50th Day of Violent Protests in Portland - Page 21 - Politics Forum.org | PoFo

Wandering the information superhighway, he came upon the last refuge of civilization, PoFo, the only forum on the internet ...

Political issues and parties in the USA and Canada.

Moderator: PoFo North America Mods

Forum rules: No one line posts please.
#15125744
ckaihatsu wrote:Got it. Welcome, and all the best -- I know Trump is being an asshole to immigrants.


Thanks! Trump is indeed being an asshole and riling his base up, but he has way less room of maneuver than one would believe.

ckaihatsu wrote:Yes, exactly, and that further proves my point -- the agent is tied into the real estate company itself, on commission, and dependent on sale-by-sale revenue, which, again, is *not* productive of (mass-production) *commodities* (including commodity services). Collecting interest on savings, or collecting rent on real estate assets, are both *non-productive* *rentier* capital. It's more like *loaning out* an asset -- capital / value that's *pre-existing*. Nothing new, and no new value, is being produced.


But that's only if they work for a real estate company. Sales agents could also work independently - I think here in the US they need to get certified but that's about it. And elsewhere (at least) it's not uncommon to find independent real estate agents doing their thing, for a commission.

Furthermore, the core activity of these businesses is to broker sales. They usually don't own the land or build anything on them.

ckaihatsu wrote:To *clarify*, I mean *social science*, or the 'soft sciences', including politics and Marxism.

Do you mean what should happen after an empirical socio-political situation is depicted *accurately* -- ?

The rest is then *politics*, because different political ideologies will reach different political *conclusions* about this-or-that situation, even if they agree on the empirical situation *itself*.


Consciousness, A Material Definition

Spoiler: show
Image



universal context

Spoiler: show
Image



Ideologies & Operations -- Fundamentals

Spoiler: show
Image


That depends on how you define "accurately" but I do believe one should aim to incorporate scientific knowledge into their politics. In this case, one should assess critically if the predictions of your theory of human behavior is in fact performing as expected - i.e. if its predictions about society are coming into fruition.

ckaihatsu wrote:Okay, that's fair -- and working people are having to do two-or-more jobs in *one*, because of deflation and the increased value of any given dollar bill, as for wages.

But, *ultimately*, we're both identifying the end-point, which would be *full* automation, hardly *anyone* having to do *any* work, and free-access to digital 3D content, for 3D printing, by anyone.


I think the end-point is that people will tend to switch to different sort of jobs that are hard to automate - something more geared towards the services. This would be in line with the prevailing trends since the Industrial Revolution began.

ckaihatsu wrote:From the *worker's* standpoint, it doesn't really matter what the job is, regarding ownership and management -- to a worker a job is a job is a job. Whether it's technically a 'wage', or a 'salary', or a 'salary plus commission', doesn't really matter much. It's all a means to an end, that of life and living.

But *politically*, and *empirically*, the janitor does not produce commodities, so the janitor provides 'overhead'-type services to *capital* / ownership / management, for the business entity itself. What the janitor does produces *no revenue*.


But just because you are taking on a supportive role, one that may actually enable the business to function, it doesn't mean you are not being a wage worker, being exploited, etc even under Marxian terms as I understand them.

ckaihatsu wrote:Why can't you stick to the topic of each segment?

You're showing that you'd rather *bullshit* than provide accurate information, and sources.


I think I did both.

ckaihatsu wrote:If you're not producing any commodities, and you're not employing / exploiting any people, and you're not leveraging capital, then, no, you're definitely *not* a capitalist at that moment.

So, yes, there *is* a meaningful distinction between a saver and a capitalist. (Digging a hole in the backyard and filling it with money does not make one a capitalist.)


Hmmm, but for instance if you were producing commodities in your factory yet instead of selling right away you simply hoarded them (which is similar to hoarding money by digging a hole in your backyard and filling it with cash), would you be a capitalist?

ckaihatsu wrote:You're *mixing scales* -- rate of profit is for a *company*, while the other measurements are for an entire *country's* economy.


But aren't those papers about an economy-wide measure of the rate of profit? Like an average across companies.

ckaihatsu wrote:As far as *environmental* stuff goes, yes, you're correct.


Yes, I'm limiting myself to the environmental realm.

ckaihatsu wrote:Yeah, basically -- it's called 'alienation', and it's the *disempowerment* and *atomization* of the individual in capitalist society:


Then why did they exist before capitalism?

ckaihatsu wrote:(We could ask how it is that normal, decent kids grow up to be these anti-social people that you list. I don't agree with those who say it's *genetics*, so that leaves us with 'nurture' -- how people are systematically *socialized*, as through schooling and work, or not, in our society.)


I think it's hard to know why. There could be many factors involved there.

ckaihatsu wrote:Do *you* think we 'choose' the circumstances that we're born into?


No, but we do have an increasing ability to choose how to deal with them as we age.

ckaihatsu wrote:Are you anti-austerity regarding government spending?


Depends on the circumstances.

ckaihatsu wrote:Do you think the world could cut-out-the-middleman regarding production and administration, so that workers could *collectivize* production and work to produce for themselves only?


I don't think so, because that middleman is also performing a relevant supportive role.

ckaihatsu wrote:Look back at what I already said about it, particularly the 'additive prioritizations' model.


I would like a more concrete example. I see this scenario as a potential zero-sum interaction, which would be hard to accommodate under a vote-based system.

ckaihatsu wrote:Yes, I *did* say why -- it's because that $10 in surplus labor value was due to the work of the worker. Without the worker's / workers' work the employer would just have the same $30 in-pocket, and nothing / no production would happen.


You could say the same about capital (workers wouldn't be able to produce much, if anything, without it). Or even the capitalist himself, with no capitalist no one would have taken the risk to set the business up.

ckaihatsu wrote:The anarchists lacked *centralization*:

Meanwhile:


So what you are saying is that centralization is necessary at the beginning ("dictatorship of the proletariat") but that it should be done away with later. How would this last process happen and prevent a Stalinist outcome?

ckaihatsu wrote:Yes, but then the *answer* to 'land for living in', would be *housing*.


But since land is finite and you can't build upwards indefinitely, there would be some conflicts about land at some point, right? That is, land is also scarce in this world.

ckaihatsu wrote:The reason why I call them *liberated* laborers is because they are under no obligation, coercion, or duress to labor. Liberated laborers, post-capitalism, *are* liberated and so have 100% personal discretion as to whether or not to work for the common good, the 'commons' -- meaning society's then-collectivized infrastructure, means of mass industrial production, and finished and natural resources. The common-good / the 'commons' would be entirely *free-access*, so whenever liberated-labor *produces* for that, it necessarily benefits all of society, being free-access, since anyone and everyone can *take* from it.

No, there would be no 'non'-liberated laborers -- everyone would be free to take for personal needs and wants from the commons / common-good, and could provide their own liberated-labor *to* the commons, as well.


But for instance, if workers can simply ignore the labor credit system and refuse to work for projects they don't like, then what good is it for?

ckaihatsu wrote:Correct -- *no one* would have to do *any* work, but then the entire society's standard-of-living would wind up being quite *rudimentary*, and, at-worst, people might have to *scavenge* from nature. If no one did *any* work then all they would have is whatever was developed during the time of capitalism, and such probably couldn't be *sustained* without additional work, anyway.


I can imagine something like that happening, i.e. people doing unpleasant work just to fulfill their immediate individual needs rather than for any collective good. It's just a Prisoner's Dilemma type of situation, with some people willing to free ride.

The only exception would be those that have a large intrinsic value of whatever production comes out of that unpleasant work, and are thus willing to work even if many free riders benefit. But there would still be an underproduction of these necessary unpleasant to produce goods and services.

ckaihatsu wrote:I guess there could be *comments*, like on the products pages for online sellers *today*. Consumers post-capitalism could stay one-step-ahead of what sellers are selling, since all production would be *free-access*, so *anyone* could try out *anything* with no cost and little risk, and with collective discussion afterward.


ckaihatsu wrote:CORRECTION:

'Sellers' isn't really the *appropriate* term to use, since nothing is being *sold*, post-capitalism, and exchange values would no longer exist.

A better term would be 'providers', or 'producers'.

All production would be *free-access*.


Indeed, this is the libertarian solution. But what if some people die in the process?

ckaihatsu wrote:If you mean 'culture' overall, I could only *speculate* myself -- culture could be *reinforcing*, or *dissuasive*, to any given productive societal 'base', meaning mode-of-production.

And:


[1] History, Macro Micro -- Precision

Spoiler: show
Image


Fair point.

ckaihatsu wrote:Yes, that's correct -- 'stability' in the sense of the 'status quo', including exploitation of labor and oppression of social minorities, which all needs to be *overthrown* by the world's working class, in a proletarian revolution.


I meant it in the sense of preventing disorder/strikes/violence.

Also, sorry for the delay in responding - I've had quite a bit of work lately and will likely be like that until December. So I may take a while to post a long response.
#15125790
ckaihatsu wrote:
Got it. Welcome, and all the best -- I know Trump is being an asshole to immigrants.



wat0n wrote:
Thanks! Trump is indeed being an asshole and riling his base up, but he has way less room of maneuver than one would believe.



Yes -- the WSWS calls his politics 'personalist', meaning that he depends on sheer personal popularity for his political existence. He doesn't even *try* to be a statesman.


---


ckaihatsu wrote:
Yes, exactly, and that further proves my point -- the agent is tied into the real estate company itself, on commission, and dependent on sale-by-sale revenue, which, again, is *not* productive of (mass-production) *commodities* (including commodity services). Collecting interest on savings, or collecting rent on real estate assets, are both *non-productive* *rentier* capital. It's more like *loaning out* an asset -- capital / value that's *pre-existing*. Nothing new, and no new value, is being produced.



wat0n wrote:
But that's only if they work for a real estate company. Sales agents could also work independently - I think here in the US they need to get certified but that's about it. And elsewhere (at least) it's not uncommon to find independent real estate agents doing their thing, for a commission.

Furthermore, the core activity of these businesses is to broker sales. They usually don't own the land or build anything on them.



Okay, so then either the broker is *with* a real estate brokerage business, and their efforts are basically 'subcontracted', or else they're independent and are a business themselves.


---


ckaihatsu wrote:
To *clarify*, I mean *social science*, or the 'soft sciences', including politics and Marxism.

Do you mean what should happen after an empirical socio-political situation is depicted *accurately* -- ?

The rest is then *politics*, because different political ideologies will reach different political *conclusions* about this-or-that situation, even if they agree on the empirical situation *itself*.


Consciousness, A Material Definition

Spoiler: show
Image



universal context

Spoiler: show
Image



Ideologies & Operations -- Fundamentals

Spoiler: show
Image



wat0n wrote:
That depends on how you define "accurately" but I do believe one should aim to incorporate scientific knowledge into their politics. In this case, one should assess critically if the predictions of your theory of human behavior is in fact performing as expected - i.e. if its predictions about society are coming into fruition.



Yup -- I have a framework for *that*, too, based on the scientific method:


universal paradigm SLIDES TEMPLATE

Spoiler: show
Image



universal paradigm DATABASE

Spoiler: show
Image



---


ckaihatsu wrote:
Okay, that's fair -- and working people are having to do two-or-more jobs in *one*, because of deflation and the increased value of any given dollar bill, as for wages.

But, *ultimately*, we're both identifying the end-point, which would be *full* automation, hardly *anyone* having to do *any* work, and free-access to digital 3D content, for 3D printing, by anyone.



wat0n wrote:
I think the end-point is that people will tend to switch to different sort of jobs that are hard to automate - something more geared towards the services. This would be in line with the prevailing trends since the Industrial Revolution began.



But *services* can be automated, too -- as with everything that the Internet does for information and even education.

I think we're going to see an increasing social expansion of the 'sharing economy', especially as automation proceeds and money becomes harder to acquire for working-class people.

It doesn't make sense that *anyone* should privately benefit from mechanical *mass-production* processes, much less *automated* industrial mass-production, or automated-tech-based Internet services.

Here's Wilde's treatment again:



Up to the present, man has been, to a certain extent, the slave of machinery, and there is something tragic in the fact that as soon as man had invented a machine to do his work he began to starve. This, however, is, of course, the result of our property system and our system of competition. One man owns a machine which does the work of five hundred men. Five hundred men are, in consequence, thrown out of employment, and, having no work to do, become hungry and take to thieving. The one man secures the produce of the machine and keeps it, and has five hundred times as much as he should have, and probably, which is of much more importance, a great deal more than he really wants. Were that machine the property of all, every one would benefit by it. It would be an immense advantage to the community. All unintellectual labour, all monotonous, dull labour, all labour that deals with dreadful things, and involves unpleasant conditions, must be done by machinery. Machinery must work for us in coal mines, and do all sanitary services, and be the stoker of steamers, and clean the streets, and run messages on wet days, and do anything that is tedious or distressing. At present machinery competes against man. Under proper conditions machinery will serve man.



https://www.marxists.org/reference/arch ... /soul-man/



---


ckaihatsu wrote:
From the *worker's* standpoint, it doesn't really matter what the job is, regarding ownership and management -- to a worker a job is a job is a job. Whether it's technically a 'wage', or a 'salary', or a 'salary plus commission', doesn't really matter much. It's all a means to an end, that of life and living.

But *politically*, and *empirically*, the janitor does not produce commodities, so the janitor provides 'overhead'-type services to *capital* / ownership / management, for the business entity itself. What the janitor does produces *no revenue*.



wat0n wrote:
But just because you are taking on a supportive role, one that may actually enable the business to function, it doesn't mean you are not being a wage worker, being exploited, etc even under Marxian terms as I understand them.



Yes, correct -- you're not contradicting anything I've just said.


---


ckaihatsu wrote:
Why can't you stick to the topic of each segment?

You're showing that you'd rather *bullshit* than provide accurate information, and sources.



wat0n wrote:
I think I did both.



---


ckaihatsu wrote:
If you're not producing any commodities, and you're not employing / exploiting any people, and you're not leveraging capital, then, no, you're definitely *not* a capitalist at that moment.

So, yes, there *is* a meaningful distinction between a saver and a capitalist. (Digging a hole in the backyard and filling it with money does not make one a capitalist.)



wat0n wrote:
Hmmm, but for instance if you were producing commodities in your factory yet instead of selling right away you simply hoarded them (which is similar to hoarding money by digging a hole in your backyard and filling it with cash), would you be a capitalist?



No, because, as you just pointed out, this scenario is equivalent to digging a hole and filling it with cash. There's no M-C-M' cycle.



Forms of commodity trade

The seven basic forms of commodity trade can be summarised as follows:

M-C (an act of purchase: a sum of money purchases a commodity, or "money is changed into a commodity")[16]
C-M (an act of sale: a commodity is sold for money)[17]
M-M' (a sum of money is lent out at interest to obtain more money, or, one currency or financial claim is traded for another; "money begets money")[18]
C-C' (countertrade, in which a commodity trades directly for a different commodity, with money possibly being used as an accounting referent, for example, food for oil, or weapons for diamonds)
C-M-C' (a commodity is sold for money, which buys another, different commodity with an equal or higher value)
M-C-M' (money is used to buy a commodity which is resold to obtain a larger sum of money)[19]
M-C...P...-C'-M' (money buys means of production and labour power used in production to create a new commodity, which is sold for more money than the original outlay; "the circular course of capital")[20]



https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Commodity_(Marxism)#Forms_of_commodity_trade



---


ckaihatsu wrote:
You're *mixing scales* -- rate of profit is for a *company*, while the other measurements are for an entire *country's* economy.



wat0n wrote:
But aren't those papers about an economy-wide measure of the rate of profit? Like an average across companies.



You tell me.


---


ckaihatsu wrote:
Sure, we Marxists would say that this is the nature of the capitalist dynamic -- to score profits as quickly as possible while ignoring 'externalities' like resulting damage to the natural environment.



wat0n wrote:
Right. And future generations will have to deal with a mess originated before they even existed.



ckaihatsu wrote:
As far as *environmental* stuff goes, yes, you're correct.



wat0n wrote:
Yes, I'm limiting myself to the environmental realm.



---


ckaihatsu wrote:
I don't quite get what you're indicating -- it sounds like you *are* blaming individuals for the failings of the system, since the bourgeois capitalist system *isn't* humane to people, and people without money or prospects, in particular, are going to be more *desperate* and 'cut-corners' compared to whatever the norm is supposed to be.

I'll again note that 'laws' are *class-based*, since corporations don't pay (much) tax, or get punished for their transgressions, like oil spills, deaths of workers on the job, etc.

To uphold bourgeois 'law' is to uphold *bourgeois class rule', which is a *vast* societal double-standard.



wat0n wrote:
Is capitalism to blame for the existence of psychopaths, pyromaniacs, sadists, serial killers or pedophiles?



ckaihatsu wrote:
Yeah, basically -- it's called 'alienation', and it's the *disempowerment* and *atomization* of the individual in capitalist society:



wat0n wrote:
Then why did they exist before capitalism?



The quick answer is that as long as *class* society exists there will be 'in'-groups and 'out'-groups, and those in the 'out'-groups are *disempowered* and *oppressed* by those with power and hegemony, and may lash-out in frustration, in anti-social ways, like the ones you listed.

The more *thorough* answer is 'I don't know', because criminal psychology is not my field.


---


ckaihatsu wrote:
(We could ask how it is that normal, decent kids grow up to be these anti-social people that you list. I don't agree with those who say it's *genetics*, so that leaves us with 'nurture' -- how people are systematically *socialized*, as through schooling and work, or not, in our society.)



wat0n wrote:
I think it's hard to know why. There could be many factors involved there.



It's good to start with the class analysis, because that's the most *deterministic* factor, for *anything* social / societal.


---


wat0n wrote:
[W]e don't get to choose the circumstances we are born into.



ckaihatsu wrote:
Do *you* think we 'choose' the circumstances that we're born into?



wat0n wrote:
No, but we do have an increasing ability to choose how to deal with them as we age.



You're alluding to your 'individual responsibility' mantra here, yet things like class society and governmental policies existed long before any of us were born.

The thing that *does* change as we age is that we're no longer disempowered as *youth* are. Decades of living / work can confer wealth and status / stature in bourgeois class society.


---


ckaihatsu wrote:
Are you anti-austerity regarding government spending?



wat0n wrote:
Depends on the circumstances.



I mean *in general* -- what kinds of programs should government spending *prioritize*?


---


ckaihatsu wrote:
Do you think the world could cut-out-the-middleman regarding production and administration, so that workers could *collectivize* production and work to produce for themselves only?



wat0n wrote:
I don't think so, because that middleman is also performing a relevant supportive role.



But workers could collectively *self-organize* their own production activities / work roles, without using capital *whatsoever*, as we already covered in the 'workplace' segment.

The historical precedent for this is the 'soviet', or workers council:

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Soviet_democracy


---


ckaihatsu wrote:
Look back at what I already said about it, particularly the 'additive prioritizations' model.



wat0n wrote:
I would like a more concrete example. I see this scenario as a potential zero-sum interaction, which would be hard to accommodate under a vote-based system.



You're showing that you *haven't read* it, because the 'additive prioritizations' model *contains* a concrete example, that of a *social event* ('Event Y') like a limited-seating *concert*, for example.

Also there are *no* exchange values in a communist-type political economy, so 'zero-sum' is *moot*. Also individual self-prioritized ranked daily demands lists -- used for 'additive prioritizations' -- are *not* 'voting' in the literal sense of the term.



'additive prioritizations'

Better, I think, would be an approach that is more routine and less time-sensitive in prioritizing among responders -- the thing that would differentiate demand would be people's *own* prioritizations, in relation to *all other* possibilities for demands. This means that only those most focused on Product 'X' or Event 'Y', to the abandonment of all else (relatively speaking), over several iterations (days), would be seen as 'most-wanting' of it, for ultimate receipt.

My 'communist supply and demand' model, fortunately, uses this approach as a matter of course:

consumption [demand] -- Every person in a locality has a standard, one-through-infinity ranking system of political demands available to them, updated daily

consumption [demand] -- Basic human needs will be assigned a higher political priority by individuals and will emerge as mass demands at the cumulative scale -- desires will benefit from political organizing efforts and coordination

consumption [demand] -- A regular, routine system of mass individual political demand pooling -- as with spreadsheet templates and email -- must be in continuous operation so as to aggregate cumulative demands into the political process

http://www.revleft.com/vb/blog.php?b=1174


I'm also realizing that this model / method of demand-prioritization can be used in such a way as to lend relative *weight* to a person's bid for any given product or calendar event, if there happens to be a limited supply and a more-intensive prioritization ('rationing') is called-for by the objective situation:

Since everyone has a standard one-through-infinity template to use on a daily basis for all political and/or economic demands, this template lends itself to consumer-political-type *organizing* in the case that such is necessary -- someone's 'passion' for a particular demand could be formally demonstrated by their recruiting of *others* to direct one or several of *their* ranking slots, for as many days / iterations as they like, to the person who is trying to beat-out others for the limited quantity.

Recall:

[A]ggregating these lists, by ranking (#1, #2, #3, etc.), is *no big deal* for any given computer. What we would want to see is what the rankings are for milk and steel, by rank position. So how many people put 'milk' for #1 -- ? How many people put 'steel' for #1 -- ? How many people put 'milk' for #2 -- ? And how many people put 'steel' for #2 -- ? (Etc.) *This* would be socially useful information that could be the whole basis for a socialist political economy.


So, by extension, if someone was particularly interested in 'Event Y', they might undertake efforts to convince others to *donate* their ranking slots to them, forgoing 'milk' and 'steel' (for example) for positions #1 and/or #2. Formally these others would put 'Person Z for Event Y' for positions 1 and/or 2, etc., for as many days / iterations as they might want to donate. This, in effect, would be a populist-political-type campaign, of whatever magnitude, or the sake of a person's own particularly favored consumption preferences, given an unavoidably limited supply of it, whatever it may be.

https://www.revleft.space/vb/threads/20 ... ost2889338



---


ckaihatsu wrote:
Yes, I *did* say why -- it's because that $10 in surplus labor value was due to the work of the worker. Without the worker's / workers' work the employer would just have the same $30 in-pocket, and nothing / no production would happen.



wat0n wrote:
You could say the same about capital (workers wouldn't be able to produce much, if anything, without it). Or even the capitalist himself, with no capitalist no one would have taken the risk to set the business up.



You keep ignoring that workers can all *self-organize* their collective work-efforts / productivity *themselves*, in collectively conscious ways, *without capital*, but capital *requires* labor for capital to mean anything socially, and to make profits, of course, by *exploiting* workers' labor-power -- as seen in the 'boot-making' sample scenario.

This is why 'business' isn't enough for the capitalist class -- it requires a *state* (government / nation-state), to use *violence* against workers who try to collectively work *independently*, on the factories / implements / equipment that they themselves *made*. Police and militaries exist to violently physically *oppress* the working class, to force workers to work in the *capitalist class' interests* for private property and private profit-making.


---


ckaihatsu wrote:
The anarchists lacked *centralization*:

Meanwhile:



wat0n wrote:
So what you are saying is that centralization is necessary at the beginning ("dictatorship of the proletariat") but that it should be done away with later. How would this last process happen and prevent a Stalinist outcome?



Remember that Stalinism / nationalist-consolidation was caused from *without*, by the Allied military invasions of the initial Bolshevik Revolution.

I already covered the process of a *workers state*, and vanguardism. The vanguard would be *tiny* in numbers compared to humanity as a whole, so once the bourgeois class is overthrown all of humanity would be liberated to produce as it likes, and the vanguard would no longer be relevant in *any* regard.


---


ckaihatsu wrote:
Yes, but then the *answer* to 'land for living in', would be *housing*.



wat0n wrote:
But since land is finite and you can't build upwards indefinitely, there would be some conflicts about land at some point, right? That is, land is also scarce in this world.



I already *addressed* this:


ckaihatsu wrote:

Oh, you're indicating 'natural scarcities', or 'natural monopolies'. (Sorry, but it's *still* not 'voluntarism'.)

Yeah, I have an *approach* for this kind of thing -- it applies to choice geographical locations, to leftover items from capitalist production, in a post-capitalist setting, and any and all other 'semi-rare' items that may remain from capitalism, and be 'up-for-grabs' for personal possession and consumption, post-revolution:


'additive prioritizations'



---


ckaihatsu wrote:
The reason why I call them *liberated* laborers is because they are under no obligation, coercion, or duress to labor. Liberated laborers, post-capitalism, *are* liberated and so have 100% personal discretion as to whether or not to work for the common good, the 'commons' -- meaning society's then-collectivized infrastructure, means of mass industrial production, and finished and natural resources. The common-good / the 'commons' would be entirely *free-access*, so whenever liberated-labor *produces* for that, it necessarily benefits all of society, being free-access, since anyone and everyone can *take* from it.

No, there would be no 'non'-liberated laborers -- everyone would be free to take for personal needs and wants from the commons / common-good, and could provide their own liberated-labor *to* the commons, as well.



wat0n wrote:
But for instance, if workers can simply ignore the labor credit system and refuse to work for projects they don't like, then what good is it for?



Correct. And *other* workers *can* work for projects that they *want* to work for, with or without labor credits.

(In other words you're simply being glass-half-empty.)


---


ckaihatsu wrote:
Correct -- *no one* would have to do *any* work, but then the entire society's standard-of-living would wind up being quite *rudimentary*, and, at-worst, people might have to *scavenge* from nature. If no one did *any* work then all they would have is whatever was developed during the time of capitalism, and such probably couldn't be *sustained* without additional work, anyway.



wat0n wrote:
I can imagine something like that happening, i.e. people doing unpleasant work just to fulfill their immediate individual needs rather than for any collective good. It's just a Prisoner's Dilemma type of situation, with some people willing to free ride.



Sure, and that's where the *generalization* / collectivization dynamic comes in, because if everyone only tended to their own personal and familial concerns then *everyone* would have to do their own *farming*, for their own food production, which would be *very* inefficient overall considering the fuel-powered mechanical mass-production industrial agriculture that's the norm today.

Things could conceivably *start* out as you're describing, but each individual farming plot could be *combined* with others, for increasing economies-of-scale, all the way up to a *continental*, or even *global* scale, for *huge* mass efficiencies, and a *global* economy.


Emergent Central Planning

Spoiler: show
Image



wat0n wrote:
The only exception would be those that have a large intrinsic value of whatever production comes out of that unpleasant work, and are thus willing to work even if many free riders benefit. But there would still be an underproduction of these necessary unpleasant to produce goods and services.



Correct, and this is why I'm not a *localist*. You're describing *localism*, which is too limited in scope, and geography *constrained*, for any kind of a *modern* economy.

Also 'free riders' only applies to conditions of *scarcity*, and the whole point of collectivization / communism is to get *past* conditions of scarcity (and capitalism's *artificial scarcity*), to realize production-for-human-need, which means that *everyone* becomes a 'free-rider', so-to-speak, once all production processes are *fully automated*, over industrial *mass-production*.


---


ckaihatsu wrote:
I mean if a shipment is designated to the customer they would get that shipment directly from the provider, and they could always use some codes, or encryption, as a matter of course, and the customer could follow-up remotely, as over the Internet, with the provider to verify that the product came from the provider they ordered from.

Maybe you should elaborate on what you have in mind here, exactly.



wat0n wrote:
What if the internet seller is himself selling counterfeit stuff? Say, for instance, you buy vodka online from a local brand. How do you know that the vodka you are buying is in fact vodka and not something else?



ckaihatsu wrote:
I guess there could be *comments*, like on the products pages for online sellers *today*. Consumers post-capitalism could stay one-step-ahead of what sellers are selling, since all production would be *free-access*, so *anyone* could try out *anything* with no cost and little risk, and with collective discussion afterward.


ckaihatsu wrote:
CORRECTION:

'Sellers' isn't really the *appropriate* term to use, since nothing is being *sold*, post-capitalism, and exchange values would no longer exist.

A better term would be 'providers', or 'producers'.

All production would be *free-access*.



wat0n wrote:
Indeed, this is the libertarian solution. But what if some people die in the process?



No, I don't *mean* to imply any kind of 'libertarian' 'free-market' approach, because such would still use *exchange values* / money / currency / finance / capital / bartering / trading / implicit exchange values.

People die *today* because of commerce-driven international *conflicts*, such as control of Iraq, Afghanistan, Libya, and Syria. The point is to have *workers* in collective control of society's social production, and the workers of the world don't *require* any nation-states, or government of any kind.


---


ckaihatsu wrote:
If you mean 'culture' overall, I could only *speculate* myself -- culture could be *reinforcing*, or *dissuasive*, to any given productive societal 'base', meaning mode-of-production.

And:


[1] History, Macro Micro -- Precision

Spoiler: show
Image



wat0n wrote:
Fair point.



---


ckaihatsu wrote:
It's a stacked-deck. Again, on this one, give me some time and I'll see what details I can dig up.



wat0n wrote:
No problem. I do think that both parties have access to the courts to settle disputes if mediation fails, right?



ckaihatsu wrote:
Sorry, I'll pass -- these kinds of things aren't 100% absolute, but they do tend to favor the capitalist ruling class *overall*.



wat0n wrote:
I don't think so. I think what they favor is stability above all.



ckaihatsu wrote:
Yes, that's correct -- 'stability' in the sense of the 'status quo', including exploitation of labor and oppression of social minorities, which all needs to be *overthrown* by the world's working class, in a proletarian revolution.



wat0n wrote:
I meant it in the sense of preventing disorder/strikes/violence.



Here's the *real* disorder / violence:



According to The Washington Post, police officers shot and killed 1,001 people in the United States in 2019. About half of those killed were white, and one quarter were black, making the rate of deaths for black Americans (31 fatal shootings per million) more than twice as high as the rate for white Americans (13 fatal shootings per million).[83][84] The Washington Post also counts 13 unarmed black Americans shot dead by police in 2019.[85]



https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Black_Liv ... sive_force




Estimated deaths:

Lancet survey** (March 2003 – July 2006): 654,965 (95% CI: 392,979–942,636)[47][48]
Iraq Family Health Survey*** (March 2003 – July 2006): 151,000 (95% CI: 104,000–223,000)[49]
Opinion Research Business**: (March 2003 – August 2007): 1,033,000 (95% CI: 946,258–1,120,000)[50]
Iraq Family Health Survey*** (March 2003 – July 2006): 151,000 (95% CI: 104,000–223,000)[51]
PLOS Medicine Study**: (March 2003 – June 2011): 405,000 (95% CI: 48,000–751,000)
Documented deaths from violence:
Iraq Body Count (2003 – 14 December 2011): 103,160–113,728 civilian deaths recorded[52] and 12,438 new deaths added from the Iraq War Logs[53]
Associated Press (March 2003 – April 2009): 110,600[54]



https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Iraq_War



---


wat0n wrote:
Also, sorry for the delay in responding - I've had quite a bit of work lately and will likely be like that until December. So I may take a while to post a long response.



No prob -- I know how these things are, take care.
#15127829
ckaihatsu wrote:Yes -- the WSWS calls his politics 'personalist', meaning that he depends on sheer personal popularity for his political existence. He doesn't even *try* to be a statesman.


Indeed, just as the populist he is.

ckaihatsu wrote:Okay, so then either the broker is *with* a real estate brokerage business, and their efforts are basically 'subcontracted', or else they're independent and are a business themselves.


Broadly speaking, yes. But the broker is the one generating the revenue.

ckaihatsu wrote:Yup -- I have a framework for *that*, too, based on the scientific method:


universal paradigm SLIDES TEMPLATE

Spoiler: show
Image



universal paradigm DATABASE

Spoiler: show
Image


And thus you may understand why I'm looking at the history.

ckaihatsu wrote:But *services* can be automated, too -- as with everything that the Internet does for information and even education.

