4 ms·

Varoufakis: The master of muddying waters. On day 1 he says he is a communist, on day 2 he seds tears because we now live in the age of technofeudalism, poor pr

by gtsop 2y ago

Varoufakis: The master of muddying waters. On day 1 he says he is a communist, on day 2 he seds tears because we now live in the age of technofeudalism, poor proper capitalism has been sidelined. He wants to relive the good old days of proper capitalism (lol?). He is a marxist, he is a postmarxist, he is a soscialist, he is a democrat, he is a communist, he is an anarchist, he is a pro-capitalist, he is an anti-capitalist, he is a pro-anti-anti-pro-capitalist and anti-pro-anti-communist, he is a reformist, he is a revolutionary, and when you are everything, then you are really nothing, or much better, you are trully a clown

vdupras 2y ago
Is this nostalgia for "good old capitalism" you accuse him of having is reflected anywhere in the linked article or do you have other sources? One can observe a transition without taking sides, can they?
- gtsop 2y ago
  It is subtextual, but also emergent in his overall political stance. His argument is that there has been a negative shift in the economy because capitalism died and technofeudalism took it's place. It is inherent in that stance that one sees the old state of afairs as better. Varoufakis will never state this outloud as clear as i state it here, but you can read his political party programme (mera25) to validate yourself that his polotical proposals are very clearly implemented witihin the capitalist economy without even hint of socialism or communism. > One can observe a transition without taking sides, can they? One can, he cant. He was a prime minister and has been a party leader with concrete political views and policies for many years
  - vdupras 2y ago
    I'm confused. Saying "Technofeudalism is worse than good old capitalism" and believing communism is a better system are not mutually exclusive. Are they? As for mera25 policies being at odds with communist beliefs, I don't know, I don't follow this closely. Maybe he's trying to be realist in finding a way forward? Everyone knows that a marxist party will never win elections. Maybe he addresses this appearance of inconsistency somewhere. In any case, it seems to me that your original characterization of him was exaggerated.
    - trod1234 2y ago
      Structurally there is a good deal of literature published by Mises and others on socialism, communism, feudalism, etc. They are very nearly identical when it comes to the important economic systems aspects involving the choices people make. Communism is about adopting socialism through violent revolutionary means. The Fabians were all about gradually forcing adoption to socialism. Feudalism met definitional characteristics for socialism, while being about the state or aristocracy. The names of the various movements, or their fine-detailed implementations mean little while they still retain the important properties of structure that lead to failures, such as state apparatus owning/controlling most private property with little or no private ownership. The names themselves mean very little given the structures and defects involved. Fiat money and deficit spending for example while initially backed by assets before the 1970s, eventually fail to non-market socialism, destroying the market in the process through debauchery of the currency (Lenin/Keynes), culminating in the Socialist calculation problem. We can already see this happening with regards to the continual trends towards concentration of the market into few hands, who then make mistakes favoring profit driven by artificial constraint over production, that results in shortage. Competition is prevented by these entities being funded (and undercutting) and is driven by non-reserve debt issuance (0% fractional reserve, circa 2020). Transitions to false reserve systems (capital reserves) is based in flawed value schemes that do not account for subjective value as defined by Carl Menger, they eventually fail (Basel III), when subjective value reasserts chaotically. Marxist parties that call themselves marxists won't ever win elections because of the long sordid history they have with deceit, delusion, and truth, not to mention the callous disregard for life and limb to the consequences of their actions. Anyone who claims to regularly change their core values and views without good reason (driven by extreme circumstance) is more likely than not to be acting deceitfully, which is engendered in a lack of credibility. Unfortunately, the many promises of socialism as a structure are based in flawed assumptions, defects, and indirection, where many are swayed by delusion instead of following objective reality. When continued survival and life is dependent on such systems not failing, and the rational are being dragged long at the whims of the delusional and insane, bad things happen which cannot be stopped. This is a kind of existential risk that deserves rational thought and careful attention, but the psychological stress of our times has regressed all but a minority of those with competent or capable intellects, who are then ignored. Hubris and sloth can be impossible things to fight against once the snowball gets moving downhill. The consequences of such circumstances, given history, are much more likely to involve loss of life or injury, or worse.
