Socialism is a service economy

[Anonymous No.16457552]

How can Marxist economic theories be applied in the age of the service economy? It's not as simple as "guy makes shoes and should get the full value of the pair of shoes". How can you quantify the labor value of someone who is a cashier at Walmart when they aren't producing anything?

[Anonymous No.16457579]

service economy is artificial and results from capitalists shipping manufacturing overseas. therefore socialist revolution must first happen in the 3rd world which will force capitalists to bring manufacturing back to the west, which will then be seized by western workers.

[Anonymous No.16457593]

>>16457579
Clerks, salesmen and shop managers have been a thing far before factory outsourcing existed.
How do these people fit into a marxist economy? Supply chain, logistics and admistration dont create a product outside of getting products to where they need to be when they need to be there.
What is their piece of the pie?

[Anonymous No.16457615]

>>16457593
democratic ownership of the means of production. for example each Walmart elects their store manager and also the CEO, just like people elect their state governor and also the president of a country.

most of us don't adhere to the labor theory of value and have accepted markets, the debate is now between democratic ownership vs "private" shareholder ownership.

[Anonymous No.16457642]

>>16457615
>most of us don't adhere to the labor theory of value

Have you seen this board? Most of the commies think that accountants, ledger and manifest keeps, product managers, logistics/supply chain grunts and managers, and general administration dont do anything and that you only need welders and miners to make a functional economic entity.

[Anonymous No.16457646]

>>16457579
>which will then be seized by western workers.
How does that bit work lel

[Anonymous No.16457663]

It can't, Marx was a retard, stop thinking about him.

[Anonymous No.16457671]

>>16457642
Yeah, this is the whole problem with the Absentee Landlord thing: the landlord is actually providing a service that's crucially necessary for the economy. This is why Confucius, among many others, recognized that even though merchants were scum, they were actually necessary for economic activity. The fact that Marx was a smoothbrain and didn't get this is just another blackmark against his pseudoscientific babble.

[Anonymous No.16457686]

>>16457671
Land as "service" good one

[Anonymous No.16457694]

>>16457686
>Land as "service" good one

[Anonymous No.16457705]

>>16457671
Many high prophets of capitalism pre-Austrian school had the same opinion on Landlords - Smith, Keynes in particular thought they were unproductive parasitical scum.
Why do brainlets like you have no idea about this? Because you read neoclassical psy-op garbage about "market signals" and "efficient markets", that as we see with even the slightest bit of trouble break down - very useful for understanding a system that crashes every 10 or so years as various bubbles burst.

[Anonymous No.16457716]

>>16457646
if manufacturing is seized overseas by 3rd world workers, capitalist will have to bring it back to the west which will destabilize our economies and throw us into recession as it will take years to rebuilt infrastructure, which will radicalize the people, either towards socialism or fascism. fascists will try and blame brown people and their "dictatorships" for seizing the economy back from capitalists.

>>16457642
it's because they read Marx in university but haven't really kept up with ideological thought since the fall of the Soviet Union. they don't understand that the Communism vs Capitalism debate is over really, international capitalism won. it's necessary in order to succeed to now frame the debate from "capitalism vs communism" to things like "99% vs 1%", which we've seen now more and more. for social ownership to defeat capital in America for example it needs to fuse socialist principles into the context of American ones.

best example is Malcom X vs Martin Luther King. the latter succeeded because he managed to portray black liberation not as an attack on white America, but as a fulfillment of American and Christian values, such as equality. therefore it was seen as uplifting American society as a whole, instead of blacks wanting to "take" from white people. the Left is failing in America because they alienate "middle America" with their overtly communist theory and overt coastal liberal hatred of flyover states.

[Anonymous No.16457734]

>>16457705
So if you can't afford to buy land yourself, what do you do?
"hurr the land fairy will produce wooded meadows for you"
no, you rent, cuntface. and who do you rent from? landlords.

[Anonymous No.16457745]

>>16457671
Land is literally the only thing socialists are right on. You can own a house that you build on land, and the value of that house. But what we have today is rich people who buy huge pieces of land, without any plans to build anything necessarily, just because they know for CERTAIN that land value will increase due to population increasing. They aren't providing anything of value, it's pure speculation.

t. libertarian georgist

[Anonymous No.16457747]

>>16457716
No I mean specifically how do workers 'seize manufacturing' what does this look like. A mob? Do the workers elect leaders and make paramilitary troops?

[Anonymous No.16457759]

>>16457745
Sure, let's have people randomly claim spots of land, all over the place, and build houses. That sounds practical, way better than renting.

[Anonymous No.16457766]

>>16457747
organized labor strikes that demand democracy in the workplace. capitalists will have no options since they can't export manufacturing, their only option will be embracing democracy or embracing fascism. they will probably attempt the latter as we've seen in Europe before when they're faced with organized labor and social ownership.

as I said previously, they will stoke racial hatred to produce anxiety leading to the need for a "strong leader", which is how Fascism develops.

[Anonymous No.16457768]

>>16457705
>>16457686
See the problem you guys have is you don't actually get what a landlord, and "merchants" as a whole, do. You're also ignorant of the historical idea of what a "landlord" actually is.

The Absentee Landlord refers to the idea of a noble lord, who had been given some amount of land. The nobleman couldn't use all of it, he needed help. So, he'd get peasants to do it for him. How he does this depends on the when and the where, in some places peasants were hired labor, in others they were slaves. Usually it was somewhere in between. The peasants would work the land, and some amount would be given to the nobleman. The criticism is that the nobleman isn't actually necessary, and that the peasantry could just do what they're doing anyways (peasants were entirely self sufficient at a subsistence level) and not have to give anything to the nobleman. An argument could be made that the landlord here is necessary to arbitrage the goods, thereby using them more efficiently. There may be no demand for wool in area X, but there is demand for it in Y, so the nobleman takes the land from X to Y and sells it in Y. But, really, this can (and was) done by merchants, so what's the nobleman for? Defense? The peasants can defend themselves. They often did.

This is fundamentally different from a "landlord" in the sense of "the company that owns your apartment complex", and using the previous concepts as if they apply here is fundamentally disingenuous. The landlord does actually provide a service, it's building and maintaining the building so that you don't have to. This IS a service, the landlord is selling convenience. The Right has suggested alternatives, such as what Singapore does, but these make Commies seethe because it's not actually about the land, it's about whiny status climbers who want to be doted on by a landlord, but don't want to have to pay for it.

[Anonymous No.16457773]

>>16457734
The argument is both ethical and economical - rent extraction is non-productive and monopolistic, resulting in modern economies in a massive financial sector and powerful rentier class who produce nothing - secondly why do people have land within a given society?
You have such a childish argument that even the greatest theorists of capitalism disagree with you this isn't even an issue of Marxism. Such a myopic worldview it is embarrassing.

[Anonymous No.16457780]

>>16457552
Maoists Third-Worldists agree and say that first world "workers" are pretty much soft-borgeouisie whose above average wages come from surplus value extracted from third world proles.

[Anonymous No.16457784]

>>16457759
>Sure, let's have people randomly claim spots of land, all over the place, and build houses.

