warpus
Sommerswerd asked me to change this
I can't take anyone who uses the phrase "global proletariat" seriously
That's interesting, because I would say exactly the opposite. Capitalism has proven to be the most adaptable social system ever to exist. Capitalism has proven capable of subsuming every rebellion against it.
Out of curiosity, have you ever done any labor organizing?
@inthesomeday Some thoughts.
1) Who gets to decide how these people will be educated? You? Is that not the same old hierarchy with a new face?
2) You said collective ownership won't be state property, so how's it gonna work?
3) Couldn't motivation come from both culture and competition?
4) How are you going to stop people from polluting without a hierarchy of some sort?
I have to admit, it does have a obsolete, Victorian sounding ring to it... Fine to use for humor/sarcasm/irony but harder to take seriously if its being used seriously in a non-historical context...I can't take anyone who uses the phrase "global proletariat" seriously
HMMmmmI agree that human experience necessitates diversity
....
And I do think that the entire global proletariat can understand and come to the same conclusions when presented the same set of evidence.
If you believe that "diversity" is limited to the superficial, yes sure.@Hygro Do you find some inconsistency here? The world's people having a similar understanding of certain situations and systems has literally no correlation with the diversity of the human experience.
Key word here is "ever to exist". And quelling change isn't exactly what I'd call adaptable.
If capitalism destroys the livable conditions of earth our of sheer self-preservation I don't think I'd call it adaptable.
I've been involved in anarchist organizing and community outreach since I was about 2, and my dad took me around G-Pan in Columbia, Missouri, my hometown. Here in California I've been involved in some campaigning and a lot of the socialist party's activities, from community outreach to tenant mediation. In Missouri I've seen white rednecks who live in the woods and own eight rifles stand on the same lines that no-English undocumented grandmothers living in three-family apartments do here in Cali. We are all on the same side.
I have to admit, it does have a obsolete, Victorian sounding ring to it... Fine to use for humor/sarcasm/irony but harder to take seriously if its being used seriously in a non-historical context...
Because you keep using the word "education" when what you're actually talking about is ideological indoctrination, which suggests to me that you're also not really interested in dialog to get "a more perfect agreement and mutual understanding of the social ideal" as you claim in the beginning, but rather think that you already have a solution and just need people to agree with you to gain traction.Ryika, warpus-- Why's that?![]()
I have to admit, it does have a obsolete, Victorian sounding ring to it... Fine to use for humor/sarcasm/irony but harder to take seriously if its being used seriously in a non-historical context...
Everyone believing the same thing is unrelated to diversity?
It doesn't quell change. The institutional structure of capitalism has changed immensely in the past several decades. It has been changing basically since the 19th century when it first became the dominant mode of production.
That isn't a matter of adaptability, it is a matter of (un)sustainability.
Well, you mentioned the "proletariat" so I'm talking about labor, or more specifically, union organizing.
Because you keep using the word "education" when what you're actually talking about is ideological indoctrination, which suggests to me that you're also not really interested in dialog to get "a more perfect agreement and mutual understanding of the social ideal" as you claim in the beginning, but rather think that you already have a solution and just need people to agree with you to gain traction.
I experience my thoughts. My thoughts guide my actions, which in turn I experience. My actions and experiences in turn guide my thoughts, which again I experience. I am not rare in this regard. Other things produce my experience as well.Diversity of thought, maybe. But we were talking about diversity of experience.
It quells change from outside of itself, or the opposition you referred to. And I contend that the structure has changed any more than its natural trajectory alongside the improving technological conditions it exists in.
Capitalism's structure didn't change too much after two wars that devastated millions, except to account for new technologies.
No, I've found most unions in my country to be nothing more than middle men to exploitation. Back in the day they were pretty cool, but nowadays they're mostly pretty corrupt in my experience. I don't actually have much experience with them, though, no. Maybe I should test the waters a bit to see if they actually are very competent and good at doing things.
I really don't think the diversity of human experience relies on being able to think about how much the south should secede or how good Hitler is.
Really? So you see zero difference between the structure of 19th century British industrial capitalism and modern globalized/financialized capitalism?
I think you need to study capitalism a bit more.
Its structure changed enormously as a result of those wars. And not in ways that seem particularly related to technological change, either.
Is your country the United States?
A handful of powerful elites who control important industries control the whole entire world and its resources.
This is at the expense of the billions who aren't powerful elites. Most of these powerful elites are centered in the West or the North, with some few in East Asia and some fewer spread out among the world's poorest areas. These powerful elites don't directly coordinate or even communicate, but for the most part they act within mutual self interest. This is applicable to both. Maybe the way these things happen has changed a little bit but that's just a natural development of the technological advances between then and now.
Its scope changed significantly. The actual structure didn't change much.
That's not really describing a structure, though. That like a Platonic Ideal Type.
Now this is better, but this is, in my view, drastic oversimplification. And still not really describing any institutional structure.
Of course it did. The institutionalization of unions alone was an enormous change from pre-Depression conditions. Add to that the shift to social welfare and equality as policy goals and you have a very different political economic system than what prevailed before the Depression.
Well, I completely disagree that US unions can be dismissed offhand as "middlemen to exploitation." This is a problem I run into routinely on the further reaches of the left, that exploitation is defined in purely metaphysical terms that have no relevance to anyone's lived experience.
Ok, so you respond with a problem with my point as you read it, and I clarify that what I'm attempting to say is in fact closer to the argument you would advance.What am I supposed to be getting out of this other than you going vaguely Joe Wilson?
Edit: I mean, I used satiation as a value in post #105, so it's not like I mind the hunger analogy. I kinda like it even. Also works with your "no incentives to do bad things" point. It's satiation.