Marxism is so anachronistic, it's pretty funny to hear someone talking about the workers and the "means of production", that made sense in the time it was written when the economy was an industrial society. There were factories and farms and that was most of the economy. How many Americans actually work as farmers or factory workers? We live in an information age so the class warfare nonsense, especially in America is almost laughable if people didn't actually think it made sense.
We live in an age where everyone has access to the means of production, thanks to capitalism, almost everyone on Earth can access the internet. Wealth is not a fixed amount. Wealth is created by anyone who wants to create it. Anyone can make a youtube channel and monitize it. Anyone can write a book or an app. Every time you sell a copy of an ebook you just created wealth from nothing. It's the information age, industrial age theories no longer apply. Not that they ever did, any place that has applied Marx's theories has ended up with masses of their own people starving to death, wide-scale famine. Here in America, thanks to capitalism, literally zero people starve to death because they cannot acquire food, sometimes people starve as a result of abuse, neglect or mental illness but there are zero people who starve for lack of food. Thanks capitalism. You know what happened when the Pilgrims tried socialism?
The internet seems far from the end-all and be-all of the means of production to me.
The information age is based on the immaterial, but the material inevitably continues to exist and have dominant influence over our lives. The computers still have to be manufactured, the energy is still squabbled over, and industry is still alive and well.
Moreover the internet doesn't seem to me so widely available as portrayed.
A quick search shows that internet penetration in Africa was less than 50% in Q3 of 2020. That's more than half of Africa, which is just under a fifth of the world population, without internet access. The whole world total was just under 2/3, which is a far cry from almost anyone on earth. That or we have very disparate definitions of 'almost'.
Your source says there are currently 5 billion internet users, that's the vast majority of people.
Of course there are still factories and farms but people are not limited to those vocations, in fact no one is limited to any vocation! That's why they idea of class warfare is silly in the United States, in other societies there are actual fixed castes and you can't really transition between them. Here in America anyone can be anything they want to be, you don't have to be born to a royal family to own land or be an aristocrat to form a corporation. An untouchable can come here from India and become a wealthy scientist and inventor. Most Americans occupy different socio-economic strata over the course of their lifetimes. There are no fixed classes so that makes class warfare ideas even sillier.
Thanks for stopping by @funbobby51 ! I'll refer you to the reply of@a-non-e-moose who essentially said everything that needs to be said. I'll add that you shouldn't "thank capitalism" for anything. Whatever progress we've made is because of us wanting to understand the world we live in, our curiosity, and our wish to better our lifes; no particular economy is needed for those basic human traits to exist. And historically we've only been as successful as our ability to organize in ever bigger societies has allowed us to be. Capitalism does the opposite...
With communism and socialism people literally starve to death en masse, it happens very consistently. With capitalism there is enough food for everyone. That does not happen because of us wanting to understand the world we live in. It is because there is a profit motive to produce as much food as efficiently as possible. Neither of you answered my question about the Pilgrims.
With capitalism there is enough food for everyone.
And that's exactly why it's such a fake system. We produce enough food to feed 12 billion people, and still there's widespread hunger. The average city has more empty buildings than homeless people. Capitalism doesn't provide according to need, it only provides what makes profits. And for profits to be made, we manufacture scarcity; so even with enough food to feed 12 billion people, hunger MUST exist. Even with enough houses, homelessness MUST exist. And even with the ability to provide jobs for everyone that wants to work, for example by moving to a 4 hour work week, joblessness MUST exist. Capitalism requires poverty as an incentive and a threat, for people to accept low wage jobs with abysmal worker protection.
Neither the entrepreneurs nor the workers really own the means of production (or should own them). Everything that is used to produce food or other goods does not belong to anyone because the raw materials are taken directly from the planetary resources.
That is why there can be no exchange between one and the other. What people would have to be freed from would be all taxes and social security payments, compulsory education, having to connect to the electricity and utility grid.
When you have people who can choose their land and start working there for their own existence, do you have the chance of freedom. Change always starts in the small, not the big. There are currently a lot of off-grid loners who are building a mini-existence far away from the cities and providing their own electricity and food. Those who do not earn an income cannot pay taxes. It is people like this who inspire imitators and build small communities in this way. I don't know how old you are. If I were twenty years younger, I would set off, leave the city, maybe even the country.
