By the way was there a specific work you recommend that delves into Marx's concept of freedom? — Maw

Hm, I'm not super familiar with Marx's writings on this topic specifically, but On The Jewish Question has some great stuff on what Marx calls 'emancipation', where he contrasts the liberal conception of rights with a more properly 'human emancipation'. Wendy Brown has a great treatment of that essay in her States of Injury, chapt 5 ("Rights and Losses").

Only to stop the goons from committing assault. — Pfhorrest

That has happened as well, like with union busting. But in this case the property now belongs to the workers, so the state needs to back that when some of the capitalists are unwilling to hand their former property over.

This particular line of conversation is pretty absurd. States, for instance, nationalize, or even break-up - under anti-trust legislation, for instance - companies with relative ease on various occasions. Hell, capitalists, by means of hostile take-overs, regularly take over - against what people 'want' or 'agree with' - companies all the time. The dividing line seems to be what is and what is not sanctioned by law. When sanctioned by law, 'people who disagree' are magically irrelevant, but all of a sudden, when it comes to strategies for increasing the sum-total of human liberation in the world, they're an unsurpassable bulwark for which violent force is the only option? Please. Utter tripe.

but all of a sudden, when it comes to strategies for increasing the sum-total of human liberation in the world, — StreetlightX

What does liberation mean in context of the first page discussion on freedom where you concluded:

Need to hit the sack but a quick comment: the exercise of force and coordination of power are the conditions of, and not constraints upon, the exercise of freedom. — StreetlightX

Organizing people to push for reforms and better deals sounds good. But the Marxist rhetoric tends to carry a certain baggage when it comes to past revolutions, some of it involving the "exercise of force and coordination of power".

But the Marxist rhetoric tends to carry a certain baggage — Marchesk

And capitalism kills people everyday by means of the exercise of force and coordination of power. What's your point?

I mean, you just have to look at this dystopian nightmare video, and the idea that collective bargaining is just fine as it is, or that corporations aren't shit scared of unions, can be seen for the joke it is. Or just watch American Factory and see union-busting at work. Or else consider Walmart, the US's biggest employer:



Both videos making the point to champion 'direct relationships' with 'associates' - i.e. no mediation or collective bargaining pls, we like our overbearing asymmetry of power exactly as it is.

A warning sign can be the use of words like “living wage.” Is that for real?

The post was humorous and Elon Musk is most definitely intelligent, otherwise he wouldn't be where he is.

Leftists are obsessed with money, they see it as an expression of power...so Marx explaining time through the concept of making money from clocks is a bit of a laugh.

What is that a warning sign of from whom?

The use of that phrase that I’m familiar with is in contrast to “minimum wage”, i.e. not just the least pay legally allowed, but enough to actually get by on.

Elon Musk is most definitely intelligent, otherwise he wouldn't be where he is. — Chester

Yeah I'd be rich too if my white parents made their money through exploitation in apartheid South Africa

Leftists are obsessed with money, they see it as an expression of power...so Marx explaining time through the concept of making money from clocks is a bit of a laugh. — Chester

a knee slapper for sure!

Written interview with Chibber: https://www.versobooks.com/blogs/4717-capitalism-is-complex-but-not-difficult-to-understand

"Your three pamphlets, The ABCs of Capitalism, have just been published in Germany. In the introduction, we find the sentence, “capitalism is complex, but not difficult to understand”. Is that true?

Yes. Every aspect of social reality under capitalism has several dimensions, which is why it appears complex. However, it is very easy to understand the essence of capitalism: there is a small group of people who own almost everything, while the vast majority of people own almost nothing. This vast majority has to go to work for the propertied class every day. Take this as the starting point, and from there you can explain everything else – you just need to follow the tracks.

You demand simplicity. Then explain in a few simple words: why overcome capitalism?

So we can live under conditions in which people thrive because they have autonomy over their lives. That is, in principle, a liberal conception. But it cannot be realised under capitalism, because most people spend most of their day under somebody else's supervision and control - namely at work. Every day, they sell not only their labour power but also their autonomy for a certain number of hours. Thus, they lose freedom, which in turn means a loss of self-determination. The power that the capitalists exert over workers doesn't benefit workers, it benefits the enterprise, which often enough turns against the workers. If you depend on someone else for your survival for the rest of your life, you are constantly forced to ensure that you remain competitive, i.e. cheaper and more productive than others. Your entire social environment is influenced and shaped by this competition, which extends into leisure time too."

Yep, as real as it gets. @Pfhorrest, its from the Amazon union-busting video I posted, where the mention of a 'living wage' by employees is cited as a potential warning sign of worker organization.

