I don't understand the message. Of course it was not voluntary, no drastic change in social structure is
this post was submitted on 24 Jul 2024
145 points (92.9% liked)
Communism
1607 readers
154 users here now
Welcome to the communist Lemmy community! This is a community for all Marxist.
founded 5 years ago
MODERATORS
as Cowbee wrote: the 'free market' narrative assumes the market is participatory, and that you can simply opt out ('go live in the woods').
but capitalism doesn't work without a labour market, and the labour market isn't stable without a buffer of un[der]employment. so living outside the market — and general 'propertylessness' — is criminalised or made so inconvenient/unsustainable that you're left with 'the choice' between peonage or starvation. the people who fall into homelessness and houselessness serve as a warning to anyone who might consider 'opting out'.
i don't think anyone genuinely believes this is a real choice, but i've experienced this narrative being used to dismiss critiques of capitalism and wage slavery.
Fair enough
A persistent Liberal narrative is that Capitalism is a system based on voluntary contracts, and therefore participation is voluntary as well.
Fair enough
Nice dungarees and hoodie.
Life was also never voluntary.
Capitalism isn't some unchanging and never-ending fact of existence, it can be replaced.
It can absolutely be superseded, but the concepts underlying it cannot be destroyed, and it cannot be simply erased. Rather, those underlying dynamics must be incorporated into our larger body of concepts. Similarly, capitalism cannot simply erase the foundations of earlier systems, it must adapt to incorporate those concepts, and meet the needs which those systems met - or else those needs will become great enough that they impact or temporarily displace it.
Sure, nobody said otherwise. When Socialism comes, it will be born out of Capitalist society, just as Capitalism emerged out of Feudalism, and Communism will emerge out of Socialism.
For an idea that has come before, and has difficulty "being done right", the idea that socialism and communism is what comes next seems excessively optimistic - unless you mean in some dualistic or otherwise cyclical kind of sense.
What do you mean when you say Socialism "has difficulty being done right?" How familiar are you with Marxism?
Every self professed attempt in history to enact socialism either has already been declared not good enough to count as socialism, or will be declared as such in the future, when it gets even worse.
The labor theory of value is so poor as to be indefensible, and scarcity is a property of nature, rather than capitalism.
Every self professed attempt in history to enact socialism either has already been declared not good enough to count as socialism, or will be declared as such in the future, when it gets even worse.
Declared by who? I would much rather be living in a tier 1 city in China right now personally. Or in Cuba if the US ever stopped strangling it.
The labor theory of value is so poor as to be indefensible
I agree, David Ricardo was incorrect, and Marx's refutation in his theory of value explains the creation of value much better. (Imagine reading Marx and not Wikipedia on Marx)
and scarcity is a property of nature, rather than capitalism
Scarcity is a property of nature and artificial scarcity is a product of commodity fetishism (necessary for capitalism to function)
Declared by who?
Implicitly, by everyone that does not herald the successes of those self professed socialist economies. Explicitly, by too many individuals in too many circumstances to usefully list.
I would much rather be living in a tier 1 city in China right now personally. Or in Cuba if the US ever stopped strangling it.
I mean this sincerely; please move. If you are correct, you will benefit the world overall and yourself.
I agree, David Ricardo was incorrect, and Marx’s refutation in his theory of value explains the creation of value much better. (Imagine reading Marx and not Wikipedia on Marx)
I have only read "Das Kapital", and only by translation. Marx directly asserts the equivalency between the value of a good, and the amount of labor-time that it takes to produce that good on average (accounting for the labor-time that it took to produce tools and raw materials necessary to that process). That is the labor theory of value in a nutshell.
artificial scarcity is a product of commodity fetishism (necessary for capitalism to function)
If you believe that the scarcity we face is largely artificial, then either move to a country further on its way to communism, or start a company that will pay workers a more equal share of the value they produce.
I have only read "Das Kapital"
If you believe that the scarcity we face is largely artificial, then either move to a country further on its way to communism, or start a company that will pay workers a more equal share of the value they produce.
What an excellent way to reveal you haven't actually read Marx
I mean this sincerely; please move. If you are correct, you will benefit the world overall and yourself.
Do you know how much money it takes to move? Lol
I have only read “Das Kapital”, and only by translation. Marx directly asserts the equivalency between the value of a good, and the amount of labor-time that it takes to produce that good on average (accounting for the labor-time that it took to produce tools and raw materials necessary to that process). That is the labor theory of value in a nutshell.
