Reading the Manifisto now, I have a few questions.
Why does Marx assume the Proletariat can run anything by themselves? Assuming they do kill all the bourgeoisie, won't they have simply replaced them as a new leisure class? Does he seriously think they'll just keep happily working at their factories and producing goods for nobody now that they own the means of production? The only reason those factories existed in the first place is because the bourgeoisie told them to build them.
Factories and farms produce surplus, surplus leads to exploitation. Resources are either going to go to waste, or will be distributed to a portion of the population which does not work.
It sounds a lot like the "Buying your own brass cannon and going into the brass cannon polishing business for yourself." problem.
>>6316414
>Manifisto
>>6316414
>Why does Marx assume the Proletariat can run anything by themselves?
Because they can
>Assuming they do kill all the bourgeoisie, won't they have simply replaced them as a new leisure class?
And?
>Does he seriously think they'll just keep happily working at their factories and producing goods for nobody now that they own the means of production?
People still work at Cooperatives in manufacturing and such now so yes, also most Marxists believe that Socialism will change the economic system so that we don't really need most labour and most will be replaced as fast as possible by machinery where now you still need a wage class for the system to work. Under Socialism there would be no problem abolishing 90% of labour
>The only reason those factories existed in the first place is because the bourgeoisie told them to build them
And the reason they will exist under Socialism is to provide people with a decent standard of life. Socialism is a pro-technology movement.
>Resources are either going to go to waste, or will be distributed to a portion of the population which does not work.
Why? and what's the problem there? It's important to note that Marxism hopes to build a far less materialist culture, since Capitalism is predicated on a culture of extreme consumption. Most people would still do some work under Marxism, but it is hoped that working hours on shit like maintenance and such are cut vastly cut down while people have free time to do work on things they actually want to do.
>>6316414
>Reading the Manifisto now, I have a few questions.
Yeah you fucked up.
You should have done Theses on Feuerbach, Critique of the Gotha Programme, Socialism: Utopian and Scientific first.
>Why does Marx assume the Proletariat can run anything by themselves?
Because he paid attention to French workers collectives in the 1820s in his reading, and knew immediately of the capacity of peasants to run their own Mir via readings from Russian society.
>Assuming they do kill all the bourgeoisie, won't they have simply replaced them as a new leisure class?
You do realise we don't need to "kill" them.
Here's a question: as the proletariat attains the power to repress or transform all previous classes (not just the bourgeoisie), why are they going to stop engaging in their economic relationship? How does the class that feeds all, clothes all, houses all and services all suddenly going to become a leisure class? The proletariat is far less differentiated than other classes—the chance of significant internal divisions amongst a revolutionary proletariat are lessened for this reason. Look at how "inexpensive" the Soviet ruling class were forced to be by the Soviet working class; or how "inexpensive" labour fakirs are compared to the bourgeoisie.
>Does he seriously think they'll just keep happily working at their factories and producing goods for nobody now that they own the means of production?
The Marx of Manifesto believes this in part, but also believes that the means of production themselves will be transformed. Later Marx starts to approach the idea that the abolition of value itself is important and that work itself will be abolished as such, requiring a deeper faster transformation of what it is to do things in large groups to get shit done—like changing the factories to be places of freedom instead of slavery.
>The only reason those factories existed in the first place is because the bourgeoisie told them to build them.
I like the way you impute material change to the mere command, not the enacting. Have you ever "thought" a shit into being?
>Factories and farms produce surplus, surplus leads to exploitation.
This is why you should have started as above, then moved onto Wages Price and Profit and Contribution to a Critique. The proletariat, unlike all previous classes, has a purely negative relationship to ownership—there is no property form in which the proletariat experiences surplus, we simply want to get rid of it.
Leisure and pleasure are indistinguishable when you control your own exertion in collectivity.
Factories and farms produce surplus. No.
According to Marxists, surplus value is the difference between what something is sold for and how much the laborer was paid (with adjustments for the price of raw material). Since there are no owners of capital, everyone can share the "profits."
