Alientation

File: marx indvisualism.jpg (89KB, 640x820px) Image search: [Google]

89KB, 640x820px

[cont]


See, the main focus of Marx's work was the human being all along, and social alienation that they face under the Capitalist mode of production. There are many forms of alienation, and one of them is what I just described. I only realized it after properly laying out my feelings in text. So, what I'm saying is, Marxism is about the spirit of the human being, their connection to the world, the level of alienation they face and how to improve them all around as characters. For Marx, the real improvement of man was only possible when the requirements of day to day work were abolished, when people did not produce to exchange what they made, but used it for themselves, took fulfillment in their work, felt connected to it as they had put effort into it. Capitalism disconnects us from our own labour, yet our labour is what defines us. This, coupled with the majority social interaction under Capitalism being able to be boiled down to transactions of money, lead to social alienation. Marx saw this is if anything a crime against the potential of man, and wished for the overthrowing of Capitalism ultimately not for any sense of justice but for the individual's development.

So, to sum up, if things are really as bad as you say for you, why do you not support the removal of it's very cause, the Capitalist mode of production?

I don't really see how social alienation and capitalism are connected but then again I didn't read any of what you said so I guess I'll give Marxism a shot

>>37717948
Give that quote in the first reply a read to give you a rough idea.

Unfortunately Socialism just doesn't work. It's fails to account for human trait we can all succumb to. Greed. Getting stuff we don't need just because we want it. Capitalism isn't a perfect system but i does resolve this human need. When the Soviet Union was at it peak. It had many Government overseers and advisors and managers who would eat extravagant meals and drive around in new cars because that's what they "needed". Meanwhile everybody else got ration stamps cut and had their application for a new tractor denied. Because it wasn't what they "needed".

>>37717832
>why do you not support the removal of it's very cause, the Capitalist mode of production?
Because one constant feel in my life is a desire to just be left alone. Capitalism is the only socioeconomic system that's compatible with being left alone - since that boils down to a question of individual liberty. Capitalism is willing to leave you alone. It won't care about whether you live or die as a result, that's your problem, but it lets you do what you want with your life and your stuff. Collectivism in any form demands coercion. "You're not contributing enough back to society, comrade!"

>>37718056
> It's fails to account for human trait we can all succumb to. Greed.

See I never really understood why this was something antithetical to Socialism. If anything, it works in it's favour, for it is greed that will drive to the working class, and has before, to forcibly appropriate property from the Capitalists for their own gain. The actual workings of Socialism take into account resource scarcity via labour vouchers in reward for work.

>When the Soviet Union was at it peak. It had many Government overseers and advisors and managers who would eat extravagant meals and drive around in new cars because that's what they "needed"

Yes, of course the USSR was fucked, but there is a specific reason for this. When Lenin lead the revolution in 1917, he knew Socialism in Russia was an impossibility due to it's backward culture and lack of industrialization, so why did he do it? Well, he was relying on revolutions taking place in the first place, like Germany and Italy, to then support Russia on it's path to Socialism. While these revolutions did happen, they didn't secure a new state, leaving Russia isolated and condemned to corruption over time. This wouldn't really be a problem today, as illiterate peasantry, which made over 90% of Russia' population at the time, doesn't even exist anymore.

>>37718099
>Capitalism is the only socioeconomic system that's compatible with being left alone

Funnily enough, it's the exact opposite. Capitalism forces you to sell your labour to survive, and thus forces you to interact with people and the real world. The ultimate goal of Communism is to, as Marx put it 'free the individual from all other individuals'. This can only be done with Communism.

>Collectivism in any form demands coercion. "You're not contributing enough back to society, comrade!"

The opposite is true - you are provided your base line needs of food and shelter (of which we have in abundance even now) and can do whatever the fuck you like after.

>>37718174
I'm not giving you the things I worked so hard for. That's it. I don't care about your stupid books and people; if I work for it then it is mine. The end.

