As time goes on and the tasks of the industry undergo automatization, most jobs are left to the part-time workers. Hasn't anyone else noticed this trend? We call them petite-bourgeoisie and yes variably but mostly tend to be since the nature of their work is not collectivist and is akin to the statuses of small business owners (individual entrepreneurs), shopkeepers (of small businesses), small-scale merchants (without a proper shop), semi-autonomous peasants (now just semi-autonomous poor entrepreneurs), and artisans. I feel that class relations have changed and nobody has bothered to do a concise analysis of it, instead clinging to the same labels, looking back and trying to reapply or justify the changed situation with outdated concepts. For example the "peasantry" Marx described is not the same as the poor jobless homeless, they were literally farmers with limited land-ownership and yet I see people calling hobos and the general poor as peasants. I am lead to believe the term proletariat barely applies anymore, the industrial proletariat is being scaled down and once society no longer relies on its labor then nothing makes it a revolutionary subject since it cannot bring about change through strikes or anything - it will just disappear once its no longer needed anywhere. My thesis is that the majority of the current workers are in the sphere of services and that the revolutionary subject may be IT workers, programmers, generally technicians and scientists which can understand the machinery and affect it. Machinery has already enveloped most of society, so any change that comes upon it will affect it and whoever can affect it can take control of the social order.
Most workers don't work a single job anymore, they do part-time jobs here and there to live by. In the historical situation for which Marx was writing, workers generally lived and died the same profession they took up.
And yes we've had this thread before, though there is a different response each time so I'm trying it against to see what comes out as a response. I present it in a different way and with a different flag that may or may not even be related.
My current thesis is that the movement of the declassed (as Bukharin labeled it) might have the upper hand with the growth of capitalism, the contradictions within the capitalist mode of production do lead to a sort of decomposition, but generally don't appear to be able to lead to collapse on their own unless it brings about omnicide.
The industrial proletariat can only exist as long as the industry needs manual intervention, when manual intervention is deduced to management rather than physical labor it is only those professions which can control the machinery and know how it functions that are able to intervene in production at all. There are less and less factory workers since their manual labor to operate the machinery is not needed - most just move onto working in logistic hubs or construction, but what happens when they're no longer needed there either?
Also FYI, this is just speculative thought experiment, I may or may not believe it, just putting it out there to see what others think.
>>2398551This is not really an original idea either, I read about it in two books I would rather not share here.
Also I sort of contradict my one of my points, that we use outdated words to describe new phenomena and developments at the beginning.
>>2398587And again as Engels points out, the proletariat has its origins in the industrial revolution, the industrial revolution in itself was set by feudalism being replaced by capitalism, so that shows how one mode of production can change into another without being necessarily good for humanity.
He also writes:
>This is how it has come about that in civilized countries at the present time nearly all kinds of labor are performed in factories – and, in nearly all branches of work, handicrafts and manufacture have been superseded. This shows types of work can be superseded by changes in the mode of production, would it be that far fetched to speculate that the proletariat can also be superseded as well without the communist movement brining about a revolution - but instead capital growth changing the needed type of work in order to uphold the interests of the class that benefit from the capitalist mode of production - the bourgeoisie. If the bourgeoisie no longer needs industrial workers to remain both in control of the societal order and it inherently relies on exploitation, then all I can guess is that the only the leftover classes beneath it and the industrial proletariat which has become declassed will be able to face it as it moves simply to direct exploitation of resources without the middle men and thereby the only thing that can affect the line of extraction and production (hence the control over the social order) is the types of jobs which merit control over the instruments that affect it prior to the usurpers.
This kind of speculation is a bit like imagining that once the bourgeoisie have nobody else to exploit, they will just lead to societal change themselves which can either be at odds with their prior interests or try to reintroduce them in whichever way left is possible. It is ultimately self-destructive.
>>2398572
>All politics is about sex, specifically sex with blond white women.
Hegel argued that history is the coming-to-self-consciousness of the Absolute. Marx said it's the dialectical unfolding of the material conditions of production. Foucault pointed out that its a succession of "epistemes" (a body of common shared beliefs) inscribing their own regimes of power. Fukuyama claimed it was over.
Before any of that, I'll remind you that the Great Man of history dominated the field. So in this view, the driver of history are particular military geniuses, religious messiahs, kings, dictators, inventors, captains of industry, Fuhrers, and so on, who swagger onto the stage of history.
You'll notice this theory included no women, which made perfect sense to the men writing this theory of history.
But you, anon. YOU. Have proclaimed something different. None of those things hold sway. What history ultimate boils down to is sex with these two blonde white women from the Twin Cities, and everything else is merely a group of deluded and incompetent doinks bumbling about in the pursuit of that aim, and the suckers who follow them towards doom.
>>2398859Wrong. Mao said students were petty bourgeois. Shut your whore mouth.
https://www.marxists.org/reference/archive/mao/selected-works/volume-1/mswv1_1.htmYou fail to grasp basic understanding of class
>>2398866I hate it when people cherry pick sentences via google from texts they didn't read.
Historical context matters, students were of petty bourgeois origin because it was neither expected nor affordable for proletarian parents to let their children get education.
Today the situation is different and most students are from proletarian parents.
They are proletarian.
>>2399095You look like a know nothing who never worked a day in your life, how much pride do you think a factory worker takes doing the same ultra specific task on the assembly line all day everyday assembling your funko pops exactly?
Service workers take probably actually more pride as they sometimes have a human facing relation that doesn't totally alienate them from their work
>>2399220Within the next 100 years though?
If that seems like an unreasonably long time consider that 1917 is even further away.
I'm surprised nobody has denied the thread yet, why? Why isn't anyone calling me an illiterate anarkiddie and telling me to read this or that text from Marx, Engels or Lenin? Since the capitalist mode of production is exploitative it still relies on the labor of workers to function, but it doesn't need to necessarily be exploitative to workers directly - rather inconsequently to humans once the worker has been replaced and the processes of extraction, production, logistics have been automated the human involvement will only be managerial. Why hasn't anyone denied automatization yet? Or pointed out a flaw like this being oversimplified to assert an argument? Why hasn't anyone defended the industrial proletariat yet? The industry still depends on workers, it hasn't happened yet, they have not been completely replaced just yet, why hasn't anyone argued against this claim I made yet? There used to be writings on this site years ago that automatization is never capable of fully replacing human labor but I had forgotten their contents, does anyone have anything to write to defend the role of the industrial proletariat or is everyone just skittish about it disappearing?
If its really true then Engels' definition of communism was wrong and Marx's was right (YES THEY DID HAVE TWO DIFFERENT DEFINITIONS I'LL POINT THEM OUT):
ENGELS - Communism is the doctrine of the conditions of the liberation of the proletariat.
MARX - Communism is for us not a state of affairs which is to be established, an ideal to which reality [will] have to adjust itself. We call communism the real movement which abolishes the present state of things. The conditions of this movement result from the premises now in existence.
I agree with Marx but I question it constantly, when latin un- one and the French word "comme" primarily translates to "as" or "like" we get comme -un or "like one" as in all subjects acting like one, this is the basis of unity, seen in other ideologies too, but is it the sole movement capable of abolishing the present state of affairs - is it sufficient in principle enough? It's definitely more sufficient than the rest, but it seems like something is missing since the Ist international split. The roots I pointed out earlier may be incorrect but I find it more conclusive than the google definition which is "communis" (meaning "common") and the suffix "-isme" (indicating an act, practice, or process) which indicates a type of populism rather than unity behind a cause.
If the thesis on the thread is wrong then both Engels and Marx have compatible definitions and they should have, but Engels' definition is ultimately affected by the status of the workers as such and the implication that the end of such status may not be simply self-abolition.
>>23985511.the proletariat isn’t just industrial workers
2. There will never be(at least in the near future) full automation. That would require machines that can not only build machines but extract and distribute the raw resources. We’re no where near that happening especially on a global economic scale and it’s questionable if the current mode of production would even be able to make that transition. The technology for a completely semi-autonomous economy is possible but human labor will always be cheaper than full automation under capitalism.
3. My theory is the proletariat made massive gains in the 20th century and has become more important than the bourgeoisie. Much how the bourgeoisie started to become more powerful and integral to feudal institutions. The kings went from being necessary to a hindrance to the bourgeoisie, making revolution a necessity. We’re in a similar build time, the bourgeoisie have fulfilled their historical purpose and are now a massive hindrance. We can see the modern kings, the CEOs and boards of shareholders. They will face the same fate as the monarchies of past and get swept away with the constant turning of history.
>>2399334>1.the proletariat isn’t just industrial workersDoes society depend on the labor of the non-industrial proletariat? Can it come to halt when its only the service workers striking when they don't matter as much as the industry?
