what Marxism really is.....

[surreptitious75]

How does stateless society translate to lawless society ?

A lawless society is one where the established order has completely broken down
The state has become impotent and as a consequence has no power or authority

Society cannot exist without some form of state - whatever that may be
The idea of a stateless society that can actually function is pure fantasy

[Silhouette]

Even now there's still a significant hesitation to accept that Communism is in fact defined as stateless.

It really is.

And according to what I read by Lenin, the main difference between Communism and Anarchism is that the former requires a transition through Socialism, where there is a State but solely made up of regular working class people, and only for the purposes of preventing counter-revolution. That's all a "State" is under actual Socialism - as opposed to all the alternative ways you hear the term being used today. Anarchism just wants to jump straight to the Statelessness without any such transition, because it regards any such transition as redundant.

So it's not surprising that surreptitious is getting tripped up by the similarity of the two models, and along with obsrvr can't accept that Communism was intended to be stateless.
Communism most definitely is intended to be stateless as all the actual literature will testify, with "the state withered away" (as even wikipedia gets right), despite contemporary usage of the term "Communism" as pretty much its exact opposite: some totalitarian state authoritarian dictatorship. That's presumably where everyone's getting confused, along with the historically totalitarian state authoritarian dictatorships that called themselves Communist despite all the literature defining Communism so very differently.

And Magnus, Anarchism is also a specific political theory with its own literature that goes far beyond its laymen use as mere "lawlessness". The word itself literally means "no leadership/hierarchies", which is why lawlessness is associated with it, but there's much more to it than something like "riots to a Sex Pistols soundtrack" to which it seems to be commonly reduced.

As for whether "a stateless society" is even possible, whether Communist, Anarchist, or whatever - I don't know the answer to that question. Is it naive to think a stateless society with everything freely voluntary is realistic? I don't know. But it's bizarre to think that without a state, we'd all be dumbed down to mere apes roaming around eating what wild berries and vegetables they could find - that's ridiculous, as if we'd all suddenly forget how to build all the technologies and use all the work methods that we enjoy today just because there's no state anymore. Statelessness isn't the only way to socially organise - so I don't "agree that far" at all. And why would you think that "Marx, and especially Engels seemed to have been totally consumed with the concern of the dichotomy of the owner class and worker class, ignoring all else"? Presumably you'd have needed to have read everything by them to be sure they never wrote about anything else whatsoever? Well, have you? What books by Marx and Engels have you actually read?

Again, this is the crux of this thread - literally all you need to do to talk about "what Marxism really is" is to have read what Marx wrote... - and yet people are still so very sure about "what Marxism really is" even if they've read very little or even nothing at all and are still under the illusion that the relevant terminology means something completely different... All I've been doing the entire time is to try and set everyone straight on what was written about all this relevant terminology in the actual literature - before even beginning to argue for or against whether it's good or bad theory to whatever extent and in whatever different ways.

[iambiguous]

Again, this is the crux of this thread - literally all you need to do to talk about "what Marxism really is" is to have read what Marx wrote... - and yet people are still so very sure about "what Marxism really is" even if they've read very little or even nothing at all and are still under the illusion that the relevant terminology means something completely different... All I've been doing the entire time is to try and set everyone straight on what was written about all this relevant terminology in the actual literature - before even beginning to argue for or against whether it's good or bad theory to whatever extent and in whatever different ways.

Here then a distinction can be made between "what Marx really wrote", "what Marx really meant in writing it", and "what Marxism really is". He said or wrote what he did. And, depending on the extent to which we can all agree on the definition of the words he used to write what he did, we can squabble over what he meant to convey in his books and manifestos.

But once the leap is made to "what Marxism really is", our reactions will almost certainly come to reflect our own particular political prejudices about the history of socialism/communism over the past one hundred plus years -- if we go back to Russia in 1917.

Then this part:

That's the beauty of discussing "what Marxism really is" in a philosophy forum. All we are judging here is each other's intellectual contraptions. What did Marx say and what did he mean? We can start perhaps by pinning down the definitions of all the words he used to bridge the gap between what he thought was going on all around him in his world and all that others living very different lives thought otherwise instead.

Then the task becomes sifting through all these subjective/subjunctive, existential points of view and determining what in fact all rational folks are obligated to think about it all.

Ah, but on this thread tempers flare up over any number of things. Why? Because the actual history of Marxism precipitated all manner social and political and economic contexts -- upheavals -- that generated all manner of consequences that enhanced the lives of some and crumpled the lives others. Literally millions of men, women and children died as a result of actual flesh and blood human beings interpreting what "Marxism really is". In Russia, China, Vietnam and through any number of Third World counties where Marxist/socialist/communist rebellions were fought.