>>37718174
>>The opposite is true - you are provided your base line needs of food and shelter (of which we have in abundance even now) and can do whatever the fuck you like after.
Wasn't one of the basic tenets of communism "he who does not work shall not eat"? A demand to end the rentier class that lived without having to labor?

File: surplus value.jpg (87KB, 476x604px) Image search: [Google]

87KB, 476x604px

>>37718243
Ok, when did I say you had to? In fact, you do that every day under Capitalism when your boss pays you a wage for your work. How do you think he makes any profit, when it's you doing the work? The only thing Socialism aims to redistribute are the means of production themselves (factories, offices etc) - unless you happen to be a business owner or CEO of some sort, you do not stain to lose, but to gain. The top ~60 people hold 50% of all wealth, do you really think anything will have to come out of your pocket to provide everyone with a decent standard of living that we already have the resources for?

>>37717832
What if I don't like capitalism, but I also don't like the idea of everyone being treated equally?

>>37718304
No, that was a quote by Lenin in State and Revolution, specific to the conditions of Russia at the time. They needed all the work they could get to prevent their country falling apart when they came to power (world war, civil war, proto-fascism, revolution and famine really ravaged the country) and couldn't really afford welfare. However, today we obviously can. In fact, we produce 17% more food right now than is required to feed everyone on earth.

>>37718322
Depends on how you mean by treated equally. Under Socialism, there is still wealth inequality, as different people have different abilities and therefore will work different amounts and to different qualities, and that's what they're paid based on directly, unlike under Capitalism where it's based on market forces.

Under Communism, where resources are abundant, the concepts of wages make no sense anyway as you already have intimidate access to any resources.

Or did you mean in a social sense? Like, you hate blacks or something? That could be more of an issue I guess.

File: QUINTS HOLY FUCKING SHIT OMG.png (43KB, 1862x273px) Image search: [Google]

43KB, 1862x273px

>>37717807
Back to /leftypol/ you worm

Socialist means of distribution, where people are placed into hierarchies on the sole basis of likeability, completely fucks over robots.

>>37718389
So, you're content with a girlfriend who literally only likes you for your assumed wealth, who would obviously cheat on you while leaching from your wallet?

Gee, sounds fulfilling.

>>37718356
I think people should have rights based on their abilities. For example, I don't think idiots (IQ < 90 or so) should be allowed to vote. I also don't think women should be allowed to either, because their reasoning is emotion-based. Likewise with other rights, like reproduction. Not necessarily banning undesirable people from reproducing, but selectively incentivizing people with good genetics to have children. Communists seem to be generally egalitarian, an ideology that I consider counterproductive and evil.

It's pointless OP. People can't understand "alienation" under a non-political context. They fail to see that they are alienated themselves, and that's why they recurred to figures such as Donald Trump or NEEThood. The reality is palpable, but they are so extremely alienated that they don't realize any of this.

True robots understand Marx, the rest infowars-educated robots might as well be empty normie husks.

>>37718424
There are people who will never be remotely content or liked by anyone other than their parents.

Marxism fucks robots over because people fucks robots over. Capitalism fucks everybody over. Hurrah for capitalism, please unleash a superintelligence which kills everybody.

You can try to stamp out inequality based on financial capital, but you'll never so much as make a scratch in inequality based on social capital.

>>37717807
>Alientation

It really sucks being in the same room alone all day, it's easier when you're comfy, and can afford drugs

>>37718504
We never intended to stamp out the inequality of human beings. Just financial inequality, in the long long term.

>>37718510
What kinda drugs? I did some LSD by myself recently but it was a little much, underestimated the strength.

>>37718536
>Just financial inequality, in the long long term.
Why? Shouldn't the most competent people have control of the most resources? Why would you give an idiot and a genius the same amount of power?

>>37718558
Well, I say long long term because the ultimate goal is resource abundance, which while giving us the ability to achieve, capitalism is incompatible with (markets rely on scarcity to some degree, ofc). That's why with resource abundance, anyone would have immidate access to anything they would want, removing financial inequality. Until, people would work for the scare resources, of course.

