"Sorry we are closed nobody wants to work here anymore due to government handouts"

[Glorious Leader]

Marx's utopia was an abolishment of ownership, not a market-based system of worker collectives.

Socialist theory neither started with Marx, nor did Marx sum it up. He was just one influential writer with a particular outlook, who's more important for his critiques of capitalism than his own economic theory. If you hear something socialist, and you think to yourself "sounds like Marxism", you don't have even the most rudimentary understanding of socialist theory to understand the conversation .

You should be looking for names like Adam Smith, John Stuart Mill, Pierre-joseph Proudhon, and more broadly, John Rawls, if you're trying to get a grasp on market socialist theory.

To be clear it was an end to private property which is distinct from possession. Basically marx (and the other socialist anarchist thinkers Bakunin for example) recognized that ownership of the means of production (private property) was anti thetical to freedom as it creates the grossest forms of domination and exploitation. They disagreed on how to approach this. They all basically stem from proudhon.

- - - Updated - - -

Oversimplified, but yes.

Still self-identified as a socialist and wrote inceasingly on the subject in later editions of Principles.

If you thought socialism was antithetical to liberty, you don't understand the first thing about socialist theory; it's more concerned with individual liberties than capitalist theory is.

- - - Updated - - -



Imagine being this completely out of touch with the academic thinking behind history, economics, and philosophy, and still presuming your opinion holds value.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Karl_Marx
"Marx has been described as one of the most influential figures in human history and his work has been both lauded and criticised.[17] His work in economics laid the basis for some current theories about labour and its relation to capital.[18][19][20] Many intellectuals, labour unions, artists and political parties worldwide have been influenced by Marx's work, with many modifying or adapting his ideas. Marx is typically cited as one of the principal architects of modern social science."

https://www.investopedia.com/terms/k/karl-marx.asp
"He was, without question, one of the most important and revolutionary thinkers of his time."

http://www.bbc.co.uk/history/histori...arx_karl.shtml
"A hugely influential revolutionary thinker and philosopher"

Hell, just the fact that we're still talking about him pretty much explains it.

Economic discourse tends to shy away from discussions around Marx but thats mostly because his conclusions were not particularly good for the ruling class whove more or less coopted the discipline. Marx is HUGE in sociology though.

[Endus]

To be clear it was an end to private property which is distinct from possession. Basically marx (and the other socialist anarchist thinkers Bakunin for example) recognized that ownership of the means of production (private property) was anti thetical to freedom as it creates the grossest forms of domination and exploitation. They disagreed on how to approach this.

Right, necessary distinction between "ownership of the means of production", which is what economics theory is about, and "ownership of personal property", in general.

Capitalism conflates the two which is why some people can't grasp the difference too easily. Your house is personal property. Your factory is a means of production. Nothing about socialism means someone's coming to steal your house from you.

- - - Updated - - -

Economic discourse tends to shy away from discussions around Marx but thats mostly because his conclusions were not particularly good for the ruling class whove more or less coopted the discipline. Marx is HUGE in sociology though.

I've said before I'm really not a Marxist in any way; some of his critiques of capitalism were good stuff, but his communist theory? Hard pass.

But regardless of whether he's pushing what I personally believe, the idea that he's not massively influential is just . . . bananas cuckoo. People are still getting slandered as "marxists" today. Hell, I do on the regular, here. If he wasn't so influential, why does his name keep cropping up?

[Glorious Leader]

Right, necessary distinction between "ownership of the means of production", which is what economics theory is about, and "ownership of personal property", in general.

Capitalism conflates the two which is why some people can't grasp the difference too easily. Your house is personal property. Your factory is a means of production. Nothing about socialism means someone's coming to steal your house from you.

Precisely in fact the socialist thinkers like proudhon were VERY clear the possession was a necessary factor for the emancipation of the working class.

- - - Updated - - -

Right, necessary distinction between "ownership of the means of production", which is what economics theory is about, and "ownership of personal property", in general.

