3 ms·

> Skills are not capital in the communist vocabulary. I have no interest in the communist vocabulary. Communism killed more than a hundred million people in th

by pdonis 4y ago

> Skills are not capital in the communist vocabulary. I have no interest in the communist vocabulary. Communism killed more than a hundred million people in the 20th century. I would hope we have figured out by now that communism doesn't work. > all the workers in the world are bona-fide capitalists, since they are using their skills to get paid. In the sense that most of their pay is return on capital, not "labor", yes, that is exactly right. However, the extent to which workers realize this, and act accordingly, in order to maximize the return on the capital they own (their skills), varies extremely widely.

malermeister 4y ago
> Communism killed more than a hundred million people in the 20th century. I would hope we have figured out by now that communism doesn't work. So did Capitalism [0]. Now what? [0] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Le_Livre_noir_du_capitalisme https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Le_Livre_noir_du_capitalisme
- carlosjobim 4y ago
  Communism and capitalism are allies, and frankly two sides of the same coin. Marx repeatedly makes it clear in his communistic manifesto, that a society first needs to become capitalist in order to break down traditions and family, before it is ready for a communist revolution. He states that communists should side with capitalists against traditional society, and then get rid off the capitalists after that. Smart capitalist politicians switch coats and become loyal party functionaries when that happens, corporate leaders keep their nice jobs and report to the party instead of to the shareholders. Bankers remain untouchable in both systems. Just the fact that people think the world is left/right, socialist/capitalist proves that these two allied ideologies have been extremely successful in the last century.
  - primeblue 4y ago
    [dead]
- pdonis 4y ago
  > So did Capitalism The logic that attributes those deaths to "capitalism" is lot more sketchy than the obvious fact that the deaths I attributed to communism were directly due to the actions of governments who explicitly declared themselves to be communists and who directly took the actions that resulted in the deaths with the explicit purpose of advancing communism. "Capitalism" isn't even a single philosophy, let alone one with an explicit manifesto that all the governments who killed all those people in the name of communism explicitly said they were following.
  - thiagoharry 4y ago
    The wars, purging campaigns, African slave trade and colonial wars were all made by governments that were (and declared themselves) capitalists and that did actions with the explicit purpose of advancing profits for their dominant classes. Several ethnic conflicts also were provoked by them. I do not think that we have so much difference here. The problem is that it is normalized in western ideology to consider any death in communist countries as death by communism and any death in capitalist countries as explained by several other factors that do not relate with capitalism. > "Capitalism" isn't even a single philosophy, But I can say the same for communism. Or any other concept: there always will be differences in interpretations. And capitalists do not need an explicit manifesto because they are already the hegemonic power. They already succeeded in their past revolutions to give power to the bourgeoisie. The ideals for what they fought in the past are already normalized in the society.
carlosjobim 4y ago
Good to hear, but it's still a huge stretch to call skills capital - what does any of us gain by redefining words in free conversation? When arguing for or against communism (as is the theme of the article and thread) we need at least to have some common understanding of what a word means. "Capital" is generally understood as exclusive ownership. > In the sense that most of their pay is return on capital, not "labor" No, most workers earn their pay from labour. Applying your skills is still labour. I think the pandemic was a happening that made more people than ever realize they can and should change their life course to better suit their needs. So many people are changing careers to get a better return on their skills and effort. There are whole industries now that are starting to have a hard time getting enough labour, because they can't find anybody willing to be exploited even short time. And sometimes that's not deliberately by the individual business owner, some sectors are just not lucrative enough to continue - unless they change profoundly.
- pdonis 4y ago
  > "Capital" is generally understood as exclusive ownership. Sure, and you exclusively own your skills, so they meet this definition. > Applying your skills is still labour. The time you spend applying them is labor, yes. The knowledge on your part of how to apply them to produce much more value in that time than a unskilled worker could produce, is capital. And the fact that you can get paid much more than an unskilled worker if you have that knowledge, and use it to be more productive, is return on capital. > many people are changing careers to get a better return on their skills and effort. I.e., return on their capital. Yes, exactly! They are realizing that the capital they own is worth more than they were being paid before, so they are changing careers to increase their return. Try doing that as an unskilled worker and see how far you get.
  - carlosjobim 4y ago
    > Sure, and you exclusively own your skills, so they meet this definition. You can never exclusively own skills. If somebody else achieves some skill or knowledge that I have, I cannot use the force of the government to stop him from having those. A capitalist can and will use the force of the government to stop others from using the things he has laid claim to: Land, natural resources, equipment. A capitalist can create capital out of thin air by making money, and use the force of the government to stop others from making money. That's the difference that matters. > Try doing that as an unskilled worker and see how far you get. Right now I think it is mainly unskilled workers who are changing sectors, as they are the ones who can benefit most from it. If your job cannot get worse, there is no reason not to change. As for skilled workers, they have already climbed a few steps on the ladder.
etothepii 4y ago
I suspect the point was more that those who write articles like this one are borrowing heavily from communist ideas. If you aren't a communist, there's a good chance that you don't think that skills are capital and the rebuttal was along those lines.
- carlosjobim 4y ago
  Thank you, yes that was how I meant.
- deleted 4y ago
  [deleted]
- pdonis 4y ago
  > If you aren't a communist, there's a good chance that you don't think that skills are capital The post I responded to (GGP of this one) said "skills are not capital in the communist vocabulary". Did you mean that if you are a communist, there's a good chance you don't think that skills are capital?
  - etothepii 4y ago
    No. My limited experience with the hard left at university is that those who call themselves communists today typically mean, "I'm against bad things like exploitation, I am for the weak against the strong, I am on the side of good. There are simple solutions to our problems." This can be summed up in Marx's axiomatic statement, "to each as he needs; from each as he can." It would have likely have been more accurate to say, "in the language of Marx skills are not capital." It would probably be more accurate for my comment to have been, "if you don't have the propensity to call yourself a communist you probably don't worry about whether or not skills are capital." This is because for me the common feature amongst communists (in a free society) is their belief in simple solutions, and unwillingness to engage with their unintended side effects.
cratermoon 4y ago
> Communism killed more than a hundred million people in the 20th century Funny how that keeps being thrown out but nobody really has done a full accounting for the deaths due to rapacious capitalism. I've seen figures of 100 million to 150 million from two World Wars, colonial wars, anti-communist campaigns, repressions and mass killings, ethnic conflicts, and victims of famines or malnutrition. Some accounting says 20 million people die every year due to the effects of capitalism, such as starvation, lack of access to clean water, lack of access to shelter, lack of access to medicine, and unchecked disease. Remember when the pandemic wasn't over and businesses said everyone had to go back to work or the economy would break? Credible counts say there are 16 million empty homes in the US[1] and around half a million unhoused [2]. 1 https://www.nar.realtor/magazine/real-estate-news/16-million-homes-vacant-in-us https://www.nar.realtor/magazine/real-estate-news/16-million... 2 https://endhomelessness.org/homelessness-in-america/homelessness-statistics/state-of-homelessness/ https://endhomelessness.org/homelessness-in-america/homeless...
thiagoharry 4y ago
> Communism killed more than a hundred million people in the 20th century. Well, capitalism also killed hundred million people in the same century following the same logic... Modern capitalism and institutions also came from bloody revolutions, created a world order with colonialism in XIX century, produced wars to dispute such colonies and global power in XX century and did a lot of bloodshed also in XX century because it was afraid of losing power to socialism. If we use this logic, we cannot discuss any philosophy or social theory, probably all them produced several deaths.