>>37718600
So your idea of communism is basically just UBI. I'm okay with that.

>>37718653
Well, obviously it's more than that, but yea a UBI is a part of it.

>>37718674
What's the "more" part?

>>37718701
Well I mean besides the fact it's a completely different mode of production, changing almost every aspect of society and culture, the main ones would be that the workers own both the means of production and the state via genuine democracy, markets and currency are abolished, production is not made for exchange but rather for use...to name a few things.

The full communist society, which develops out of Socialism, is stateless and resource abundant.

File: 1429725640241.jpg (32KB, 415x250px) Image search: [Google]

32KB, 415x250px

>>37717807
as society progresses, the value of the individual's labor decreases. it becomes harder to sell a car than to make one. because the ACTUAL human being is a flesh and blood organism and not a machine that eats resources and shits out commodities, you create an environment where social relations inevitable revert to rule of the strong over the weak. that's why every communist government turns into a farcical institution where bribery and black markets are common. time to step into the new millennium, comrade.

File: 4ae.jpg (33KB, 231x347px) Image search: [Google]

33KB, 231x347px

>>37718536

LSD, weed, and mdma, the holy trinity of nonaddiction and good times. Lsd to set my mind up for visuals, weed to get the imagination and colors going, and mdma for good vibes.

>>37718740
But the workers aren't experts; why should they own the factories? They won't do a good job of running them.

>>37718744
>every time communism has been attempted it turned into corruption and big government

but that's where you're wrong: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=zIddCEBCKHQ

>>37718760
Huh, I've heard if you do MDMA by yourself you just really, really wanna socialize, so I never thought to try it. How do you find it?

>>37718771
Well, worker coops that we have in today's society have shown to be more productive than traditional companies, so if anything the opposite is true: https://www.thenation.com/article/worker-cooperatives-are-more-productive-than-normal-companies/

>>37718800
>Well, worker coops that we have in today's society have shown to be more productive than traditional companies
Isn't the evidence against this the fact that there aren't very many co-ops? If they were more efficient, there'd be more of them.

>>37718849
There are several factors as to why that is, but the main one is that it's what the workers do with that extra productivity. A Capitalist would invest that extra profit into lowering costs and being more competitive in a market, which will in turn give bigger profit returns in the future, but the workers obviously don't have a need for that, so they just put it directly into their wages.

As I said though it's more complicated than that, so if you're really interested this video goes over it: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=yAxajtiRatg

>>37718889
I think what's more likely is that a hierarchical system of organization scales better than an egalitarian system. For example, if you and your three friends want to decide what movie you want to see, you can just talk it out. If you have fifty friends, you need to make some sort of system to manage it.

>>37718929
You mean like, a democratic system of some kind? With votes and stuff?

It's not that far fetched dude, it's been done many times and worked well.

>>37718800
>see guys? it works
>hour long video full of violent upheavals
>38 minutes in: i am like a man cycling up a steep hill. i have to keep pedalling or i will fall
>worker's revolt
>worker's revolt
>worker's revolt

is this the part where you blame it all on the CIA drug train?

>>37718800
>watch video
>click first name
>"the commune only existed for a few months"

I don't need to read any further.

>>37718949
If you have 10,000 people in a company, though, it's easier to just have one leader make the decisions, instead of calling a vote for everything and potentially getting stuck in a stalemate when people disagree. Same reason why monarchies are very effective.

>>37718957
So..you'll just ignore the ones that lasted years?

The point is to show that these systems have been implemented, and the mechanics of them worked fine until either Fascism or Capitalist armies crushed them. I mean, any ideology is going to fail when everyone involved is shot. When France fell to Nazi Germany, we didn't all collectively decide it was because of Capitalism.

>>37718956
I mean, the CIA have objectively fucked with Socialist societies before, but the ones in that video mainly had problems with self-proclaimed Fascists, so no.

