How Relevant is Marx Today?

[quote]Trocchi wrote:

[quote]Khazad wrote:

What about doctors? What about most engineers? What about the majority of lawyers? They aren’t your typical proletarians, yet they’re usually neither bosses in corporations nor politicians.
What about small, family business?

You want a classless society without any hierarchy.
It would mean that a doctor who spent most of his 20s studying most of the day (and night…), at the cost of his social life, with little free time, would be in the same position as someone who is now working at the lowest wage. Now, one of them works under huge stress, the smallest mistake he makes can cost someone life and cause incredible legal problems. On top of that, he has to keep learning until the retirement. The other one goes to work in the morning, spends there ~8 hours and comes back home. His position doesn’t require a lot of thinking. There is little stress related to his job. If he makes even a big mistake, even in the worst case he’ll just lose his job. Not be put in jail for many years along with a 6 figure+ fine.
When he comes back home, he can totally forget about his job. He doesn’t have to keep learning, maybe he has to participate in one, short and relatively easy course/training a year.
Now, how can these 2 jobs be compared? Do you really think there should be no difference between people holding those positions?
If you don’t like the example of doctors, what about computer scientists or electrical engineers? The stress and responsibility is much lower than in the case of doctors, but they still are there. Both jobs require many years of hard training and constant learning and improvements later.
Should they really be in the same position in the society as someone who is handing out flyers

Somebody who has what it takes to become a doctor or electrical engineer, should be granted a chance to become one, whether he comes from a rich or poor family. A chance. If he has what it takes.

Why someone who studies for years and then works on a demanding position requiring high skills, under huge responsibility, should be given the same position in the society as someone who doesn’t?

You don’t deserve a high position in the society just because you want it. You have to earn it.

By the way, I don’t live in America.[/quote]

Things must be different in Poland.

In the UK all the trainee doctors I know really want to be doctors to ‘be doctors’, all the doctors I know love their jobs and would do it for minimum wage.

Most students doing ‘years of hard training (doctors included)’ get selected on the basis of the hard work (lol) they did between ages 15-18. They also do it because they like it and are interested in it, and a large part of uni is that it is a lot of fun!

Nurses are a better example - they have loads of responsibility, essential to society, have to learn all their lives, and they get paid next to nothing and have very little respect! Or even care workers.

And tbh what do you think is more enjoyable - sitting in a comfy office designing electrical circuits or 12 hour days scrubbing the piss off public loo floors or caring full time for a disabled person (inc dressing them, wiping them etc)?

Who on the basis of the actual hardship and reality of their job deserves a high status in society - and who isn’t really deserving of that much?

[/quote]

lol

[quote]
And now imagine me, Zeb and Thunderbolt getting together, printing our own money, deciding democratically that each one of us gets to keep his own stuff and profits should there be any…

It would be kind of hard to compete with us, since we have the means to calculate a somewhat optimal mix of the factors of production while you dont.[/quote]

Until one of you start speaking about
-God
-Abortion
-Ron Paul
-Marijuana
-homosexuality

a second later, someone need health care, another one need a pair of handcuffs, and the third one is the State.

So, maybe Hegel was right all along after all.

[quote]kamui wrote:

[quote]
And now imagine me, Zeb and Thunderbolt getting together, printing our own money, deciding democratically that each one of us gets to keep his own stuff and profits should there be any…

It would be kind of hard to compete with us, since we have the means to calculate a somewhat optimal mix of the factors of production while you dont.[/quote]

Until one of you start speaking about
-God
-Abortion
-Ron Paul
-Marijuana
-homosexuality

a second later, someone need health care, another one need a pair of handcuffs, and the third one is the State.

So, maybe Hegel was right all along after all.[/quote]

Bah, humbug.

Not if we were in danger of starving because someone produces the 114th famine on the road to communism.

[quote]Trocchi wrote:

Things must be different in Poland.

In the UK all the trainee doctors I know really want to be doctors to ‘be doctors’, all the doctors I know love their jobs and would do it for minimum wage.

Most students doing ‘years of hard training (doctors included)’ get selected on the basis of the hard work (lol) they did between ages 15-18. They also do it because they like it and are interested in it, and a large part of uni is that it is a lot of fun!