Also, the proletariat would no longer be a class since the class system is abolished under socialism. You wouldn't have to kill the bourgeoisie, just appropriate their assets.
Finally, everyone would just be working for themselves as a group. If I can work hard and create more widgets, then we will all have more widgets to use.
Here's a tip:
The reason Marx became a famous philosopher was because of his infectious passion for social justice and the plight of the oppressed. Marxism is really quite flawed as an intellectual system and I think Popper lays out some very good reasons why. And I say that as someone who admires Marx in a lot of ways.
Ever notice how some people get a little too taken with Nietzsche's prose and feel the need to engage in apologetics for some of the nasty shit he said? They go, "oh well he's awesome in this respect so he must be awesome in this respect to." There's a very similar thing going on with Marx. People see how he sacrificed himself for the cause of social justice and his burning outrage over things like child labor, and this blinds them to how silly some of his intellectual concepts (i.e. dictatorship of the proletariat) are.
Hierarchy is inherently healthy and there's nothing wrong with class as long as the poor are well taken care of and the classes aren't hereditary. Any Marxist society would inevitably evolve a ruling caste of intellectuals and bureaucrats, and so it should, because despite all the prejudices of our era, hierarchy is healthy. The more intelligent and talented among us earn certain privileges by virtue of it and you're asking for a descent into barbarism if you go against this reality.
>>6316414
Don't read that shit OP. Its the Drivels of an angry jew.
>dialectics
kek, the man is a religious Calvinist compared to anything legitimate.
>>6316461
>Because he paid attention to French workers collectives in the 1820s in his reading, and knew immediately of the capacity of peasants to run their own Mir via readings from Russian society.
I'm not denying that, what I'm saying is, if they run things. They aren't proles anymore, but Petite bourgeoisie. Actual communism would be the removal of the Proletariat not the Bourgeoisie. Either people become self sufficient and produce no surplus, or technological industrialization results in a maximum production with a minimum of labor. In both cases, the only existing class is one that would look more like nobility than peasants.
> Have you ever "thought" a shit into being?
No, but people more powerful than me in the past have ordered it, often at the cost of human lives. Having people with weapons do what you tell them seems to be the most effective way to get anything done in any era of history.
>>6316490
I agree with a lot of Marx's arguments, but not the conclusions he comes to about peasants and factory workers somehow taking over the world.
More likely I see either global war or famine eliminating most of the human population with the survivors living in a more egalitarian sustenance based society.
Or technology eliminating jobs until the maximum production is created with the minimum amount of labor. The Bourgeoisie would then either give the Proles welfare, making them Bourgeoisie; or let them starve to death, eliminating them.
In both cases, the classless society is only the Bourgeois and not the Proletariat. If you believe in primitive communism/noble savage/paleo lifestyle stuff, then this is the way humanity has been for the majority of it's existence, and that so called "history" is only a temporary phenomena created by the introduction agriculture and industrialization.
>>6316509
>if they run things. They aren't proles anymore, but Petite bourgeoisie.
Why, do they suddenly personally own capital and offer the results of their effort as a product in the commodity form? Fuck off they do. Like with film theft, 4chan, free software, home brew, home gardening, working bees, bowling clubs or revolutionary workers councils they give away the results of their effort without expecting recompense. That's not commodity production and they're not a petits bourgeois.
>either people become self-sufficient and produce no surplus
Well, given that "surplus" accumulation is a side effect of class society, yes surplus accumulation would not occur. The results of effort matching collectively expressed desires would occur.
>or technological industrialisation
It isn't just physical commodities we will replace, mate. Services are high labour input and they too will be decommoditised in the abolition of the value form. No wage, no price, no capital, no labour.
>have ordered it
That's nice, I ordered fourteen bananas by yelling out my door. Nothing material resulted. I then walked down the road and handed a representative of my own alienated human activity in exchange for a representation of other people's alienated human activity. The result being 14 bananas.
Stop treating the bourgeoisie as if they have uncontested social control and merely will things into being.
