Harvey Weinstein, lonely at the top

[Hector Papi Castillo]

To quote Chase: “progressives warn people constantly about men being rapists and white people being evil imperialists.” Yet if it’s the liberals that do this, and not the progressives, even if they both predominantly vote for the Democrats, that doesn’t make it the progressives that are blowing their rape whistles.

But they are. It's the progressives, including the feminists, which is inextricably part of progressivism, that spearheaded the cry of rape culture.

There are countless. I’m thinking here in particular about falling wages for workers, the transformation of the West into strip malls with little to no industry, and the failure to regulate giant mergers that obviously shouldn’t be happening – like in the telecommunications industry.

Falling wages - get more monetizible skills.

Strip malls and no industry - Trump is working on this by lowering taxes. There's no industry because it's too expensive here. Cheaper to export. You're starting to sound like a conservative, bruh.

Huge mergers - Anti-trust laws should take care of this. Source?

m. I view it as a movement to reform working conditions coupled with the belief that man is capable of improving the lot of all within society. Movements for increasing employment, better wages, and yes – racial and sexual equality – all fall within the category, but are not exclusive to progressivism and are characteristic of the left in general.

Cool, so everything we've been talking about. Glad that took like 3 posts to clear up sans jargon.

I wouldn’t say that. You’re misconstruing what I said to advance a strawman argument against me. I’m of course in favor of a stronger response to Jihadists and others not willing to integrate into Western society. I’m an unapologetic Eurocentrist in this regard. I am also, however, anti-xenophobia. I’m in favor of sending any dangerous Islamist communities back to their country of origins quietly and immediately.

No, you literally just said "if you're xenophobic, it inspires terrorism," as if it's in our best interest to be nice to foreigners. You know who's not nice to foreigners and has little to no terrorism? Japan. When's the last time they had a Muslim terrorist attack? They're very nationalistic, despite being a bunch of techno-savvy virgins.

If you're a Eurocentrist then I'm not surprised you're joining the conservatives for a quick brushback against the progressives who have fucked Sweden, Germany, and England.

The materialist conception of history starts from the proposition that the production of the means to support human life and, next to production, the exchange of things produced, is the basis of all social structure; that in every society that has appeared in history, the manner in which wealth is distributed and society divided into classes or orders is dependent upon what is produced, how it is produced, and how the products are exchanged. From this point of view, the final causes of all social changes and political revolutions are to be sought, not in men's brains, not in men's better insights into eternal truth and justice, but in changes in the modes of production and exchange.

So this goes back to your disambiguation between the two types of "idealism."

Idealism 1 being "utopian fantasy/having unrealistically high expectations."

Idealism 2 being the philosophical idealism where ultimate reality is in the mind.

My contention with idealism was not with Idealism 2, it was with Idealism 1. The quote you just cited has to do with Idealism 2. Perhaps we had a misunderstanding, but I don't care if Marxism is focused on efficiency and productivity, because its expectation of how well the economic system will actually work is foolish and relies on an unrealistic expectation of manpower without incentive (either in the form of capital or through force, i.e., slavery).

THAT'S what I was arguing with, with regards to the term "idealistic" or "idealism." Not the philosophical paradigm, but naivete. I hope I've made myself abundantly clear.

Here is what Marx had to say on utopianism: http://www.historyguide.org/intellect/manifesto.html

Jesus christ Marx was a terrible writer.

But okay. First few lines, hating on the bourgeois. Cool.

Then it discusses how you need to not be utopian goodies and think you can peacefully bring about socialism/communism.

n the formation of their plans they are conscious of caring chiefly for the interests of the working-class, as being the most suffering class. Only from the point of view of being the most suffering class does the proletariat exist for them.

The undeveloped state of the class struggle, as well as their own surroundings, causes Socialists of this kind to consider themselves far superior to all class antagonisms. They want to improve the condition of every member of society, even that of the most favored. Hence, they habitually appeal to society at large, without distinction of class; nay, by preference, to the ruling class. For how can people, when once they understand their system, fail to see it in the best possible plan of the best possible state of society?