Frankly, this is summary as reductive as Ricardo's initial theory, and not what Marx wrote
If you believe that the scarcity we face is largely artificial, then either move to a country further on its way to communism, or start a company that will pay workers a more equal share of the value they produce.
Lol yeah gonna abolish the commodity form by starting a company. You didn't read capital lol
Every self professed attempt in history to enact socialism either has already been declared not good enough to count as socialism,
Who is doing that?
or will be declared as such in the future, when it gets even worse.
What is getting worse, and why would it? Socialist States can and do improve over time, sometimes massively.
The labor theory of value is so poor as to be indefensible
Why?
and scarcity is a property of nature, rather than capitalism.
Who said it wasn't?
You're figthing ghosts and strawmen that are not here.
Who is doing that?
I was replying in the context of the comment that you were replying to, which I believe to be referencing historical self-professed attempts at socialism, which have ended in various kinds of disasters.
What is getting worse, and why would it?
Governments that profess themselves to be socialist have a tendency to centralize almost total control over the laws, courts, and economy in the hands of a very few people. When this happens, it leads to human rights abuses, and other issues. Admittedly, some self-professed socialist countries are doing relatively well on this, but it's by having strong constitutional guarantees of rights, a multi-party democratic political system, robust trade in goods, and limited state control over the means of production, and the economy at large.
Why?
This is where I think you're not asking these questions in good faith. Consider a case where a brand new life saving invention is made. If this hypothetical invention took minimal time and resources to make, would it then be extremely low value? By contrast, imagine a new food is invented, which is bland, unappetizing, and even uncomfortable to eat. On top of that, it takes many years of diligent work, and comically large resources to produce. Is this food very valuable?
To accept the labor theory of value, you must accept both absurdities (and throw out any ordinary connotation of the term "value"), or engage in special pleading to sabotage them.
I was replying in the context of the comment that you were replying to, which I believe to be referencing historical self-professed attempts at socialism, which have ended in various kinds of disasters.
No one here is saying that all AES states aren't actually Socialist, that's something you added. What "various kinds of disasters" are you referring to?
Governments that profess themselves to be socialist have a tendency to centralize almost total control over the laws, courts, and economy in the hands of a very few people. When this happens, it leads to human rights abuses, and other issues. Admittedly, some self-professed socialist countries are doing relatively well on this, but it's by having strong constitutional guarantees of rights, a multi-party democratic political system, robust trade in goods, and limited state control over the means of production, and the economy at large.
You're a bit off there. Central Planning is a core aspect of Marxism, but compared to Capitalism the participation of the Workers is far higher and more democratic. Saying it "leads to human rights abuses and other issues" is just gesturing, you didn't explain how, why, or what here, just a vibe. The state does not need to be limited in control, giving Capitalists control removes worker participation.
This is where I think you're not asking these questions in good faith. Consider a case where a brand new life saving invention is made. If this hypothetical invention took minimal time and resources to make, would it then be extremely low value? By contrast, imagine a new food is invented, which is bland, unappetizing, and even uncomfortable to eat. On top of that, it takes many years of diligent work, and comically large resources to produce. Is this food very valuable?
This is a misunderstanding of what "Value" is for Marxists. Marxists specifically break down Value into Use-Value, ie how useful something is, Exchange-Value, ie its natural price, and more.
The brand new life-saving medicine would be very useful, yes, but what price would it fetch, assuming no IP monopolies? The answer is extremely low, if it took minimal time and resources. This happens in the real world, vaccines are incredibly cheap once developed, it's only in monopolistic markets like the US that this trends against the natural price.
RnD would, of course, be factored into the end Value, as a form of Capital investment. Over time, the portion of RnD "embodied" into new commodities produced goes towards 0, ie if it costs 5000 dollars in RnD and 1 dollar for every vaccine produced, the first vaccine would cost 5001 dollars, but the second? 2500.50, and so on and so forth until it reaches 1 dollar.
To accept the labor theory of value, you must accept both absurdities (and throw out any ordinary connotation of the term "value"), or engage in special pleading to sabotage them.
No, you must understand the LTV.
🦗
Prime_number really came in, punched ghosts that don't exist, and completely dipped.
I think this ghosts are yours - you seem to be the tilted one here.
How?
I'd rather not give you the advantage of explaining it to you.
If that puts my argument at a disadvantage, I'm fine with that, because I don't need you to adopt my viewpoint.
Okay
I mean that socialism sounds great on paper, but actual attempts fail terribly, and it's always someone else's fault, or this or that extenuating circumstance.
