"Stirring" is here an adjective, not a verb. Good philosophers, of course, are never caught merely "stirring words". — Bitter Crank

One thing I have yet to locate is a clear picture of what communism in action would look like according to Marx. My latest lead is his critique of the Gotha program. Any thoughts?

Marx's description is abstract; millions-- hell, billions of people are, by Marx's definition alienated and it doesn't feel good. The alienated worker is insecure (he can be abruptly laid off. — Bitter Crank

I still don't think you have an alienated worker if he thinks he's not and is otherwise content. Maybe a more demanding person would realize his peril and experience the anxiety associated with it, but there is the real case of the happy worker.

The unalienated worker isn't just an anomaly to look upon curiously, but he poses an alternate solution to the Marxist, which is that we needn't dismantle and reconstruct the system with the proletariat in charge, but we need only reproduce the conditions to other workers that our unalienated worker has found.

And really, that's what we do. We negotiate back and forth the workers' conditions until we find a happy misery for both employee and employer to coexist.

"What would communism look like" is an old debate. In any case, it will be up to the people to decide. Presumably, the people will not decide on a dictatorship a la Stalin, Mao, Castro, et al. I don't know what it will look like.

I still don't think you have an alienated worker if he thinks he's not — Hanover

People harbor all sorts of delusions. On the other hand, waking up every day thinking that one is the victim of systematic dispossession and extortion is generally not good for one's mental health. The exploited have to find ways to get through the day without going berserk.

Whether we live in the Soviet Union, Mao's China, Castro's Cuba, or today's USA, one has to find a way to live in the world -- and people do. People manage to get through the day -- and actually enjoy life despite Marx.

I think Marx was correct that capitalism exploits workers: it alienates them from their work and from the goods and services they produce. At the same time, I must acknowledge that your observation about people who do not think they are alienated (in Marx's sense) reflects reality for many. Capitalists and workers have negotiated back and forth to reach a tolerable middle ground. Not for everybody, but for many.

schopenhauer1's antinatalist logic is valid. Life sucks, and having children perpetuates life's suckiness. I agree that life sucks, but not so much that no body should have more children. Similarly, I agree that many people do not seem to be alienated from their work, their product--whatever that is, be it nuts and bolts or legal services.

"Managing to get through one's day without going berserk" is not an endorsement of the existing system. Workers' vision becomes much clearer when they experience the harsh side of capitalism, the side where there is no negotiation towards a tolerable middle ground. It is also the case that capitalism works very hard to portray itself positively. The positive portrait is the one hanging in most Americans' living room.

The unalienated worker isn't just an anomaly to look upon curiously, but he poses an alternate solution to the Marxist, which is that we needn't dismantle and reconstruct the system with the proletariat in charge, but we need only reproduce the conditions to other workers that our unalienated worker has found. — Hanover

Not only are we slaves, we're all slaves from the same series, for we react the same to the same stimulus! Yay.

(The term "robot" comes from the Slavic root for 'forced labor'.)

schopenhauer1's antinatalist logic is valid. Life sucks, and having children perpetuates life's suckiness. I agree that life sucks, but not so much that no body should have more children. Similarly, I agree that many people do not seem to be alienated from their work, their product--whatever that is, be it nuts and bolts or legal services. — Bitter Crank

Thanks for at least acknowledging my position as a valid one!

"Managing to get through one's day without going berserk" is not an endorsement of the existing system. Workers' vision becomes much clearer when they experience the harsh side of capitalism, the side where there is no negotiation towards a tolerable middle ground. It is also the case that capitalism works very hard to portray itself positively. The positive portrait is the one hanging in most Americans' living room. — Bitter Crank

So this "squishy middle-ground capitalism" (as I'll call it), is also wrong. There is something about being cowed into other people's demands that seems off in general. Now, you can throw invectives of "that is reality.. we need shit done and we need people to follow dictates of organizations to do the shit that needs gettin' done", but this whole position itself can be questioned. The idea that it cannot be or should not be questioned is what I question.

Not only are we slaves, we're all slaves from the same series, for we react the same to the same stimulus! Yay.

(The term "robot" comes from the Slavic root for 'forced labor'.) — baker

We are slaves to our material existence and survival requires work. How we choose to emotionally respond to that reality is our choice.

Of course survival and material acquisition are only the rudimentary elements of our existence, and I would only buy into the generally pessimistic view that life is a series of harsh experiences followed by an unceremonial death if that's all there was.

Life sucks — Bitter Crank

:snicker: It just dawned on me, we suck! We havta get it right or else...a world of pain, oui, monsieur?

At the same time, I must acknowledge that your observation about people who do not think they are alienated (in Marx's sense) reflects reality for many. Capitalists and workers have negotiated back and forth to reach a tolerable middle ground. — Bitter Crank

Or is it that some people have simply adapted sufficiently to the capitalist system, or even that they are somehow genetically or otherwise predisposed to function well in it, while others are not?

I can think of several people I know whom I would describe as "unalienated workers", but in their minds, their wellbeing at work seems to have nothing to do with negotiations between capitalists and workers. They look down on unions and workers' rights. They are natural born Social Darwinists. They are hard-working, relentless, merciless, and, blimey, they enjoy life.

