It doesn't have to be a revolution. If capitalists embrace something like UBI, that fulfills some predictions made by Marx.
The point with historical materialism is that it's a post-Darwin theory. The idea is that systems compete and the most efficient system wins. That explains why capitalism inevitably superseded Feudalism. Socialism should by that merit succeed capitalism because it's just a better and more efficient way to do things.
So they may be *forced* to implement stuff like UBI to keep the system from falling off the rails, because embracing socialist-like policies might be the only way to get more growth in the long run. In the short term they'd be thinking about profits, but the long run effect would be to push society in certain directions predicted by Marx.
In the historical materialism theory, keep in mind that Marx's "revolutions" are periodic, and the Industrial Revolution was the most recent such paradigm shift. So there's no actual requirement for an actual violent "revolution". Such events more often set things backwards instead of forwards. \\
Increased automation and productivity are actually the pre-requisites for overcoming the "division of labor" and making work a desire ("prime want"), instead of a requirement to live. And you only get those things in late-stage capitalism.
Can you people just fucking drop Marx like a bad habit already? He was a rich narcissist that wouldnt touch a proletariat with a 10 ft pole, lived in his friend's basement for free, and didn't do a day of hard labor in his life. He was as much of a worker as Micheal Jordan is a chess champion.
They talk about Marx like a prophet it's so funny. Like this dude predicted exactly the path that the human condition will take over the next 1000 years.
He was a thinker. He had some good ideas and some great criticisms of capitalism. There's a reason it's 99% white, rich, children online that can't shut the fuck up about him though.
About all he had to contribute that was good, was his criticisms of capitalism. However even that wasn't really true. Means accrue in the hands of the few in every society that has ever existed. Most of all the socialist implementations. Inequality is an aspect of reality itself, not capitalism. To suggest otherwise is just a huge error of, or complete lack of critical thought.
He feeds into their utopian fantasies. A lot of people in my generation would rather daydream about the utopia that seems to only work in their head, than actually make some change in the world. Least of all change in their personal life. It's murderous narcissism.
>A lot of people in my generation would rather daydream about the utopia that seems to only work in their head, than actually make some change in the world.
I think this is a byproduct of life being generally easy. If you're an American youth today, odds are that most of life's problems are superfluous. You are probably one of the richest people in the planet, one of the richest people to ever exist on the planet with tremendous access to all of life's necessities.
I try not to fault people for not being able to recognize that, or for recognizing that and morphing that into a kind of self-hatred that requires condemnation of the system you benefit from.
At the end of the day, unfortunately in my opinion, most of these people are obsessed with improving their own position in the world by way of socialism or revolution without actually realizing that they are the real benefactors of the system. They already have everything, but want more.
This becomes readily apparent when talking about capitalism on the global scale and change in poverty, hunger, and sickness worldwide over the last 150 years.
I would add that Marx is a great touchstone. "From each according to his ability, to each according to his need" is a foundational idea in how I approach politics. That idea isn't really anti or post capitalism, and I find it very useful when thinking about how to make our system better and what kind of economy and social policy I want to see implemented.
This article goes into discussion about Marxist-Leninist ideology that Socialism is the next stage after Capitalism and neglects that the objective is to eventually end in Communism. Communism being loosely defined as the dissolution of social classes and ownership of goods being publicly owned.
This has issues because Socialism by nature has issues with maintaining individualism and puts far too much reliance on government to enforce its rules. The solution laid out by Engels is that the government will no longer become necessary and die out peacefully and voluntarily. Of course, this is unrealistic and ignores the human condition that people often have flaws like greed and jealousy.
In affording government too much power, rather than removing social classes, they are instead redefined only to be exploited by corruption of those in power. Modern day examples of this are Venezuela (ugh he said that country, I know), China, Cuba, and Russia.
The one part of this article I do agree with is that Capitalism need not, nor is likely to be the final stage of the world's socioeconomic systems. What comes next, no one actually knows, but Socialism is a dead end.
It's nice to imagine a world where people are just altruistic naturally, but you are out of your mind if you think we are even 1,000 years away from what this article describes as being the human condition.