But if that's what you might mean by democratising the economy, then I'd be all for it. However, this will not happen through large movements or parties/politics. At least I don't believe in that. It will probably come about through hardship, such as despair, poverty, hunger or other emergencies, that people will inevitably have to switch to a large part of self-sufficiency. However, they then need others to show them how to do this.
The somewhat gloomier variant, however, could be that such a thing will not be allowed by those in power and one will be fed into the great machinery of state administration and corporate labour, which want to be the only employers.
But I tend to have more faith in people and believe that they will always find ways and means to revive a niche life or smaller communities in the future. In any case, that would be the more positive option for me.
Hi from The Netherlands ! Thanks so much for responding @erh.germany :-) It pleases me to find such optimism in your response:
But I tend to have more faith in people and believe that they will always find ways and means to revive a niche life or smaller communities in the future. In any case, that would be the more positive option for me.
It's not my personal kind of optimism though. What you're describing is what many people see as an escape from what late stage capitalism has wrought. However, and this is essential to me, a retreat behind our own borders, and from there into ever smaller self-sufficient communities, is a step back. The strength of our species, the reason why we've managed to conquer the planet with no equal, is exactly our ability to organize in exceedingly large groups. Giving that up, when it's not necessary, seems to me like betraying our true potential. In my opinion we shouldn't give up on our greatest strength but instead cut down the power hierarchy that is the very motivation behind the wish for retreating into ever smaller communities. Retreat so far in fact that we end up with the off-grid loners you mention here...
I would like to ask you: Who do you prefer to work for, if not for yourself? And when you work for yourself, are you alone or in a community? You can call a change of lifestyle an escape or a decision to try something you didn't dare to do before. A reflection on one's own abilities that need to be learned and refined.
Have you ever tried organising yourself in a group? Large groups are not very suitable for forming living communities because they are too large to establish direct relationships among the participants, only indirect ones. For large groups you necessarily have to regulate from the top down and then you have to deal with a classical hierarchy where you are told from the top what you have to do at the bottom. The organisation of large groups requires a lot of time and above all money (yours and mine). In our present societies, this organisation is not called the formation of self-sufficient communities, but rather a singled-out demand or a special interest, which, however, does not represent the whole, but always only a partial aspect of life.
People learn best through self-experience how to live a life in which neither the advantages nor the disadvantages of a tax-financed life can be tasted. For this, one needs the freedom to undertake such things. Someone who, for example, leaves the city and is able to build up an existence somewhere else, or moves to a village, can create imitators through what he exemplifies. It's the first step from small to larger places.
Now imagine if the system allowed such people to move out of it and do without these workers and their taxes and social contributions? Do you think a mass of people would want to do the same? I don't think so. Being part of the system is so entrenched and accepted that only dissenters would want to give up the comforts of the system (including health and pension benefits). Strangely enough, however, those who are loyal to the system seem to assume exactly that: That once those who take on a free - and thus riskier - life would cause too many imitators.
So little do they seem to be convinced of the goodness of the system that they either do not allow even the few who choose an alternative way of life to do so, or they make it impossible. But if the great system were really so wonderful - in organisation and humane way of life - why would anyone want anything else?
It seems to me that you personally would like to exist in a large system controlled by a just government. Therefore, from your point of view, it seems logical to consider a self-sufficient lifestyle as "escape" and not liberation. Such a thing surprises me, because in fact the off griders are obviously a very small minority, who in addition feel all the harshness, restriction and intolerance of the system conformists towards their way of life.
Yet it is the small minorities, the dissenters, who have won many advantages for those who do not dare or never think about it themselves. Particularly by legal means, through lengthy court cases, diplomatic and factual discussions with the authorities, with extreme staying power and a positive attitude, because otherwise you won't get someone who works for a building authority or for the government to listen to you or to approve even the slightest thing.
So trying to live like that doesn't have much to do with escape, because in fact no one will let you out of the system. You always have to deal with the authorities in one way or another, with regulations, with special attention by the "powers". Those who try something different are always under the special observation of their fellow human beings and are usually not allowed to make many mistakes.
