If you think “exploitation” means you earn 10 bucks, capitalists take 7 bucks and leave 3 bucks. Then there is no need to discuss this topic.
It conceals the brutal nature of exploitation.
Capitalism is not at the heart of “privateism” (which was already private property at the end of the original society, nor was it the feudal age, but it was not capitalism) but at the heart of “capitalism is the first thing that matters.”
The resulting situation is that capital prevails over human beings, who serve it.
It is not humans who own capital, which is at their disposal.
While there is a private property system in the capitalist environment, it is highly confusing and misleading to assume that capitalists are the owners of capital (owners of property).
But in fact, capitalists are puppets, human shell, speaker, demons, skins, and spirit, whatever you call it, and capital itself is the real “owner” and “soul.”
At this point, capital is about to show its real lethality – alienation.
It doesn’t matter if you can’t read the big text on it.
For example, you’re a boss, and you get a super-cooled twirl, which can increase mine production to 10 times the original.
If you have two people in front of you, one of them a super miner, he can dig 10 units of mine, even without this super head.
The other one was a porter, who could dig a single unit of mine.
Now, the porter kneels in front of you, his son has leukemia, and he begs you to give him the super-gulls. He doesn’t mind being exploited. He wants to dig a mine. You get seven, he gets three for his son.
A report of the resignation of the super miner, who was interested in cooking (although his gift was mining), wanted to become a cook.
Who’d you give the hammer to?
Don’t think about it.
As a good capitalist, you kneel to the super miners.
You begged him to take the super-head and dig the mine, and you promised to split it with him, and if you need it, you could take only 40 out of 100 units, and he would take 60, and he would take it.
You even allowed him to dig half a day’s mine and to cook part-time for another half day.
As for the poor porter, who told him not to work, right?
Or, when a super miner earns money and your business gets on the market, you use fiscal channels and welfare policies to “transfer” money to a porter, so you, a porter, a super miner, win, right?
How about, is it not a market economy with a high priority for efficiency and equity?
Is it different from the exploitation in the political (or political economics) textbooks?
The difference is that textbooks are too kind to tell the cruel nature of exploitation.
All right, let’s go back to “capital-based” and “diversion.”
These are examples of “capital-based” and “diversion”.
– “capital is primarily”, so capital is not allocated to those who need it the most, but to those who can achieve its value.
)。 )。 )。 )。 )。 )。 )。 )。 )。 )。 )。 )。 )。 )。 )。 )。 )。 )。 )。 )。 )。 )。 )。 )。 )。 )。 )。 )。 )。 )。 )。 )。 )。 )。 )。 )。 )。 )。 )。 )。 )。 )。 )。 )。 )。 )。 )。 )。 )。 )。 )。 )。 )。 )。 )。 )。 )。 )。 )。 )。 )。 )。 )。 )。 )。 )。 )。 )。 )。 )。 )。 )。 )。 )。 )。 )。 )。 )。 )。 )。 )。 )。 )。 )。 )。 )。 )。 )。 )。 )。 )。 )。 )。 )。 )。 )。 )。 )。 )。 )。 )。 )。 )。 )。 )。 )。 )。 )。 ( )。 )。 )。 )。 )。 )。 )。 )。 )。 )。 )。 )。 )。 )。 )。 )。 )。 )。 )。
And in the process of “capital-based” and “diversion,” “exploitation” came on the scene.
Once again, exploitation does not (or is not only) take the form of plundering of the distribution of results (e.g., the “residual value”), and the truly brutal face of exploitation is the deprivation of time and liberty.
Freedom and time were, or should have been, equal to everyone, 24 hours a day (even if Maun’s assets were 100 million times my assets, his day would not be 2.4 billion hours).
However, your freedom will cease to be your freedom, and your time will cease to be your time once you enter the process of “capital-based” “diversion.”
You can’t go to “labour” as you want, you can only go to “employment” as you want, and you can spend time on it.
However:
First, time cannot overlap (although capital allows for double investment).
It takes you time to learn to use a superb head, not to be with a leukemia son or to cook, as you call it, “Brick down, you don’t have money, you don’t have time for bricks.”
Second, time is not reversed (although investments can be withdrawn).
One day, when you spend all the money you’ve spent digging for, and your son still dies on his bed, or when you have an economic crisis, you spend your time learning how to use super-heads but still can’t find a job, and you spend your time on it, and you never look back.
This is the true meaning of exploitation – you must spend time (and then resort to market exchange) to achieve the value of capital (rather than to directly satisfy your own needs), and whether or not your consumption can be replaced by the satisfaction of your own needs and the realization of your own values, the time is consumed in a solid manner, which is non-duplicable, non-reversible, non-renewable and non-renewable.
Now we can answer the question.
Why does capitalists exploit the proletariat even though they own large assets?
Because it takes time!
Capital can only be achieved through a process of functioning (production, operation, exchange of markets) that requires the full commitment of all human beings, including capitalists, while “private” preferences ensure that people are left behind.
It is because “private” can distinguish between “owned” and “needed.”
To meet the “needs” it must be offered in exchange for “possessed.”
As capitalists, they opened the stove, called the “market”.
The proletarians, who have put fuel in the furnaces called “time” (which can also be written as “time to do.”
Since then, their time has not been for themselves but for their capital.
Capitalist? A boiler.
This is why the ultimate quest of the Marxists is to “liberate all mankind” and not to “take down capitalists.”
