The Philosophy Now Forum

"I'm interested in your source for this information. What is it?"

My own brain. I go hard like F. Engels, mate. I go back in time and watch what folks do on a typical Tuesday. Who's doing what, what they own, who lives where. I look at the kinds of tasks they do and what they get in return. I see the emergence of a new privileged class in the agrarian cultures that make a significant living without contributing anything tangible to the chains of production.

Today, it's especially obscene because a computer can do in half the time what a whole fifth floor of Tesla reps and admins can do. Why are they even there sucking up the payroll.

promethean75 wrote: ↑Wed Sep 23, 2026 11:49 pm "I'm interested in your source for this information. What is it?"
My own brain.

I had no idea your brain had a reliable record of pre-history in it. You should call the Smithsonian: they seem to be lacking what you say you have.

This can't be done without writing a yuge essay, sir. You're aksing me to condense fifteen thousand years of analysis of the material relations of human beings into a single phone typed post at a dying philosophy forum.

All i can give you are the cliff notes. The beginning of the end began when groups started accumulating surplus stock of what they produced and grew. A new managerial class emerged that would also become the administrators of law. By now, they are a small town (no longer a village) with quickly growing populations, so ordinances and laws need to be made. Incidentally, the new managerial class that is responsible for organizing distribution and trade of the surplus produced by the laboring class becomes the ones who create the laws. Farmers, metal workers, weavers, butchers, they don't make the laws because they're busy working.

We have three distinct types of proletariat now. The laborer, the POleece, and the bookkeeping table jockey. The next new class to emerge is the soldier. But a town may sit in a valley for generations without ever being invaded or fucked with by foreigners. If it does, it stays relatively socialist and the most privileged class are the table jockeys... and only because they labor less.

The soldier class is born of two necessities. Either y'all were attacked, and y'alls POleece got an epic FAIL, or y'all got itchy feet and wanted to strike out into the great unknown. Maybe cross that mountain range and see what y'all find, etc.

About this stage is when the first appearances of the real bourgeoisie are made. Back home, the managerial class and the soldier class form the basis of the government and have the most privilege. Newly conquered regions are annexed, and land is divided out between the families of the managerial and soldier class, while laborers might migrate there to work.

The bourgeoisie are those that end up as property owners who, in exchange for the occupant's labor, promises to defend the land rented to them against foreign invaders. Invariably, they come from the managerial and soldier class.

If you fast forward to the factories, you see what's going on. Workers are moved in to occupy them. They will 'rent' wherever they stay when not in the factory. They own absolutely nothing, occupy the cities and towns by the thousands, but produce everything you see around you. I'm like, wuuuuh?

A far cry from what it was like back home when we just started accumulating surplus and settled down. Didn't have to pay rent, no enforced quotas, free local trading of goods, and no taxes.

Now I'm working twice as much for half as much in return, and i don't even own the shack i live in... which i am often locked out of.

It's all about the army, boss. That's how empires build and the bourgeoisie breed like rabbits. Peasants and tradesmen won't dispute the rule of their king when it was the valor of him and his army that won the land his lord was so generous to let him till. But this kind of cult of personality shit doesn't last long as mercantilism and capitalism have shown us.

But to a worker, what's the difference between a feudal lord and an Applebee's boss? They're functionally the same. Ergo, capitalism did nothing for the worker and only changed the 'Duke' into an 'employer' and 'landlord'.

promethean75 wrote: ↑Thu Sep 24, 2026 4:56 pm You're aksing me to condense fifteen thousand years of analysis of the material relations of human beings into a single phone typed post at a dying philosophy forum.

I didn't ask you to do anything. I just said you should call the Smithsonian. They don't know what you say you know.

All i can give you are the cliff notes.

Not even. All you can give me is a made-up excuse for Marxism. Even Marx himself didn't do the story THAT badly.

If you fast forward to the factories, you see what's going on. Workers are moved in to occupy them. They will 'rent' wherever they stay when not in the factory. They own absolutely nothing, occupy the cities and towns by the thousands, but produce everything you see around you.

Congratulations. You just described the situation in about 1780, in almost nowhere.

A far cry from what it was like back home when we just started accumulating surplus and settled down. Didn't have to pay rent, no enforced quotas, free local trading of goods, and no taxes.

Yeah? Where was "home"?

promethean75 wrote: ↑Thu Sep 24, 2026 5:12 pm But to a worker, what's the difference between a feudal lord and an Applebee's boss?

Well, feudal lords don't pay you. They also don't accept "no" for answer, and won't let you leave. They don't have medical plans, or insurance plans, or retirement funds. And maybe they sell your kids.

But yeah, other than everything, they're exactly the same.

"Even Marx himself didn't do the story THAT badly."

Nor did he do it that quickly.

"You just described the situation in about 1780, in almost nowhere."

I took you back 10,000 years and then brought you all the way to the filthy streets of London in a thousand words or less.