The idea that it cannot be or should not be questioned is what I question. — schopenhauer1

If you know a way to get the food to jump on the plate, I'm all ears.

We are slaves to our material existence and survival requires work. How we choose to emotionally respond to that reality is our choice. — Hanover

But it is not simply by fiat that we "choose to respond".. We respond within environs and situatedness that is already laid out for us in the form of the current socioeconomic structures and ways-of-life in place.

Of course survival and material acquisition are only the rudimentary elements of our existence, and I would only buy into the generally pessimistic view that life is a series of harsh experiences followed by an unceremonial death if that's all there was. — Hanover

Being squishy middle ground about life doesn't make it by way of BEING a middle ground a good thing. I only feel alienated SOME of the time doesn't mean, thus alienation good.

If you know a way to get the food to jump on the plate, I'm all ears. — Hanover

Good start..

Or is it that some people have simply adapted sufficiently to the capitalist system, or even that they are somehow genetically or otherwise predisposed to function well in it, while others are not? — baker

Or maybe work isn't where they look for meaning.

The holiest day of the week is sabbath, the day of rest. Metaphorically speaking, of course.

We are slaves to our material existence and survival requires work. How we choose to emotionally respond to that reality is our choice. — Hanover

My point is that people are different, and that what makes the workplace conditions good or at least fine for one person, might not be sufficient for another person. That's why I question the idea that

we need only reproduce the conditions to other workers that our unalienated worker has found — Hanover

and that this would result in further unalienated workers.

Or maybe work isn't where they look for meaning. — Hanover

It's not my life and it's not my wife? How do these people endure working 8, 10, 12 hours every day, without this being central to their lives? I do wonder how they do it.

The holiest day of the week is sabbath, the day of day. Metaphorically speaking, of course.

This requires belief in God or something similar. My experience has been that it is not possible to develop such a belief for the purpose of making daily life and work meaningful. (One of my motivations for religion has been to make work seem meaningful; but this has proven to be a dead end, the wrong direction. Apparently, one first has to believe in God, and then other things can follow, but treating belief in God as a means to an end doesn't work.)

we need shit done and we need people to follow dictates of organizations to do the shit — schopenhauer1

A hymn to shit getting done by The Fugs Gospel Choir:

(gospel sound)
River of shit
River of shit
Flow on, flow on, river of shit
Right from my toes
On up to my nose
Flow on, flow on, river of shit

(transition to Rock)
I've been swimming In this river of shit
More than 20 years, and I'm getting tired of it
Don't like swimming, hope it'll soon run dry
Got to go on swimming, cause I don't want to die

(spoken with gospel sound in background):
Who dealt this mess, anyway?
Yea, it's an old card player's term
But sometimes you can use the old switcheroo and it can be applied to ...
Frontal politics
What I mean is ...
Who was it that set up a system
Supposedly democratic system
Where you end up always voting for the lesser of two evils?
I mean, Was George Washington the lesser of two evils?
Sometimes I wonder ...
You got some guy that says
"For God sake, we've got to stop having violence in this country."
While he's spending 16,000 dollars a second snuffing gooks

(gospel sound musical ending)
A wiiiiiiiiiiiiide, big brown river, yea, bringing health, wealth, and prosperity to every man, women, and child

Go here to hear it: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=svPDzNO6GQk

That is why I start from the root cause. The root is birth itself. You know this. I know this. The penalty of birth is life, and then death. It's a penalty we did not / could not ask for, yet here we are, being punished. So what we must do is "banish" that problem from our consciousness and get on with "things" because we cannot do anything about that, so then what? Well, we are stuck with the comply (with socioeconomic realities of survival) or die.

So let's think of different things.. We have the Marxist model of taking over resources and capital. What does that really look like though? I brought this up in another thread about how we can never know even a sliver of the technology that we rely upon. So there will still be "experts", and access to the capital will then have to go through the de facto "gatekeepers" of the knowledgeable. I use a computer, It relies on circuit boards, programming, monitors, electrical components, etc. It relies on materials, plastics, etc. All of which I have no idea about.. So I am stuck in my "realm of expertise".. Whatever that is. Only that is what I can effect, not the whole. So basically I run things by democratically led councils rather than managers.. And I don't know, things just start looking more of the same. I don't see alienation going away any time soon.

yet here we are, being punished. — schopenhauer1

...should read...

yet here I am, being punished. — schopenhauer1

You say 'we' where you mean 'I'. You don't speak for happy, only for unhappy, people.

Unhappy people 'are being punished.' Fine.

Happy people are not being punished. So - why not try to become a happy person. Take responsibility for your unhappiness. See a therapist. Read a self-help book. Take action. Or continue to be punished. If you refuse to take action, you are now punishing yourself. Enjoy!




The underlying assumption is that there are no happy people. This is demonstrably false.

Forcing you into a game and telling you to play better is not an answer, just a dodge.

Forcing you into a game and telling you to play better is not an answer, just a dodge. — schopenhauer1

You've chosen punishment. Good. Enjoy your miserable life.

