Marxism discussion thread

Discussion in 'Politics & Current Events' started by will_shred, Aug 15, 2017.

  1. vilk

    vilk Very Regular

    Messages:
    4,923
    Likes Received:
    935
    Joined:
    Apr 30, 2013
    Location:
    Chicago
    I think the idea is less what you've written and more that an individual alone cannot make money by himself, or if he did start writing 100$ Vilk-Buck Notes, he'd still need the society that he is part of to provide those goods and services. Otherwise you've just got a dude sitting in a room full of paper. (and as we know the value of the paper is totally fabricated, based on the equivalent of weather divination, for what that's worth)

    Rich people do not/cannot exist without the comparatively poor people who make them rich, both pragmatically and also conceptually as a matter of contrast/relativity. It's a really simple, basic, almost abstract idea, but it's undeniably true. How much do they owe the poor who allow/make/cause them to be rich? That's a very subjective matter.
     
  2. wat

    wat SS.org Regular

    Messages:
    1,043
    Likes Received:
    85
    Joined:
    Mar 21, 2013
    Location:
    Tampa Bay Area, FL
    The amount they agreed to work for :steve:
     
  3. bostjan

    bostjan MicroMetal Contributor

    Messages:
    14,497
    Likes Received:
    2,461
    Joined:
    Dec 7, 2005
    Location:
    St. Johnsbury, VT USA
    As abstract as the idea of paper money is, wealth is the opposite.

    It's all about having resources or not. Back during pre-history in the age of patriarchs, people took what resources they wanted by means of exploration or force. Whoever was first to the well got the most water, but whoever was mightiest threatened to take it away. In early human history, wealth meant protection. If one wanted to be wealthy, one simply had to convince people to build a fortress. Now the mightiest were no match for stone walls, so they needed to trade their might in exchange for essentials like food and water. That's how the most influential leaders became kings and how the mightiest warriors swore fiefdom to those kings. The Europeans who left for the "New World" in the 17th and 18th centuries were looking for their own way to lay claim to resources. I'm not sure what communication breakdown occurred, but there were already several cultures of people living here who lived under a different economic system entirely. Where, in Europe, all of the animals belonged to the king, and all of the weapons belonged to the king, and if you went to war, you fought for the king - in America, if you were hungry, you hunted, and if you were thirsty, you drank from the spring, and if you went to war, you fought for your people with weapons you made yourself. So, the Europeans wanted to control the resources that the native peoples had been sharing for who knows how long. I don't think that the idea of "taking land" was clearly communicated.

    Anyway, up to that point in history, wealth was "land." When the industrial revolution hit full swing, that all changed, because, instead of having stuff come from the land and the value added by manufacture being a rather personal thing attributed to a craftsman, the raw materials were cheap, and the value added by manufacture became the heart of business. People went from eating barley porridge to eating Quaker Oats™ and went from going to the butcher and the cheesemaker to eating Oscar Mayer Hot Dogs™ and Kraft Cheese™ - over the course of a couple generations, everything changed entirely, including how the concept of wealth was implemented. Wealth was no longer strictly tied to how much land a person owned, but was diversified - a wealthy person might own a large plantation, but whoever owned the steel foundry was likely much more wealthy. In the middle class, a wealthier person might simply own more stuff than a less wealthy person, rather than owning a bigger plot of land.

    Today, wealth is even more diverse than ever before. Home equity, job equity, credit lines, mutual funds, stocks, bonds, private business, college education, etc. etc., are all forms of wealth in their own way. Those are all resources, and they can all be used as leverage to obtain other resources, but young people who do not own a home, have no job experience, used their general credit for student loans to obtain degrees that don't precipitate into lucrative careers, etc., are stuck in a rut of little opportunity to obtain wealth. The system of capitalism seems to have failed them, because they worked hard to get through college, like their parents told them to do, and the jobs their parents prepared them to have all went overseas or are no longer relevant. The housing market is a log-jam, creditors are dubious of young people, bonds are paying shit compared to what they paid in the past, and a college degree in communication or whatever the largest percentage of millenials have chosen as a major isn't worth the paper it's printed on to an employer.

    But the fault is not solely with capitalism. The fault is within the culture we've accepted. Just like how forced collectivization during Stalin's time in the USSR led to so many people starving, and it wasn't the fault of Socialism so much as it was the fault of Stalin himself. In that case, there already was a famine - just a general lack of resource availability when it came to food. It was pretty much worldwide, but the USSR handled it in such a way that many people firmly believe those people were starved deliberately. You could say that Stalin's USSR was not an example of socialism, but an example of a dictatorship under the banner of socialism, and you'd have a good case to say that. But also look at Pol Pot's Cambodia! Same shit, but Cambodians, in general, had no idea who their leader was. Reading about Pol Pot, he seemed like he might have genuinely had some twisted form of good intentions, rather than simply being a bloodthirsty asshole. I don't know, though, because it's more complex.

