Can someone summarize his ideas for me?

File: 75 KB, 980x691, 1523122932_807692_1523123059_noticia_normal.jpg [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google]

Anonymous Tue Sep 18 04:01:26 2018 No.11803262 [Reply] [Original]

Can someone summarize his ideas for me?

>>	Anonymous Tue Sep 18 04:03:16 2018 No.11803267 >>11803262 Fuck wyt people and masculinity trust me on this, Im from /pol/

>>	Anonymous Tue Sep 18 04:08:04 2018 No.11803279 >>11803262 in industrialized nations People who work do not see the value of That work

>>	Anonymous Tue Sep 18 04:11:03 2018 No.11803289 >>11803262 YO! GIBS ME DAT!

Anonymous Tue Sep 18 04:11:13 2018 No.11803290

>materialism run amok
>history is driven by social conflict caused by material needs
>the economic value of a good or service is determined by the total amount of labor needed to produce rather than by the combination of its scarcity and its utility (yes, they really believe this)
>humans are ultimately divided more by class than by race or culture
>something something Jews something something (yes, he really wrote about this)

>>	Anonymous Tue Sep 18 04:13:21 2018 No.11803300 >>11803267 >>11803289 based and redpilled >>11803279 >>11803290 cringe and bluepilled

>>	Anonymous Tue Sep 18 04:14:46 2018 No.11803305 He wanted to eliminate class divide and conflicting interests and stop alienation from work which should be a meaningful aspect of life

>>	Anonymous Tue Sep 18 04:15:27 2018 No.11803306 >>11803267 >>11803289 >>11803300 Ok pol fuck off, I´m not a commie or defending them,I know Marx is shit, I need this for a test so unless you´ve actually read Marx please fuck off

>>	Anonymous Tue Sep 18 04:16:16 2018 No.11803311 >>11803262 he wants to own the factories

>>	Anonymous Tue Sep 18 04:17:15 2018 No.11803316 the jewish race will inevitably cease the means of production from the white people of america by putting coloureds and women in videogames

>>	Anonymous Tue Sep 18 04:17:25 2018 No.11803317 >>11803306 Marx destroyed Western civilization and is responsible for us not having girlfriends

>>	Anonymous Tue Sep 18 04:17:46 2018 No.11803319 >>11803316 Spoilers dude

>>	Anonymous Tue Sep 18 04:18:52 2018 No.11803322 Marx and Gramsci destroyed western civilization through degeneracy and cultural Marxism.

>>	Anonymous Tue Sep 18 04:20:00 2018 No.11803326 Marx was the first person to advocate for nudity on TV, i.e. degeneracy

>>	Anonymous Tue Sep 18 04:20:56 2018 No.11803329 File: 62 KB, 480x495, 3463463545.jpg [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google] Its basically "give me free money for doing nothing"

>>	Anonymous Tue Sep 18 04:22:13 2018 No.11803334 >>11803317 Is that true? Well then I don't like him - not one bit.

>>	Anonymous Tue Sep 18 04:26:27 2018 No.11803349 >>11803334 Through historical materialism (inspired by the Jewish Hegelian dialectic) he brainwashed women into preferring apes instead of virtuous white men like you and me

>>	Anonymous Tue Sep 18 04:27:55 2018 No.11803352 He is the reason for social justice warriors.

>>	Anonymous Tue Sep 18 04:31:17 2018 No.11803360 Communism is basically an atheist state where everyone is paid the exact same no matter what job you have.

>>	Anonymous Tue Sep 18 04:31:21 2018 No.11803361 >>11803262 >Under no pretext should arms and ammunition be surrendered; any attempt to disarm the workers must be frustrated, by force if necessary. all you need to know

>>	Anonymous Tue Sep 18 04:32:39 2018 No.11803364 >>11803361 f*ck this gun-loving anti-semite

>>	Anonymous Tue Sep 18 04:33:07 2018 No.11803365 He wanted to destroy traditional values like family and religion qua cultural marxism.

>>	Anonymous Tue Sep 18 04:34:02 2018 No.11803366 >>11803262 gibs me that - karl marx

>>	Anonymous Tue Sep 18 04:36:16 2018 No.11803371 He is the reason rap music is popular

>>	Anonymous Tue Sep 18 04:36:56 2018 No.11803373 >>11803262 All the anti-Karl Marx people only read propoganda and are proud of it. His writing had little else to do but with workers being in charge of their work.

>>	Anonymous Tue Sep 18 04:39:25 2018 No.11803378 He wanted big corporations like Google to rule the world.

>>	Anonymous Tue Sep 18 04:41:02 2018 No.11803380 He is the reason the world isnt good

>>	Anonymous Tue Sep 18 04:42:33 2018 No.11803383 >>11803373 any system in which workers own any of their work will necessarily lead to total social collapse, they need the chosen people of G-D to guide them on the correct path; read Ayn Rand and Murray Rothbard

Anonymous Tue Sep 18 04:45:23 2018 No.11803395

>The JewishniggerLassalle who, I’m glad to say, is leaving at the end of this week, has happily lost another 5,000 talers in an ill-judged speculation. The chap would sooner throw money down the drain than lend it to a ‘friend’, even though his interest and capital were guaranteed. In this he bases himself on the view that he ought to live the life of a Jewish baron, or Jew created a baron (no doubt by the countess). Just imagine!
He was a nazi

>>	Anonymous Tue Sep 18 04:46:38 2018 No.11803400 File: 22 KB, 350x450, lassalle.jpg [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google] >>11803395 >jewish nigger

>>	Anonymous Tue Sep 18 04:47:43 2018 No.11803402 All his writing is just ranting about rich people being more succesful than him

>>	Anonymous Tue Sep 18 04:48:29 2018 No.11803408 >>11803262 Um, I didn't actually read any of his books, but I'm pretty sure it involve hating white people, destroying the West, and more government intervention

>>	Anonymous Tue Sep 18 04:53:48 2018 No.11803424 Marx would have voted for Hillary Clinton

>>	Anonymous Tue Sep 18 04:55:28 2018 No.11803426 Marx thought trannies were morally superior to the white heterosexual male

>>	Anonymous Tue Sep 18 04:56:03 2018 No.11803427 >marx has nothing to do with transgenderism! T. Mostly trannys

Anonymous Tue Sep 18 04:56:10 2018 No.11803428

>>11803262
He’s the only person who was vicious enough to name the corporation before it really came into being. Most of his diagnoses are correct though he does not grasp socio-biology, his anthropology and mathematical incompetence are the source of much of his failings.

>>	Anonymous Tue Sep 18 04:56:50 2018 No.11803432 >>11803360 >state >paid >job >communism

Anonymous Tue Sep 18 05:19:51 2018 No.11803494

>>11803262
Alright I'll give you a non meme answer
>we produce stuff for exchange not use, which creates contradictions in our economy (e.g homeless people and vacant homes)
>gommunism seeks to abolish exchange value, which means an abolition of money all together
>history is a struggle between classes through different modes of production
>bourgeoisie are those who own factories, land and whatever is used to generate profits(private property)
>proletariat are those who sell their labor in the market
>bourgeois/proles doesnt imply a rich/poor dichotomy, a lot of proles can be rich(e.g doctors, actors, musicians...), but they are defined through their relation to the means of production
There is too much to write down desu, I don't think its possible to summarize it into one shitpost

>>	Anonymous Tue Sep 18 10:20:56 2018 No.11804395 >>11803262 Capital is NOT sentient

>>	Anonymous Tue Sep 18 10:26:30 2018 No.11804412 >>11803262 "Gibs me dats fo free nigger, also fuck whitey"

>>	Anonymous Tue Sep 18 10:36:31 2018 No.11804426 File: 16 KB, 276x413, commfesto.jpg [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google]

>>	Anonymous Tue Sep 18 12:08:12 2018 No.11805001 >>11803262 Read Camatte: >>11800947

Anonymous Tue Sep 18 12:11:36 2018 No.11805015

>>11804395
Read Camatte
>>11801716
Must read. Especially for poltards who think any form of marxism is opposed to their ideas.

>>11802725
This is a meme which is from the most important part in The Fragment on the Machines.
I will look for one of the better sections in Capital and Community and find a quote. That is the best book to understand Marx.

Anonymous Tue Sep 18 13:04:54 2018 No.11805265

He wrote that capitalism is the end of history, as the necessary and final stage of human development. He wrote that it has vastly improved the quality of life of millions of people, and that, while it creates inequality, it is overall a positive improvement on what came before.
He was greatly inspired by Adam Smith, the great capitalist and mercantilist economist.
You can read all about how great he believes capitalism is in his book, "Capital."

Sadly, his ideas were later appropriated by Vladmir Lenin, Adolf Hitler, and that one bitch at the Starbucks who won't shut up about Roe v. Wade or some shit, and have been bastardized beyond recogniztion. These days, almost anyone who talks about Marx or Marxism has never read him.

>>	Anonymous Tue Sep 18 13:53:46 2018 No.11805517 >>11803329 >Risk is not labor. >Doesn't change the fact that the bigger the company gets the more division of labor. Until the point where the capitalist literally does nothing.

>>	Anonymous Tue Sep 18 14:02:41 2018 No.11805558 >>11803262 Read Weber instead.

Anonymous Tue Sep 18 19:14:05 2018 No.11806960
File: 75 KB, 768x1024, 1532528364098.jpg [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google]

>>11803352
desu the dude hated jews and treated his maid like shit, he was in no way a direct cause of SJW. Most of those people probs have never touched a volume of Kapital

>>	Anonymous Tue Sep 18 19:17:29 2018 No.11806967 File: 19 KB, 500x728, DD0_0023.jpg [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google] >>11803262 Read Bentham instead, he was a utilitarian rationalist

>>	Anonymous Tue Sep 18 19:25:35 2018 No.11806986 File: 15 KB, 200x183, Wikipedia-logo-v2[1].png [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google] op is fag

Anonymous Tue Sep 18 21:47:36 2018 No.11807505

>>11803262
Basically a bunch of Nostradamus tier predictions about the future evolution of economic systems which all turned out to be wrong and/or impossible. But a whole bunch of people still like the predictions and try to make them happen anyway.

The basic idea is that capitalism will transform into socialism and socialism will then eventually transform into communism. Turns out it never got past the first step and everyone who tried to implement socialism either by means of revolution or democratic processes inevitably gets stuck at state capitalism and tyrannical control over the people who were supposed to be liberated. Until finally the state collapses under its own weight.

>>	Anonymous Tue Sep 18 21:51:33 2018 No.11807519 Anti-utopian utopianism.

>>	Anonymous Tue Sep 18 21:55:38 2018 No.11807530 >>11803329 Read chapters 23-24 of capital for a refutation of that image. (the argument is in one of those two. Probably the first one)

>>	Anonymous Tue Sep 18 21:58:16 2018 No.11807538 >>11803428 >he does not grasp socio-biology, his anthropology and mathematical incompetence are the source of much of his failings. could you expand on this?

>>	Anonymous Tue Sep 18 21:59:04 2018 No.11807540 >>11803290 >Disdain for materialism >Views human existence as a commoditized economic unit of productivity Wew lad

>>	Anonymous Tue Sep 18 22:01:43 2018 No.11807552 Rich peoples suck, po' ppl be good

Anonymous Tue Sep 18 22:04:29 2018 No.11807561

>>11806967
"Classical economy always loved to conceive
social capital as a fixed magnitude of a fixed degree of efficiency. But this prejudice was first
established as a dogma by the arch-Philistine, Jeremy Bentham, that insipid, pedantic, leathertongued
oracle of the ordinary bourgeois intelligence of the 19th century.49 Bentham is among
philosophers what Martin Tupper is among poets. Both could only have been manufactured in
England.50 In the light of his dogma the commonest phenomena of the process of production, as,
e.g., its sudden expansions and contractions, nay, even accumulation itself, become perfectly
inconceivable. "

>>	Anonymous Tue Sep 18 22:05:29 2018 No.11807567 >>11803494 So the bourgeoisie were really just speculators? I.e. Jews? Was Marx /ourguy/?

>>	Anonymous Tue Sep 18 22:10:23 2018 No.11807584 >>11807567 The Strasser brothers moreso. I think Otto was the main theorist if I remember right. They were basically right wing communists.

>>	Anonymous Tue Sep 18 22:14:05 2018 No.11807601 File: 578 KB, 632x672, 8a6.png [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google]

>>	Anonymous Tue Sep 18 22:15:03 2018 No.11807603 >>11807530 >read this surah to understand why allah is the true god

Anonymous Tue Sep 18 23:17:44 2018 No.11807853

>>11803262
No, that misses the point. Marxism requires shitloads of mental gymnastics to maintain because none of it coincides with reality. It HAS to be a spaghetti mess of crap in 40 pound tomes or you would just immediately see it's a bunch of crap.

>>	Anonymous Tue Sep 18 23:21:28 2018 No.11807872 >>11802725 The left seriously can't meme

>>	Anonymous Wed Sep 19 00:09:25 2018 No.11808033 File: 146 KB, 540x626, nicememe.png [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google] >>11807872 I made this meme (the joke in the original panel was how much she was saying) and people assumed from looking at it that it was a leftist meme and now I know why.

Anonymous Wed Sep 19 00:21:31 2018 No.11808054

>>11803262
>I will make people think dialectics aren't intrinsically metaphysical if I call them material
His criticism to capitalism is insightful, at least it was for his time, but I can't see how anyone can take socialism seriously when it's based on a prediction that depends on a theory of history that's wrong from the let go.

Anonymous Wed Sep 19 00:24:22 2018 No.11808058

>>11803306
Marx talked a lot about a lot of things. All with the perspective of historical materialism - an overly simplistic and reductive way to view the patterns of the growth of human civilization.
His perspective is one from hegel - a german philosopher which proposed the idea that you cannot take anything in the world "as given" since there is always going to be some conceptual lens (based on the society you live in) you will view things through. Hegel was obsessed with the dialectic process in which you have two forces: a thesis (a subject - you), anti-thesis (an object - things in your environment), and a syntheses (a resolution between the thesis and anti-thesis). Don't worry about hegel though, even marx didn't deeply understand hegel. It was common for him to say, if someone asked him about something which he didn't understand as, "it's dialectical."
Contrary to popular belief, his ideas are actually based on individualism and finding your true self.
It's common to compare him to freud, since they follow the same "method" but they view the world through different perspectives.
Marx's view is overly reductive to homoeconomous, and freud is all about sexual frustration.
Anyway there was a common problem in classical econ based on how we value objects in a society. Adam smith, david ricardo, and other economists at the time were ultra utilitarian (so was marx) and they boiled down valuation of goods/services to two fundamental forces:
1)The exchange value (what the good was being sold at on the market).
2)The use value (what the good was objectively worth to a society - how useful that good is)
People like Smith, and Ricardo, viewed what was being traded on the market as fluxuating prices AROUND the use-value. Yet they had no idea how to calculate that (what they believed as) REAL value, the use value. A famous question smith asked was, "Why is water so cheap, but has so many uses, and diamonds so expensive, but is virtually useless?" No one knew at the time.
Marx came in, saw this argument, and applied hegel's method to it. He said exchange value is the object, use value is the subject, and the only thing that matters is the use value.
So the idea behind marx is to make the use-value become realized as the true value through the dialectic process.
He would argue diamonds are so expensive because their actual true use-value is low (not just fluctuating around its market price), and the market has gone so out-of-control that this commodity has become "objectified" - the sake of wanting it for wanting's sake.
He also said EVERYTHING valuable (use value) in society is boiled down to some form of labor.
All of this is nonsense btw, and really the only thing we can confidently take away from marx is the dangers of monopolistic forces becoming in charge and he was onto something about his sociological thoughts on alienation.

>>	Anonymous Wed Sep 19 00:27:45 2018 No.11808067 >>11803262 Labor given should correlate to needs met.

>>	Anonymous Wed Sep 19 00:30:48 2018 No.11808074 >>11803262 >all for the state >moral relativism >many fags

>>	Anonymous Wed Sep 19 00:33:17 2018 No.11808085 >>11808074 wrong wrong what?

>>	Anonymous Wed Sep 19 00:36:03 2018 No.11808097 >>11808074 >>11808085 many fags AND jews*

>>	Anonymous Wed Sep 19 00:37:38 2018 No.11808102 >>11808058 Sophomoric exegesis, especially on Marx's relation to Hegel and how dialectical materialism relates to LTV. Honorable mentions for handwaving at dialectical materialism while accusing Marx of doing the same. 3/10.

>>	Anonymous Wed Sep 19 00:39:38 2018 No.11808106 >>11808102 oh look. a delusional retard. how cute.

