It's scary how this is actually being called out as a problem of capitalism ... when anyone can look up history and see communists were actually doing this in 1946. Not just phones, they were doing it on the street, going as far as sending out people to listen in on conversations everywhere. Makes sense, I guess: there were barely any phones to tap when communists started doing this.
In case you don't know mass phone tapping didn't start in the US until decades (plural) later.
Not that I have experienced socialists/communists reacting positively to being proven wrong much before. Even when proven wrong by their own historical record (yes, they PROUDLY published they were doing this in 1946, after all, that's what Marx instructed them to do). Yes, the need for mass surveillance of the masses is actually in Marx and Engels's work.
In fact it was a part of Marx's work in much the same way as you are arguing it here: he was falsely accusing capitalist and bourgeoisie of mass surveillance, even while he was trying to do it himself. But yeah, Marx is Marx. His whole work, a pamphlet discussing massacring the bourgeoisie ... when, of course, both he himself and his family (up and down, his parents, he himself, his wife, his children) were very much part of the "hated" bourgeoisie. But, of course, in his mind he was excluded. He himself was very much not the evil he was trying to fight, and that every description he published said otherwise ... Very on-brand for communists, that.
I would really much want to see which Marx (with Engels or not) writings advocate for mass surveillance.
I would also like to see a reference of when did he call for a bourgeoisie massacre.
Then I suggest you actually read the manifest. Oh, I should probably declare you technically correct. He does not call for a massacre, just a violent revolution. These are technically not exactly the same. They turned out the same in practice though.
Violence has been used for good ends such as deposing monarchies and ending slavery. Marx argues that capitalists are akin to the new kings. Witnessing billionaires funding the destruction of democracy, I wouldn’t say he’s wrong.
And you refer to Soviet Russia as if that’s supposed to represent socialism and communism. In fact there are many different kinds of socialists and communists, many who support democracy and oppose authoritarian governments. In fact many such people opposed the Bolsheviks and were killed by them. It’s simply not true that being socialist or communist entails supporting totalitarian government.
You know as well as I do that when Marx discussed "capitalists" he did not mean the rich. He meant what we now call the middle class. Managers. Engineers. Store owners. (Small) company owners. Factory owners. Smaller landlords. Perhaps upper middle class, but not the real rich, the families. He saw what everyone else in their time (correctly) saw: that larger land owners were mostly outside of cities, and were well on the way to inevitable bankruptcy. That the uber-rich are very different, and aren't rapidly bankrupting themselves is not something Marx foresaw.
Only the governments themselves, who are of course also very, very, rich would retain their wealth. And quite a few governments in his time were individuals or families, but he didn't see them as the enemy, kind of, but not as the "source" of the evil of capitalism. Of course, communists aren't against a very, very rich government. The Soviets initially offered to make Tsar Nicolas II the leader of international socialism. Only when he kept refusing did he become the enemy.
And then the "that wasn't true communism" argument! Thank you. I kind of agree: most other communists were MUCH worse than the Soviets, and especially lacked most of the redeeming qualities the Soviets retained from imperial Russia.
In fact, I miss that about the Soviets. The Soviets were going to conquer Europe, provide housing and jobs for everyone, and get everyone to work and back each day on rocket powered trams. Seriously. Today's socialists just seem to want to destroy everything, which will then encourage Gaia to save the world and care for everyone. The Soviets were very much going to exploit nature to make everyone rich.
Never mind that even the ancient Greeks knew better: the godess Gaia is a Titan who massacred, and then ate people. Men, women, children. Especially children. She was the embodiment of natural disasters, of the primal, absolute force of nature. She killed to save nature, true. But also just for fun, because it is her nature. Especially children. Especially lost children. She was like almost all Titans: considered completely amoral, not necessarily evil, but she needed to be fought, even destroyed, not for fun, because otherwise a LOT of people would die.
Of course they don’t. If anything someone like me will get scolded for doing a low quality comment attacking him
Have you seen how YC higher ups talk about capitalism, elitism, etc? Culture comes from top down and within Silicon Valley tech elite it is practically a monoculture.
For that specific guy. It’s weird he invoked such a short text that he definitely didn’t read or hasn’t read in a long time. So easy to respond to that. That’s why I responded.
Capitalists according to Marx are those that own the means of production, not the middle class.
> larger land owners were mostly outside of cities, and were well on the way to inevitable bankruptcy
He saw them as a declining class that would eventually merge with the industrial bourgeoisie. He didn’t predict their inevitable bankruptcy.
> quite a few governments in his time were individuals or families, but he didn't see them as the enemy, kind of, but not as the "source" of the evil of capitalism
Again, inaccurate. His view is that the state is an apparatus of the capitalist class structured to protect its property and interests. The state and the uber-rich are the primary enemies of the working class, in his view.
> Soviets initially offered to make Tsar Nicolas II the leader of international socialism. Only when he kept refusing did he become the enemy.
Citation needed. Are you just fabricating things? The Bolsheviks ideology was based on the idea that there would be a proletarian revolution that would dismantle the old capitalist and aristocratic order, which the Tsar represented.
> that wasn't true communism" argument!
There are many different varieties of socialism and communism. In fact many societies long into pre-recorded history have been peaceful, leaderless and without money - communist. Yet it would be a mistake to call those societies Stalinist for example.