"(a) Well, feudal lords don't pay you. (b) They also don't accept "no" for answer and won't let you leave. (c) They don't have medical plans, or insurance plans, or retirement funds. (d) And maybe they sell your kids."

(a) Feudal lordz pay their peasant tenants by loaning them the land they're on and protecting them while they're on it.

(b) you could leave, but you wouldn't dare... not with barbarians roaming about. Not sure about being arrested if you tried, though. Sounds a little exaggerated. Wouldn't the Duke of Hurl just put another fam on that farm or something?

(c) citizens of his majesty's kingdom have full access to the king's physicians if they require medical attention. Good luck getting in, though. Property is insured by the king's POleece insofar as they can protect it. Retirement plans don't exist, but you don't really need them. Your property - what your lord lets you have - is insured and protected by his lordship's mighty hand. If you have no family to see after you in your old age (which is about 60), you move into the city and become a beggar. That's no worse than some of the retirement plans I've seen around here.

(d) if the Duke of Hurl does sell your childrens, you can bet it's a capitalist that's buyin' em.

Immanuel Can wrote: ↑Wed Sep 23, 2026 1:45 pm

promethean75 wrote: ↑Wed Sep 23, 2026 1:43 pm Exploiting is everywhere and part of nature.

Yeah, sure: you're vegan.

I mean YOU. Tell me how YOU are being exploited.

You sought the job.
You signed the contract.
You are paid what you signed for.
You can leave anytime, with no penalty.

How are you being exploited? And why don't you just leave, if you feel that way?

You make a valid point. However, Marx uses a different method than asking workers if they "feel" exploited to calculate how much a capitalist "exploits" from the workers. For example: According to Marx, the many billions of dollars that Musk earns every year from his companies could just as easily be reduced, and the surplus could be distributed to those who work in the businesses he owns and operates.

Concrete example:

According to what I Googled:

Elon Musk accumulates approximately $400 billion in wealth per year.

Elon Musk's companies (combined) employ approximately 150,000 people.

If $300 billion per year of Musk's earnings were spread out evenly among the employees (leaving Musk with $100 billion per year in earnings), then that would be $300 billion divided by $150K. 300 billion divided by 150K = $2,000,000 per employee (assuming some employees aren't given a little more than others to reward extra effort or skill).

So if Musk made only $100 billion per year, giving all his employees an extra $2 million per year, Marx would argue that it would be more beneficial to employees. He might also try to make the case that it might be better for the economy if every employee had an extra $2 million per year to spend on consumer products.

It seems like a compelling argument to me. But perhaps I'm not seeing something that would detract from what appears to be a better scenario.

OMG I did that before just to see how much everyone would get if you split up Musk's bank and I almost fainted. Please don't ever post those numbers again. It's obscene beyond wordz.

Gary Childress wrote: ↑Thu Sep 24, 2026 9:38 pm According to Marx, the many billions of dollars that Musk earns every year from his companies could just as easily be reduced, and the surplus could be distributed to those who work in the businesses he owns and operates.

I didn't know Marx knew Musk. What a surprise.

Immanuel Can wrote: ↑Thu Sep 24, 2026 10:12 pm

Gary Childress wrote: ↑Thu Sep 24, 2026 9:38 pm According to Marx, the many billions of dollars that Musk earns every year from his companies could just as easily be reduced, and the surplus could be distributed to those who work in the businesses he owns and operates.

I didn't know Marx knew Musk. What a surprise.

That's an evasion, Immanuel, hardly an argument in a reputable philosophy forum. The question I ask of you is: am I fundamentally wrong? Is the math I used fundamentally wrong? If not, then why would the scenario Marx gives us in economics not be a better scenario for society overall?

"I didn't know Marx knew Musk. What a surprise"

In a letter to Engels, Marx once spoke of a pasty supercapitalist who would look like skeletor in a mininalist logo-free black ballcap coming in the next 200 years.

Gary, why are they suffering under Musk? Why don’t they go to North Korea to live in socialism?

I got this, Gary.

That is a complex question. We don't say they are suffering but that they would be pleasuring more if you removed Musk.

We do not advise going to North Korea if a socialist country is the desired destination. North Korea has never been and never will be socialist. But that's not all. It's the polar opposite of socialism... the most unsocialist a society can get. You couldn't give less control to the working classes than what is given to them in North Korea.

Gary Childress wrote: ↑Thu Sep 24, 2026 10:17 pm

Immanuel Can wrote: ↑Thu Sep 24, 2026 10:12 pm

Gary Childress wrote: ↑Thu Sep 24, 2026 9:38 pm According to Marx, the many billions of dollars that Musk earns every year from his companies could just as easily be reduced, and the surplus could be distributed to those who work in the businesses he owns and operates.

I didn't know Marx knew Musk. What a surprise.

The question I ask of you is: am I fundamentally wrong? Is the math I used fundamentally wrong?

Your problem isn't mathematical. It's moral. It's the question, "Is it okay for me to envy others?"

And I think the answer is found in the tenth of the Ten Commandments.