Retroactive anti-exploitation – Labor Paradigm
The preceding section deals with exploitation in general, and then looks at how to combat it.
It’s a long story. Start at the root.
The biological basis of human beings (biological properties) is not absolutely equal
This is explained by the fact that the biological differences between high, short, fat, thin, beautiful, ugly, strong, weak, dumb, intelligent, etc. are objective.
II. Inequality in biological properties is amplified by “weighted” social attributes
The gap between the purely biological properties of human beings is better in terms of “direct output”.
For example, you’re twice as strong as I am, and the gap between our prey should not be so big as to hunt.
But if the “weighting” of social attributes (both human resources and materials are naturally tilted in favour of the strong), for example, you will be assigned better tools, better hunting grounds, better partners, better wives, better children, better resources, etc.
When this set of elements is put together, the gap is far greater than twice.
More than 100 million times as much as Maun’s assets are mine, but his physical, intellectual and life expectancy can never be 100 million times mine.
Behind this gap is the role played by the social attributes of human beings (always referred to as the Matthew effect).
III. The above-mentioned widening (accumulation) of inequality will give birth to capitalism
This process is briefly described below.
At first, thanks to the efforts of all human beings and the leadership of certain elites, more and more goods (whether hunting, slash-and-burn, fruit-kiding or fish-kiding) became available to mankind, and excess products began to emerge.
This is normal. After all, productivity development.
But pay attention!
The “overhang” at this time is not enough to generate capitalism in relation to the luminous ass of old human ancestors, but it is also enough to create private, hierarchical, family and so on in human society, to break the earlier primitive humanism.
Then, with the accumulation of slave societies and feudal societies, which are becoming more and more redundant (as opposed only to primitive societies and not necessarily rich), the concepts and areas of private ownership, personal dependency, politics and economics become more mature and complex.
However, while more abundant than in the original era, there was not much surplus, and the main purpose of production remained self-sufficiency rather than exchange.
Then, when capitalism is burgeoning, developing, growing and mature, it changes in quantity and quality.
The development of productivity has made the material produced by humans “more than the sum of all the times of the past” (Marx said, remembering correctly) and has enriched “what is exchanged far more than what you need.”
For example, how many mobile phones do Samsung produce in a year? How many employees do they have? Is the cell phone produced far beyond what their company needs? The most painful question to come is to sell out what you can’t use.
Well, this is the age of capitalism in which we live today (in global terms, not so many socialist countries have changed their whole nature).
Note that the term “capitalism” here is not “privateism” in the sense of ownership, but rather “privateism” in the sense of ownership. It has emerged from the late age of origin, and today its difference from the old age is not privateism, but whether or not it is “to enrich capital”.
In other words, even if it is also based on private ownership, differences arise because of the accumulation of excess production from quantitative to qualitative changes.
In the old age, private ownership was mainly produced to satisfy the lives of themselves (and their family members) (typically small and medium-sized landowners in the feudal era, farmers).
Profit generation is secondary (and the vast majority of products are only sufficient to meet their own needs, and the excess products that can be traded are not as much as expected).
The private system of the capitalist age, then, is that, but every capitalist (the bourgeois class), large or small, has as its ultimate goal the pursuit of trading in excess (and much more than he needs) products for profit.
“Capitalism.”
Capitalism in turn shapes human society
As stated earlier, since “capitalization” has become the primary objective, human society has since been united and even the only criterion — profit.
Human society is increasingly divided into two classes: the bourgeois and the proletarian.
The bourgeois are not just those who “have an asset” but also those who “have the ability to grow capital and thus own it.”
So, in addition to the “old money” born with the gold key, the bourgeois are the bourgeois, some of whom also have the opportunity to manage, handle and even own assets and rise to the bourgeois.
Of course, on the other hand, the proletariat is not just a born poor man, but one who is incapable of increasing capital so that the defunct “old bourgeois” falls to the proletarian.
This phenomenon is often glorified by capitalism as “free movement of class, fair competition”.
It is estimated that there is a preference for “class movement, fair competition” as described above.
The problem is that if it were so beautiful, Marxism wouldn’t be so loud.
The most typical example is that many capitalists who went bankrupt and became proletarians are also pro-Marxist.
So there must be a reason.
Take an example.
Suppose you’re the owner of a car factory, you think some kind of car will sell, so you decided to increase the production.
So you buy additional equipment, raw materials and expand the plant.
The plant then earned money, the materials factory earned money and the construction team earned money. They all made a profit.
But the car you produced didn’t sell and went bankrupt.
You have to work too.
But you don’t.
Because you played a channel.
Without you in the front, the plant, the material plant, the construction team won’t make you money.
Oh, they’re making money, they’re getting rich, they’re growing from small and medium-sized capitalists to big capitalists, and you’re a proletarian.
Isn’t it annoying? My money!
The Economics Institute explains that this is normal competition and “business risk”.
I’m telling you, the world is a fair place. You pack up and become a working man.
Since when do those plants, materials factories and construction teams that earn money lose as much as you do?
Or, when did you catch the chance again?
However, Marxism will tell you, “You’re fucked. It’s not fair or not, it’s alienation.”
The key to the distribution of resources and wealth is not only how much you own, but also how much you produce, not just how much you need, but how much you can generate.
You said you had a lot of money, but once you lost your profitability, capital would just leave you.
