An Emergent Order

[germaphobian]

If you mean that global communism is inevitable by 2050 (or something like that), then I'm sure tons of communists in 1925 thought it was going to happen by 1950.

And I agree with version that it all sounds very much like religious people predicting the coming of the Kingdom of God, or the Mahdi or whatever their equivalent may be.

Marx also predicted that workers living standarts will keep dropping and dropping until they reach such a miserable level that the workers will bring about revolution through sheer survival instinct. Problem is that the living standarts kept going up and up and essentially, escepcially if you look at the global scale, they are still on that trajectory.

 

[germaphobian]

What actually brought, at least relativley speaking, some sort of prosperity to the non-Western world, was capitalist markets while all the communist experiments ended in somre sort of Pop Pot type of situation, ok, maybe not that dramatic, but deffo nothing too great.

 

[Mr. Tea]

Marx also predicted that workers living standarts will keep dropping and dropping until they reach such a miserable level that the workers will bring about revolution through sheer survival instinct. Problem is that the living standarts kept going up and up and essentially, escepcially if you look at the global scale, they are still on that trajectory.

In China, maybe. In the UK, not so much.

 

[0bleak]

in some ways though - that little powerful computer everyone carries around, that everyone still just refers to as a phone even though it seems no one makes calls anymore - it would be worth millions of dollars decades ago

 

[Mr. Tea]

in some ways though - that little powerful computer everyone carries around, that everyone still just refers to as a phone even though it seems no one makes calls anymore - it would be worth millions of dollars decades ago

Quality of life doesn't work like that, though, does it. Is everyone happier now they've got a smartphone, compared to 20 or 30 years ago? If anything they're just an extra source of anxiety.

 

[Mr. Tea]

There are five-year-olds in this country who've never been washed in warm water.

 

[0bleak]

Quality of life doesn't work like that, though, does it. Is everyone happier now they've got a smartphone, compared to 20 or 30 years ago? If anything they're just an extra source of anxiety.

I'd say that in some ways, it does work like that.
We're just almost completely blind to it, and we just become accustomed to it all so easily.
Not even talking about smartphones specifically, only, however.
I'm just saying, imagine a worldwide permanent blackout these days compared to just 100 years ago and think of what percentage of people would survive now versus then in our respective countries.
I'm not saying that I'm any better (I'm probably much worse, actually) at not taking everything for granted.

 

[thirdform]

If you mean that global communism is inevitable by 2050 (or something like that), then I'm sure tons of communists in 1925 thought it was going to happen by 1950.

And I agree with version that it all sounds very much like religious people predicting the coming of the Kingdom of God, or the Mahdi or whatever their equivalent may be.

no, I meant WW III/brexit being ultrabremain.

 

[thirdform]

I wouldn't be foolish enough to affix a date to the proletarian conquest of power. In terms of the preconditions for global communism, they are already emergent.

This was different to 1925, as you would know if you delved into the history of the politbureau.

 

[thirdform]

Any kind of eschatology, be it religious or secular, is pure nonsense, since everything that exists and will ever exist, is based on complete contingency. Eschatologies are for intellectual cowards who want to ground reality back in all sorts of absolutes. And, yeah, you can trace it all back to this guy - https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Joachim_of_Fiore triadic structure and all.

if by complete contingency you mean chance, it is a contradiction in terms, it is like speaking of complete randomness.

Intellectuals may be cowards, but anti-intellectuals are no less cowardly, even more so as they pledge their undying fealty to refuting intellectuals rather than reversing their determinations.

In fact, this thread is the height of cowardice.

 

[thirdform]

in some ways though - that little powerful computer everyone carries around, that everyone still just refers to as a phone even though it seems no one makes calls anymore - it would be worth millions of dollars decades ago

exactly, and now it is worth so little that it can't even be taken to the marketplace as productive capital. this is the real meaning of Marx's immiseration thesis. Workers living standards only increase by way of junk that rapidly loses its value.

 

[thirdform]

for the peasants of yesteryear it's somewhat different, in that the increase of agricultural productivity decreases the rent of agricultural produce, and allows more of the peasant to take to market what he has produced with her tools. A worker has no such liberty or autonomy precisely because the socialisation of labour necessarily leads to fragmentation and deskilling.

 

[thirdform]

What actually brought, at least relativley speaking, some sort of prosperity to the non-Western world, was capitalist markets while all the communist experiments ended in somre sort of Pop Pot type of situation, ok, maybe not that dramatic, but deffo nothing too great.