If socialism works, I encourage you to go about living a socialistic life. Which is difficult in many environments, because it's a difficult thing to implement well - whereas for capitalism, you just need to offer to trade people this for that, and things snowball.
That said, capitalism sucks, and we need to do things in a way that actually meets the needs that socialism promises to fulfill, but does poorly at actually fulfilling.
I mean that socialism sound great on paper, but actual attempts fail terribly, and it's always someone else's fault, or this or that extenuating circumstance.
What specifically do you mean when Socialist attempts "fail terribly?" I am not going to erase the struggles faced in AES countries, but I am also not going to erase their successes. Do you have examples you want to look at, specifically? Vague gesturing isn't helpful. What "sounds great on paper," but doesn't work in reality, specifically?
If socialism works, I encourage you to go about living a socialistic life. Which is difficult in many environments, because it's a difficult thing to implement well - whereas for capitalism, you just need to offer to trade people this for that, and things snowball.
What good would this do? Marxism rejects this kind of moralistic utopianism, simply acting in a Socialist manner will not eliminate Capitalism nor would it bring about Socialism. I think this reveals a lack of understanding of what Socialists want, and why.
That said, capitalism sucks, and we need to do things in a way that actually meets the needs that socialism promises to fulfill, but does poorly at actually fulfilling.
Again, why do you say Socialism does "poorly at actually fulfilling" needs? Do you have examples with metrics we can look at?
https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Real_socialism
Which particular actually existing socialism are you referring to as being functional and not actually capitalistic?
There's not really a list there, but generally, places like Cuba, what once was the USSR, Vietnam, Laos, the PRC, etc. There are also Socialist-adjacent areas like Chiapas and Rojava.
Cuba is a great example of where socialism shines. The government is small enough and the culture is contiguous enough that it's a take good option there. Good call.
What one was the USSR led to what now is Russia - many States being away and associating to greater degrees with the west, and corruption spreading like a plague. Not that the US is doing well on that front right now, but it has lasted slightly longer than the USSR without becoming total shitshow. We're getting there, though.
Capitalism can, with a discontiguous culture, 'hold it together' longer than socialism can in a similar situation before shitting the bed - particularly when there are options for some socialistic services present.
PRC isn't precisely a shining example of socialism, but is doing a great job of adopting a lot of ideas from capitalism. If any nation sorts out the balance of socialism and capitalism via praxis, it will be the PRC. Their human rights record isn't great, though, and really doesn't seem any better than western counterparts. I can accept that the PRC is a power, but I don't think it truly fits socialism, regardless of its roots.
Again, though - cultural contiguity is really key to really successful truly socialistic states - but that has greater difficulty dealing with diversity - and that shows in larger states, where excessive cultural colonization occurs (as with the PRC), or corruption results.
Cuba is a great example of where socialism shines. The government is small enough and the culture is contiguous enough that it's a take good option there. Good call.
Thank you.
What one was the USSR led to what now is Russia - many States being away and associating to greater degrees with the west, and corruption spreading like a plague. Not that the US is doing well on that front right now, but it has lasted slightly longer than the USSR without becoming total shitshow. We're getting there, though.
The USSR beat the current Russian Federation on nearly every quality of life metric until recently. The RF is not a consequence of the USSR, but of the killing of the USSR. The USSR, like Cuba, was good for the vast majority of citizens.
Capitalism can, with a discontiguous culture, 'hold it together' longer than socialism can in a similar situation before shitting the bed - particularly when there are options for some socialistic services present.
Actually ahistorical, the USSR was far more resiliant in times of crisis. The USSR didn't collapse, so much as it was killed from within. It had issues, all states do, but it was not in a time of crisis.
PRC isn't precisely a shining example of socialism, but is doing a great job of adopting a lot of ideas from capitalism. If any nation sorts out the balance of socialism and capitalism via praxis, it will be the PRC. Their human rights record isn't great, though, and really doesn't seem any better than western counterparts. I can accept that the PRC is a power, but I don't think it truly fits socialism, regardless of its roots.
The PRC is a transitional Socialist economy. It has a very large public sector, and though it is no longer Maoist, it is still Socialist overall. You may wish to read China Has Billionaires.
Communism will emerge out of Socialism.
lol
That's the standard Marxist take. The elements of class society don't really have much of a reason to continue as Socialism develops.
Im14andthisisdeep
Capitalism is less than 400 years old. It will come and go just like class systems that preceded it.
Indeed, followed by other means of organizing society. ..and on and on.