Here though the "judgments of others" are easily shrugged off because ILP is just a forum for exchanging words only. No actual bullets or bombs or gulags or re-education camps or government policies to deal with.

[Magnus Anderson]

And Magnus, Anarchism is also a specific political theory with its own literature that goes far beyond its laymen use as mere "lawlessness". The word itself literally means "no leadership/hierarchies", which is why lawlessness is associated with it, but there's much more to it than something like "riots to a Sex Pistols soundtrack" to which it seems to be commonly reduced.

That's what I think too but I assumed that s57 is using the word "anarchy" in the pejorative sense.

Even James S. Saint said the following of his Constitutional Rational Harmony:

https://www.ilovephilosophy.com/viewtop ... c#p2424240

The CRH isn't communistic, socialistic, nor capitalistic, but most represents the original capitalism and the opposite of communism. It is «Rational Anarchism» wherein there actually isn't any state. It proposes a structure similar to the cells that make up your body, a basic social genome, independently doing their own thing, not even aware that there is a higher order body.

The closest thing that could be identified as a state is the enforcement of people documenting what they propose to do and doing what they document that they are doing. It hasn't anything to do with who owns what, what people should choose to do, eat, or think. A nation ends up doing merely the aberrant result of whatever the independent groups or families are already doing on their own. It frees everyone to choose their own sentient behavior as long as they remain sentient and offers a bare-bones mini-structure so as to allow everyone to accomplish that.

The emphasis is on the term "Rational Anarchism".

And then there is also this thing that the greatest number of societies humans lived in were, in fact, stateless. Stateless societies are not a new thing at all. (This, of course, doesn't answer the question of superiority, but it does answer some potentially relevant questions.)

[Silhouette]

Even James S. Saint said the following of his Constitutional Rational Harmony:

https://www.ilovephilosophy.com/viewtop ... c#p2424240

It's weird to me that people keep bringing up this guy. Even he clearly didn't know what Communism was - as in that quote where he proposes "Rational Anarchism" as the opposite of Communism, whilst pretty much exactly describing Communism according to the actual literature on the subject.

It makes me wonder how many people out there think they've come up with these great "anti-communist" ideas, not realising that they're the exact same ideas that Marx already wrote about and defined as Communism, and that they've just been duped by the propaganda instead of doing the actual reading to realise it's all been thought of before. Cells that make up the body, independently doing their own thing? Communes. There's already been huge amounts written about it, so why not just go straight to the source and actually read Marx?

And then there is also this thing that the greatest number of societies humans lived in were, in fact, stateless. Stateless societies are not a new thing at all. (This, of course, doesn't answer the question of superiority, but it does answer some potentially relevant questions.)

You seem to know more about this than I do - perhaps obsrvr should be debating with you over how impossible and naive he thinks a stateless society would be?

All I'm saying is that Communism is most definitely stateless, as written about extensively in the actual literature.

[Magnus Anderson]

It's weird to me that people keep bringing up this guy.

I brought him up for two reasons:

1) he's the reason obsrvr is on this forum, so if he sees that James described CHR as "rational anarchism" it might prompt him to revise his position (the link that leads to the discussion between you and James may also prompt him to revise his stance)

2) I personally find James's SAM Coop thing rather interesting

Even he clearly didn't know what Communism was - as in that quote where he proposes "Rational Anarchism" as the opposite of Communism, whilst pretty much exactly describing Communism according to the actual literature on the subject.

It makes me wonder how many people out there think they've come up with these great "anti-communist" ideas, not realising that they're the exact same ideas that Marx already wrote about and defined as Communism, and that they've just been duped by the propaganda instead of doing the actual reading to realise it's all been thought of before. Cells that make up the body, independently doing their own thing? Communes. There's already been huge amounts written about it, so why not just go straight to the source and actually read Marx?

I agree.

[obsrvr524]

Don't you think that James S. Saint's SAM Coop is an example of stateless society?

I'm not all the way reading through James' SAM corp posts so I shouldn't comment yet. He obviously does have a social decision making process outlined - a constitution (more than Marx managed to do) so I couldn't call it stateless. He seems to be talking about what would be a microcosmic government scheme from the standpoint of a nation or the world. It seems to be an expansion and reinforcement of the nuclear family instead of an elimination of it so very anti-communist.

I haven't seen his comments on ownership, economic, and class distinction issues which are what the world has been struggling with for nearly 200 years now. If he has an answer to those, which wouldn't surprise me at this point, he would completely, completely alter the entire world's current narrative into I don't know what. That would be like a total reset and start over on human thinking about society - totally deleting the relevance of everything that humanity has been wrapped up in forever – religion, economics, wars, social classes, everything.