>Having people with weapons do what you tell them seems to be the most effective way to get anything done in any era of history.
It is the least effective way to get anything done in history. No man with a gun stands behind me at work, no men on horseback superintended the peasant at her spinning, no body of armed men stood over the slaves of Egypt in Roman times.
Ideology, Religion, Civic Virtue caused me to wage labour, the peasant to tithe and corvee, the slave to exert.
>>6316539
>Or technology eliminating jobs until the maximum production is created with the minimum amount of labor. The Bourgeoisie would then either give the Proles welfare
That happened in 1890 in Germany, in 1905 in Australia, in 1920 in the United States for whites and 1960 for blacks, in 1930 for the British and 1935 for the Soviet worker.
>the classless society is only the Bourgeois
…
No discussion is possible with you because you have a personal and highly atypical use of social science terms. You may as well define up as down.
>>6316555
>It is the least effective way to get anything done in history. No man with a gun stands behind me at work,
The man at work works because his father told him that is what a man must do, because his grandfather father would whip his father if he didn't, because his grandfather's grandfather was forced to work at gunpoint.
Our society abstracts the violence away, but we must not forget where these ideologies come from.
>>6316568
Our society still spends more energy trying to discourage people from collecting welfare, and trying to create un-nessary labor, because our ideology still thinks toil is an inherent good.
We haven't seen a true welfare state yet. One which recognizes inherent value in humanity and pays it's citizens simply to exist. At least not in America.
>>6316594
>The man at work works because his father told him that is what a man must do
No, friend. I like not being evicted and eating. That's Marx's point regarding wage labour. This isn't violence, this is starvation.
>human nature.
Fuck this, I'm out, someone else deal with this garbage.
>>6316606
Forcing somebody to starve is very close to violence, particularly when you could easily feed them, and they are only starving because of conditions you created. And the power structure which forces you to either work or starve was created using violence.
>human nature.
When did I bring up human nature?
>>6316626
>inherent value in humanity
You're also functionally illiterate.
Capital isn't created in violence, it is created from my working day, both in the surplus and non-surplus value produced. Violence doesn't keep me fearing starvation, the fact that life without a wage is materially unimaginable due to the value form's penetration of my entire world keeps me working.
>>6316509
>Having people with weapons do what you tell them seems to be the most effective way to get anything done in any era of history.
In Anti-Duhring, Engels explained that “force” or “power” requires material instruments—weapons. Engels, who was a serious student of military science, went into considerable detail in describing the development of these weapons up until his own day. Engels explained that all these weapons—and those that have been developed since Engels’ time—are the product of human labor or human economy. Today, weapons ranging from your local policeman’s nightstick all the way up to the most powerful of nuclear weapons—the hydrogen bomb—are all produced by human labor.
Without the human labor that produces these instruments of violence, there would be no “power.” In addition, the capitalist state requires money to purchase the instruments of “power.” And the money the state needs to purchase weapons is based on the money commodity gold. The gold, if it is to function as money, must be produced by human labor just like the weapons it is used directly or indirectly to purchase.
>>6316490
>Its the Drivels of an angry jew.
No, you're thinking of Mein Kampf.
>>6316632
>inherent value in humanity
Some cultures think humans existing is a good thing by itself. Others don't, It has nothing to do with human nature.
You seem to be the one who lacks reading comprehension.
>>6316699
If it is cultural, it doesn't inhere dickhead.
>>6316451
>he thinks that workers will accept their shitty way of life sustain others instead of earning each paycheck for themselves or their family
>>6316714
forgot a word
>>6316709
People from different cultures can have different beliefs about what is and isn't inherent.
One does not have to subscribe to any of those beliefs to talk about it.
>>6316736
And yet you propose that the inherent value of humanity is a universal across all societies:
>We haven't seen a true welfare state yet. One which recognizes inherent value in humanity and pays it's citizens simply to exist. At least not in America.
A "true" welfare state exhibits a behaviour not seen in any culture, and not contextualised as an actual, or predictable, culturally specific belief.