    Anyway, the paper money is just a symbol, and it's honestly not fair to have some people work harder with no chance of reward.
     
    vilk likes this.
  4. vilk

    vilk Very Regular

    Messages:
    4,923
    Likes Received:
    935
    Joined:
    Apr 30, 2013
    Location:
    Chicago
    That's all true, but consider this:

    If a Mighty King has water and walls, what good are they if there's no one thirsty or seeking protection? I mean, they're good enough to protect and nourish the king... but also I mean like it turns into a chicken-egg situation: where'd the walls come from? Did the king build them himself?

    If everyone were rich, who will dust your mantle? Another rich guy? What's his incentive to dust your mantle if he's already rich?

    I know I know, it's such a dumb, basic idea that it hardly warrants writing it. But the rich need poor people in order for "rich" to have meaning and also more pragmatically to live the lifestyle that they do.

    I'll tell you what though, poor people are fucked if we start making really, really good robots. Or maybe, in an opposite way, we can all be rich? But not the robots, obviously.
     
  5. tedtan

    tedtan SS.org Regular

    Messages:
    3,992
    Likes Received:
    547
    Joined:
    Dec 2, 2009
    Location:
    Never Neverland
    Being rich is just having an abundance of resources, so I would disagree that there is a need for the poor in order for the rich to exist. Though the more and more people that are being born the fewer the resources there are to go around.

    As for the rich people who have servants on staff, there are plenty of people who will do what others want in order to fit in with them. This is psychological, so I can see a situation in which everyone is rich and one rich diva type gets their mantle dusted by an equally rich person with a psychological need to please others in order to fit in. Resources, and the lack thereof, are not the only means of motivation/coercion/control.
     
  6. Drew

    Drew Forum MVP

    Messages:
    27,028
    Likes Received:
    2,458
    Joined:
    Aug 17, 2004
    Location:
    Somerville, MA
    Is that an attack on communism or capitalism? I honestly can't tell. :lol:
     
  7. bostjan

    bostjan MicroMetal Contributor

    Messages:
    14,497
    Likes Received:
    2,461
    Joined:
    Dec 7, 2005
    Location:
    St. Johnsbury, VT USA
    That was my point, though. At the time, people were abundantly thirsty and needing protection. If you built a castle in modern New Jersey, you'd be wasting your time, obviously.

    There's no paradox here. It's clear: the king was the guy who held control of the land, and he held control of the stone and the wood used by his subjects to build the castle.

    This is the biggest fallacy going around these days. The rich are equated as people who need other people to do everything for them. No. Rich people are the people who hold control over resources. People do things for the rich people in exchange for resources that the hired people find scarce and the rich people find abundant.

    Rich and poor are opposites, just like you need to have the Joker in order to have Batman, or whatever pop culture reference you wish to insert here.

    The idea of collective ownership is often misconstrued as everything belongs to everyone, but that won't work that way and it's not even how the idea was ever intended by intellectuals. It's an idea that everyone pool resources and then people take what they need. If I'm a carpenter, then I take the hammer and nails and sawblades. If I'm a baker, then I need the ovens and mixers and sacks of flour. If I'm the carpenter, and I take the sacks of flour, then something went wrong with the system.

    In real life, how socialism has generally worked, is that instead of the servant going to work for the wealthy guy in order to get the food and clothing and shelter needed to survive, the same guy would go to the government. And...in times of famine, that government has told that poor guy that he's going to starve, because they already allocated all of the food resources to comfortably feed the government bureaucrats, the military, the factory workers making weapons for the military, ..., all the way down to the guy licking Stalin's boots clean every evening. Because there were not enough resources to give out to everyone, and the poor guy was deemed less necessary to keep around than all of those other people. It happened in the USSR during Golodomor in 1932-1933, and in Cambodia during 1975-1979, and presently in North Korea. The government had limited resources, and too many mouths to feed, so it rewarded it's favourite people with enough food to remain comfortable whilst the people the government deemed "unnecessary" got nothing to eat until they starved or until the famine was over.

    In capitalistic societies, the wealthy were in control of the resources, so there were simply more distribution points, meaning each starving individual had more opportunities to make an appeal. That's why there was less starvation in the West than in the East in the 1930's. We still had famine, but people were not being collectively punished for political reasons. If you were able to swing a hammer, you could barter that resource of labour in exchange for food. Your socialist comrade at that time was expected to swing his glorious hammer or sickle whether the government wanted to feed him or not.

    You see, there is no advantage for the commoner in having the political and economic powers combined into one entity. It just makes it so that those who are rewarded political also get rewarded financially and the converse statement is also true.

    So what can the commoner do to get the resources he or she needs to function in society? I mean, there's no one answer for that. It just depends on where that person finds meaning and what that person hopes to accomplish.
     

Share This Page