|
Read the rules in the OP before posting, please.In order to ensure that this thread continues to meet TL standards and follows the proper guidelines, we will be enforcing the rules in the OP more strictly. Be sure to give them a re-read to refresh your memory! The vast majority of you are contributing in a healthy way, keep it up! NOTE: When providing a source, explain why you feel it is relevant and what purpose it adds to the discussion if it's not obvious. Also take note that unsubstantiated tweets/posts meant only to rekindle old arguments can result in a mod action. |
On January 07 2013 06:04 sam!zdat wrote:Show nested quote +On January 07 2013 05:51 aksfjh wrote:On January 07 2013 05:40 sam!zdat wrote:
Right, Johnny, but I'm over here worrying about large-scale historical processes and the impact of technological change on labor patterns, cultural conceptions of work, and so on, and you just aren't answering that question. You're just offering some platitudes about "well people will decide what's best for them" and I'm losing sleep over technological unemployment and ecological catastrophe. I imagine there will be a "revolution" of sorts one day where getting a job isn't seen as the final step to being a contributor to society, which will occur when there simply aren't enough jobs to do or global production greatly outpaces global consumption. It could happen late in our life time, maybe, but it requires some pretty radical improvements, like advanced AI and "free" energy. Nah, you could do it now, if everyone just realized that most of what everyone does is totally pointless at best. Most of our consumption is pointless - we produce artificial demand in order to maintain the system. c.f. No Logo by Naomi Klein for a nice illustration of this phenomenon.
If you don't mind, could you provide a few examples of pointless consumption? I just find it hard to believe that people buy things for literally no reason. Did you mean to say that the reasons you think they have are frivolous and destructive to the environment? And that somehow the system of capitalism encourages this sort of behaviour by its addiction to profit? That would make more sense 
|
On January 07 2013 05:39 TotalBalanceSC2 wrote:What is so special about an ancient Mesopotamian city?
They named a great sci-fi show after it.
|
On January 07 2013 06:10 JonnyBNoHo wrote:Show nested quote +On January 07 2013 05:40 sam!zdat wrote:
Right, Johnny, but I'm over here worrying about large-scale historical processes and the impact of technological change on labor patterns, cultural conceptions of work, and so on, and you just aren't answering that question. You're just offering some platitudes about "well people will decide what's best for them" and I'm losing sleep over technological unemployment and ecological catastrophe. Technological unemployment - if technology becomes so awesome that 'there's not enough work to go around' then another thing must also be true - shit is cheap. If that's the case then entitlements become cheap for the government to pay for and so there's less and less complaint about people not working. Ecological catastrophe - there's some legitimate worry here. But technology is making good progress here as well. Productive farms mean that forests can regrow (already happened in the advanced world). Alternative energy is making progress every year to reach grid parity. We're in for a pretty big change once that happens.
I agree with most of what you've been arguing here, but what you have suggested just now is a terrifying world of plutocrats and masses of plebes dependent on patronage from the rich by a welfare state run through the government. Just because robots can do things marginally more efficiently than people, we get slightly more stuff. Look at US manufacturing today, fewer people, more productivity than ever before, not enough jobs to go around but certainly not enough production to support everyone. It's not automatically a world of plenty.
|
On January 07 2013 06:14 JonnyBNoHo wrote:Show nested quote +On January 07 2013 05:39 TotalBalanceSC2 wrote:On January 07 2013 05:36 sam!zdat wrote:Babylon  What is so special about an ancient Mesopotamian city? They named a great sci-fi show after it.
Hey, I am a huge Babylon 5 fan, I could not see what that could possibly have to do with finance though.
What do you want?
-Shadow
|
On January 07 2013 06:10 JonnyBNoHo wrote:Show nested quote +On January 07 2013 05:40 sam!zdat wrote:
Right, Johnny, but I'm over here worrying about large-scale historical processes and the impact of technological change on labor patterns, cultural conceptions of work, and so on, and you just aren't answering that question. You're just offering some platitudes about "well people will decide what's best for them" and I'm losing sleep over technological unemployment and ecological catastrophe. Technological unemployment - if technology becomes so awesome that 'there's not enough work to go around' then another thing must also be true - shit is cheap. If that's the case then entitlements become cheap for the government to pay for and so there's less and less complaint about people not working.