Capitalism conflates the two which is why some people can't grasp the difference too easily. Your house is personal property. Your factory is a means of production. Nothing about socialism means someone's coming to steal your house from you.

- - - Updated - - -



I've said before I'm really not a Marxist in any way; some of his critiques of capitalism were good stuff, but his communist theory? Hard pass.

But regardless of whether he's pushing what I personally believe, the idea that he's not massively influential is just . . . bananas cuckoo. People are still getting slandered as "marxists" today. Hell, I do on the regular, here. If he wasn't so influential, why does his name keep cropping up?

From an analytical standpoint his criticism of the capitalist mode of production is VERY hard to refute. The eventual end state of what that would lead to is another matter entirely Hes a very good critique of capital even if you don't buy into communism. Hell even the ruling class acknowledges it on some level. Fuckkng 200 years after Marx talked about the reserve army of labor uncle milt comes up with the nairu

[Egomaniac]

he was not influential writer

This forum has a real problem with people that confuse "He was not influential" with "I don't like the things he said".

The very fact that people still have issues separating Marxism from Socialism is proof of how influential he was... even if that influence is mostly in their heads.

[Krakan]

Oversimplified, but yes.

Still self-identified as a socialist and wrote inceasingly on the subject in later editions of Principles.

If you thought socialism was antithetical to liberty, you don't understand the first thing about socialist theory; it's more concerned with individual liberties than capitalist theory is.

- - - Updated - - -



Imagine being this completely out of touch with the academic thinking behind history, economics, and philosophy, and still presuming your opinion holds value.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Karl_Marx
"Marx has been described as one of the most influential figures in human history and his work has been both lauded and criticised.[17] His work in economics laid the basis for some current theories about labour and its relation to capital.[18][19][20] Many intellectuals, labour unions, artists and political parties worldwide have been influenced by Marx's work, with many modifying or adapting his ideas. Marx is typically cited as one of the principal architects of modern social science."

https://www.investopedia.com/terms/k/karl-marx.asp
"He was, without question, one of the most important and revolutionary thinkers of his time."

http://www.bbc.co.uk/history/histori...arx_karl.shtml
"A hugely influential revolutionary thinker and philosopher"

Hell, just the fact that we're still talking about him pretty much explains it.

I don't see it as incompatible I do see it as destructive if not managed very,very carefully though. I see the wages the market sets as self correcting naturally if you have a skill you earn enough to be comfortable if not you earn enough to survive. It applies pressure to those with the ability and motivation to improve while not clogging the avenues of that system by opening the flood gates to those who wouldn't be successful regardless. Is it perfect? No of course not but let's look at what I see as the natural conclusion to your proposition with ubi.

Most people are not very motivated when you get down to it. They want to coast through life doing the bare minimum. If you make the bare to comfortable you will quickly get a majority work force that is substantially reliant on a every increasing minority to supplement their own contributions. I can't see this ending in any other way then collapse given time.

[Endus]

I don't see it as incompatible I do see it as destructive if not managed very,very carefully though.

And that's just wrong. It's an expression of your lack of comprehension and your empty fear, nothing more.

I see the wages the market sets as self correcting naturally if you have a skill you earn enough to be comfortable if not you earn enough to survive.

Objectively and determinably false.

Without wage controls, wages crater and mass poverty and widespread suffering is the result. We know this, because it was tried, and that's what happened. Ignoring history is not an argument.

Most people are not very motivated when you get down to it. They want to coast through life doing the bare minimum. If you make the bare to comfortable you will quickly get a majority work force that is substantially reliant on a every increasing minority to supplement their own contributions. I can't see this ending in any other way then collapse given time.

This is also just a fantasy you invented.

Most people are motivated in various ways. That's why volunteerism exists, why family and neighbours and friends help each other out, and so on.

You have no data, and your premises are observably false. A cursory look at reality would show you that. But you prefer the stories you tell yourself inside your head, that let you dehumanize people and justify their suffering on your behalf.

Because that's all you're doing, here. Identifying the people you think need to be systematically harmed, for your benefit.