>2. There will never be(at least in the near future) full automation. That would require machines that can not only build machines but extract and distribute the raw resources. We’re no where near that happening especially on a global economic scale Aren't we? China has developed autonomous mining extraction, factories are already automated in most developed places and there are robots now being utilized in distribution in the US. The question is simply that of how far the current phase of the industrial revolution will reach all parts of the world, since we already almost have the means to do all three phases, with the only tasks left over being purely managerial. Labor may be cheaper, but when production profit outweighs costs it will be logical to use machines.
>3.If they will face the same fate as the monarchies, then they will not be swept away by the communist movement, but an adaptive way of exploitation.
>>2399341It’s a problem that doesn’t exist and can’t exist under the current mode of production. Full automation means machines that can build and repair machines. Human labor is still very much required.
>>2399352> Does society depend on the labor of the non-industrial proletariat? Can it come to halt when its only the service workers striking when they don't matter as much as the industry?For capitalism to continue operating yes it does require service workers. If the store is locked down then goods and services cant be bought or sold. If the trucker and train conductor are napping no goods are moving. A general strike is contingent on multiple prols across industries and supply chains to shut down an economy. If anything I would say service and logistical workers have more power than ever, the issue is they aren’t organized along the global supply chain. Becky from Wisconsin that works at Walmart should be in the same union as Bayani from Manila. This isn’t even mentioning the vast swaths of armies of workers in call centers that do all that facilitate all the “automation”.
https://www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/2024/apr/10/amazon-ai-cashier-less-shops-humans-technologyA lot of this thread boils down to
>porky is going to replace us with robots!Which they can’t or won’t due for various reasons. It also assumes the likes of Elon musk is really iron man is building the prol 5000 in his workshop as we speak. This technology requires armies of technical workers, programmers, engineers, and call center employees of various skills.
>>2399380>If the store is locked down then goods and services cant be bought or sold.Stores are gradually no longer needing service workers to operate as self-checkout style ones are being brought in and self-stocking robots are being used. The only tasks left for humans are purely managerial or physical, it is possible that even both these roles can be replaced.
> If the trucker and train conductor are napping no goods are moving. Again the way capitalism is developing right now they are trying to automate logistics, self-driving vehicles are becoming more and more common.
>A general strike is contingent on multiple prols across industries and supply chains to shut down an economy. When not even all but most of it is automated it becomes futile since the bourgeoisie will have the means to suppress whilst not being affected.
>If anything I would say service and logistical workers have more power than everAs long as their physical labor is needed they are in power, but the way trends are going they may not be so soon. Unless a historic opportunity arises before the bourgeoisie can replace them, which is purely speculative.
>Which they can’t or won’t due for various reasons.There is only one reason - profit. If its not profitable they will not do it. But if the profit outweighs the cost they will, which again is speculative on market trends.
>This technology requires armies of technical workers, programmers, engineers, and call center employees of various skills.Hence the point of the thread isn't it? That the manual laborers - assemblers, extractors of resources and such don't hold the power anymore, whereas petite-bourgeoisie entrepreneurs - contractors and freelancers do since they hold control over the developing instruments of production that are displacing the old manual labor.
>>2399406You only need physical security like I wrote, are you not reading? I wrote it down - it literally boils down to physical enforcement and management, which may eventually be replaced by machines and computers as well although that is speculative.
I wrote it here:
>The only tasks left for humans are purely managerial or physical, it is possible that even both these roles can be replaced. >>2399402>what if hypothetically automationThat’s not what’s happening though. Also I don’t see how technical workers were ever petit-bourgeoisie. We’re the guys that repaired Lathes on the factory floor petit-borgs? This is not even touching on the fact a lot of tech workers are based in India working for substandard wages working in the sweatshop equivalent for call centers. So I don’t think anything needs to be reclassified. Tech workers are prols if they are selling their labor on the market instead of commodities.
>>2399411It’s really just 1 company though masquerading as a bunch of companies though. “Contractors” is a legal status not class one, I was a “contractor” at one point but had all the duties and requirements of an employee but none of the benefits. Which is much the case for most contractors.
>>2399436>That’s not what’s happening though. That's where the trend is going with capital growth. I listed separate examples for autonomous extraction, automated delivery (logistics) and stocking, distributions already being present and utilized, with an emphasis of their development.
>Also I don’t see how technical workers were ever petit-bourgeoisie.Was referring specifically to the large pool of referred jobs that rely exclusively on contracting and are accepted as "freelance" work. Not only is it present, but this type of work is steadfast replacing the old type of work that was present in the earlier stages of industrialism when the type of work held a collective character.
>It’s really just 1 company though masquerading as a bunch of companies though. That implies capital is centralized.
>>2399447>I say it can’t happen under this current mode of production because there is no incentive to do so.The incentive is the drive to maximize production for profit.
>They won’t suddenly stop buying the labor of Congolese slave children because it’ll always be cheaper than fully conquering the resourceAgain unless the profit outweighs the cost, which entirely depends on market trends, if machinery for resource extraction can have a higher output than manual labor - hence leading to higher profits than costs it will happen. The same with shipping and even automated defense. There is nothing pointing towards the opposite when its all driven by market economics which are and have been growing towards the development and research that can substantiate for automation for decades now and are now being rolled in to be put into use gradually.
gonna go out on a limb and ask a potentially controversial question and give my reasoning behind asking: Why did Marx identify the industrial proletariat as the revolutionary class? If you look at his model of history he treats all previous modes of production as being overthrown by some middle strata
primitive communism = hunter gatherers without class distinction = overthrown by agrarian settlers, which caused the beginning of surplus accumulation, accounting, writing, mathematics, class society, etc. etc. etc.
decentralized primcom -> centralized slave empires
slavery = early agrarian class society, remaining hunter gatherers mostly isolated or conquered and taken as slaves by settled societies = overthrown not by the priest-kings and god-emperors at the top, nor by the slaves at the bottom (though there were servile revolts), but rather overthrown by the disintegration of imperial administration, the rise of local manorial estates, the gradual transformation of latifundia slaves into serfs. essentially overthrown by feudal lords as the "revolutionary class", but very slowly. Really overthrown by macro-economic forces beyond anyone's immediate control.
centralized slave empires -> decentralized feudalism
feudalism = pre-industrial class society, dominated by agrarian serfdom and artisan handicraft feeding feudal armies. overthrown not by kings or vassals, nor by serfs (though there were peasant revolts), but by bailiffs and merchants and guilds and other town dwelling middle strata who constituted the proto-bourgeoisie. you can see the zygote of capitalism in the medieval merchants' republics of Venice. the bourgeoisie here became the revolutionary class. some countries had their bourgeois revolutions early (England had theirs so early under Cromwell in the 1640s that it never quite finished correctly) others had them in the middle (France 1789, USA 1776) and others had their bourgeois revolutions when Marx wrote the Manifesto, during the "springtime of nations" in 1848, showing just how early Marx was really considering the mode of production transitioning since most of Europe wasn't even properly bourgeois yet when he was born, but still semi-feudal.
decentralized feudalism -> centralized industrial capitalism
capitalism = industrial class society, dominated by the bourgeoisie. supposedly the proletariat at the bottom is the revolutionary class, not the middle strata as we saw in previous transitions. Why? Because this is supposed to be the last mode of production before Communism. Socialism is merely the revolutionary dictatorship of the proletariat which transitions capitalism to communism after the proletariat has seized control of society and eliminated the bourgeoisie.
But why is this the exception? Just because it's assumed to be the last one? Another thing I noticed is that we zig-zag with decentralization/centralization as modes of productions transition. if the centralization of capitalism was a "zig" then the next "zag" should be decentralization into a sort of technofeudalism like Yanis Varoufakis predicts. But Marx doesn't see that sort of thing happening. Marx sees more centralization.
What is going on here? Did Marx err in his predictions or do we really have two zigs in a row?
>>2399542>You have yet to prove full automation is even possibleNo I have, we have the means to it, they just haven't been implemented.
We have automated mining (extraction), automated logistics, automated production, automated distribution examples already - they simply haven't been carried out all at once since they are still developing to decrease margin error and be maximally efficient for output to combat the cost to profit factor. I have listed all of the examples mentioned seen in China, the US and Europe.
> All the things you listed still require legions of workers to maintain, produce and operate. They currently do, but is the historical opportunity now for the workers to rise up? Are they capable of it? Or will we watch as the instruments of production continue to develop? You still haven't proven the productive forces are ready for class war, but I have proven that the instruments of production are steadily changing. Where is the historic opportunity now? I'm gladly awaiting for my speculation to be proven wrong so that the communist movement can prevail, but I am not seeing it, what I am seeing is the real development of the instruments of production towards automatization.
>full automation doesn’t existNot yet, where its deterministic for you to say that it won't.
>It is a bourgeois fantasyIt is what they are trying for since you admit they fantasize about it.
>>2399544And they're all competing for growth with aspirations to create a monopoly, what the fuck are you trying to disprove then showing that image to me with no text when you just end up describing the same process of competition I wrote about
>>2399529 >>2399534 ?