The thing is, entitlements are cheap to pay for, and people complain more and more about them. This isn't a theoretical scenario: it's real life, right now.
|
Cayman Islands24199 Posts
On January 07 2013 05:47 HunterX11 wrote:Show nested quote +On January 07 2013 05:00 oneofthem wrote:
there is no vast consciously designed capital class conspiracy at least when it comes to the labor market. There doesn't need to be one. To quote Karl Marx: Show nested quote +
We rarely hear, it has been said, of the combinations of masters, though frequently of those of workmen. But whoever imagines, upon this account, that masters rarely combine, is as ignorant of the world as of the subject. Masters are always and everywhere in a sort of tacit, but constant and uniform combination, not to raise the wages of labour above their actual rate. To violate this combination is everywhere a most unpopular action, and a sort of reproach to a master among his neighbours and equals. We seldom, indeed, hear of this combination, because it is the usual, and one may say, the natural state of things, which nobody ever hears of. Masters, too, sometimes enter into particular combinations to sink the wages of labour even below this rate. These are always conducted with the utmost silence and secrecy, till the moment of execution, and when the workmen yield, as they sometimes do, without resistance, though severely felt by them, they are never heard of by other people. Such combinations, however, are frequently resisted by a contrary defensive combination of the workmen; who sometimes too, without any provocation of this kind, combine of their own accord to raise the price of their labour.
Whoops, that was actually Adam Smith!
ya, i know. but it is distracting to conjure up some kind of conspiratorial boogieman.
employers can have healthy impact on the development of the labor force as well. the german system of technical schools working closely with industry is but one example. these things are daily politics, not specified by any large system labels like "capitalism"
|
On January 07 2013 06:57 HunterX11 wrote:Show nested quote +On January 07 2013 06:10 JonnyBNoHo wrote:On January 07 2013 05:40 sam!zdat wrote:
Right, Johnny, but I'm over here worrying about large-scale historical processes and the impact of technological change on labor patterns, cultural conceptions of work, and so on, and you just aren't answering that question. You're just offering some platitudes about "well people will decide what's best for them" and I'm losing sleep over technological unemployment and ecological catastrophe. Technological unemployment - if technology becomes so awesome that 'there's not enough work to go around' then another thing must also be true - shit is cheap. If that's the case then entitlements become cheap for the government to pay for and so there's less and less complaint about people not working. The thing is, entitlements are cheap to pay for, and people complain more and more about them. This isn't a theoretical scenario: it's real life, right now.
They've been getting more and more expensive and that's projected to continue...
![[image loading]](https://dl.dropbox.com/u/72070179/Entitlements2%20-%20Copy.PNG)
|
On January 07 2013 07:57 JonnyBNoHo wrote:Show nested quote +On January 07 2013 06:57 HunterX11 wrote:On January 07 2013 06:10 JonnyBNoHo wrote:On January 07 2013 05:40 sam!zdat wrote:
Right, Johnny, but I'm over here worrying about large-scale historical processes and the impact of technological change on labor patterns, cultural conceptions of work, and so on, and you just aren't answering that question. You're just offering some platitudes about "well people will decide what's best for them" and I'm losing sleep over technological unemployment and ecological catastrophe. Technological unemployment - if technology becomes so awesome that 'there's not enough work to go around' then another thing must also be true - shit is cheap. If that's the case then entitlements become cheap for the government to pay for and so there's less and less complaint about people not working. The thing is, entitlements are cheap to pay for, and people complain more and more about them. This isn't a theoretical scenario: it's real life, right now. They've been getting more and more expensive and that's projected to continue...
Social Security looks fine, and the problems with medical coverage come from increased costs for everybody.
|
On January 07 2013 05:56 farvacola wrote:Show nested quote +On January 07 2013 05:49 TotalBalanceSC2 wrote:On January 07 2013 05:43 farvacola wrote:On January 07 2013 05:39 TotalBalanceSC2 wrote:On January 07 2013 05:36 sam!zdat wrote:Babylon What is so special about an ancient Mesopotamian city? Presumably it has something to do with Mammon. Out of curiosity, do you personally feel at all motivated to "change the world", as cliche as that sounds? Change the world in what way might I ask? I would be perfectly happy promoting social tolerance and human rights if that is what you mean. If you are talking about starting a revolution and burning the system to the ground, not so much. Well, my personal brand of Marxist ideology is somewhat tempered in the name of pragmatics, so that you seek to do good with the tools of evil (money) gets a thumbs up from me. Not everyone enjoys subversion
Marx was wrong. The sooner you embrace that, the better off you'll be.