Homesteading was quite literally the basis of American westwards expansion. Renting isn't immoral, but when land is disproportionately owned by the wealthy, working and middle class people will never own land, leaving then in a permanent state of servitude to a growing class of wealthy.

Millenials and Zoomers will likely never own a house unless something changes.

[Anonymous No.16457792]

i <3 literature

[Anonymous No.16457797]

>>16457773
But you offer no solution to the problem you're creating.
You're 20, you have no savings, can't afford to buy a whole fucking house, but you want to move out. What do you do? Rent.
You're saying "let's get rid of landlords"
So how do we solve the problem of housing people with no accumulated wealth?

[Anonymous No.16457798]

>>16457780
How does that align with China literally colonizing Africa as we speak?

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=zQV_DKQkT8o

[Anonymous No.16457805]

>>16457552
IT'S A LITERATURE BOARD YOU FAGGOT

[Anonymous No.16457809]

>>16457768
Again no socialist argues that the labour tending to a property is not labour, that would be absurd, it is the monopolistic extraction of rents that historically results in a hugely powerful rentier class.
You are projecting the wage relationship and missing the important aspect of the development of capitalism which is debt, and the rising merchant class and successful peasants borrowing to hire other peasants who had been kicked off their land due to common enclosures. Completely nuts to suggest capitalism happened due to "efficiency" - it happened due to extreme violence!

[Anonymous No.16457819]

>>16457809
I already responded to this in >>16457768
>it's not actually about the land, it's about whiny status climbers who want to be doted on by a landlord, but don't want to have to pay for it.

[Anonymous No.16457822]

>>16457797
State seizes vast swathes of empty property in cities used as an asset - state builds new properties.
Paying rental value for accommodation is not the same thing as landlordism

[Anonymous No.16457823]

>>16457784
Homesteading works great, when there are large swaths of land with no occupants. When you have millions of people living in one valley, you need to make compromises.

>Millenials and Zoomers will likely never own a house unless something changes.
That's a bad problem that needs to be fixed. But removing landlords won't magically solve that, it just creates more problems, chiefly how to house people w/o wealth who would normally rent from a landlord

[Anonymous No.16457824]

>>16457798
stop gobbling up propaganda and sensationalism
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=PBgbYQ5QAM0

[Anonymous No.16457828]

>>16457819
Ah yes, the poor landlord works SO HARD while the tenant pays his mortgage.
Idiot. How much does a boiler service cost?

[Anonymous No.16457831]

>>16457823
>Homesteading works great, when there are large swaths of land with no occupants.

There are 2,240,000,000 acres of land in America and 330 million people.

[Anonymous No.16457837]

>>16457823
>when there are large swaths of land with no occupants.
There kind of are though

[Anonymous No.16457842]

>>16457797
build more public housing

[Anonymous No.16457860]

>>16457824
>1 minute in
>China is far more humanistic than America ever was

This is why the left is in freefall in the west. Good luck ever appealing to working people while being a cheerleader for Chinese domination.

[Anonymous No.16457862]

>>16457822
Great, now the state is your landlord. Big improvement.
Expect shitty construction, shitty landscaping and repair service. And, expect the same amount of wealth to be siphoned from renters because it's not like it becomes free when the government does it.
>>16457831
True, so let's allow homesteading again. But that doesn't mean we don't need landlords. What if you work in the city? Are you going to homestead at the park?

[Anonymous No.16457869]

It doesn't read Bohn-Bawerk

[Anonymous No.16457871]

>>16457828
So, you do agree with my thesis. You're a whiny status climber (who went to college, oh my, how elite!) and therefore deserves to be waited on. You don't like having to pay for this, because you are modern day nobility, and as such deserve to have privileges heaped upon you for it.

>>16457831
>>16457837
If you two want to go live in Alaska, or a desert, go right ahead. If you could convince the Feds not to tax you for the first few years, I'll gladly join you in the venture.

[Anonymous No.16457873]

>>16457860
and that's completely true. they are totally non-interventionist unlike america and other western countries.

[Anonymous No.16457882]

>>16457686
It's housing as a service, not land.

[Anonymous No.16457894]

>>16457873
non-interventionist? go tell Tibet

[Anonymous No.16457899]

>>16457871
>Alaska, or a desert
There is forest and prairie land too
>If you could convince the Feds not to tax you for the first few years,
I think that's the other anon's whole point

[Anonymous No.16457914]

>>16457873
>they are totally non-interventionist

Comedy gold, this is the same shit /pol/ says about Russia whilst they meanwhile claim the territories of literally everyone around them. If you think the Left will ever gain power in the west by cheerleading for China against the "evil white western imperialists" you are delusional. This plays right into the hands of conservatives.

t. democratic leftist who opposes authoritarianism even if it's "communist"

[Anonymous No.16457942]

>>16457873
Hey Tibet, you can stop worrying now, some guy on 4chan says they're non-interventionist

[Anonymous No.16457959]

>>16457871
This is probably one of the most stupid arguments I have heard about property on this website and I have seen a few.
People would love to enjoy the security of owning their own homes and not giving massive amounts of income to rentiers you fucking imbecile.

[Anonymous No.16457973]

>>16457894
Tibet has never been a sovereign state and has been part of China and China basically liberated them from repressive serfdom. It is astonishing how westerners still eat up propaganda and every lie coming out of their reactionary media propaganda machine controlled by their oligarchs.
>>16457914
They are non-interventionist that is a fact
>t. democratic leftist who opposes authoritarianism even if it's "communist"
you are just a shitlib eating up lies and believing everything your oligarchs want you to believe

[Anonymous No.16457976]

>>16457824
>bullying an elderly white woman who is concerned with China, essentially a Fascist state, dominating Africa at the expense of western democracy

leftists revealing themselves as people fueled by envy and not out of a desire to help anything. they can barely hide their enthusiasm at the rise of china, they are driven by a desire for the rich white people who bullied them in school to fail, more than any concern for working people. their outright hostility towards the white working class is evident of this.

[Anonymous No.16457982]

>>16457959
The guy you're talking to is a thousand times smarter than you, Anon. You're the one with some fairy tale dipshit utopian worldview. Removing landlords will only cause more problems. You can't homestead in a fucking city, retard, and you call him stupid? Give me a break.

[Anonymous No.16458000]

>>16457976
>essentially a Fascist state
nope
>dominating Africa
nope
>leftists revealing themselves as people fueled by envy and not out of a desire to help anything
nope you are just a useful idiot. i don't believe in everything the oligarchs want me to believe.

[Anonymous No.16458026]

>>16457973
China is for all intents and purposes a Fascist state, which allows for Capitalist ownership of production that is submissive to a totalitarian dictator. Your type is the reason the the Left is a joke nowadays, you don't even pretend to care about average working and middle class people, in fact you cheer at their destruction.

Leftists cheerleading for the Soviets gave us Reagan and Thatcher, it completely discredits you.

[Anonymous No.16458036]

>>16458000
>NOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOO DICTATORSHIP IS FINE IF MY TEAM DOES IT

[Anonymous No.16458060]

>>16458036
Chinks don't like liberal democracy, why attempt to force it on them?

[Anonymous No.16458061]

>>16457982
Not homesteading you nonce, requisition - I'm not a libertarian.