All of that depends on where he was going with his "social anentropic molecule" concept, like what it would look like on a national or world scale and how it would get there. Unlike Marx he didn't seem to be pushing social revolution and he obviously hated socialism, even as an intermediate phase. A peaceful transition to wherever he was going would be far more his style. I just haven't gotten to where that is yet.

[obsrvr524]

So, despite faint hope, you really do think that universal voluntarianism is viable. That sounds exactly like those who think that you could just give a million euros to everyone in order to make everyone a millionaire. That's just teenager talk. It reminds me of that AOC character in the US Congress who proposes a "Green New Deal" where the US is to spend nearly 100 trillion dollars rebuilding every building throughout the nation while at the same time banning all petroleum production. It's just incredibly childish (as Mr Trump has pointed out).


Is there anyone else on this board who thinks that given a million families who have an otherwise normal education of skills and theories but never even heard of capitalism or dictatorships would merely keep working hard each day developing new innovative technologies and ways of doing things without ever slacking off or deciding to get a little more for less by deciding that enough has long passed and it just isn't worth it?

Marx proposed that global socialism would merely fade away due to a lack of need. Did he never read his torah? That just isn't the way it works. When an elite class sees that their station is fading due to lack of need, THEY CREATE A NEED.

Some while after the cold war era, Israel and the US pentagon realized that they had run out of enemies (General Powell admitted). So world peace to follow? Hell no! They did exactly as the Bible foretold. They created a new enemy. Mr Obama actually gave 150 billion dollars plus 1.8 billion dollars in plane loads of pallets of untraceable cash to Iran in order to fund Middle East terror programs while sending trillions of dollars to communist China in order for them to builds the second largest military in the world all as he floated the idea of declaring an eternal war on terrorism (and this was the guy they gave a Nobel Peace Prize to). THAT is what happens when an owner class sees that it is no longer needed. It creates endless wars.

Even in capitalism when an industry sees that it has saturated the market it starts making weaker, more useless replacements for its former reliable products, just to keep them in business. People get stuck with a variety of shoty American products as their only choice. Governments do the same. The US Pentagon and the Israelis do it with war – endless death and destruction.

Once the need for someone being in charge goes away, those in charge create the need – the fruit of the tree of good and evil leading to perpetual struggle and misery all so that the managers can float above it all and be gods.

Marx was proposing a reenactment of Geneses without any proposal as to how to avoid a repeat of it. Marx was basically like the devil saying, "just do this and you will become as God and live forever".

Mr Trump not only didn't believe that endless wars are necessary but is actually proving it on a world scale. His only enemy is the very ownership class and dictators (bourgeoisie) that the ignorant worker class is supposed to be overthrowing with revolution but instead they are fighting HIM because they are being mindlessly led by that ownership class who see themselves as being needless, just as Marx supposed they would become.



Back on James for a brief second, one of the many noticeable comments that he made that I didn't take very seriously at the time was when he was challenged by an arrogant globalist he simply stated, "Be careful, it only takes one of my kind". I am now wondering if Mr Trump is that one – an outsider problem solver ensuring every detail of his solution, ridiculously confident and partially ignorant of how deeply sensitive and confused people really are willing to be. They both would change the entire world and both suffered the same underhanded lies and attacks from the subservient proxies of the establishment bourgeoisie, both the right and the left just as could be expected. The difference seems to be that James was like way, way far outside all of society even by his own admission although seemingly standing on very solid ground. When the people on one board were trying to categorize him as secular, Jewish, Christian, or whatever he stated, "I am NotA – None of the Above" and "It's probably best to just think of me as a space alien" and "it is not my world" (which I wonder if I might have taken wrongly at the time).

Socialism doesn't just go away because it is no longer needed. It takes someone outside the bourgeoisie and working class to problem solve, progress, and prevent perpetual servitude to artificial foes – saving the people from eternal hell. He is the person they will hate. Altruists expose their game and provide new hope in peace. Why do you think the Jews hated Jesus so much? They silence disrupting their narrative. What happens when own the world and there are no more outsiders? Who will there be to end the endless misery? As Jesus said, "They know not what they do".

Edit: corrected quote

[obsrvr524]

-

[MagsJ]

All is not always what it seems.. here at ILP.

I really doubt that the US will implement a totally Socialistic economic model, but we all love a good conspiracy theory, don’t we. I’m not getting paid none, so I won’t say what I think it should be.

It was said that some here exuded the character of CIA types etc. ..perhaps they weren’t half wrong.