[D3thray]

And that's just wrong. It's an expression of your lack of comprehension and your empty fear, nothing more.



Objectively and determinably false.

Without wage controls, wages crater and mass poverty and widespread suffering is the result. We know this, because it was tried, and that's what happened. Ignoring history is not an argument.



This is also just a fantasy you invented.

Most people are motivated in various ways. That's why volunteerism exists, why family and neighbours and friends help each other out, and so on.

You have no data, and your premises are observably false. A cursory look at reality would show you that. But you prefer the stories you tell yourself inside your head, that let you dehumanize people and justify their suffering on your behalf.

Because that's all you're doing, here. Identifying the people you think need to be systematically harmed, for your benefit.

Or we could say you’re both making broad assumptions about the other’s intentions and motives without any clear evidence and are therefore pissing into the wind instead of debating.

[Endus]

Or we could say you’re both making broad assumptions about the other’s intentions and motives without any clear evidence and are therefore pissing into the wind instead of debating.

When someone says "I have a magic unicorn that poops delicious ice cream", and my response is "bollocks you do, provide literally any evidence", I'm not the one taking the piss in that conversation.

[Glorious Leader]

substantially reliant on a every increasing minority to supplement their own contributions. I can't see this ending in any other way then collapse given time.

Really? because a rather significant amount of income in this country is paid as capital gains. Income that is entirely divorced from labor.
https://mattbruenig.medium.com/the-u...580#.k288l4rdg

[Detritivores]

Getting super tired of the "we have to exploit our staff and provide a shitty product, but you should give us your business anyway!" attitudes in some small businesses. Give me a store with staff who love working there because you pay them really well, and you'll get my business (once the pandemic's over). You were already getting my business (before the pandemic).

This is a whole different and unique problem, and a little off topic for this thread, and uniquely American, but these same dynamics effect primary care in America. I'm (a family doc) leaving a previously successful well-respected, pillar of the community, private primary care practice, because it's just not viable in America. I can't get paid what I'm worth. I can't afford health insurance. I can't attract staff that are experienced or do a good job. Should people patronize my practice because we do a good job despite not paying our staff well? If they value not being sent for expensive and unnecessary tests, then yes.

I bring this up because it's the perfect example of the issue not being the small business' fault. We have massive primary care shortages in my part of the country. We are providing a desperately needed service at low cost, but we still can't compete because in the USA we tip the playing field towards giant hospital based primary care which is the lowest of the lowest priorities for those corporations. We'd rather perform heart surgery on people than prevent them from needing it.

[Krakan]

Really? because a rather significant amount of income in this country is paid as capital gains. Income that is entirely divorced from labor.
https://mattbruenig.medium.com/the-u...580#.k288l4rdg

It's more or less the tragedy of the commons but applied to people not cattle of you want my outlook on it. I believe there would be unchecked expansion to collapse.

[Endus]

It's more or less the tragedy of the commons but applied to people not cattle of you want my outlook on it. I believe there would be unchecked expansion to collapse.

And why should we take your "belief" seriously?

If you can't justify it through evidence and analysis, you may as well be telling us you "believe" in My Little Pony. Resorting to "beliefs" you can't prove is just a declaration that you're unwilling to think about the issue, and you want everyone else to know how willful that ignorance is.

[Al Gorefiend]

2021 - "Human labor is worth more! pay us more or we will not work these low-paying low-skill jobs!"

2025 - "wtf there are no jobs all the low-paying low-skill jobs were replaced by automation!"

[Glorious Leader]

It's more or less the tragedy of the commons but applied to people not cattle of you want my outlook on it. I believe there would be unchecked expansion to collapse.

Again 30% of all income paid in the United States is CAPITAL GAINS (i e income entirely divorced from labor). Almost a full 3rd and no collapse. See when the poors get it its a problem.I know you didn't read the bruenig piece i linked but its actually quite fascinating. I'll quote it

One obvious problem with this analysis is that passive income — income divorced from work — already exists. It is called capital income. It flows out to various individuals in society in the form of interest, rents, and dividends. According to Piketty, Saez, and Zucman (PSZ), around 30% of all the income produced in the nation is paid out as capital income.

