I disagree. In most work places there is a small fraction that seems to be more productive than their peers. This is observable and is often described as the 20/80 effect. In other words 20% produces 80% of the effect. It is rare to see a 1:1 correlation between effort and results when dealing with a group. Sure, at the end it is a team effort, but some team members may be more special. Here comes the broken record: THERE IS NO EQUALITY.
Okay, again I have to object to your particular choice of *perspective*. I don't disagree with your *empirical* assessment, but what I'm trying to relate is that, given a large-enough grouping, any given individual contribution is *less individualized*.
While this *sounds* inhumane and abhorrent, it *isn't*, depending on the particular *project* involved -- let me take Wikipedia as an example. Many people, including myself, *use* Wikipedia without regard to the details of *who* exactly contributed, and what the *issues* were in getting that content out to the public as a cohesive whole.
Yet people *did* contribute themselves to it, and mostly without recognition by the Wikipedia-using public. So how does your conception of 'human nature', or the 'human condition', account for *this* social phenomenon, that of *voluntarism*, basically -- ?
*Politically*, this translates to a logistically *small* shift (though a socio-politically *big* shift) in how society *could* do things -- where people simply do some 'paying-it-forward' to the public commons (which have to be 100% collectivized), and then they can *take* from the commons for their personal (non-private-accumulation) needs. Whatever relative *size*, large or small, that this resulting 'gift-economy' becomes as a result of this balance of give-and-take, on the whole, is what it is. If people want a *larger*, more-complex, more-sophisticated kind of economy, then more people would have to contribute more higher-skilled kinds of liberated-labor to make that happen, otherwise it won't happen.
At least there'd be no more economic and political *commodification* of personhood / the person, no more labor exploitation, no more class divide, no more endlessly-ballooning private accumulations, bureaucratic elitism, etc.
I am no expert on the subject, but innate talent is important. You could probably research this and find a range between 50 to 80%. I suspect is closer to 50/50. This is a very complex issue but from personal observation it is easy to determine innate talent is important. I worked hard at playing the guitar and I am quite average. I know others that are much better with minimal effort. By the same token some people are incapable of doing any music.
Okay, thanks -- so you're saying nature-nurture might be about 50/50, and the person's own self-motivation obviously is the make-or-break variable involved. You obviously *want* to play guitar, and so you work hard at it. (I'm like that with my 3D graphics skills -- I like the *result* more than anything else.) Some people are so "genetically" / innately talented at some things that they can become good at them without really trying -- but if they ultimately didn't *want* to do it, they wouldn't (assuming personal autonomy over such), and so they wouldn't do it. (This 'political' / sociological stuff comes fairly easily to me, plus I really like the subject matter, and I haven't given *that* much effort to it, though I guess I have over the years.)
So you're definitely *not* a genetic-determinist.
Actually, this has been studied extensively. It goes back to what you call pop psychology, but it is much more than that. Among the 5 most prominent personality traits there is something called "conscientiousness.
Conscientiousness is the personality trait of a person who shows an awareness of the impact that their own behavior has on those around them. Conscientious people are generally more goal-oriented in their motives, ambitious in their academic efforts and at work, and feel more comfortable when they are well-prepared and organized. I suggest you google this. In any event you are correct in the above statement.
Okay, cool, thanks -- I guess I'd find it better for this quality of conscientiousness (*not* merely pop-psychology) to be *included* within the nature-nurture framework, especially at the scale of the individual.
I agree, I don't know if it will be useful or not.
By nature I am an individualist, so I have a blind spot for collectivism. Nevertheless, humans are wired to form groups with common goals and this can unite people. In my experience this works well when the group is small. In fact, socialism works extremely well in small groups where there are clear common goals and kinship.
Well, if I may, I'd like to take a look at, and consider, *warfare* -- in the 20th century this has actually been a *large-scale* kind of coordination, taken generically, and so we've seen it 'work' at the scale of tens of thousands, and greater, numbers, as an 'enterprise', to varying degrees. The point being that such is *possible*, and the respective bourgeois governments had plenty of *motivation* for it, and so it got done at such realities of mass scale.
So, since socialism is all about a particular type of *social organization*, to address *basic needs*, I think we can use bourgeois warfare social-organization as a *precedent*, to say that such large-scale-type operations, not to mention present-day *corporations*, have shown such to be feasible and even successful, in structure.
Perhaps under present conditions people just haven't been *motivated* enough to begin to consider collectivist-type strategizing and organizing -- revolutionaries would generally say that some capitalist *crisis*, like the COVID-19 pandemic, would have to happen for people's social consciousness to be *forced* to change.
