My question is: doesn't this rely on a number of additional embedded (unexamined) assumptions -- among them: that currently existing capitalism is (relatively) efficient, rather than wasteful; that the presently known combination of global natural resources and technological advancement, intentionally managed and directed toward beneficent and purposeful ends could not be allocated in such a manner as to establish something closer to a post-scarcity star trek economy; etc.
Is it not possible to conceive of a revolutionary communist economy that makes the entire pie higher, rather than as a rising tide that drowns currently floating yachts?
Thanks in advance for your considered thoughts and analyses.
gyrofry posted:Is it not possible to conceive of a revolutionary communist economy that makes the entire pie higher, rather than as a rising tide that drowns currently floating yachts?
Yes it's called China.
swampman posted:Maybe instead, it would be ok if society wasnt obsessed with luxury
or happiness for that matter
gyrofry posted:Marxism-Leninism-Maoism-Deng Xiaoping Thought
capitalist productivity without capitalist modes of production- the hope of a traditional marxist.
hey posted:swampman posted:Maybe instead, it would be ok if society wasnt obsessed with luxury
or happiness for that matter
Well. its more like. yes, the standard of living will improve for members of the bourgeois, unless by "standard of living" you mean the wasteful & ephemeral luxuries that engender complacency & false hope in the middle class. For instance, if we nationalized healthcare, a rich American with excellent private health coverage would indeed lose privileged access to the country's mayo clinics and whatever. but would have more security for future health, no matter what misfortune occurs. which is a more meaningful measure of the standard of living.
its such a weird question, i guess if the revolution is simultaneous with the invention of replicators like on star trek then,
swampman posted:its such a weird question, i guess if the revolution is simultaneous with the invention of replicators like on star trek then,
thats not really what I'm asking though. I'm not predicating anything on the development of new whizzbang technology. The question (and it is a question) is more like: isn't it true that the notion that a life of luxury is not possible for everybody contingent on the notion that the currently existing array of commodities and social relations cannot be expanded/exceeded under an alternative social order, but can at best result in a somewhat more equitable redistribution of what contemporary global-imperial-capitalism has produced? and if this is a predicate, has this predicate actually been comprehensively examined and refuted by any theorists?
VoxNihili posted:hey posted:swampman posted:Maybe instead, it would be ok if society wasnt obsessed with luxury
or happiness for that matter
which society is obsessed with happiness? we care a hell of a lot more about status, group association, etc. than happiness in my experience
"food? what? fuck no i hate food. i prefer applebees, olive garden (love them breadsticks), red lobster for special occasions, taco bell when i'm feeling ghetto or some of those swanson hungryman dinners. but not food. sheesh."
aerdil posted:in all honesty she decided to have sex with me because she was a) a little manic-depressive b) wanted me to shut up about foucault c) she's sex positive and d) we were drinking a little
its funny to know that yo uwere talking about foucault which is pretty fuckkin funny if u think about it... its funny.
gyrofry posted:swampman posted:its such a weird question, i guess if the revolution is simultaneous with the invention of replicators like on star trek then,
thats not really what I'm asking though. I'm not predicating anything on the development of new whizzbang technology. The question (and it is a question) is more like: isn't it true that the notion that a life of luxury is not possible for everybody contingent on the notion that the currently existing array of commodities and social relations cannot be expanded/exceeded under an alternative social order, but can at best result in a somewhat more equitable redistribution of what contemporary global-imperial-capitalism has produced? and if this is a predicate, has this predicate actually been comprehensively examined and refuted by any theorists?
i'd say no, it's not true, because increasing the number and kinds of commodities and relationships isnt necessary for people to live in a way i would consider "luxurious." and citizens of capitalism don't lead "lives of luxury," they're permitted material luxuries in exchange for their lives and the productivity of their labor.
however i think yes it is generally accepted that, when it comes making most hamburgers the fastest using the shittiest ingredients, and also when it comes to getting people to eat as many of these hamburgers as possible, capitalism is the best.. maybe somebody who has actually cracked a wikipedia page in their life can weigh in
swampman posted:i'd say no, it's not true, because increasing the number and kinds of commodities and relationships isnt necessary for people to live in a way i would consider "luxurious." and citizens of capitalism don't lead "lives of luxury,"
I don't necessarily disagree, but then this question is probably not for you but for someone with a third worldist perspective.
littlegreenpills posted:VoxNihili posted:hey posted:swampman posted:Maybe instead, it would be ok if society wasnt obsessed with luxury
or happiness for that matter
which society is obsessed with happiness? we care a hell of a lot more about status, group association, etc. than happiness in my experience
"food? what? fuck no i hate food. i prefer applebees, olive garden (love them breadsticks), red lobster for special occasions, taco bell when i'm feeling ghetto or some of those swanson hungryman dinners. but not food. sheesh."
i dont think establishing status necessarily makes people happy. if anything, americans typically sacrifice a great deal of what could potentially make them happy in order to achieve a certain status. plus, most people arent even marginally satisfied with the status they do achieve, much less happy/fulfilled by it. US society says "unless you are at the top you are SHIT SHIT SHIT" and most people internalize this sort of thinking. so they obsess about status while basically feeling like shit.
its rly kind of interesting too cause the predominant culture is all about the worship of the Self and maximizing pleasure out of every experience yet it shuns you if you do it outside the sanctioned channels, like, you're not supposed to OD on heroin at the age of 23 cause it's irresponsible and selfish and Makes You Sad In The Long Run, True Happiness lies in sacrificing today for tomorrow, and so on and so forth and....like we posture with this moral high-ground in chasing status as a form of discipline and then spit on the drug-addled junkie lying in the gutter precisely because they're dark reminders that deep down becoming the junkie is our ultimate aim or desire, the total surrender to the Self.
or something.