[/quote]

It is not from the benevolence of the butcher, the brewer, or the baker that we expect our dinner, but from their regard to their own interest.

Adam Smith

[quote]orion wrote:

[quote]Trocchi wrote:

Things must be different in Poland.

In the UK all the trainee doctors I know really want to be doctors to ‘be doctors’, all the doctors I know love their jobs and would do it for minimum wage.

Most students doing ‘years of hard training (doctors included)’ get selected on the basis of the hard work (lol) they did between ages 15-18. They also do it because they like it and are interested in it, and a large part of uni is that it is a lot of fun!

[/quote]

It is not from the benevolence of the butcher, the brewer, or the baker that we expect our dinner, but from their regard to their own interest.

Adam Smith

[/quote]

THESE ARE NOT MY VIEWS, I AM SHARING WHAT WAS TAUGHT TO ME WHILE I WAS GROWING UP IN THE SOVIET UNION. I WILL SHARE MY VIEWS ON COMMUNISM LATER WHEN I HAVE MORE TIME TO ORGANIZE MY THOUGHTS

There exists many different types of trades and professions, all of which are useful to society with the exception of the ruling class. The ruling class uses the efforts of the tradesman and workers to make a profit while doing no real work themselves and exerts control over the workers either through direct force or through economic subjugation. The farmer will always farm, the blacksmith will always work metal, and it does not matter whether or not the ruling class is there or not. The farmer relies on the blacksmith to make his tools and the blacksmith relies on the farmer for food, and there exists such an interdependence on a basic level throughout all members of a society so there is no need for managers and business owners to force people to work through incentive like a paycheck, people will work to maintain their lifestyle and thus the lifestyles of all members of society equally without any class subjugating another because of perceived superiority based on class.

[quote]orion wrote:

If you oppose capitalism on the premise that it is based on “greed” you will replace it with a system based on envy and ignorance. [/quote]

Old Soviet-era joke: ‘So long as the bosses pretend to pay us we will pretend to work.’

[quote]orion wrote:

[quote]kamui wrote:

Ok
One of you speak about “communism” then.
And you become the State together.
Hegel is still right.

[quote]Dr.Matt581 wrote:

[quote]orion wrote:

[quote]Trocchi wrote:

Things must be different in Poland.

In the UK all the trainee doctors I know really want to be doctors to ‘be doctors’, all the doctors I know love their jobs and would do it for minimum wage.

Most students doing ‘years of hard training (doctors included)’ get selected on the basis of the hard work (lol) they did between ages 15-18. They also do it because they like it and are interested in it, and a large part of uni is that it is a lot of fun!

[/quote]

It is not from the benevolence of the butcher, the brewer, or the baker that we expect our dinner, but from their regard to their own interest.

Adam Smith

[/quote]

THESE ARE NOT MY VIEWS, I AM SHARING WHAT WAS TAUGHT TO ME WHILE I WAS GROWING UP IN THE SOVIET UNION. I WILL SHARE MY VIEWS ON COMMUNISM LATER WHEN I HAVE MORE TIME TO ORGANIZE MY THOUGHTS

There exists many different types of trades and professions, all of which are useful to society with the exception of the ruling class. The ruling class uses the efforts of the tradesman and workers to make a profit while doing no real work themselves and exerts control over the workers either through direct force or through economic subjugation. The farmer will always farm, the blacksmith will always work metal, and it does not matter whether or not the ruling class is there or not. The farmer relies on the blacksmith to make his tools and the blacksmith relies on the farmer for food, and there exists such an interdependence on a basic level throughout all members of a society so there is no need for managers and business owners to force people to work through incentive like a paycheck, people will work to maintain their lifestyle and thus the lifestyles of all members of society equally without any class subjugating another because of perceived superiority based on class.
[/quote]

The thing is I completely agree.

I just dont agree with who the ruling class is.

You could have fired half if not two thirds of the tax leeches in the SU without any repercussions whatsoever and you could to that in all of Europes nations now.

And yes, they stay in power through the use of force and by shuffling the peoples money around in a way that keeps them chained to the state.

[quote]kamui wrote:

[quote]orion wrote:

[quote]kamui wrote:

Ok
One of you speak about “communism” then.
And you become the State together.
Hegel is still right.

