For the first question, on the how of revolution, we can look to historical, successful revolutions, and again, the inherent unsustainability of Capitalism. It isn’t a matter of if, but when, Capitalism crumbles. Additionally, as the contradictions within Capitalism sharpen, so too does the social consciousness of the international working class. Ideas come from material conditions, not the other way around. I spend sections 2 and 3 explaining both the formation of ideas and the transition to Socialism from a Materialist perspective, and showcasing the inherent unsustainability of Capitalism and Imperialism.
Secondly, if reform were possible, Marxists would be the first in line. I spend section 4 going over the futility of reform and the necessity of revolution.
I recommend at least taking a peak at the list I made, plus if you ask questions there they can all be answered in one place, which I selfishly prefer to save my own time.
I just cant believe a claim of inevitability from past history with the extraordinary circumstance of the information age.
I certainly agree that captialism is a process with a conclusion, when we are talking about organic growth and not some perpetual strategy to maintain the illusion.
But intelligence is an unprecedented disruptor in what could otherwise be a predictable repetition of history. What if we need a lot less people than before to thrive?
Who do we even kill? Could a revolution even develop without being recognized? In the past the power structure couldnt deal with so many people in its opposition. In the past the system needed the people who opposed it. Is that still true? I think the game has changed quite a bit.
Strategy from the ruling class is how they maintain power. What about strategy derived from super computer analytics (predicting the future) with more data input than ever by astronomical margins, and language models to digest it? When there are paths for ai to interact and influence these problems more directly by building it into infrastructure i wonder how deeply the people can be disrupted and how perfectly counter strategies to resistance will be instantly carried out.
If you are recruiting people to read text on inequality, and hope to have a lot of peoppe arming themselves for your cause, i suggest hurrying.
Each of these paragraphs can spiral into its own conversation. I suggest giving the first section of my list a try, if you don’t want to read further then feel no need to.
Your questions on technology, cybernetics, computerization, and climate change can all be tackled, but it would be best for us to be on the same relative page first before diving into a Marxist answer to said questions.
Transparently, I wont, and thats part of the problem.
If you want to talk about overcoming increasingly capable power structures that are increasingly yielded by laymen individuals, and not highly trained groups, then id be interested to hear about it. But i understand if this is not how you want to spend your time.
The shortest possible answer is that the very fact that Capitalism is unsustainable means it can’t field these power structures against an organized and growing working class. If that’s not enough, then you aren’t going to find a satisfying answer outside of doing the work of reading.
Maybe later on when conditions have deteriorated further, there will be a point that you are more willing to read theory, and I’ll be right here if you need me.
Im feeling a little ignored with that answer when im saying the power structures can be largely automated, and used by individuals, which certainly must be outside the comprehension of marxist teachings.
Additionally, while capitalism might end, we have no guarantee about its replacement. If any time in history could yield a unique power structure it would be now.
Seems more relevant to try to influence the power structure than to destroy it. I say that not because it currently cant be destroyed, but that it wont, and this only becomes more true as time goes on as capability of automated power structures increases. Our comfort is ample to keep the system safe.
Im feeling a little ignored with that answer when im saying the power structures can be largely automated, and used by individuals, which certainly must be outside the comprehension of marxist teachings.
I’m half-ignoring it because if you were at all familiar with Marxism, you’d know that this was a prediction of Marxism that has come true with time. Automation is a key aspect of Marx’s predictions and analysis, as well as the expectation for technological progress.
Additionally, while capitalism might end, we have no guarantee about its replacement. If any time in history could yield a unique power structure it would be now.
Marxists believe Socialism is what Capitalism is necessarily leading to because decentralized markets form centralized monopolist syndicates with complex internal planning, ripe for aquisition into the public ownership and centrally planned. Ie, Capitalism prepares Socialism.
Seems more relevant to try to influence the power structure than to destroy it. I say that not because it currently cant be destroyed, but that it wont, and this only becomes more true as time goes on as capability of automated power structures increases. Our comfort is ample to keep the system safe.
You say “seems like” with no logical justification.
Your argument that automation preserves rather than accelerates the demise of Capitalism is unfounded, and goes directly against the Tendency for the Rate of Profit to Fall, which was logically proven back in Marx’s era.
Our comfort is constantly declining as disparity rises as Capitalism decays.
