@Da_Fish please pin what pebble just said

pin it

From the Marxist perspective, the Left and the Right are bad and should be corrected to Marxism. They both prop each other up. Because Marxism is for a classless equal society, in the end there wouldn't be a Left/Right Political spectrum. At first glance it would seem that certain values, such as community or equality, are more valued by the left than the right. However, this is hard to sustain. While the left may support communitarianism against individualism, it may also counterpose class struggle to community, and individual autonomy to moral conformity - it depends on the context. This is coming from a Marxist perspective.

From the actual definition of Left/Right, Marxism would land on the left.

@Shalopy i would like to ask you what you mean by equal in your statement of what Marxism is for

marxism is jewish 💩

ok brainlet

Let me rephrase. Classless society. There would need to be social hierarchies in order to maintain stability in a Marxist society, so there would then be inequality in re-implementing functionalism.

@PebbЛe no insulting

There needs to be social hierarchies to maintain stability in any society actually.

@Shalopy do you think that Marxism calls for a lack of social hierarchy or lack of economic inequality

marxism calls for a lack of brain

More lack of economic inequality. The existing social hierarchy would essentially be(or need to be) torn down in the revolution, and rebuilt.

Let the record state that I am by no means a Marxist.

Positing the value of labor, would one not be "richer" under his ability to labor more and effectively to sustain as he wants? In a Marxist society that is

Marx notes in his critique of the Gotha Programme that this is the case before socialist developments dissolve things like scarcity to reach the maxim: "From each according to his ability, to each according to his needs."

So Marxism does not diatribe the "richer" man as seen by, `Thus, with an equal performance of labor, and hence an equal in the social consumption fund, one will in fact receive more than another, one will be richer than another, and so on.` but descriptively notes that, `In a higher phase of communist society, after the enslaving subordination of the individual to the division of labor, and therewith also the antithesis between mental and physical labor, has vanished; after labor has become not only a means of life but life's prime want; after the productive forces have also increased with the all-around development of the individual, and all the springs of co-operative wealth flow more abundantly.`

I'm pretty sure people would be paid for how hard and much they work, but in later stages of communism money would probably be abolished and goods would be produced, as well as luxuries and given to everyone. Initially it would make them "richer" but later on it wouldn't really because everyone would theoretically be working hard-which is essentially what you posted.

Communism would only work with infinite resources

@Shalopy you got it

the transition would face payment via vouchers or another one use specie of exchange

and slowly dissolve from there

probably in this day and age something digital

Yeah, and Communism in the future would probably be after an even greater technological revolution where technology can do and produce pretty much most of what we need. That would essentially allow everyone to develop themselves as individuals, being creative and innovative and all that.

@Shalopy youre spot on, if we look at the fragment on machines in the Grundrisse: `The free development of individualities, and hence not the reduction of necessary labour time so as to posit surplus labour, but rather the general reduction of the necessary labour of society to a minimum, which then corresponds to the artistic, scientific etc. development of the individuals in the time set free, and with the means created, for all of them.`

And then all work (such as being a scientist) would be not for money, but from intrinsic motivation of helping the community/society/other people as well as internal motivation to do good.

Wrong.

The next robotic revolution will see robots surpassing humans in intellectual and creative ability

Including with the abstract

Humans will become an obstacle to the robots

Scientists will not exist

@Shalopy The development of the productive forces freeing up labor time posits that action encompassing leisure, concrete and abstract labor would be done as a genuine aspect of the individuality of a person

passions would be ultimately realized

and would likely fall into the fields of administrating their society

You seem to assume people are naturally good @Shalopy

Which is dangerous to assume.

I'm curious, are you a Marxist/Communist?

I am a Marxist yes

@PebbЛe Do borders exist in late phase Communism

Depends on who you ask