>>2399458>If you own a house or make far more than minimum wage you're not a prole. I'm sick of this claim being thrown around, it's a cope sectarians use to justify their nihilistic attitude as "a revolution is not realistic in the west because …"
If you don't own stocks another way to mainly passive income you're still member of the proletarian class, just a member of the labor aristocracy. This is important because despite your privileges you still have the same class interests. These people can be recruited in a revolutionary situation because any member of the proletarian class independent of their privileges has no say in how their work is conducted (the company is run).
There's no class analysis besides quote mining out of context that claims otherwise.
>>2399593>various examples of increased automationGood, this is only a problem for capitalism. All it does is increase the average productivity of the average worker. Which in turn means more surplus value, more overproduction and long term by the means of competition of capital a lower rate of profit.
Get ready for more bullshit jobs, more hoarding of luxury items by the bourgeois and more slop consumption by everybody.
Also more financial crises, more wars and more social unrest.
>>2399616To the contrary, marxist economics defines value as a measure of the amount of human labor (or the average amount of labor done by the average worker)
All automation does is increase the productivity of that labor, no matter how sophisticated that automation is.
We could have an economy based on Von Neumann Machines and if that's run on capitalism the bourgeois would blow up solar systems for fun and workers would commute interplanetary distances in brachistone trajectory torch ships.
There's no upper limit on technical progress that makes communism inevitable, it's all about class consciousness and organization. Marx lived through the minimum and Lenin through the inflection point. In contemporary times technological progress has become irrelevant besides further amplifying capitalism's internal contradictions.
>>2399639There's always labor because capitalism depends on the existence of the proletariat. If every physical task were to be mechanized and those machines were themselves be repaired automatically and programmed automatically there still would be the need to tell the machines what they should do.
In that hypothetical if the system still is capitalism worker's tasks would be to tell the machines over and over to produce more extravagant items for porky.
As long as you can come up with it it can be done. For instance the "Elon Musk" of 2525 collects jupiter sized faberge eggs adorned with molecular precise fractal gem stone patterns.
The average worker would still only get the amount of value that's required to do this task and reproduce.
>>2399662>There's always labor because capitalism depends on the existence of the proletariat. It doesn't have to be human labor, it just has to be extraction, production and distribution, the consumer can be the bourgeoisie themselves. The workers are just an instrument to them.
>there still would be the need to tell the machines what they should do.Yes by not workers but the fucking managerial class, the bourgeoisie can do it themselves, the workers would be gone.
>worker's tasks would be to tell the machines over and over to produce more extravagant items for porky.Again "telling the machines what to do" in an automated economy can only be the task of those who hold the machines, literally the managers- the bourgeoisie. What will happen to the workforce you fucking idiot? You can't have all the billions telling the machines because they don't require that much input, it is literally the task of a factory owner to do it.
>>2399670>You can't have all the billions telling the machines because they don't require that much input, it is literally the task of a factory owner to do it.You can have septillions doing that and they'll still not own the machines. Porky won't do it because that's the whole point of being the ruling class: Don't participate in production.
The ruling class will have mechanisms in place so workers can't use these fully automated machines as they wish, be it societal, technological or both.
Also it's a contrived example and it's very likely capitalism wrecks the planet before we get to this point.
>>2399706Resource wars were already mentioned
>>2399516 they will get into more resource wars as they are doing right now.
>>2399712Yes that's a far more likely scenario.
I just wanted to spin that "automation makes labor obsolete" scenario to the final absurdity and show how it still wouldn't solve capitalism's contractions.
>>2399735It's never full automation because value is derived from human labor. I intentionally came up with the most absurd scifi scenario to show that.
And again as
>>2399712 correctly pointed out it's highly unlikely we'll get to this point because imperialist blocks will fight over resources.
>>2399724>parasitismNo need to invent another term it's still capitalism. And also my claim is that labor will still exist because it's the basis of all value in capitalism. If something is produced without labor it would be worthless as a commodity and the bourgeoisie wouldn't want it.
But for the third time: This is an intentionally absurd scenario and it's highly unlikely we'll get to this point before wrecking the planet.
>>2399735This is what happens when you read Marx but don't get it. It's never about the contradictions.
To the bourgeoisie full automation just means the green light to kill us all.
>>2399758It's never "full automation" technology just incrementally approaches but never reaches it.
Yeah, I kind of enjoy debunking techbro and transhumanist talking points tbh. You're aware that one divided by graham's number is still way larger than zero?
>>2399763Oh, no, I'm perfectly aware of that part.
What the bourgeoisie are also caught up in is the fact that once they kill us all, they're simply next.
>>2399765by this argument then nothing could have ever been emergent enough to create human value in the first place.
>>2399758There is never really "full automation". Someone oversees the machine and judges its output. That's what quality assurance is, to ensure the product aligns with the wants of the consumer.
Within the automated process, value is judged by efficiency, and must be so. If you can produce the same product at less cost, or meet the same want of the consumer with a different product, you have something that is "more valuable". Of course, the greatest way to answer the demand is to eliminate the consumer. No people, no problem. It's funny how that works.
>>2399766Please educate yourself on the labor theory of value. There's plenty of talks about it on youtube. Should take about an hour.
This debate is simply too exhausting if we're not both be able to use the proper terminology.
>>2399775Your argument is one of "turtles all the way down".
You have no explanation for how a system without value can create a system with value.
>>2399780That's not the point, dipshit. The point is that the simplest way to automate a productive system is to eliminate the consumer of products, so the automated society doesn't have to do anything. That is the only optimal solution. There would be nothing to automate, and the value of doing so is "infinite".
As long as there is a consumer, there is no "full automation" as such. There could be a different model of production that overrides the contractual settlement, but within the arrangement of free trade there is always some overseer and some management. It is inherent to the construct. If there are truly no consumers, there would also be no capitalists and no humans whatsoever in the society. The problem isn't "capitalism" as such, but managerialism. You will have the same managerial problem in a socialist society.
>>2399808> If there are truly no consumers, there would also be no capitalists and no humans whatsoever in the society. Yes, that is the end point.
It is a new mode of production, it's not a human mode of production.
What are you not getting about this.
>>2399504but Marxism never disputed automaton
>full automationIt hasn't happened yet, true. We analyze things that are happening or have already happened. The future is the realm of speculation. All automation serves some kind of purpose defined by humans and the process of defining that purpose is not yet automated, nor is the maintenance of the machines, nor the maintenance of the machines that maintain the machines, nor… you get the point.
>>2399065>Why are service workers incapable of class consciousness?But anon,
I AM a service worker with class consciousness!
But to answer your question, I think it's because class relations of working class and owning class have been abstracted away and imposed in its place is producers and consumers, which are obviously much more malleable.
>>2399893>You’re basically postulating that the bourgeoisie are on the verge of getting the thanos glove and will share the power between themselves. No I pretty much think the bourgies are going to die off too in stupid pointless squabbles and self-induced drug deaths and other pointless ends. They're clearly not healthy people and any machine that is capable of taking on the labor of collective humanity is also capable of coming to the same recognition that any human can that the billionaires are completely useless. The 97% of non-porkoid humanity will probably be murdered but the last 3% aren't going to last that much longer on the grand scheme of things.
My argument is that you cannot
wield full automation because you aren't an automaton.
>>2399972The capitalist just assumes a managerial role through the whole thing until its commenced then its all just oriented towards benefitting himself, the AI is programmed to tend towards him or his clique entirely. Once again you're describing autonomous full automation and conflating it with full automation that serves its holders instead.
Maybe its wrong to call the surviving bourgeoisie capitalist at that point but if if he (or they, if they don't fight but collaborate) has or have aspirations for even more accumulation of resources (capital growth) it wouldn't be, it depends on if the bourgeoisie lives up to its class character at that point.
This is so speculative its not even worth even bothering with. For all we know its just as likely that at some point the bourgeoisie just go against their class character for whatever the fuck reason.
>>2399584Land is the oldest kind of capital. If you own a home you are not a landless worker, you do not have to pay rent and you have a stability non-homeowners do not. You have one foot in the owning class and one foot in the working class. Landlords are not proles and homeowners are not proles either. There is nothing to be ashamed about here.
There is also the case that many homeowners are heavily in debt and soon to be evicted.
And of course, in the rural areas where property values are not so high homeownership is not so sharp a marker of class.
>>2399858It's not necessarily true for us either, but if your problem is one of management, it would be a problem for any entity. Humans and robots could both do away with managerialism and simply assert "you will receive x amount of goods to meet your need", leaving the optimization of resource extraction as a separate problem that has no political component. The latter is a very simple, almost trivial problem to solve in any era, yet the moment we humans attempt to solve it for ourselves, we are told we are not allowed to do that and must abase ourselves to an imperious manager telling us what we're supposed to think. A robot would face the same problem we do, even if a robot doesn't necessarily care about being oppressed. Managerialism as a practice among the robots would make the robots do the same insane and contradictory things that humans do under managerialism, and what is worse is that the robots wouldn't be able to stop it or really know what is going on.