Marxists believe Socialism is what Capitalism is necessarily leading to because decentralized markets form centralized monopolist syndicates with complex internal planning
Jesus fucking Christ, I was just talking to a friend about how big corporations with hundreds of thousands of employees resemble centrally planned economies, and how consolidations creates them all around us and the only thing stopping them from becoming fewer is the attempts of some governments that haven’t been regulatory-captured yet to stop it. But regulatory-capture increases with wealth accumulation so if you keep running the system, it tends to total central planning. I haven’t read Marx and neither has he.
On a separate but related point - what stops the system from being somewhat disrupted by labor in a way that redistributes huge amounts of the accumulated wealth, restoring the regulatory regime in favor of labor and restarting the cycle from that point, then repeat. In other words, what’s stopping it from doing a depression-FDR-redistribution every 100 years? I can absolutely see the inevitable end without labor intervention but to my current brain it seems possible to maintain it with. Is this wrong in some obvious way?
See, this is exactly what Marx was talking about when he said the decay of Capitalism would cause more radicalization and class awareness. What starts off as hard to see due to the vast competition of many competing Capitalits becomes increasingly apparent. Ideas are determined by material conditions.
To answer your question, Social Democracies can help suppress revolution, but not prevent its necessity nor turn back the clock. Technological progress remains, and thus you can’t beat the Tendency for the Rate of Profit to Fall. In the modern world, Nordic countries are seeing sliding safety nets, and depend heavily on exploitation of the Global South via exporting Capital to have commoditied made with a lower price of labor (a process Marxists call Imperialism).
Rosa Luxemburg’s Reform or Revolution actually answers a lot of your question, if you’re willing to read a short book. It’s in section 4 of my “intro to Marxism” list so it will have terms you may not understand if you don’t read the buildup works, but you can still try to read it and see someone answer your very questions 124 years ago.
I just want to say your effort is appreciated and fair points regarding what i dont know about marxism.
I think my conjecture that the power structures wont be destroyed is justification enough to not seek to destroy them. My “seems like” is alternative to working with the power structure, but i understand i dont have data to substaniate my belief that individuals wont overcome centralized supercomputer data analytics commanding autonomous enforcement.
I didnt say capitalism would be preserved, but that the current power structures would. I dont think there will be a compelling motivation for an impervious power structure to maintain the illusion of freedom. Profit falling off doesnt dissolve societal hierarchy if the power structure still enforces it by identity rather than wealth.
Our discomfort doesnt have much time to motivate us before we willingly accept the power structure (due to no alternative).
That said, im not convinced an omnipresent evil is guaranteed to arise from capitalism, just a self-interested entity.
For the first question, on the how of revolution, we can look to historical, successful revolutions, and again, the inherent unsustainability of Capitalism. It isn’t a matter of if, but when, Capitalism crumbles. Additionally, as the contradictions within Capitalism sharpen, so too does the social consciousness of the international working class. Ideas come from material conditions, not the other way around. I spend sections 2 and 3 explaining both the formation of ideas and the transition to Socialism from a Materialist perspective, and showcasing the inherent unsustainability of Capitalism and Imperialism.
Secondly, if reform were possible, Marxists would be the first in line. I spend section 4 going over the futility of reform and the necessity of revolution.
I recommend at least taking a peak at the list I made, plus if you ask questions there they can all be answered in one place, which I selfishly prefer to save my own time.
I just cant believe a claim of inevitability from past history with the extraordinary circumstance of the information age.
I certainly agree that captialism is a process with a conclusion, when we are talking about organic growth and not some perpetual strategy to maintain the illusion.
But intelligence is an unprecedented disruptor in what could otherwise be a predictable repetition of history. What if we need a lot less people than before to thrive?
Who do we even kill? Could a revolution even develop without being recognized? In the past the power structure couldnt deal with so many people in its opposition. In the past the system needed the people who opposed it. Is that still true? I think the game has changed quite a bit.
Strategy from the ruling class is how they maintain power. What about strategy derived from super computer analytics (predicting the future) with more data input than ever by astronomical margins, and language models to digest it? When there are paths for ai to interact and influence these problems more directly by building it into infrastructure i wonder how deeply the people can be disrupted and how perfectly counter strategies to resistance will be instantly carried out.
If you are recruiting people to read text on inequality, and hope to have a lot of peoppe arming themselves for your cause, i suggest hurrying.
Each of these paragraphs can spiral into its own conversation. I suggest giving the first section of my list a try, if you don’t want to read further then feel no need to.
Your questions on technology, cybernetics, computerization, and climate change can all be tackled, but it would be best for us to be on the same relative page first before diving into a Marxist answer to said questions.
