6 ms·

One of my favourite things about internet forums is watching people re-invent Marxist theory by being mad at the current state of things. It's been like this f

One of my favourite things about internet forums is watching people re-invent Marxist theory by being mad at the current state of things. It's been like this for a while now. I think I even saw someone in a conservative subreddit suggest that everyone should work on a farm for a few years after college before they get real jobs. I'm still unable to determine if this was a troll or if a well-meaning conservative actually reinvented Mao's Down to the Countryside movement.

silverquiet 2y ago
My favorite was some comment on Reddit or other observing how often people had to resort to paying medical bills via GoFundMe. They had the idea to create one large pool of money in order to pay the medical bills of all citizens. It is often hard to tell trolling from genuine incompetence.
a_bonobo 2y ago
While that may be classic Marxist stuff, modern philosophers like Byung-Chul Han give a great twist on the whole thing in a digital age, I should've linked to his works too, especially for the self-optimising HN crowd. Just quoting from Wikipedia: >Han argues that subjects become self-exploiters: "Today, everyone is an auto-exploiting labourer in his or her own enterprise. People are now master and slave in one. Even class struggle has transformed into an inner struggle against oneself."[12] The individual has become what Han calls "the achievement-subject"; the individual does not believe they are subjugated "subjects" but rather "projects: Always refashioning and reinventing ourselves" which "amounts to a form of compulsion and constraint—indeed, to a "more efficient kind of subjectivation and subjugation." As a project deeming itself free of external and alien limitations, the "I" subjugates itself to internal limitations and self-constraints, which are taking the form of compulsive achievement and optimization.[13]
somenameforme 2y ago
Marx doesn't make any real sense in modern times because of his obsession on class divides. In contemporary society there's no real difference between a capitalist and a worker. This is true even in his own terms since we all literally own one of the most valuable 'means of production' - a computer. Obviously I'm in no way saying that there aren't invisible classes in society, but that these don't define our possibilities in ways at all comparable to the early 19th century. People also seem to try to shoe horn him into every topic, even when it really doesn't fit. For instance this issue is not one about some group of melancholy workers being alienated from the product, but 'capitalists' who have become so detached from their product that they are left looking at things through a sort of compression lens that leaves them with a deeply distorted view of reality. Even with your example - I agree that learning 'life skills' is extremely important for a solid development, but Mao wasn't doing that - he was effectively exiling people to rural areas, largely to replenish populations after massive famines that were created by his other harebrained schemes.
- skyyler 2y ago
  I want to focus on something you said here: >In contemporary society there's no real difference between a capitalist and a worker. The difference is access to capital. Just like it was 150 years ago. Workers don't have enough holdings to sustain themselves without selling their body. Capitalists have enough holdings to not have to sell their body and can instead put their money to work through various means like entrepreneurship. Also, I didn't even bring up the Down to the Countryside program as a good aspect of Mao... But since you brought it up, I figured I'd mention that his "harebrained schemes" doubled the life expectancy in China rather quickly. Like all world leaders I've studied, he did great things, and he did horrible things.
  - deleted 2y ago
    [deleted]
  - somenameforme 2y ago
    I wrote a lengthier post, but in writing it I realized there's a simple way to cut to the heart of this issue. Many workers in various fields (tech, legal, medicine, and more) now tend to make substantially more money than many business owners, and often for far less hours worked. In this world how does the notion of capitalist vs worker make any sense? Let alone with the stereotypes Marx depended upon for his arguments?
    - skyyler 2y ago
      >In this world how does the notion of capitalist vs worker make any sense? Well paid workers can amass the means to become capitalists. >Let alone with the stereotypes Marx depended upon for his arguments? Marx called these types of people that make enough money to own their own means of production "petit bourgeoisie". This is in contrast to the "haute bourgeoisie". This isn't some exception to Marxist thought; this is literally one of the core components of Marxist thought.
      - somenameforme 2y ago
        Wiki tends to be obsessively fond of Marxist stuff, and gives a very different definition for petit bourgeoisie: --- "Karl Marx and other Marxist theorists used the term petite bourgeoisie to academically identify the socio-economic stratum of the bourgeoisie that consists of small shopkeepers and self-employed artisans. The petite bourgeoisie is economically distinct from the proletariat social-class strata who rely entirely on the sale of their labour-power for survival. It is also distinct from the capitalist class haute bourgeoisie, defined by owning the means of production and thus deriving most of their wealth from buying the labour-power of the proletariat..." --- The critical distinction being that they aren't 'selling their labor-power' to others. And I just don't see how one can claim this makes any sense in modern times! Proles selling their 'labor power' are out-earning the bougies, anybody (even relatively low wage workers) can hire the 'labor-power of the proletariat' with things like Fiverr (amongst many others). And basically everybody owns the most valuable means of production in modern society - a computer. If you don't, you can buy one with a day or so of minimum wage work. For that matter bougies in modern times don't make wealth their from buying labor power - they mostly just dump money into investments, bonds, and other such financial vessels. Bonds right now are at near 5%! And again the distinctions really fail because the same is also true of retail investors with a a Robin Hood or whatever. [1] - https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Petite_bourgeoisie https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Petite_bourgeoisie
Seattle3503 2y ago
I'm not sure why you think I was unaware of Marx.