[/quote]

Triumviri?

Only in self defense.

[quote]BonnotGang wrote:

Sorry how are ethics to be viewed outside a materialist understanding of themselves, or are you saying ethics were given too man by a man in the sky?[/quote]

Just view human history - humans aren’t solely materialists. They don’t operate by that calculus in their personal lives or in the ordering of society. Materialism and its assumptions whistle past all the things that make Man…Man, and any philosophy that ignores human nature as it is (as opposed to how we’d like to to be) is worthless claptrap.

So, let me sum up - your materialist-only assumptions are worthless claptrap.

Where does the ruling class’ legitimacy come from?

[quote]thunderbolt23 wrote:

[quote]BonnotGang wrote:

Sorry how are ethics to be viewed outside a materialist understanding of themselves, or are you saying ethics were given too man by a man in the sky?[/quote]

Just view human history - humans aren’t solely materialists. They don’t operate by that calculus in their personal lives or in the ordering of society. Materialism and its assumptions whistle past all the things that make Man…Man, and any philosophy that ignores human nature as it is (as opposed to how we’d like to to be) is worthless claptrap.

So, let me sum up - your materialist-only assumptions are worthless claptrap.[/quote]

It is useful claptrap.

I am continually amused by Bill Mahers inability to grasp that a lot of relatively poor people do not vote for Democrats even though it is allegedly “against their self interest”.

Somehow he cannot wrap his head around the idea that there are people who do not care whether they make a bit more or less a year and simply care for other things more.

When he sends a reporter into deep flyover country and those people say it to her expressis verbis he even calls it a noble attitude… and has forgotten it minutes later.

[quote]thunderbolt23 wrote:

[quote]BonnotGang wrote:

Sorry how are ethics to be viewed outside a materialist understanding of themselves, or are you saying ethics were given too man by a man in the sky?[/quote]

Just view human history - humans aren’t solely materialists. They don’t operate by that calculus in their personal lives or in the ordering of society. Materialism and its assumptions whistle past all the things that make Man…Man, and any philosophy that ignores human nature as it is (as opposed to how we’d like to to be) is worthless claptrap.

So, let me sum up - your materialist-only assumptions are worthless claptrap.[/quote]

Also, as an entirely different point, what the “left” will never, ever concede is the human beings are not infinitely malleable.

They cant.

Two thirds of their programs would be entirely pointless if there was an unalterable human nature.

So, the idea that there is an unalterable human nature that can be recognized and must be taken into account does not fly with them, they do not misjudge that nature, they pretend it is not there.

Human nature is a reaction to human condition, I thought people using Human nature was a thing of the past Circa the Mcarthy Era.

There is no one single Human nature, there is no inborn nature of the human, but an attitude, outlook and POV one adopts through circumstances such as class position, gender, region, religeous influence etc etc.

Human nature is reason and action.

Our ideologies are shaped by our environment and by our own intellect.

The human mind transcends class analysis.

[quote]BonnotGang wrote:

Human nature is a reaction to human condition, I thought people using Human nature was a thing of the past Circa the Mcarthy Era.

There is no one single Human nature, there is no inborn nature of the human, but an attitude, outlook and POV one adopts through circumstances such as class position, gender, region, religeous influence etc etc.[/quote]

I might very well frame this. Well done.

[quote]BonnotGang wrote:
Human nature is a reaction to human condition, I thought people using Human nature was a thing of the past Circa the Mcarthy Era.

There is no one single Human nature, there is no inborn nature of the human, but an attitude, outlook and POV one adopts through circumstances such as class position, gender, region, religeous influence etc etc.

[/quote]

Some times I am so fucking spot on…

wow you guessed I would employ rational thought, congrats, here is my bulging prize :smiley:

[quote]BonnotGang wrote:
wow you guessed I would employ rational thought, congrats, here is my bulging prize :smiley:
[/quote]

That’s what she said

[quote]BonnotGang wrote:
wow you guessed I would employ rational thought, congrats, here is my bulging prize :smiley:
[/quote]

Au contraire, you used hyperational thought, like any good Jacobin would.

Unfortunately, hyperationalism is neither rational not reasonable.

The very fact that I can lay the finger on the unstated assumption of your ideology would give any self respecting Vulcan pause.