- trod1234 2y ago
  He's made claims of such over the years in various interviews that are available on youtube iirc. It's impacted his credibility in some circles, but not the general media. > One can observe a transition without taking sides. Unfortunately that's not always possible. There are people who have structured their belief systems where they have willfully blinded themselves to objective reality. Where delusion holds sway, and you can't understand that objectively since its subjective. The marxist perspective for example based in isolation and collectivism, with the assumptions of the static unchanging individual, caste membership, and focus on structural power discrepancies between said groups are an example. Without identity, or objective definition, rationally you run around in circles, comparing against moving goal posts, jumping at shadows, and the point is a cult like control over the individual towards the totalitarian unthinking mind. It lacks rational principle.
  - gtsop 2y ago
    > The marxist perspective for example based in isolation and collectivism, with the assumptions of the static unchanging individual. Maybe i'm reading the synatx wrong here, but if you are implying that marxism has a static unchaning view of the individual then this is the complete opposite of marxism. Dialectial materialsim (marxism) has the never ending change (movement) of everything in it's very core of it's philosophical understanding. There is literally nothing more distilled for a marxist that everything in the universe changes, let alone the individual. Not sure how you arrived at that rationale.
    - trod1234 2y ago
      > but if you are implying that marxism has a static unchanging view of the individual then this is completely opposite of marxism. It is all about class identity with Marxism. I think you may be conflating aspects of dialectical materialism with Marxism. The two while linked, are not the same. Marxism is a political and social philosophy that aims to change society, while dialectical materialism is a way of understanding the world. Understandably there is some overlap, but there are distinctions and conflicts too in practice. For Marxism, it ultimately comes down to class identity which is treated as unchanging in practice. Analysis is all about the class not the individual, which goes to classic Marx and Engels in their Manifesto. Praxis was a transformation of Hegel's Idealisms Geist as a method of change (albeit its been awhile, so I may misremember the details here). Dialectical materialism unlike Marxism doesn't have unchanging class, instead it says classes support their class interest, sidestepping the issue, albeit allowing for some change but not much. A nuanced distinction. Under Marxism, if you were born as a a worker proletariat you remain a proletariat, everything else is structured around this overdetermination. The dynamic change you mention is based in praxis and is only ever in relation to their unchanging class identity. If you were born as a petty or hauty bourgeoisie, you are always one who supports them, regardless of change in circumstances, or free will, your perspectives are only ever first of that identity, and then may change through praxis but are always tethered to the former, and remain consistent and unchanging, where observation may deviate from ideology. This is the fundamental issue, because people can and do change their class identities over their lifetimes, based in the structured relationship of the means of their production. But members of such have nullified, discredited, and claimed that these don't change. Its only right to take them at their word (in practice). While variations have evolved over the years none really get away from the structuring element of class identity directing all other struggles. Marx uses the concept of overdetermination as does Hegel to describe this. All other struggles are in relation to this element. Its a static element, in most major derivations. There are also significant conflicts. Identity politics for example is more rooted in idealism as is intersectionality than in Marxism's dialectical materialism, and there's a philosophical conflict between idealism, and dialectical materialism, that goes to the core of this philosophy. Discussions often results in reductionist behavior by its proponents on either side. If I'm remembering correctly I believe Žižek covers these nuances in some detail, though not very satisfactorily overall in my opinion. Digesting some of the things Zizek says, going back to basics in the Manifesto, and a number of other experiences led me to this rationale culminating in the observations I relayed before.