[Anonymous No.16458072]

>>16458060
Maybe you can't read English properly, so let me spell my posts out for you. Nuke China. Kill them all. America will colonize new planets by 2030 without the chinese menace trying to fuck everything up constantly.

[Anonymous No.16458073]

>>16458026
Schmitt is pretty influential at the moment in Chinese political theory but it is pretty lazy to call China fascist - not that it is not clearly an authoritarian behemoth.

[Anonymous No.16458081]

>>16458060
Correction, they don't like democracy, their opposition to "liberalism" is how they justify their authoritarianism. The Left are the traditional champions of democracy, and if capitalism is to be defeated it's through democracy, not rooting for 3rd world dictators. It's like they learned nothing from the downfall of the Soviet Union, truly boggles the mind.

[Anonymous No.16458092]

>>16458072
They also own nukes you retard. Take your gay sci fi fantasy somewhere else. The US ain't doing shit.

[Anonymous No.16458114]

>>16457873
>>16457894
>>16457942
Tibet is my favorite African country.

[Anonymous No.16458126]

>>16458073
China is overtly state capitalist, which is what Fascism was economically, and quite overtly nationalistic and expansionist. Just like the Soviet Union, they have more in common with Mussolini than they do with Communism.

The only difference is the Chinese, like the Soviets, justify their authoritarianism as "a temporary vanguard state" while Fascists see it as an ends.

[Anonymous No.16458132]

>>16458081
>if capitalism is to be defeated it's through democracy
You have no idea how capitalism will be 'defeated', or even if it will be at all. Pointless assertion.
Also
>The Left
So vague as to be meaningless

[Anonymous No.16458141]

>>16458026
China is Marxist-Leninist and are very close followers of Marx. They have made great leaps and have done much for their people over the years. They have a system where they keep a close eye for corruption and are very efficient where they make long term plans for decades.
If you consider yourself a leftist and are rabidly anti-China and believe everything that your oligarchs tell you about them you are just a liberal. The only joke leftists are "anarchists" and "libertarian-socialists." They are too idealist and ideologically indulgent and their praxis is a joke. I don't think authoritarianism and central control are bad and if anything in today's world where everything has gone global we need something more like that. I believe in being pragmatic as possible and China upholds pragmatism over ideology.

[Anonymous No.16458142]

>>16458126
>overtly
Explain please

[Anonymous No.16458153]

>>16457973
They declared independence in 1913 when they drove Chinese soldiers out of their country. If China wants to invade them again, that's their business, but it seems like Tibet won its independence fairly.

>>16458114
your trolling is very epic

[Anonymous No.16458156]

>>16457871
Or just pull a forest anon, live in the woods and never pay taxes.

[Anonymous No.16458158]

>>16458141
>They have a system where they keep a close eye for corruption

[Anonymous No.16458165]

>>16458141
you propaganda-huffing faggot, do you know anything about china?

[Anonymous No.16458169]

>>16458126
I would recommend reading some Adam Tooze on China, or any non US-hawk. SoE is not the same relationship as was between key industries and the state under fascism - the CCP do not "make market conditions" for the capitalists, they make SoE meet productivity targets.

[Anonymous No.16458187]

>>16458165
What propaganda am I huffing? I live in America. Where is the Chinese propaganda? All I see is anti-Chinese propaganda from the oligarch controlled media. You are the one that needs to do more reflecting.
>>16458158
I mean that's true. They go as far as executing corrupt bankers.

[Anonymous No.16458198]

>>16458141
Democratic ownership of the means of production is the future of socialist thought, stop clinging to centuries old theories that were applicable only during a specific stage of capitalism.

>>16458142
Explain what? China is a capitalist country, but production is driven by the state. That's what state capitalism is, which was employed by Fascists under their "corporatism".

>>16458132
Not him, but any intelligent mind can see that it wont be defeated by academics alienating 90% of the country by apologizing for dictators. Of course, capitalists do the same thing with their support of people like Pinochet, but it's equally abhorrent. Capitalism vs Communism as an ideological battle is fucking over, deal with it.

The battle is now Democracy vs Totalitarianism, both in the public sphere(China), and the private sphere(workplace democracy). The current structure of corporations are Totalitarian, and that's the message the left needs to champion, people vs concentrations of power.

[Anonymous No.16458205]

>>16458187
>they execute corrupt bankers

well of course because to them "corrupt" means not doing exactly as told by their government. every dictator executes people for this you fucking moron.

[Anonymous No.16458216]

>>16458205
no it means embezzlement

[Anonymous No.16458221]

>>16458141
Do most communists believe this? I've never seen a more comically deluded group of people

[Anonymous No.16458222]

>>16458169
The difference is purely semantic for the most part, end of the day China is a capitalist country, and their industry is guided by the state for a profit.

[Anonymous No.16458228]

>>16457959
I would agree. But that's not what Commies want. They literally say so. Commies (who, let's be honest, are just Liberals) don't want to live in the woods, or the prairie, eking out a living by farming turnips. They want to be waited on by servants because they're special and educated and hold the Right Opinions. The alternative, is to be an evil fashy nazi and advocate for things like co-op housing. I'd love it if the US imported Singapore's housing policies, it would solve a comically large number of problems. But Liberals prevent that from happening (Yes, ReTHUGliKKKans are also Liberals), because again, they don't want it. They don't want to owner property. They want the privilege to get a specific service for free.

>>16458156
That's illegal in the US, and in most European states. Which, really, just means
>how badly do you want to not pay taxes?
Because if you want it THAT badly, yeah, just break the law. But if we're at "just break the law", then we're in a fundamentally different discussions.

[Anonymous No.16458238]

>>16458221
useful idiot

[Anonymous No.16458239]

>>16458141
>I don't think authoritarianism and central control are bad
>UGGGGHHHHH why wont working class people in the west vote for socialism I dont get it fucking corporate shills why can't they see the truth like me.....

and you guys wonder why the Left is a joke in the west

[Anonymous No.16458260]

>>16458198
>China is a capitalist country
You said overtly. That implied they considered themselves state capitalist, which would contrast with their usual material. Apparently you just meant 'obviously'.

>assertions
I still see no reason to take anything you say seriously. China is a shithole, but has the virtue of actually existing, unlike your magic coop land where everything just works properly. And in any hypothetical battle between your coop land and any major power, US or China or other, I see you losing.

And again
>The Left
Meaningless

[Anonymous No.16458261]

>>16458239
western leftists are anti-authoritarian (which is a joke) lmao

[Anonymous No.16458286]

>>16458238
Your revolution will never happen :3

[Anonymous No.16458292]

>>16457552
Non-meme answer: all workers own similar-sized shares of a business. This gives them voting rights, which they use to appoint representatives on the board of directors (like how all Americans can vote on their state reps), and the C-level executives (like how all Americans vote on the president).

The directors and executives still make management decisions like setting salaries, but they're now accountable to the workers. So, if the workers all agree they're being underpaid, they vote the current directors/executives out, and elect someone new.

Some workers may still be paid more (e.g. a skilled technician vs a cashier), but most worker-owned businesses tend to have a higher minimum salary and a lower maximum salary. For example, the CEO of a fortune 500 company makes ~300x what his lowest-paid employee will. The CEO of a worker co-op typically makes ~20x what his lowest-paid employee will.

