3 ms·

“You would think, after having been on the side of labor in its fight with capital for almost two centuries, that the far left would be happy that labor has fin

“You would think, after having been on the side of labor in its fight with capital for almost two centuries, that the far left would be happy that labor has finally prevailed.” This is listed as a quote from the PG essay. It seems to represent a fundamental misunderstanding of what “labor” means here. When the left fights for “labor” it is for all laborers to get a fair shake. PG seems to be talking about the fact that a tiny fraction of laborers get wealthy for their work. But that is not at all what the left fights for. It’s amazing that rich people convince themselves they are so right about the world and they don’t even understand the critique of their position. For PG to say that the left should be happy with a tiny few getting super rich is to demonstrate a complete lack of understanding of what “the left” even means. I’ve long wondered if even a single billionaire on Earth actually understands even the basics of Marxism from a Marxist perspective and I bet the percentage is very small.

frashelaw 6y ago
Exactly. PG's essay completely misses the point of the left: it makes it about some vague idea of labor being a potential path to wealth. The left fights for worker solidarity, power, and people's democracy to end exploitation from the owning class.
- TaylorAlexander 6y ago
  Yep. Wealth being withheld by capital so it can be a carrot dangled in front of the worker is exactly the structure the left wants to dismantle. And we see with the gig economy and heavy use of contractors at big tech how much labor has lost. Absurd to say they should be happy. Folks have no healthcare, no job security, no free time, and no workplace satisfaction. If anyone wealthy is reading this: Go find some podcasts with David Harvey, Richard Wolff, Nina Turner, Angela Davis, and Bree Newsome Bass. Learn from the left what they actually want. If that sounds absurd to you listen to a few talks by Jonathan Haidt first and then you will see why it matters. The left makes a lot of sense but you won’t know that if you believe what shallow outsiders say about the left.
thundergolfer 6y ago
I bet you Peter Thiel understands Marxism. Comfortably the most honest tech billionaire I’ve read.
- lasagnaphil 6y ago
  Ok, but the reason he (kind of) knows a bit about Marxism it is because he's a right-wing accelerationist (more specifically, a neoreactionary), and this needs to be properly said in context before just naively moving on with "he's a billionaire who has actually read Marx and has the caliber able to critique him". Accelerationists are people who view that capitalism can be a liberating force for humanity, whether it can contradict and end itself to achieve a communisty society (left-wing), or its capitalist systems will supersede humanity itself towards a technological singularity (right-wing). There are also some other kinds such as U/acc (Unconditional accelerationism) and G/acc (Gender accelerationism). But regardless of political position they all acknowledge their influences from Marx (since he's one of the first scholars who have articulated the revolutionary aspect of non-linear capitalist growth, and often hailed as a proto-accelerationist). Though Deleuze/Guattari is perhaps the more important figure here, as (in their book Anti-Oedipus) they map out how capitalism is a deterritorializing force that scrambles away previous territories of tribe, nation, religion, family, and ideology. To be honest, Thiel's perhaps far more dangerous than any previous right-wing populist such as Trump, since he actually has some capital and connections (and the will) in order to actually achieve his techno-feudalist dream. His dreams of an America as a monarchist society run by a CEO might be really good for the current rich elites in tech, but clearly the most of us are not them, and we would still be getting fucked anyway (previously by a corrupt neoliberal government, now by a fascist-libertarian one!). Even though some of his assessment of the pitfalls of liberal democracy in the US might be agreeable, we really should be able to think a better future society for the majority than anything of Thiel's vision.
  - TaylorAlexander 6y ago
    Thanks for your comment. I wasn’t familiar with this so I googled Peter Thiel Marxism and found some stuff but it seemed off. Your explanation makes a lot of sense.

frashelaw 6y ago

Exactly. PG's essay completely misses the point of the left: it makes it about some vague idea of labor being a potential path to wealth. The left fights for worker solidarity, power, and people's democracy to end exploitation from the owning class.

TaylorAlexander 6y ago
Yep. Wealth being withheld by capital so it can be a carrot dangled in front of the worker is exactly the structure the left wants to dismantle. And we see with the gig economy and heavy use of contractors at big tech how much labor has lost. Absurd to say they should be happy. Folks have no healthcare, no job security, no free time, and no workplace satisfaction. If anyone wealthy is reading this: Go find some podcasts with David Harvey, Richard Wolff, Nina Turner, Angela Davis, and Bree Newsome Bass. Learn from the left what they actually want. If that sounds absurd to you listen to a few talks by Jonathan Haidt first and then you will see why it matters. The left makes a lot of sense but you won’t know that if you believe what shallow outsiders say about the left.

thundergolfer 6y ago

I bet you Peter Thiel understands Marxism. Comfortably the most honest tech billionaire I’ve read.

lasagnaphil 6y ago
Ok, but the reason he (kind of) knows a bit about Marxism it is because he's a right-wing accelerationist (more specifically, a neoreactionary), and this needs to be properly said in context before just naively moving on with "he's a billionaire who has actually read Marx and has the caliber able to critique him". Accelerationists are people who view that capitalism can be a liberating force for humanity, whether it can contradict and end itself to achieve a communisty society (left-wing), or its capitalist systems will supersede humanity itself towards a technological singularity (right-wing). There are also some other kinds such as U/acc (Unconditional accelerationism) and G/acc (Gender accelerationism). But regardless of political position they all acknowledge their influences from Marx (since he's one of the first scholars who have articulated the revolutionary aspect of non-linear capitalist growth, and often hailed as a proto-accelerationist). Though Deleuze/Guattari is perhaps the more important figure here, as (in their book Anti-Oedipus) they map out how capitalism is a deterritorializing force that scrambles away previous territories of tribe, nation, religion, family, and ideology. To be honest, Thiel's perhaps far more dangerous than any previous right-wing populist such as Trump, since he actually has some capital and connections (and the will) in order to actually achieve his techno-feudalist dream. His dreams of an America as a monarchist society run by a CEO might be really good for the current rich elites in tech, but clearly the most of us are not them, and we would still be getting fucked anyway (previously by a corrupt neoliberal government, now by a fascist-libertarian one!). Even though some of his assessment of the pitfalls of liberal democracy in the US might be agreeable, we really should be able to think a better future society for the majority than anything of Thiel's vision.
- TaylorAlexander 6y ago
  Thanks for your comment. I wasn’t familiar with this so I googled Peter Thiel Marxism and found some stuff but it seemed off. Your explanation makes a lot of sense.