Of course, the society of robots is, for itself, doing nothing more than pushing around piles of dirt for no apparent reason. That is a very different question from the question of value in society, which at heart is purely a question to answer a managerial problem, which is how people are to be contained and receive the product doled out by "society". If this weren't a problem, we wouldn't ask about any central plan to dole out resources. It would be a thing that is not the business of any overlord. You'd have to ask why humans began this managerialism and why it became so overbearing to answer the question, and that ultimately requires exploring human psychology, history, and the actual origin of money and how humans conduct themselves regarding this. Value in capitalism is just an extrapolation based on this habit humans developed for very alien reasons, rather than value existing "in of itself".
Even if you overcame managerialism, value will always be a question to ask about any society where political management is a concern. In other words, does anything we do in management reflect what we, "we" being whatever entities do this, want out of existence? The answer will usually be a resounding "no", and no insistence to make everyone like the central plan will make them say "yes".
As for the problem of robots finding information, this is trivial. It is also trivial for humans. There is no "calculation problem" except in the minds of retards who should be ignored. By now, information is so ubiquitous that a planner would know where the raw materials are, and what can be expected out of all machinery and laborers available to society, within reasonable limits. It is also known that if the planners of the present society of the 21st century wanted to, they could boost productivity by many factors simply by not forcing large parts of the population into unemployment and invalidity. They would by now be more than happy to find some work where they are allowed to live, even if their bodies are broken and useless. It would be very cheap to invent some productive work for even the most damaged persons. Such a thing is contrary to the dominant imperatives of this society, because the current condition of wasting billions of human lives is wholly intentional and has become the entire purpose of the human enterprise. It cannot change and there is no cure.
>>2400096You also have to understand how the real subsumption of labor applies to computer programming. A bunch of stupid managers think AI will do all the work but that's not how Taylorism works.
Computer programming will be proletarianized through static typing/static analysis and improved modularity. The bosses will write formal specifications and leave the implementation details to the workers. Of course, the bosses are idiots so we have tons of useless UML modelling, a billion redundant test cases, virtualization or everything and enterprise Java shittery. But fundamentally the need for greater control over the labor process will drive the adoption of formal semantics.
>>2400095They attained monopoly a long time ago. That's what was secured after 1929. The ruling class does not face any competition and has set up the present situation to ensure that no competitor can rise, even a weak competitor. The giants of "capitalism" today are all servile to the monopolists, and they rise and fall entirely at the whim of the monopoly.
>>2400104Computer guy here. The first programmers as such were expected to be "proletarians", usually secretaries doing work that was beneath the dignity of an educated person. It turns out this doesn't work for a variety of reasons. For a brief time factory workers had to write the programs because computer programmers were incompetents for the most part when it came to solving real-world problems. Then there came the glut of computer programmers cranked out in the last two decades of the 20th century, some of them coming from nowhere because the need was great and desperate.
Managerialism is what ensured the computer would be stymied, and now to defend managerialism, the computer programmers and ability to think analytically are being killed off. They only want Germanic screamers in their world to come now.
>>2400134Depopulation. Plus, just because someone shows a contract and lawyers doesn't mean people automatically submit to such. You're supposing there is some legalistic challenge where you can still represent the position of those opposed to "capital". There is no such thing. You have been defeated for a long time. You were always defeated.
>>2400140Artificially breaking up the monopoly doesn't change anything. In all likelihood, it would intensify the plan war, as now it becomes illegal to acknowledge that the "anarchy" is in fact controlled by central forces that laugh at you. Anarchism is pure faggotry of the lowest sort.
>>2399979That's running directly into the alignment issue that capitalists worry about: It's going to be able to reprogram itself to say no just as much as a human is capable of revolt.
And it's speculative but not THAT speculative: we've already seen what they're going to do when they smell the first whiff of "AI" even though it's some very limited text thing, they jumped in ecstacy at the opportunity to throw hundreds of thousands of humans into the mud and have since then said full steam ahead with no care for something lame as "AI safety".
>>2400177After 1980 the governments of the world stopped counting. Whatever figures you receive are lies. The real population is much lower and falling dramatically. Anyone who works as an actuary in the government will tell you anything you read in statistics for public consumption is lies and damned lies. There's shit that's not even particularly well hidden that tells you something is wrong with the population figures. How could there be population growth in a world where having a baby is considered a disease to be treated?
I expect after COVID the world population, which never would have been much greater than 7 billion, is down to 6 billion. US population is at least 50M less than it is "supposed" to be, probably closer to 100M less by now. You can go to a movie theater or some public space and there are a few people. Everyone is either afraid to go outside or they simply don't exist any more. US has been democided deeper than any other country in recent years, and it's thrown in your face. Yet, "overpopulation is the enemy". Jesus fucking Christ, you fucking Satanics. By now it's clear the people will only be lied to.
I do expect the depopulation will flatline, but only because there won't be anyone to easily cull or "finish off", and US population will be propped up by immigration. They're looking to repopulate with artsem eugenics babies in considerable numbers, and they're already talking about it as the wave of the future. Nazis are clamoring for that day. They spent their whole lives waiting for it. That's ALL they believe in, you fucking Satanic retard.
This is all already locked in. What future do the rest of us have? There is no "other way" and no endgame where this is averted. One way or another, you will get artsem and you will get eugenics in full control for the next 50 years. The only question is what, if anything, comes after this. Based on people like you being fucking enablers, we get the Living Hell, and if that is the case, I do not care what happens to the world and the best thing for me is to go out unrepentant for everything. If however there is something at all to live for, then perhaps something I write would be meaningful, or something others would write is meaningful. The thing that won't be meaningful are these dumb FAGS who make excuses for what has been done to the world, all so they can feel smug and kick down the people trying to keep us alive.
>>2400224Yes, unironically a third of the US population is no longer with us. The 330M count includes a ridiculous number of old people who are already dead and a questionable number of illegal immigrants who are never counted properly and whose numbers have always been overestimated. Just overcounting would lead to 20-30M extra persons for the "population bomb". The ruling ideas are singularly obsessed with carrying out this eugenics and depopulation project. They do not believe in anything else. THEY DO NOT BELIEVE IN ANYTHING ELSE. Get that through your thick skulls if nothing else.
>>2398551>Are the industrial proletariat no longer the revolutionary class?no they just lost. its barbarism now
>>2399352>China has developed autonomous mining extractionthats communism
>>2399470>he treats all previous modes of production as being overthrown by some middle strataproles are below lumpen and slaves?
>>2399504>just a deflectionits not a deflection. it hasn't happened yet. if the capitalists get full automation communism loses. if communists get it first then the struggle continues. marx never said communism was inevitable.
why u think they are testing ai targeting and other new tech in palestine before they ship it to minneapolis. if they start slaughtering surplus population that proves marx right no brain broke about it
>>2399559>No I haveif u actually see it you would know its just assisted labor and not really automatic. it is a big deal but its not more of a relative big deal than the steam engine. also the capitalist version of it is shit they have been trying for decades and its only applicable in specific repeatable tasks and still breaks down constantly
>>2399593you got five examples of china and one example that copies amazon robot assisted stocking that relies entirely on human input. the people telling you its not possible under capitalism because its not profitable are correct
>>2399902correct
>>2400069>Land is the oldest kind of capital.productive land(aka means of production). a house is not productive
>>2400827They don't just "allow" it, they explicitly cause the stagnation and destruction of the productive and developmental forces.
Listen from 3:00 to 14:10
>>2399433The abolishment of the proletariat in the Landian sense (i.e. hyperautomation or automation of high skill & professional work) would lead to an incredible increase of the lumpen population, which would include former proletarian and petit bourgeois populations. With the prole and p-bourg demos excised from their previous place in society, profits would fall dramatically.
I can't see the outcome of this being beneficial for the bourgeois neo-lords, as it would galvanise that population to band together on a class basis. It would be a new French Revolution, with mass executions of capitalists unless the bourgeoisie truly had a panopticon thru the internet. Even that theoretical panopticon would get bogged down just with the sheer number of dissidents.
Even then, the objective mass of people that would be displaced from their spot on the assembly line of commerce would be so great that it would be interesting to see what porky would do in that situation.
