We are going around in circles and (as always) I have issues with the feasibility of your proposal. Marx made a brilliant diagnosis, but no one knows what is the most effective therapy. The Utopic last stage of communism sounds very much like a metaphysical state. This is a bit like talking to Plato who believed that an ideal state should be built under the principles of justice. In his opinion, justice assumes that, firstly, the interests of the whole (state) are more important and higher than the interests of the individual. Plato was also an elitist that believed only smart people should rule for the good of society. And lastly, he had this concept of beauty and perfection (see below);
Well, personally, I'm not that much interested in 'justice' -- many others are worse-off than I am, thanks to capitalism and imperialism, and have more of an interest in justice than I do.
When I hear you describe communism you are incredibly Platonic. You are having a romantic interest with a near impossibility. And that is the root of my hesitancy. It truly sounds too good to be true. The imperfection of capitalism is so obvious that many seek an alternative, particularly those that have an open to experience personality. You keep saying there is no need for wealth. And that is a stumbling block for me. The only way wealth is not an issue is when wealth becomes redundant.
Your philosophizing here is off-the-mark -- the *point* of a socialist politics, is workers-of-the-world socialism. Such has nothing to do with me personally, except for whatever involvement I may have, such as here at PoFo, at protests, etc.
You're *correct* to say that Plato was an elitist since his proposal resembles Stalinism, or bureaucratic-elitism, from an elite.
You're not understanding that the *point* of an economy is to *produce* -- the remaining political question is who gets to *consume* from that prodution, and what, exactly, and why.
*Wealth* is just 'dead labor', meaning past productivity from labor. The accumulations of *capital* are *irrelevant* to the working class since what's important going-forward is the *capacity* for productivity, which lies in the means of mass industrial production, or 'infrastructure'. A proletarian revolution would turn *all* wealth / capital / exchange values / finance into nothingness, and would control all factories and workplaces, for the sake of human-need social production.
Like American farmers throwing away crops, milks, and even killing pigs because there is simply too much food. IN fact, one of the penalties of living in a wealthy capitalist nation is the abundance of food. Everyday i have to struggle by not indulging in overeating. AT the office the kitchen is packed with food 24/7 and my wife loves to cook.
Okay, thanks for acknowledging the social ills of capitalism's overproduction.
You are platonic in your view. You are stuck in the green circle:
My understanding is that idealism and dualism are *synonymous* since they both posit a realm of causes-and-effects that are *not* based in material reality.
As far as *social reality* goes, I prefer my own 'worldview':
It lacks the demands of the market and centralized planning is limited and unidirectional. Very little room to think out of the box. The planners are not vested in the system so they procrastinate and plan poorly. Why dedicate time and effort?
Again you're showing that you're intellectually *beholden* to historical vagaries, namely Stalinism. Stalinism was *not* workers-of-the-world socialism.
Your opinion-making here is ill-founded and erroneous. You're not a socialist.
Instead of government bailing-out this middleman mechanism of 'the markets', why doesn't the government just *ask* what people need, and then coordinate production to fulfill these human needs *directly*? It would basically be Stalinism -- an *improvement* over capitalism's chaos -- until the workers can take control of their workplaces themselves.
Stalin killed or sent farm owners to Siberia and took over farming. The immediate effects of forced collectivization were reduced grain output and almost halved livestock numbers, thus creating major famines throughout the USSR. The implementation of the Utopia is rather difficult.
No one here is calling for a *utopia* -- such would be an *example* of dualism / idealism, since it would be *imaginings* without any regard to how the world actually works.
I'm pleased to say that I've hashed-out many of the theoretical issues and problems involved in a *feasible* realization of workers-of-the-world socialism, which you may want to take a look at sometime, only if so that you can break with your bad habit of imputing *Stalinism* for the *actual* politics that I advocate:
labor credits framework for 'communist supply & demand'
https://www.revleft.space/vb/threads/20 ... ost2889338
You need to look up the Kansas City school experiment of the 1990s. IN some instances they spent 40k per student and GOT ZERO in return. It is not the money. Ché Guevara taught peasants how to read under a tree in the forest. What education needs is strict discipline and not wishy washy pink liberalism.
Well, whatever -- these days everyone has the Internet.
You mentioned how all work is *alienating*, which is a Marxist concept, and now you don't want to *follow-up* on this topic at all?
Even a King or a Queen get bored. It is human nature. The other side of the coin is doing NOTHING and getting something in return. Is that any better?
Wow -- you really take every opportunity you can get to be a shithead, don't you?
We both referenced Marx's 'alienation', but you'd prefer to go off on tangents. 'Alienation' is *not* simply 'boredom'. It's more about *exploitation*.
'Doing nothing' is the *goal*, which can only happen once we've fully enslaved our machinery to our own purposes. The theory is that such is *impossible* under capitalism, because the system *requires* some form of human labor in order to create capital valuations, so as to perpetuate the system of elitism.
This is *why* we can't just wait-around and expect capitalism to magically turn into socialism -- *that's* dualism / idealism, by the way. If the workers of the world don't *intentionally* *end* capitalism, so as to implement full automation, then it will never happen and capitalism will persist indefinitely.
I do not disagree. We will get there one day, but it will take some time. Or maybe much less than 200 years. IN this era changes developed from decade to decade rather than from century to century (as in the old days).
(See the previous.)