I think we're going to see an increasing social expansion of the 'sharing economy', especially as automation proceeds and money becomes harder to acquire for working-class people.

It doesn't make sense that *anyone* should privately benefit from mechanical *mass-production* processes, much less *automated* industrial mass-production, or automated-tech-based Internet services.

Here's Wilde's treatment again:


Indeed, the services people will turn to are those that are hard to automate. Think about activities done by request (inherently hard to automate) and activities involving things that are hard to model such as human social interactions.

ckaihatsu wrote:Yes, correct -- you're not contradicting anything I've just said.


So to you wage workers being those who generate revenue is simply a definition?

ckaihatsu wrote:No, because, as you just pointed out, this scenario is equivalent to digging a hole and filling it with cash. There's no M-C-M' cycle.


But it's aiming to generate revenue in the future.

ckaihatsu wrote:You tell me.


They seem to be economy-wide indicators.

ckaihatsu wrote:The quick answer is that as long as *class* society exists there will be 'in'-groups and 'out'-groups, and those in the 'out'-groups are *disempowered* and *oppressed* by those with power and hegemony, and may lash-out in frustration, in anti-social ways, like the ones you listed.

The more *thorough* answer is 'I don't know', because criminal psychology is not my field.


ckaihatsu wrote:It's good to start with the class analysis, because that's the most *deterministic* factor, for *anything* social / societal.


I wouldn't be so quick as to say class is the most important factor for social behavior, even if it is indeed important (although it's often due to purely economic rather than political reasons).

ckaihatsu wrote:You're alluding to your 'individual responsibility' mantra here, yet things like class society and governmental policies existed long before any of us were born.

The thing that *does* change as we age is that we're no longer disempowered as *youth* are. Decades of living / work can confer wealth and status / stature in bourgeois class society.


This isn't in contradiction with what I said. One does indeed become more and more responsible as you become more empowered. That's exactly how empowerment works.

ckaihatsu wrote:I mean *in general* -- what kinds of programs should government spending *prioritize*?


Those that are hard or impossible to procure by non-state actors, those aiming to correct or improve all sorts of market failures and also some aiming to decrease income inequality (as long as they preserve good incentives rather than simply engage in clientelism).

ckaihatsu wrote:But workers could collectively *self-organize* their own production activities / work roles, without using capital *whatsoever*, as we already covered in the 'workplace' segment.

The historical precedent for this is the 'soviet', or workers council:

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Soviet_democracy


Yet even the Soviet CP eventually centralized the economy and left its own managers in charge of the newly collectivized businesses.

ckaihatsu wrote:You're showing that you *haven't read* it, because the 'additive prioritizations' model *contains* a concrete example, that of a *social event* ('Event Y') like a limited-seating *concert*, for example.

Also there are *no* exchange values in a communist-type political economy, so 'zero-sum' is *moot*. Also individual self-prioritized ranked daily demands lists -- used for 'additive prioritizations' -- are *not* 'voting' in the literal sense of the term.


ckaihatsu wrote:I already *addressed* this:


I did read it, but what if e.g. too many people put the same plot of land as their #1 priority?

ckaihatsu wrote:You keep ignoring that workers can all *self-organize* their collective work-efforts / productivity *themselves*, in collectively conscious ways, *without capital*, but capital *requires* labor for capital to mean anything socially, and to make profits, of course, by *exploiting* workers' labor-power -- as seen in the 'boot-making' sample scenario.

This is why 'business' isn't enough for the capitalist class -- it requires a *state* (government / nation-state), to use *violence* against workers who try to collectively work *independently*, on the factories / implements / equipment that they themselves *made*. Police and militaries exist to violently physically *oppress* the working class, to force workers to work in the *capitalist class' interests* for private property and private profit-making.


Yet workers seem to be unwilling to take such risks in normal times: Nobody stops them from self-organizing and starting their own cooperative in a capitalist system, at all - what they are barred from is to take over an already established business, taking advantage of the fact that someone else already took on the risks of kickstarting the business.

ckaihatsu wrote:Remember that Stalinism / nationalist-consolidation was caused from *without*, by the Allied military invasions of the initial Bolshevik Revolution.

I already covered the process of a *workers state*, and vanguardism. The vanguard would be *tiny* in numbers compared to humanity as a whole, so once the bourgeois class is overthrown all of humanity would be liberated to produce as it likes, and the vanguard would no longer be relevant in *any* regard.


Again, that may have been a reaction to the opposition inside and outside the country, but why didn't the Soviets ever try to decentralize when those threats had been neutralized?

ckaihatsu wrote:Correct. And *other* workers *can* work for projects that they *want* to work for, with or without labor credits.

(In other words you're simply being glass-half-empty.)


Or maybe I'm simply being realistic. Indeed, you could answer my question there - what are labor credits good for, then?

ckaihatsu wrote:Sure, and that's where the *generalization* / collectivization dynamic comes in, because if everyone only tended to their own personal and familial concerns then *everyone* would have to do their own *farming*, for their own food production, which would be *very* inefficient overall considering the fuel-powered mechanical mass-production industrial agriculture that's the norm today.

Things could conceivably *start* out as you're describing, but each individual farming plot could be *combined* with others, for increasing economies-of-scale, all the way up to a *continental*, or even *global* scale, for *huge* mass efficiencies, and a *global* economy.


Emergent Central Planning

Spoiler: show
Image


Yet it can perfectly happen if, for instance, there are substantial transaction costs that make it hard for people to emergently coordinate. I can also imagine people refusing to cooperate if they think their effort isn't paying off as much as they expect.

ckaihatsu wrote:Correct, and this is why I'm not a *localist*. You're describing *localism*, which is too limited in scope, and geography *constrained*, for any kind of a *modern* economy.

Also 'free riders' only applies to conditions of *scarcity*, and the whole point of collectivization / communism is to get *past* conditions of scarcity (and capitalism's *artificial scarcity*), to realize production-for-human-need, which means that *everyone* becomes a 'free-rider', so-to-speak, once all production processes are *fully automated*, over industrial *mass-production*.


Scarcity would not magically disappear in this world: Just how much is produced is dependent on the incentives people face and on the institutional conditions they have to live with.

ckaihatsu wrote:No, I don't *mean* to imply any kind of 'libertarian' 'free-market' approach, because such would still use *exchange values* / money / currency / finance / capital / bartering / trading / implicit exchange values.

People die *today* because of commerce-driven international *conflicts*, such as control of Iraq, Afghanistan, Libya, and Syria. The point is to have *workers* in collective control of society's social production, and the workers of the world don't *require* any nation-states, or government of any kind.


This doesn't really answer my question. How would this society prevent the production and distribution of potentially dangerous counterfeit food and/or beverages?

ckaihatsu wrote:Here's the *real* disorder / violence:


I was actually referring to strikes and riots, as they indeed happened. They aim to have even less of the stuff you mention by providing alternatives to violence as a way to solve disputes.

ckaihatsu wrote:No prob -- I know how these things are, take care.


Thanks for your patience :)
#15127831
Do you think they'll erect a statue on the 1000th day of Portland protests to commemorate their accomplishments? What will the statue be of? Maybe a burnt out car? Or 2 people taking selfies in front of a smashed storefront?

Portland is a safe space for fucking morons.
#15127861
ckaihatsu wrote:
Yes -- the WSWS calls his politics 'personalist', meaning that he depends on sheer personal popularity for his political existence. He doesn't even *try* to be a statesman.



wat0n wrote:
Indeed, just as the populist he is.



*Or* it could be called 'demographic dependence', or just simply *fascism*.


---


ckaihatsu wrote:
Okay, so then either the broker is *with* a real estate brokerage business, and their efforts are basically 'subcontracted', or else they're independent and are a business themselves.



wat0n wrote:
Broadly speaking, yes. But the broker is the one generating the revenue.



No, it's not really 'revenue' in the sense of 'commodities sold', creating new values -- it's more of a *financial* transaction, based on pre-existing, non-productive *assets* (real estate).

If someone walks in the door of the real estate office and buys a house with cash, the independent broker does *not* get a cut of that because they had nothing to do with the sale whatsoever -- they're a *separate business*.

Everything in this scenario is about how businesspeople handle business transactions with each other, or don't.


---


wat0n wrote:
That depends on how you define "accurately" but I do believe one should aim to incorporate scientific knowledge into their politics. In this case, one should assess critically if the predictions of your theory of human behavior is in fact performing as expected - i.e. if its predictions about society are coming into fruition.



ckaihatsu wrote:
Yup -- I have a framework for *that*, too, based on the scientific method:


universal paradigm SLIDES TEMPLATE

Spoiler: show
Image



universal paradigm DATABASE

Spoiler: show
Image



wat0n wrote:
And thus you may understand why I'm looking at the history.



You may want to fill-in-the-blanks, as with some notes using the 'universal paradigm' framework, to show what 'history' you're indicating.


---


ckaihatsu wrote:
But *services* can be automated, too -- as with everything that the Internet does for information and even education.

I think we're going to see an increasing social expansion of the 'sharing economy', especially as automation proceeds and money becomes harder to acquire for working-class people.

It doesn't make sense that *anyone* should privately benefit from mechanical *mass-production* processes, much less *automated* industrial mass-production, or automated-tech-based Internet services.

Here's Wilde's treatment again:


Up to the present, man has been, to a certain extent, the slave of machinery, and there is something tragic in the fact that as soon as man had invented a machine to do his work he began to starve. This, however, is, of course, the result of our property system and our system of competition. One man owns a machine which does the work of five hundred men. Five hundred men are, in consequence, thrown out of employment, and, having no work to do, become hungry and take to thieving. The one man secures the produce of the machine and keeps it, and has five hundred times as much as he should have, and probably, which is of much more importance, a great deal more than he really wants. Were that machine the property of all, every one would benefit by it. It would be an immense advantage to the community. All unintellectual labour, all monotonous, dull labour, all labour that deals with dreadful things, and involves unpleasant conditions, must be done by machinery. Machinery must work for us in coal mines, and do all sanitary services, and be the stoker of steamers, and clean the streets, and run messages on wet days, and do anything that is tedious or distressing. At present machinery competes against man. Under proper conditions machinery will serve man.

https://www.marxists.org/reference/arch ... /soul-man/



wat0n wrote:
Indeed, the services people will turn to are those that are hard to automate. Think about activities done by request (inherently hard to automate) and activities involving things that are hard to model such as human social interactions.



By 'request' do you mean 'impromptu' -- ? I don't think that *scheduling* itself would have any impact on whether a good or service gets automated / computerized.

Human social interactions are *already* being modeled -- that's what 'Big Data' and the social networking industry are all about.


---


ckaihatsu wrote:
From the *worker's* standpoint, it doesn't really matter what the job is, regarding ownership and management -- to a worker a job is a job is a job. Whether it's technically a 'wage', or a 'salary', or a 'salary plus commission', doesn't really matter much. It's all a means to an end, that of life and living.

But *politically*, and *empirically*, the janitor does not produce commodities, so the janitor provides 'overhead'-type services to *capital* / ownership / management, for the business entity itself. What the janitor does produces *no revenue*.



wat0n wrote:
But just because you are taking on a supportive role, one that may actually enable the business to function, it doesn't mean you are not being a wage worker, being exploited, etc even under Marxian terms as I understand them.



ckaihatsu wrote:
Yes, correct -- you're not contradicting anything I've just said.



wat0n wrote:
So to you wage workers being those who generate revenue is simply a definition?



Well are we talking about *wage workers* or aren't we? All of the terms / words we use have *meanings* -- that's how we're able to *communicate* meanings, through the use of language.

The *complexity* here may be that the *value* that a janitor provides to a company is difficult to *quantify*, exactly, in terms of its own value-addition to the business. Obviously cleanliness is a critical *quality*, as are other roles in the business entity itself.

So it's difficult to quantify the 'value-percentage' that the janitor's work *is*, as a component of the business, since it *is* a component of the business, since it's an *overhead expense* of the business. Typically the salary is usually indexed to the industry *average* for janitorial services, whatever that happens to be, or maybe it's *outsourced* to the janitor-as-a-business, but it *can't* be calculated in terms of the commodities, and *their* value, that the company sells to its customers, because, again, the janitor is *not* a part of that *productive* process.


---


ckaihatsu wrote:
No, because, as you just pointed out, this scenario is equivalent to digging a hole and filling it with cash. There's no M-C-M' cycle.


Forms of commodity trade

The seven basic forms of commodity trade can be summarised as follows:

M-C (an act of purchase: a sum of money purchases a commodity, or "money is changed into a commodity")[16]
C-M (an act of sale: a commodity is sold for money)[17]
M-M' (a sum of money is lent out at interest to obtain more money, or, one currency or financial claim is traded for another; "money begets money")[18]
C-C' (countertrade, in which a commodity trades directly for a different commodity, with money possibly being used as an accounting referent, for example, food for oil, or weapons for diamonds)
C-M-C' (a commodity is sold for money, which buys another, different commodity with an equal or higher value)
M-C-M' (money is used to buy a commodity which is resold to obtain a larger sum of money)[19]
M-C...P...-C'-M' (money buys means of production and labour power used in production to create a new commodity, which is sold for more money than the original outlay; "the circular course of capital")[20]

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Commodity_(Marxism)#Forms_of_commodity_trade



wat0n wrote:
But it's aiming to generate revenue in the future.



Digging a hole and filling it with cash is 'aiming to generate revenue in the future' -- ?

For the time-being, there is *no* economic activity, so the act of hoarding is *not* being a capitalist / using equity capital / M-C-M'.


---


ckaihatsu wrote:
You're *mixing scales* -- rate of profit is for a *company*, while the other measurements are for an entire *country's* economy.



wat0n wrote:
But aren't those papers about an economy-wide measure of the rate of profit? Like an average across companies.



ckaihatsu wrote:
You tell me.



wat0n wrote:
They seem to be economy-wide indicators.



Okay, so the rate of profit is generally averaged from around the world, or perhaps contained on a country-by-country basis.



In economics and finance, the profit rate is the relative profitability of an investment project, a capitalist enterprise or a whole capitalist economy. It is similar to the concept of rate of return on investment.



https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Rate_of_profit



---


ckaihatsu wrote:
The quick answer is that as long as *class* society exists there will be 'in'-groups and 'out'-groups, and those in the 'out'-groups are *disempowered* and *oppressed* by those with power and hegemony, and may lash-out in frustration, in anti-social ways, like the ones you listed.

The more *thorough* answer is 'I don't know', because criminal psychology is not my field.


ckaihatsu wrote:
It's good to start with the class analysis, because that's the most *deterministic* factor, for *anything* social / societal.



wat0n wrote:
I wouldn't be so quick as to say class is the most important factor for social behavior, even if it is indeed important (although it's often due to purely economic rather than political reasons).



Right -- 'class' indicates one's general *economic* situation to a large degree, so if one is *working class* one is *exploited* and *oppressed* (objectively), and most likely has more existential *stress* in life than someone who is *wealthy*. One's class status, then, is a significant factor in one's psychological makeup because it's basically *inescapable*, one way or the other.


---


ckaihatsu wrote:
You're alluding to your 'individual responsibility' mantra here, yet things like class society and governmental policies existed long before any of us were born.

The thing that *does* change as we age is that we're no longer disempowered as *youth* are. Decades of living / work can confer wealth and status / stature in bourgeois class society.



wat0n wrote:
This isn't in contradiction with what I said. One does indeed become more and more responsible as you become more empowered. That's exactly how empowerment works.



No, I don't think that 'empowered' and 'responsible' are necessarily *comparable*, or *linked* -- there are *plenty* of wealthy, empowered people who are known for their *irresponsible* actions -- Jeffrey Epstein comes to mind -- and there are plenty of *responsible* people, everyday working people, who are *not* empowered through their conscientious work efforts and productivity.


---


ckaihatsu wrote:
Are you anti-austerity regarding government spending?



wat0n wrote:
Depends on the circumstances.



ckaihatsu wrote:
I mean *in general* -- what kinds of programs should government spending *prioritize*?



wat0n wrote:
Those that are hard or impossible to procure by non-state actors, those aiming to correct or improve all sorts of market failures and also some aiming to decrease income inequality (as long as they preserve good incentives rather than simply engage in clientelism).



What do you think about *this* development:



https://www.wsws.org/en/articles/2020/1 ... s-o15.html


Amid record long-term unemployment, US government denies aid to workers

Jerry White
13 hours ago

With the number of workers unemployed for more than six months hitting an all-time high and millions running out of federal and state jobless benefits, the US government has made it clear that providing unemployment benefits for workers is not a priority.

After the $600-a-week federal supplement to state unemployment benefits expired on July 31, Trump approved a stopgap measure called the Lost Wage Assistance program, which cut federal assistance in half, providing six weekly payments of $300, starting retroactively on August 1. But even this meager money is now running out.

More than two million Californians are getting their last $300 check this week. Another 2.4 million New Yorkers will lose their benefits in the next two weeks, and the program has already ended in Texas, Utah, Iowa, Florida, Arizona, Alabama, Georgia, Montana, North Carolina, Tennessee, Louisiana, West Virginia, Oklahoma, Idaho, New Hampshire and Missouri.



---


ckaihatsu wrote:
Do you think the world could cut-out-the-middleman regarding production and administration, so that workers could *collectivize* production and work to produce for themselves only?



wat0n wrote:
I don't think so, because that middleman is also performing a relevant supportive role.



ckaihatsu wrote:
But workers could collectively *self-organize* their own production activities / work roles, without using capital *whatsoever*, as we already covered in the 'workplace' segment.

The historical precedent for this is the 'soviet', or workers council:

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Soviet_democracy



wat0n wrote:
Yet even the Soviet CP eventually centralized the economy and left its own managers in charge of the newly collectivized businesses.



Yes, that's called *Stalinism* -- Stalin's idea of so-called 'socialism-in-one-country', which is *definitely* not workers-of-the-world socialism.

My point stands that workers don't need capital, but capital needs workers.


---


ckaihatsu wrote:
Yes, but then the *answer* to 'land for living in', would be *housing*.



wat0n wrote:
But since land is finite and you can't build upwards indefinitely, there would be some conflicts about land at some point, right? That is, land is also scarce in this world.



ckaihatsu wrote:
I already *addressed* this:


Oh, you're indicating 'natural scarcities', or 'natural monopolies'. (Sorry, but it's *still* not 'voluntarism'.)

Yeah, I have an *approach* for this kind of thing -- it applies to choice geographical locations, to leftover items from capitalist production, in a post-capitalist setting, and any and all other 'semi-rare' items that may remain from capitalism, and be 'up-for-grabs' for personal possession and consumption, post-revolution:


'additive prioritizations'



ckaihatsu wrote:
You're showing that you *haven't read* it, because the 'additive prioritizations' model *contains* a concrete example, that of a *social event* ('Event Y') like a limited-seating *concert*, for example.

Also there are *no* exchange values in a communist-type political economy, so 'zero-sum' is *moot*. Also individual self-prioritized ranked daily demands lists -- used for 'additive prioritizations' -- are *not* 'voting' in the literal sense of the term.



wat0n wrote:
I did read it, but what if e.g. too many people put the same plot of land as their #1 priority?



Those who want the same plot of land (or whatever), irrespective of *their own* individual demands lists, would have to *campaign* to get 'slot donations' *from others*, on *their* daily individual self-ranked prioritized demands lists, for as many slots, for as many days, as possible over a given calendar time period. Once the deadline hits all of the cumulative slots donated ('Person Z for Event Y', 'Person ZZ for Event Y', 'Person ZZZ for Event Y', etc.) will be tallied-up across the locality, and whoever has the most highest-ranked (#1, #2, #3, etc.) slots donated, for the most number of days, is the winner. (The disclaimer is that this is according to the model itself, and however the people of that post-capitalist society decide to do things, with or without this approach, is up to them, obviously.)


---


ckaihatsu wrote:
You keep ignoring that workers can all *self-organize* their collective work-efforts / productivity *themselves*, in collectively conscious ways, *without capital*, but capital *requires* labor for capital to mean anything socially, and to make profits, of course, by *exploiting* workers' labor-power -- as seen in the 'boot-making' sample scenario.

This is why 'business' isn't enough for the capitalist class -- it requires a *state* (government / nation-state), to use *violence* against workers who try to collectively work *independently*, on the factories / implements / equipment that they themselves *made*. Police and militaries exist to violently physically *oppress* the working class, to force workers to work in the *capitalist class' interests* for private property and private profit-making.



wat0n wrote:
Yet workers seem to be unwilling to take such risks in normal times: Nobody stops them from self-organizing and starting their own cooperative in a capitalist system, at all - what they are barred from is to take over an already established business, taking advantage of the fact that someone else already took on the risks of kickstarting the business.



Do you realize that if all workers simply 'started their own cooperative' that capitalism would never be ended?

In other words, *someone* would have to be the workers, for whatever 'new' startups started, so there would *still* be an (objectively) exploited, oppressed working class. Your approach doesn't address the *class division* and its economic inequalty, in the least.


---


ckaihatsu wrote:
Remember that Stalinism / nationalist-consolidation was caused from *without*, by the Allied military invasions of the initial Bolshevik Revolution.

I already covered the process of a *workers state*, and vanguardism. The vanguard would be *tiny* in numbers compared to humanity as a whole, so once the bourgeois class is overthrown all of humanity would be liberated to produce as it likes, and the vanguard would no longer be relevant in *any* regard.



wat0n wrote:
Again, that may have been a reaction to the opposition inside and outside the country, but why didn't the Soviets ever try to decentralize when those threats had been neutralized?



By the time the internal counterrevolution and external invasions had been neutralized by the Bolsheviks the economy was in tatters, and with Lenin's subsequent death there was a power vacuum. I don't think that any *attempts* to 'decentralize' at that time would have even been *appropriate* because the entire country / revolution had to be re-*integrated*, which requires *centralization* for that kind of situation. Unfortunately Joseph *Stalin* stepped into that role with his *nationalist* consolidation, and industrialization, in lieu of the Bolshevik Revolution *spreading* to Europe.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/New_Economic_Policy


---


ckaihatsu wrote:
Correct. And *other* workers *can* work for projects that they *want* to work for, with or without labor credits.

(In other words you're simply being glass-half-empty.)



wat0n wrote:
Or maybe I'm simply being realistic. Indeed, you could answer my question there - what are labor credits good for, then?



No -- all you're doing is being *pessimistic*, and glass-half-empty. Do you really think that *no one* would do *any* socially-necessary liberated labor for the sake of the common good?



-> Why should anyone give a shit about labor credits?


Let's say that 'work-from-home mattress testing' is the *easiest* work role ever known, and so the multiplier for it is a '1' -- one hour of liberated-labor yields 1 labor credit.

'Spreading manure on a field' happens to be a '4' according to the mass work-role exit survey, but, as things turn out, people have *not* yet automated this kind of farmwork, yet *many* people are demanding beer, which requires this role, and other kinds of farmwork, for its production.

While engineering students and a worldwide legion of hobbyists unobtrusively work in the background on automating this task once-and-for-all, some others note the disparity between supply and demand and opportunistically announce that *they* will do this kind of work, to produce an abundance of beer for the greater region, but only at a multiplier rate of '6'.

Why would *anyone* give a shit about labor credits and agree to do shitwork, even for an increased rate of labor credits, you ask -- ?

Because anyone who can command a *premium* of labor credits, as from higher multiplier rates, are effectively gaining and consolidating their control of society's *reproduction of labor*. Most likely there would be social ('political') factionalism involved, where those who are most 'socially concerned' or 'philosophically driven' would be coordinating to cover as much *unwanted* work territory as possible, all for the sake of political consolidation. Increased numbers of labor credits in-hand would allow a group to *direct* what social work roles are 'activated' (funded), going-forward.

Perhaps it's about colonizing another planet, or about carving high-speed rail networks that criss-cross and connect all seven continents underground. Maybe it's a certain academic approach to history and the sciences, with a cache of pooled labor credits going towards that school of educational instruction. Perhaps it's an *art* faction ascending, funding all kinds of large-scale projects that decorate major urban centers in never-before-seen kinds of ways.

Whatever the program and motivation, society as a whole would be collectively *ceding ground* if it didn't keep the 'revolution' and collectivism going, with a steady pace of automation that precluded whole areas of production from social politics altogether. Technology / automation empowers the *individual* and takes power out of the hands of groups that enjoy cohesiveness based on sheer *numbers* and a concomitant control of social reproduction in their ideological direction. The circulation and usage of labor credits would be a live formal tracking of how *negligent* the social revolution happened to be at any given moment, just as the consolidation of private property is today against the forces of revolutionary politics and international labor solidarity.



https://www.revleft.space/vb/threads/20 ... -Questions



---


ckaihatsu wrote:
Sure, and that's where the *generalization* / collectivization dynamic comes in, because if everyone only tended to their own personal and familial concerns then *everyone* would have to do their own *farming*, for their own food production, which would be *very* inefficient overall considering the fuel-powered mechanical mass-production industrial agriculture that's the norm today.

Things could conceivably *start* out as you're describing, but each individual farming plot could be *combined* with others, for increasing economies-of-scale, all the way up to a *continental*, or even *global* scale, for *huge* mass efficiencies, and a *global* economy.


Emergent Central Planning

Spoiler: show
Image



wat0n wrote:
Yet it can perfectly happen if, for instance, there are substantial transaction costs that make it hard for people to emergently coordinate. I can also imagine people refusing to cooperate if they think their effort isn't paying off as much as they expect.



Sure, universal cooperation isn't a given, and I can't say in advance what the people of that post-capitalist society would decide to do social-organizational-wise.

As far as 'transactional costs' go, though, there wouldn't *be any*, because there would be no costs *at all* since the entire globe would be open to all of humanity for the first time ever in human history. Of course there would still be the 'work' of social organization / socio-politics, and any remaining (liberated) labor for the sake of collectivist production, until things could be *fully* automated so that machinery would serve humanity altogether.


---


ckaihatsu wrote:
Correct, and this is why I'm not a *localist*. You're describing *localism*, which is too limited in scope, and geography *constrained*, for any kind of a *modern* economy.

Also 'free riders' only applies to conditions of *scarcity*, and the whole point of collectivization / communism is to get *past* conditions of scarcity (and capitalism's *artificial scarcity*), to realize production-for-human-need, which means that *everyone* becomes a 'free-rider', so-to-speak, once all production processes are *fully automated*, over industrial *mass-production*.



wat0n wrote:
Scarcity would not magically disappear in this world: Just how much is produced is dependent on the incentives people face and on the institutional conditions they have to live with.



Scarcity would disappear as soon as the workers of the world no longer had to work for the sake of private *profits* -- that's a *huge* expense to funding, and to workers' work-time and labor-power. Work that doesn't have to provide profits to the bosses can instead be directed to supplying for *human needs* directly, especially for supplying everyone with the necessities of modern life and living.


Multi-Tiered System of Productive and Consumptive Zones for a Post-Capitalist Political Economy

Spoiler: show
Image



---


ckaihatsu wrote:
No, I don't *mean* to imply any kind of 'libertarian' 'free-market' approach, because such would still use *exchange values* / money / currency / finance / capital / bartering / trading / implicit exchange values.

People die *today* because of commerce-driven international *conflicts*, such as control of Iraq, Afghanistan, Libya, and Syria. The point is to have *workers* in collective control of society's social production, and the workers of the world don't *require* any nation-states, or government of any kind.



wat0n wrote:
This doesn't really answer my question. How would this society prevent the production and distribution of potentially dangerous counterfeit food and/or beverages?



I already addressed this -- perhaps the manufacturer / producer / provider could enclose a physical RFID chip in the shipment to the consumer, and the consumer could contact the manufacturer after receiving the shipment, with the unique code / data from the RFID chip, to confirm that the item sent was from that particular vendor that was ordered-from.

A 'comments' section on the webpage for any given item could *collectivize* consumers' comments and experiences of that particular product, as we have today with online ordering.


---


ckaihatsu wrote:
Here's the *real* disorder / violence:


According to The Washington Post, police officers shot and killed 1,001 people in the United States in 2019. About half of those killed were white, and one quarter were black, making the rate of deaths for black Americans (31 fatal shootings per million) more than twice as high as the rate for white Americans (13 fatal shootings per million).[83][84] The Washington Post also counts 13 unarmed black Americans shot dead by police in 2019.[85]

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Black_Liv ... sive_force



wat0n wrote:
I was actually referring to strikes and riots, as they indeed happened. They aim to have even less of the stuff you mention by providing alternatives to violence as a way to solve disputes.



Strikes, and even riots, are the 'voice of the oppressed' (MLK), and the reason for the cutting of production is to make a show of collective *force* to the bosses, to show them that society can live and work *without* them and their capital.

Are you alluding to *this*:


2020 United States essential workers general strike

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/2020_Unit ... ral_strike


---


ckaihatsu wrote:
No prob -- I know how these things are, take care.



wat0n wrote:
Thanks for your patience :)



Yup.
#15127866
ckaihatsu wrote:*Or* it could be called 'demographic dependence', or just simply *fascism*.


Populism is probably the better term.

ckaihatsu wrote:No, it's not really 'revenue' in the sense of 'commodities sold', creating new values -- it's more of a *financial* transaction, based on pre-existing, non-productive *assets* (real estate).

If someone walks in the door of the real estate office and buys a house with cash, the independent broker does *not* get a cut of that because they had nothing to do with the sale whatsoever -- they're a *separate business*.

Everything in this scenario is about how businesspeople handle business transactions with each other, or don't.


That's a very specific case. In reality, most of time the broker will seek people who want to buy/sell a property and match them with those who want to sell/buy the aforementioned property. That alone is quite evidently a service they are providing.

ckaihatsu wrote:You may want to fill-in-the-blanks, as with some notes using the 'universal paradigm' framework, to show what 'history' you're indicating.


What predictions made by Marx and his followers came to fruition and which ones did not?

ckaihatsu wrote:By 'request' do you mean 'impromptu' -- ? I don't think that *scheduling* itself would have any impact on whether a good or service gets automated / computerized.


I mean requesting someone to provide a fully customized good or service - with no clear prior templates to work from. Yes, that sort of stuff still exists.

ckaihatsu wrote:Human social interactions are *already* being modeled -- that's what 'Big Data' and the social networking industry are all about.


Correct, but it's far from being mature enough for automating all (or even most) jobs requiring human interaction.

ckaihatsu wrote:Well are we talking about *wage workers* or aren't we? All of the terms / words we use have *meanings* -- that's how we're able to *communicate* meanings, through the use of language.

The *complexity* here may be that the *value* that a janitor provides to a company is difficult to *quantify*, exactly, in terms of its own value-addition to the business. Obviously cleanliness is a critical *quality*, as are other roles in the business entity itself.

So it's difficult to quantify the 'value-percentage' that the janitor's work *is*, as a component of the business, since it *is* a component of the business, since it's an *overhead expense* of the business. Typically the salary is usually indexed to the industry *average* for janitorial services, whatever that happens to be, or maybe it's *outsourced* to the janitor-as-a-business, but it *can't* be calculated in terms of the commodities, and *their* value, that the company sells to its customers, because, again, the janitor is *not* a part of that *productive* process.


But the janitor, as you correctly said, is part of the overall productive process of the business - in a supportive role, which enables the revenue-generating processes to occur. Since his labor doesn't directly generate any revenue, it means that the janitor is either not a wage worker or he is a wage worker but wage workers are not limited to those whose labor directly generates revenue.

ckaihatsu wrote:Digging a hole and filling it with cash is 'aiming to generate revenue in the future' -- ?

For the time-being, there is *no* economic activity, so the act of hoarding is *not* being a capitalist / using equity capital / M-C-M'.


