Private Social Media Platform

➽ I use a materialist analysis as my main lens to understand political processes. I observe the power relations and interests of parties involved, the system as a whole with its superstructures, and I use those observations to make predictions and guide alternatives that prevent the same kind of systemic power concentration capitalism creates.

I like what you are saying in regard to analyzing things.
I take issue with your assumption and claim that capitalism creates "systemic power concentration". My taking issue could be my own bias. That bias could be because I have been misinformed about things. If so, then I expect our dialogue to give me reason to re-evalute my bias position.

➽ conceptions of rights

I would like a near future discussion of "rights". With the understanding that "rights" are a human created thing with a purpose, unsaid Said purpose to be examined.

➽ Material analysis much-better incorporates the real political relations everyone experiences.

Material analysis much-better ANALYZES real political relations.

➽ Marxism has evolved a lot in the better part of two centuries. Many of your responses are related to events that occurred later than Marx's analysis.

Many of my responses are because of self-proclaimed Marxists that I have attempted to engage in discussion. They could not and would not present logical points for me to cogitate. As I wrote above, You caused me to think. You are the first Marxian leaning person to give me reason to do so.

➽ Marx's overall framework (dialectical materialism) and many of his specific observations [...] are still very applicable today.

Yes. But before I could affirm your claim I had to cure my nescience in regard to "dialectical materialism". I am relatively well read, yet I had to look this term up. So the failure to explain this is a flaw in the standard Marxian claims. from Greek dialektike (techne) "(art of) philosophical discussion or discourse," fem. of dialektikos "of conversation, discourse," from dialektos "discourse, conversation"

I suspected this from what the word dialectical  sounds/ looks like:
1570s, "language, speech, mode of speech," especially "form of speech of a region or group, idiom of a locality or class" as distinguished from the general accepted literary language, also "one of a number of related modes of speech regarded as descended from a common origin," from French dialecte, from Latin dialectus "local language, way of speaking, conversation," from Greek dialektos "talk, conversation, speech;" also "the language of a country, dialect," from dialegesthai "converse with each other, discuss, argue," from dia "across, between" (see dia-) + legein "speak" from PIE root *leg- (1) "to collect, gather," with derivatives meaning "to speak (to 'pick out words')").

Adding the second word: materialism (n.) 1748, "philosophy that nothing exists except matter" I interpret this as the science of discussing physical reality and not discussing concepts and ideas about physical reality.

➽ [...] his specific observations (such as the tendency of the rate of profit to fall) [...]

This is a claim that needs to be examined. I can not opine without more information... A discussion to get to the truth.

➽ [...] that doesn't mean we can't adapt his framework

His framework was an unknown to me until this discussion where you motivated me to learn more about this framework with these two words; "Marxian analysis". I am still analyzing my anti anti-capitalism bias and my new awareness of that bias.

➽ We can make observations today about the behavior of capitalists using Marxian analysis without limiting ourselves to the information available at the time of Marx.

I agree with making these observations today. I deny your implication that I am focused only on the past. In writing this I became aware that Marxian analysis is not what has been promoted in regard to Marx in the mainstream. Part of my bias. To be examined deeper.

The class identified and labeled capitalist has not been defined to my satisfaction. I do see some negative traits of some persons, human or corporate, that I find would fit in this undefined class of persons.

➽ the changes that followed since then have been largely a product of class struggle

I am not unaware of some instances of this struggle. The hours of what is considered a work day I find is a sub-topic worthy of discussion. Marx did focus on the reality of the working day length and the amount of labor needed to value for value trade labor for subsistence requirements.

In reviewing what I just wrote I'm thinking the class of capitalists may need a more nuanced, detailed definition. I have the same problem of Capital as a class being reified and analyzed as a sole entity as I do with Government also being reified into a sole entity. I use Santa Claus to highlight and show this reification. Santa is not real. It is a concept treated as a real entity. So which mall Santa is the real one?

➽ New approaches have been developed by capitalists to maintain control in response to worker adaptations to resist control.

This statement segues to examining these controls. Who is controlling what, and by what means? Is it fuck the workers because they aren't me? Is it folks with this control have no moral compass? Johnny Five need input.

➽ you mentioned that the capitalist does contribute to production, but the contribution you mentioned is negative. This means that the capitalist extracts, but does not contribute.

Value must be created before it can be extracted.
No means of production, no production. No jobs for the laborer. No value paid to laborers for their labor. No products manufactured for sale to those who need or want what is being created. No value created.