So for me, they are not escapers, they are pioneers. I can learn directly from them, not indirectly. Of course, like everywhere, you have some lunatics. But well, I tolerate the crazy ones as much as the assimilated ones. At least, I try to.
My last point is your expression "conquering the planet": Aren't you a part of the planet, of nature? Why do you think you have to conquer something in which you are embedded?
I take your points, and tend to agree mostly. I believe this is key:
It seems to me that you personally would like to exist in a large system controlled by a just government. Therefore, from your point of view, it seems logical to consider a self-sufficient lifestyle as "escape" and not liberation. Such a thing surprises me, because in fact the off griders are obviously a very small minority, who in addition feel all the harshness, restriction and intolerance of the system conformists towards their way of life.
There's room enough for that minority and I wish them well. Truly. My point is though that we're simply not made that way, we've never been loners, generally speaking. My contention is that if we were to have a much flatter society, where that "just government" consists truly of our peers, much less people would want to be a "lone wolf". I can't prove that of course. And yes, even then there will be the odd exception and, like I said, there's more than enough room to grant them the freedom to live their lifes as they see fit.
My point is though that we're simply not made that way, we've never been loners, generally speaking
I agree. My argument was not to inspire people to escape or hide away but to see those loners as a motivation and inspiration to build up something fresh for themselves - once you moved away alone, the chances are, that you don't stay alone. Nothing prohibits one to invite people to your place once you built it.
I do not believe in central governing and therefor I think there can be no "just government" as they have established themselves to govern centrally. When you decide over millions of people, you cannot give justification to all people, you provide it for some, but not for all. Actually, there is a great tendency and also lure to think of people as figures.
What do you exactly mean by "peers"? My translation says it's people of the same age, but I guess it is not what you mean?
....And yet there is very little logic, and lots of subjective, hyperbole...MMmmmm.
Anyone that posits 'the collective' as real (it is purely conceptual, both philosophically and intellectually) is in state of delusion
(according to the definition in the DSM manual of psychiatry).
...Anyone that argues that taxation is not theft (coercion) does not understand philosophical principles, or the intellectual rigidity of critical thinking.
Both of these qualities are essential to examine politics - otherwise sophistry and subjective (postmodern) perspectives twist reality, thus creating further confusion, not more clarity.
I think the two-party system in America has produced a lopsided view of politics, which is also reflected in the typical 'left-right' talk. Republicans, as you correctly point out, are barely (if at all) able to distinguish between center-left neoliberalism and socialism a la Marx.
On the other hand, many on the left do not distinguish well between the Bush-ite neoconservatives and the more nationalist brand that has almost become the norm under Trump.
Being 'on the left' does not immediately imply Marxian economics, and you'll find many 'on the right' who have serious issues with capitalism as well.
We're stuck with a dialectic stemming out of the French Revolution, which is muddying the waters of modern (meta-)political discourse
Thanks so much for this response @pieternijmeijer ! I agree with most of it because I agree that the whole left-right debate is about gradations and always in flux; Obama was basically a 1990s Republican. Still I wouldn't call this debate antiquated or irrelevant or confusing. On the contrary; it gives us the basic rhetorical tools to have a meaningful discussion about opposing basic world-views. Leftists aren't automatically Marxists, but they are always concerned about "the common good", and right wingers aren't automatically fascists, but their concern leans much more to the individual, individual freedom and individual responsibility.
It is in fact us leftists who have the facts on our side
The leftists fundamental philosophical position is that 'the collective' is real (it's merely concept), and the individual is secondary. It all starts with the individual being the building block.
What were you saying about 'facts on your side'?.. When the leftist psychological position is one that's fixed in a delusion (trying to make a concept real is delusional)..?
And yes, I feel like it's wrong to be able to feed and house everyone and not do it.
I'm $20 short on the rent this month - So can you give me 150 hive? You know, to help keep me housed , and fed ?
...Or do your feelings and easy moral high ground pontificationg only go so far as an intellectual exercise (and not practical self sacrifice for 'the greater good')...?
Karl Marx would applaud this strategy of 'all words and no action' - he was a master of it!...