Anatomy of a Platform
Well, this is precisely where we have differences of opinion and approach -- it's only because of *capitalism* that 'knowledge' and 'skill' is formally socially individuated into individuals, treated as living commodities in the labor market.
Capitalism is sometimes knowledge. With knowledge an idea can become reality. However, anyone can do this. Cuba has more doctors per capita than any nation on earth. They also have a lot of engineers. But, something is missing and I cannot put my finger on it. This always goes back to my original broken record theme. Why is Cuba a poor nation?
Okay, there are *two* points in-motion here --  individual work-inputs don't necessarily have to be rewarded with increased social-status, recognition, and notoreity for the contributor, depending on how the political-economics works, as a system. Under capitalism wage-labor is *commodified*, so workers are treated economically as fully fungible 'parts' in the whole machinery, and there's *zero* democracy in the workplace, over workers' own working conditions.
Under *socialism* (_The Communist Manifesto_), workers would be *in control* of their own collective labor -- liberated-labor might not take on the celebrity that a successful *golfer* (athlete, etc.) may have, but at least there'd no longer be any *uncertainty* day-to-day, week-to-week, and year-to-year regarding the quality-of-life that the liberated-worker would have social access to.
 I'll suggest that perhaps a country like Cuba is materially *poorer* due to its relative *independence* from the world-bourgeois prevailing social *norms*, or 'scene', if-you-will. I think it's a relative trade-off, at *any* scale -- does one want to be more 'oneself', or does one want to be more with the *in-crowd*? Under capitalism this is an inherent *trade-off*, due to the hierarchical structure of commodified society, but it *wouldn't* have to be a trade-off within post-capitalist, *socialist*-type relations, since there would be no class hierarchy.
(Other, more-*informal* social hierarchies may still exist within socialism, as within workplace environments, or in social scenes -- alluding to your 'talent' argument -- but these wouldn't be *formalized*, state-enforced, and *class* based.)
A simple counter-example to this individuated approach would simply be *any book*, website, or *Wikipedia*, in which certain knowledge, information, and even wisdom, is *abstracted* into the written word, image, and video, no longer requiring any living person for its propagation (arguably).
CORRECTION: Also *audio*.
Self teaching is quite possible, but some people need a flesh and bones teacher. In addition self education requires a relatively high fraction of innate talent. Bill Gates is self taught, he dropped out of Harvard to start a software company.
My *professional* opinion -- my Bachelor's is in Education, and I've taught history at the secondary level for a few years -- is that the problem is with how we, as a society, have (mis-)*organized* the realm of knowledge. My major was 'sociology with history' (about 2:1), and my impetus for doing all of the sociological-type graphic frameworks that I have has been to offer better realistic *structures* for knowledge, and to depict how society is empirically structured.
I think most people can learn, even without guidance, if they can be confident that they know the overall 'bigger picture' to be valid and worth 'growing-into'.
Photoillustrations, Political Diagrams by Chris Kaihatsu
You make an excellent point. AI is easy when setting up an answering service. Beyond that the humans have a near infinite number of possible response to any situation. However the number is not infinite. At the end of the day our brain is a computer programmed by evolutionary forces. There is no such thing as free will. Yes, free will is just an illusion.
Yes, AI / neural networks are best-termed 'expert systems', since they are circumscribed to a particular *domain* of knowledge / information, like for playing chess.
I'll take your *genetics*-oriented perspective in-stride, but will proffer that, instead of free-will / individuality / self-determination being mitigated by *genetics* / predispositions, we're more 'programmed', or conditioned, by the overall, sociological-type structure of *society*, as in the 'politics - logistics - lifestyle' framework I developed, or in the 'base-and-superstructure' model, from Marxism.
History, Macro-Micro -- politics-logistics-lifestyle
Many people prefer to see life, and life-choices as *open-ended*, which is fine, to some extent, but I think ultimately there *are* objective empirical *limitations*, such as not being able to travel to Mars on a whim.
No one can predict the future accurately. But, I suspect socialism is the end result of capitalism. It happens without a revolution. The technology will be the equalizer. I am not the only one that thinks this way. Check this article.
Many of the substantial democratic and progressive changes Mason hopes for will most likely come from an area many on the left discuss with an unfair level of disdain: technology, in particular private sector innovation (often state-backed). Mason points to cooperatives and self-managed online spaces as quasi-socialist alternatives already becoming increasingly mainstream.
https://www.counterpunch.org/2015/10/01 ... apitalism/
I did not read the whole article. Hopefully it does not have porn.
