9 ms·

It's always so strange to see one of these articles that endlessly seeks to philosophize modern political/economic circumstances but never directly reference la

It's always so strange to see one of these articles that endlessly seeks to philosophize modern political/economic circumstances but never directly reference labor theory/the alienation of man from his labor. I wonder if people are simply unaware of the large existing body of work on these issues or are just trying to use "politically neutral" language to describe the explicitly radical study on our existing structures of power and how individuals spend their time

ohCh6zos 4y ago
They could also be aware of it and reject the theory.
- bobkazamakis 4y ago
  One man famously said "I reject your reality and substitute my own."
  - peanutcrisis 4y ago
    Care to share what you mean here?
    - temp2022acc 4y ago
      He's quoting Adam Savage, famous from his time with MythBusters. Adam (the entire team really) had a way of making interesting things happen no matter which direction their investigation took.
seneca 4y ago
I don't think it's strange at all. After the fall of the USSR and the revelations of its horrors all but the most radical in the west came to consider Marxism as a dead letter philosophy. One ought to believe what they believe to be right, even if it is radical, but you shouldn't be shocked when others don't join in your radicalism with you.
- deleted 4y ago
  [deleted]
- impeplague 4y ago
  While I understand why someone may think that (just because Marx is important on both topics), they are not much related at all. The Capital is something on it's own, and Marx has the best explanation about capitalism so far.
  - joenot443 4y ago
    It’s hard to separate Marxism from the USSR in the same way it’s difficult to separate facism from Nazi Germany, I think. I don’t see how one can reasonably separate a predominant ideology from the empire that popularized it.
    - dragonwriter 4y ago
      > It’s hard to separate Marxism from the USSR That makes more sense if you are talking about Leninism than Marxism (yes, I know Leninism markets itself as Marxism-Leninism, but, its quite easily to distinguish Leninism from non-Leninist Marxism. > in the same way it’s difficult to separate facism from Nazi Germany I mean, Naziism is a lot closer to the original Fascism (that of Mussolini’s Italy) than thr USSR is to original Marxism, but it is still pretty easy to distinguish the features of either fascism in the broad sense or Italian Fascism in the narrow sense from the distinct features of German Naziism. > I don’t see how one can reasonably separate a predominant ideology from the empire that popularized it. Marxism was a significant global force about which regimes were concerned well before Lenin made a radical alteration to make it seem relevant to societies that had not yet acheived well-developed capitalism.
phernandez 4y ago
> reference labor theory/the alienation of man from his labor. I wonder if people are simply unaware of the large existing body of work on these issues I’ve been interested in reading more about this. Do you have any pointers to good info?
- deleted 4y ago
  [deleted]
- nohope 4y ago
  Marx's theory of alienation: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Marx%27s_theory_of_alienation https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Marx%27s_theory_of_alienation
vorpalhex 4y ago
Labor theory is an insufficient and poorly evidenced claim that does not align with reality.
- yellowapple 4y ago
  That's the case for pretty much all theories attempting to model something as famously nebulous and poorly-defined as human society. In light of that limitation, labor theory provides one of the less-wildly-inaccurate models; the issues with it are more around people claiming to champion it while simultaneously imagining themselves as part of some privileged intelligentsia, the very existence of which is indistinguishable from the very thing labor theory directly challenges/criticizes.
  - vorpalhex 4y ago
    Labor theory posits that the capital value of an item is the sum of all labor to produce that item. That is wrong. See many goods sold above or below direct labor costs, eg silk.
    - yellowapple 4y ago
      The labor theory (and broader theories incorporating it) also posits that "price" and "value" are independent. That, combined with the position that value is a function of the labor to produce a good or service, is correct; people can and routinely do pay more or less for a good or service than what it's worth - that difference being dependent on the negotiating power of the buyer v. the seller, any transportation/delivery costs, and myriad other factors that have nothing to do with the actual good or service in question - and the employer/employee relationship is no exception.
      - vorpalhex 4y ago
        > value is a function of the labor to produce a good or service, is correct That appears plainly wrong. Take any rare good where demand for the good exceeds supply - per my original example of silk. More people want silk than there is supply of silk. The value of silk has nothing to do with it's labor cost. Even if tomorrow the labor of silk was entirely automated, silk would still be expensive. Nor is this some kind of break of negotiating power. There is no seller/buyer relationship which changes the scarce nature of silk and thus can decrease it's value.
CatWChainsaw 4y ago
There's that. What stood out to me was the philosophizing over how transactions won't fix the widespread outbreak of ennui/existential crises, but the audience here is tilted towards programmers who likely must advance this proliferation of XaaS, even if it is out of personal fiscal necessity. The political/economic circumstances would lead to this end, where the economic nibbles away at private spheres of life and everyone can sense something undesirable happening but cannot fight shadows.
impeplague 4y ago
Not gonna lie, Marx is hard even for Marxists
joenot443 4y ago
One man’s explanation of human behavior isn’t an objective reading of reality, that’s why it’s known as a theory. It’s possible other people, like me, are very familiar with Marxist theory and choose to reject it on a variety of grounds. Referencing one philosopher and noting that it’s strange others don’t agree with them is sort of funny - one could bring up Kant or Martin Luther or Rand or any other influential thinker using the exact same framing.