Marxism is so anachronistic, it's pretty funny to hear someone talking about the workers and the "means of production", that made sense in the time it was written when the economy was an industrial society. There were factories and farms and that was most of the economy. How many Americans actually work as farmers or factory workers? We live in an information age so the class warfare nonsense, especially in America is almost laughable if people didn't actually think it made sense.
We live in an age where everyone has access to the means of production, thanks to capitalism, almost everyone on Earth can access the internet. Wealth is not a fixed amount. Wealth is created by anyone who wants to create it. Anyone can make a youtube channel and monitize it. Anyone can write a book or an app. Every time you sell a copy of an ebook you just created wealth from nothing. It's the information age, industrial age theories no longer apply. Not that they ever did, any place that has applied Marx's theories has ended up with masses of their own people starving to death, wide-scale famine. Here in America, thanks to capitalism, literally zero people starve to death because they cannot acquire food, sometimes people starve as a result of abuse, neglect or mental illness but there are zero people who starve for lack of food. Thanks capitalism. You know what happened when the Pilgrims tried socialism?
The internet seems far from the end-all and be-all of the means of production to me.
The information age is based on the immaterial, but the material inevitably continues to exist and have dominant influence over our lives. The computers still have to be manufactured, the energy is still squabbled over, and industry is still alive and well.
Moreover the internet doesn't seem to me so widely available as portrayed.
A quick search shows that internet penetration in Africa was less than 50% in Q3 of 2020. That's more than half of Africa, which is just under a fifth of the world population, without internet access. The whole world total was just under 2/3, which is a far cry from almost anyone on earth. That or we have very disparate definitions of 'almost'.
For what it's worth I got my stats here.
Africa has a fair number of countries suffering from communism.
https://images.squarespace-cdn.com/content/53b17013e4b0f83f2d8a8a4a/1412425534717-JW7COYMX0RCN1BJ45IE1/?format=1000w&content-type=image%2Fjpeg
Your source says there are currently 5 billion internet users, that's the vast majority of people.
Of course there are still factories and farms but people are not limited to those vocations, in fact no one is limited to any vocation! That's why they idea of class warfare is silly in the United States, in other societies there are actual fixed castes and you can't really transition between them. Here in America anyone can be anything they want to be, you don't have to be born to a royal family to own land or be an aristocrat to form a corporation. An untouchable can come here from India and become a wealthy scientist and inventor. Most Americans occupy different socio-economic strata over the course of their lifetimes. There are no fixed classes so that makes class warfare ideas even sillier.
Thanks for stopping by @funbobby51 ! I'll refer you to the reply of@a-non-e-moose who essentially said everything that needs to be said. I'll add that you shouldn't "thank capitalism" for anything. Whatever progress we've made is because of us wanting to understand the world we live in, our curiosity, and our wish to better our lifes; no particular economy is needed for those basic human traits to exist. And historically we've only been as successful as our ability to organize in ever bigger societies has allowed us to be. Capitalism does the opposite...
With communism and socialism people literally starve to death en masse, it happens very consistently. With capitalism there is enough food for everyone. That does not happen because of us wanting to understand the world we live in. It is because there is a profit motive to produce as much food as efficiently as possible. Neither of you answered my question about the Pilgrims.
And that's exactly why it's such a fake system. We produce enough food to feed 12 billion people, and still there's widespread hunger. The average city has more empty buildings than homeless people. Capitalism doesn't provide according to need, it only provides what makes profits. And for profits to be made, we manufacture scarcity; so even with enough food to feed 12 billion people, hunger MUST exist. Even with enough houses, homelessness MUST exist. And even with the ability to provide jobs for everyone that wants to work, for example by moving to a 4 hour work week, joblessness MUST exist. Capitalism requires poverty as an incentive and a threat, for people to accept low wage jobs with abysmal worker protection.
Neither the entrepreneurs nor the workers really own the means of production (or should own them). Everything that is used to produce food or other goods does not belong to anyone because the raw materials are taken directly from the planetary resources.
That is why there can be no exchange between one and the other. What people would have to be freed from would be all taxes and social security payments, compulsory education, having to connect to the electricity and utility grid.