>tl;dr
via representative democracy

[Anonymous No.16458300]

>>16458260
The Chinese economy is driven by corporations operating for a profit, that is overtly capitalist.

> China is a shithole, but has the virtue of actually existing, unlike your magic coop land where everything just works properly. And in any hypothetical battle between your coop land and any major power, US or China or other, I see you losing.

Nobody is talking about a magic co-op land, we're talking about democratic control of the means of production. It's a matter of

1. Organized labor, which was commonplace in the west until the Right succeeded in associating them with the Soviets during the cold war.

2. Once the workforce is sufficiently unionized, they have bargaining power to utilize the state to arrest control of corporations from the shareholders to the workers, and a conversion to workplace democracy.

None of this is utopian.

[Anonymous No.16458303]

>>16457552
ayo so u be sayin i be gettin shit fo free?

[Anonymous No.16458310]

>>16458156

[Anonymous No.16458323]

>>16458292
Agree with you but the only problem I see is with small businesses like tech companies. If I hire one employee for coding or something for my app does he then own 50% of my company?

It's obviously easier with large corporations.

[Anonymous No.16458356]

>>16458300
Are you retarded? My contention was your word 'overtly'. I couldn't care less what you think of the Chinese economy. I've made my own conclusions.

>Nobody is talking about a magic co-op land, we're talking about democratic control of the means of production
Tautology. Your democratic control is not wanted by elites. This means you either persuade them or get rid of them. Neither are happening in the foreseeable future. Climate change/resource scarcity shit will probably make this even less likely.

>Once the workforce is sufficiently unionized, they have bargaining power to utilize the state to arrest control of corporations from the shareholders to the workers
Wow, so simple. But why didn't it happen when organised labour was 'commonplace' then? Naive.

[Anonymous No.16458395]

>>16458356
>why didn't it happen when organised labour was 'commonplace' then?

Because organized labor leaders were devout Marxists at the time, before we saw the failure of the Soviet Union. It's now obvious to everyone that no "vanguard state" will ever relinquish its power, and therefore any Socialism moving forward will be democratic in nature.

Now go take your meds, seething tranny.

[Anonymous No.16458456]

>>16458395
>tranny
You're misinformed, as I'm no tranny. Typical mutt.

>It's now obvious to everyone that no "vanguard state" will ever relinquish its power, and therefore any Socialism moving forward will be democratic in nature
You misunderstand, again. Your magic coop land will be forced to take the same measures the vanguardist countries did. Whether this is acceptable to you or not can be decided yourself. The rest of your sad cope serves as its own rebuttal.

[Anonymous No.16458503]

thread is perfect proof of why the left cannot stop losing, they hate each other lmfao

[Anonymous No.16458697]

>>16458503
Not sure many of these arguments have actually been debating socialist theory - definitions on China where people have no idea about how SoE work, various cadres of the party is a guessing game for the ignorant.

[Anonymous No.16458704]

>>16458697
I really hope you're getting paid, if you're doing this of your own free will and actually believe it just lol

[Anonymous No.16458708]

>>16458697
post skin tone and eye

[Anonymous No.16458796]

Why the fuck do Marxists so desperately want to level the playing field?

Who cares if in the act of owning land the landowners aren't "producing anything"? They are still raking in money from people who won't do shit with it themselves. In turn these land owners, who have better connections than the renters, will use that money somewhere else in the economy, something only they can do.

I love how Marxists never consider the fact that networking is itself a job. A company owner or a land owner tends to have thousands of connections that all the workers and renters don't have, because it's a FULL TIME JOB ONTO ITSELF to form and maintain those connections. Get rid of this network, and you reduce the scale of society dramatically, and level the playing field... what the fuck for?

[Anonymous No.16458806]

>>16458796
>They are still raking in money from people who won't do shit with it themselves

Aside from working for a living.. just to pay to live in a place close enough to be able to, paradoxically, work.

[Anonymous No.16458826]

>>16458323
>If I hire one employee for coding or something for my app does he then own 50% of my company?
You hire nobody. You both get together because you want to make the same thing and you work not because you want to make money, but because you both like coding and want to spend time doing that.

[Anonymous No.16458836]

>>16458806
They blow it on frivilous entertainment and biding their time to sit on their ass some more, not forming networks and creating things.

[Anonymous No.16458867]

>>16458826
So even a 2 person enterprise has to be a co-operative? Also how tf are you going to make an economy around co-ops not also be profit based-lol

[Anonymous No.16458873]

>>16458836
You are unable to view the world divorced from /pol/ caricatures, and thus view working people as parasites who add nothing of value. When in reality the wealthy are the biggest degenerates of them all, I know this first hand. I dated a girl who grew up rich and I was shocked at the stories she told of how she grew up.

The bourgeoisie are the most promiscuous, degenerate, drug-addicted subhumans civilization has ever seen. Yet when we think of drug addicts we think of trailer trash or homeless people, those are just the ones who couldn't function because they didn't have the wealth or support system to go to rehab as vacation every year.

[Anonymous No.16458889]

>>16458873
>You are unable to view the world divorced from /pol/ caricatures
>in reality the wealthy are the biggest degenerates of them all
lol, stupid fuck

[Anonymous No.16459023]

>>16458867
>So even a 2 person enterprise has to be a co-operative?
No, you remind him of that mortgage he and that he should be happy someone employs him, underpay him, cut his salary because he goes to bathroom too often, charge for using coffee machine & fire after the job is done. Send condolence on a cheap postcard to his relatives after inevitable suicide to virtue signal.

[Anonymous No.16459092]

>>16459023
Yes. That works because it's backed by force. How are you going to do it? This relates to my first question. You also ignored my second. And if you have no answer for the second, there's nothing to stop your co-operatives doing the same. It just requires a vote.

[Anonymous No.16459150]

>>16457552
>How can you quantify the labor value of someone who is a cashier at Walmart

Walmart has 1.5 million employees and a $399 billion market capitalization. That means under socialism the average employee would own $266,000 in capital. This can be pro-rated according to current salary.

[Anonymous No.16459159]

>>16459150
>the average Walmart employee would own $266,000 in capital of a corporate conglomerate
sounds great

[Anonymous No.16459175]

>>16457642
>Most of the commies think that accountants, ledger and manifest keeps, product managers, logistics/supply chain grunts and managers, and general administration dont do anything and that you only need welders and miners to make a functional economic entity.
Are you clinically retarded? Accountants and managers collect a paycheck, so they are proletarians like everyone else. You have absolutely no idea what you're talking about.

>>16457671
>the landlord is actually providing a service that's crucially necessary for the economy
Lmao. And what is that?

[Anonymous No.16459198]

>>16459150
Think it would work better if workers owned 51%, this would allow the ability to invest in a company without the company ever being owned by investors, and workers maintain control.

[Anonymous No.16459216]

>>16458156
branwell is a little crazy though. the best type of crazy, but still crazy nonetheless

[Anonymous No.16459257]

>>16457768
>The landlord does actually provide a service, it's building and maintaining the building so that you don't have to.
No, that's not being a landlord, that is being part of the maintenance crew. The landlord hires the maintenance crew. Jared Kushner doesn't personally go out and repair windows. Some minimum-wage laborer does that. If landlords were abolished, residents could easily hire their own maintenance crew. It's not different from the peasants and trade managers of your example.