The boss can’t just give himself money (this is often used by the boss to pretend to be poor, to be your brother, to be vigilant).
So, if you want to be a boss, you can do whatever you want.
You say you can produce, but you can’t sell, you can’t sell, you can’t sell, you can’t buy, you can’t lose, you can’t lose. That’s dry.
You said you were poor, hungry, very sick and in need of money.
There are other examples like this.
For example, everyone knows that there are fewer hospitals, fewer doctors, more difficult to see, more difficult to line up and more time and effort.
The problem is that, if you propose to open more medical schools and train more doctors and give them a few shifts a day (which both meet the needs of patients and allow them to take shifts), most of them will be opposed, as this does not have a clear benefit for the profits of the hospital (although it is in the interest of medical schools to make money for teaching materials) and the hospital may not be able to earn money (which is not capitalism).
So just hang on, big deal, people are divided into 369s, and spend more money on better hospitals and better services (which in turn is in line with capitalist market economics, very capitalist).
And, for example, everyone knows that it’s good for humanity to develop new medicines to save lives, but in concrete terms, who invests money and how much, you count on me and I count on you.
It’s not easy to get results, it’s “You have your reasons, I have my principles” and patients don’t have to take cheap drugs right now.
There’s no way. Cost recovery, profit.
Even more tragic is the fact that no one is investing in research and development for rare diseases (which are the only cases in the world).
Although these patients are the world for their families, for the world (capitalist), they are only a small minority (not enough to provide full consumption and not enough to enrich capital).
You see, even the “use value” of the human person (e.g. the patient’s relative) and the “exchange value” (e.g. the patient’s market) have deviated from the economic principles of capitalism.
For example, my wife’s company’s boss went to Tibet to talk about a big project, but he made tens of millions of bills, and the railway company lost a few hundred dollars.
As if tens of millions of dollars of business had nothing to do with railways, but it was also clear to everyone that without railways (or airports, stations) and without the nation’s construction over the years, you would go to Tibet to talk about a furline.
However, these macro-values and contributions are difficult to calculate as micro, direct profits.
This is the world created by capitalism: everything is based on growth! Based on this criterion, a set of philosophy, economics, sociology and other theories and values was built.
V. What is worse than shaping: capital is also alienating human society
“Work” is for the survival, development and liberation of the human race.
The idea of “making money” is to do the job of adding capital.
The two are, by definition, different and should not be confused.
But capitalism is precisely capable of mixing the two.
This ability is called “exchange.”
As already stated, capitalism is built on the basis of the development of human productivity, so capitalism is bound to be productive (and also strong) and to produce and accumulate objective material conditions that can be used for human production and development.
The only problem is that these objective material conditions are to be obtained in exchange.
You either sell things for money, or you sell for money, and then you don’t trade for what you need to survive. I didn’t stop you from living and not developing. You buy, you earn.
What’s the problem? Isn’t that work?
Does that sound reasonable?
Not really.
Because of this, the concept of “labour” in the framework of Marxist theory and “labour” in the capitalist system has been transposed.
Are there more questions here?
It’s all right. I’ll ask you a few examples.
For example, I’m obliged to clean up the neighborhood. Is it work?
What? Then why is no one paying me?
Not really? It’s an objective fact to clean up the neighborhood, not to mention the fact that I’m promoting the market by buying cleaning tools to clean up the land.
What? Does labour also distinguish between compulsory and specialized cleaning at cleaning companies?
Or, for example, if I bring my own baby home, is it work?
What? Then why didn’t I make the money?
Not really? Isn’t my baby an objective fact? Besides, I’ve got a baby that promotes consumption.
What? What difference does it also make between taking a child of one’s own and a child of another in a domestic company?
You see the problem?
It is easy for us to conclude that we work in a cleaning company or a domestic company.
The obligation to clean up the neighborhoods and bring our own children gives us some doubt.
Because the latter don’t enter the labour market! There is a value for use, not for exchange, and there are benefits, not profits.
Market!
“Work” has been transformed into “work”.
Only “work” (employment), which is capable of increasing capital and has an exchange of value, is recognized as labour.
Labour is measured by market value.
The concept of labour has been narrowly defined and alienated.
Attention! Such alienation is so subdued that the Marxists themselves tend to win (by no means, the political economy of Marxism is largely alienated from economics in the West) and, by surprise, are led away.
For example, even in socialist countries, the concepts of work, employment (the specific economic policy is also to increase the employment rate and make it work for all) rather than to make it work for all.
But again! “Work” is really different from “work”! The Marxists must distinguish between them, which was the key to the victory over capitalism and the liberation of all humanity.
It is important to know that, in a capitalist society, not only is the class gradually divided into two categories (the bourgeois and the proletariat), but also the exploitation itself is increasingly divided into two levels.
The first level of exploitation is seen in the exploitation by capitalists (the bourgeois class) of battered workers (the proletarian class), in the fact that they are told in secondary school textbooks that they have more residual value, and in the fact that they are familiar with a variety of things.
The second level of exploitation is the exploitation of capital for all humanity. It’s just that secondary school textbooks don’t say much, but Max said “diversion.”
In other words, whether capitalists or workers, the “labour” (whether intellectual or physical, whether production, management, research and development, or sales) is alienated (inverted) by “work” (inflating capital).