Hence, they reject all political, and especially all revolutionary, action; they wish to attain their ends by peaceful means, and endeavor, by small experiments, necessarily doomed to failure, and by the force of example, to pave the way for the new social Gospel.

Such fantastic pictures future of society, painted at a time when the proletariat is still in a very undeveloped state and has but a fantastic conception of its own position correspond with the first instinctive yearnings of that class for a general reconstruction of society.

And then it continues by saying that while these Idealist Socialists are stuck in the clouds, their idealism 1 (as per our previous disambiguation) helps unveil everything that's wrong with capitalism and the current society (or he's criticizing that, too; his writing is a bit unclear).

But these Socialist and Communist publications contain also a critical element. They attack every principle of existing society. Hence their full of the most valuable materials for the enlightenment of the working-class.

And it comes to a head when he points out the problem with this idealism 1.

They, therefore, violently oppose all political action on the part of the working-class; such action, according to them, can only result from blind unbelief in the new Gospel.

In other words, Idealist Socialists don't get anything done, because they think that enlightening everyone to the horrors of capitalism will wake everyone up and through proselytization, the sheeple will wake up to the glorious truth of socialism!

Unfortunately, this is no way whatsoever, makes the fundamental premise of socialism/communism any less idealistic. Criticizing idealists doesn't make you non-ideal. Even if your system has practical steps, if the system that the steps will create is founded on an unrealistic (idealist 1) expectation of what people are willing to do, then it will fail.

Socialism/Communism expects people to help each other based on the idea that we will all share in some glorious banquet at the end of the day. Yes, it's going to take lots of blood (dictatorship of the proleteriat [Engels quotes Marx as saying that violent revolution is the midwife of societal change with regards to this]), but it's okay, we'll all be good in the end, because there won't be a ruling class anymore. People will do what they can and everyone will share in the profits.

This misunderstands the nature of value and of self-interest.

It misunderstands value in that I may not slog for 14 hours a day in some mine, but if I know how to run the mining company and improve profit margins, reduce costs, etc, I provide more value than the miner. I deserve more money, because I provide more value.

Self-interest. If I provide X value, then I want as much back for it as a I can get and I don't want to share it. End of story.

Marxism involves anti-idealism, if anything. The suggestion that it doesn’t strongly suggests a failure to comprehend it. Chase and your failure in understanding that does not mean that I have to now defend the entirety of the Marxist tradition to you.

Doesn't sound like it. You keep saying we're misunderstanding it and give soundbites like "marxism involves anti-idealism," but aside from the quote that you gave me above, that does nothing to demonstrate the fundamental misunderstanding of value/self-interest in socialism/communism, you still haven't explained the primary goal and incentive of socialism/communism.

At this point, you need to demonstrate why socialism/communism sufficiently provides value in return for the work we put in and how it satisfies self-interest, otherwise it's idealistic 1 and that's the argument i've been making this entire time, but you've yet to answer to it. You simply provided a text where Marx criticizes some guys who are all talk and no action, but it did not even a little bit touch the fundamental beliefs of socialism/communism.

Maybe you should reread what you did back then, because it doesn’t sound like you recall very much.

Apparently I do. I keep bringing up the fundamental principles of socialism/communism and you've yet to call back to it. You keep touching on tangential issues or large-macro philosophical issues and aren't going back to the basics, i.e, Marxism 101. That's how you win arguments. You keep at the heart of the debate and don't get lost in details, but since socialism/communism is empty at its core, I understand why you're afraid to go there.

You’re probably right, Communists are just LAZY! It’s so obvious…

Yep. Well and stupid, too. I'm surprised you didn't tackle my shot at Engels or Marx. Another evasion..interesting...

BUT LET'S GET CONCRETE.

Mao's China. He gave the fields to the farmers and they fucked it all up.

When Mao first introduced the Agrarian Reform Law of 1950, he gave the peasants control of the land and let them judge and punish their former landlords.

They were also encouraged to help each other and trade equipment/work. That worked out well, because if you farm as a team, shit's going to happen. Fascinating. It first began as a company, where labor was returned with more resources. You know, like capitalism. They continued to collectivize the process more and more, eventually making all of the tools/land collectively owned. This worked and grain production increased by 3.5% a year.