This is an argument for communism in the long durée though, not against it. precisely because you can't make an argument against it, at least not with this criterion. Lenin was always clear that where the struggle is between small capital and big capital, big capital and big globalised markets are to be prefered.

More correctly your argument only works against the aborted forms of collectivisation in the countryside — and it is a good and correct argument in this register. collectivisation attempted to instantiate the workers of farms as owners of the enterprise, mondragon fanatics eat your hearts out (big moustache is smiling down from on high!) But worker-managed capitalism is still capitalism, and actually an inefficient form of capitalism at that.

 

[germaphobian]

In China, maybe. In the UK, not so much.

Poverty rates have drastically fallen and the life expectency has risen absolutley everywhere in the last few decades, which isn't the same as to say that there aren't countless and endless problems and which isn't to say that it won't reverse, but what has been achieved, has been achieved through the sheer force of markets not through communist voodoo sciences or something like that, that's all I'm saying.

 

[thirdform]

And I agree with version that it all sounds very much like religious people predicting the coming of the Kingdom of God, or the Mahdi or whatever their equivalent may be.

My persistent and dare I say heroic and valiant efforts to rescue you from the torturous clutches of the biscetti were all in vein. You want to engage in carnal pleasures with the aforementioned biscetti, that much is now axiomatic to all minds troubled by your slovenly apathy. You are a deeply disturbed and obdurate specimen, abjuring all conventions that may have you live like a gentleman and not a monkey!

 

[0bleak]

exactly, and now it is worth so little that it can't even be taken to the marketplace as productive capital. this is the real meaning of Marx's immiseration thesis. Workers living standards only increase by way of junk that rapidly loses its value.

I think maybe you're missing my point.
That you would call it junk reinforces what I'm saying - these exceptionally powerful tools (for example, some people are producing records solely on their phones) are so ubiquitous and common now that we're calling it junk that rapidly loses its value.
and I'm not talking just about phones, but technological progress in general (not that there aren't also downsides).
When "everyone" mostly has access to the same tools that have raised living standards in our countries, they don't seem so great anymore.

 

[shakahislop]

Poverty rates have drastically fallen and the life expectency has risen absolutley everywhere in the last few decades, which isn't the same as to say that there aren't countless and endless problems and which isn't to say that it won't reverse, but what has been achieved, has been achieved through the sheer force of markets not through communist voodoo sciences or something like that, that's all I'm saying.

the picture on poverty is a bit more complicated than that if you're thinking about it globally, which i guess you are. in africa taken as a whole for example the rate of poverty has reduced but the number of people living in poverty has increased in that timeframe, as per the best measurements we have. whether or not that counts as progress isn't straightforward to judge. for me it means that things are getting worse.

 

[germaphobian]

This is an argument for communism in the long durée though, not against it. precisely because you can't make an argument against it, at least not with this criterion. Lenin was always clear that where the struggle is between small capital and big capital, big capital and big globalised markets are to be prefered.

More correctly your argument only works against the aborted forms of collectivisation in the countryside — and it is a good and correct argument in this register. collectivisation attempted to instantiate the workers of farms as owners of the enterprise, mondragon fanatics eat your hearts out (big moustache is smiling down from on high!) But worker-managed capitalism is still capitalism, and actually an inefficient form of capitalism at that.

What underlines this argument is simple self-referentiality or tautology - true communism hasn’t failed; it’s never been tried (except when it fails, which proves it wasn’t true communism); I think it's called No True Scotsman fallacy (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/No_true_Scotsman) which basically makes it unfalsifiable claim, therefore it's a claim of religious nature.

 

[Mr. Tea]

the picture on poverty is a bit more complicated than that if you're thinking about it globally, which i guess you are. in africa taken as a whole for example the rate of poverty has reduced but the number of people living in poverty has increased in that timeframe, as per the best measurements we have. whether or not that counts as progress isn't straightforward to judge. for me it means that things are getting worse.

Well Africa has massive population growth, doesn't it? So even if the rate of poverty is going down, the number living in poverty will obviously rise if the total population is rising faster than the poverty rate is decreasing.

And things like better nutrition and vaccination rates will reduce the child mortality rate, which (at least in the short term) fuels population growth.

 

[germaphobian]

the picture on poverty is a bit more complicated than that if you're thinking about it globally, which i guess you are. in africa taken as a whole for example the rate of poverty has reduced but the number of people living in poverty has increased in that timeframe, as per the best measurements we have. whether or not that counts as progress isn't straightforward to judge. for me it means that things are getting worse.

Is free market to blame for unsustainable population growth patterns? That's kind of everyones free choice, no?