Yes, you could be hoarding money to invest in the future - it would example correspond to what happens during a deflationary spiral (where a shrinking economy makes it hard to earn revenue or find profitable assets to invest on, and where the deflation actually means your money is becoming more valuable over time).

ckaihatsu wrote:Okay, so the rate of profit is generally averaged from around the world, or perhaps contained on a country-by-country basis.


Correct, or by industry or what not. Depends on the paper.

ckaihatsu wrote:Right -- 'class' indicates one's general *economic* situation to a large degree, so if one is *working class* one is *exploited* and *oppressed* (objectively), and most likely has more existential *stress* in life than someone who is *wealthy*. One's class status, then, is a significant factor in one's psychological makeup because it's basically *inescapable*, one way or the other.


On average, perhaps. I would not be so sure about the more extreme cases - and serial killers are almost surely part of these "extreme cases".

ckaihatsu wrote:No, I don't think that 'empowered' and 'responsible' are necessarily *comparable*, or *linked* -- there are *plenty* of wealthy, empowered people who are known for their *irresponsible* actions -- Jeffrey Epstein comes to mind -- and there are plenty of *responsible* people, everyday working people, who are *not* empowered through their conscientious work efforts and productivity.


I would say that both are empowered, and definitely more so than children and babies. Of course Epstein had more power than your average Joe, and as such had more control over his life, but that doesn't mean average Joe is powerless and thus lacking any responsibility for his fate. And of course, even Epstein doesn't have full control over his life either, but only that he had more control over it than most people.

ckaihatsu wrote:What do you think about *this* development:


I don't find it surprising. The first aid was very large and as such needed to be decreased at some point but I would not cut the extension just yet. It may be necessary depending on the upcoming caseload increase and new lockdowns.

ckaihatsu wrote:Yes, that's called *Stalinism* -- Stalin's idea of so-called 'socialism-in-one-country', which is *definitely* not workers-of-the-world socialism.

My point stands that workers don't need capital, but capital needs workers.


Why do you consider the Soviet experience as a good example then? The centralization began under Lenin, anyway, so I think it's a good question. It seems what you have in mind was ephemeral, circumscribed to the first days of the Revolution rather than a long-term development.

ckaihatsu wrote:Those who want the same plot of land (or whatever), irrespective of *their own* individual demands lists, would have to *campaign* to get 'slot donations' *from others*, on *their* daily individual self-ranked prioritized demands lists, for as many slots, for as many days, as possible over a given calendar time period. Once the deadline hits all of the cumulative slots donated ('Person Z for Event Y', 'Person ZZ for Event Y', 'Person ZZZ for Event Y', etc.) will be tallied-up across the locality, and whoever has the most highest-ranked (#1, #2, #3, etc.) slots donated, for the most number of days, is the winner. (The disclaimer is that this is according to the model itself, and however the people of that post-capitalist society decide to do things, with or without this approach, is up to them, obviously.)


But you said the labor credits would not be binding, right? So why would the rest of society respect this right to access this uniquely valuable plot of land?

ckaihatsu wrote:Do you realize that if all workers simply 'started their own cooperative' that capitalism would never be ended?

In other words, *someone* would have to be the workers, for whatever 'new' startups started, so there would *still* be an (objectively) exploited, oppressed working class. Your approach doesn't address the *class division* and its economic inequalty, in the least.


No, not "all" workers need to start cooperatives. But those who want to control their means of production can do so if they want so.

ckaihatsu wrote:By the time the internal counterrevolution and external invasions had been neutralized by the Bolsheviks the economy was in tatters, and with Lenin's subsequent death there was a power vacuum. I don't think that any *attempts* to 'decentralize' at that time would have even been *appropriate* because the entire country / revolution had to be re-*integrated*, which requires *centralization* for that kind of situation. Unfortunately Joseph *Stalin* stepped into that role with his *nationalist* consolidation, and industrialization, in lieu of the Bolshevik Revolution *spreading* to Europe.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/New_Economic_Policy


How or why would they decentralize once again? The NEP was a case of going back to the prior status quo to some extent (the beginning of a Thermidorian Reaction if you want), so I don't understand why would it support your case.

ckaihatsu wrote:No -- all you're doing is being *pessimistic*, and glass-half-empty. Do you really think that *no one* would do *any* socially-necessary liberated labor for the sake of the common good?


No, only that few people would.

ckaihatsu wrote:Sure, universal cooperation isn't a given, and I can't say in advance what the people of that post-capitalist society would decide to do social-organizational-wise.

As far as 'transactional costs' go, though, there wouldn't *be any*, because there would be no costs *at all* since the entire globe would be open to all of humanity for the first time ever in human history. Of course there would still be the 'work' of social organization / socio-politics, and any remaining (liberated) labor for the sake of collectivist production, until things could be *fully* automated so that machinery would serve humanity altogether.


Organizing is a transaction cost, for instance. It's not just the cost of sending a text message or what not - bargaining, negotiating and coordinating are also costly.

ckaihatsu wrote:Scarcity would disappear as soon as the workers of the world no longer had to work for the sake of private *profits* -- that's a *huge* expense to funding, and to workers' work-time and labor-power. Work that doesn't have to provide profits to the bosses can instead be directed to supplying for *human needs* directly, especially for supplying everyone with the necessities of modern life and living.


Multi-Tiered System of Productive and Consumptive Zones for a Post-Capitalist Political Economy

Spoiler: show
Image


Yet as you acknowledge, it is possible that these people may not be willing to work as much if they can't see themselves personally benefitting from it. That's my point - how much and how hard people work helps to explain why would there be post-scarcity to begin with.

ckaihatsu wrote:I already addressed this -- perhaps the manufacturer / producer / provider could enclose a physical RFID chip in the shipment to the consumer, and the consumer could contact the manufacturer after receiving the shipment, with the unique code / data from the RFID chip, to confirm that the item sent was from that particular vendor that was ordered-from.

A 'comments' section on the webpage for any given item could *collectivize* consumers' comments and experiences of that particular product, as we have today with online ordering.


What if the consumer did not have such care/foresight to do that?

ckaihatsu wrote:Strikes, and even riots, are the 'voice of the oppressed' (MLK), and the reason for the cutting of production is to make a show of collective *force* to the bosses, to show them that society can live and work *without* them and their capital.

Are you alluding to *this*:


2020 United States essential workers general strike

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/2020_Unit ... ral_strike


Yes, that's one of the things that are meant to be reduced or avoided by mediators. Now, as for MLK's stance, he also was quite clear in preferring peaceful resolution of conflicts.
#15127963
ckaihatsu wrote:
*Or* it could be called 'demographic dependence', or just simply *fascism*.



wat0n wrote:
Populism is probably the better term.



Or fascism, or right-populism.


---


ckaihatsu wrote:
No, it's not really 'revenue' in the sense of 'commodities sold', creating new values -- it's more of a *financial* transaction, based on pre-existing, non-productive *assets* (real estate).

If someone walks in the door of the real estate office and buys a house with cash, the independent broker does *not* get a cut of that because they had nothing to do with the sale whatsoever -- they're a *separate business*.

Everything in this scenario is about how businesspeople handle business transactions with each other, or don't.



wat0n wrote:
That's a very specific case. In reality, most of time the broker will seek people who want to buy/sell a property and match them with those who want to sell/buy the aforementioned property. That alone is quite evidently a service they are providing.



Yes, the independent broker is providing a (speculative) service to prospects / prospective customers / customers, as a business -- not as wage labor.


---


ckaihatsu wrote:
You may want to fill-in-the-blanks, as with some notes using the 'universal paradigm' framework, to show what 'history' you're indicating.



wat0n wrote:
What predictions made by Marx and his followers came to fruition and which ones did not?



You seem to think that Marxism is a *religion*, or that it's a *science*, but *clinical*, and only interested in making *predictions*, like the hard sciences do. Marxists are *revolutionaries* and they / we have an interest in *intervening* on the side of the working class, meaning that Marxists aren't strictly clinicians.


Humanities-Technology Chart 2.0

Spoiler: show
Image



Note: The middle column, 'cooperation / competition / games / sports', is equivalent to 'empirical social history'.


---


wat0n wrote:
Indeed, the services people will turn to are those that are hard to automate. Think about activities done by request (inherently hard to automate) and activities involving things that are hard to model such as human social interactions.



ckaihatsu wrote:
By 'request' do you mean 'impromptu' -- ? I don't think that *scheduling* itself would have any impact on whether a good or service gets automated / computerized.



wat0n wrote:
I mean requesting someone to provide a fully customized good or service - with no clear prior templates to work from. Yes, that sort of stuff still exists.



Oh, you mean 'artisanal'-type production, or 'handicraft'.

These are *outmoded* kinds of production, except for *specialty* markets, because most things that people need for modern life and living are *mass-produced*, by *industrial* processes (factories).

With the *Internet*, moreover, much information and even education is now *automated*, so that all it takes is one web page or a Wikipedia entry, or a graphic, or a video, to cover a particular topic well enough to provide *literacy*, meaning a *basic understanding*.

I think plenty of people use the Internet these days for matters of *information* and *education* -- disproving your claim that people generally seek *hand-crafted*, customized solutions (which also happen to be *expensive* compared to mass-produced goods and services).


---


wat0n wrote:
Indeed, the services people will turn to are those that are hard to automate. Think about activities done by request (inherently hard to automate) and activities involving things that are hard to model such as human social interactions.



ckaihatsu wrote:
Human social interactions are *already* being modeled -- that's what 'Big Data' and the social networking industry are all about.



wat0n wrote:
Correct, but it's far from being mature enough for automating all (or even most) jobs requiring human interaction.



Do you mean 'customer service', mainly? That's an artifact of capitalism's *retail* function (think 'store clerks'), and wouldn't be necessary at all once people can use 3D printing to produce anything and everything that they personally need -- until then fully-automated *industrial* mass-production would be a *boon* to consumers, along with full communism.


---


ckaihatsu wrote:
Well are we talking about *wage workers* or aren't we? All of the terms / words we use have *meanings* -- that's how we're able to *communicate* meanings, through the use of language.

The *complexity* here may be that the *value* that a janitor provides to a company is difficult to *quantify*, exactly, in terms of its own value-addition to the business. Obviously cleanliness is a critical *quality*, as are other roles in the business entity itself.

So it's difficult to quantify the 'value-percentage' that the janitor's work *is*, as a component of the business, since it *is* a component of the business, since it's an *overhead expense* of the business. Typically the salary is usually indexed to the industry *average* for janitorial services, whatever that happens to be, or maybe it's *outsourced* to the janitor-as-a-business, but it *can't* be calculated in terms of the commodities, and *their* value, that the company sells to its customers, because, again, the janitor is *not* a part of that *productive* process.



wat0n wrote:
But the janitor, as you correctly said, is part of the overall productive process of the business - in a supportive role, which enables the revenue-generating processes to occur. Since his labor doesn't directly generate any revenue, it means that the janitor is either not a wage worker or he is a wage worker but wage workers are not limited to those whose labor directly generates revenue.



It's the former -- the janitor is not a wage worker, technically speaking, because the janitor's labor does not produce any commodities, or new value. Yes, the janitor receives a salary / wage, and a job is a job is a job to a worker, but in terms of *capital* the janitor's labor is a *cost* to the business, a necessary component of its overhead.


---


ckaihatsu wrote:
Digging a hole and filling it with cash is 'aiming to generate revenue in the future' -- ?

For the time-being, there is *no* economic activity, so the act of hoarding is *not* being a capitalist / using equity capital / M-C-M'.



wat0n wrote:
Yes, you could be hoarding money to invest in the future - it would example correspond to what happens during a deflationary spiral (where a shrinking economy makes it hard to earn revenue or find profitable assets to invest on, and where the deflation actually means your money is becoming more valuable over time).



Sure, if cash outperforms other financial assets then it's good to be a mattress-stuffer / hoarder of cash for that period of time. But, by *that* definition, anyone who has a single dollar surplus would then be considered to be a 'capitalist' because they're "invested" in cash for the time-being.


---


ckaihatsu wrote:
Okay, so the rate of profit is generally averaged from around the world, or perhaps contained on a country-by-country basis.



wat0n wrote:
Correct, or by industry or what not. Depends on the paper.



---


ckaihatsu wrote:
Right -- 'class' indicates one's general *economic* situation to a large degree, so if one is *working class* one is *exploited* and *oppressed* (objectively), and most likely has more existential *stress* in life than someone who is *wealthy*. One's class status, then, is a significant factor in one's psychological makeup because it's basically *inescapable*, one way or the other.



wat0n wrote:
On average, perhaps. I would not be so sure about the more extreme cases - and serial killers are almost surely part of these "extreme cases".



Yes, whoever the individual, *class* has an impact on one's life, life choices, standard of living, existential stress, life opportunities, etc. Here's a framework for such, in two varying versions:


[1] History, Macro Micro -- Precision

Spoiler: show
Image



History, Macro-Micro -- politics-logistics-lifestyle

Spoiler: show
Image



---


ckaihatsu wrote:
No, I don't think that 'empowered' and 'responsible' are necessarily *comparable*, or *linked* -- there are *plenty* of wealthy, empowered people who are known for their *irresponsible* actions -- Jeffrey Epstein comes to mind -- and there are plenty of *responsible* people, everyday working people, who are *not* empowered through their conscientious work efforts and productivity.



wat0n wrote:
I would say that both are empowered, and definitely more so than children and babies. Of course Epstein had more power than your average Joe, and as such had more control over his life, but that doesn't mean average Joe is powerless and thus lacking any responsibility for his fate. And of course, even Epstein doesn't have full control over his life either, but only that he had more control over it than most people.



Okay, adults are relatively more empowered than children or babies. You got me. (grin)

Epstein had swanky real estate and associates to represent his offensive personal interests.

The 'average Joe' doesn't have that kind of social status, or social influence.

We *have* to look at the *conscious intentions* of the individual / individualism / lifestyle.


philosophical abstractions

Spoiler: show
Image




---


ckaihatsu wrote:
I mean *in general* -- what kinds of programs should government spending *prioritize*?



wat0n wrote:
Those that are hard or impossible to procure by non-state actors, those aiming to correct or improve all sorts of market failures and also some aiming to decrease income inequality (as long as they preserve good incentives rather than simply engage in clientelism).



ckaihatsu wrote:
What do you think about *this* development:


https://www.wsws.org/en/articles/2020/1 ... s-o15.html


Amid record long-term unemployment, US government denies aid to workers

Jerry White
13 hours ago

With the number of workers unemployed for more than six months hitting an all-time high and millions running out of federal and state jobless benefits, the US government has made it clear that providing unemployment benefits for workers is not a priority.

After the $600-a-week federal supplement to state unemployment benefits expired on July 31, Trump approved a stopgap measure called the Lost Wage Assistance program, which cut federal assistance in half, providing six weekly payments of $300, starting retroactively on August 1. But even this meager money is now running out.

More than two million Californians are getting their last $300 check this week. Another 2.4 million New Yorkers will lose their benefits in the next two weeks, and the program has already ended in Texas, Utah, Iowa, Florida, Arizona, Alabama, Georgia, Montana, North Carolina, Tennessee, Louisiana, West Virginia, Oklahoma, Idaho, New Hampshire and Missouri.



wat0n wrote:
I don't find it surprising. The first aid was very large and as such needed to be decreased at some point but I would not cut the extension just yet. It may be necessary depending on the upcoming caseload increase and new lockdowns.



Okay. Please be more forthcoming with your chosen politics in the future -- thanks.


---


ckaihatsu wrote:
But workers could collectively *self-organize* their own production activities / work roles, without using capital *whatsoever*, as we already covered in the 'workplace' segment.

The historical precedent for this is the 'soviet', or workers council:

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Soviet_democracy



wat0n wrote:
Yet even the Soviet CP eventually centralized the economy and left its own managers in charge of the newly collectivized businesses.



ckaihatsu wrote:
Yes, that's called *Stalinism* -- Stalin's idea of so-called 'socialism-in-one-country', which is *definitely* not workers-of-the-world socialism.

My point stands that workers don't need capital, but capital needs workers.



wat0n wrote:
Why do you consider the Soviet experience as a good example then? The centralization began under Lenin, anyway, so I think it's a good question. It seems what you have in mind was ephemeral, circumscribed to the first days of the Revolution rather than a long-term development.



The 'soviet' experience and the 'Soviet' experience are two different things -- soviets, or workers councils, were developed in the decades *before* the Bolshevik Revolution itself in 1917.

Stalin's 'Soviet Union' was the nationalist *branding* of the word 'Soviet', under his Stalinist nationalist consolidation, or *revisionism*.

What *I* have in mind is the Communist Manifesto. It didn't turn out that way, though, mostly due to counterrevolutions domestically and imperialist militarist *invasions* from abroad.


---


ckaihatsu wrote:
Those who want the same plot of land (or whatever), irrespective of *their own* individual demands lists, would have to *campaign* to get 'slot donations' *from others*, on *their* daily individual self-ranked prioritized demands lists, for as many slots, for as many days, as possible over a given calendar time period. Once the deadline hits all of the cumulative slots donated ('Person Z for Event Y', 'Person ZZ for Event Y', 'Person ZZZ for Event Y', etc.) will be tallied-up across the locality, and whoever has the most highest-ranked (#1, #2, #3, etc.) slots donated, for the most number of days, is the winner. (The disclaimer is that this is according to the model itself, and however the people of that post-capitalist society decide to do things, with or without this approach, is up to them, obviously.)



wat0n wrote:
But you said the labor credits would not be binding, right? So why would the rest of society respect this right to access this uniquely valuable plot of land?



This aspect / scenario of the labor credits model doesn't actually *involve* labor credits -- it's a different component. Labor credits, if used, are only directly relevant to liberated laborers themselves, and to nothing else -- labor credits only circulate *within* the subset of liberated laborers, for work roles done according to a 'policy package'.

This proposed 'personal campaigning for personally desired semi-rare items' 'additive prioritizations' model, would be a *social norm* if used -- people would presumably respect this social norm / socio-political practice if they did, and wouldn't if they didn't.


---


ckaihatsu wrote:
Do you realize that if all workers simply 'started their own cooperative' that capitalism would never be ended?

In other words, *someone* would have to be the workers, for whatever 'new' startups started, so there would *still* be an (objectively) exploited, oppressed working class. Your approach doesn't address the *class division* and its economic inequalty, in the least.



wat0n wrote:
No, not "all" workers need to start cooperatives. But those who want to control their means of production can do so if they want so.



This is as bad a proposal as that of anyone who advocates 'workers co-ops' -- the barrier is that of *capital* itself.

In other words you're not describing anything different from the status quo -- if people want to *privately* buy some means of mass industrial production, they can only do so to the extent that they own capital, and not otherwise.

Again, it's not a challenge whatsoever to the capitalist status-quo and the existing *class division*.

The world's working class has a *collective class interest* in *ending* capitalism, because capitalism serves the interests of the bourgeois *ruling class*, and not the interests of the *working class*. The working class would be far better-off in *controlling* the means of mass industrial production, to simply produce *for themselves*, cutting all capitalists and capital out of the equation.


---


ckaihatsu wrote:
By the time the internal counterrevolution and external invasions had been neutralized by the Bolsheviks the economy was in tatters, and with Lenin's subsequent death there was a power vacuum. I don't think that any *attempts* to 'decentralize' at that time would have even been *appropriate* because the entire country / revolution had to be re-*integrated*, which requires *centralization* for that kind of situation. Unfortunately Joseph *Stalin* stepped into that role with his *nationalist* consolidation, and industrialization, in lieu of the Bolshevik Revolution *spreading* to Europe.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/New_Economic_Policy



wat0n wrote:
How or why would they decentralize once again? The NEP was a case of going back to the prior status quo to some extent (the beginning of a Thermidorian Reaction if you want), so I don't understand why would it support your case.



Lenin's enactment of the NEP *was* backsliding, as you're saying, due to the insufficiently-collectivized soviet-based economy, due to the destruction of the White counterrevolution and the foreign imperialist militarist invasions, ruining the infrastructure and economy.

So the enactment of the NEP supports my claim that 'the economy was in tatters'.

*De*-centralization is a *luxury* in political-economy terms, because it implies that *political* (class-conflict) conditions are quiescent enough to *allow* localist-originating social organization of social production, from the bottom-up.

Basically it would *have* to be *post-revolution* / post-class, where humanity as a whole would be past the point of having to repress the bourgeoisie, because it already successfully *repressed* the bourgeoisie out of existence, yielding a fully classless society.

This model framework of mine illustrates this post-class situation, where social organization of social production *could* be fully bottom-up:


Emergent Central Planning

Spoiler: show
Image



---


ckaihatsu wrote:
No -- all you're doing is being *pessimistic*, and glass-half-empty. Do you really think that *no one* would do *any* socially-necessary liberated labor for the sake of the common good?



wat0n wrote:
No, only that few people would.



Okay, and that's potentially *sufficient*, especially on the road to *fully automating* all means of mass industrial production, which, after completion, would allow for full production with *zero* additional liberated labor, meaning that everyone could get their necessities of life and living *for free*, *without doing any work*.

(Alternatively, consider workers who seize the factories, with major public support, that produce 3D printers, which are mature / capable enough to produce for any and all *personal* / humane needs -- once every person on earth has this 3D printer in their home, with sufficient electricity and feedstocks, they would then no longer have to participate in the capitalist economy.)


---


ckaihatsu wrote:
Sure, universal cooperation isn't a given, and I can't say in advance what the people of that post-capitalist society would decide to do social-organizational-wise.

As far as 'transactional costs' go, though, there wouldn't *be any*, because there would be no costs *at all* since the entire globe would be open to all of humanity for the first time ever in human history. Of course there would still be the 'work' of social organization / socio-politics, and any remaining (liberated) labor for the sake of collectivist production, until things could be *fully* automated so that machinery would serve humanity altogether.



wat0n wrote:
Organizing is a transaction cost, for instance. It's not just the cost of sending a text message or what not - bargaining, negotiating and coordinating are also costly.



Sure, they *can* be, but look at the *goal* -- post-capitalism all that would be required, at a minimum, would be everyone's basics of life and living. No profits, no waste, no corporate politicking, no bourgeois government, etc.


---


ckaihatsu wrote:
Scarcity would disappear as soon as the workers of the world no longer had to work for the sake of private *profits* -- that's a *huge* expense to funding, and to workers' work-time and labor-power. Work that doesn't have to provide profits to the bosses can instead be directed to supplying for *human needs* directly, especially for supplying everyone with the necessities of modern life and living.


Multi-Tiered System of Productive and Consumptive Zones for a Post-Capitalist Political Economy

Spoiler: show
Image



wat0n wrote:
Yet as you acknowledge, it is possible that these people may not be willing to work as much if they can't see themselves personally benefitting from it. That's my point - how much and how hard people work helps to explain why would there be post-scarcity to begin with.



No, I have to disagree with your claim that the 'success' of a post-capitalist collectivist society would hinge on 'hard work'. You're ignoring the role of *productive technology*, which is *factories* basically. There would be an inherent collective interest in *fully automating* all means of mass industrial production (factories), so that everyone could be served, 24/7/365, by machinery, for the first time in human history.


---


ckaihatsu wrote:
I already addressed this -- perhaps the manufacturer / producer / provider could enclose a physical RFID chip in the shipment to the consumer, and the consumer could contact the manufacturer after receiving the shipment, with the unique code / data from the RFID chip, to confirm that the item sent was from that particular vendor that was ordered-from.

A 'comments' section on the webpage for any given item could *collectivize* consumers' comments and experiences of that particular product, as we have today with online ordering.



wat0n wrote:
What if the consumer did not have such care/foresight to do that?



It wouldn't matter -- the social norm might be for *all* major manufacturers to include random-ID RFID chips in all of their shipments, similar to printed-receipt order-ID numbers today. The consumer, if inclined, could follow up with communications (email, web forms, whatever) to the manufacturer, with the RFID ID to confirm that they're the actual consumer.


---


ckaihatsu wrote:
Here's the *real* disorder / violence:


According to The Washington Post, police officers shot and killed 1,001 people in the United States in 2019. About half of those killed were white, and one quarter were black, making the rate of deaths for black Americans (31 fatal shootings per million) more than twice as high as the rate for white Americans (13 fatal shootings per million).[83][84] The Washington Post also counts 13 unarmed black Americans shot dead by police in 2019.[85]

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Black_Liv ... sive_force



wat0n wrote:
I was actually referring to strikes and riots, as they indeed happened. They aim to have even less of the stuff you mention by providing alternatives to violence as a way to solve disputes.



ckaihatsu wrote:
Strikes, and even riots, are the 'voice of the oppressed' (MLK), and the reason for the cutting of production is to make a show of collective *force* to the bosses, to show them that society can live and work *without* them and their capital.

Are you alluding to *this*:


2020 United States essential workers general strike

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/2020_Unit ... ral_strike



wat0n wrote:
Yes, that's one of the things that are meant to be reduced or avoided by mediators. Now, as for MLK's stance, he also was quite clear in preferring peaceful resolution of conflicts.



As usual, you're unable or unwilling to address the actual *problem* itself with your politics, that of government killer cops. You're only expressing *ruling class* interests, and you're willing to accept further government police killings.
#15128405
ckaihatsu wrote:Or fascism, or right-populism.


Right-populism is fine too. Fascism is a more specific term that doesn't quite apply to Trump.

ckaihatsu wrote:Yes, the independent broker is providing a (speculative) service to prospects / prospective customers / customers, as a business -- not as wage labor.


But when a dependent broker does the same he's not providing literally the same service and generating revenue for his employer?

ckaihatsu wrote:You seem to think that Marxism is a *religion*, or that it's a *science*, but *clinical*, and only interested in making *predictions*, like the hard sciences do. Marxists are *revolutionaries* and they / we have an interest in *intervening* on the side of the working class, meaning that Marxists aren't strictly clinicians.


Humanities-Technology Chart 2.0

Spoiler: show
Image



Note: The middle column, 'cooperation / competition / games / sports', is equivalent to 'empirical social history'.


I think Marxists are a bit religious at this point, yes. Marxian analysis however is not necessarily religious.

ckaihatsu wrote:Oh, you mean 'artisanal'-type production, or 'handicraft'.

These are *outmoded* kinds of production, except for *specialty* markets, because most things that people need for modern life and living are *mass-produced*, by *industrial* processes (factories).

With the *Internet*, moreover, much information and even education is now *automated*, so that all it takes is one web page or a Wikipedia entry, or a graphic, or a video, to cover a particular topic well enough to provide *literacy*, meaning a *basic understanding*.

I think plenty of people use the Internet these days for matters of *information* and *education* -- disproving your claim that people generally seek *hand-crafted*, customized solutions (which also happen to be *expensive* compared to mass-produced goods and services).


I didn't say people generally seek specialty goods, but that they exist... Well, they do. And actually, being able to both customize as much as possible while at the same time being able to automate processes as much as possible is an extremely valuable service.

ckaihatsu wrote:Do you mean 'customer service', mainly? That's an artifact of capitalism's *retail* function (think 'store clerks'), and wouldn't be necessary at all once people can use 3D printing to produce anything and everything that they personally need -- until then fully-automated *industrial* mass-production would be a *boon* to consumers, along with full communism.


Not necessarily (plus customer service is also partially automated - most common requests are becoming more and more automated over time). Think about educating kids, for instance.

ckaihatsu wrote:It's the former -- the janitor is not a wage worker, technically speaking, because the janitor's labor does not produce any commodities, or new value. Yes, the janitor receives a salary / wage, and a job is a job is a job to a worker, but in terms of *capital* the janitor's labor is a *cost* to the business, a necessary component of its overhead.


Isn't this distinction a bit arbitrary? If the business cannot operate without janitors, then it cannot generate revenue after all.

ckaihatsu wrote:Sure, if cash outperforms other financial assets then it's good to be a mattress-stuffer / hoarder of cash for that period of time. But, by *that* definition, anyone who has a single dollar surplus would then be considered to be a 'capitalist' because they're "invested" in cash for the time-being.


Exactly. Of course this kind of stuff only happens rarely, but it did for example happen during the Great Depression.

ckaihatsu wrote:Yes, whoever the individual, *class* has an impact on one's life, life choices, standard of living, existential stress, life opportunities, etc. Here's a framework for such, in two varying versions:


[1] History, Macro Micro -- Precision

Spoiler: show
Image



History, Macro-Micro -- politics-logistics-lifestyle

Spoiler: show
Image


Sure, and if you want to dig further you can separate class (in the Marxian sense) from income. You can be a very high income worker and live better than a poor capitalist (someone with a failing business for instance). Interestingly, the high income guy could perfectly be the psychopath here.

ckaihatsu wrote:Okay, adults are relatively more empowered than children or babies. You got me. (grin)

Epstein had swanky real estate and associates to represent his offensive personal interests.

The 'average Joe' doesn't have that kind of social status, or social influence.

We *have* to look at the *conscious intentions* of the individual / individualism / lifestyle.


philosophical abstractions

Spoiler: show
Image


Sure, the average Joe doesn't have as much status or influence, on the other hand, that also means he's way less exposed than Epstein was. As such, if Joe wanted to do the kind of stuff Epstein did, and actually managed to do so, it is unlikely he'd be as publicized if he was caught as Epstein was.

That is, even Epstein's influence had its limits and paid a price for crossing them.

ckaihatsu wrote:Okay. Please be more forthcoming with your chosen politics in the future -- thanks.


Well, my position is rather... Bland? I think the response needs to be data-dependent. Also, if there was a new large outbreak that stressed the healthcare system again, justifying lockdowns, it may be perfectly justified to increase the amount back to $600/week.

ckaihatsu wrote:The 'soviet' experience and the 'Soviet' experience are two different things -- soviets, or workers councils, were developed in the decades *before* the Bolshevik Revolution itself in 1917.

Stalin's 'Soviet Union' was the nationalist *branding* of the word 'Soviet', under his Stalinist nationalist consolidation, or *revisionism*.

What *I* have in mind is the Communist Manifesto. It didn't turn out that way, though, mostly due to counterrevolutions domestically and imperialist militarist *invasions* from abroad.


And that's because the Manifesto was not quite... Forthcoming, I think, with how to deal with those threats.

ckaihatsu wrote:This aspect / scenario of the labor credits model doesn't actually *involve* labor credits -- it's a different component. Labor credits, if used, are only directly relevant to liberated laborers themselves, and to nothing else -- labor credits only circulate *within* the subset of liberated laborers, for work roles done according to a 'policy package'.

This proposed 'personal campaigning for personally desired semi-rare items' 'additive prioritizations' model, would be a *social norm* if used -- people would presumably respect this social norm / socio-political practice if they did, and wouldn't if they didn't.


I think you are being too optimistic on the easiness to create a social norm.

ckaihatsu wrote:This is as bad a proposal as that of anyone who advocates 'workers co-ops' -- the barrier is that of *capital* itself.

In other words you're not describing anything different from the status quo -- if people want to *privately* buy some means of mass industrial production, they can only do so to the extent that they own capital, and not otherwise.

Again, it's not a challenge whatsoever to the capitalist status-quo and the existing *class division*.

The world's working class has a *collective class interest* in *ending* capitalism, because capitalism serves the interests of the bourgeois *ruling class*, and not the interests of the *working class*. The working class would be far better-off in *controlling* the means of mass industrial production, to simply produce *for themselves*, cutting all capitalists and capital out of the equation.


Indeed, procuring the co-op with funding would of course be a problem - just like regular businesses have the same sort of problem. It's no different in that regard.

ckaihatsu wrote:Lenin's enactment of the NEP *was* backsliding, as you're saying, due to the insufficiently-collectivized soviet-based economy, due to the destruction of the White counterrevolution and the foreign imperialist militarist invasions, ruining the infrastructure and economy.

