this post was submitted on 21 Dec 2021
9 points (76.5% liked)
Asklemmy
43831 readers
964 users here now
A loosely moderated place to ask open-ended questions
Search asklemmy ๐
If your post meets the following criteria, it's welcome here!
- Open-ended question
- Not offensive: at this point, we do not have the bandwidth to moderate overtly political discussions. Assume best intent and be excellent to each other.
- Not regarding using or support for Lemmy: context, see the list of support communities and tools for finding communities below
- Not ad nauseam inducing: please make sure it is a question that would be new to most members
- An actual topic of discussion
Looking for support?
Looking for a community?
- Lemmyverse: community search
- sub.rehab: maps old subreddits to fediverse options, marks official as such
- !lemmy411@lemmy.ca: a community for finding communities
~Icon~ ~by~ ~@Double_A@discuss.tchncs.de~
founded 5 years ago
MODERATORS
you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments
view the rest of the comments
Left and right never really meant anything, and the "political compass" is even more of a distortion of it.
"Rooted" vs. "mobile" does not mean anything, either.
The only distinctions in political opinions that matter on a fundamental basis are:
Class interests you support, not those you objectively have. :D
The economic and class interest are very much related to how "rooted" both in the physical and the mental sense you are. See also "social mobility" as a commonly used term.
Same for the other distinctions you mention. They can be well described in how flexible your way of life and mind-set is, and how far per-existing conditions root you down and give incentives to perpetuate the status-quo.
Sure they're related, but that doesn't mean they're fundamental. I am sure all of these points also relate to how strong your gender roles are, but that doesn't make gender roles a fundamental axis on a political scale.
What we need to concern ourselves with is not the extents which political opinions form, but the roots: and the roots are, have always been, and will always be, class interests.
Class distinctions are quite hard to do these days... either they are overly mechanistic and thus put people in the "working class" that are ideologically strongly opposed to measures meant to improve the conditions for "working class" people, or they end up subdividing classes to a point where they stop making much sense.
Ideology has nothing to do with class. Someone is 'mechanistically', materially, part of the working class if they are not owners of means of production, and thus their class interests are(, with a few exceptions like labour aristocracy,) those of the working class.
There is a difference between perceived interests and objective interests, of course, and that's why ideology does not necessarily relate to class status.
That's why I also said in which class interests they are acting. A proletarian can absolutely act in the interest of the bourgeoisie, for example, a fascist worker unknowingly fighting to cement private ownership of the means of production.
There are essentially two mechanics: your actual class, and the class your politics benefit. Of course there are reactionary workers and idealist capitalists who starry-eyedly seemingly support working class interests.
There are only four main classes: Lumpenproletariat, proletariat, petty bourgeoisie, and bourgeoisie. What individuals fall on on a political scale has more to do with their opinions.
That kind of thinking is exactly what I meant with "overly mechanistic". Sure, you can write a nice book about that and feel smug that you really understood the hidden forces at play. But it doesn't help with real-world coalition building and also negates human agency, similar to how the "Homo Economicus" simplification does.
What are "means of production" in 2021 exactly? It's not 1740, it's not about who owns the waterwheel driven textile looms.
It might be true that socialism/communism merely chose a poor phrase and that there's a greater underlying truth to it that is poorly explained, or it might be true that instead the phrase is truly descriptive of circumstances that are no longer relevant to modern life. But if the latter is the case, then socialism itself is irrelevant today.
So it behooves you to either come up with a better phrase that is more descriptive or at least be willing to explain what you mean by it. Anyone with a digital device has "the means of production" to produce the sorts of things bought and sold today in the United States, and most of the rest of the developed and developing world.
You're almost some sort of socialist romantic, pining for the days of when your labels actually held any descriptive or explanatory value whatsoever.
... Are you aware that in 2021 you still need... factories... and land... to produce things? You know,... the means to do that that only a select few can own?
How do you even come to the conclusion that the means of production of all things are no longer existant? Since when have we stopped relying on workshops, factories and agriculture?
Clinton switched us over to the "service economy" before you were born. You're typing your reply on a machine in which you can learn to create ephemeral programming that even for the minimally competent would earn you $100,000/year, but in some rare cases could see you become a multimillionaire.
So no, I don't think you need land. Or factories.
Or maybe you guys just have a fetish to be working in some machine shop stamping out sheet metal parts for your East German Trebants. I can't tell. But it's clear that you don't live in the real world like everyone else.
Hell, if that's your idea of "the means of production" then even Jeff Bezos is as poor as me. He certainly doesn't own any of the factories in China, nor any of the land they're buiit on.
My God you're a loon.