>>	Anonymous Wed Sep 19 00:41:20 2018 No.11808110 >>11808106 Nice argument

>>	Anonymous Wed Sep 19 00:44:35 2018 No.11808123 >>11803306 Anon, just watch this if you want a quick breakdown. there are 5 videos. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=kIlEkbU4rx0&index=9&list=PLDF7B08FF8564D1FE

Anonymous Wed Sep 19 00:47:13 2018 No.11808128

>>11808110
your argument is shit. We can get into why if you'd like. We don't follow LTV. Neo-marxists have jettisoned this idea because they know it's crazy-talk. They focus on power structures (most notably involving rent-seeking behavior) and his ideas on alienation. Marx didn't even know calculus. Learn the marginal theory of value to understand why you're wrong.

>>	Anonymous Wed Sep 19 00:52:56 2018 No.11808143 >>11803306 >/pol/ /pol/? /pol/.

Anonymous Wed Sep 19 00:54:54 2018 No.11808148

>>11808128
Right, so you're just another dogmatic liberal who lost an argument to a liberterian once. Yawn.
I aced my econ classes in undergrad, and I can without hesitation call out your charlatanism when you start paraphrasing Hayek, master of Reaganomics as a rebuke of Marxist theory.

Anonymous Wed Sep 19 01:00:02 2018 No.11808166

>>11808148
>I aced my econ classes in undergrad.
Post the proof of the first fundamental theory of welfare, then explain it.
Then explain the second theory of welfare.

Show me you're not a retard blowing smoke.

>Reaganomics
Literally not even a thing. So you are retarded.
> charlatanism [...] rebuke of Marxist theory.
I don't need to. I can turn to Weber, I can turn to Durkheim, I can turn to Menger, I can turn to Paul Samulson, I can turn to Irving Fisher, I can turn to Edgworth, I can go on... and on... and on... anon.

>>	Anonymous Wed Sep 19 01:08:56 2018 No.11808194 File: 94 KB, 631x706, 1520018106838.jpg [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google] >>11803262 A modernized version of Christianity (mind control).

Anonymous Wed Sep 19 01:10:01 2018 No.11808197

>>11808166
>Literally not even a thing. So you are retarded.
Supply-side economics is a thing. Massive deregulation is premised on the ideas of these nutjobs you're citing.

I don't have anything to prove to you. I'm not getting anything out of explaining why you're being stupid to you. If you read even the first hundred pages of Capital you would understand that LTV isn't talking about price, which is the assumption that the Menger, Hayek, and the other dumbass Austrians who level the critique you just paraphrased make in order to "disprove socialism." All this despite the fact that their theories failed to account for the largest period of sustained economic growth in history was in an economy where the public sector was much larger than the private sector, in a command economy of Chinese market socialism.

You can keep responding if you want, but I don't really see a point in arguing with you anymore. You obviously aren't going to say anything I haven't heard before, and you believe what you believe based on biased secondary sources that distort the argument being leveled. You aren't interested in the truth, so there isn't really a point in presenting it to you.

Anonymous Wed Sep 19 01:14:36 2018 No.11808213

>>11808197
>I don't have anything to prove to you [...] Blah blah blah
LOL
Like fucking clockwork.

Go ahead blather on like an idiot, anon. You REALLY know what's going on. After all, beliefs are free. At least I hope your thoughts let you sleep tight at night.

>>	Anonymous Wed Sep 19 01:16:14 2018 No.11808217 >>11808213 Yeah, be sure to kiss your master's feet goodnight before your nightly "Atlas Shrugged."

>>	Anonymous Wed Sep 19 01:17:11 2018 No.11808221 >>11808217 >"Atlas Shrugged." LOL What? Literally living in your head.

Anonymous Wed Sep 19 01:19:49 2018 No.11808232

>>11808221
>LOL I love Menger and leveling a critique at things I haven't read based on the writings of people who hate said things and also haven't read them, but I'm totally not a Randtard guys
Suuuuuure
Did you even read the fucking Austrians you're citing bud?

>>	Anonymous Wed Sep 19 01:20:10 2018 No.11808235 >>11803290 sounds good and correct to me

>>	Anonymous Wed Sep 19 01:21:12 2018 No.11808238 >>11807603 Which surah?

>>	Anonymous Wed Sep 19 01:22:09 2018 No.11808240 >>11808232 >leveling a critique at things I haven't read based on the writings of people who hate said things and also haven't read them so.... basically.... you? >Austrians HAHAHA Oh anon... ur cute bud.

Anonymous Wed Sep 19 01:26:32 2018 No.11808258

>>11808240
I just explained your error to you based on the primary source. I identified where your posturing fraud chum from the tea party rally plagiarized his critique of LTV from, and addressed how it's wrong. You're literally namedropping Austrians and haven't made a single argument since you were called out in your first post other than this straw man of LTV that you lifted from Paul Ryan's Margaret Thatcher Memorial Book Club.

Anonymous Wed Sep 19 01:34:07 2018 No.11808285

>>11808258
>I just explained your error to you based on the primary source. blah blah blah
No you didn't. You simply said, "i'm a prophet who TRULY understands a persons work."
When in reality, marx presented a fairly clear mathematical model, of which everyone taking a course in college on the subject interprets thusly.
Just because you haven't been to college, anon, doesn't mean others haven't as well.

>You're literally namedropping Austrians
You literally spotted the name menger, and then attributed every other person (and more, mind you there is even a larger back-log) that they are all Austrians. Austrians live so deep inside your head, you see them around every corner.
>Margaret Thatcher Memorial Book Club.
Ho-ly shit anon, you are cracking me the fuck up.
You have no fucking clue what you are talking about, literally clutching pearls.

Anonymous Wed Sep 19 01:47:51 2018 No.11808316

>>11808285
Try reading again retard.

Maybe this is all a little too complex for your stupid head. This might help you out. How do you disprove one theory with another theory that relies on different assumptions?
Hint: you don't.

You literally stated that Marginalism disproves LTV. That's impossible, because they don't even share the same fundamental assumptions. As a model, as I mentioned, a command economy based on Marxism has been more successful than any capitalist or primarily private market-based system in history *by capitalism's own metrics!*

All that you're really saying is that the assumptions of LTV and marginalism are incompatible, which is true. Neither is in a position to "disprove" the other like your brainlet red scare economists led you to believe.

Not all things that have value are capable of being priced. If value differs from price, then marginalism cannot adequately explain it.

LTV explicitly assumes that value and price are different things, and attempts to explain why utility and price seem to differ so widely at times, a problem that befuddled preceding economists. Marginalism is unconcerened with this problem, and assumes that value and price are identical.
They are incommensurate.

I'm actually done now. Have fun being blindsided by a 90% tax rate.

Anonymous Wed Sep 19 02:04:26 2018 No.11808347

>>11808316
>How do you disprove one theory with another theory that relies on different assumptions?
In capital, Marx is directly using classical economists at the time to prove his point.
His goal was to show, within their models, why he can justify his critique.
Here's the funny thing you're completely ignoring - we don't even follow a classical model to this day.

>You literally stated that Marginalism disproves LTV. That's impossible, because they don't even share the same fundamental assumptions.
No. Fucking. Duh. Because LTV doesn't work. It simply doesn't fucking work you fucking mongoloid. Again, we can get into WHY, but you're so fucking delusional into thinking the entire world is out to get you. Marginal Theory REPLACES this stupid fucking archaic idea of value.
>Hurr durr Aristotle physics isn't the same thing as newtonian physics, so how can you criticize it???
Jesus fucking christ, you're idiot.

> command economy based on Marxism has been more successful than any capitalist or primarily private market-based system in history *by capitalism's own metrics!*
>Hurr durr i know statistics
Anon, you know jack shit over what the fuck you're talking about. You can't even show the goddamn 3-line proof of the first fundamental theory of welfare.
Marx made so many just absolutely atrocious predictions. If you were to take any type of sociology course (ohhh nooo brainwashing) they would show you why. This is why neo-marxists have completely abandoned the idea of LTV, and focused entirely on power structures (particularly in relation to monopolistic forces) and alienation.

There is a VAST level of knowledge on this, anon, on why the LTV doesn't fucking work. You are operating on Aristotle physics.

>Marginalism is unconcerened with this problem, and assumes that value and price are identical. They are incommensurate.
The reason why is because there IS NO OBJECTIVE VALUE YOU FUCKING MORON. PRICES ARE ALL FUCKING RELATIVE TO MARGINAL UTILITY.

Anonymous Wed Sep 19 02:16:23 2018 No.11808381

>>11808316
>Not all things that have value are capable of being priced. If value differs from price, then marginalism cannot adequately explain it.
wrong again.
You can't even criticize Austrian marginal theory correctly (and surprise-surprise there IS in fact a critique of Austrian marginal theory). We don't follow Austrian marginal theory.

Anonymous Wed Sep 19 02:23:24 2018 No.11808395

>>11808347
>In capital, Marx is directly using classical economists at the time to prove his point.
>His goal was to show, within their models, why he can justify his critique.
>Here's the funny thing you're completely ignoring - we don't even follow a classical model to this day.
Who is this "we" you speak of? By "we" do you mean brainwashed MBAs who blindly follow a function to leverage subprime lending bundles until it tanks the entire world economy? Or do you mean the speculators who crashed the economy 90 years prior because that value of the entire economy really just is what you can extract from it safely as an investor?

>No. Fucking. Duh. Because LTV doesn't work. It simply doesn't fucking work you fucking mongoloid. Again, we can get into WHY, but you're so fucking delusional into thinking the entire world is out to get you. Marginal Theory REPLACES this stupid fucking archaic idea of value.
It does work. You keep ignoring the elephant in the room.

>Jesus fucking christ, you're idiot.
Says the person who fundamentally misunderstands science. Aristotle's physics is wrong because it's wrong on its own. It's verifiably false. Not because of Newton. Similarly, classical mechanics is wrong by itself, and not because of General Relativity.
This should be obvious to you, since you can see that something is incorrect without understanding the correct or full description.
Similarly, you can't disprove one theory with another than makes fundamentally different assumptions because the new theory can also be wrong. I know it's hard to hear, but it's possible that marginalism is incorrect. Maybe you never considered that, but you should.
Theories stand or fall on their own merits. In order to disprove a theory, you show that it necessarily implies something, and then you show that that something is false.
You don't just come up with a radically different theory and toss the old one because an apple hit you in the head.
At most, new observations typically motivate skepticism of the old paradigm and development of a new paradigm.
In many sciences, you even have competing paradigms that are incompatible yet are both taken seriously. Not that I would expect someone invoking Austrian economics to understand something superficially subtle about the philosophy of science though.

>The reason why is because there IS NO OBJECTIVE VALUE YOU FUCKING MORON. PRICES ARE ALL FUCKING RELATIVE TO MARGINAL UTILITY.
[Citation needed]
Although I don't need to assert that there is to assert that not everything of value can be priced. Another point you seem to have missed.

>>11808381
>>Not all things that have value are capable of being priced. If value differs from price, then marginalism cannot adequately explain it.

>wrong again.
>You can't even criticize Austrian marginal theory correctly (and surprise-surprise there IS in fact a critique of Austrian marginal theory). We don't follow Austrian marginal theory.
Maybe try addressing the points, dogmatist.

Anonymous Wed Sep 19 02:34:36 2018 No.11808413

>>11808347
>PRICES ARE ALL FUCKING RELATIVE TO MARGINAL UTILITY.
So when I pay $59 on Steam for Dark Souls double remaster: the portening, that's marginal utility? It's related to the supply of 1s and 0s they keep on hand to beam through the internet on Steam to my SSD? And it's exactly the price that me and my fellow gamers (rise up!) decided was worth it for this scarce and finite triple port in conjuction with the rare and scarce supply of 1s and 0s that both fromsoft and valve have?

Or is it more like you.re completely full of shit and took your highschool defense of capitalism class and tried to apply it to the real world as some kind of objective truth?

Anonymous Wed Sep 19 02:36:53 2018 No.11808421

>>11808395
>Who is this "we" you speak of? By "we" do you mean brainwashed MBAs who blah blah blah
There you go again, anon.
Post the fundamental theory on asset pricing, and we'll have this conversation.

>It does work. You keep ignoring the elephant in the room.
No it doesn't, if you don't like economists i've mentioned and sociologists (weber and Durkheim are not "reganites" btw as you would put it)
We can talk about the feminist critique of marx.
We can talk about distributive justice theorists (yes sjw's, my god) critique on marx like Nozick, Rawls, and more.

>[Citation needed]
Take an econ course, anon, and actually learn why. On the way, actually learn what the fuck the proof is on the first fundamental theory of welfare.
> not everything of value can be priced. Another point you seem to have missed.
Economists haven't missed anything there, anon. We know how to calculate the "weird" shit. It has nothing to do with marginal utility.

>>	Anonymous Wed Sep 19 02:38:11 2018 No.11808426 >>11808421 >everything has to do with marginal utility >except when it doesn't Your field ia a fucking joke

>>	Anonymous Wed Sep 19 02:41:01 2018 No.11808433 >>11808421 >Post the fundamental theory on asset pricing, and we'll have this conversation. Okay but first prove how LTV necessarily contradicts Pareto Optimality, and then I'll stop BTFOing your poor understanding of Marx, Mr. Economics man.

Anonymous Wed Sep 19 02:41:59 2018 No.11808436

>>11808413
>$59 on Steam for Dark Souls double remaster: the portening, that's marginal utility? It's related to the supply of 1s and 0s they keep on hand to beam through the internet on Steam to my SSD?
It's related to game theory, utility theory (whether it's a hicksian demand function or a marshellian demand function: I don't know. I would suspect marshallian, since they are easier to formulate, but i wouldn't be surprised if they use a hicksian demand function since they are more accurate), and general equilibrium theory. Chances are they also throw in a bit of behavioral econ in there as well to get their marketing straight.

>>	Anonymous Wed Sep 19 02:43:36 2018 No.11808442 WE WUZ UPRASSED N' SHIT

>>	Anonymous Wed Sep 19 02:45:43 2018 No.11808445 >>11808143 >/pol/? >/pol/. /pol/: 1. /pol/ 2. /pol/ 3. /pol/ >>>/pol/

>>	Anonymous Wed Sep 19 02:45:50 2018 No.11808446 >>11808433 What part do you want to cover on why marx's ideas on LTV is shit? The feminist part? Nozicks? Rawls? Someone else?

Anonymous Wed Sep 19 02:48:28 2018 No.11808449

>>11808436
I'm not asking why they charge that. I already know the answer to it and don't need an equation. It's completely unrelated to marginal utility. Just like the Mona Lisa. Just like a Debian Stretch disc image. Just like the incompleteness theorem. Just like supersymmetry. How about you calculate the marginal utility of a Mars exploration mission? The CO2 emissions of the state of Florida?
The sounds your mom was making while I was over last night?
It's a credit card commercial played out in real life, but I don't expect you to be as intelligent as your masters. There's a reason you work for them after all, and not all of it is a rigged system.

>>	Anonymous Wed Sep 19 02:48:52 2018 No.11808451 >>11808445 /pol/. /pol/. /pol/. /pol/. . . . /pol/.

>>	Anonymous Wed Sep 19 02:50:53 2018 No.11808455 >>11808426 The "weird" shit has absolutely nothing to do with marginal utility. It has everything to do with rivalrous vs. non-rivalrous goods. And how easy it is to create well-established private property rights.

Anonymous Wed Sep 19 02:54:15 2018 No.11808465

>>11808455
Wait, I thought the theory was about price?
But you have to add ad-hoc explanations for cases that don't fit the theory?
That sounds like a shitty theory.
You sure your field is a science, and not just apologism dressed up in the notation of maths? Replete with wild oversimplifications and moral judgements disguised as descriptive theory?

Anonymous Wed Sep 19 02:58:32 2018 No.11808481

>>11805517
>Doesn't change the fact that the bigger the company gets the more division of labor. Until the point where the capitalist literally does nothing.

So what? He gained the means to risk and then risked resources enough to create the company. He could have failed instead of succeeding, but he succeeded in a voluntary market. People wanted his teacups enough that he grew the business to the point where he could delegate labor without having to do it... or to a point where it made more sense to delegate labor rather than do it himself.

So fucking what? Are you that mad that other people succeed?

Anonymous Wed Sep 19 02:58:45 2018 No.11808482

>>11808449
>How about you calculate the marginal utility of a Mars exploration mission? The CO2 emissions of the state of Florida? Mona Lisa. Debian Stretch disc image.
easily done, given the numbers.