|
On January 07 2013 08:22 BluePanther wrote:Show nested quote +On January 07 2013 05:56 farvacola wrote:On January 07 2013 05:49 TotalBalanceSC2 wrote:On January 07 2013 05:43 farvacola wrote:On January 07 2013 05:39 TotalBalanceSC2 wrote:On January 07 2013 05:36 sam!zdat wrote:Babylon What is so special about an ancient Mesopotamian city? Presumably it has something to do with Mammon. Out of curiosity, do you personally feel at all motivated to "change the world", as cliche as that sounds? Change the world in what way might I ask? I would be perfectly happy promoting social tolerance and human rights if that is what you mean. If you are talking about starting a revolution and burning the system to the ground, not so much. Well, my personal brand of Marxist ideology is somewhat tempered in the name of pragmatics, so that you seek to do good with the tools of evil (money) gets a thumbs up from me. Not everyone enjoys subversion Marx was wrong. The sooner you embrace that, the better off you'll be.
Lol let the guy have his fun hes not hurting anyone else with his marxist ideals.
|
On January 07 2013 06:13 radscorpion9 wrote:Show nested quote +On January 07 2013 06:04 sam!zdat wrote:On January 07 2013 05:51 aksfjh wrote:On January 07 2013 05:40 sam!zdat wrote:
Right, Johnny, but I'm over here worrying about large-scale historical processes and the impact of technological change on labor patterns, cultural conceptions of work, and so on, and you just aren't answering that question. You're just offering some platitudes about "well people will decide what's best for them" and I'm losing sleep over technological unemployment and ecological catastrophe. I imagine there will be a "revolution" of sorts one day where getting a job isn't seen as the final step to being a contributor to society, which will occur when there simply aren't enough jobs to do or global production greatly outpaces global consumption. It could happen late in our life time, maybe, but it requires some pretty radical improvements, like advanced AI and "free" energy. Nah, you could do it now, if everyone just realized that most of what everyone does is totally pointless at best. Most of our consumption is pointless - we produce artificial demand in order to maintain the system. c.f. No Logo by Naomi Klein for a nice illustration of this phenomenon. If you don't mind, could you provide a few examples of pointless consumption? I just find it hard to believe that people buy things for literally no reason. Did you mean to say that the reasons you think they have are frivolous and destructive to the environment? And that somehow the system of capitalism encourages this sort of behaviour by its addiction to profit? That would make more sense
Yes. People are not rational actors. If they were, there wouldn't be any such thing as advertising.
On January 07 2013 08:22 BluePanther wrote:Show nested quote +On January 07 2013 05:56 farvacola wrote:On January 07 2013 05:49 TotalBalanceSC2 wrote:On January 07 2013 05:43 farvacola wrote:On January 07 2013 05:39 TotalBalanceSC2 wrote:On January 07 2013 05:36 sam!zdat wrote:Babylon What is so special about an ancient Mesopotamian city? Presumably it has something to do with Mammon. Out of curiosity, do you personally feel at all motivated to "change the world", as cliche as that sounds? Change the world in what way might I ask? I would be perfectly happy promoting social tolerance and human rights if that is what you mean. If you are talking about starting a revolution and burning the system to the ground, not so much. Well, my personal brand of Marxist ideology is somewhat tempered in the name of pragmatics, so that you seek to do good with the tools of evil (money) gets a thumbs up from me. Not everyone enjoys subversion Marx was wrong. The sooner you embrace that, the better off you'll be.
I know that you've never so much as read Marx (maybe somebody told you the manifesto was Marx's most important work, you read that in high school, and now you think you know), tried to understand Marx, and you don't know the first thing about it. Marx was wrong about a whole bunch of stuff. He was right about a whole bunch of stuff too. Just like every other person in the history of ever.
edit; what Marx was wrong about was that he was too optimistic.
edit: actually now I'm curious. What do you think Marx believed, and why was he wrong about it?
|
On January 07 2013 08:22 BluePanther wrote:Show nested quote +On January 07 2013 05:56 farvacola wrote:On January 07 2013 05:49 TotalBalanceSC2 wrote:On January 07 2013 05:43 farvacola wrote:On January 07 2013 05:39 TotalBalanceSC2 wrote:On January 07 2013 05:36 sam!zdat wrote:Babylon What is so special about an ancient Mesopotamian city? Presumably it has something to do with Mammon. Out of curiosity, do you personally feel at all motivated to "change the world", as cliche as that sounds? Change the world in what way might I ask? I would be perfectly happy promoting social tolerance and human rights if that is what you mean. If you are talking about starting a revolution and burning the system to the ground, not so much. Well, my personal brand of Marxist ideology is somewhat tempered in the name of pragmatics, so that you seek to do good with the tools of evil (money) gets a thumbs up from me. Not everyone enjoys subversion Marx was wrong. The sooner you embrace that, the better off you'll be.