>>37718983
If monarchies were effective they'd still exist. Workers are simply happier under coops, as they get a say in how things are run, and are therefore more productive. You take that away, you take away the productivity, and who's to say just because having one guy make the decisions is faster it's inherently better? I'd think the collective workers have a better idea of what's good for them as opposed to a CEO who doesn't even participate in the work.

>>37718957
The point is that those other attempts were violently crushed. The only socialism you ever hear of are Marxist-Leninist dictatorships, because literally all socialist countries had that ideological blueprint, which would be kinda like if every single capitalist country were a neoliberal mess. There were attempts at different, more libertarian ideologies, but all of them were crushed, some by MLs themselves.

>>37719061
>If monarchies were effective they'd still exist.
They were undermined by communists and Jews.

>I'd think the collective workers have a better idea of what's good for them as opposed to a CEO who doesn't even participate in the work.
It's not about what's good *for them*, it's about what's *good*.

>>37719068
>The point is that those other attempts were violently crushed.
If an ideology can't defend itself, why should anyone adopt it?

>>37719103
>They were undermined by communists and Jews.

Lol. So was Olivar Cromwell a Jew/Communist?

Monarchy, Feudalism, was replaced by Capitalism.

>it's about what's *good*.

What is *good*? Good for the market? Because they seem to already be doing that. But under Socialism, markets wouldn't exist anyway..

>>37717807
ha ha, nice try at indoctrinating us. alienation occurs across racial, social, and economic lines. among aristocrats, the middle class, the poor, it doesn't matter. there are always gonna be those guys that succeed & excel at women, at work, at having friends, at life, basically.

then there's the weirdos. stuck in their room, fapping to anime girls, shy & awkward around irl girls, looked down on by relatives, unable to drive perhaps, unable perhaps to even get a job, or getting one for the money they use towards their anime figurines or yearly vacation to Thailand so they can fuck cheap prostitutes away from the prying eyes of family, neighbors, co-workers.

>Marx was a NEET

fuck outta here with that

>>37719214
>among aristocrats, the middle class, the poor, it doesn't matter.

Did I ever say alienation only effected the working class? Marx makes it clear Capitalism's ills effect all.

>fuck outta here with that

Well for a large part of his life he was...what do you want me to say?

File: 6822137aa9f084be836206215b6a148d.jpg (146KB, 1000x1453px) Image search: [Google]

146KB, 1000x1453px

Well this was fun but I'm British and it's 4:30am so I'm heading to bed. On the off chance I caught anyone's interest with the ideas, Oscar Wilde has a great, short essay on why the individual has greater freedom under Socialism. I'd recommend giving it a read some time, if image board haven't destroyed your attention span yet.

Enjoy: https://www.marxists.org/reference/archive/wilde-oscar/soul-man/

>>37719131
Ideologies don't defend themselves, dear anon. You're talking about the military capacity of a very young and small society most likely living in adverse conditions, just like every single revolution was at some point. Some are lucky to have the conditions to defend themselves, some don't, and ideology has little impact on military affairs.

>>37719230
it sounds here like you're saying alienation is caused by Capitalism.

let's say there are two fields of work. one is outdoors, exciting, and promotes good health. the other is indoor drudgery that will ruin your mind and body. a set number of people have to work in both. isn't that a form of inequality? if someone wanted to be a part of one but wasn't fit or personable enough or the person choosing didn't like the cut of his jib, you'd think he would still feel alienation and there's absolutely nothing anyone can do about it. or let's say there's financial equality between the two groups, but the former group is kept underfed. what do you do about food thieves? how do you tell the difference between people deliberately working less and people unable to work as hard?

>>37718312
He's the one taking all the risks. He has to pay his employees first and then if he has any money left over he can pay himself. It takes a certain individual to be an entrepreneur, but every retard can sell their labor.