Piketty, Saez, Zucman (2016)

If passive income is so destructive, then you would think that centuries of dedicating one-third of national income to it would have burned society to the ground by now.

Tithing to the 1%

In 2015, according to PSZ, the richest 1% of people in America received 20.2% of all the income in the nation. Ten points of that 20.2% came from equity income, net interest, housing rents, and the capital component of mixed income. Which is to say, 10% of all national income is paid out to the 1% as capital income. Let me reiterate: 1 in 10 dollars of income produced in this country is paid out to the richest 1% without them having to work for it.

Even if you exclude the capital component of mixed income (since it is connected to work even if the income is not from labor) and housing rents (since these are imputed to homeowners rather than paid to them as cash), that still means that, from equity income and interest alone, the top 1% receives 7.5% of the national income without having to work for it. Put another way: the average person in the top 1% receives a UBI equal to 7.5 times the average income in the country.

If passive income is so destructive, then the income situation of the 1% surely is a national emergency! Where does the 1% get its meaning with all of that free cash flowing in?

[Jastall]

This is a whole different and unique problem, and a little off topic for this thread, and uniquely American, but these same dynamics effect primary care in America. I'm (a family doc) leaving a previously successful well-respected, pillar of the community, private primary care practice, because it's just not viable in America. I can't get paid what I'm worth. I can't afford health insurance. I can't attract staff that are experienced or do a good job. Should people patronize my practice because we do a good job despite not paying our staff well? If they value not being sent for expensive and unnecessary tests, then yes.

I bring this up because it's the perfect example of the issue not being the small business' fault. We have massive primary care shortages in my part of the country. We are providing a desperately needed service at low cost, but we still can't compete because in the USA we tip the playing field towards giant hospital based primary care which is the lowest of the lowest priorities for those corporations. We'd rather perform heart surgery on people than prevent them from needing it.

Prevention sounds a lot less sexy to a lot of people ("but I want to drink coke and eat steaks all days its muh freedoms lol") and makes a lot less money for others.

I don't 100% agree with Endus here because, as someone whose family/friends are a lot into small businesses, especially restaurants and farms, the going gets tough for them at the best of times, margins are razor-thin, and the pandemic has hit them especially hard. Most small business owners would like to treat their people better, but restaurants face a critical short staffing issue on top of being precarious and highly competitive businesses to begin with, and for farms it's even worse because, let's be honest, unless you really, really love it being a farmhand is a totally shit job, and farmers themselves barely make money at all (especially those who bought the land and have millions in loans to pay back) and thus I'm hard pressed to say how they can possibly make the job attractive to anyone but the Latin American immigrants who do most of the work under the table.

The practicality of making a small business more attractive varies wildly from sector to sector, especially when those sectors hardly offer any future career opportunity at all unlike, say, places like Costco where you're paid more, are fairly well treated and can potentially advance up the chain to a damn decent job all things considered.

[Endus]

2021 - "Human labor is worth more! pay us more or we will not work these low-paying low-skill jobs!"

2025 - "wtf there are no jobs all the low-paying low-skill jobs were replaced by automation!"

2026 - "Oh, hey, with this UBI we just put in, everyone's doing fine. And the economy's growing again! Why didn't we try and automate everything sooner?"

Automation is only a "negative" when you're exploiting people's duress to force them into shitty jobs they don't want in the first place. Remove that duress, and automation is just . . . a 100% net positive in every possible respect.

It's more or less the tragedy of the commons but applied to people not cattle of you want my outlook on it. I believe there would be unchecked expansion to collapse.

I just wanted to revisit this (and didn't edit the response into the prior because I didn't want it to get lost); you're basically misrepresenting the tragedy of the commons, here.

The status quo of poverty is the tragedy of the commons in action, applied to people. That's already how it is. That's what we're trying to change.