by pdonis 4y ago

malermeister 4y ago

> Communism killed more than a hundred million people in the 20th century. I would hope we have figured out by now that communism doesn't work. So did Capitalism [0]. Now what? [0] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Le_Livre_noir_du_capitalisme https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Le_Livre_noir_du_capitalisme

carlosjobim 4y ago
Communism and capitalism are allies, and frankly two sides of the same coin. Marx repeatedly makes it clear in his communistic manifesto, that a society first needs to become capitalist in order to break down traditions and family, before it is ready for a communist revolution. He states that communists should side with capitalists against traditional society, and then get rid off the capitalists after that. Smart capitalist politicians switch coats and become loyal party functionaries when that happens, corporate leaders keep their nice jobs and report to the party instead of to the shareholders. Bankers remain untouchable in both systems. Just the fact that people think the world is left/right, socialist/capitalist proves that these two allied ideologies have been extremely successful in the last century.
- primeblue 4y ago
  [dead]
pdonis 4y ago
> So did Capitalism The logic that attributes those deaths to "capitalism" is lot more sketchy than the obvious fact that the deaths I attributed to communism were directly due to the actions of governments who explicitly declared themselves to be communists and who directly took the actions that resulted in the deaths with the explicit purpose of advancing communism. "Capitalism" isn't even a single philosophy, let alone one with an explicit manifesto that all the governments who killed all those people in the name of communism explicitly said they were following.
- thiagoharry 4y ago
  The wars, purging campaigns, African slave trade and colonial wars were all made by governments that were (and declared themselves) capitalists and that did actions with the explicit purpose of advancing profits for their dominant classes. Several ethnic conflicts also were provoked by them. I do not think that we have so much difference here. The problem is that it is normalized in western ideology to consider any death in communist countries as death by communism and any death in capitalist countries as explained by several other factors that do not relate with capitalism. > "Capitalism" isn't even a single philosophy, But I can say the same for communism. Or any other concept: there always will be differences in interpretations. And capitalists do not need an explicit manifesto because they are already the hegemonic power. They already succeeded in their past revolutions to give power to the bourgeoisie. The ideals for what they fought in the past are already normalized in the society.