The truth of exploitation – you must consume time (work) in order to achieve the value-added of capital (as opposed to directly meeting your own needs) and then resort to market exchange, and whether or not your consumption can be replaced by the satisfaction of your own needs and the realization of your own values, the time is consumed in real terms, not overlapping, non-reversible, non-renewable, non-renewable — time is not used for yourself, but is dominated by capital (reproduction).
The essence of labour — not for the growth of capital, but for the survival and development of human beings, with all the physical, social, political, economic and other activities that follow — is time for itself.
This is the most hidden lethality of capitalism. It’s no less than the hepatitis B virus that embeds ccc DNA into the hepatocellular core, tampering with the gene fragments.
It is interesting to note that this alienation is becoming increasingly extreme and becoming the driving force behind capitalist self-digging.
With profit at its core, capitalist economics has become increasingly “incorporated” and human labour (all social and economic activities) has become narrower.
Like some of the examples I’ve mentioned before, like some kind of voluntary work, hospital problems, especially in the public sector, delays in basic scientific research, and a serious underestimation of the contributions of basic public goods enterprises (such as transport, energy, communications).
You know how important these things are, but you just feel like you can’t catch up and talk about them, and then you end up with a little bit of antagonism like love, social responsibility, and you can’t break the core of economics.
This is because, within the framework of capitalism, many of the above-mentioned things (many of which are diverted to political science, sociology and other disciplines) cannot be interpreted and studied, and their value cannot be represented, measured, or more or more fully liberated and developed.
Capitalism is, to some extent, a chronic disease in human society, with long-term companionships, and it’s not uncommon to eat and sleep when it does not occur.
VI. This is a very difficult disease to cure.
The attitude of capitalism itself is clear: “I am alone.” I’m not sick! I don’t need a cure! Everything is normal. All can be attributed to freedom, mobility, competition.
The previous practice of socialism has also been pursued, but the efficacy of the treatment remains unsatisfactory.
As already stated, exploitation has two levels.
Among them, the exploitation of the first level (capitalists hitting workers) is easier to mitigate, whether it is mature capitalism, state capitalism, or the early stages of socialism (up to this point), with the means (including but not limited to raising welfare guarantees, reducing the intensity of work, trade union checks and balances, political rights).
However, exploitation at the second level (capital for all humanity) is difficult to cure. The higher stage of socialism (communist) is not necessary.
Exploitation at the first level is more of a symptom than symptoms, relatively curable and relatively easy to mitigate.
The second level of exploitation is more difficult than the root causes of the disease.
Moreover, the root causes of the second level are not removed, and efforts to alleviate symptoms at the first level alone are not long-term.
For example, old “treatments” (e.g., high welfare) are increasingly faced with “drug resistance” (many means of defusing contradictions, increasing investment and effectiveness, and increasing resistance and backlash, such as Obama’s treatment).
As a result, there has been a long history of attempts to seek treatment at the root and there have been many practices (mainly in socialist countries, particularly the Soviet Union).
For example, attempts to eliminate private ownership and markets. Isn’t that fair? We don’t have bricks on our feet, so nobody’s better than us.
What you need, what you allocate, what you want, what you direct, you don’t need to buy.
People make arrangements for everyone, such as “three people change a light bulb”, even if everyone’s working.”
This is the legendary “plan economy”.
But actually, it’s not the way.
Because even if it’s not private, there’s gotta be a system of ownership, right? There’s no “no need,” right?
So, in order to fight “private” there is “public”.
However, ownership, production relations and economic systems must be objective and specific, and a “public” term is too broad.
The public domain, then, goes further, to national and collective ownership.
In order to operate more clearly, it has to be more specific (or simply state-owned, collective-owned, if you do not expect me, I count on you, no one does anything), and this is more a step-by-step approach to government ownership, with a specific body under the authority of the government clearly placed under the responsibility of a certain (official).
As for the plan, how do you plan to go to America?
I was told that I knew you needed the equipment, but I don’t care what rules you have in Soviet territory, at least here, this is a market economy, and it’s not for you unless you buy it.
You can “transfer” your own people, and you can drag them to my house? Did you hit me?
Besides, the elasticity of “demand” is so much more than I get up in the morning to eat bananas, and then I see my colleagues vomiting in the office, and it happens to be yellow vomit, and it’s disgusting and I don’t want bananas, I want apples, and then I see a purple flower on the way to work, I think about grapes and I think I want grapes.
What’s the plan?
That’s how humans jump. That’s normal. It can’t be hoped for “a great improvement in quality.”
Thus, the planned economy is often prone to rigidity and conservatism.
The desire of the Soviet Union for heavy work (especially military work) is due to the fact that this type of demand is more rigid and less flexible, avoids uncertainty and variability as much as possible and makes it easier to plan.
The complex and variable light work, consumer goods, entertainment, etc. are short-table (inconvenient schemes).
Finally, the public — State — official — powerful people steal — the dissolution — oligarchy — (more corrupt) markets.
Still no problem.
First, it does not resolve the natural inequality of human biological identity.
Some people are better at it. Can you just hold him back?
Some people are weak, knives on their necks are useless.
Besides, even with new and better equipment and tools (e.g., the “super-head” that I’ve given the example before me), is it a priority to give a model, a good worker, an advanced molecule, or a backward molecule?
It’s called socialism, but isn’t the body an honest “optimal”?
It’s a game for ordinary people. Who’d give it to a green hero?
That’s the way it’s distributed, isn’t it?