[phoneutria]

You have to bear in mind that Communism is intended to be brought about via Socialism, both as defined by Marx as opposed to all these alternate defintions that people throw around today:
1) Socialism is working people as "the State" - operating solely to prevent counter-revolution. That's all the "means of despotic inroads" is that you highlighted.

"prevent counter-revolution", in other words to keep a group of workers in power
as opposed to the capitalist state according to marx
which he said ... is a force for keeping a group of people in power
and "the workers as The State"
as opposed to "the people as State", which is what a democracy is

so we just have to trust that these "workers"
have our best interests at heart
they're all silhouettes
cuz if they're not
the despotic inroads kick in
to "prevent counter-revolution"

Working people control credit, communication and transport, factories and instruments of production - collectively organising themselves. There's almost zero reason to change whomever is currently in charge of doing all these things as their day-job under Capitalism. Only difference: no private despots looming over everything.
2) Communism is what happens once the same working people who no longer need "the State" carry on doing everything democratically and transparently. The list in the Communist Manifesto is to begin the initial Socialist transition. The State withers away after counter-revolution is no longer a threat because everyone realises things are better without capitalists, and the mentions of State in the list just end up being deferred to meaning these same working people communally organising these same things without any counter-revolutionary work necessary any longer.

that sounds great because corruption in the public arena is unheard of!

yes, sil
extremely naive

[phoneutria]

It's not false. Financial profit is revenues minus expenses. Revenues are what everyone earns the company, expenses are what they're paid. Profit is what everyone earns the company being greater than what they're paid. This is basic accountancy.

Employers don't fabricate their own cash, if they don't have cash they have to borrow in the form of a liability (credit) before anything can be spent on wages or assets (which are either current or non-current i.e. they go towards the product/service to be sold or towards the means of producing the product/service). Assets are bought from other companies who pay their own employees to make the assets - so ALL outgoings are always wages somewhere down the line. All incomings are always people spending their wages.
So profits are when people spend what they were paid back into a business, and the surplus value gets filtered off towards the owners to either spend on themselves or reinvest in the company i.e. to pay off these initial loans if not to invest more in the company or even grow the loans. Once these liabilities are matched by the assets, the workers have eliminated the debt the employer initially incurred and the employer no longer has anything on them.

i am not disputing that profit is revenue minus expenses
i am saying that the reason things are worth more than what production expense is not labor
a cake is not worth more than a bag of flour because somebody worked to make it
it is worth more because it is delicious and people want to eat it
what creates value is not labor, it's use!

[phoneutria]

Yeah sure. If the means of production are collectively owned, nobody has anything to lose from using them to make better means of production. You just do the work like you always did, but you don't have to answer to any owners - you're free to create without any gamble.

Currently there's consequences to risk taking because the means of production are privately owned.
If they weren't, then there'd be no risk and no dreams of becoming self-employed die from a pandemic.

there are always consequences
the difference is that people are less likely to be reckless and stupid
when it's their own money that is at stake
or when they can suffer immediate and direct punishment

public enterprises are wasteful and ridden with corruption
because it's not their money they are squandering
and the people running them are not accountable to anyone
it's a trickle of resources
in which every administrative layer takes out a little chunk
until at the bottom there is not enough to provide the most basic needs
to the people who need it the most
don't tell me it ain't so comrade
i live in soviet brazil

[obsrvr524]

I think what James was talking about with his SAM corp/co-op/coop was the lack of a nation state. If you are going to eliminate a state hierarchy – national anarchy, then James proposes, "this is the way to rationally do it…" and lays out his CRH constitution to be applied on a microscopic level then independently replicated with no predetermined national design. From the national perspective there is no state (stateless) until long after perhaps millions of these CRH groups, like cells of a body, grow into a body exactly like actual cells grow into vegetable, animal, and human life. He is talking about a whole higher level of organically grown life with a level of consciousness with arms, legs, and eyes made of these CRH units staring out into the stars on a level that we couldn't even imagine. The difference in consciousness would be like our own individual cells trying to understand the forest. I can see why no one would be able to relate to what he was referring to – far beyond anything Karl Marx was talking about or even imagine.

In the US right now the Marxists are demanding a "re-imagining of their police". It seems that James has already re-imagined all of society from bottom to top throughout the entire world and with specific details. Long ago he was asked if money was going to continue to be used in the future. He just replied, "yes, but not like it is now". He was obviously an extreme rationalist although seemed to have very few comments on economics, perhaps because we couldn't relate to what he was thinking. More than a decade ago he had raised that point on other issues such as an understanding of infinity (which I tested here to find that he was right about that).