>CO2 emissions
Read about ronald coase and arthur pigou.
https://www.law.uchicago.edu/files/file/coase-problem.pdf

> the incompleteness theorem. Just like supersymmetry.
read paul romer and his theory of the positive externalities associated to human capital.
http://pages.stern.nyu.edu/%7Epromer/Endogenous.pdf

>>	Anonymous Wed Sep 19 03:00:35 2018 No.11808484 File: 51 KB, 960x539, 17rvzk.jpg [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google] >>11808482 >trying to calculate the utility of scientific research Holy shit the absolute state of capitalism >I dunno guys, is knowing stuff really worth it?????

Anonymous Wed Sep 19 03:02:32 2018 No.11808489

>>11808465
>Wait, I thought the theory was about price?
>But you have to add ad-hoc explanations for cases that don't fit the theory?
No anon. It all fits nicely with our theory of value.
Here is another guy, george akerlof, with a surprising conclusion - which spins off into another focus of econ revolving the prices associated to information.
https://www.sas.upenn.edu/~hfang/teaching/socialinsurance/readings/fudan_hsbc/Akerlof70(2.1).pdf

>>	Anonymous Wed Sep 19 03:06:01 2018 No.11808502 >>11808484 Journal of Political Economy also published a satirical article on the economics of toothbrushing, through the use of econometric techniques.

Anonymous Wed Sep 19 03:09:34 2018 No.11808513

>>11808489
>it's good and reasonable not to hire minorities because you can never be to sure and then their schools will improve naturally as a result of capitalism's innate efficiency.

That sure worked out fantastic. I guess it's time to pack it up. The economists solved racism back in 1970.

Anonymous Wed Sep 19 03:15:37 2018 No.11808525

>>11808513
>>it's good and reasonable not to hire minorities because you can never be to sure and then their schools will improve naturally as a result of capitalism's innate efficiency.
this is incorrect. again, read paul romer's paper.
http://pages.stern.nyu.edu/%7Epromer/Endogenous.pdf

The conclusion is such that places should be opened to more trade, rather than less.
Trump is a fucking idiot.
The idea is this lessens the burden of error, so if a person fucks up, they don't fuck up hard because they have an economic support network. Also (sociologically speaking), getting the disenfranchised more access to social support networks is necessary for similar social reasons - to make people more adaptable/pliable to the challenges and stresses in life.

Anonymous Wed Sep 19 03:19:31 2018 No.11808533

>>11808513
>The economists solved racism back in 1970.
Also this is discussed in gary becker's spearhead paper on discrimination in the market place.
He was able to show that in the short run racial discrimination can be prevalent. In the long run, racial discrimination can exist through rent-seeking behavior. His paper ALSO talks about how businesses will discriminate in general (not necessarily by inherent fundamental aspects in people): they will discriminate not only on their own preferences, but also the preferences of their workers, and the preferences of their customers.

>>	Anonymous Wed Sep 19 10:01:05 2018 No.11809491 File: 65 KB, 729x457, C8nH4DvWsAAlnCR.jpg [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google] Utilitarian Economic Rationalism > Marxism

>>	Anonymous Wed Sep 19 10:59:07 2018 No.11809685 >>11809491 >posts an image where utiitarian is advocating rape >in a post advocating utilitarianism You can be a rapist in any economic system, anon. I see why capitalism in particular appeals to your rapey predilections though.

>>	Anonymous Wed Sep 19 11:03:53 2018 No.11809708 File: 40 KB, 700x758, the-cathedral.jpg [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google]

Anonymous Wed Sep 19 11:08:13 2018 No.11809729
File: 134 KB, 400x224, E6A98A20-2DDC-4BF1-ADBE-852DD10C665F.png [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google]

Race and class are connected and it has to do with alienation. Rich white people alienate poor white people so poor white people start believing they're better than rich black people. It's all fucking stupid. The rich are fucking you over and rigging the system in their favor regardless of what color they are. People believe in money more than any religion or nationality at this point in late stage capitalism.

Anonymous Wed Sep 19 11:44:38 2018 No.11809861

>>11809729
White people have understood that they're better than black people since they encountered them living in savagery with nary a building or a domestic animal. Rather than some elaborate social construct or a product of capitalism, white superiority is a natural, unpretentious assumption based on real differences in ability that manifest in greater and lesser societies.

Anonymous Wed Sep 19 11:46:50 2018 No.11809868

>>11809729
>Race and class are connected and it has to do with alienation.
there are many different perspectives on alienation.
Weber calls it disenchantment - a multi-parameter approach to the topic.
Durkheim calls it Anomie - the state of normlessness.
Personally i think Durkheim comes close, since he uses a perspective based on community (rather than individuals), biology, social norms, and a rigorous "statistical" method to formulate his ideas. His perspective is you need to study the WHOLE picture to understand these types of topics. He thinks we should relate pop-size, the environment, tech, and social organization. They are ALL interlinked together, and we need to study it as a whole as an ecosystem.
The idea behind alienation is people go from one culture (of which there is organic solidarity and a division of labor among the individuals) to the next, and their moral systems can be completely up-rooted - think a kid leaving his home for the big city. He also relates this feeling of alienation and isolation to the gradual evolution of the division of labor. We know the division of labor can lead to solidarity, but it can also lead to isolation/alienation. So he thinks there can be either too much or too little division of labor.
His recommendation is to HAVE some very clear social norms between different cultures - there needs to be an appropriate level of regulation for a society. You can't have too little, since this leads to aniome, and you can't have too much, because this leads to fatalism. Fatalism is an idea of too much rules and regulation leads to a lack of motivation, the feeling of being a slave to the system, etc. its similar to a kafka-esque view.

Anonymous Wed Sep 19 11:47:39 2018 No.11809871

>>11809729
Capital is sentient. Capital will not be ultimately unmasked as exploited labour power; rather, humans are the meat puppet of Capital, their identities and self-understandings, including race or social standing, are simulations that can and will be ultimately be sloughed off.

>>	Anonymous Wed Sep 19 11:48:54 2018 No.11809872 >>11809871 Capital favors what we divine as 'low IQ races' as well as this is in His interest currently.

>>	Anonymous Wed Sep 19 12:31:26 2018 No.11810001 >>11803373 >be anti-Karl Marx >read Marx >only read propaganda Sounds about right desu.

>>	Anonymous Wed Sep 19 12:49:13 2018 No.11810054 >>11803262 I'm lazy and the government should take care of me.

>>	Anonymous Wed Sep 19 12:58:57 2018 No.11810075 >>11810054 Imagine being this wrong when making a post.

>>	Anonymous Wed Sep 19 13:02:12 2018 No.11810084 >>11803262 He failed to account for the fact that Humanity is a means for a super-intelligent AI to retroactively create itself, all economic and political development based on actors or agents is invalid and entirely subjective (and inefficient).

>>	Anonymous Wed Sep 19 13:14:06 2018 No.11810121 >>11810075 Imagine thinking I'm wrong

>>	Anonymous Wed Sep 19 13:21:12 2018 No.11810148 File: 105 KB, 500x566, understanding-trump-supporters-when-lbj-was-asked-why-poor-and-29371243.png [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google] >>11809729 Is this an actual quote from LBJ?

Anonymous Wed Sep 19 13:34:22 2018 No.11810203

>>11808054
Agreed. I think the fact that we can't separate the ideals from the system is a shame, because i think he has a real point on the exploitation of the working class and their struggle that we could benefit a lot from today.

And honestly, i don't think communism is impractical if the people in power could be trusted. But because they can't, it will never ever work until we somehow genetically engineer perfect humans. For that reason, no step on snek

>>	Anonymous Wed Sep 19 13:40:47 2018 No.11810226 File: 608 KB, 2550x3300, 1531068471256.jpg [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google] ITT: Retards who STILL don't get Labor Theory of Value. It's almost as if you none of you bothered reading even SECTION ONE of CHAPTER ONE of VOLUME ONE of Kapital.

>>	Anonymous Wed Sep 19 13:49:38 2018 No.11810266 >>11810226 actually no. your macro isn't assuming people itt havn't read chapter one of kapital.

Anonymous Wed Sep 19 13:56:40 2018 No.11810296

>>11803262
The organization of society is determined by the means of production. The means of production are the machinery, methodologies, resources and technology that comprise the capital base of the economy.

Throughout history, except for early prehistory and some exceptions, the organization of capital has fixed a class structure in society.

This class structure is based on stratified functional roles and roles of ownership and property related to the means of production.

The capitalist formally owns the means of production, controlling its output and managing its day to day business operations. The capitalist pays wages to workers who comprise the other and largest class, the proletariat.

The proletariat are the great mass of humanity. They do the labor of the world, lifting, operating, sifting, building, repairing, maintaining, growing, harvesting, and collecting all the aggregate production of society.

According to Marxist theory the capitalist class inherently oppresses the proletariat by refusing to raise wages to keep with inflation, and to keep them at starvation wages so that they cannot escape their socioeconomic status and must work in the capitalist's factories.

Many elaborate incentives for capitalist class to abuse the working class appear under a fully corroded capitalist system, creating the preconditions for the socialist uprising and revolution that will overthrow it.

>>	Anonymous Wed Sep 19 13:57:41 2018 No.11810301 >>11810296 /thread right here. Bumping this

>>	Anonymous Wed Sep 19 13:58:29 2018 No.11810305 >>11810226 Does anyone at this point, be it anti-marxist or Marxist, actually reads the fucking doorstopper "the Capital" and takes the time to do an exegesis of it, like it was some ancient mystic text?

>>	Anonymous Wed Sep 19 13:58:33 2018 No.11810306 >>11803316 B&RP

Anonymous Wed Sep 19 13:59:22 2018 No.11810309

>>11810296
This is idiotic.

Shit is still being produced, and it's being produced because you want, but not exactly what you want - rather, what the collective wants, or even more precise what will yield the most profit. Profit and maximization can exist only within scarcity, so scarcity is produced and enforced. Furthermore, it's not just the natural scarcity, but altered scarcity that is the result of totality of capital individually striving to produce conditions in which each cell (or the atom) gets the biggest yield. Proletariat make of and for themselves the bread and circuses.
Creepy cyborgs once made by man's hand and given a utility function surround the playground of remaining humanity, trying their best so the humans fulfill their utility functions. They feed them, because dead people can't make them feel good, but not too much, or otherwise the humans will tell them to fuck off and stop giving them meaningless tokens of value. They can't ditch the hairy apes and play with themselves because their dim-witted creators were smart enough to let them define value, so they continue to toy with the miserable race.

>>	Anonymous Wed Sep 19 14:01:27 2018 No.11810320 >>11810309 Kant and Hegel have a lot to answer for making an even more insidious God for the masses.

>>	Anonymous Wed Sep 19 14:04:28 2018 No.11810331 >>11810309 I was asked to summarize Marx's ideas and that's what I did. I didn't say I believed them. I think they are at best half true.

>>	Anonymous Wed Sep 19 14:06:19 2018 No.11810343 >>11809729 >late stage capitalism We haven’t even begun to see the end of capitalism. I doubt we will until all the countries of the world is more or less equal.

>>	Anonymous Wed Sep 19 14:06:31 2018 No.11810344 This thread sucks, just read "Wage Labour and Capital" instead, it's about the same length and written for 89 IQ boys

>>	Anonymous Wed Sep 19 14:08:15 2018 No.11810352 >>11810343 Capitalism will devolve to feudalism before it ends or is retconned by super AI.

Anonymous Wed Sep 19 14:09:44 2018 No.11810361

>>11810296
the problem with marx are many.

his assumption that human labor is the only source of surplus is riddled with holes.
He also tries to come off as objective, but his formulation is actually a moral argument (which is okay to have).
And also some alternative problems as well, particularly associated to the the simplistic idea of historical materialism.

>>	Anonymous Wed Sep 19 14:11:03 2018 No.11810366 >>11809729 >The rich Fuck off brainlet, Marxism isn't against "the rich"

Anonymous Wed Sep 19 14:12:10 2018 No.11810370

>>11808484
Of course this should be calculated. You could spend billions worth of resources researching spiders. Equally, you could use up more resources researching climate change then putting them to action trying to stop it.

If we lived in a land of unlimited resources communism would be great but that’s not the case and never will be.

Anonymous Wed Sep 19 14:12:43 2018 No.11810374

>>11810343
I'm skeptical of that claim. Capitalism needs to continue expanding markets to keep positive economic growth increases constant. Even if the world's 3 billion+ plus impoverished people somehow get transformed into a consumer base through capitalist successes, eventually the earth will run out of resources to supply them with the expendable commodities that capitalist production favors.

We'll run out of everything if we try to sell everyone in the world a var and an iphone and a big house with ac and three bathrooms and a fridge and heated floors. Cryptocurrency mining alone consumes more electricity than the country of Iceland .

That leaves outer space. The only way capitalism will be able to continue extraction is by mining for resources outside of the earth's atmosphere. Space has everything we could ever need in practically infinite abundance, but the distance away from us of those valuables means that they practically do not exist.

Increases in investment in rocketry technology and deep space resource extraction and transport could potentially be the most profitable and game changing event in the history of capitalism.

Hence why Jeff Bezos, arguably history's greatest businessman, is getting on that space exploration startup game.

Anonymous Wed Sep 19 14:14:12 2018 No.11810380

>>11810361
No I agree. His theory of value leaves much to be desired. He doesn't understand that the margin for wages can increase with profit margins, since the aggregate production and wealth of society increases regardless of wage growth, and the cost of products diminishes as the production methods and costs of primary components of production decrease.

Anonymous Wed Sep 19 14:16:12 2018 No.11810388

>>11810374
>We'll run out of everything if we try to sell everyone in the world a var and an iphone and a big house with ac and three bathrooms and a fridge and heated floors.
Incorrect. This assumes if all inputs remain constant, but they don't. They are constantly changing with new technological developments - we are constantly finding ways of doing more with less.

>>	Anonymous Wed Sep 19 14:16:47 2018 No.11810393 >>11810370 Or we could just spend the billions and become fucking spiderpeople.

Anonymous Wed Sep 19 14:19:35 2018 No.11810403

>>11810305
Branko Milanovic wrote a very good blogpost about this, how Marx was basically an above-average (albeit scatter-minded) 19th century sociologist whose theories were superseded by the various "revisionists" of the early 20th century. But his fame never faded because he directly birthed a successful revolutionary movement. It were Lenin, Castro and Mao who forever set Marx's name in stone, not any of his actual ideas (all of which are fuzzy, prohibitively esoteric and, most embarrassingly, falsifiable).

>>	Anonymous Wed Sep 19 14:20:59 2018 No.11810410 >>11810380 t.hasn't read capital Vol.2 Marx addresses this when explaining the falling rate of profits

>>	Anonymous Wed Sep 19 14:24:59 2018 No.11810432 >>11810410 Then please explain it.

>>	Anonymous Wed Sep 19 14:31:31 2018 No.11810461 >>11810054 >I'm lazy and I can't read a short manifesto

Anonymous Wed Sep 19 14:37:02 2018 No.11810488

>>11810296
I grew up a prole, and I can say that upper management will in fact seek to fuck over workers at every opportunity.

My dad works for a union and he gets his pension and healthcare fucked with by the management every time they negotiate a contract. These people do not give a flying fuck about their workers, and will leave them with scraps if that's what they can get away with.

I say fuck em. If they're not going to give us concessions then let them have it. Let the socialist bullets fly; if a class war is what this is, let's make it formal and bring out the actual guns. Guerrilla warfare. Tired of this pussy protesting shit. Give it one or two more stock market crashes.

>>	Anonymous Wed Sep 19 14:38:46 2018 No.11810496 >>11810488 "It's only 'class warfare' when we fight back"

Anonymous Wed Sep 19 14:39:14 2018 No.11810499

>>11803262
>a system has developed within the past couple centuries in europe thanks to industrialization

>in this system almost everyone is working menial jobs for long hours for a few people who live extraordinarily well and don’t really work much themselves

>despite the fact that subordinates do almost everything related to actually producing goods, it’s the owner that supposedly actually owns the productive infrastructure (means of production) and reaps an extremely disproportionate share of the profits

>working to generate profits for another person engenders dissatisfaction in the worker and spiritual corruption in the owner (capitalist)

>eventually the workers are going to get tired of this, and because they are 99% of the population, they will overthrow the capitalists and establish a dictatorship over them

that’s all that you need to know. people need to understand that marxism is almost entirely descriptive and not normative. it’s also different from communism. i’m a marxist in that i agree with marx’s socioeconomic analysis (a descriptive stance) but not a communist, for example.

also, people need to understand that a ‘proletariat’ isn’t just some poor guy slaving away in a steel factory. anyone who works to produce profits for someone else using their means of production is a prole. even if you make $200K at some law firm, you’re still a prole.

that’s all

>>	Anonymous Wed Sep 19 14:40:41 2018 No.11810505 >>11810488 You said it brother. Vive la révolution! https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=nB_tGab-t0g

Anonymous Wed Sep 19 14:41:00 2018 No.11810508

>>11810499
>>eventually the workers are going to get tired of this, and because they are 99% of the population, they will overthrow the capitalists and establish a dictatorship over them
It is important to note that this bit isn't going to happen because of robots.