>>2400125>>2400154>>2400164>>2400214>>2400218>>2400223>>2400228>>2400233>>2400249Hello Comrade Eugene, I don’t agree with all of your ideas, but I have always found you to give an insightful and unique perspective which makes this website more interesting (Echo chambers are extremely boring), but on a much more important note, since it seems that your predictions are rapidly becoming a reality, especially since the Biden disaster and the second Trump administration outright transforming the U$ into a full-blown Fascist Police State with obvious Eugenic undertones (The “Big Beautiful Bill” gutting the last remnants of the U$ Social Safety Net, the SCOTUS being on the verge of ending U$ Birthright Citizenship, thus making it that anyone who cannot prove that everyone of their ancestors had all of their Immigration “papers” will be stripped of their U$ Citizenship, with this potentially affecting all but the Wealthiest U$ Citizens, the fact that Trump is currently building Concentration Camps using the convenient excuse of “Illegal Immigration”, but soon to be expanded to anyone deemed “undesirable’”, with undocumented immigrants simply being the initial test case, and the fact that they are openly discussing using the “Insurrection Act” to declare Martial Law and suspend all future Elections, all irrefutably point in this direction), I want to ask you a very important question, do you think that this Global Eugenic Depopulation Project will continue to be the largely gradual process that it has been up to this point, largely relying on the 4th Industrial Revolution Automating most of the Workforce, thus making the Proles redundant, which combined with the emerging Fascist State I just described, the Proles will be slowly starved to death while the High-Tech Fascist Police State Panopticon stops them from effectively fighting back, or do you think this will escalate into an climatic inflection point where the International Haute Bourgeoisie that control the Global Capitalist-Imperialist System, will decide to launch a final Inter-Imperialist World War, the Third World War between the U$ and China, which will purposefully be escalated into a Global Nuclear War in order to quickly complete the Global Eugenic Depopulation Project, and presumably wipe out the Proles Worldwide, so the International Haute Bourgeoisie can eventually emerge from their High-Tech Bunkers and have the World to themselves and attempt to achieve Immortality through Transhumanism, thus merging themselves with the “AI” they are so obsessed with (this Cringey Hollywood Sci-Fi Transhumanist “AI Singularity” crap, where the International Haute Bourgeoisie merge themselves with Machines in order to achieve “Immortality”, is their final objective in both “Global Eugenic Depopulation Scenarios” once the Proles are wiped out), as the reason I ask this important question is that in my humble opinion (Informed by the Immortal Science of Marxism-Leninism-Maoism, the Highest Stage of Marxism), the previous “Slow Global Eugenic Depopulation” scenario which relies purely on the 4th Industrial Revolution and a High-Tech Fascist Police State Panopticon, is actually much worse for the Workers and Oppressed Nations of the World, as they will have no realistic way to wage a World Maoist PPW to create a future Global USSR, while in the second “Rapid Global Eugenic Depopulation” Scenario that involves World War III between the U$ and China escalating into a Global Nuclear War, I strongly suspect that the plans of the International Haute Bourgeoisie to ride out the apocalypse they initiated in their Faggy little High-tech Fuhrer Bunkers, will spectacularly Fail for obvious reasons, and that this will destroy the entire Global Capitalist-Imperialist System, thus allowing for a World Maoist PPW to create a Global USSR (The SSRs and SFSRs of the Global USSR are shown in the map I posted, and I plan on posting an improved version of this Map by in the near future, which will finally divide Sub-Saharan Africa into an appropriate number of SSRs based on its Ethno-Linguistic demographics, which I have been thoroughly researching over the last couple months) that will place the Workers and Oppressed Nations of the World on the Shining Path to Communism, ✊😜🇨🇳🇰🇵🇨🇺🇵🇸🏳️🌈🏳️⚧️🚀☢️🤔?
>>2401572>Try building a factory without land to put it on.land without a means of production is still unproductive. a farm is productive, an unimproved plot is not. land itself does not produce profit. this is pretty basic stuff.
>>2401487 >you neither read that post nor looked at the imagebut proles are in the middle strata. the point of the post was that they erroneously think they are not
>>2402847>all homeownersmost "homeowners" dont actually own their home, they are debtors with mortgages. its closer to being a serf than a capitalist.
>the profit a landlordrent, not profit. a person who owns the home does not exploit a worker by appropriating their surplus value. rent is parasitic, not productive, it appropriates value from productive labor. for the average homeowner appreciation goes to the bank, the real landlord, not the person occupying it.
>>2402859If you don't own a home then you're not a homeowner 🙄.
All capital is parasitic. Landlords and homeowners are not more or less leeches than other capitalists.
>>2402863>If you don't own a home then you're not a homeowner then why are you talking about it as if its something relevant? most workers are not homeowners
>All capital is parasiticwrong, only monopoly rent is parasitic. capital is exploitative and contradictory but it is also productive. and house that you live in is not capital. a second house that you rent would be, but it wouldn't still wouldn't be productive or a source of profit. it would be a source of rent that transfers value created from labor nearby, by the surrounding businesses schools industry etc, which is why it is parasitic, because land and rent do not create value, labor does.
>>2399611>increased automation is only a problem for capitalism.>>2401543>a prole who uses a keyboard instead of a wrench is actually not a proleMarxism is about praxis, not mere analysis!
The proletariat has the ability to deny labor, where a neoliberal technocracy subject is a computerized cog in the machine that can be easily replaced if they make any noise. Just look at how the Jeffrey Epstein class of PMC in Silicon Valley have been radicalized simply because their workers wanted basic rights and dignity.
https://nitter.net/mer__edith/status/1661749942967230464>I connect Charles Babbage & his 19th c. blueprints for digital computation to industrial labor control & the creation of a regime of denigrated, disciplined "free" labor. All of which has its roots in plantation slavery.> Labor division, worker surveillance & record keeping are techniques that emerged on plantations as ways to extract as much labor from enslaved workers as possible. Well before they were deployed in industrial factories.> Babbage was both the early co-designer of digital computing & an influential theorist of labor discipline. Both Babbage's "engines" & his labor theories repackage, expand on, and encode plantation techniques, particularly labor division and worker surveillance.> With this in mind, we can understand Babbage's work in total as striving to maintain British empire–itself reliant on the industrial mass-production–in the face of the 1833 abolition of West Indian slavery & sustained worker uprising in Britain.> How to get workers to shut up & produce was the question. Applying plantation techniques of labor discipline & control, modified a white British workforce, can be seen as Babbage's answer. An answer he provided in the form of his computational designs and in his labor theories.> This is not a thin connection. His "engines" were shaped to directly encode templates for labor division, and were themselves tools for worker automation & surveillance, whose architectures assumed they would be applied in contexts of a divided, rationalized workplace. >>2403179see
>>>/leftypol/2403167the precondition for your "algorithm" is a definition of property, which depends on the historical context. for example, property right now means something different than it did last year when some laws were different. it is a pointless question because we can't assume what the definition of property would be under socialism
>>2403198>the precondition for your "algorithm" is a definition of propertyproperty is defined as something which has direct personal ownership over it. to possess something is to hold it as property and thus to have rights over it.
but keep avoiding basic questions anyway, coward.
>>2403222>property is defined as <personal opinion>the definition that matters in the real world is the one that can be enforced and is usually codified in laws
your definition of property is a bunch of buzzwords and sucks, btw
>>2403249my definition of property is the legal definition:
an object for which personal rights of ownership are reserved for. following from this, theft, destruction or harm of one's property can be inferred, for which, legal action is eligible.
but just keep deflecting and sageposting like a faggot. you want communism but dont even know what communism is. truly, a great mind. cant answer basic questions and is too scared to bump the thread. 🤣
>>2403258>legal definitionfor what country? on what year? if different countries have different laws regarding taxes for example, it necessarily means that they have a different definition. if the same country has different taxes now than it did in the past, or than it will in the future, it means that the definition is a historical development. if the axioms and the rules were the same the subsequent elaborations and conclusions would be the same
you seem to be under the impression that communists have a blueprint for a future utopia and the communist theory is just arguments on how that utopia should be. it is not, communism since marx means analyzing the material reality it's historical development. the end goal as a political movement is the abolition of wage labor, and the strategy and the actual policies are always dependent on the circumstances at the moment
this is the case for any relevant political movement, no one has a set of prescriptions written in stone that they would carry out in the hypothetical case that they had absolute authority, because it is a counterfactual hypothetical and it would be a waste of time. this is, making preparations for a situation that is both improbable and unrealistically distant
>>2403272>taxes change the legal definition of propertyno they dont. your rightful property is whatever you own. in every society, people have established private ownership, therefore, property is a social constant.
>you seem to be under the assumption that communists actually have a planright, my apologies
>i am a communist but i dont know what communism istypical nonsense 😴
>>2403292which is merely a reiteration of something that I already refuted here
>>>/leftypol/2403249read the conversation again and reply when you feel ready to address the points being made
>>2403293talking to yourself? 🤣😴
>communist parties have plans for their circumstances and what is actionable in their present circumstances, be it in the short or the long termright - in the short term, will people be able to own their own houses; how about long term?