Fuck off, admit that you were wrong in this point, reformulate the argument, move on.
>>6316646
The argument that power is a product of labor is correct, but this doesn't support the Marx's claims about the proletariat as a distinct class nor does it in any way refute the other anon's argument.
In the first place, power in the general sense does not require a laborer class. In the very earliest times power was exercised by fist and stones, and thus there was no manufacturing involved in the process. Later, when manufacturing did come into the process, the builders of military wares were part of the army; that is to say, part of the nobility, so certainly not bourgeoisie. Today, there may be actual proletariat involved in the arms business (though I'd imagine most in such a technical field are middle class at least) but that doesn't contradict my GENERAL argument. The labor of an oppressed class is not essential to the wielding of power over said class. If the laborer classes simply went on strike the oppressor classes could wait it out, and when a few workers inevitably broke rank, they'd be ridiculously well paid because the other laborers striking would have squeezed the market. That would lead to the collapse of the whole strike effort.
In the second place, you're ignoring the fact that there are different types of labor. High-end planning is more valuable than grunt work. Anybody with a plan and some level of influence can get laborers to put his plan into action. The workers have nothing to do with what make's Joe C. Capitalist's textile mill different from Richard Richman's textile mill; the difference in colors, quality, the style of the clothes produced, etc, all come from decisions made my management. The proletariat have a role to play collectively but their role is completely fungible and "un-formed", as offensive as it is to say it, they're basically like farm animals (yes I realize how bad that sounds and I considered not posting it but I realized that it was crucial enough to my argument to keep it in).
This is important because it has grave, grave consequences for Marx's idea of "dictatorship of the proletariat." If the proletariat do provide 'mindless' labor, then the question arises; "why aren't they doing labor that requires intellectual skills"? And unfortunately I think the answer is that they are less talented or motivated than their oppressors. And unfortunately this means that their oppressors can manipulate them endlessly, unless they're under the management of supervision of a sympathetic camp of bourgeoisie, and the odds that this camp would stop controlling them after they achieved the revolution are extremely low. And the idea that this "class" of intelligent bourgeoisie-cum-revolutionaries should cease to exist is very questionable; societies without leaders very quickly degenerate into barbarism.
>>6316747
>And yet you propose that the inherent value of humanity is a universal across all societies:
When did I do this?
>reformulate the argument
Industrial capitalism in america has been showing a tendency to value capital over labor. It could be possible to pay everyone a living wage for free, but this idea is opposed in America for cultural reasons. (Some countries in Europe are experimenting with it)
However as technology progresses, the amount of jobs will continue to shrink and unemployment will continue to rise. Again, for cultural reasons, politicians on both sides talk about "creating jobs." but this is an exercise in futility.
If these trends continue, we will eventually reach a point where a minimum of labor produces a maximum of production. A culture which thinks it's okay for humans to be happy without working, will implement a universal wage and thus ending the Proletariat and leaving a single class society. A culture which does not will let them starve to death, resulting in a similar outcome with less people.
This is the result of the material conditions of western civilization and has nothing to do with anybody's nonsensical ideas on how human nature works.
>>6316414
two words: pure ideology
>>6316787
>societies without leaders very quickly degenerate into barbarism.
I like most of your post, and you do point out the problem with most previous attempts at communism, (Lets trust a group of privileged bureaucrats to more fairly distribute things! Surely they won't be any worse than the previous group of privileged bureaucrats!) but you got dangerously close to the MAH HUMAN NATURE argument at the end.
There have been egalitarian societies in the past, they may have been rare, but they existed. And they could easily exist again.
>>6316787
>power was exercised by fist and stones, and thus there was no manufacturing involved in the process.
"manufacturing" should be read here as an attempt to "naturalise" stones, as this is a just-so story about an imagined early human endeavour.
In reality, the selection of the natural world for use is a human activity, an effort, which in capital is productive. Tinder may be selected from the ground, such an act in a value form society is labour.
>the builders of military wares were part of the army
No they fucking weren't. Armies didn't exist. Copper smiths were religious in position, and not religious as part of the religious elite. Yet another just-so story.