So the enactment of the NEP supports my claim that 'the economy was in tatters'.

*De*-centralization is a *luxury* in political-economy terms, because it implies that *political* (class-conflict) conditions are quiescent enough to *allow* localist-originating social organization of social production, from the bottom-up.

Basically it would *have* to be *post-revolution* / post-class, where humanity as a whole would be past the point of having to repress the bourgeoisie, because it already successfully *repressed* the bourgeoisie out of existence, yielding a fully classless society.

This model framework of mine illustrates this post-class situation, where social organization of social production *could* be fully bottom-up:


Emergent Central Planning

Spoiler: show
Image


OK, but then who decides when the post-revolution begins and why would such person ever declare so instead of holding to power?

ckaihatsu wrote:Okay, and that's potentially *sufficient*, especially on the road to *fully automating* all means of mass industrial production, which, after completion, would allow for full production with *zero* additional liberated labor, meaning that everyone could get their necessities of life and living *for free*, *without doing any work*.

(Alternatively, consider workers who seize the factories, with major public support, that produce 3D printers, which are mature / capable enough to produce for any and all *personal* / humane needs -- once every person on earth has this 3D printer in their home, with sufficient electricity and feedstocks, they would then no longer have to participate in the capitalist economy.)


ckaihatsu wrote:No, I have to disagree with your claim that the 'success' of a post-capitalist collectivist society would hinge on 'hard work'. You're ignoring the role of *productive technology*, which is *factories* basically. There would be an inherent collective interest in *fully automating* all means of mass industrial production (factories), so that everyone could be served, 24/7/365, by machinery, for the first time in human history.


Well, the kind of world you are describing doesn't seem to be even close to the one we are living in right now, is it? We don't have easy to find 3D printers, electricity may not be as easy to generate as one would hope and we aren't there yet as far as automation is concerned so labor is still quite necessary.

ckaihatsu wrote:Sure, they *can* be, but look at the *goal* -- post-capitalism all that would be required, at a minimum, would be everyone's basics of life and living. No profits, no waste, no corporate politicking, no bourgeois government, etc.


You would replace one politicking for another, though. I'm not sure the transaction costs, waste, etc would be lower than they currently are.

ckaihatsu wrote:It wouldn't matter -- the social norm might be for *all* major manufacturers to include random-ID RFID chips in all of their shipments, similar to printed-receipt order-ID numbers today. The consumer, if inclined, could follow up with communications (email, web forms, whatever) to the manufacturer, with the RFID ID to confirm that they're the actual consumer.


My point is, wouldn't you need to search for and catch those manufacturers who don't use RFID chips and who do their best to hide their factories? That sounds like a Government task if you ask me.

ckaihatsu wrote:As usual, you're unable or unwilling to address the actual *problem* itself with your politics, that of government killer cops. You're only expressing *ruling class* interests, and you're willing to accept further government police killings.


No, the issue is that geopolitics or police killings don't have much, if anything, to do with labor mediation.
#15128559
ckaihatsu wrote:
*Or* it could be called 'demographic dependence', or just simply *fascism*.



wat0n wrote:
Populism is probably the better term.



ckaihatsu wrote:
Or fascism, or right-populism.



wat0n wrote:
Right-populism is fine too. Fascism is a more specific term that doesn't quite apply to Trump.



It's a *very* slippery slope, because we've seen how Trump *supports* any given fascist development, like the recent Michigan militia conspiracy:


Whitmer blasts Trump's 'appalling' response to her after feds foiled kidnap plot

https://www.nbcnews.com/politics/donald ... l-n1243535


Gretchen Whitmer accuses Donald Trump of inciting domestic terror

https://www.theguardian.com/us-news/202 ... tic-terror


---


ckaihatsu wrote:
Yes, the independent broker is providing a (speculative) service to prospects / prospective customers / customers, as a business -- not as wage labor.



wat0n wrote:
But when a dependent broker does the same he's not providing literally the same service and generating revenue for his employer?



If you mean an *employed* broker, then that employee is providing an *in-house* (not outsourced) service, and is paid a wage or salary from the real estate business. The real estate company has to have enough revenue and profits *overall* to justify that paid position / salaried employee, or else the business *downsizes*, or goes bankrupt and all employees are let go.

The larger point here is that, as an *employee*, the white-collar worker is *less* exposed to the downsides and upsides of (industry) (real estate, or whatever) market forces, because the employee is paid *hourly*. As an independent business that person is *more* exposed to market forces, and has to function as a *business*, to *ride* those market forces / fluctuations.


---


ckaihatsu wrote:
You seem to think that Marxism is a *religion*, or that it's a *science*, but *clinical*, and only interested in making *predictions*, like the hard sciences do. Marxists are *revolutionaries* and they / we have an interest in *intervening* on the side of the working class, meaning that Marxists aren't strictly clinicians.


Humanities-Technology Chart 2.0

Spoiler: show
Image



Note: The middle column, 'cooperation / competition / games / sports', is equivalent to 'empirical social history'.



wat0n wrote:
I think Marxists are a bit religious at this point, yes. Marxian analysis however is not necessarily religious.



Okay, that's fair. Would you mind describing how you think that Marxist persons are 'a bit religious'?

We might *compare* Marxists to others in the *social* sciences, like, say, psychologists. Would you say that *psychologists* are 'a bit religious', while *psychology* as a field is 'not necessarily religious'?

(You sound unaccustomed to the social sciences, in general.)


---


wat0n wrote:
Indeed, the services people will turn to are those that are hard to automate. Think about activities done by request (inherently hard to automate) and activities involving things that are hard to model such as human social interactions.



ckaihatsu wrote:
By 'request' do you mean 'impromptu' -- ? I don't think that *scheduling* itself would have any impact on whether a good or service gets automated / computerized.



wat0n wrote:
I mean requesting someone to provide a fully customized good or service - with no clear prior templates to work from. Yes, that sort of stuff still exists.



ckaihatsu wrote:
Oh, you mean 'artisanal'-type production, or 'handicraft'.

These are *outmoded* kinds of production, except for *specialty* markets, because most things that people need for modern life and living are *mass-produced*, by *industrial* processes (factories).

With the *Internet*, moreover, much information and even education is now *automated*, so that all it takes is one web page or a Wikipedia entry, or a graphic, or a video, to cover a particular topic well enough to provide *literacy*, meaning a *basic understanding*.

I think plenty of people use the Internet these days for matters of *information* and *education* -- disproving your claim that people generally seek *hand-crafted*, customized solutions (which also happen to be *expensive* compared to mass-produced goods and services).



wat0n wrote:
I didn't say people generally seek specialty goods, but that they exist... Well, they do. And actually, being able to both customize as much as possible while at the same time being able to automate processes as much as possible is an extremely valuable service.



Yes, you explicitly said 'Indeed, the services people will turn to are those that are hard to automate.'

That means that, according to *you*, people generally seek specialty- / artisanal-type goods, even though there's a current *proliferation* of big box stores all over the suburban, and even urban, landscape everywhere, meaning that people tend to get their regular goods from industrial mass-production, which is the norm.

I don't think that 3D printing is going to *surpass*, or *displace*, the means of mass industrial production anytime soon, but 3D printing happens to fit the description you just laid out, that of 'being able to automate processes as much as possible [for] an extremely valuable service'.


---


ckaihatsu wrote:
Human social interactions are *already* being modeled -- that's what 'Big Data' and the social networking industry are all about.



wat0n wrote:
Correct, but it's far from being mature enough for automating all (or even most) jobs requiring human interaction.



ckaihatsu wrote:
Do you mean 'customer service', mainly? That's an artifact of capitalism's *retail* function (think 'store clerks'), and wouldn't be necessary at all once people can use 3D printing to produce anything and everything that they personally need -- until then fully-automated *industrial* mass-production would be a *boon* to consumers, along with full communism.



wat0n wrote:
Not necessarily (plus customer service is also partially automated - most common requests are becoming more and more automated over time). Think about educating kids, for instance.



You seem to think that social tasks like education (and maybe customer service, and other kinds of retail-type human interactions), are dependent on *human social networks*, while my own counterargument is 'Wikipedia' -- meaning the *automation* of information and knowledge, at least at a basic-understanding / literacy level.

Moreover, if you insist on a customization / 'personalization' of each discrete information / knowledge request, there's now a solution for *that*, that being GPT-3, the leading AI for *natural language*, which can provide individualized conversational-type responses for Wikipedia-type searches:

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/GPT-3


Now you don't even need *me* -- just use GPT-3 for one-stop-shopping about everything communism! (grin)


---


ckaihatsu wrote:
It's the former -- the janitor is not a wage worker, technically speaking, because the janitor's labor does not produce any commodities, or new value. Yes, the janitor receives a salary / wage, and a job is a job is a job to a worker, but in terms of *capital* the janitor's labor is a *cost* to the business, a necessary component of its overhead.



wat0n wrote:
Isn't this distinction a bit arbitrary? If the business cannot operate without janitors, then it cannot generate revenue after all.



You're starting to become redundant, with this hair-splitting. I've already noted that the janitorial work-role is critical to the operation of the business / company, but you're being *argumentative* for some reason. Janitorial labor does *not* produce commodities, the way that 'wage laborers' do, which the business then sells for revenue and its own profits. Janitorial labor does not create any new *value*, economically speaking, because it does not produce commodities.

(If a business only had *overhead*, like expenses for critically-needed services, like that of janitors, etc., and did *not* produce any commodities (goods and/or services), through employing wage-workers, then it would quickly go bankrupt, due to lack of revenue, due to lack of *production*.)


---


ckaihatsu wrote:
Sure, if cash outperforms other financial assets then it's good to be a mattress-stuffer / hoarder of cash for that period of time. But, by *that* definition, anyone who has a single dollar surplus would then be considered to be a 'capitalist' because they're "invested" in cash for the time-being.



wat0n wrote:
Exactly. Of course this kind of stuff only happens rarely, but it did for example happen during the Great Depression.



Okay, thanks for acknowledging -- my point stands that stuffing a hole in the ground, or a mattress, with money does *not* make one a 'capitalist'.


---


ckaihatsu wrote:
Right -- 'class' indicates one's general *economic* situation to a large degree, so if one is *working class* one is *exploited* and *oppressed* (objectively), and most likely has more existential *stress* in life than someone who is *wealthy*. One's class status, then, is a significant factor in one's psychological makeup because it's basically *inescapable*, one way or the other.



wat0n wrote:
On average, perhaps. I would not be so sure about the more extreme cases - and serial killers are almost surely part of these "extreme cases".



ckaihatsu wrote:
Yes, whoever the individual, *class* has an impact on one's life, life choices, standard of living, existential stress, life opportunities, etc. Here's a framework for such, in two varying versions:


[1] History, Macro Micro -- Precision

Spoiler: show
Image



‭History, Macro-Micro -- politics-logistics-lifestyle

Spoiler: show
Image



wat0n wrote:
Sure, and if you want to dig further you can separate class (in the Marxian sense) from income. You can be a very high income worker and live better than a poor capitalist (someone with a failing business for instance). Interestingly, the high income guy could perfectly be the psychopath here.



I'm not sure what you're getting-at here -- class tends to correlate *positively* with income, meaning that upper-class people tend to have higher incomes. Yes, there are the *atypical* workers, like professional athletes, who make high incomes, but they're *not* the norm.

You seem to want to *analyze* something, and my position is that you should use my 'History, Macro-Micro' framework as a starting-point for *any* specific example, either from history, or from the present. If your interest is criminal psychology, then you could use it for *that*, to include all of the societal factors, macro-to-micro, that are present in society around any individual, and series of events.


---


ckaihatsu wrote:
Okay, adults are relatively more empowered than children or babies. You got me. (grin)

Epstein had swanky real estate and associates to represent his offensive personal interests.

The 'average Joe' doesn't have that kind of social status, or social influence.

We *have* to look at the *conscious intentions* of the individual / individualism / lifestyle.


philosophical abstractions

Spoiler: show
Image



wat0n wrote:
Sure, the average Joe doesn't have as much status or influence, on the other hand, that also means he's way less exposed than Epstein was. As such, if Joe wanted to do the kind of stuff Epstein did, and actually managed to do so, it is unlikely he'd be as publicized if he was caught as Epstein was.



I suppose, but, if caught, wouldn't any 'average Joe' still be *prosecuted* as Epstein was, and that prosecution would then become part of the public record, and available to journalism.


wat0n wrote:
That is, even Epstein's influence had its limits and paid a price for crossing them.



Yes.


---


ckaihatsu wrote:
Okay. Please be more forthcoming with your chosen politics in the future -- thanks.



wat0n wrote:
Well, my position is rather... Bland? I think the response needs to be data-dependent.



Okay, that's understandable, and that's why I created *this* diagram / framework:


Generalizations-Characterizations

Spoiler: show
Image



---


wat0n wrote:
Also, if there was a new large outbreak that stressed the healthcare system again, justifying lockdowns, it may be perfectly justified to increase the amount back to $600/week.



Well the coronavirus has been a *continual* health concern since it started in late March, so the government is *certainly* not up-to-date with replacement income for everyone who has had to forego employment for the sake of staying safe.


---


ckaihatsu wrote:
The 'soviet' experience and the 'Soviet' experience are two different things -- soviets, or workers councils, were developed in the decades *before* the Bolshevik Revolution itself in 1917.

Stalin's 'Soviet Union' was the nationalist *branding* of the word 'Soviet', under his Stalinist nationalist consolidation, or *revisionism*.

What *I* have in mind is the Communist Manifesto. It didn't turn out that way, though, mostly due to counterrevolutions domestically and imperialist militarist *invasions* from abroad.



wat0n wrote:
And that's because the Manifesto was not quite... Forthcoming, I think, with how to deal with those threats.



How *could* it be? I think you're expecting too much scope from that of a manifesto.


---


ckaihatsu wrote:
This aspect / scenario of the labor credits model doesn't actually *involve* labor credits -- it's a different component. Labor credits, if used, are only directly relevant to liberated laborers themselves, and to nothing else -- labor credits only circulate *within* the subset of liberated laborers, for work roles done according to a 'policy package'.

This proposed 'personal campaigning for personally desired semi-rare items' 'additive prioritizations' model, would be a *social norm* if used -- people would presumably respect this social norm / socio-political practice if they did, and wouldn't if they didn't.



wat0n wrote:
I think you are being too optimistic on the easiness to create a social norm.



I'm *not specifying* any 'ease' or 'difficulty' in a sea-change of political sentiment, as to effect a proletarian revolution, and then possibly adoption of this 'additive prioritizations' approach to pre-existing semi-rare items, including specific land parcels.

(Also, there's an implicit *assumption* here that 'personal property', post-capitalism, would extend to one's use of land. I can't predict what the specific prevailing social norms would be, but maybe 'personal property' *wouldn't* include land whatsoever, so that anyone and everyone could acceptably walk past your bed at night wherever you happened to sleep. I also don't know if *padlocks* would be commonly used, or if they would be *proscribed* as a matter of post-capitalist social norms. I just don't know.)


---


wat0n wrote:
No, not "all" workers need to start cooperatives. But those who want to control their means of production can do so if they want so.



ckaihatsu wrote:
This is as bad a proposal as that of anyone who advocates 'workers co-ops' -- the barrier is that of *capital* itself.

In other words you're not describing anything different from the status quo -- if people want to *privately* buy some means of mass industrial production, they can only do so to the extent that they own capital, and not otherwise.

Again, it's not a challenge whatsoever to the capitalist status-quo and the existing *class division*.

The world's working class has a *collective class interest* in *ending* capitalism, because capitalism serves the interests of the bourgeois *ruling class*, and not the interests of the *working class*. The working class would be far better-off in *controlling* the means of mass industrial production, to simply produce *for themselves*, cutting all capitalists and capital out of the equation.



wat0n wrote:
Indeed, procuring the co-op with funding would of course be a problem - just like regular businesses have the same sort of problem. It's no different in that regard.



Right -- and, furthermore, a simple change-of-management wouldn't address the class division *politically*, either. There would *still* have to be workers, to be exploited for their labor-power, which is merely the *continuation* of capitalism.

If society is to end income inequality, and the class division, and bourgeois government, then there has to be a *proletarian revolution* to do that, to *seize* the means of mass industrial production, because the working class doesn't have the *means* to play the capitalist game of 'private property ownership', as it currently exists.


---


ckaihatsu wrote:
Lenin's enactment of the NEP *was* backsliding, as you're saying, due to the insufficiently-collectivized soviet-based economy, due to the destruction of the White counterrevolution and the foreign imperialist militarist invasions, ruining the infrastructure and economy.

So the enactment of the NEP supports my claim that 'the economy was in tatters'.

*De*-centralization is a *luxury* in political-economy terms, because it implies that *political* (class-conflict) conditions are quiescent enough to *allow* localist-originating social organization of social production, from the bottom-up.

Basically it would *have* to be *post-revolution* / post-class, where humanity as a whole would be past the point of having to repress the bourgeoisie, because it already successfully *repressed* the bourgeoisie out of existence, yielding a fully classless society.

This model framework of mine illustrates this post-class situation, where social organization of social production *could* be fully bottom-up:


Emergent Central Planning

Spoiler: show
Image



wat0n wrote:
OK, but then who decides when the post-revolution begins and why would such person ever declare so instead of holding to power?



You're conceiving of this too formalistically -- what *counts* is whether the *bourgeoisie* controls the means of mass industrial production, or whether the *workers* control the means of mass industrial production.

Once there's no longer any *threat* or *interference* from the capitalist bosses or their government then humanity can simply use whatever's available to produce in its own best *common* interests, collectively, potentially up to *global* scales. (In my 'Emergent Central Planning' I posit scale-of-production, local-to-global, as varying *per-item*.)

Another way of conceptualizing this is to ask if capitalism can ever be *fully globalized*, and, due to recent real-world developments, we can say with certainty that capitalism *cannot* fully globalize, for the very reason of the dynamic that you're specifying -- localism exerts too much of a hold within any given industry, over relatively local 'turf' (nationalistic contexts), and organizing *fully globally* for any given industry, even with vast amounts of corporate capital, just becomes *too unwieldy* at some point of scale, and smaller competitors will realize an advantage, and market share.

The proletariat has no regard for the *scale* of existing capitalist organization -- it needs its *own* global scale of organizing, to out-organize and out-maneuver the social organizations of capital (corporations), for labor solidarity *worldwide*, versus capital.


---


ckaihatsu wrote:
Okay, and that's potentially *sufficient*, especially on the road to *fully automating* all means of mass industrial production, which, after completion, would allow for full production with *zero* additional liberated labor, meaning that everyone could get their necessities of life and living *for free*, *without doing any work*.

(Alternatively, consider workers who seize the factories, with major public support, that produce 3D printers, which are mature / capable enough to produce for any and all *personal* / humane needs -- once every person on earth has this 3D printer in their home, with sufficient electricity and feedstocks, they would then no longer have to participate in the capitalist economy.)


ckaihatsu wrote:
No, I have to disagree with your claim that the 'success' of a post-capitalist collectivist society would hinge on 'hard work'. You're ignoring the role of *productive technology*, which is *factories* basically. There would be an inherent collective interest in *fully automating* all means of mass industrial production (factories), so that everyone could be served, 24/7/365, by machinery, for the first time in human history.



wat0n wrote:
Well, the kind of world you are describing doesn't seem to be even close to the one we are living in right now, is it? We don't have easy to find 3D printers, electricity may not be as easy to generate as one would hope and we aren't there yet as far as automation is concerned so labor is still quite necessary.



Correct, and as I mentioned earlier, I don't think that 3D printing is a *rival* yet to conventional industrial mass-production.


---


ckaihatsu wrote:
Sure, they *can* be, but look at the *goal* -- post-capitalism all that would be required, at a minimum, would be everyone's basics of life and living. No profits, no waste, no corporate politicking, no bourgeois government, etc.



wat0n wrote:
You would replace one politicking for another, though. I'm not sure the transaction costs, waste, etc would be lower than they currently are.



But politicking, especially post-capitalism, doesn't depend on *market exchanges*. It's a *politicization* of economics, which is a *positive* step because it's *intentional*, social, and available to everyone, potentially.

(Think: 'communist gift economy' here -- I want a shitload of rusting jet fighters from the era of capitalism, plus sufficient present-day labor to *refurbish* them, *maintain* them, and *fuel* them, for my particular style of aerial photography and videography. Post-market-mechanism I'd have to convince *lots* of people to both socially *allow* this, as an acceptable social practice, and to *participate*, with their liberated labor, for this end-goal of mine. There's no money anywhere, literally. I'd be doing *politicking*, basically, which may or may not be successful, and which may or may not allow me to realize my personal end-goal.

Maybe I'd have to sign-off on a lot of personal 'IOUs' to people, with guarantees of my future cooperation on *their* shit, far into the future, for the receipt of their favors and cooperation *today*, for *my* shit.


---


ckaihatsu wrote:
It wouldn't matter -- the social norm might be for *all* major manufacturers to include random-ID RFID chips in all of their shipments, similar to printed-receipt order-ID numbers today. The consumer, if inclined, could follow up with communications (email, web forms, whatever) to the manufacturer, with the RFID ID to confirm that they're the actual consumer.



wat0n wrote:
My point is, wouldn't you need to search for and catch those manufacturers who don't use RFID chips and who do their best to hide their factories? That sounds like a Government task if you ask me.



No, it sounds like a *journalism* task, if you ask me.


---


wat0n wrote:
Yes, that's one of the things that are meant to be reduced or avoided by mediators. Now, as for MLK's stance, he also was quite clear in preferring peaceful resolution of conflicts.



ckaihatsu wrote:
As usual, you're unable or unwilling to address the actual *problem* itself with your politics, that of government killer cops. You're only expressing *ruling class* interests, and you're willing to accept further government police killings.



wat0n wrote:
No, the issue is that geopolitics or police killings don't have much, if anything, to do with labor mediation.



I don't have any confidence in the *impartiality* of the formal 'mediation' process, as you do, because I think it would address issues like government killer cops even *less* than the bourgeois *legal* system currently does, which is not-at-all.
#15131114
ckaihatsu wrote:It's a *very* slippery slope, because we've seen how Trump *supports* any given fascist development, like the recent Michigan militia conspiracy:


Whitmer blasts Trump's 'appalling' response to her after feds foiled kidnap plot

https://www.nbcnews.com/politics/donald ... l-n1243535


Gretchen Whitmer accuses Donald Trump of inciting domestic terror

https://www.theguardian.com/us-news/202 ... tic-terror


Even then, fascism isn't the right term IMO. Trump is no Mussolini. And yes, this is how populists roll - trying to smash institutions as much as they can.

ckaihatsu wrote:If you mean an *employed* broker, then that employee is providing an *in-house* (not outsourced) service, and is paid a wage or salary from the real estate business. The real estate company has to have enough revenue and profits *overall* to justify that paid position / salaried employee, or else the business *downsizes*, or goes bankrupt and all employees are let go.

The larger point here is that, as an *employee*, the white-collar worker is *less* exposed to the downsides and upsides of (industry) (real estate, or whatever) market forces, because the employee is paid *hourly*. As an independent business that person is *more* exposed to market forces, and has to function as a *business*, to *ride* those market forces / fluctuations.


Indeed, I don't disagree with that. But the employed broker is indeed a (white-collar) wage worker, even if she can earn a commission.

And indeed, what you say in your larger point is why it is not strange for a business owner to take profits: He's taking on risk, so why shouldn't he get a compensation for this?

ckaihatsu wrote:Okay, that's fair. Would you mind describing how you think that Marxist persons are 'a bit religious'?

We might *compare* Marxists to others in the *social* sciences, like, say, psychologists. Would you say that *psychologists* are 'a bit religious', while *psychology* as a field is 'not necessarily religious'?

(You sound unaccustomed to the social sciences, in general.)


How else can one describe the thought process behind the mechanisms by which the dictatorship of the proletariat never leads to a communist society with no State?

ckaihatsu wrote:Yes, you explicitly said 'Indeed, the services people will turn to are those that are hard to automate.'

That means that, according to *you*, people generally seek specialty- / artisanal-type goods, even though there's a current *proliferation* of big box stores all over the suburban, and even urban, landscape everywhere, meaning that people tend to get their regular goods from industrial mass-production, which is the norm.

I don't think that 3D printing is going to *surpass*, or *displace*, the means of mass industrial production anytime soon, but 3D printing happens to fit the description you just laid out, that of 'being able to automate processes as much as possible [for] an extremely valuable service'.


I should have been more explicit. "People" as in employees, since workers are harder to replace with robots in these industries. There is a technological reason for that.

ckaihatsu wrote:You seem to think that social tasks like education (and maybe customer service, and other kinds of retail-type human interactions), are dependent on *human social networks*, while my own counterargument is 'Wikipedia' -- meaning the *automation* of information and knowledge, at least at a basic-understanding / literacy level.

Moreover, if you insist on a customization / 'personalization' of each discrete information / knowledge request, there's now a solution for *that*, that being GPT-3, the leading AI for *natural language*, which can provide individualized conversational-type responses for Wikipedia-type searches:

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/GPT-3


Now you don't even need *me* -- just use GPT-3 for one-stop-shopping about everything communism! (grin)


I think Wikipedia can help for adults, but how about e.g. children?

ckaihatsu wrote:You're starting to become redundant, with this hair-splitting. I've already noted that the janitorial work-role is critical to the operation of the business / company, but you're being *argumentative* for some reason. Janitorial labor does *not* produce commodities, the way that 'wage laborers' do, which the business then sells for revenue and its own profits. Janitorial labor does not create any new *value*, economically speaking, because it does not produce commodities.

(If a business only had *overhead*, like expenses for critically-needed services, like that of janitors, etc., and did *not* produce any commodities (goods and/or services), through employing wage-workers, then it would quickly go bankrupt, due to lack of revenue, due to lack of *production*.)


OK, but if production cannot take place without people performing these support roles, if these roles represent a form of critical infrastructure for the business, then you cannot simply sort of hand-wave it in you analysis. Of course they should be considered in any producer theory.

ckaihatsu wrote:Okay, thanks for acknowledging -- my point stands that stuffing a hole in the ground, or a mattress, with money does *not* make one a 'capitalist'.


It all depends on the reason for doing that, which is in itself driven by market conditions.

ckaihatsu wrote:I'm not sure what you're getting-at here -- class tends to correlate *positively* with income, meaning that upper-class people tend to have higher incomes. Yes, there are the *atypical* workers, like professional athletes, who make high incomes, but they're *not* the norm.

You seem to want to *analyze* something, and my position is that you should use my 'History, Macro-Micro' framework as a starting-point for *any* specific example, either from history, or from the present. If your interest is criminal psychology, then you could use it for *that*, to include all of the societal factors, macro-to-micro, that are present in society around any individual, and series of events.


My point is, heterogeneity matters. Particularly to analyze problems being driven by the tails of the distribution (in this example, psychopaths). It's important because it helps to delimit the sort of phenomena that are amenable to an economic explanation (be it Marxian or not).

ckaihatsu wrote:I suppose, but, if caught, wouldn't any 'average Joe' still be *prosecuted* as Epstein was, and that prosecution would then become part of the public record, and available to journalism.

ckaihatsu wrote:Yes.


Correct, but why would any media publish something done by the average Joe while not doing so if done by Epstein? Surely, the media would be way more interested in catching some well-known figure like Epstein. And, as such, although having influence is generally better for you, it has its risks.

ckaihatsu wrote:Okay, that's understandable, and that's why I created *this* diagram / framework:


Generalizations-Characterizations

Spoiler: show
Image


Good to see we agree here. This is just such a particular situation that it can't be helped to just be as pragmatic as possible.

Now that the second wave seems to be underway, I think the Federal Government should look into increasing the unemployment help if lockdowns return.

ckaihatsu wrote:Well the coronavirus has been a *continual* health concern since it started in late March, so the government is *certainly* not up-to-date with replacement income for everyone who has had to forego employment for the sake of staying safe


Right, but there are fluctuations too. Ideally, the payment should go down as restrictions do and go up as restrictions come back.

ckaihatsu wrote:How *could* it be? I think you're expecting too much scope from that of a manifesto.


Indeed, which is why the theory had to be expanded as time passed and experience was gained. But now that we have a much better idea of how these things go, I find it noteworthy that in many ways, there hasn't been a more fundamental update of Marxian thought.

Indeed, I think this is partly why it's much less influential nowadays even within the Left than it used to be. Sure, some broad concepts may have been borrowed, but in very, very general ways.

ckaihatsu wrote:I'm *not specifying* any 'ease' or 'difficulty' in a sea-change of political sentiment, as to effect a proletarian revolution, and then possibly adoption of this 'additive prioritizations' approach to pre-existing semi-rare items, including specific land parcels.

(Also, there's an implicit *assumption* here that 'personal property', post-capitalism, would extend to one's use of land. I can't predict what the specific prevailing social norms would be, but maybe 'personal property' *wouldn't* include land whatsoever, so that anyone and everyone could acceptably walk past your bed at night wherever you happened to sleep. I also don't know if *padlocks* would be commonly used, or if they would be *proscribed* as a matter of post-capitalist social norms. I just don't know.)


My claim is more about social engineering in general. There are way too many factors involved there, to the point that even one of the easiest forms of it (economic policy) is rather complex and prone to have problems. Cultural change is even harder to predict or explain, IMO.

ckaihatsu wrote:Right -- and, furthermore, a simple change-of-management wouldn't address the class division *politically*, either. There would *still* have to be workers, to be exploited for their labor-power, which is merely the *continuation* of capitalism.

If society is to end income inequality, and the class division, and bourgeois government, then there has to be a *proletarian revolution* to do that, to *seize* the means of mass industrial production, because the working class doesn't have the *means* to play the capitalist game of 'private property ownership', as it currently exists.


Hmmm, but cooperatives are often owned by workers themselves, right? So managers are often worker-owners simply performing another role.

ckaihatsu wrote:You're conceiving of this too formalistically -- what *counts* is whether the *bourgeoisie* controls the means of mass industrial production, or whether the *workers* control the means of mass industrial production.

Once there's no longer any *threat* or *interference* from the capitalist bosses or their government then humanity can simply use whatever's available to produce in its own best *common* interests, collectively, potentially up to *global* scales. (In my 'Emergent Central Planning' I posit scale-of-production, local-to-global, as varying *per-item*.)

Another way of conceptualizing this is to ask if capitalism can ever be *fully globalized*, and, due to recent real-world developments, we can say with certainty that capitalism *cannot* fully globalize, for the very reason of the dynamic that you're specifying -- localism exerts too much of a hold within any given industry, over relatively local 'turf' (nationalistic contexts), and organizing *fully globally* for any given industry, even with vast amounts of corporate capital, just becomes *too unwieldy* at some point of scale, and smaller competitors will realize an advantage, and market share.

The proletariat has no regard for the *scale* of existing capitalist organization -- it needs its *own* global scale of organizing, to out-organize and out-maneuver the social organizations of capital (corporations), for labor solidarity *worldwide*, versus capital.


I don't think it's simply an empty formalism. It's a relevant issue since making that call would imply the need to change political institutions once the new system takes root.

ckaihatsu wrote:Correct, and as I mentioned earlier, I don't think that 3D printing is a *rival* yet to conventional industrial mass-production.


Indeed. So the society you are thinking about may not be even technologically feasible right now.

ckaihatsu wrote:But politicking, especially post-capitalism, doesn't depend on *market exchanges*. It's a *politicization* of economics, which is a *positive* step because it's *intentional*, social, and available to everyone, potentially.