When you have people who can choose their land and start working there for their own existence, do you have the chance of freedom. Change always starts in the small, not the big. There are currently a lot of off-grid loners who are building a mini-existence far away from the cities and providing their own electricity and food. Those who do not earn an income cannot pay taxes. It is people like this who inspire imitators and build small communities in this way. I don't know how old you are. If I were twenty years younger, I would set off, leave the city, maybe even the country.
But if that's what you might mean by democratising the economy, then I'd be all for it. However, this will not happen through large movements or parties/politics. At least I don't believe in that. It will probably come about through hardship, such as despair, poverty, hunger or other emergencies, that people will inevitably have to switch to a large part of self-sufficiency. However, they then need others to show them how to do this.
The somewhat gloomier variant, however, could be that such a thing will not be allowed by those in power and one will be fed into the great machinery of state administration and corporate labour, which want to be the only employers.
But I tend to have more faith in people and believe that they will always find ways and means to revive a niche life or smaller communities in the future. In any case, that would be the more positive option for me.
Bye from Germany.
Hi from The Netherlands ! Thanks so much for responding @erh.germany :-) It pleases me to find such optimism in your response:
It's not my personal kind of optimism though. What you're describing is what many people see as an escape from what late stage capitalism has wrought. However, and this is essential to me, a retreat behind our own borders, and from there into ever smaller self-sufficient communities, is a step back. The strength of our species, the reason why we've managed to conquer the planet with no equal, is exactly our ability to organize in exceedingly large groups. Giving that up, when it's not necessary, seems to me like betraying our true potential. In my opinion we shouldn't give up on our greatest strength but instead cut down the power hierarchy that is the very motivation behind the wish for retreating into ever smaller communities. Retreat so far in fact that we end up with the off-grid loners you mention here...
I would like to ask you: Who do you prefer to work for, if not for yourself? And when you work for yourself, are you alone or in a community? You can call a change of lifestyle an escape or a decision to try something you didn't dare to do before. A reflection on one's own abilities that need to be learned and refined.
Have you ever tried organising yourself in a group? Large groups are not very suitable for forming living communities because they are too large to establish direct relationships among the participants, only indirect ones. For large groups you necessarily have to regulate from the top down and then you have to deal with a classical hierarchy where you are told from the top what you have to do at the bottom. The organisation of large groups requires a lot of time and above all money (yours and mine). In our present societies, this organisation is not called the formation of self-sufficient communities, but rather a singled-out demand or a special interest, which, however, does not represent the whole, but always only a partial aspect of life.
People learn best through self-experience how to live a life in which neither the advantages nor the disadvantages of a tax-financed life can be tasted. For this, one needs the freedom to undertake such things. Someone who, for example, leaves the city and is able to build up an existence somewhere else, or moves to a village, can create imitators through what he exemplifies. It's the first step from small to larger places.
Now imagine if the system allowed such people to move out of it and do without these workers and their taxes and social contributions? Do you think a mass of people would want to do the same? I don't think so. Being part of the system is so entrenched and accepted that only dissenters would want to give up the comforts of the system (including health and pension benefits). Strangely enough, however, those who are loyal to the system seem to assume exactly that: That once those who take on a free - and thus riskier - life would cause too many imitators.
So little do they seem to be convinced of the goodness of the system that they either do not allow even the few who choose an alternative way of life to do so, or they make it impossible. But if the great system were really so wonderful - in organisation and humane way of life - why would anyone want anything else?
It seems to me that you personally would like to exist in a large system controlled by a just government. Therefore, from your point of view, it seems logical to consider a self-sufficient lifestyle as "escape" and not liberation. Such a thing surprises me, because in fact the off griders are obviously a very small minority, who in addition feel all the harshness, restriction and intolerance of the system conformists towards their way of life.
Yet it is the small minorities, the dissenters, who have won many advantages for those who do not dare or never think about it themselves. Particularly by legal means, through lengthy court cases, diplomatic and factual discussions with the authorities, with extreme staying power and a positive attitude, because otherwise you won't get someone who works for a building authority or for the government to listen to you or to approve even the slightest thing.
So trying to live like that doesn't have much to do with escape, because in fact no one will let you out of the system. You always have to deal with the authorities in one way or another, with regulations, with special attention by the "powers". Those who try something different are always under the special observation of their fellow human beings and are usually not allowed to make many mistakes.