You know why? Because of self-interest. These farmers began to think they were working towards something.

But then, shit went downhill

Once collectivization was achieved and agricultural output per capita began to increase, the leadership embarked on the extremely ambitious programs of the Great Leap Forward of 1958-60. In agriculture this meant unrealistically high production goals and an even higher degree of collectivization than had already been achieved. The existing collectives were organized very rapidly into people's communes, much larger units with an average of 5,400 households and a total of 20,000 to 30,000 members on average. The production targets were not accompanied by a sufficient amount of capital and modern inputs such as fertilizer; rather, they were to be reached in large measure by heroic efforts on the part of the peasants, often beaten into submission by overzealous party cadres.

Without the incentivization of self-interest, the proper capital wasn't given for motivation and technology, in this case fertilizer, wasn't introduced (whereas a capitalist farmer would use fertilizer to increase yield, thus profit).

Also, the bold part is funny. Looks like the desire for control and authority beat the idealism of socialism, eh? Human nature, my boy! Guy wanted his dirty little peasants to work harder!!

Substantial effort was expended during the Great Leap Forward on large-scale but often poorly planned capital construction projects, such as irrigation works and 'backyard furnaces'. Because of the intense pressure for results, the rapidity of the change, and the inexperience and resistance of many cadres and peasants, the Great Leap Forward soon ran into massive difficulties. The peasants became exhausted from the unremitting pressure to produce. The inflation of production statistics, on the theory that accuracy mattered less than political effect, resulted in extravagant claims. Disruption of agricultural activity and transportation produced food shortages

Bunch of fucking peasants didn't know shit about engineering. No way! They weren't lazy with their hands, but they were with their mind. This is why putting proleteriats in control doesn't work. They're too stupid. Some people are meant to rule and some aren't. But if you do want to incentivize a peasant to become a King, he needs to know that big pot of gold and pussy is at the end of that. Socialism doesn't provide that.

Capitalism does.

God I love empiricism, don't you? We can sit here all day and discuss theory while you try to dance around tangential subjects, spend paragraphs and paragraphs arguing over how this word isn't being used right, etc but as soon as we bring in stone cold facts, well, the truth comes out. Funny how that works.

The proof is in the pussyyyyy.

Where are you getting this “necessarily requires everyone make labor their prime want” idea? I have no idea what you are talking about, and I don’t think you do either

Dude, that's literally what it says.

In a higher phase of communist society, after the enslaving subordination of the individual to the division of labor, and therewith also the antithesis between mental and physical labor, has vanished; after labor has become not only a means of life but life's prime want; after the productive forces have also increased with the all-around development of the individual, and all the springs of co-operative wealth flow more abundantly—only then can the narrow horizon of bourgeois right be crossed in its entirety and society inscribe on its banners: From each according to his ability, to each according to his needs

I've recited and bolded, in case you miss it again. He's saying that in order for this higher phase of communistic society to be reached, we gotta work real hard. Y'all gotta make "labor your prime want." Again, bolded. In the text. Right there.

So now, again, how exactly are you going to incentivize people to bring about a communist/socialist state? How the fuck are you going to get everyone to be like, "yo, work hard, so that everyone can prosper!"

You can't.

It's never worked. It won't work. It's been tried. Again and again.

And it failed. The previous example of Mao's agricultural failure is a perfect example. They tried to make it socialist, then when it was failing, they made it basically some weird form of anarcho-capitalism. Government subsidization and research helped, but it didn't hit anywhere close to the level that it does now....because now they're capitalists.

That abundance and prosperity Marx dreamed about? Yeah, look no further than modern China and America. We haz all the shit and tons of it. Even our poor are rich. And that's because we all want to be rich and happy. Sure, we're motivated to make our country great, but that's nationalism, and it's beautiful.

I would say Marx would dig 'Murica, but I doubt it, as he'd be spending most of his days on a board, trying to argue for socialism, when all his desires could be had with a little ingenuity and elbow grease.

You can't defend Marxisms fundamental misunderstanding of value and self-interest (the Idealism 1 premise), you can't defend the many, many socialist/communist experiments that horribly failed, and you can't even seem to defend your own texts, let alone read them, even when cite them for you.

