.

If we assume, for the sake of argument, that this is at least theoretically true, is a consequence of this that alienation from production is not an important factor in our lives? — Shatter

Alienation from production is an important part of our lives the same way clean water and fresh air are. We may not notice that the water and air are dirty if we have tasted nothing else, but clean water and fresh air are definitely better for us, once we know what is what. And the cure for alienation isn't a pain killer, its a reorganization of the economy and society so that workers ARE NOT ALIENATED, which means the end of rich people owning everything.

Whether alienation is cured by socialism, syndicalism, or anarchism... the changes would be HUGE.

Chomsky is always worth reading; have you read Prince Kropotkin, Mikhail Bakunin, Emma Goldman, and more modern anarchists?

I've read very little anarchist literature, largely, as mentioned, because I consider it fanciful. This is not to say that I don't sympathise with the aims and principles elucidated.

In previous posts I think I have misunderstood what we mean by alienation. Or perhaps that there is considerable ambiguity in the concept itself. If we are discussing the ignorance and distance we all have from the production of what we consume, then this seems inevitable, though with troubling consequences. As you point out, how do we know that our air and water are clean?

Another interpretation of alienation is, again, as you say, the Marxist version. Workers are alienated from what they themselves produce. This is far more troubling. Even among the obscenely rich there are those (Soros, for example) who decry the vast, and in recent decades, widening, gulf between workers and owners wealth. However, I find the recognised alternatives, such as socialism or communism, to be worse than the problems they solve.

This, not least, because the various factions tend to collapse into mutual antagonism. The Communist Manifesto (which isn't a manifesto at all - it's a prophecy) provides a quintessential example. The final, and by far the longest, chapter consists of an aggressive refutation of various forms of socialism.

The French and Russian revolutions provide fair evidence of the flaws of their ideologies. In each case, temporary euphoria has rapidly given way to pragmatic concerns which proved insurmountable until the imposition of a brutal totalitarian regime.

Thank you for the recommendations, by the way, especially LeGuin. Haven't read a good political sci-fi in some time.

However, I find the recognised alternatives, such as socialism or communism, to be worse than the problems they solve.

This, not least, because the various factions tend to collapse into mutual antagonism. The Communist Manifesto (which isn't a manifesto at all - it's a prophecy) provides a quintessential example. — Shatter

There are intermediate stops in-between where we are and a communist revolution. Like, progressive taxation. At the present time, we (the U.S.) has lapsed into a long phase of regressive taxation which is partially responsible for the chasm between the rich and everybody else. There is also progressive spending, where budgets support enduring future-oriented projects rather than short-term vanishing projects, like building highways which contribute to existing problems and will start fall apart at once (at least in cold-climate areas).

We can not regain the post WWII boom which really did lift a lot of boats, and enabled scores of millions of people to make gains in their quality-of-life. But there are certainly things that can be done, if progressive governments can be elected.

An historian I was reading a couple of months ago labeled Marx as a prophet, and his prophecy less revolution and more an eschatology. He was preaching salvation, a "kingdom of god" without god, of course...

Workers in capitalist economies are definitely alienated from production. They may be, and probably are alienated in other ways too, where alienation is a psychological phenomenon. — Bitter Crank

The problem of assembly line production is that it turns man into mindless machine and it deprives man of his most basic human elements: the ability to think, decide, judge, and care. It's dehumanizing, and as society advances, more jobs are reduced to the employee performing mindless algorithmic steps in order to assure consistency, even should it be mediocre consistency. The individual no longer confers unique quality on his product.

This result arises from a need for more products and efficient production. Failure to adhere to these principles means perhaps more fulfilling work conditions but fewer goods and services.

The problem here is not Marx versus capitalism. In either we should expect the same goods and services, just brought about by different means. Whether the employee works the assembly line as co-owner of The People's Communal Motorcars or as a peon Ford Motor Company grunt, in either event, the employee goes equally unfulfilled.

