How do you expect communism to fix the problem of capitalist parasite or whatever ? You know you'll need people to oversee and manage whatever the workers produce right ? You know that this will only create another class above the workers that will just end up "parasiting" them again ?
How do you expect communism to fix the problem of capitalist parasite or whatever...
Or if your lazy just listen to his videos, they're pretty short
That is actually what his entire book was about.
For every dozen baboons, you need one zoo keeper. We can't let the baboons run the zoos.
I just watched the first video on youtube I'm not going to read a book by someone called penisfiree
Perhaps, but it would not be exacerbated to the ridiculous extent it's becoming.
Communism in practice will likely not destroy the hierarchy itself, but will at the very least close the gap
But hierarchy are generally good.
I don't want all people to have the same talents as me, otherwise the world would be doomed. I'll rather have someone better than me at the top.
By gap I mean key stuff like healthcare, housing etc…
Also reducing hierarchies doesn't mean making all talents the same, but rather making the appreciation and reward of many talents more in line with each other, should the teachers that guide our youth not be paid and rewarded well for example?
A better way to frame this is inheritance.
Here I will quote you the argument Thomas Paine made against Monarchy. There are many common day parallels and this is one of the best examples of one of the many issues with Capitalism that does not need to exist.
A great example of this is most billionaires. They are the Koch family, the Walton family, the Sulzberger family.
These people have accomplished nothing but be born.
The people at the top aren't better than you, they are just lucky.
Oh yeah, I definitly agree that inequality are bad, but I'll take bigger inequality like in today society if it mean the poor are still rich enough to be better off than 80% of the rest of the country (stats pulled out of my ass).
How do you explain stuff like succesful minorities then ? By all account it shouldn't exist, or at least not as much.
The number of millionaire is growing too, if I'm not mistaken.
capitalism isn't meritocracy, it is a toss of fucking dice
statistically it isn't necessary at all that the person above you is more smarter or talented
Being a manager or administrator or whatever is not the same as being a capitalist. In socialist countries the factory managers didn't own the factories and did not live off of profits (they were paid wages like everybody else, but got somewhat higher wages). They were usually more privileged than the average worker but the difference in income between worker and manager in socialism was nowhere close to the difference in income between workers and capitalists.
The managers also didn't have nearly as much power as capitalists do. They couldn't fire whoever they wanted for whatever reason, they couldn't decide to close a factory and move production somewhere else because of cheaper labour, they didn't have billions of dollars to bribe politicians with, etc.
Communists aren't against natuarally occurring hierarchies like those that emerge in communities or in family structures due to either knowledge or age. We're only against the heirarchy of capitalism and the systems which existed before it, those which are based on "rent" extraction and wage-labour. Communists have never argued for "equality" and never argued that people are the same or should be the same marxists.org
Well, communism doesn't necessarily imply poverty, depending on how much revisionism you like
Black people can be lucky as well?
Good thing, I was almost afraid that Alabama has the worst poverty in the developed world but at least there are more millionaires!
I also appreciate how I can quote you a foundational work of the United States and you don't even address it.
Except you're not always going to inherit your fortune.
Well africains immigrating in america seems to be more lucky than your american slave.
Chinese people too, got pretty lucky all around asia, and now in western countries again.
I guess the pogroms were just Lady Luck's backlash against the jews insolent fortune.
I wonder why that is
Really makes you think
how would that make senses
by wearing black face masks and kicking over trash cans of course you pig
what a simpleton
it isn't just about inheritance, tho. there are countless factors at play, and very few have anything to do with talent or smarts.
the guy above you might've ended up at the right time in the right place, or he knew the right guy, or the boss just likes him more.
that capitalism rewards hard work and passion is demonstrably false, as most startups fail very quickly and poor people work the most while never getting rich.
to succeed under capitalism you need pure blind luck or, at best, self-perpetuating knowledge about capitalism like marketing and stocks. rather than being good at what you are
if you think people should be fairly rewarded for working hard, being smarter and more efficient then congratulations you want socialism. salut comrade.
The US doesn't pick people at random when they try to immigrate.
This means they will most likely outperform any native population as those are random distributed.