>>	Anonymous Wed Sep 19 14:41:43 2018 No.11810513 >>11810496 "Why do they persecute me so?"

Anonymous Wed Sep 19 14:48:14 2018 No.11810538

>>11810488
>if a class war is what this is, let's make it formal and bring out the actual guns
Goodluck and godspeed. The cops exist to protect property owners from the proletariat. The cops have guns and know how to use them. So do the military, which are just the cops upgraded. Adam Smith said this by the way, not Marx!

Anonymous Wed Sep 19 14:52:52 2018 No.11810556

>>11810508
yeah. i also don’t think that proles are going to be dissatisfied to the degree necessary to actually overthrow the capitalist system. the average westerner lives much more comfortable of a life than anywhere else. hell, in the US, where i’d say that proles are the least happy, we’re nowhere near any sort of political revolution

Anonymous Wed Sep 19 15:00:58 2018 No.11810592

>>11810499
>eventually the workers are going to get tired of this, and because they are 99% of the population, they will overthrow the capitalists and establish a dictatorship over them
this argument is also flawed.
The major revolutions we see do not historically come from the people living in subsistence.
For example, Rome didn't fall due to a slave uprising. It fell to the Germanic tribes - the goths.
Feudalism didn't fall due to a serf uprising.

Anonymous Wed Sep 19 15:03:07 2018 No.11810608

>>11810592
he isn’t talking about things that happened in the past. marx really only deals with the post-industrial world. he’s saying that this is what will happen in the future. and the capitalists will simply be too degenerate and weak to do anything

>>	Anonymous Wed Sep 19 15:04:43 2018 No.11810614 >>11810432 Sorry I'm bad at spoonfeeding, I end up making very long incoherent posts so I refer you to this short explanation. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=-e8rt8RGjCM

>>	Anonymous Wed Sep 19 15:05:17 2018 No.11810617 >>11810592 >external belligerents are the same thing as revolution >France, Cuba, Vietnam, Russia, China, and Mexico never happened >if I pretend they didn't bring the guillotines out into the town square, they won't have my head

Anonymous Wed Sep 19 15:06:35 2018 No.11810623

>>11810499
>marxism is almost entirely descriptive and not normative
no it isn't. and where it tries to be, it's so overtly reductive.
>even if you make $200K at some law firm, you’re still a prole.
No you are not.
Marx explicitly talks about the middle class as nothing more than a thing which will either be pushed into subsistence, or there will be a handful of middle class workers which will be pushed into the capitalist class.
Overall, his prediction is, over time, the middle class will cease to exist.
However it DOES exist. Not only do we have supermarkets and costcos, we also have small businesses and artisan shops. People who are working for someone, but also putting money away and investing.

>>	Anonymous Wed Sep 19 15:07:04 2018 No.11810628 >>11810505 >>11810538 >>11810488 Cringe and bluepilled desu.

Anonymous Wed Sep 19 15:10:36 2018 No.11810640

>>11810608
>he isn’t talking about things that happened in the past. marx really only deals with the post-industrial world.
no he doesn't. He explicitly makes his argument based on historical patterns of behavior, to try and tap into the materialistic nature of the class system, and he references other periods in history which he believes were methods of exploitation. I would agree with him in saying they did exhibit exploitation, being a slave is exploitative. Being a serf can be exploitative. You cannot relate these methods of production capitalism though. You also cannot make the assumption that there will be an inevitable "class revolution", when history explicitly shows us that this simply isn't true.

>>	Anonymous Wed Sep 19 15:11:50 2018 No.11810646 >>11810623 owning a couple of stocks != a capitalist lmao. saying that marxism isn’t descriptive is just blatantly false

>>	Anonymous Wed Sep 19 15:13:09 2018 No.11810650 >>11810640 i’m not making the assumption. marx makes it, pretty explicitly

Anonymous Wed Sep 19 15:15:20 2018 No.11810660

>>11810623
>No you are not.
not the guy you're replying to, but Marx defines social classes in their relation to the means of production, you can be a doctor who earns 600K and it would still make you a prole.
Bourgeois/prole doesn't imply a rich/poor dichotomy.

Anonymous Wed Sep 19 15:15:50 2018 No.11810664

>>11810646
>saying that marxism isn’t descriptive is just blatantly false
No it ISN'T descriptive.
>owning a couple of stocks != a capitalist lmao.
His argument is fundamentally based on capital accumulation. If you are accumulating capital, if you are not living paycheck by paycheck, you cannot be considered a proletariat.
The middle-class is in this no-man's-land of people who are accumulating capital, but also are working a living wage.
Marx's argument is this class will inevitably disappear over time.
It hasn't, and there is no evidence it will disappear.

Really anon, you should learn about other interpretations of class - marx isn't the only one out there, and certainly he doesn't have all the answers.

>>	Anonymous Wed Sep 19 15:17:13 2018 No.11810670 >>11810664 >Marx's argument is this class will inevitably disappear over time. why would people forget how to save money or invest in stuff? what a fucking meme

>>	Anonymous Wed Sep 19 15:18:50 2018 No.11810676 >>11807603 >not even spoonfeeding will do you're hopeless

>>	Anonymous Wed Sep 19 15:19:28 2018 No.11810681 >>11810670 his argument is the increase in capital intensity will lead to people's wages being pushed to subsistence levels. eventually everyone will either be operating on petty commodity production, or capitalistic production.

Anonymous Wed Sep 19 15:21:26 2018 No.11810697

>>11810664
>Marx's argument is this class will inevitably disappear over time.
"Middle-class" isn't a class under Marxist theory, there are "middle-class" proles and "middle-class" bourgeois, like this anon said >>11810660 , Marx defines class by it's relation to the MoP, read Marx before making claims about what he said.

>>	Anonymous Wed Sep 19 15:21:33 2018 No.11810700 >>11808058 you actually think Marx came up with the labour theory of value?

>>	Anonymous Wed Sep 19 15:23:27 2018 No.11810716 >>11810670 the guy is a brainlet, just ignore him. just look at how he assumed that i agreed 100% with marx just because i posted about him LMAO.

>>	Anonymous Wed Sep 19 15:24:13 2018 No.11810719 >>11810697 According to marx there is only petty commodity production, and capitalistic production. According to other theories, there are multiple parameters to class. Marx doesn't offer this idea.

>>	Anonymous Wed Sep 19 15:27:19 2018 No.11810737 >>11810719 Obviously different theories have different class theories, I'm replying to you claiming that Marx said "the middle class will disappear", which is blatantly false as Marx never even addresses such a notion of "middle class"

Anonymous Wed Sep 19 15:32:17 2018 No.11810763

>>11810660
>Marx defines social classes in their relation to the means of production
Correct. And, according to marx, there are only two classes of which you can belong to.
>you can be a doctor who earns 600K and it would still make you a prole.
Bourgeois/prole doesn't imply a rich/poor dichotomy.
It implies one of two things:
Either you will eventually be operating on a system of petty commodity production (one which involves subsistence). You make something, trade that thing for money to buy something you need. Or capitalistic production (one which involves investments). You have money, you take that money and make investments through surplus value, then you gain MORE money.
There is no distinction between "how much money you currently have". It revolves ENTIRELY around your method of production. You can either be someone operating off of petty commodity production, or one operating on capitalistic production.

Anonymous Wed Sep 19 15:34:26 2018 No.11810775

>>11810737
>I'm replying to you claiming that Marx said "the middle class will disappear", which is blatantly false as Marx never even addresses such a notion of "middle class"
yes he DOES through his predictive theories.
This is, in his eyes, the inevitable result of capitalism. You will either be pushed into subsistence, or you will become capitalistic in your mode of production.

Anonymous Wed Sep 19 15:37:05 2018 No.11810786

>>11810763
>Bourgeois/prole doesn't imply a rich/poor dichotomy.
Okay, so riddle me this, why do commies whine so much over "the rich"/"the 1%" "oppressing" "the poor"/"the 99%"?
Seems to me like you're just trying to shift the goalposts. Even if "bourgeois" and "proletariat" don't TECHNICALLY mean rich and poor, that's how the terms have been casually used by almost all self-styled Marxists throughout the 20th century.

And while you may keep repeating it, I still somehow doubt Marx himself would have considered a rich lawyer or doctor a part of the proletariat, on socio-cultural grounds alone.

Anonymous Wed Sep 19 15:41:48 2018 No.11810804

>>11810775
That does not imply the middle class will disappear, your reasoning doesn't follow, even assuming you don't become capitalistic, how exactly is a high skilled engineer who relies solely on wage labor going to suddenly become poor?
and honestly even though Marx did not make this middle class distinction, it has nonetheless been shrinking in the past decades, so to imply that >>11810664
>there is no evidence it will disappear.
is quite a stretch.

Anonymous Wed Sep 19 15:43:02 2018 No.11810809

>>11810786
>Even if "bourgeois" and "proletariat" don't TECHNICALLY mean rich and poor, that's how the terms have been casually used by almost all self-styled Marxists throughout the 20th century.
This caught on because the typical people who own the methods of production are the rich.

>I still somehow doubt Marx himself would have considered a rich lawyer or doctor a part of the proletariat, on socio-cultural grounds alone.
It honestly doesn't matter. His argument is based, fundamentally, on capital accumulation.
The problem is, since he's taking a historical perspective on class, you can't necessarily compare what is going on in a capitalistic mode of production to one which wasn't (like the slavery mode of production in Rome, or serfdom in feudalism).

Anonymous Wed Sep 19 15:43:24 2018 No.11810813

>>11810374
So firstly, the 3rd benefit enormously from capitalism in the sense that they can leap frog us in terms of technology (look at India using smart tablets/phones instead of going desktop route). This means that they will effectly build smart and affordable cities when tech advances and as there growth rates drawf the 1st world there will be an equilibrium point.

We will never run out of resources. We now live in a world of infinity creatable resources (software) so even if the limit of physical resources was calculable its would have an infinite number of intangible resources attached. This is not to mention the other intangible resources in the world such as companies, organisations, etc. Amazon (for example) has enormous wealth outside of the value of its assets for good reason. This is why it doesn’t need to expansion you are referring to, it can continue to increase wealth exponentially without exploitation - not that people don’t use it for such.

Humans are not going to stay this level for ever. Plastic wasn’t a thing 100 years ago but it was created as a cheap alternative and the same will happen with anything. The second something become economically unfeasible it is replaced. This is why coal is still burned because it is still financially more lucrative than solar (ignoring government incentives which do help) and whilst that is negative for the world in one sense it is completely necessary. Had we jumped into solar the second we knew it was better for world, we’d be fucked now and there may not have been such a push to get it to the efficiency levels it is at today.

Anonymous Wed Sep 19 15:46:01 2018 No.11810823

>>11810804
>how exactly is a high skilled engineer who relies solely on wage labor going to suddenly become poor?
In marx's eyes, through the displacement of work via capital intensity (developing new tech, which pushes out work) or competition which drives out competitors - i.e. businesses become more monopolistic.
> it has nonetheless been shrinking in the past decades
Historically it hasn't.

>>	Anonymous Wed Sep 19 15:47:06 2018 No.11810830 >>11810664 His descriptions of class just don’t fit the modern age. You can be a business owner taking in 40k/year or an investment banker taking a wage of millions and some of them genuinely don’t accumulate capital.

Anonymous Wed Sep 19 15:48:53 2018 No.11810844

>>11810786
>why do commies whine so much over "the rich"/"the 1%" "oppressing" "the poor"/"the 99%"?
just because someone identifies a conflict between rich and poor doesn't mean they are marxists, most of those have been liberals on the sanders bandwagon from the previous election, there is also the fact that the 1% is mostly capitalists and not proles because the amount of wealth they are hoarding is a result of capital accumulation and not wage labor (no one gets payed in billion dollars).
Most Marxists throughout the 20th century used the term just as Marx conceived it, you think there were no wealthy Marxist intellectual figures, writers, artists ... in the 20th century left?

Anonymous Wed Sep 19 15:51:04 2018 No.11810859

>>11810830
>His descriptions of class just don’t fit the modern age.
This is not to say that class doesn't exist. And he was right to say that monopolistic entities are not in the best interest to the common worker. There is good reasons why we let unions collectively bargain against monopolistic entities. And why anti-trust laws exist.

>>	Anonymous Wed Sep 19 15:54:23 2018 No.11810877 >>11810640 While Marx mentions pre-capitalist modes of production, he makes it perfectly clear that the arguments he makes in capital are not for them. Marxist economic theory outside of capitalism does not exist

Anonymous Wed Sep 19 15:56:50 2018 No.11810887

>>11810877
>he makes it perfectly clear that the arguments he makes in capital are not for them.
No he doesn't.
He directly relates the exploitation of the slaves, the serfs, etc to (what he views) as the exploitation in the capitalistic mode of production. He does so via historical materialism in order to "pin out" whether you belong to one method of production or the other.

>>	Anonymous Wed Sep 19 15:58:07 2018 No.11810889 >>11803290 First and third line are wrong, the rest is about right tho

>>	Anonymous Wed Sep 19 16:00:20 2018 No.11810906 File: 810 KB, 1080x1249, Worker's Revolution.jpg [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google]

>>	Anonymous Wed Sep 19 16:00:41 2018 No.11810908 >>11810628 Thoughtless idiot.

>>	Anonymous Wed Sep 19 16:02:39 2018 No.11810914 >>11810908 CRINGE

Anonymous Wed Sep 19 16:03:06 2018 No.11810919

>>11810906
When I worked at Papa John's we would just drink at work.

I also smoked weed with the pizza delivery guy before.

These are honestly just oil in the machine of capitalism though. The more bearable work becomes, the less likely people will be disgruntled enough to burn down the office.

>>	Anonymous Wed Sep 19 16:04:50 2018 No.11810924 >>11810830 He aknowledges the existance of landlords and bankers

Anonymous Wed Sep 19 16:05:48 2018 No.11810929

>>11810914
Look kiddo. I know you think you're edgy and "different' by uncritically supporting reactionary right wing attitudes. It doesn't make you cool. It doesn't make you hip. It doesn't make you freethinking. It makes you a tool for very rich and powerful dickheads and an enemy of the people.

Get a grip buddy.

>>	Anonymous Wed Sep 19 16:07:04 2018 No.11810935 >>11810929 AND

Anonymous Wed Sep 19 16:07:27 2018 No.11810936

>>11810887
Um, yes of course he aknowledges that serfdom and slavery were exploitative. But all of his arguments that spring out of the capitalistic more of production (alienation, fetishism, production of surplus value, you know, 99% of the book) have NOTHING to do with serfdom or slavery.

Anonymous Wed Sep 19 16:10:16 2018 No.11810946

>>11810296
Bumping the only actual answer itt
Please always have in mind that in Marx the upper classes aren't inherently evil or anything, a minority abusing the masses is just how society was built in order to eventually reach the capitalism stage, a stage in which technology is advanced enough for all the people in the world to live comfortable lifes (if they work, obviously - which the capitalists doesn't do). Now that this utopia is possible (thought Marx), the only thing that stood in its way were the interests of the dominant class.
Obviously, Marx couldn't have known anything about limited resources and all of that stuff btw.

Anonymous Wed Sep 19 16:10:41 2018 No.11810948

>>11810813
>We now live in a world of infinity creatable resources (software) so even if the limit of physical resources was calculable its would have an infinite number of intangible resources attached.
What a breathtakingly flawed premise. Intangible resources mean nothing if there are too many people to feed and not enough food. Or strictly no more metals to be extracted from the earth because it has all been drilled up.

While markets and capital can expand both horizontally into international and global markets and vertically via capital reinvestment and improved production methods, there are physical limits to this process.

Amazon is a poor example. Their value comes partly from their capitalization of big data, which is inherently valueless in itself except that it serves as a reference marker to real value in the world. Inflated data value that exceeds the real value of tangible resources will lead to dot-com bubbles and crashes.

>>	Anonymous Wed Sep 19 16:11:43 2018 No.11810953 >>11810935 Listen fella. Hitler isn't a good substitute for a father figure. Far right views won't get you a girlfriend. Stop blaming minorities and jews for your problems dude...