So we can live under conditions in which people thrive because they have autonomy over their lives. That is, in principle, a liberal conception. But it cannot be realised under capitalism, because most people spend most of their day under somebody else's supervision and control - namely at work. Every day, they sell not only their labour power but also their autonomy for a certain number of hours. Thus, they lose freedom, which in turn means a loss of self-determination. The power that the capitalists exert over workers doesn't benefit workers, it benefits the enterprise, which often enough turns against the workers. If you depend on someone else for your survival for the rest of your life, you are constantly forced to ensure that you remain competitive, i.e. cheaper and more productive than others. Your entire social environment is influenced and shaped by this competition, which extends into leisure time too." — StreetlightX

So as much as I agree with his assessment, I don't see any way out of not working for something. You may not work for someone but you will work for something. That is what he doesn't seem to say. So what really changes? A group of people are on top instead of one guy in a business? I mean usually organizations, though hierarchical are dispersed in various departments with various people in those departments running them. At the end of the day there is a drone in sector G who is punching stuff into a computer, or punching stuff out of plastic, or painting fences, or digging up queries (digital or rock). It's not just about the power distribution, it's about the work. And because that itself is not even on the table, what does it matter at the end? More vacation days?

But it cannot be realised under capitalism, because most people spend most of their day under somebody else's supervision and control - namely at work. Every day, they sell not only their labour power but also their autonomy for a certain number of hours. Thus, they lose freedom, which in turn means a loss of self-determination. — StreetlightX

Workers are free to start their own businesses, become contractors, seek other employment, or work their way up the ladder. According to Google there are 30.2 million small businesses. One would think that if capitalism was the great evil of the modern world that the North Korean people would be flourishing. But guess what? The communist party there has had to allow a black market to spring up because it can't quite provide for the needs of the people.

Meanwhile, the evil capitalism has raised the standard of living over the past couple centuries for many, while the number of overalll poor are decreasing as they're finally able to take advantage of global markets.

It's not a perfect system and needs various protections and corrections, but it sure beats the alternatives humans have come up with so far. But maybe the next Marxist revolution will work out and deliver on its promises.

At any rate, as schopenhaur1 posted while I was typing this, people are still going to have to do work under any economic system, and some of that work is undesireable. At least until the robots are ready to do all the work for us.

So as much as I agree with his assessment, I don't see any way out of not working for something. You may not work for someone but you will work for something. That is what he doesn't seem to say. — schopenhauer1

Yes, because he's unconcerned with anti-natalist/pessimist bullshit. I said it before and I'll say it again, try to steer this thread in that direction and I will continue to delete your comments. You can peddle that crap elsewhere.

Yes, because he's unconcerned with anti-natalist/pessimist bullshit. I said it before and I'll say it again, try to steer this thread in that direction and I will continue to delete your comments. You can peddle that crap elsewhere. — StreetlightX

Blazin' saddles you're being touchy! It doesn't have to do with antinatalism. It may have to do with the fact that the problem lies in a) the work itself and b) that if not the current powers, then someone or something is going to tell people what to do. It is a critique. It seems like you don't like something I say or disagree and you threaten "Antinatalism and delete!". Now, would you like to address what I actually mentioned rather than red herring this about antinatalism?

No, I'm uninterested in anything you have to say. Please go rot someone else's thread.

No, I'm uninterested in anything you have to say. — StreetlightX

I hope the government you are striving for won't run like this.

Workers are free to start their own businesses, become contractors, seek other employment, or work their way up the ladder. — Marchesk

"Free" on pain of death or starvation. And again, the point is power asymmetries: the costs of doing these things are infinitely higher for workers than they are for employers, despite value being created by workers. In any case, the point is not to do away with work, but to work, if necessary, so that the benefits accrue to the workers, and not their employers. Hence the strategic goal of socialism: that workers own the means of production. And if you're seriously using North Korea as some kind of counter-example - it's about as socialist or communist as Trump's left arse-cheek - then come back when you're ready to take the topic seriously.

In any case, the point is not to do away with work, but to work, if necessary, so that the benefits accrue to the workers, and not their employers. Hence the strategic goal of socialism: that workers own the means of production. — StreetlightX

Fine, so say Lebron James leads a socialist revolution in the NBA. The slave owners are pushed out and now the teams are owned by all the various employees. So they show up the next day to figure out how to divvy up the billions of profit. But the players want most of it because fans come to watch them play, not the janitor sweeping the floors or the trainer wrapping an ankle.

So are things that much different for most of the employees? The problem is there is a huge asymmetry in what work is valued. Fans and media value the players. They don't care about any of the supporting staff. Yeah, someone needs to be scanning tickets at the door, but who cares what they make? I'm here to watch Lebron and the Lakers.

That's more of an extreme example, but you can imagine that Amazon programmers would think they deserve a higher share than the warehouse workers, since they're writing the code the business runs on, and there's no shortage of people you can hire to work in a warehouse, unlike skilled engineers.

You could argue that the majority of the employees can just outvote the players and programmers, but because of the asymmetry of value and the shortage of skill, the programmers and players can shut the business down if they don't get what they want. They can start their own business. You can always hire more ticket scanners and forklift operators.