So for me, they are not escapers, they are pioneers. I can learn directly from them, not indirectly. Of course, like everywhere, you have some lunatics. But well, I tolerate the crazy ones as much as the assimilated ones. At least, I try to.
My last point is your expression "conquering the planet": Aren't you a part of the planet, of nature? Why do you think you have to conquer something in which you are embedded?
I take your points, and tend to agree mostly. I believe this is key:
There's room enough for that minority and I wish them well. Truly. My point is though that we're simply not made that way, we've never been loners, generally speaking. My contention is that if we were to have a much flatter society, where that "just government" consists truly of our peers, much less people would want to be a "lone wolf". I can't prove that of course. And yes, even then there will be the odd exception and, like I said, there's more than enough room to grant them the freedom to live their lifes as they see fit.
I agree. My argument was not to inspire people to escape or hide away but to see those loners as a motivation and inspiration to build up something fresh for themselves - once you moved away alone, the chances are, that you don't stay alone. Nothing prohibits one to invite people to your place once you built it.
I do not believe in central governing and therefor I think there can be no "just government" as they have established themselves to govern centrally. When you decide over millions of people, you cannot give justification to all people, you provide it for some, but not for all. Actually, there is a great tendency and also lure to think of people as figures.
What do you exactly mean by "peers"? My translation says it's people of the same age, but I guess it is not what you mean?
Nice dive! Well-written and logical political posts are the best. Following because I'm really looking forward to reading more from your perspective.
....And yet there is very little logic, and lots of subjective, hyperbole...MMmmmm.
Anyone that posits 'the collective' as real (it is purely conceptual, both philosophically and intellectually) is in state of delusion
(according to the definition in the DSM manual of psychiatry).
...Anyone that argues that taxation is not theft (coercion) does not understand philosophical principles, or the intellectual rigidity of critical thinking.
Both of these qualities are essential to examine politics - otherwise sophistry and subjective (postmodern) perspectives twist reality, thus creating further confusion, not more clarity.
Thanks so much for the kind words @effieoutside ! I really appreciate it :-)
Good piece.
I think the two-party system in America has produced a lopsided view of politics, which is also reflected in the typical 'left-right' talk. Republicans, as you correctly point out, are barely (if at all) able to distinguish between center-left neoliberalism and socialism a la Marx.
On the other hand, many on the left do not distinguish well between the Bush-ite neoconservatives and the more nationalist brand that has almost become the norm under Trump.
Being 'on the left' does not immediately imply Marxian economics, and you'll find many 'on the right' who have serious issues with capitalism as well.
We're stuck with a dialectic stemming out of the French Revolution, which is muddying the waters of modern (meta-)political discourse
Left and right are smokescreens - it authoritarianism v liberty.
Neither of the political wings/smokescreens pursue liberty.
Thanks so much for this response @pieternijmeijer ! I agree with most of it because I agree that the whole left-right debate is about gradations and always in flux; Obama was basically a 1990s Republican. Still I wouldn't call this debate antiquated or irrelevant or confusing. On the contrary; it gives us the basic rhetorical tools to have a meaningful discussion about opposing basic world-views. Leftists aren't automatically Marxists, but they are always concerned about "the common good", and right wingers aren't automatically fascists, but their concern leans much more to the individual, individual freedom and individual responsibility.
It is in fact us leftists who have the facts on our side
The leftists fundamental philosophical position is that 'the collective' is real (it's merely concept), and the individual is secondary. It all starts with the individual being the building block.
What were you saying about 'facts on your side'?.. When the leftist psychological position is one that's fixed in a delusion (trying to make a concept real is delusional)..?
And yes, I feel like it's wrong to be able to feed and house everyone and not do it.
I'm $20 short on the rent this month - So can you give me 150 hive? You know, to help keep me housed , and fed ?
...Or do your feelings and easy moral high ground pontificationg only go so far as an intellectual exercise (and not practical self sacrifice for 'the greater good')...?
Karl Marx would applaud this strategy of 'all words and no action' - he was a master of it!...
Read more, type less.
I'm trying to help.
😂