>>	Anonymous Wed Sep 19 16:12:26 2018 No.11810955 >>11810953 BLUEPILLED

Anonymous Wed Sep 19 16:12:58 2018 No.11810957

>>11810936
his ideas of exploitation does involve these things.
Look i'm not saying exploitation doesn't exist - it clearly does even to this day.
All i'm saying is, exploitation is not inherent in the capitalistic system. There are OTHER systems which exhibit it. So you cannot characterize some exploitation theory purely from a capitalist perspective.
Moreover, what makes anyone think and alternative mode of production ISN'T going to be exploitative as well?

>>	Anonymous Wed Sep 19 16:20:17 2018 No.11810974 >>11810403 Then why the fuck did those 20th century revolutionaires used marxism and not any other theory?

>>	Anonymous Wed Sep 19 16:25:49 2018 No.11811003 >>11803262 Use value, exchange value, labor power. Labor theory of value, exploitation, profit, wage-slavery. Revolution and totalitarianism. Bitter.

Anonymous Wed Sep 19 16:32:08 2018 No.11811031

Consider the Marxian formula: M – C – M’. This is, of course, a simple pathway of capital, beginning with money (M), which is translated into the commodity (C) to be sold on the market. If successful sold, the commodity is translated into a greater amount of money than at the beginning (M’) – and it is at this point that the process restarts. M – C – M’ – C…. on and on and on. If this is the ‘general formula of capital’, as Marx describes it, then it is also the general formula of modernity itself. This, in turn, clues us into the abstract force, glimpsed through diagrammation, which can lurks behind modernity rendered as historical totality: positive feedback.......

Capital is sentient.

Anonymous Wed Sep 19 16:52:14 2018 No.11811143

>>11810957
what? have you read my post? the first line was saying that
>serfdom and slavery were exploitative

why are you arguing with me? I just pointed out your confusion when you said that Marx gave any insight at all about pre-capitalist exploitation besides aknowledging it existed

>>	Anonymous Wed Sep 19 17:04:04 2018 No.11811195 File: 289 KB, 1024x1008, 1491952031628.jpg [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google] >my spooks are better than your spooks

>>	Anonymous Wed Sep 19 17:36:35 2018 No.11811331 >>11811195 stirner sucks, deleuze better

Anonymous Wed Sep 19 17:51:00 2018 No.11811392

>>11811143
>I just pointed out your confusion
And i'm pointing out your confusion regarding the fact that he DOES try to relate these instances of exploitation to the capitalistic system in order to make his claims about a historical perspective of class struggles.
Yet he is using a moral argument of exploitation which only relates to the capitalistic mode of production. You cannot use his theory to explain the exploitation in other modes of production. Exploitation in-itself is NOT inherent in the capitalistic system - it is independent of it. His theory of exploitation does nothing to explain exploitation in different periods of history, but he is assuming he can.
Moreover, BECAUSE exploitation isn't inherent in the capitalistic system: it exists independent to it. if we WERE to switch to something else (say socialism, leading to communism), there is nothing to say that there won't be any form of exploitation.

Finally, I'll reiterate, even within the scope of capitalism, his theory of exploitation is not an objective viewpoint, as I said it ends up being a moral viewpoint.

Anonymous Wed Sep 19 19:12:27 2018 No.11811687
File: 7 KB, 187x270, Rothbard.jpg [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google]

>>11808058
>>11808102
This thread as potential but Mr 3/10 needs to provide a more premium quality post in response or else the OP stands as the best summary ITT.

Considering so many people thread hop and spit "you juz havney red maxes booookz" it should be relatively early on in the thread that these same people actually put their fingers where their shitposting comes from (their arse) and give a proper response before the Capitalists and Sowell SOBs come along and spend the rest of the bump limit tearing Maxines ideas several new sexual orifices and posting webms of the resulting buggery. Capiche?

>>	Anonymous Wed Sep 19 19:13:49 2018 No.11811694 File: 18 KB, 233x301, denationalization-of-money-Hayek.jpg [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google] >>11808148 Bruzzy wuzzy cuzzy fuzzy what the fuck did you just say about my boy Hayek?

Anonymous Wed Sep 19 19:20:40 2018 No.11811705

>>11808197
> If you read even the first hundred pages of Capital you would understand that LTV isn't talking about price
The purpose of economic value theory — whether a cost, labor, or subjective approach — is to explain the prices of various goods and services.

Yes everyone knows that not everything that has value has a price and prices don't show all values because value as a concept is much broader but in the economics realm, that's literally the point that these theorists were setting out to find.

Where does Marx state that he is addressing the broader concept of value and not specifically explaining prices/market value to help explain reality as economics is supposed to do?

Can you please in good faith point to the passages in the first 100 pages of Capital that explain this for all the Capitalists ITT to see?

>>	Anonymous Wed Sep 19 19:31:34 2018 No.11811736 >>11810226 > 60 minutes of value lulwut?

>>	Anonymous Wed Sep 19 19:33:44 2018 No.11811745 >>11810366 >Marxism isn't against "the rich" Actually he pretty much is. He calls them the pejorative "Mr. Moneybags" in kapital.

Anonymous Wed Sep 19 19:36:02 2018 No.11811748

>>11810614
Is part of the TL:DR of this that the general trend for profits to fall due to competition as capital moves from industry to industry means that capitalists will change their behaviour to try and forcibly maximize profits at the expense of workers? Or is it something else entirely?

Anonymous Wed Sep 19 19:39:06 2018 No.11811765

>>11803262

>yo dude the workers own the workplace and generate all the profit fuck the guys who risked time, money, and resources
>yo man capatilism like is bad and doens't work
>lol use these retarded social justice warriors to overpower the borgoseaee
>be a hypocrite and rip off every hard working man around you BUT I CAN BECAUSE IM WRITING THE FUTURE FOR YOU GOYS
>REEEEEE STOP OWNING MORE THAN ME RIGHT NOW

Anonymous Wed Sep 19 19:55:16 2018 No.11811825

>>11811748
Yes. it is due to the idea that new tech comes in, and now the value of the worker decreases - for example people get fired and the new advancement displaces these workers. On TOP of this, marx believes competition also drives out other competition and leads towards monopolistic behavior. This cycle repeats itself when newer and newer tech comes in. The capitalist is chasing after profits, creates a new advancement which is more capital-intensive, competition erodes those profits in the long-run as this new advancement gets adopted to the rest of the industry, and the cycle begins anew. The end result is wages get pushed down, and competition kills other businesses.

The PROBLEM with this idea, is that it's all internalized. It assumes there is a finite number of industries. It's saying that new capital-intensive advancements DON'T create new industries, when in fact it does. Capital will flow to these new markets, and people will find valued work there. As an example: The creation of the computer destroyed secretarial industry, but created an entirely new branch of industry. It's basically creative destruction at work.

Moreover, even if it is the case making capital production more capital-intensive reduces profit margins in the long run, if productivity goes up at a more rapid rate than capital displaces labor, then you won't necessarily see the rate of profit fall.

In fact, classically speaking in his era, it was important (to be taken seriously at the time) to provide an explanation for why the rate of profits were falling. Yet historically (viewing it from present day) there is little evidence of this occurring.

>>	Anonymous Wed Sep 19 20:01:13 2018 No.11811846 >>11803306 >I know Marx is shit >>11803262 >Please summarize Marx for me Truly a discerning mind folks.

>>	Anonymous Wed Sep 19 20:02:40 2018 No.11811853 >>11803322 Kick ass.

Anonymous Wed Sep 19 20:08:40 2018 No.11811870

>>11811825
> new tech comes in, and now the value of the worker decreases
Hold on a tick. If we look at just agricultural machinery (industrial revolution) Marx would say the value of the worker decreases because 90% of them are no longer necessary to produce X amount of goods because of the machinery increasing the remaining workers productivity? Wouldn't the socially necessary labour time LTV have something to say here?

> competition leads to monopoly
> the cycle begins anew
> The end result is wages get pushed down, and competition kills other businesses
I see, wow. Why would Marx thing wages are pushed down as more capital goods increase worker productivity in the playing out of competition? Or am I thinking of the wrong section in time, ie. looking at early capitalist competition vs late capitalist competition?

> new capital-intensive advancements DON'T create new industries, when in fact it does
Yeah that makes sense.
> Capital will flow to these new markets, and people will find valued work there.
From my reading of more classical economics, from memory these theories of profit seeking and capital flowing to new industries seem to have been around when Marx was alive, why would he not address this? Hell the industrial revolution itself has to be the simplest and most obvious example surely?

> there is little evidence of this occurring
To be fair there's quite a bit of evidence for profit margins to start high in a new industry and then be squeezed from competition, electronics is a pretty good example but I may be mistaking profit margins to total profits because in that industry (look at SSD drives for example) margins were squeezed but the customer base exploded very wide. I'm living it myself with my own businesses (was able to find a product that was considered illegal but proved in court it was legal so was the first entrant and now profit margins are squeezed from competition and time and cost saving is a large chunk of my time now).

This is all pretty interesting, I'm more of a full on Libertarian myself and I've read a lot of marxist writtings but it's really hard to decipher some things because marxist and anti-marxist interpretations of marxs ideas and their own ability to convey reality or these ideas leads to things being extremely muddy even for someone actively looking around.

Anonymous Wed Sep 19 20:19:42 2018 No.11811909

>>11811870
btw the speakers talk over money credit is in relationship between the interest rate savings by putting money in the bank/credit vs spending that on improvements in their business.
Basically they're talking about interest rates (of which we don't follow marx's view on interest rates - we follow irving fisher's). Marx thought that if the rate of profit in investing in your business was less than the going interest rate in banking, then you will eventually see a class struggle result between the capitalist and the worker (i.e. crash).

>why would he not address this?
it really didn't come to clarity until Joseph Shumpeter. The major figures in the classical era were people like smith, ricardo, and mathus. all which were trying to explain falling rate of profit. If i remember correctly, Adam thought it could be staved off via colonies elsewhere around the world.

Anonymous Wed Sep 19 20:22:54 2018 No.11811920

>>11811870
>Libertarian myself
i am not a libertarian. there is a valid critique of pareto efficiency, and it leaves room for government intervention.

also of course there were other major figures, but some of the figures tackling econ at the time were those - of course.

Anonymous Wed Sep 19 20:28:48 2018 No.11811945

>>11803262
>Society is a war between the rich and the workers
>Workers are the base of society
>The rich are assholes that take everything from us
>fuck the rich
>Workers of the world unite

If you still fall for the "Cultural Marxism" meme congratulations you failed to understand Marx.

Anonymous Wed Sep 19 20:29:25 2018 No.11811947

>>11811909
> Marx thought that if the rate of profit in investing in your business was less than the going interest rate in banking, then you will eventually see a class struggle result between the capitalist and the worker (i.e. crash)
Instead of that profit or capital flowing to new industries etc? Did they not have mergers and aquisitions in the 19th century, lol

> it really didn't come to clarity until Joseph Shumpeter. The major figures in the classical era were people like smith, ricardo, and mathus.
Ahh, that makes sense from a historical perspective. I guess that's why a lot of Marxists quote more modern marxist theorists and not just solely marx.

> there is a valid critique of pareto efficiency, and it leaves room for government intervention
Or it leaves room for society to address the problems that arise from the distribution but fair enough.

Anonymous Wed Sep 19 20:36:39 2018 No.11811968

>>11811947
>Did they not have mergers and aquisitions in the 19th century, lol
marx's perspective at the time was one in which major players were becoming more and more monopolistic, and the wealth disparity was growing between the rich and the poor. The Steel industry being a big example.
>Or it leaves room for society to address the problems that arise from the distribution but fair enough.
if you're asking if some distribution is "fair" then you're talking about normative econ. positive econ has nothing to say about this, but there are many different perspectives on what ought to be done with redistribution - marx being one of them with the famous saying: "From each according to his abilities, to each according to his needs.

>>	Anonymous Wed Sep 19 20:41:12 2018 No.11811981 >>11803262 Retarded.

>>	Anonymous Wed Sep 19 20:43:06 2018 No.11811986 >>11803262 nope, too complicated

Anonymous Wed Sep 19 23:55:24 2018 No.11812574
File: 30 KB, 601x695, 1513651089022.jpg [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google]

When did you realize that no one actually gives a fuck about socially necessary labour time, property rights theory, or demographics and at the end of the day the masses just do what the masses feel like and if it means; killing Socrates, burning "witches", going on crusades, taxing the shit out of people, treating workers like shit, importing violent muslims to satisfy their immediate desires then they'll do it no matter how correct your basis for self-ownership, or theory of value or genetic trends statistics is?

All that matters is how good you are at persuasion to get people to do what you want, not the quality of your ideas. All that matters is how well you can appeal to peoples emotions, their fears and their dreams. If the devils and tyrants are the ones to do it, they rule over you generation after generation, civilization to civilization.

>>	Anonymous Thu Sep 20 00:05:05 2018 No.11812603 >>11812574 When the Marxist finally realizes nearly everyone is lumpen he is forced to evolve into something greater.

>>	Anonymous Thu Sep 20 00:15:31 2018 No.11812629 capital is sentient

Anonymous Thu Sep 20 00:15:57 2018 No.11812632

>>11811705
Sure, but you need to send me some money first.
I'm not working for you for free, libertarian guy.
You can believe what you want. I've already provided enough of a free service to you pointing out what you said was wrong. I'm not going to continue to promote your parasitism on the intellectual labor of others.

Spoonfeed yourself.

Anonymous Thu Sep 20 00:22:42 2018 No.11812654

>>11812632
> spoonfeed
You know, I understand that most of the time being a library for other people just to win debates becomes pointless after a while, but around here it's nice to be able to backup your points especially when it's extremely important because of what's being discussed. If the intention is convince people with facts that can be convinced or at least progress from shit posting to discussion.

It's not my loss, I've read enough Marxist writtings to feel like I gave it it's due and can dismiss it based on what I've read, the ideas I've given proper consideration and the discussions I've had with its proponents.

Again it's not chedder from my wallet.

Anonymous Thu Sep 20 01:43:55 2018 No.11812945

>>11803262

In the past, there were various kinds of poor people: slaves, serfs, handicraftsmen, and so on. Likewise, there were always wealthy and powerful people: lords, nobility, etc.

Then, the industrial revolution occurred, during the 18th century. Technology advanced to the point where large and specialized machinery could be built, making it possible to make many smaller goods at a rapid speed. The industrial revolution gave rise to mass production.

Today, these goods can be sold in large quantities for a profit, which typically go to the owners of the business and equipment. This newly possible economic system is called CAPITALISM. Mass production therefore enriched the owning class, or BOURGEOISIE, and the importance and value of the product which they were able to bring to market, made them the most powerful and relevant class, even above nobility in the relevant senses.

At the same time, mass production of higher-quality goods displaced the product of smaller manufacturers, handicraftsmen, etc.

Since such specialized workers found themselves unable to compete, they along with other factory workers and city-dwellers, were gradually obliged to take employment in factories, operating machinery and mills, etc, which they did not own. After all, someone had to operate the machinery. This large 19th-century working class, which lives only through the sale of its labor, is called the PROLETARIAT.

Both bourgeoisie and proletariat are NEW and DISTINCT types of social classes, brought into existence by the industrial revolution and its consequences. These two classes did not previously exist, but are specifically new products of historical development.

As a new class, proletarians are different from slaves, serfs, handicraftsmen etc, in particular ways. For example, slaves and serfs are in a sense "outside" competition, since they must simply do as their masters say, and have a sort of assured existence, however meager. By contrast, proletarians do not even have such security, because proletarians are otherwise "free", having only their wage labor, and thus are subjected to the effects of market competition.

Thus, proletarians experience a general misery. Their jobs are insecure, their work is harsh, and as technology improves and imposes its effects on the economy, the proletarian class grows larger, swallowing up more small-scale manufacturers, craftsmen etc.

This misery is compounded by the fact that the new machinery is /so/ good and /so/ efficient, that it can /overproduce/. At certain intervals, when a sufficiently large stock of goods have been produced, a business seeks to reduce unnecessary labor, paying less to workers, cutting jobs and overall wage labor. Such affected workers form a part of a population, which thus has less money to buy such produced goods, so that the stocks don't move. This is one species of an economic CRISIS, which harms the proletariat and even many of the bourgeoisie.