carlosjobim 4y ago

Good to hear, but it's still a huge stretch to call skills capital - what does any of us gain by redefining words in free conversation? When arguing for or against communism (as is the theme of the article and thread) we need at least to have some common understanding of what a word means. "Capital" is generally understood as exclusive ownership. > In the sense that most of their pay is return on capital, not "labor" No, most workers earn their pay from labour. Applying your skills is still labour. I think the pandemic was a happening that made more people than ever realize they can and should change their life course to better suit their needs. So many people are changing careers to get a better return on their skills and effort. There are whole industries now that are starting to have a hard time getting enough labour, because they can't find anybody willing to be exploited even short time. And sometimes that's not deliberately by the individual business owner, some sectors are just not lucrative enough to continue - unless they change profoundly.

pdonis 4y ago
> "Capital" is generally understood as exclusive ownership. Sure, and you exclusively own your skills, so they meet this definition. > Applying your skills is still labour. The time you spend applying them is labor, yes. The knowledge on your part of how to apply them to produce much more value in that time than a unskilled worker could produce, is capital. And the fact that you can get paid much more than an unskilled worker if you have that knowledge, and use it to be more productive, is return on capital. > many people are changing careers to get a better return on their skills and effort. I.e., return on their capital. Yes, exactly! They are realizing that the capital they own is worth more than they were being paid before, so they are changing careers to increase their return. Try doing that as an unskilled worker and see how far you get.
- carlosjobim 4y ago
  > Sure, and you exclusively own your skills, so they meet this definition. You can never exclusively own skills. If somebody else achieves some skill or knowledge that I have, I cannot use the force of the government to stop him from having those. A capitalist can and will use the force of the government to stop others from using the things he has laid claim to: Land, natural resources, equipment. A capitalist can create capital out of thin air by making money, and use the force of the government to stop others from making money. That's the difference that matters. > Try doing that as an unskilled worker and see how far you get. Right now I think it is mainly unskilled workers who are changing sectors, as they are the ones who can benefit most from it. If your job cannot get worse, there is no reason not to change. As for skilled workers, they have already climbed a few steps on the ladder.

etothepii 4y ago

I suspect the point was more that those who write articles like this one are borrowing heavily from communist ideas. If you aren't a communist, there's a good chance that you don't think that skills are capital and the rebuttal was along those lines.

carlosjobim 4y ago
Thank you, yes that was how I meant.
deleted 4y ago
[deleted]
pdonis 4y ago
> If you aren't a communist, there's a good chance that you don't think that skills are capital The post I responded to (GGP of this one) said "skills are not capital in the communist vocabulary". Did you mean that if you are a communist, there's a good chance you don't think that skills are capital?
- etothepii 4y ago
  No. My limited experience with the hard left at university is that those who call themselves communists today typically mean, "I'm against bad things like exploitation, I am for the weak against the strong, I am on the side of good. There are simple solutions to our problems." This can be summed up in Marx's axiomatic statement, "to each as he needs; from each as he can." It would have likely have been more accurate to say, "in the language of Marx skills are not capital." It would probably be more accurate for my comment to have been, "if you don't have the propensity to call yourself a communist you probably don't worry about whether or not skills are capital." This is because for me the common feature amongst communists (in a free society) is their belief in simple solutions, and unwillingness to engage with their unintended side effects.

cratermoon 4y ago

> Communism killed more than a hundred million people in the 20th century Funny how that keeps being thrown out but nobody really has done a full accounting for the deaths due to rapacious capitalism. I've seen figures of 100 million to 150 million from two World Wars, colonial wars, anti-communist campaigns, repressions and mass killings, ethnic conflicts, and victims of famines or malnutrition. Some accounting says 20 million people die every year due to the effects of capitalism, such as starvation, lack of access to clean water, lack of access to shelter, lack of access to medicine, and unchecked disease. Remember when the pandemic wasn't over and businesses said everyone had to go back to work or the economy would break? Credible counts say there are 16 million empty homes in the US[1] and around half a million unhoused [2]. 1 https://www.nar.realtor/magazine/real-estate-news/16-million-homes-vacant-in-us https://www.nar.realtor/magazine/real-estate-news/16-million... 2 https://endhomelessness.org/homelessness-in-america/homelessness-statistics/state-of-homelessness/ https://endhomelessness.org/homelessness-in-america/homeless...

thiagoharry 4y ago

> Communism killed more than a hundred million people in the 20th century. Well, capitalism also killed hundred million people in the same century following the same logic... Modern capitalism and institutions also came from bloody revolutions, created a world order with colonialism in XIX century, produced wars to dispute such colonies and global power in XX century and did a lot of bloodshed also in XX century because it was afraid of losing power to socialism. If we use this logic, we cannot discuss any philosophy or social theory, probably all them produced several deaths.