Where does /leftypol/ stand on Bastani? This future seems incrasingly within grasp, all that's needed is nationalization of compute, energy and robotics research
Nvm hes right that the left should embrace AI but he is a fucking lib apologist
This thread is gonna die quickly or filled with "communism is when you work harder than under capitalism, muh epic factories!!!" retards because /leftypol/ doesn't read any theory more recent than the 1970s. But from the little I've seen, he is alright, I like that the Brits have at least one guy who seems to sanely analyze events and try to adapt socialism for the 21th century, as flawed as his attempt might be.
>>2773610> /leftypol/ doesn't read any theory more recent than the 1970stry 1930s
>>2773610Lenin defended taylorism because it was supposed to reduce work load and working hours of everyone more than a century ago, communism is litteraly about not working in the end
>>2773613marx said its about making work "life's prime want" lol
<In a higher phase of communist society, after the enslaving subordination of the individual to the division of labor, and therewith also the antithesis between mental and physical labor, has vanished; after labor has become not only a means of life but life's prime want; after the productive forces have also increased with the all-around development of the individual, and all the springs of co-operative wealth flow more abundantly – only then can the narrow horizon of bourgeois right be crossed in its entirety and society inscribe on its banners: From each according to his ability, to each according to his needs!https://www.marxists.org/archive/marx/works/1875/gotha/ch01.htm >>2773613Most people here don't know what Taylorism means at this point, get the fuck out of there as quick as you can before someone posts the Vladimir Jesus quote about work and eating.
>>2773618>after the enslaving subordination of the individual to the division of labor […] has vanished>From each according to his ability, to each according to his needs!Do you understand the type of work Marx is envisioning is
very different than wage labour as we know it today or as it existed in the USSR?
>>2773622so you would retract this comment?
<communism is litteraly about not working >>2773625Labour, by its very nature is unfree, unhuman, unsocial activity, determined by private property and creating private property. Hence the abolition of private property will become a reality only when it is conceived as the abolition of labour.
>>2773632so when marx says that "labour" will become "life's prime want", what does this mean?
>all that's needed is nationalization of compute, energy and robotics research
All that's needed is the complete annihilation of the united states and its running dogs is what you mean
>>2773625It's about not having to work under the threat of starvation for pennies while the NYC elite bourgeoisie fuck teenage prostitutes. It's about abolishing wage labour or at least reducing it to a strict minimum of weekly hours.
Keynes, who was a capitalist and saved capitalism from the Great Depression, envisioned a workweek of 15 hours by 2030, one hundred years ago. But radical Marxists in 2026 can't even envision that.
So yeah that anon was basically right, and when Marx wrote:
>after labor has become not only a means of life but life's prime wantHe meant working to build a shack in your backyard or helping your comrades to build a communal house where you can play games, party together, that kind of things. You would instinctively understand what it means if you ever did voluntary work for an organisation (i.e. working for free just because it's pleasant and you enjoy the end product and the people around you). But you are so alienated, you probably work become "life's prime want" is if we work 40 hours a week for a state instead of a capitalist.
>>2773639>[Marx] meant [that communism is] working to build a shack in your backyard or helping your comrades to build a communal house where you can play games, party together, that kind of things>You would instinctively understand what it means if you ever did voluntary workIf communism is "voluntary work" then we already have communism
>>2773639This is just a few steps removed from the anarcho-fascist delusion where “communism” is perverted into a bandit fiefdom where you and your comrades can have orgies and smoke weed all day, which leads me to believe that you and by extension this author you’re trying to shill are also anarchists
>>2773669It's a world of various cliques where social capital becomes "capital" and you must be able to sociopath your way to being able to eat. I don't think the people would appreciate artisnal plumbing, electricity, disaster relief.
Novara Media is anti-communist.
>>2773669>in communist society, where nobody has one exclusive sphere of activity but each can become accomplished in any branch he wishes, society regulates the general production and thus makes it possible for me to do one thing today and another tomorrow, to hunt in the morning, fish in the afternoon, rear cattle in the evening, criticise after dinner, just as I have a mind, without ever becoming hunter, fisherman, herdsman or critic.Anarchist banditry!!