1/2

>>	Anonymous Thu Sep 20 01:44:37 2018 No.11812949 poo

Anonymous Thu Sep 20 01:45:43 2018 No.11812951

The irony is that the newly-created various machines and equipment /have the capacity to provide for all/, especially as technology continues to develop. It is not /necessary/ for society to be organized according to a competitive, capitalist model. As is obvious above, such is downright stupid. What is needed is a /completely new/ social organization, one which liberates the proletariat and which organizes all productive capacity in a common cooperation, which provides for all, thus avoiding the uneccessary waste of market competition. This, we call /communism/.

Unfortunately, communism will have to be implemented through force and revolution. Owners will clearly not voluntarily relinquish their power.

But more than this, Communism is INEVITABLE. It is not just possible, but necessary to read history scientifically, and to predict its results deterministically. The Industrial Revolution and capitalism themselves, and their effects, guarantee their own replacement by communism, by continuing to make things so shitty that the people will eventually revolt, sooner or later, once things get bad enough. Although this is inevitable, we should help it along.

The fundamental point, the most important tenet of communism which addresses all of the above, is the /abolition of private property/. Private property is the root cause of all of the above problems. Due to the immense complexity of the problem, such abolition will of necessity take places in stages. And since the economy is now global, and involves itself in every country, communism must eventually spread to every country in the world.

In the process, specific points will have to be carried out in the process: heavy taxation, duties etc on owners, expropriation, using available resources to provide state education for children, among others.

The effect of this new social order will be to render nationalities superfluous.

Likewise, it will render religion itself superfluous.

It will also not negatively impact the family. Further, if some critics are concerned about "women being shared" in a similar commmuinst fashion, then they're hypocrites. Because we already have a system in which women are shared and demeaned. It's called prostitution, and it's based on a money-relation which is rooted in private property. By eliminating private property itself, women are respected, and prostitution is ended. Women are not things, and not property, but human beings.

Since all of this is true, theoreticians must spend the remainder of their lives attempting to actually bring such a revolution about, and must also work deeply to understand the underpinnings of how economy works. This is an immense project which must be carried out on both theoretical and practical grounds. The work is worthless if it is mere philosophy, not applied to actual problems. The philosophers have only interpreted the world in various ways. The point is to change it.

>>	Anonymous Thu Sep 20 01:51:36 2018 No.11812961 >>11803290 >>materialism run amok ??????????? marx was a materialist he said hegel's dialectic was right but criticized him for being an idealist marx's dialectic is literally called dialectical/historical materialism

>>	Anonymous Thu Sep 20 01:52:35 2018 No.11812964 >>11812961 marx saw materialism as a disease, he was a hegelian idealist

>>	Anonymous Thu Sep 20 03:05:22 2018 No.11813110 Boils down to 'No-one should have nothing, take from the haves to give to the have nots, also, force everyone into work even if its menial labour or a fabricated job just to have people employed'

Anonymous Thu Sep 20 03:23:56 2018 No.11813145

>>11812945
>>11812951
The best answer in this thread. Also should note that a distinction is drawn between personal and private property. Communists aren't coming to steal your car, laptop, or toothbrush. Taken from wikipedia:

>>In Marxian economics and socialist politics, there is distinction between "private property" and "personal property". The former is defined as the means of production in reference to private ownership over an economic enterprise based on socialized production and wage labor whereas the latter is defined as consumer goods or goods produced by an individual.

>>	Anonymous Thu Sep 20 08:14:20 2018 No.11813701 >>11803290 >yes, they really believe this No we don't You're confusing value with price tag. Marx understood diamonds miners didn't work harder than coal miner.

>>	Anonymous Thu Sep 20 08:18:24 2018 No.11813718 >>11803402 He was one of the best selling authors of his time and the papers he published flew off any shelve that would sell them Right wingers are retarded

>>	Anonymous Thu Sep 20 08:42:57 2018 No.11813800 >>11803349 I am average dicked, fat white male - I feel like I trick women when I fuck them, but meh - they're a financial scam so I don't give them too much thinking.

>>	Anonymous Thu Sep 20 08:47:01 2018 No.11813808 >>11803262 POOR GOOD RICH BAD GIVE POOR YOUR THINGS, MR. RICH

>>	Anonymous Thu Sep 20 09:04:06 2018 No.11813847 Guys... guys Guys. Guys listen. I have the best ide guys listen I have the best idea ever guys I'll put THE CAPITAL guys capital I'll put THE CAPITAL guys listen here I'll put the CAPITAL... into the hands of the PROLETARIAT.

Anonymous Thu Sep 20 09:24:18 2018 No.11813905

>>11803262
I haven't read the responses in this thread, but there are two of Marx's ideas which are explained in earlier works and are essential to comprehending what people have probably already told you about him:

1: There's no causality. Since at a given point in time everything exists simultaneously and depends on the existence of everything else, it cannot be said that some isolated factor causes something else. Everything causes everything that occurs in the following moment. This idea is taken from Epicurus and explained in Marx's doctoral thesis.

2: The attempt to establish causal relations leads to abstraction of the real functioning of reality. When you take a causal relation as true, it means taking all that has been abstracted as given and immutable, like when economists deduce economic laws which are dependant on power relationships, without stating what these are, how to change them or what happens when they change. This idea is called subject-predicate inversion and is taken from Feuerbach . Marx's Critique of Hegel's Philosophy of the State in centered on it.

If you want to know more about these, read Lucio Colletti's writings on marxism.

>>	Anonymous Thu Sep 20 09:26:00 2018 No.11813917 >>11813847 Unironically and literally revolutionary

>>	Anonymous Thu Sep 20 09:32:29 2018 No.11813938 It's gnosticism

>>	Anonymous Thu Sep 20 09:34:06 2018 No.11813944 >>11803262 >dude economics lmao

Anonymous Thu Sep 20 11:41:22 2018 No.11814367

>>11813701
>Marx understood diamonds miners didn't work harder than coal miner.
Do they? Or dont they? How can you be so sure? The diamond miner would clearly tell you they do work harder than the coal miner, and the coal miner would definitely tell you they work harder than the diamond miner. It sounds to me you're making a ton of assumptions.

Anonymous Thu Sep 20 12:01:15 2018 No.11814442

>>11813145
>The former is defined as the means of production in reference to private ownership over an economic enterprise based on socialized production and wage labor whereas the latter is defined as consumer goods or goods produced by an individual.

So does the wife of the prole fall into the camp of "goods produced by the individual"? I really can't think that it can. Her work in the household makes the prole a more productive worker. If she wasn't around, the prole would have to do all the housework himself.
Clearly he's benefiting from her work.
What about the pre-school teacher who instilled a good sense of work ethic into the prole? Does she fall into the camp of "goods produced by the individual"?

What about the horse plowing the fields? Does the horse fall into the camp of "good produced by an individual"? I can't see that being true. If you didn't have the horse, you would be a less productive prole. Afterall, you feed the horse, and you keep the horse happy, but the prole is clearly benefiting off of the surplus of its work. Does the horse fall into the camp of "goods produced by an individual"? I can't see that this is true either.

What about the field of corn, or food in general? Does this fall into the camp of "goods produced by the individual"? The prole is providing for the corn just enough to keep the corn happy and healthy, but is clearly benefiting from its surplus. If he didn't have the ear of corn, he clearly couldn't be as productive of an individual as he is - afterall, people need to eat to be productive. I honestly can't think we can claim that it's simply "goods produced by an individual" but rather another form of a means of production.

What about the toothbrush? You need good hygiene as a prole to be considered a productive member of society. You're going to need keep up the maintenance of a toothbrush to keep it happy and healthy, but you're certainly going to benefit off of its labor. Does this fall into the camp of "good produced by an individual"? I don't really think that you CAN say that. The prole is benefiting off of the work of the toothbrush.

What about the machine? Certainly the prole would be less productive without its labor. You will keep the machine happy and healthy and make sure it works in the best, tip-top shape, but you're going to benefit from its work. What happens when a new, better machine comes along? Are you going to replace the old one and put that machine out of work? What about all the people who contributed to that machine's construction and "work ethic"? You're just going to throw that all away? C'mon now.

>>	Anonymous Thu Sep 20 12:04:25 2018 No.11814453 A 19th century NEET Jew and his dumb vision of Utopia.

>>	Anonymous Thu Sep 20 17:34:49 2018 No.11815861 >>11810617 Of those 'revolutions', only the French one was an actual revolution. The others (in particular Russia and China) were just millitary coups. The workers did not emancipate themselves; it was a bourgeoise class that seized power.

>>	Anonymous Thu Sep 20 17:36:36 2018 No.11815872 RICH FOLK BE STEELIN FROM THE PO MAN!

>>	Anonymous Thu Sep 20 17:52:06 2018 No.11815938 File: 63 KB, 960x690, 32186578_246429579268136_2548845245139779584_n.jpg [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google] >>11803262

Anonymous Thu Sep 20 17:56:39 2018 No.11815955

>>11805517
you faggots always appeal to some standard of fairness that because someone does more physical work than someone else then they should get more money. You leave out any other considerations like risk of ruin, intellectual abilities, etc. And the icing on the fucking cake is 95%+ of you are atheist which means nihilist which means a concept like fairness shouldn't even carry any weight with you.

Anonymous Thu Sep 20 18:03:07 2018 No.11815980

>>11815955
It's not just who does physical labor. It's who does physical labor and barely has their bodily needs met. Workers have to fight tooth and nail for healthcare in hypercapitalist countries like the USA. They are the ones who need it the most since they put their bodies under physical strain.

There's no getting around the fact that hypercapitalism is categorically unjust. Jeff Bezos doesn't do a trillion times more work or produce a trillion times more value than half the earth's population combined. I'd draw the line at a sixth or an eighth.

Anonymous Thu Sep 20 18:24:42 2018 No.11816068

>>11815980
>doesn't do a trillion times more work or produce a trillion times more value than half the earth's population combined.
I'm not arguing that those who are working hard don't contribute, or that they don't have to fight tooth and nail for things. There are good reasons (even outside of marx) to have a progressive tax, but are you sure about that?
Even if you ignore the 100's of years of industrial anthropological research that shows people tend to not compare themselves to others so far outside of their scope of background.
Turnover rates on CEO's is frequent. The amount of time and effort needed to become a successful CEO is significant.
You cannot simply say that a capitalist doesn't provide ANY input into the work done. At the very least, they took the time and effort to create the technology that revolutionizes how we live our lives. The technology which completely eliminates the deaths caused of, say, black lung from starting a home fire for cooking. A person should be properly compensated for that type of contribution and investment, and not thrown into the dirt for bettering the lives of billions.
Are you really willing to scream, "Fuck you!" to the man who runs your hospital, and put the necessary investment into the tools needed to fix your kidney?

Anonymous Thu Sep 20 18:34:46 2018 No.11816106

>>11816068
No, I completely agree. There is a certain type of productive capitalist who forms the icons of the system. These are your Andrew Carnegies, Steve Jobs', Jack Ma's and so forth who do not just collect economic rents of the backs of a free money machine.

They designed the machine at the highest levels, dreamed it up from scratch, made it happen when nothing else would have ever happened.

Individuals like this, even if they are in some sense "lucky" do deserve exaggerated compensation. However, do we as a society really think it wise that they alone can control the vast majority of capital on earth?

Even some enlightened capitalists agree that politics should be more democratic in nature, that you can't have a handful of people controlling the world whether they deserve to or not.

>>	Anonymous Thu Sep 20 18:35:48 2018 No.11816114 >>11816106 However on the flipside I would also say that there definitely are parasitic capitalists who simply collect rent off the backs of the productive segment of the populace.

Anonymous Thu Sep 20 18:42:28 2018 No.11816139

>>11816106
>However, do we as a society really think it wise that they alone can control the vast majority of capital on earth?
Absolutely not. That's too much power: politically and socially. like I said, there are good reasons even outside of marx to have some redistribution.

rousseau basically says we should not suffer the richman nor the begger. One has too much power, the other has no power at all.

>>	Anonymous Thu Sep 20 18:43:32 2018 No.11816148 >>11816114 >who simply collect rent rent-seeking behavior needs to be stomped out.

Anonymous Thu Sep 20 19:29:27 2018 No.11816339

>>11811870
>Why would Marx thing wages are pushed down as more capital goods increase worker productivity in the playing out of competition?
Marx believed that the price of wages depended solely on the movement of the "industrial reserve army"; basically the unemployed, or soon to be.
Rising productivity results in less workers needed (this is the impulse to rise productivity in the first place), therefore increasing the supply of labour available on the market and making it less valuable

>>	Anonymous Thu Sep 20 19:41:57 2018 No.11816393 >>11814442 what a supremely retarded post

Anonymous Thu Sep 20 19:44:35 2018 No.11816399

>>11816339
I guess I can see his train of logic there.

It's a really weird way to look at things though isn't it, that freeing people up from doing 1 thing so they can now do another things or newer thing is going to have a negative effect. I don't think people enjoyed being nothing but subsistence farmers with no social mobility and no progress. I mean especially since Marx was alive throughout most of the 19th century and could've looked back to the industrial revolution itself, just not sure why he didn't revise that sort of thinking after a solid 150 years of information to go off....

>>11816106
> politics should be more democratic in nature, that you can't have a handful of people controlling the world
I ended up coming to the conclusion that it's less democratizing power but more decentralizing it that might be important to look at.
> do we as a society really think it wise that they alone can control the vast majority of capital on earth?
It's a weird one. I don't have a problem with someone getting rich by serving a million people and then either enjoying that wealth (instantly redistributing it) or giving their kids an easier life rather than having them start from scratch (who in turn are more likely to enjoy it and instantly redistribute it).

I wish every family focused on building their wealth to at least make sure success generations aren't all starting from scratch, sort of like people tried to do earlier in history. There's a lot of resentment when people have to move out into a sharehouse and start from unskilled work, because their parents made shit decisions.

One huge problem is perspective, a reason why people constantly say others should stop sooking and be grateful for "gabidalism" is because if you look at human history the last couple hundred years are as Peterson would say "beyond belief". For the first time ever people could get wealth, resources and status by serving others rather than plundering them, that's not something we should take for granted. By all means criticize to improve society but there seems to be a lack of trying to look at things from multiple perspectives, it always looks like "something is upsetting me, therefore I'm going to support this idea". Latching onto the first reassuring thing that comes along doesn't seem right to me.

>>	Anonymous Thu Sep 20 19:50:01 2018 No.11816418 >>11816393 why do you insult yourself?

Anonymous Thu Sep 20 19:57:15 2018 No.11816456
File: 66 KB, 1920x1080, Hayek-Social-Justice-Interview.jpg [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google]

>>11815980
> There's no getting around the fact that hypercapitalism is categorically unjust. Jeff Bezos doesn't do a trillion times more work or produce a trillion times more value than half the earth's population combined. I'd draw the line at a sixth or an eighth.
It's really weird that people look at someone getting a little bit from a lot of people and then say they got too much.

Something really stuck with in an interview I was watching with F.A Hayek you guys might find interesting too. (pic related)

The guy next to him is talking about "Social Justice" and you know how people debate philosophy all the time about right/wrong, what's moral and so on, the prevailing thought from what I can see is that morality comes from human actions.

Now the guy next to him says something to the effect of "they think that quantificiation that is the assigning of numbers will tell us about justice and in fact it will not"

The profound thing about that statement is that people like yourself say "Bezos has X number of $$$s and this person somewhere else in the country is starving and this worker is barely able to pay their mortgage, therefore this is unjust" and that is exactly, looking at numbers for your indication of right/wrong rather than of the actual human actions that contain moral content to decide whether an outcome is right/wrong.

Now what Hayek's ultimate point is, is that the market is a sort of game, in that you have millions of interactions between individuals which are all voluntary (therefore they are not immoral) but nobody actually knows what the outcome of all these interactions will be, that it's not determined by somebody and therefore determined beforehand to have an unjust outcome, but rather a game of chance (more to it than that obviously) but you can't have 1 million moral interactions and then decide that the overall outcome is immoral. There's a gap that doesn't follow in the logic there.

That's not to say as Hayek also points out that we don't have an imperative to help people that don't genuinely make it in life but there has to be an aspect of responsibility because outcomes will never be completely equal, but they can be less bad.

That's why your Classical Liberals, Libertarians, Conservatives etc harp on so much about alternative forms of welfare, that are brought about by more moral and voluntary methods. Whereas I guess the marxist would say it's impossible to look after the poor when "the rich horde wealth" and personally I think that's a misunderstanding of what rich people do with wealth but that's another matter.

Thoughts?

Anonymous Thu Sep 20 20:06:56 2018 No.11816488

>>11816456
>Thoughts?
Hayek is also someone who thinks we can safely assume people come from equal backgrounds when we don't, and that markets don't suffer from externalities.

