4 ms·

> The diatribe against capitalism is thus unnecessary that would be true if you had no understanding surplus value. i highly recommend you at least try and rea

by _oghd 4y ago

> The diatribe against capitalism is thus unnecessary that would be true if you had no understanding surplus value. i highly recommend you at least try and read the first few chapters of Marx's Capital, which was quoted directly in the article. notice profits are skyrocketing while wages are dead? "rising tide raises all ships" economics is dead.

deleted 4y ago
[deleted]
bobleeswagger 4y ago
Just wait a few more years, it'll trickle down soon ;)
chefandy 4y ago
What they didn't tell you is that there's not nearly enough ships.
cowl 4y ago
The diatribe against capitalism is unnecessary because there is no better system. You can quote Marx's Capital all you want. I have lived the system build upon it's premises and it's the worst system possible. It destroys the human Initiative and intrinsic motivation bringing all the people to an equal poverty and apathy not an equal prosperity while the Ruling class still remains even better than the richest capitalist. And no what is often touted as it was never implemented properly is not true either. Half the world tried several forms of it's implementation, in all forms it goes against the human nature and is always destined to fail. There is no redistribution of the Surplus value simply because the surplus vanishes whenever you try that system. While the rising tide is not raising all ships you at least have a chance to fight to jump to another ship and not being forced to navigate the ocean using rafts.
- modo_mario 4y ago
  I'd say it's still true that it was never implemented properly. The fact that you mention a ruling class should signify that. There was still a state, etc so it was never achieved. That said I think it's a utopia and as such (just like many other anarchistic strains) in line with some of 'utopia's defintions it is impractical/impossible bs.
  - cowl 4y ago
    A ruling class will come out no matter what. Who "redistributes" the wealth? even the most passionate advocates of this form have recognized this and now propose an overruling "AI" and the postponing of this organisation until we can have a "fair AI", Can you predict how even that form will go? And what's more important it does not change the equation that if my contribution results in the same reward as the person X contribution why should I strive to contribute more? It's the inevitable race to the least effort possible that is the doom of Marxist theories. If they say to you "Max you can achieve is X because that is the "Equality" of this society and you achieve X with Effort 2 you will not give effort 10.
    - sgu999 4y ago
      > if my contribution results in the same reward as the person X contribution why should I strive to contribute more? The nature of the reward matters, not everything is about wealth and money. Many geniuses are still willingly working in public labs for a fraction of what they'd earn in a corporate or startup.
      - namaria 4y ago
        Wealth is way more complex than 'take home money'. Geniuses in developed countries with highly functional infrastructure and high expectations of security are willing to forego cash income to work on ideals.
    - deleted 4y ago
      [deleted]
  - seanw444 4y ago
    Commies use the "but that wasn't real communism" phrase all the time, but the point is that it will never be achieved. At least not for any substantial amount of time. It's utterly unnatural. Societal entropy returns it to a resting state every time.
    - modo_mario 4y ago
- rightbyte 4y ago
  > Half the world tried several forms of it's implementation Kinda the same implementation though if you don't count boring social democrats to the block. It is probably fundamentally a really really bad idea with authoritarian rule and a central planning system, which is not self correcting and where the authoritarian regime won't admit errors or faults. I wonder why coop corporations are not more common. They are essentially "socialist" on a micro scale. There have to be some big drawback. I think agile has alot of these problems. In most environment it fails due to about the same reasons as it is a authoritarian ideology in practice.
  - cowl 4y ago
    > I wonder why coop corporations are not more common. that's the same reason why state coops failed everywhere. because they are forced to work toward some common denominator that is almost always worse than each working to maximize their own.

by _oghd 4y ago

deleted 4y ago

[deleted]

bobleeswagger 4y ago

Just wait a few more years, it'll trickle down soon ;)

chefandy 4y ago

What they didn't tell you is that there's not nearly enough ships.

cowl 4y ago

The diatribe against capitalism is unnecessary because there is no better system. You can quote Marx's Capital all you want. I have lived the system build upon it's premises and it's the worst system possible. It destroys the human Initiative and intrinsic motivation bringing all the people to an equal poverty and apathy not an equal prosperity while the Ruling class still remains even better than the richest capitalist. And no what is often touted as it was never implemented properly is not true either. Half the world tried several forms of it's implementation, in all forms it goes against the human nature and is always destined to fail. There is no redistribution of the Surplus value simply because the surplus vanishes whenever you try that system. While the rising tide is not raising all ships you at least have a chance to fight to jump to another ship and not being forced to navigate the ocean using rafts.

modo_mario 4y ago
I'd say it's still true that it was never implemented properly. The fact that you mention a ruling class should signify that. There was still a state, etc so it was never achieved. That said I think it's a utopia and as such (just like many other anarchistic strains) in line with some of 'utopia's defintions it is impractical/impossible bs.
- cowl 4y ago
  A ruling class will come out no matter what. Who "redistributes" the wealth? even the most passionate advocates of this form have recognized this and now propose an overruling "AI" and the postponing of this organisation until we can have a "fair AI", Can you predict how even that form will go? And what's more important it does not change the equation that if my contribution results in the same reward as the person X contribution why should I strive to contribute more? It's the inevitable race to the least effort possible that is the doom of Marxist theories. If they say to you "Max you can achieve is X because that is the "Equality" of this society and you achieve X with Effort 2 you will not give effort 10.
  - sgu999 4y ago
    > if my contribution results in the same reward as the person X contribution why should I strive to contribute more? The nature of the reward matters, not everything is about wealth and money. Many geniuses are still willingly working in public labs for a fraction of what they'd earn in a corporate or startup.
    - namaria 4y ago
      Wealth is way more complex than 'take home money'. Geniuses in developed countries with highly functional infrastructure and high expectations of security are willing to forego cash income to work on ideals.
  - deleted 4y ago
    [deleted]
- seanw444 4y ago
  Commies use the "but that wasn't real communism" phrase all the time, but the point is that it will never be achieved. At least not for any substantial amount of time. It's utterly unnatural. Societal entropy returns it to a resting state every time.
  - modo_mario 4y ago
rightbyte 4y ago
> Half the world tried several forms of it's implementation Kinda the same implementation though if you don't count boring social democrats to the block. It is probably fundamentally a really really bad idea with authoritarian rule and a central planning system, which is not self correcting and where the authoritarian regime won't admit errors or faults. I wonder why coop corporations are not more common. They are essentially "socialist" on a micro scale. There have to be some big drawback. I think agile has alot of these problems. In most environment it fails due to about the same reasons as it is a authoritarian ideology in practice.
- cowl 4y ago
  > I wonder why coop corporations are not more common. that's the same reason why state coops failed everywhere. because they are forced to work toward some common denominator that is almost always worse than each working to maximize their own.