>”Get the robots to do everything, I’ll consider the revolution to be a corrupted failure if I’m ever compelled to work again”
>Receive fancy 3D printing robots that transforms random atoms in the air into anything required
<Some assembly required
>>2773669I mean yeah isn't that what we're all trying to accomplish? I'll be smoking weed all day anyway may as well do it under communism
>>2773721Oh of course! When Lenin said “he who does not work, neither shall he eat” what he REALLY meant was “smoke weed and do nothing all day maaaaaaaan”
>>2773713I believe the difference is that Marx is saying you're allowed to be productive in the way that you choose without committent to a given role. Whereas Anarchists pinky promise that they will work post-revolution, but need guarantees upfront that they can still eat if they change their mind and choose not work, or else you're an authoritarian fascist and they're telling on to you the feds.
>>2773738but anon I smoke weed and do work all day
>>2773739>the difference is the vibes I feelThank u for the pointless sectarianism, meanwhile even anarkiddies who are also a part of the labor movement understood that commodity production and work were a necessary step toward communism and operated taylorist factories using labor division in Spain instead of smoking weed and fucking all day so I don't even know what you're on about
>>2773751Just like maoists are crypto anarchists, spanish anarchists were crypto leninists
>>2773738The original citation is from Thessalonians 3:10, not Lenin:
>For even when we were with you, this we commanded you: that if any would not work, neither should he eat. >>2773625Yes, since it's about making labour an authentic expression of the inherent human urge to create and grow, and thereby ceasing to be work.
>>2773669Both Marx and Lenin say explicitly that they agree with the ends of anarchism. The disagreement between anarchists and Marxists is over the necessary methods to achieve a stateless, classless society (i.e. communism).
>>2773801>The distinction between Marxists and the anarchists is this: (1) The former, while aiming at the complete abolition of the state, recognize that this aim can only be achieved after classes have been abolished by the socialist revolution, as the result of the establishment of socialism, which leads to the withering away of the state. The latter want to abolish he state completely overnight, not understanding the conditions under which the state can be abolished. (2) The former recognize that after the proletariat has won political power it must completely destroy the old state machine and replace it by a new one consisting of an organization of the armed workers, after the type of the Commune. The latter, while insisting on the destruction of the state machine, have a very vague idea of what the proletariat will put in its place and how it will use its revolutionary power. The anarchists even deny that the revolutionary proletariat should use the state power, they reject its revolutionary dictatorship. (3) The former demand that the proletariat be trained for revolution by utilizing the present state. The anarchists reject this.https://www.marxists.org/archive/lenin/works/1917/staterev/ch06.htmThe distinctions Lenin recognizes here are of means and analysis, not ends.
>>2773825Anarchists and communists used to work together and attend the same meetings, the difference historically really was just regarding pre- or post- stateism but you could consider them one block of people until WW1 really.
>>2773825He's not saying anarchists and marxists have the same ends, only emphasizing the importance of the state question, and actually saying the opposite: that marxists and anarchists only share *immediate* goals: smashing the bourgeois state
Nothing of the ultimate ends
>>2773849He says that both Marxists and anarchists seek the complete abolition of the state. This is a long term goal of both movements.
>>2773634It means people will follow their own will and productive activity will be driven by either collective control over the mop or individual passions as free time increases, as opposed to capital driving our activity
>>2773871Wrong, you're being a little weasel with words, flattening everything into keywords (much like an anarchist does)
Lenin here is talking about the immediate goal of smashing the bourgeois state, and building the proletarian state, not the long term *abolition* of the state "as such" which only happens when classes themselves are abolished. According to lenin himself the definition of state is "an organization for the oppression of some class".
The anarchists think that smashing the state == abolishing the state *as such*. For them the state is the primary oppressor, for marxists it's merely an instrument and the primary goal is aboloshing class society until the instrument is not needed.
You can't just flatten anarchism and marxism into each other and say " we just disagree on methods :)", this is a westoid opportunist delusion. Anarchism and marxism are COMPLETELY INCOMPATIBLE BOTH IN METHODOLOGY AND THEORETICAL CONCEPTIONS OF WHAT "THE STATE", " CLASS", "ABOLISHING" AND "COMMUNISM" EVEN MEAN
>>2774747As a matter of fact, the exact opposite is the case. Marx's idea is that the working class must break up, smash the "ready-made state machinery", and not confine itself merely to laying hold of it.
>>2774753This misconception is a very easy filter for people who didn't read or understand the Gotha Critique
>>2774753Well good thing I didn't contradict that
Unless you mean that Marx never rnvisioned building a proletarian state after smashing the "ready made" state machinery, in which case you watched too much cuck philosophy videos
its really gay when you refer to an absolute nobody as a mononymic Lastname as if they were Einstein or Gandhi in an attempt to have him taken more seriously. many "people" here guilty of this
Unique IPs: 22