Transparently, I wont, and thats part of the problem.
If you want to talk about overcoming increasingly capable power structures that are increasingly yielded by laymen individuals, and not highly trained groups, then id be interested to hear about it. But i understand if this is not how you want to spend your time.
The shortest possible answer is that the very fact that Capitalism is unsustainable means it can’t field these power structures against an organized and growing working class. If that’s not enough, then you aren’t going to find a satisfying answer outside of doing the work of reading.
Maybe later on when conditions have deteriorated further, there will be a point that you are more willing to read theory, and I’ll be right here if you need me.
Im feeling a little ignored with that answer when im saying the power structures can be largely automated, and used by individuals, which certainly must be outside the comprehension of marxist teachings.
Additionally, while capitalism might end, we have no guarantee about its replacement. If any time in history could yield a unique power structure it would be now.
Seems more relevant to try to influence the power structure than to destroy it. I say that not because it currently cant be destroyed, but that it wont, and this only becomes more true as time goes on as capability of automated power structures increases. Our comfort is ample to keep the system safe.
I’m half-ignoring it because if you were at all familiar with Marxism, you’d know that this was a prediction of Marxism that has come true with time. Automation is a key aspect of Marx’s predictions and analysis, as well as the expectation for technological progress.
Marxists believe Socialism is what Capitalism is necessarily leading to because decentralized markets form centralized monopolist syndicates with complex internal planning, ripe for aquisition into the public ownership and centrally planned. Ie, Capitalism prepares Socialism.
You say “seems like” with no logical justification.
Your argument that automation preserves rather than accelerates the demise of Capitalism is unfounded, and goes directly against the Tendency for the Rate of Profit to Fall, which was logically proven back in Marx’s era.
Our comfort is constantly declining as disparity rises as Capitalism decays.
Jesus fucking Christ, I was just talking to a friend about how big corporations with hundreds of thousands of employees resemble centrally planned economies, and how consolidations creates them all around us and the only thing stopping them from becoming fewer is the attempts of some governments that haven’t been regulatory-captured yet to stop it. But regulatory-capture increases with wealth accumulation so if you keep running the system, it tends to total central planning. I haven’t read Marx and neither has he.
On a separate but related point - what stops the system from being somewhat disrupted by labor in a way that redistributes huge amounts of the accumulated wealth, restoring the regulatory regime in favor of labor and restarting the cycle from that point, then repeat. In other words, what’s stopping it from doing a depression-FDR-redistribution every 100 years? I can absolutely see the inevitable end without labor intervention but to my current brain it seems possible to maintain it with. Is this wrong in some obvious way?
See, this is exactly what Marx was talking about when he said the decay of Capitalism would cause more radicalization and class awareness. What starts off as hard to see due to the vast competition of many competing Capitalits becomes increasingly apparent. Ideas are determined by material conditions.
To answer your question, Social Democracies can help suppress revolution, but not prevent its necessity nor turn back the clock. Technological progress remains, and thus you can’t beat the Tendency for the Rate of Profit to Fall. In the modern world, Nordic countries are seeing sliding safety nets, and depend heavily on exploitation of the Global South via exporting Capital to have commoditied made with a lower price of labor (a process Marxists call Imperialism).
Rosa Luxemburg’s Reform or Revolution actually answers a lot of your question, if you’re willing to read a short book. It’s in section 4 of my “intro to Marxism” list so it will have terms you may not understand if you don’t read the buildup works, but you can still try to read it and see someone answer your very questions 124 years ago.
I just want to say your effort is appreciated and fair points regarding what i dont know about marxism.
I think my conjecture that the power structures wont be destroyed is justification enough to not seek to destroy them. My “seems like” is alternative to working with the power structure, but i understand i dont have data to substaniate my belief that individuals wont overcome centralized supercomputer data analytics commanding autonomous enforcement.
I didnt say capitalism would be preserved, but that the current power structures would. I dont think there will be a compelling motivation for an impervious power structure to maintain the illusion of freedom. Profit falling off doesnt dissolve societal hierarchy if the power structure still enforces it by identity rather than wealth.
Our discomfort doesnt have much time to motivate us before we willingly accept the power structure (due to no alternative).
That said, im not convinced an omnipresent evil is guaranteed to arise from capitalism, just a self-interested entity.
I think you need to do more research and come up with logical arguments for these beliefs that aren’t just vibes, but empirical data and observations.