That's GG. Thanks for the W. Now I'm gonna go make some $$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$.

Hector

 

[Oskar]

To quote Chase: “progressives warn people constantly about men being rapists and white people being evil imperialists.” Yet if it’s the liberals that do this, and not the progressives, even if they both predominantly vote for the Democrats, that doesn’t make it the progressives that are blowing their rape whistles.


But they are. It's the progressives, including the feminists, which is inextricably part of progressivism, that spearheaded the cry of rape culture.

You are intentionally missing the point. I’m not here to represent all leftist ideologies to you, what I was commenting on was that both you and Chase misconstrue liberals and progressives in who are crying wolf and calling white people imperialists. There are progressive feminists as well as liberal ones. Yes. And some of them are idiots. Yep. But when you complain about mainstream media and elites and celebrities, you are pretty much exclusively talking about bourgeois liberal ideology.

There are countless. I’m thinking here in particular about falling wages for workers, the transformation of the West into strip malls with little to no industry, and the failure to regulate giant mergers that obviously shouldn’t be happening – like in the telecommunications industry.


Falling wages - get more monetizible skills.

Strip malls and no industry - Trump is working on this by lowering taxes. There's no industry because it's too expensive here. Cheaper to export. You're starting to sound like a conservative, bruh.

Huge mergers - Anti-trust laws should take care of this. Source?

There is no industry in the US not because taxes are too high for small businesses, but because it’s cheaper to pay people pennies on the dollar to produce cellphones in China. A tax break for the rich isn’t going to change that, unfortunately.

I wouldn’t say that. You’re misconstruing what I said to advance a strawman argument against me. I’m of course in favor of a stronger response to Jihadists and others not willing to integrate into Western society. I’m an unapologetic Eurocentrist in this regard. I am also, however, anti-xenophobia. I’m in favor of sending any dangerous Islamist communities back to their country of origins quietly and immediately.


No, you literally just said "if you're xenophobic, it inspires terrorism," as if it's in our best interest to be nice to foreigners. You know who's not nice to foreigners and has little to no terrorism? Japan. When's the last time they had a Muslim terrorist attack? They're very nationalistic, despite being a bunch of techno-savvy virgins.

If you're a Eurocentrist then I'm not surprised you're joining the conservatives for a quick brushback against the progressives who have fucked Sweden, Germany, and England.

Yes, double down on misconstruing what I said. I’m sure it’ll work this time.

The materialist conception of history starts from the proposition that the production of the means to support human life and, next to production, the exchange of things produced, is the basis of all social structure; that in every society that has appeared in history, the manner in which wealth is distributed and society divided into classes or orders is dependent upon what is produced, how it is produced, and how the products are exchanged. From this point of view, the final causes of all social changes and political revolutions are to be sought, not in men's brains, not in men's better insights into eternal truth and justice, but in changes in the modes of production and exchange.



So this goes back to your disambiguation between the two types of "idealism."

Idealism 1 being "utopian fantasy/having unrealistically high expectations."

Idealism 2 being the philosophical idealism where ultimate reality is in the mind.

My contention with idealism was not with Idealism 2, it was with Idealism 1. The quote you just cited has to do with Idealism 2. Perhaps we had a misunderstanding, but I don't care if Marxism is focused on efficiency and productivity, because its expectation of how well the economic system will actually work is foolish and relies on an unrealistic expectation of manpower without incentive (either in the form of capital or through force, i.e., slavery).

THAT'S what I was arguing with, with regards to the term "idealistic" or "idealism." Not the philosophical paradigm, but naivete. I hope I've made myself abundantly clear.

So your criticism is that Marxism has too high of expectations. What a biting critique... /s

Here is what Marx had to say on utopianism: http://www.historyguide.org/intellect/manifesto.html


Jesus christ Marx was a terrible writer.

But okay. First few lines, hating on the bourgeois. Cool.

Then it discusses how you need to not be utopian goodies and think you can peacefully bring about socialism/communism.