James seems to have proposed a very small independent society with the goal of highest level of joy for the longest period of time – a tiny paradise allowing for amendments to compensate for varying needs. Then he proposed to replicate the framework and let it organically grow throughout the world. Sounds familiar to me. Anyone here ever heard of the Garden of Eden – "go forth and replicate"?

James explained that Adam (which he explained as "Ahdam" from the actual Hebrew) was not a person but instead and management composed by a constitution and that the word "human" actual referred to the "hue-of-Man", not referring to a color but rather "the most fundamental element used to compose Ahdam - Man". If brought to fruition, millions of SAM co-ops could form and actual societal Hand (I found that the word "man" came from the Latin for "hand"), a Hand of God, not of the mythical God but of James' "the REAL God", the principle behind all creation. James explained that is what the word "Israel" actually meant. This guy should be on Israel's Council of Ministries. An additional scary thought – hell, maybe he really is or was.

The more I look into it, this whole James narrative is getting outright spooky on a whole new level. I might have to completely scrap and rewrite that novel idea. James seemed to think in a completely different than normal people. Question was raised as to whether English was his first language. He obviously had a very deep understanding of high tech physics, very sophisticated covert communication techniques, intelligence, social motivations, and their potential structures ("Affectance Ontology"). Even on this board he showed that he had no problem dealing with every human paradox and scientific mystery. He actually gave rational explanation of God. Who does that? Who even tries to do that? And all of it seemed as if it was coming from somewhere outside normal education on those subjects but still very well grounded in logic. He was often asked where his ideas were coming from. James was apparently born in the 1940-50's range and once commented, "I was born behind enemy lines". He also commented on having some mild association with the Hebrews (a language which he could apparently understand to some degree).

Now imagine. What if, as really strange as it seems and despite fanciful movies, a colony of actual human like aliens ("it's probably best to just think of me as a space alien") actually did come to this "planet of the apes" (a phrase James commonly used) for real. They would probably maintain very intimate contact and communication with each other forming an independent ("anentropic"), "cell" with their own understanding of how to govern themselves ("SAM Co-op") while innocuously interacting with society at large ("maintain harmony within and without"). Perhaps thinking to themselves, "these apes should probably govern each other as we do".

Then imagine that something disastrous happened to the colony, leaving only a few left to fend for themselves, spread out and isolated. What would they actually, realistically do? How would they go about it? --- What did James do?



Back to what Marxism really is ---

Marxism appears to be a scheme to start the way to communism with a capitalist governing system. Then using a large enough population, stimulate a revolt against the capitalist owner class from the worker class (recently including some black kid shooting a couple of cops in the face and blaming the President of the US for the violence and for climate change) in order to establish worker governed ownership of everything (all requiring the absence of a middle class). Then once the revolt has eliminated competition and the idea of private ownership, time is allowed to cause the worker government to fade away due to lack of need – a ridiculous assumption.

In short it is a devil's scheme to create eternal hell by fighting for an absurd fantasy.

[Urwrongx1000]

i am not disputing that profit is revenue minus expenses
i am saying that the reason things are worth more than what production expense is not labor
a cake is not worth more than a bag of flour because somebody worked to make it
it is worth more because it is delicious and people want to eat it
what creates value is not labor, it's use!

Marxism and Marxists are unable to differentiate the value between this:
https://www.dvo.com/newsletter/weekly/2 ... nart91.jpg




And this:
https://img1.mashed.com/img/gallery/the ... 578883.jpg




Because of this, Marxism/Marxists will always be out-of-touch with reality and the real-world.

Furthermore, we can infer from these conversations, that Shillouette has never worked a day of hard labor in his life, nor gotten his hands dirty for a job and been paid little for it.

As such, Shillouette can no longer pretend to represent any sort of realistic or legitimate, authoritative source for 'Marxism'.

[phoneutria]

I don't understand what your point is here.
Yes, we should all feel very grateful for what we have today, because things used to be worse.[/quote]

my point is that today's dollars
i'm my pocket dollars, right now dollars
are worth more than future dollars
the standard business skills routinely assigned to employees
are done in exchange for today's dollars
no matter if the thing they made yields a profit or not
they can pay their bills and take their ladies out to a nice steak dinner

i know you're posting this like it's another "undeniable fact"
but your opinion of what justifies wages is completely irrelevant
who cares about what silhouette thinks is fair?
who the fuck are you?
is this supposed to be an argument?

I'm no one.
My argument isn't about me, it's about accountancy - my field of work.
I'm just imparting knowledge about how money works, which is the same whoever tells it.

this isn't an argument
where's the accountancy and knowledge of how money works?
all i'm seeing is:

sil: why should employers pay themselves so much?
pho: because they set that up
sil: but that's not fair!
pho:... -.-

[phoneutria]

can we get this james nonsense of this thread please
what the fuck

[Urwrongx1000]

Technically, your today dollar is worth less when Inflation holds, and worth more when Deflation holds. The credit card industry, along with bank loans and mortgages, along with Investment banking, all take advantage of inflation/deflation and loan % rates.