(Think: 'communist gift economy' here -- I want a shitload of rusting jet fighters from the era of capitalism, plus sufficient present-day labor to *refurbish* them, *maintain* them, and *fuel* them, for my particular style of aerial photography and videography. Post-market-mechanism I'd have to convince *lots* of people to both socially *allow* this, as an acceptable social practice, and to *participate*, with their liberated labor, for this end-goal of mine. There's no money anywhere, literally. I'd be doing *politicking*, basically, which may or may not be successful, and which may or may not allow me to realize my personal end-goal.

Maybe I'd have to sign-off on a lot of personal 'IOUs' to people, with guarantees of my future cooperation on *their* shit, far into the future, for the receipt of their favors and cooperation *today*, for *my* shit.


Transaction costs need not depend on market prices. That is, there are significant material costs in engaging in constant long negotiations to get stuff done.

ckaihatsu wrote:No, it sounds like a *journalism* task, if you ask me.


It can be, too. But Governments should be better suited to this kind of thing.

ckaihatsu wrote:I don't have any confidence in the *impartiality* of the formal 'mediation' process, as you do, because I think it would address issues like government killer cops even *less* than the bourgeois *legal* system currently does, which is not-at-all.


Well, I'm referring to labor mediation. The issue of policing falls far outside its scope.
#15131186
ckaihatsu wrote:
It's a *very* slippery slope, because we've seen how Trump *supports* any given fascist development, like the recent Michigan militia conspiracy:


Whitmer blasts Trump's 'appalling' response to her after feds foiled kidnap plot

https://www.nbcnews.com/politics/donald ... l-n1243535



Gretchen Whitmer accuses Donald Trump of inciting domestic terror

https://www.theguardian.com/us-news/202 ... tic-terror



wat0n wrote:
Even then, fascism isn't the right term IMO. Trump is no Mussolini. And yes, this is how populists roll - trying to smash institutions as much as they can.



You mean *right*-populists. Isn't it contradictory for Trump, in the institutional position of the U.S. presidency, to be 'smashing institutions' -- ?

This sounds more like hyperbole / rhetoric, than anything else, because we can simply look at his *policies*, as president.

We can also ask why he's so consistent in expressing *support* for fascists and threatening the electoral process. These are *coup*-like indicators, and coups were attempted in Venezuela, and took place in Bolivia.


---


ckaihatsu wrote:
If you mean an *employed* broker, then that employee is providing an *in-house* (not outsourced) service, and is paid a wage or salary from the real estate business. The real estate company has to have enough revenue and profits *overall* to justify that paid position / salaried employee, or else the business *downsizes*, or goes bankrupt and all employees are let go.

The larger point here is that, as an *employee*, the white-collar worker is *less* exposed to the downsides and upsides of (industry) (real estate, or whatever) market forces, because the employee is paid *hourly*. As an independent business that person is *more* exposed to market forces, and has to function as a *business*, to *ride* those market forces / fluctuations.



wat0n wrote:
Indeed, I don't disagree with that. But the employed broker is indeed a (white-collar) wage worker, even if she can earn a commission.



Yes, agreed.


wat0n wrote:
And indeed, what you say in your larger point is why it is not strange for a business owner to take profits: He's taking on risk, so why shouldn't he get a compensation for this?



Because the employee / worker is taking on even *greater* risks -- one's life and livelihood, expenses of personal / household upkeep, commuting costs, fixed expenses, etc. The business owner has funds (capital) *to spare* that the worker does *not* have.

We could ask why the ownership and workers don't manage over incoming revenue *together*, since both parties are providing material inputs to the productive process:


[11] Labor & Capital, Wages & Dividends

Spoiler: show
Image




---


ckaihatsu wrote:
Okay, that's fair. Would you mind describing how you think that Marxist persons are 'a bit religious'?

We might *compare* Marxists to others in the *social* sciences, like, say, psychologists. Would you say that *psychologists* are 'a bit religious', while *psychology* as a field is 'not necessarily religious'?

(You sound unaccustomed to the social sciences, in general.)



wat0n wrote:
How else can one describe the thought process behind the mechanisms by which the dictatorship of the proletariat never leads to a communist society with no State?



You tell *me*. You're an *idealist* because you think that history, including revolutions, is determined by *ideas*, and not by actual material historical forces.

You're continuing to *gloss over* actual historical events, and now you're reverting to your past bad habit and *acknowledged* mistake of blaming the revolutionary ideology for its historical lack-of-success, due to *external* factors:


wat0n wrote:
1) Those factors you mention hold for any revolution: Revolutionary governments are often ambitious internationally and this leads to pushback.



ckaihatsu wrote:
1. Okay -- 'pushback'. Thank you for honestly acknowledging that Bolshevism wasn't defeated by itself.



viewtopic.php?p=15123264#p15123264



---


wat0n wrote:
I didn't say people generally seek specialty goods, but that they exist... Well, they do. And actually, being able to both customize as much as possible while at the same time being able to automate processes as much as possible is an extremely valuable service.



ckaihatsu wrote:
Yes, you explicitly said 'Indeed, the services people will turn to are those that are hard to automate.'

That means that, according to *you*, people generally seek specialty- / artisanal-type goods, even though there's a current *proliferation* of big box stores all over the suburban, and even urban, landscape everywhere, meaning that people tend to get their regular goods from industrial mass-production, which is the norm.

I don't think that 3D printing is going to *surpass*, or *displace*, the means of mass industrial production anytime soon, but 3D printing happens to fit the description you just laid out, that of 'being able to automate processes as much as possible [for] an extremely valuable service'.



wat0n wrote:
I should have been more explicit. "People" as in employees, since workers are harder to replace with robots in these industries. There is a technological reason for that.



So you're saying that 'Employees will generally turn to services that are hard to automate'.

This is *still* more bullshit / hyperbole, and you're just grasping-at-straws now, because employees, in the workplace, are *not* consumers. Any work-role or mechanical 'services' in the workplace wouldn't be for the workers as *individuals* / consumers, but rather for the sake of the company that's producing finished products, for sale.

Why don't you save us both some time here and just *admit* that you made a statement that you can't support with facts -- you're *spitballing*.


---


ckaihatsu wrote:
You seem to think that social tasks like education (and maybe customer service, and other kinds of retail-type human interactions), are dependent on *human social networks*, while my own counterargument is 'Wikipedia' -- meaning the *automation* of information and knowledge, at least at a basic-understanding / literacy level.

Moreover, if you insist on a customization / 'personalization' of each discrete information / knowledge request, there's now a solution for *that*, that being GPT-3, the leading AI for *natural language*, which can provide individualized conversational-type responses for Wikipedia-type searches:

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/GPT-3


Now you don't even need *me* -- just use GPT-3 for one-stop-shopping about everything communism! (grin)



wat0n wrote:
I think Wikipedia can help for adults, but how about e.g. children?



Why not? (You're just being *contrarian* here.)


---


ckaihatsu wrote:
You're starting to become redundant, with this hair-splitting. I've already noted that the janitorial work-role is critical to the operation of the business / company, but you're being *argumentative* for some reason. Janitorial labor does *not* produce commodities, the way that 'wage laborers' do, which the business then sells for revenue and its own profits. Janitorial labor does not create any new *value*, economically speaking, because it does not produce commodities.

(If a business only had *overhead*, like expenses for critically-needed services, like that of janitors, etc., and did *not* produce any commodities (goods and/or services), through employing wage-workers, then it would quickly go bankrupt, due to lack of revenue, due to lack of *production*.)



wat0n wrote:
OK, but if production cannot take place without people performing these support roles, if these roles represent a form of critical infrastructure for the business, then you cannot simply sort of hand-wave it in you analysis. Of course they should be considered in any producer theory.



I'm not being *subjective* here -- if I've said anything that sounds *inaccurate* to you, you can contest it. You're not doing that. Please stop being argumentative.


---


ckaihatsu wrote:
Okay, thanks for acknowledging -- my point stands that stuffing a hole in the ground, or a mattress, with money does *not* make one a 'capitalist'.



wat0n wrote:
It all depends on the reason for doing that, which is in itself driven by market conditions.



Okay, sure -- you're making my (theoretical / ideological) point *for* me, that we can trace economic dynamics back to the dynamics of the *system* itself, that of *capitalism*.

Regarding the scenario at-hand, my point stands that stuffing a hole or mattress with money does not make one a 'capitalist'.


---


ckaihatsu wrote:
I'm not sure what you're getting-at here -- class tends to correlate *positively* with income, meaning that upper-class people tend to have higher incomes. Yes, there are the *atypical* workers, like professional athletes, who make high incomes, but they're *not* the norm.

You seem to want to *analyze* something, and my position is that you should use my 'History, Macro-Micro' framework as a starting-point for *any* specific example, either from history, or from the present. If your interest is criminal psychology, then you could use it for *that*, to include all of the societal factors, macro-to-micro, that are present in society around any individual, and series of events.



wat0n wrote:
My point is, heterogeneity matters. Particularly to analyze problems being driven by the tails of the distribution (in this example, psychopaths). It's important because it helps to delimit the sort of phenomena that are amenable to an economic explanation (be it Marxian or not).



Okay, I'm listening.


---


wat0n wrote:
Sure, the average Joe doesn't have as much status or influence, on the other hand, that also means he's way less exposed than Epstein was. As such, if Joe wanted to do the kind of stuff Epstein did, and actually managed to do so, it is unlikely he'd be as publicized if he was caught as Epstein was.



ckaihatsu wrote:
I suppose, but, if caught, wouldn't any 'average Joe' still be *prosecuted* as Epstein was, and that prosecution would then become part of the public record, and available to journalism.


ckaihatsu wrote:
Yes.



wat0n wrote:
Correct, but why would any media publish something done by the average Joe while not doing so if done by Epstein? Surely, the media would be way more interested in catching some well-known figure like Epstein. And, as such, although having influence is generally better for you, it has its risks.



No contention.


---


wat0n wrote:
I don't find it surprising. The first aid was very large and as such needed to be decreased at some point but I would not cut the extension just yet. It may be necessary depending on the upcoming caseload increase and new lockdowns.



ckaihatsu wrote:
Okay. Please be more forthcoming with your chosen politics in the future -- thanks.



wat0n wrote:
Well, my position is rather... Bland? I think the response needs to be data-dependent.



ckaihatsu wrote:
Okay, that's understandable, and that's why I created *this* diagram / framework:


Generalizations-Characterizations

Spoiler: show
Image



wat0n wrote:
Good to see we agree here. This is just such a particular situation that it can't be helped to just be as pragmatic as possible.

Now that the second wave seems to be underway, I think the Federal Government should look into increasing the unemployment help if lockdowns return.



Yes, agreed -- I think the word you're looking for here is 'conditional', but I'd say that, considering how material-economic *productivity* has increased so much over the past few decades, government support to individuals for their personal needs should be *unconditional*, because the working class doesn't require *bureaucratic oversight* for telling them what their personal needs are.


---


ckaihatsu wrote:
Well the coronavirus has been a *continual* health concern since it started in late March, so the government is *certainly* not up-to-date with replacement income for everyone who has had to forego employment for the sake of staying safe



wat0n wrote:
Right, but there are fluctuations too. Ideally, the payment should go down as restrictions do and go up as restrictions come back.



(See the previous segment.)


---


ckaihatsu wrote:
How *could* it be? I think you're expecting too much scope from that of a manifesto.



wat0n wrote:
Indeed, which is why the theory had to be expanded as time passed and experience was gained. But now that we have a much better idea of how these things go, I find it noteworthy that in many ways, there hasn't been a more fundamental update of Marxian thought.



I would say 'Trotsky' / Trotskyism here -- you should familiarize yourself with the theory of 'Permanent Revolution', which superseded Stalin's contrived, revisionist 'socialism-in-one-country':



Trotsky's permanent revolution is an explanation of how socialist revolutions could occur in societies that had not achieved advanced capitalism. Trotsky's theory also argues that the bourgeoisie in late-developing capitalist countries are incapable of developing the productive forces in such a manner as to achieve the sort of advanced capitalism which will fully develop an industrial proletariat; and that the proletariat can and must therefore seize social, economic and political power, leading an alliance with the peasantry.



https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Permanent_revolution



---


wat0n wrote:
Indeed, I think this is partly why it's much less influential nowadays even within the Left than it used to be. Sure, some broad concepts may have been borrowed, but in very, very general ways.



"Borrowed', historically, has been *revisionism* because in practice, revolutionaries have looked to the peasantry (Mao), or to the *bourgeoisie*, for revolutionary-nationalist material development (Lenin's 'New Economic Program').



The NEP represented a more market-oriented economic policy (deemed necessary after the Russian Civil War of 1918 to 1922) to foster the economy of the country, which had suffered severely since 1915. The Soviet authorities partially revoked the complete nationalization of industry (established during the period of War Communism of 1918 to 1921) and introduced a system of mixed economy which allowed private individuals to own small enterprises,[2] while the state continued to control banks, foreign trade, and large industries.[3] In addition, the NEP abolished prodrazvyorstka (forced grain-requisition)[2] and introduced prodnalog: a tax on farmers, payable in the form of raw agricultural product.[4] The Bolshevik government adopted the NEP in the course of the 10th Congress of the All-Russian Communist Party (March 1921) and promulgated it by a decree on 21 March 1921: "On the Replacement of Prodrazvyorstka by Prodnalog". Further decrees refined the policy. Other policies included monetary reform (1922–1924) and the attraction of foreign capital.

The NEP policy created a new category of people called NEPmen (нэпманы) (nouveau riches).



https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/New_Economic_Policy



---


ckaihatsu wrote:
I'm *not specifying* any 'ease' or 'difficulty' in a sea-change of political sentiment, as to effect a proletarian revolution, and then possibly adoption of this 'additive prioritizations' approach to pre-existing semi-rare items, including specific land parcels.

(Also, there's an implicit *assumption* here that 'personal property', post-capitalism, would extend to one's use of land. I can't predict what the specific prevailing social norms would be, but maybe 'personal property' *wouldn't* include land whatsoever, so that anyone and everyone could acceptably walk past your bed at night wherever you happened to sleep. I also don't know if *padlocks* would be commonly used, or if they would be *proscribed* as a matter of post-capitalist social norms. I just don't know.)



wat0n wrote:
My claim is more about social engineering in general. There are way too many factors involved there, to the point that even one of the easiest forms of it (economic policy) is rather complex and prone to have problems. Cultural change is even harder to predict or explain, IMO.



Yeah, this is why I've created the diagrams that I have, to show that there are some *basic* components and dynamics for *any* society's material-productive activities:


Components of Social Production

Spoiler: show
Image



---


ckaihatsu wrote:
Right -- and, furthermore, a simple change-of-management wouldn't address the class division *politically*, either. There would *still* have to be workers, to be exploited for their labor-power, which is merely the *continuation* of capitalism.

If society is to end income inequality, and the class division, and bourgeois government, then there has to be a *proletarian revolution* to do that, to *seize* the means of mass industrial production, because the working class doesn't have the *means* to play the capitalist game of 'private property ownership', as it currently exists.



wat0n wrote:
Hmmm, but cooperatives are often owned by workers themselves, right? So managers are often worker-owners simply performing another role.



My point stands that whatever worker-ownership there may be, such is too *diffuse* politically, and so the overall capitalism paradigm of worker-exploitation and social-minority-oppression isn't challenged at all, much less *overthrown*, with any nominal increase in worker control of capitalist private property.

The process is more of a *co-optation*, than a revolutionary *politicization* of the total means of mass industrial production.


---


wat0n wrote:
OK, but then who decides when the post-revolution begins and why would such person ever declare so instead of holding to power?



ckaihatsu wrote:
You're conceiving of this too formalistically -- what *counts* is whether the *bourgeoisie* controls the means of mass industrial production, or whether the *workers* control the means of mass industrial production.

Once there's no longer any *threat* or *interference* from the capitalist bosses or their government then humanity can simply use whatever's available to produce in its own best *common* interests, collectively, potentially up to *global* scales. (In my 'Emergent Central Planning' I posit scale-of-production, local-to-global, as varying *per-item*.)

Another way of conceptualizing this is to ask if capitalism can ever be *fully globalized*, and, due to recent real-world developments, we can say with certainty that capitalism *cannot* fully globalize, for the very reason of the dynamic that you're specifying -- localism exerts too much of a hold within any given industry, over relatively local 'turf' (nationalistic contexts), and organizing *fully globally* for any given industry, even with vast amounts of corporate capital, just becomes *too unwieldy* at some point of scale, and smaller competitors will realize an advantage, and market share.

The proletariat has no regard for the *scale* of existing capitalist organization -- it needs its *own* global scale of organizing, to out-organize and out-maneuver the social organizations of capital (corporations), for labor solidarity *worldwide*, versus capital.



wat0n wrote:
I don't think it's simply an empty formalism. It's a relevant issue since making that call would imply the need to change political institutions once the new system takes root.



Again your perspective on political matters -- like this one -- is too influenced by *idealism*, because you think a formal-directive-type communique would have to be made, to authoritatively *signal* some kind of formal change. You're not realizing that *existing conditions* *themselves* would be the change, and it would be *apparent* to everyone, and could also be communicated formally through *journalism*.

So, to recap, once the bourgeoisie is successfully repressed, then it's *out of the way*, and humanity as a whole could then produce *for itself*, without regard to the former bourgeoisie, and without regard to the former revolutionary vanguard.


---


ckaihatsu wrote:
Correct, and as I mentioned earlier, I don't think that 3D printing is a *rival* yet to conventional industrial mass-production.



wat0n wrote:
Indeed. So the society you are thinking about may not be even technologically feasible right now.



No, that's *far* from the case -- you're describing the early *20th* century for some backward countries at the time, rather than the early *21st* century, in which *most* of the world is industrialized, and capitalist trade networks span the globe for the most part.

These are material conditions that are *ripe* for overthrow, because such material practices, and new ones, could be better wielded by the world's working class, than by conventional nationalist-fractious *bourgeois ruling class* balkanized interests. Industrial mass production is what all of the fuss is about, politically, since the time of industrialization.


---


ckaihatsu wrote:
But politicking, especially post-capitalism, doesn't depend on *market exchanges*. It's a *politicization* of economics, which is a *positive* step because it's *intentional*, social, and available to everyone, potentially.

(Think: 'communist gift economy' here -- I want a shitload of rusting jet fighters from the era of capitalism, plus sufficient present-day labor to *refurbish* them, *maintain* them, and *fuel* them, for my particular style of aerial photography and videography. Post-market-mechanism I'd have to convince *lots* of people to both socially *allow* this, as an acceptable social practice, and to *participate*, with their liberated labor, for this end-goal of mine. There's no money anywhere, literally. I'd be doing *politicking*, basically, which may or may not be successful, and which may or may not allow me to realize my personal end-goal.

Maybe I'd have to sign-off on a lot of personal 'IOUs' to people, with guarantees of my future cooperation on *their* shit, far into the future, for the receipt of their favors and cooperation *today*, for *my* shit.



wat0n wrote:
Transaction costs need not depend on market prices. That is, there are significant material costs in engaging in constant long negotiations to get stuff done.



Of course -- I just *outlined* such, above. The important aspect is to get off of the *market mechanism*.


---


ckaihatsu wrote:
It wouldn't matter -- the social norm might be for *all* major manufacturers to include random-ID RFID chips in all of their shipments, similar to printed-receipt order-ID numbers today. The consumer, if inclined, could follow up with communications (email, web forms, whatever) to the manufacturer, with the RFID ID to confirm that they're the actual consumer.



wat0n wrote:
My point is, wouldn't you need to search for and catch those manufacturers who don't use RFID chips and who do their best to hide their factories? That sounds like a Government task if you ask me.



ckaihatsu wrote:
No, it sounds like a *journalism* task, if you ask me.



wat0n wrote:
It can be, too. But Governments should be better suited to this kind of thing.



But, post-capitalism, there would *be no* governments, because the repressing-the-bourgeoisie *workers state* would be superseded by humanity's liberation to produce for its own best interests.

A conventional standing government bureaucracy would *not* be in post-class humanity's best interests, because of its very composition -- by having specialized *administrators* / bureaucrats, the workers would be causing a *schism* in its ranks, since all other workers would have to produce products and services / former-commodities, for those bureaucratic white-collar workers, since those bureaucrats aren't producing goods and services for consumption *themselves* -- they're *administrating*, and that's problematic in and of itself.


---


ckaihatsu wrote:
I don't have any confidence in the *impartiality* of the formal 'mediation' process, as you do, because I think it would address issues like government killer cops even *less* than the bourgeois *legal* system currently does, which is not-at-all.



wat0n wrote:
Well, I'm referring to labor mediation. The issue of policing falls far outside its scope.



Yeah, that's the problem.

Regarding *labor*, workers have far more power and determining ability by collectively organizing at the rank-and-file level and *withholding* their labor, in *strikes*.

I'm not even-handed when it comes to workers interests -- I'm *partisan*, on the side of the world's working class.
#15131385
ckaihatsu wrote:You mean *right*-populists. Isn't it contradictory for Trump, in the institutional position of the U.S. presidency, to be 'smashing institutions' -- ?

This sounds more like hyperbole / rhetoric, than anything else, because we can simply look at his *policies*, as president.

We can also ask why he's so consistent in expressing *support* for fascists and threatening the electoral process. These are *coup*-like indicators, and coups were attempted in Venezuela, and took place in Bolivia.


It's funny you mention Venezuela and Bolivia. Those are two examples of populists (one much worse than the other, though) who smashed institutions as a means to remain in power.

ckaihatsu wrote:Because the employee / worker is taking on even *greater* risks -- one's life and livelihood, expenses of personal / household upkeep, commuting costs, fixed expenses, etc. The business owner has funds (capital) *to spare* that the worker does *not* have.

We could ask why the ownership and workers don't manage over incoming revenue *together*, since both parties are providing material inputs to the productive process:


[11] Labor & Capital, Wages & Dividends

Spoiler: show
Image


So the independent broker would not be taking all those risks, along with the risk of actually having no base wage to rely on?

ckaihatsu wrote:You tell *me*. You're an *idealist* because you think that history, including revolutions, is determined by *ideas*, and not by actual material historical forces.

You're continuing to *gloss over* actual historical events, and now you're reverting to your past bad habit and *acknowledged* mistake of blaming the revolutionary ideology for its historical lack-of-success, due to *external* factors:


Am I? Ideas are themselves shaped, at least in part, by the material conditions of the societies they take hold on. This is something Marx himself wrote about.

The issue, however, is that material conditions of societies are not the only factors that shape their history, societies are more complex than that.

And even worse, whenever the Marxian recipe has been tried, its promises have not been delivered. This of course includes those about the material conditions of the societies at hand.

ckaihatsu wrote:So you're saying that 'Employees will generally turn to services that are hard to automate'.

This is *still* more bullshit / hyperbole, and you're just grasping-at-straws now, because employees, in the workplace, are *not* consumers. Any work-role or mechanical 'services' in the workplace wouldn't be for the workers as *individuals* / consumers, but rather for the sake of the company that's producing finished products, for sale.

Why don't you save us both some time here and just *admit* that you made a statement that you can't support with facts -- you're *spitballing*.


Or to be even more precise, companies in activities that are hard to automate are stuck with hiring humans whether they want it or not.

ckaihatsu wrote:Why not? (You're just being *contrarian* here.)


Can you leave a 7-year old child to learn on his own at home by giving him an encyclopedia?

ckaihatsu wrote:I'm not being *subjective* here -- if I've said anything that sounds *inaccurate* to you, you can contest it. You're not doing that. Please stop being argumentative.


I think it's self-explanatory: People working in supporting roles necessary for generating revenue should have some credit assigned, i.e. some imputed revenue generated by their activities.

ckaihatsu wrote:Okay, sure -- you're making my (theoretical / ideological) point *for* me, that we can trace economic dynamics back to the dynamics of the *system* itself, that of *capitalism*.

Regarding the scenario at-hand, my point stands that stuffing a hole or mattress with money does not make one a 'capitalist'.


The logic this guy would be using is similar to that of any capitalist, though: Maximizing the risk-adjusted profitability of his assets.

ckaihatsu wrote:Okay, I'm listening.


...And thus one does need to be a bit more open-minded about competing explanations for these phenomena.

ckaihatsu wrote:Yes, agreed -- I think the word you're looking for here is 'conditional', but I'd say that, considering how material-economic *productivity* has increased so much over the past few decades, government support to individuals for their personal needs should be *unconditional*, because the working class doesn't require *bureaucratic oversight* for telling them what their personal needs are.


But it shouldn't be done in such a way as to reduce the incentives to, well, work.

ckaihatsu wrote:I would say 'Trotsky' / Trotskyism here -- you should familiarize yourself with the theory of 'Permanent Revolution', which superseded Stalin's contrived, revisionist 'socialism-in-one-country':


Even that theory is rather old, don't you think?

ckaihatsu wrote:"Borrowed', historically, has been *revisionism* because in practice, revolutionaries have looked to the peasantry (Mao), or to the *bourgeoisie*, for revolutionary-nationalist material development (Lenin's 'New Economic Program').


It's not revisionism when you are not even a proper Marxist to begin with. It's not like Marxian thought is only applied by Marxists and indeed as a self-declared scientific paradigm one would expect this to be the case.

ckaihatsu wrote:Yeah, this is why I've created the diagrams that I have, to show that there are some *basic* components and dynamics for *any* society's material-productive activities:


Components of Social Production

Spoiler: show
Image


What can you conclude from it?

ckaihatsu wrote:My point stands that whatever worker-ownership there may be, such is too *diffuse* politically, and so the overall capitalism paradigm of worker-exploitation and social-minority-oppression isn't challenged at all, much less *overthrown*, with any nominal increase in worker control of capitalist private property.

The process is more of a *co-optation*, than a revolutionary *politicization* of the total means of mass industrial production.


I think it's a counterexample in the sense of being an example of worker-capitalists being a thing.

ckaihatsu wrote:Again your perspective on political matters -- like this one -- is too influenced by *idealism*, because you think a formal-directive-type communique would have to be made, to authoritatively *signal* some kind of formal change. You're not realizing that *existing conditions* *themselves* would be the change, and it would be *apparent* to everyone, and could also be communicated formally through *journalism*.

So, to recap, once the bourgeoisie is successfully repressed, then it's *out of the way*, and humanity as a whole could then produce *for itself*, without regard to the former bourgeoisie, and without regard to the former revolutionary vanguard.


Of course this goes beyond a simple communique. It actually means shifting power away from the State and a process of decentralization.

You say that existing conditions would need to change. How exactly would they need to look like and does that ever happen?

ckaihatsu wrote:No, that's *far* from the case -- you're describing the early *20th* century for some backward countries at the time, rather than the early *21st* century, in which *most* of the world is industrialized, and capitalist trade networks span the globe for the most part.

These are material conditions that are *ripe* for overthrow, because such material practices, and new ones, could be better wielded by the world's working class, than by conventional nationalist-fractious *bourgeois ruling class* balkanized interests. Industrial mass production is what all of the fuss is about, politically, since the time of industrialization.


You just acknowledged an example of a technological improvement that could be used by your proposed system that does not currently exist.

ckaihatsu wrote:Of course -- I just *outlined* such, above. The important aspect is to get off of the *market mechanism*.


It's far from clear the price mechanism would have higher transaction costs than your proposed one.

ckaihatsu wrote:But, post-capitalism, there would *be no* governments, because the repressing-the-bourgeoisie *workers state* would be superseded by humanity's liberation to produce for its own best interests.

A conventional standing government bureaucracy would *not* be in post-class humanity's best interests, because of its very composition -- by having specialized *administrators* / bureaucrats, the workers would be causing a *schism* in its ranks, since all other workers would have to produce products and services / former-commodities, for those bureaucratic white-collar workers, since those bureaucrats aren't producing goods and services for consumption *themselves* -- they're *administrating*, and that's problematic in and of itself.


Then how would this new post-capitalist society deal with these sort of issues in an efficient manner? Here's an example of a material justification for the existence of a standing Government.

ckaihatsu wrote:Yeah, that's the problem.

Regarding *labor*, workers have far more power and determining ability by collectively organizing at the rank-and-file level and *withholding* their labor, in *strikes*.

I'm not even-handed when it comes to workers interests -- I'm *partisan*, on the side of the world's working class.


Which is why you would not be a good mediator :)
#15131477
ckaihatsu wrote:
You mean *right*-populists. Isn't it contradictory for Trump, in the institutional position of the U.S. presidency, to be 'smashing institutions' -- ?

This sounds more like hyperbole / rhetoric, than anything else, because we can simply look at his *policies*, as president.

We can also ask why he's so consistent in expressing *support* for fascists and threatening the electoral process. These are *coup*-like indicators, and coups were attempted in Venezuela, and took place in Bolivia.



wat0n wrote:
It's funny you mention Venezuela and Bolivia. Those are two examples of populists (one much worse than the other, though) who smashed institutions as a means to remain in power.



I think you're missing the forest for the trees:



After Chávez's death was announced on 5 March 2013, Maduro assumed the presidency. A special presidential election was held in 2013, which Maduro won with 50.62% of the vote as the United Socialist Party of Venezuela candidate. He has ruled Venezuela by decree since 2015 through powers granted to him by the ruling party legislature.[2][3]



President Maduro was sworn in on 10 January 2019, and the president of the National Assembly, Guaidó, declared himself interim president on 23 January 2019.[38][39] Maduro's government states that the crisis is a "coup d'état led by the United States to topple him and control the country's oil reserves."[40][41][42]



https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nicol%C3%A1s_Maduro




Once elected in 2005, Morales increased taxation on the hydrocarbon industry to bolster social spending and emphasized projects to combat illiteracy, poverty, racism, and sexism. Vocally criticizing neoliberalism, Morales government moved Bolivia towards a mixed economy, reduced its dependence on the World Bank and International Monetary Fund and oversaw strong economic growth. Scaling back U.S. influence in the country, he built relationships with leftist governments in the Latin American pink tide—especially Hugo Chávez's Venezuela and Fidel Castro's Cuba—and signed Bolivia into the Bolivarian Alliance for the Americas. His administration opposed the right-wing autonomist demands of Bolivia's eastern provinces, won a 2008 recall referendum, and instituted a new constitution that established Bolivia as a plurinational state. Re-elected in 2009 and 2014, he oversaw Bolivia's admission to the Bank of the South and Community of Latin American and Caribbean States although his popularity was dented by attempts to abolish presidential term limits. Following the disputed 2019 general election and the ensuing unrest, Morales agreed to calls for his resignation, after which he was granted political asylum, first in Mexico, then in Argentina.



https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Evo_Morales



---


ckaihatsu wrote:
Because the employee / worker is taking on even *greater* risks -- one's life and livelihood, expenses of personal / household upkeep, commuting costs, fixed expenses, etc. The business owner has funds (capital) *to spare* that the worker does *not* have.

We could ask why the ownership and workers don't manage over incoming revenue *together*, since both parties are providing material inputs to the productive process:


[11] Labor & Capital, Wages & Dividends

Spoiler: show
Image



wat0n wrote:
So the independent broker would not be taking all those risks, along with the risk of actually having no base wage to rely on?



There's nothing to say that being an independent broker / 'independent contractor' is the best way to go -- under capitalism there are no guarantees to a humane standard of living, so going into business for oneself is not necessarily one's best option for life and living.

This is why employment is *crucial* for most people, and then, once employed, one's interests are empirically / objectively with that of the world's working class, as a part, and with the whole.


---


ckaihatsu wrote:
You tell *me*. You're an *idealist* because you think that history, including revolutions, is determined by *ideas*, and not by actual material historical forces.