Is this all you do? Oversimplify and misconstrue what people are saying? It’s pathetic.


n the formation of their plans they are conscious of caring chiefly for the interests of the working-class, as being the most suffering class. Only from the point of view of being the most suffering class does the proletariat exist for them.

The undeveloped state of the class struggle, as well as their own surroundings, causes Socialists of this kind to consider themselves far superior to all class antagonisms. They want to improve the condition of every member of society, even that of the most favored. Hence, they habitually appeal to society at large, without distinction of class; nay, by preference, to the ruling class. For how can people, when once they understand their system, fail to see it in the best possible plan of the best possible state of society?

Hence, they reject all political, and especially all revolutionary, action; they wish to attain their ends by peaceful means, and endeavor, by small experiments, necessarily doomed to failure, and by the force of example, to pave the way for the new social Gospel.

Such fantastic pictures future of society, painted at a time when the proletariat is still in a very undeveloped state and has but a fantastic conception of its own position correspond with the first instinctive yearnings of that class for a general reconstruction of society.


And then it continues by saying that while these Idealist Socialists are stuck in the clouds, their idealism 1 (as per our previous disambiguation) helps unveil everything that's wrong with capitalism and the current society (or he's criticizing that, too; his writing is a bit unclear).


But these Socialist and Communist publications contain also a critical element. They attack every principle of existing society. Hence their full of the most valuable materials for the enlightenment of the working-class.


And it comes to a head when he points out the problem with this idealism 1.


They, therefore, violently oppose all political action on the part of the working-class; such action, according to them, can only result from blind unbelief in the new Gospel.


In other words, Idealist Socialists don't get anything done, because they think that enlightening everyone to the horrors of capitalism will wake everyone up and through proselytization, the sheeple will wake up to the glorious truth of socialism!

Unfortunately, this is no way whatsoever, makes the fundamental premise of socialism/communism any less idealistic. Criticizing idealists doesn't make you non-ideal. Even if your system has practical steps, if the system that the steps will create is founded on an unrealistic (idealist 1) expectation of what people are willing to do, then it will fail.

Socialism/Communism expects people to help each other based on the idea that we will all share in some glorious banquet at the end of the day. Yes, it's going to take lots of blood (dictatorship of the proleteriat [Engels quotes Marx as saying that violent revolution is the midwife of societal change with regards to this]), but it's okay, we'll all be good in the end, because there won't be a ruling class anymore. People will do what they can and everyone will share in the profits.

This misunderstands the nature of value and of self-interest.

It misunderstands value in that I may not slog for 14 hours a day in some mine, but if I know how to run the mining company and improve profit margins, reduce costs, etc, I provide more value than the miner. I deserve more money, because I provide more value.

Self-interest. If I provide X value, then I want as much back for it as a I can get and I don't want to share it. End of story.

The motive to earn more money exists in capitalism, but isn't necessary for humans to do good work. I get into this more later on in this response.

Marxism involves anti-idealism, if anything. The suggestion that it doesn’t strongly suggests a failure to comprehend it. Chase and your failure in understanding that does not mean that I have to now defend the entirety of the Marxist tradition to you.


Doesn't sound like it. You keep saying we're misunderstanding it and give soundbites like "marxism involves anti-idealism," but aside from the quote that you gave me above, that does nothing to demonstrate the fundamental misunderstanding of value/self-interest in socialism/communism, you still haven't explained the primary goal and incentive of socialism/communism.

At this point, you need to demonstrate why socialism/communism sufficiently provides value in return for the work we put in and how it satisfies self-interest, otherwise it's idealistic 1 and that's the argument i've been making this entire time, but you've yet to answer to it. You simply provided a text where Marx criticizes some guys who are all talk and no action, but it did not even a little bit touch the fundamental beliefs of socialism/communism.

I think by idealist here you mean against ones self-interest? Consider a slave. It’s in the self-interest of the slave to overthrow the master, is it not? Same principle applies here. You may argue that the slave would be better off trying to become a master himself, but what will ultimately benefit the slave is the end of the institution of slavery. It has nothing to do with the slaves laziness that he is a slave. He was born a slave. And though slavery as an institution is gone, the vast majority of society is still organized on the principle of wage slavery. In a world where the rich keep getting richer and the poor keep getting poorer, you tell me: what is more motivating to you: ripping off your brothers and sisters so you can have a bit more money, or ending the rigged system entirely and raising everyone up together? Are you entirely motivated by money, Hector? Would you still write books if you weren’t potentially going to be paid for it? If you had a nice bed, weren’t over-worked, and didn’t feel compelled to go work in some shitty dive bar every day, do you think you’d be happier, more relaxed, more creative, and ultimately more productive? I think you would be.

