11 ms·

I believe that David Graeber was an Anarchist not a Marxist.

by lordwarnut 5y ago

orwin 5y ago
Anarchists, like communists, have a marxist or post-marxist view of the society and its organization.
- tremon 5y ago
  ...because if they had a capitalist view on society, they'd be called libertarians?
- guerrilla 5y ago
  No, not all communists are Marxists and the predominant tradition, anarcho-communism, is not post-Marxist but derives from a different set of authors who opposed Marx during his lifetime. [1] 1. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Communism#Other_types_of_communism https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Communism#Other_types_of_commu...
  - drcongo 5y ago
    Thank you. Some of the comments in this thread are so bizarre I have to wonder if it's down to US educational systems placing everything that's not Reaganomics into a basket marked "Communism BAD".
sleepysysadmin 5y ago
>I believe that David Graeber was an Anarchist not a Marxist. Anarchism can be capitalist or communism. Anarcho-communism for example. In a proper free market, the telephone poles would have 50 wires, most of which wouldn't be functioning. Afterall, how would anyone provide you internet? Without government regulation any startup has to put their own wires up. This leads to rats nests of wires. Tons of expensive wires being put up for customers you used to have. Free market obviously doesn't work, you must come in and fix that. Communism on the otherhand is misuse of people. Everyone must be employed full time in communism. In the USSR, there would be multiple cashiers you would have to go through. Just to ensure people have something to do. You also have to have government slaves. USSR had the gulags. China has the uyghurs. Vietnam has their slaves in forced labour centers.
- difosfor 5y ago
  I don't see what communism has to do with everyone needing to be employed full time. That's just what they made of it in the USSR etc. > Communism: a theory or system of social organization in which all property is owned by the community and each person contributes and receives according to their ability and needs.
  - freeflight 5y ago
    I concur, there's nothing "communistic" about the idea of full employment, if anything it strikes me as something rather capitalistic in its nature: Full employment would mean there's an oversupply of labor, which means labor would be dirt cheap and easily replaceable. That would be the dream for anybody trying to exploit others labor for their own gains, something that's generally seen as a very capitalistic mindset. The USSR attempting to have full employment was yet another misplaced attempt at trying to "Beat the capitalistic West at their own game".
    - sleepysysadmin 5y ago
      >I concur, there's nothing "communistic" about the idea of full employment, if anything it strikes me as something rather capitalistic in its nature: Full employment would mean there's an oversupply of labor, which means labor would be dirt cheap and easily replaceable. There have been nobel prizes on labour participation rate and unemployment rates. The reality is that you have so much population, you have requirements of productivity to produce things for your population. Cuba is an exception, they do still have government owned slaves. Mostly political prisoners, you can't say anything negative about the government. However, only 30% of their population has a job. What's the consequence? You only get about 1lb of meat a month. Literally I will eat 1 month's of food in a single meal. Also what's up with other consequences? Doctors are forced to work ~65hours/week while 2/3rds of the population stays home? Wow. While taxi drivers who work less hours earn more than you. >That would be the dream for anybody trying to exploit others labor for their own gains, something that's generally seen as a very capitalistic mindset. Not capitalistic at all, what capitalist society has enforced near full employment? I don't know of any. This is a communist thing. Only communism has ever done this. It's something Marx never said needed to happen. It's just the reality of productivity and how society works. >The USSR attempting to have full employment was yet another misplaced attempt at trying to "Beat the capitalistic West at their own game". The even more interesting thing. Graeber obviously says that communism is where you typically get all the bullshit jobs. Yet here they are in capitalism. The reality is that he's right. The reason for the rise of bullshit jobs in capitalism is all the socialism/communism being introduced. Japan isn't communist and yet they also have government slaves, 99.9% of people accused of a crime are forced to work in a gulag. Why? They implemented loads of socialist policies and blew up their debt. Their public debt to GDP is 266%. That's actually worse than Greece during their collapse. The only thing holding Japan together is the government slaves. Why does communism(or whatever name) always seem to come with full employment and government slaves in gulags? I actually don't fully understand why, but that's not a capitalism.