The "tragedy of the commons" is the idea that if there is a resource (in the original context, public spaces/fields) that is open to the use of all, without rules limiting its use or obligations to maintain it levied on those who use it, people will generally use it with self-interest and not communal benefit. They will exploit it for their own gain until that resource is consumed or ruined. Hence "tragedy".

Applying that to the labor market, employers who have no obligations to ensure their employees meet a living standard and have comfortable lives, that means they can treat the resource (the labor pool) out of pure self-interest and without any concern for its upkeep. The status quo is that ruinous exploitation. The idea that you'd bring this up as a criticism for approaches that seek to correct that is . . . pretty damned asinine.

[Zan15]

2021 - "Human labor is worth more! pay us more or we will not work these low-paying low-skill jobs!"

2025 - "wtf there are no jobs all the low-paying low-skill jobs were replaced by automation!"

Sorry but after 20+ years of the automation boogey man not doing much, you don't have to live in fear!

if automation could be implemented it would have already have been implemented.

Its only been 20+ years and they still can't fully figure out how to make self check out automated

Also why would this only impact low paying jobs? I would imagine they are trying to automate more on the middle to upper end of the salary/cost range like manufacturing.

[Al Gorefiend]

Sorry but after 20+ years of the automation boogey man not doing much, you don't have to live in fear!

if automation could be implemented it would have already have been implemented.

Its only been 20+ years and they still can't fully figure out how to make self check out automated

Also why would this only impact low paying jobs? I would imagine they are trying to automate more on the middle to upper end of the salary/cost range like manufacturing.

Its always the constant discourse that automation is only X years away when unskilled labor is brought up, namely because the term unskilled labor tends to coincide to routine monotonous jobs automation would be a viable replacement for.

And the middle to upper end did face a mass change in workforce when automation replaced those jobs as technology advanced. You no longer needed to hire a ton of people to do the math a computer can do in seconds. That type of workforce I suppose was the same type with the means to reinvent, go back to school, etc.

[Noxx79]

2021 - "Human labor is worth more! pay us more or we will not work these low-paying low-skill jobs!"

2025 - "wtf there are no jobs all the low-paying low-skill jobs were replaced by automation!"

The McDonald’s nearby me has both cashiers and an order screen. People like cashiers.

When is automation going to take over? Been waiting for 30 years now.

[beanman12345]

Sorry but after 20+ years of the automation boogey man not doing much, you don't have to live in fear!

if automation could be implemented it would have already have been implemented.

Its only been 20+ years and they still can't fully figure out how to make self check out automated

Also why would this only impact low paying jobs? I would imagine they are trying to automate more on the middle to upper end of the salary/cost range like manufacturing.

Yeah the self checkout seemed like a cost saving thing at first, convenience for customer and lower costs on the employer, and I while do seem some places still have them, I think more and more are going away from it. Since, you still need people to stock your shelves, or cut your meat in the supermarket, and you still need people to make your fast food. Hell you still need to employ and train checkouts regardless because people or the self checkout machines are always screwing up.

And then you have maintenance for these machines. There is a reason McDonalds Ice Cream machines break at magnitudes higher than any other fast food joint, despite them using machines from the exact same company of other fast food joints. Because old friend monopoly companies making big money for these things to break down, to pay exorberate amounts to fix it, and the cost is on the franchise owner, so corporate doesn't care, the big cats get fatter the franchise owners pay cause they have no choice, and someone's kid is unhappy they can't get their ice cream cone. And fixing these machines isn't complicated or anything, they're intentionally meant to break, so someone can be sent out so they can make money but how to fix it isn't in the manual, and if you try to do it on your own, you void warrenty and therefore if it breaks you can't just get it fixed you have to buy a new one. I mean you have a warrenty, and you still have to pay to fix the thing when it breaks... "Just call the guy" is what every McDonalds franchisee pray's they don't have to say when they wake up.

Going more automatic would just create this new forms of employment cause monopolies get away with this crap.