My point being that I don't see communism resolving anything, unless you suggest that under communism we should just get ready to accept much less and lesser overall quality goods as each person is handed a hammer and sickle and asked to forge goods one at a time like an old world craftsman. The alienation, it seems to me arises from being relegated to being a cog, not from lacking joint ownership in the enterprise.

This result arises from a need for more products and efficient production. Failure to adhere to these principles means perhaps more fulfilling work conditions but fewer goods and services.

This conflict of efficiency vs well-being has been somewhat addressed in private industry with certain progressive companies - google, venmo, tesla- designing their employment positions to include more worker freedom and project autonomy. This could quell the well being issue without unduly hampering efficient production, it just needs to be more widespread. Or, automating the algorithmic steps and creating new jobs that require critical input. I'm not sure the latter can do the same as the former but it's a start.

Whether the employee works the assembly line as co-owner of The People's Communal Motorcars or as a peon Ford Motor Company grunt, in either event, the employee goes equally unfulfilled. — Hanover

If the worker-owned and operated People's Communal Motorcars set up a dehumanizing assembly line on which they themselves or some other unfortunates, labored from dawn to dusk, it would be their own fault, their own most grievous fault.

Marx was preaching salvation, aside from political economy, and what was implemented in the Soviet Union and the People's Republic of China was Lenin, Stalin, Mao, and Company's authoritarian state capitalism, where the state is the owner operator, and as likely to behave badly as any straightforward capitalist, only more so.

The alienation, it seems to me arises from being relegated to being a cog, not from lacking joint ownership in the enterprise. — Hanover

There are two flavors of alienation. Being a cog on the assembly line or a cog in an office or a cog any where else, is one kind of alienation. A lot of people who are cogs on a wheel actually like their jobs. They are, none the less, "alienated" from the product of their work, even though they might like their jobs. This kind of alienation may not even be perceived, and is more of a philosophical concept than a specific experience.

Then there is another kind of alienation where one becomes a stranger in one's own land and is cut off from such comforts and joys as family, community, and faith can provide. This kind of alienation feels awful and isn't specifically related to economics.

There are many more factors contributing to the second kind of... 'existential alienation' than there are contributing to the alienation Marx was talking about.

More confusing and worse, one may be alienated in both senses of the word at the same time.

Marx's comments on alienation are in some scattered locations; what he had to say about it in the philosophical manuscripts are very resonant to what a lot of people are feeling in the second sense of the word (alienation).

But we don't have to rely on what Marx said. A lot of people have written cogently and perceptively about alienation.

Hi there. It seems that what you're getting at with the alienation you describe is covered by Marx's concept of commodity fetishism. He wrote a famous section on it in Capital. I would recommend reading the small section. It is a great piece of writing.

Watch from 54 minutes for a discussion of Commodity fetishism:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?time_continue=4371&v=zwuMrd_Hgww

This alienation from factors of production is a problem as we are atomized from the sources of production- reduced to a tiny infinitesimal fraction of the larger pie. — schopenhauer1

As I see it, drudgery is drudgery. Was it good to dig in the dirt, even in one's own dirt when that was possible? I doubt it. It sounds boring, probably more boring than working in an Amazon warehouse.

It would be nice to not work for anyone, read, write, watch good TV, enjoy a variety of sex partners, never age, have lots of profound friendships, be admired for my creativity, and so on and so on. As I get some of this, it doesn't exactly keep me from wanting more of this. And if I could make a living strictly from my creativity, I still find something to gripe about (lack of immortality, the imperfection of friends and lovers, etc.) That monstrous, infinite hole of abstract appetite is just something one puts up with and is maybe even grateful for.

I anticipate a pessimistic response, and I grant that pessimists have noted the way that desire expands with possession. But this surplus desire or frustration isn't exactly unpleasant. It's the like the tension felt in trying to beat a video game or solve a puzzle.