The simple fact of the matter is, we cannot allow the rich to be "too rich" and the poor to be "too poor". How we decide how much is "too rich" or "too poor" is entirely decided on the moral values of the society and ultimately left up to as a vote.
Quite simply, there isn't anyone who is taken seriously which thinks aiming for zero social waste is even a remotely moral way in which to organize wealth in a society.

Anonymous Thu Sep 20 20:16:28 2018 No.11816524

>>11816456
>is that the market is a sort of game, in that you have millions of interactions between individuals which are all voluntary
>buy food or die
>work or die
Interesting idea of voluntary.

>that are brought about by more moral and voluntary methods
The social contract aka. taxes is way more voluntary than work for poorfags, since richfags can realistically choose to fuck off if they aren't happy with the conditions.

>Whereas I guess the marxist would say it's impossible to look after the poor when "the rich horde wealth"
Not necessary. At least in the first world poverty can be easy be eliminated despite hoarding of wealth and insane levels of tax evasion. If they would play by the rules, it'd be even easier.

Anonymous Thu Sep 20 20:26:10 2018 No.11816556

>>11816488
> Hayek is also someone who thinks we can safely assume people come from equal backgrounds when we don't, and that markets don't suffer from externalities.
You know I put a lot of effort into that post and you ignored it.
>>11816524
> Interesting idea of voluntary.
The opposite of voluntary is coerced, no one is coercing you to eat, the fact of nature, being alive and living in a world of scarce resources. Unless you're saying nature is coercing you therefore employers are immoral? Anyway that was besides the point.
> The social contract aka. taxes is way more voluntary than work for poorfags
You really believe that?

The key point of the post you guys are skating around was the idea of looking at numbers and trying to decide what is unjust rather than the human actions that led to those numbers. Do you guys not find that interesting to think about or is the cognitive dissonance setting in?
> If they would play by the rules
> hoarding of wealth
> zero sum game
> finite pie
> wealth is hidden under le matress and kept from people
Master Kenobi, you disappoint me.

Anonymous Thu Sep 20 20:37:40 2018 No.11816598

>>11816488
>How we decide how much is "too rich" or "too poor" is entirely decided on the moral values of the society and ultimately left up to as a vote
This is not true now, has not been true ever, and will never be true for as long as civilization exists. Please rethink your stance on this

Anonymous Thu Sep 20 21:02:31 2018 No.11816682

>>11816556
>living in a world of scarce resources.
Basic resources for survival aren't scarce enough to make it a work or die scenario. Only our system of distributing these resources causes that problem.

>You really believe that?
Almost any country throws visas at everyone willing to "invest" there, so a richfag can pick from hundreds of different social contracts, having a better chance finding one to their liking.

>the idea of looking at numbers and trying to decide what is unjust rather than the human actions that led to those numbers.
Outside of political sound-pieces that are meant for people with minimal understanding, no one really does it. It makes no sense to look at numbers when talking about what is just without the entire context. Bezos having more than billions of people only shows that hard work and value are disconnected from money, not whether having a lot of it is just or not. Other than that, the idea of just depends on muh morals, making it even more pointless. A better approach would be to look whether there is a net benefit for society when few individuals hoard all the wealth, and if there isn't, why should the majority tolerate it?

Anonymous Thu Sep 20 21:10:36 2018 No.11816706

>>11816682
> aren't scarce enough
You're missing the point. The fact that resources are scarce (ie. you have to do more than just open your mouth as nutrient rain fills you up for free) means you have to do something to get what you want/need. Be that engage in subsistence/survival, trade labour and so on. The point being, this is not coercive, how you choose to solve the problem of scarcity and the need for sustenance is your choice.

> Outside of political sound-pieces that are meant for people with minimal understanding, no one really does it
Isn't that exactly what everyone is doing? "Bezos has billions, this guy doesn't, Bezos obviously doesn't work billions of times harder than this guy, therefore this is unjust", is that not what the laymen and marxists do all the time?
> net benefit for society when few individuals hoard all the wealth
It's hard for society to agree on how to help people that need help when some people think wealth is being hoarded at the expense of others, rather than being created through mutually beneficial interactions and being utilized almost 24/7. Wealth isn't hoarded unless you think, it should all be sold or dismantled.....it's not like Bezos' "wealth" is under his matress preventing others from eating, it's being used. I'm not saying that's right or that's the solution or the end of the discussion but we have to recognize reality, the wealth is being used not hoarded.

In early capitalism it took a lot of capital to be one of the few to own a printing press, now literally anyone can buy a computer/phone + printer for an extreme fraction of the resources, time, money that were necessary beforehand. Which is why people talk about how the poor in our society can eat better than kings of the middle ages, wealthy isn't a stagnant concept, we're continuously achieving (this is the idea and the goal) higher and higher rungs of living standards and what is considered wealthy is constantly changing alongside this process and the people that makeup that pool of wealthy are constantly changing over time as well. This is a good thing.

Just to recap though, you don't think marxists and the majority look at numbers and claim injustice?

>>	Anonymous Thu Sep 20 21:12:39 2018 No.11816714 File: 28 KB, 500x432, _500.jpg [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google] It's all complete bullshit, a complete abomination. Neo-Catharism, a cargo cult.

Anonymous Thu Sep 20 21:21:16 2018 No.11816746

>>11816456
>Whereas I guess the marxist would say it's impossible to look after the poor when "the rich horde wealth" and personally I think that's a misunderstanding of what rich people do with wealth but that's another matter.
Ffs why do people confuse marxist’s redesign of accumulation of wealth for redistribution

Anonymous Thu Sep 20 21:24:44 2018 No.11816755

>>11816746
Probably because of the way marxists communicate what they think their ideas are? I guess one problem is even if a few know the correct ideas, what's being advocated for by the majority of self-described is a bit different and so that's what people address? Who knows honestly, it's impossible to clear many things up with a good discussion and at some point kind of pointless anyway.

Anonymous Thu Sep 20 21:28:56 2018 No.11816771
File: 93 KB, 960x533, Bastiat - Socialism.jpg [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google]

>>11816746
You're talking about worker ownership and thus workers accumulating the wealth they create yeah? I ask the same thign all the time as a Libertarian, why do people think being against centralized government provision of X means somehow I'm against people being provided X at all? Seems to have been a problem even 150-200 years ago, so I doubt it'll change ever.

I hate politics and wish for its abolition and destruction. I would much prefer everyone fucked off into like minded groups and minded their own business.

Anonymous Thu Sep 20 21:33:45 2018 No.11816784

>>11816706
>how you choose to solve the problem of scarcity and the need for sustenance is your choice.
Not if you're born into a system that decided to solve it by forcing poor people into work. At start your choices are limited to play along or die.

>is that not what the laymen and marxists do all the time?
>you don't think marxists and the majority look at numbers and claim injustice?
It's a simplification for the sake of the argument since the topic is pretty complicated. Instead of opening a huge debate which would require everyone involved to really get deep into multiple topics way beyond economics. Practical political discourse can't do that because the average person lacks the time to get too involved. Hence most countries have a representative democracy. Besides, if they didn't do it, people would bitch about arcane language and terms no one but hardcore Marxists understands.

Take something much more simple and recent like Trump or Brexit, how many of the millions voted could really give a somewhat objective analysis of just the key policies and their impacts?

>hoarded at the expense of others, rather than being created through mutually beneficial interactions and being utilized almost 24/7
One doesn't even have to negate the others. By evading taxes and underpaying his workers aka. basically letting the tax payer pay for Amazon, Bezos is definitely doing it at expense of others; while benefiting some and obviously utilizing what he gained.

Anonymous Thu Sep 20 21:47:21 2018 No.11816820

>>11816784
> Not if you're born into a system that decided to solve it by forcing poor people into work
Why's that? Because of private property rights? You think a better alternative is for everyone to be able to try and be subsistence farmers wherever they like? What about in the desert where nothing can grow? You think someone should try their luck trying to farm the desert rather than letting the entrepreneur setup that entertainment venue in that desert that you can work at?

Where you're born is your parents fault and parents responsibility. They could have (let's say) in a free society obtained land for example and you could've been born on that land. Then you would say your parents are oppressing you because they push you into working the family farm? Or living in the family home?

How is it not better to have productive people produce shit tonnes of food for everyone to the point where food is so accessible that you can without anything but your own body go in public, sing, have people give you money that you trade for food? Not having, to toil year round as a subsistence farmer but literally with nothing, get what you need and make the consciouss decision for your life to obtain more things so that your kids don't have to start off with just their own bodies?

Even in this modern corporatist, socialist hellhole, a family can work, save, pay off a house, invest, accumulate some wealth and set their kids up. But they don't, yet the system despite millions of pages of restrictions and regulations still allows people with nothing to become something for the first time in history. Rags to riches is actually a possibility, not generation after generation as serfs, or producing for the party members banquets as they implement a social credit system to stop you from criticizing them.

> It's a simplification for the sake of the argument
I'm not following you here, it comes across like people are making normative statements about right/wrong based on what they observe to be an unjust outcome, due to the fact that the numbers seem "wrong". People don't even examine the actions that lead to these outcomes be they poor or rich outcomes to see whether it was done morally or not, they do everything on face value. How is that worth basing a social system on?

> underpaying his workers
How do we determine what underpayment is? Because of profit and the bourgeoisie taking the "excess value" from what the worker produces?
> basically letting the tax payer pay for Amazon
Oh I agree but we have a situation where people don't understand the difference between a subsidy and a grant, or keeping more of your own money vs taking money from others.

Democracy is a pretty dogshit system if I'm being honesty. Especially a centralized one.

Anonymous Thu Sep 20 22:17:36 2018 No.11816973

>>11816820
>Where you're born is your parents fault and parents responsibility.
Given how they were in the same situation before, the only realistic choice they made was fucking instead of not fucking.

Also what's with the luddite examples when even failed socialist stated offered a better way to distribute key resources. Only the voluntary part of work was still, well work in progress.

>Rags to riches is actually a possibility
Rags to party members too. The stories are so romantic because shit is just that unlikely. Wealth of parents is by far the best predictor about your future wealth since ever.

>it comes across like people are making normative statements about right/wrong based on what they observe to be an unjust outcome, due to the fact that the numbers seem "wrong".
Democracy is a popularity contest. No one would give a fuck about an in-depth thesis arguing why this is wrong or right when there is a much simpler "look at this shit" log line that creates an emotional reaction. "This is so unfair" is the same argument liberals/conservatives use when it comes to higher taxes. If you somewhat agree with the statement, you might be interested in more details and eventually vote for the side that sounds the most right. No system is based on theses catch phrases but only a minority really gives a fuck about the specifics. Politics statements and most arguments aren't aimed at these people. Thought most of ACTUAL political discourse tends to be more spergy than talk from religious fanatics.

>How do we determine what underpayment is?
A perfect example how something simple sounding and vaguely understood by most can expand into a huge discussion. Good luck getting most people listen to talk about "excess value".

>we have a situation where people don't understand the difference between a subsidy and a grant, or keeping more of your own money vs taking money from others.
Nor can be realistically expected too given the time it takes to learn it or the crappy education system. Hence it isn't practical for any political party to go in this deep, when you have ze bankers, ze migrants or great words like justice and fairness, which can be used by everyone.

>Democracy is a pretty dogshit system if I'm being honesty. Especially a centralized one.
It sure is but we still managed to advance into the best era of humanity, so it could be worse.

Anonymous Thu Sep 20 22:40:04 2018 No.11817106

>>11816973
> they made was fucking instead of not fucking.
They decided what kind of life to build before fucking. They decided whether to fuck while renting, fuck while at home with their parents, fuck while homeless, fuck while in their own home, fuck with money, fuck without money. Is that my fault? Yours? Theirs? The people that offered them work or the people that offered them opportunities they didnt take?

> Also what's with the luddite examples when even failed socialist stated offered a better way to distribute key resources
Did they?

> Rags to party members too
That's not possible. Taking evidence from Maoist China, the USSR and even Yugoslavia it's clear that social mobility stagnated. These people entrenched power, look at china today their social credit system lower peoples rights if they criticize the fucking government.....
> Wealth of parents is by far the best predictor about your future wealth since ever.
Evidence I've seen has been IQ + choices. Or else social mobility wouldn't exist. Ever heard of shirt sleeves to shirt sleeves in 3 generations? Rich kids love spending money, instantly redistributing it. You know what's also nice, having parents that give a fuck enough to build something and to teach their kids how to build shit until you have a family that builds and creates wealth to make the future generations lives easier.

> Democracy is a popularity contest.
Too true. Is this a good way to organize society, ie
> "look at this shit" log line that creates an emotional reaction
I don't like the idea that my life is encumbent on the decisions of others to any great degree. No one is an island but that doesn't mean I can't advocate for individual human rights.

> Good luck getting most people listen to talk about "excess value"
Yet its so easy to take two people, who engaged voluntarily and some 3rd party rocks up and goes "that's not fair!".
> ze bankers, ze migrants or great words like justice and fairness
> It sure is but we still managed to advance into the best era of humanity
Sure is. I could say the same about Capitalism honestly, although we all have ideas on what should be improved, or what should replace what.

>>	Anonymous Thu Sep 20 22:41:52 2018 No.11817115 >>11816973 Maybe politicizing human relations is the problem in the first place. Interactions can be just/unjust, making them vague, theoretical and blanket seems like unfocussing the lense of human interaction, blurring everything.

Anonymous Thu Sep 20 23:22:07 2018 No.11817290

>>11817106
>They decided what kind of life to build before fucking.
Most of the choices were already limited by the system they lived in and the wealth of their parents, before we even go into genetics and chances on their way. Given the amount of variables, fault doesn't seem to helpful of a concept. Hell, even if we could safely determine it; it wouldn't help anyone involved outside of turning them into example for future generations. And then of course the obligatory: How far someone should be punished for "fault-y" behaviour, if at all.

>Did they?
Well, depends on what you prioritise, which is just going back in cycles about personal values.

>social mobility stagnated
Networking and chance always had the possibility to do the trick. Not to sure about our Chinese friends but tons of the "party royalty" in Soviet Russia came from nothing.

> look at china today their social credit system lower peoples rights if they criticize the fucking government.....
People who were called commies in 50s Murica weren't the most likely candidates to write fairy tales about either. Playing by the rules more or less was always a solid tactic. If I go around talking about how great Adolf was, it's unlikely to improve my chances either.

>Evidence I've seen has been IQ + choices.
Both affect each other and both are affected by your parents wealth.

>Or else social mobility wouldn't exist.
Something existing doesn't mean it's going to be obtainable by most. Besides the situation in the past was quite different. Social mobility in the first world steadily went down for decades now. And sure it's more likely to go from poorfag to middle class than from peasant to CCP secretary but neither is very likely. Statistically speaking.

>I don't like the idea that my life is encumbent on the decisions of others to any great degree.
Sounds like just another emotional reaction, hence you'd be more open for messages that validate that world view. Pretty sure where is some commie propaganda for that too, something about a glorious future with more freedom and self determination or whatever.

> I could say the same about Capitalism honestly, although we all have ideas on what should be improved, or what should replace what.
Sure, though it was usually a tamed version, making the whole talk about pure systems so theoretical and dull.

>>11817115
>Maybe politicizing human relations is the problem in the first place.
Practically it seems impossible to avoid. The image might be blurry but it's probably still more accurate than zooming in on one aspect and ignoring the bigger picture.

>>	Anonymous Thu Sep 20 23:23:48 2018 No.11817301 >>11803262 http://aynrandlexicon.com/lexicon/socialism.html http://aynrandlexicon.com/lexicon/communism.html

>>	Anonymous Fri Sep 21 00:28:36 2018 No.11817518 >>11803329 At a certain point there is little risk involved in finance.