I believe that David Graeber was an Anarchist not a Marxist.

orwin 5y ago

Anarchists, like communists, have a marxist or post-marxist view of the society and its organization.

tremon 5y ago
...because if they had a capitalist view on society, they'd be called libertarians?
guerrilla 5y ago
No, not all communists are Marxists and the predominant tradition, anarcho-communism, is not post-Marxist but derives from a different set of authors who opposed Marx during his lifetime. [1] 1. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Communism#Other_types_of_communism https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Communism#Other_types_of_commu...
- drcongo 5y ago
  Thank you. Some of the comments in this thread are so bizarre I have to wonder if it's down to US educational systems placing everything that's not Reaganomics into a basket marked "Communism BAD".

sleepysysadmin 5y ago

>I believe that David Graeber was an Anarchist not a Marxist. Anarchism can be capitalist or communism. Anarcho-communism for example. In a proper free market, the telephone poles would have 50 wires, most of which wouldn't be functioning. Afterall, how would anyone provide you internet? Without government regulation any startup has to put their own wires up. This leads to rats nests of wires. Tons of expensive wires being put up for customers you used to have. Free market obviously doesn't work, you must come in and fix that. Communism on the otherhand is misuse of people. Everyone must be employed full time in communism. In the USSR, there would be multiple cashiers you would have to go through. Just to ensure people have something to do. You also have to have government slaves. USSR had the gulags. China has the uyghurs. Vietnam has their slaves in forced labour centers.

difosfor 5y ago
I don't see what communism has to do with everyone needing to be employed full time. That's just what they made of it in the USSR etc. > Communism: a theory or system of social organization in which all property is owned by the community and each person contributes and receives according to their ability and needs.
- freeflight 5y ago
  I concur, there's nothing "communistic" about the idea of full employment, if anything it strikes me as something rather capitalistic in its nature: Full employment would mean there's an oversupply of labor, which means labor would be dirt cheap and easily replaceable. That would be the dream for anybody trying to exploit others labor for their own gains, something that's generally seen as a very capitalistic mindset. The USSR attempting to have full employment was yet another misplaced attempt at trying to "Beat the capitalistic West at their own game".
  - sleepysysadmin 5y ago
    >I concur, there's nothing "communistic" about the idea of full employment, if anything it strikes me as something rather capitalistic in its nature: Full employment would mean there's an oversupply of labor, which means labor would be dirt cheap and easily replaceable. There have been nobel prizes on labour participation rate and unemployment rates. The reality is that you have so much population, you have requirements of productivity to produce things for your population. Cuba is an exception, they do still have government owned slaves. Mostly political prisoners, you can't say anything negative about the government. However, only 30% of their population has a job. What's the consequence? You only get about 1lb of meat a month. Literally I will eat 1 month's of food in a single meal. Also what's up with other consequences? Doctors are forced to work ~65hours/week while 2/3rds of the population stays home? Wow. While taxi drivers who work less hours earn more than you. >That would be the dream for anybody trying to exploit others labor for their own gains, something that's generally seen as a very capitalistic mindset. Not capitalistic at all, what capitalist society has enforced near full employment? I don't know of any. This is a communist thing. Only communism has ever done this. It's something Marx never said needed to happen. It's just the reality of productivity and how society works. >The USSR attempting to have full employment was yet another misplaced attempt at trying to "Beat the capitalistic West at their own game". The even more interesting thing. Graeber obviously says that communism is where you typically get all the bullshit jobs. Yet here they are in capitalism. The reality is that he's right. The reason for the rise of bullshit jobs in capitalism is all the socialism/communism being introduced. Japan isn't communist and yet they also have government slaves, 99.9% of people accused of a crime are forced to work in a gulag. Why? They implemented loads of socialist policies and blew up their debt. Their public debt to GDP is 266%. That's actually worse than Greece during their collapse. The only thing holding Japan together is the government slaves. Why does communism(or whatever name) always seem to come with full employment and government slaves in gulags? I actually don't fully understand why, but that's not a capitalism.