Fear not, for I embrace the fact that everyone is wrong in some way, most especially myself
In relevant news of the day, it would appear that Obama will almost certainly nominate former Republican Senator Chuck Hagel for Secretary of Defense. Whether or not this will play out more favorably for the White House remains to be seen, as Hagel has received a fair amount of criticism from Democrats and Republicans alike.
(Reuters) - President Barack Obama will nominate former Republican Senator Chuck Hagel to be his defense secretary and an announcement could come on Monday, sources familiar with the nomination process said.
The choice will likely set up a confirmation battle in the Senate over whether the former Nebraska senator and Vietnam veteran is a strong enough supporter of key U.S. ally Israel and over his past calls for military cuts.
The Obama administration backed down from a tough Senate confirmation battle over Susan Rice, the U.S. Ambassador to the United Nations, who was Obama's first pick to replace Hillary Clinton as secretary of state.
Rice withdrew her name from consideration after drawing heavy fire from Republicans for remarks she made in the aftermath of a September 11 attack on the U.S. mission in Benghazi, Libya. Obama then nominated Massachusetts Democratic Senator John Kerry, a former presidential candidate.
"The administration has a lot of work to do on Hagel," a Democratic Senate aide said on Sunday.
"He is in a weaker position now than Rice ever was because Rice would have rallied Democrats behind her. The administration floated Hagel's name, then neglected to defend him effectively when his critics started taking shots," the aide said.
However, the White House is confident it can weather criticism of Hagel's record and garner enough votes from both sides of the political aisle to get his nomination through committee and win confirmation in the Democratic-led Senate.
"The president wants him, because he trusts him and he's an independent voice," a second source close to the situation said.
The source said Hagel had received high-level messages of reassurance in recent days that his nomination was on track despite a campaign by his critics aimed at derailing it.
Obama to nominate Hagel for defense secretary: Democratic aide
|
On January 07 2013 08:44 sam!zdat wrote:Show nested quote +On January 07 2013 06:13 radscorpion9 wrote:On January 07 2013 06:04 sam!zdat wrote:On January 07 2013 05:51 aksfjh wrote:On January 07 2013 05:40 sam!zdat wrote:
Right, Johnny, but I'm over here worrying about large-scale historical processes and the impact of technological change on labor patterns, cultural conceptions of work, and so on, and you just aren't answering that question. You're just offering some platitudes about "well people will decide what's best for them" and I'm losing sleep over technological unemployment and ecological catastrophe. I imagine there will be a "revolution" of sorts one day where getting a job isn't seen as the final step to being a contributor to society, which will occur when there simply aren't enough jobs to do or global production greatly outpaces global consumption. It could happen late in our life time, maybe, but it requires some pretty radical improvements, like advanced AI and "free" energy. Nah, you could do it now, if everyone just realized that most of what everyone does is totally pointless at best. Most of our consumption is pointless - we produce artificial demand in order to maintain the system. c.f. No Logo by Naomi Klein for a nice illustration of this phenomenon. If you don't mind, could you provide a few examples of pointless consumption? I just find it hard to believe that people buy things for literally no reason. Did you mean to say that the reasons you think they have are frivolous and destructive to the environment? And that somehow the system of capitalism encourages this sort of behaviour by its addiction to profit? That would make more sense Yes. People are not rational actors. If they were, there wouldn't be any such thing as advertising. Show nested quote +On January 07 2013 08:22 BluePanther wrote:On January 07 2013 05:56 farvacola wrote:On January 07 2013 05:49 TotalBalanceSC2 wrote:On January 07 2013 05:43 farvacola wrote:On January 07 2013 05:39 TotalBalanceSC2 wrote:On January 07 2013 05:36 sam!zdat wrote:Babylon What is so special about an ancient Mesopotamian city? Presumably it has something to do with Mammon. Out of curiosity, do you personally feel at all motivated to "change the world", as cliche as that sounds? Change the world in what way might I ask? I would be perfectly happy promoting social tolerance and human rights if that is what you mean. If you are talking about starting a revolution and burning the system to the ground, not so much. Well, my personal brand of Marxist ideology is somewhat tempered in the name of pragmatics, so that you seek to do good with the tools of evil (money) gets a thumbs up from me. Not everyone enjoys subversion Marx was wrong. The sooner you embrace that, the better off you'll be. I know that you've never so much as read Marx (maybe somebody told you the manifesto was Marx's most important work, you read that in high school, and now you think you know), tried to understand Marx, and you don't know the first thing about it. Marx was wrong about a whole bunch of stuff. He was right about a whole bunch of stuff too. Just like every other person in the history of ever. edit; what Marx was wrong about was that he was too optimistic. edit: actually now I'm curious. What do you think Marx believed, and why was he wrong about it?