Maybe you should reread what you did back then, because it doesn’t sound like you recall very much.


Apparently I do. I keep bringing up the fundamental principles of socialism/communism and you've yet to call back to it. You keep touching on tangential issues or large-macro philosophical issues and aren't going back to the basics, i.e, Marxism 101. That's how you win arguments. You keep at the heart of the debate and don't get lost in details, but since socialism/communism is empty at its core, I understand why you're afraid to go there.

What core are you referring to? The core of socialism is not the profit motive.

You’re probably right, Communists are just LAZY! It’s so obvious…


Yep. Well and stupid, too. I'm surprised you didn't tackle my shot at Engels or Marx. Another evasion..interesting...

I’m not evading anything, it’s just hard to tell when you are being a troll and not – and I generally try not to respond to trolling.


BUT LET'S GET CONCRETE.

Mao's China. He gave the fields to the farmers and they fucked it all up.

When Mao first introduced the Agrarian Reform Law of 1950, he gave the peasants control of the land and let them judge and punish their former landlords.

They were also encouraged to help each other and trade equipment/work. That worked out well, because if you farm as a team, shit's going to happen. Fascinating. It first began as a company, where labor was returned with more resources. You know, like capitalism. They continued to collectivize the process more and more, eventually making all of the tools/land collectively owned. This worked and grain production increased by 3.5% a year.

You know why? Because of self-interest. These farmers began to think they were working towards something.

But then, shit went downhill


Once collectivization was achieved and agricultural output per capita began to increase, the leadership embarked on the extremely ambitious programs of the Great Leap Forward of 1958-60. In agriculture this meant unrealistically high production goals and an even higher degree of collectivization than had already been achieved. The existing collectives were organized very rapidly into people's communes, much larger units with an average of 5,400 households and a total of 20,000 to 30,000 members on average. The production targets were not accompanied by a sufficient amount of capital and modern inputs such as fertilizer; rather, they were to be reached in large measure by heroic efforts on the part of the peasants, often beaten into submission by overzealous party cadres.


Without the incentivization of self-interest, the proper capital wasn't given for motivation and technology, in this case fertilizer, wasn't introduced (whereas a capitalist farmer would use fertilizer to increase yield, thus profit).

Also, the bold part is funny. Looks like the desire for control and authority beat the idealism of socialism, eh? Human nature, my boy! Guy wanted his dirty little peasants to work harder!!

We can argue all day about abuses and failures and hypocrisy in literally every type of political system that has been attempted. You can say “see here, this justifies why self-interest and human nature are the bases for political structures” and then I can point out your hypocrisy, showing how capitalism is even more against your conception of human nature and self interest, and then you can misconstrue that again, and then on and on and on. So forgive me, I’m not being evasive, I just know how pointless this debate is.

Bunch of fucking peasants didn't know shit about engineering. No way! They weren't lazy with their hands, but they were with their mind. This is why putting proleteriats in control doesn't work. They're too stupid. Some people are meant to rule and some aren't. But if you do want to incentivize a peasant to become a King, he needs to know that big pot of gold and pussy is at the end of that. Socialism doesn't provide that.

Capitalism does.


God I love empiricism, don't you? We can sit here all day and discuss theory while you try to dance around tangential subjects, spend paragraphs and paragraphs arguing over how this word isn't being used right, etc but as soon as we bring in stone cold facts, well, the truth comes out. Funny how that works.

You’re right: you once again have proven empirically that you don’t know what you are talking about and you know it.

The proof is in the pussyyyyy.

Yep.

Where are you getting this “necessarily requires everyone make labor their prime want” idea? I have no idea what you are talking about, and I don’t think you do either


Dude, that's literally what it says.