This entire post is mythic ideology—none of it is historically informed.
>>6316793
>A culture which thinks it's okay for humans to be happy without working, will implement a universal wage and thus ending the Proletariat and leaving a single class society. A culture which does not will let them starve to death, resulting in a similar outcome with less people.
>This is the result of the material conditions of western civilization and has nothing to do with anybody's nonsensical ideas on how human nature works.
That's better. Notice how you have to create real subjects in history "a society" "a culture" in order to express this in language, instead of hiding the subject?
>>6316840
> Fabri were workers, craftsmen or artisans in Roman society and descriptions of early Roman army structure (Legion assumed) attributed to king Servius Tullius describe there being two centuriae of fabri under an officer, the praefectus fabrum.
> The Roman army also took part in building projects for civilian use. There were sound reasons for the use of the army in building projects: primarily, that if they weren't directly engaged in military campaigns, the legions were largely unproductive, costing the Roman state large sums of money.
IDK man if this account is correct it seems to suggest that the military not only made its own shit but also made most of the civilian infrastructure as well.
>>6316853
>implying that the subject isn't implicitly assumed to be modern western civilization unless otherwise stated.
>implying your pedantry adds anything to this discussion.
>>6316840
>"manufacturing" should be read here as an attempt to "naturalise" stones, as this is a just-so story about an imagined early human endeavour.
As dumb as the whole "Noble savage" and "early humans behaved just like I wanted them to." is. The reaction to it is just as dumb. "You can't say anything about the circumstances which led to our current society without making shit up. What is archeology? What is history?"
Do you deny that fists and stones do not require factories and that any human culture could figure out how to smash each other over the head relatively easily?
That's not making assumptions about "human nature." that's a frank look at the materialist reality of sharp rocks laying around on the ground.
Violence doesn't have to be inherent to be easy.
>>6316816
Tribal societies weren't egalitarian in any feel good sense. Their hierarchies were a lot more horizontal than the ones we see in monarchies, for example, but the underlying reason does not flatter communism. Basically these societies are dominated by tribal conflict and blood feuds and when resources are scarce, usually some kind of war breaks out. Instead of lower classes they simply had people who died in the last resource war. I know that communists like citing the Native Americans as support of 'primitive communism theory' but their reading of what these societies were like is extremely selective and superficial.
>>6316892
"Primitive Communism" isn't just an olde tyme form of future Communism, or a cypher. It also predates tribe societies (Early Anatomically Modern Humans were hunter-gatherers with practical egalitarian labor divisions without, as far as we know, hierarchy/ies).
>>6316944
Can you be sure they never fought when resources were scarce? Archeological evidence exists of early hominids who died from weapon blows likely caused by other hominids.
>>6316892
Your point? As you said, tribal societies tend to have flatter hierarchies than other cultures which came after them.
Yes they will fight when resources are scarce, but that's something that can be observed in many societies, and is in fact encouraged by capitalism.
Feudalism and capitalism claim their hierarchical structure is an effective defense against famine and war, but it clearly isn't. Asside from a small elite, we get all the disadvantages and none of the advantages.
A good model for future Communism might be tribal social structure, with modern technology preventing resource shortages which would lead to conflict. Nobody has any power over anybody else, and nobody has any reason to desire it.
Marx's Manifesto is outdated and his ideas on automation lack technological vision. He was a bit smarter about technology than similar but he has long been outgrown by the real revolution: AI.
>>6316944
>Can you be sure they never fought when resources were scarce?
Resources are always scarce in hunter-gatherer societies, which is why they are practice common ownership. Egalitarian relations doesn't mean violence between groups, or even between individuals in a group, can't possibly exist.
>>6316944
Small groups of primitive people could live in egalitarian societies. Does this give us any indicator as to the success of communism in the future? Isn't the world now infinitely more complex? I mean in terms of education, to be a professional; to manage and maintain and innovate modern technology. The march of knowledge makes things ever more complex. Wouldn't this create a larger gap than ever between those capable of understanding it and those not able?