>>	Anonymous Fri Sep 21 00:47:50 2018 No.11817588 >it's another /lit/ pretends to have read marx thread

Anonymous Fri Sep 21 00:52:24 2018 No.11817605

>>11817290
> Most of the choices were already limited by the system
Is the system not giving people more choices than they would have if they were to try and doing everything themselves? I mean I don't know how we can say the division of labour and peoples ability to choose what they want to do is a restrictive system considering more options exist now than did in any other time.
> fault doesn't seem to helpful of a concept
That's fair but to blame an employer more than a parent seems off . You mentioned family wealth and genetics as if people don't have an extreme amount of opportunity in a capitalist system? Or ability to influence their outcomes?
> Something existing doesn't mean it's going to be obtainable by most.
Have you seen the stats on how many people working at McDonalds aren't working there 12 months later, how income changes with age, how often the people in the 1% trade places, how wealth is changing generationally depending on the decade? I don't know if we can consider these things as something that exists that isn't attainable for most people. I mean this is with financial literacy at rock bottom and people making consistently bad choices with their finances, which means the potential for even better outcomes is there too.
> Playing by the rules more or less was always a solid tactic
If you compare the ability to trade labour for money, and to start a business to even the restrictive lack of mobility in Yugoslavia for example the difference is stark. There was a vast outflow of people to the west because people not part of the party network sort of like not having union connections weren't allowed to work or start businesses.
> both are affected by your parents wealth
I can't agree that this is THE central factor considering people from similar backgrounds have a vast range of outcomes in comparison to other systems. There's those stats conservatives love; statistically if you graduate high school, get a job and don't have kids until you're married you have only a 2% chance of poverty and 74% chance of being middle class. Considering the huge amount of mobility already existing and the huge amount of things people could still do to improve their position I'm not sure that idea is the central factor (is it statistically?)
> emotional reaction, hence you'd be more open for messages that validate that
I consider it more current preferences for my own life rather than how I want others to live.
> theoretical and dull
That's the fun part about going out into the world, jpeople aren't interested in these specific ideas or concepts, not theories of value nor even "muh white race" specifically they just want to enjoy life and have it get better over time.
> zooming in on one aspect and ignoring the bigger picture.
What I meant was leaving justice for people that seek it for a particular imagined wrongdoing rather than trying to impose a new world view on "consenting adults" in a blanket approach.

>>	Anonymous Fri Sep 21 00:57:29 2018 No.11817626 >>11816771 What prevents one group from achieving dominion over another?

Anonymous Fri Sep 21 01:06:53 2018 No.11817661

>>11817626
Well the prevailaing wisdom was that Liberalism (classical) was feared by Fascists and even many Marxists for leading towards the destruction of politics via decentralization of power. Even though of course Communists kind of want something similar and were the OG anarchists.

I guess history shows groups will try to control other groups unless there are incentives not to or more incentives to do something else. Capitalism for example created this weird incentive where to get resources you didn't need to plunder other peoples resources, you could create them together and trade and so on. We have other incentives within society like how we don't go around murdering eachother for apples because they're so easy to obtain in less painful ways. (depending on circumstance of course but the prevailaing circumstance is not for example a homeless starving black kid stealing fruit from the market to survive)

>>	Anonymous Fri Sep 21 01:09:37 2018 No.11817673 unironically my diary desu

Anonymous Fri Sep 21 01:49:44 2018 No.11817807

>>11817605
>You mentioned family wealth and genetics as if people don't have an extreme amount of opportunity in a capitalist system? Or ability to influence their outcomes?
I mentioned the factors because statistically they are the most significant ones. If you're born poor from dumb poor parents, you're most likely to stay poor and dumb, just like being born rich almost guarantees for you and even your kids to stay rich. Of course individuals can go against the general numbers, but focusing on exceptions when talking about systems seems pointless.
And sure the current system in the West is the least restrictive we had in any other time, just it's far from not being restrictive.
>Have you seen the stats
Well, hoped to avoid linking shit for discussions-sake but...
https://www.minneapolisfed.org/institute/working-papers/17-21.pdf
https://www.stlouisfed.org/~/media/Files/PDFs/Community%20Development/EconMobilityPapers/Section1/EconMobility_1-1Chetty_508.pdf
Keep in mind, to reach even the low percentage, your choices have to be nearly perfect but to be fair, it looks better in most other Western countries.
>how often the people in the 1% trade places
Hardly worth mentioning when talking about social mobility. In the end it even supports class stagnation when Buffet or Gates can donate billions and still have their net worth rise in few years.
>There was a vast outflow of people to the west because people not part of the party network sort of like not having union connections weren't allowed to work or start businesses.
Sure but how many of them did really moved up in class? I know silly numbers East European emigrants personally, and a vast majority of them went from academics to shitty working class jobs.
>statistically if you graduate high school, get a job and don't have kids until you're married you have only a 2% chance of poverty and 74% chance of being middle class.
The problem with stuff like that is that your class affects how likely you will actually graduate, find a job, make the right call when it comes to having kids and so on. So it doesn't approach the most likely outcomes but presents the optimal choices, kinda like a game walkthrough. Only that it's unlikely to even reach the players who need it most.
>leaving justice for people that seek it for a particular imagined wrongdoing rather than trying to impose a new world view on "consenting adults" in a blanket approach
Well, it sounds like the most simple way and I guess pragmatic but at the same time it also ignores that "getting a world view imposed on you" is the most basic aspect of any society; attempting to adjust it sounds as given as just rolling with the flow, specially when the latter do affect it all almost as much as the others.

>>	Anonymous Fri Sep 21 02:14:47 2018 No.11817855 >>11803262 why the fucc everything cost money??

>>	Anonymous Fri Sep 21 02:18:39 2018 No.11817865 >>11803262 Let's all starve together

Anonymous Fri Sep 21 02:39:54 2018 No.11817918

>>11817807
> Well, hoped to avoid linking shit for discussions-sake
I understand, what I'm getting at is just wondering how we can reconcile the interpretation of the data (if given the benefit of the doubt that it's true). So let's say just for example: 12% will over their lifetimes make it into the top 1% for some period of time, 3/4 will make it into the top 20% and other stats show: but only 6% of all Americans born in the bottom 20% will ever make it to the top 20%. To me it looks like we can look at all kinds of data and draw many conclusions similar to the gender pay gap. The bottom 20% of today considering half the population are dumb as dog shit are the proper welfare dregs of society, the meme stereotypes on TV, that 6% of them somehow make it to the top section of society is pretty fucking good. Their kids obviously do better as more move up 1 or 2 quartiles. Or would you say this is exactly your point that this proves social mobility is still quite crap because the bottom 20% aren't reaching the top because of poor and dumb parents in 1 generation? What about mobility in Hong Kong and China? Two different environments paint a different picture.
> Hardly worth mentioning when talking about social mobility
People going from poor to rich and from rich to poor isn't worth mentioning in a discussion on social mobility? Was that just a miscommunication or do you mean that because of the above stats that it doesn't happen to a significant degree?
> least restrictive we had in any other time, just it's far from not being restrictive.
That's an interesting discussion. What restricts social mobility, liberal says capitalists and class, conservatives says welfare lifestyle, Libertarian says regulations, maybe it's all 3 to varying degrees?
> Sure but how many of them did really moved up in class?
I'm going to look into the stats of this again sometime but from memory it's pretty significant when they come from home countries where they were in poverty. Think poor Chinese going to Hong Kong (people going there to live in kennel size cages end up with middle class jobs etc) and people that flee'd Europe from various regimes have helped form the middle classes in western countries (your Germans and your Yugoslavs). I see what you mean about the academic migrants, kind of reminds me of Russians fleeing, they probably took a notch down.
> The problem with stuff like that is that your class affects how likely you
What do you think of Sowell's videos about black unemployment and so on? How they were doing much better before the welfare state etc. You say class but it seems like some of these systems contribute heavily to declining outcomes that were improving. (look at the IQ of american blacks vs the africans that they were pulled from, that seems to have risen over the years as well) The ability to shift seems to change depending on the system, in the same country over time. Blacks are more entrentched in povery than they were.

>>	Anonymous Fri Sep 21 04:25:44 2018 No.11818102 I don't wanna work, gibs me dat.

>>	Anonymous Fri Sep 21 04:30:34 2018 No.11818112 >>11803306 >I know Marx is shit ???

>>	Anonymous Fri Sep 21 04:50:53 2018 No.11818148 >>11812951 >Communism is INEVITABLE. It is not just possible if there's one idea of his that I hate the most it has to be this one.

>>	Anonymous Fri Sep 21 05:36:11 2018 No.11818206 equal pay for unequal work cus time spent on zie labor is all that matters

>>	Anonymous Fri Sep 21 06:05:14 2018 No.11818256 >>11818206 t. Didn't read

Anonymous Fri Sep 21 06:17:51 2018 No.11818280
File: 80 KB, 660x495, 1975nj.jpg [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google]

everytime i come to a marx thread i leave more confused that i came in. i really want to understand it but damn it just so much information and everytime people takes sides and argue beside the facts.

it's been a big elephant in the room kind of subject for me that i have been avoiding for a while. any good suggestion to understand marxism through another author that boils it down (since i have no background in philosophy and know nothing about hegel and dialectics and materialism and such).

>>	Anonymous Fri Sep 21 06:19:21 2018 No.11818282 >>11818280 Read Amadeo Bordiga.

>>	Anonymous Fri Sep 21 06:20:39 2018 No.11818287 >>11818280 this is a good summary. >>11812945 >>11812951

>>	Anonymous Fri Sep 21 06:21:25 2018 No.11818289 >>11818282 Or Gilles Dauve, for a more modern introduction.

>>	Anonymous Fri Sep 21 06:24:27 2018 No.11818294 >>11818256 that's how the easter block did it

Anonymous Fri Sep 21 07:07:48 2018 No.11818363

>>11818287
>>11818282
I read the response you linked and damn that made me feel uneasy in a way. i found that dauve has two books that i can acquire. bordiga is going to be harder.

so far im really curious about private property being abolished and the inevitability of the movement. specially the first one since ever since private property seems to be an ingrained thing in our brains by this point. it seems to me like a psychological issue has to be fleshed out too in regards of socialism. like, when i put myself in a place inside those considerations i can conclude that i belong to the working class, that i might be (see "might", i dont want to admit it?) oppressed, but also i dont want to let go on things?.

anyways thanks for the suggestion and that reply was really good.

>>	Anonymous Fri Sep 21 07:10:15 2018 No.11818370 >>11818363 ever since you are a kid i was gonna type.

>>	Anonymous Fri Sep 21 07:23:05 2018 No.11818413 >>11818363 >so far im really curious about private property being abolished and the inevitability of the movement. most marxists nowadays reject marx's claim that it was inevitable just so you know.

>>	Anonymous Fri Sep 21 07:58:44 2018 No.11818500 >>11816418 Actually, I'm rubber and you're glue.

>>	Anonymous Fri Sep 21 08:00:11 2018 No.11818505 >>11816399 >freeing people up from doing 1 thing so they can now do another things or newer thing what a nice way to say "get fired" and "get paid less for the same effort"

Anonymous Fri Sep 21 08:05:51 2018 No.11818527

>>11816556
>The opposite of voluntary is coerced, no one is coercing you to eat, the fact of nature, being alive and living in a world of scarce resources. Unless you're saying nature is coercing you therefore employers are immoral? Anyway that was besides the point.
fact of the matter is that, while it's noone's particular fault, the market screws over some group of people in favour of another. I guess it's their fault for... entering the market in the first place? Not that they had a choice.
Noone chooses whether to look for a job or earn money, and once you end up as a wage worker or as a shareholder in a competitive enterprise, the laws of the market are very much coercive and force you to act in a certain way.

>>	Anonymous Fri Sep 21 08:09:55 2018 No.11818537 >>11817661 you're implying that the monopolization of the economy is so much better.

Anonymous Fri Sep 21 08:12:15 2018 No.11818549

>>11818280
Literally just read Capital. It's not that hard and will clear your head of all the wrong interpretations you see everywhere (like in this thread)
You could read it while watching the "Reading Capital with David Harvey" playlist on youtube. It's a full college course by a man who's made reading Capital his purpose in life

>>	Anonymous Fri Sep 21 08:18:52 2018 No.11818571 >>11806960 Eldritch level cursed image

>>	Anonymous Fri Sep 21 08:46:57 2018 No.11818627 >>11818549 Harvey gets a lot of things wrong too. Equating exchange value with price for example. Kliman wrote a lenghty critique which I cant find right now.

>>	Anonymous Fri Sep 21 08:55:26 2018 No.11818656 >>11803262 When proven wrong curse: DIALECTIC, CONFUSED, COUNTERREVOLUTION.

Hositrugun !!76ZOGZlHvwg Fri Sep 21 09:57:01 2018 No.11818890

>>11803262
He wrote a fuckton of different Economic, Philosophical, and Political ideas, but the central idea that ties it all together is the Sociological theory of Historical-Materialism. Basically:
1)Every culture is just a psychological reflection, (a rationalization if you will) of the Social-Structures existing within the society that spawned it.
2)The Socio-Political structure of a society, is an outgrowth (or in Marx's words "superstructure") of the Economic system, (or "Mode of Production").
3)The Economic relations within a society are a reflection of the logistical aspects of production, and distribution of goods. Which are in turn determined by A)The sophistication of the tools available (the level of technological advancement), and b)The resources provided by the local ecosystem. Marx groups these two factors together under the label "Material conditions.

So, to Summarise: Material conditions -> Mode of Production -> SocioPolitical Superstructure -> Culture. (Please note, that this is not rigidly predictive, rather, the lower levels determine the basic principles of the higher ones, and limit the total level of variation in the higher levels).

Marx then breaks the history of Western Civilaztion down to five main MoPs: Hunter-Gatherers; Primitive, semi-agrarian Agriculture, Slavery-Based Society, Feudalism, and Capitalism.

He then argues that all Economic systems fit into one of two types: Communistic, and Dictatorial. The difference being whether the Economic system produced Classism. If you have Classism, then a dictatorship, if no Classism, then a Communistic. (Bare in mind, that Marx believed that the State is always a product of the irreconcilability of class-antagonism, and in a society with no classism, the state does not exist.

Hositrugun !!76ZOGZlHvwg Fri Sep 21 09:58:31 2018 No.11818901

>>11818890
Marx argues that the shift from Hunter-Gatherer society to, Horticulturalism led to both a surplus of food that hadn't existed before, and a need to stay in one place, it also led to a population boom which led to greater problems if there's a food shortage, and lesser problems if there's a bunch of murders. This led to the birth of large-scale war, where before there were only raids. The combination of war, and productive surplus, led to the birth of slavery,and thus, of classism. Then class warfare kicked in. Marx argues that any transition from one MoP to another, that isn't caused by a shift in the material conditions (ecological disaster, introduction of a new crop with better yield, invention of a new technology), must be caused by class warfare ending with "the radical reconstitution of society at large". The conflict between slaves and masters led to Feudalism, the conflict between Aristocrats, Peasants, and Bourgeoisie led to Capitalism, and since Capitalism still has classism, (Employees, and Employers have fmirreconcilably opposed economic interests,and since the former are in control of virtually all enterprise, but the latter make up the vast majority of the population, and do the vast majority of productive labour, this will inevitably lead to conflict). There must therefore be another economic system after this one.

By Marx's day, there were already people (Rousseans, Utopian-Socialists, Anarchists), were already calling for the abolition of privately-held, for-profit enterprise, and its replacement with democratically-run, employee-owned co-ops, and to abolish markets, and replace them with the equitable distribution of goods based on need. Marx saw this as the most logical Economic system to replace Capitalism, but distanced himself from the pre-existing socialist movements by arguing that between Capitalism, and Full Communism, there must be a transitional period, called "Lower-Stage Socialism", in which the means of Production have been brought into collective ownership, but there is still a state, to protect against reactionary insurrections, and external attacks from still-capitalist countries, as well as just smoothing over the process of workers figuring out how to run all the industries democratically without everything turning to shit.

No Marxist country has ever made it beyond this transitional period.

>>	Anonymous Fri Sep 21 11:05:33 2018 No.11819214 >>11803262 The industrial revolution was a mistake.

>>	Anonymous Fri Sep 21 11:26:42 2018 No.11819294 >>11819214 *agriculture were a mistake

Anonymous Fri Sep 21 11:54:56 2018 No.11819418

>>11810889
>>11813701
>BRO the law of value is so different from the LTV
>and yeah the prices are the result of relationships between commodities and people in a society AND labor hours invested
>so like a thing is worth the labor put in but you can't actually use that to figure out what the price of something is
I hate Marxists

Advanced search
Text to find
Subject [?]Search by post subject. Leave empty for any.
Username [?]Search for user name. Leave empty for any user name.
Tripcode [?]Search for tripcode. Leave empty for any.
Email [?]Search by email. Leave empty for any.
Filename [?]Search by image filename. Leave empty for any.
From Date [?]Enter what date to start searching from. Format is YYYY-MM-DD
To Date [?]Enter what date to start searching until. Format is YYYY-MM-DD
Image hash
Search in	All Posts OPs Only
Deleted posts	Show all posts Show only deleted posts Only show non-deleted posts
Internal posts	Show all posts Show only internal posts Show only archived posts
Order	New posts first Old posts first
Capcode	All Posts Only by Users Only by Mods Only by Admins Only by Developers
Results	Posts Threads
Action	[ Simple ]

/lit/ - Literature