>>37719251
fat boy Wilde was a monarchist who bristled if his mother wasn't referred to as Lady Wilde. and i'm not sure his 19th century grasp of economic theory is relevant today: his novel, stories, (some of his) poems, many of his essays on love and art, yes.

if i recall, this essay was more against the brutality of the industrial age, when first world countries had labor conditions that we're similar to third world countries (like China) today.

his essay was written years before the Triangle Fire, and 12 yr old kids dying of lung cancer from working 16 hour shifts in mines.

your thesis is unconvincing, old chap.

>>37718800
>really, really wanna socialize

It makes it easier for me but it mostly just makes me tear up in joy, it's a happy pill, the future is now.

>>37719464
Well, you're wrong. Try actually reading the damn essay and then try and actually refute the points it makes.

>>37719607
i'll give it a read, or at least a glance, it's been years since i've read Wilde

File: 1493706866676.jpg (2MB, 1415x1996px) Image search: [Google]

2MB, 1415x1996px

>>37717832
Firstly, the concept of alienation is irrelevant here, since it applies equally to normalfags and therefore can not possibly account for any differences between us and them.

Second, your model of the ideal society is demonstrably flawed, as shown by J. Calhoun's mouse utopia experiment. When divorced from the condition of scarcity, the mice did not flourish. They became degenerate hedonists and lost any inclination toward long-term goals (such as caring for offspring and maintaining community).

I tell you this as someone who has been a neet for most of my life - having your basic needs provided for has its perks, but a sense of purpose and motivation are not among them.

>>37719414
Not that guy, but Marx's theory of alienation says that it isn't caused by unpleasant work, but by being reduced to an instrument, a thing, as he works and is separated from the fruits of his labor. The Wikipedia page is surprisingly good at providing a summary.

However what you said about quality of jobs is a very valid concern, but I don't think he ever said something about it. Mainly because at the time, just about all jobs were shit.

1/2

>>37719431
Damn it, I have some pasta debunking these talking points about difficulties of the owner, but I can't find it. Let's see what I can get from memory.

Remember the old debtor's prison? Ending them was a victory for liberty, because god knows how easy it is to fall in debt when you're working class. It had the side effect of encouraging enterpreneurship, because if the business went bust, at least the owners wouldn't go to the slammer. Unfortunately, this liberty, when coupled with other pieces of legislation, allow for a malicious "enterpreneur" to get off scott-free.

2/2

>>37719431
>>37720094
Imagine this. You're a real estate dealer, and you found a very good opportunity -- maybe building a specific thing in a vacant lot, whatever. But you don't have money, or maybe you HAVE the money but don't want to risk it. So you call up investors, schmooze, invite them over, kiss their ass, and if that doesn't work, maybe scare them by saying you'll fuck up the buildings neighboring their house. At some point you get the investor capital. You invest in that opportunity. If it pays off, great, everybody's happy. If it doesn't, the investor will call you demanding repay, threatening asset seizure and whatever. Your ace in the hole: declare bankruptcy. Just like that, you're immune to his demands for reparation, and you haven't lost lost a single penny.

This isn't hypothetical at all. Trump got LODS OF EMONE this way.

The ruling class always makes laws that favor themselves. That's why it's so easy for gorillionaire corporations to pay no taxes, for example.

This is the only place I have to talk to people and the people I'm trying to get away from know I'm here.

>>37719464
>>37719607
I suppose it is possible he was a monarchist for practical effects, despite supporting socialism, as it certainly would affect his lifestyle if he was a vocal activist.

>>37719746
Marx postulated that the source of alienation was material, not psychological. See >>37719899 . Whether he was right is a matter of debate.

>J. Calhoun's mouse utopia experiment
That's an appeal to nature, and one that stretches beyond species, anon. Besides, post-scarcity wasn't a cause, just an enabling factor. If they were intelligent enough to limit population, the data suggests they would keep their utopia going and going.

>having your basic needs provided for has its perks, but a sense of purpose and motivation are not among them
I fully agree, but then again, the core goal of socialism always was material, as in, ending poverty, hunger etc. Regardless, alienation is a topic that deserves much more attention, both in Marxism and outside, as it's becoming epidemic.