Second, since the natural inequality of human biological identity cannot be addressed, it ultimately leads to social inequality (opposition, tearing, disintegration). In the end, the gap cannot be eliminated.
When the Soviet Union had not broken up, it had already been 369, even worse.
As a result, many treatments are less effective than expected. We must have new exploration.
VII. To combat the disease, it must be recognized that the fight against capitalism must not be limited to the public versus private sphere of ownership, nor to high-welfare purchases. And it’s more about “humanism” in the deeper (philosophical) field. And this has to anchor the benchmark — the real “equality” and the search for what is essentially the “general equivalence” of human society, which is the philosophy underpinning socialism and communism.
People say “capital is born equal.”
But the phrase means that “capital is based on the principle of reproduction, and that all inequalities are created and treated equally”.
Any gap and inequality can be justified equally — not to ask, freedom, circulation, competition, struggle, risk, market…
So, remember the previous sentence, capitalism does not refer only to “capital privateism” but to “capitalism is the first and only key to the growth.”
Equity in capital, then, is equality measured by growth, and is essentially equality in matter, not equality in human beings.
Speaking of which, I have to be clear:
Since the equality of capitalism is the equality of hidden things (known as “capitalism”), the fight against capitalism must emerge from the context of “equality of things” and be based on “equality of human beings”.
Where are people equal?
If you look for some Western writings and instead speak of dignity on the basis of equality of the human person, it is all the more confusing and obscurantistic. There is still no simple statement of equality.
Is it not paradoxical that I began my article by acknowledging that human beings, whether they are natural (physiological) or social (activity) attributes, are objectively unequal from condition to capacity and now speak of equality?
Is equality a hypocrisy?
No, it’s not.
I mean equality, not external representation, but kernel nature:
Human needs are equal in themselves (not what I said, but what Maslow’s theory of the level of demand).
There are several levels of demand for each individual, without exception.
Regardless of whether capacity is actually met, the needs themselves are equal.
The Qin Emperor, Mayun, the blind Bing, or me, are human beings.
We all have decades to live, and even if there is a gap, it will not be hundreds of millions of times more.
Every day we’re 24 hours, and whoever does it takes time. I don’t know if you can make it for 48 hours. It’s not like they’re going to stop, but I’m going to stop.
We all eat.
We all like pretty girls.
Wait, wait, wait.
Even when it comes to status, assets are billions of times different, and the needs listed above are equal.
Inequality, on the other hand, is only the ability to achieve and meet demand.
This adds to the depth of human social contradictions and problems:
Demand is equal for all, but it is not yet a product in itself, it cannot be used or consumed directly, and it needs to be achieved and satisfied by human beings through socio-economic activities (labour), a process in which the inequality of human beings to “realize” (production, distribution) products on the basis of their natural (physiological) and social attributes is manifested and masked by “equity of things” (capitalism).
The VS is “unequal” in character.
It seems that it’s all humans themselves (also self-inflicted), like altered genes, cancer-pressed immune systems.
Isn’t this a treatable disease?
I disagree.
I feel saved.
From the genes-work of human society.
We have divided socio-economic activities into two levels.
One level is “production”, which produces specific products.
One level is “labour”, generating a variety of needs.
“Producing” is about things, about the means of production, about the means of living.
“Labour” is personal. Only people can work. Only people can generate demand. Even those who are no longer “incompetent” — even those who are paralysed in their beds — are always in need. Even a sophisticated machine cannot generate demand and can only produce (manufacturing) products.
People are responsible for “labour” and for “production”.
“Work” generates demand, “production” produces products.
All work produces demand without exception, and true human labour without distinction!
The distribution on the basis of needs is “as if it were to be generated, not as if it were to be met.
Law is the demand, it is the need.
All intellectual and physical differences have been eliminated, and all are equal in terms of work (as mentioned in the Goda Platform criticism). It’s personal.
Humans generate demand, driven by demand, developed and liberated production.
No one’s time will ever be wasted (because demand is always generated) and the human task is no longer to directly produce products and trade for breeding.
The labour (demand generation) anchor has been established as an equality wing.
All people can generate demand, which is equivalent to working for all and true equality for all.
“Work for life” becomes “living is work.”
“The oppression of man against man” becomes “the domination of all mankind”.
There is no exploitation.
VIII. The seventh point above provides a (philosophical) basis for the treatment of “idiosis”, while productivity development will provide realistic and objective material conditions
The most critical point is the development of automation and intelligence, which opens the way to reducing the impact of the gap in the nature of human properties on labour itself.
The world was enjoying the results of the second (even the first) industrial (scientific) revolution, which today’s human race has reached the threshold of the fourth industrial (scientific) revolution, when its predecessors, such as Mali, created the theoretical system.
In the age of our predecessors, we can only argue in theory that there is no difference between human work. This concept, and as modern times develop, the “general human labour without distinction” is becoming more and more realistic.
In the nineteenth century, factories and workshops were factories and workshops, screwdled, swinging, iron-fed…
The abstract word “labour” overlaps almost completely with the specific word “production” and does not reveal separation.
And in the twenty-first century, the boundaries of specific “production” performances outside are becoming blurred.
It’s possible that everyone is turned into a button-buttoner, a keyboard-knocker, a handler.
In the past, the pilot had to get into the cockpit in person, and was in bad health.
Now, a man who drinks happy water can handle a drone with a handle and throw a bomb over his head.
On the real battlefield, soldiers must be able to run and jump.