ohCh6zos 4y ago

They could also be aware of it and reject the theory.

bobkazamakis 4y ago
One man famously said "I reject your reality and substitute my own."
- peanutcrisis 4y ago
  Care to share what you mean here?
  - temp2022acc 4y ago
    He's quoting Adam Savage, famous from his time with MythBusters. Adam (the entire team really) had a way of making interesting things happen no matter which direction their investigation took.

seneca 4y ago

I don't think it's strange at all. After the fall of the USSR and the revelations of its horrors all but the most radical in the west came to consider Marxism as a dead letter philosophy. One ought to believe what they believe to be right, even if it is radical, but you shouldn't be shocked when others don't join in your radicalism with you.

deleted 4y ago
[deleted]
impeplague 4y ago
While I understand why someone may think that (just because Marx is important on both topics), they are not much related at all. The Capital is something on it's own, and Marx has the best explanation about capitalism so far.
- joenot443 4y ago
  It’s hard to separate Marxism from the USSR in the same way it’s difficult to separate facism from Nazi Germany, I think. I don’t see how one can reasonably separate a predominant ideology from the empire that popularized it.
  - dragonwriter 4y ago
    > It’s hard to separate Marxism from the USSR That makes more sense if you are talking about Leninism than Marxism (yes, I know Leninism markets itself as Marxism-Leninism, but, its quite easily to distinguish Leninism from non-Leninist Marxism. > in the same way it’s difficult to separate facism from Nazi Germany I mean, Naziism is a lot closer to the original Fascism (that of Mussolini’s Italy) than thr USSR is to original Marxism, but it is still pretty easy to distinguish the features of either fascism in the broad sense or Italian Fascism in the narrow sense from the distinct features of German Naziism. > I don’t see how one can reasonably separate a predominant ideology from the empire that popularized it. Marxism was a significant global force about which regimes were concerned well before Lenin made a radical alteration to make it seem relevant to societies that had not yet acheived well-developed capitalism.

phernandez 4y ago

> reference labor theory/the alienation of man from his labor. I wonder if people are simply unaware of the large existing body of work on these issues I’ve been interested in reading more about this. Do you have any pointers to good info?

deleted 4y ago
[deleted]
nohope 4y ago
Marx's theory of alienation: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Marx%27s_theory_of_alienation https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Marx%27s_theory_of_alienation

vorpalhex 4y ago

Labor theory is an insufficient and poorly evidenced claim that does not align with reality.

yellowapple 4y ago
That's the case for pretty much all theories attempting to model something as famously nebulous and poorly-defined as human society. In light of that limitation, labor theory provides one of the less-wildly-inaccurate models; the issues with it are more around people claiming to champion it while simultaneously imagining themselves as part of some privileged intelligentsia, the very existence of which is indistinguishable from the very thing labor theory directly challenges/criticizes.
- vorpalhex 4y ago
  Labor theory posits that the capital value of an item is the sum of all labor to produce that item. That is wrong. See many goods sold above or below direct labor costs, eg silk.
  - yellowapple 4y ago
    The labor theory (and broader theories incorporating it) also posits that "price" and "value" are independent. That, combined with the position that value is a function of the labor to produce a good or service, is correct; people can and routinely do pay more or less for a good or service than what it's worth - that difference being dependent on the negotiating power of the buyer v. the seller, any transportation/delivery costs, and myriad other factors that have nothing to do with the actual good or service in question - and the employer/employee relationship is no exception.
    - vorpalhex 4y ago
      > value is a function of the labor to produce a good or service, is correct That appears plainly wrong. Take any rare good where demand for the good exceeds supply - per my original example of silk. More people want silk than there is supply of silk. The value of silk has nothing to do with it's labor cost. Even if tomorrow the labor of silk was entirely automated, silk would still be expensive. Nor is this some kind of break of negotiating power. There is no seller/buyer relationship which changes the scarce nature of silk and thus can decrease it's value.

CatWChainsaw 4y ago

There's that. What stood out to me was the philosophizing over how transactions won't fix the widespread outbreak of ennui/existential crises, but the audience here is tilted towards programmers who likely must advance this proliferation of XaaS, even if it is out of personal fiscal necessity. The political/economic circumstances would lead to this end, where the economic nibbles away at private spheres of life and everyone can sense something undesirable happening but cannot fight shadows.

impeplague 4y ago

Not gonna lie, Marx is hard even for Marxists

joenot443 4y ago

One man’s explanation of human behavior isn’t an objective reading of reality, that’s why it’s known as a theory. It’s possible other people, like me, are very familiar with Marxist theory and choose to reject it on a variety of grounds. Referencing one philosopher and noting that it’s strange others don’t agree with them is sort of funny - one could bring up Kant or Martin Luther or Rand or any other influential thinker using the exact same framing.