That just show those peoples are talented. Jews and chinese in asia weren't handpicked either they just became rich thanks to their hardworks and talents.
do you have proof that someone who works 10 hours a day at a labor-intensive job has a better shot at getting rich than someone who just learned how to market yodeling pickles? I would like to see it.
This is factually correct you brainlet.
Largely rich due to a few factors.
Their exclusion centuries ago made usury one of the only jobs for them. This, combined with inheritance and more generalized nepotism(for inheritance is really just a special sort of nepotism), is how they did it
if i kill you and take all your money, am i rich because of my hard work and talent?
I mean i had to go trough all the work of killing you, taking your shit, hiding it. and besides most people would't have the mental capacity to do it in the first place.
AND YOU CALL COMMUNISM A FAILURE?
COME BACK WHEN YOUR PARENTS ARE SCREAMING ABOUT THEIR LOST SOCIAL SECURITY AND HOW THEY HAVE TO START EATING FUCKING CAT FOOD
WE ARE LITERALLY BEATING 2008 IN SUDDEN RANDOM DROPS AND IT'S ONLY FUCKING MARCH
YOU CALL THIS SHIT AMPLE EVIDENCE THAT CAPITALISM IS STABLE WHILE SOCIALISM ISN'T
There are (simply) two classes, the bourgeois and the proletariat. Capitalists are the bourgeois. Communism is a classless society. With no class, there will be no class of Capitalists, and thusly no Capitalist to be a parasite. Just to put it all very simply.
That's not what a Capitalist is. A Capitalist owns the means of production, he doesn't have to oversee workers at all to be a Capitalist. But yeah, we will need people to lead, that's true.
This is an empty, useless phrase. What evidence do you have of this? How could this happen? We establish Communism, and we have a classless society where people own their work. Why would you give this up for nothing? Simply put, you wouldn't.
Put that in quotes again, maybe it will seem untrue this time.
Promise you will never leave us boonposter?
Managers don't have to become another class, as they're one of many jobs, and doesn't have any more property than the workers. Or to any managers above them, for that matter. However, the way the Soviet system was built, and transmitted to other countries via ML, then yes, the managers were bound to form Djilas' new class, because the managers de facto were party-State bureaucrats. Official State power plus shared work equals New Class, sadly. Even Lenin saw it coming, since he was the one building the ghetto-rigged Soviet State, and wrote plenty of warnings against them and even purged (as in, simply expelled) a third of party, but it wasn't enough. Ultimately, he didn't know how to avoid the bureaucracy trap, because that body was born both out of necessity of a structure of power that could withstand the extreme strains the early Soviet State did, and because Russia already had a tradition of powerful bureacrats. The enactment of central planning firmly cemented the bureaucrats in power.
Frankly, given the desperate stuation had to work with, I won't dare offer an alternative that could avoid the overbureaucratization. But in a generic hypothetical, as far as I can see, there are only two ways to avoid bureaucrats (or any other group, for that matter) from becoming the New Class: either the power rests with everyone or with "nobody" i.e. a disinterested third party.
The first proposition is relatively simple: workers' self-management and direct democracy Yugoslavia did have workers' self-management, but an overly lax market threw a wrench into everything. Hoonestly, market socialism is fated to fail simply because it still functions on profit motive. Those self-managed companies shouldn't be competing (at least not as fiercely as in capitalism), but rather coordinate an economic plan together, maybe via unions or some other bodies. Instead of either a market or a body of bureaucrats, let the people themselves plan the economy.
The second proposition, that of a disinterested third party, indeed sounds bizarre, and had been impossible up until a few decades ago. Of course, you wouldn't let the job of managing a society's economy to someone outside of that society… could you could let something do it. That's the cybernetic control network that people have been talking.
Summing it up: either everyone sets the economic agenda, or no one does and leave it to computers.
Sure, at most corruption would be the concern, but with a healthy dosage of dogma and proper regulation it can be minimised and gradually eradicated. Also a fair lot of corruption would dissolve along with elimination of capital accumulation, how? Means of production to the workers. Having reasonable autonomy/self-management overseen by central institutions would also help, with these institutions being influanced by the population, see: direct democracy.
Civilization needs to flow back onto itself, soceity influancing governent and vice versa.
A chain of command is nothing without both it's soldiers and it's officers per say.
Except "when there's hierarchy" isn't what Marxists mean by capitalist exploitation at all sry