I've read more Marx work than most (BS in social sciences), although it's been a while. I own a copy of the manifesto, but I don't think I've read the whole thing.
Marx made some great steps forward in defining work and labor stuff, but his overall picture was distorted by his personal opinions (something that I find is far too prevalent amongst progressive academics). Equality is not the goal of a socioeconomic structure. He made huge progress for his time, but most of what he theorized is outdated, parts of it disproven or surpassed in quality of understanding.
If you're interested in this topic, I suggest you read Braverman's Labor and Monopoly Capital. It's a good read, and a much more modern analysis from a Marxist point of view.
|
meh. nonanswer. I would dispute the notion that Marx was necessarily after what you think of when you say "equality." And if all you've read is a piece of the manifesto, that doesn't count as reading Marx, that pamphlet is basically irrelevant.
And everyone's picture is "distorted by his personal opinions." If you think that is not the case for anyone at all you are utterly delusional. That's why you read more than one person...
Please tell me what about what he theorized is outdated, in your opinion.
Of course, one of the first tenets of Marxism would be that it would be the height of folly to take a Marxist analysis of the 19th century and apply it to the 21st. It's basically a foundational dogma of Marxism that Marx is necessarily outdated.
edit: thanks for the recommendation of a text, I'll put it on my list.
edit: so what I'm saying is that every good Marxist assumes this from square one:
On January 07 2013 09:38 BluePanther wrote:
most of what he theorized is outdated, parts of it disproven or surpassed in quality of understanding.
edit: that's WHY the manifesto is irrelevant
|
On January 07 2013 09:42 sam!zdat wrote:
meh. nonanswer. I would dispute the notion that Marx was necessarily after what you think of when you say "equality." And if all you've read is a piece of the manifesto, that doesn't count as reading Marx, that pamphlet is basically irrelevant.
And everyone's picture is "distorted by his personal opinions." If you think that is not the case for anyone at all you are utterly delusional. That's why you read more than one person...
Please tell me what about what he theorized is outdated, in your opinion.
Of course, one of the first tenets of Marxism would be that it would be the height of folly to take a Marxist analysis of the 19th century and apply it to the 21st. It's basically a foundational dogma of Marxism that Marx is necessarily outdated.
edit: thanks for the recommendation of a text, I'll put it on my list.
Maybe you misunderstood me. I've read nearly all of Marx's stuff. I specialized in socioeconomics.
|
Ah, yes, I misunderstood then. That's an impressive mountain of text you've climbed then. Have you read anything later in the Marxist tradition? Particularly I'm thinking of the Frankfurt School theorists and their various students.
edit: I guess what I'm saying is that thinking about Marxism as a school of thought that tries to defend the actual corpus of Marx is kind of missing the point. So if you've read Marx, but not much Marxism, then we're not exactly talking about the same thing.
|
Lukacs, Adorno, Althusser, Gramsci, Horkheimer, Benjamin, Marcuse, and finally, Jameson. Those are the Marxists whom I most enjoy and would recommend. Alas, I am probably forgetting someone
|
Don't forget Kracauer! The Salaried Masses is a jewel.
edit: and of course the enfant terrible Zizek
|
On January 07 2013 09:53 sam!zdat wrote:
Ah, yes, I misunderstood then. That's an impressive mountain of text you've climbed then. Have you read anything later in the Marxist tradition? Particularly I'm thinking of the Frankfurt School theorists and their various students.
Braverman is probably the most recent I've read that I'll be able to recall by name (I graduated almost 5 years ago). I've long discounted the marxist theories simply because they basically disavow stratification. This is folly as far as I'm concerned. I've spent the past few years studying under progressives, so I'm more familiar with individuals in those areas.
|
Would you believe that I agree wholeheartedly with that objection?
edit: If you think that Marxists have any idea what "communism" is supposed to be, you don't understand Marxism.
|
|
|
|
|
|
EPT