Thanks for sharing the video.

It would be nice to not work for anyone, read, write, watch good TV, enjoy a variety of sex partners, never age, have lots of profound friendships, be admired for my creativity, and so on and so on. As I get some of this, it doesn't exactly keep me from wanting more of this. And if I could make a living strictly from my creativity, I still find something to gripe about (lack of immortality, the imperfection of friends and lovers, etc.) That monstrous, infinite hole of abstract appetite is just something one puts up with and is maybe even grateful for. — syntax

What Schopenhauer called will. There is a bit of giddyness to some aspects of pessimism ironically. I've mentioned that before. To read a really good turn of phrase about the existential situation.

I anticipate a pessimistic response, and I grant that pessimists have noted the way that desire expands with possession. But this surplus desire or frustration isn't exactly unpleasant. It's the like the tension felt in trying to beat a video game or solve a puzzle. — syntax

Interesting point and I think there is something to it. This is why there should be existential communities- we can call it "The Joy of Pessimism" akin to the Joy of Cooking or the Joy of Painting :D. I know there is the School of Life which does have a similar theme on YouTube. Even this though is a bit too self-helpy for my taste, but a good start.

As for the production idea of this thread, the point is that we can never have full knowledge of the very world we use to keep us alive. Hunter/gatherers know the man-made tools that they use. Our ancestors did at least. But here we are, using this computer, and I am sure most of us wouldn't know much except generalities about processors, RAM, binary code, source code, etc. that still wouldn't scratch the surface of all the functionalities. Of course, SOMEONE might know every piece of information that goes into how the computer functions (still doubtful because of the programming aspect), but they don't know about some other phenomena that they use in daily life. It is a very subtle point I am making that I think people have missed.

Interesting point and I think there is something to it. This is why there should be existential communities- we can call it "The Joy of Pessimism" akin to the Joy of Cooking or the Joy of Painting :D. — schopenhauer1

I still maintain that we have that right here. Out of curiosity, I've checked out forums of outside intellectual traditions. In my experience they tend to be sterile. Conflict is good. I think we get bored if we aren't allowed to scratch and bite and if we don't run the risk of being scratched and bitten.

But yeah, there's something sexy about pessimism. And it's the same kind of sex-appeal that goes with the cartoon version of existentialism. And then there's the even sexier of sophistication of being too profound for all of these. One starts to wear profundity itself ironically.

As for the production idea of this thread, the point is that we can never have full knowledge of the very world we use to keep us alive. Hunter/gatherers know the man-made tools that they use. Our ancestors did at least. But here we are, using this computer, and I am sure most of us wouldn't know much except generalities about processors, RAM, binary code, source code, etc. that still wouldn't scratch the surface of all the functionalities. Of course, SOMEONE might know every piece of information that goes into how the computer functions (still doubtful because of the programming aspect), but they don't know about some other phenomena that they use in daily life. It is a very subtle point I am making that I think people have missed. — schopenhauer1

I do see what you're getting at. Yes, we are cogs in a machine that none of us understand. Some of us are highly trained in this or that area, but there is just too much specialized knowledge. No one sees the whole anymore, though some of us specialize in seeing the whole stripped of detail (an X-ray of the whole.) Of course such 'X-rays' tend to be biased and self-serving, or at least particular grand narrative tend to include explanations of how opposing grand narratives get it wrong.

This ignorance of the machine as a whole is still something that I think I would like more than digging in the dirt with tools I understand. Even in a simpler world, the presence of that world must remain mysterious.

It's a bit of a problem, but it's relatively easily remedied - have one thing in your life where your relation to what you produce isn't like that. What people normally call a "hobby," but of course it's a bit bigger than that, it can encompass higher level creative stuff - art, music, etc.