by gtsop 2y ago

vdupras 2y ago

Is this nostalgia for "good old capitalism" you accuse him of having is reflected anywhere in the linked article or do you have other sources? One can observe a transition without taking sides, can they?

gtsop 2y ago
It is subtextual, but also emergent in his overall political stance. His argument is that there has been a negative shift in the economy because capitalism died and technofeudalism took it's place. It is inherent in that stance that one sees the old state of afairs as better. Varoufakis will never state this outloud as clear as i state it here, but you can read his political party programme (mera25) to validate yourself that his polotical proposals are very clearly implemented witihin the capitalist economy without even hint of socialism or communism. > One can observe a transition without taking sides, can they? One can, he cant. He was a prime minister and has been a party leader with concrete political views and policies for many years
- vdupras 2y ago
  I'm confused. Saying "Technofeudalism is worse than good old capitalism" and believing communism is a better system are not mutually exclusive. Are they? As for mera25 policies being at odds with communist beliefs, I don't know, I don't follow this closely. Maybe he's trying to be realist in finding a way forward? Everyone knows that a marxist party will never win elections. Maybe he addresses this appearance of inconsistency somewhere. In any case, it seems to me that your original characterization of him was exaggerated.
  - trod1234 2y ago
    Structurally there is a good deal of literature published by Mises and others on socialism, communism, feudalism, etc. They are very nearly identical when it comes to the important economic systems aspects involving the choices people make. Communism is about adopting socialism through violent revolutionary means. The Fabians were all about gradually forcing adoption to socialism. Feudalism met definitional characteristics for socialism, while being about the state or aristocracy. The names of the various movements, or their fine-detailed implementations mean little while they still retain the important properties of structure that lead to failures, such as state apparatus owning/controlling most private property with little or no private ownership. The names themselves mean very little given the structures and defects involved. Fiat money and deficit spending for example while initially backed by assets before the 1970s, eventually fail to non-market socialism, destroying the market in the process through debauchery of the currency (Lenin/Keynes), culminating in the Socialist calculation problem. We can already see this happening with regards to the continual trends towards concentration of the market into few hands, who then make mistakes favoring profit driven by artificial constraint over production, that results in shortage. Competition is prevented by these entities being funded (and undercutting) and is driven by non-reserve debt issuance (0% fractional reserve, circa 2020). Transitions to false reserve systems (capital reserves) is based in flawed value schemes that do not account for subjective value as defined by Carl Menger, they eventually fail (Basel III), when subjective value reasserts chaotically. Marxist parties that call themselves marxists won't ever win elections because of the long sordid history they have with deceit, delusion, and truth, not to mention the callous disregard for life and limb to the consequences of their actions. Anyone who claims to regularly change their core values and views without good reason (driven by extreme circumstance) is more likely than not to be acting deceitfully, which is engendered in a lack of credibility. Unfortunately, the many promises of socialism as a structure are based in flawed assumptions, defects, and indirection, where many are swayed by delusion instead of following objective reality. When continued survival and life is dependent on such systems not failing, and the rational are being dragged long at the whims of the delusional and insane, bad things happen which cannot be stopped. This is a kind of existential risk that deserves rational thought and careful attention, but the psychological stress of our times has regressed all but a minority of those with competent or capable intellects, who are then ignored. Hubris and sloth can be impossible things to fight against once the snowball gets moving downhill. The consequences of such circumstances, given history, are much more likely to involve loss of life or injury, or worse.
trod1234 2y ago
He's made claims of such over the years in various interviews that are available on youtube iirc. It's impacted his credibility in some circles, but not the general media. > One can observe a transition without taking sides. Unfortunately that's not always possible. There are people who have structured their belief systems where they have willfully blinded themselves to objective reality. Where delusion holds sway, and you can't understand that objectively since its subjective. The marxist perspective for example based in isolation and collectivism, with the assumptions of the static unchanging individual, caste membership, and focus on structural power discrepancies between said groups are an example. Without identity, or objective definition, rationally you run around in circles, comparing against moving goal posts, jumping at shadows, and the point is a cult like control over the individual towards the totalitarian unthinking mind. It lacks rational principle.
- gtsop 2y ago
  > The marxist perspective for example based in isolation and collectivism, with the assumptions of the static unchanging individual. Maybe i'm reading the synatx wrong here, but if you are implying that marxism has a static unchaning view of the individual then this is the complete opposite of marxism. Dialectial materialsim (marxism) has the never ending change (movement) of everything in it's very core of it's philosophical understanding. There is literally nothing more distilled for a marxist that everything in the universe changes, let alone the individual. Not sure how you arrived at that rationale.
  - trod1234 2y ago
    > but if you are implying that marxism has a static unchanging view of the individual then this is completely opposite of marxism. It is all about class identity with Marxism. I think you may be conflating aspects of dialectical materialism with Marxism. The two while linked, are not the same. Marxism is a political and social philosophy that aims to change society, while dialectical materialism is a way of understanding the world. Understandably there is some overlap, but there are distinctions and conflicts too in practice. For Marxism, it ultimately comes down to class identity which is treated as unchanging in practice. Analysis is all about the class not the individual, which goes to classic Marx and Engels in their Manifesto. Praxis was a transformation of Hegel's Idealisms Geist as a method of change (albeit its been awhile, so I may misremember the details here). Dialectical materialism unlike Marxism doesn't have unchanging class, instead it says classes support their class interest, sidestepping the issue, albeit allowing for some change but not much. A nuanced distinction. Under Marxism, if you were born as a a worker proletariat you remain a proletariat, everything else is structured around this overdetermination. The dynamic change you mention is based in praxis and is only ever in relation to their unchanging class identity. If you were born as a petty or hauty bourgeoisie, you are always one who supports them, regardless of change in circumstances, or free will, your perspectives are only ever first of that identity, and then may change through praxis but are always tethered to the former, and remain consistent and unchanging, where observation may deviate from ideology. This is the fundamental issue, because people can and do change their class identities over their lifetimes, based in the structured relationship of the means of their production. But members of such have nullified, discredited, and claimed that these don't change. Its only right to take them at their word (in practice). While variations have evolved over the years none really get away from the structuring element of class identity directing all other struggles. Marx uses the concept of overdetermination as does Hegel to describe this. All other struggles are in relation to this element. Its a static element, in most major derivations. There are also significant conflicts. Identity politics for example is more rooted in idealism as is intersectionality than in Marxism's dialectical materialism, and there's a philosophical conflict between idealism, and dialectical materialism, that goes to the core of this philosophy. Discussions often results in reductionist behavior by its proponents on either side. If I'm remembering correctly I believe Žižek covers these nuances in some detail, though not very satisfactorily overall in my opinion. Digesting some of the things Zizek says, going back to basics in the Manifesto, and a number of other experiences led me to this rationale culminating in the observations I relayed before.