Except, this entire analysis is bullshit, as without janitors and warehouse employees and so on, the entire economy collapses, as has been the case with COVID. No accident that those who are 'essential workers' are precisely those who pick up your garbage and serve you in supermarkets. You may be at the game to watch Lebron James, but the possibility of seeing that game, at that scale, with those seats, is enabled by an entire underclass that undergrids your 'enjoyment'.

And the fact that your example defends just about the biggest fucking waste on money on the planet - the exorbitant paychecks of sports stars - says everything you need to know about the utter inefficiency and waste that capitalism engenders.

Except, this entire analysis is bullshit, as without janitors and warehouse employees and so on, the entire economy collapses, as has been the case with COVID. You may be at the game to watch Lebron James, but the possibility of seeing that game, at that scale, with those seats, is enabled by an entire underclass that undergrids your 'enjoyment'. — StreetlightX

You seem to miss the part where the skill of an NBA player or top engineer is rare, and people are willing to pay more for that. If everyone gets the same cut, then you've distorted the value of the market, and that's where shortages and starvation enter the picture.

Nobody is saying that the players get paid the same as the janitors.

The idea is that instead of some non-working owner deciding how much to pay the players and the janitors and keeping the rest for himself, the players and the janitors etc all get together and decide how much to pay each other -- and don't cut some non-working "owner" anything.

If it's much easier to find cheaper janitors than cheaper players, then sure, everyone involved in that decision will have motive to pay more for players than for janitors. Because the more money the business saves, the bigger a pie for everyone's piece to be cut out of, janitors included. But they get to make that decision; someone else doesn't get to make it for them all.

I'd be fine with that for sports leagues, given how the owners try to get the community to pay for their stadiums, and then move the team when the vote doesn't pass.

But they get to make that decision; someone else doesn't get to make it for them all. — Pfhorrest

Back to the factory example. Say I decide to start a business. I purchase the land, have the building constructed, and buy the equipment. So now I offer you $25 an hour to operate the machinery. You say that you don't want to be a wage slave. I say, well that's what people get paid to work in other factories of this kind in this part of the world. You reply that you should share in the profits. Okay, so then I ask if you're willing to pay your share of the investment needed to get the business started, and take on that risk. If so, you can be part owner.

Is there something fundamentally wrong with that? What's the alternative? That the would-be employees all chip in to make the investment? Or that they take ownership as soon as I make my money back?

What's my incentive to start a business?

You seem to miss the part where the skill of an NBA player or top engineer is rare, and people are willing to pay more for that. If everyone gets the same cut, then you've distorted the value of the market, and that's where shortages and starvation enter the picture. — Marchesk

Considering that the NBA was among the first industries shut down as being entirely superfluous in the wake of COVID, I'd say the market is plenty distored as is. And of course, that we as a society decide to 'value' the rarity of some guy who can juggle his balls well is an entirely political deicison - it's not written in the stars, and to the degree that what and how we value is open to reassesment and reevaluation, we can well afford not to waste gargantuan sums of money on, effectively, an entirely useless activity - one that operates at the expense of others.

My own personal take is that there isn't so much a problem with the mechanics of that arrangement of one person putting in all the money and then hiring people at market wages to operate the business, but rather the problem is the prior circumstances that mean some people have the opportunity to start businesses like that, and others don't and have no realistic option but to go to work for them.

In my view, a solution to the problem would involve other facets of society being different such that businesses are more often formed by people coming together making mutual investments and mutually operating the business. Cooperatives, basically. That requires that average people have capital to invest in the first place, though. My objections to capitalism aren't so much the workplace stuff directly -- that's just a symptom -- but the deeper, more abstract, systemic features that lead to the imbalances of capital that lead to the workplace stuff. I identify the enforcement of contracts of rent (including interest, which is rent on money) as the source of that problem, in the absence of which the kind of capital concentration that gives rise to the workplace problems under discussion would tend to naturally dissolve under normal market forces.

All wrangling aside, it's really simple: workers are the primary producers of value; they ought to be compensated as such.

Again, COVID has demonstrated this beyond a shadow of a doubt.

And of course, that we as a society decide to 'value' the rarity of some guy who can juggle his balls well is an entirely political deicison - — StreetlightX

People value entertainment. Sports are just one example of that. There are other highly profitable entertainers. You can say all you want that they shouldn't get paid more than a school teacher or janitor, but people are still going to go sell out concerts and watch celebrities perform.

Considering that the NBA was among the first industries shut down as being entirely superfluous in the wake of COVID, — StreetlightX

The current situation is temporary. Sports will resume being played within a few months. One would hope a socialist revolution is aiming for a longer term solution.

we can well afford not to waste gargantuan sums of money on, effectively, an entirely useless activity — StreetlightX

That's your value judgement. Millions of sports fans disagree. I wonder if you feel the same way about music.

one that operates at the expense of others. — StreetlightX

You mean provides employment. One wonders how some of those wage slaves feel about not being able to go to work during C-19.

Sounds reasonable.