There's a trade-off between the amount of alienation and the difficulty of the labour. Technological progress has made things easy (press a button and do what the labour of a dozen men would have been required for in the past), but that very ease is what distances the labourer from their product; on the other hand, our ancestors went in this direction because they were pissed off having to work so hard for a poor result. Nevertheless, we are not bound by their decisions going forward, we just have to keep in mind the baselines of unpleasantness they were trying to avoid with ingenuity and the strategem of progress.

Basically a lot of the problems the Left is canvassing - the Rousseauian element in the Left, one might say - comes from a recognition that we have a hankering for a natural, simpler life. And that's true, that's what Nature designed our bodies and brains for, our ancestral environment, and while we are slowly evolving to cope with modern life, and we may be able to engineer ourselves so that we are our "best bits", part of us still hankers for a life out in nature, confronting relatively simple tasks we can do with our whole bodies, that have relatively immediate feedback.

Our social mindset is also designed for a small group of people we know very well and are accustomed to, who are relatively closely genetically related (tribe, clan, ethnic group, race). That set of expectations being often thwarted by often impersonal modern living, is the kernel of much discontent in society - we need to find ways of satisfying those expectations and urges that don't necessarily indulge them, but at least neutralize any ill effects they might have in a modern context. There are many close-enough substitutes, and there are many different ways of coming to terms with those itches and hankerings intelligently.

This ignorance of the @apokrisismachine as a whole is still something that I think I would like more than digging in the dirt with tools I understand. Even in a simpler world, the presence of that world must remain mysterious. — syntax

We are born into the given- an accumulation of general processes over time. We can only work within that given and never create it whole out of cloth. Thus the demands of life are largely not ours to create, only work within. The demands of a particular economy is already there presented to us as well. The economy can only work within a particular physical reality that is also presented to us.

What I think is odd, is that we have to trick ourselves into certain habits of thought. We have to pretend to care about things until we actually might fully care about them. We subsume ourselves in the given, despite our (at least to us seeming) freedom of thought. We live in a society, but we must constantly subsume our thoughts with what the given economic and social system require. Why do we want more people to contribute to this system?

@apokrisis seems to think there is this smooth balance of the individual with the whole- as if human social relations are simply a machine. I do not agree about how smooth this balance is. It is a constant realigning one's values with the social ones. It is not a complete subjugation of one's own will to the economic/social demands. It is a constant need to create habits to work with the group. This is not a smooth process. Individuals have an inclination for freedom of their own thought. Thus, not recognizing people's tendency for their own freedom of thought, is tacitly just putting the "is" of group dynamics as the "ought" of individuals conforming to demands of the given. Rather, though people must acquiesce to the given, the situation is still the given. Why create more situations where individuals must encounter the given? @apokrisis suggests that this is something that should be done, but other than describing how individuals and groups have to negotiate, the reasoning for why it should be done is not explained. Again, it is not a smooth process. Either there is a denial of this bumpiness, or there is a preference-writ-large to make new people experience this bumpiness. Again though, this has no justification other than this is a preference- a preference for seeing the same thing continue into the future.

We are born into the given- an accumulation of general processes over time. We can only work within that given and never create it whole out of cloth. Thus the demands of life are largely not ours to create, only work within. The demands of a particular economy is already there presented to us as well. The economy can only work within a particular physical reality that is also presented to us. — schopenhauer1

I agree. We are thrown into a contingency that some of us end up recognizing as contingency. Or let's say that some of us can't help but end up understanding ourselves as having been thrown into contingency and fragility. Some of us can't help but to understand ourselves as having seen through 'positive theologies' as tools that finally serve the dark human heart. Sometimes disgust with life dominates and (as I see it) finds pessimism more accurate. At other times, the 'lust of the eyes' and the 'pride of life' dominate and an irrational affirmation is possible.

One tension I find in pessimism is between its willingness to look behind theory at motive with its desire to be a 'rational' theory. The Dionysian position 'knows' that it is a noble lie or a leap of faith. It sees pessimism as another leap of faith that won't admit as much.