And in the game of Mission Call, even if the player’s leg is broken, the person on the screen is walking around the wall as long as it is manual, with the mouse keyboard.
In workshops in the nineteenth century, the thongs and screws were completely different and corresponded to workers of different sex, age, skills and physical qualities.
On the other hand, on the Internet, every day, every day, whether it’s a mining, a sweep, or a fish grab, or a vegetable, all you need to do is click “a single key.”
The so-called “profession” is just a difference between the attributes and the skills panel.
And there’s no need for a player to go on his own with his head, his sword, his iron cannon, his arm bow, etc.
Speaking of which, maybe friends will disagree, “You’re talking about games, not reality.”
But the question is, what’s the future? One more step forward?
What if the game exists as a virtual mirror link, and the entities are connected behind it?
What if the human robot behind Mission Call is linked to a human robot?
What if you’re playing on the back of a net and it’s linked to agricultural production, farming, mines? What if every one of your punches, “a single key in effect” is abstractly summarised as a “production” directive?
Think about the future of artificial intelligence, automation, brain interfaces, virtual reality?
It is with these technologies that the difference between humans in terms of concrete “production” will become increasingly blurred and there is a growing need to collide “general human labour without discrimination”.
This is what I have mentioned earlier: “demand” rather than “product” labor is what is essentially equal, and what is really human work without discrimination.”
It is only by recognizing this point that it will be possible to enter the advanced stage of socialism and eradicate exploitation at its roots.
This is not a problem that can be solved by a passive “enjoy” industrial upgrading.
I have not always placed all my hopes in “industrial upgrading to provide new jobs.” It is still just a relief, not a cure.
For, how to upgrade an industry is based on the value to the “goods” (capital accumulation) and does not necessarily reflect human values or even contradict them.
Automation and intellectual development, for example, led to self-censorship, self-preservation, self-control and self-rehabilitation, and instead reduced jobs.
Even programmers are at risk of unemployment (some people study high-intelligence self-programming).
In other words, the more advanced the technology is, the more capital (resources) are concentrated, the less channels and procedures flow through, and the more efficient it is.
This is in keeping with capitalism, but is this what humanism needs?
Is it also a billion dollars, more cumbersome to take land, build a factory, hire and run a factory, or is it faster to pay off by hiring a few keyboard-knockers into the stock market?
When a small shop is located on a street, each store has to feed a few operators and cashiers, and when the collection becomes a big business, only a few clerks are needed on the first floor and only a few cashiers are installed at the exit.
It used to be hundreds of millions of people, each growing acres.
In the future, a million people (or even less) can grow billions of acres.
What about the extra billion people? What about job opportunities?
This, however, is the pattern of capital operations, and this is the trend towards industrial upgrading, which is the inevitable consequence of productivity development. So what do you call “avoiding to get off the ground” and “increased employment”?
What can we do? Back to primitive times? The problem of employment is really solved, and productivity is over.
Can’t keep hundreds of millions of farmers locked up in the fields to protect their employment?
What should be done to ” represent the direction of advanced productivity development” and “to represent the fundamental interests of the vast majority of the people”?
This goes back to what I said before, to change perceptions and improve theory.
The concept of “work” is limited by the capitalist framework, which has been transformed into “work” within the Marxist framework.
Fish is “work”, fish eats and wants to eat is “work”.
And again, the word “work for life” is changed to “living for work.”
From production to demand generation.
That’s the intrinsic attribute of the difference between human beings and things.
As long as human beings live, they generally generate demand without discrimination, and then the industrial-technology revolution that comes from automation, information, intelligence, etc., is “dealing” with some kind of “power” (a process that I can’t really achieve, and depends on the efforts of specific scientific fields, which is a long-term goal) and is then used to drive production and ultimately to meet human needs.
Human beings are alive and alive, and their needs persist, generating demand and driving production.
“General human labour without discrimination” is the way to achieve the domination of all human beings. In this post, the blogger says that the “work for the growth of capital” will be completely reversed in terms of human oppression and alienation.
Only when there is a real “general human labour without discrimination” will there be real freedom — the time when human beings dominate themselves.
Exploitation — time-consuming (and not necessarily rewarding) for the growth of capital — can only be eliminated if there is a real “general human labour without discrimination”.
If it is not possible to achieve “general human labour without discrimination”, the time is “non-duplicable, non-reversible, non-renewable, non-renewable”. Well, work is work, life is life, moving bricks can’t hold you, putting down bricks can’t raise you, working overtime can’t have birthdays. That is the truest, most essential, most brutal exploitation.
If it is possible to achieve “general human labour without discrimination”, “the time itself may not overlap, but it can be done simultaneously within the same time period”.
So, work is life and life is work.
Whether it’s on my birthday or in my arms, I’ve always had demand, driven by production.
Since then, there has been no longer any more job opportunities, such as working hours and overtime. That is the most complete freedom and liberation.
IX. Ideas for a future human society
(i) Medium- and long-term, focusing on breakthroughs in economic performance systems
A brief recapitulation of “business-wide, cross-investment equity” or “universal ownership” to promote “consumerism” in the true sense.
Since the economic activities of any member of society ultimately affect the whole of society, then you have me, I have you. A loss, a loss.
For example, as I mentioned earlier, the construction manager went to Tibet to negotiate a multi-million-dollar project for hundreds of train tickets.