>>6317056
Yes, but this reality highlights a weakness of at least some forms of communism: once common ownership is introduced, there can still be oppression. Marxism isn't just some autistic attempt to replace one economic system with another, it's ultimately based on hope that common ownership will lead to a better future, and the realities primitive communism call that into question.
>>6317084
Again, Primitive Communism is not a cypher for Communism proper. Communism is achieved after Socialism has been achieved and fully developed, meaning a post-scarcity society where workers have dissolved class, private property, and the state. Primitive Communism is a survival organization that develops into tribal societies and all subsequent stages because those societies developed modes of production that develop class and labor division societies.
>>6317106
It's not in Marx and Engels' writings on the topic but it is in the minds of many modern day Marxists. When I criticize Marxism I'm usually criticizing the movement, not Marx and Engels. It's only a good thing to talk about *THE MOVEMENT* when you speak of a religion or ideology, not the texts. Equating social movements with their revered texts is basically an inverted no-true-scotsman fallacy. And I think it's more or less clear that modern day Marxism has a tendency to idealize the fuck out of tribal life.
>>6317122
Who are you thinking of precisely?
>>6317122
This isn't a problem in Australia.
>>6316469
>the poor are well taken care of
then they wouldn't be, you know, poor.
>Hierarchy is inherently healthy
There's that word again. Considering hierarchy is the allocation of who gets to be healthy and who doesn't, this is ludicrous.
>>6316451
>also most Marxists believe that Socialism will >change the economic system so that we don't >really need most labour and most will be >replaced as fast as possible by machinery
So Marx was a sci-fi writer.
I'm dumb, but interested...It fine and all with the factory work, the automatons and the living wage to exist.
How would we encourage surgeons to do their job?
Altruism?
What about innovations in technology that aren't interesting to discover due to leisure, but through sheer monetary persistence.
If it's not through leisure, then who picks up the task?
>>6318471
>How would we encourage surgeons to do their job?
>Altruism?
That's how they're encouraged at the moment. They earn less than teachers on hourly.
>>6317553
Most of Marx's writings were centered around a critique of capitalism rather than theorizing about fulture societies. Lenin emphasizes that what seperated Marx from his Utopian contemporaries is primarily because Marx did not make up ideas on a whim, and relied purely on previous exeirience.
Much of what Marxism is is Marxists incorporating and interpreting's Marx's writings to contemporary social conditions.
About 90 percent of a modern western economy is completely unnecessary, producing shit that doesn't better the human experience in any way and that people have to give up the majority of their life and happiness to produce. We could just like, stop that, and focus on the things that matter.
I think successful communism is really just doing as Epicurus said on a societal scale.
>he says on an electronic device with access to the internet.
But I would much much rather be talking to a actual person.
>>6318488
fucking disgusting.
>>6317122
Marxists tend to seperate the terms with Marxism, the philosophy, and with Communism, the movement.
The only real exception to this is for contrast between the Marxist Communists to the Anarchist Communists.
>>6318488
American hospitals were once run by volunteers.
>>6318513
British hospitals were once theocratic suicide-war cults. My dog was once half semen.
Let me rephrase it...how does a Marxist society motivate a genius brain surgeon, one that changes the profession forever, that sees it as work he would rather avoid because there is the option of sitting on his ass posting on an image board instead of working in gore all day.
If there is no compensation apart from altruism, how can he be motivated?
>>6316414
My nigga Icycalm got ya:
526. The argument between socialism and capitalism comes down to this: to those who, when left to their own devices, naturally rise above the mean, and to those who fall below. The former will be proponents of capitalism, the latter of socialism. The former are talented and hard-working, the latter talentless and lazy. And all this is proved by the failure of socialism, and in particular that of communism: its ultimate manifestation — as if a group of habitual losers at the individual level would be able to create, by pooling together all their weaknesses and failures, a winning combination!