Your argument has nothing to say about happy people.

I don't think there are as many people who are "happy" as you think.

From 2013 but still:

It's a disturbing number, to say the least.

According to just-released data by Gallup, only 13 percent of employees are "engaged" in their jobs, or emotionally invested in their work and focused on helping their organizations improve.

The data, which are based on nationally representative polling samples in 2011 and 2012 from more than 140 countries, show that 63 percent are "not engaged"—or simply unmotivated and unlikely to exert extra effort—while the remaining 24 percent are "actively disengaged," or truly unhappy and unproductive.

While that's discouraging, it's actually a little better than the last time Gallup issued a global report. In data collected in 2009 and 2010, just 11 percent of workers reported being invested in their jobs, while 27 percent had actively checked out. The small improvement is due to an upswing in the global economy since those two recession years, when unemployment rates were even worse and when people were even more likely to settle for jobs they didn't like because options were so limited. — Washington Post Article

But anyways, taking away the empirical aspect here, what is moral about putting people in a situation where they have to comply with various dictates of X organization because if they don't they will lose out on the dictates of survival (money to stay alive)? Whether workers are happy or not under this system doesn't mean the system itself is good or bad. I have had whole threads on this with the idea of the "happy slave" and such. Making the best of a crappy situation is fine and dandy, I am not here to discuss how to make the best of a crappy situation but to improve the crappy situation.

There are people wrongly convicted. Because you are wrongly convicted doesn't mean that you can't try to make the best of your situation in jail.. Read, walk outside, workout, whatever. You can just sit in your cell and get even more depressed, true.. And I wouldn't blame them. However, that situation itself is systemically wrong.

So let's think of different things.. We have the Marxist model of taking over resources and capital. What does that really look like though? I brought this up in another thread about how we can never know even a sliver of the technology that we rely upon. So there will still be "experts", and access to the capital will then have to go through the de facto "gatekeepers" of the knowledgeable. I use a computer, It relies on circuit boards, programming, monitors, electrical components, etc. It relies on materials, plastics, etc. All of which I have no idea about.. So I am stuck in my "realm of expertise".. Whatever that is. Only that is what I can effect, not the whole. So basically I run things by democratically led councils rather than managers.. And I don't know, things just start looking more of the same. I don't see alienation going away any time soon. — schopenhauer1

@Bitter Crank

Also, along with this it should be said that we can't just start collectives from the "ground up" in some commune-like society because mining, manufacturing, and logistics etc. are just too complex to simply "trade". Too complex, too much coordination. There can seemingly never be a situation, for example, where a computer is made by "ground up" collectives of people pooling their time. The resources needed for such products are just too vast and interconnected with webs of webs of networks that cannot be coordinated other than as they are now it seems.

These "collectives" are then thus hobby-projects like trading various goods and services on a very minimal scale.. I'll mow your lawn, you get the vegetables kind of thing. But making the lawnmower and extracting the metal for tools are mainly out-of-reach in such a setup.

The only other choice becomes lowering demand for such products. That's not happening any time soon. Voluntary asceticism is not going to be in high demand as far as a solution to the problem.

So we are stuck with the "squishy middle" of @Hanover where we keep the current situation. Squishy middle wins :meh:. This is nothing more though than sclerotic victory. That is to say, not a victory. No change. Just sit back and let the current situation keep going...

The unalienated employee leaps gladsomely into the air, and sings a roundelay having to do with not being estranged

The unalienated employee leaps gladsomely into the air, and sings a roundelay having to do with not being estranged — Ciceronianus

Do we need Marxism for this non-estrangement to come about?

Do we need Marxism for this non-estrangement to come about? — schopenhauer1

No, but it would be difficult (though not impossible) to compose a roundelay about Marxism.

Alienation isn’t the feeling of estrangement, but an act of hostility that causes someone to feel estranged. So an unalienated worker is someone who doesn’t face such hostilities.

Do we need Marxism for this non-estrangement to come about? — schopenhauer1

No, but just the right measure of poverty and exploitation.

Alienation isn’t the feeling of estrangement, but an act of hostility that causes someone to feel estranged. So an unalienated worker is someone who doesn’t face such hostilities. — NOS4A2

Marxist alienation is when a person lives contrary to human nature. I think.

Marxist alienation is when a person lives contrary to human nature. I think. — Tate

And what if he was wrong about that? Do you mean "species-essence" idea?

And what if he was wrong about that? — schopenhauer1

What do you mean?

• The worker must personally use the product they are making. If you don't eat hot dogs, then you shouldn't be working in the hot-dog factory.
• All jobs within the company rotate between design and labor. Each worker at an ice cream factory has a week where they walk off the assembly line and participate in the creation of new flavors.
• Workers cannot be given schedules or roles that are incompatible with society. For example, you wouldn't make a security guard work 11pm to 8am every night.
• All technology is public information, and workers can learn any skill by using public education. You don't have to go into debt while buying access to information.
• Treat other workers with respect and don't use a hierarchy. "You're the underling scum I respect the most" doesn't count as respecting a human. Out of respect comes the policy of splitting profits equally among all workers; no CEO overlords that get a free paycheck.