What if the railway company is a capitalist company? Is the railroad a shareholder in the construction company? Do you want to make money for the construction company? Isn’t that more than a few hundred bucks?
It might not be time for the railroads to lose the small amount of money, to travel by car for free, to focus on capital and service for shareholder earnings.
Similarly, restaurants, tea shops, hospitals, institutes, barbecue stalls, schools… but everything else is part of the stock, but everyone else’s business is part of their own business. You have me and I have you.
Individuals believe that the advantage is to stimulate consumption as far as possible (which is, in fact, overproduction and underconsumption).
When the whole society is a shareholder of the whole society? At the time, any investment or consumption is nothing but fat. After all, someone who earns money increases their own shareholder earnings, you spends money in front of your feet, others earn money, and you earn as part of your industry (because you’re a shareholder), you get a year-end share in the business, which is good, and you get a raise as a worker, basically, as long as the national economy is growing.
It’s called “Everyone Lift Up”.
Tug: Isn’t this the super-trust and Levitanga popular sale?
I said “real national ownership”.
Well, let’s not look at that. That’s what we’re talking about.
The key now is not the details (which I can design by myself), but rather the open-minded thinking that we need to bind the interests of all in the national (socio-economic) economy, to the full, to the full.
In other words, the “consumerism” that lies behind the net of overdrafting consumption is what I imagine is the real “consumerism” by fully combining consumption with investment.
Attention! This is different from every national who owned the Soviet Union before its dissolution.
It’s revisionism coming home, and it’s the same as all private (and egalitarian) people.
Unlike the former state-owned enterprises in the country (the comparative compartmentalized sector), I am a macro-based cross-investment-share, in particular individuals, all of whom are workers, the non-manufactured class and do not specifically occupy the means of production.
It is only a cross-investment of equity that ensures that all sectors can benefit from (sustained) national (social) economic development. In addition to the “macro-profit” approach, it is not the “micro-profit approach to the economics of accounts” .
Special tip! This is an extremely hasty view! It’s not that it has to be done, it’s just that it’s to stimulate people to think out loud and out of the horns of Keynesianism, Roosevelt New Deal and MAGA.
For the following reasons:
In the long run, productivity will and will have to develop progress, which will inevitably lead to efficiency gains and labour surpluses (e.g. automation, intelligence). This is an objective pattern of human society as a whole and has nothing to do with the institution.
Based on the classic three major industrial classifications, the usual solution is the diversion and transfer of labour, especially to the tertiary sector (mainly services). The United States is always bragging. One million people grow their fields, leaving hundreds of millions to sing, jump, rap, basketball. However, this road is also becoming more and more difficult.
First, the development of productivity, especially automation, and the development of intelligence (which was not possible at the time of the first and second industrial revolutions) have forced out the labour force of the services sector, such as drones and the promotion of drones, which may in the future crowd out the food of the delivery boy. What? You’re talking about a labour shift to design, make, operate, maintain drones, drones? Unfortunately, new jobs may not be replaced by crowded jobs, and technological developments tend to replace the lower end of more labor-intensive jobs with the high end that requires a small amount of labor. What about the remaining 900? Blame them for not trying?
Second, the deformity of the tertiary sector would in turn crowd out the first, the secondary sector, and could lead to dissipation (this need not be said and understood).
As a result, traditional “transfer laws” are increasingly facing “drug resistance”. Whether you are Keynesian, or Roosevelt’s New Deal, or MAGA, or the global economy, including China, is slowing down, and it is an objective fact that consumer demand, especially for people, is not strong enough.
In any case, what really matters is a system that depends on professional exploration!
(ii) If the road paved by point (i) above can develop and accumulate to a more distant future, then I can imagine (a paranoia) “the real human society, the virtual human relationship”.
1. A solid human society at the labour and production levels
Everything is demand-driven.
In that era, all human needs and desires (including, but not limited to, eating, dressing, watching movies, medical treatment, dating, etc.) were used in the abstract by a number of types of instructions that drive production.
For example, you want to eat rice, apples, bananas, lamb, beef, not as a direct instruction from the system, but as an abstract “needs the staple food, fruit, meat” and as an abstract and general instruction, “needs the staple food, fruit, meat” to drive it.
The reason for this design is that the human mind is too obscurantistic (which has nothing to do with the quality, which is the nature of the human being), and the gap and elasticity between objective physical needs and subjective psychological needs is so wide that it is impossible to be precise and can only be blurred.
Otherwise, without a highly abstract generalization, where can one think of a single one and imagine a non-existent “Nine-Turn-to-Six”? The system has to crash? So only abstract, general, vague.
So, if, as stated above, a highly abstract summary, with a vaguely driven “system ” , the actual output will not seek precision, but rather a flexible floating between the upper and lower productivity levels at the time.
The floor is the total of the basic biological needs of the human population that existed at the time (this is an estimate) and cannot be lower (unless productivity is devastated, for example by asteroids).
The ceiling was the highest level of productivity at that time.
As for specific numbers and types, they are not based on individual ideas.
Whether you, me or him want to eat apples or “Nine-Turn-Turn-Turn-Turn” is an abstract order, which is based on the configuration of objective material conditions at the time (materials, origin, tools, equipment, etc.), and every fruit that can be produced is produced.
As to how the above-mentioned “flexible floating between the upper and lower limits” is achieved, the initial consideration is the strength of the total (or whatever) brain waves at the time the demand is generated (preliminarily, the concept is called “Quantification of Subjective Dynamics”.