But it is plain that, as they lose on the individual level — as individuals — they will ultimately lose on the group level too. The only reason they temporarily succeeded at a few points in history is because they were facing even greater losers: a complacent and degenerate aristocracy.
I finished the manifesto yesterday, but my mind gave up halfway through when Marx claimed that the proletariat is being fucked in the ass by the bourgeoisie on every corner because the prices of everything are too high. Fucking illiterate cunt. Socialists never can into economics.
That being said I will still read das Kapital.
>>6318542
One issue I have with people is that they assume that most people in highly skilled proffesions become what they became purely because of the money. People don't realize how bloody difficult it is to get a medical degree, and those that do tend to be the sort who dor are already either interested in the subjects or increadibly devoted in obtaining a degree in the first place.
The major block of course, is actually having the funds to go through with it all. If education was free for all. regardless of income, there would, be unsuprisingly, more doctors.
I'd like to remind people (inb4 ultra-left & trot butthurt) that Cuba actually because access to education for free actually have a surplus in doctors.
The problem isn't with high-skilled labour, it's with low-skilled labor (construction workers, factory workers, etc) who actually do have a lack of material incentive to obtain a job, at least in pseudo-socialist Cuba.
![jimmy-mcmilan-the-rent-is-too-damn-high-new-york-governor-debate[1].jpg](https://i.imgur.com/L3SzMjw.jpg "jimmy-mcmilan-the-rent-is-too-damn-high-new-york-governor-debate[1].jpg")
>>6318551
>>6318542
You assume that people will demand services of others.
You assume that contemporary society is a meritocracy.
You assume that people don't enjoy working in gore.
You assume that people don't enjoy using their capacities.
You assume a lot. It makes you look like an arse.
>>6318560
I did not assume that, I meant that they 'stayed' at their profession because of motivational, often, monetary reasons.
If you take an interest in the medical profession, your study for the most part ends with the degree...most people will not keep the same interest throughout their entire live.
If I suddenly find myself terribly interested in being a rollercoaster tester, I would have the option to become one under the free education thing...but after being declaired a genius rollercoaster inspector, unmissable even...after a while, I might tire of it and abandon it because my interest has faded and there is nothing for me to learn or motivate me to continue.
I just interested if Marx said anything about motivating 'unmissable' people, people that need to be either motivated or coerced into performing their talent.
>>6318551
If they were smart they wouldn't be socialists.
>>6318542
>how does a Marxist society motivate a genius brain surgeon, one that changes the profession forever
A genius is already self motivated.
>that sees it as work he would rather avoid because there is the option of sitting on his ass posting on an image board instead of working in gore all day.
How is this person a good brain surgeon?
If somebody is good at something, they will probably also enjoy doing it.
If somebody would rather be doing something else, they are probably doing a shit job.
Even in capitalism the most successful people are people who enjoy what they do and would probably do it for free if they didn't need money.
The majority of workers under capitalism however wish they were doing something else, and produce only mediocre or sub-par work, while they constantly dream of something else, and tell themselves that their "real life" hasn't started yet.
>>6318569
You assume the complete opposite of those.
>>6319667
The difference is his assumptions are less wrong.
>>6318542
How about all the people who have to do mindless drone work to have a slary? How about all the potential new medicines that are ignored because a lab has the patent and prefers to sell a more expensive or already produced product? How about all the people making discoveries that now belong to the company that gave them a room to work in and have no say in the implementation because they aren't allowed to present their own work?
Any system fails when you have a shit implementation.
The Manifesto you should have read in highschool. Read the Paris Manuscripts brah. And If you want to know how to implement things so much, look at the Critique of the Gotha Program.
>>6318488
>They earn less than teachers on hourly.
I don't think so bub. Not that that would a bad thing- giving doctors the opportunity to make profit off their practice is beyond unethical, as we now clearly see in the capitalist nations.
>>6318542
>how does a Marxist society motivate
You're thinking ahistorically. Human beings didn't invent medicine nor make it into science for their own profit. "Motivation" is a very modern aberration of thought.
>>6318606
>not a gif
why such evil?
>>6316431