In a higher phase of communist society, after the enslaving subordination of the individual to the division of labor, and therewith also the antithesis between mental and physical labor, has vanished; after labor has become not only a means of life but life's prime want; after the productive forces have also increased with the all-around development of the individual, and all the springs of co-operative wealth flow more abundantly—only then can the narrow horizon of bourgeois right be crossed in its entirety and society inscribe on its banners: From each according to his ability, to each according to his needs


I've recited and bolded, in case you miss it again. He's saying that in order for this higher phase of communistic society to be reached, we gotta work real hard. Y'all gotta make "labor your prime want." Again, bolded. In the text. Right there.

Yes, but the point of that line is that we work for doing good work instead of for bread and soil. As I said, you are misconstruing it.

So now, again, how exactly are you going to incentivize people to bring about a communist/socialist state? How the fuck are you going to get everyone to be like, "yo, work hard, so that everyone can prosper!"

You can't.

To quote Kropotkin:
The objection is known. "If the existence of each is guaranteed, and if the necessity of earning wages does not compel men to work, nobody will work. Every man will lay the burden of his work on another if he is not forced to do it himself." Let us first remark the incredible levity with which this objection is raised, without taking into consideration that the question is in reality merely to know, on the one hand, whether you effectively obtain by wage-work the results you aim at; and, on the other hand, whether voluntary work is not already more productive to-day than work stimulated by wages....

What is most striking in this levity is that even in capitalist Political Economy you already find a few writers compelled by facts to doubt the axiom put forth by the founders of their science, that the threat of hunger is man's best stimulant for productive work. ....

They fear that without compulsion the masses will not work.

But during our own lifetime have we not heard the same fears expressed twice? By the anti-abolitionists in America before Negro emancipation, and by the Russian nobility before the liberation of the serfs? "Without the whip the Negro will not work," said the anti-abolitionist. "Free from their master's supervision the serfs will leave the fields uncultivated," said the Russian serf-owners. It was the refrain of the French noblemen in 1789, the refrain of the Middle Ages, a refrain as old as the world, and we shall hear it every time there is a question of sweeping away an injustice. And each time actual facts give it the lie. The liberated peasant of 1792 ploughed with a wild energy unknown to his ancestors, the emancipated Negro works more than his fathers, and the Russian peasant, after having honoured the honeymoon of his emancipation by celebrating Fridays as well as Sundays, has taken up work with as much eagerness as his liberation was the more complete. There, where the soil is his, he works desperately; that is the exact word for it. The anti-abolitionist refrain can be of value to slave-owners; as to the slaves themselves, they know what it is worth, as they know its motive.

Moreover, Who but economists taught us that if a wage-earner's work is but indifferent, an intense and productive work is only obtained from a man who sees his wealth increase in proportion to his efforts? All hymns sung in honour of private property can be reduced to this axiom.

For it is remarkable that when economists, wishing to celebrate the blessings of property, show us how an unproductive, marshy, or stony soil is clothed with rich harvests when cultivated by the peasant proprietor, they in nowise prove their thesis in favour of private property. By admitting: that the only guarantee not to be robbed of the fruits of your labour is to possess the instruments of labour--which is true--the economists only prove that man really produces most when he works in freedom, when he has a certain choice in his occupations, when he has no overseer to impede him, and lastly, when he sees his work bringing in a profit to him and to others who work like him, but bringing in nothing to idlers. This is all we can deduct from their argumentation, and we maintain the same ourselves.

It's never worked. It won't work. It's been tried. Again and again.

And it failed. The previous example of Mao's agricultural failure is a perfect example. They tried to make it socialist, then when it was failing, they made it basically some weird form of anarcho-capitalism. Government subsidization and research helped, but it didn't hit anywhere close to the level that it does now....because now they're capitalists.

That abundance and prosperity Marx dreamed about? Yeah, look no further than modern China and America. We haz all the shit and tons of it. Even our poor are rich. And that's because we all want to be rich and happy. Sure, we're motivated to make our country great, but that's nationalism, and it's beautiful.

I would say Marx would dig 'Murica, but I doubt it, as he'd be spending most of his days on a board, trying to argue for socialism, when all his desires could be had with a little ingenuity and elbow grease.