> get everyone to work and back each day on rocket powered trams. Seriously.
Soviet plans were never that fantastical. Fabrication.
> the godess Gaia is a Titan who massacred, and then ate people. Men, women, children. Especially children
Gaia isn’t typically represented that way. She is not a Titan but mother of the Titans. Maybe you are thinking of Kronos.
> You know as well as I do that when Marx discussed "capitalists" he did not mean the rich.
Technically, not precisely “the rich”, but the people whose main interaction with rhe economy is through ownership of capital to which rented labor of others is applied (specifically, this is the haut bourgeoisie in Marxist theory.)
There is also the middle class (the petite bourgeoisie), those who have a (in broad terms) balance between ownership of capital and application of their own labor, most particulatly applying their own labor to their own capital as independent business operators as a kind of capitalists, but it was the haut bourgeoisie that Marx portrays as the problematic, exploitive, ruling class. The main issue with the petit bourgeoisie is their disinterest in improving the condition of the working class being exploited by the haut bourgeoisie; because they are already out of the state of alienation that comes from separation of labor and control of capital, and at risk of losing that status if they sufficiently rock the boat.
> He meant what we now call the middle class. Managers. Engineers. Store owners. (Small) company owners. Factory owners. Smaller landlords.
Nah, what we now call “the middle class” is mostly the middle income segment of the working class (Marx didn't really have a special term for them, for Lenin a lot of them would be in the proletarian intelligentsia.) But the group you name is a mix of them, the petit bourgeois, and in the case of factory owners the haut bourgeois (kind of weird that you think “factory owners” fits any modern definition of “middle class" that also includes line managers.)
> His whole work, a pamphlet discussing massacring the bourgeoisie
It's not cool to make stuff up just to win an argument. It makes you lose the argument.
> In fact it was a part of Marx's work in much the same way as you are arguing it here: he was falsely accusing capitalist and bourgeoisie of mass surveillance, even while he was trying to do it himself. But yeah, Marx is Marx.
Yeah, Marx was trying to establish a vast spy network of ravens and pigeons, spanning the whole continent on Wakanda. /s
Both mine and your statements are equally true.
> Yes, the need for mass surveillance of the masses is actually in Marx and Engels's work.
Yeah, in the unpublished archives that only you have access to. /s
Capitalism is just a reflection of people being self-interested which you can't prevent without being authoritarian which will inevitably leads also to surveillance.
> Capitalism is just a reflection of people being self-interested
I don't think that's the case. I think most people are not self-interested, or at least not in the selfish sense. I think most people are more than willing to sacrifice _some_ direct personal gain for better community gains.
The problem is that capitalism only allows selfish self-interest to flourish, so it incentivises even the more community-oriented people to always put themselves first, a lot of the time even in detriment to their immediate vicinity.
Capitalism is a form of authoritarianism in that it really only serves a few, and everyone else is just constantly fighting for survival.
> being authoritarian which will inevitably leads also to surveillance
Poverty reduction has largely been the result of China’s mixed economy not unbridled capitalism. Guided markets have played a role there - but that’s because they were guided. We don’t have to accept the authoritarianism or any of other effect of markets, simply because markets have played a role in some of the positive outcomes of the past. In fact for the last 50 years in the global north, roughly the same timeframe, productivity has continued to grow but most of that growth has accrued to the wealthiest and relatively little of that benefit has been seen by the median worker.
To say it’s identical is an overstatement, but markets have been part of China’s policy, and part of the policies many other formerly impoverished counties. Without government policy intelligently choosing how to utilize markets (which is what happened in most of these formerly impoverished countries like the “Asian tigers”), markets alone could not have have brought the gains that they did. Markets have many downsides to them as well. Additionally non-government, non-market factors like unionization contributed to the rise out of poverty as well. And in the global north, “markets” have been fairly ineffective at raising the standard of living for the median worker. They have been effective at enriching the already rich however, contributing to wealth power-concentration and de-democratization.
no it is an identical plot on the graph, not an overstatement at all.
The standard of living for the median worker has improved significantly in forty years let alone two hundred, lifestyle inflation is definitely rapid as you would expect with progress, wage growth has outpaced inflation for everyone but public sector workers.
Bad as things may seem now, we are all richer than ever before.
Productivity has grown. But that has more or less stopped going to the median worker since mid-70s (post inflation). This is known as the pay-productivity gap. There has been some increase, but most of the gains have gone to the wealthiest. Our issue today isn’t productivity. It’s redistributing the gains from the wealthy minority who have received the lion’s share to the rest.
And you mention being richer. We also have an unfolding climate crisis, authoritarianism, mass surveillance, and the real possibility of imminent nuclear war (brewing now with China). All these things are the result of a wealthy minority controlling policy for their own interests. And the wealthy minority has gotten there through the same market mechanisms that exploit workers and concentrate wealth. Are we better off when we are much closer to our own self destruction? It’s this wealthy minority that has brought us here. Their relative power continues to grow.
In fact, many of the gains in wealth we have seen are not the result of markets but either savvy government policy or the result of people pushing back on the power of the ruling class. Markets have good and bad sides. It’s best to take off our rose colored glasses and see markets for their good and bad.