[Anonymous No.16459271]

Marxism does not work.

Socialism does not work.

Communism does not work.

[Anonymous No.16459283]

>>16459257
>Jared Kushner doesn't personally go out and repair windows. Some minimum-wage laborer does that
Repairing windows isn't minimum wage and requires both skill and knowledge, windows are also expensive.

>If landlords were abolished, residents could easily hire their own maintenance crew
You can if you buy your home, sometimes when you rent. If you want to make sure you can get "your own crew", buy a home and don't rent, simple as.

[Anonymous No.16459302]

>>16458292
Wouldn't be Marxist because it would still be a market economy, just with every corporation being a cooperative.

It would be more like Proudhon's proposed society.

[Anonymous No.16459314]

>>16459283
>Repairing windows isn't minimum wage and requires both skill and knowledge, windows are also expensive.
Do you have a point or are you just making random comments? Window repair is something workers do, not owners. In fact, every economic activity that creates real wealth is done by workers, not owners.

>You can if you buy your home, sometimes when you rent. If you want to make sure you can get "your own crew", buy a home and don't rent, simple as.
You sound literally retarded. You are paying for workers to do maintenance either way.

[Anonymous No.16459340]

>>16459302
Marxism is just a mode of societal analysis that emphasizes material conditions. Socialism is fully compatible with a market economy. The only requirement of socialism is that it eliminates private nonworker ownership of the means of production.

[Anonymous No.16459695]

>>16457552
Faux frais of production.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Faux_frais_of_production

[Anonymous No.16459780]

>>16459175
You are having a conversation with yourself dumbass. We're not talking about who is a prole and who isn't, we're talking about jobs that specifically don't generate productive value as defined by Marx. Accountants don't have a product outside of their service and don't use the means of production to generate value. How do you apply the concept of surplus value to someone who sits outside the LTV box?

[Anonymous No.16459808]

>>16459780
Accountants, operations managers and other members of the PMC generate productive value indirectly. All workers are on the same footing.

[Anonymous No.16459952]

>>16459780
See >>16459695

[Anonymous No.16460015]

>>16457552
They can't be applied it's all about either critique or terrorism.

[Anonymous No.16460387]

>>16457745
Based Geolibertarian. If the energy Marxists spent sperging out and staging revolutions had gone into such boring, sensible reforms, we would live in a better world.

Daily reminder that Henry George was based and correct about his core idea, and the intellectual tradition of Karl "Prince of Muddleheads" Marx is an irrelevant outdated cope for losers that has failed and produced horrific outcomes every time it has been attempted.

[Anonymous No.16460818]

>>16457716
>if manufacturing is seized overseas by 3rd world workers
Third worlders are barely even human, what makes you think you can instill class consciousness in 80 IQ Congotards without a centuries-long eugenics program? Why are Marxists all creationists who deny evolution and human biodiversity?

[Anonymous No.16460882]

>>16457798
Maoists are very anti-China and would probably agree with you. You're thinking of Marxist-Leninists

[Anonymous No.16460936]

>>16458889
While the average middle class man works 9-5 weekdays and goes to church on Sundays, the wealthy pay others to do work while they go on "business trips" with other bougies and rent out a apartment so they can host a heroin-fueled orgy with 20 teen hookers and snort crack off their ass, this blaze of hedonistic satanism for the express purpose of "facilitating a business partnership".

[Anonymous No.16460952]

>>16458395
Any "socialist movement" will be forced into vanguardism. Once the Party figures out how to plan the economy, planning the "democracy" should be rather trivial.

[Anonymous No.16460958]

>>16460936
You'd be doing the same thing if you were in their shoes, and someone has to be in their shoes, otherwise the system collapses.

[Anonymous No.16460961]

>>16460936
What do you think the Nomenklatura got up to during their spare time under State Socialism?

[Anonymous No.16460979]

>>16458395
>It's now obvious to everyone that no "vanguard state" will ever relinquish its power,
wow who could have predicted this

[Anonymous No.16460980]

>>16458395
how are you going to manage an economy on a global scale while also fighting bourgeois states trying to sabotage you and counter-revolutionaries without a vanguard state and centralization?

[Anonymous No.16461034]

I still don't understand how workplace democracy is supposed to work. So if you want to open a restaurant, you need to find a bunch of people and then you all vote together who cooks and who washes the dishes?

[Anonymous No.16461166]

>>16457882
You need to hold the land to make any money off it. The buildings don't matter.

[Anonymous No.16462005]

>>16461034
Business creation is unironically impossible undernesth syndicalism and nearly 90% of marxist interpretations.
They all simply take control of existing structures but offer no solution for genuine expansion and outgrowth.

[Anonymous No.16462070]

>>16457552
Service jobs almost all have MoP.

[Anonymous No.16462107]

>>16457671
Show men 1 (one) society where landlords were allowed to exist and at the same time did not either degenerate its morals or worse, had its morals degenerated already.

[Anonymous No.16462129]

>>16457552
>How can you quantify the labor value of someone who is a cashier at Walmart when they aren't producing anything?
You can't, because Marxism is fucking retarded. You can't even quantify it in actual manufacturing industries, because those also involve a great variety of positions, to the point you can't reasonably say exactly how much "value" one position adds compared to another.

[Anonymous No.16462153]

>>16461034
>I still don't understand how workplace democracy is supposed to work.
It doesn't. Communists think bosses don't do anything, but running a business successfully essentially requires you to know everyone else's job, so that you know whether they're doing it successfully or not.
It turns out most people are fucking retarded, and therefore in absolutely no position to make business decisions.

[Anonymous No.16462159]

>>16457593
>What is their piece of the pie?
The one with lead. But seriously, those merchantly people have no place in socialism.

[Anonymous No.16462168]

>>16457579
>which will then be seized by western workers.
Why?

[Anonymous No.16462173]

>>16460818
Yes? Its not optimal, but they are still more human than Amerifats.

[Anonymous No.16462179]

>>16457579
this is why I fucking hate you retarded communist fucks
all it would take for you to realize how retarded you sound is to work for even a minimum length of time in any sort of position in any given industrial manufacturing operation

[Anonymous No.16462204]

>>16457579
Good bait.

[Anonymous No.16462210]

Read Atlas Shrugged

[Anonymous No.16462217]

I read this thread and I am not sure who is trolling who anymore. Only georgist libertarian seems somewhat serious.
>Posters 38
>Replies 138
Based devilish anons playing both sides

[Anonymous No.16462219]

I read this thread and I am not sure who is trolling who anymore. Only georgist libertarian seems somewhat serious.
>Posters 38
>Replies 138
Based devilish anons playing both sides. Have a good day mr.FBI agent

[Anonymous No.16462272]

>>16458228
>I'd love it if the US imported Singapore's housing policies
Can anyone explain what their policies are to an ignorant anon

[Anonymous No.16462304]

>>16462210
>>16462219
Well this gentleman is certainly one of your trolls

[Anonymous No.16462351]

>>16457862
I'm not even asking you to delve into marxist theory, go read Plato's Republic

[Anonymous No.16462539]

>>16457716
>the latter succeeded because he managed to portray black liberation not as an attack on white America
His handlers did, you mean. MLK was a mouthpiece.