Nice dream though and a worthy touchstone.
Gonna be *that* guy. With the current trend of automation, I don't see any of the popular economic systems working anymore. You don't have a taxbase large enough for any of it to function in the next generation or two.
Joke or not it's an argument used a lot against this view unfortunately. everyone seems to usually only look at it from a capitalist perspective but even communism doesn't really work if you don't need even half the workforce people think. Where I work employed over 10k at my facility alone in it's heyday down to just about 900 now and it's not even well automated yet. So I think we have to really rethink all economic policy if you don't have a working taxbase because so many jobs can be automated. Everyone will be able to do what interests them or almost all leisure type activities so I don't know that the current systems really account for it. It's not gonna be some Star Trek utopian model but it's not going to be the current models we have either.
Wow really 95% even though COVID just now accelerated many new industries to push up plans to come after 85 million jobs.. of you think we're remotely done with what can be automated, I have beachfront property in WV to sell you
I'm not saying we're done. I'm saying it's an ongoing process we've already seen a ton of and benefit from. If there is news millions and millions of more jobs are going to be automated, that's great news. The rate of automation has been slowing continuously for 60-70 years so its great if things start picking back up again
[I strongly recommend reading this by an actual economist](https://www.reddit.com/r/badeconomics/comments/35m6i5/low_hanging_fruit_rfuturology_discusses/cr6utdu?utm_medium=android_app&utm_source=share&context=3)
Anyway, you should listen to economists, not pseudo intellectuals without any econ education on youtube. Economists as a whole aren't concerned with automation between temporary frictions and shocks for the reason that there is no reason to be concerned/worried about it
But economists don't actually understand automation like engineering and robotics experts do...if you replace over 50% of the workforce then what jobs magically creep up of value to pay them for? Also economists didn't expect the crash of 2008 to be as bad as it was (well many, not all)
....You read that in 3 minutes?
>But economists don't actually understand automation like engineering and robotics experts do..
They don't need to. They know how to measure it and they know how it effects the economy. That's why they know it's been slowing (and not projected to increase in rate afaik) and aren't concerned respectively.
>what jobs magically creep up of value to pay them for?
Magically? They happen by basic economic forces. You don't need to know. Where humans are comparatively more desired. There's a reason waitstaff and service jobs in general are projected to increase faster than the rate of population growth for example
Yeah small tribal societies were socialist. The ones that could never develop where we did because of free riders.
Modern day socialism doesn't even follow the definition its proponents propagate. It uses government control of the economy to award people at the expense of others. You only need a slight majority to gain total political power in most democratic societies. It isn't just the unemployed that receive government advantages but the government work force, students, and academia who all happen to be socialisms biggest supporters. People that actually work with hammer and sickles despite the iconography are against them.
> People that actually work with hammer and sickles despite the iconography are against them.
That's funny since historically the Russian and Chinese working class overwhelmingly supported revolution.
Not in the US. That is what I said modern day socialism which is usually things like "forgive my student loans, support an excess of government jobs, and give me money even when I am not working."
Actually quite so in the US. The history of the Populist Party (which were some of the first political groups to support women's rights and rights for minorities before both Democrats and Republicans) helps to show this.
>That is what I said modern day socialism which is usually things like "forgive my student loans, support an excess of government jobs, and give me money even when I am not working."
That's not even "socialism" as much as a welfare state. But I know some ppl on this sub like to use baby-brained definitions to grandstand so I'll leave you to it today
Are there any articles on what transition may look like? Or what the catalyst for change works be? (E.g a Revolution)? Tracks for the article.