You're continuing to *gloss over* actual historical events, and now you're reverting to your past bad habit and *acknowledged* mistake of blaming the revolutionary ideology for its historical lack-of-success, due to *external* factors:



wat0n wrote:
Am I? Ideas are themselves shaped, at least in part, by the material conditions of the societies they take hold on. This is something Marx himself wrote about.



Yes, agreed -- this is base-and-superstructure.


wat0n wrote:
The issue, however, is that material conditions of societies are not the only factors that shape their history, societies are more complex than that.



Perhaps you should stop being *vague*, then, and actually say what you mean -- what are these other, 'complex factors' that you're alluding to?

I'd say that base-and-superstructure sums it up, but you also have my *diagrams* to refer to, as well, so there's also that, fortunately.


= D


‭History, Macro-Micro -- politics-logistics-lifestyle

Spoiler: show
Image



---


wat0n wrote:
And even worse, whenever the Marxian recipe has been tried, its promises have not been delivered. This of course includes those about the material conditions of the societies at hand.



You're back to your bad habit of blaming-the-victim, in this case the Bolshevik Revolution (etc.).


---


ckaihatsu wrote:
I think plenty of people use the Internet these days for matters of *information* and *education* -- disproving your claim that people generally seek *hand-crafted*, customized solutions (which also happen to be *expensive* compared to mass-produced goods and services).



ckaihatsu wrote:
So you're saying that 'Employees will generally turn to services that are hard to automate'.

This is *still* more bullshit / hyperbole, and you're just grasping-at-straws now, because employees, in the workplace, are *not* consumers. Any work-role or mechanical 'services' in the workplace wouldn't be for the workers as *individuals* / consumers, but rather for the sake of the company that's producing finished products, for sale.

Why don't you save us both some time here and just *admit* that you made a statement that you can't support with facts -- you're *spitballing*.



wat0n wrote:
Or to be even more precise, companies in activities that are hard to automate are stuck with hiring humans whether they want it or not.



Okay, well, this isn't controversial, and it's not saying much.

Just for the sake of possibly resuscitating this segment, would you like to comment on whether full-automation will be realizable under capitalist economics, or not?


---


ckaihatsu wrote:
Why not? (You're just being *contrarian* here.)



wat0n wrote:
Can you leave a 7-year old child to learn on his own at home by giving him an encyclopedia?



https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Autodidacticism

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Self-regulated_learning


---


ckaihatsu wrote:
I'm not being *subjective* here -- if I've said anything that sounds *inaccurate* to you, you can contest it. You're not doing that. Please stop being argumentative.



wat0n wrote:
I think it's self-explanatory: People working in supporting roles necessary for generating revenue should have some credit assigned, i.e. some imputed revenue generated by their activities.



You don't have to tell *me* -- I'm *for* the working class, and janitors are certainly workers. We were previously discussing the *capital* aspect of non-productive vs. productive work roles for any given company.


---


ckaihatsu wrote:
Okay, sure -- you're making my (theoretical / ideological) point *for* me, that we can trace economic dynamics back to the dynamics of the *system* itself, that of *capitalism*.

Regarding the scenario at-hand, my point stands that stuffing a hole or mattress with money does not make one a 'capitalist'.



wat0n wrote:
The logic this guy would be using is similar to that of any capitalist, though: Maximizing the risk-adjusted profitability of his assets.



You're *assuming* that -- maybe the person just has more money than he or she would like to spend, and so something has to be done with this personal surplus. My point stands.


---


wat0n wrote:
My point is, heterogeneity matters. Particularly to analyze problems being driven by the tails of the distribution (in this example, psychopaths). It's important because it helps to delimit the sort of phenomena that are amenable to an economic explanation (be it Marxian or not).



ckaihatsu wrote:
Okay, I'm listening.



wat0n wrote:
...And thus one does need to be a bit more open-minded about competing explanations for these phenomena.



Oh, you're treating Marxism as though it only applies to *economics*, but the *political* aspect is that of *oppression* of the working class, due to divide-and-conquer strategies (racism, sexism, etc.) from the ruling class that victimize social minorities -- redlining, for example.

I'll maintain that my 'History, Macro-Micro' framework is a *good* one, a good *starting point* for any analysis about anything. Just fill-in-the-blanks as you can.


History, Macro-Micro -- politics-logistics-lifestyle

Spoiler: show
Image



---


ckaihatsu wrote:
Yes, agreed -- I think the word you're looking for here is 'conditional', but I'd say that, considering how material-economic *productivity* has increased so much over the past few decades, government support to individuals for their personal needs should be *unconditional*, because the working class doesn't require *bureaucratic oversight* for telling them what their personal needs are.



wat0n wrote:
But it shouldn't be done in such a way as to reduce the incentives to, well, work.



This is a relatively *barbaric* politics, though, relative to what society is *materially capable* of providing to / for everyone. The implication of your position is that you'd rather let food *rot* and housing go *vacant* instead of providing food and housing to those who *need* it. I'll add that this position ultimately serves to prop up capitalist *exchange values*, through capitalist *artificial scarcity*, because if society allowed capitalism's inevitable *overproduction* to exist, as in pre-2020-Trump-bailouts, then prices would *crash* / go-to-zero, and nothing produced would have any price, meaning that all social productivity would become *free*, and first-come-first-served.

I'll note that this is *no longer* any semblance of a 'free market', because the *government* had to intervene and use *public funds* just to artificially bolster the capitalist pricing regime.

If work isn't *objectively* necessary for meeting unmet human needs, then it doesn't have to be done, like the work role of a telegraph operator. Work roles shouldn't be *busywork*, to coerce people into working, for wages, so as to afford the necessities of life and living -- it should be to provide for *organic needs*, whether people can 'pay' for them or not.

This farce of an economy is only *furthered* with the development of industrial *mass-production* techniques (industrialization), and now the computer / AI *automation* of routine *controls* over industrial mass-production, to where human labor is no longer even *necessary* for production, for people's needs. Why should *anyone* work *at all* when what they need for their life and living rolls off of a conveyor belt every second of every day, without requiring labor from *anyone else* -- or *hardly* anyone else, for *millions* of people -- ?


---


ckaihatsu wrote:
I would say 'Trotsky' / Trotskyism here -- you should familiarize yourself with the theory of 'Permanent Revolution', which superseded Stalin's contrived, revisionist 'socialism-in-one-country':



wat0n wrote:
Even that theory is rather old, don't you think?



You might more-appropriately pose this question to *Stalinists*, since they've historically been *stagists*, arguing for bourgeois development as a *prerequisite* for proletarian revolution, which is what Trotsky's 'Permanent Revolution' supersedes.

With the fairly recent capacity for *full automation* of mass industrial production, I'd say that the *material situation* has now *surpassed* the political situation, and we're no longer in the 20th century anymore -- bourgeois politics is *barely* conceivably relevant anymore to the world's working class, since there's now a *super*-capacity for producing for *all* human need, with a minimum of human work inputs.


---


ckaihatsu wrote:
"Borrowed', historically, has been *revisionism* because in practice, revolutionaries have looked to the peasantry (Mao), or to the *bourgeoisie*, for revolutionary-nationalist material development (Lenin's 'New Economic Program').



wat0n wrote:
It's not revisionism when you are not even a proper Marxist to begin with. It's not like Marxian thought is only applied by Marxists and indeed as a self-declared scientific paradigm one would expect this to be the case.



But others, most notably Stalin and Mao, have *used* Marxism as *political marketing* for their own, *revised* approaches to post-colonialist nationalist development. Since their efforts *weren't* for empowering the *working class*, their politics *weren't* Marxist, but, rather, something else -- Stalinism and Maoism, respectively.


Political Spectrum, Simplified

Spoiler: show
Image



---


wat0n wrote:
My claim is more about social engineering in general. There are way too many factors involved there, to the point that even one of the easiest forms of it (economic policy) is rather complex and prone to have problems. Cultural change is even harder to predict or explain, IMO.



ckaihatsu wrote:
Yeah, this is why I've created the diagrams that I have, to show that there are some *basic* components and dynamics for *any* society's material-productive activities:


Components of Social Production

Spoiler: show
Image



wat0n wrote:
What can you conclude from it?



That, despite how complex social engineering and economic policy may be, or *seem* to be, one can *cut* right through these subjects, along with *all* of political economy, by understanding the conceptual frameworks of my diagrams, like the one just cited.


---


ckaihatsu wrote:
My point stands that whatever worker-ownership there may be, such is too *diffuse* politically, and so the overall capitalism paradigm of worker-exploitation and social-minority-oppression isn't challenged at all, much less *overthrown*, with any nominal increase in worker control of capitalist private property.

The process is more of a *co-optation*, than a revolutionary *politicization* of the total means of mass industrial production.



wat0n wrote:
I think it's a counterexample in the sense of being an example of worker-capitalists being a thing.



Again, you're not saying much -- if there's a slight uptick in the proportion of productive capital that's controlled by worker-owners, that has practically *zero* impact on the bourgeois capitalist political economy as a whole. Capitalism and imperialism will just continue to plod forward, unchallenged.


---


ckaihatsu wrote:
Again your perspective on political matters -- like this one -- is too influenced by *idealism*, because you think a formal-directive-type communique would have to be made, to authoritatively *signal* some kind of formal change. You're not realizing that *existing conditions* *themselves* would be the change, and it would be *apparent* to everyone, and could also be communicated formally through *journalism*.

So, to recap, once the bourgeoisie is successfully repressed, then it's *out of the way*, and humanity as a whole could then produce *for itself*, without regard to the former bourgeoisie, and without regard to the former revolutionary vanguard.



wat0n wrote:
Of course this goes beyond a simple communique. It actually means shifting power away from the State and a process of decentralization.

You say that existing conditions would need to change. How exactly would they need to look like and does that ever happen?



We're solidly on the ground of discussing *proletarian revolution* at this point, then -- what would it take to *disempower* the bourgeois ruling class and its hegemony over social production?

What would be the *goal* of proletarian revolution and what would *emerge* once it's complete, etc. -- ?

I *don't agree*, however, that structural *decentralization* is *desirable*, especially for the combatting of bourgeois forces by the socialist-transitional 'workers state'. The workers state would have to be *formidable* against the globally centralized forces of the bourgeois ruling class.


---


ckaihatsu wrote:
No, that's *far* from the case -- you're describing the early *20th* century for some backward countries at the time, rather than the early *21st* century, in which *most* of the world is industrialized, and capitalist trade networks span the globe for the most part.

These are material conditions that are *ripe* for overthrow, because such material practices, and new ones, could be better wielded by the world's working class, than by conventional nationalist-fractious *bourgeois ruling class* balkanized interests. Industrial mass production is what all of the fuss is about, politically, since the time of industrialization.



wat0n wrote:
You just acknowledged an example of a technological improvement that could be used by your proposed system that does not currently exist.



And that would be what?


---


ckaihatsu wrote:
Of course -- I just *outlined* such, above. The important aspect is to get off of the *market mechanism*.



wat0n wrote:
It's far from clear the price mechanism would have higher transaction costs than your proposed one.



Well, this is the paragon of the problem with capitalism -- it's only concerned with its own *internal* economic dynamics, like that of 'transaction costs', and considers everything else to be external *externalities*, like that of labor, the environment, civilizational norms, social fabric, improved infrastructure for the common good, etc.

It's all of these *other* ('external') factors that critically need to be addressed, but which capitalist dynamics are *unable* to address, because of its preoccupation with its own internal universe of *exchange values*. This is why humanity / society needs to *overthrow* capitalism so that we can use industrial mass production for the satisfaction of *human needs*, and not for capitalist *profits*.


---


ckaihatsu wrote:
But, post-capitalism, there would *be no* governments, because the repressing-the-bourgeoisie *workers state* would be superseded by humanity's liberation to produce for its own best interests.

A conventional standing government bureaucracy would *not* be in post-class humanity's best interests, because of its very composition -- by having specialized *administrators* / bureaucrats, the workers would be causing a *schism* in its ranks, since all other workers would have to produce products and services / former-commodities, for those bureaucratic white-collar workers, since those bureaucrats aren't producing goods and services for consumption *themselves* -- they're *administrating*, and that's problematic in and of itself.



wat0n wrote:
Then how would this new post-capitalist society deal with these sort of issues in an efficient manner? Here's an example of a material justification for the existence of a standing Government.



Again, you're stuck in the exchange-values-economics mindset -- maintenance of capitalism's (exchange-value) abstract valuations would no longer be *anyone's* responsibility, so there would be no concern or objective necessity to guarantee 'efficient' exchange values, meaning their *upkeep*, essentially, or financial *hegemony*.

My 'Emergent Central Planning' layout speaks to this issue of post-capitalist *scales of efficiency*, though, meaning increasing scopes of *centralization* of large-scale production, per-item, from any given bottom-up emergent process of mass-conscious, intentional 'pooling' of expanding geographic areas, for combined production. (The capitalist analogue would be *corporatization* / mergers-and-acquisitions, and/or *nationalization*.)


Emergent Central Planning

Spoiler: show
Image



---


ckaihatsu wrote:
Yeah, that's the problem.

Regarding *labor*, workers have far more power and determining ability by collectively organizing at the rank-and-file level and *withholding* their labor, in *strikes*.

I'm not even-handed when it comes to workers interests -- I'm *partisan*, on the side of the world's working class.



wat0n wrote:
Which is why you would not be a good mediator :)



I'm going to immediately delete that from the top of my resume -- !
#15131531
ckaihatsu wrote:I think you're missing the forest for the trees:


No, I'm not. Both went on to pass their Constitutions, pack the courts and other key institutions, etc to do their best to perpetuate themselves in power. The Venezuelans were particularly good at that, I'll give them that.

ckaihatsu wrote:There's nothing to say that being an independent broker / 'independent contractor' is the best way to go -- under capitalism there are no guarantees to a humane standard of living, so going into business for oneself is not necessarily one's best option for life and living.

This is why employment is *crucial* for most people, and then, once employed, one's interests are empirically / objectively with that of the world's working class, as a part, and with the whole.


Of course there are no guarantees, it depends a lot on your tolerance for risk.

ckaihatsu wrote:Perhaps you should stop being *vague*, then, and actually say what you mean -- what are these other, 'complex factors' that you're alluding to?

I'd say that base-and-superstructure sums it up, but you also have my *diagrams* to refer to, as well, so there's also that, fortunately.


= D


‭History, Macro-Micro -- politics-logistics-lifestyle

Spoiler: show
Image


A few non-material factors? I can think about culture/tradition/past history and identity (very related to the previous one but distinct too) for starters.

ckaihatsu wrote:You're back to your bad habit of blaming-the-victim, in this case the Bolshevik Revolution (etc.).


I'm simply stating a fact.

ckaihatsu wrote:Okay, well, this isn't controversial, and it's not saying much.

Just for the sake of possibly resuscitating this segment, would you like to comment on whether full-automation will be realizable under capitalist economics, or not?


You are asking the wrong question I think. Is it technologically feasible to do so? That is the right question.

Currently, it isn't. But who knows what will scientific development bring in the future?

ckaihatsu wrote:https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Autodidacticism

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Self-regulated_learning


Is this applicable at a large scale and would it deal with a child's socialization (another skill they ought to learn)?

ckaihatsu wrote:You don't have to tell *me* -- I'm *for* the working class, and janitors are certainly workers. We were previously discussing the *capital* aspect of non-productive vs. productive work roles for any given company.


That's fine, I'm pushing back against that distinction. Non-productive roles are being paid for a reason after all.

ckaihatsu wrote:You're *assuming* that -- maybe the person just has more money than he or she would like to spend, and so something has to be done with this personal surplus. My point stands.


Really? Why would you bury your money in the current economy rather than simply invest it in some financial asset?

ckaihatsu wrote:Oh, you're treating Marxism as though it only applies to *economics*, but the *political* aspect is that of *oppression* of the working class, due to divide-and-conquer strategies (racism, sexism, etc.) from the ruling class that victimize social minorities -- redlining, for example.

I'll maintain that my 'History, Macro-Micro' framework is a *good* one, a good *starting point* for any analysis about anything. Just fill-in-the-blanks as you can.


History, Macro-Micro -- politics-logistics-lifestyle

Spoiler: show
Image


I'm actually drawing a distinction Marxists themselves make between Marxism as an ideology and a Marxian analysis as a scientific paradigm.

ckaihatsu wrote:This is a relatively *barbaric* politics, though, relative to what society is *materially capable* of providing to / for everyone. The implication of your position is that you'd rather let food *rot* and housing go *vacant* instead of providing food and housing to those who *need* it. I'll add that this position ultimately serves to prop up capitalist *exchange values*, through capitalist *artificial scarcity*, because if society allowed capitalism's inevitable *overproduction* to exist, as in pre-2020-Trump-bailouts, then prices would *crash* / go-to-zero, and nothing produced would have any price, meaning that all social productivity would become *free*, and first-come-first-served.

I'll note that this is *no longer* any semblance of a 'free market', because the *government* had to intervene and use *public funds* just to artificially bolster the capitalist pricing regime.

If work isn't *objectively* necessary for meeting unmet human needs, then it doesn't have to be done, like the work role of a telegraph operator. Work roles shouldn't be *busywork*, to coerce people into working, for wages, so as to afford the necessities of life and living -- it should be to provide for *organic needs*, whether people can 'pay' for them or not.

This farce of an economy is only *furthered* with the development of industrial *mass-production* techniques (industrialization), and now the computer / AI *automation* of routine *controls* over industrial mass-production, to where human labor is no longer even *necessary* for production, for people's needs. Why should *anyone* work *at all* when what they need for their life and living rolls off of a conveyor belt every second of every day, without requiring labor from *anyone else* -- or *hardly* anyone else, for *millions* of people -- ?


I would not say we are at a point in our technical development in which we can simply stop working and let machines do everything for us, though. As such, incentives to actually go and work do matter.

ckaihatsu wrote:You might more-appropriately pose this question to *Stalinists*, since they've historically been *stagists*, arguing for bourgeois development as a *prerequisite* for proletarian revolution, which is what Trotsky's 'Permanent Revolution' supersedes.

With the fairly recent capacity for *full automation* of mass industrial production, I'd say that the *material situation* has now *surpassed* the political situation, and we're no longer in the 20th century anymore -- bourgeois politics is *barely* conceivably relevant anymore to the world's working class, since there's now a *super*-capacity for producing for *all* human need, with a minimum of human work inputs.


Again, I'm not quite sure we are at that stage yet.

ckaihatsu wrote:But others, most notably Stalin and Mao, have *used* Marxism as *political marketing* for their own, *revised* approaches to post-colonialist nationalist development. Since their efforts *weren't* for empowering the *working class*, their politics *weren't* Marxist, but, rather, something else -- Stalinism and Maoism, respectively.


Political Spectrum, Simplified

Spoiler: show
Image


Right, although even their politics is relatively marginal nowadays. I'm thinking more about left-wing identity politics actually - they are the Left nowadays.

ckaihatsu wrote:That, despite how complex social engineering and economic policy may be, or *seem* to be, one can *cut* right through these subjects, along with *all* of political economy, by understanding the conceptual frameworks of my diagrams, like the one just cited.


So you essentially believe you have a complete theory of human behavior?

ckaihatsu wrote:Again, you're not saying much -- if there's a slight uptick in the proportion of productive capital that's controlled by worker-owners, that has practically *zero* impact on the bourgeois capitalist political economy as a whole. Capitalism and imperialism will just continue to plod forward, unchallenged.


Well, it depends. Why are cooperatives such a small percentage of overall businesses?

ckaihatsu wrote:We're solidly on the ground of discussing *proletarian revolution* at this point, then -- what would it take to *disempower* the bourgeois ruling class and its hegemony over social production?

What would be the *goal* of proletarian revolution and what would *emerge* once it's complete, etc. -- ?

I *don't agree*, however, that structural *decentralization* is *desirable*, especially for the combatting of bourgeois forces by the socialist-transitional 'workers state'. The workers state would have to be *formidable* against the globally centralized forces of the bourgeois ruling class.


What observable evidence would tell you the bourgeoise has finally been destroyed thereby allowing for a decentralization?

ckaihatsu wrote:And that would be what?


3D printers.

ckaihatsu wrote:Well, this is the paragon of the problem with capitalism -- it's only concerned with its own *internal* economic dynamics, like that of 'transaction costs', and considers everything else to be external *externalities*, like that of labor, the environment, civilizational norms, social fabric, improved infrastructure for the common good, etc.

It's all of these *other* ('external') factors that critically need to be addressed, but which capitalist dynamics are *unable* to address, because of its preoccupation with its own internal universe of *exchange values*. This is why humanity / society needs to *overthrow* capitalism so that we can use industrial mass production for the satisfaction of *human needs*, and not for capitalist *profits*.


Indeed, externalities are a weakness of the market mechanism. But I think it's not wise to underestimate the importance of transaction and other costs that are dealt by the price system relatively cheaply.

ckaihatsu wrote:Again, you're stuck in the exchange-values-economics mindset -- maintenance of capitalism's (exchange-value) abstract valuations would no longer be *anyone's* responsibility, so there would be no concern or objective necessity to guarantee 'efficient' exchange values, meaning their *upkeep*, essentially, or financial *hegemony*.

My 'Emergent Central Planning' layout speaks to this issue of post-capitalist *scales of efficiency*, though, meaning increasing scopes of *centralization* of large-scale production, per-item, from any given bottom-up emergent process of mass-conscious, intentional 'pooling' of expanding geographic areas, for combined production. (The capitalist analogue would be *corporatization* / mergers-and-acquisitions, and/or *nationalization*.)


Emergent Central Planning

Spoiler: show
Image


Dealing with counterfeiters isn't related to market exchanges all that much. Indeed, if anything I'm conceding markets don't work well in that case - in this case, the cost of spreading information about the counterfeiting going on is rather large (it can include human lives after all).

ckaihatsu wrote:I'm going to immediately delete that from the top of my resume -- !


:D
#15131547
ckaihatsu wrote:
I think you're missing the forest for the trees:



wat0n wrote:
No, I'm not. Both went on to pass their Constitutions, pack the courts and other key institutions, etc to do their best to perpetuate themselves in power. The Venezuelans were particularly good at that, I'll give them that.



No, you're definitely passing-over the bigger-picture -- the U.S. backed a *coup* in Venezuela, and Morales was *ousted* in a coup in Bolivia.

Are these *trivial* events from within your politics?


---


ckaihatsu wrote:
There's nothing to say that being an independent broker / 'independent contractor' is the best way to go -- under capitalism there are no guarantees to a humane standard of living, so going into business for oneself is not necessarily one's best option for life and living.

This is why employment is *crucial* for most people, and then, once employed, one's interests are empirically / objectively with that of the world's working class, as a part, and with the whole.



wat0n wrote:
Of course there are no guarantees, it depends a lot on your tolerance for risk.



I don't think you're appreciating the *existential risk* that workers have to take on, as an integral part of their living. If not enough jobs are available, as things are now due to hazardous workplaces, then that's a novel unforeseen risk to people's lives and livelihoods because workers are at the bottom-of-the-heap compared to the wealthy.


---


wat0n wrote:
The issue, however, is that material conditions of societies are not the only factors that shape their history, societies are more complex than that.



ckaihatsu wrote:
Perhaps you should stop being *vague*, then, and actually say what you mean -- what are these other, 'complex factors' that you're alluding to?

I'd say that base-and-superstructure sums it up, but you also have my *diagrams* to refer to, as well, so there's also that, fortunately.


= D


‭History, Macro-Micro -- politics-logistics-lifestyle

Spoiler: show
Image



wat0n wrote:
A few non-material factors? I can think about culture/tradition/past history and identity (very related to the previous one but distinct too) for starters.



Culture, tradition, past history, and one's social identity are all considered to be 'material' factors because they're all socially real -- whereas alleged ghosts in the attic would be a 'non-material' factor.

Note that my framework, above, takes these factors you listed into account.


---


ckaihatsu wrote:
You're back to your bad habit of blaming-the-victim, in this case the Bolshevik Revolution (etc.).



wat0n wrote:
I'm simply stating a fact.



No, you're a shitty historian because you leave out relevant factors ('externalities') that are pertinent to what you're looking at, whether revolutions or presidencies.


---


ckaihatsu wrote:
Okay, well, this isn't controversial, and it's not saying much.

Just for the sake of possibly resuscitating this segment, would you like to comment on whether full-automation will be realizable under capitalist economics, or not?



wat0n wrote:
You are asking the wrong question I think. Is it technologically feasible to do so? That is the right question.

Currently, it isn't. But who knows what will scientific development bring in the future?



Let me rephrase -- I meant more along the lines of would full automation be *financially* feasible, and desirable, compared to the status quo. (Auto assembly lines are increasingly using robots, for example.)


---


ckaihatsu wrote:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Autodidacticism

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Self-regulated_learning



wat0n wrote:
Is this applicable at a large scale and would it deal with a child's socialization (another skill they ought to learn)?



I can *speculate*, if you like, but offhand I don't think any large-scale implementation like this has been done. I can *conceive* of some routinized, AI / GPT-3 personal 'guide' for each individual, regardless of age, to oversee the day-by-day student activity and reporting in whatever it is they're doing, including with others, into some text / images / audio / video computer server, though I'd prefer to see some mandatory core-curriculum frameworks to track to, by comparison, since 100% self-motivated investigations may not cover all of the critical subject areas that society would have an interest in mandating.


---


ckaihatsu wrote:
You don't have to tell *me* -- I'm *for* the working class, and janitors are certainly workers. We were previously discussing the *capital* aspect of non-productive vs. productive work roles for any given company.



wat0n wrote:
That's fine, I'm pushing back against that distinction. Non-productive roles are being paid for a reason after all.



*Of course* non-productive roles should be paid, and they are -- it's *work* and I never said anything to contradict this valid premise.


---


ckaihatsu wrote:
You're *assuming* that -- maybe the person just has more money than he or she would like to spend, and so something has to be done with this personal surplus. My point stands.



wat0n wrote:
Really? Why would you bury your money in the current economy rather than simply invest it in some financial asset?



I'm not giving financial advice. I'd say we've reached the end of this segment of discussion, unless you want to diverge to something else or add a new topic.


---


ckaihatsu wrote:
Oh, you're treating Marxism as though it only applies to *economics*, but the *political* aspect is that of *oppression* of the working class, due to divide-and-conquer strategies (racism, sexism, etc.) from the ruling class that victimize social minorities -- redlining, for example.

I'll maintain that my 'History, Macro-Micro' framework is a *good* one, a good *starting point* for any analysis about anything. Just fill-in-the-blanks as you can.


‭History, Macro-Micro -- politics-logistics-lifestyle

Spoiler: show
Image



wat0n wrote:
I'm actually drawing a distinction Marxists themselves make between Marxism as an ideology and a Marxian analysis as a scientific paradigm.



I think Marxism-as-an-ideology exists as far as the *method* and *end goal* go -- there's a lot of *splintering* regarding how to 'do' Marxism, even if there's a relatively broad platform that exists in terms of what's *wrong* with capitalism -- Marxist-analysis-and-scientific-paradigm.


Anatomy of a Platform

Spoiler: show
Image



Ideologies & Operations -- Fundamentals

Spoiler: show
Image



---


ckaihatsu wrote:
This is a relatively *barbaric* politics, though, relative to what society is *materially capable* of providing to / for everyone. The implication of your position is that you'd rather let food *rot* and housing go *vacant* instead of providing food and housing to those who *need* it. I'll add that this position ultimately serves to prop up capitalist *exchange values*, through capitalist *artificial scarcity*, because if society allowed capitalism's inevitable *overproduction* to exist, as in pre-2020-Trump-bailouts, then prices would *crash* / go-to-zero, and nothing produced would have any price, meaning that all social productivity would become *free*, and first-come-first-served.

I'll note that this is *no longer* any semblance of a 'free market', because the *government* had to intervene and use *public funds* just to artificially bolster the capitalist pricing regime.

If work isn't *objectively* necessary for meeting unmet human needs, then it doesn't have to be done, like the work role of a telegraph operator. Work roles shouldn't be *busywork*, to coerce people into working, for wages, so as to afford the necessities of life and living -- it should be to provide for *organic needs*, whether people can 'pay' for them or not.

This farce of an economy is only *furthered* with the development of industrial *mass-production* techniques (industrialization), and now the computer / AI *automation* of routine *controls* over industrial mass-production, to where human labor is no longer even *necessary* for production, for people's needs. Why should *anyone* work *at all* when what they need for their life and living rolls off of a conveyor belt every second of every day, without requiring labor from *anyone else* -- or *hardly* anyone else, for *millions* of people -- ?



wat0n wrote:
I would not say we are at a point in our technical development in which we can simply stop working and let machines do everything for us, though. As such, incentives to actually go and work do matter.



Ever hear of the TV show 'The Jetsons' -- ?

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Jetsons


Back in the '50s and '60s the commercial mass culture was *anticipating* the imminent end of work, due to wildly productive technologies at *that* time -- this kind of optimism is long-over, of course, due to attitudes like yours, while technological *productivity* itself has steadily skyrocketed.

You're also not-addressing the real-world state of technology that I just outlined -- do you really favor Wizard-of-Oz, man-behind-the-curtain control of mass technology, instead of turning over such to *democratic* decision-making processes? Again, people don't *need* bureaucracies to tell them what items they *require* in their lives.


---


ckaihatsu wrote:
You might more-appropriately pose this question to *Stalinists*, since they've historically been *stagists*, arguing for bourgeois development as a *prerequisite* for proletarian revolution, which is what Trotsky's 'Permanent Revolution' supersedes.

With the fairly recent capacity for *full automation* of mass industrial production, I'd say that the *material situation* has now *surpassed* the political situation, and we're no longer in the 20th century anymore -- bourgeois politics is *barely* conceivably relevant anymore to the world's working class, since there's now a *super*-capacity for producing for *all* human need, with a minimum of human work inputs.



wat0n wrote:
Again, I'm not quite sure we are at that stage yet.



You sound *very* *defensive* -- you may want to elaborate your entire *line* here, otherwise it's just an empty argument, and I'm certainly not going to go by your say-so alone.


---


wat0n wrote:
It's not revisionism when you are not even a proper Marxist to begin with. It's not like Marxian thought is only applied by Marxists and indeed as a self-declared scientific paradigm one would expect this to be the case.



ckaihatsu wrote:
But others, most notably Stalin and Mao, have *used* Marxism as *political marketing* for their own, *revised* approaches to post-colonialist nationalist development. Since their efforts *weren't* for empowering the *working class*, their politics *weren't* Marxist, but, rather, something else -- Stalinism and Maoism, respectively.


Political Spectrum, Simplified

Spoiler: show
Image



wat0n wrote:
Right, although even their politics is relatively marginal nowadays. I'm thinking more about left-wing identity politics actually - they are the Left nowadays.



Okay, it's good you acknowledge that Stalinism and Maoism *aren't* Marxism.

So what point are you making about left-wing identity politics?


---


ckaihatsu wrote:
That, despite how complex social engineering and economic policy may be, or *seem* to be, one can *cut* right through these subjects, along with *all* of political economy, by understanding the conceptual frameworks of my diagrams, like the one just cited.



wat0n wrote:
So you essentially believe you have a complete theory of human behavior?



No, I'm not positing any *psychological*-type theory -- I'm here at PoFo to discuss politics and economics -- 'political economy'.


---


ckaihatsu wrote:
Again, you're not saying much -- if there's a slight uptick in the proportion of productive capital that's controlled by worker-owners, that has practically *zero* impact on the bourgeois capitalist political economy as a whole. Capitalism and imperialism will just continue to plod forward, unchallenged.



wat0n wrote:
Well, it depends. Why are cooperatives such a small percentage of overall businesses?