You can't defend Marxisms fundamental misunderstanding of value and self-interest (the Idealism 1 premise), you can't defend the many, many socialist/communist experiments that horribly failed, and you can't even seem to defend your own texts, let alone read them, even when cite them for you.

That's GG. Thanks for the W. Now I'm gonna go make some $$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$.

The part about "gets paid as much" --> "what motivates them to do their best" makes no sense. It implies that it's a standard characteristic of capitalism that workers who do their best get raises because of it, which is false. There is the going rate for each type of labor on the labor market, just as their is the going rate for each kind of barnyard animal at the cattle market.

Here’s what Albert Einstein had to say about this:

http://monthlyreview.org/2009/05/01/why-socialism

Incentives exist past monetary gain. We, as a society, must pass the obsession with materialistic incentives which is provided by capitalist indoctrination throughout our entire young, scholastic lives. In a communist society, the general welfare of the state (which is comprised of the proletariat) is of top priority and lived well. People do not struggle to survive and succeed their birth-given socio-economic status so much. Rather, the work is distributed to the strong, able, and appropriate, and the incentive to discover and invent is to leave a mark on mankind as extreme wealth is not the option for this mark. It persuades the individual to seek scholastic advancement and make scientific discoveries by removing the Capitalist-added incentive to simply gain money and buy extravagant things and act ostentatiously to gain fame/ recognition.

The idea is to pass the predatory phase of society and establish a more peaceful, academically-oriented society that champions general welfare and scientific/mathematic advancement as opposed to championing income inequality.

 

[Drck]

Didn’t read every single sentence, but I actually quite agree with Hector here. After all, we are not that different.

Don’t forget though, there is also a big difference between reading smart books and online articles, vs living real life. For example you are talking about socialism and communism, all good points, agreed. You may have visit socialist country for couple months, you may have talk to couple people, but you have never lived in it. I lived in it, not as a tourist but as regular citizen.

You are talking about capitalism. Also great, agreed, I have pretty much the same opinion. BUT, n addition to what you wrote: for example in socialism as I know it we had much better school system than is here in capitalism, meaning for instance that we studied the same math and science in 6-7th grade of high school that is being lectured here in USA at college level.

Crime was very low, minimal, incomparable to states. Prostitution was very low. Drugs were virtually nonexistent. People were generally happier - this is difficult topic because we can’t really measure happiness, but for example there were not so many depressed or anxious people as they are in states. Here pills are rather “norm”, people (in general) are popping pills for virtually everything.

People used to (and still) walk a lot, the obesity rates over there vs obesity rates here in states cannot be even compared (though it is also changing). We as a children could have run anywhere and anytime without our parents worrying that somebody will kidnap and rape us. You don’t see it in states, if you let your kid run for half an hour without supervision, chances are high that you will not see him ever again... Vacation time was 6 weeks normal for everybody, overtime wasn’t really popular - compare it to USA where many people work second and third jobs, 50-60 hours a week just to pay their bills... never mind that if you get 2 weeks paid vacation you are rather lucky that you work for good company... Or, when women gave a birth she was paid to stay home for 3 years, not 6 weeks like in states...

I would also say that European girls are better quality than American girls, they are more faithful, less sluttier, they respect men for what they are. Times have of course changed as well because everybody follows great America’s example, but you can still can find more quality and prettier women over there with relative ease than over here. For example, you can still find young sweet girl who wants to stay home, cook and clean, take a great care of kids, be faithful to husband, yet still remain skinny with looks 7-8 out of 10. That is not that unusual. You won’t see it here in states, very rarely.

I’m not trying to paint socialism in pretty colors, no way. I love USA. But looking back those were really great things for people in general, socialism was simply more “social”...

So I say USA is the greatest country in the world, which unfortunately half Americans don’t realize how lucky they are. At the same time, just be careful to judge what is good or bad, because one thing is to read books and quote smart lines around round table, and the other is to live real life... If you look at the problems in USA, powerty levels, obesity rates, come statistics, narcotics use, gangs, education level, you name it, these are things that socialists solved many
decades ago...