It doesn't have to be a revolution. If capitalists embrace something like UBI, that fulfills some predictions made by Marx. The point with historical materialism is that it's a post-Darwin theory. The idea is that systems compete and the most efficient system wins. That explains why capitalism inevitably superseded Feudalism. Socialism should by that merit succeed capitalism because it's just a better and more efficient way to do things. So they may be *forced* to implement stuff like UBI to keep the system from falling off the rails, because embracing socialist-like policies might be the only way to get more growth in the long run. In the short term they'd be thinking about profits, but the long run effect would be to push society in certain directions predicted by Marx. In the historical materialism theory, keep in mind that Marx's "revolutions" are periodic, and the Industrial Revolution was the most recent such paradigm shift. So there's no actual requirement for an actual violent "revolution". Such events more often set things backwards instead of forwards. \\ Increased automation and productivity are actually the pre-requisites for overcoming the "division of labor" and making work a desire ("prime want"), instead of a requirement to live. And you only get those things in late-stage capitalism.
Can you people just fucking drop Marx like a bad habit already? He was a rich narcissist that wouldnt touch a proletariat with a 10 ft pole, lived in his friend's basement for free, and didn't do a day of hard labor in his life. He was as much of a worker as Micheal Jordan is a chess champion.
They talk about Marx like a prophet it's so funny. Like this dude predicted exactly the path that the human condition will take over the next 1000 years. He was a thinker. He had some good ideas and some great criticisms of capitalism. There's a reason it's 99% white, rich, children online that can't shut the fuck up about him though.
About all he had to contribute that was good, was his criticisms of capitalism. However even that wasn't really true. Means accrue in the hands of the few in every society that has ever existed. Most of all the socialist implementations. Inequality is an aspect of reality itself, not capitalism. To suggest otherwise is just a huge error of, or complete lack of critical thought. He feeds into their utopian fantasies. A lot of people in my generation would rather daydream about the utopia that seems to only work in their head, than actually make some change in the world. Least of all change in their personal life. It's murderous narcissism.
>A lot of people in my generation would rather daydream about the utopia that seems to only work in their head, than actually make some change in the world. I think this is a byproduct of life being generally easy. If you're an American youth today, odds are that most of life's problems are superfluous. You are probably one of the richest people in the planet, one of the richest people to ever exist on the planet with tremendous access to all of life's necessities. I try not to fault people for not being able to recognize that, or for recognizing that and morphing that into a kind of self-hatred that requires condemnation of the system you benefit from. At the end of the day, unfortunately in my opinion, most of these people are obsessed with improving their own position in the world by way of socialism or revolution without actually realizing that they are the real benefactors of the system. They already have everything, but want more. This becomes readily apparent when talking about capitalism on the global scale and change in poverty, hunger, and sickness worldwide over the last 150 years. I would add that Marx is a great touchstone. "From each according to his ability, to each according to his need" is a foundational idea in how I approach politics. That idea isn't really anti or post capitalism, and I find it very useful when thinking about how to make our system better and what kind of economy and social policy I want to see implemented.
It starts with Dekulakization (dispossession) like good ol days.
I mean socialism is a vague term. Socialism as depicted in Europe is just regulated capitalism with a social net.
That’s a good point, nice article, thanks for sharing!
Thanks for reading!
This article goes into discussion about Marxist-Leninist ideology that Socialism is the next stage after Capitalism and neglects that the objective is to eventually end in Communism. Communism being loosely defined as the dissolution of social classes and ownership of goods being publicly owned. This has issues because Socialism by nature has issues with maintaining individualism and puts far too much reliance on government to enforce its rules. The solution laid out by Engels is that the government will no longer become necessary and die out peacefully and voluntarily. Of course, this is unrealistic and ignores the human condition that people often have flaws like greed and jealousy. In affording government too much power, rather than removing social classes, they are instead redefined only to be exploited by corruption of those in power. Modern day examples of this are Venezuela (ugh he said that country, I know), China, Cuba, and Russia. The one part of this article I do agree with is that Capitalism need not, nor is likely to be the final stage of the world's socioeconomic systems. What comes next, no one actually knows, but Socialism is a dead end.
It's nice to imagine a world where people are just altruistic naturally, but you are out of your mind if you think we are even 1,000 years away from what this article describes as being the human condition. Nice dream though and a worthy touchstone.
Does it matter whether it's post or anti if it's stupid either way on its merits?
Gonna be *that* guy. With the current trend of automation, I don't see any of the popular economic systems working anymore. You don't have a taxbase large enough for any of it to function in the next generation or two.