silverquiet 2y ago

My favorite was some comment on Reddit or other observing how often people had to resort to paying medical bills via GoFundMe. They had the idea to create one large pool of money in order to pay the medical bills of all citizens. It is often hard to tell trolling from genuine incompetence.

a_bonobo 2y ago

While that may be classic Marxist stuff, modern philosophers like Byung-Chul Han give a great twist on the whole thing in a digital age, I should've linked to his works too, especially for the self-optimising HN crowd. Just quoting from Wikipedia: >Han argues that subjects become self-exploiters: "Today, everyone is an auto-exploiting labourer in his or her own enterprise. People are now master and slave in one. Even class struggle has transformed into an inner struggle against oneself."[12] The individual has become what Han calls "the achievement-subject"; the individual does not believe they are subjugated "subjects" but rather "projects: Always refashioning and reinventing ourselves" which "amounts to a form of compulsion and constraint—indeed, to a "more efficient kind of subjectivation and subjugation." As a project deeming itself free of external and alien limitations, the "I" subjugates itself to internal limitations and self-constraints, which are taking the form of compulsive achievement and optimization.[13]

somenameforme 2y ago

Marx doesn't make any real sense in modern times because of his obsession on class divides. In contemporary society there's no real difference between a capitalist and a worker. This is true even in his own terms since we all literally own one of the most valuable 'means of production' - a computer. Obviously I'm in no way saying that there aren't invisible classes in society, but that these don't define our possibilities in ways at all comparable to the early 19th century. People also seem to try to shoe horn him into every topic, even when it really doesn't fit. For instance this issue is not one about some group of melancholy workers being alienated from the product, but 'capitalists' who have become so detached from their product that they are left looking at things through a sort of compression lens that leaves them with a deeply distorted view of reality. Even with your example - I agree that learning 'life skills' is extremely important for a solid development, but Mao wasn't doing that - he was effectively exiling people to rural areas, largely to replenish populations after massive famines that were created by his other harebrained schemes.

skyyler 2y ago
I want to focus on something you said here: >In contemporary society there's no real difference between a capitalist and a worker. The difference is access to capital. Just like it was 150 years ago. Workers don't have enough holdings to sustain themselves without selling their body. Capitalists have enough holdings to not have to sell their body and can instead put their money to work through various means like entrepreneurship. Also, I didn't even bring up the Down to the Countryside program as a good aspect of Mao... But since you brought it up, I figured I'd mention that his "harebrained schemes" doubled the life expectancy in China rather quickly. Like all world leaders I've studied, he did great things, and he did horrible things.
- deleted 2y ago
  [deleted]
- somenameforme 2y ago
  I wrote a lengthier post, but in writing it I realized there's a simple way to cut to the heart of this issue. Many workers in various fields (tech, legal, medicine, and more) now tend to make substantially more money than many business owners, and often for far less hours worked. In this world how does the notion of capitalist vs worker make any sense? Let alone with the stereotypes Marx depended upon for his arguments?
  - skyyler 2y ago
    >In this world how does the notion of capitalist vs worker make any sense? Well paid workers can amass the means to become capitalists. >Let alone with the stereotypes Marx depended upon for his arguments? Marx called these types of people that make enough money to own their own means of production "petit bourgeoisie". This is in contrast to the "haute bourgeoisie". This isn't some exception to Marxist thought; this is literally one of the core components of Marxist thought.
    - somenameforme 2y ago
      Wiki tends to be obsessively fond of Marxist stuff, and gives a very different definition for petit bourgeoisie: --- "Karl Marx and other Marxist theorists used the term petite bourgeoisie to academically identify the socio-economic stratum of the bourgeoisie that consists of small shopkeepers and self-employed artisans. The petite bourgeoisie is economically distinct from the proletariat social-class strata who rely entirely on the sale of their labour-power for survival. It is also distinct from the capitalist class haute bourgeoisie, defined by owning the means of production and thus deriving most of their wealth from buying the labour-power of the proletariat..." --- The critical distinction being that they aren't 'selling their labor-power' to others. And I just don't see how one can claim this makes any sense in modern times! Proles selling their 'labor power' are out-earning the bougies, anybody (even relatively low wage workers) can hire the 'labor-power of the proletariat' with things like Fiverr (amongst many others). And basically everybody owns the most valuable means of production in modern society - a computer. If you don't, you can buy one with a day or so of minimum wage work. For that matter bougies in modern times don't make wealth their from buying labor power - they mostly just dump money into investments, bonds, and other such financial vessels. Bonds right now are at near 5%! And again the distinctions really fail because the same is also true of retail investors with a a Robin Hood or whatever. [1] - https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Petite_bourgeoisie https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Petite_bourgeoisie

Seattle3503 2y ago

I'm not sure why you think I was unaware of Marx.