These are all concepts far beyond Marxists and Marxism though. Marxists are flunked-out Economic majors, who don't have an ounce of knowledge or insight into Macro-economics. This is also why "Marxists" focus on "Social Justice", and not on actual markets or values of goods/commodities/trades/work/etc. Because "Marxism" fails economically everytime, as does "Socialism". Again, basically stealing money (via taxes) from the most efficient workers/business owners. Prom will jump in here and claim "but my work is worth $1000 an hour". And I will counter-argue, "No it's not, because if it were, then you would increase your standards, but you don't, because of ___criminal record___" or whatever excuse you want to put in there. But, at the end of the day, nobody is stopping Prom from starting his own Contracting Business. "But I can't get a loan!" Who's problem is that, really?

Become a Capitalist.

[Urwrongx1000]

This is also why Soviet Union Communism (Marxism put into effect) failed miserably, because, they could not compete on a Global scale with their economic system. It simply collapsed. Because it could not compete in a global (free) market. In order to compete economically, business, and through markets, you have to have a realistic understanding of the value of currency, inflation/deflation, loan rates, and the value of currencies within their respective societies, and ultimately, what backs/holds/represents the value of such currencies. In the end, money is backed by a system, which is backed by force (violence/military).

People want to invest in stable markets/societies/currency/banks. People do not want to put their savings/inheritance into systems that fluctuate often, daily, and/or fail.

This is common sense.


Because the Marxists agree with this implicitly, they automatically invalidate their own (anti-cultural, anti-social) beliefs.

[obsrvr524]

can we get this james nonsense of this thread please
what the fuck

I was asked. It is brief. It is slightly related but you don't have to read it. Don't be so spoiled.

This is also why Soviet Union Communism (Marxism put into effect) failed miserably, because, they could not compete on a Global scale with their economic system. It simply collapsed.

The argument against that is that they had outside interference, which they really did. I argue that they would fail for a different reason even if they owned the whole planet - especially if they own the whole planet (like the Chinese intend to do).

[MagsJ]

obsrvr524 wrote: “- especially if they own the whole planet (like the Chinese intend to do).”

Intended. ; )

In the US right now the Marxists are demanding a "re-imagining of their police". It seems that James has already re-imagined all of society from bottom to top throughout the entire world and with specific details.

Globalism?

It could be a fantastic thing.. if used and done right, and it would put an end to dictatorships and regimes, where countries are ruled by fear and allegiance alone.. which is pretty-much most of the planet.

James once told me about the time, when he was younger, that he had hot steamy sex in a shower.. he was obviously in a sharing mood, that day. Other than that, he came across as a very serious guy.. to the point of obnoxiousness. I used to wonder why he posted what he was posting.. and now we may never know.

Now imagine. What if, as really strange as it seems and despite fanciful movies, a colony of actual human like aliens ("it's probably best to just think of me as a space alien") actually did come to this "planet of the apes" (a phrase James commonly used) for real. They would probably maintain very intimate contact and communication with each other forming an independent ("anentropic"), "cell" with their own understanding of how to govern themselves ("SAM Co-op") while innocuously interacting with society at large ("maintain harmony within and without"). Perhaps thinking to themselves, "these apes should probably govern each other as we do".

I do not think that humans are capable of/physiologically-advanced enough, to govern and police themselves.. a small number could.. sure, but the majority masses.. no.

Back to what Marxism really is ---

Marxism appears to be a scheme to start the way to communism with a capitalist governing system. Then using a large enough population, stimulate a revolt against the capitalist owner class from the worker class (recently including some black kid shooting a couple of cops in the face and blaming the President of the US for the violence and for climate change) in order to establish worker governed ownership of everything (all requiring the absence of a middle class). Then once the revolt has eliminated competition and the idea of private ownership, time is allowed to cause the worker government to fade away due to lack of need – a ridiculous assumption.

In short it is a devil's scheme to create eternal hell by fighting for an absurd fantasy.

The way to resolve that, is to pay workers a better living wage.. grown people working long hours or two+ jobs for a meagre return, is not only immoral but deeply unethical. I remember when making fat profit became a thing, instead of companies actually existing to fulfil a need or purpose, but some time in the 80s that all changed.. and here we are now.