This raises the question for me, What does the math say? Note to self: Do the math: examine in light of above.

➽ This creates inefficiency. If the capitalist is removed, the economy of the system is more efficient. This is why we say capitalists have a parasitic effect.

Please define the inefficiency created. What, specifically, are the traits, properties, attributes, characteristics & elements of the capitalist parasites? I ask this with the assumption that not all humans with capital to invest are in the parasite sub-class.

➽ You called yourself a capitalist when you mentioned you were an owner. I disagree. When you owned the truck, you began operating a socialist business- that is, a business wherein you, the worker, also owned your own capital. Unless you hired your own employees and made the majority of your income by extracting from them, you were not a capitalist.

I will agree that I was not a parasite capitalist.
Socialist leaning folks are really focused on the issue of owning the means of production. I owned my own means of my own production. For this reason "Socialist business" does not align with my understanding of business, nor with my biases. Again I see subtleties and nuances need exploring in the definitions used; which will also explore my biases for a reality check.

➽ Unfortunately, you were operating a socialist business in a capitalist economy.

This comes back to the conundrum of definitions not being precise. As I recall since I'm composing this over several days or weeks, Marxian analysis is about determining the truth of reality.

➽ Had you organized with fellow owner-operators and reached significant scale, it may have been possible to demand better compensation than you had when you were an employee.

If five people demand 25% of a pie, there will not be enough pie for everyone to get 25%. How big is the pie? How to divvy up the pie is at the crux of the Labor - Capital class struggle.

➽ While you may have removed the contradiction between yourself and your employer, you effectively just became a freelance contractor for other capitalists, providing them services directly.

Freelance contractor - Yes. An accurate description that I agree with.

What is the contradiction you are hinting at?

The terms of my first contract were onerous. I was required to remain contracted for a year or get charged $500 for the safety device that they required on my tractor. A safety device that prevented the safety issue called "high-hooking". Explanation upon request.

➽ This might even reduce your overall power, while also increasing your liabilities.

Take something as big as a small home, put it on wheels, and roll it down the road. The issue is Who pays the insurance? Me as the contractor owning my truck, or the employer owning their truck?

The mind sets of employed drivers and lease drivers owning their own tractors are not the same. Having done both for the same big company, Employed drivers are focused on, When am I going to get home, as the tractor owner, Don't send be home - I have tractor payments to pay. I'll tell you when I need to go home.

For another carrier I had a Canadian load coming back to near where I lived. Cross border, tarped load. I said I'll wave at the delivery point as I drive by empty. And I did. I'm not out here to make back-haul fuel.

Dale Eastman I'll take a look at your essay. When I say I'm a Marxist, I mean that I use a materialist analysis as my main lens to understand political processes. I observe the power relations and interests of parties involved, the system as a whole with its superstructures, and I use those observations to make predictions and guide alternatives that prevent the same kind of systemic power concentration capitalism creates. This is opposed to an idealist analysis focused on conceptions of rights that exist only in a vacuum separate from the material conditions to which they're applied. Material analysis much-better incorporates the real political relations everyone experiences.

Dale Eastman for a brief response:
Like I said, Marxism has evolved a lot in the better part of two centuries. Many of your responses are related to events that occurred later than Marx's analysis. Marx's overall framework (dialectical materialism) and many of his specific observations (such as the tendency of the rate of profit to fall) are still very applicable today. But that doesn't mean we can't adapt his framework. Many Marxists have expanded on Capital and applied its principles to the time since. We can make observations today about the behavior of capitalists using Marxian analysis without limiting ourselves to the information available at the time of Marx. I agree that it's important to consider that the early industrial revolution was different, but the changes that followed since then have been largely a product of class struggle, and apply unevenly in the world. Most workers still face labor conditions more similar to those during the early industrial revolution than to those in countries where workers have won concessions through class struggle. This is all a process as workers and capitalists work against each other. New approaches have been developed by capitalists to maintain control in response to worker adaptations to resist control. We can't limit ourselves to only 19th-century data, even if that's all Marx had to go off of.

Dale Eastman you mentioned that the capitalist does contribute to production, but the contribution you mentioned is negative. This means that the capitalist extracts, but does not contribute. This creates inefficiency. If the capitalist is removed, the economy of the system is more efficient. This is why we say capitalists have a parasitic effect.