Again though, this has no justification other than this is a preference- a preference for seeing the same thing continue into the future. — schopenhauer1

I agree with you here. Beneath all the rationalizations, theodicies, systems...boos and hoorays.

apokrisis seems to think there is this smooth balance of the individual with the whole- as if human social relations are simply a machine. — schopenhauer1

Trying to drag me into yet another of your scab picking pessimism sessions? ;)

For the record, I would say organismic rather than mechanical. And so you are off track thinking I would need a frictionless mechanism.

What is important from a pragamatic and semiotic view of nature is a capacity to ignore the differences that don’t make a difference. Identity or autonomy is defined by what matters to an organism, and thus what also is a matter of generalised indifference.

That is what is balanced. Things don’t need to be magically smooth or frictionless. The system just needs to be smart enough that it knows when not to care.

Your rants about the structural intolerability of existence don’t get that. You complain about every bump in the road, no matter how insignificant.

It is you who desire the smooth and frictionless existence here. Funny that. Folk are always projecting.

It is you who desire the smooth and frictionless existence here. Funny that. Folk are always projecting. — apokrisis

No no, you are right in that I desire smooth and frictionless, but you are wrong that I think you want frictionless. I'll rephrase the qualifier of "smooth" and just say that you think this should be the way of things (i.e. individual bumping against the given). In fact, my point was that because it is not frictionless, why do you want to see it perpetuated? Well, it is simply a preference of yours. What is it about individuasl bumping up against "the given" dynamic that you like to see carried out generation after generation? Just remember, whatever X reason you provide will simply be your preference, and not the world-writ-large. What you tend to do is take your preference for seeing X phenomena and say that this is what should be. It is subtle but a tendency you have, unwittingly perhaps.
Look what I said again:

I do not agree about how smooth this balance is. It is a constant realigning one's values with the social ones. It is not a complete subjugation of one's own will to the economic/social demands. It is a constant need to create habits to work with the group. This is not a smooth process. Individuals have an inclination for freedom of their own thought. Thus, not recognizing people's tendency for their own freedom of thought, is tacitly just putting the "is" of group dynamics as the "ought" of individuals conforming to demands of the given. Rather, though people must acquiesce to the given, the situation is still the given. Why create more situations where individuals must encounter the given? apokrisis suggests that this is something that should be done, but other than describing how individuals and groups have to negotiate, the reasoning for why it should be done is not explained. Again, it is not a smooth process. Either there is a denial of this bumpiness, or there is a preference-writ-large to make new people experience this bumpiness. Again though, this has no justification other than this is a preference- a preference for seeing the same thing continue into the future. — schopenhauer1

Well, it is simply a preference of yours. — schopenhauer1

It is an empirical account so it stands or falls on the evidence.

I don't deny that, we agree on the bumpiness. The preference to continue it though is yours.

Huh? My claim is that it is natural to be indifferent to this bumpiness when it doesn’t really matter.

It is your pessimism that demands the perfection of a frictionless existence. Or have you now abandoned that?

Sisyphus Not Satisfied.

My point was about acquiescing freedom of thought to the demands of the given. Here we are with a personality (granted it is created from group interaction, but exists as a phenomenon nonetheless), and this personality has preferences, beliefs, values, and ideas that must aquiesce to the given. You say this is a good thing and should be carried out because that is just what happens. Again, this is an is ought problem that you have not managed to justify yet other than rhetorical moves that go back and forth from one to the other without the bridge. Your bridge usually comes in the form of talking about your metaphysics/epistemology of symbolic triadism/ information theory but explaining a theory is not a justification for why something should continue. Rather, even if it was the ultimate theory (which is a different matter), that informs little about ethics, values, etc. for what should be carried out, especially in light of the fact that people can make decisions and are not impelled by anything other than social norms, their own decision making heuristics, and perhaps biological brain tendencies (which would be very hard to pinpoint for each individual).