[phoneutria]

In academia, your contributions are immediately open to anyone and everyone - and as a result, anybody who has anything to add immediately has access to the improved knowledge that all before them have provided.
Improvements are thereby immediate, and all you have to do is reference who you got your ideas and data from.
Academics keep going like rabbits, all trying to compete to be referenced in the knowledge that they are acknowledged for immediately making the world an objectively better place without any "20 year" waiting period to deny everyone the benefits of your contributions unless it comes only from you and your private limited resources only.

As such it would be better for everyone if the whole privatisation thing was dropped. To not drop it would be immoral.

i'm totes in favor of knowledge sharing
the things we have now thanks to open-source for example
tesla dude for example
released all of his tech papers
so anyone who wants to build an electric car can do it

the thing is that i think that people should also be able to make a living off of their work
when their work is intellectual
so like you're a philosopher and you write something pretty amazing
or a painter who made a really beautiful thing that everyone loves
and you want to sell some books so you can live off of that
and people selling pirated or knock-offs are sorta doing a shitty thing imo
so it's nice that that kind of work is private commercial use for 50 years
but there's a fair use clause for people who are not making money to be able to use it
and then after those 50 years it's completely free to share and use

the thing i'm most uncool with is the wanting to take over a person's actual business that they built
fuck that
take the knowledge and build your own

You're way overestimating the power of employees in this whole arrangement that we've currently got going on.

no i'm not
you're underestimating it

There's a tiny proportion of employees out there who cannot be bettered, and who could more or less dictate their wages if they wanted to remain employees. But what do they do? They either go it alone so all the surplus value they create doesn't just go to some rich guy who employs them, or they use the same capitalist mechanisms to take surplus value from their own employees in their own business.

all the power to us
i mean they
they work their asses off to learn stuff constantly and stay on top of the market
they're diligent and dependable and have good ethics
they get shit done
employers love them
they fucking earned it
we live in a society that provides equal rights
to anyone who wants to pursue studies or learn a trade
and form a career
there was a time when i couldn't go to school if i wanted, or own land
now i have the same rights as any man thank fuck
and before you start taking the pains of the poor people
i'm from the fucking third world
the house i grew up in had a tin roof
my parents toughed it for years so i could go to school
it is in everyone's power to be that person
there is a tiny proportion of that because people are shit
most people on the planet are doing the bare minimum that they have to do to get by
hierarchies form naturally
not because of classes
but because people are different
the pareto principle
you know this shit
don't make me type it

In reality, the vast majority of everyone is replaceable, especially when it comes to the vast majority of tasks that NEED doing that don't require much skill or experience - which the vast majority of people don't have anyway.
If everyone was employable, employed and with plenty of prospects then your mechanism would have a power balance.
The fact that there's huge variation in skill and experience means this will never be the case because the vast majority of workers will always be replaceable. They can't simply go somewhere else without significant competition, where half the people will always struggle at the bottom, and the threat of NOT offering your services for less and less means zero income instead of accepting a punishingly low one. Again, this goes for tasks that NEED doing, or at least it would be better for them to be done, or the positions wouldn't be opened in the first place.

see the above
in fact everyone is replaceable
but the pool of the good people to pick from is very small
so when a company finds a good employee they hold on to them
we have a system in place that encourages good ethics, hard work, and efficiecy
why the fuck would you want to mess with that?

This is compared to a system where even more people face the ridiculous life conditions of having zero income in an undeveloped country - so anything's better than that.
Yay for Capitalism being better than absolute poverty - absolutely. I am grateful for this.

don't forget that it is capitalism that is for all effects eliminating absolute poverty from the world
it's not like it's something they put there to replace poverty
it's the thing that is making it go away
so yay for capitalism indeed
and yay for free market

[Peter Kropotkin]

phoneutia:
"don't forget that it is capitalism that is for all effects eliminating absolute poverty from the world
it's not like it's something they put there to replace poverty
it's the thing that is making it go away
so yay for capitalism indeed
and yay for free market"

K: and this is simply not true.. in fact, in the United States, the middle class has
lost ground over the last 40 years, to the point that you basically have two classes
in this country, the upper class and every one else who is in the same boat
of failing wages and a stagnant economy even before the virus shut everything down....
and before you say it, the job growth bragged about by the village idiot is
in service industries and low paying jobs like wal-mart and fast food places...
there was no job growth in areas of that were well paying and had benefits...

look around the world and you will see outside of the industrial west,
Asia, south America and Africa have a great deal of poverty.....
even countries like Mexico, is one step from a failed country.....
and that is one small step.... to complete failure...

Kropotkin

[obsrvr524]

In the US right now the Marxists are demanding a "re-imagining of their police". It seems that James has already re-imagined all of society from bottom to top throughout the entire world and with specific details.

Globalism?