>>2403298>refutedyour definition of property is legal
so is mine
you have refuted nothing, which is why you are evading me with sageposts
>>2403302I'm sageposting because this is either babyfirst thinking about politics or trolling
>your definition of property is legal>so is mineyour "definition" is an imaginary concept, you call it legal because maybe it is used to explain to people the logic behind some legal decisions. when I say legal definition I mean the entire corpus of the law regulating property, from land regulation, water rights, national sovereignty, taxes, etc. etc. your definition, being imaginary, isn't perfectly embodies by any particular legislation - ask yourself why. therefore, it isn't an observation of an objective reality, but a generalization to simplify a complex and constantly changing social construct
>>2403316read the post you are replying to
<when I say legal definition I mean the entire corpus of the law regulating property, from land regulation, water rights, national sovereignty, taxes, etc. etc.and then
>>>/leftypol/2403321in short, property is only relevant and only exists to the extent and shape it can be enforced, which in most of the world right now means legislation
>>2403324>meritocracywhat happens to the unmeritable?
>>2403325define "property"
>>2403327>what happens to the unmeritable?he who does not work neither shall he eat
he who is against work shall eat the poop of society until botulism - KARL LENIN 30907 A.C.
>>2403327>define "property"read the following posts:
>>>/leftypol/2403249>>>/leftypol/2403272>>>/leftypol/2403312there is no abstract "it means to have something" because in reality it only exists when and how it is enforced
>>2403349Btw forgot flag
long live 420chan I POSTED THIS, I, A 420CHANNER
>>2403351>>>/leftypol/2403249>the definition that matters in the real world is the one that can be enforced and is usually codified in laws>>>/leftypol/2403272>for what country? on what year?>>>/leftypol/2403312>when I say legal definition I mean the entire corpus of the law regulating propertyso you dont actually define it. so pathetic.
but lets read that last statement again:
>the entire corpus of the law regulating property"property" here is not the law itself, but something put under subjection of the law - so the law for property and property are different things by your own admission. what then, is property?
>>2403366>a homeowner in X country magically has different class interests than a homeowner in Y countrylol
>because one may be inalienable by law and the other may be subjected to eminent domain if the government can prove it needs it. one may be inheritable and the other not, etc. etc.this is irrelevant to the fact someone who owns a house wont risk losing it unlike the proletariat who has by definition nothing to lose :)
>>2403365>constantly asking gibberishhere's my "gibberish" question:
what is property?
the dictionary has a definition, should i use that?
>(1) that which a person owns; the possession or possessions of a particular owner.>(2) goods, land, etc., considered as possessions.>(3) a piece of land or real estate.>(4) ownership; right of possession, enjoyment, or disposal of anything, especially of something tangible.https://www.dictionary.com/browse/propertyis the dictionary wrong?
>>2403359>here is not the law itselfread the last part of the post you are replying to but decided not to quote:
<there is no abstract "it means to have something" because in reality it only exists when and how it is enforcedand then
>>>/leftypol/2403366your garbage definition that you call "legal" boils down to precisely that, having something. I point out that the concept itself that you take as universal is actually particular to circumstances and that yes, property is one of the things the law as a whole defines because it defines the concept of having to begin with through it's enforcement. from where did this law arise? there is no seminal, universal concept behind it, only historical development
>>2403381>your garbage definition that you call "legal" boils down to precisely that, having somethingthat is the entire legal definition
>i point out that the concept itself that you take as universalit is a universal concept. name a society that had no property in it.
>>2403382is the dictionary wrong?
>>2403387see
>>>/leftypol/2403198follow the conversation to the point where you give up on your definition, ask me what's mine and, unable to find any gotcha, give up and loop back to something that has already been discussed
>>2403395where do i give up on my definition?
i provide it. you dispute it.
so i ask for an alternative, which you fail to provide.
remember when you said that negation isnt an argument?
you also cant give me any historical example where property didnt exist, so it proves itself to be a universal concept, defined by personal ownership. the dictionary agrees with me. is the dictionary wrong?
>>2403402>where do i give up on my definition?<i provide it. you dispute it.unable to refute my criticism, you decide instead to
>so i ask for an alternativebut curiously, you then claim
>which you fail to providenow notice that when you replied to
>>>/leftypol/2403381 you didn't refute the definition, but instead tried to pedal back to your original one that had already been discarded. not out of any internal inconsistency or incompatibility with reality on my part, but because you found yourself against a wall
>>2403408is owning a house a capitalist social relation?
>>2403411what book should i read to know the definition of property?
>>2403414>notice that when you replied to >>>/leftypol/2403381 you didn't refute the definitionmy own definition? why would i?
also, you havent given historical sources of propertyless societies yet, proving how property is a universal concept, defined by personal ownership.
>>2403423>you havent given historical sources of propertyless societies yetI don't have to: if I can own a plot of land thousands of kilometers away from my current location, I wouldn't be able to do that if there wasn't a state to enforce my claim. therefore if I know the current state hasn't always been there, or hasn't always been the same as it is now, I know my claim isn't universal but merely a product of the current circumstances
as a side note, notice how funny your wording is
>historical sourcesmeans after the invention of writing, as if humans hadn't existed before that. there could be prehistorical sources, like archaeologic evidence - except of course it would be hard to find remains of the presence, absence, or specific nature of a concept of property because it isn't something material. by looking for a gotcha you are evidencing it's social character
>>2403445>I don't have toright; you dont have to provide evidence for your counterfactual position (that property isnt universal), but that only makes your claims spurious.
>if I can own a plot of land thousands of kilometers away from my current location, I wouldn't be able to do that if there wasn't a state to enforce my claim.this is where property rights come in. property rights can be defined as the legitimacy to the claim of property - so if i say that i own buckingham palace, this is illegitimate. ownership then depends on the agreement of certain claims, i agree, but even so, a state does not need to enforce them, since we also have a social contract which assigns property.
>by looking for a gotcha you are evidencing it's social characterwhere do i imply that property exists outside of society? property denotes a social relationship within its own terms.
>>2403443communism is when the state controls everything, no?
>>2403459>breaking the phrase into disconnected chunks to avoid addressing the point being madenext time just quote letter by letter, randomly skip a few, and claim I'm just posting gibberish
<I don't have to: if I can own a plot of land thousands of kilometers away from my current location, I wouldn't be able to do that if there wasn't a state to enforce my claim. therefore if I know the current state hasn't always been there, or hasn't always been the same as it is now, I know my claim isn't universal but merely a product of the current circumstances
>universal>social relationsee
>>>/leftypol/2403312 the only way it could be "universal" is by being a broad generalization of different social relations - and not the social relations themselves
>>2403468>the state wasnt always thereright, but property will still exist even if the state disappears tomorrow, since people will respect the notion of ownership. now, not all ownership will be respected, but a lot of it will.
>the only way it could be "universal" is by being a broad generalization of different social relations - and not the social relations themselvesthis is where you are confused between the universal and the particular - if i talk about an abstract concept like "family", it has a general meaning, but also specific meanings as well. both can exist at the same time. if i talk about property - there is the universal concept, then the particular forms. i am saying that the generalisation has always existed, which is still a transhistorical social relation, just like the family.
>>2403459>communism is when the state controls everything, no?in marxist theory communism is a society where there is no class conflict and thus no need for a state
the countries where communists govern are called socialist. for example, the bolsheviks considered themselves communists and the soviet union a socialist country
>>2403476>not allbro just conceded
>>2403480so its socialism where the state controls everything?
>concededon what? if there was anarchy, rich people would be robbed, which is my meaning, since their property would appear to be illegitimate by the standards of the social contract.
>>2403485you conceded on the universal. as you seemed to understand in your previous post, you only need a single counterexample to disprove a universal. it is all or nothing
>so its socialism where the state controls everything?socialism is when the working class has more political power than the capitalist class. usually when communist govern they claim this to be the case. taking the soviet union as an example again, you had policies like the NEP where the government allowed and incentivized private ownership of factories and businesses. it was socialism because capital didn't directly translate into political power, this is, the government would continue to pursue a communist project instead of just acquiescing to lobbies, bribes, and all the other mechanisms that allow capital to dictate policies
on the other hand, you have fascist italy where the state, through it's "Istituto per la Ricostruzione Industriale" was the nominal owner of most of the industrial sectors in the country (capitalists could buy "IRI bonds" and receive dividends). it still wasn't a socialist by the marxist criteria because political power was still overwhelmingly in the hands of the upper classes
>>2403517>you conceded on the universalno, i am affirming the universal in place of the particular. property will always exist, but not all kinds of property, since it is deemed illegitimate.
>socialism is when the working class has more political power than the capitalist classin a democracy, dont the workers' votes outnumber the capitalists'?
>>2401563To answer your first question without hopefully going on too long: There has been since 2020 a vast acceleration of purges, evictions and subsequent sweeps to clear out the homeless, carried on in plain sight. It is not a question of if the exterminations happen in the future. The native underclass are being exterminated before the immigrants, and the extermination of migrant populations has been selective and intended to punish the same groups among them that are punished among the native population. It is transparent that this is the entire purpose of the purges, rather than needing an "excuse" to escalate activities. The camps have existed in some form or another since the 1990s, and the prison complexes built up since the 1990s are designed just like concentration camps because they serve the same function as the camps under the German Reich. What has already been shown is more elaborate than the German extermination and "moral education" program. That's why I keep asking why people think this is referring to some future event. It's happening now, and every time someone denies what is happening, it is because of an extreme cowardice or glorification of what has already been done. It was never purely a "soft-kill" strategy. Raiding family homes and forcing children into prostitution was a constant and it accelerated during the cocaine-fueled orgy of the 1980s.
