[abelsson]

Economic systems of the 1800s doesn't really make sense in a space based, post scarcity society - economics is after all, the allocation of scarce resources. But I would argue that the ultimate aim of the socialism as envisioned by Marx wasn't government control over the means of production (the "dictatorship of the proletariat") but rather "full communism" where the eventual aim was to make resource allocation unnecessary, which in a way, does hint at a post scarcity society. So I can see the connection to the original Marx. Less so with the so-far practical implementations of socialism.

[Bluestein]

> where the eventual aim was to make resource allocation unnecessary,

... unnecessary through what? How? I think those are important details ...

PS. Honestly asking. Interested in how you further interpret Marx ...

[abelsson]

Unnecessary though productivity outpacing demand as far as I've understood it.

In Marxism what they call "full communism" is envisioned to be the "final state of humanity" where productivity is described to be higher than the sum of needs and wants - everybody can help themselves to anything from the warehouses. Obviously very utopian, and I'm not sure there ever was any detailed analysis on how a society a would actually function in "full communism" - but I don't think the economics of The Culture would be that far off if you would describe it to someone of those views. Early Marxists were much a bit more practical, more focused on critiquing the practices of their contemporary societies than envisioning the details of their utopia.

[Bluestein]

> but I don't think the economics of The Culture would be that far off if you would describe it to someone of those views

Seems right up their alley ...

[s1artibartfast]

I think there is a fundamental psychological and social engineering element to Marxism that many socialists gloss over. The end state is one of voluntary labor, contribution and exchange.

human desire can outstrip any gains of productive capacity, and includes factors which can not simply be produced. Marx didn't envision everyone owning palaces and yachts post scarcity. He imagined people having enough to get by with moderate comfort for an 1800's standard of living.

Similarly, in the 1930s, Keynes imagined that humans would live lives of leisure as productivity doubled every 20 years. However, the human hunger for material comforts is bottomless.

I think the truly radical part of Marxist end state communism is the idea that people will outgrow desire for "more" if more is an option.

Without this, there will always be squabbling over who gets what. It is this human drive that draws socialism down into totalitarianism.

[lazide]

That also neuters any desire for progress, no?

Like world peace, it’s a cure that would require changes making it worse than the disease.

[s1artibartfast]

I dont really see the connection. I dont think that it is necessarily opposed to change, just some level competition and acquisition.

Do you think the drive for progress is or relief from suffering is not an end in of itself?

[lazide]

Because fundamentally, to want more is to want change and an improvement for yourself. Sometimes this is something society thinks is good and appropriate, sometimes not.

In any large group, the way to condition people to not pursue ‘more’ is to punish those who attain ‘more’. Or attempt to do so.

Also known as ‘the nail that sticks out gets hammered down’.

Sometimes this is done via ‘hard’ power, like the police, asset seizures, re-education camps, etc. Other times it is done via ‘soft’ power, like shaming, exile, bullying, false accusations, etc.

And that includes ‘being’ more, or ‘getting’ more.

And to make this work, there of course has to be a group of people who have power over the group to enforce this.

Those people always end up having tools at their disposal which makes them ‘more equal than others’ and hence defacto exempt from ‘not allowed to be more’. So folks who are the type that want more always end up gravitating there.

And since it’s impossible to pull everyone in the population up to the level of the highest member (economically), the easier option inevitably gets chosen - which is mashing everyone (except those with exemptions) down to the lowest level attainable across the entire population. Which is usually quite low.

How else do you think it would work?

This really clearly played out in the USSR, and actively plays out in the Chinese Communist party today, albeit with a lot of leeway given to greed.

There is itself no way to interact with and be present in the world that provides any guarantee of relief of suffering. Existence guarantees a risk of it.

And if someone is hungry, or bored, or in a disadvantaged position, of course they naturally will want more.

And due to the nature of how humans work, hierarchies form and in every venue someone always has ‘more’ and someone always has ‘less’. It could be freedom. It could be beauty. It could be health. It could be money. It could be physical strength. It could be fame.

Also sometimes because they just see the potential for things to be better.

Improving oneself and one’s situation involves desiring to be and have more (fundamentally).

Your assumption that somehow ‘removing the drive to have more’ will somehow remove suffering, is reminiscent of thinking World Peace would make everyone actually happy.

Because the only way to plausibly have world peace would require a massive authoritarian dictatorship covering every square inch of the planet, unaccountable to anyone, with a monopoly on force, that also regularly projects power so everyone ‘gets along’. Which would, of course, eventually also have to use violence to enforce its goals.

But what would ‘getting along’ even mean, when there are major conflicting differences on where a border is, or who gets access to what resources, etc? Or even people with fundamentally conflicted ideas of what ‘true’ is or not?

If there isn’t enough water, or food to go around, who decides who starves or dies of thirst if no one is allowed to fight about it? And if you were one of those picked to starve or die of thirst, what would it take for you to not try to fight it using any means you could find?

For instance, what would it take for Trump and Biden to be ‘at peace’? Or Zelensky and Putin?

So any such force, to ensure peace, would have to either micromanage the world’s population so much it would be a dystopia, or pick and choose ‘the truth’ and murder enough people that no one would have anyone to disagree with anymore, or decide that ‘peace’ just meant something like ‘no one actively nuking anyone’ - in which case the war moves to using a different set of tools.

Either way, the wheel turns.

[Bluestein]

> plays out in the Chinese Communist party today, albeit with a lot of leeway given to greed.

This is what first came to mind.-

PS. I am inclined to believe - unfortunately - that even if "peace" were to be achieved, men would fight over ... increasingly ideological and vague things, finding any excuse (ie. "Which side of the egg is the "bottom" side ...)