Yes, because money has Power. Were you born-yesterday, Prom? I thought you were older than me?? Definitely less mature… don’t act stupid. Admit that money represents power and wealth, at the very least?
Doesn’t matter, Surplus / Profit is owned by the Capitalist.
You live in a Capitalist society, not a Communist one.
Why haven’t you ever migrated to Belarus or Russia??? Obviously, because you enjoy the “exploitation and injustice” of Western Civilization. Don’t be a hypocrite.
Of course the masses and proles would be “happy” with stolen-goods and confiscated wealth. That doesn’t mean it should happen, or that society should be run that way. It shouldn’t. And history shows that America has won-out over Eastern Europe. Nobody wants to live in Belarus or Moscow… because they’re poor, have little freedom, and nobody wants fucking Soviet Bureaucrats looming over them for their entire lives, from birth to casket.
You don’t want it either–otherwise you’d defect to Russia immediately.
Have you ever lived in a Commune?
Have you ever lived with a dozen roommates?
Doubtful, you’d hate it. You wouldn’t last a week. So you need to give-up your lifelong vendetta about Socialism. You’re a solo-artist, anarchist. You’re not really a Communist or Socialist. Because you can’t stand living with others or sharing with others. So stop the crocodile-tears for the working-man, or for Juan and Julio. You aren’t helping them.
Why would anyone start a business or an industry under your rules? If he will become obsolete once he breaks even?
Oh ok so workers are supposed to spontaneously gather and form an industry. This isn’t illegal. So weird that it doesn’t happen.
1 Like
Yes, but his model for human creation is cavemen chopping down trees to cross a ravine.
Seeing his motivation, he should just be arguing for higher minimum wages, be a social democrat. Which means arguing against illegal immigration.
1 Like
I think workers in the old capitalist system were quite happy to work for a living. They still do seem pretty content, even workers at McDonalds here do.
What matters most is health. The population of the Netherlands, France, Sweden, are largely healthy. They eat well, don’t get 72 vaccines but just 4, etc. US population is exceedingly unhealthy, over 50 percent living with chronic disease. This accounts for 86 percent of healthcare costs which sucks the life out of the economy.
RFK probably comes a bit late in the game.
(In Europe 1 out of 10 lives with chronic disease.)
You didn’t have arguments last time, you don’t have them now.
All you have is the hypothetical idea that groups of workers will spontaneously create industries. There never was a law against that, it’s just not what happens. Try to confront this fact. There never was anything standing in the way of spontaneous commune-business. They just don’t occur. Try being honest and confront this fact.
Since it doesn’t, you want an enterpreneur to do the thinking and investment and organizing and hiring and then hand over the business to the collective. But that wont happen either, and if it did the business would probably dissolve into chaos. Because most workers are egoistical, maybe not as bad as you with your cat shit, but still egoists like the owners.
Marxists tend to think that people demonstrably capable of great initiative are egoistical and people who aren’t demonstrably capable of it, are not. That makes no sense at all.
Try confronting facts for a change. Try to look at what actually exists. I repeat: There never was anything standing in the way of spontaneous commune-business. They just don’t occur.
“Yes, but his model for human creation is cavemen chopping down trees to cross a ravine.”
Remember when Leibniz and Newton stumbled upon calculus at about the same time? Same thing. In every environment that is being managed by a group, the same ideas eventually spring up in different individuals… simply because their brains are similar enough and the solution to problem x or the thought to carve a container out of a coconut shell to hold water becomes obvious to more than one person. This is what i meant when i said, “Nothing is so bizarre that…”. The novelty of creative genius is way too overblown. As if we needed a Musk or Bezos to want and be able to tour the moon in commercial space craft.
I dunno man all this isn’t that complicated. You have some kind of fetish for rich computer geeks or something goin’ on. High tech bling’ll do that to a fella, especially if he’s unable to identify with the blue collar class. If he was, his brain would make him recoil at the thought of a Musk or a Bezos. It would be second nature. Not out of any envy but out of a genuine questioning of what exactly these two guys do to get paid that much. It doesn’t sound right to a workin’ man. It can’t be right. Those guys can’t be workin’ men… they’re something else, something alien and possibly hostile. Can’t trust em.
Would you believe I’ve wore a suit only twice in my whole life? I was a wedding ring boy and another wedding i just went to.
It is my instinct to be suspicious of suited men. They’re either capitalists, politicians, TV people, or FBI agents.
“You didn’t have arguments last time, you don’t have them now.”
It was, in fact, you who made me aware of the yarn video clip site years ago, something I’ve quite enjoyed using since.
You may therefore know upon discovering yarn clips in replies rather than cogent subject related arguments that you brought this upon yourself, sir.