EmanuelaOrlandi posted:aerdil posted:in all honesty she decided to have sex with me because she was a) a little manic-depressive b) wanted me to shut up about foucault c) she's sex positive and d) we were drinking a little
its funny to know that yo uwere talking about foucault which is pretty fuckkin funny if u think about it... its funny.
foucault?? more like fuck u
tentativelurkeraccount posted:i guess u could say US society thinks its obsessed with happiness, hence my mom always telling me "Just do what makes you happy!!", justin bieber sayin "Never Say Never!!!", "Chase Your Dreams", "Be Yourself!!!" etc etc, but of course it's all being said from a false premise where happiness is conflated with status and success.
its rly kind of interesting too cause the predominant culture is all about the worship of the Self and maximizing pleasure out of every experience yet it shuns you if you do it outside the sanctioned channels, like, you're not supposed to OD on heroin at the age of 23 cause it's irresponsible and selfish and Makes You Sad In The Long Run, True Happiness lies in sacrificing today for tomorrow, and so on and so forth and....like we posture with this moral high-ground in chasing status as a form of discipline and then spit on the drug-addled junkie lying in the gutter precisely because they're dark reminders that deep down becoming the junkie is our ultimate aim or desire, the total surrender to the Self.
or something.
wait how is ODing on heroin not the ultimate expression of obtainment of objects, the perverse underlining to chasing status and success?
gyrofry posted:...A corollary to this is that revolutionary communism will necessarily result in a degradation of the standard of living for the aforementioned...
...that the presently known combination of global natural resources and technological advancement, intentionally managed and directed toward beneficent and purposeful ends could not be allocated in such a manner as to establish something closer to a post-scarcity star trek economy; etc.
Is it not possible to conceive of a revolutionary communist economy that makes the entire pie higher, rather than as a rising tide that drowns currently floating yachts?
gyrofry posted:thats not really what I'm asking though. I'm not predicating anything on the development of new whizzbang technology. The question (and it is a question) is more like: isn't it true that the notion that a life of luxury is not possible for everybody contingent on the notion that the currently existing array of commodities and social relations cannot be expanded/exceeded under an alternative social order, but can at best result in a somewhat more equitable redistribution of what contemporary global-imperial-capitalism has produced? and if this is a predicate, has this predicate actually been comprehensively examined and refuted by any theorists?
Keeping what was said in khamsek's gasoline thread in mind, I think these areas could be very important sites for action from first world communists, or any stripe of radical leftist in order to assist leftist organizations on the periphery; but, we still have to contend with the actual smashing of capitalism (and the structures that keep it in place), lest we use our technological advantages to reproduce the same climate of surveillance by state structures, and wastefulness of our resources found in our heavily digitalized societies. It's likely true that this will require a degradation of certain aspects of our lifestyle, like our hamburgers and planned obsolescence found in many of our electronics.
Y3h46EbqhPo
You might like this video. Kleiner conceives of states as a collusion between public and private interests, and these states use coercion (by way of surveillance and behavioral control enabled by our technologies) to retain wealth accumulation.
The use of data collection, retention and social media - three crucial methods that allow our economy to function in the age of the internet, are inherently part of the logic that structures the way these technologies work (I'm thinking of the IPOS cycle here). To paraphrase what Applebaum mentions around 26:20, we route our communications through protocols that our computers/machines can easily parse and store; and, we keep inventing new ways to make these processes faster and more efficient, because this is where the money is. This turns us internet users into customers and products, as Kleiner mentions around 37:20, because this logic is amenable to organizations like intelligence agencies, social media platforms and marketing agencies. Going by the modus operandi of Applebaum and his ilk with Tor and Wikileaks, cryptography will be one important way to protect the internet as a public space, and our own private communications from the watchful eye of the NSA; but as we've seen with Wikileaks, using crypto with journalism based on a model of open source intelligence to assist whistleblowers in taking down corrupt elites, will only result in superficial changes to our system. Meet the new boss, same as the old boss.
Applebaum says around the beginning of the video that we cannot become “post-privacy” until we become “post-privilege”. I like that he brings up privilege in this context, because he reminds us that this concept is important in effectively communicating with groups without the access and privilege we have. I think we can agree that discarding much of what has infected modern Western leftism, like the ugly byproducts of privilege discourse, will be necessary, but I won't get into that now, as this post is already kinda long.
Basically, destroying the institutions that allow the unmitigated use of drones to assasinate dangers to these state structures, and supercomputers to process and store the data we put online to find this "terrorist activity" would be good starting points I think.
Edited by d4ky ()
Crow posted:wait how is ODing on heroin not the ultimate expression of obtainment of objects, the perverse underlining to chasing status and success?
no yeah thats exactly what i was saying i think. this 'ultimate expression' spells out too plainly the perversion, hence our need to cut it with sloganeering and false moralism.
aerdil posted:in all honesty she decided to have sex with me because she was a) a little manic-depressive b) wanted me to shut up about foucault c) she's sex positive and d) we were drinking a little
lol
GoldenLionTamarin posted:
aerdil posted:my only close friends at the moment are women too; but still single. probably time to seduce one of them and destroy a few relationships as an aesthetic pursuit
aerdil posted:my only close friends at the moment are women too; but still single. probably time to seduce one of them and destroy a few relationships as an aesthetic pursuit
there's always time for seducing and destroying my good man