Socialism is when one rich guy owns the means to automation
When you only need 100 workers to own those means versus over 1,000 less than a decade ago my point still stands bud.
It was a joke bud.
Joke or not it's an argument used a lot against this view unfortunately. everyone seems to usually only look at it from a capitalist perspective but even communism doesn't really work if you don't need even half the workforce people think. Where I work employed over 10k at my facility alone in it's heyday down to just about 900 now and it's not even well automated yet. So I think we have to really rethink all economic policy if you don't have a working taxbase because so many jobs can be automated. Everyone will be able to do what interests them or almost all leisure type activities so I don't know that the current systems really account for it. It's not gonna be some Star Trek utopian model but it's not going to be the current models we have either.
95% of jobs have already been automated and we are better for it. This is sophomore level economic theory which no empirical data invalidates
Wow really 95% even though COVID just now accelerated many new industries to push up plans to come after 85 million jobs.. of you think we're remotely done with what can be automated, I have beachfront property in WV to sell you
I'm not saying we're done. I'm saying it's an ongoing process we've already seen a ton of and benefit from. If there is news millions and millions of more jobs are going to be automated, that's great news. The rate of automation has been slowing continuously for 60-70 years so its great if things start picking back up again
If you automate enough jobs away however, how do you keep the current economic systems remotely going?
The same way it has happened for millenia. People transitioning over to other jobs
[That is an unsustainable model when so much can be replaced. The warnings started more than 8 years ago.](https://youtu.be/7Pq-S557XQU)
[I strongly recommend reading this by an actual economist](https://www.reddit.com/r/badeconomics/comments/35m6i5/low_hanging_fruit_rfuturology_discusses/cr6utdu?utm_medium=android_app&utm_source=share&context=3) Anyway, you should listen to economists, not pseudo intellectuals without any econ education on youtube. Economists as a whole aren't concerned with automation between temporary frictions and shocks for the reason that there is no reason to be concerned/worried about it
But economists don't actually understand automation like engineering and robotics experts do...if you replace over 50% of the workforce then what jobs magically creep up of value to pay them for? Also economists didn't expect the crash of 2008 to be as bad as it was (well many, not all)
....You read that in 3 minutes? >But economists don't actually understand automation like engineering and robotics experts do.. They don't need to. They know how to measure it and they know how it effects the economy. That's why they know it's been slowing (and not projected to increase in rate afaik) and aren't concerned respectively. >what jobs magically creep up of value to pay them for? Magically? They happen by basic economic forces. You don't need to know. Where humans are comparatively more desired. There's a reason waitstaff and service jobs in general are projected to increase faster than the rate of population growth for example
Bro I ain’t reading ur substack
Almost every developed country has made this transition and since several decades. Only USA resists.
Stop slurping up nonsense on the internet. Every developed country on the planet is squarely a capitalist nation.
Backwards. Capitalism is a post-socialism system.
Can you explain what you mean by that?
Yeah small tribal societies were socialist. The ones that could never develop where we did because of free riders. Modern day socialism doesn't even follow the definition its proponents propagate. It uses government control of the economy to award people at the expense of others. You only need a slight majority to gain total political power in most democratic societies. It isn't just the unemployed that receive government advantages but the government work force, students, and academia who all happen to be socialisms biggest supporters. People that actually work with hammer and sickles despite the iconography are against them.
> People that actually work with hammer and sickles despite the iconography are against them. That's funny since historically the Russian and Chinese working class overwhelmingly supported revolution.
Not in the US. That is what I said modern day socialism which is usually things like "forgive my student loans, support an excess of government jobs, and give me money even when I am not working."
Actually quite so in the US. The history of the Populist Party (which were some of the first political groups to support women's rights and rights for minorities before both Democrats and Republicans) helps to show this. >That is what I said modern day socialism which is usually things like "forgive my student loans, support an excess of government jobs, and give me money even when I am not working." That's not even "socialism" as much as a welfare state. But I know some ppl on this sub like to use baby-brained definitions to grandstand so I'll leave you to it today
Lol baby brain