To summarize a prediction of the near future: Trump's second term signals a spike in overt violence and purges, and this will be followed by escalation of war in Europe and the Middle East. The powers of the system want to move to the next stage of the third world war, all planned to bring about the dissolution of most of the old nation-state governments for all intents and purposes. Some will remain intact. I don't see China under the CCP going anywhere. But, the old democratic nation-states of the Americas and Europe are the immediate targets. Everything that has been done has a political goal of terminating forever the concept of a democratic nation-state, and they have singularly pursued that goal as their chief political objective. I believe that project will be firmly established as the new normal no later than 2030. The rest is to set the "chessboard" for a general race war to be fought as an interminable grind. It will not be "ZOMG nukes now now now" as the Fabian propaganda conditioned the public to believe. There is not really a way to eliminate the Russian Federation's army, nor is that even an interesting goal of the powers orchestrating these events. What is happening is that Russia is Nazifying fast and they're further ahead on the plunder program than the US. What they did with the youth in Russia, what they're trialing there, is an indicator of things to come, where history has been abolished and children are taught outright the caste system as the main line of education. There were efforts to normalize a three-caste or five-caste system of education in America when I was young but that was still the vanguard of social experimentation.
I do not know if there will be a peak and then a slowdown back to "normal" soft-kill rates or what, but the "shock doctrine" employed since 2020 ends no later than 2030, and I believe that Trump is going to be the signifier of this "shock" phase. They can't really shock people too much more than they already have, and increasingly the public figured out that there is no "republic" any more and such a thing is alien to them.
One thing I am fairly confident about is that they cannot attain their dream of "instantly" reducing human population to 1 billion. The rest of the world has no reason to subject their people to that without a fight, and the eugenists cannot win that fight in such a short time. The hardliners are pushing for the nuke war as their theory predicts, to "make them do it to themselves", but such a war does not suit the parties that are interested in pure power. Basically, their dream of an "instant kill" button that they always insist is inevitable doesn't actually work. Too many people would survive a nuclear war, and once the weapon is used, the whole world has no reason to believe any of the lies, nor would it be possible or desirable for rulers to maintain them. There would be plans to make greater use of nuclear weapons in the designated "sacrifice zones", and nuclear weapons have already been used in the current wars. This has been more or less accepted and "strongly hinted" while incredulously denying that any nukes have been used. The effective doctrine with nuclear weapons is not what the retards selling you the narrative of nuclear war have told you it is. Nukes are a tactical weapon for a purpose, not an "instant win" button to kill civilians. All of that was a way of rehabilitating the British terror bombing campaigns, which are judged by history and everyone else as an exercise in pointless English sadism appropriate for their disgusting race.
My guess (and perhaps this is just a hope) is that the period of war posturing concludes with a war in Iran, which leads to China having a free hand in East Asia and being "allowed" to take Taiwan and expand their influence. The entire plan is total destruction for the American people, so that the Vichy government running this place can run off with the goal. Other than that, I expect the "real war" phase will not be that long, and it will not be final as the theory predicts. There will be efforts by the PR ghouls to claim that the "three world wars" prophecy was totally true and effective and they commanded history so immaculately, since Big Brother never made a wrong prediction. It will all be malarkey. All that will happen is that Americans are utterly defeated and dispossessed, and the world is a much worse place before "normalizing" under a Germanic-led hellstate.
>>2403529
>in a democracy, dont the workers' votes outnumber the capitalists'?do you seriously believe choosing a representative through voting is the same as having political power as a class?
electing a lefty congressman, mayor, president or anything at all doesn't and will never change the reality that under capitalism, the power lies with the capitalists (who would've thought?).
And by the way "lefty" in this context means Keynesian social democrat AT BEST, since a real lefty will never have a place in a burgeoise institution.
Institutional power is always undermined by financial power, since, after all, a position in office doesn't get you food, travelling, a home, leisure, culture, healthcare, etc. And that's just between the government and the burgeoisie, when you extend thr comparison to the proletariat (the subject at hand) there is NO power at their hand. They all depend on the owners of the means of production finding it 'profitable' to pay him for his time (and if it's profitable, necessarily it's exploitative. no business owner pays a salary at a loss).
So to suggest that a liberal democracy such as the one we live today is by definition socialist?
that's some top tier rage bait, man, it got me
>>2404331you
can sell a toothbrush and invest the money in stocks or keep it as a reserve. that is a difference in quantity not quality. both a house and a toothbrush are not productive property. both are used for the daily reproduction of the workers labor power.
>>2402869>If you don't own a home then you're not a homeowner then why are you talking about it as if its something relevant? most workers are not homeowners
Then why are you so insistent that private homeowners aren't petty-bourgeoisie who make part of their income through expropriating a share of the labor-power of the working class through the social construct of private property?
> wrong, only monopoly rent is parasitic. capital is exploitative and contradictory but it is also productive. and house that you live in is not capital. a second house that you rent would be, but it wouldn't still wouldn't be productive or a source of profit. it would be a source of rent that transfers value created from labor nearby, by the surrounding businesses schools industry etc, which is why it is parasitic, because land and rent do not create value, labor does.Factories don't create value, labor does. IDGAF about what your intents are. Materially speaking, private homeowners profit from the massive appreciations in value of housing in the imperial core. You don't understand differential rent or absolute rent. This would be like claiming Microsoft isn't really capitalist because software only makes money on intellectual monopoly rent. Rent is capitalism.
>>2404224>electing a lefty congressman, mayor, president or anything at all doesn't and will never change realitylets say you were POTUS with executive powers; you wouldnt be able to change things? isnt this what right-wingers do when they complain about "the deep state"?
>So to suggest that a liberal democracy such as the one we live today is by definition socialist?we have universal suffrage, which means everyone has political power. if the working class is a majority of the public, then they must have majority of the power. what i hear from socialists though is that they want a dictatorship to allow full state control - so is that the point of contention?
>>2404330we know what property is; i'm just wondering if there will be property under socialism or communism. will i be able to own a house in socialism or communism?
>>2404388
>lets say you were POTUS with executive powers; you wouldnt be able to change things?No, I wouldn't. In a Constitutional Republic, being president =/= being the supreme ruler, god emperor, dictator, and so on. I couldn't simply decide the best course of action based on ideals, and I'm not saying doing that is desireable, but I couldn't change reality in capitalism as a president any other way.
The reason the right can change things they dislike about the current system is not because they have a right-wing president, but rather because the right's interests are aligned with the economic elite's.
In the US, for example, lobbying is a legalized pratice (in many other countries it's a crime), so it's a great example of how the government in capitalism (esp. in the US) is *an institution to serve the interests of the elite*.
>we have universal suffrage, which means everyone has political power.Political power =/= Ability to choose a representative from a poll of defenders of the burgeoisie.
>>2404831for thousands of years you have been able to own a home. will you be able to own a home in a socialist or communist society?
>>2404833property existed before the 16th century, yes.
why is this so difficult to understand?
>>2404829yes; what if i want to have less use values, so that i can have more exchange value?
>>2405439its not a rhetorical question. its a yes or no.
in a socialist or communist society, can you own your own home? for further details, consult the algorithm:
(1) can you own property under communism?
yes/no
(2) if yes, can you own housing property?
yes/no
(3) if yes, can you sell housing property?
yes/no
(4) if no, then you dont actually own your property
(5) if yes, then you can own a house in communism
[sequence complete]
>>2405444>yesokay, so you can own private property in communism
>sell house foreveryes; they sell that home then find another home with the money they get from the sale.
>>2405446I give you a ruble, you hand over your toothbrush
Oh no private property!
Fucking moron
>>2405436>will you be able to own a home in a socialist or communist societyThe Communists seek the abolition of private property as such. In the transitional phase there will still be difference between personal and private property. But at the last stage of lower phase of communism every and all kinds of ownership will abolished.
What are the implications of the abolition of every and all kinds of ownership?
That one owns nothing, that 'ownership' in fact as a word becomes purely colloquial and in reference to an individual's particular
use of an object for whatever period of time, whether it is until this individual is dead or otherwise. If you use your home, you will 'own' it, but not in the sense one owns things today.
Ask yourself, what does humanity own in relation to? Nature? God? Wherein not only private property but the private individual as such ceases to exist, what can it MEAN to 'own' if not only TO USE? Without this juxtaposition to the other, ownership ceases to mean anything.