You used your personal experience as a truck driver, noting that you made more as an employee than as an owner-operator. I think your case can be attributed to economies of scale. You called yourself a capitalist when you mentioned you were an owner. I disagree. When you owned the truck, you began operating a socialist business- that is, a business wherein you, the worker, also owned your own capital. Unless you hired your own employees and made the majority of your income by extracting from them, you were not a capitalist. Unfortunately, you were operating a socialist business in a capitalist economy. Had you organized with fellow owner-operators and reached significant scale, it may have been possible to demand better compensation than you had when you were an employee. While you may have removed the contradiction between yourself and your employer, you effectively just became a freelance contractor for other capitalists, providing them services directly. This might even reduce your overall power, while also increasing your liabilities.

Dale Eastman it's hard to respond to the rest of what you wrote. There are a lot of points here that need addressing. I think it would be easier if you ask some questions or review more modern Marxian analysis.

You attribute the subsistence conditions of workers to monetary policy rather than to capitalists. While I agree monetary policy has an effect, it is not the bulk of exploitation. The bulk of exploitation is done directly by capitalists. When you say government is a power system, yes, it's part of a power system. Its purpose is to assist capitalists in consolidating power. Liberal governments live in the context of the power system that created them - one in which the primary contradiction is between labor and capital. You suggest that most workers earning subsistence wages are unskilled and require education. I'd encourage you to meet migrant workers. They are often university educated, but find that manual labor jobs in imperial core countries pay more than advanced jobs in their home countries. Further, consider why so many workers are uneducated. An educated proletariat is dangerous to capital, as Reagan's advisor warned. I'd encourage you to really observe the skill and efficiency of the so-called warm bodies you mention. Not in the US, but in the world where most production happens. The US is a sliver of global capitalism. Very little labor happens here compared to the rest of the world. You need to consider Bangladesh or the Philippines or Congo in your analysis.

NG when you say, "if they were responsible for their own capital investments and retained ownership of their capital"... they could do that right now, with a worker owned cooperative. Why doesn't it happen more often? I think it relates to JS Mill's second law- that today's wages are paid with a bet on yesterday's capital. A worker is paid a wage to provide a service and they get paid even if the service they provide is towards an enterprise that is risky and doesn't pan out. Workers typically have their tools/capital provided to perform their function- they don't have to bring their own machines and capital to the job. So your posit would only work if workers had to pay a deposit to join the cooperative. Most workers work from paycheck to paycheck so don't reinvest it, "richest man in Babylon" style. That's why allowing the separation of shareholders from workers as a function is important.

I don't mind your comments in that, Marxist thinking is generally flawed but I think you've given it more thought than most, and your arguments don't rely on semantic redefinition. For that I commend you.

RL worker-owned cooperatives within a capitalist system remain isolated. The simple reason we don't see more of them is that workers have very limited access to capital. Socialism requires a fundamental restructuring of institutions to optimize for worker ownership, just as capitalism required a restructuring of institutions when it emerged.

NG When you say, "that workers have very limited access to capital. " What do you say those limits are, and how are they any different from an owner/entrepreneur starting a new business?
BTW did you catch the debate between Gene Epstein and Jacobin's Bhaskar Sunkara re socialism vs capitalism? Gene was a former socialist and suggested that worker cooperatives are actually better placed to poach talent and conduct industrial espionage than the usual stockholder corporation. The reason I believe is that they probably don't succeed is that most workers want the security and blinders of a paycheck without having to take the risks of an owner, and that hierarchy in ownership/executive is a faster decision making process than voting in a worker led cooperative.

How about you explain YOUR purpose in replying to a person you claim you are "just not listening, LOL" to.

Dale Eastman I don’t need to explain anything to you man, you’re just looking for attention and I give you a little because I feel sorry for your pathetic (😉

➽ I don’t need to explain anything to you man,

And yet you accommodated my request. Thank you.

By accommodating my request you've established that your claim of "just not listening" is a lie.

➽ you’re just looking for attention and I give you a little because I feel sorry for your pathetic (😉

Oh do please speculate some more. Why am I allegedly "looking for attention"? What is the actual purpose of this "looking for attention"?

Dale Eastman lol 😂 lots of words to try and prove you’re not in mommies basement, does she bring you chocolate milk?
“ We’re still not listening “

➽ We’re still not listening

Dale Eastman , your cry for help is sad

This may be a private group... Using only initials your bullshit is publicly archived here:
https://www.synapticsparks.info/dialog/index.php?topic=1676.msg16978#msg16978
You don't get called on your failure to focus by name... Regardless your Votard words and desire to be enslaved by arguing which tyrant you want to rule you is noted.