[Anonymous No.16462564]

>>16458292
How would this work in the construction industry, which is the biggest industry in the USA? Organized construction laborers work for dozens of different contractors during their careers. Should an apprentice working a short call get partial temporary ownership of the shop he's working for?

[Anonymous No.16462571]

>>16462564
And another thing. I hate to be that guy but I am curious how many people in this thread who claim to be leftists (or marxists or whatever consumer label you prefer) are actually members of labor unions? I.e. you are actually an active member of the organized working class

[Anonymous No.16462589]

>>16462571
The only reason people are leftists is because they've never worked.
Can you imagine a leftist lasting at a job long enough to actually cash their first paycheck, and in doing so, seeing UNION FEES on top of that?

[Anonymous No.16462603]

>>16462589
>UNION FEES
It's called dues. It's a small price to pay for the retardedly high amount of money I make given my skill level. Sometimes I wonder if I am the only person on /lit/ that's a member of a labor union. I've never even read Marx. I've never seen or met anyone who had read Marx and was actually a worker. 90% of the workers I know are barely literate. Marxism has failed to appeal to the working class, at least in America. Having read Ellul I am beginning to understand why.

[Anonymous No.16462607]

>>16462603
Talking about Marx in America would be like talking about Ellul in China.

[Anonymous No.16462617]

>>16462607
Is that so? I have no idea what the general Chinese public opinion on french intellectuals is. I suspect (though I obviously can't prove it) that 99% of the chinese population has never heard of Ellul. Perhaps the Chinese intelligentsia don't like his works.

[Anonymous No.16462635]

>>16462617
>I suspect (though I obviously can't prove it) that 99% of the chinese population has never heard of Ellul.
Thats the point. And even if they would be exposed, they wouldnt understand his Christian worldview, neither would they be willing to give up the power they gained through adapting western technology. Just as US has been the arch-nemesis for Marxist during the past 70 years and still is on the top of foodchain of global capitalism, so it would be rather comical to see American marxists.

[Anonymous No.16462644]

>>16462635
huh?

[Anonymous No.16462771]

>>16462603
I have a real job where companies suck my dick in order to hire me. A union would actively stifle me. This is how a lot of white collar jobs function.

[Anonymous No.16462784]

>>16462159
Administrative and logistical classes will still be needed regardless of economic framework. Please get a job.

[Anonymous No.16462804]

>>16462784
Obviously? But those are different kind of jobs.

[Anonymous No.16462821]

>>16462804
What you refer to as "merchantly" classes are still needed even in the strictess marxist sense because you cannot functionally have distribution, manufacture or logistics without accountants, supply chain managers, clerks, etc.

[Anonymous No.16462850]

>>16462821
What I refer to as "merchantly", means people who do marketting, brand-engineering (or whatever thats called) and advertisement. Basically persuading people to buy more than they need in order to maximize profit of their companies. It would make no sense to ask what happens with economic planners and teamsters in socialism. However I guess there might the fact I learned english only as my 3rd language at play here somewhere.

[Anonymous No.16462907]

>>16457552
This isn't what Marx said. value-producing labor is abstract labor and value only arises when things are exchanged. thus value is a social relationship between privately expended labor to the entire labor conducted by the society. Marx doesn't provide any technique to quantify the value produced by the labor before the act of exchange in the market.

[Anonymous No.16462942]

>>16457686
The state of Marxist arguments

[Anonymous No.16462944]

>>16462129
>>16457552
>>16457663
>The chatter about the need to prove the concept of value arises only from complete ignorance both of the subject under discussion and of the method of science. Every child knows that any nation that stopped working, not for a year, but let us say, just for a few weeks, would perish. And every child knows, too, that the amounts of products corresponding to the differing amounts of needs demand differing and quantitatively determined amounts of society’s aggregate labour. It is self-evident that this necessity of the distribution of social labour in specific proportions is certainly not abolished by the specific form of social production; it can only change its form of manifestation. Natural laws cannot be abolished at all. The only thing that can change, under historically differing conditions, is the form in which those laws assert themselves. And the form in which this proportional distribution of labour asserts itself in a state of society in which the interconnection of social labour expresses itself as the private exchange of the individual products of labour, is precisely the exchange value of these products.

[Anonymous No.16462951]

>>16457773
>ethical
Why should we give a fuck about these ethical values? The inferior were meant to serve the higher

[Anonymous No.16462956]

>>16462951
>hahaha mom I made another edgy post on 4chinz

[Anonymous No.16462958]

>>16457579
That's why we have militaries, retard, to keep them in check.

[Anonymous No.16462963]

>>16457871
Holy shit your IQ must be below 80

[Anonymous No.16462972]

>>16462944
gg, Marx is still a fucking retard.

[Anonymous No.16462981]

>>16462972
How? You're a fucking retard who didn't even understand his value concept and still make stupid arguments that Marx already replied to. You retards take the term "value" out of context from the complex theoretical framework constructed by Marx and strawman him.

[Anonymous No.16463021]

>>16462981
>How?
He was entirely blown the fuck out before either of us were even born, in more critical analyses than either of us can be bothered to argue on a south korean crotcheting forum. Do you want links, or something? Because any of them are a google search away.

[Anonymous No.16463043]

>>16463021
I criticize marx all the time but I also use some of his conceptual ideas all the time. That's not the point here. You have no right to crticize him when you fucks can't even wrap your heads around his fundamental concepts.

[Anonymous No.16463061]

>>16463021
Marx is actually the most misunderstood writer of all time. You gotta take people who criticize him with a pinch of salt. Not saying marx is infallible but people just misunderstand what he said all the time. Even leftists miscontrued his argument and Marx had to disavow the things leftists were doing in the name of Maxism.

[Anonymous No.16463086]

>>16463043
>>16463061
No, he's actually just fucking retarded.
There isn't some 5d chess going on.
He's just stupid.

[Anonymous No.16463110]

>>16463086
>He's just stupid. just believe me. Nothing from what he said is valuable
Okay, braindead moron.

[Anonymous No.16463132]

>>16463110
It isn't.
Not only has he been blown the fuck out from every angle possible, but he was so fucking stupid that he didn't even deserve that attention in the first place.
If you're unironically defending fucking Marx in 2020, you are objectively mentally ill, likely related to gender dysphoria.

[Anonymous No.16463188]

>>16463132
Your posts aren't convincing at all considering you didn't understand his value concept which is fundamental to his theoretical framework. Marx is a widely celebrated philosopher and economist in leftsit circles and many later influential thinkers built up on his work. You're a braindead right winger if you outright refuse anything said by marx as stupid. He was a pretty smart economist for his time because of his philosophy background.

[Anonymous No.16463243]

>>16463188
LVT is one of the dumbest hypothesis ever proposed, and I have no idea what the hell you're defending it for, aside from the fact that you're likely hilariously underskilled and over-educated in meme fields.