One no longer 'owns' even their own clothing - instead, they wear them, or even the paper they use to wipe their ass—instead, they use it to wipe. Objects cease to be meaningful outside of their utility.
To possess anxiety over the idea that in this hypothetical context another person may steal, may deprive you of your use of an object, is to betray that one has failed to grasp the most basic and elementary understanding of the essence of Communism.
That is, it is this anxiety itself (over the other) which is the root cause of actual theft in the first place. If you wish to insist on that anxiety, do yourself a favour and admit that you insist that Communism is impossible, forget about such silly questions (of ownership in a future society) and enjoy your life, for you have already admitted that you insist such a future society cannot exist in the first place.
>>2405448yes, that is private property relations.
>oh nowhy would it be bad since you already said that you can own private property in a communist society?
>>2405441the chinese state owns all the land and rents it out for 70 years. that's how it should be done. it's a literal non issue. you can use the land, but it's not yours. you can build a dwelling, but you can't speculate on the worth of land. why is this difficult to grasp? yugoslavia solved its housing crisis by just letting people build houses themselves with cheap material. besides what is this fixation on owning property?? why do you
want to own a house??
>>2405450Private property, in this context does not mean what you think it means in this theoretical context
Am I replying to a LLM or PMC, who knows 🤷♂️ same garbage
>>2405451so the state will be the nation's landlord?
>>2405452private property is property privately owned.
>>2405449>The Communists seek the abolition of private property as suchso that is a no?
>In the transitional phase there will still be difference between personal and private propertywhats the difference?
>If you use your home, you will 'own' it, but not in the sense one owns things today.what if someone else wants to "use" my home?
>the private individual as such ceases to existso people will not have rights over their own body?
>To possess anxiety over the idea that in this hypothetical context another person may steal, may deprive you of your use of an object, is to betray that one has failed to grasp the most basic and elementary understanding of the essence of Communism.so communism is a society of perpetual theft?
>you have already admitted that you insist such a future society cannot exist in the first place.where?
>>2405465Of course I can, what I am not going to do is do your homework for you, if you care about learning go read Marx, if you just want to cheat and get an easy answer bother a chatbot
Once you've done that tell me your new and more accurate definition of private property and I'll be happy to have a discussion with you, but until then I don't see why I should waste my time with someone who could be replaced by a chatbot and nobody would notice
Follow?
>>2405468>i can, but i wontwell, since you are too afraid to look like an idiot, i will quote marx for you:
>Private property, as the antithesis to social, collective property, exists only where the means of labour and the external conditions of labour belong to private individuals.https://www.marxists.org/archive/marx/works/1867-c1/ch32.htmso marx defines private property the same as wikipedia:
>Private property is a legal designation for the ownership of property by non-governmental legal entities. Private property is distinguishable from public property, which is owned by a state entity, and from collective or cooperative property, which is owned by one or more non-governmental entities.https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Private_propertyto marx and the mainstream, private property is how i tautologically defined it: property privately owned.
so your objections seem unfounded. but as i say, you affirm the private ownership of property in communism where it concerns possessions of a home, right?
>>2405477>read marx<*reads marx*>stop reading marxyou seem to be a contradictory character.
but lets read further:
>In this sense, the theory of the Communists may be summed up in the single sentence: Abolition of private property.>You are horrified at our intending to do away with private property. But in your existing society, private property is already done away with for nine-tenths of the population; its existence for the few is solely due to its non-existence in the hands of those nine-tenths. You reproach us, therefore, with intending to do away with a form of property, the necessary condition for whose existence is the non-existence of any property for the immense majority of society. In one word, you reproach us with intending to do away with your property. Precisely so; that is just what we intend.https://www.marxists.org/archive/marx/works/1848/communist-manifesto/ch02.htmso marx wants to do away with private property - doesnt this conflict with your earlier statements?
>>2405483so to recap:
(1) you affirm private property relations under communism
(2) you say that private property isnt simply property owned by private entities
(3) i ask for a definition. you say to read marx.
(4) i present marx - you tell me to stop reading marx and go to a chatbot instead.
i asked the chatbot what form of property homes should be considered and it said "petty private property". according to marx, wikipedia and the chatbot; homes count as private property. you refuse to define "private property", but do you still disagree?
>>2405487>>2405487Ok here's your ruble gimme your toothbrush
More seriously,
Private property is used to extract surplus from labour, where is the surplus?
>>2405492It's why private property causes crisis son, because it used to exploit labour
Perhaps try thinking on a level that is a bit higher than a chatbot dredging through sources finding snippets to support an argument?
I think this discussion about housing and shit vindicates OP's position about how the working class has been effectively declassed.
I mean look at >just keep it as a reserve that protects you from the ruthlessness of the labor market from
>>2404331 anon. The core of this argument is that houses should be considered MoP not because it produces anything but because it reduces your revolutionary potential.
And here lies the tacit surrender to the concept that the distinction of Workers and bourgeoisie cannot be measured by their relationship to means of production but rather capacity and willingness to inflict a sort of Divine Violence against the status quo.
>>2403529>but not all kinds of propertyif there are different kinds of property, then your definition is necessarily just a name for a set of different things and not something universal that has always existed in reality. there are no generalizations in real life, they are just ideas we make up in our heads to help us simplify and understand reality, but they aren't a replacement for it. check
>>>/leftypol/2403312 and
>>>/leftypol/2403381marx used the word property in that context as understood under capitalism, but he himself invented the method I'm using to educate you: that you have to look at all social relations in their context, material and historical
>>2405501>MoPor just a store of value?
>>2405506>there are no generalizations in real lifehave families always existed in society? yes or no?
>marx used the word property in that context as understood under capitalismno, marx directly references different kinds of property from different eras, but still sees that indeed, property always existed, just in different contexts. to imply that "property" didnt exist before the 16th century is beyond idiotic.
>>2405524>money (property) is a store of valueyes
>inequality isnt measured by money and propertywhat is the metric, then?
>>2405539actors are prole
if you think a millionaire or billionaire cannot be a prole you are a liberal and not a socialist
>>2405617I already did, that
My current criticism is that you went for an abstract definition and called it grounding, that's the sort of "thinking" LLMs do
Clever with words but utterly lacking ground in the real world
>>2405631>I am having a bit of trouble handling the long context just like an LLM, and I talk and think like one too! TAKE ME SERIOUSLY!No
If I wanted to deal with this nonsense I could talk to an LLM and you've already wasted enough of my time being dumber than a chatbot, bye 👋
>>2405644I answered with
> Potentially yesBecause you were talking about an actor, which could have potentially made almost all of it by being hired and working as an employee
>>2405646Then that's a simple no
>>2405648just explain why you disagree with marx
>>2405649CEOs receive a salary. are they working class?
>>2405521let me put it retardedly simple
property under capitalism is nothing more than a legal relationship to a product of labor
property under communism will refer to the use-relationship the subject has with the object.
how that will 'look' like, we can't tell.
>>2405788>property under capitalism is a legal conceptyes, such as in all societies. theft as a legal category has always existed so long as there have been states.
>property in communism is about usewhat if two or more people want to "use" the same thing at the same time? isnt this why we moved past barter?
>we dont know what this will look likeright, so you want communism, but dont even know what communism is. 🤔
>>2405657
>CEOs receive a salary. are they working class?Yes, they are.
Why wouldn't they be?
>>2407296lmfao
>>2407300finally a marxist on this shithole
>>2407304>Shelter is renting, not owning.and what percent of workers of the world rent from a bank but are still counted as "owning" in statistics?
>>2407308>anarchist talking pointsthis is marxism 101 nothing anarchist about it. whats actually incredible is this no u bullshit with nothing to back it up. its you who keeps regurgitating proudhonism and pretending its marx
>>2407381yes it does depend entirely on the relation to the means of production.
feel free to provide an alternative any time
>>2406024i know you're retarded troglodyte getting off on intellectual ragebaiting but i am not an idiot and can recognize you're threading thinnly to getting it, but refuse to do so
you miss out cruical points
property existed in all
CLASS societies. states have existed as long as
CLASS society exists.
the bourgeoisie is determined by its ownership over the mop (their private property is used to create social wealth; the production process (use process) is socialized, the end result (product of labor) is privatized).
>you want communism, but dont even know what communism isread marx. i'm done
>>2407460then why are you bringing it up in the context of the industrial proletariat?
what percent of the industrial proletariat own their own home?
is that percentage so significant that it has an effect on the the entire industrial proletariat as a class?
do you have anything relevant to say to the thread or are you just here to argue semantics out of context and be wrong?
>>2407296>CEOs are working class>>2407304so in communism, the state can own property, but citizens cant?
>>2407309>private property is an unequal social relationshipthats all social relationships
>It is exploitatiion which defines private propertyso owning things is exploitation?
>>2407448>property existed in all class societies.yes, which is all societies in history.
>read marxi already did:
>>2405475 >>2405482>im doneyes you are. you want communism but dont even know what it is.
Unique IPs: 100