I think "globalism" means a single government for the entire globe. James wasn't saying that at all. He proposed a very tiny government that he expected to replicate into millions merely due to its success and example for others to voluntarily replicate if they saw it. He didn't say that the entire world had to follow along nor that whatever came of it would necessarily be a single global super-creature, perhaps many separate vast human formed nation-like creatures peering at each other like different animals in a jungle or nations engaged in negotiations or trade.

It could be a fantastic thing.. if used and done right, and it would put an end to dictatorships and regimes, where countries are ruled by fear and allegiance alone.. which is pretty-much most of the planet.

I haven't slept on it long enough to be confident of that yet but it certainly seems that way now.

I used to wonder why he posted what he was posting.. and now we may never know.

I was never an actual investigator for these things, merely an observer reporting what I saw but it does leave some mystery, especially a few things he predicted that have perhaps already come to pass.

Now imagine. What if, as really strange as it seems and despite fanciful movies, a colony of actual human like aliens ("it's probably best to just think of me as a space alien") actually did come to this "planet of the apes" (a phrase James commonly used) for real. They would probably maintain very intimate contact and communication with each other forming an independent ("anentropic"), "cell" with their own understanding of how to govern themselves ("SAM Co-op") while innocuously interacting with society at large ("maintain harmony within and without"). Perhaps thinking to themselves, "these apes should probably govern each other as we do".

I do not think that humans are capable of/physiologically-advanced enough, to govern and police themselves.. a small number could.. sure, but the majority masses.. no.

As James said himself, "Monkey see. Monkey do". Looking at the US it is hard for me to believe that those people could ever govern themselves and it's looking more every day that they can't against the globalists. We'll see in about 3 months or so.

Back to what Marxism really is ---

Marxism appears to be a scheme to start the way to communism with a capitalist governing system. Then using a large enough population, stimulate a revolt against the capitalist owner class from the worker class (recently including some black kid shooting a couple of cops in the face and blaming the President of the US for the violence and for climate change) in order to establish worker governed ownership of everything (all requiring the absence of a middle class). Then once the revolt has eliminated competition and the idea of private ownership, time is allowed to cause the worker government to fade away due to lack of need – a ridiculous assumption.

In short it is a devil's scheme to create eternal hell by fighting for an absurd fantasy.

The way to resolve that, is to pay workers a better living wage.. grown people working long hours or two+ jobs for a meagre return, is not only immoral but deeply unethical. I remember when making fat profit became a thing, instead of companies actually existing to fulfil a need or purpose, but some time in the 80s that all changed.. and here we are now.

I believe that a more real solution (raising wages just raises prices) is to restore and maintain the middle class of owner-workers where most people own shares as well as work either hard labor or management jobs. That situation would completely eliminate the Marxist scheme because everyone would be sharing in the necessary profits that drive innovation and wealth. And in addition restrict monopolies as the US used to do with "anti-trust laws" so that corporations (such as Google) could not freely abuse the population and would have to compete on wages and quality of jobs and product. A third idea might be somehow workable to eliminate the purely ownership class of those who merely sit back and rake in their entire bank load from the labor of others and "other people's money".

Between those 3, I am confident there wouldn't be a problem any longer except for perhaps military generals still scheming to maintain wars for profit. In a sense they are like pure owners (controllers) who need to be eliminated by some reasonable method. Elect Mr Trump for another 12 years and maybe he will solve that problem too.

[phoneutria]

phoneutia:
"don't forget that it is capitalism that is for all effects eliminating absolute poverty from the world
it's not like it's something they put there to replace poverty
it's the thing that is making it go away
so yay for capitalism indeed
and yay for free market"

K: and this is simply not true.. in fact, in the United States, the middle class has
lost ground over the last 40 years, to the point that you basically have two classes
in this country, the upper class and every one else who is in the same boat
of failing wages and a stagnant economy even before the virus shut everything down....
and before you say it, the job growth bragged about by the village idiot is
in service industries and low paying jobs like wal-mart and fast food places...
there was no job growth in areas of that were well paying and had benefits...

look around the world and you will see outside of the industrial west,
Asia, south America and Africa have a great deal of poverty.....
even countries like Mexico, is one step from a failed country.....
and that is one small step.... to complete failure...

Kropotkin

it's true that the middle class in the US is getting smaller, but it's because it's moving up
the amount of families making more than 100K a year went up from 9% to almost 30% since 1970s
while the amount making less than 35K went down from 37% to around 29%
these are from the US census bureau

world poverty and extreme poverty numbers are even more drastic

but anyway
you're factually incorrect and I don't argue about facts
so why dontcha make some good use of your unprecedented middle class comforts
and look up some charts in your free time from the comfort of your home, alright?