[Anonymous No.16463262]

>>16463243
Adam smith is the one who employs LVT and you guys hail him as the best economist of all the time. Marx doesn't directly employ LTV at all. His work is also a categorical criticism of what adam smith and other classical economists wrote at that time ffs

[Anonymous No.16463275]

>>16463262
*LTV
So yeah you guys aren't actually criticizing marx by laughing at LTV

[Anonymous No.16463292]

>>16463262
I don't think you've actually read Marx if you're seriously going to argue "Marx doesn't directly employ LTV at all."
His only valid criticism is "infinite growth isn't possible", which is some real basic bitch realization.
Everything else is embarrassingly idiotic, which is why every application of his ideas ends in unimaginable disaster, and why nobody in economics takes him seriously anymore.

[Anonymous No.16463343]

>>16463292
https://mronline.org/2017/11/17/150-years-of-capital-with-no-end-in-sight/
At least read an introductory book on das kapital. Marx's value concept is very much different from the labor theory of value used by classical economists but not marx.
>which is why every application of his ideas ends in unimaginable disaster
He just developed a critical language and analytical tools to criticize capitalist relations and also to critique the categorical suppositions employed by political economists in das kapital.

[Jesus No.16463390]

>>16457552
exactly my fren. suppose I don't like you and I provide a service for 100 bucks of not beating shit out of you. also a service, of saving your life from me.

[Anonymous No.16463413]

>>16463343
And still fucking wrong, and the only reason you keep pushing this shit is because you realize he's completely fallen out of relevance due to his objectively incorrect analysis, which will be completely forgotten by history as soon as you 41%.

[Anonymous No.16463430]

>>16463413
Are you a troll? Do you realize how every fucking time you tried to criticize marx you were proved to be just strawmaning him? How can you still insist on marx being stupid when you are this stupid yourself?

[Anonymous No.16463437]

>>16459314
>Window repair is something workers do, not owners.
False. Often times smaller landlords do repair work themselves because the cost of hiring someone to do it is too high, especially if it's during jour hours.

>In fact, every economic activity that creates real wealth is done by workers, not owners.
And these workers wouldn't be able to do it without owners.

>You sound literally retarded. You are paying for workers to do maintenance either way.
False.

Go somewhere else and be a retard.

[Anonymous No.16463443]

>>16463437
>Often times smaller landlords do repair work themselves because the cost of hiring someone to do it is too high
How does this justify landlord role, dumb nigger

[Anonymous No.16463472]

>>16457579
>socialist revolution must first happen in the 3rd world
sure, sure. the only reason why it hasn't happened yet is because they are not in the mood right now.

[Anonymous No.16463506]

>>16463430
It's not a strawman.
You're just a fucking retard.
And the worst part is all it would take for you to realize how fucking retarded you are is to work in any sort of industrial manufacturing operation.
But you'll never do that, so you'll keep on being fucking retarded forever in blissfull ignorance.

[Anonymous No.16463546]

>>16463506
Again you're just throwing around empty insults without refuting my posts. you misunderstood marx's value concept and I pointed that out to you. you said marx was using LTV and I pointed out how you were wrong about that shit. You said "every application of his ideas ends in unimaginable disaster" and I said nearly all of his work is analyzing capitalism and categorical criticism of the field of the then political economy itself. Every fucking time your only rebuttal was "you're wrong muh marx wrong" without going into specifics.

[Anonymous No.16463552]

>>16463472
Every time it happens amermutts stick their dick and jizz out coups and genocides

[Anonymous No.16463615]

>>16463546
Because if you want to go into specifics, he's been refuted by more google searches than a retard like you is willing to do.

[Anonymous No.16463644]

>>16463615
Now you're just trolling. you were wrong about marx at every step and you ask me to google search.

[Anonymous No.16463684]

>>16463644
You didn't do a google serach, because you would rather be wrong than educate yourself on incredibly basic economic theory.

[Anonymous No.16463694]

>>16463684
>muh google search
>The absolute state of right wing retards
fuck off already if you can't refute my posts

[Anonymous No.16463698]

>>16463694
>OH NO FUCKING BASIC RESEARCH ANYTHING BUT THAT
lel

[Anonymous No.16463716]

>>16463698
You're such a pathetic nigger lol

[Anonymous No.16463727]

>>16463698
You sure did your research on marx considering you were wrong about everything you said about him

[Anonymous No.16463731]

>>16463716
I accept your concession of defeat lmao

[Anonymous No.16463765]

>>16463731
Who are you quoting, dumb nigger? lmao

[Anonymous No.16463788]

>>16463765
You, nigga.

[Anonymous No.16464312]

>>16462564
Pretty much spot-on. Existing co-ops give temporary employees the option to buy a reduced stake in the company, and usually offer a path from temporary to permanent employment. One of the main goals of a co-op is stability, so workers need to change employers less often.

>>16462571
Can’t speak for everyone, but I currently work for a technology co-op. I have a 30% stake. The founder has a 50% stake, and two other non-technical employees each have 10%.

>>16458323
It’s not exactly equal for every employee; see above for an example division. The founder puts in the most hours, so he has the greatest share. I have the next-greatest, since I’m doing skilled labor. The other two workers do customer support and marketing, so they’re willing to have a smaller stake.

There’s no formula for it, just like there’s no formula for setting a salary. You have to evaluate the contribution a person makes. Since our business is small, we vote on that. As it grows, we’ll elect a representative to do the divvying-up.

The best part of this structure is that there are no full-time managers. Everyone gets to play the role of the manager in a rotation. First the founder, then me, then the other two. Since we’re all equals, nobody gets saddled with too much work, and we’re all accountable to each other. Very comfy to be desu with you.

[Anonymous No.16464427]

>>16457552
I'm not going to go through most of this thread because it looks like retards but the idea was it was "unproductive"

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Productive_and_unproductive_labour

The idea was it was a deduction on the aggregate value production i.e. a necessary expense but not "productive". You must know that Marx thought capitalism would collapse because the profit system would break down (declining rate of profit). Turnover on machines would get more intense, more overhead costs, etc, etc as marginal costs and returns would go down, down, down (dude you can copy files ad infinitum but they've somehow got a price)
He never really had a normative economic theory of how socialism should work but he obviously thought things could be organized on a non-monetary basis.


>>16457869
Bawerk isn't good here. Trying a marginal understanding of a modern service economy can get even more wonky and weird.

[Anonymous No.16464929]

>>16457552
Can't you figure out the value of a service? The new working class are the low wage minority ethnic and immigrant groups. Nurses, waiters, Macdonald's workers, this is the new working class.

[Anonymous No.16464942]

>>16462771
yeah thats the thing. organizing digital labor is pretty much impossible. Construction is the last stand of organized labor in the USA because it cant be effectively outsourced. You cant build a building in china and ship it overseas. Labor did not prevent outsourcing of manufacturing jobs and now its too late.

[Anonymous No.16464952]

>>16457552
you misspelled servile

https://m.youtube.com/watch?v=qeP6RHcpSuA

[Anonymous No.16464994]

>>16457862
>Great, now the state is your landlord. Big improvement.
Much better in fact. The state, for all its flaws is still answerable to the electorate in a way that a landlord (being private) would never be. This is a serious difference that you can't gloss over by saying social housing sucks.