No, it *doesn't* 'depend' -- what I just said is valid, and capitalism and imperialism will continue unabated, exploiting the world's working class and oppressing social minorities on the basis of racism, and sexism, etc. -- just look at the continuation of government *police killings* that have happened since the BLM / Antifa protests of this past summer. That's *institutional racism*, and it's not being addressed, and workers are still being exploited for surplus labor value, and your politics, whatever they may be, are unable to even *speak* to these real-world social ills.


---


ckaihatsu wrote:
We're solidly on the ground of discussing *proletarian revolution* at this point, then -- what would it take to *disempower* the bourgeois ruling class and its hegemony over social production?

What would be the *goal* of proletarian revolution and what would *emerge* once it's complete, etc. -- ?

I *don't agree*, however, that structural *decentralization* is *desirable*, especially for the combatting of bourgeois forces by the socialist-transitional 'workers state'. The workers state would have to be *formidable* against the globally centralized forces of the bourgeois ruling class.



wat0n wrote:
What observable evidence would tell you the bourgeoise has finally been destroyed thereby allowing for a decentralization?



You don't seem to be comprehending -- I said that a decentralized structure for proletarian coordination and co-administration is *not* desirable, or advised.

The world would know that the bourgeoisie has been usurped once it no longer dictates production policy at workplaces, to workers.


---


ckaihatsu wrote:
No, that's *far* from the case -- you're describing the early *20th* century for some backward countries at the time, rather than the early *21st* century, in which *most* of the world is industrialized, and capitalist trade networks span the globe for the most part.

These are material conditions that are *ripe* for overthrow, because such material practices, and new ones, could be better wielded by the world's working class, than by conventional nationalist-fractious *bourgeois ruling class* balkanized interests. Industrial mass production is what all of the fuss is about, politically, since the time of industrialization.



wat0n wrote:
You just acknowledged an example of a technological improvement that could be used by your proposed system that does not currently exist.



ckaihatsu wrote:
And that would be what?



wat0n wrote:
3D printers.



Correct -- until then, what the world *does* use is mass *industrial* production, so it's the control of *that* that's at-stake, politically, meaning *class*.


---


ckaihatsu wrote:
Well, this is the paragon of the problem with capitalism -- it's only concerned with its own *internal* economic dynamics, like that of 'transaction costs', and considers everything else to be external *externalities*, like that of labor, the environment, civilizational norms, social fabric, improved infrastructure for the common good, etc.

It's all of these *other* ('external') factors that critically need to be addressed, but which capitalist dynamics are *unable* to address, because of its preoccupation with its own internal universe of *exchange values*. This is why humanity / society needs to *overthrow* capitalism so that we can use industrial mass production for the satisfaction of *human needs*, and not for capitalist *profits*.



wat0n wrote:
Indeed, externalities are a weakness of the market mechanism. But I think it's not wise to underestimate the importance of transaction and other costs that are dealt by the price system relatively cheaply.



Now you're simply *apologizing-for* / defending the very problem with capitalism that you just acknowledged. What good is a *weakness*? Wouldn't it be better to be *proactive* about it, so that it can be *eliminated*? As things are these externalities remain mostly unaddressed, and the globe continues to warm.


---


ckaihatsu wrote:
Again, you're stuck in the exchange-values-economics mindset -- maintenance of capitalism's (exchange-value) abstract valuations would no longer be *anyone's* responsibility, so there would be no concern or objective necessity to guarantee 'efficient' exchange values, meaning their *upkeep*, essentially, or financial *hegemony*.

My 'Emergent Central Planning' layout speaks to this issue of post-capitalist *scales of efficiency*, though, meaning increasing scopes of *centralization* of large-scale production, per-item, from any given bottom-up emergent process of mass-conscious, intentional 'pooling' of expanding geographic areas, for combined production. (The capitalist analogue would be *corporatization* / mergers-and-acquisitions, and/or *nationalization*.)


Emergent Central Planning

Spoiler: show
Image



wat0n wrote:
Dealing with counterfeiters isn't related to market exchanges all that much. Indeed, if anything I'm conceding markets don't work well in that case - in this case, the cost of spreading information about the counterfeiting going on is rather large (it can include human lives after all).



Oh, well I certainly *don't care* about that issue within the context of the markets, because the markets are doing what they do, asocially, providing goods and services to paying customers no matter how socially damaging those commodities may be. If your 'concern' is counterfeiting within the current political-economy context, then *my* concern is the War on Drugs.


---


ckaihatsu wrote:
I'm going to immediately delete that from the top of my resume -- !



wat0n wrote:
:D
#15133359
ckaihatsu wrote:No, you're definitely passing-over the bigger-picture -- the U.S. backed a *coup* in Venezuela, and Morales was *ousted* in a coup in Bolivia.

Are these *trivial* events from within your politics?


The 2002 attempt in Venezuela failed and Morales was ousted precisely because of his trampling on the Constitution he played a key role drafting. What's your point here?

ckaihatsu wrote:I don't think you're appreciating the *existential risk* that workers have to take on, as an integral part of their living. If not enough jobs are available, as things are now due to hazardous workplaces, then that's a novel unforeseen risk to people's lives and livelihoods because workers are at the bottom-of-the-heap compared to the wealthy.


That doesn't affect the business owners who can't operate due to the pandemic...?

ckaihatsu wrote:Culture, tradition, past history, and one's social identity are all considered to be 'material' factors because they're all socially real -- whereas alleged ghosts in the attic would be a 'non-material' factor.

Note that my framework, above, takes these factors you listed into account.


How so? So far your framework (and my definition of "material conditions") has been narrowly focused on economic concerns.

ckaihatsu wrote:No, you're a shitty historian because you leave out relevant factors ('externalities') that are pertinent to what you're looking at, whether revolutions or presidencies.


All regimes have to deal with both potential and real internal and external opposition. Why is it, then, that Marxists always severely deviate from their stated end goals when reaching power?

ckaihatsu wrote:Let me rephrase -- I meant more along the lines of would full automation be *financially* feasible, and desirable, compared to the status quo. (Auto assembly lines are increasingly using robots, for example.)


Sure, but that would be due to technological improvement.

ckaihatsu wrote:I can *speculate*, if you like, but offhand I don't think any large-scale implementation like this has been done. I can *conceive* of some routinized, AI / GPT-3 personal 'guide' for each individual, regardless of age, to oversee the day-by-day student activity and reporting in whatever it is they're doing, including with others, into some text / images / audio / video computer server, though I'd prefer to see some mandatory core-curriculum frameworks to track to, by comparison, since 100% self-motivated investigations may not cover all of the critical subject areas that society would have an interest in mandating.


Right, but would learning be self-directed or there would be human teachers involved?

ckaihatsu wrote:*Of course* non-productive roles should be paid, and they are -- it's *work* and I never said anything to contradict this valid premise.


Correct, but if you want to analyze their contribution to revenue then you have to impute it to their indirect supporting role somehow.

ckaihatsu wrote:I'm not giving financial advice. I'd say we've reached the end of this segment of discussion, unless you want to diverge to something else or add a new topic.


Heh, it was more of a rhetorical question. My point there, though, is that the very decision on what to do with your money (even bury it in your backyard) is a financial decision based, among other things, risk-adjusted profit maximization.

ckaihatsu wrote:I think Marxism-as-an-ideology exists as far as the *method* and *end goal* go -- there's a lot of *splintering* regarding how to 'do' Marxism, even if there's a relatively broad platform that exists in terms of what's *wrong* with capitalism -- Marxist-analysis-and-scientific-paradigm.


Anatomy of a Platform

Spoiler: show
Image



Ideologies & Operations -- Fundamentals

Spoiler: show
Image


It goes beyond ideology, though. There are also Marxian explanations of human behavior that go beyond simply political activism.

ckaihatsu wrote:Ever hear of the TV show 'The Jetsons' -- ?

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Jetsons


Back in the '50s and '60s the commercial mass culture was *anticipating* the imminent end of work, due to wildly productive technologies at *that* time -- this kind of optimism is long-over, of course, due to attitudes like yours, while technological *productivity* itself has steadily skyrocketed.

You're also not-addressing the real-world state of technology that I just outlined -- do you really favor Wizard-of-Oz, man-behind-the-curtain control of mass technology, instead of turning over such to *democratic* decision-making processes? Again, people don't *need* bureaucracies to tell them what items they *require* in their lives.


ckaihatsu wrote:You sound *very* *defensive* -- you may want to elaborate your entire *line* here, otherwise it's just an empty argument, and I'm certainly not going to go by your say-so alone.


My relative pessimism is because automation is actually harder than it sounds. For example, why do you think the tech giants are still investing a lot in developing self-driving cars? The state of that technology is such that while trucks may self-drive in highways, the technology is still many years away (a decade at least, quite likely longer) from having good self-driving in densely populated cities. This is despite the testing they have carried out in some suburban counties.

ckaihatsu wrote:Okay, it's good you acknowledge that Stalinism and Maoism *aren't* Marxism.

So what point are you making about left-wing identity politics?


It's not really Marxist, even if they loosely incorporated some Marxian concepts. Indeed, more orthodox Marxists likely reject much of it and probably regard it with contempt.

ckaihatsu wrote:No, I'm not positing any *psychological*-type theory -- I'm here at PoFo to discuss politics and economics -- 'political economy'.


"Human behavior" goes beyond psychology.

ckaihatsu wrote:No, it *doesn't* 'depend' -- what I just said is valid, and capitalism and imperialism will continue unabated, exploiting the world's working class and oppressing social minorities on the basis of racism, and sexism, etc. -- just look at the continuation of government *police killings* that have happened since the BLM / Antifa protests of this past summer. That's *institutional racism*, and it's not being addressed, and workers are still being exploited for surplus labor value, and your politics, whatever they may be, are unable to even *speak* to these real-world social ills.


What does this have to do with cooperatives?

ckaihatsu wrote:You don't seem to be comprehending -- I said that a decentralized structure for proletarian coordination and co-administration is *not* desirable, or advised.

The world would know that the bourgeoisie has been usurped once it no longer dictates production policy at workplaces, to workers.


Was the bourgeoisie ever usurped in the USSR? And if you don't want a wholly decentralized system, then how centralized should it be?

ckaihatsu wrote:Correct -- until then, what the world *does* use is mass *industrial* production, so it's the control of *that* that's at-stake, politically, meaning *class*.


Right, and that takes us back to the questions about how revolutions actually work.

ckaihatsu wrote:Now you're simply *apologizing-for* / defending the very problem with capitalism that you just acknowledged. What good is a *weakness*? Wouldn't it be better to be *proactive* about it, so that it can be *eliminated*? As things are these externalities remain mostly unaddressed, and the globe continues to warm.


I'm simply acknowledging there is no perfect system. Sure, externalities are a problem (and they are also a problem outside the market mechanism) but decreasing transaction costs is a major advantage of markets.

ckaihatsu wrote:Oh, well I certainly *don't care* about that issue within the context of the markets, because the markets are doing what they do, asocially, providing goods and services to paying customers no matter how socially damaging those commodities may be. If your 'concern' is counterfeiting within the current political-economy context, then *my* concern is the War on Drugs.


It is just an example. I can imagine it being a problem outside a market system as well.

The War on Drugs is actually an example of a policy of pushing markets aside when it comes to drugs for that matter.
#15133942
watt0n wrote:
It's funny you mention Venezuela and Bolivia. Those are two examples of populists (one much worse than the other, though) who smashed institutions as a means to remain in power.



ckaihatsu wrote:
I think you're missing the forest for the trees:



wat0n wrote:
No, I'm not. Both went on to pass their Constitutions, pack the courts and other key institutions, etc to do their best to perpetuate themselves in power. The Venezuelans were particularly good at that, I'll give them that.



ckaihatsu wrote:
No, you're definitely passing-over the bigger-picture -- the U.S. backed a *coup* in Venezuela, and Morales was *ousted* in a coup in Bolivia.

Are these *trivial* events from within your politics?



wat0n wrote:
The 2002 attempt in Venezuela failed and Morales was ousted precisely because of his trampling on the Constitution he played a key role drafting. What's your point here?



My point is that the U.S. *interfered* in both countries, which is effectively *colonialism* and *imperialism* all over again, or 'neocolonialism':



Speaking before an online summit of the 120-nation Non-Aligned Movement on Monday, Maduro charged that the mercenaries sent into Venezuela had been trained in Colombia and paid by the governments in Bogota and Washington. Their objective, he added, was to assassinate him in order to achieve US aims of regime change.



https://www.wsws.org/en/articles/2020/0 ... e-m05.html




Bolivia, South America’s most impoverished nation, teeters on the brink of a civil war in the wake of a US-backed coup that led to the resignation Sunday of President Evo Morales, Vice President Álvaro García Linera and various ministers, state governors and government officials.

While Morales, García Linera and others have fled the country for asylum in Mexico, the Bolivian workers, peasants and indigenous majority that they purported to represent have been left behind to confront heavily armed troops and fascist gangs in the streets.

The bitter lesson that the Latin American working class can advance its interests not by means of “left” bourgeois nationalist regimes, but only through its own independent revolutionary struggle, is once again being written in blood.



https://www.wsws.org/en/articles/2019/1 ... s-n13.html



---


ckaihatsu wrote:
This is why employment is *crucial* for most people, and then, once employed, one's interests are empirically / objectively with that of the world's working class, as a part, and with the whole.



wat0n wrote:
Of course there are no guarantees, it depends a lot on your tolerance for risk.



ckaihatsu wrote:
I don't think you're appreciating the *existential risk* that workers have to take on, as an integral part of their living. If not enough jobs are available, as things are now due to hazardous workplaces, then that's a novel unforeseen risk to people's lives and livelihoods because workers are at the bottom-of-the-heap compared to the wealthy.



wat0n wrote:
That doesn't affect the business owners who can't operate due to the pandemic...?



We were talking about the *workers*, and now you're changing the subject.


---


ckaihatsu wrote:
Culture, tradition, past history, and one's social identity are all considered to be 'material' factors because they're all socially real -- whereas alleged ghosts in the attic would be a 'non-material' factor.

Note that my framework, above, takes these factors you listed into account.



wat0n wrote:
How so? So far your framework (and my definition of "material conditions") has been narrowly focused on economic concerns.



You're not realizing that the *world* runs on money -- Trump did a bailout of *trillions* of dollars this year, showing the paramount importance of 'economic concerns' / economics.


---


ckaihatsu wrote:
No, you're a shitty historian because you leave out relevant factors ('externalities') that are pertinent to what you're looking at, whether revolutions or presidencies.



wat0n wrote:
All regimes have to deal with both potential and real internal and external opposition. Why is it, then, that Marxists always severely deviate from their stated end goals when reaching power?



You're *contradicting* yourself here -- if all countries have to deal with both internal and external factors, then why do you continue your propagandistic line of blaming the Marxist ideology *itself*, as though no other factors existed during its attempts at implementation?

Which *is* it -- are there internal and external socio-political factors around a given event, or is history made according to ideas alone?


---


ckaihatsu wrote:
Let me rephrase -- I meant more along the lines of would full automation be *financially* feasible, and desirable, compared to the status quo. (Auto assembly lines are increasingly using robots, for example.)



wat0n wrote:
Sure, but that would be due to technological improvement.



You don't *have* to answer -- I thought you might *like* to, but never mind if you'd rather digress.


---


ckaihatsu wrote:
I can *speculate*, if you like, but offhand I don't think any large-scale implementation like this has been done. I can *conceive* of some routinized, AI / GPT-3 personal 'guide' for each individual, regardless of age, to oversee the day-by-day student activity and reporting in whatever it is they're doing, including with others, into some text / images / audio / video computer server, though I'd prefer to see some mandatory core-curriculum frameworks to track to, by comparison, since 100% self-motivated investigations may not cover all of the critical subject areas that society would have an interest in mandating.



wat0n wrote:
Right, but would learning be self-directed or there would be human teachers involved?



I just *speculated* about it, above -- I'm not in a position myself to make any definitive *predictions*, if that's what you're interested in.


---


ckaihatsu wrote:
*Of course* non-productive roles should be paid, and they are -- it's *work* and I never said anything to contradict this valid premise.



wat0n wrote:
Correct, but if you want to analyze their contribution to revenue then you have to impute it to their indirect supporting role somehow.



I think the best way of phrasing / denoting it is that non-productive work roles, like that of a janitor, *are* work, but they *don't* have any constructive impact on revenue because those non-productive work roles are simply a *cost* to the business entity.


---


ckaihatsu wrote:
I'm not giving financial advice. I'd say we've reached the end of this segment of discussion, unless you want to diverge to something else or add a new topic.



wat0n wrote:
Heh, it was more of a rhetorical question. My point there, though, is that the very decision on what to do with your money (even bury it in your backyard) is a financial decision based, among other things, risk-adjusted profit maximization.



And, again, I'll repeat that you're *assuming* this calculation on the part of the money hoarder.


---


ckaihatsu wrote:
I think Marxism-as-an-ideology exists as far as the *method* and *end goal* go -- there's a lot of *splintering* regarding how to 'do' Marxism, even if there's a relatively broad platform that exists in terms of what's *wrong* with capitalism -- Marxist-analysis-and-scientific-paradigm.


Anatomy of a Platform

Spoiler: show
Image



Ideologies & Operations -- Fundamentals

Spoiler: show
Image



wat0n wrote:
It goes beyond ideology, though. There are also Marxian explanations of human behavior that go beyond simply political activism.



Yeah, it could be called a Marxist *analysis*, or Marxist 'worldview', or 'science', if it's not explicitly about politics or economics.


---


wat0n wrote:
I would not say we are at a point in our technical development in which we can simply stop working and let machines do everything for us, though. As such, incentives to actually go and work do matter.



ckaihatsu wrote:
Ever hear of the TV show 'The Jetsons' -- ?

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Jetsons


Back in the '50s and '60s the commercial mass culture was *anticipating* the imminent end of work, due to wildly productive technologies at *that* time -- this kind of optimism is long-over, of course, due to attitudes like yours, while technological *productivity* itself has steadily skyrocketed.

You're also not-addressing the real-world state of technology that I just outlined -- do you really favor Wizard-of-Oz, man-behind-the-curtain control of mass technology, instead of turning over such to *democratic* decision-making processes? Again, people don't *need* bureaucracies to tell them what items they *require* in their lives.



---


ckaihatsu wrote:
I would say 'Trotsky' / Trotskyism here -- you should familiarize yourself with the theory of 'Permanent Revolution', which superseded Stalin's contrived, revisionist 'socialism-in-one-country':



wat0n wrote:
Even that theory is rather old, don't you think?



ckaihatsu wrote:
You might more-appropriately pose this question to *Stalinists*, since they've historically been *stagists*, arguing for bourgeois development as a *prerequisite* for proletarian revolution, which is what Trotsky's 'Permanent Revolution' supersedes.

With the fairly recent capacity for *full automation* of mass industrial production, I'd say that the *material situation* has now *surpassed* the political situation, and we're no longer in the 20th century anymore -- bourgeois politics is *barely* conceivably relevant anymore to the world's working class, since there's now a *super*-capacity for producing for *all* human need, with a minimum of human work inputs.



wat0n wrote:
Again, I'm not quite sure we are at that stage yet.



ckaihatsu wrote:
You sound *very* *defensive* -- you may want to elaborate your entire *line* here, otherwise it's just an empty argument, and I'm certainly not going to go by your say-so alone.



wat0n wrote:
My relative pessimism is because automation is actually harder than it sounds. For example, why do you think the tech giants are still investing a lot in developing self-driving cars? The state of that technology is such that while trucks may self-drive in highways, the technology is still many years away (a decade at least, quite likely longer) from having good self-driving in densely populated cities. This is despite the testing they have carried out in some suburban counties.



You're *digressing* yet-again -- the issue is about whether underdeveloped countries need their own *bourgeois revolutions* before they can sufficiently industrialize, nationally.

If yes, then the national trajectory would be more like that of *China*:



The May Fourth Movement was an anti-imperialist, cultural, and political movement which grew out of student protests in Beijing on 4 May 1919.

In retaliation to the Chinese government's weak response to the Treaty of Versailles, students protested against the government's decision to allow Japan to retain territories in Shandong that had been surrendered by Germany after the Siege of Tsingtao in 1914. The demonstrations sparked nation-wide protests and spurred an upsurge in Chinese nationalism, a shift towards political mobilization, a shift away from cultural activities, a move towards a mass base and a move away from traditional intellectual and political elites.



Leaders of the New Culture Movement believed that traditional Confucian values were responsible for the political weakness of the nation.[3][4] Chinese nationalists called for a rejection of traditional values and the adoption of Western ideals of "Mr. Science" (賽先生; 赛先生; sài xiānsheng) and "Mr. Democracy" (德先生; dé xiānsheng) in place of "Mr. Confucius" in order to strengthen the new nation.[5] These iconoclastic and anti-traditional views and programs have shaped China's politics and culture down until the present.[6]



https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/May_Fourth_Movement



---


If a nationalist bourgeois revolution *isn't* a prerequisite to industrialization, then the trajectory would be more like the *Bolshevik Revolution*, in Russia:



The October Revolution followed and capitalized on the February Revolution earlier in the year. The February Revolution had overthrown the Tsarist autocracy, resulting in a provisional government. The provisional government had taken power after being proclaimed by Grand Duke Michael, Tsar Nicholas II's younger brother, who declined to take power after the Tsar stepped down. During this time, urban workers began to organize into councils (soviets) wherein revolutionaries criticized the provisional government and its actions. The provisional government remained widely unpopular, especially because it was continuing to fight in World War I, and had ruled with an iron fist throughout the summer (including killing hundreds of protesters in the July Days).



Antiwar demonstrations

In a diplomatic note of 1 May, the minister of foreign affairs, Pavel Milyukov, expressed the Provisional Government's desire to continue the war against the Central Powers "to a victorious conclusion", arousing broad indignation. On 1–4 May, about 100,000 workers and soldiers of Petrograd, and, after them, the workers and soldiers of other cities, led by the Bolsheviks, demonstrated under banners reading "Down with the war!" and "All power to the soviets!" The mass demonstrations resulted in a crisis for the Provisional Government.[12] 1 July saw more demonstrations, as about 500,000 workers and soldiers in Petrograd demonstrated, again demanding "all power to the soviets," "down with the war," and "down with the ten capitalist ministers." The Provisional Government opened an offensive against the Central Powers on 1 July, which soon collapsed. The news of the offensive's failure intensified the struggle of the workers and the soldiers. A new crisis in the Provisional Government began on 15 July.[citation needed]



https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/October_Revolution



By situating all power with the working class, the basis of social organization of industrial mass production wasn't with the *nation-state*, as in China, but rather was with the class in society, in general, potentially internationally, that does all *production* for society, the working class.

Regarding *full-automation*, that's just the logical conclusion of *industrialization* (and computerization) -- it's the *modernization* of industrialization, in other words. You're already behind-the-times, because *many* corporations are increasingly *automating* their production workflows, obviating human labor in the process.


Celebrating one year of drone delivery in Christiansburg




---


ckaihatsu wrote:
Okay, it's good you acknowledge that Stalinism and Maoism *aren't* Marxism.

So what point are you making about left-wing identity politics?



wat0n wrote:
It's not really Marxist, even if they loosely incorporated some Marxian concepts. Indeed, more orthodox Marxists likely reject much of it and probably regard it with contempt.



Correct -- political ideologies are *relative* to one-another, on a left-right political *continuum*, as I have in this political-spectrum diagram:


Ideologies & Operations -- Fundamentals

Spoiler: show
Image



---


wat0n wrote:
So you essentially believe you have a complete theory of human behavior?



ckaihatsu wrote:
No, I'm not positing any *psychological*-type theory -- I'm here at PoFo to discuss politics and economics -- 'political economy'.



wat0n wrote:
"Human behavior" goes beyond psychology.



---


ckaihatsu wrote:
Again, you're not saying much -- if there's a slight uptick in the proportion of productive capital that's controlled by worker-owners, that has practically *zero* impact on the bourgeois capitalist political economy as a whole. Capitalism and imperialism will just continue to plod forward, unchallenged.



wat0n wrote:
Well, it depends. Why are cooperatives such a small percentage of overall businesses?



ckaihatsu wrote:
No, it *doesn't* 'depend' -- what I just said is valid, and capitalism and imperialism will continue unabated, exploiting the world's working class and oppressing social minorities on the basis of racism, and sexism, etc. -- just look at the continuation of government *police killings* that have happened since the BLM / Antifa protests of this past summer. That's *institutional racism*, and it's not being addressed, and workers are still being exploited for surplus labor value, and your politics, whatever they may be, are unable to even *speak* to these real-world social ills.



wat0n wrote:
What does this have to do with cooperatives?



Exactly. Now you're getting it -- or, we might say, 'What do workers co-ops have to do with the unimpeded continuation of capitalism's exploitation and oppression?'


---


ckaihatsu wrote:
You don't seem to be comprehending -- I said that a decentralized structure for proletarian coordination and co-administration is *not* desirable, or advised.

The world would know that the bourgeoisie has been usurped once it no longer dictates production policy at workplaces, to workers.



wat0n wrote:
Was the bourgeoisie ever usurped in the USSR? And if you don't want a wholly decentralized system, then how centralized should it be?




The main events of the revolution took place in and near Petrograd (present-day Saint Petersburg), the then-capital of Russia, where long-standing discontent with the monarchy erupted into mass protests against food rationing on 23 February Old Style (8 March New Style).[4] Revolutionary activity lasted about eight days, involving mass demonstrations and violent armed clashes with police and gendarmes, the last loyal forces of the Russian monarchy. On 27 February O.S. (12 March N.S.) mutinous Russian Army forces sided with the revolutionaries. Three days later Tsar Nicholas II abdicated, ending Romanov dynastic rule and the Russian Empire. A Russian Provisional Government under Prince Georgy Lvov replaced the Council of Ministers of Russia.



https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/February_Revolution



My own position / proposal for post-capitalist social organization is this:


Emergent Central Planning

Spoiler: show
Image



---


ckaihatsu wrote:
Correct -- until then, what the world *does* use is mass *industrial* production, so it's the control of *that* that's at-stake, politically, meaning *class*.



wat0n wrote:
Right, and that takes us back to the questions about how revolutions actually work.



---


ckaihatsu wrote:
Now you're simply *apologizing-for* / defending the very problem with capitalism that you just acknowledged. What good is a *weakness*? Wouldn't it be better to be *proactive* about it, so that it can be *eliminated*? As things are these externalities remain mostly unaddressed, and the globe continues to warm.



wat0n wrote:
I'm simply acknowledging there is no perfect system. Sure, externalities are a problem (and they are also a problem outside the market mechanism) but decreasing transaction costs is a major advantage of markets.



These days, with our current *computational* power, a centralized bureaucracy over all regulation and resource supply-and-demand could almost be bureaucrat-free (due to AI) -- meaning full directed administration over 'externalities' and 'transaction costs', through the government -- not that I'm *advocating* such.

Your 'free market' ideology needs to include the *cost* of profit, for the activation of *private production* (corporations, factories) -- profit is a tacked-on *cost* to funding.

The *point* of a revolutionary socialist politics is to *free* industrial mass production from the shackles of private property, so that private ownership doesn't have to be 'bribed' with profits, from costs, for the sake of producing commonly needed goods and services for modern life and living, for everyone. Such productive implements (factories) can simply be collectively run by those who know the workplace the best -- workers.

It's not about some abstract imagined 'perfection', or 'utopia' -- it's about *economics*, and how everyone can cut-out the middleman of private interests, and cut out payments for profits, by simply *seizing* the means of mass industrial production, so that it can benefit *everyone*.


---


ckaihatsu wrote:
Oh, well I certainly *don't care* about that issue within the context of the markets, because the markets are doing what they do, asocially, providing goods and services to paying customers no matter how socially damaging those commodities may be. If your 'concern' is counterfeiting within the current political-economy context, then *my* concern is the War on Drugs.



wat0n wrote:
It is just an example. I can imagine it being a problem outside a market system as well.

The War on Drugs is actually an example of a policy of pushing markets aside when it comes to drugs for that matter.



You may want to explain *how* -- it's still *markets*, made illicit by government decree, that facilitate the manufacture and distribution of those goods.

Yes, I think that the provision of *all* goods and services could be taken out of private hands, and instead produced and distributed according to *human need*. I even have a model framework for the implementation of such:


labor credits framework for 'communist supply & demand'

Spoiler: show
Image


https://www.revleft.space/vb/threads/20 ... ost2889338
#15134018
ckaihatsu wrote:My point is that the U.S. *interfered* in both countries, which is effectively *colonialism* and *imperialism* all over again, or 'neocolonialism':


So what? Does an American intervention decades ago justify trampling on democracy and carrying out self-coups like in Venezuela? I'm not even going to bother addressing their conspiracy theories. This is something even Pinochet did with regards to international Marxism during his dictatorship after all.

See? This is exactly what happens when revolutionaries get to power: They look for whatever ridiculous excuses to usurp power and establish dictatorships.

ckaihatsu wrote:We were talking about the *workers*, and now you're changing the subject.


No I'm not. Workers are free to work independently if they wish to take the risk.

ckaihatsu wrote:You're not realizing that the *world* runs on money -- Trump did a bailout of *trillions* of dollars this year, showing the paramount importance of 'economic concerns' / economics.


So...?

ckaihatsu wrote:You're *contradicting* yourself here -- if all countries have to deal with both internal and external factors, then why do you continue your propagandistic line of blaming the Marxist ideology *itself*, as though no other factors existed during its attempts at implementation?

Which *is* it -- are there internal and external socio-political factors around a given event, or is history made according to ideas alone?


Other ideologies don't deviate course permanently upon reaching power. Either they state they want a dictatorship clearly (fascists) or gradually build representative democracies (liberals).

ckaihatsu wrote:You don't *have* to answer -- I thought you might *like* to, but never mind if you'd rather digress.


That's my answer, actually. Of course technological improvement has financial consequences. Increasing your productivity has financial consequences. Decreasing your costs has financial consequences.

ckaihatsu wrote:I just *speculated* about it, above -- I'm not in a position myself to make any definitive *predictions*, if that's what you're interested in.


Fair point, maybe at some point they will not be necessary. It doesn't seem to be clear if or when will this be the case however.

ckaihatsu wrote:I think the best way of phrasing / denoting it is that non-productive work roles, like that of a janitor, *are* work, but they *don't* have any constructive impact on revenue because those non-productive work roles are simply a *cost* to the business entity.


The problem with the way you are phrasing it is that then, why are they being hired at all if they don't contribute anything in terms of productivity (and by extension revenue)?

ckaihatsu wrote:And, again, I'll repeat that you're *assuming* this calculation on the part of the money hoarder.


Sure, but it is a reasonable assumption. And it doesn't need to be all that precise - for instance the people who after 2008 began to hoard money because they stopped trusting in the banks are also making a loosely defined economic calculation there.

ckaihatsu wrote:Yeah, it could be called a Marxist *analysis*, or Marxist 'worldview', or 'science', if it's not explicitly about politics or economics.


Sort of, that's why some actually call those Marxian rather than Marxist.

ckaihatsu wrote:You're *digressing* yet-again -- the issue is about whether underdeveloped countries need their own *bourgeois revolutions* before they can sufficiently industrialize, nationally.

If yes, then the national trajectory would be more like that of *China*:

If a nationalist bourgeois revolution *isn't* a prerequisite to industrialization, then the trajectory would be more like the *Bolshevik Revolution*, in Russia:

By situating all power with the working class, the basis of social organization of industrial mass production wasn't with the *nation-state*, as in China, but rather was with the class in society, in general, potentially internationally, that does all *production* for society, the working class.