Hopefully it *does*. (grin)
I do *agree* with this description, and the phenomenon (which we happen to be *partaking* in) is actually already *theoretically* described, by Trotsky:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Uneven_an ... evelopment
Is this Utopian? A map of the world that does not include Utopia is not worth even glancing at, for it leaves out the one country at which Humanity is always landing. And when Humanity lands there, it looks out, and, seeing a better country, sets sail. Progress is the realisation of Utopias.
I knew I was condescending, but I wanted to make the point that there is excess food in many parts of the world. The issue is distribution. However, it is best to teach people to fish rather than give then fish for free.
Or, since you're acknowledging it, anyway, it's better to *distribute* the excess food to those who need it, instead of sticking to capitalism, which does *this*:
Anarchy of capitalist food production exposed as dairy farmers ordered to dump milk
https://www.wsws.org/en/articles/2020/0 ... k-a06.html
Marx said history is a series of thesis and antithesis creating a new thesis. We are changing. But, changes tend to develop naturally.
I'm sorry, Julian, but this statement just doesn't have much *explanatory power* -- 'changes develop naturally' -- ?
If we allow the *market* system to handle things *for* us -- the 'invisible hand' -- then we get catastrophes of overproduction, like with the example above.
What the world *needs* is a way to *collectively consciously plan production*, and that's called *socialism*. Also, there's this framework model for it that I developed, in the pursuit of a greater *specificity*:
Emergent Central Planning
labor credits framework for 'communist supply & demand'
https://www.revleft.space/vb/threads/20 ... ost2889338
The status quo has been generous with me.
Well, congrats, and good-for-you. Now what about the rest of the world?
Do you claim to be in the tradition of The Enlightenment, with concerted efforts from humanity being the leading force for humanity's destiny, or are you so blase, and 'hands-off', that you'd prefer to think of all lives as being religiously 'predetermined' from forces from without?
I have no intentions to shape the world. My concerns are with may immediate family. I am a firm believer of equal opportunity for and as far as I can see we are making progress.
No, there's no 'progress' anymore when all countries' GDPs are *sinking*, and people are *dying* by the thousands due to some virus. Civilization has been at a standstill for decades now, and I think it's now even beginning to tangibly *ebb*.
Back to the big five personality traits:
I doid not max in the "open to experience" trait. These are the people that crave change and despise the old order. That is not who I am. Trust me on this one, this has been well researched. I bet a case of Rum you are very open to experience and very artistic. Not afraid of the new!
Fun, and thanks, but my interest here in participating on this board is *not* with the topic of myself.
Nope, the environment plays a huge role. Nevertheless I admit that an optimal genes/nurture ratio is often more available to the privileged. It is called the Matthew effect. Those that have more receive more. Those that have less receive less. The children of educated parents learn to read faster. Those with money have more options to make more money. It is truly devastating.
Yup, acknowledged / agreed -- if anything, this is an argument *for* socialism. Why should we be content to let this kind of *accelerated inequality* fester, when it's in-fact *preventable*?
Either way you're wrong, because you're not recognizing that human society / civilization takes on its own life, quite separately from any *genetic* predispositions on the part of its individuals -- you're missing the forest for the trees, in other words.
I don't understand what you mean by that. A collective level of intelligence? Talent? Artistry?
You've noted that you're basically circumscribed to your own life, family, and personal interests. There's nothing *wrong* with that, exactly, but you *have* to at least admit / acknowledge that there's a *larger world* outside your front door, and that *some* people, myself included, are *concerned* about that larger world.
Civilization / society.
You're forgetting that there *are no* exchange values, much less wealth, in socialism -- it's *superfluous* at that point because of collective production and direct-distribution based on human need.
I get it, but you are just making a wish. You probably have no idea on how to implement this. As I said, easy to do in a small group. But at the global level I believe it is impossible.
It's for exactly this kind of reservation that I created the framework model that I did:
Emergent Central Planning
labor credits framework for 'communist supply & demand'
https://www.revleft.space/vb/threads/20 ... ost2889338
You're content with the status-quo, aren't you, thinking that whatever the trajectory happens to be, everything is for the best, right?
This is called *Panglossian*, after the 'Pangloss' character in 'Candide', by Balzac. ('This is the best of all possible worlds.')
Voltaire, not Balzac:
I will continue later tonight. Sorry for the typos
No prob. Take care.