[Anonymous No.16465114]

>>16464994
>Much better in fact. The state, for all its flaws is still answerable to the electorate in a way that a landlord (being private) would never be.
This is simply false, a State isn't answerable to anyone and democracy is a charade. If the Party can manage an economy, it can manage an election.

[Anonymous No.16465341]

The service-driven economy in places like America is the social-democratic (Utopian socialist) response to the crises of late 19th & early 20th century capitalism, where the factory-based labour is sent overseas and thus out of view of both intellectuals and the working class (who are prone to revolt) -- the service economy along with the educational institutions (& drugs, mass media, etc) all prolong childhood and thus prolong the moment of social and moral awareness; like decadent princes Americans live coddled lives of cowardice and self-destruction. The medicinal welfare state likes people to remain sickly and self-absorbed, endlessly deferring responsibility to the hidden experts at think tanks, agencies, bureaus and foundations; only through pornographic sloganeering that quickly loses it's original referent (Black Lives Matter! Make America Great Again!) do the depraved & atomized revolt against themselves & their utopia.

[Anonymous No.16465438]

>>16465114
what makes you think that anybody with power over will answer to you, private or public? neing a libertarian isn't going to give you power to your own life. Arguing between two materialist views isn't going to give you freedom.

[Anonymous No.16465535]

Do you really believe there were not service jobs in Marx's time? Fucking idiot.

[Anonymous No.16465621]

>>16457552
all of the things in the picture are true though, this is literally Gramsci, Wilhelm Reich, and author of the "Authoritarian Personality"s point of view. Take the Stricker pill

https://twitter.com/Aarick20/status/1310277328052916226

[Anonymous No.16465789]

>>16462850
you're fucking retarded, that was obviously not the question. And those people still have a function in any society that develops new products and want to either create appeal or test the appeal of a product

[Anonymous No.16467028]

>>16465789
why would they be motivated to create appeal if they cant accumulate money?

[Anonymous No.16467054]

>>16463437
Imagine being this embarrassingly retarded.

[Anonymous No.16467061]

>>16467028
Same reason they do today: to earn their paycheck.

[Anonymous No.16467185]

>>16457716
>best example is Malcom X vs Martin Luther King. the latter succeeded because he managed to portray black liberation not as an attack on white America, but as a fulfillment of American and Christian values, such as equality.
The MLK camp won out because the "black liberation" he preached boiled down to the argument that niggers should be allowed to consoom as much as whites and in the same ways; Malcolm X was killed by glowniggers because the liberation he advocated for was the emancipation of blacks from the entire system, not the right to sit at the same table as whites while being exploited.

[Anonymous No.16467213]

>>16467185
>that quote
beyond based. I like him and Louis Farrakhan

[Anonymous No.16468242]

>>16461034
>1: hey buddy, you're good at washing dishes. mind doing that?
>2: sure thing pal, as long as you cook
>3: can i be a waitress?
>1 & 2: why not?
>all: sounds great. the vote is unanimous!

[Anonymous No.16468491]

>>16467061
>can't accumulate money
>still get a paycheck
What for? It might as just be a meal ticket. And now all you've done is trade people's ability to save up and freely spend their money on extravagances into eternally recursive slavery for mere food.

[Anonymous No.16468560]

>>16467185
The vast majority of blacks want black capitalism where they're as successful, or more successful, than whites. White leftists project a role of "socialist redeemer" onto them and have done so for at least 100 years. The model of Black Emancipation that actually exists is Haiti, where they eat dirt cakes. Relative to other Africans, American blacks are overwhelmingly beneficiaries of a paternalistic relationship with whites.

[Anonymous No.16468613]

>>16468560
>Relative to other Africans, American blacks are overwhelmingly beneficiaries of a parasitic relationship with other blacks.

[Anonymous No.16468654]

>>16458126
retard

[Anonymous No.16468757]

>>16464942
>Labor did not prevent outsourcing of manufacturing jobs and now its too late.
and it's a good thing

[Anonymous No.16468874]

>>16468560
I don't claim that a society of emancipated blacks would turn out well (in fact I agree that it would turn out like everywhere else it's happened - Haiti, post-colonial Africa, etc.), just that his rhetoric was spicy enough to earn him a bullet.

[Anonymous No.16468887]

>>16462159
>But seriously, those merchantly people have no place in socialism.
Lmao this sentence alone explains why all your “not true socialist” countries starve

[Anonymous No.16468894]

>>16468242
But what happens in real life is you have 3 people wanting to be the chef because it's seen as the most prestigious out of the three, because under commie rule they all get paid the same so the social validation is all thats left to differentiate the attractiveness of different roles and no one ends up doing dishes.

[Anonymous No.16469934]

>>16463086
It's even easier: he is a jew. So he is lying to us.

[Anonymous No.16469966]

>>16468491
You have absolutely no idea what you're talking about. People don't become billionaires by collecting paychecks.

[Anonymous No.16470028]

>>16463437
Ah, found the lackey.
>>16468894
Higher phase of communism is about abolition of division of labor.

[Anonymous No.16470094]

>>16469966
Why are there paychecks in an economy that doesn't allow the accumulation of money?

[Anonymous No.16470104]

>>16457579
>socialist revolution must first happen in the 3rd world which will force capitalists to bring manufacturing back to the west
so basically completely ruin the economy of 3rd world countries? great idea, at least I know for a fact your theory works.

[Anonymous No.16470276]

>>16470094
Socialism only prohibits private nonworker ownership of the means of production. Workers own the organizations they work for. Paychecks can be spent or saved as desired.

[Anonymous No.16470419]

>>16457552
In a communist country the value of any given labor would be "quantified" arbitrarily by central planners and that's one big fucking problem. They need to decide everything - price of labor and products, as well as what to produce and at what quantity, near perfectly, that's why it will never work out.

Also, this thread is derailed into debate about land and landlords. You guys don't seem to understand that current high prices of real estate is created by actions of government, FED and fiat currency. They created a situation where banks are giving loans to everybody with ease increasing a demand for houses. Government also created ton of unnecessary regulations which prevents new constructions or makes them more expensive. High real estate and rent prices hurt businesses, by increasing operating costs and obviously increases cost of living. Remove government from the system and cost of land and subsequently cost of living and cost of running businesses will drop, making everyone much more prosperous.

the landlord debate still has place to exist, but in current situation the real problem is the government.

[Anonymous No.16470432]

>>16457593
Do you think the Soviet Union just had open stores where you could grab anything you wanted off the counter? The role of the managerial class was absorbed into state planning bureaus. The supply chain was still fundamentally the same, only managed by the state, with state-employed clerks and cashiers distributing products to the end consumer.

[Anonymous No.16470560]

>>16457552

The service is the commodity.
the labour content of a service is the time it takes to carry it out to completion.

The labour content of a pair of shoes is the amount of time that someone had to spend making them. The fact the shoes do not disappear after one use just means you don't need to buy another pair, whereas with a service it's required.

there's no physical difference between someone labouring to produce a thing and someone labouring to produce a service. The only difference is that physical things are consumed over time whereas a service is consumed on completion.

[Anonymous No.16471888]

ITT: airy-fairy theorising