Okay, that does happen, you’re right. That it happens doesn’t mean it’ll always happen, or happen most of the time. One part of what Newton did was also done by another, the majority was not. And there is a such a thing as creative genius and it is quite rare and where it occurs it often has massive impact - both Leibniz and Newton had it. Leibniz and Newton were both solitary figures, leaders of their field, pioneers, they weren’t acting in a group. Individuals, sometimes duos (three is a crowd) are responsible for invention, groups for implementing.
This point you refused to address;
There never was anything standing in the way of spontaneously emerging communion-of-worker based industries. They’re perfectly legal. But they just don’t occur.
This goes back to the point about individuals. About how a team cant coach itself, how a film crew needs a director, an army a general, etc.
Do you not see how groups without leaders are chaotic?
What kind of groups are productive without leaders? Some tribes maybe. Not the majority of them. Even tribes need leaders to decide where they are going to hunt, and not waste a lot of time on arguing about it and then splitting up.
By the way the video doesn’t play. And I never wore a suit.
“There never was anything standing in the way of spontaneously emerging communion-of-worker based industries”
Ah yes, you inquire about the history of the modes of production and trade relations between homo sapien sapiens.
Comrade Engels and i once took a train deep into the Tibetan mountains on an expedition to study the production modes of primitive cultures. We may know from our archeological finds that very large groups of people of the same class have existed before in functioning societies. We know this by being unable to find any signs of wealth accumulation for a single family or person. There was nothing to suggest any working hierarchies or higher property owning class. No fancy dwellings that stood out from the others. Everything was modest and designed with the utmost efficiency. Could we have found an example of a genuine free association of producers that sustained a highly functioning society?
You gotta reload the vid page after it says url unavailable. Yarn is having issues just like everyone else because of the stock market plunge because of the tarriffs because of Donald Trump because of God.
All things follow necessarily from God’s nature.
That’s not the issue I put before you. Why doesn’t it occur in our advanced, industrial society? Nothing stands in the way. Except perhaps Gods nature.
I granted that great equality would occur in tribes, more primitive societies. These Tibetans didn’t travel in space, mostly had to build dwellings and raise cattle, and meditate,
Sure that can be a great way of life, but that has little to do with Einstein, or technocratic industry.
I don’t have much appreciation of Musk, Bezos or Zuckerberg, by the way. Of the three, Musk seems the most interesting.
I just don’t see industries or inventions emerging out of collectives. Despite your Tibet example. The European based West has been doing most of the inventions in known history, it advanced our world to become a technocracy, and it has been based on individualistic enterprise, not on collectivism.
I would, by the way, be in favor of a more equal distribution of wealth, but not of egalitarianism there. I would simply prefer a world without poverty, but I don’t think the abolishment of private property, or private business ownership, amounts to that. It’s more a question of banking.
Musk and Bezos are nothing compared to the wealth hoarded by the institutions that own and exploit debt.
The momentum of capitalism, that’s why not. The chances of a person born of the middle class right now ever becoming as independently wealthy as a Musk or Bezos before they die is next to nil.
And none of them will ever have the capital necessary to advance some collective business venture… a group of like-minded people spontaneously creating an industry is unlikely. It’s too difficult to do, especially now that 20th/21rst century tech has reached a relative plateau and all the major industries already exist and are dominated by a few big monopoly guys.
We’ve MAXed out, basically. And not just from reading Stirner.
Yea… because it existed already, in the historical books of the ancients/of ancient wisdom.
.
The foundations of the current world, rest on the foundations of ancient knowledge… without it there would be no ’now’.
I agree that Musk and them seem to represent an ending. The US does appear to have maxed out. Humanity didn’t benefit from the internet, it became stupider, lazier, poorer. The lowest values became more common. Now we have the dystopian phenomenon of AI, inviting people to stop thinking altogether.
Yes, very difficult, it’s just not the way nature does it.
So what now? You think a Marxist revolution is feasible? First, chaos I suppose… but aren’t people too weakened nowadays even to cause real chaos?
Who would lead it? Or would it be entirely communal without leaders, with everyone intuitively understanding the logistics of everything? Someone would lead it I suppose. A kind of Messiah. Or a bunch of them. Then they relinquish their powers and hand it over to… committees? Who are in those? Everyone?
I cant get it to work without leaders, ranks, etc. I don’t see how masses of people spontaneously organize in productive ways.
Seriously, do you really believe in the historically necessary power of Marx?
The individual who attempted to assassinate former President Donald Trump during a rally in Butler, Pennsylvania, on July 13, 2024, was identified as 20-year-old Thomas Matthew Crooks from Bethel Park, Pennsylvania. The Scottish Sun+9New York Post+9dailytelegraph+9
State voter records indicate that Crooks was a registered Republican.
Stay calm - you are in a cult