In the end, you get all the fruits that you can actually produce (including apples that you really want) in addition to the “9T” (because it really isn’t).
And let’s not forget whether it’s a waste.
If not, what would be a waste? What do you call “Intner Hungner”?
It’s just an example of fruit, and the rest goes on and on.
2. Implementation at the life level, creating false human relationships
On the basis of point 1 above, if humans were able to produce by abstracting demand into instructions, then the level of productivity would be at the stage of “employment without job ” .
In other words, there are still “works” such as industry, agriculture and so on, but there are no workers, and the distinction between “jobs” is made by farmers.
If you want to eat food, meat, fruit, your needs are abstractly summarised as “agricultural, food” and then “systems” are used to drive production, you work, you work in agriculture and food, you don’t have to take up specific jobs.
Even if you do anything on a day-to-day basis, whether you look at a view, run, read a book out of curiosity, shake a test tube, you can stimulate the brain’s constant demand.
For example, when you just watch a medical television show, you think that if you have some kind of new medicine, that’s what you need, and then you’re called “systems” in abstracto, driving production (which also includes upstream R & D, equipment manufacturing, etc.), you’re in the pharmaceutical industry.
“Life itself is work.”
There will be no work, work, overtime, employment, unemployment, exploitation.
And with it, the whole human society will change.
In labour and production, as it is already demand-driven, it is not affected by interpersonal relations.
At the time, there was a risk that the “one-size-fits-all” (i.e., only demand-driven) in the social and productive sectors of society could be “one-size-fits-all” in private life.
An objective family would cease to exist and only a subjective family.
For example, every person has a different number of robots or mimics or bio-manufacturings, but not a real human being, but a “toolman” who beats, scolds, scolds, scrambles, sex, appearances, anything.
If you don’t want to leave your children behind, you want to stay with your children until you die, and if you want to stay with your children, you can leave your DNA with your “tools” and send it to the reproductive centres, where you can grow up through artificial uterus, and then you can be raised by your “tools” (which is enough to act as parents and friends) (which is the “socialized upbringing” I want).
In terms of demand, the performance of the “toolman” can satisfy the psychological aspects of your body (a role as a relative or a friend, etc.), but the “toolman” does not in itself possess the attributes of a true human being (intellectual, intellectual, physical, etc. is still different from the true human being).
It’s a little bit harsh, but it’s a little higher, so it’s a real “inflated doll.”
That is what was said earlier, and objectively, the family between people no longer exists.
Instead, the family in the sense of subjective perception (high imitation of a virtual reality?) between people and objects.
In that way, as Max had said, marriage, family, loyalty, betrayal and so on did not exist.
At that time, the vision of human society was that, among real human beings, all human beings were equal, generally without distinction to create demand, abstractly command-driven production and no longer required specific interpersonal relationships.
In the objective sense, the human relationship between a true human being (family, co-worker, friend, etc.) will break up and replace it with a subjective, imitative, false human relationship between a true human being and an “instrumentalities ” (because true human beings need to construct a subjective consciousness). Since the real human relationship between real human beings has broken down, it has been replaced by a false human relationship with the “servant” that has eliminated human oppression and transformed it into domination of human beings.
Besides, since they’re “tools”, their private lives are “shows.”
It doesn’t matter if you want to end up alone, in the end, in the harem, in the landlord’s compound, in Little Boljoa, in the green environment, in the Emperor’s light, and so on.
Close the door. Who cares if you wear a dragon robe or a fur?
It’s all “tools” playing “real home” with you anyway.
At the level of productivity, Intenahunele is a manifestation of the fact that demand is generally generated without discrimination, and human labour is generally undifferentiated and unique.
In the sphere of private life, Intenahunele is the expression that the way of life in all social forms of the past is free to exist simultaneously (based on the high imitation of “wilders ” ).
All right, let’s stop and get ready to finish.
Actually, the article should have stopped at the eighth point, and there should have been no ninth point.
For it is impossible for me to single out specific disciplines in economics, politics, sociology, physics, chemistry, biology, medicine, agronomy, etc., and it is impossible for one person to paint the details of the future of all humanity, to look at the direction at the macro level and to solve all the technological problems at the micro level.
However, there is no way to do this, and there is always a friend who’s “not clear enough to imagine” at the level of detail and concrete initiatives, and in order to make one’s imagination easier, I have to be “realized” (although this problem at the macro level over time is not suitable for current productivity levels).
Finally, to remind you that if you really don’t get it or don’t get it, don’t argue with me (I can’t win because I can’t create an objective future, I can’t give an objective material answer), just remember that my core point is the following:
1. “Work” is not the same as “work”.
2. At the surface level, exploitation (i.e. the perceived “unfair distribution”) is not my focus.
What I really care about is exploitation under the surface, in its essence. “Work” will be transformed into “work.” This exploitation is deep in bone marrow and soul. It exploits not tangible money, but priceless freedom. This layer is the basis for the existence of surface exploitation (unfair distribution).
4. To eliminate exploitation, the essence of labour must be abstracted to generate demand without discrimination in general, rather than being limited to the production of specific products.
5. The very existence of human beings generally gives rise to demand without distinction, i.e. “general human labour without distinction”.
This post is part of our special coverage Libya Protests 2011.
I don’t know.
Keep your eyes on the road.