How about the industrialization in the West in general? It follows neither pattern.

Also, Russia was actually beginning its own industrialization and pivot away from feudalism when the Bolsheviks got to power.

In that sense, Marx seriously miscalculated which societies would transition into seriously attempting socialism in his work.

ckaihatsu wrote:Regarding *full-automation*, that's just the logical conclusion of *industrialization* (and computerization) -- it's the *modernization* of industrialization, in other words. You're already behind-the-times, because *many* corporations are increasingly *automating* their production workflows, obviating human labor in the process.


Celebrating one year of drone delivery in Christiansburg



Of course it is, but how close are we to that world? It's a lot harder to pull off than it seems.

ckaihatsu wrote:Correct -- political ideologies are *relative* to one-another, on a left-right political *continuum*, as I have in this political-spectrum diagram:


Ideologies & Operations -- Fundamentals

Spoiler: show
Image


Indeed, and shows the inadequacy for a one dimensional spectrum.

ckaihatsu wrote:Exactly. Now you're getting it -- or, we might say, 'What do workers co-ops have to do with the unimpeded continuation of capitalism's exploitation and oppression?'


I still don't get your point here - sure, cooperatives are (even if owned by worker-capitalists) still a for-profit activity. So...?

ckaihatsu wrote:My own position / proposal for post-capitalist social organization is this:


Emergent Central Planning

Spoiler: show
Image


I'm aware of it. So, was the bourgeoisie usurped in the USSR?

ckaihatsu wrote:These days, with our current *computational* power, a centralized bureaucracy over all regulation and resource supply-and-demand could almost be bureaucrat-free (due to AI) -- meaning full directed administration over 'externalities' and 'transaction costs', through the government -- not that I'm *advocating* such.

Your 'free market' ideology needs to include the *cost* of profit, for the activation of *private production* (corporations, factories) -- profit is a tacked-on *cost* to funding.

The *point* of a revolutionary socialist politics is to *free* industrial mass production from the shackles of private property, so that private ownership doesn't have to be 'bribed' with profits, from costs, for the sake of producing commonly needed goods and services for modern life and living, for everyone. Such productive implements (factories) can simply be collectively run by those who know the workplace the best -- workers.

It's not about some abstract imagined 'perfection', or 'utopia' -- it's about *economics*, and how everyone can cut-out the middleman of private interests, and cut out payments for profits, by simply *seizing* the means of mass industrial production, so that it can benefit *everyone*.


Of course I'm incorporating those costs too.

As for transaction costs, needing to establish and maintain that sort of system is by itself a cost. But more importantly, it is also not costless to buy and sell stuff on the internet.

ckaihatsu wrote:You may want to explain *how* -- it's still *markets*, made illicit by government decree, that facilitate the manufacture and distribution of those goods.

Yes, I think that the provision of *all* goods and services could be taken out of private hands, and instead produced and distributed according to *human need*. I even have a model framework for the implementation of such:


labor credits framework for 'communist supply & demand'

Spoiler: show
Image


https://www.revleft.space/vb/threads/20 ... ost2889338


Indeed, it's black markets - the sort that pop out even when banned. That's my point: You can't really stop it, but you can regulate it. For instance, even if drugs were legal there should be standards regarding marijuana or coke just as they exist for alcohol and tobacco.
#15134467
ckaihatsu wrote:
My point is that the U.S. *interfered* in both countries, which is effectively *colonialism* and *imperialism* all over again, or 'neocolonialism':



wat0n wrote:
So what? Does an American intervention decades ago justify trampling on democracy and carrying out self-coups like in Venezuela? I'm not even going to bother addressing their conspiracy theories.



No conspiracy theories, and you're thinking of a past election -- I'm talking about 2018:



Aftermath

Tibisay Lucena stated that the CNE forbade the payment to voters offered by Maduro.[127] On 22 May when the CNE proclaimed Maduro as president, Maduro announced the creation of a presidential commission for economic advice.[128] The same day, Maduro declared as personae non-gratae American diplomats Todd D. Robinson and Brian Naranjo, who had to leave the country within 48 hours.[citation needed]



Maduro's new six-year term did not begin until 10 January 2019, when he took his official oath at a public ceremony in Caracas in front of the Venezuelan Supreme Court.[133] The ceremony was attended by spectators such as Nicaraguan President Daniel Ortega and president of Bolivia Evo Morales.[133]



A November 2018 report by the International Crisis Group said that "[n]eighboring countries and other foreign powers have taken steps–including sanction–to achieve some kind of negotiated transition, which is still the best way out of the crisis".[136]

In January 2019, the National Assembly declared the results of the election invalid, and invoked clauses of the 1999 Venezuelan Constitution to appoint National Assembly Speaker Juan Guaidó as acting president, precipitating the Venezuelan presidential crisis. Maduro's supporters refused to acknowledge the move, and Guaidó was placed under arrest for a short time. Several international organizations and independent countries have lined up to support either side of the conflict, and the former Supreme Tribunal of Justice of Venezuela, in exile in Panama since 2017, has given its support to the legitimacy of the National Assembly's moves.[citation needed]



https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/2018_Vene ... #Aftermath



---


wat0n wrote:
This is something even Pinochet did with regards to international Marxism during his dictatorship after all.



Yeah, the U.S. supported *that* coup as well:



On 11 September 1973, Pinochet seized power in Chile in a U.S.-backed coup d'état[12][13][14][B] that toppled Allende's democratically elected Unidad Popular government and ended civilian rule. In December 1974, the ruling military junta appointed Pinochet Supreme Head of the nation by joint decree, although without the support of one of the coup's instigators, Air Force General Gustavo Leigh.[15] After his rise to power, Pinochet persecuted leftists, socialists, and political critics, resulting in the executions of from 1,200 to 3,200 people,[16] the internment of as many as 80,000 people, and the torture of tens of thousands.[17][18][19] According to the Chilean government, the number of executions and forced disappearances was 3,095.[20] Operation Condor was founded at the behest of the Pinochet regime in late November 1975, his 60th birthday.[21]



https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Augusto_Pinochet



---


wat0n wrote:
See? This is exactly what happens when revolutionaries get to power: They look for whatever ridiculous excuses to usurp power and establish dictatorships.



Pinochet wasn't a revolutionary -- he was the *opposite*, and there's now been a recent movement in Chile to overthrow the vestiges of his past dictatorship:


Chile Celebrates Voters' Decision To Scrap Constitution, Start Over

https://www.npr.org/2020/10/26/92785927 ... start-over


---


ckaihatsu wrote:
We were talking about the *workers*, and now you're changing the subject.



wat0n wrote:
No I'm not. Workers are free to work independently if they wish to take the risk.



Corporate / business 'independence' is a *misnomer*, because the private sector got bailed-out by Trump in early 2020, and they received a *windfall* from public funding early in Trump's term:



he Trump administration's deficit-bloating package of tax cuts passed by Congress in 2017 led the following year to the 400 wealthiest families in America—all of them with a net worth in the billions of dollars—paying a lower tax rate than the bottom 50 percent of households.



https://www.newsweek.com/trump-tax-cuts ... ty-1464048



---


ckaihatsu wrote:
You're not realizing that the *world* runs on money -- Trump did a bailout of *trillions* of dollars this year, showing the paramount importance of 'economic concerns' / economics.



wat0n wrote:
So...?



So you can't claim that private sector businesses and the wealthy are 'independent' when they've been receiving welfare-like benefits from the U.S. government.


---


ckaihatsu wrote:
You're *contradicting* yourself here -- if all countries have to deal with both internal and external factors, then why do you continue your propagandistic line of blaming the Marxist ideology *itself*, as though no other factors existed during its attempts at implementation?

Which *is* it -- are there internal and external socio-political factors around a given event, or is history made according to ideas alone?



wat0n wrote:
Other ideologies don't deviate course permanently upon reaching power. Either they state they want a dictatorship clearly (fascists) or gradually build representative democracies (liberals).



If far-left / Marxist ideological political movements have been as *self-determining* as you're implying then what threw their political ascendancies off-course? Certainly it wasn't self-sabotage, because you're making them sound *all-powerful* and somehow *invulnerable* to external social factors, like political opposition. So why aren't we living under socialism *now*, going by your reasoning?


---


ckaihatsu wrote:
You don't *have* to answer -- I thought you might *like* to, but never mind if you'd rather digress.



wat0n wrote:
That's my answer, actually. Of course technological improvement has financial consequences. Increasing your productivity has financial consequences. Decreasing your costs has financial consequences.



So to recap, will capitalism bring about full automation over industrial production, or won't it?


---


ckaihatsu wrote:
I just *speculated* about it, above -- I'm not in a position myself to make any definitive *predictions*, if that's what you're interested in.



wat0n wrote:
Fair point, maybe at some point they will not be necessary. It doesn't seem to be clear if or when will this be the case however.



---


ckaihatsu wrote:
I think the best way of phrasing / denoting it is that non-productive work roles, like that of a janitor, *are* work, but they *don't* have any constructive impact on revenue because those non-productive work roles are simply a *cost* to the business entity.



wat0n wrote:
The problem with the way you are phrasing it is that then, why are they being hired at all if they don't contribute anything in terms of productivity (and by extension revenue)?



An analogy would be to ask why *anyone* pays for the costs of *transportation* when it doesn't directly add to anyone's wages, or benefits, or revenue, or profits.

It's one of those things that's simply an overhead *cost* -- and so all non-productive work roles (which don't produce commodities that can be sold for revenue, and profits, in the M-C-M' cycle) are just like that, the 'costs of doing business', as the phrase goes.

Do you finally understand this -- we've been over it several times now and it's not that difficult a concept to understand. Got it now? Here's a 'cheat sheet':


[23] A Business Perspective on the Declining Rate of Profit

Spoiler: show
Image



---


ckaihatsu wrote:
And, again, I'll repeat that you're *assuming* this calculation on the part of the money hoarder.



wat0n wrote:
Sure, but it is a reasonable assumption. And it doesn't need to be all that precise - for instance the people who after 2008 began to hoard money because they stopped trusting in the banks are also making a loosely defined economic calculation there.



Not all who have some surplus cash on-hand, in a hole in the ground, or inside a mattress, are necessarily executing some intentional 'financial plan', as you're making it out to be. Again, if someone happens to simply not-spend some cash then they have a *surplus*, but that doesn't automatically make them a *capitalist*, which was your original erroneous contention.

Please avoid making assumptions.


---


ckaihatsu wrote:
Yeah, it could be called a Marxist *analysis*, or Marxist 'worldview', or 'science', if it's not explicitly about politics or economics.



wat0n wrote:
Sort of, that's why some actually call those Marxian rather than Marxist.



In the past I myself thought that these two terms conferred some kind of semantic distinction, but I asked about it, and it turns out that the two terms are actually *synonymous*. I'd be open to hearing your understanding, though.


---


ckaihatsu wrote:
You're *digressing* yet-again -- the issue is about whether underdeveloped countries need their own *bourgeois revolutions* before they can sufficiently industrialize, nationally.

If yes, then the national trajectory would be more like that of *China*:

If a nationalist bourgeois revolution *isn't* a prerequisite to industrialization, then the trajectory would be more like the *Bolshevik Revolution*, in Russia:

By situating all power with the working class, the basis of social organization of industrial mass production wasn't with the *nation-state*, as in China, but rather was with the class in society, in general, potentially internationally, that does all *production* for society, the working class.



wat0n wrote:
How about the industrialization in the West in general? It follows neither pattern.



Good question. The first two Western countries to industrialize benefitted from prior colonialist *mercantilism* abroad, and were well-situated to reconfigure their societies to *industrial* mass production:



Holland and Britain were not modern industrial societies. The majority of the population still lived in the countryside and the poor quality of roads meant it still took many days of uncomfortable travelling to journey from provincial towns to capital cities. They were nothing like modern democracies either. British governments were dominated by the great landowning aristocrats, who were usually able to decide how the lesser gentry and burghers who elected the House of Commons would vote, while the great merchants held similar sway in Holland.

Nevertheless, both countries were qualitatively different from what they had been a century, let alone two centuries, before—and qualitatively different from their European neighbours. The legal subjection of the peasantry to individual lords had gone completely. There were genuine national markets, without the hodgepodge of petty states which characterised Germany and Italy or the internal customs barriers that criss-crossed France. A very large number of people had some experience of urban life—fully one sixth of England’s population had spent at least some time in London by the end of the 17th century. Rural industries absorbed the labour of many people even in agricultural districts, and the sea ports and navies employed large numbers of the lower classes in occupations dependent upon trade rather than agriculture. London overtook Paris as the largest city in Europe, and although most production was still carried on by individual craft workers in their own homes or workshops, their work was increasingly coordinated by merchants or other wealthier artisans. There were ‘clothier’ entrepreneurs in the west of England employing 100, 400 or even 1,000 weavers and finishers, and with incomes greater than many of the gentry.7

The great families who dominated governments were careful to adopt policies which kept the ‘middling’ traders, manufacturers and capitalist farmers happy as well as the large merchants. In the 1760s and early 1770s the burghers of the City of London agitated furiously against the aristocratic and gentry interests which controlled parliament and government, and their spokesman, John Wilkes, spent time in prison—but they had the backing of some of the great families and eventually managed to impose their will on the others without a need for revolutionary measures. The great ideological and political struggles of the 16th and early 17th centuries meant they had already won the most important battles.

Things were very different in the European countries where the revolutionary upsurges had been thwarted. For most of these the 17th century was a period of economic decline—of falling population as deaths exceeded births, of a contraction of the urban crafts, of low investment in agriculture as lords and the state between them took all the surplus and the peasantry wallowed in endless poverty (and in places suffered the ‘second serfdom’). Total agricultural output was probably lower in 18th century Poland, Sicily or Castile than it had been two centuries earlier. In Bohemia one person in ten died of hunger in the famine of 1770-72: such was the price of counter-revolutionary victory.

France, south western Germany and northern Italy were ‘intermediate’. They did not suffer the economic regression which characterised Castile, the Italian south and eastern Europe. But their agriculture and industry were more backward, on average, than England’s and Holland’s. Innovative farming techniques and capitalist relations spread in some regions close to large towns. There was some increase in handicraft production and even, in a few cases, the establishment of larger mining or industrial enterprises. Some ports oriented on Atlantic trade expanded considerably, especially on the west coast of France. By the 1780s, 20 percent of the French population were employed in mainly small-scale industry—as against 40 percent in England. Major parts of Europe were moving in the same direction on the road to industrial capitalism, but at very different speeds.



Harman, _People's History of the World_, pp. 235-236



---


wat0n wrote:
Also, Russia was actually beginning its own industrialization and pivot away from feudalism when the Bolsheviks got to power.



Yup:



Industrialization in the Russian Empire enabled the development of the industrial sector of the economy, which allowed to increase labor productivity and partially provided the economy with industrial products. Industrialization in the Russian Empire was a reaction to the industrialization process in Western Europe countries.

The first steps related to accelerating the development of industry were taken during the reign of Peter I. However, the beginning of the introduction of machine production in leading industries and vehicles was in the second quarter of the 19th century. This period is considered to be the beginning of the industrial revolution in Russian Empire. The industrialization process continued until 1917. Later in the years of Soviet industrialization. Russia was in the role of catching up, trying to catch up with the advanced countries of the West in terms of industrial development.



https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Industria ... ian_Empire



---


wat0n wrote:
In that sense, Marx seriously miscalculated which societies would transition into seriously attempting socialism in his work.




Marx, Engels, and Lenin
Communists, left-wing socialists, anarchists, and others have seen the Commune as a model for, or a prefiguration of, a liberated society, with a political system based on participatory democracy from the grassroots up. Marx and Engels, Bakunin, and later Lenin, tried to draw major theoretical lessons (in particular as regards the "dictatorship of the proletariat" and the "withering away of the state") from the limited experience of the Commune.

Marx, in The Civil War in France (1871), written during the Commune, praised the Commune's achievements, and described it as the prototype for a revolutionary government of the future, "the form at last discovered" for the emancipation of the proletariat. Marx wrote that, "Working men's Paris, with its Commune, will be forever celebrated as the glorious harbinger of a new society. Its martyrs are enshrined in the great heart of the working class. Its exterminators, history has already nailed to that eternal pillory from which all of the prayers of their priest will not avail to redeem them."[116]

Engels echoed his partner, maintaining that the absence of a standing army, the self-policing of the "quarters", and other features meant that the Commune was no longer a "state" in the old, repressive sense of the term. It was a transitional form, moving towards the abolition of the state as such. He used the famous term later taken up by Lenin and the Bolsheviks: the Commune was, he said, the first "dictatorship of the proletariat", a state run by workers and in the interests of workers. But Marx and Engels were not entirely uncritical of the Commune. The split between the Marxists and anarchists at the 1872 Hague Congress of the First International (IWA) may in part be traced to Marx's stance that the Commune might have saved itself had it dealt more harshly with reactionaries, instituted conscription, and centralised decision-making in the hands of a revolutionary direction. The other point of disagreement was the anti-authoritarian socialists' opposition to the Communist conception of conquest of power and of a temporary transitional state: the anarchists were in favour of general strike and immediate dismantlement of the state through the constitution of decentralised workers' councils, as those seen in the Commune.

Lenin, like Marx, considered the Commune a living example of the "dictatorship of the proletariat". But he criticised the Communards for not having done enough to secure their position, highlighting two errors in particular. The first was that the Communards "stopped half way ... led astray by dreams of ... establishing a higher [capitalist] justice in the country ... such institutions as the banks, for example, were not taken over". Secondly, he thought their "excessive magnanimity" had prevented them from "destroying" the class enemy. For Lenin, the Communards "underestimated the significance of direct military operations in civil war; and instead of launching a resolute offensive against Versailles that would have crowned its victory in Paris, it tarried and gave the Versailles government time to gather the dark forces and prepare for the blood-soaked week of May".[117]



https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Paris_Com ... _and_Lenin



---


ckaihatsu wrote:
Regarding *full-automation*, that's just the logical conclusion of *industrialization* (and computerization) -- it's the *modernization* of industrialization, in other words. You're already behind-the-times, because *many* corporations are increasingly *automating* their production workflows, obviating human labor in the process.


Celebrating one year of drone delivery in Christiansburg

1zblGTIXr9k



wat0n wrote:
Of course it is, but how close are we to that world? It's a lot harder to pull off than it seems.



You tell me -- you're a capitalist / status-quo supporter. I'd be interested to know how likely you think full automation of industrial mass production is under current conditions of capitalism.


---


ckaihatsu wrote:
Correct -- political ideologies are *relative* to one-another, on a left-right political *continuum*, as I have in this political-spectrum diagram:


Ideologies & Operations -- Fundamentals

Spoiler: show
Image



wat0n wrote:
Indeed, and shows the inadequacy for a one dimensional spectrum.



How so?


---


ckaihatsu wrote:
No, it *doesn't* 'depend' -- what I just said is valid, and capitalism and imperialism will continue unabated, exploiting the world's working class and oppressing social minorities on the basis of racism, and sexism, etc. -- just look at the continuation of government *police killings* that have happened since the BLM / Antifa protests of this past summer. That's *institutional racism*, and it's not being addressed, and workers are still being exploited for surplus labor value, and your politics, whatever they may be, are unable to even *speak* to these real-world social ills.



wat0n wrote:
What does this have to do with cooperatives?



ckaihatsu wrote:
Exactly. Now you're getting it -- or, we might say, 'What do workers co-ops have to do with the unimpeded continuation of capitalism's exploitation and oppression?'



wat0n wrote:
I still don't get your point here - sure, cooperatives are (even if owned by worker-capitalists) still a for-profit activity. So...?



Yup again -- you're basically making my theoretical argument *for* me here. I'm saying that disparate workers co-ops is a non-starter, since they first need the capital necessary to buy-out *current* ownership, and then, as owners, they would no longer have the same *political* interests, for proletarian revolution (anti-exploitation, anti-oppression), that they have as dispossessed *workers* (only).


---


ckaihatsu wrote:
My own position / proposal for post-capitalist social organization is this:


Emergent Central Planning

Spoiler: show
Image



wat0n wrote:
I'm aware of it. So, was the bourgeoisie usurped in the USSR?



Russia in 1917 was uniquely politically advanced, especially compared to China, because it overthrew its monarchy and then went straight to workers soviets and the Bolshevik Revolution on their behalf -- it *skipped* the bourgeois-revolution developmental / industrialization 'stage', and asserted that its proletariat could do this (Trotsky's 'Permanent Revolution'), but it depended on *spreading* the proletarian revolution *internationally*, particularly to Germany and the rest of Europe, which didn't happen, obviously. This was *prior* to Stalin and the Stalinism that you refer to.


---


ckaihatsu wrote:
These days, with our current *computational* power, a centralized bureaucracy over all regulation and resource supply-and-demand could almost be bureaucrat-free (due to AI) -- meaning full directed administration over 'externalities' and 'transaction costs', through the government -- not that I'm *advocating* such.

Your 'free market' ideology needs to include the *cost* of profit, for the activation of *private production* (corporations, factories) -- profit is a tacked-on *cost* to funding.

The *point* of a revolutionary socialist politics is to *free* industrial mass production from the shackles of private property, so that private ownership doesn't have to be 'bribed' with profits, from costs, for the sake of producing commonly needed goods and services for modern life and living, for everyone. Such productive implements (factories) can simply be collectively run by those who know the workplace the best -- workers.

It's not about some abstract imagined 'perfection', or 'utopia' -- it's about *economics*, and how everyone can cut-out the middleman of private interests, and cut out payments for profits, by simply *seizing* the means of mass industrial production, so that it can benefit *everyone*.



wat0n wrote:
Of course I'm incorporating those costs too.



Well, no, you're *not* -- you've never mentioned 'the cost of profit', nor are you now, nor have 'free market' types ever mentioned it, either.

I've noted -- probably on another thread -- that the 'entrepreneurial' / ownership role could simply be a regular salaried white-collar position, along with all others in the corporate bureaucracy so that it wouldn't be so inflated in compensation from receiving workers' surplus labor value. Workers could then *receive* the surplus labor value that's currently being *expropriated* from them.


[11] Labor & Capital, Wages & Dividends

Spoiler: show
Image



---


wat0n wrote:
As for transaction costs, needing to establish and maintain that sort of system is by itself a cost. But more importantly, it is also not costless to buy and sell stuff on the internet.



You obviously haven't taken a look at my 'labor credits' proposal, for a communist-type *gift economy* -- the only 'cost', post-capitalism, would be for a sorting function on a regular desktop computer.


---


ckaihatsu wrote:
You may want to explain *how* -- it's still *markets*, made illicit by government decree, that facilitate the manufacture and distribution of those goods.

Yes, I think that the provision of *all* goods and services could be taken out of private hands, and instead produced and distributed according to *human need*. I even have a model framework for the implementation of such:


labor credits framework for 'communist supply & demand'

Spoiler: show
Image


https://www.revleft.space/vb/threads/20 ... ost2889338



wat0n wrote:
Indeed, it's black markets - the sort that pop out even when banned. That's my point: You can't really stop it, but you can regulate it. For instance, even if drugs were legal there should be standards regarding marijuana or coke just as they exist for alcohol and tobacco.



You're showing your bad habit of *assuming* again -- all of these superstructural details that you're outlining are ultimately *arbitrary*, and certainly not 'givens'.

Black markets can only exist due to *legal* decrees, from government -- there are no black markets for *popcorn* or *whiskey*, because such goods are not decreed to be illegal, according to prevailing legal norms. So, no, they don't simply 'pop out' on their own -- the government tacitly creates and supports the barbaric illicit markets through its legal paradigm of choice.

The *major* difference that *can* be implemented on a reformist basis is how users and abusers are *treated* by government -- will they continue to be considered as 'criminals', or will they be considered to be 'clients', and tended to with government *social services* instead of by heavy-handed and even murderous *police* -- ?
#15134590
ckaihatsu wrote:No conspiracy theories, and you're thinking of a past election -- I'm talking about 2018:


One where opposition politicians weren't allowed to run freely.

ckaihatsu wrote:Yeah, the U.S. supported *that* coup as well:


Sort of, their attitude was more complex than that. We know so because their comms are public now.

ckaihatsu wrote:Pinochet wasn't a revolutionary -- he was the *opposite*, and there's now been a recent movement in Chile to overthrow the vestiges of his past dictatorship:


Chile Celebrates Voters' Decision To Scrap Constitution, Start Over

https://www.npr.org/2020/10/26/92785927 ... start-over


A counter-revolution is simply another revolution, but contraposed: It is a revolution carried out by those who opposed the initial one, but who also came to realization the system did not work.

He didn't go back to the old system since it had proven, well, ineffective, and the military had developed an anti-democratic ideology.

ckaihatsu wrote:Corporate / business 'independence' is a *misnomer*, because the private sector got bailed-out by Trump in early 2020, and they received a *windfall* from public funding early in Trump's term:

So you can't claim that private sector businesses and the wealthy are 'independent' when they've been receiving welfare-like benefits from the U.S. government.


So what? Workers also got bailed out this year and also got tax breaks.

ckaihatsu wrote:If far-left / Marxist ideological political movements have been as *self-determining* as you're implying then what threw their political ascendancies off-course? Certainly it wasn't self-sabotage, because you're making them sound *all-powerful* and somehow *invulnerable* to external social factors, like political opposition. So why aren't we living under socialism *now*, going by your reasoning?


I'm not sure about what your point is. If you are conceding they deviate from their stated goals because of how actual reality is, then you are conceding there is something wrong in their diagnosis of it.

ckaihatsu wrote:So to recap, will capitalism bring about full automation over industrial production, or won't it?


Again, that depends on technological development. Assuming it is technically possible, yes, it will.

But I'm skeptical about it being "technically possible" to literally automate all economic activity. I think some services will remain done by humans.

ckaihatsu wrote:An analogy would be to ask why *anyone* pays for the costs of *transportation* when it doesn't directly add to anyone's wages, or benefits, or revenue, or profits.

It's one of those things that's simply an overhead *cost* -- and so all non-productive work roles (which don't produce commodities that can be sold for revenue, and profits, in the M-C-M' cycle) are just like that, the 'costs of doing business', as the phrase goes.

Do you finally understand this -- we've been over it several times now and it's not that difficult a concept to understand. Got it now? Here's a 'cheat sheet':


[23] A Business Perspective on the Declining Rate of Profit

Spoiler: show
Image


Of course I understand it :roll:

Do you understand, then, that the worker working in transportation is also participating in the revenue generating process? And therefore, you need to impute its contribution to it to make any judgment about whether they are being paid "fairly" or not.

ckaihatsu wrote:Not all who have some surplus cash on-hand, in a hole in the ground, or inside a mattress, are necessarily executing some intentional 'financial plan', as you're making it out to be. Again, if someone happens to simply not-spend some cash then they have a *surplus*, but that doesn't automatically make them a *capitalist*, which was your original erroneous contention.

Please avoid making assumptions.


They are doing the same type of calculation a capitalist does - they simply want to maximize what they perceive their expected risk-adjusted return.

ckaihatsu wrote:In the past I myself thought that these two terms conferred some kind of semantic distinction, but I asked about it, and it turns out that the two terms are actually *synonymous*. I'd be open to hearing your understanding, though.


I recall reading it from people who like Marx, actually.

Marxist refers to the political program and general ideology associated with Marx's work. In other words, it's a normative analysis.

Marxian refers to the paradigm and tools used by Marx and his followers to analyze and explain reality. In other words, it's a positive analysis.

It is possible to Marxian without being Marxist - some early social democrats could arguably be an example.

ckaihatsu wrote:Good question. The first two Western countries to industrialize benefitted from prior colonialist *mercantilism* abroad, and were well-situated to reconfigure their societies to *industrial* mass production:


Right, that's one way. American industrialization doesn't follow any of the preceding patterns so far either.

ckaihatsu wrote:Yup:


...Which is why Marx would have trouble explaining the Russian Revolution. He may even find it an aberration (in terms of his theory), since they skipped industrial capitalism and industrialized through a (allegedly?) Marxist system.

ckaihatsu wrote:You tell me -- you're a capitalist / status-quo supporter. I'd be interested to know how likely you think full automation of industrial mass production is under current conditions of capitalism.


It depends on whether the technology to allow for it is developed. This is primarily a scientific question, not an economic one.

If it does, then I think it's very likely. If it's cheaper to industrialize there is the incentive to do so, isn't it?

ckaihatsu wrote:How so?


Is Bolshevism the same as Stalinism? As 21st century progresism? As left-wing anarchism/anarcho-communism? As radical feminism? As chavism?

ckaihatsu wrote:Yup again -- you're basically making my theoretical argument *for* me here. I'm saying that disparate workers co-ops is a non-starter, since they first need the capital necessary to buy-out *current* ownership, and then, as owners, they would no longer have the same *political* interests, for proletarian revolution (anti-exploitation, anti-oppression), that they have as dispossessed *workers* (only).


But that is not something they are legally forbidden to do. If they don't, it's because they face a coordination problem (an example of a transaction cost, mind you).

ckaihatsu wrote:Russia in 1917 was uniquely politically advanced, especially compared to China, because it overthrew its monarchy and then went straight to workers soviets and the Bolshevik Revolution on their behalf -- it *skipped* the bourgeois-revolution developmental / industrialization 'stage', and asserted that its proletariat could do this (Trotsky's 'Permanent Revolution'), but it depended on *spreading* the proletarian revolution *internationally*, particularly to Germany and the rest of Europe, which didn't happen, obviously. This was *prior* to Stalin and the Stalinism that you refer to.


Yup, a refutation of one of Marx's key predictions... But you did not answer my question.

ckaihatsu wrote:Well, no, you're *not* -- you've never mentioned 'the cost of profit', nor are you now, nor have 'free market' types ever mentioned it, either.

I've noted -- probably on another thread -- that the 'entrepreneurial' / ownership role could simply be a regular salaried white-collar position, along with all others in the corporate bureaucracy so that it wouldn't be so inflated in compensation from receiving workers' surplus labor value. Workers could then *receive* the surplus labor value that's currently being *expropriated* from them.


[11] Labor & Capital, Wages & Dividends

Spoiler: show
Image


You are forgetting here the role of risk taking. A white collar worker is taking less risks than a business owner - and while he may have a lower income as a result, .

ckaihatsu wrote:You obviously haven't taken a look at my 'labor credits' proposal, for a communist-type *gift economy* -- the only 'cost', post-capitalism, would be for a sorting function on a regular desktop computer.


You are seriously underestimating the role of transaction costs here. If they were so low, there would (for instance) be a lot more worker co-ops around :)

ckaihatsu wrote:You're showing your bad habit of *assuming* again -- all of these superstructural details that you're outlining are ultimately *arbitrary*, and certainly not 'givens'.

Black markets can only exist due to *legal* decrees, from government -- there are no black markets for *popcorn* or *whiskey*, because such goods are not decreed to be illegal, according to prevailing legal norms. So, no, they don't simply 'pop out' on their own -- the government tacitly creates and supports the barbaric illicit markets through its legal paradigm of choice.

The *major* difference that *can* be implemented on a reformist basis is how users and abusers are *treated* by government -- will they continue to be considered as 'criminals', or will they be considered to be 'clients', and tended to with government *social services* instead of by heavy-handed and even murderous *police* -- ?


Of course they are "black" markets because they are made illegal by the Government. That's the point: People are willingly participating in them regardless of whatever the Government wants.
  • 1
  • 18
  • 19
  • 20
  • 21
  • 22

Every art is also a science, and every science i[…]

@annatar1914 It is indeed so odd to me that al[…]

Again going in circles because of your lack of l[…]

Listen I have no issue people organizing themselv[…]